Posted on 07/26/2002 2:35:57 PM PDT by narses
As a traditional Jew, I'm deeply concerned over the plight of the Roman Catholic Church, which I consider to be the largest and most influential repository of conservative Judeo-Christian values in America today. I believe that those of us who care about the furtherance of a moral society have a stake in the future of the church as a moral force. The American church is under siege today, not only from the usual external forces but also from the weight of its own internal contradictions. The scandal of corrupt homosexual priests violating the innocence of minors in their care is, to put it mildly, a contradiction in Christian and Catholic practice and faith. When did this corruption inject itself into the system and why was the situation allowed to deteriorate to such a degree?
Much has been written regarding Communist methods of infiltration. The standard method was to "bore from within" which involved Communists disguising themselves as loyalists to an organization they sought to undermine. Once gaining entry, they would gradually and subtly change the values and principles of the targeted organization. The process of "change" can take a generation. Communists have exhibited unlimited patience and supreme confidence in the ultimate attainment of their goals. Examples in America include substantial inroads by Communists into organized labor, academia, the legal profession, race relations, cultural institutions, and the government itself.
When planning to infiltrate, the Communists probe for an institutional weakness to exploit and, in the case of the Catholic Church, perhaps they perceived the weakness to reside in the all-male celibate priesthood. Did Communists send their followers, particularly homosexuals, sexual deviants, and enablers, into seminaries to become priests in order to foster a homosexual culture within the church? Homosexuals, practicing their predilections in an overwhelmingly conservative Catholic community, while given protection by well placed minded superiors, could certainly contribute to the undermining of faith in Catholicism and could unquestionably shake the credibility and moral standing of the church itself down to its very foundations. Undermining Catholic authority has been a clear and often stated goal of the Communist left. Speculation regarding how the Communists attempted to implement their program is reasonable and necessary in order to better understand the present situation.
Two former Communists, Bella Dodd and Manning Johnson, spoke on Communist infiltration of the Catholic Church. Dodd, an important Communist party lawyer, teacher and activist, converted to Catholicism in April 1952 under the tutelage of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Stating that the Communist infiltration was so extensive that in the future "you will not recognize the Catholic Church," Dodd also asserted that:
"In the 1930's, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within."
"Right now they are in the highest places, and they are working to bring about change in order that the Catholic Church will no longer be effective against Communism."
Manning Johnson, a former Communist Party official and author of "Color, Communism and Common Sense" testified in 1953 to the House un-American Activities Committee regarding the infiltration of the Catholic Church:
"Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin ... the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the (Catholic) Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions (Europe also had its cells) and the religious make-up peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes This policy of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our communist expectations."
As a radio talk show host and avid listener to talk radio in Boston, I've listened intently to comments by Catholics as the crisis has unfolded. Much has been said regarding the left dominance of the seminaries and a prevalence of the ideas of "liberation theology" which is a biblically contradictory Trojan horse within the Catholic gates. Establishment organs, such as the Boston Globe, continue to wring their hands over the homosexual activities of priests while supporting a homosexual agenda everywhere else. Hopefully, the Catholic flock will wake up and sweep the corruption out of their church in the same way that their founder, Jesus of Nazareth, swept the moneychangers out of the Temple.
Page URL: http://www.chuckmorse.com/communism_catholic_church.html Host Web site: http://www.chuckmorse.com
Isn't he like a foreigner or something?
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP,
:) Yes, I know who he is. I was jes jesting in my response. I do hope to get to him eventually, but, I always start at the beginning and I am working my way alphabetically through the theologians and I am still on the "A" list reading Aquinas and Augustine.
I'm not critical of anyone who defends the faith well.
I'll admit my style is unique but I don't think it ineffective. I expect folk's rhetoric will match their personality and I do admit it is within the realm of possibility that some will not embrace my joy in arguing the faith. Scientists have discovered an "arguing" gene and genetic counselors have told me mine is the size of a Sacajaewan Golden Dollar so I really cannot be blamed.
I am certainly not solicitious of those that attack the faith. Your actions disprove that.
I have spent just as much time and energy on this forum defending the faith against schismatics over the last year as you have.
I don't keep a tally so I will concede that point. See, I can be as generous as the next guy :)
I also realize that the current massive crisis and multiple scandals have lead some folks recently into asking questions they never otherwise would have asked and drawing erroneous conclusions they never otherwise would have drawn. In other words, things have changed over the last 6 months.
Yes, they have, and schismatics using the atmosphere of uncertainity contributed to by the sexual abuse scandal as an occasion to attack decisions of the Pope regarding Communion in the Chaldean Communion makes sense to you? I see no connection but I do see some in the Crowd rushing to pile additonal burdens on the Cross this Pope bears so gracefully.
I'm not willing to paint every Catholic who enters the fray here as a hidden schismatic with a nefarious agenda. Nor am I. I singled out this gentleman because his very first post, I think, was to me and it was a non sequitur response to a post of mine linking to a site that warned readers that SSPX confessions are invalid. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked for a link to source his point and things took off from there. I know I didn't BEGIN my Freeper career by attacking The Magisterium on my very first day in my very first post, but, maybe you did. I highly doubt it though. And I cannot think of another Catholic Freeper who joined up and the very first post on the very first day attacked The Mgisterium. So, call me overly-suspicious if you desire. I think of myself as a perceptive realist.
First, its counterprioductive, and second, its ascribing motives and judgemental. It is called identifying what you see before you. It is calling a spade a spade.
