"A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING" Sunday May 17 at 1:30 PM EDT on EWTN (Television): Where did political correctness, gender conflict, gender confusion, Cu

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brother, (or sister, I don’t know) are you serious? Yeah, I’m still awake but this is my last post. From my first post, I intentionally referred to Alinsky’s acknowledging satan, and I agreed with you from the start that it wasn’t a dedication.
Secondly, my posting in this thread was never to discuss Alinsky at length but to point out that Socialism and Catholicism are incompatible, as Socialism has been condemned by pope after pope after pope and Church teaching after teaching.
I’m beginning to think that you are arguing for the sake of it.
Confused.
Goodnight.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
Brother, (or sister, I don’t know) are you serious? Yeah, I’m still awake but this is my last post. From my first post, I intentionally referred to Alinsky’s acknowledging satan, and I agreed with you from the start that it wasn’t a dedication .
Click to expand...
Perhaps that got lost in translation. If so, that’s probably my fault.
sealabeag said:
Secondly, my posting in this thread was never to discuss Alinsky at length but to point out that Socialism and Catholicism are incompatible, as Socialism has been condemned by pope after pope after pope and Church teaching after teaching.
Click to expand...
Which you haven’t done. I see no reason yet as to why I can’t be a socialist and a Catholic.
 
I was looking for motives - why? What is the reason why you wanted to make two sides (for simplicity, Alensky v. Trump) to be equivalent (“balanced”) but why? It appears you favor Alensky - why?
 
fide said:
I was looking for motives - why? What is the reason why you wanted to make two sides (for simplicity, Alensky v. Trump) to be equivalent (“balanced”) but why? It appears you favor Alensky - why?
Click to expand...
Don’t you think that political debate should be fair and balanced? I’m not sure exactly where you want to go with this. If someone berates a political group for using what they claim are underhand tactics, then surely you understand that it’s right and proper (and expected) for it to be pointed out that the opposing group is doing exaxtly the same.

Really, what else do you expect?
 
ImQuiet said:
40.png
JoeFreedom:
Stop with the deflection.
Click to expand...
It’s not deflection, it’s distinction. People make literary allusions to Satan all the time.
Click to expand...
Really? What complimentary literary acknowledgements do you know of? I’d love some examples.
 
27lw said:
Really? What complimentary literary acknowledgements do you know of? I’d love some examples.
Click to expand...
Besides Paradise Lost I can’t think of many that use him as a literary device in a neutral way. Proudhon included a hymn to the devil in a work of his. One reason among many his works were on the Index.
 
Last edited:
27lw said:
40.png
ImQuiet:
40.png
JoeFreedom:
Stop with the deflection.
Click to expand...
It’s not deflection, it’s distinction. People make literary allusions to Satan all the time.
Click to expand...
Really? What complimentary literary acknowledgements do you know of? I’d love some examples.
Click to expand...
Some I’ve read (and listened to): Symphony for the devil, a lot of books by Stephen King, The Mysterious Stranger (Twain), Sinbad, Moby Dick…there must be literally thousands.
 
As I’ve tried to explain before, tactics in themselves may be good or bad. My posts #118 and #120 on this thread were attempts to explain this. They were not clarifying to you? - But if the intention - the moral “end” or purpose - is evil in itself, then the tactics are merely steps toward that evil end. THAT is my concern:
Not the means, per se, but the end. The end - the intention or purpose that drove Alensky in his “community organizing” was evil, not good. The video that this thread promotes convinced me firmly of that conclusion. So I continue to exhort you, to stop dealing with mere means that can be good or evil, and look to his end purpose.

If you have done your due diligence to find his “vision” - to what he wanted to lead the world, and you are “all in” with that dystopia, then you are being consistent, but are gravely misled and are, like him, seeking to mislead others. The godless “city of man”, that exalts man in contempt of God, is doomed to destruction.
 
fide said:
As I’ve tried to explain before, tactics in themselves may be good or bad. My posts #118 and #120 on this thread were attempts to explain this. They were not clarifying to you? - But if the intention - the moral “end” or purpose - is evil in itself, then the tactics are merely steps toward that evil end. THAT is my concern:
Not the means, per se, but the end. The end - the intention or purpose that drove Alensky in his “community organizing” was evil, not good. The video that this thread promotes convinced me firmly of that conclusion. So I continue to exhort you, to stop dealing with mere means that can be good or evil, and look to his end purpose.

