"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.
ImQuiet said:
That’s an allusion, not a dedication, which is a very important distinction to make. The passage itself strikes me a rather tongue in cheek.
If he was going to dedicate the book to Satan, he did a spectacularly bad job of it, since Lucifer doesn’t appear anywhere else in the book.
Click to expand...
OK, this is absolutely ridiculous. Author dedicate books to people all the time, who are not mentioned in their book at all

G.K. Chesterton dedicated his book “Orthodoxy” to his mother. Authors often dedicate their books to their friends, family, Saints and/or God without mentioning them at all in their books.

This is not uncommon. The fact he dedicated his book to the devil PROVES that his worldview was NOT one that could be matched up with the Catholic Church.

If you have NOT watched this documentary, I suggest you watch it. Then feel free to pick it apart if you like. But challenge you to watch it.

You can rent it on-demand here http://alinskyfilm.com or on Vimeo.
 
StudentMI said:
40.png
phil19034:
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.
Click to expand...
If you read her book Therese: A Life of Therese of Lisieux (from 1960), she briefly discusses how St. Therese brought her away from those ideologies. She freely admits that she was employed by the Communists after her baptism. She also admits that she wrote the book for many members of Catholic Workers who were not Catholic and some were even atheists.

Her conversion away from those ideologies was slow, however, she eventually became a Distributist.

 
Last edited:
Yes. She called herself an anarchist and continued to recommend such anarchist writers as Kropotkin and Proudhon, among others, throughout her life. However her definition of anarchism was odd to say the least. She was not doctrinaire. Her anarchism seemed to be more based on the wrongs done by government and her pacifism. I have no doubt she was sincere, even if I disagree on particulars. She was definitely a distributist.
 
StudentMI said:
She called herself an anarchist
Click to expand...
I don’t think I would call her an “anarchist.” In her younger years, maybe. But I think she was more of a fighter during her whole life.

If there was injustice, she would fight it. But she would not go against justice.

And in her later years, she surely would not be in favor of bringing the world (or country or city) to absolute anarchy. She would have viewed that as anti-Catholic.
 
Oh but she called herself an anarchist throughout her life. She said Maurin came to her with St Francis in one hand and Kropotkin in the other. I can find this article she wrote on what anarchism meant to her that was written after she became Catholic.
 
StudentMI said:
Oh but she called herself an anarchist throughout her life. She said Maurin came to her with St Francis in one hand and Kropotkin in the other. I can find this article she wrote on what anarchism meant to her that was written after she became Catholic.
Click to expand...
Please. However, my feeling is that she said that early and not later. Her views evolved over her 53 years as a Catholic.
  • She was baptized in 1927 (she was born in 1897), died in 1980.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t read this entire thread but can assure you that what postings I did read clearly shows many have divided themselves against each other by political ideology.
 
StudentMI said:
anarchism
Click to expand...
StudentMI said:
Here’s the main article I was referencing.

Catholic Worker Movement

Here’s one from 1970 saying they are anarchists and pacifists.

Catholic Worker Movement
Click to expand...
Got it. Thanks.

OK, what she was doing was using the less known use of the word. Most of us view the word based on the British definitions. However, I think she often used it with a more obscure American definition of the word.

The Oxford Dictionary defines it slightly differently for both British English & American English
UK: ANARCHISM | Definition of ANARCHISM by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of ANARCHISM
US: ANARCHISM English Definition and Meaning | Lexico.com

Again, my view is that she often used the obscure American definition, which is one that most people would not use.
 
Last edited:
Very true. Just my personal opinion but I think she used the word because she just couldn’t see force as being justified. It went against her conscience. Luckily she stayed in the Church. Someone like Ammon Hennacy if I remember right left the Church over what he saw as a contradiction between the seeming pacifism of the Sermon on the Mount and Church teaching on the legitimacy of government. Like Day, I think Hennacy and Maurin were sincere, but ultimately mistaken in their beliefs about a stateless society.
 
something tells me that Day would have been content with a Church ran state.
 
Possibly. We’ll have to ask her some day. I’d love to discuss politics with her and Maurin. Though at that point we’ll be in Heaven and far too joyful to care about such things.

I’m currently working my way through Peter Maurin’s reading list and it’s an interesting collection of works. You have some pure anarchist works like Fields, Factories and Workshops by Kropotkin along with minarchist ones like Our Enemy The State by Nock, then books promoting the New Deal like Fire on the Earth which even cites the Catholic Worker by name. It’s interesting. An education in itself.
 
JoeFreedom said:
Let me ask you this? How much do you know about Saul Alinsky? Have you watched the movie? It’s shown on EWTN. You know, that highly political network that has nothing to do with Catholicism…
Click to expand...
Just so you know: you lost me right there.

I agree: EWTN has become highly political in too many areas.

But to state that EWTN has nothing to do with Catholicism is simply bonkers.
 
Socialism, Liberalism, Modernism, Luciferianism, Satanism, Communism, Marxism, Masonry-ism.

They’ve the same goal – to destroy Christianity…
 
Socialism, Liberalism, Modernism, Luciferianism, Satanism, Communism, Marxism, Masonry-ism.

They’ve the same goal – to destroy Christianity…
fide said:
Is that sarcasm, or are you being simple?
Click to expand...
Neither… Is that sarcasm or are you ill-informed?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top