Author Topic: Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel  (Read 10975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4429
  • Reputation: +4003/-1317
  • Gender: Male
Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
« on: May 02, 2013, 07:51:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Earlier in the week, some mention was made about the pro-Dorothy Day sermon given in St. Paul, MN.

    Having never really studied Dorothy Day, and only heard her name referenced within the context of "social work," I was in no position to render an opinion on the matter.

    I still am not.

    But I remember the impression left on me was to think it s "curious" subject, especially so at a time when we all have our antennae up, looking for hints of modernism seeping into the SSPX.

    Because of that, I went online, and briefly tried to find the best "pro" and "con" articles about Dorothy day.

    I am posting both of them here in succession.

    Not being qualified to opine on the matter, I leave the comments to those better informed than I.

    But for the sake of maintaining a higher caliber conversation, please do not comment until/unless you have read both articles in entirety.

    Pax tecum,

    Sean Johnson
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4429
    • Reputation: +4003/-1317
    • Gender: Male
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #1 on: May 02, 2013, 07:52:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Article Critical of Dorothy Day:


    The Catholic Communizer Dorothy Day.

     
    Vic Biorseth, Friday, December 2, 2011
     http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com


     
    The Catholic Communizer Dorothy Day’s life work involved Marxist Community Organizing for future revolution, both in American culture and in Catholic culture, from within America and from within Catholicism.
     
    The mental image of a thoroughly Communist Dorothy Day, who remained committed to Marxist notions of the overthrow of government, might be shocking to a lot of Catholics. But even after her conversion to Catholicism, she maintained her Communist and anarchist views, promoted them, and brought them into the Church Christ founded.
     
    This is all based on a new book I just read; The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980) A Critical Analysis, by Dr. Carol Byrne; I recommend it highly, and I have added it to the Reference Material for this website.
     
    While reading this book I had an epiphany regarding a question I have wrestled with before, which is the question of whether Marxism and its utopian ideal is predominantly evil, or predominantly stupid. This was addressed most recently in Evil and Nonsense page back in October. I had then felt that the leaders of Marxist movements – Lenin, Mao, Fidel, etc., and Marx himself – were infected with evil genius, and that only their useful idiot underlings suffered from varying degrees of sheer stupidity, blended with and/or manipulated by evil genius.
     
    But what Dr. Byrne’s book showed me is that the leaders and instigators of Communist revolution of societies could be just plain stupid, even as they are seen to be somehow brilliant, by themselves and by others. This made me go back and re-read some other authors, to see if Lenin himself didn’t do the same things, although on a different scale, than Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin did, repeatedly – failure after failure after failure.
     
    Another sort of epiphany brought to me by this book involves the relationship between Communism and Anarchy, which I had not correctly understood before reading it. Communism as defined by Marx is a hare-brained socio-economic system that cannot possibly work, does not exist, has never existed and is quite impossible. When brought into existence, it cannot possibly survive in the form described by Marx for very long. It must transform into something else, lest all members either starve to death or turn into cannibals.
     
    But I had thought that anarchy is something else – only after reading this book did I understand that anarchy is, in fact, the state of Marx’s Communism. It is a stateless, classless, government-less, law-less, hierarchy-less, private-property-less, authority-less collectivist socio-economic order, based on the commune and communal living. The difference between an anarchist and a would-be Communist is that the anarchist wants the state of Communism right now, and the would-be Communist wants to move through stages of Socialism to eventually arrive at Communism.
     
    My previous understanding of anarchy was of a black flag, and the motto Rape, Pillage, Plunder and Burn. Might makes right. The biggest bully or the most powerful gang rules the community. Simple barbarism, and barbaric rule. Open, outright, lawless piracy.
     
    But what the anarchists associated with Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, and what indeed Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin themselves sought to accomplish was to move their Catholic Worker Movement communal cells right straight into the state of Communism (or anarchy) without benefit of Marx’s intervening evolutionary stepping stone of Socialism – the so-called Dictatorship of the Proletariat– which was supposed to “perfect” mankind by changing his nature and remaking him into a new image of non-authoritarian man ready to accept living peacefully as a happy worker in the Communist state.
     
    My previous vision of anarchy, i.e., utter barbarity, is what the “commune,” unless it is bailed-out by some authority, must ultimately descend into when it economically fails – and they always, always, economically fail.
     
    Permit me to continue this digression from the Catholic Communizers Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin to address my stupidity epiphany, because I think the utter stupidity of Marxism really needs to be addressed at every opportunity. The Evil and Nonsense page may not have been enough.
     
    A long time ago I saw a movie about the life of Woody Guthrie, the famous folk singer who became famous as the Troubadour of the Dust Bowl. I don’t remember the name of the movie, or the names of the actors, or much about it, except one small scene that somehow stuck in my memory. Woody Guthrie had known and witnessed hardship and poverty. In this scene, Woody was invited into a sumptuous home, and was gazing at all the finery while being entertained by his hostess, a lovely young lady who lived in this seeming luxury. And he was moved to ask his hostess “Don’t you feel guilty?”
     
    This, and this alone, is what stuck in my memory about this whole movie. Woody Guthrie had been convinced of the truth of the Property Is Theft Marxist stupidity that we spoke of in the Fatal False Premises page. He actually, truthfully believed that the simple fact that this young lady lived in a nice house with nice furnishings actually caused someone somewhere to be in poverty. And he believed it so fervently that he caused her to begin to believe it, and to feel guilty about it.
     
    This is not just an isolated instance; this feeling, this emotion, this stupidity, is all around us. The super-rich, uber-bourgeois Beatles put this stupidity to music, when they sang “Imagine no possessions – I wonder if you can.” Yet, most of us probably could not imagine any filthy rich Beatle without any possessions, and in all probability, neither could they. They’re not even smart enough to recognize the open hypocrisy in their own lyrics, and neither are most of their fans.
     
    Again, property is not theft; property is merely property. Violation of the right to private property is theft. So someone who owns something – say, a pair of socks – may not properly be called a thief merely because he has and holds personal property.
     
    In the Refuting Marx page we exposed the open fraud of Marx’s whole Communist Manifesto for what it was. The whole goal was and is the ascendancy to dictatorship, pure and simple. Everything else is a flat out fraud, designed to recruit useful idiots who would sympathize, at least, and contribute to, and at best, actively participate in eventual violent overthrow of the existing regime.
     
    For the purposes of this great fraud, Marx created many straw villains for his useful idiots to concentrate their attention on while they were being mesmerized into his political camp. The too biggees were the bourgeois class and the proletarian class, but there were many others. The bourgeois are supposed to be the holders of Capital and the means of production, and the proletariat are supposed to be the “wage slaves” stuck in perpetuity to a meaningless existence of work and poverty.
     
    But here’s the thing: It’s all a Marxist fairy tale. The rigid class structures Marx described have not existed in Western civilization since feudal times. There are no such classes.
     •There is no such thing as a bourgeois class.
    •There is no such thing as a proletarian class.
    •There is no such thing as a “wage slave.”
    •There is no such thing as “Property is Theft.”
    •There is no such thing as a “system of greed.”
    •There is no such thing as a man-made system called Capitalism.
    •Workers are not “exploited” by mere fact of being employed.
    •Marxist “equality” can only exist at the expense of all liberty.
    •Violating property rights is a violation of the Commandment to not steal.
    •Promoting class warfare is a violation of the Commandment to not covet.

