Catholics and Communists

American Thinker ^ | 12/3/13 | Daren Jonescu

[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.

[Zionist Conspirator]

You evidently missed the part of the article which granted that Catholicism officially rejects Communism, socialism, and Marxism "by name" and therefore has never advocated any of those philosophies "by name."

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.

[Zionist Conspirator]

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

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.

[MrB]

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)!

[GOP_Party_Animal]

Unfortunately, for some reason he doesn't see the dramatic difference between self-sacrfice/charity and state enforced redistribution.

Exactly. Further, why is it that liberals think that captains of industry are corruptible, but politicians are trustworthy?

[Dr. Sivana]

You evidently missed the part of the article which granted that Catholicism officially rejects Communism, socialism, and Marxism "by name" and therefore has never advocated any of those philosophies "by name."

The whole system has been formally rejected, by name. The article's opening was so wrong, it didn't call for reading the whole thing.

The Pre-VII encyclicals are not abrogated. In fact, they are often cited in later encyclicals.

Individual Bishops, even Bishop's conferences are not "The Church". L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, is not "The Church".

Heads of theology of departments on Universities who identify themselves as Catholic, are not "The Church".

[Zionist Conspirator]

The whole system has been formally rejected, by name. The article's opening was so wrong, it didn't call for reading the whole thing.

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.

[MrB]

liberals think that captains of industry are corruptible, but politicians are trustworthy

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.

[GOP_Party_Animal]

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.

[count-your-change]

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.

[Dr. Sivana]

We'll all need to check with you from now on I suppose.

No. You needn't check with me. You really needn't check with Mr. Jonescu.

The reason the article is not worthy of being read was that it began with the logical fallacy of "begging the question". Once you get your premise wrong, nothing good can follow.

[SumProVita]

Here is something I can add to the discussion:

When Bergoglio Defeated the Liberation Theologians

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350613?eng=y

[Zionist Conspirator]

The reason the article is not worthy of being read was that it began with the logical fallacy of "begging the question". Once you get your premise wrong, nothing good can follow.

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.

[Arthur McGowan]

Good article.

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You've made a very important point, that there's all the difference between heaven and hell, between self-sacrifical charity and state-enforced redistribution.

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.

Peace, armydoc!

[SumProVita]

Another article that mentions Cristina Kirchner’s dislike of Pope Francis:

http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2013/06/05/pope-francis-liberation-theology

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.

[re_nortex]

Here's one from a cartoon series from the very Conservative and thoroughly Christian Harding College (now University): Make Mine Freedom. This institution, affiliated with the non- denominational church (small "c" intentional) of Christ is notable for its American Studies Institute which teaches the fundamentals upon which this country was founded: the Bible, liberty, individualism and free enterprise.

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?

[MrB]

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.

[Dr. Sivana]

We can take some comfort that Francis just issued excoriation of capitalism as an apostolic exhortation.

If I understand correctly, encyclicals trump exhortations.

This is a very complicated area. A lot depends on what authority the Pope is actually asserting, and the circumstances of his statement. (Even in a serious encyclical, a phrase such as "Given the current circumstances ..." means that when the circumstances change, what is to follow may or may not be as relevant.)

Second, excoriating raw capitalism does not imply supporting Marxism. There were economic systems before both Marx and Adam Smith. Even into the 20th Century, men like G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were Distributists. They were arch-conservatives, and very anti-Marxist. The name alone, and a shallow reading on aspects of it would send some Freepers pointing "Marxist!"

Although Pope Francis shall never be confused with an Austrian economist, at least SOME of the translations have been bad, maybe purposefully bad. When the Spanish for "enterprise, by itself" is rendered "enterprise, inevitably", that is a perversion of the meaning. Fr. Z's posts here are informative.

[DManA]

, excoriating raw capitalism

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.

[Dr. Sivana]

Presumably the translations were done by Vatican translators.

Yup, and they are as reliable as American bureaucrats on this stuff. The only authoritative one would eiter be the original (which could be in any language) or in most cases the official Latin.

Heck, an EXTREMELY inaccurate translation of the 1970 Mass was performed by ICEL, and it took about FORTY YEARS and serious attention of a liturgically minded Pope (Benedict XVI) to correct a lot of it.

Were has there been raw capitalism anywhere on Earth in the past 150 years

Not much, but there is an intellectual movement pushing for it, both among conservatives and some anarchist types. While some here would oppose anti-trust laws of any kind, they are a response to what happens when one capitalist "wins the game" to such an extent that competition is permanently locked out? This stuff was certainly happening in the U.S. in the late 19th century. One could check out Rerum Novarum for Pope Leo XIII's landmark response to the times.