Open borders and the Catholic elite
During his visit this week, the Pope has made repeated comments critical of immigration enforcement efforts–such as they are–in the U.S. His primary concerns are not the sovereignty and security of our country. Open borders benefit Catholic churches looking to fill their pews and collection baskets. The Vatican and American bishops, led by radical L.A. Cardinal Roger Mahony, have long promoted immigration anarchy and lawlesness. Their campaign continues:
More than 45,000 people filled Nationals Park on a clear spring day, as the pope, wearing scarlet vestments, led the service from an altar erected in centerfield of the recently inaugurated baseball stadium. Rows of red-robed church leaders joined him. The enthusiastic crowd burst into cheers when Benedict entered the stadium in his popemobile.
His homily was more somber. Benedict examined American society, saying he detected anger and alienation, increasing violence and a “growing forgetfulness of God.”
“Americans have always been a people of hope,” he said. “Your ancestors came to this country with the experience of finding new freedom and opportunity.
“To be sure, this promise was not experienced by all the inhabitants of this land; one thinks of the injustices endured by the native American peoples and by those brought here forcibly from Africa as slaves.”
It was not the first time on the trip that the pontiff has delicately critiqued his host nation. Speaking to his American bishops Wednesday, he said the U.S. must be welcoming to immigrants, helping them to flourish in their new homes.
Following a White House visit, a joint statement from the U.S. and the Vatican hinted that Benedict raised concerns with President Bush about punitive immigration laws. It said the leaders discussed “the need for a coordinated policy regarding immigration, especially the humane treatment of immigrants and the well-being of their families.”
It’s one thing to show compassion to legal immigrants, legitimate refugees and asylees, and those abused and mistreated by smugglers. It’s quite another to support the systematic undermining of an orderly immigration and entrance system that imposes limits, eligibility requirements, criminal background checks, medical screening, and a commitment to assimilation. There is nothing Christian about facilitating illicit, illegal activity like this:
The Vatican donated at least $20,000 to build a shelter for Central American immigrants traveling to the USA, angering immigration control advocates as Pope Benedict XVI begins his first official U.S. visit.
The Pontifical Commission for Latin America, which reports to the pope, sent the money in January to help the Brothers on the Path charity construct a $120,000 shelter in Ixtepec in southern Mexico, the Vatican confirmed Tuesday.Many Catholic churches in the USA and Mexico have programs to aid immigrants, but few receive direct support from the Vatican, said Alejandro Solalinde, a priest and director of the project.
The donation comes at a delicate time, as the United States fortifies its southern border and the number of Central Americans crossing illegally is high. The area around Ixtepec is a major conduit for Central American migrants who ride freight trains to the U.S. border.
The illegal alien sanctuary movement sabotages the very compassion it purports to defend.
Brooke Levitske at the Acton Institute put it well:
…[I]llegal immigration raises two separate matters of conscience, which pro-sanctuary Christians blur and equate. The first is the question of immediate need and the Christian duty to extend compassion. The second is the long-term issue of how best to preserve the common good.
To deal with the first: Scripturally speaking, it seems clear that giving immediate, material assistance to anyone in need is always right, whether to an enemy soldier bleeding alone in a ditch or to the child of an illegal immigrant family in ones church with an urgent medical need. If an individual feels compelled to assist an illegal immigrant in some tangible way, his conscience should be free to do so. Political circumstances should not condition acts of mercy or evangelization for us any more than they did for Christ, who associated with Samaritans, tax collectors, and the so-called dregs of society. It is part of Christian duty to minister to others, no matter what they have done or how they arrived on ones doorstep.
With that said, it seems inadvisable to the church, as a societal institution, to disobey the law to protect illegal immigrants from deportation. Christ expected his followers to treat criminals in prison the way they would treat him, but he said nothing about busting them out of prison. The church has a tremendous interest, morally and practically, in preserving the rule of law. From a moral perspective, Scripture teaches that we are to submit to the governing authorities appointed by God. Churches especially ought to honor conscientious immigrants who follow the laws of the land and not undermine their difficult and virtuous choices by systematically condoning illegal behavior. And practically, American churches ought to venerate and cherish the law because it is the guarantor of their religious freedom.
…While there is room to debate how well the U.S. has protected its borders, we should acknowledge both its right to do so and the complexity of our national security situation. We need to have patience with the present laws even as we seek to improve them through due process. It is also important to remember that law is not meant to abolish suffering, but only to prevent injustice.
C.S. Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man that a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head, but a soft heart does not guarantee right thinking, either. Disregarding the rule of law to help illegal immigrants is a paradoxical way of hurting them. The rule of law is the sustainer of the free and prosperous society that draws immigrants to the States. It is something immigrants’ own countries often cannot guarantee them, and it is what makes ours look so appealing. And if we shirk the rule of law if laws of entry can be applied to some immigrants but not to others we are cheating all immigrants out of the kind of society they are seeking in the first place.
Catholic elites can afford to harangue us about our perceived lack of “humanity.” Fact is, we remain the most generous and welcoming nation in the world to those who line up and play by the rules. It is not heretical to challenge the unholy alliance between the open borders lobby and the church establishment. If the Vatican had its way, we’d be paying for every last organ transplant for every last illegal alien patient in the world.