    The Marxist fairy tale gets the useful idiots all up in arms and tilting at windmills. The thing Marxism rails against the most, and seeks to destroy, isn’t even a controllable man-made system – Capitalism is a natural thing – Capitalism just happens. It comes into being when men are free and enjoy liberty. Any attempt to control it destroys it. Wage controls, price controls, interest controls, controls on labor, controls on capital, controls on property, controls on fuel, controls on resources – any controls – destroy the natural workings of the natural Capitalist system. If it is not free of controls, if it is not natural, then it is not any longer Capitalism.
     
    Capitalism equals a free market.

    All you have to do is look at the number and size of all of the American bureaucracies, every single one of which controls some part of the economy, to see that we are most certainly not a Capitalist nation. Every single small part of the remaining “free” market is under bureaucratic and political attack. That is why we are in economic decline. We are no longer Capitalist. The market is no longer free.
     
    If you look at the public rantings of America’s best known Marxists, all of whom seem to be super-rich uber-bourgeois Democrats, you will see that they all are always pushing some part of Marx’s idiotic fairy tale. Whenever you hear them, just change the word “rich” to “bourgeois” and change the word “poor” to “proletariat” and you will see that they are all talking right down the Communist Party Line. What they are purposely aiming us at is dictatorship. What I have a hard time believing is that there are so many American voters stupid enough to vote for them. But here we are.
     
    Here’s an example of Democrat talking points using Marx’s class-warfare words.

    In Marxist-Democrat Party lingo, there is no such thing as a mere tax cut. There are only tax cuts for the bourgeois class. And in their lingo, conservatives, the dirty rotten exploiters that they are, are always insensitive to the plight of the proletarian class. Pay no attention to the fact that these classes do not exist. Pay no attention to the fact that the only existing rigid social classes in America are the ones either invented or co-opted, and then fed and controlled by the Marxists. I mean Democrats.
     
    We have the Homo-Nazi Movement.
    We have the Femi-Nazi Movement.
    We have the Eco-Nazi Movement.
    I will have to do another page called the Racial Nazi Movement and put a link to it right here.
    We have the Professional Liars (Journalists) Movement.
    We have the Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex.
    And of course we have the Democrat Party.
    Every one of these politically invented or co-opted “movements” or “fronts” is another purported “class” of so-called disenfranchised or somehow exploited victims, herded into a larger group, be it a Rainbow Coalition or whatever, to try to form a majority voting block out of multiple minorities. The goal of the Communist Community Organizer, like that of the Communist Labor Union Organizer, is to contribute to building a larger United Front against the existing regime, and to destabilize society.
     
    Getting back to Catholic-Communizer-Dorothy-Day and her partner-in-crime Peter Maurin, they seem to have swallowed every bit of Marx’s supreme fairy tale, hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, fisherman, boat, motor, oars and anchor. I’ll bet you heard that Dorothy Day dropped her Communism after she converted to Catholicism. So did I. But Dr. Byrne’s The Catholic Worker Movement says otherwise, and this book is just too well researched, foot-noted and cross-referenced to just write off as alarmist or ignore. I looked up a bunch of the references and they were all accurate. Dorothy Day was a proactive Communist agitator and organizer throughout her career, long after her “conversion” to Catholicism.
     


    Her goal, and that of Maurin, was to contribute to the eventual overthrow of the American government, and to the eventual overthrow of the Catholic Church hierarchy. I remember reading Dorothy Day’s periodical, The Catholic Worker, as a youngster way back in the 1950s, and I remember the uneasy feeling that this stuff was Communist. I still remember trying to understand how it could be both Communist and Catholic. As it turns out, my gut feeling was right, because by the 1970s the FBI dossier on the Catholic Worker Movement was some 581 pages long.
     
    The list of Communist revolutionaries, anarchists and anti-Americans closely associated with Dorothy Day would rival even the list of Obama supporters, associates and friends. That is to say, in both cases, just about all of them. Dorothy Day’s list even included the Communist Party’s candidates for President and Vice President. It reads like a Who’s Who of the extreme radical Left. She was a Community Organizer, just like Obama, and she never stopped her grass roots Communist organizing.
     
    The amorality of Marxism always draws the dregs of society to itself; from the worst of the lawless lowlifes to organized crime families. Dorothy Day was equally positively disposed toward and supportive of the mobster Jimmy Hoffa as she was the rabid revolutionary Saul Alinsky.
     
    Like Walter Cronkite and so many others of his era, the Catholic Communizer Dorothy Day was an anti anti-Communist. This, if you parse the words carefully, is to say that she was a Communist. (Who else would be opposed to being opposed to the international Communist revolution?) It was her mission to oppose the anti-Communist sentiment, and the anti-Communist hearings in Washington, and to berate and ridicule those who opposed the Communist Revolution, while pretending that there was no such thing as a Communist Revolution, and that Communism was just another harmless political viewpoint. The fact remains, however, that wherever Communism does not rule, the strategic goal of Communism is, precisely, Revolution.
     
    She wrote in the Catholic Worker “We are un-American, we are Catholics,” implying the existence of a Catholic duty to oppose America, to oppose Capitalism and to oppose the anti-Communist sentiment. Even the mere implication of this Catholic duty is a flagrant categorical lie. Dorothy Day was a MEJTML.
     
    Dorothy Day’s Catholic Worker Movement (CWM) may have been the originating source of the perversion of Catholic Social Justice in the minds and hearts of many professed Catholics, both lay and cleric.
     
    It perverted Distributionism from anti-trust, anti-monopoly sentiments toward Communist Redistributionism.
     
    It perverted Solidarity from committing oneself to the Common Good, to committing oneself to Opposing Capitalism.
     
    It perverted the sense of holiness and grace to the arrogant belief that one can only gain holiness through self-imposed worker-poverty, gainby renouncing the world and entering a CWM or CWM-like Commune, for life.
     
    The CWM encouraged, supported and incorporated into itself Liberation Theology and Feminist Theology. Within the CWM the term Social Justice came to mean everything and anything that would or could be used to promote their anti-Capitalist Revolution, which is the one thing that the CWM was really all about.
     
    Communizer Day on Catholicism.

    Dorothy Day was quite a writer and quite a speaker, and in her written and spoken words she grossly miss-interpreted various Scripture passages to support the so-called Social Justice in her Communized version of Catholicism. Dorothy Day identified herself and her “Catholic” movement with the Old Testament Prophets who challenged the rulers of their time and called them to Justice, and who were persecuted for this. She was the modern Prophetess, and the Church and the State were persecuting her for her new prophesies. Note well that none of the real Prophets called for any revolution, or for the abolition of private property, or for the abolition of any “class,” or for the abolition of any government, whether temporal or ecclesial.
     
    Day joined, supported and openly promoted the Third Hour ecumenical group that celebrated a plurality of faiths under the idea of cosmic ecumenism in which people of all faiths might meet on common ground in a “stretching out of soul to God.” See? This is, of course, condemned as religious syncretism.
     
    She presented as Catholic the distinctly un-Catholic Liberation Theology concept that anyone working with and especially living with the poor thereby encounters the Divine and achieves salvation. By becoming poor and joining with other poor you contribute to and participate in a sort of collective salvation. So, if that’s true and that's all there is to it, no more need for Church; no more need for Sacrament; no more need for anything else; just work with and move in with the poor. See?
     
