The WSJ’s open-borders obsessive compulsives
Notice how this Wall Street Journal editorial bashing critics of the Catholic Church’s open-borders policies without addressing a single, specific point we’ve raised about the enforcement-sabotaging efforts of the Vatican and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops–which, as I pointed out, has interpreted the Pope’s remarks during his visit as an endorsement of their illegal alien amnesty-promoting work. Go read the whole thing.
Instead, the WSJ snobs are content to deride Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs as obsessive, compulsive, and “anti-immigrant.”
Might as well have called them “bitter” and “clingy,” too.
(Hat tip - Reader Eric P.)
***
Previous:
No, I’m not Bill Maher
Open borders and the Catholic elite
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
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Immigration
Stop The ACLU
» Even The Washington Post Sneers At Barry School ChoiceGateway Pundit
» Crackpot DA Pounds His Fist & Screams At Judge at Cheney TrialNewsBusters.org
» Chicago Tribune: All Obama, All the TimeRight Wing Nut House
» WILL NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE KILL CONSERVATISM?Redstate
» Obama: Billions for Pork Barrel EarmarksPajamas Media
» Must Conservatives Rally Round the Messiah?Marginal Revolution
» What are the lessons from the New Deal?
I can’t wait to see how supportive of the Holy Father the American Left is the next time he opines on Abortion or Homosexuality.
OK, now I know who to write in come the Fall election: Tancredo.
Stopped subscribing to the WSJ 2 years ago.
Thinking of IBD.
I am a huge fan of Tancredo, Hunter, Inhofe, and Rohrbacher. They seem to truly “get it” where no other politicians do. If we could just turn back time…. I appreciate the Catholic churches stance on the value of life, but they have truly missed the mark with the compassion for lawbreakers.
Wholeheartedly agree purple1.
Too bad the Holy Father was unable to work the funeral of Tina Davila, a mother of five, into his busy schedule.
Still no apology from the Unhinged Michelle Malkin.
Here’s the searchable Catechism of the Catholic Church:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Find the policy on “open-borders” in black and white, not just your spin. It isn’t there and in fact is repudiated.
If you need to resort to dishonesty to attack an adversary, then they shouldn’t be your adversary.
SailorDave,
There are countless stories like the one you’ve posted and it doesn’t seem to matter what these illegals do. They are wreaking havoc in this country and the open-borders crowd which includes our President has turned a blind eye to it all. How shameful. I’ll pray for her children.
These Open Border people know that illegal immigration is a net drain on the economy. It does supply their employer donors and supporters with cheap labor; cheap labor we subsidize with social services, lowered wages and bi-lingual education. The Vatican and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops are certainly entitled to their opinion. But the issue does not affect them in the least. Hypocrisy and selfishness seem to be appropriate words here.
Now I agree more with this version than the wsj version.
I’m sure the Pope would agree; May God Bless Tom Tancredo, Lou Dobbs and America!
How can the pope welcome immigrants to MY country?
On April 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 am, Christian Soldier
I used to read the WSJ everday in college. They were left leaning on open borders even back then but I overlooked it as I enjoyed the financial information They are rabid open borders fanatics now. I stopped subscribing as well, because of this subject alone. It has become another left leaning paper on social issues. I supported Tancredo but by the time the primary got to Texas, he was off the ballot altogether. So I voted instead for Hunter. No way would I vote for mccain since I beleive, as many here do, that a vote for that pr*ck only reinforces the GOP’s beleif that moderate is the way to go. Principles be damned. I now wear the “xenophobe” and “anti-immigrant” monicker with pride. Sorry, but they name called so much for so long it no longer bothers me. My response now is, “yea, so what”.
Gotta love WSJ. Their narrow minded editorial is pure BS. Catholic Church a church of immigrants??? Absolutely. I’m first generation American. Yes, parents came from Poland as immigrants. However, they came through ELLIS ISLAND. I may be mistaken, but wasn’t that the legal way to come into this country??? The WSJ pro-illegal, of course!!! They are a business publication. The biggest opposition to the employer sanctions law in AZ is a cartel of business groups. Many of them fast food franchise holders. Big surprise there HUH???
The problem is NOT with the official language of the church. The problem is with individual priests, like the one in Los Angeles. And even then, the official policy leaves a lot to be said, too. It says that immigrants are to respect our laws, but the question is…do they mean the laws that prevent them from coming here, or do they mean the laws we have in place once they jump the border?
