Did Communists Infiltrate the Catholic Church?

http://www.chuckmorse.com/communism_catholic_church.html ^ | Chuck Morse

[Domestic Church]

"...that communists infiltrated the Church over the last century..."

Soviet psychopolitics even had the use of scandal, homosexuality and sexual promiscuity in the textbook. It was evident in the Clinton regime and it is evident that this is linked to the problem with some of the clergy and with the seminaries. The homosexual agenda is a tool for the socialist. We can get rid of the infestation with asceticism.

[Domestic Church]

"However, it's apparent that the Wind blew in and the whole thing got away from them."

It's good to smile again...yes, even the best plans of communism is no match for the power of the Holy Spirit.

[RobbyS]

No pope, however, long-reigning can every hope to do more than control the highest offices in the Vatican. Thus a liberal priest appointed to office in 1975 amd who has climved the career ladder may be younger than 60 when John Paul dies, and in the meanwhile has managed to place many of HIS proteges in office. But it does seem that the Holy Father has been loathe to weed this particular garden.

[Domestic Church]

"Just curious, where can I find a Catholic doctrinal support for the "Free Speech" enshrined in the American (protestant) experiment as it has come to be reality in post-Christian America?"

Talk about timing,lol. I got a free copy in the mail of the Latin Mass this spring and didn't pick it up until last night (after discovering it was in the hotzone here) and there is an interview with Buchanan that touches upon this issue of free speech/freedom as a product of the Enlightenment with the American version of freedom being the ability to make a choice without any pressure or coercion while the Catholic idea is that freedom isn't the right to do everything, but to do everything right as Catholicism doesn't separate freedom from moral/natural law.

[narses]

I agree. Will the Bishops is the question?

[Domestic Church]

Thanks for posting about Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Liberty. Now I want to find it (EWTN? Catholic-Pages?)and find who was involved in the development.

[livius]

I think that the stress on collegiality gave many Vatican functionaries much more power than they had had before. They may have been Bishops and Cardinals on paper, but most of their careers had been spent doing bureaucratic things in Rome, and they were aware of their limitations. However, this elevated them from mere functionaries to persons of importance in their own right. It also gave them much more independence, which I think is one of the things that has prevented this very orthodox Pope from having as much influence over the curia as many people hoped that he would have.

[saradippity]

I reread your post and wonder whether I answered your question. You seem to indicate that you think Vat II gave more authority and power to the Vatican and the curia.Do I read you correctly?

If so,I disagree. I think that they gave much more power to the national conferences of bishops,perhaps without intent but nonetheless that was the result.It seems to me quite clear that the Pope and hiis staff have ordered and requested many actions that would get the church in the US in accord with Catholic teaching through the ages and the Americans have refused to obey.

I still stand by my original rsponse to you that while there are many of the curia who have another agenda the Vatican and/or curia are more in line with Catholic Truth than the gaggle of USCCB bishops and cardinals and bureaucrats.I see them as a useless corporation of middleman,who do nothing but impede the flow from the Pope to his Bishops,to us.If our bishops need a support group,I think it would be fine to meet once or twice a year It would be helpful to have different workshops that might assist them in different areas as well as silent prayer but this powerful quasi-official obstructionist body needs to go.IMO

[Aquinasfan]

Heretics did not have any fundamental "right" to spread heresies in Catholic ethics.

I'm not sure they even do to this day...

I don't see how anyone can have a fundamental "right" to spread heresy.

First, in one sense, no one has any rights before God, only obligations. On the other hand, a definition of "rights" that would be consistent with Catholic teaching (and natural law) would be "that which is due a person because of his personhood."

How would this principle apply in the political realm? Certainly the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" does not contradict Catholic teaching as long as "pursuit of Happiness" is not considered in a utilitarian sense. But absolute "freedom of speech" cannot be a First Principle of morality because, for example, in the case of blasphemy, God would be upholding the "right" to sinful action.

On the other hand, the Church demands that human beings be free to act according to conscience, within reasonable limits. Therefore, the degree of "freedom of speech" granted to citizens by the State must be an area for prudential judgement.

