Skip to comments.Catholics and Communists
Posted on 12/03/2013 10:13:35 AM PST by armydoc
The Catholic Church's recent history of sympathizing with, and even supporting, Marxist progressivism is clear, sad, and indicative of a deeply irrational and anti-individual streak within the modern Church hierarchy. Catholics who care about the Church, its history, and its future -- and also about humanity, reason and freedom -- must stop making excuses for their current spiritual leadership's collectivist authoritarian impulses.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Mr. Jonescu does not seem to have all the necessary information to write an unbiased article on this topic.
Ad hominen. Less than worthless remark.
The liberal bishops love the poor differently from conservatives and libertarians. They literally believe Jesus when he said, “Blessed are ye poor” in Luke 6:20-21.
That’s why they advocate for social programs, regulations, and taxes that are ensured to make more people poor. Poverty is a blessing, and the bishops want more of it.
I wouldn’t ascribe motives to them. It’s just that they don’t know what they are talking about. They are just mouthing worn out platitudes.
That’s a great analysis...
too bad leftists can’t be shamed by their obvious lack of reasoning and ability to see the results of their advocacy.
No, there is factual information missing from that article which gives a wrong impression. Have you not heard that there are dissident priests and lay persons in the Church?
Did you read the article? It is spot on.
Last I checked,
thou shalt not steal or covet
are still in there...
And socialism cannot be reconciled with these.
The article does not claim Catholic theology is hopelessly wrong-headed, but rather I see it as challenge to confront Church leadership when they speak in support of what is so clearly wrong in the secular world.
It’s rather a straight line, however, from a works-based theological construct, to socialism,
because works based righteousness so easily morphs into advocacy based righteousness.
I’ve been saying this for years on FR. But the puritans disavow evidence.
And envy is the organizing principle of socialism.
Socialists wouldn't stand a chance with the argument that the State will take the fruit of your labor and distribute it according to the needs of the State. However, many people are attracted by the argument that the State should take the fruit of another's labor and distribute it to them.
Oh, it’s more devious than having the State take it from another and give it to me,
it’s that I (if I were a liberal) can feel righteous by advocating that the State take from person A and give to “needy” person B.
We can take some comfort that Francis just issued excoriation of capitalism as an apostolic exhortation.
If I understand correctly, encyclicals trump exhortations.
Well, that, too ... That’s why it is culturally so much easier to be liberal or a leftist. One can feel all self-righteous without having to do anything.
A priest in the North Korean totalitarian state acts as a marionette for the tubby little third generation dictator Kim Il Birdbrain and that becomes the platform for Jonescu's attack on the Roman Catholic Church since Mr. Jonescu apparently regards Adam Smith or maybe even Ayn Rand as the authors of his personal scriptures rather than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, and Peter, tyo say nothing of the Old Testament.
The late and unlamented Fr. Robert Drinan, S. J., and Fr. Charles Curran and a handful of others were advocates of abortion but, I trust, Mr. Jonescu does not imagine that the fact that they were not silenced and defrocked and excommunicated or even burned at the stake as in those dear dead days of yore (as I would have preferred) does not make the Roman Catholic Church in the United States pro-abortion. Fr. Drinan, after many years of scandal producing behavior as Barney Frank's predecessor in Congress, was ordered by John Paul II to his face to leave Congress (which he did) and Curran was stripped of his status as theologian.
Pope Francis (not my favorite contemporary pope but pope nonetheless) lived his entire adult life in Argentina where the choices in politics seem to be essentially between Peronist fascists such as Juan and Evita OTOH and faux Peronist Marxists and social revolutionaries against human nature like the Kirchners OTO. Understandably, given the choices available, then Father,Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal Bergoglio, tended toward the imperfect fascist model rather than toward the utterly unacceptable Kirchner model. Try to remember that he is, despite MSM sensationalism to the contrary, a RELIGIOUS leader and not a politician and it shows.
Both of those choices are quite unacceptable to normal American conservatives of a free market persuasion but Marxism and Marxism-Leninism and Maoism and Ho Chi Minhism and Kim Il Birdbrainism are MORE unacceptable and, indeed, totally unacceptable (despite one North Korean priest's idiot imaginings and substitute of "nationalism" vis-a-vis South Korea's often admirable alternative.
That there are child-molesting individual priests (certainly a grave evil) does not make the Roman Catholic Church a church devoted to child molesting any more than the idiot North Korean priest's ravings define Catholicism in North Korea much less anywhere else.
Would more stringent discipline of wayward priests serve the Roman Catholic Church well? No doubt! Catholic leaders and even popes are fallen human beings and probably do a better job at their jobs than would Mr. Jonescu and or anyone sharing his profile as intellectual at large with few real responsibilities in life.