    Communizer Day and the Worker-Priest Movement.


    If any national branch of the Catholic Church might go soft on viewing Communism as a menace to the Church and to civil society, it would likely be the Church in France. So it should come as no surprise that the Worker-Priest movement started in early 1940s Paris. This new movement involved itself with priests taking off all clerical garb, wearing working-man’s clothing, leaving their parishes and their supplied housing, taking up residence among the poor, getting non-clerical, non-religious jobs and working in the neighborhood.
     
    No fooling.

    Priests, dressed indistinguishably from anyone else, working in factories, shops, docks, driving taxi-cabs, trucks or whatever. Living in cheap flats or whatever poor housing was available and paying rent out of their wages. They were very involved with trade unions, which, of course, were very involved with Communism. In this movement, it was no longer the role of the priest to bring salvation to the poor, but to receive salvation from the poor. See?
     
    The whole idea was to move out of the bourgeois comfort of clerical life, seek salvation through poverty, and get out from under the bourgeois authority of the Church hierarchy. It was a resurrection of the old anti-cleric sentiment from the French Revolution.
     
    I would not be surprised if this movement is where the idea originated for members of various religious orders abandoning religious attire, no longer living in community, no longer living by any discernable rule for their order, moving out and becoming “one with the people.”
     
    Of course, the Catholic Communizer Dorothy Day jumped on this just as soon as she learned of it, gave it support abroad, and helped it to spread to America and elsewhere. This sort of thing was right up her alley. These priests and their “movement” supported the CWM, and the CWM supported them.
     
    Christian Communism and the Worker’s Utopia.


    Dorothy Day believed that Communism could be “rehabilitated” and toned down by making it more voluntary and less violent, achieving utopian ideals via evolution rather than revolution, and therefore be made more acceptable to the Catholic Church. She titled this new view “Christian Communism.” The CWM’s movement toward voluntary communal living, what Maurin called his Green Revolution still maintained four basic Communistic rules:
     1.Opposition to Bourgeois values of private property, private business, big business and Capitalism in general.
    2.Replacing all state and institutional authority with self-regulating communes independent of external authority and power.
    3.Elimination of cities, city life and the social problems emanating from them.
    4.Absolute and total pacifism.

    Through the establishment of multiple voluntary communes they hoped to achieve, in the long run, a withering away of the existing regime. They were convinced that their Catholic Worker farm communes would be the seed of a world wide movement toward communal living, and that even the Church would be challenged to get on board. “We will lead and the Church will follow” was the motto.
     
    The inspiration for the CW communal farm was the Israeli Kibbutz of the day. The Kibbutz was a collective farm in which the Kibbutzniks (members) submerged their personal ambitions and property into the collective cause. Members voluntarily joined, giving all they owned to the Kibbutz, and being assigned the basic furnishings necessary for life in their little corner of the Kibbutz. Even the family was submerged in the Kibbutz; children were cared for and raised by the collective, leaving mothers free to work in the fields. You would think that this would be a feminist’s dream, with women achieving total equality.
     
    But here’s the thing: The Kibbutz system ultimately failed. None of them ever became economically independent. They couldn’t support themselves, let alone produce a profit – meaning, they could not produce more than they consumed. They couldn’t even produce enough to consume. (Workers producing profit – more than they themselves consume – is the only way on earth that wealth is created. Profit equals wealth.) Again, the Kibbutzniks could not produce enough to even feed themselves.
     
    The Kibbutz was anarchistic - meaning members were free from authority over each other – only internally. They were never totally free from the government that launched them. The land they occupied and worked was leased to them, they always depended upon external funding, and they never were able to become successful enough to be independent of this funding. It was quite the other way round. They wound up dependent on government dole and bank loans, and became mired in impossible, and increasing, monumental debt. The Kibbutz system disappeared perhaps too quietly; it should be held up today as typifying the predictable failure of Communist economic organization.
     
    The problem was the kind of people such an authority-less community attracts, besides the naive idealist with utopian leanings. It soon came to pass that many Kibbutzniks spent more time sitting around idling or discussing religion and politics than doing their share of the work, and those who worked harder and longer soon became embittered by all this. And, of course, this dichotomy increased over time.
     
    Man needs authority.

    The Kibbutzniks began to leave the Kibbutz system in droves in the 1980s, and those who remained changed things radically, with the most radical change involving the return of the normative family. Mothers preferred to raise their own children – imagine that – and Kibbutzniks started family businesses and took jobs outside the Kibbutz. The Kibbutzim as originally designed just faded away.
     
    It was no different with the hundreds of voluntary CWM Catholic Worker collective farms that were started all over America. Even Dorothy Day herself could not point to a single one of them that was ever successful. Their first Distributist farm called Maryfarm in Pennsylvania was a particular disappointment. Like all the others, it could not provide enough to feed itself, let alone feed the urban poor, which was one of its planned purposes. Again, one of the problems involved the kind of person attracted to life without authority. Day remarked about Maryfarm that “the more people we have around here the less work gets done.”
     
    The social order of all of the Catholic Worker farms eventually descended into depravity. Thievery, drunkenness, predation, bullying, assault, sexual licentiousness, all the things you would logically expect in a community devoid of authority, came to be. Reading about all these voluntary collective communities of yesterday is quite a bit like reading about the rather silly Occupy Wall Street movement that’s going on today, on a similarly small scale.
     
    If I may digress from this book just one more time, and say a word or two about Lenin, and stupidity. Lenin, in my view previous to encountering this book, was almost evil personified; whenever I thought about evil genius, his image came to mind. However, he was the first to try to force-fit a whole people into this idiotic vision of a collective society. He knew that ruthless authority was necessary to force it to work, which made him, perhaps, a bit smarter than Day and Maurin; however, it was still a stupid idea.
     
    In Lenin’s war with the White Russians, in the period Robert Conquest called “War Communism” Lenin was systematically eliminating all the owners of land and Capital who resisted giving up their private property. Lenin also began a program of de-Kulakization, meaning the killing of the Kulaks. A Kulak was a peasant (farmer) who owned or farmed more than some arbitrary number of chickens, or pigs, or goats, or hectares of land, or whatever was determined to be more than the local allowed average. The Kulaks were labeled bourgeois exploiters of “the people’s resources,” and so, he killed them all, as a terrorizing lesson to the rest of the population.
     
    The result of this de-Kulakization exercise was that virtually all of the people in Russia who were expert at producing food from the land were dead. All the best farmers had been killed off.
     
    Now, it seems to be a particular failure of Marxists in that they, universally, cannot not recognize the quite simple fact that it is not easy to productively farm. Farming is not a simple, easy, easy-to-learn, risk-free thing to do for a living. Just anyone cannot do it. Marxists, from Vladimir Lenin to Dorothy Day, universally betray a simplistic view of the work of farming, which says that anyone can do it, all you have to do is plant seeds, wait awhile and then harvest. Add into that the ability to milk cows, butcher meat and so forth, and anyone can do it.

    This is beyond evil personified. It is stupidity personified.

