Posted on 10/31/2003 6:56:18 PM PST by Land of the Irish
Yes he did. Read Centesimus Annus. I posted a link earlier.
41. Marxism criticized capitalist bourgeois societies, blaming them for the commercialization and alienation of human existence. This rebuke is of course based on a mistaken and inadequate idea of alienation, derived solely from the sphere of relationships of production and ownership, that is, giving them a materialistic foundation and moreover denying the legitimacy and positive value of market relationships even in their own sphere. Marxism thus ends up by affirming that only in a collective society can alienation be eliminated. However, the historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency. [Emphasis mine]
Is sufficiently explicit to qualify as "by name?"
The Holy Father also condemned communism by name when he visted Nicaragua back in the 1980's. I've been trying to find a transcript of his address online to no avail. He also publicly berated a "liberation theologian" who acted as an apologist for the Sandanista regime.<p
A statement from the CDF, personally and publicly ordered, approved, and promulgated by the pope, carries the same weight as a statement by the pope.
JP2's style is different from Pius XI. His tone is always much more detached and toned down. He shies away from fire and brimstone.
You also have to remember, that the modus operandi of communism changed a great deal since Stalin. The commies realized they needed to clean up their image, so during JP2's time, they were a lot less overt in their brutality and persecution. By the time JP2 became an Archbishop, let alone pope, the mass-murdering purges were largely a thing of the past. The persecution and oppression was much more subtle, and as such a more subtle approach was warrented.
Even the period of Martial Law in Poland in the early '80's was tame by the standards of the Great Stalinist Terror.
"[C]lass struggle in the Marxist sense and militarism have the same root, namely, atheism and contempt for the human person, which place the principle of force above that of reason and law."(para. 14)
Is that forceful and explicit enough for you?
Let the record show that JP2 did indeed condemn communism by name.
That is rather harsh.
I defy you to find anything schismatic in the above article.
I double-dare you to read post #9 again.
Rash and disrespectful, perhaps.
Lying, certainly.
Schismatic, absolutely not
Schismatic. Period.
I'm sick and tired of poeple throwing around the charge of schism so lightly
See a Doctor, get more sleep; and don't waste your time trying to get me to stop calling schism schism.
The Pope expects me to take his Encyclicals seriously; and so I do.
A few faux-faithful in here engage in it daily but they are about as numerous as the Feminazis - and every bit as nauseating.
They refer to themselves as growing-by-leaps-and-bounds but they are the same handfull of clowns engaging in the same Pope slamming tactics they have engaged in for years in here.
They are a small, angry, sect and they are a dying breed. They are the Vatican Two version of the Vatican I "Old Catholic" schismatics. They are the Neo-Old Catholics.
I may have to readopt the old practice of just ignoring them. They can dish it out but they can't take it and those who succor the schism only complain when the Pope-haters are responded to in kind - never do they criticise those attacking the Pope, which, reveals to me a weird orientation. And the irrefragable double standard is as forceful as it is unacknowledged by those using it. C'est la vie.
Nothing new. Just weird. They roar when they attack then mewl when they are responded to. Having unopposed Liberty to attack the Pope, Vatican Two, The Pauline Rite, The Curia, ect ect blah, blah, blah, ect, ect,appears to be their goal and as none of the soi disant Traditionalists ever object to or refute the schismatic's slanders, lies, and attacks against the Pope, one judges by their inaction that is an acceptable practice of Tradition. (So what if it is the Tradition of Baptists?)
Perhaps it is time to let the schismatics and their Rad Trad supporters have total liberty; unopposed. I seem to be raining on their parade and causing too much unhappiness in their trepidatious tumult. I know those in the schism are happiest when living in fear all will fail if their personal opinions are not adopted so I may as well let them have their happy hours where they can,unopposed, assault Divinely-Constituted authority to their heart's content.
As they say in L.A. "Missing you already."
"I know those in the schism are happiest when living in fear all will fail if their personal opinions are not adopted so I may as well let them have their happy hours where they can,unopposed, assault Divinely-Constituted authority to their heart's content."
Nah.
If you did that, what purpose would there be in visiting FR??
8-p
sitetest
These links are very useful, and they do turn up some instances in which the word "communism" was used by JPII. Both documents are written on anniversaries of "Rerum Novarum" by Pope Leo XIII.