***
Question: Have you heard a single Catholic leader express compassion or outrage about the murder of young Jamiel Shaw in Roger Mahoney’s sanctuary of Los Angeles by an illegal alien gang member?
Commenter Granite asks: “What would His Holiness have to say if, hordes of Muslims who happened to have entered Italy illegally and were descending upon the Vatican; who, while acting upon last Friday’s sermon by the Muslim cleric in Ramallah, to conquer Rome, “the Crusader capital”, were in the meantime in need of food, water, and shelter? Would he want to keep them out of the Vatican?”
In fact, at least one Catholic leader has voiced concern about uncontrolled mass immigration of Muslims to Italy and the threat it poses:
Cardinal Giacomo Biffi based his argument on a trenchant analysis of the cultural (not racial) roots of the Italian nation. The London Daily Telegraph (September 16, 2000) quotes him:
“The criteria for admitting immigrants can never be just economic. It is necessary to concern oneself seriously with saving the identity of the nation.” Italy was not an “uninhabited region” lacking in history and traditions, which was fit to be “indiscriminately populated.” While it could admit anyone it wanted, no one had a “right of invasion.” He urged politicians to heed his words, since “not all of the cultures of those newly arrived are in favor of living together.” …
He said he had recently aired the same views with a government minister. “I said, ‘If you really have the good of Italy at heart, and want to spare a lot of suffering, then you can’t allow all the immigrants in.’” He said he had warned the minister that civil unrest would be one of the consequences if immigration was not religious-selective. He told the minister: “I’m surprised you still haven’t thought things through.” He added: “I don’t know how you’re going to cope with Friday as a holiday, polygamy, discrimination against women, and the fundamentalism of Muslims, for whom politics and religion are the same thing. Do your sums properly.”
***
Update: Tom Tancredo weighs in.
***
Previous:
Catholic church lobbies for open borders
Google “Open borders Catholic church.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Ten years on at the 9-11 7-11
September 11, 2011 06:36 AM by see-dubya
44 CommentsAnother outrageous Obama DHS appointment
June 28, 2010 11:24 AM by Michelle Malkin
54 CommentsFundraiser for Fleeing AZ Illegal Aliens – Sarcasm Alert!
June 10, 2010 11:53 AM by La Shawn Barber
68 Comments
Airline insecurity tale of the morning
May 18, 2009 09:01 AM by Michelle Malkin
51 CommentsTaking a stand against the open-borders agenda
April 3, 2009 09:39 AM by Michelle Malkin
47 Comments
Isn’t it ironic: Mexico lawmakers want to reinstate death penalty; Plus: Mexico cracks down on illegal aliens
December 5, 2008 02:28 PM by Michelle Malkin
36 Comments
Obama’s illegal alien aunt (and campaign donor!) is a deportation fugitive; Bush administration moves to protect her
November 1, 2008 01:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
361 Comments
Categories: Open Borders Lobby,Sanctuary Cities
Patterico
» Sockpuppet Friday (a la carte edition)JustOneMinute
» Send Better BSHot Air
» Rumor of the day: New North Korean leader assassinated in Beijing; Update: Untrue, says U.S.AmSpecBlog
» The Burke-Hayek Double Play ComboPundit & Pundette
» Obama's compromise is not a victory for religious liberty [updated]
Yeah, Jim. That’s it – Pope Benedict is a shill for Hillary Clinton. Can’t put anything past you now, can we?
Oh, wait, what about this:
Source
Guess I must have missed the Obama/Hillary bumperstickers on the Popemobile.
We’ll start with Michelle herself ignoring any possible humanitarian desire the Pope has and insist it ALL economic.
I knew I’d see this come up. Can’t talk about Catholics with out making sure everyone knows ONLY Catholic priests do bad things.
When did the Pope call us racist?
It’s a good thing he’s smart enough to put any humanitarian concerns aside and not say anything to tick-off the USA.
An attack on one of the few defenders. Ironically, I believe it was a reference to his poor typing, grammar, or spelling.
What do you think the writer of this is rooting for?
Is that enough or do I need to go through the whole thing for the rest of them?
As a devout Catholic, I agree 100% with your comments, Jim. It appears, though, that many Catholics are still in denial about what a disaster Pope Benedict’s papacy is turning out to be.
Like you said, he has not mentioned the greatest evil in America: abortion. He allowed pro-abortion “Catholics” to receive communion.
Our country has been extraordinarily generous to the world and to Germany, and he shows utter contempt for “manifest destiny,” capitalism, and freedoms, while supporting Cuba.
Like you said, he is basically supporting pro-abortion Democrats in the upcoming election.
To tell the truth, I am absolutely ashamed of his boorish and clueless behavior. I’ve taken two courses in Church history, and it is very hard to judge a papacy while it is going on. But it does seem that Pope Benedict’s will be considered one of the worst. Evidently, he or those he surrounds himself with are socialists or have Marxist sympathies by their refusal to criticize Cuba and their willingness to excoriate the United States. Yet the worst thing about our country (abortion) doesn’t even merit a rebuke.
Thank you, KaosKlerik.
