Posted on 11/07/2007 9:14:58 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
ping
The Catholic bishops have a vested interest in importing millions of (uneducated and easily-led) Catholics into this country. American Catholics are a little too hard to control anymore, have too much of a tendency to not bother with the hierarchy’s views on birth control and voting and so forth.
Why don’t these bishops set up missionary centers in Mexico instead of expecting the United States to do their charitable work for them?
Seems mighty hypocritical.
Empire building.
Typical so-called “spirit of Vatican II” sixties leftovers who still think the year is 1968. This bunch of BINOs do not speak for this Virginia Catholic on this issue. Not one bit.
They speak for no one. They need to fill the seats and try to recoup the billions they paid in the wake of the lawsuits.
The Catholic Bishops are out of touch.They still cannot figure out after years of study that the scandalous behavior of Kennedy and his buddies in the Senate should not be rewarded by reception of the Eucharist.And even though 77% of the population opposes Spitzer’s licenses for illegals,the Bishops of NY support Spitzer’s hair-brained scheme.
I'm sure even pro-Catholic bigots can see that it would be better for ALL Mexicans to help them clean up their corruption-infested country, instead of prolonging the misery by encouraging the Mexican government to export its social problems, instead of reforming itself for the good of its people, don't you think?
You give the hopeless Bishops too much credit.
The 1st Amendment of our constitution assures "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Are you so anti-Catholic that you would deny the Bishops the status of "people" and the rights that go along with it? Whether you and I like what they are saying and advocating, they are acting within the law.
The Catholic Church does have a presence in Mexico, but the Church is severely hampered in working and advocating on behalf of the people. There are five elements in the Mexican Constitution that are aimed at reducing the Catholic Church’s influence in Mexican domestic affairs.
- Article 3 enforces secular education in Mexican schools.
- Article 5 outlaws Monastic vows and orders
- Article 24 prevents public worship outside the confines of the Church buildings.
- Article 27 denies religious institutions the right to acquire, hold, or administer real property. Furthermore, all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property.
- Finally, Article 130 declares all basic civil responsibilities like voting or commenting on public affairs be taken away from Church officials.
In the US where the Bishops play a role life is good, in Mexico where they can't life is bad. I don't think that is purely coincidental.
No, I'm just smart enough to know that exercise of my own 1st amendment right to criticise the actions of thes bishops does not constitute a "violation" of their 1st amendment rights. Something you apparently don't understand.
The Catholic Church does have a presence in Mexico, but the Church is severely hampered in working and advocating on behalf of the people. There are five elements in the Mexican Constitution that are aimed at reducing the Catholic Church’s influence in Mexican domestic affairs.
None of which matters, because none of those articles say anything about what bishops in Mexico teach their own people inside the church doors, which is where the bulk of religious socialisation (obviously) occurs.
In the US where the Bishops play a role life is good, in Mexico where they can't life is bad. I don't think that is purely coincidental.
Highly doubtful that that has even the slightest bit to do with it. Besides, if life in America is good because Catholic bishops play a role in public life, then life in America is even BETTER because Protestant and Baptist pastors (groups which make up the majority in the USA) also play said role.
Your opinion is that of an uninformed idiot.
But the MSM will never tell you that.
The MSM wants to hide the truth from you.
**Typical so-called “spirit of Vatican II” sixties leftovers who still think the year is 1968. This bunch of BINOs do not speak for this Virginia Catholic on this issue. Not one bit.**
In fact, we need to pray for these Bishops in name only.
They are being replaced before retirement age by Pope Benedict XVI. Keep praying!
“anti-Catholic bigots”
You must be a Democrat, Natural Law.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid in to FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxe d on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “put away,” you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens* believe it!
As was your criticism.
If you think illegal aliens are Church attending Catholics your head is farther up your dirt chute than the USCCBs are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.