RC Democrat and Jewish Democrat Conspire to Infiltrate & Fracture RC Church

[roo_ster]

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

A newly leaked email shows Hillary Clinton’s current campaign chairman John Podesta and a Left-wing activist casually discussing fomenting “revolution” in the Catholic Church.

“There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church,” Sandy Newman, president and founder of the progressive nonprofit Voices for Progress, writes to Podesta in an email titled “opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing.”

Newman, who is Jewish, admits he does not know much about the Catholic Church and isn’t volunteering personally to subvert Catholic teachings. “Even if the idea isn’t crazy, I don’t qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would ‘plant the seeds of the revolution,’ or who would plant them.”

In response, Podesta assures Newman to rest easy for he and his progressive pals have already created organizations explicitly designed to infiltrate the Catholic Church with progressive ideology, though he cautions that the time may not be right for full revolution — just yet.

“We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United...."

========================

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/democrats-conspiracy-the-catholic-church/

CACG was founded in 2005.

This is chilling and infuriating — though I suppose not surprising. It’s simply that now it’s undeniable. It shows that at the senior level of the Democratic Party’s brain trust, a Clinton political operative — a Catholic! — created front groups specifically to undermine the authority of the Catholic bishops, and to separate the bishops from the people, as well as to secretly undermine Catholic teaching to make it more friendly to the Democratic Party’s agenda. Podesta ought to be excommunicated.

So now we know what’s coming under a Hillary Clinton presidency: a war on the Catholic Church and any other church that stands in the way of progressives in power.

What Podesta confesses to doing here is working quietly to organize people to take advantage of a political moment to spark a revolution within the church. So what if he was not successful at it! The point is, John Podesta and his comrades are the kind of people who think it’s okay to burrow within an American religion and undermine its leadership for the sake of gaining political power.

And as for people who think the conclusion I draw for the future based on this are overwrought, I refer you to the Law of Merited Impossibility: It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.

===============

Sweet.  Am I the only one who recalls how commies infiltrated the churches in the USSR and the PRC? 

But, to show you just what sort of utterly worthless hump of a  conservative Rod Dreher (author of second linked piece) is, remember that he won't vote for Trump because Trump said, "pussy" on camera and Trump offends his delicate sensibilities.  *let's not go there*, indeed.

Rod, contemplating Trump:

[AJ Dual]

LOL...

I'm more amused by the fact Podesta and Co. are unaware it's already happening organically within the RC Church, bottom up since at least the 60's/70's, and now top-down with Pope Francis.  And that RC's are mainly all "cafeteria" these days and vote/identify far more based on socioeconomics and geography etc. than they do Catechism.

The only thing of note I see here is that the usual Leftist absolutism and demands for 100% fealty to every last plank in the ideology is on display. A more pragmatic Leftist might actually realize that the RC Church already espouses damn well near 75% of their platform on issues of politics and economics... but they're unable to let the church's mostly lip-service (in actual net results) positions on birth control and abortion go.

[Perd Hapley]

LOL...

I'm more amused by the fact Podesta and Co. are unaware it's already happening organically within the RC Church, bottom up since at least the 60's/70's, and now top-down with Pope Francis.

You think it was organic? Just asking, since there's no need to assume Podesta & Co. have been the only saboteurs. American Catholics have long been Democrats, and the Democratic Party is not exactly new at being evil.

[De Selby]

You think it was organic? Just asking, since there's no need to assume Podesta & Co. have been the only saboteurs. American Catholics have long been Democrats, and the Democratic Party is not exactly new at being evil.

Ahhh, nothing like a bit of anti Catholic bias to help split up winning conservative coalitions

[Perd Hapley]

Are you saying my remark was somehow anti-Catholic? 

[De Selby]

Are you saying my remark was somehow anti-Catholic? 

Yes.  There's a long running meme in minority churches in America that somehow because the biggest number of Christians there are Catholic, they must be in on the Kennedy conspiracy to feed the poor in contravention of Jesus's teachings, which according to some "christians" are rooted in low taxes and heavy penalties for crime.

[De Selby]

LOL...

I'm more amused by the fact Podesta and Co. are unaware it's already happening organically within the RC Church, bottom up since at least the 60's/70's, and now top-down with Pope Francis.  And that RC's are mainly all "cafeteria" these days and vote/identify far more based on socioeconomics and geography etc. than they do Catechism.

The only thing of note I see here is that the usual Leftist absolutism and demands for 100% fealty to every last plank in the ideology is on display. A more pragmatic Leftist might actually realize that the RC Church already espouses damn well near 75% of their platform on issues of politics and economics... but they're unable to let the church's mostly lip-service (in actual net results) positions on birth control and abortion go.