Gabe, I’m here to defend every diplomatic move the Vatican has made over the last 100 years. The Vatican is made up of men and women. None of them are perfect, neither am I or you. You can hate the Pope all you like. I do not.
I am also not a big Debbie Schlussel fan either.
Gabe – please prove this. Shots of the bumper stickers would be most helpful.
How do you respond to my post?
Or am I not a “devout” enough Catholic for you?
That should read:
Gabe, I’m NOT here to defend every diplomatic move the Vatican has made over the last 100 years.
English Queen, did he mention any of those issues while here in the United States? Evidently he doesn’t think they are important enough to mention during a critical election year. But he does criticize us for illegal immigration, global warming, manifest destiny, slavery, and Indians.
Sorry, there is a point where any attempt at defense of this Vatican administration and their political cluelessness is impossible.
Also, I have seen these “voting guides” and what they basically do is try to influence the average Catholic that “global warming” is equal to abortion in severity and that Republicans are bad on the environment and “immigration,” and therefore to vote for pro-abortion liberals is perfectly okay.
I’m sorry. I must have missed the part where I directly attacked you.
You miss the point. There are millions of people hearing the Pope’s message during his visit, but very few who bother to research Church policy. What he says while on US soil trumps what you may find on the vatican’s web site. And he has steered clear, in my view, of any issue of import that would be perceived as an attack on the Democratic platform.
I never said he was a shill for Hillary Clinton. And I was expressing my opinion, back by my analysis of the facts. Your attack, on the other hand, was merely that – an attack on one whose views you did not agree- devoid of any support. Bringing in a page from a website is hardly support.
If you can’t open your eyes, perhaps you should keep your mouth shut as well. Attacks and weakly proffered arguments do not help the position of the Vatican here.
Rooster,
I got over here in 2001 and was working as a LNO when the towers got hit. I stayed until 2003 and spent a little time in the states until I got my permission to work as a contractor. I am still in the reserves and spent 2005-2006 as a Provincial Reconstruction Team Commander in Afghanistan. I am still working with the soldiers and staying in the fight.
I too want my country to still be my country when I get back. I see the way they do things here in Europe, especially in health care, and see us making the same mistakes. My wife is Irish and their system is awful. They also have a huge immigration problem. Their problem is the Eastern European problem. We don’t want what they have but the policians are definitely heading that way.
I applaud your moral outrage on the church sex scandal. I am sure a person with your convictions is actively fighting the abuse that is occurring on a far larger scale in our school systems as well as other religious organizations, daycares, ect.
Jim M,
Earlier in the string it was pointed out that the Pope gets his talking points from the cardinals who are in the US. Unfortunately many of them are very liberal and have a distorted view of what is actually happening in this country. Compare it to his receiving the democrat talking points. He is involved with the world and depends on those posted in country to provide him with the talking points on occasion.
I could say the same thing about a majority of the commenters here, who are cherry-picking Benedict’s comments, Church teaching, and the like to suit their agenda.
Attacks and weakly proffered arguments do not help the position of those who oppose illegal immigration, either.
In the past 300 posts, my faith and His Holiness have been called everything from Nazis to shills for the Democratic party. And I’m not supposed to take that personally?
Gabe, then I would re-evaluate that “devout” Catholic title, because you understand neither Church teaching nor the Catechism.
By the by, it’s amazing how quickly so many of you have forgotten John McCain’s rather weak positions on immigration.
Funny how Benedict is accused of shilling for the Democrats when there are many posts here criticizing John McCain for being weak on the issue, too.
I always thought I’d found community here, where my views would be respected and listened to.
Guess not. Nice to know the right is just as vicious as the left when it comes to Catholicism.
So I guess I’m done.
Well, you can read what i think about this whole thread here:http://becominghinged.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/michelle-malkin-and-the-catholics-when-convenient-crowd/
englishqueen01,
I just wanted to express my regard for your arguements and your defense of the church. I too am Catholic and make no apologies for it. I also see lots of attacks against the institution and most of the attacks are from uneducated persons who think that they know what the church professes and what it tries to achieve.
Just wanted to let you know there is another here who supports you.
I see. So, since you claim that far greater abuse is occurring elsewhere, one’s moral outrage on the abuse scandal is misguided? Did I get that right?
And, if I am not out there every day righting the “abuse that is occurring on a far larger scale”, I am not entitled to express an opinion? Did I get that right as well?
When people find little in the way of supporting their views, particularly when there is overwhelming evidence that refutes their views, attacking the messenger is always an option of last resort.
If you want to try to defend your position, please do so. If you want to offer an agrument that sanitizes or minimizes the Church’s abuse, be my guest. Just try to do so as it relates to the issues, not the messengers.
By attacking the bearers of contrary views and avoiding any rational anaylsis of the facts, you are falling into the trap of making yourself appear as a zealot. Like I said before, such an appearance actually hurts rather than helps the position of the Church.
I guess Michelle is looking for an invite on Bill Mahers show. They can get together and spread lies about the Pope
Codespeak for: If you’re not a cafeteria Catholic, then you’re a religious nut.
Got it.
Tizzidale and expat, thank you again.
Nope. My feelings on it are probably much like yours.
You are entitled…just keep your standards consistent.
Plan B from the liberal playbook – if attacking the messenger is ineffective, twist the message to demonize the messenger.
