Pope John XXIII forbade Catholics to support Communism

[Axsenex]

The Cold War was very exciting & I can’t wait for the sequel… wait a minute… the multipolar world is here now.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn’t create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully. Cassius was right. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Good night, and good luck.” - Edward R. Murrow

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

And yet somehow people flee other parts of the world and face great hardship to come here.

 

[Canvas]

Venezuela and Cuba and other examples are not what I meant by peaceful pro labor parties. In the US, the right has latched onto Objectivism, popularized by writer Ayn Rand, which argues for essentially amoral capitalism without regard for the greater good. This kind of materialistic excess has also been condemned by the Church. Pope Francis has been very vocal on his condemnation of capitalism with out conscience, as were other Popes. Also, the prohibition in regards to Catholics, despite your politics, applies to specifically Communist parties that persecute the faithful and ban worship. It does not apply to non Communist labor parties, even if you personally dislike them.

 

[MPat]

In the US, the right has latched onto Objectivism,

You wouldn’t be overstating things a little?

Objectivism, popularized by writer Ayn Rand, which argues for essentially amoral capitalism without regard for the greater good. This kind of materialistic excess has also been condemned by the Church.

Sure. But various kinds of Objectivism and Socialism are not the only options.

Also, the prohibition in regards to Catholics, despite your politics, applies to specifically Communist parties that persecute the faithful and ban worship. It does not apply to non Communist labor parties, even if you personally dislike them.

No. As you can see in the encyclicals I linked, even moderate Socialism is condemned. And persecution of Church is not the only feature of Socialism that has been condemned. For example, from “Quadragesimo anno”:

• Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, you know that Our Predecessor of happy memory strongly defended the right of property against the tenets of the Socialists of his time by showing that its abolition would result, not to the advantage of the working class, but to their extreme harm.
• Wherefore the wise Pontiff declared that it is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes.
• Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.

Pope Francis has been very vocal on his condemnation of capitalism with out conscience, as were other Popes.

There is some confusion here. “Socialism” has at least two meanings: economic system (the one that, according to Marxists, is to come between “Capitalism” and “Communism”) and ideology. “Capitalism” has just one meaning - it is an economic system. Ideologies that like capitalism are going to have different names.

So, when you say that when Popes aren’t happy with “capitalism with out conscience”, it means that, by itself, it is the current state of affairs (which does not fit any ideology) that is likely to be criticised. And, um, who is perfectly happy with it? Do you think that, let’s say, Austrian School can’t think of any improvements?

 

[Canvas]

Some Popes have been critical of “socialist” movements. These are not binding doctrines. Catholics can disagree on economic policy. Communist Parties, in contrast, by decree, are illicit organizations. Pope Pius XII’s decree only applied to anti-theistic Authoritarian, Marxist-Leninist revolutionary Communist groups. To explain what i mean, i will point out that Catholics are forbidden to join Freemason groups. But they arent forbidden to join the Elks or the VFW, even if a Pope or the USCCB took a dim view of those organizations for some reason, unless there is a formal ban imposed. Many Catholics disagree with some of Pope Francis’s Encyclicals in good conscience . They are not binding, but should be considered carefully. I, btw, am not a Socialist nor an Objectivist. I am politically independant. I believe politics and business should be oriented to the common good and general welfare of society. Pretty much the opposite of the way those things are done here in the States. But i am a pragmatist too, and not an idealogue. No system man can put in to place will be without flaws. Only God can make a perfect reality.

 

[Cruciferi]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[SuperLuigi]

Could a Christian support Hillary?

Or is it better for a Christian to vote for a man who cheats on his wife with strippers and then denies it?

1. Has this even been proven?
2. Looking at their policies and platform, I don’t think a lot of Democrats really care about cheating unless a Republican does it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

In the US, the right has latched onto Objectivism, popularized by writer Ayn Rand, which argues for essentially amoral capitalism without regard for the greater good.

Well, that would certainly make you feel about your positions.

Too bad it isn’t true.

 

[abucs]

Socialism is a plague here. Even the Catholic Church has been struggling with it for decades now, especially with something called liberation theology, which is marxism infiltrated in the Church.

Pacepa in his book does also mention how Liberation Theology was a creation of the Kremlin along the lines of class warfare. He details how KGB agents would recruit people on the ground to set up seminars pushing the idea of Liberation Theology. From there they would put pressure on priests and bishops to sign up for it, not realising they were then working for the Kremlin.

He has a chapter in his book on Liberation Theology (chapter 15) and says that after Cuba the Soviets tried to ‘convert’ South America but that the mindset of the people were not in tune with the Soviets. In Medellin, Columbia the Soviets got some Left leaning bishops to push Liberation Theology under the usual cover of fighting against poverty (1968). The Soviets managed to send a bishop to the Vatican in an important position and push their message through the World Council of Churches which became a Soviet front. Through this group they managed to get one of their own elected as General Secretary of the United Nations (Emilio Castro 1985). For example he says that in the 1983 WCC General Assembly the KGB had 47 agents pushing for Castro to be general secretary of the UN.

Part of the propaganda was for South Americans to blame the United States for their poverty. The KGB also infiltrated black churches in the United States to push the message that it was the white man who was responsible for any poverty there. In the Middle East the PLO was the Soviet organisation which tied Jews to America and blamed them both for the poverty of the middle east. They had already circulated the “Elders of Zion” fabrication to whip up hatred against the Jews. The KGB also falsified Yassir Arafat’s birth certificate (he was actually born in Egypt) to make him a Palestinian patriot and persuaded him to set up an exiled government and pretend to the west that he was wanting peace. Pacepa also notes that chemicals found in Arafat’s dead body point to Russian poisoning. Pacepa also talks about the success of the Soviet Che Gevera propaganda which has made him into an icon for Leftist romantic violence and ‘resistance’. In real life he was a brutal killer who was executed in Bolivia for his crimes. Since Bolivia was an ally of the US it was another way to attack the credibility of the United states.