Having just seen this, I have to say:

Calling Pope Francis a "cafeteria catholic" belies so much ignorance of Catholic teaching it basically discredits anything else you might say about Catholics.

News flash:  the catechism isn't written around preserving wealth for rich people or avoiding taxes.  Feeding the poor, alternatively, is a big part of it and the bible.  I grow tired of this clownish obsession in American Christianity with 19th century British economics, as if Adam Smith wrote the bible.

I swear that in a 100 years at the current rate the apocalypse of St John will be replaced by the wealth of nations in most American Protestant versions of the bible.

Edited to add:  roo Sters point in the first post is spot on regardless, it's just silly to suggest there's nothing for Billary to infiltrate.

[Perd Hapley]

Maybe try responding to people based on what they say; not on some conspiracy theory, or Catholic-hatred you think they subscribe to. And while my failure to agree with every teaching of the RC church does not constitute anti-Catholic bias, you clearly have hang-ups about non-RC Christians, and those that emphasize the Bible's support for small-government viewpoints. Ahhh, nothing like projection. 

[De Selby]

Maybe try responding to people based on what they say; not on some conspiracy theory, or Catholic-hatred you think they subscribe to. And while my failure to agree with every teaching of the RC church does not constitute anti-Catholic bias, you clearly have hang-ups about non-RC Christians, and those that emphasize the Bible's support for small-government viewpoints. Ahhh, nothing like projection. 

If many American Christians were to be true to themselves, they'd be Mormons.  The biblical sophistry that you have to engage in to get a bible that supports American conservative style government is no doubt largely responsible for the growth in the largest non-Christian religion in the US.

[Perd Hapley]

 I grow tired of this clownish obsession in American Christianity with 19th century British economics, as if Adam Smith wrote the bible.

Sadly, American Christians do not gauge our religious or political views by whether they tire ex-pat Muslims. Also, The Wealth of Nations was published in the 18th century.

[De Selby]

Sadly, American Christians do not gauge our religious or political views by whether they tire ex-pat Muslims. Also, The Wealth of Nations was published in the 18th century.

Like I said - why struggle with that bible that has all sorts of inconvenient stuff for you when you could just be Mormon, at which point American conservative beliefs are truly holy.

[Perd Hapley]

If many American Christians were to be true to themselves, they'd be Mormons.  The biblical sophistry that you have to engage in to get a bible that supports American conservative style government is no doubt largely responsible for the growth in the largest non-Christian religion in the US.

That just doesn't make any sense.

[Perd Hapley]

Like I said - why struggle with that bible that has all sorts of inconvenient stuff for you when you could just Mormon, at which point American conservative beliefs are truly holy.

Inconvenient stuff? Such as?

[De Selby]

Inconvenient stuff? Such as?

Having to define what it really means for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle, as if that's remotely ambiguous, along with a host of things that favour regulation of wealth and behaviour

[De Selby]

That just doesn't make any sense.

Mormon religion is exactly what the scriptures and church traditions would look like if you rewrote the bible to match American culture.  I think thats a pretty clear way of saying it.

That's also why Mormonism took hold in America.  It promised a new scripture that matched American values and economics.  There's always a ready audience for that sort of thing, but then again there are always plenty who will just see what they want to see in their old bibles.

[Perd Hapley]

Mormon religion is exactly what the scriptures and church traditions would look like if you rewrote the bible to match American culture.  I think thats a pretty clear way of saying it.

That's also why Mormonism took hold in America.  It promised a new scripture that matched American values and economics.

I guess that explains why they were violently opposed by Americans, and had to relocate to a desert.

Having to define what it really means for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle, as if that's remotely ambiguous, along with a host of things that favour regulation of wealth and behaviour

So what do you think Christ meant by the camel/needle reference, and how has it been redefined? Also, which passages in the Bible favor (or favour) regulation of wealth and behaviour, and are they more numerous than the passages that support individual, political liberty?

[roo_ster]

Some interesting tangential points being made.

1. I think DS needs to explicate a bit on some of his assertions, such that they can be more readily understood/critiqued.  I think elaboration of how Mormonism is the true expression of American Christianity will be entertaining.  I also detect a vacuum of understanding of non-RC American Christianity that seems to be filled with the usual, popular secular progressive prejudices.

2. It is absurd to mark fistful's comment as anti-RC.  90% of it is verifiable fact and only a small bit is opinion.  (That opinion being that slavery, systemic gov't discrimination, and killing unborn children is evil.)