    After killing all the farmers, Lenin then herded city-dwellers into farm communes and ordered them to farm. As a direct result, untold millions upon millions died, in a famine that could have been and should have been quite easily predicted. Perhaps ten percent of the Russian population died of starvation in this horrible famine that was induced by Marxism, evil and sheer stupidity.
     
    It looks like Lenin actually believed the farm communes would produce. It therefore looks like Lenin was actually dumber than a box of doorknobs.
     
    Even after this monumental failure – the failure of the de-Kulakization program, the failure of the so-called agrarian reformation and the failure of the very idea of the collective or commune-farm – the whole failed program was repeated, by Mao, by Ho, by Pol Pot and others, everywhere Marxism gained control, and always with the exact same disastrous results.
     
    What can I say? What more needs to be said?

    The Catholic Communizer Day and Distributism.

    Nevertheless, the CWM sought to achieve what no one else had ever achieved, Marx’s dream of the utopian society, but to achieve it with something less than force. They still sought to skip Marx’s centralized state, his “dictatorship of the proletariat” as a temporary way-point in which the population would be “perfected” and remade into Marx’s image of the perfect worker. That’s what Socialism is supposed to do; it’s supposed to “perfect” the citizen worker. See? But Day and Maurin wanted to move right along into the Communist-anarchist classless state, of no government, no authority, just wonderful and altruistic human beings all cooperating for the good of community. Dorothy Day called this new third way between Capitalism and Communism “Distributism,” and Maurin called it his “Green Revolution.”
     
    In this dreamland all Capital was family controlled, which sounds pretty good; the best way to spread capital around was to divide it up among families, right? But when Day used the word family, she was talking about the collective – the Commune was the new family. The normative family was no more. It was the same old same old with new jargon and buzzwords to describe it. It was the same tired old tested and failed strategy of Communism, which should be seen as obvious to the critical thinker to be impossible without the need to even try it. It, and everything like it that goes against nature is clearly doomed to failure.
     
    Distributism differs from Communism in that it seeks to control the distribution of property rather than the redistribution of wealth. It makes the logical error of not recognizing that property is a solid, tangible expression of wealth. The two things are the same. Wealth, in its creation, is indistinguishable from profit; indeed, it is profit. Someone made more income than was needed for immediate sustenance, and that excess income was called profit. He used that profit to purchase property. If the state (or the CWM) would seek to control the distribution of property, how does that differ from redistribution wealth?
     
    Dorothy Day’s Distributism, as Communism under yet another title, is a gross misinterpretation of the Distributism spoken of by multiple Popes. The Catholic Popes who addressed Distributism were, in my opinion, mistakenly attempting to find a middle way between Communism, which they condemned, and “unrestrained Capitalism,” which they believed brought about the huge discrepancy between the income and the wealth held by the poor, and the income and the wealth held by the rich. Following the lead of Marx, the Luddites, etc., they blamed this huge division on the Industrial Revolution. That, I believe, is erroneous.
     
    There has always been a huge difference between the income of the poor and the income of the rich, and there is nothing that can be done about it, successfully, without incurring serious negative unintended consequences. The income difference between the two extremes can only grow over time, as it always has. At the poor end of the scale we find the poorest of the poor, who have no income. Zero never changes. At the other end and at every other point on the scale, income increases over time. Income always goes up in the long run. Throughout all of human history, the discrepancy has grown, and it may logically be expected to continue grow in the future. This does not mean that anyone has been mistreated.
     
    The honest mistake made here by the Catholic Distributionists is that “Unrestrained Capitalism” has been demonized in their eyes by Marxist and Luddite thought. But Capitalism is not a man-made system that may be tweaked, tuned and adjusted. If you restrain it, you injure it, and perhaps destroy it.
     
    Question: What does “restrained” Capitalism look like?

    Answer: Socialism.

    Question: What does “unrestrained” Capitalism look like?

    Answer: Read the I, Pencil … page.

    Some Distributionists would differentiate between personal-use property and “Capital” property used to produce income. But where do you draw that line? If you own a cow, you can sell some of the milk. If you own so much as a lawnmower, you can make some money with it. If you own your house, you can let out a room. Right now, I own a car, and guess what: I make money with it as a courier. So, is my car my private property, or is it my Capital investment? Every giant factory began with someone’s personal idea and effort, and was built into whatever it is by work. Giant public corporations are already under wide and diverse ownership through stock ownership. If you have a 401K you own corporate stock - a capital investment.
     
    Free market principles apply to competitive job availability just as much as they apply competitive availability of goods and services. Work is always, always available to the worker who is not too proud to accept it.
     
    I have never been unemployed except for very brief periods throughout my entire life. I have been a gas-station attendant, a soldier, simultaneously a factory laborer and college student, a programmer-analyst, a landlord, a semi-truck driver and a retiree-local delivery driver. Here in America, even in the worst of times for employment, there are always jobs available. Always. I don’t know how to not work.
     
    When the market is truly free, competition, supply and demand automatically set the most appropriate prices for labor, just as it automatically establishes appropriate prices for goods and services, and interest rates for money.
     
    Communization via “withering away” of the state and the Church.

    Dorothy Day hoped her CWM communes, as they became more successful and numerous, would slowly eat away at the American government, and at the Catholic Church, and replace both with utopia – man made heaven on earth. She and her followers worked, got their hands dirty, and looked with disdain on those who still lived in bourgeois comfort. The CWM had a holier-than-thou attitude expressed toward all outsiders who had not yet committed to communal life and the “service of the poor” for life.
     
    The Church was seen to be siding with the rich, and indeed the Church was seen to be bourgeois and rich itself, in its holdings and property. Day encouraged Catholics, both lay and clergy, to choose between buildings of stone and people, where people were seen to be “living stones,” and join her movement. Encouraged by the CWM and by the Worker-Priest movement, thousands of Catholic priests and nuns shed their religious garb, moved out of convents, monasteries and rectories and into CW communes, or into poor neighborhoods to share in the lives and living conditions, and work, of the “poor.”
     
    Dorothy day wanted to stop all poor people (meaning anyone with or without a job) from giving even one coin to the bourgeois Church. She held that no Catholic Churches, schools or other buildings should be built or even maintained so long as anyone anywhere was “poor.”
     
    Dorothy Day’s “Distributism” used ambiguous language to describe property and its use. While opposing private property, she spoke and wrote of collective property; but what she usually meant when she said ownership was occupancy and/or use. She actually encouraged people to move into unoccupied buildings and execute “squatter’s rights” and make use of them. Further, she encouraged people to squat in occupied buildings, where people lived, especially mansions or very large homes, or Churches or other buildings, and to simply begin occupying and using them exactly as if they actually held an ownership interest. And the owners may be damned.
     
    Communizing the Liturgy.

    Day adopted much of the background philosophy for her movement within the Catholic Church from the theories of Lamennais (1782-1854,) the priest who broke with the Church over his Modernism. He emphasized a Democratizing of the Church and culture producing a Solidarity with all mankind, placing Social Unity over doctrine and dogma, forming a new Christianity distinct from the old one.
     
    I’ll bet you thought that the new second altar, the priest facing the people, the vernacular language and all that began with the Post-Vatican II changes, didn’t you? That’s funny; so did I. Well, it began long before that, with the CWM and the priests associated with it. A Benedictine Priest named Dom Virgil Michel of St. John’s Abbey, Collegeville, MN got the ball rolling. The intention was the total reconstruction of all of society by means of changing the Liturgy.
     