Oh, and conveniently, Mr. Jonescu warns us NOT to rely on soon to be Saint John Paul the Great as a counterexample justifying support of the Roman Catholic Church as an enemy of Marxism just as Ronald Reagan should not be an excuse for supporting the GOP or Margaret Thatcher ought not justify support for the Tory Party in Great Britain.
Mr. Jonescu should be reminded that Saint John Paul, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are, each in his or her own sphere, the ideal (however imperfect) of what a pope, a president or a prime minister might be. They are the each standards against whom all successors are judged and those successors are likely, in the foreseeable future to fail against such respective standards.
Mr. Jonescu is just another (apparently) fallen away cradle Catholic, favoring his own inner fallacies rather than the accumulated wisdom and teaching magisterium of the Church in which he was privileged to be baptized. That is also the Church which Friedrich von Hayek, Russell Kirk and Frank Meyer entered as death drew near. I believe but am not sure that it was also the Church of Ludwig von Mises.
Mr. Jonescu seems to fancy himself an "American Thinker" by association with that publication but, if the cited article is any evidence, we will wait in vain for him to attain the stature of von Mises, von Hayek or Frank Meyer. If that seems unfair to Mr. Jonescu, that would be because I am applying his own standard to Mr. Jonescu.
However, the point was that the same philosophies with the names removed are being advocated by Catholic leaders today.
Also, the article deals with the liberal, post-VII Church, not the old pre-VII Church.
It was my understanding that the priests in question were South Korean. That was at least the implication, and if this is not the case the author should be ashamed of himself.
I like quacking, waddling, winged and web-footed swimming birds with bills,
but I vehemently reject the charge that I like ducks or geese (by name)!
Exactly. Further, why is it that liberals think that captains of industry are corruptible, but politicians are trustworthy?
That right there's your problem.
The Pre-VII encyclicals are not abrogated. In fact, they are often cited in later encyclicals.
You mean like the Syllabus of Errors is constantly referenced and reinforced? [/sarcasm]
Individual Bishops, even Bishop's conferences are not "The Church". L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, is not "The Church".
Apparently neither is the Pope.
Heads of theology of departments on Universities who identify themselves as Catholic, are not "The Church".
In other words, anything, from any source whatsoever, that embarrasses you is "not 'The Church.'" Gotcha.
We'll all need to check with you from now on I suppose.
Yeah, I've seen this as well, in personal conversations.
It's not even comprehensible to them that business people could be virtuous and that government, made up of the same pool of people, would be corrupt.
And further, that it's FAR more dangerous to have corrupt people in charge of government and the legal use of deadly force, than it is for a business to be run by a corrupt person.
There's no business in this country that can, without the aid of a corrupt government, use force to make me do what they want me to.
Yes, absolutely! Part of what makes me want to pull my hair out in arguments with such people. HOW CAN THEY NOT SEE THIS?! Truly, they suffer from a mental disease.
The Pope can do wrong. The most bizarre nonsense can fall from his lips and it’s the fault of translators, the papers, his enemies, “you just don’t understand”..... spin, spin.
Here is something I can add to the discussion:
When Bergoglio Defeated the Liberation Theologians
It certainly wasn't pleasant to read, but it still dealt with some very real situations.
At any rate, I didn't post the article. I just read it.
I view most of the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church as the enemy of my Church (the Catholic Church) and the U.S. Constitution.
This Pope has yet to demonstrate that he has anything intelligent to say about political or economic policy. He has proven that he knows something about straw men and clichés.
This is a key truth!
I have not read Pope Francis' 48,000 word Apostolic Exhortation (I wonder if anyone as? I wonder if anyone ever will?--- but that's another screed I'm storing up for later.) I have not seen any quotes, however, in which Pope Francis is calling for state-enforced redistribution of property as the solution to the vexations of poverty. I could have missed something that's out there, of course. Could you supply such a quote, with the accompanying paragraph for context? (If you can, I will thank you and I will use it.)
This little Korean whatchamacallit is the very opposite of an exponent of either papal diplomacy or Catholic doctrine. A defender of North Korea, he calls himself a peace and justice advocate; however if my memory serves me well, there are only two governments in the world with whom the Holy See does not have any level of diplomatic relationship, and those are the governments of North Korea and of Red China, because they are implacably opposed to, antagonistic towards, and incompatible with, the Catholic Church.
Understand that the charism of infallibility does not extend to papal diplomacy (!!) but the fact is, the Reds say the Catholic Church defends the right of private property, and will forever. And the Reds are right. That goes together with the Church's robust understanding of the duties of private property, which make us ---if we neglect the needs of the suffering and destitute --- answerable to God and liable to hellfire.