[Catholicguy]

Catechism of the 'Summa Theologica,' by R.P. Thomas Pegues, O.P:

What are the sins of injustice committed against our neighbour in the ordinary course of life?

They are invective,detraction, whisperings, mockery and the curse

What is understood by invective?

Invective is that sin which wounds another, in the honour or in the respect due to him, by words

Is it a mortal sin?

Yes, whenever such words attack the honour of another in a grave way. The sin is venial only if our neighbour's honour is not seriously injured, or if one has no intention of seriously injuring another.

Is one bound in justice to treat others with the reverence due to them?

Yes, one is strictly bound in justice to do this, for the harmony of all living in society is dependent upon this.

Upon what is this duty founded and what is its importance

It is founded upon this, that the honour of each one is a thing which men cherish most. Even the least among men has a right to be treated with the respect due to his own particular status in life; to be lacking towards him in respect, whether by word or deed,is to wound him in what he holds most dear.

One ought then with the greatest care to avoid saying or doing anything whatsoever which may bring disconsolation or humiliation upon our fellow men?

Yes, one must do this at all cost

What is the sin of detraction?

Detraction, in its strict sense, implies the intention of attacking the reputation of our neighbour, or by taking away wholly or in part the esteem in which he is held by others, whensoever there is no just cause for so doing, Is this a great sin?

Yes, since it is to take away unjustly from our neighbor a good that is more precious than riches which are taken from him by theft.

In how many ways may one commit the sin of detraction?

In four ways: in imputing to our neighbour things that are false or in exaggerating his defects; or in making known things unknown about him, and which prejudice him in the eyes of others; or in attributing to him intentions that are of a doubtful and perhaps of an evil character, wherby all that he does with rthe best of intention becomes vitiated.

Is there any other sin of detraction that is hurtful to our neighbour.

Yes,in an indirect way, by refusing to acknowledge the good in him, or by keeping silence maliciously concerning his good points, or by lessening their worth

What is the sin called whispering?

It is the sin which attacks our neighbour by seeking directly through dishonest and insidious speech, to sow discord and create misunderstanding between those who are united bythe bonds of friendship.

This is a most odious sin against our neighbor, and merits perhaps more than other sins that can be committed against our neighbour the just reproval both of God and man.

What is mockery>

Mockery is a sin of the tongue against justice which consists in reviling our neighbour by bringing to his notice his defects and shortcomings, which fact makes him lose confidence in himself as regards his relations withothers,

Is it a grave sin?

Yes, of a truth, for it implies contempt for the person of our neighbour; and this is a most destable thing and well merits chastisement,

What relation is there between the sin called the curse, and the four sins of invective, detractin, whispering, and mockery?

All these sins have in common this, that they are sins of the tongue which attack the good of our neighbour; but whereas the four latter do this by the words of a proposition which formulate evil, or deny the good of our neighbour...

<> I have sinned greatly against you and I ask for your forgiveness. All these sins I listd are the pnes I have commited against you, and other Freeeprs, to a lesser extent. I have no excuses, just the sins. I have not acted like a Christian and anyone reading my words would rightly think me a savage. I apologise to you personally for the evil I have done and if there is anything I can do to restore to you anything my rebarbative rhetoric might have taken away from you then I ask you tell me what it is.

I apologise to all who have had to watch my baneful, evil and hateful performance. I also ask your forgiveness.

My tongue is sharp and my conscience dull, if not dead. Please forgive me. If I am unable to stop my invective and cruel speech and if I am unable to quit my delight in the fight qua fight, I shall quit this site. Pray for me. I am profoundly, deeply and truly sorry for what I have done.

[narses]

Thank you. Your conscience appears to be in better working order than most people's CG. I see in your post many of my own faults. Clearly I accept your apology, clearly I owe you and others here the same and I offer it here and now. I look forward to learning from you and with you about our faith.

Again, thank you.

[Domestic Church]

I could not read this without seeing my own related sins as well. In your posting and apology you help all of us see the Christian path clearer. Now before you start wearing a hair shirt for the rest of the year, ask yourself whether you committed these sins with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

You yourself said your conscience is dull...perhaps you were so overwhelmed with emotion in your verbal reaction that you didn't fully know what you were falling into? We all do that now and then, like little kids throwing tantrums. You certainly have my forgiveness. The current crisis is bound to trigger all sorts of flying flack as sin begets sin.