    These people were using a simple table rather than an altar, with the priest facing the people, and a vernacular Mass, way back in 1937. Emphasis was put on more attention paid to the “collective” gathered round the Altar facing each other than on the Divine Presence. All of this stuff rolled on right into and beyond Vatican II.
     
    The CWM, way back then, was promoting and supporting the whole gamut of unholy intrusions into Catholic theology and liturgy that we all thought began with the post-Vatican II changes. The feminine priesthood, acceptance of homosexuality, a gross form of all inclusive “ecumenism,” and on, and on.
     
    Surprise.

    Communizer Day and Pacifism.

    Pacifism, as publicly preached by Dorothy Day, is the doctrine that says that violence or war are never, ever justified under any condition whatsoever. It insists on complete disarmament and permanent renunciation of the use of military force for any reason. But it is apparent that this level of pacifism was only applied to the United Sates of America, and not to any revolution against Capitalism. During the Cold War she wrote that “it is better that the United States be liquidated than that she survive by war.”
     
    Like the subject of dissent, pacifism at some point becomes treason against one’s nation. I think that point is reached when someone would deny their own nation the right to defend itself against naked aggression. And I think dissent becomes disloyalty when someone publicly defecates on the American flag, as was done at anti-Vietnam war rallies supported by Dorothy Day and the CWM.
     
    The no-violence-no-matter-what pacifism preached by Dorothy Day did not apply to any anti-Capitalist activity, demonstration or even open revolution. In Day’s opinion Capitalism “asked for it” by being bourgeois. The whole goal of the CWM was to make the rich poor, and thereby end bourgeois oppression and exploitation. See?
     
    Capitalist countries, like the USA, cause violent revolutions, by being Capitalist, and therefore oppressive and exploitive of the worker “class.” So, Dorothy Day was against violence, but she insisted that all violence and war were caused by Capitalism, and therefore the reactive violence of revolution against Capitalism was justified and forgiven. See?
     
    Same thing with the Catholic Church. The Church is bourgeois, the Church supports Capitalism, therefore the Church periodically incites violence against itself, and that violence is justified violence, because the Church asked for it. All of the periodic persecutions of the Church throughout all of history were caused by the Capitalistic bourgeois nature of the Church.
     
    All wars, throughout all of history, were caused by the existence of Capitalism and an exploitive bourgeois class. See?
     
    So, in a nutshell, extreme pacifism applies only on the Capitalist side of the street; violence, revolution and war are justified when applied against Capitalism, because Capitalism causes a violent reaction in those who don’t like Capitalism.
     
    The fatal flaw in this logic is the same one that applies in every other section and area of Marxist thought: to oppose Capitalism is to oppose the liberty of man. Man can only be free when the market is free. Liberty and Capitalism are inter-dependent things; if you harm one you similarly harm the other.
     
    To “get free” of Capitalism is to become enslaved to some man-made system.

    To “get free” of the laws of God is to become enslaved to sin and the World.

    The Record Clearly Shows that the Catholic Communizer Dorothy Day was a very proactive anti-American American citizen and a very proactive anti-Catholic Catholic layman throughout her entire career. She supported the advance of Communism from within America and from within the Catholic Church throughout that entire long career. Dr. Byrne’s book is a very enlightening, well done and solidly foot-noted form of a documentary on the subject, and I encourage you to get it and read it. Refute it if you can.
     
    Dorothy Day was never what she appeared to be or what she was publicly portrayed in the press to be. She was not what her autobiographies and biographies purport her to be. She was a hidden, treacherous form of deadly parasite working to destroy the host organism from within. While her form of spreading Communism was slow and gradual, she would have welcomed violent revolution or even foreign invasion at any moment, if it would mean the end of America as founded, or the end of the Church as founded.
     
    She accepted donations and help from guilt-ridden (or Maxist) wealthy bourgeoisie in the same manner that Comrade Obama and other Democrats do today. In fact, most of the richest bourgeoisie in America today are Democrats, which is to say, Marxists. The executives of General Electric, GM, Chrysler, the biggest banks, all the big businesses that are in bed with the current Democrat regime. The Obamas, the Kerrys, the Kennedys, the Gores, the Pelosies, the Reeds, Barney Frank, the whole lot of them, are all filthy rich uber-bourgeois who live unscrupulous and scandalous lives at taxpayer expense.
     
    And they, too, are working to destroy us from within.

    You can read about how our media is in this anti-American camp and how they supported the Viet Cong movement against America’s interest in the Vietnam War page, with Walter Cronkite in the lead.
     
    But, how is it that filthy rich, uber-bourgeois, super-Capitalists like George Soros and Warren Buffet actively participate in what would appear to be the mechanism that would seal their own doom, once the anti-Capitalist revolution is successful? Well, you see, that’s not what the game is really about …
     
    It’s all an elaborate Shell Game.

    The huckster shows you the pea; he places a shell over it, next to two other shells. You watch closely, as instructed, as he smoothly slides the shells around and around on the table, and keep your eye on the one the pea is under. But when you point to the shell, the pea isn’t under it. Ever. Again and again. Every time, the huckster fools you, no matter how carefully you pay attention. Because, you see, the pea isn’t under any shell; the huckster has palmed it. He lets it roll out and appear to have been under another shell. You’re watching the shell, but the pea only appeared to have been covered by a shell. The huckster is just too slick for you.
     
    Read the Refuting Marx page to see the shell game Marx designed. When he wrote his Communist Manifesto he began perpetrating perhaps the greatest hoax and fraud in all of history. From 1848 until now, it’s still fooling millions. The goal isn’t the end of Capitalism, and the enemy isn’t the invented bourgeois class. The goal is, and always was, dictatorship, with a super-grand-prize possibility of world dictatorship.
     
    The ones at the top of this fraud know full well what the game is really about, and their personal character may be described as almost purely evil. As you go down the many levels of hierarchy within the Marxist fraud you encounter a mix of evil and stupidity, and as you go down toward the bottom rungs of Marxist worker-bees you encounter the almost pure useful idiots of Marxism, who are basically just dumber than a box of rocks.
     
    Marx’s brilliant fraud makes even Al Gore’s gigantic Cap And Trade hoax, with it’s potential for fraudulently generating trillions of dollars for him, look like the simple little trick of a small time third rate carnival huckster. Look how many highly educated men believe Marx was some kind of philosopher, or believe in his economic theory, or in his description of history, and in the existence of the rigid classes he described, or in some part of his monumental hoax. Look how many, at all levels of society, are highly emotionally involved in his manufactured class warfare hoax. Upper academia, journalism and show-biz are loaded down with them.
     
    What can I say?

    Traveling under a gross misconception.

    When I was a boy, I thought that Dorothy Day was some kind of nun, that she had founded (and might be the Mother Superior of) an odd sort of order, with both brothers and sisters, but not wearing religious garb. Always farming or gardening or feeding the poor. There was only one encounter that I remember with a copy of the Catholic Worker, and I still remember being puzzled after reading it, because I thought it was Communist. I don’t even remember where that copy came from or where I was when I read it. Everything else available about Dorothy Day was quite positive; she was supposedly a very good woman, practically a saint.
     
