Did Communists Infiltrate the Catholic Church?

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

[RobbyS]

I might add that, so far as religion and the supernatural are concerned, communism and liberalism are on the same page. Could any Commie hate the Church more than James Carroll the Globe columnist? I am sure there are priests with different temperments but the same faithlessness who have decided to stay in the Church so long as it is personally profitable to them.

[Mike Fieschko]

I was on vacation while that happened. I wish I had seen the posts

There was one post attacking Jim Robinson and the moderator(s): 494 in this thread. In a moment, StillSmallVoice was banned.

(Yes, yes, I know about post hoc ...)

[Catholicguy]

Thanks for the link

[Loyalist]

If you think Commies planned Vatican Two do you also think that Pope John 23rd was a Commie?

No, but I believe he may have been too naive and trusting of the liberal clerics, cardinals, bishops and periti alike, who hijacked it. Popes have died during Councils before, but certainly they took advantage of his failing health.

Again, we don't know who, or even if anyone, was a Communist agent at Vatican II. But to dismiss the possibility of Communist infiltration of the Vatican out of hand is unwise, in light of what is known about Communist infiltration elsewhere.

[Catholicguy]

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

:) Touche

[Polycarp]

Which Free-speech advocate

(I might get flamed for this but...)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?

I'm not impressed by appeals to a code of "Free Speech" that is, in its modern form, in many ways antithetical to Catholic moral doctrine.

Hand appeals to "Free Speech" when it serves his agenda. He denies it to others though by branding them integrists when they clearly are not and have no way to refute such lies.

I saw Hand's neurotic post regarding myself and FRee Republic in his letters to ed subpage. What a liar and coward. The man IS psychotic. I'm glad he was banned here.

Don't let this happen to you:

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.

---

CATHOLICGUY signed up 2001-04-01.
This account has been banned.

[narses]

It's right there next to "Religous Liberty" I think.

:)

[Catholicguy]

I think Pope John 23rd was fairly sharp and I also think he has been badly mischaracterised by some on the right. He was the one that put a Monitum on Teilhard's writings and he also issued an Encyclical saying that to be in union with Christ, one had to be in the Catholic Church - or words to that effect.

[Catholicguy]

(I might get flamed for this but...)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?

I'd locate it in the teaching on the State. I don't have the time to look it up now though. Free Speech wasn't about Porn and whatnot (an underused word, IMO)but about the liberty of men to criticise and speak the truth about political matters and political men.

[Mike Fieschko]

Holy smokes ... I get back to the keyboard, and I thought freeper Catholicguy had been banned. I had to load his freerepublic home page twice to make sure he's still here.

[Polycarp]

I'd locate it in the teaching on the State. I don't have the time to look it up now though. Free Speech wasn't about Porn and whatnot (an underused word, IMO)but about the liberty of men to criticise and speak the truth about political matters and political men.

How about just the doctrinal support for the latter, when you have a moment.

I don't doubt it may exist.

But the "Free Speech" the Founders envisioned was not even a Catholic ideal at the time. Heretics did not have any fundamental "right" to spread heresies in Catholic ethics.

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

Just something I've thought about...anyone know a cohesive article on this?

[Polycarp]

and I thought freeper Catholicguy had been banned

(Sorry...I was just warning a fellow Catholic, in charity, as another poster here recently asserted)

[Catholicguy]

But the "Free Speech" the Founders envisioned was not even a Catholic ideal at the time. Heretics did not have any fundamental "right" to spread heresies in Catholic ethics

There are many surprising precedents concerning democracy in Catholic practice. Many folks are surprised when they first read the Rule of St. Benedict. I think after reading it that some would claim he had been infected with liberalism... he even includes a conscience clause.

When I get home, I'll kick around some books to see where a free speech right could be located. I certainly agree that what we have now can in no way be supported but I think that free speeech as envisoned by the Protestant Fathers of this country as regards political speech is not contrary to Catholic ethics

[Mike Fieschko]

the liberty of men to criticise and speak the truth about political matters and political men.