To me, the official language is saying this: Immigrants, you have the right to pour over the border willy-nilly. America, once they get there, you can’t turn them away, but they have to follow your rules (in regard to everything except how they got there) once they’re there.
You can’t expect the Pope to speak out against a policy that benefits Mexico, with it’s Catholic Majority.
Let’s be careful here. I’m not sure all business is pro illegal immigration. The fact that the WSJ editorial board is one thing does not necessarily reflect even a majority of their readership.
I hear this all the time - business is one particular way. I don’t think you can lump all “business” into one basket any more than you can lump all of any particular hair color.
While I appreciate Pope Benedict’s visit, and his take on life and its preservation, I firmly disagree with his take on illegal immigration. I actually saw an interview on Bill O’Reilly’s show the other day where yet another Catholic priest was pontificating how the US should welcome ALL immigrants, be they “migrants” or those seeking political asylum. Both me, and Mr. O, were quite speechless.
The US neither has endless resources or patience. Our country cannot absorb all these illegals into our system. While the Catholic Chuch may say its a human rights issue, to me and many others it’s a legal one. These people are breaking our laws, yet these eclesiastical holy rollers want to sanctify their crimes.
While I respect the Catholic Church for many things, I really don’t get their take on this.
Does NBF #7 REALLY believe that we in the United States are under ROME?!
Please-somebody- help NBF understand that the U.S. separtated herself from Euopean “royalty”- even the Vatican-..OH! - some 200 + years ago.
separated …
The Pope is only worried about increasing the number of people attending the Church. He is not concerned with US sovereignty or the fact that illegals are criminal lawbreakers the minute they step foot into this country. He is only worried about attendance at weekly mass and the subsequent contributions.
I used to be a Catholic, and one of the reason I left the church was it’s stance on illegal immigration. People like Tancredo, Dobbs, and Hunter (my choice for POTUS) are the only ones in the main street elite that seem to “get it.” The majority of the politicians aren’t out there to protect our country, they are out there to pander to the open-borders crowd and pro-slavery business clients that want cheap illegal labor.
All three presidential candidates are promising to do the same. Who exactly is representing the Citizens of the US in this election?
I’ll be dog, couldn’t be more true! My feelings exactly Weary Citizen.
Why doesn’t the Pope go to mexicant and tell them how to keep their own damn people in their own damn country!
I understand that he is just preaching to his flock but at my expense.
I am not cool with that.
If I wanted to give my money to catholics I would be a practicing catholic. Why should I have to spend my tax money to pay for the services of illegals that find their way into the catholic religion?
More and more of our money is being taken from us and spent on things that have not interest to our society.
I am becoming unhinged!
I think the only one coming off unhinged on this issue is you. While I’ve had my disagreements with Michelle on certain issues, I do not think she took any kind of “unhinged” stance on the Catholic Church vs. illegal immigration.
Why is it, that the Holy Father, his many archbishops and priests have taken a sanctuary approach to illegal immigrants? Why? Why not provide a sanctuary for those who are legal citizens and are regular parishioners?
Do you disagree that the Catholic Church, along with its many archdioceses across the country, have become liberal zones that seek to undermine many of the Conservative principles of the Church?
Why so cross this morning…
I was a Duncan Hunter fan until he endorsed Huckabee.
I don’t know much about Catholicism, so in my translation of this, if I get into the Vatican, they will welcome me and let me stay? Will the WSJ be my sponsor, perhaps loan me a ladder?
Yeah. Right. As long as I wash the dishes.
Tom Tancredo for President and Lou Dobbs for VP.
30 pcs,
It’s a shame that it may take countless more of these preventable tragedies before anything changes. The Houston Chronicle buried this story on its web site, whereas any story with a pro-illegal angle generally gets the front-page treatment.
The body count from illegal alien crimes in the US doesn’t get the same grim milestone attention from the media that the body count from Iraq does.
Here is the problem: The catholic church that I was married in here in Prince William County VA recently placed a flyer in the weekly bulletin. The flyer was from Catholic Charities and encouraged immegrants to atten a meeting where they would be told about:
Know your rights…
Know what to do if you are pulled over by police…
Know what to do if you or a family member is facing deportation…
…and more.
IMHO, this crosses the line. If you look at the Catholic Charites web site, you will see that they provide attornies for immegrants facing deportation, among other things.
That is NOT what I want my contributions being used for…
Here we go. Another 300+ comments section where the anti-Catholics come out and say that the Pope is motivated by money and membership. Michelle is not anti-Catholic, but many others here definitely are.