That is not what I said and you know it. You have whined about people attacking you personally, yet I did not see one comment where that occurred. People have expressed their views on Rome’s position on secular issues, and some misinformation that is widely held has been addressed (the Pope’s “nazi” past). But for the most part, the comments expressed an outrage over the Vatican’s interference in matters of US sovereignity and the abuses of the church that have significantly impacted its credibility and esteem in the eyes of both Catholics and non-Catholics.
An expression of negative opinion on a secular matter regarding the Vatican is in no way an attack on the tenants of the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, the attacks I have seen on this thread come from the ardent and blind followers of the Church’s views on all matters, blurring any distinction between its role in secular versus spiritual issues. That camp has branded others as not being “devout” catholics, being unintelligent and uninformed, professing hate speech and has branded Catholic commenters here as heretics and blashphemers. Since the majority of the US is NOT of the Catholic faith, such views merely reinforce existing negative stereotypes of the Church and paint its followers as blind intolerant followers who permit no critisicm and dissent of or among their ranks.
I have been a Republican my whole life. I voted for R. Reagan in my very first election in 1980. I am beginning to feel like him today when he said that he never left the Democratic Party, it left him.
The position of the Church is that all nations have the right make laws to secure their borders and protect their sovereignty, but asks that we do so with compassion for the poor when deciding on those laws and in enforcing them. Especially when it come to breaking up families. When this obvious call for the Christian Virtue of Charity is derided and the organization that makes the call is spit upon and falsely vilified I have to take pause.
When the Catholic Church, who through it’s parishes and organizations (like Catholic Charities) that do more for the poor than ANY OTHER human organization is derided for calling others to do the same, I can truly begin to say the Conservative movement has lost it’s way.
This is a sad day for me.
Mendol, what “lies” would those be on Michelle’s part? I’m Catholic, and there is nothing she has written in this post that are “lies.”
The Pope comes to our country and lectures us, like a jerk, that we should legalize all illegals. The Vatican donates 20,000 dollars to thwart our laws. He goes to the U.N. on our soil and laments the loss of the Soviet Union by stating he misses “multilateralism.”
But abortion, euthanasia, immorality, etc.–these don’t even merit a mention while he is here.
Pope Benedict: looks like one of the worst Popes in Church history in terms of administration.
Where did I say I hate the Pope? I hate the incredibly boorish way he has behaved while visiting our great country and think he is clueless politically (hmm, how is bowing in a mosque of the Cult of the Moon God towards their capital of Mecca going to do any good?) He is an appeaser of both communism and Islam.
Debbie Schlussel is awesome. She is one of the few who actually gets it when it comes to Islam.
You should too if you are a Lebanese Maronite Catholic. I would think you would be a big fan of Debbie Schlussel.
Whatever happened to ‘render unto Caesar those things to which are Caesar’s'? If the Vatican can make us pay taxes over this, then it also can remember that obeying the laws of the sovereign nation where we live is also part of the command.
Meanwhile, the Pope said NOT ONE WORD of blessing or prayer for Colombia. That turns me off bigtime. Instead, he happily gave out communion to Nancy Pelosi who is shutting Colombia out of the community of American nations – another violation of the pope’s customary unity theme, and then happily dishing out communion to her despite her proabortion stances, giving her political capital to do even more damage with the votes of ignorant voters. This is really bad. The Vatican fails us and thus far I am unimpressed with this pope. I hope he goes home.
Gabe,
I am an expert on Church history, and I respectfully disagree on you opinion of the Holy Father.
Vivita,
Christ was talking about spiritual and material things. Render material things to Caesar, but render spiritual things unto God. Charity for the poor would be a spiritual thing.
Easy solution: Deport the entire family and not break them up.
In the schools the kids learn what wonders “multiculturalism” is. They learn how great every country in the world is except for ours. The Pope has stated what a horrible country we have because of manifest destiny.
Therefore, logically, I would expect that both he and you in the name of compassion would be all in favor of having all illegals leave our country. After all, if their countries are so great and ours so terrible, why in the name of compassion should they stay here?
Also, how is deporting entire families not “compassionate?” Are they being tortured or killed? No, they are simply being moved backed to Mexico, or wherever.
I mean the Pope and Cardinal Bertone, the secretariat of the Vatican state think that Cuba is a wonderful country and that there is no oppression whatsoever of Catholics there. Yet they seem to find all sorts of things to criticize about our very generous country.
I hate America? Wow! You got that from my posts? I think hate is something you might want to examine your conscience about, mine is just fine.
I love this country and all it stands for. I, like every other male member of my family, going back to the Revolution, served this nation proudly in the military. My families blood is on many a battlefield, including Afghanistan.
I DO NOT agree with open borders OR amnesty. I just think we should behave with compassion towards the truly poor and desperate. Compassion is an American value and is one that I am proud of.
englishqueen01 #313 and many others from your posts,
I have read many of your posts before and pretty much hold the same views as yourself….so I thought.
Your sensitivity when it comes to the Pope borders on the sensitivities a muslim demonstrates when someone criticizes their teachings. Hopefully without any beheadings…..
I think many have taken too much stock in some of the comments here about the Pope.
