« What Cleveland Catholics Want |
| The congregation and the offender »
....spending a lot of time and energy arguing about the role of secular Jews in communism, why don't we worry about the role of American Catholics in supporting legal abortion and other fruits of contemporary civilization?
I mean, really.
Posted by Amy Welborn Dubruiel at 09:49 AM | Permalink
| Digg This
| Save to del.icio.us
Excellent, Amy. RadTrads spend a perverse amount of energy trying to discern just what it is about Jews that make them their enemies. They should look to the beam in the Catholic eye.
How about asking first: What it is in the Catholic religious and/or ethnic heritage that makes it the case that the more Catholic the state or region in the U.S., the more likely its politicians are to be pro-abortion? If the reply is that neither the politicians nor the voters are "really" Catholics any more, the same could be said about the commie/secularist Jews the RadTrads are obsessed with.
T. Marzen |
March 16, 2004 at 10:13 AM
I wish we as Catholics and the Bishops in particular would worry about the gravity of voting for a "Catholic" presidential candidate who is not just quietly and privately "pro-choice" (which is bad enough) but who promises to actively promote abortion.
March 16, 2004 at 10:32 AM
Human nature is endlessly complex and resists easy categorizing. Nat Hentoff,for example, is almost the archetype of the atheist, secular jew and yet his strong defense of the right to life of the unborn puts most of us to shame in comparison. Jews, like Catholics and all the rest of sinful humanity, will be judged by God one by one. We, as always, should follow His example.
Donald R. McClarey |
March 16, 2004 at 10:37 AM
RadTrads spend a perverse amount of energy trying to discern just what it is about Jews that make them their enemies. They should look to the beam in the Catholic eye.
Anti-Catholics spend a perverse amount of energy trying to avoid Truth. The True Church Militant loves Truth, because it loves Christ Our King. Time and energy spent pursuing Truth is time well-spent.
why don't we worry about the role of American Catholics in supporting legal abortion and other fruits of contemporary civilization?
Americanist "Catholics" should join the One True Faith and learn Holy Church's teachings on masonic liberal democracy. As long as you blindly follow the vatican II modernists, you'll never maintain the proper Catholic world view; you'll remain impotent in the battle against the world and Satan.
I mean, really. UIOGD,
Sulpicius Severus |
March 16, 2004 at 10:39 AM
It's hilarious that someone who keeps referring to the "truth" refers to "masonic liberal democracy".
March 16, 2004 at 10:48 AM
Yeah, Amy, the MASONS made Justices Brennan and Kennedy rule the way they did in the abortion decisions. LOL.
March 16, 2004 at 10:49 AM
jerry -- it's funny how vatican II modernists persist in their ignorance (and/or ignoring) of Holy Church's teachings on liberalism and Freemasonry. Not so funny how this continued ignorance serves Satan's machinations. UIOGD,
Sulpicius Severus |
March 16, 2004 at 11:07 AM
I didn't bring it up, but when people cast aspersions against dead priests, they deserve a defense--which if you look included quotes and what not.
But of course its always a good idea to go blindly into things without knowing where things come from. I can tell you how enlightening it is to discuss Catholic liberalism with people who've never read an encyclical on modernism, or the Catechism on secular messianism, and are all fired up to make "common cause" on movements which are inimical to principles of the faith.
It always better to know less. Especially about Church history. Its always better to know less about Church history and doctrine, and then pronounce on which modern movements are authentic, and which aspirations are legitimate.
March 16, 2004 at 11:09 AM
David -- U.S. political theory and constitutionalism does share patrimony with Freemasonry, especially regarding Cult of Man and religious indifferentism.
Too bad the American hiearchy ignored Leo XIII's warnings, and too bad americanist "Catholics" continue to ignore the insidious nature of americanism. Satan loves this, though, as the slaughter of innocents continues. Denying the menace of Masonry and denying the existence of Satan are denials cut from the same ignorant cloth. Can't fight the enemy if you don't know who he is, right? UIOGD,
Sulpicius Severus |
March 16, 2004 at 11:14 AM
For example where this comes from. Or why (most) Jews and Catholic can never seem to have a discussion about the passion without seeming to be talking about entirely different events.