I’m a very strong supporter of strict immigration enforcement. I interpret the Pope’s remarks to mean that if some illegal immigrant is dying in the desert of thirst, you provide water to them before deporting him. Sometimes I wonder about whether others commenting on this issue would do the same.
Weary Citizen and all-
RE: Hunter (my choice) and Tancredo-
Nov. will be the first time that I will write in a person for Pres.
Anyone want to join me?
NBF, if i may repeat the section you bolded:
when said Immigrant disobeys the laws and refuses to assist in carrying civic burdens, what says the catechism then? Further, what says the catechism about Immigrants who aren’t here lawfully in the first place? Last I checked, this country does
The ‘able’ness lays with the laws of immigration. Sorry if that rubs the pope the wrong way but his kingdom should be the kingdom of his alleged Lord who said His kingdom isn’t of this world. Funny thing though, that kingdom has some rules for entering it too, no?
From the WSJ:
Yet the WSJ’s editorial board has no qualms whatsoever in denouncing any Evangelist preacher who sermonizes against the practice of homosexuality, declaring it homophobic hate speech; even though such sermons usually do not condemn of homosexuals but, rather, offer them a chance at rebirth.
The WSJ echos the mantra of big business: they need illegal aliens to keep their businesses rolling. Which is utter bunk.
Purely and simply, they use illegal labor to keep their personnel costs down to increase profits. Illegals are not “doing the jobs that Americans won’t do”, but are doing jobs at wage rates that are maintained artificially lower than a level at which the free market would price those jobs. The employers count on the fact that illegals will work for a fraction of what the average American would demand as pay, relying on their illegal status to keep them silent about issues of pay and working conditions.
To me, illegal labor is actually contrary to a free market system. It maintains an artificial limitation on wages and benefits.
In addition, the use of illegal labor is a method employers use to get the public at large to share in their burdens. Since they are not paying anything close to approximating a “livable wage”, the slack is foisted on the taxpayer in the form of welfare, food stamps and health care. If you add the costs and expenses of the social welfare and publicly financed medical benefits used by the illegal population, the actual employment costs (low employer wages plus welfare plus food stamps plus medical plus other costs) undoubtedly exceeds the expenses that would be borne solely by the employer in the event the jobs they maintained were priced by the free market without the artificial ruse of illegal labor.
The problem for business which they seem to ignore is the present trend for illegals to demand the rights and protections afforded citizens of the US. If they are successful, the artificial floor on wages will be eroded increasing employment expenses across the board. That, however, will not eliminate the social welfare expenses, since the lure of government subsidies and free health care will not be abandoned by the people currently receiving them. To the extent they remain loyal to another country, illegals will continue their proclivity for breaking the law when it benefits them, and we will end up with lower profits at the company level and the same or higher social costs to be borne by the taxpayers of America.
The Pope can wish for one world, but as we say in the country, wish in one hand, sh*t in the other, and see which one fills up first.
SailorDave,
Right now, it’s costing 25 American lives per day. To see the President hobnobbing with the Mexican President just grates on my nerves. As I am sure it does for the families of those who have lost loved ones to this open borders madness.
Fineous Reese said:
Those that don’t play by the rules get thrown out of that Kingdom, too - Galatians 5:1-4; Romans 11:17-24.
If this global warming fight continues, this country will begin to be hungry. Then maybe some of these bleeding hearts will be less willing to give their food to illegal aliens. Maybe even as we turn into another third world country to please the left wing loonies, the illegals won’t find this country such a drawing card to them.
I am sick of giving up to these people over and over, and call it “reaching across the aisle”. Open the borders, let anyone in that wants in, especially since their staple in Mexico is corn, and we need that for bio fuel, so we have to let them in to get money to buy tortillas.
Sorry for going off, but I’m just so sick of it ALL!!!
Trollman,
Excellent takedown.
People keep inserting words in the Pope’s mouth that he didn’t say.
Imagine atheists saying that Christ is “for lawlessness” when he said that when you visit those in prison, you visit Christ (Matt 25:32ff).
I’m STILL waiting for the black-and-white citation of the “open borders policy” from the Catechism or from the Pope.
On April 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 am, rooster said
Rooster, good to know I am not the only one that feels this way on the name calling. Everyone in the un-protected class (and we all know who that is) walks on egg shells these days and would rather lose everything than be called a name. Gotta hand it to the liberals though. They did a masterful job of selling PC to a guilt ridden (for what, Ihave no idea) public and shutting down any kind of opposition. Goebels would be proud.