The frustration behind many of the posts are the result of the illegal immigration travesty happening in our country. Our own politicians don’t need any excuse to be worse than they already are by having the Pope voice his compassionate opinion on the matter, thus confusing our already feeble-minded rats in office.
Your sensitivity when it comes to the Pope comments borders on the sensitivities a muslim demonstrates when someone criticizes their teachings. Hopefully without any beheadings……
Thank you sambo, I meant his comments.
Your welcome. But just to be clear.
Your sensitivity when it comes to the Popes comments borders on the sensitivities a muslim demonstrates when someone criticizes their teachings. Hopefully without any beheadings……
Wow, I think I just had an epiphany!
We can’t stop this illegal invasion from Mexico because we have so many compassionate “typical catholic people” in our country!
The next time someone accuses me of being anti Christian, I’ll refer that person to this thread.
Please, if you can, leave a little space between you and I littlegirlyman.
You can refer this thread to all of your anti-American family and friends for all I care.
Matter of fact, you can drop off the face of the earth and I won’t care. The education system will be one less liberal anti-American US citizen…our gain.
Yeah go through the rest of them but you better make it long. I’m only an average guy I’ve never horned in on others sovereignty yet in my lifetime people have said many more things that that about me. Of course I’m a mean old Prodestant and I don’t take it seriously I learned a long time ago that if someone insults me they probably have a problem. As a matter of fact we can see that happening here but you see it doesn’t bother me I am secure in my beliefs and actions. I’m not sensitive and there is no one on this earth that gets a free pass not my pastor not my brother not my president, etc etc etc. Considering Mexico’s treatment of illegal‘s taking in to account their over the top restrictions on immigration I am real surprised that he didn’t make a speech to them instead. To me that speaks volumes. Next time Europe needs our help getting out of a hole they have dug for themselves they better hope they don’t look to America and find Latin America instead.
Our immigration laws don’t break up families. I’ve never heard of any reason why illegal immigrants can’t take their entire families with them when they leave other than if one or more of them are in jail for a crime.
And how, specifically, is our immigration law not compassionate? Even if we ignore all of the supporting evidence that there is an open-borders movement within the Catholic Church, at the very least the popes comments suggest that our immigration policy is uncompassionate, but how? If it’s uncompassionate now, isn’t it going to be even more so if we actually start enforcing it to preserve our national sovereignty?
How can the pope’s comments be interpreted as anything other than support of open-borders?
Mendol, you say, “I DO NOT agree with open borders OR amnesty.”, so are you uncompassionate?
I was with the 7th ARCOM (301st ROC, Bamberg, 99-03)until I finished out on active duty and retired. Know some good people in the ARCOM, love Big Al Gardner, Giangrego, Karstensen and many more. Our full timer is running for congress for Murtha’s seat in Pa, William T. Russell.
…considering that we have de facto open-borders already?
Time to start taxing the Catholic collection plate! The money can go toward illegal immigrant education, health care, etc.
expat,
If Big Al is still in the 7th ARCOM, tell him Elvis said “What up Big Al”. He should remember who I am, if not watch the weather on german TV and that is how you spell my name.
One other sad irony and observation: The Pope chastises the US for its past on race relations, while at the same time advocates opening our borders up to admit a population who has a present history of racial intolerance. Groups like LaRaza and MeCHA preach the superiority of the hispanic “race” and claim an entitlement to all that is ours based on their birthrite.
South of the Rio Grande, the treatment of those not of hispanic origin is decidely intolerant, and communications and attitudes that would be condemned in the US in a heartbeat are part of everyday life there.
A very good recent example of that is the attitude toward blacks in Mexico:
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/06/29/somexican-racism-is-okay/
Do we really need more of that kind of rhetoric and those kind of beliefs in this country? And do we need a head of state to encourage a mass migration of of such cultural racism into the US?
Jim M,
Go back and read my two large posts. Neither one of them defended what the Pope said.
I responded to the nasty attacks on and outright untruths about the church. This includes veiled attacks from you.
Unfortunately I don’t have enough time right now to deal with the issues you raise.
KaosKlerik
There were no “veiled attacks” on you. Get control of you immagination. You responses have been among the ones that have lacked civility and reason.
As for the attacks on the Church, I must have missed those. Most people were reflecting their disdain arising from a head of state lecturing the US on matters of US sovereignity. There have been few, if any, “attacks” on on the religion itself or its spiritual doctrine.
You call the Pope a Nazi, you accuse the Church of only being concerned about filling the pews, you refer to priests as pedophiles, and yeah, I’m going to take it personally.
Your comment about zealotry can be taken no other way than to say if I’m not willing to compromise my faith, then I’m a religious nut.
Yeah, that’s it. I’m just like the Muslim fanatics, aren’t I – especially when I defend the Pope against things that are demonstrably false. Like his being a Nazi.
Enough is enough.
To Michelle and the rest, I say – thanks for making it pretty clear my views are only welcome here if they toe the conservative line. Stray from that, and I might as well tattoo “Obama for President” on my forehead.
No wonder Catholic blogger Mark Shea calls Republicans the “Stupid Party”…
Now who is bitter? I lived in Germany for 20 years and know the nazi remark is crazy.