Because one side says the significance of the event is supernatural, and the other says if you subtract the supernatural, what's left is anti-Semitism.
March 16, 2004 at 11:16 AM
March 16, 2004 at 11:19 AM
Where is the link that started all this?
March 16, 2004 at 11:27 AM
Not sure who to whom you are referring with this,
"But of course its always a good idea to go blindly into things without knowing where things come from. I can tell you how enlightening it is to discuss Catholic liberalism with people who've never read an encyclical on modernism, or the Catechism on secular messianism, and are all fired up to make "common cause" on movements which are inimical to principles of the faith.
It always better to know less. Especially about Church history."
It is interesting that people seem to pick and choose what historical things to take an interest in and what to ignore. What was the name of that novel everyone was talking about before Mel Gibson's movie took center stage in Catholic Blogdom?
I still don't see where the secular Jews and communisim issue surfaced.
March 16, 2004 at 11:51 AM
I think you're setting up a straw man argument, as is usually the case with those who cry "Rad Trad". I'm not familiar with those who are "obsessed" with the machinations of secular Jews. Whom do you consider such people to be? Joe Sobran? Mel Gibson? Pat Buchanan? The SSPX? Why not name names and explain how they earned the epithet from you? More to the point, the people who note the prevalence of secular Jews in the old USSR are probably the same ones who complain about American Catholics in, well, America. If you are looking for a scapegoat for the state of late 20th century American Catholicism, would those responsible for teaching late 20th century Catholics and their apologists be a more appropriate target?
March 16, 2004 at 11:58 AM
Tim, I believe Ms. Welborn's "I mean, really" post, which we are presently commenting on, is responding to comments in the "Nat Hentoff" post. UIOGD,
Sulpicius Severus |
March 16, 2004 at 11:59 AM
It was down below, on the Nat Hentoff piece. I observed that Catholicism was the proper antidote to Anti-Semitism, and of course that remark had to be derided as anti-Semetic. The some of the absurd charactures of "Rad Tradism" were trotted out to avoid the need to think, or treat co-religionists with civility or honesty.
"Rad Trad" in case you didn't know, elimates the need to actually demonstrate that your opponents arguments are incorrect, or that even if they seem to decry anti Semitism, or cite The Catechism or Nostra Aetate, they are actually still guilty of what ever charge is being levied.
What book are you referring to : The DaVinci Code.
March 16, 2004 at 12:01 PM
Perhaps I've missed something, but what is UIOGD?
March 16, 2004 at 12:05 PM
Got it: Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus
March 16, 2004 at 12:10 PM
That's kind of a silly statement, Amy. Its like when liberals say, "You can't talk about abortion, or present yourself as pro-life until you start taking care of the starving children who are already born!"
Both issues are equally worth talking about and learning about, and talking/working on one doesn't lessen the importance of the other.
Usually its only those people who have no desire to learn more, or hear other opinions, who make statements like this, in an attempt to cut off a discussion that might be uncomfortable or disturbing to them, or what they think they know already.
And by the way, while he might be prone to hyperbole, Sulpicius is correct to be suspicious of modern liberalism, which has its roots in the atheistic, (and yes, dare I say, Masonic-influenced) "enlightenment". It would also behoove Catholics to remember that our current form of government rose out of the Protestant tradition, and had quite anti-Catholic beginnings and inherent prejudices. Liberal democracy, while beneficial to many people in some ways, isn't necessarily a friend of Catholicism.
March 16, 2004 at 12:11 PM
Our Constitutional roots were very Presbyterian, not Masonic. Of course, that was more than 200 years ago, and things have sadly changed. The Masons seem to be better at helping their fellows than Christians are, with the result that they preceded the Gramscians in the march through the institutions. Whether the Masons in America are as politically-involved as they are in Italy, I do not know. The Church should most definitely keep clear the distinction between Christianity and Masonry!
Rinon Mavar |
March 16, 2004 at 12:33 PM
I should add that the Presbyterian political thinking of such as Samuel Rutherford, John Knox and John Calvin had their roots very much in -Catholic- political theory of such as St. Thomas, de Bracton, John of Salibury, etc.