I deplore the softboiled socialism so often dished out by clerical bureaucracies like the USCCB and so many others. Yeah, it's out there and I hate it. Anathema sit. But I am convinced by the evidence so far --- and you could get confirming testimony from Cristina Fernández de Kirchner --- that Pope Francis is a persistent and aggravating opponent of the Communist camp.
Another article that mentions Cristina Kirchner’s dislike of Pope Francis:
Pope Francis is far more spiritual than political in his thinking and many people don’t really understand this. I think he looks at political constructs and sees how sin has manipulated/corrupted them.
Also of interest is War We Are In, Part Two Communism vs Capitalism, a lecture by Dr. George S. Benson, former President of Harding. It's a strong defense of a pro-God, pro-American and an unabashed pro-capitalism philosophy. Yes, it's a bit dated, but Dr. Benson's words still are meaningful here in the 21st Century as the world faces the dangers of atheistic liberalism.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of a church of Christ congregation here in Texas. I'll add that guns are not only permitted during services but are, in fact, encouraged. Our preacher carries a gun as do most of our members. In that regard, it's much like Baptist-affiliated Liberty University in Lynchburg which also stands for freedom by permitting guns on campus.
To Catholic FReepers: Is there an official stance from the Vatican on guns at Mass or is it up to each Catholic Church?
Attitude towards guns is a very good proxy for someone’s individual freedom index,
and for a church, another indicator is whether they use any sort of coercion to get people to part with their money.
Each should give what he feels comfortable with, under no coercion but the Holy Spirit.
Were has there been raw capitalism anywhere on Earth in the past 150 years? And as for bad translations, the document was posted in English on the Vatican's web site. Presumably the translations were done by Vatican translators.
Thank you, Black Elk
It’s on the Vatican’s own web site but we shouldn’t trust its accuracy. Check.
Thank you, Mrs. Don-o
Thank you, Dr. Sivana
The emphasis on communitarian concerns is not a recent perversion of renegade "liberation theologians," (though leftwing liberation theologians certainly exploit the false connection). You see anti-laissez-faire attitudes among some of the most conservative and traditional Catholics as well, who have championed distributism, falangism, corporatism, etc. as alternatives to both Marxist socialism and capitalism. Many libertarians falsely attribute any criticism of laissez-faire to Marxist influence, when in fact some of these ideologies boil down to advocacy of a kind of social order that predated capitalism and republican government.
Since it’s private property, any individual Catholic parish can post notices that firearms are prohibited. I have never seen this, however, not even in the more liberal parishes I’ve been to. The Vatican takes no official stance, although I’m sure they would prefer people come unarmed.
Especially the current pope...I'm waiting to see if he starts passing out his robes to the cold and needy...
When it's time for a little anti-Catholic red meat, though, the editors at AT don't seem to see any reason to not use a broad brush nor do the commentors on FR seem to mind joining hands with those who claim Jesus Christ is a fraud and all Christians, not just Catholic Christians, are drooling idiots taken in by the scam of Christianity.
I guess people who have sucked down revisionist history to the point they've never even heard of the violence and murder that Pinkerton's were guilty of while in the employ of poor little non-Capitalists like Dale Carnegie or what Baldwin-Felts was up to in Logan County W Va have also sucked down the current media machine command to go after the Catholic Church every way possible for opposing King Barry and not to let little things like the truth get in their way.
At least while folks who call themselves Conservative and Christian are solidly in the Obama camp when it comes to attacking Catholics and working hand in glove with anti-Christ cultists a good many folks who call themselves Liberal and Whatever who have long been blind enough to support Barry are waking up. With more people awake we may finally end up with folks who do more than complain and encourage infighting in their own ranks pushing back against Barry.
I'm sure the Chicago fascist crowd will finish running through the propaganda they used to spread the Klan in the twenties pretty soon, though, and we will then no doubt be entertained with articles rehashing the various dark conspiracies that were spread so effectively in Europe during the thirties.
At some point, all those conspiracy theories tie the evil Jooooz to the evil Papists and I'll be interested in seeing who thinks slanders and lies about Jews is acceptable religion forum fare the same way slanders and lies about Catholics are.
Seems like the American Thinker's keyboards have a special key that just types out the whole word "Marxism." Really, it's not enough now to wildly accuse people of being socialists? They have to be whole-hog Karl Marxists nowadays?
Religions don't translate or divide directly into secular ideologies. There's alway some remainder that resists such oversimplifications.
So Catholicism or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism can't be reduced to laissez-faire capitalism in a simplistic fashion. They talk about different things and deal with matters that aren't reducible to economics or politics.
Only an idiot would conclude that that makes them Marxist.