After the great Communist victory of 1945 that this system spread in a short time half the world, the Communists were given account could not wipe out the Catholic Church shot. The method used in Spain in 1936 could not be used to put an end to the Church and the Communist rulers as sabian. From there was born a certain semi-tolerancia to churches opened with many restrictions. Stalin's death in 1953 was very important because the new rulers were given the diplomatic game and this trend of pseudo apparent tolerance of the Church increased in Catholic countries enslaved by Communists.
The Catholic Church, the Pope and the Magisterium, sailed by the fine line of defending the faith (the divine mission exercise) on the one hand, and move around a cruel and hostile world dominated both by the rabid Volterianos as by the atheistic communism Modernists. In a hostile environment and enemy the Church for the 60s moved already without large patterns or Catholic armies who depend on emergency as in earlier centuries.
While it is true that the Communists allowed open churches and gave offers that they could not finish with shrapnel and guns the Catholic faith, also is true that Catholics in the Communist countries were living under constant persecution and harsh conditions. The Popes made political and diplomatic manoeuvres without end for that Catholics in Communist countries, hostages, not suffer in his flesh or pay with their lives before the fury of Communist governments.
When arrives the 1965 and the Second Vatican Council has to address the issue of communism, the Church is in a dilemma: the divine mission of the Church demanded a conviction/anathema to communism, but the well-being of millions of Catholics in Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Cuba, Viet Nam, Ukraine, Croatia, etc., required not to enrage the Communist governments. Here had to act with great caution and diplomacy Church and carry out their divine mission, but taking into account its diplomatic/political mission (the great Félix Sardá y Salvany explained in Chapter XXX of his masterpiece, "The liberalism is sin" these two missions of the Church: the divine and principal announce doctrine and high school) (, but necessary for the political and diplomatic game with the world in which they live).
Faced with this situation, the Church decided to make the following in 1965 for the documents of the Second Vatican Council: strongly condemn the communist doctrine but not specifically naming the name of Communist Governments that squashed the Catholics.
This strategy was responding to the need to condemn an erroneous doctrine that was an obligation which the Church had to meet, but had in mind the politica-diplomatica mission of the Church not on alienating the Communist Governments that kept under its power to millions of Catholics who could suffer in his own flesh the wrath of these Governments
The clearest result is seen in the documents of the Council, with a strong condemnation of the ideology, but without mentioning specific Governments by name. The document Dignitatis Humanae reminds us to what type of Government was the document directed and thought: those Communist dictatorships that persecuted the Church and forcing its citizens to State atheism:
-DIGNITATIS HUMANAE (Second Vatican Council, 1965): «but there are schemes in which, even though its Constitution recognizes the freedom of religious worship, however, insist the public authorities themselves in turn away citizens profess religion and make it extremely difficult and insecure life of religious communities. "
Still was more forceful Gaudium Et Spes, detailing the greater evil of atheistic communism and the iron curtain, which enslaved half humanity to 1965:
--GAUDIUM ET SPES (Second Vatican Council, 1965): «frequently, modern atheism is also the systematic form, which, leaving other causes, now leads the effort to human autonomy to deny all dependence of man with respect to Dios. Those who profess this atheism say that the essence of freedom is that man is the end of itself, the only architect and creator of his own history. Which cannot be reconciled, according to them, with the recognition of the Lord, author, and end of all, or at least such affirmation of God is completely superfluous. The sense of power that the current technical progress gives the man can encourage this doctrine.