    Now, in retrospect, after having read The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980) A Critical Analysis, by Dr. Carol Byrne, I question whatever all the other sources were that left me with such a positive impression of such a clear enemy of America and of Catholicism. And what I am left with is the mainstream media. I wrote my complaints about American journalism in the Professional Liars of Journalism page. It appears that American Journalism had crossed the line and become mostly Leftist before I was even born in 1943. And we have the SLIMC, including even the elite of Show-Biz, who also went predominantly Red.
     
    I still remember the McCarthy Hearings, in which Senator Joe McCarthy accused hundreds of government employees of being Communist infiltrators. And I remember that the media, and the whole of the SLIMC, ultimately won the day, and made him look like a fool. To this day, he is treated as a buffoon, ridiculed and used as an example of the stupid anti-Communists who actually think that Communism is some kind of actual threat, and not peaceful.
     
    But Dr. Byrne used, among her sources and footnotes, the opened Soviet archives that showed who the Communists in America were. And I remember learning that those same records showed that Joe McCarthy was right in what he said, in every respect.
     
    Is it any wonder, then, that Paul VI is credited with saying that The smoke of Satan has entered the Church. ?
     
    If you still think Dorothy Day is worthy of sainthood, or even if you don’t, I urge you to read this book.
     
    Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life. Please God, and live forever.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you have looked into the facts behind the very heavily documented life of Dorothy Day, not as written by the CWM, or biographers, fans or fellow travelers, then you have gotten more than a glimpse of the real story. Look to alternative sources, not the “official” biographies. Begin with the reference material referred to in the book, and branch out from there.
     
    Dorothy Day’s cause for canonization was put forward in 2000 by Cardinal O’Connor of New York and it has enjoyed the support of successive Cardinals since then. They have been fooled. The pious mask has to come off, in the full light of day.
     
    I urge you to write to the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to register your objection to the cause for sainthood of Dorothy Day, and explain how the Cardinals were misinformed about Dorothy Day, at the following address:
     
    His Eminence Angelo Cardinal Amato
     Congregatione per le Cause dei Santi
     Palazzo delle Congregazioni
     Piazza Pio XII, 3
     00193 Roma
     Italy
     


    http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/Catholic-Communizer-Dorothy-Day.html
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4429
    • Reputation: +4003/-1317
    • Gender: Male
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #2 on: May 02, 2013, 07:56:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Article Favoring Dorothy Day (With Preface by Fr. Scott Gardiner, SSPX)
    Cut/Pasted from IA - 2006



    Dear members,
    I think it is time for a reminder to all Traditional Catholics that the 8th Commandment is still operative. While I am not a "Dorothy Day fan," mostly because I do not know enough about her one way or the other, justice is justice. Some essays towards greater justice for Dorothy Day have come my way lately which are unlikely to see print, and so, after consulting our Administratrix, I decided to post this one. If its reception warrants further intervention on my part, I may post another, but I will not engage in any discussion which arises. I am available by PM if anyone wants to communicate with me. Enjoy!

