Because the Vatican made a pact with the communists.  

More like made a pact with the Devil himself. Basically Vatican II let all the poisinous vapors of modernism into the cathedral. But yes it is shocking that many priests speak of Marxism in a good light, and sickening as well. Of course the pulpit has long been used by priests as a political lectern, starting with priests comparing the Negroes in the inner-city as the "good Samaritan."

The article linked in the OP is pretty ho-hum  --  about 30 years late, really,
but the first 3 comments are worth reading:



schmenz • 4 days ago

Your article is excellent but I'm afraid you're a little late to this
party. The late, great Scottish journalist Hamish Fraser was writing
about the "Rome-Moscow Agreement" in the late 1970s already. And Father
Floridi wrote an entire book on the subject not long after that. Jean
Madiran was also wriging about it at that time, as were many others. But
that is not said to minimize the importance of what you have done,
which is to introduce this unsavory subject to a new audience who may
not have heard about it.

As bad as the Metz agreement was/is there is another such agreement
that was arranged at about the same time, and that was the agreement
between the Vatican and Judaism that has effectively stifled any just
criticism of the predations inflicted by these people against those
living under their despotic thumb in Palestine. As a further insult the
Vatican - in their disastrously stupid move to "recognize" the state of
Israel (something no previous Pope would have even dreamed of doing) -
was forced to grovel at the feet of Judaism and, incredibly, issue
public "apologies" to the Jєωs for the supposed crimes committed against
them by Catholics, an apology the troubled John Paul II happily made to
them, to the utter scandal of the Catholic and non-Catholic world. And
what did the Catholics receive in return for this humiliation? Nothing.

This explains the action of John Paul II and Benedict vis-a-vis the
Jєωs, which completely stops any charitable attempts to lead them out of
their blindness and into the Church, and it explains these lunatic
visits to ѕуηαgσgυєs and wailing walls, which are nothing but supreme
insults to Our Lord. This Vatican/Jєωιѕн Agreement must be openly
discussed and finally repudiated, for the good of the souls of the Jєωs
as well as the Catholics. And that repudiation would have to include a
severing of diplomatic relations between their "state" and the Church.
St Pius X, were he alive today, would condemn any such moves to cozy up
to a state founded upon the principle of a total rejection of Jesus
Christ. Indeed his words to Zionist guru Theodore Herzl shold be
required reading in the Vatican.

The Church needs to cease making agreements that silence and frustrate her apostolic mission.
8
•
Reply
•
Share ›

    Avatar
    Jack Gordon schmenz • 3 days ago

    I know we will always have the poor with us, but do we also have to expect to always have the antisemites with us?
    3 1
    •
    Reply
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        schmenz Jack Gordon • 2 days ago

        The usual "one size fits all" accusation, used here by Mr Gordon, thrown at anyone who points out some of the horrors that are occurring in Palestine is growing more stale with each repeated use. It is also getting quite comical.

        But it makes me wonder: since the Palestinians are also of the semitic race, does their persecution by the Israelis make the Israelis antisemitic, too?
        2
        •
        Reply
        •
        Share ›

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Because the Vatican made a pact with the communists.  

More like made a pact with the Devil himself. [....] But yes it is shocking that many priests speak of Marxism in a good light, and sickening as well.

Perhaps only preVatican-II Catholics could personally remember the grim geopolitical context:

Vatican II made international news on 11 October 1962, as that council was formally opened by Pope John XXIII.

Nuclear intermediate-range ballistic missiles, placed in Cuba under U.S.S.R. command, made international news on 22 October 1962, as U.S. Pres. John Kennedy announced the alarming discovery, in a live evening speech on all U.S. t.v. networks.  Cuban missile sites not already fully operational were being actively readied for operation.

So it happened that the one-&-only Catholic President of the U.S. announced to the world that, in effect, the country he was sworn to defend might be days or even hours from full-scale nuclear war against the U.S.S.R.: the world's Marxist-communist superpower.

For many decades after the U.S.A. was founded, many Protestants openly expressed fears that electing a Catholic to the presidency would cause the U.S.A. to be controlled from the Vatican.  Hmmm.  If nuclear war started with Cuba, maybe the Soviets would launch a nuke at the Vatican, just in case those paranoid Protestants were right?  How much clearer could an object-lesson be for the Vatican and the world-wide Church, about the evils of communism?

No one in the U.S. leadership would learn for many years that the top Soviet commanders in Cuba had been authorized in advance, under certaiin circuмstances, to launch their missiles--which could hit most of the U.S. Southeast--without further approval from the Kremlin.  (That perilous situation was made public during a 30-somethingth-anniversary "Cuban Missile Crisis" international historical conference hosted in Miami in the 1990s--or perhaps 2002.)