Rinon Mavar |
March 16, 2004 at 12:35 PM
That's Novak's argument, I don't know how gogent it is though. Its pretty hard not to see Locke as the philosopher of Choice for the Founding Fathers. Whig Thomists simply don't understand Thomistic political theory.
March 16, 2004 at 12:50 PM
Suspicious Severus linked to a 19th century encyclical which blamed the freemasons for spawning the evil doctines of socialism and comomunism. So, the RadTrads don't like the following forms of goverment: liberal democracy, socialism, communism, nazism. I guess that leaves us with feudal monarchies with kings crowned by the Bishop of Rome. And we say the Islamofascists are living in the 13th century! Just as a thought experiment, guys, how long do you think the Holy See would have survived if the kings of France and Sweden, and the Holy Roman Emperor had had the bomb?
March 16, 2004 at 12:53 PM
al and SS,
Thanks for the clarification. And I was referring to the Da Vinci Code, somewhat sarcastically. I have not followed the dust up on the other thread (yet) but I got the impression that you (al) were saying people would accept a premise or even make an argument about something they knew little about (Catholic liberalism). I was making an allusion to the DVC fans who do the same and their critics who take them to task for doing so. But again, I have not read the comments on the Nat Henthof piece.
Lastly, I am familiar with the "RadTrad" label and it's use. It was so nice for the past few weeks not to see this label used to stir up the hornets nest of "RadTrad" vs. "Us?". I think I'm an "Us" just because I'm neither Rad nor Trad. But I get sick of the whole RadTrad bashing that usually turns into just Trad bashing.
March 16, 2004 at 12:54 PM
I wonder if the seemingly lack of RadTrad vs. "fill_in_the_blank" tension (to my eyes anyway), was due to the very,very Traditional film "The Passion of Christ." I thought there seemed to be an opening between Traditionalists, whether in communion with Rome or not, and Novus Ordo Orthodox thinking Catholics to dialog. After all that's what Catholics do best, right? Diaolog. Maybe it was too much to hope for that.
March 16, 2004 at 12:59 PM
Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
WE DO! WE DO!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
WE DO! WE DO!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
WE DO! WE DO!
Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
WE DO! WE DO!
Bill H |
March 16, 2004 at 01:01 PM
Amy's definitely right about one thing:
The interest in this topic is almost exclusively academic. If one has an interest in academic history, I can see why one would bring up the topic. Otherwise, whoever brings it up, whether its to justify race hatred, or to calumniate the memory of dead priests, or invent straw "Rad Tradders" ought to keep it to themselves.
March 16, 2004 at 01:15 PM
Mr. Jerry: Ignore the Universal Ordinary Magisterium at your own peril. Your sarcasm aside, note that Holy Religion and Holy Church are not primarily concerned with political philosophy, as the focus of souls is always on what is to follow this fallen existence on earth. So whether the Social Kingship of Christ is offically recognized (yes, great monarchies of the past have done great service to Christ Our King; more recently, Salazar in Portugal bowed to the Social Kingship of Christ), or whether Christ is scoffed at, hated, and/or ignored (all current political systems, abetted by the vatican II modernists), we as loyal Catholics follow Holy Church first and foremost; and yes, She disapproves of liberal democracy, socialism, communism, and nazism precisely because these systems do not subject themselves to Christ Our King and Mary Our Queen. Catholics under these regimes thus worship and live in the catacombs. Please do carefully read the Magisterial pronouncements of Leo XIII on americanism and freemasonry. Of course, if you are not Catholic, then you wouldn't view these pronouncements as authoritative, but we Catholics do, so at the very least, you'll know where we're coming from.
