 |
Big'ol_bump...Interesting article |
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
You also fail to answer my questions and ignore my wants but I will try one more time.
Stipulating for the sake of this discussion, and in fact denying this otherwise, let us say I have an anti-Catholic agenda here. I don't, but to examine this, let us say I do. Who put you in charge of rooting that agenda out and attacking me? What canon of Church Law or rule of the Catechism gives you that prerogative? Carry you a crozier that I should kiss your ring? What special dispensation from the rule against personal attacks here have you? Try hard, answer my questions with honesty and charity.
You are much better at ascribing motives and judging souls than apologetics, CatholicGuy.
From your profile page:
Thanks be to God, I am Catholic. At one time I had one foot in schism and I credit my wife's conversion to the Faith with helping me to return to Ecclesiastical sanity
While you had your foot in schism, were you yourself trying to assure any Reunion tween schismatics and Rome is a stillbirth???
When you credit my wife's conversion to the Faith with helping me to return to Ecclesiastical sanity did those who aided you in your return use the same insulting and judgemental tactics as you use here, or were they gentle, patient, kind and charitable?
Did your wife and her mentors accuse you of trying to assure any Reunion tween schismatics and Rome is a stillbirth???
If they had, would that have been fair to you at the time, you who at the time were simply searching for honest answers to difficult questions and scandals and lack of catechesis that you could not comprehend?
Look in the mirror at yourself back then.
There you will see narses and the others you scorn here.
Were those who aided you as uncharitable with you and as impatient with you and as judgemental and ascribing motives as you?
I doubt it.
As I said, grow up.
You've received better from those who helped you out of schismatic thought than you are willing to dish out here to others in the same place you were then.
Charity in all things, CatholicGuy, especially when you're trying to bring home souls.
While you had your foot in schism, were you yourself trying to assure any Reunion tween schismatics and Rome is a stillbirth???
Like many in that self-willed movement, and I was just on the fringes of it, I tought private judgement about "Tradition" was permissible.
When you credit my wife's conversion to the Faith with helping me to return to Ecclesiastical sanity did those who aided you in your return use the same insulting and judgemental tactics as you use here, or were they gentle, patient, kind and charitable? I read myself back to sanity. I give as good as I get and I am defending the faith against unjust, unfair, inane, and bizarre attacks. I notice that you ascribe foul motives to those that defend the Pope and The Magisterium while profferring excuses for those that attack Pope and Magisterium
your wife and her mentors accuse you of trying to assure any Reunion tween schismatics and Rome is a stillbirth? They are not as adept with the language as I am
they had, would that have been fair to you at the time, you who at the time were simply searching for honest answers to difficult questions and scandals and lack of catechesis that you could not comprehend?
Now, you are the one making assumptions and ascribing motives. The problem lies in the will, not the intellect.
Look in the mirror at yourself back then. I have. I never resented the opposition I recieved. I expected to have others come back at me as hard as I went at them. I am a man.
There you will see narses and the others you scorn here. i am glad we are in agreement that he is not in union with Rome. But, why is it ok for you to note that but if I do, I am judgemental?
Were those who aided you as uncharitable with you and as impatient with you and as judgemental and ascribing motives as you? LOL That content of that sentence contains within it the very thing you supposedly reject.
I doubt it. You are so woried about "feelings." As I say, my skin is as think as Roseanne Barr's ass is large. I expect to get as good as I give. I am a man
As I said, grow up. I am not the one whining. I withstand folks to their face and I have no hidden agendas. THAT is how an adult man operates; at least the ones I know and respect. You've received better from those who helped you out of schismatic thought than you are willing to dish out here to others in the same place you were then. You have NO idea of how it is I pulled back from the brink. I was able to through prayring the Rosary and reading for myself the authentic Catholic Documents and texts the schismatic liars falsified.
Charity in all things, CatholicGuy, especially when you're trying to bring home souls. You are wsting your breath on me, Poly. I have repeatedly said what it is I consider to be my bailiwick. I am here to defend the Faith. If you are here for another reaasson, fine. But, your goals are not normative. You are free to act as you desire and you can caress and commiserate with those that attack the Faith even while you condemn and criticise those that Defend the Faith. I know that for some, that is considered virtue. I just find it an incomprehensible confusion
You also fail to answer my questions and ignore my wants but I will try one more time. Frankly, that IS the locus of the problem. YOUR "wants." You want to attack the Pope unopposed. I won't tolerate that. You NEVER give the Pope the benefit of the doubt while you badger a layman to treat you as though you were the Pope.
Stipulating for the sake of this discussion, and in fact denying this otherwise, let us say I have an anti-Catholic agenda here. I don't, but to examine this, let us say I do. Who put you in charge of rooting that agenda out and attacking me? Me What canon of Church Law or rule of the Catechism gives you that prerogative? As I have noited on a few occasions, it is a Confirmational Duty. Carry you a crozier that I should kiss your ring? There is something else of mine that you can kiss. What special dispensation from the rule against personal attacks here have you? I treat you as you treat the Pope, except, I do it directly to you, using my own words. I withstand you to your face. Try hard, answer my questions with honesty and charity. I always am honest. I don't misrepresent myself. You signed-up as a Freeper on June 22 and that same day, I think it was the FIRST post, you ATTACKED The Magisterium. Name for ma another 'catholic" that has acted that way?