    In Christo,
    Fr. Scott Gardner

    Dorothy Day - A Response

    The Winter 2006 and Spring 2007 issues of “Mater Dei” made a number of accusations against Dorothy Day, claiming that her philosophy was rooted in Marxism and class struggle. Day is portrayed as a propagandist for Marxist revolution, departing from the major social encyclicals of the popes and seeking to destabilise the Church and society. She is accused of feminism and attempting to subvert the family unit by replacing the home with a commune. The reality is that Day possessed a true understanding of Church social teaching and sought to create a social order that was the antithesis of Marxism. The foundation of her thought was the family and the need for a wide distribution of productive property to enable families to live securely and where possible, self-sufficiently.
    Day is condemned for possessing a mystical vision of work, in particular manual work. This is attributed to a Judaic “earth-bound, pre-Christian philosophy”i, derived from Karl Marx. However, Day’s emphasis on the dignity and honour of manual labour and her notion of work as “sanctifying”, is entirely in conformity with the teaching of the Church. In the pagan world manual labour was despised and looked upon as unworthy, being identified with slavery. It was through the influence of Christianity that there began a social revolution, rehabilitating manual work and ensuring that workingmen could never again be the object of contempt (at least not until the onset of Protestantism and capitalism). Several Christians who belonged to the nobility became workingmen, the most prominent examples being the Roman nobles Crispin and Crispinian in the 3rd century who converted to the Faith and spent their lives as shoe-makers in Soissons, France. Pius XII called on employers to consider “the workingman for what he really is: Christ’s brother and co-heir of Heaven.”ii
    Through Christianity work was transformed into prayer and became a means of sanctification. “The sweat of one’s brow becomes sacred. The workshop is converted into a cloister.”iii The claim that the image of Christ as a labourer is a “modernist invention” and something “first mooted by the religious Left” iv contradicts not only papal teaching but Scripture itself. Christ is identified in Scripture as the “carpenter’s son” (Matt. 13:55) and spent the best part of His earthly life as a carpenter Himself - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary.” (Mk. 6:2) Leo XIII refers directly to Christ as labourer to emphasise that manual work is not something to be ashamed of: “there is nothing to be ashamed of in earning their bread by labour. This is enforced by what we see in Christ Himself … who, being the Son of God, and God Himself, chose to seem and be considered the son of a carpenter - nay, did not disdain to spend a great part of His life as a carpenter Himself.”v
    Day’s economic vision was neither Marxist nor “anarchist” but distributist. Her critique of capitalism lay in the fact that “the many had not the opportunity of obtaining land and capital in any useful amount and were compelled by physical necessity to labour for the fortunate few who possessed these things.”vi Day’s solution was family ownership of the means of production “so widely distributed as to be the mark of the economic life of the community.”vii Although it is true that the wage system is not wrong in itself, the Church’s tendency “has always been more in favour of a system in which the dominating portion of workers are owners or part owners of the capital with which they labour.”viii Day’s economic views are mocked as “pseudo-Christian, egalitarian and miserablist.”ix It is claimed that she was drawn to “Kropotkin’s vision of a utopian society organised around “mutual aid” co-operatives providing work for everyone in small-scale agriculture for local consumption where all had to be content to chew their cud.”x However, widely distributed productive property, family ownership and largely self-sufficient agricultural small holdings lay at the heart of Church economic teaching. Leo XIII called for working people to “be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land”xi and Pius XII stated that “small and medium-sized holdings in agriculture, in arts and trades, in commerce and industry must be guaranteed and fostered.”xii Self-sufficient communities are not the invention of Kropotkin but the Christian ideal according to St. Thomas Aquinas, who stated: “The more dignified a thing is the more self-sufficient it is … A city therefore which has an abundance of food from its own territory is more dignified than one which is provisioned through trade.”xiii
    Day is accused of “envy” and stirring up “class war” for her belief in wealth redistribution. However, Day’s condemnations of the extreme inequalities of wealth produced by capitalism are mirrored by Pius XI who lamented that “the immense multitude of the non-owning workers on the one hand and the enormous riches of certain very wealthy men on the other establish an unanswerable argument that the riches which are so abundantly produced in our age of "industrialism," as it is called, are not rightly distributed and equitably made available to the various classes of the people."xiv The solution sought by Pius XI was state intervention to induce "the wealthy classes … to assume those burdens without which human society cannot be saved … However, measures taken by the state with this end in view ought to be of such a nature that they will really affect those who actually possess more than their share of capital resources, and who continue to accumulate them to the grievous detriment of others."xv Day’s commitment to wealth redistribution (as opposed to an impossible and undesirable equalisation) is not a “Robin Hood” sentiment but a belief derived entirely from Church social teaching.
    Day is described as “admitting a modicum of private property”xvi but “so did Stalin who dubbed any peasant owning more than two cows an evil kulak.”xvii This criticism is confusing domestic property with ownership of productive property. As Fr. James Doran stated, “in the Soviet Union, you could own your own home and car” but “you could not own productive property. You could not own anything that produced.”xviii Widespread family ownership of productive property is the antithesis of Marxism but was central to Day’s economic philosophy, “Property is proper to man. Man is born to work by the sweat of his brow, and he needs the tools, the land to work with.”xix Day’s ideal of a society of owners, where the means of production are in the hands of the many and not the few is based on papal teaching. Leo XIII stated that “The law, therefore, should favour ownership and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.”xx
    Day’s distributist philosophy sought not an impossible “perfection” on earth but a society “where it is easier for people to be good.”xxi This idea that the purpose of the temporal order is to encourage virtue, thereby making it easier for men to save their souls is the teaching of the Church. Leo XIII stated that civil society “should not only safeguard the well-being of the community, but have also at its heart the interests of individual members … to render as easy as may be, the possession of the highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek.”xxii
     To call a woman a bad mother and claim that she has neglected her children is probably the most hurtful criticism she can ever receive. I had originally planned not to comment on these accusations as they are beneath contempt. However, I thought it would be useful for those who do not know Day to get a true picture of her and the importance she placed on the family. Day’s daughter Tamar was everything to her. It is asserted that “she dumped her daughter for her career” and “the euphoria of childbirth was short lived.”xxiii However, this “short-lived euphoria” lasted long enough for Day to organize Tamar’s wedding. Tamar had at least eight children and Day’s family all grew up near her. Day states “God has indeed made me, the barren woman, to dwell in her house, the joyful mother of children. I had always wanted a big family, and here I have them near me. I am seeing my children’s children about me.”xxiv
     Day referred to the family as “the primary unit of society”xxv and the apostolate of the Catholic Worker Movement (CWM) was centred entirely on the family. Day’s statements that “women are social beings” and “husband and children are not enough”xxvi are used to assert that she wished to subvert the family and replace the home with a commune. This is nonsense, as even a cursory examination of Day’s writings will attest. The idea that women are social beings in need of a community and companionship beyond husband and children has been stated by none other than Bishop Williamson. His Lordship has spoken about the importance of forming Catholic communities and how vital it is for women to have friendships with other women. “If the Catholic family is on it‘s own, then it’s going to be in difficulty … women need other women to talk to … If women can’t talk to other women they will turn to the soap operas … Catholics need contact with other Catholic families … We need to recreate Catholic communities.”xxvii Perhaps Bishop Williamson is also part of the worldwide communist conspiracy to subvert the family unit?
     Much of the reasoning behind Day’s critique of the palaces and large houses of the clergy was her assertion that it’s not just the clergy that needs space - a family needs space too. Day comments that “the ordinary family has need of space too for his little church.”xxviii In seeking space for the “little church” of the family, Day was opposing not only the inhuman and cramped conditions of the urban poor but also the isolation of suburbia and the “nuclear” family. Her solution to this loneliness and isolation was entirely Catholic - the creation of communities centred on families and private property.
     The CWM is condemned for not working directly under the authority of the Bishops and it is asserted that Catholic Social Action “must be subordinate to the clergy” and “Our Lord’s kingdom will come through the priesthood.”xxix However, this is to confuse what are essentially two types of Catholic Action. Lay action which is apostolic and religious in nature and clearly in the spiritual sphere forms “a part of the priestly ministry, and therefore [comes] under the direct authority of the Church.”xxx St. Pius X in calling on Catholics to combat anti-Christian civilization “by every just and lawful means”xxxi and stating that these means are to be “sustained and promoted chiefly by lay Catholics”xxxii was referring to a different idea of Catholic Action - action of the laity in the temporal order. St. Pius X comments that this work of the layman is not independent of the counsel and direction of ecclesiastical authority but “should be directed with a reasonable degree of freedom, since responsible action is especially theirs in the temporal and economic affairs as well as in those matters of public administration and political life. These affairs are alien to the purely spiritual ministry.”xxxiii Would the CWM need the permission of a Bishop in order to perform works of mercy and operate houses of hospitality in a Diocese? Jean Ousset, founder of La Cité Catholique, was faced with the same criticisms as Dorothy Day for working outside the direct authority of Diocesan Bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to Ousset to offer his support, stating “Are you criticized for not having the bishops’ permission? Such permission is not needed for any activity which is not properly speaking Catholic Action. All that is needed is for an activity to be fully in accord with the spirit of the Church and her discipline.”xxxiv Bishop Tissier explains that by “Catholic Action” the Archbishop was referring here to lay action exclusively in the spiritual sphere and not the work of the laity in the temporal order, such as that undertaken by La Cité Catholique or the CWM.
     Day’s pacifism is attacked as “dishonest” and a “ruse” to disguise her support for the Communists in Spain.xxxv If true, this was hardly the most successful ruse in the world, as sales of the Catholic Worker newspaper plummeted due to its refusal to support Franco. Day’s pacifism, far from being a “ruse”, was in fact a lifelong conviction and something she applied consistently to each conflict she lived through. Day also found an unlikely ally for her pacifist stance in the form of Cardinal Ottaviani. The Cardinal declared that modern wars can never fulfil the conditions of a “just war” theoretically sanctioned by the Church. The scale of modern warfare, involving civilians as well as military, combined with modern aerial warfare and nuclear/chemical weapons, mean that “no state is justified any longer in resorting to warfare” and “no conceivable cause could ever be sufficient justification for the evils, the slaughter, the destruction, the moral and religious upheavals which war today entails.”xxxvi The Cardinal further stated that “all war is to be prohibited”xxxvii and mediation and arbitration are alone justifiable in vindicating a nation’s rights in modern times.
     Day possessed a supernatural grasp of the Church and the Priesthood and did not show any signs of an alleged “anti-clericalism” and “vitriol.” Ironically, the “Mater Dei” articles contain a number of personal attacks on priests and a level of vitriol towards the clergy that I have never encountered in any of Day’s writings. For Day the Church was “Christ made visible”xxxviii and she frequently quoted Guardini to the effect that “the Church is the Cross on which Christ was crucified; one could not separate Christ from His Cross.”xxxix Day was appalled at the “scandal of businesslike priests, of collective wealth, the lack of a sense of responsibility for the poor … the consenting to the oppression of them by our industrial-capitalist order.”xl However, for all her criticism, Day saw in priests “the dispensers of the Sacraments, bringing Christ to men, all enabling us to put on Christ and to achieve more nearly in the world a sense of peace and unity.”xli Day had a deep sense of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ and saw clearly the need for ritual. “I turned to God and became a Catholic. I could worship, adore, praise and thank Him in the company of others. It is difficult to do that without a ritual, without a body with which to love and move, love and praise.”xlii Day links the need for ritual back to the family and the home. “Ritual, how could we do without it … just as a husband may embrace his wife casually as he leaves for work in the morning, and kiss her absent-mindedly in his comings and goings, still that kiss on occasion turns to rapture, a burning fire of tenderness and love … the little altar boy kissing the cruet of water as he hands it to the priest is performing a rite. We have too little ritual in our lives.”xliii Yes, Day came to embrace the liturgical changes but it’s easy to judge these things with hindsight. Very few in the Church of that era were opposed to liturgical reform in itself. Archbishop Lefebvre supported the introduction of the vernacular to the Mass in a limited way and even Archbishop Fulton Sheen became an avid enthusiast for liturgical change. This is not to defend the liturgical revolution which has wrought such harm but simply to suggest that not everyone who embraced liturgical reform was intent on destroying the Church.
     Day sought to change the social order but only that it might serve the purpose for which it was ordained - the salvation of souls. Her philosophy was entirely Catholic, rooted in the family and private property. The foundation of her economic thought was the desire of the Church for a “society of owners” with widespread family ownership of productive property and an end to an economic system which condemns the working man “to an economic dependence and slavery which is irreconcilable with his rights as a person.”xliv St. Pius X called on lay Catholics to play their role in restoring “all things in Christ” and to combat anti-Christian civilization by “every just and lawful means.”xlv Rather than calumny and detraction and baseless accusations of “communism,” Catholics would do well to learn from Day’s life and work and recognise their own duty to strive for the reign of Christ the King in the social order and create a society in which “it is easier for people to be good.”

