Why the Left Hates the (Catholic) Church

Front Page Magazine ^ | August 29, 2003 | John Zmirak

[fatima]

Bump.

[sinkspur]

Kennedy was permitted to win the election only because he convinced them,he was a new breed of Catholic,in other words not committed.

Are you a conspiracy theorist?

Kennedy "won" the election because his father, old Joe, paid off Mayor Daley in Chicago.

I also am convinced that Reagen was not supposed to live but at least was suffiently scared into a somewhat immobilized position. Ditto,Pope John PaulII,who just became more careful in his proclamations.

Yep. You've bought into the Build-a-Burger nonsense.

[saradippity]

Well,I think,and I am not willing to go through documents to prove it,that John Paul II has been clear in his warnings about homosexuality but has made somewhat veiled allusions to it. I read in his encyclicals and audiences messages to the the faithful,both clerics and lay. For instance in his "Letter to the Priests" issued on Holy Thursday 2002 he speaks to the "mystery of iniquity,now buried deeply within the soul of the Church". When I researched the "mystery of iniquity",I got the distinct impression that an aspect of it was the "abomination" of homosexuality.

But I think that in these times it is necessary to couch criticism of certain things in ambiguity or "code". I think the enemy lies in wait to pounce on anything that presents an obstacle to their plans.I also think he knows that those that "have ears to hear and eyes to see",will. I don't know if I have made myself clear enough,(I kind of talk in code myself)have I?

[saradippity]

I could tell you more first hand information about the election than you would ever want to know,and much of it goes right along with your statement about Chicago. But remember,I did say he had compromised or lied to get where he got.

with regards the build-a-burger,I can only say that I am a contrarian by nature. When I heard as a freshman in college,from several professors that it was nonsensical,insane and/or stupid to believe there could possibly be "conspiracies" extending over generations and centuries,I immediately thought "the lady protesteth too much".

So when something happens I use the "Null Hypothesis" first and son of a gun,I can never prove it which leaves me with,"well,maybe it is a conspiracy,after all".

[sinkspur]

When I heard as a freshman in college,from several professors that it was nonsensical,insane and/or stupid to believe there could possibly be "conspiracies" extending over generations and centuries,I immediately thought "the lady protesteth too much".

Well, a stopped clock is right twice a day, and, in this instance, your college professors were right.

So when something happens I use the "Null Hypothesis" first and son of a gun,I can never prove it which leaves me with,"well,maybe it is a conspiracy,after all".

So, if you can't readily explain something, it's a conspiracy?

I stopped believing in goblins when I was eight.

[ninenot]

Catholics were not really taught to think.

There was a time when priests and Bishops were not lying--and when they actually understood the Catholic Faith.

That time ended right around the time that JFK was elected.

Only took the laity 30 years to figure it out.

[ninenot]

There IS a conspiracy, between Satan and others (they die off and have to be replaced so damn often...)

Satan's is the only intellect capable of the co-ordination and the exquisitely subtle lies. He has helpers, of course.

Goethe wrote about one, and the author of Dorian Gray wrote about another. Seem like myths, right?

Don't bet your souls on it.

[saradippity]

So,if you can't readily explain something,it's a conspiracy?

Read my lips ""maybe" means,I can't rule it out.

Did you ever read what Wilson or Disraeli said about "invisible hands" and/or "behind the scenes" involvements?

[saradippity]

You of course are right, Satan is always in on it. Hey,I have a question,is there a difference between Satan and Lucifer?

[RobbyS]

Satan is the devil as temptor; Lucifer as the brightest of angels, before his fall.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

sara, I have always believed that JPII knew his predecessor JPI was murdered and that he had better watch his step or meet the same fate.

Beyond that, as I'm not in the Vatican I can't speak to what extent evil has infiltrated and where. But I do know it is there.

[sinkspur]

JPI was not murdered. He died of a heart attack. There was an article here that I posted, an interview with Fr. Lorenzi, his personal assistant, who dismisses the "murder" talk.

Why are all the Catholic conspiracists traditionalists?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

There is plenty of evidence to suggest he was poisoned. Many in the Vatican believed it and some have admitted as much today.

JPI had a physical shortly before his death. His heart was fine. He had no major medical problems. In fact, his blood pressure ran low so he took medication for that. Low blood pressure is not a risk factor for a heart attack. The circumstances of his death do not fit for a heart attack. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[sinkspur]

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Take it up with Fr. Lorenzi, JPI's personal assistant.

I'm not into conspiracy theories.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The current cause for his canonization is based on the fact he was martyred. Many religious are involved in his cause and it is growing worldwide, within the Conciliar Church. There is no traditional conspiracy there.

[sinkspur]

The current cause for his canonization is based on the fact he was martyred.

I'd like a citation for that. I've never read that, anywhere.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Do a Google search. There are at least 4-5 websites devoted to his cause.

[sinkspur]

I want a cite based on the claim of martyrdom.

You made the assertion; I'm not going to run around all over the net to verify a claim that you made.

[dsc]

"Why are all the Catholic conspiracists traditionalists?"

Because all the conspirators are liberals.

[NeoCaveman]

Dick Blow ping and no, I'm not making that up.

He sucks.