 

[abucs]

The propaganda against Pius XII was a way to attack the credibility of the Catholic church and forment internal division there with Left leaning Catholics believing the worse and attacking their own church under the banner of modernisation. The attacks were also meant to sow hatred in the Jewish population regarding the Catholic Church. Pacepa details the help Pope Pius XII gave to the Jews and his strong anti Nazism stance which was virtually wiped away by Soviet propaganda. The secret to successful propaganda in the west was that the information had to look like it was coming from several places which were trusted in the west to be honest and academically minded.

Once the anti Catholic piece of information got a foothold it would take on a life of its own and the more successful the Soviets were in bashing the church the easier it became to plant new anti Catholic information in the west.

Pacepa also details the jailing and SMERSHING of strong anti Nazi and anti Communist bishops in Hungary and other areas which became under Soviet control. SMERSHING meant to frame someone as a Nazi collaborator and with this charge they could remove anti Communist nationals.

In Bulgaria for example which was one of the few European countries to safeguard all their Jewish population the Soviets framed and then executed 3 regents, 22 ministers, 68 members of parliament and 8 advisers to king Boris. During the next few months another 2680 members of Bulgaria’s government were executed as Nazi war criminals and 6870 were imprisoned even though most of the leaders had been instrumental in bringing Bulgaria to the Allied side.

Pacepa mentions that prosecuters and witnesses against Catholic bishops have since come out and confessed they fabricated documents and made up testimony to frame the church officials.

He also details mass executions of Catholic clergy in the Baltic regions after the pact with Hitler at the start of WWII which gave that region to the Soviets and divided Poland between them.

 

[FiveLinden]

Is there any Church teaching opposing membership or support for fascist parties that did not oppose the Church? E.g those in Spain, Portugal, Italy etc?

 

[abucs]

Is there any Church teaching opposing membership or support for fascist parties that did not oppose the Church? E.g those in Spain, Portugal, Italy etc?

I think we have to define exactly what 'Fascism" is.

Mussolini and Gentile laid out in 1919, and subsequent years what their new brand of politics was, calling it Fascism. The Soviets I think were the first ones to call Hitler’s socialism “Fascism” as a derogatory reference to Mussolini.

Of course Mussolini and Gentile were two strongly active Marxists before realising that Soviet socialism was not going to work and so amending it to their own brand.

I think Mussolini (an avowed anti church atheist) had little time for the church except as a cultural institution that could, like everything else, be controlled by his secular state. As such I think it is inherent in his brand of socialism called fascism to be against the church as Hitler’s socialists definitely were.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I’ve never heard of Spain or Portugal having fascist governments. Cite?

 

[deMontfort]

I’ve never heard of Spain or Portugal having fascist governments. Cite?

Probably the Marxist definition of Fascism: Anything that isn’t Marxist is automatically “Fascist”.

 

[PJH_74]

Jezz, let;'s not forget the period under which these Popes made these pronouncements. The many communist states at the time declared atheism. as the national religion and were even directly hostile. Of course the Popes would make such pronouncements. Like many things in this world, Communists/Socialism and being a “Nazi” (fascism).are taken as the same and bad words to call someone you disagree with. If you really know what you are talking about, such equations are kind of laughable.

Lest you forget there was church support of Fascism because it brought order. If anything, Socialism in the sense of center left parties elected in free societies and aside from things like abortion, aren’t really all that far from what the christian message is.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

The church never endorsed fascism. The church generally doesn’t side with revolutionaries, which both fascists and communists are.

 

[abucs]

The church never endorsed fascism. The church generally doesn’t side with revolutionaries, which both fascists and communists are.

and both communism and fascism were/are anti-Church socialist revolutions.

 

[MPat]

I, btw, am not a Socialist nor an Objectivist. I am politically independant.

But i am a pragmatist too, and not an idealogue.

I guess it would be interesting to hear what you do not like about Socialism, for it looks like you didn’t list any of those things. Hopefully, that won’t be just the name “Socialism”…

Some Popes have been critical of “socialist” movements. These are not binding doctrines.

Can you actually demonstrate that they are not?

There are suspiciously many of those “criticisms” from Ordinary Magisterium…

Catholics can disagree on economic policy.

It depends on what “economic policy” is supposed to mean.

It is certainly true that Church does not specify the precise percentages for each type of tax.

But Church does make it clear that dreaming about abolition of private property is not OK.

I believe politics and business should be oriented to the common good and general welfare of society.

So, that kinda covers one basic principle of Social Doctrine of the Church (Common Good). What about others - Solidarity, Subsidiarity, Human Dignity? (See “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church” - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html - for more details.)

 

[FiveLinden]

I’ve never heard of Spain or Portugal having fascist governments. Cite?

I call dictatorships that are based on a single leader and supported by a single party that exclude all other parties, remove the right free speech and persecute opponents with state power but allow extensive private ownership of property and a largely free market ‘fascist’.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Ah.

Well, I think “authoritarian” would be better used. Fascist has a pretty strict definition.

Pinochet, Franco, etc. may have been authoritarian but they were a far cry from fascists.