    Michael Docherty

    [Additional notes from Fr. Gardner:
    1) The footnotes did not come through. If anyone wants to see them, let him send me a PM, and I will forward the complete .doc file.
    2) I have no idea who Mr. Docherty is, but I am not particularly concerned about that, since his statements are sound and backed by verifiable documentation. Let the "ad hominem" attacks cease once and for all!]
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +120/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #3 on: May 02, 2013, 07:57:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    A Critical Analysis, by Dr. Carol Byrne


    A silly woman.

    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +12/-1
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #4 on: May 02, 2013, 08:11:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • One way or the other is she is not saint material.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4429
    • Reputation: +4003/-1317
    • Gender: Male
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #5 on: May 02, 2013, 08:42:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • For clarification:

    I appended the critical article for its take on Day's background and teaching, not to discuss her fitness for canonzation, as the sermon in st. Paul was not promoving her canonization, but merely drawing attention to her alleged good works and charity.

    But for the purpose of the present conversation, i am only interested in critiqueing her doctrine.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline clare

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2269
    • Reputation: +887/-34
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #6 on: May 02, 2013, 10:40:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It might also be worth reading this article by Fr James Doran about Peter Maurin, which refers to Dorothy Day.

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7443
    • Reputation: +2094/-262
    • Gender: Female
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #7 on: May 02, 2013, 11:09:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • she had several lovers, and even had an abortion.  She was connected to the American communist party.  google search Dorothy Day under wikepedia...

    dorothy day and Paul Vi are being rushed to be saints to further push Vatican II.

    If dorothy day becomes a saint, then it would be like condoning women having abortions and Catholics being pro choice too.  

    There are far more worthier Catholics who should have been made saints a long time ago.  
    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)


    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7443
    • Reputation: +2094/-262
    • Gender: Female
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #8 on: May 02, 2013, 11:15:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SeanJohnson
    For clarification:

    I appended the critical article for its take on Day's background and teaching, not to discuss her fitness for canonzation, as the sermon in st. Paul was not promoving her canonization, but merely drawing attention to her alleged good works and charity.

    But for the purpose of the present conversation, i am only interested in critiqueing her doctrine.





    Dorothy Day is what the nuns on the bus is today.  The nuns on the bus are always preaching about social and economical justice too as a disguise to promote liberalism and communism and feminism and also homosexuality too.  









































































































































































































































































































     within the Novus ordo which includes the laity and clergy that feel that Dorothy Day and even Paul VI shouldn't be saints.      

    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)

    Offline Quo Vadis Petre

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1227
    • Reputation: +1176/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #9 on: May 02, 2013, 11:17:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dorothy Day is, IMHO, unfairly maligned. Many of those accusations against her are, again IMHO, calumnies! Michael Doherty has written a good defense of her.
    "In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics." -St. Pius X

    "If the Church were not divine, this

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7443
    • Reputation: +2094/-262
    • Gender: Female
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #10 on: May 02, 2013, 11:27:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: bowler
    One way or the other is she is not saint material.


    You are so right.  She is not saint material.  We have thousands of other Catholics who deserve to be saints.  

    Even many clergy and laity of novus ordo are against Dorothy day being canonized..

    it seems that the liberals have already infiltrated the sspx...


    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)


    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7443
    • Reputation: +2094/-262
    • Gender: Female
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #11 on: May 02, 2013, 11:28:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As for myself,  I am for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to be canonized to be a Saint.  
    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7443
    • Reputation: +2094/-262
    • Gender: Female
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #12 on: May 02, 2013, 11:38:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey
    she had several lovers, and even had an abortion.  She was connected to the American communist party.  google search Dorothy Day under wikepedia...

    dorothy day and Paul Vi are being rushed to be saints to further push Vatican II.

    If dorothy day becomes a saint, then it would be like condoning women having abortions and Catholics being pro choice too.  

    There are far more worthier Catholics who should have been made saints a long time ago.  



    lets see who has endorced her???  Cardinal dolan.  And o'Conner.  

    Both from New york which is oen of the great the land of liberals.  

    Who wil the Vatican II canonized next as a saint????   The Saint of September 11, 2001???   The Rev. Mychal Judge???



    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7443
    • Reputation: +2094/-262
    • Gender: Female
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #13 on: May 02, 2013, 12:20:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • These liberals especially vatican II communist Catholic bishops and cardinals are bad mouthing labor and hardwork.  They encourage people to go on welfare.
    This equals political votes.   Vatican II and they work with local politicians who are pro abortion, pro suicide etc.  and they claim they are for the poor yet they attack the working class USA citizens.   They push the kids to get college decrees so they can be poisoned by the liberals.  

    Vatican II is like a corporation with over paid "workers" to server "communities".

    I have been reading many books by Archbishop Lefebvre and its all true.

    Against the Heresies, etc.  The writing and letters of ARchbishop Lefebvre.

    I have been buying and handing these books out to several novus ordo  priests who preached during their sermons against homosexuality, abortion etc.  They also are preaching about the true faith, Mass Sacraments and Rosary.  
    they are being persecuted by their own  bishops and cardinals..
    And the Rosary.        
    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7443
    • Reputation: +2094/-262
    • Gender: Female
    Dorothy Day Sermon at SSPX Chapel
    « Reply #14 on: May 02, 2013, 12:24:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey
    As for myself,  I am for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to be canonized to be a Saint.  



    Yes, I  want to hear more about great Catholics like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the many laity and their families who received the Sacraments in hotel rooms, barns, etc. because of them, they wouldn't be any Latin Mass.   We can thank them too for forcing the Popes to allow it within vatican II too.

    And of course we thank the many brave clergy,nuns, and laity including my own great grandparents and grandparents becasue if it wasn't for them their would be zero Catholicism in America.   It would still be illegal.    

    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16