3. DS is very much correct, IMO, regarding much of American Christianity as now-focused and making contemporary political positions and issues part of its creed.  But DS only gets it half right, when he points out how some American churches have become adjuncts to the GOP and various flavors of neoconnery.  The half he misses are the mainline prot denominations (and some sub-sets of the RC) that have made the social gospel the sum total of Christianity.  Feed the poor, agitate politically for them, and you are on the side of SJWesus.  Another part of that are the black churches and their perennial agitation in favor of their own political and material interests. 

Both sorts are cross-wise with Augustine & Two Kingdoms theology.

=============================

Getting back the the OP, what is heinous is the meddling in the RC Church by political facitons and the attempt to fracture the relationship between its hierarchy and the parishioners.  I think many of the commentators to the article are correct that such agitation ought to result in Podesta's excommunication.  But we know that will not happen, because much of the American RC church has already been co-opted by marxism and progressivism.  We know this because RC policritters who espouse views directly counter to bedrock RC doctrine are not disciplined.

[KD5NRH]

I guess that explains why they were violently opposed by Americans, and had to relocate to a desert.

That was because they never bring enough deviled eggs to the potlucks.

[Perd Hapley]

We could go back and forth all day, dredging up scripture that supports one politics or another. For example:

For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.

Is that the Bible rebuking a lazy dependence on hand-outs, or does it mean government should regulate behavior by making sure that no one tries to eat w/o doing some work first? Or both?

Or, given DeSelby's penchant for defending the Roman church against the lowly, Protestant rabble, perhaps we should look into all those verses that Catholics find inconvenient. Thanks to the Reformation, we have a whole literature on the subject. Even a faithful Catholic like Erasmus managed to find a single word in the gospel of Matthew, which Rome could not abide.

Every flavor of Christianity struggles with some part of scripture. And everybody likes to find support for their politics where it can't really be found. Non-RC Christianity has its problems, but conservative politics is not exactly high on that list.

[Marnoot]

Mormon religion is exactly what the scriptures and church traditions would look like if you rewrote the bible to match American culture.  I think thats a pretty clear way of saying it.

That's also why Mormonism took hold in America.  It promised a new scripture that matched American values and economics.  There's always a ready audience for that sort of thing, but then again there are always plenty who will just see what they want to see in their old bibles.

Uhhh, no. The Book of Mormon teachings and other relevant Mormon doctrine on caring for the welfare of the poor and such are no different than what is taught in the Bible. Mormons believe in the Bible as well, and all it teaches on the subject. Certainly culturally, American Mormons are largely financially conservative, but there are really no doctrinal issues that would prevent a faithful Mormon from also being a member of his local Communist chapter, for instance.

Check out these "screw the poor" teachings from the Book of Mormon:

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

 17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

 18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

 . . .

22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

 23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world.

Many financially-liberal Mormons interpret passages like the above, and the associated teachings in the Bible, as justifying tax-funded welfare. Many financially-conservative Mormons interpret it as not, but referring only to personal charitable giving. So in other words, pretty much the same split found between financially-conservative mainstream Christians, and financially-liberal ones.

[roo_ster]

Uhhh, no. The Book of Mormon teachings and other relevant Mormon doctrine on caring for the welfare of the poor and such are no different than what is taught in the Bible. Mormons believe in the Bible as well, and all it teaches on the subject. Certainly culturally, American Mormons are largely financially conservative, but there are really no doctrinal issues that would prevent a faithful Mormon from also being a member of his local Communist chapter, for instance.

Check out these "screw the poor" teachings from the Book of Mormon:
Many financially-liberal Mormons interpret passages like the above, and the associated teachings in the Bible, as justifying tax-funded welfare. Many financially-conservative Mormons interpret it as not, but referring only to personal charitable giving. So in other words, pretty much the same split found between financially-conservative mainstream Christians, and financially-liberal ones.

"Will you not stand still! I need a whipping boy, here, and you are NOT cooperating!"

[KD5NRH]

Uhhh, no. The Book of Mormon teachings and other relevant Mormon doctrine on caring for the welfare of the poor and such are no different than what is taught in the Bible.

I'm still trying to find the "one dozen deviled eggs will be plenty for a hundred people" passage.

[Fitz]

I've been looking for the part where jesus commanded his followers to surrender their property/money to the government for redistribution...

can anyone help me find it?

[zxcvbob]

That was because they never bring enough deviled eggs to the potlucks.

Truth!

[Marnoot]

Deviled eggs are appropriately named and are an abomination.