On April 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 am, Christian Soldier said:
CS, I most likely am with you, and we would have the most impact if everyone writes in the same name. Maybe the GOP will get the message, but I doubt it. mccain (not capped for lack of respect) would have to do a 180 on immigration between now and Nov by rebuking amnesty and promising a policty of “Attrition Through Enforcement and Elimination of the Magnets”, and prove he is sincere. But I won’t hold my breath. The only other issue that may sway me to him is taxes and smaller gov’t. You know what the GOP is supposed to represent but does not.
Christian Solider,
I’m not discussing the governance of the US. I’m discussing what the Pope & the Catechism ACTUALLY SAY rather than what Michelle and other anti-Catholics keep claiming.
O’Reilly had a priest on last night shilling for open borders. (I regret very much that I did not make note of his position and affiliation but he did not come across as some sort of church maverick: He was very polished and polite and seemed to be speaking for the Church.)
This priest did not bluntly endorse open borders in the beginning. But under only light prodding he said that, yes, he does belive that national borders must give way whenever the larger good for humanity as a whole needs to be served. I believe that to be a naked, but misguided, argument for open borders.
I say that it is “misguided,” because even if one accepts that the USA has no moral right to protect itself from unlimited claims on its resources by impoverished third-world invaders, it does not follow that the betterment of the world, as a whole, would be well served by open US borders. I think most of us here appreciate that US is a huge source of humanitarian benefit to the whole world as things are. But radical one-worlders would like to create a scene like in Dr. Zhivago where the poor people took over the stately homes and started burning the banisters for firewood. Soon, of course, EVERYone in Russia was cold. And there was no one to fund humanitarian enterprises.
Last year the cost of illegal immigration was 346 billion. Twice the fiscal deficit.
25% of immigrants receive Medicade as opposed to 14.8 % of native born Americans, 19.2% are Hispanic, even though they are 13.17% of the population.
They depress wages for Native born Americans, which causes a 100 billion shortfall in tax revenue. If the laborforce from immigration increases by 10% it reduces the wages of Native born Americans by 5%.
When does Washington see we are being invaded?
They would summarily be dismissed as not knowing what they were talking about. Which is generally the obstacle most people face when they take a Bible verse out of context. Within the appropriate context, one will note that Christians were persecuted which, you’ve guessed it, meant that they were jailed. Why were they persecuted? For being Christians. Plain and simple. No crime was committed.
You didn’t address the poster who indicated that:
What say you?
Being the only “Goverment” leader who doesn’t play by the rules of “Separation of Church and State”, the Pope would naturally support any policy that strengthens his Church and expands its sphere of influence. A “open borders” policy, in this country would help bring immigrant (legal & illegal) mexican catholic’s into Catholic Churches nationwide, reversing the trend of declining numbers of parishioners. While historically, the Pope’s cause has always been to spread the Word of God, there has always been the equally important cause, and the reason the Pope exists in the world of secular politics, to extend the reach of World Catholicism.
On the one hand, I’m with Michelle and most here concerning illegal immigration. Always have been. And I have no problem speaking with our Bishop on these issues in a frank way.
And NBF at 10:10 is correct, the Catechism is clear. Whether coming into this country or living here. Catholic immigrants are bound to obey the laws.
The rub is blaming the actual Church, not the offending, loud mouthed Bishops and priest who are, in Michelle’s words, interpreting, the Pope’s words.
What upset most Catholics, me in particular, this past weekend was the leap by some who sounded like hateful bigots calling the Pope a NAZI. I am please to note this thread has been up one hour and no one has called His Holiness that yet. Maybe it’s because this thread is being monitored and the weekend threads appeared not to be.
Also I think, Michelle, you stepped over the line when you said:
NBF can speak for himself but I believe that point is where an apology is due.
NBF,
Most of the people on this blog are generalists. Not having a clue about the Catholic religion they read or hear a comment they don’t agree with and then get all elitest about it and assume that all Catholics are in agreement. When they hear a rogue priest or bishop make pronouncements they believe that they got their marching orders from the Pope.
I must say again, YOU DON’T HAVE TO ENTER THE U.S. TO BECOME A CATHOLIC. many hispanics are Catholic when they get here, illegally or not!
How about this, Michelle Malkin is fanning the flames of anti Catholicism in order to get more people to her blog!