Mr. Tim: As I noted in another comment, I love the term "RadTrad", even if it is a straw man erected to evade actual thought and argumentation. It shows anti-Catholics are capable of both assonance and consonance, as well as a sort of Orwellian, techno-political doublespeak. Good poets, perhaps; not so good thinkers. It's a useful red flag for illogic and just plain ill will. UIOGD,
Sulpicius Severus |
March 16, 2004 at 01:16 PM
Al is correct that Locke is the Enlightenment philosopher of choice for the American founding fathers. But Rinon is also correct: the Scottish Enlightenment (e.g., Locke) approached everything from a Presbyterian view of corrupt human nature, unlike the French Enlightenment that assumed a perfectible one (e.g., Rousseau). American politics owes more to the Scottish, European politics to the French. But one should not view the Enlightenment as a monolithic school of thought.
March 16, 2004 at 01:23 PM
As the person who coined the term RadTrad, what I had in mind was a certain complex of views exemplified by the pages of THE REMNANT, CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS, THE FATIMA CRUSADER, and allied productions: anti-Semitic, Gallophilic, pro-Confederate,anti-American, and fond of conspiracy theories. (It's all the Illuminati's fault doncha know.)Their beau ideal of a ruler is Salazar, the former dictator of Portugal, since there's no King of France available at present. The supremke contemporary example of a RadTrad writer is Solange Hertz who views electricity and even brick-making as inventions of the Devil.
Lists of supposed Jews among the early Bolshies can be found in the works of Fr. Denis Fahey, a founding father of RadTradism. I have a whole boxful of such books obtained from Catholic Treasures and Fr. Gruner's Our Lady's Book Service.
Now can we get back to the subject of current American Catholic office-holders who are pro-abortion? And what should be done about them? (Not give them awards or speaking engagements for openers.)
Sandra Miesel |
March 16, 2004 at 01:29 PM
Mr. Bill H: A-ha! I see you weigh in as one of the poet non-thinkers. Your email address admits your association with a most evil institution (SaTANFORD), so you might add:
Who harvests the stem cells for the New World Order?
Who abets the Wiccans and the gays?
YOU DO! YOU DO!
Only the Lefty Coast could spaw such an anti-Catholic "university", eh? And does the intellectual discourse run anywhere above quotations from secular popular culture? Doubtful. Praying you quickly disassociate yourself from that "school", even if they do have historically passable (at least until March) basketball teams.
[Sorry to sound out on your SaTANFORD; it's nothing personal to you, Mr. Bill H., just my animosity towards yet another modernist institution ripe for exorcism.] UIOGD,
Sulpicius Severus |
March 16, 2004 at 01:38 PM
Ms. Miesel: Lauds to you, then, on the assonance and consonance.
Based on your intricate (precise?) definition of the term, happy to hear only those adhering to the "complex of views exemplified by the pages of THE REMNANT, CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS, THE FATIMA CRUSADER, and allied productions: anti-Semitic, Gallophilic, pro-Confederate,anti-American, and fond of conspiracy theories; [those whose] beau ideal of a ruler is Salazar, the former dictator of Portugal, since there's no King of France available at present, [whose] supreme contemporary example [is] Solange Hertz who views electricity and even brick-making as inventions of the Devil [and whose] founding father is Fahey [and who read] books obtained from Catholic Treasures and Fr. Gruner's Our Lady's Book Service" are "RadTrads".
Always nice to see precision in the use of Straw Man Epithets employed in avoiding discussion of fact and use of logical argumentation. If only the rest of modernist St. Blogistan used the term as precisely as you do. UIOGD,
Sulpicius Severus |
March 16, 2004 at 01:49 PM
Suspicious Severus, you'd better go to Amy's blog and check out her warning. I'm afraid you're about to be relegated back to your catacomb. Don't forget to line it with tinfoil! If you tell me the secret password I'll send you the Church's 20th and 21st century papal encyclicals, so you can use your new leisure time to get caught up on your reading.
March 16, 2004 at 01:51 PM
I read the other thread. Wow, someone actually implied that if you don't buy into "Covenant and Mission" and it's conclusion that Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation, you are anti-semitic. As far as Kaspar, I don't think much of him. Does that make me anti-semitic, or anti-Luthern, or anti-Muslim?
Got to get to work.
March 16, 2004 at 01:55 PM
From Fr. Fahey's Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.