Now I ask all for perspective on how we relate to the current scandal in light of this posting. For those in Churches with questionable priests and bishops, how do we fight these sins in ourselves and ask the Church to clean house at the same time? Pax et Bonem,

[Polycarp]

"Pray for me. I am profoundly, deeply and truly sorry for what I have done."

You are a good man, CatholicGuy. You've got guts, and this is truly humble.

Persevere now! We have work to do.

In His Peace,
Brian

[Polycarp]

All these sins I listd are the pnes I have commited against you, and other Freeeprs, to a lesser extent. I have no excuses, just the sins. I have not acted like a Christian and anyone reading my words would rightly think me a savage.

Me too, CatholicGuy. I am guilty of many of these same things!

Lets pull our Catholic Caucus together and continue this fight!

Can I suggest "Groundrules" for our Catholic Caucus regarding Liturgy and ask for imput?

1) Popes have authority over discipline. The Liturgy is a matter of discipline. As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error. However, since Liturgy is the primary means of catechesis in Faith and Morals, such changes are grave matters.

2) Since Popes have authority over discipline, any Eucharistic Liturgy they promulgate if it has the proper matter and form is by its very nature Valid and Licit. No Pope is bound in disciplinary matters by previous Popes.

3) These are difficult times.

4) Simply questioning and searching, honestly, does not make one a schismatic.

5)Denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic.

6) Denying the Novus Ordo is valid and licit or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it does make one schismatic.

7) Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic.

8) Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent.

Can all non-schismatic orthodox Catholics here agree with these points?

[Mike Fieschko]

Good for you, Catholicguy. Thanks.

[livius]

I certainly agree that the changes gave much more power to local bishops through these useless and downright obstructionist and disloyal national Bishops Conferences. And I agree that even on a good day, they are probably worse than most of the Vatican.

But I think that one of the things that Americans tend to overlook when asking questions about things that have happened or are happening in the Church is the simple fact that "headquarters" does not function like an American corporation, but like an old-style European court (that is, not a court in a modern constitutional monarchy, such as England or Spain).

I don't think we have to get into Malachi Martin style speculations on plots and conspiracies, although I am sure, like any organization of this nature, the Vatican is probably rife with cliques, "groupies" gathered around powerful individuals, seekers of higher office, disappointed and resentful seekers of higher office, etc.

It would seem to me that the increasing tendency to deemphasize the Papacy - except in that referring to the charismatic gifts of this individual Pope, perhaps - would have the effect of creating a power vacuum at the top. Not only would this mean that there will be jostling and struggling to get in and fill that vacuum, but it also means that the Vatican will become somewhat more like a constitutional monarchy. That is, the Pope will be merely a symbol, like the Queen of England, and the Vatican "court" will become more powerful in decision making (since, unlike a constitutional monarchy, the Church has no parliament).

I'm not sure this has entirely happened yet, although the gathering of vultures who perceive the Pope as weakening - plus increased clamor from national bishops' conferences and groups like "Voice of the Faithful" - seems to indicate that they see an opening and that the power is perhaps not as consolidated as it once was.

I don't think this is the entire answer to the mysteries of the Vatican, but I do think that it's an aspect worth considering. Of course, for us it's probably more of speculative interest than anything else, since none of us here are members of the curia - well, I don't think any of us are, at least...

[sitetest]

Dear livius,

"Not only would this mean that there will be jostling and struggling to get in and fill that vacuum, but it also means that the Vatican will become somewhat more like a constitutional monarchy."

Gee, I hope not.

sitetest

[eastsider]

Denying the Novus Ordo is valid and licit or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it does make one schismatic.

I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me in advance if I raise questions or issues that have already been covered.

What does denying that the Novus Ordo is valid and licit or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it make one if not schismatic? Wouldn't denying that the Novus Ordo is valid and licit be an implicit denial that Vatican II itself -- which approved the Novus Ordo -- was valid and illicit? And what does that latter implicit denial make one if not a schismatic?