30 Pieces of Silver#44:
The problem is that Michelle and other commenters have been attacking Church policy (which she doesn’t know), and the Pope’s comment (which she wildly misconstrued).
The Church teaches that you must respect the law in all regards except sin.
If she had blogged on an individual priest who was rebelling against church teaching on respecting immigration laws, that would be fine.
I’ll bet this years
Maycommunist day has a lot of cumbya and we shall over come rhetoric associated with it.When taxing of legal citizens to benefit the amnesty/sanctuary policies of everyone that sneaks into our country is justified because some religous/business/political organization has a “catechism” doctrine doesn’t wash with millions of Americanse.
The anti-catholic crap spit so easily from you is stupid and shows you haven’t much to contribute to your support for sanctuary policies.
These sanctuary policies are an abuse of tax money; and you justify catholic/business/political policies because of a “catechism” that was produced long before welfare became so prevelant.
#31
“Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
The catechism states that the country has the right to say who comes in and who stays out. Read the first half of the post by NBF.
#45 The separation of church and state as the argument was made meant that the government was not going to get involved with religion. Jefferson was telling the clergy that the government was not going to interfere with the free exercise of religion.
Once again everyone is chasing the rabbit down the rabbit hole.
Bottom line is our elected officials at state and national level are not doing their jobs and are allowing the illegals to come in and stay. Get off of the Pope and get into it with your elected officials.
Add miker to the unreality-based list for repeating the absurd “subsequent contributions” motive.
I’m truly disappointed in Ms. Malkin for not retracting her similarly baseless claim. The “financial motive” has been disproved - it’s time to acknowledge the truth and correct the record.
Why is it that the liberals are always screaming about separation of church and state except when the church agrees with them?
It’s simple. The catechism instructs the individual to follow the law of the land, So if our law states that you can’t come here with approval and you choose to enter illegally, not only are you breaking the law, but you’re also sinning.
Make that without approval
Please zorro, you’re better than this type of paranoia that you wrote.
Just so I am perfectly clear, there is no excuse for the illegal immigration problem in the United States. The tool who was espousing open borders on O’Reilly is one of many who are so far to the left that they will never live in reality. Contact your legislators and let them know that their jobs rest on their performance in combatting illegal immigration and immigrants.
Ed Rollins interpreted the Pope’s comments as this: “Illegal immigrants should be treated humanely, but that does not mean they get to circumvent the law and they should go home.”
The problem is the pope didn’t say it that way and that’s why so many people are ticked about his comments. The church can post an official policy but actions speak louder. The pope made vague comments which are easily interpreted as “accept illegal aliens” and the actions of Catholic priests around the country sheltering illegals from ICE is counter to the official policy.
I was raised Catholic but no longer practice. I was upset by the Pope’s lack of clarity on the issue. I am surprised as well that there was little comment about abortion or homosexuality. I assume the MSM, WSJ and others wouldn’t be adoring the Pope and his comments had they contained words like “treat fetuses humanely”.
The Pope should focus on issues related to his faith, and he has a long way to go to account for abuse of children that has lasted centuries in the Catholic church.
2 questions for Bob from Turtle Beach:
Have you ever heard of Great Britain?
How often do you bleach your white sheet?
NBF,
Fair assessment. I’ll gracefully bow out.
Riddle me this corona; If a million dollars is collected from a million dirt poor people, one dollar per person, how much money is collected?
Sorry Rooster. I had to throw that in support of englishqueen who is so hurt by all this. In fact, the weekend threads were dripping with that sort of language. Take a look, you’ll see.
rooster # 60…. does corona need to use new math or can he use the regular math that we were taught? It does have an outcome on the answer. Fuzzy math = feelings = open borders illegal immigration. What part of illegal is so hard to understand????????
This post of yours, Vince, is a complete pantload. And, yes, I understand they you were trying to make a point with your inflamatory final paragraph and that it was not to be understood literally.
But you are WAY too defensive regarding the CC. Do you really think that people who are upset at the role of the CC in the illegal immigration drama believe that ALL the members of the Church subscribe to this agenda? That is ridiculous. But there is a strong and infuriating pattern of institutional CC support for II. Not only is every individual Catholic not behind this, not even all of the priesthood is behind it…not by any means. But there are few — if any — official Church voices speaking AGAINST the lawbreaking. And there are MANY speaking under Church authority and supporting it.
