Posted on 07/07/2006 1:54:49 PM PDT by NYer
Spain has a parliamentary system, so theoretically, if ZP's governing majority (which is a coalition of Socialists and various nationalist parties) collapses, elections could be any day. However, the term is technically up in March, 2008.
He has been heavily courting the nationalist parties by virtually telling Catalunya and País Vasco that they are free to consider themselves no longer part of Spain (although, of course, their reps are still in the legislature and still are expected to vote for ZP). Consequently, I don't think his coalition will fall apart, and he'll probably make it to 2008.
It's not clear who the PP is going to run against him yet.
Thank you!
Sheesh, leftists are so intolerant. That Zapatero is such a jerk.
It's time to invoke the intercession of St. Francis de Sales, since he is the patron of the Catholic press, along with St. Maximilian Kolbe.
Just when I was beginning to think there was little interest .... thank you for the feedback.
Such stupid arrogance! The socialist gov't doesn't give its own citizens credit for any intelligence. History teaches otherwise.
The Russian communists thought they could kill God, by destroying churches and murdering priests. It only forces people underground where the light of faith continues to kindle in and strengthen the hearts of mankind.
Two questions: is it still possible to watch the St. Joseph Network via satellite dish? and what is the term of office for the Spanish gov't leader?
Unfortunately, Zapatero has two more years. He governs by a coalition of Socialists and several regional "nationalist" parties. Spain will vote in March, 2008, unless ZP succeeds in breaking up the entire country before then. Something that the left hates almost as much as the Church is the concept of Spain as a nation (even though Spain as such has had a national identity since the time of the Romans, who governed it as a territory divided into various administrative divisions).
As for satellite TV, I don't know. Europe has extremely restrictive laws on broadcasting, communications services, etc. I am always amazed that they can simply declare that a particular channel, station or network is no longer permitted, usually for some "infraction" such as criticizing the local politicians. The Spanish bishops' council has a radio network (COPE) that can be heard in most of Spain, although various hostile local governments have tried and even briefly succeeded in preventing them from broadcasting in particular areas. In some places, COPE also provides television programming in cable packages, but that is less widespread. It consists of their own programming, which can be very interesting and includes talk shows and panel discussions, and rebroadcasts of EWTN shows in Spanish, with the rest of the day being occupied by classic movies and documentaries or children's programming. However, it's not widely available and in Catalonia, COPE has been under attack for some time. Catalunya is very left-leaning, and obviously the authorities there are going to make it rough for any kind of Catholic programming.
Again ... excuse the ignorance of Spanish politics ... but wouldn't such a move entail a national referendum or am I naively assuming their government is similar to that of the US? Italy, at one time, was also made up of city states.
Europe has extremely restrictive laws on broadcasting, communications services, etc. I am always amazed that they can simply declare that a particular channel, station or network is no longer permitted, usually for some "infraction" such as criticizing the local politicians.
Yes, I have seen this in Italy, France and England. But that was many years ago and I assumed the situation had improved by now.
My understanding (from my Spanish SIL) is that Zapatero's father is or was an influential Mason, which partly explains the extreme anti-Catholic actions. The Masonic movement in Spain is very unlike that in the USA. They were the group most responsible for the civil war era church desecrations, priest and nun killings, and general church hostilities. They have always (in the past century, at least) allied with the left.
The Masonic movement was deeply underground throughout the Franco era, for obvious reasons, but it came back to life quickly once Spain went democratic.
As I recall, she caught an AWFUL lot of flak for that. Was it actually a time issue? That wasn't clear when the news first came out.
Oh, dear. That sounds very bad. I hope the traditional Catholics can hang on. Are there enough left that his making them mad might cause him to be defeated for re-election?
Actually, many Catholics in Spain are pretty traditional. They're not "traditionalists" in the US sense, but simply have hung on to a fairly sound faith. The fact that the Spanish translation of the Mass was an actual translation helped, and the gradual replacement of some of their more politicized and liberal bishops over the last 15 years or so has helped a lot, too.
That said, while the number of practicing Catholics in Spain is higher than, say, Italy, it is a lot lower than it used to be and I'm not sure the Church would have an enormous amount of clout, although it will have some.
Today's good news: Zapatero was booed by the crowd in Valencia! They started booing when they saw him, kept it up while he was in the Episcopal Palace meeting with the Pope, and booed him when he came out again. Way to go!
This is a very broad summary of the situation:
Spain was unified (in modern times) under Ferdinand and Isabella, whose marriage united Castilla and Aragon, the two big kingdoms that had resulted from unions between various smaller kings and princes over the centuries. There has always been some friction, since Castilla ended up as more important, and Aragon's leaders felt it should have had the more important part. And then of course there were the usual wars, the usual invasion by Napoleon, etc., etc.
However, in the 19th century, a sort of Romantic nationalism rose up in País Vasco and Catalunya, somewhat like Young Poland or the many other movements of that type. It was fairly conservative, but had a heavy dose of linguistic nationalism (leading to the revival of Basque and Catalan) and eventually ended by giving these regions a sense of separate identity that enabled them to leverage that against the central government in Madrid. For years, it was really a way to get a better distribution of tax monies or other goodies, although the hard left was very influential in both the Basque Country and Catalonia before and during the Spanish Civil War.
After the war, things calmed down, but in the 1960s, these movements revived and were completely taken over by the left. ETA's goal was not only to separate the Basque Country, but to set up a Marxist state, modeled on Marxist (at that time) Albania! Catalonia also had a separatist terrorist movement.
However, the Catalans have common sense, and Catalan politicians managed to redirect the movement away from separatism and terrorism and back to the usual focus of getting more political and financial power in Madrid. Some of the Catalan nationalist politicians were even conservatives and were not encouraging of any kind of Marxist dream.
ETA, on the other hand, made that impossible for País Vasco, which, under Zapatero, is well on its way to separating from Spain. Unfortunately, the same is now true of Catalonia, because all the old canny politicians like Jordi Pujols seem to have retired en masse, and the new ones are much more leftist and much more separatist. They are in the process of getting a regional "constitution" that virtually makes them a separate state.
For some reason, ZP has no interest in preserving the unity of Spain. Members of left wing parties there are so anti-Spain that they will not even use the word "España," by the way. They will say "este país" (this country) or something else instead. They regard Spain as a right-wing construct.
The thing that may block true separation is the EU, oddly enough, because I believe there is some clause in the EU constitution about not accepting the division of existing states, or something to that effect. Unfortunately, ZP has two more years to figure out how to get away with it.
As I recall, Mrs. Blair was in Rome for a conference and Benedict XVI invited her to a private audience the same day. She had no way to plan for it in advance. She happened to be wearing a white outfit. As I see it, the Pope essentially waived the rule for her.
That makes a lot more sense than her showing up in white deliberately. I'm glad to hear it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.