The first half of the 20th century saw a dry, uninspiring Catholic Church. Christianity as a whole was hardened and largely unchanged from the late 19th century’s conservative, uptight theologies and practices. But, as the world began to modernize, some of the Catholic faithful wanted to breathe fresh air into religious practice as well. For many inside the church, reform was also desired: though things had changed, many old injustices still remained. How should the Church respond to this new world?   A Changing World: Christianity in the Early to Mid-20th century Pope Pius XII, who led the Catholic Church during World War II. Source: Vatican Media   Throughout history, Christianity has evolved in response to the argued necessities of its present reality, and modernity was no exception. With the dawn of the 20th century, the way Christianity spread, operated, and structured itself as a religion had begun to shift. Both Protestant and Catholic Christians explored new ways of practicing their faiths, but not without opposition, notably the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in response to more liberal practice. Liberalism was rejected by many Christian institutions, particularly the Catholic Church, which became increasingly centralized and decisively more conservative. Institutional Christianity failed to oppose extremists, sometimes even siding with them, as with the Nazis in Germany.   Yet the aftermath of the Second World War brought a strange, new peace. The world had gone through two wars before even reaching the half-century mark. Emancipation, the collapse of totalitarian regimes, and newfound hope around the world led to a spike in Christian converts. By the 1960s, millions of people had joined the Christian faith in some denomination or other. But these new Christians, alongside the earlier practitioners who welcomed these new times, began to ask their faith for answers it had previously failed to provide. A theological revolution was brewing.   The post-war peace enjoyed throughout the world proved to be fragile and largely empty for many. All the while, the injustices of old continued. Thus, in regions such as Latin America, members of the Catholic Church began questioning themselves and their roles in their communities. Social gospel met social justice in an effort to lift the marginalized in Latin America through the Christian faith.   A Changing Church: The Second Vatican Council Pope Paul VI presides over a meeting of the Second Vatican Council, St. Peter’s Basilica, 1963. Source: National Catholic Reporter   The Second Vatican Council (widely referred to as Vatican II) was one of the most consequential Catholic ecumenical councils in modern history. While some traditionalist Catholics argue against the validity of the council, more radical traditionalists, so-called sedevacantists, go as far as refuting the council altogether, as well as all popes after Pius XII.   These reactions, though extreme, are not entirely surprising. The Second Vatican Council was transformative in many real ways. Arguably, it simply had to be. A chaotic world context manifested in the 1960s; changing church demographics, a stale and uninspiring mainstream theology, and reactionary stances from the church became a perfect cocktail for a new ecumenical council, the first in almost a century. And so, the Second Vatican Council came to both clarify doctrine and redefine the church’s relationship with its people.   The Roman rite changed with the council, and liturgy was allowed to be translated into languages other than Latin. A “world church” emerged after Catholic centers of strength started to shift away from Europe and the Americas and began to become more diverse. But for later proponents of Liberation Theology, the council did something else: it “updated” the Catholic Church in a way some saw as fertile ground for even broader, deeper changes. Gaudium et spes, the only pastoral constitution promulgated during the Second Vatican Council, was seen by some members of the church as a new definition for the relations between the church and the world.   The Second Episcopal Conference of Latin America and CELAM A group of Latin American clergymen working at the II CELAM Conference, unknown photographer, 1968. Source: CELAM   An updated church as envisioned by the Second Vatican Council gave rise to new voices who believed their critiques of the Catholic institution had been validated. Those offering such new perspectives began to articulate their concerns and proposals, finding venues and spaces to do so, including the second Conferencia General del Episcopado Hispanoamericano (Episcopal Conference of Latin America). Organized by the Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano y Caribeño (Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Council, CELAM), the conference took place in Medellín, Colombia, in 1968, just a few years after Vatican II. It consolidated much of what the critical voices among the Latin American clergy had started articulating years prior.   While the first CELAM conference was organized and prepared almost entirely by the Holy See, CELAM II was defined by the Latin American clergy’s freedom to set the agenda, with the Holy See’s ultimate approval. Pope Paul VI inspired the CELAM bishops to take the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and, in celebration of a decade of CELAM’s establishment, reflect on the potential for Vatican II to aid in Latin America’s troubles.   During the CELAM II conference, over 15 documents were produced, focused on a variety of topics ranging from justice, peace, and education to poverty in the church and joint pastoral and social communications. Concerned with the well-being of Latin Americans and keen to approach its flock in a more intimate, sincere way, the CELAM II conference was pastoral in nature. A prime example of this was the establishment of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs). These small groups, intended to reflect upon scripture and apply its lessons to their own lives and personal situations, proved consequential in the Catholic church’s approach to building a new model for “being a church.”   