If you don't know what we are searching for, you are such a spiritual neophyte you should not be attempting apologetics here. well, well, well..some of us DO have an elevated opinion of ourselves. I have said only aboiut a million times what I consider my presence here is all about. I know you do not apporve. C'est le vie
Go read Garrigou-LaGrange Isn't he like a foreigner or something?
Pity. When we reach the pearly gates, we'll see who won more souls.
I didn't even realise a competition was underway. Well, if there is one underway, I concede to you here and now. I am hoping I can just drag my sorry ass to Confession weely. I have no illusions about how many souls I will have "won."
. I know I am rather deficient on the "wisdom" side but I have always credited Jesus with winning souls :)
I'm not critical of anyone who defends the faith well.
I am certainly not solicitious of those that attack the faith.
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 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.
I'm not willing to paint every Catholic who enters the fray here as a hidden schismatic with a nefarious agenda. First, its counterprioductive, and second, its ascribing motives and judgemental. Third, your approach is strong on vocab words, bluster, and slur, but weak on wisdom and results.
You are wielding the Truth as a 2x4, smacking folks up side the head with it. No one converts on the receiving end of a 2x4. They just put up their own offensive and fight back.
Speak the Truth in Charity. Flavor it with humility.
That is all I'm asking.
Isn't he like a foreigner or something?
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, mentor of JPII (as well as my own spiritual director) on mystical and spiritual theology. Read his works. You'll like them.
I remembered you in my prayers today at Mass, I prayed to God that He grant you the gifts of charity and love towards your brothers and sisters in Christ with whom you do not agree with. This one man mission of yours is a waste of time and horribly destructive. I pray that it stops. I don't want to be a part of it. God Bless.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: It Didn't Go Out with Vatican II
From Catholicguy | 2002-07-16 07:46:13
You clearly were offended which is why you told me not to say you had lost Faith. Post 21 was directed to Narses not you. With all due respect and with no intention to judge or diagnosis you, I suggest you seek some help with your boundary issues.
Peace be with you, Goodbye, Ma'am
|
Big'ol_bump...Interesting article |
It would be one thing if you asked Narses to clarify himself, or address certain issues. I'm sure you have some valid criticisms, but you seem to have gotten to the point where you are the lone valid interpreter and defender of the Pope and the Catholic Church. I'm sure reality is more comples than that, but most of us don't claim to speak infallibly for the Pope. There are certainly people on this site who make indefensible statements about the Pope. If Narses is really is the schismatic or heretic you claim him to be, it should be easy enough to make that clear to all. Why don't you come up with a loyalty oath to the Pope and the Church and see who takes it? You told me that you would give me a $1 million if I could find anyone more loyal to the Pope on all of Free Republic. I wish you the best, but how do I know your statement is true?
I also have to ask, since you said you once had one foot in schism: should those who of us who never went near schism consider ourselves superior to you because you did? Should we consider you suspect because you did? Personally, I don't. But you act as if you are the one true defender of the faith, and it's only interpreter.
You said:In the early Church one was FORBIDDEN to kneel at Mass and one received Communion in the hand. I guess this Communist Conspiracy is more insidious than we initially thought. It predated the Communist Revolution by nearly 19 Centuries
Have you read the CCC? What does it say in regard to these matters? Are you suggesting that the early Church is more valid than it was in successive centuries? How come you're allowed to question the Magisterium? Since this Pope and Magisterium are correct, aren't all the proceeding Popes and decisions of the Magisterium equally correct? Pope John Paul II has never condemned earlier Popes' teachings, right?
I also want to ask you about the apparent contradiction in your thinking about Assissi. If you agree with Assissi, then how can you believe that such attacks on those who don't agree with you are okay?
Also, liberation theology has been condemned by the Pope. If someone attack liberation theology, how can you claim they are being unfaithful to the Pope?
I do my best to defend the Pope, but I don't claim to even know everything he thinks, teaches and believes. How can you infallibly judge every Catholic?
God bless you
Do you have any proof, that those who practice the religion of Judaism support socialism?
There are certainly people on this site who make indefensible statements about the Pope....But you act as if you are the one true defender of the faith, and it's only interpreter.
This approach sounds hauntingly familiar. But the last two FReepers who carried on this way, "EditorTCRNews.com/"theotokos" and "Cathway"/"StillSmallVoice" have since been banned.
CatholicGuy,
We don't want you to get yourself banned too for following the same unwise approach. Please consider carefully the constructive criticism offered to you here.
| To view a home page, enter a screen name: |
Q: Why are the home pages ugly in this 'improved' version? A: Because I'm working on the system. It will look better when I am finished. |
| To view a home page, enter a screen name: |
Q: Why are the home pages ugly in this 'improved' version? A: Because I'm working on the system. It will look better when I am finished. |
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.