"A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING" Sunday May 17 at 1:30 PM EDT on EWTN (Television): Where did political correctness, gender conflict, gender confusion, Culture of Death come from? Chilling look at impact of Saul Alinsky

OK, this is absolutely ridiculous. Author dedicate books to people all the time, who are not mentioned in their book at all

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

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

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

You can rent it on-demand here http://alinskyfilm.com or on Vimeo.

1 Like

If you read her book Therese: A Life of Therese of Lisieux (from 1960), she briefly discusses how St. Therese brought her away from those ideologies. She freely admits that she was employed by the Communists after her baptism. She also admits that she wrote the book for many members of Catholic Workers who were not Catholic and some were even atheists.

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

Yes. She called herself an anarchist and continued to recommend such anarchist writers as Kropotkin and Proudhon, among others, throughout her life. However her definition of anarchism was odd to say the least. She was not doctrinaire. Her anarchism seemed to be more based on the wrongs done by government and her pacifism. I have no doubt she was sincere, even if I disagree on particulars. She was definitely a distributist.

I don’t think I would call her an “anarchist.” In her younger years, maybe. But I think she was more of a fighter during her whole life.

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

And in her later years, she surely would not be in favor of bringing the world (or country or city) to absolute anarchy. She would have viewed that as anti-Catholic.

Oh but she called herself an anarchist throughout her life. She said Maurin came to her with St Francis in one hand and Kropotkin in the other. I can find this article she wrote on what anarchism meant to her that was written after she became Catholic.

The blurb on the back of the book Small Is Beautiful lists fellow spokesmen for the ideas expressed, including “Alex Comfort, Paul Goodman and Murray Bookchin. It is the tradition we might call anarchism.” We ourselves have never hesitated to use the word. Some prefer personalism. But Peter Maurin came to me with Kropotkin in one pocket and St. Francis in the other!


Please. However, my feeling is that she said that early and not later. Her views evolved over her 53 years as a Catholic.

  • She was baptized in 1927 (she was born in 1897), died in 1980.

Here’s the main article I was referencing.


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


I haven’t read this entire thread but can assure you that what postings I did read clearly shows many have divided themselves against each other by political ideology.

Got it. Thanks.

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

The Oxford Dictionary defines it slightly differently for both British English & American English
UK: https://www.lexico.com/definition/anarchism
US: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/anarchism

Again, my view is that she often used the obscure American definition, which is one that most people would not use.

1 Like

Very true. Just my personal opinion but I think she used the word because she just couldn’t see force as being justified. It went against her conscience. Luckily she stayed in the Church. Someone like Ammon Hennacy if I remember right left the Church over what he saw as a contradiction between the seeming pacifism of the Sermon on the Mount and Church teaching on the legitimacy of government. Like Day, I think Hennacy and Maurin were sincere, but ultimately mistaken in their beliefs about a stateless society.

something tells me that Day would have been content with a Church ran state.

Possibly. We’ll have to ask her some day. I’d love to discuss politics with her and Maurin. Though at that point we’ll be in Heaven and far too joyful to care about such things.

I’m currently working my way through Peter Maurin’s reading list and it’s an interesting collection of works. You have some pure anarchist works like Fields, Factories and Workshops by Kropotkin along with minarchist ones like Our Enemy The State by Nock, then books promoting the New Deal like Fire on the Earth which even cites the Catholic Worker by name. It’s interesting. An education in itself.

Just so you know: you lost me right there.

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

But to state that EWTN has nothing to do with Catholicism is simply bonkers.

Sarcasm. It gets lost in type. Of course EWTN is a Catholic network.


Luciferians …

Here’s some help:
Can you be a Christian and a Socialist? The Popes Say No


Socialism, Liberalism, Modernism, Luciferianism, Satanism, Communism, Marxism, Masonry-ism.

They’ve the same goal – to destroy Christianity…

1 Like

Is that sarcasm, or are you being simple?

Socialism, Liberalism, Modernism, Luciferianism, Satanism, Communism, Marxism, Masonry-ism.

They’ve the same goal – to destroy Christianity…

Neither… Is that sarcasm or are you ill-informed?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.