The Preferential Option for the Poor: The Key to Liberation Theology Fifth Assembly of the Basic Ecclesial Communities of the Prelature of Tefé, unknown photographer, 2019. Source: Congregazione della Missione   The “preferential option for the poor” is the cornerstone of Liberation Theology. A Catholic social teaching at heart, the option for the poor is actively political and ideological, for it argues that the Bible prioritizes the well-being of the poor, the powerless, and the vulnerable. Peruvian Catholic priest Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino, a leading figure in the articulation of Liberation Theology, argued that a relationship exists between the emancipation of man (in the political, economic, and social) and the kingdom of God.   First proposed in the 1960s, the option for the poor was officially and explicitly articulated in church documents at the CELAM III conference, which took place in 1979 in Puebla, Mexico. For Latin American clergy, the option for the poor meant a broad acceptance and embracing of austerity and humility from members of the church, as well as active engagement in deprived communities and a commitment to act and pray in favor of the dispossessed, the disenfranchised, and the vulnerable.   Together with Vatican II and the Basic Ecclesial Communities, the preferential option for the poor is one of the three main concepts necessary to understand Liberation Theology. As with any other theological current, a variety of perspectives exists regarding the minutiae of Liberation Theology. Some, for example, view “the poor” as strictly the economically vulnerable, while others include the politically and socially vulnerable as well. Others have argued for “the poor” in a broader sense, meaning “the people,” historically oppressed members of society. In recent decades, updated theology has taken “the poor” to mean “the excluded.”   The Church Responds: The Holy Office, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI Pope John Paul II “scolding” Catholic priest Ernesto Cardenal in Nicaragua, 1983. Source: El Economista   Liberation Theology began as a social teaching meant to provide the theological tools necessary for the Latin American clergy to aid their communities in their struggles. But the emancipation of man didn’t simply translate to sermons critical of the wealthy, the greedy, and the powerful. Instead, Liberation Theology proved to be a consequential movement that rippled through much of Latin America and its challenging social struggles. Naturally, the emancipatory ideals of Liberation Theology were inspiring to many, including freedom fighters and other groups the church didn’t feel so comfortable sharing the spotlight with. This was illustrated by Pope John Paul II’s visit to Nicaragua, for example, where he spoke against members of the Nicaraguan clergy who occupied positions of power and were known liberation theologians.   The Holy See and the Curia felt uncomfortable with the trajectory of Liberation Theology. In the 1980s, Pope John Paul II instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), informally known as the Holy Office (and once the office responsible for the Inquisition), to issue an official pronouncement regarding Liberation Theology. In charge of the CDF was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would later become Pope Benedict XVI, a known critic of Liberation Theology.   Misereor Hunger cloth from the humanitarian aid community, designed by artists from the Global South. Source: Universidad Alberto Hurtado, ITER   The documents published by the CDF were highly critical of Liberation Theology. Though they recognised its humble efforts, they opposed the notion of viewing structures (economic, political, social) as the origins of evil. Instead, the CDF insisted on a more theologically traditional perspective—more individualistic and focused on man’s freedom to act and thus freedom to choose the gracious life of Jesus as opposed to a life of excess, pain, and evil. The church largely opposed the teachings of Liberation Theology, some viewing it as closely related to Marxism or socialism, ideological stances that the church and Pope John Paul II publicly opposed.   The Aftermath of Liberation Theology and Where it is Today Pope Francis alongside Catholic priest and Liberation Theology pioneer Gustavo Gutierrez, unknown photographer, 2013. Source: Vatican News   Liberation Theology is seldom present at the center of theological debate today; much of the church seems to view it as a fleeting, inconsequential chapter. In reality, Liberation Theology’s legacy is rather a quiet hope for change materialized in the continued struggle for justice and equality. The theological giant lives on inconspicuously as an inspiration for contemporary Catholic theology and practice.   After the CDF’s arguably frontal offensive against Liberation Theology, the controversial Christian school of thought gradually lost the relevance and traction it once held. It is surprising in some ways, but in others it is not. Latin America was changing: the once progressive sentiments held deeply in Latin American societies politically collapsed with the right-wing wave of the 2010s. At the same time, but in the opposite direction, the Catholic Church faced its own seismic shift: conservative Benedict XVI resigned, and in his place, liberal Francis I, notably of Argentina, was elected.   The spotlight may have turned away from Liberation Theology in contemporary Christianity, but its impact is likewise undeniable. Within Catholicism, Liberation Theology lives on in many communities, not as a declared ideology or theological approach but as a spirit of justice and fairness. Pope Francis’s election as head of the Catholic Church marked a stark difference in the church’s stance on Liberation Theology when compared to his predecessor’s position. Whereas Benedict XVI condemned Liberation Theology as Marxism, Pope Francis noted that without the option for the poor, the Gospel would be misunderstood. With his passing in April 2025, the question of Liberation Theology’s place in contemporary Catholic doctrine falls to his successor: Pope Leo XIV.

