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
If so,I disagree. I think that they gave much more power to the national conferences of bishops,perhaps without intent but nonetheless that was the result.It seems to me quite clear that the Pope and hiis staff have ordered and requested many actions that would get the church in the US in accord with Catholic teaching through the ages and the Americans have refused to obey.
I still stand by my original rsponse to you that while there are many of the curia who have another agenda the Vatican and/or curia are more in line with Catholic Truth than the gaggle of USCCB bishops and cardinals and bureaucrats.I see them as a useless corporation of middleman,who do nothing but impede the flow from the Pope to his Bishops,to us.If our bishops need a support group,I think it would be fine to meet once or twice a year It would be helpful to have different workshops that might assist them in different areas as well as silent prayer but this powerful quasi-official obstructionist body needs to go.IMO
I'm not sure they even do to this day...
I don't see how anyone can have a fundamental "right" to spread heresy.
First, in one sense, no one has any rights before God, only obligations. On the other hand, a definition of "rights" that would be consistent with Catholic teaching (and natural law) would be "that which is due a person because of his personhood."
How would this principle apply in the political realm? Certainly the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" does not contradict Catholic teaching as long as "pursuit of Happiness" is not considered in a utilitarian sense. But absolute "freedom of speech" cannot be a First Principle of morality because, for example, in the case of blasphemy, God would be upholding the "right" to sinful action.
On the other hand, the Church demands that human beings be free to act according to conscience, within reasonable limits. Therefore, the degree of "freedom of speech" granted to citizens by the State must be an area for prudential judgement.
What are the sins of injustice committed against our neighbour in the ordinary course of life?
They are invective,detraction, whisperings, mockery and the curse
What is understood by invective?
Invective is that sin which wounds another, in the honour or in the respect due to him, by words
Is it a mortal sin?
Yes, whenever such words attack the honour of another in a grave way. The sin is venial only if our neighbour's honour is not seriously injured, or if one has no intention of seriously injuring another.
Is one bound in justice to treat others with the reverence due to them?
Yes, one is strictly bound in justice to do this, for the harmony of all living in society is dependent upon this.
Upon what is this duty founded and what is its importance
It is founded upon this, that the honour of each one is a thing which men cherish most. Even the least among men has a right to be treated with the respect due to his own particular status in life; to be lacking towards him in respect, whether by word or deed,is to wound him in what he holds most dear.
One ought then with the greatest care to avoid saying or doing anything whatsoever which may bring disconsolation or humiliation upon our fellow men?
Yes, one must do this at all cost
What is the sin of detraction?
Detraction, in its strict sense, implies the intention of attacking the reputation of our neighbour, or by taking away wholly or in part the esteem in which he is held by others, whensoever there is no just cause for so doing, Is this a great sin?
Yes, since it is to take away unjustly from our neighbor a good that is more precious than riches which are taken from him by theft.
In how many ways may one commit the sin of detraction?
In four ways: in imputing to our neighbour things that are false or in exaggerating his defects; or in making known things unknown about him, and which prejudice him in the eyes of others; or in attributing to him intentions that are of a doubtful and perhaps of an evil character, wherby all that he does with rthe best of intention becomes vitiated.
Is there any other sin of detraction that is hurtful to our neighbour.
Yes,in an indirect way, by refusing to acknowledge the good in him, or by keeping silence maliciously concerning his good points, or by lessening their worth
What is the sin called whispering?
It is the sin which attacks our neighbour by seeking directly through dishonest and insidious speech, to sow discord and create misunderstanding between those who are united bythe bonds of friendship.
This is a most odious sin against our neighbor, and merits perhaps more than other sins that can be committed against our neighbour the just reproval both of God and man.
What is mockery>
Mockery is a sin of the tongue against justice which consists in reviling our neighbour by bringing to his notice his defects and shortcomings, which fact makes him lose confidence in himself as regards his relations withothers,
Is it a grave sin?
Yes, of a truth, for it implies contempt for the person of our neighbour; and this is a most destable thing and well merits chastisement,
What relation is there between the sin called the curse, and the four sins of invective, detractin, whispering, and mockery?
All these sins have in common this, that they are sins of the tongue which attack the good of our neighbour; but whereas the four latter do this by the words of a proposition which formulate evil, or deny the good of our neighbour...
<> I have sinned greatly against you and I ask for your forgiveness. All these sins I listd are the pnes I have commited against you, and other Freeeprs, to a lesser extent. I have no excuses, just the sins. I have not acted like a Christian and anyone reading my words would rightly think me a savage. I apologise to you personally for the evil I have done and if there is anything I can do to restore to you anything my rebarbative rhetoric might have taken away from you then I ask you tell me what it is.
I apologise to all who have had to watch my baneful, evil and hateful performance. I also ask your forgiveness.
My tongue is sharp and my conscience dull, if not dead. Please forgive me. If I am unable to stop my invective and cruel speech and if I am unable to quit my delight in the fight qua fight, I shall quit this site. Pray for me. I am profoundly, deeply and truly sorry for what I have done.
Me too, CatholicGuy. I am guilty of many of these same things!
Lets pull our Catholic Caucus together and continue this fight!
Can I suggest "Groundrules" for our Catholic Caucus regarding Liturgy and ask for imput?
1) Popes have authority over discipline. The Liturgy is a matter of discipline. As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error. However, since Liturgy is the primary means of catechesis in Faith and Morals, such changes are grave matters.
2) Since Popes have authority over discipline, any Eucharistic Liturgy they promulgate if it has the proper matter and form is by its very nature Valid and Licit. No Pope is bound in disciplinary matters by previous Popes.
3) These are difficult times.
4) Simply questioning and searching, honestly, does not make one a schismatic.
5)Denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic.
6) Denying the Novus Ordo is valid and licit or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it does make one schismatic.
7) Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic.
8) Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent.
Can all non-schismatic orthodox Catholics here agree with these points?
"Not only would this mean that there will be jostling and struggling to get in and fill that vacuum, but it also means that the Vatican will become somewhat more like a constitutional monarchy."
Gee, I hope not.
sitetest
Denying the Novus Ordo is valid and licit or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it does make one schismatic.I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me in advance if I raise questions or issues that have already been covered.
What does denying that the Novus Ordo is valid and licit or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it make one if not schismatic? Wouldn't denying that the Novus Ordo is valid and licit be an implicit denial that Vatican II itself -- which approved the Novus Ordo -- was valid and illicit? And what does that latter implicit denial make one if not a schismatic?
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.