"Laborem exercens" uses the word "communism" twice, both times in merely a descriptive way:
Everybody knows that capitalism has a definite historical meaning as a system, an economic and social system, opposed to "socialism" or "communism". But in the light of the analysis of the fundamental reality of the whole economic process-first and foremost of the production structure that work is-it should be recognized that the error of early capitalism can be repeated wherever man is in a way treated on the same level as the whole complex of the material means of production, as an instrument and not in accordance with the true dignity of his work-that is to say, where he is not treated as subject and maker, and for this very reason as the true purpose of the whole process of production.In contrast, Centesimus Annus goes more in depth and includes statements that are much more strongly condemnatory such as the one you highlighted. Centesimus Annus probably uses the word "communism" more often than all the other documents of Vatican II and since then combined. I've been meaning to re-read it, and I should make the effort to do so.This conflict, interpreted by some as a socioeconomic class conflict, found expression in the ideological conflict between liberalism, understood as the ideology of capitalism, and Marxism, understood as the ideology of scientiflc socialism and communism, which professes to act as the spokesman for the working class and the worldwide proletariat. Thus the real conflict between labour and capital was transformed into a systematic class struggle, conducted not only by ideological means but also and chiefly by political means. We are familiar with the history of this conflict and with the demands of both sides. The Marxist programme, based on the philosophy of Marx and Engels, sees in class struggle the only way to eliminate class injustices in society and to eliminate the classes themselves. Putting this programme into practice presupposes the collectivization of the means of production so that,through the transfer of these means from private hands to the collectivity, human labour will be preserved from exploitation.
No, it is not. You make an accusation of schism with no backing. Either prove it or retract it. Otherwise you commit the sin of slander.
Schismatic. Period.
Prove it.
Lying, certainly.
Prove it.
Yes, I read post #9. Dominus Iesus is a great document. How does it prove that Fererra is a schismatic? How does it prove he is a liar?
It's time for you to put up or shut up.
But you do not respond with substance, only the baseless accusation of schism. Either prove your charge or cease and desist.
I have really mixed feelings about your self-driven Inquisition in search of finding "schismatics" here. You certainly seem to take it upon yourself to declare open schism in situations where the Pope and the Magesterium are clearly attempting to avoid that very outcome. I find that behavior disloyal to the spirit of papal obedience, if not to the letter.
On the other hand, there are definitely those among traditionalists who do cross the line into open schism with the pope. Some of them in the heat of the moment. Others on a more permanent basis. I have no problem with others calling for caution in such circumstances, but I don't at all like it when such a situation is treated casually and in usurpation of proper ecclesiastic authority. Technically, that's a complaint about methods more than substance. And you do post some killer orthodox sources in such situations, even if I don't always agree with your own personal spin on how they apply to a given situation.
I'm also utterly baffled why someone who claims such unflinching obedience to the pope and hierarchy would attend the Indult Tridentine Mass in preference to the Novus Ordo. Myself and my family have always attended the Novus Ordo, as that is what we were raised in. We have attended the Tridentine precisely once (immensely moved by it, and wish it was available more widely, but that's another topic), yet I often find myself on the side of the Tridentine-only crowd against self-styled Inquisitors like yourself all too often. No particular point, other than confusion there. I definitely don't argue against your right to attend, but it does seem at odds with your intra-Church politics.
And on yet another hand (don't ask where I keep them all), I do appreciate the way you jump into Protestant and secularist Catholic-bashing threads from time to time to defend the Pope and the Church. In the end we ought to recognize that, despite the frequently unruly goings on within, the Church is the bride of Christ and deserves the honor of being defended, regardless of how much fun the internal goings on might be. In an ultimate sense, no matter how different the opinions of its children, those within the Church share more in common than anything that separates them.
On still another hand (Ok, I admit it. I'm employing cheap additional hands offshore in India), I am extremely confused by the heat and intensity focused on traditionalist "schism" with the word almost never applied to the liberal variety of the same. Liberals espousing clear apostacy are ridiculed, but the word "schism" in their case is comparatively employed with (probably appropriate) exquisite caution. I have a hard time taking accusations of "schism" seriously from those who only seem to use the term in pursuit of a personal beef.
In a somewhat messy summation, I'd say respond wherever you think appropriate. But don't presume your fondness for the pope allows you to speak with his authority. Self proclaimed "knee-jerk papal loyalty" is not a blank check to serve the pope in any way you darn-well choose. But the Church does need defending and the pope can't do it all by himself. I commend your spirit, but question your chosen methods, and on the whole I wish you well.
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.