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.
Trackbacks
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Tancredo to Pope: Kindly quit being such an amnesty shill, your holiness
- Pope Schmope and the illegal alien agenda | The TIW Blog
- The Other McCain: Deport the Pope?
- Catholicism and Immigration « The Autopsy
- Rhymes With Right
- Michelle Malkin and the Catholics-when-convenient crowd « Becoming Hinged
- UNCoRRELATED
- HBO Has Got To Go
- The Benedict Chronicles at No Man’s Blog
- Michelle Malkin » No, I’m not Bill Maher
- Catholics Play the “Discrimination” Card
- No, Malkin is not Maher | The Anchoress
- Neocon News » Daily Quick Hits 4/20/08
- thesilentmajorityspeaks.com » Blog Archive » Pope Benedict, please explain….
- Michelle Malkin » The WSJ’s open-borders obsessive compulsives
- catholicnews.org
- When Liberalism Kills
- Michelle Malkin » Open-borders lawsuit: English-only rule creates “hostile” school environment
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Open Borders Lobby, Sanctuary Cities
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
American Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftRedstate
» Morning Briefing for November 24, 2009Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» O
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!!!