Duke University Press
Reviewed by:
  • Chile: iglesia y dictadura, 1973–1989: un estudio sobre el rol político de la iglesia católica y el conflicto con el régimen militar
Chile: iglesia y dictadura, 1973–1989: un estudio sobre el rol político de la iglesia católica y el conflicto con el régimen militar. By Hugo Cancino Troncoso. Odense University Studies in History and Social Sciences, vol. 201. Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press, 1997. Notes. Bibliography. viii, 254 pp. Paper.

Hugo Cancino is a Chilean historian who has lived in exile in Denmark since 1974. He has written a richly detailed narrative of the Chilean Catholic bishops’ response to their country’s military regime, tracing their evolution from early supporters, to respectful critics and outright opponents, and finally to brokers (among other roles) who helped to persuade opponents of the regime to challenge it within the bounds of a transitional process that the bishops had designed. Conceding differences of style, tone, and practical application among the bishops, he sees them as fundamentally united on both doctrine and social teaching; as opting preferentially for the poor, the persecuted, and the oppressed; and as helping to recreate Chile’s democratic and consensual culture and to begin the arduous process of national reconciliation.

Cancino bases his analysis on a careful reading of episcopal documents, and of secondary [End Page 578] works (most of them Chilean) on the military years and the Chilean Church. His presentation of formal church pronouncements vividly conveys the tone and tenor of the church’s voice at various junctures during the 16 years of military rule. His commentary is lucid, and the conclusions he draws are both measured and supported by secondary sources. The book may be more valuable, however, as a compendium of episcopal statements than as an analysis of the Chilean bishops themselves, as an analysis of the larger Chilean Church (of which the bishops are an important, but not the only important, element), or as an analysis of the political impact of either the bishops or Catholic activists during the years of military rule.

Cancino’s insistence on episcopal unity ignores the many ecclesial, theological, and ideological issues over which Chilean bishops were at odds for the greater part of the military period. He fails to appreciate how this prevented the Episcopal Conference from speaking coherently and effectively on more than one occasion, and how the more liberal and combative Cardinal Silva helped to make the church a more effective adversary, while Cardinal Fresno’s more conservative style and views made him a more effective interlocutor when it was time to negotiate a return to civilian rule.

Cancino focuses almost exclusively on the formal pronouncements of the bishops, paying little attention to the context in which they were interpreted (by others), or to the reactions and responses of others in the church (e.g., priests, sisters, lay activists, and both radical and not-so-radical Catholic militants at the local level) whose initiatives affected both the bishops and the ways in which what the bishops said was interpreted by others.

Finally, Cancino offers only marginal evidence that the bishops had an impact on public opinion, on the policies of the military, on the political agendas of those who opposed the military, or on the course of the transition to democracy. He cites observers who credit the church, and particularly Cardinal Fresno, with brokering the National Accord in 1985. But he offers little evidence of any impact beyond this instance. Like others who watch the church, he accords the bishops substantial political influence because of their ready access to those in power, the credibility they enjoy because of a presumed lack of political ambition, and their presumed capacity for dictating politics to their country’s Catholic “faithful.” But while the content of religious ideas, beliefs, and commitments may carry clear potential for politics, “proving” that this potential has been realized can be a complicated matter. People may or may not believe what they are “supposed” to, and they may or may not do what they are urged by their bishops to do. And even when it appears that they do, there may be questions as to whether it was their religious ideas, beliefs, or commitments, more than other influences, that led them to take certain social or political initiatives, and that their initiatives, more than those of others, were responsible for the overall political outcome.

Michael Fleet
Marquette University

Share