Third, your approach is strong on vocab words, agreed bluster, Just a tip - next time try "Your rebarbative rhetoric is reprehensible. It is alliterative and memorable and slur, My complaints have been sourced, proven and unresponded to. I have repeatedly challenged your friend to produce any countervailing evidence and he hasn't but weak on wisdom and results I have already admitted a deficency in wisdom and I know mine doesn't even approach your manifested wisdom, so, I admit my weakness and play to my strength but by freeper mailbox is not without praise and encouragement from both participants and lurkers.
I can be thought of as a "Popeye" Catholic. I yam what I yam..and I do the best with what God has given me to Defend the Faith that I love. It appears I have been a disappointment to you. C'est le Vie. One can't please everyone :)
I don't think anyone else cares.
The British Establishment found the idea of Communists subverting some of their best and brightest, especially those in the security services, equally as laughable.
Only now are we realizing that many of the supposedly most baseless charges of Communist infiltration in the West were, in fact, quite well founded. There is no reason to believe that the Kremlin would have not infiltrated the Church as well.
Oh, ok. You resurrected this post because you sensed a disinterest :)
"I'll admit my style is unique but I don't think it ineffective."
The posters here who are responding to your style see you in a light that you don't see yourself. You could learn from them by trying to see yourself through their eyes.
"Yes, they have, and schismatics using the atmosphere of uncertainity contributed to by the sexual abuse scandal as an occasion to attack decisions of the Pope regarding Communion in the Chaldean Communion makes sense to you?"
For all your insults and ill-treatment, the poster in question didn't give an inch to you. How effective. Additionally, because you didn't take the time to engage the poster in a well-mannered way, you didn't even make clear why the Church is right, and the poster was wrong. How very effective.
On the other hand, Catholicguy, if you dig up the exchange between the poster and myself, you'll find that after a relatively short, polite, but fact-focused exchange, the poster in question conceded the point, that the Assyrian Church of the East is not heretical, thus vitiating his claim that our Holy Father had introduced intercommunion with a heretical rite.
Now, you may be right that at times the poster in question has posted aggressively. You may be right that we aren't required in natural justice to always treat him gently. But that really isn't the question. The question is whether or not we are using our gifts as best as we can, rather than how we want to use them.
All good Catholics here acknowlege your: knowledge; intelligence; wit; love of faith, Church, and the Holy Father.
We only wish that you would learn enough self-discipline to engage others in a way that serves them in charity, rather than in some other way, for who knows what reasons.
"...I do admit it is within the realm of possibility that some will not embrace my joy in arguing the faith."
Well, yes. In fact, posters walk away from you in bitterness and disgust, not because of what you have to say, but how you say it. Even when they may agree with you. That's just about the opposite of being effective.
I'm sure you have your supporters, though I wonder whether they might not be folks similarly inclined to argue in a like manner. I also wonder how many posts you receive from folks who started far from faith but who have been brought a little closer as a result of your words. Your words can be great fun if one is a member of the choir to which you're preaching. I doubt many outside the church (literally and figuratively) are so moved.
Let the scandal be the Cross of Christ, not your "style".
"Scientists have discovered an 'arguing' gene and genetic counselors have told me mine is the size of a Sacajaewan Golden Dollar so I really cannot be blamed."
I know that you're kidding, because such an argument would be beneath you. However, in light of the current conversation, I don't know if anyone other than you is laughing.
"My complaints have been sourced, proven and unresponded to. I have repeatedly challenged your friend to produce any countervailing evidence and he hasn't."
Many who are reading the exchange don't really care about your complaints being sourced, proven and unresponded to. Your style is so offensive, that little else comes through, and so folks have sympathy for the other guy, whether he's right or wrong. Many who are reading the exchange don't expect another poster to respond substantively to the substance that you mix with vitriol and insults. People believe, rightly, that no one should be expected to respond substantively in the face of such abuse.
Finally, with regard to your exchange, and then e-mail, to Colleen, I was a little surprised to find you act in such an ungentlemanly manner.
sitetest
Given all that preceeded this statement, shouldn't it read, "I am not surprised...?"
I have to disagree with you judging it "ungentlemanly." I wouldn't change a word of it.
I appreciate the time you took to draft your post and I don't want to engage you in a point by point rebuttal, so, I will just say we will agree to disagree.
"Given all that preceeded this statement, shouldn't it read, 'I am not surprised...?'"
I have a high opinion of devout Catholic men. When they behave in ways which betray that opinion, I'm surprised.
"I appreciate the time you took to draft your post and I don't want to engage you in a point by point rebuttal, so, I will just say we will agree to disagree."
Thank you for your response. It's pleasant to see you respond without all the invective. It would be nicer to discuss politely what was posted, but I'll take what I can get.
sitetest
LOL.
As to "Free-Speech" advocates, and plaques and things, the problem is that at times your posting behavior has been so over-the-top, it has merited hitting the abuse button. I'm a little surprised no one has done so to-date.
But you apparently haven't made the same mistake as Mr. Hand / StillSmallVoice / theotokos / whomever, in that I haven't seen you obnoxiously flame the proprietor. That's a real one-way ticket to Free Republic Hell. So, maybe you'll last.
sitetest
It was an heroic effort on my part. But, wasn't it BORING? I think you'd have appreciated it much more had I responded with some Titanuim-tinged tergiversations.
"It was an heroic effort on my part."
I recognize it and appreciate it.
"But, wasn't it BORING?"
No, it wasn't to me.
"I think you'd have appreciated it much more had I responded with some Titanuim-tinged tergiversations."
LOL.
No, in honesty, I'd have just walked away.
sitetest
Perhaps we ought to entertain the idea that the commies thought to plan Vatican II.
However, it's apparent that the Wind blew in and the whole thing got away from them.
sitetest
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.