And you get all whiny, because outsiders generalize this as “Catholic” support for II. Get freakin’ real! We all live in localities and situations that are a little different but in my world, anti-Catholicism is a dusty bit of history that belongs with stories of Democrat, urban politics when the waves of Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigration were rolling in.
But you want to gen up a little anti-Catholicism? You are heading in the right direction!!! THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS SUPPORTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Whine all you want about it being a generalization, but it is a fair one. I know that you, yourself, hate this but denying the truth does not make it go away.
And as for Catholics in general…well, I can’t have this discussion but so many times before I am going to start getting irritated at Catholicism in a very broad way that does not confine itself to the church hierarchy or the immigration issue. So you may get what you are whining about if you keep at it.
Anyway Rooster, I’m glad I got this off my chest. I don’t usually disagree with Michelle on anything but there’s always a first. I hope it’s the last.
This kind of seems like your saying
All negative statements of jews is Anti-Semitic.
All negative statements of the black community is Racist.
All negative statements of Islam is Anti-Religion.
All negative statements of China is Anti-Asian
The Catholic Church should and must be criticized for it’s short comings, just as any other Christian Church. The Pope may be the head of the Catholic Church but he is not the head of the Christian religion.
And this would be one way to look at it.
expat,
Its not trickery in mathematics, one million dollar bills still equal one million dollars.
The bottom line to whoever promotes sanctuary/amnesty can be traced to $$$$.
This is not an attack on the church, it is frustration on all who are involved in this illegal immigration travesty.
Iggy,
I agree, I am very defensive about this because I and so many Catholics I know are against illegal immigration and the politicians who won’t do anything about it. Also, I made a broad generalization to make a point and it seems like it hit a nerve! You, however did respond with reason and didn’t call me any names which is an improvement over this weekend’s blog.
Taken as a whole, I do not believe many people would take issue with the position of the Church as expressed in the Catechism. Taken as a whole.
The discontent and distress we are seeing today arises from the failure of the leadership of the Church here in the US to honor those words in their entirety. There is an inherent quid pro quo in the official position - while nations must do what they can, those benefitting from the acts of charity and compassion must obey the law and assume the burdens they place on the social structure of the host country.
The advocacy for open borders we hear so much about flies directly in the face of Church doctrine. The duty of compassion is not an absolute one, and those responsibilities are tempered by the host country’s ability to carry them out. In addition:
There is absolutely no recognition of this imperitive right of the State in any of the positions taken by the heirarchy of the US church.
As is there zero recognition of the US leadership of the following:
Again, there is a specific quid pro quo in the official doctrine linking the immigrants obedience of the law with assisting in carrying the public burden. To the contrary, we see Church leaders here in the US promoting illegal immigration, i.e., disobecience of the laws of the US. We see Church leaders fanning the flames of anarchy, encouraging activities on the part of illegals that encourage them to reject any contribution toward offsetting the burden their presence creates on the public, the infrastructure of the host country and the US taxpayer.
Financing way stations for illegal immigrants to make their illegal entry into the US more comfortable. Providing shelter and financial assistance to an illegal population that openly and brazenly continues to defy any US laws. Praising Cuba while condemning the US in their treatment of the Church. Fueling and fostering an entitlement mentality among illegal aliens to the point to where they are now comfortable to hold mass work stoppages and rallies to demand all of the rights of US citizens while being relieved of any corresponding duties and responsibilties. These observations and occurrences fly directly in the face of the Church’s official doctrine.
As I said before, I do not think that many people would take issue with official doctrine if taken as a whole. The issue, and major problem here, is that the Church here in the US does not practice what it preaches. In practice, the leadership here is advocating a one way responsibility of the state and eliminating, altogether, any corresponding responsibility on the part of the “oppressed”.
The Pope certainly did not create the mess created by the US Catholic Church, but he does have an opportunity to clean it up. And until the Church puts its own house in order and follows its own published doctrine, it will be viewed here in the US as an advocate for open borders lawlessness and anarchy, with the end result causing the destruction of the United States of America. While that end result is not consistent with published Church doctrine, Church leaders here are indeed promoting that course of action. In fact, it can be observed that they are pursuing a path that replaces a weakened government with the power of Church authorities here.
Ergo, the activities of the Church here in the US are fomenting a deep sense of distrust and rightful criticism, which is the true cause of people’s negative feelings.
Objective observations supported by more than ample facts should not be seen as “bashing”. It should mobilize members of the Church to demand adherence to Church doctrine, and if necessary, to replace those who thwart the teaching of the Church here in America with those who will follow the direction of Rome.