The Pope and, or the church should not advocate any type of amnesty for our immigration policies, when our laws are being broken englishqueen01.
By Mark Shea’s account, would the democrat party be called?
Agreed englishqueen01, either you are with them or against them. MM down one more longtime regular reader.
SEE YA
For one thing calling someone a Nazi because they were a German under Hitler, were in the Wehrmacht or even part of Hitler’s inner circle is pretty vague.
Good bye
Ever wonder why we can’t stop this illegal immigration travesty, look no further than the bleeding heart compassion of any church providing sanctuary.
tgusa,
I don’t get offended by the nazi thing, but am not sure what your link has to do with anything.
It is very offensive to most Germans to be called a nazi. It has about the same connotation that all of us whites by virtue of being an American are racist.
Buh bye.
BTW, I noticed you didn’t answer my inconvenient questions above. The reason is that it can’t be done without use of open-borders jingoism, thus proving the point of most of the commentators here.
Why? Are you the pope or a priest?
A. He was Catholic. B. He was in the Wehrmacht. C. He tried to kill Hitler and end the Nazi regime. Yes I’m familiar with Germans as my wife’s father was full German. Incidentally he was a member of the USAAF and part of the Berlin Airlift. He was a devout Catholic too.
Your behavior is reprehensible. I NEVER called the Pope a nazi. I NEVER said the Church was only concerned about filling pews, and I NEVER classified priests as pedophiles.
My comments were raised in connection with the Pope’s statements on matters that were beyond his charge. As for the pedophile scandal, I discussed it to point out the serious damage that has done to the Church’s credibility and standing among both Catholics and non Catholics.
You, madam, are making accusations that are malicious and patently false. You know damn well I never said any of those things, and if there was any question all you had to do was to read my posts here. I have unfortunately seen plenty of your ilk on many a Sunday – the pious souls who believe the teachings of Christ need only be practiced within the confines of the church property. Nice of you to make your parting comment here one full of lies hypocrisy. What a “christian” thing to do.
Folks, I think this thread is about talked out, and this argument has been far from civil all around. If the argument continues, I’m going to close the thread down.
One more time
I hate stir up the hornet’s nest again.
I mean WASP nest.
Leave the thread open. Word is spreading amongst the Catholic Blogs. Now they can all come and see what so-called “Conservatives” really think about Catholics
I was stationed in Berlin for 6 years.
The Berlin Airlift is what won the hearts and minds of the germans. Berliners are the most grateful to the USA, the rest of the country tends to forget what we did for their country. A few years ago the german version of Hollywood made a movie called “Die Luftbrucke”, an awesome movie. Kind of like what Hollywood used to make to make us proud to be an American. Only it was made by Germans and it was a very uplifting movie portraying Americans in a heroic and positive light.
Sorry, Die LuftBrucke means, The Air Bridge, kind of a tribute to our American brothers and sisters who saved Berlin in the defining moments after WWII from Russia.
Thanks for the tip rooster I will check it out. Lost in this argument are the law abiding procedure following people who will never get their chance to come here they have been pushed aside. Why don’t we adopt Mexico’s immigration policy? It is quite punitive but with a coordinated effort and that would include Latin American countries in this as well we could figure out a balanced and fair policy for all. Mexican immigration policy.
See dubya is right, this thread should close. The dialogs were, whether people wish to admit or not, terribly anti Catholic or more accurately Pope Benedict XVI. I found his mission here to be positive and bridge building. Apparently, there’s to be a toll booth on that bridge. No amount of healing on his part or attempts to correct the problem of pedophiles in the church would mollify anyone. Had all this vitriol been focused on the Bishops where it rightly belongs, I wonder what the effect would be. Were any of you aware that it was Cardinal Ratzinger who initiated the aggressive purge in the church of those pigs. Yeah, the present Pope. I’m sorry englishqueen01 left. I understand her anger. But, to leave isn’t the answer. If we’re going to get past this, we’ve got to stop the Church bashing and start looking for healing. The Pope has opened that door, don’t close it now.
I suggest we follow the european style, especially the germans. The germans are sticklers for paperwork and without the right paperwork, you can’t live there, open a bank account, have a drivers license, or receive social benefits uless you are a refugee.
The movie Luftbrucke I bought before I left and I don’t think it was ever marketed here in the states. It is in German and is very authentic.
Rooster, was it a TV movie?
Can’t speak for anyone but me, but I think the comments about immigration kind of set things off.
Yes, and it was a 2 part movie, I believe it was on RTL, if not that than SAT 1.
I cannot express how disappointing and sad it has been to watch all this at mm.com. I could understand it on one of Allah’s atheist threads over at Hot Air, but here? No.
Sorry FloatingRock, I didn’t check your link. That’s the movie.
Rooster, I know you’re right. But, the Pontiff made it clear that laws and borders had to be respected. That seemed to be glossed over in the attacks. But, be that as it may, we have to really get some maturity about this and work for the betterment.
It seems you’re probably right. I didn’t find any torrents and it’s not available at Netflix.
we Americans don’t tell the catholic church who to allow in to their church, and they have no business telling us who we should allow in to our country.
and don’t hand me the compassionate bs. where is the compassion for Americans who are killed every day by these illegal foreign invaders
how many “honest” people do you know who use a smuggler, a counterfeiter, a tax cheat, and ID theft to get a job.
compassion is just being a sucker for dishonest invaders to run all over us, and we still have way too many clueless softies who stand by and let it happen because “they want to be compassionate”
keep turning the other cheek until you get kicked right between the cheeks by illegal foreign invaders.