Bayeux Tapestry – Scene 57: the death of King Harold at the Battle of Hastings, circa 1070 CE. Source: Myrabella, Wikimedia   The 1066 Battle of Hastings became that critical battle that defined England’s future for centuries. England’s political status was at stake. Since 410 CE, the Saxons had ruled England, making it their own. Now, in 1066, William II, Duke of Normandy, claimed England’s throne as heir, threatening invasion. King Harold II denied the duke’s claim, and others. All negotiations broke down, with war as the only recourse.   The Battle of Hastings: Causes A tapestry showing Saint John the Evangelist (left) meeting King Edward the Confessor (right) and allegedly predicting the king’s death in six months. Source: The National Archives (UK).   The main reason behind this historic battle started with England’s King Edward the Confessor’s death on January 5, 1066. Importantly, Edward left no heir and one living relative, his sister’s husband, Harold Godwinson. The Saxons hoped to avoid a succession crisis and chose Harold to become King Harold II. But their swift selection fueled the crisis as William II and Norway’s King, Harold Hardrada, pressed their claims. Angrily, both men began to gather their forces.   William’s Claim on England’s Throne William II of England (top right corner), from Historia Anglorum, by Matthew Paris, c. 1253, accessed. Source: British Library   Upon hearing of Harold’s coronation, William reportedly became angry, recalling Harold’s pledge of support for England’s throne from two years before. In 1064, Harold traveled to Normandy for unknown reasons. Somehow, fate shipwrecked Harold on the Normandy coast, and a local noble imprisoned him. Duke William rescued Harold by force or ransom but, in return, required a pledge of fealty. Whether voluntary or coerced, William took Harold’s fealty seriously.   William also claimed Edward named him as his successor in 1051. Based on this, in addition to Harold ignoring the oath, William decided to invade.    Who Else Claimed England’s Throne? King Harold Godwinson and his oath to William, Bayeux Tapestry, 11th century, Source:Wikimedia Commons   Norway’s King Harald, too, claimed England’s throne, adding to King Harold‘s woes. The Norwegian King’s complicated right came from King Edward. Before his death, Edward had negotiated with Harald, saying he may have a claim. Edward had ruled England since Cnut the Great’s death, leaving England, Denmark, and Norway in limbo.   Key Dates for the Battle of Hastings A scene from the Bayeux Tapestry showing King Edward the Confessor sending Harold Godwinson to Normandy. Source: Myrabella / Wikimedia Commons   The battle occurred on October 14, 1066. William’s mixed infantry and cavalry forces landed at Pevensey two weeks before the battle, building fortifications. Once organized, he marched towards London. A shocked King Harold learned of the landings soon after. However, the English King had an exhausted army in York, far to the North. But he recognized the peril with the Normans on London’s doorstep.   King Harold Up North Harald Hadrada, Stained glass window in Lerwick Town Hall. Source: Ancient Origins   Though William II caught his opponent flatfooted with his landing, Harold’s presence in the North was required. The Viking Norway King Harald sprang an invasion on September 18, 1066, seeking the throne. Harold mustered his troops, marching his infantry to meet the Norwegians. On September 20, 1066, they clashed at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. The English defeated the Viking invaders, even killing King Harald. But on September 28, Harold pivoted, marching his fatigued army quickly south to stop the Normans.   Where the Battle Took Place An 1868 drawing of the Battle of Hastings, which occurred on October 14, 1066, and resulted in a Norman victory over the Anglo-Saxons. Source: Joseph Martin Kronheim / Wikimedia Commons   The actual Battle of Hastings took place at Senlac Hill, near Hastings. Harold arrived first on October 13, building defensive positions. The next day, William II’s forces arrived, and fighting commenced at 9 AM. The Normans attacked Harold’s Saxon shield wall, their archers showering them with arrows. Yet the Saxon shield wall held, repelling Norman attacks throughout the morning.   