By the way, when has the MSM ever covered extensively any comments or actions that anyone has ever said or made against illegal immigration.
It is possible that the Catholics who are speaking out against illegal immigration aren’t getting heard?
I left the Catholic Church many years ago, sickened by the pedophile scandals, open-border/sancturary policies, and defying law enforcement (like the church in Prince William County, for example).
I suggest like-minded Catholics do the same; vote with their feet and pocket books. If the Church knows that well-to-do parishoners will put up with the above antics, it’ll never change it’s course
The Roman Catholic representative on O’Rielly- Mon. night-ended with words that sounded awfully like:
For the COMMON GOOD…
Socialism at its best.
My Catholic friends and I are not happy about it.
I understand Oreilly has to have liberal views for their fair and balanced moniker, but I think Oreilly goes above and beyond appeasement. I use to love his show, now I rarely watch it.
Michelle,
You allow people to comment on this blog who might be illegal immmigrants. You must, therefore, be for open-borders and amnesty.
Maybe we should send all the illegal immigrants to your home and let you foot the bill.
[/sarcasm]
Hey zorro
There, now someone has - Bill Maher.
So Vince thinks Michele is anti catholic??? She isn’t…BUT I AM!
As long as The Pope has Cardinal Law…(who facilitated much of the abuse against children)….sitting at his right hand he can go straight to ****!
As well as McCormack in New Hampshire and many others who should have been prosecuted for their crimes. The catholic church has yet to purge itself from this evil from the top down. Coming from Boston where the crimes were part of the social fabric of the church I have no sympathy for the church and their loss of members. I agree wholeheartedly with Tancredo…the church needs to fill it’s coffers and it’s pews , and if means bringing in a multitide(Not a typo!)of Illegal,uneducated, impoverished ,illiterates then so be it.They do NOT care. As long as US taxpayers foot the bill they will encourage it. If it were thrown to their laps you would see a change in their attitude . Wouldn’t be suprised if they were on board with the globalist agenda of the three amigos.
WSJ–Business advocates with room temperature IQs and no patriotism.
Gee Chuckie, that was funny.
In.
In response to corona at #52, if you don’t think that the Catholic Church is promoting an open borders policy to increase both attendance and contributions to the Church, then you are extremely naive. Church attendance in the US has been going down for decades and Church leaders see immigration (both legal and illegal) as a way to fill up the pews:
http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/gallup.jpg
I have nothing against the Catholic Church, I was raised Catholic but have since found it wasn’t for me.
If people want to come to the US legally, I’m all for it. We have laws, rules and regulations to do just that. But if you come here illegally, don’t expect us to roll out the welcome mat. Any organization like the Catholic Church (and La Raza, MEChA, etc for that matter) that promotes, helps and codifies illegals aliens is no friend to the sovereignty of the US.
The US is in my opinion the best and most welcoming country in the world, but the flood of people who daily break our laws just by entering this country is dragging us down to 3rd world status. Not to mention the tremendous strain on our health care and school systems, just to name a few. I live in NC and we are constantly having to build new schools because of overcrowding, a large part due to illegal aliens. How is this fair to the US taxpayer I might ask?
The Catholic Church should not be promoting illegal immigration. Period. Breaking the law (and usually multiple laws) as the first thing you do in the US is not a way to build a coherent society!
If the Pope, head of the Vatican City, is advocationg the care of these ILLEGAL immagrants; let the VERY WEALTHY Vatican City government pay for the care of these folks.
THE NERVE OF THIS GUY, advocating that people break the law (surely a sin) to get here; On top of that he is recommending that the church leaders participate in the crime (surely a sin) by sanctioning their stay.
If he wants to make a real difference, how ’bout cleaning up their own pedafile tendancies and stay our of other people’s business.
I will also 2nd and 3rd that motion to write in Hunter for POTUS. Juan McAmnesty will never EVER get my vote. We also have a primary coming up on 5/6 and I will not vote for him in that either!
# 48 nbf says:
apparently the bishops miscontrued them too..
The American bishops have been consistently outspoken in favor of legislation to give legal status to illegal immigrants and expand legal avenues for immigrants to bring their family members from abroad.
They and other Catholic activists were among the most visible supporters of a broad bill, supported by Mr. Bush but not enacted by Congress last year, which included a path to legal status for 12 million illegal immigrants.