How about just the doctrinal support for the latter

There's discussion of the principles underlying society in the Catechism, but nothing there as far as I know, which discusses 'freedom of speech' explicitly. See sections 1901 et seq., which I believe permits freedom of speech if that 'fundamental right' is included in the organizing poltical arrangements/documents. There are probably other sections of the Catechism as well.

The Church might look at 'freedom of speech' as permitted but not required as a matter of doctrine, or preferred but not required as a matter of doctrine.

[saradippity]

Your comments about John 23's statements that so reflect our(meaning those who love the Church led by the Holy Father and teaching Magisterium)beliefs are interesting and useful in these times. I think one of the most effective tools we have in our arsenal are the words of former Popes.

I have recently piggy-backed onto a comment made by one of our daffier catholics,who was adulating Pope John 23 for opening the windows and bringing the "spirit of VatII" to the church.I agreed that he was a wonderful pope and added,quite casually,that I thought two of the most significant pronouncements of his,were the documents concerning the unacceptability of ordaining homosexual priests,and his words on the everlasting beauty of the Tridentine Mass.This stopped the exchange with the first person but led to a good,in-depth conversation with another.

I am now looking for letters to the editor that will allow me to bring forth material like that in a response letter.I even obtained a copy of "America",I am expecting that the opportunity to emphasize how important it is to follow what the Holy Fathers' have said will present itself.

[livius]

Something that we should remember is that while the Papacy is one thing, the Vatican is another. The Vatican is essentially a corrupt European court, one of the oldest, and furthermore, totally unreformed and operating by the rules of many centuries ago. Things such as poisonings, etc. are not unthinkable in this environment, and palace intrigues are no doubt rife.

The Papacy (embodied by each individual Pope) is, however, something different.

But at a certain point, they come together or at least operate in the same spheres. What is their effect upon each other? Are there times when the Roman court overwhelms the Keeper of the Keys? How does the Fisherman hold off forces that would have been quite at home with the Borgias? (Incidentally, the Borgia - or Borja, the original spelling on the name, since they were Spanish and in fact from Catalunya - Popes did incredible things for the Church, although some of the other family members were a bit iffy.)

I've been wondering about this a great deal in the last few weeks. One of the things that occurred to me is that, in various ways, Vatican II gave much more control to the corrupt Roman court than it had ever possessed before. I think that many 19th century developments, and particularly infallibility, may in some way have been designed to separate the Papacy and the individual Pope from the Vatican and its dangerous and vice-ridden court. But Vatican II undermined much of this, and I think we are seeing a strangely Vatican-dominated Papacy, except for the wonderful doctrinal pronouncements (Vatican aparatchiks aren't smart enough to come up with their own) and the great personal power of this Pope.

Any opinions on this?

[livius]

Sorry, guys, forgot to ping you. Any ideas on this? (see post #216)

[BlackElk]

Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Liberty affirmed Catholic Church Support for the rights of those in error.

[saradippity]

Yep!There are foxes all over the place but I see many of the various heads of Congregations as far better than any american catholic bishop or cardinal.It is not that I don't think that there are American Bishops and Cardinals who may be holy and brilliant, but currently they would have difficulty extricating themselves from the "herd".Unless our USCCB does something holy or intelligent in the next few months pursuant to the "scandal",I would sooner see them disbanded entirely and go back to "from the Pope and his teaching Magisterium to the individual bishop", with the laity appealing directly to Rome when serious diversions and deviiations from Catholic teaching rear their head.

Cardinals Ratzinger and Hoyos put out clear,beautiful documents affirming the faith as do a couple of others. To ensure our complaints get seen,we usually send our letters to the correct Congregation and several other Congrgations just to be sure someone knows whats going on.We just put a FYI,on the cover sheet.

[Mike Fieschko]

in various ways, Vatican II gave much more control to the corrupt Roman court than it had ever possessed before.

What are examples of how the Council, the Council documents, whatever, gave the curia more control, and control over what?