It must have been glossed over.
Keep in mind, we are all at a breaking point on this invasion from Mexico.
Wait until that one big thing clicks for all Americans finally having enough and watch the fireworks.
We are all family here and
On April 19th, 2008 at 3:10 pm, KaosKlerik said:
Now who’s paranoid? As for veiled attack. You compared the church position on divorce vs the abuse scandal in your very first post. Don’t like Catholics, bring up pedophile priests. It’s as disingenuous as debating Teddy K. and starting with Chappaquidick. Going after percieved hypocrisy as part of your argument is attacking the messenger.
You missed the ones I gave to tgusa.
I think a case could be made about splitting up families. There is no real good anwswer. While I detest the anchor babies loophole, until it is closed or decided by the Supreme Court, the children are American citizens. Personally I don’t think it should apply if the mother is in the US illegally.
As for Chappaquidick I raised it to point out that Kennedy is considered a bad driver by Republicans and Democrats.
The DVD is in PAL, our signal is NTSC. I have a multi-system DVD player that plays discs from all regions of the world.
Rooster, Yeah I know… BTW I’m a card carrying Minuteman here in MN. I am active in making sure the borders are sealed and illegals are dealt with. I’m sick of the sanctuary cities ( politically formed, not religiously, BTW). Why I even have to vett myself this way is bothersome. but……
Hoorah for the minutemen!
But we don’t split up families even in the case of anchor babies. If we deport their parents they can take their children with them. It’s not like anchor babies are prevented from leaving the country, and if they do leave they can come back.
…but maybe the Mexican government won’t allow them in, and if this is the case it’s the Mexican government that is uncompassionate.
I agree that any implication that the Pope is some kind of shill for the Democratic party is unfounded and ignorant.
However, based on the first of the 5 non-negotiables there… Why is it when you look at poll numbers that Hispanic voters in overwhelming percentages are voting Democrat for the very party that advocates and pushes for more abortion?
KaosKlerik
It would be extremely helpful if you stuck to what I write versus what you think I wrote.
On teh issue of divorced Catholics, I was referring to the alienation of rougly half of all adult Catholics in this Country. I never compared that issue to the issue of the abuse scandal.
As to the abuse scandal, I pointed out that the public in general is rightly outraged by not only the scandal, but how it was handled. We are not dealing with something that went on for a couple of years – this went on for decades. I also noted that the scandal has has a serious impact on the I was born and raised Catholic, and your accusation is beyond ridiculous.
If we as Catholics do not address the issues and public perceptions concerning out Church, no one else will. As has been stated before, the Pope relies on his Cadinals and Bishops here in the US for guidance on the issues here. The Pope is in an highly insulated position, and it certainly appears that the guidance he is receiving is both one sided and outright wrong.
It indeed has a left wing slant to it. AAnd I never said the pope was a “shill” for the party, but pointed out the great pains taken in his prepared speeches to avoid any issues that would cause discomfort to the Democrats, who are clearly supportive of his views on open borders. I do not consider that view to be “unfounded”, but very well founded based on the facts.
As to some who view that as “ignorant”, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but it would further your views if you backed up that allegation with some analysis, rather than falling back on the old liberal trick of labeling contrary views as “stupid and ignorant”.
Hey Jim M, I ain’t no liberal and with littlegirlyman, I sometimes use the only thing to counter his ignorant rants and that is to ask him if he is stupid or ignorant.
Sorry for the code when I refer to this troll, but I really find this guy disgusting and don’t want to honor his handle by actually writing it.
rooster
In that particular case, logic and reason are supported by the facts and would certainly justify the label.
touche’ Jim M!
rooster,
I am with the 3747th. You are right. There are a lot of good people in the 7th ARCOM. Gardner is retired but working in a civilian capacity. The rest are here but due to move on to bigger and better things. We have a new CG named Miller. I will drink an Augustiner Brau to you. Sorry, no umlaut on the keyboard.
Hey all,
The animosity needs to be directed at the Bishops and Cardinals in the US. Not at the Pope. As Jim M said, the Pope gets his talking points from them and if you do your research you will see that the majority of them are card carrying dimocraps. They need to be spoken to and they need to hear from the parishoners. My brother is in NJ and has no compunction about giving the church leaders the business. Thanks Jim M for pointing that out.
If people want to call Benedict a Nazi and stuff like that, then that reflects on them. They are obviously trolls.
But the reaction by certain Catholics on this thread? Don’t you believe in turning the other cheek? Don’t you believe we shouldn’t return evil for evil? Many of you have insulted me and other nonCatholics. That reflects on you.
There have been some legitimate criticisms that have not been answered. If you lose your composure, you’ve already lost the debate.
What do you imagibe the difference is between “humanitarian” and “economic interest”? There is none.
If the Pope is concerned with povetry in Latin America, he really needs to take that up with the people and governments of Latin America, not demand that we open our borders even further. That would be the “humanitarian” thing to do. What he is doing is foolish and destructive.