They took Benedict’s statements last week as affirmation of their work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20catholics.html?em&ex=1208750400&en=7e078b92e34e849e&ei=5087%0A
Yo, miker…I’m down with you on that no vote for McAmnesty. (I vote at Cary Academy.)
Maverick candidate, meet maverick voter!
NBF said:
And I am still waiting for Benedict to explicitly condemn illegal immigration.
Benedict is the head of the Catholic church, right? You have outspoken Catholic Bishops pushing illegal immigration left and right. If Benedict is truly opposed to illegal immigration, then why hasn’t he come out and apologized for those wayward Bishops in addition to the pedophilia scandal?
His silence is speaks far louder than any Catechism.
There is only one side that is determined to continue to use ambiguous language - the open borders crowd.
miker said:
Remember, Hunter endorsed Huckabee. Tancredo all the way.
I placed in parenthesis definitions and explanations of each of the church’s policy positions.
The very document that you claim refutes “open borders” support actually mandates it. It is you who should be apologizing to Michelle.
You’re doing the Catholic Church no favors. Your posts are completely mindless, robotic, and pathetic efforts to convince people not to believe their “lying eyes (and ears).”
I always thought that Jesuit schoolmasters produced a highly rational, if rigid, sort of thinking.
Your mutterings are just the the foolish babble of someone who can not hear truth or reason but just insists stupidly that his “team” is right.
Utterly ridiculous!
If the Pope didn’t mention that murder is wrong on his trip, do you also assume that his is pro-murder?
What a sorry excuse for the lies and mischaracterizations made toward the Pope and Church teaching on this blog.
Still waiting for the open-borders citation from the Pope or the Catechism (not holding my breath).
NBF said:
If you have a bunch of Catholic Bishops running around the US proclaiming that murder is OK and even good, then yes, I would expect Benedict to say something about it.
Given the context, Benedict’s silence speaks volumes.
Tell ya what Trollman: when you get to be Pope, you can write Papal addresses on things you think are most pressing.
But that doesn’t give you the right to assume that the current Holy Father is endorsing lawlessness.
Most Bishops instruct the faithful to abide by Church teaching with regard to respect for civil law.
NBF is a tool. The official catechism of the Catholic church does NOT preclude CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, but the last 2 Popes, (both of whom I love dearly) are abjectly and completely against it.
NBF is just the run of the mill lib. He knows the Pope is for open borders, but he still wants to win an argument.
What I love the most is NBF and his rear of Michelle.
That would be “fear” or Michelle,
Sincerely
Sigmund Freud.
Libocrat,
Thanks for trying to deflect the subject, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. The Catechism was promulgated under the reign of the last pope. While I don’t know their personal feelings, their teaching as pope in no way conflicted with the Catechism.
did you see the priest, a catholic spokesman, on the O’Reilly show?
he said he wants EVERYONE to be able to come here. he says it is OUR responsibility to take care of the world. he says it is OUR policies that keep them down.
do the catholic church defenders on this board still want to defend the church’s stance on illegals, or wonder why people are angry with the church?
the tax exemption should be revoked from any religous org that aids and abets illegal alien lawbreaking.
Gee Patriot1, I didn’t know one priest can supersede the Catechism or the Pope.
eyeroll.
quit the bs, pal. you know damn well that most of the catholic church has been organizing and pushing and lobbying illegal alien issues for years.
finding a church official who is NOT open borders, pro-illegals, would be more difficult.
Patriot01,
There are many thousands of Catholic clergy. While I’m sure there are bad ones, not a single one I’ve every met has been pro-illegal immigration or for open borders. And I know a lot of them.
Did you ever stop to think that the press likes to find liberals to do their dirtywork? I’ve never seen a priestess in person in my life, but the liberal media always dredges them up for their service, and people like you lap up the sensationalism and come out shooting first, asking questions later.
If you want to accuse “The Church” of something, you had better darn well get out the Catechism first and do your homework before shooting off your mouth.
#87 Thank you for posting 2241-I just knew I heard the Rep. for the RCC - O’Reilly - Mon night- say the words :
“for the common good” The words are in 2241!!!
I didn’t know that the RCC advocates socialism!
#73 - Rooster - I hardly ever watch O’Reilly either and for the same reasons as you gave.
# 79 - Solo - Hunter or Tancredo?
what would be your reaction, pal, if a burglar broke into your home, and your priest said “oh, leave him there. we must have compassion for the poor”
similar to what the illegals are doing on a a large scale.
if you agreed with that priest, you would be as clueless and dangerous as he is.