Polish professor, historian, and political scientist Pawel Skibinski gave a resonant interview titled “Ideological Revival of Christian Democrats Is Impossible,” in which he condemned the partial loss of Christianity by the Christian Democratic parties in Europe.

The author harshly states that Christian democracy in the West has adopted the values of the left and we are witnessing the abdication of its own identity as a political movement of believers. By the way, Skibinsky is not the only one who sharply speaks out about the decreasing share of Christianity in the political platforms of European Christian democratic parties, and some even begin to notice the need to replace the word “Christian” in the name of this ideology.

The Polish professor notes that as a result of powerful political trends and the Marxist left in European politics, Christian democracy did not escape this influence. Another reason was the cooperation of Christian democrats with left-wing parties, which took place, in particular, in France, where the so-called Catholic Left operated and the ideas of Mounier’s Catholic socialism emerged.
Other examples are the large SPD-CSU coalition in Germany, led by Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger, and the unrealized idea of a historic compromise and coalition of the Italian Christian Democrats with the Communist Party. Skibinsky notes the powerful penetration of Marxism in the Catholic Church in the field of philosophy and theology, and the only support for anti-communist and Christian thinking for decades was the CSU, the Bavarian Union Party of the CDU.

Answering the question “how did this happen and why did Christian democracy become less Christian?” the Polish professor notes that this is mainly due to the fact that after the Second Vatican Council, Christian democrats began to take into account the leftist tendencies existing in society and in the Vatican itself. “Western societies after 1968 were formed in a leftist style, so Christian democracy moved to the left. Christian democrats became too weak and too tied to situational political gain. They did not want to look at political reality in the long run. Therefore, they continued to give in to the leftist agenda and have been openly implementing it for many years,” the professor notes. He cites the abortion controversy and the consent of Catholic politicians to the existence of a system that legalizes abortion as an example.
“When Christian democracy decided to regain the dominant position on the left wing agenda, it turned out that it was not stable enough to do so,” the professor states.

Indeed, many Christian parties have to compromise on the issue of adapting Christian values to the values popular in the West, which were directly criticized in the Bible. At the same time, CD parties have to compete in elections for the votes of Western voters accustomed to liberal slogans, especially young people. It is difficult to be a moral guide when moral adaptation is in vogue.

According to Professor Skibinsky, “the ideological revival of the current Christian democratic parties is rather impossible. This is due to too deep a financial dependence, political and ideological habits, and a certain political sclerosis characteristic of the whole of Europe. But we should draw conclusions from the historical decline of Christian democrats. We should look to Christianity for inspiration for another political revival. For each generation must find its own way of realizing social Catholicism.”

Researchers of Christian democracy Edward Lynch and Scott Mainwaring note that the main reasons for the electoral defeats of Christian democrats are the growing conformism and pragmatism in their political practice. In particular, as Edward Lynch noted, “Christian Democrats have not succeeded in utilizing their potential because they have retreated from their own ideological principles. And Scott Mainwaring notes: “Democratic Christian parties have become less idealistic and consistent in their programmatic attitudes in order to become more pragmatic in order to broaden their supporters.” However, this inevitably led to the loss of the nuclear electorate, for whom Christian values and morality were not an empty sound. In the twenty-first century, the political practice of Christian democratic parties is characterized by much more conformism and political pragmatism and much less religious values.

As the experience of European and Latin American Christian democracies shows, Christian democratic parties succeed when they consistently follow their own principles and programmatic foundations based on Christian values and the ethics of the Gospel. When Christian democrats waged an uncompromising fight against corruption, the mafia, monopoly, and successfully solved socio-economic problems, their rating was high.

The Christian Social Union, which has been in power in Bavaria for more than half a century, is an example of the most successful and longest-lasting Christian democratic project. The CSU effectively ensures the economic and social development of citizens and makes a significant contribution to the revival of the European Christian democratic movement. Today, it is one of the most successful examples in the world of implementing the theory of the international Christian democratic movement, because for more than 50 years, the residents of democratic Bavaria have never doubted the effectiveness of the Christian Social Union representatives, supporting them in every election.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk

Socialists like to maintain the myth that they have a monopoly on protecting the rights of workers and the working class, but a significant role in this belonged to Christian trade unions and the Church, which worked quietly to improve the situation of employees, avoiding propaganda of class hatred.

Christian leaders were aware of the depth of the problems of the market economy and the plight of wage earners, and even more so of the threatening consequences of socialist revolutions and the brutal totalitarianism that always followed. Therefore, Christians made active efforts to ensure that society found a golden mean between the development of entrepreneurship and a decent level of wages. The latter stemmed from two key principles of Christian democracy: human dignity and respect for labor.

Even in the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII “Rerum Novarum” of 1891, which paid great attention to the problem of combating social inequality, it was noted: “…It is necessary to come immediately to the aid of people from the poorest strata, since a large part of them are in conditions unworthy of human beings. Both institutions and legislation began to move away from the Christian spirit, and it happened that the labor force was gradually left alone, defenseless, face to face with the inhumanity of the masters and the greed of the owners. Greed, covetousness, and usury, so many times condemned by the Church, continued to exist under a different guise. Let us add to this the monopoly of production and trade, which has reached such a degree that a handful of rich people have imposed a yoke on the many proletarians that is not unlike that of a slave.”

In the 20s and 30s of the twentieth century, it was Christian trade unions that were committed to results, not to strikes for the sake of class hatred and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the extermination of the bourgeoisie, as the socialists did, that managed to reach compromises between factory owners and workers. An important feature of all postwar Christian democratic parties was their leftist orientation, but it was formed not under the influence of Marxism but as a result of the experience of the Great Depression and World War II. During the war, the influence of the state on economic processes and the regulatory policy of the state apparatus increased, which explained the leftist sentiments in Christian democratic parties.

The Christian Democrats paid so much attention to the protection of workers and the poor that the programs of the postwar Christian Democrats in many ways resembled the postulates of socialists and communists. Christian Democrats emphasized the need for social and moral reforms. However, their rhetoric was not oriented toward classes. The Christian Democrats were not Marxists; they were ethatists and assigned a key role to the state as an independent arbiter between classes.

For example, in the development of the German CDU program, the most influential document was the 1949 Düsseldorf Theses developed by Ludwig Erhard, in which the party declared its focus on a “social market economy.” By this, the party understands a socially oriented system in which economic freedom and free competition of individuals and businesses should be in harmony with the principles of social justice and civic solidarity. Private ownership is combined with social responsibility, social protection and support of the education system, which should create equal starting opportunities for all members of society. The role of the state is to create favorable conditions for economic development and to adhere to the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. to help only in those matters in which personal responsibility is not enough to achieve the public good and social protection. In the economic sphere, the CDU sees the main task as supporting economic growth and reducing unemployment, reforming taxation and health care systems.

Both the CDU and the CSU initially emphasized social justice. Josef Müller, a well-known Catholic opponent of the Nazis who was close to social democratic views, was elected the first chairman of the Christian Social Union. Konrad Adenauer strongly supported the creation of CDU social committees, groups that worked among workers and were considered the most left-wing in the party. It was cooperation with social committees that increased the party’s electoral chances.

Only after overcoming the poverty and social insecurity of workers in the 1950s and 1960s did Christian Democrats take a centrist and conservative position. Unlike the socialists and the New Left, Christian Democrats, having improved the situation of workers, began to emphasize the integration of society rather than the search for new forms of inequality and struggle for the sake of struggle and the destruction of society.

Author: Valeriy Maydanyuk