Corruption and lawlessness are the enemies not only of America, but of the Catholic church and of Christianity in general. But it’s corruption and lawlessness which he is fostering, whether he knows it or not.
Charity for the poor, in Christian teaching, is something to be done by *individuals*. Christ never admonished Rome or any other state power that they had an obligation to display charity towards the poor. In that sense the Pope’s behavior is un-Christian.
That is a remarkable amount of bigoted ignorance to pack into a few short lines.
Say what you want…
but to me, all this thread has shown is that the very people who are outraged about the anti-Christian biases and “War On Christianity” that is occurring in this country, have themselves shown the very same tendencies towards the Catholic Church. There is most definately an Anti-Catholic fervor in this country…and I am afraid it is brought upon by a great wealth of mis-information, dis-information, personal bias and bigotry.
I have a new view of many people that post here, and frankly, I am ashamed.
Sometimes a thread does run it’s course, see-dub and there’s really not much more to be said.
But instead of “stifling” any legitinate debate with an unceremonious shut-down, I might suggest just quickly noting the handles of the nasty folks and putting them on notice by name in a post. And tell ‘em yer not going to babysit ‘em – just stop it or get booted from commenting.
( Y’know, whenever I see “stifle” it makes me think of Edith Bunker. I rarely use the term, it makes me snicker.)
I think a problem with a thread shutdown is that it could be construed as a result of the few bloggers who wrongly blasted Michelle. They missed Michelle’s point completely and cast her as a bigot, e.g. “She’s Bill Maher, she’s Ann Coulter – shut her down!!!”
I believe it would be wiser to challenge such critics to attack what Michelle actually wrote: “Open borders; breaking Americas territorial laws – yes or no?”
Ahhh, the joys of modding comment threads, eh?
Purple, the damage to mm.com has already been done. By allowing the hateful comments to stand those comments can now, unjustly, be draped around Michelle’s neck like an albatross by the kos kids and others. It was a sad day for me, not sure about anyone else.
LOL…its STRUCTURE is what’s keeping it from melting like the Protestant Churches. Just watch over the coming decades as your churches in Europe are changed into museums and mosques.
Straight_Talk_Luigi said:
I’m confused then, because you say that Catholics don’t worship the pope as God. Whatever, the only Person I call “Holy Father” is infallible in every respect, not just on special occasions.
As far as structure goes, which is correct?
The Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, teaches that a bishop must be married with children (1st Timothy 3:2–5).
vs.
The Catholic church says a bishop must not be married with children.
Still waiting for that answer…
Celibacy for priests and bishops is a matter of Canon law, it is not dogma. Even Peter was married. The Catholic Church has always known that a Pastor who is a family man has a heart that is naturally divided. History shows that there was always a tradition of celibate priests in the early Church, although it was not exclusive and by the 3rd century there were almost no married priests. Problems started around the 9th century with a large increase in the number of priests and bishops marrying and particularly when some began leaving church property to their children.
Celibacy was made official in 1132.
Jewish priests of the Old Testament were required to abstain from sex during the periods when they were serving in the Temple for spiritual reasons. Catholic priests serve in the Temple every day.
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;
but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
The official response is that the “husband of one wife” part of Timothy means he cannot have remarried. It’s not a requirement to be married. Of course opinions will differ.
Even if you could show that there were unmarried bishops in the first century, it wouldn’t prove anything. The letters of the Apostles and prophets mention heresies that had developed shortly after the founding of Christianity.
Every Christian is a priest that offers spiritual sacrifices (1st Peter 2:9), and every Christian is the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1st Peter 2:5; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1st Corinthians 6:19). So that does nothing to forbid being married.
The context of 1st Corinthians 7:32-33 is this:
1. it is addressed to all the Christians in Corinth, not just the bishops
2. Those verses addressed a specific time – “I think then that this is good in view of the [then] present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is” (7:26).
Being both a husband and a father, it is obvious why God requires a bishop, one who is to bring oversight to the church, to be a husband and father. Having these real life experiences teaches you a lot about leadership and self-sacrifice in a way that a single man cannot know.
And no, it is not a matter of opinion what 1st Timothy 3:2 means. In the original language, the word dei is used, which according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, means “it is necessary, there is need of, it behooves, is right and proper.” It is a necessity.
What is a necessity? mias gunaikos andra – literally a one woman man, that is, a one wife husband. A bishop must be the husband of one wife and a good dad to his children. A single man is a no woman man, not a husband at all.
If the Catholic church doesn’t let the inspired Word of God get in their way, why should a catechism get in their way? Especially when one can come up with spurious interpretations and then insist that their interpretation is the correct interpretation.
The pope is man who has sinned. He’s not God, he holds of the Office of Peter on Earth.
As far as the Bible passage, it says that bishops should only marry once. That leaves room for intrepretation because Catholics believe bishops and priests are married to the Church, that is their vocation. It could also mean no polygamous marriages.
Also, I should point that for the first 1100 years or so, the Catholic Church did allow married priests and bishops.
If the Catholic church wants these people here let the Church pay to educate them and pay for their health care! Oh, I forgot. They spent all their money paying off the families of the kids their priests have abused over the years!!!