If you have done your due diligence to find his “vision” - to what he wanted to lead the world, and you are “all in” with that dystopia, then you are being consistent, but are gravely misled and are, like him, seeking to mislead others. The godless “city of man”, that exalts man in contempt of God, is doomed to destruction.
Click to expand...
You are having a one sided discussion here. I haven’t discussed Alensky’s aims or whether what he did was morally acceptable or politically expedient or not. I’m actually not up to speed with what he actually did. And I’m not actually interested in having that discussion. My only aim, which I have already explained more than once, is to point out the hypocrisy of those who decry his tactics when they are being used by what could be considered his political opposites. Nothing more.

I could care less whether you think Alinsky’s politcal aims were immoral or not. You should discuss that with someone who does care.
 
I find it strange that you chose to be on a CATHOLIC forum, which I suspect would hint by its name that morals are typically considered of great importance. And you have no interest in morality? Is CA is coin-flip of a decision on your part, to be here rather than “AMA” (amorals anonymous)? [that was meant to be a joke]

But seriously, I don’t believe that any living human being can actually not care about morality. In the depths, in the center of the human heart, is created a place - a space - that can be filled only with the holy and eternal goodness of God. That space cannot be filled otherwise, nor can the person find happiness, or even his own self, otherwise. Any who seek, will find. Seek! You can find, if you seek.
 
fide said:
I find it strange that you chose to be on a CATHOLIC forum, which I suspect would hint by its name that morals are typically considered of great importance. And you have no interest in morality? Is CA is coin-flip of a decision on your part, to be here rather than “AMA” (amorals anonymous)? [that was meant to be a joke]

But seriously, I don’t believe that any living human being can actually not care about morality. In the depths, in the center of the human heart, is created a place - a space - that can be filled only with the holy and eternal goodness of God. That space cannot be filled otherwise, nor can the person find happiness, or even his own self, otherwise. Any who seek, will find. Seek! You can find, if you seek.
Click to expand...
Really, fide. You must actually read what I write. I said I had no interest in Alinsky’s details. Hence no interest in the morality of what Alinsky was meant to or meant not to have done. I was only interested in the discussion of the political tactics.

Now can we draw this to a close please.
 
40.png
Socialism - A Selection of Papal Quotes and Church Teaching Social Justice
I decided to create this post due to a conversation in another thread, where the question was raised if one can be both Catholic and Socialist/Marxist/Communist. I believe it to be very clear that the answer to the above question is the negative, however it may be helpful to lay out some evidence for this claim. (This post may be very long as it will include extensive quotation and excerpts, etc.) The first port of call will be “Rerum Novarum”, Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on capital and labo…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Not getting into that argument. ✌️ Post was posted to lay out Church teaching on Socialism, not for an argument on Socialism vs Communism vs Marxism.
 
Maybe look for a thread - or create one - on secular political tactics? That way there would be no doubts about the boundaries of your concern.
Consider this dialog closed, as you wish.
 
ImQuiet said:
Well, here I am, Socialist and Catholic. Lightning hasn’t struck me down yet. Perhaps someone should tell Dorothy Day to stop being echoing Marxist sentiments, she can’t be a Catholic.
Click to expand...
Dorothy Day USED to be a socialist/marxist before she became Catholic. Once she became Catholic, she eventually renounced Communism after she eventually learned why Catholicism & Marxism are not compatible.

If you read Dorothy Day’s book, Therese: A Life of Therese of Lisieux (copyrighted in 1960), there are a few places where she talks about how she USED to be socialist/marxist (esp in the Preface).

God Bless
 
Last edited:
ImQuiet said:
Perhaps someone should tell Dorothy Day to stop being echoing Marxist sentiments, she can’t be a Catholic.
Click to expand...
No offense but that quote shows you know little about Dorothy Day. Or Peter Maurin.
 
phil19034 said:
Dorothy Day USED to be a socialist/marxist before she became Catholic. Once she became Catholic, she eventually renounced Communism after she eventually learned why Catholicism & Marxism are not compatible.
Click to expand...
No! She wavered between socialism and anarchism. She was a member of the IWW which promoted syndicalism. She wasn’t a doctrinaire Marxist. Even Bakunin, an anarchist, accepted Marx’s economic analysis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top