How William II’s Tactics Led to Victory The Battle of Hastings. Source: thehistoryproject.co.uk   The Norman knights’ mobility gave Duke William an advantage over the Saxons. William used bait-and-flee tactics to draw the Saxons out as the battle continued. Those who pursued were cut off and destroyed. This weakened Harold’s shield wall, killing his professional soldiers, who he replaced with mobilized soldiers. These men tended not to be as steady. The constant arrow barrage helped, too. The break William needed happened in the afternoon. Sources differ, but King Harold died, hit by an arrow in the eye.    This, plus the Norman’s grinding attacks, broke the English lines. William’s men hit harder, killing many. Historians and survivor’s accounts think that maybe half of the English troops perished, and the Normans lost a quarter.    The Battle of Hastings: A Turning Point A photograph of Warwick Castle in England, which began construction in 1068 and is a classic example of a Norman castle. Source: DeFacto / Wikimedia Commons   With Harold’s death and the decisive defeat, Duke William II marched on London. Crowned King on Christmas Day, 1066, meant social and political changes were coming. The Normans introduced feudalism, replacing the Saxon nobles with Norman ones, thus creating a military class. French replaced English in many areas but eventually blended into modern English.    The Normans introduced Continental architecture, such as Romanesque churches and stone castles. The Normans used castles as control points, fighting the rebellions that occurred for several years. However, William the Conqueror’s victory meant the Normans settled in, making England the country the world knows today.

Doctor Chamberlen’s Forceps JamesHoare Thu, 09/18/2025 - 08:00

Pol Pot died on April 15, 1998 at the age of 73 — seemingly from heart failure, though rumors of suicide or even murder began to spread in the aftermath. The post Pol Pot’s Death: Inside The Sudden Demise Of The Genocidal Cambodian Dictator appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Bronze medallions from 1465 bearing the effigy of Pope Paul II have been discovered buried in the foundations of a building during construction of a new Metro station in Piazza Venezia in the historic center of Rome. The commemorative medallions were found inside a terracotta pot and were hidden in the foundations of the Palazzetto Venezia during its construction as an auspicious practice. The Palazzetto Venezia was commissioned by Paul II in 1467 and stood next to its big brother the Palazzo Venezia. He lived in it for the rest of his papacy, even though it was only completed some years after his death by his nephew. It was removed and rebuilt on the other side of St. Mark’s Cathedral in the first decade of 20th century to make space for the construction the Victor Emmanuel Monument and the much-enlarged Piazza Venezia. It was lucky. Many other buildings from Papal Rome were demolished entirely. The Victor Emmanuel Monument was dedicated to the first king of a unified Italy, Victor Emmanuel I, and was conceived as a secular altar to the newly united kingdom. The Pope had held out for a decade after the rest of Italy was unified, refusing to allow Rome to be absorbed into the new nation as its capital. Ultimately the Eternal City was wrested from his grip by the Italian army in 1870, and there was still a great deal of anticlerical sentiment in the government when the monument was in the planning stages in the 1880s. Medieval and Renaissance buildings, many of them constructed by the popes, a convent, a church, whole blocks and streets, were razed. All told, almost five acres of Rome and even some ancient remains were leveled. Archaeologist of the city of Rome Rodolfo Lanciani, who had been vocally opposed to the demolitions, excavated the construction site. He reported finding similar pots containing coins and medallions, always three or five, in the foundations of the Palazzo Venezia. This is evidence of how widespread and consistent this ritual was, going back to antiquity. Confirmation also comes from the words of Marta Baumgartner, archaeologist of the Superintendency and scientific director of the excavation: “Concealing these objects in the plinths of large and small buildings is an auspicious practice of a much older tradition, connected to a kind of foundation rite linked to the building of important complexes such as palaces and churches, for example, but which is also found, even today, in the most common private construction.” The medals have been cleaned, and will now be conserved for their long-term stability. After conservation and study are complete, they will go on display in the new Metro station.