"The Blood that was poured out on the Cross at the hands of the official leaders of His own nation for the restoration fo the Divine Life of the world was Jewish blood. Our Lord's Sacred Heart is a human heart and He loves his own nation with a special love. We must never forget that or allow ourselves to fall victims to an attitude of hatred for the Jews as a nation. . . racial hatred is but a form of Naturalism. . . . Actuated by this spirit of charity the Apostolic See has proected this people against unjust treatment and, as it condemns every kind of hatred and jealousy between nations so in a special manner it condemns hatred of the people once chosen by God, namely that hatred commonly designated as 'Anti-Semitism.'" (p. 275)
You know, that about does it for me here.
Clearly I am failing to get across my points here. I accept some of the blame for that, but there seems to be a dogmatism here regarding a number of issues which makes it difficult for people who don't share the conventional orthodoxies (as opposed to the Catholic ones) to discuss issues with. So that's it for me. God Bless you all.
March 16, 2004 at 02:18 PM
If I haven't said it lately Sandra then I guess I'm overdue.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) |
March 16, 2004 at 02:20 PM
Of course as I TRIED to point out Jack Chick "LOVES" Catholics much the same way Fr. Felay "LOVES" Jews.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) |
March 16, 2004 at 02:21 PM
OTOH New York State has more Catholics in it then Jews yet Abortion is SOOOOO wide spread. I guess it's because we Catholics are involved in a Masonic Plot to destroy the Jewish People & Israel & help Bring about Anti-Christ.
That is if you believe Uncle Chick (which normal humans do not!).
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) |
March 16, 2004 at 02:26 PM
I was unaware that the use of humor to make an ironic point was unthinking. My apologies. So let me make it in a serious tone. While this discussion of masonic influences upon the Enlightenment and secular Jews upon Communism may be interesting from a historical perspective, it is dodging the issues of contemporary Catholicism in America that Amy would like for us to focus upon.
How we evangelize the world now depends upon our ability to apply the our critical thinking, our creativity and, above all, the Gospel, to the world we live in. It is not to retreat from it and write it off as some hopelessly degenerate place forsaken by God and irredeemably controlled by evil. So yes, I feel it necessary to maintain contact with popular culture and the secular academic world in addition to the sacraments and the magisterium. It may mean that I occasionally brush up against sinners and tax-collectors while I'm at it, but they're the ones who need to be evangelized the most.
Bill H |
March 16, 2004 at 02:49 PM
It is my understanding that the Church condemns Masonry for the following reasons:
1. She is opposed in general to secret societies. While she does not interpret Christ's "Let your yes be yes and your no be no" as forbidding all oaths, she does believe that they should not be sworn for frivolous reasons, such as to not reveal the secrets of a secret society like the Masons.
2. Masonic rituals contain a lot of mumbo-jumbo about Solomon's Temple and such that borders on blasphemy.
3. Furthermore, the Masonic rituals refer to God in a way that is more deist than Christian.
4. There have been cases in Europe and Latin America in which Masonic lodges have plotted against the Church.
These rather modest reasons are good enough for me. I don't see any requirement to believe in some sort of grand Masonic/Jewish/Illuminati conspiracy to take over the world, to believe in the disgusting pronouncements of Fr. Fahey, or to hate democracy.
Furthermore, since Suplicius seems to be an expert on the encyclicals of Leo XIII, I wonder if he has read Leo's Longinqua, , which asserts that the American Revolution came about by divine Providence, refers to "the great Washington," and even seems to approve of universal suffrage! (Alas, Leo is wrong in saying that Washington was elected by universal suffrage, but the idea of it does not seem to bother him.) I do not claim that these are magisterial statements, but it is an undoubted papal assertion that one can be a Mason (as Washington was) and still be a "great" man.
The average Freemason of today is completely harmless and well-disposed to the Church, just as the "great" Father of Our Country was.
Sandra: You do indeed rock.
Bill H.: One of my all-time favorite Simpsons moments; your posting of it brought a smile in the midst of this sordid debate. (I do think that Suplicius's "Satanford" was a little cute, however.)
James Kabala |
March 16, 2004 at 03:24 PM
March 16, 2004 at 03:26 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.