Posted on 04/16/2008 4:55:50 PM PDT by HarleyD
There is an interesting article on USA Today that discusses the Vatican donation of at least $20,000 to build a shelter for Central American immigrants traveling to the USA. This money comes from the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, which reports to the pope. I would like to know if our Catholic friends condone the use of Vatican money from a Pontif Commission for encouraging illegal immigrants. Is it right to use Church funds to support and encourage illegal activities? Your comments would be most enlightening.
Illegals are by-and-large Catholic. Catholics put money in the collection plates. Mystery solved.
Is it right that the Vatican is supporting what is clearly illegal activities?
Hispanic immigrants are very, very miserly when it comes to supporting the Church. Anglos are the Church's main supporters in the U.S.
The Church's misguided efforts are done with the best of intentions.
You misunderstood my comment as an endorsement of what the Catholic Church is doing: I was merely explaining their actions. Follow the money....
the road...paved with good intentions.
Harley, I was listening to the Bill O’Reilly show a few minutes ago. This was the opening story. Follow the money is a good rule when considering a news story. Mexicans will fill the pews and will eventually contribute heavily as they take jobs away from citizens. The other great thing about this plan is the filling of the need for priests. More and more priests will be Mexican-American.
Almost all priests, no matter how conservative otherwise, are blind and stupid when it comes to illegal immigration.
I'm not in the habit of secong guessing the Pope, particularly when all I know of the issue is what I get from newspapers and TV.
ABC’s Cokie Roberts: U.S. Discriminates Against Catholic Illegals
By Scott Whitlock | April 16, 2008 - 13:20 ET
ABC correspondent Cokie Roberts appeared on Wednesday’s “Good Morning America” to tout Pope Benedict’s views on illegal immigration and rail against the illegals who are “discriminated” against. Roberts, who rode with President Bush as he drove to meet the Pope and kick off the pontiff’s American tour, played up the Pope’s supposed opposition to U.S. immigration policy. She asserted, “These, you know, the people who are being discriminated against— And the Pope has said that he’s fearful that there’s a xenophobia going on in America.”
Just my 2 cents:
Living in San Diego, I have a good idea of what problems illegal immigration brings.
Having said that, I will point out the tendency of us Americans to think we are the center of the universe. The Pope is the leader of a global Church - over a billion people make up his flock, and he looks at them as Catholics first.
Watch the replay of The Factor at 11 p.m.; E.D. Hill is in for Bill and led with this segment.
7, 2008 - 10:54am
Catholics, the MCLU and Driver Licenses for Illegals.
By Wally Edge
The AP is reporting that the MCLU, The Roman Catholic Diocese and several immigrants and civil rights groups are planning a press conference in the State House to oppose the Governor’s plan to make Maine driver licenses more secure.
The unholy alliance is the result of a letter sent by Governor Baldacci to Secretary Chertoff promising to fix a few “flaws” in Maine’s licensing procedures.
If I read the article right this shelter is in southern Mexico. Is there signage saying its just for Central Americans on their way to cross illegally into the U. S. ?
From what I have understood from the O’Reilly Factor and this small clip this is a shelter providing rest and facilities for people. So what? How does that “support illegal activities”? If it does, then so do those rest stops near all the state borders in the United States. This is a very silly complaint. The Church has always tried to care for those in need, and giving money to provide food, rest and toilets to people is hardly encouraging or aiding in illegal activities.
Ummm... if you didn’t intend this post to be an anti-Catholic Freeper magnet...
On second thought, you did intend for the post to be an anti-Catholic Freeper magnet.
I’m Roman Catholic, and I disagree with the Vatican big time on its ambivalence towards — and, in some instances, support of — illegal immigration, especially illegal immigration to the United States. Perhaps the Pontiff would welcome legions of moslems illegally immigrating to Vatican City.
What drives me nuts is that Catholic Charities and the Lutheran World Federation keep putting muslim families all over the US thinking to “convert” them. Some do, but most don't and it is having a very bad effect.
“Hispanic immigrants are very, very miserly when it comes to supporting the Church.”
You are being charitable in your description. Hispanics (especially Mexicans) are the cheapest cheapskates in the Western Hemisphere. They have no problem taking and using what belongs to others, and demanding that the US government take care of them, but you’ll seldom see a hispanic even leave a tip in a restaurant or bar. Tightwad is too feeble a word to describe a hispanic. They are notoriously lousy tippers.
No.
Is it right to use Church funds to support and encourage illegal activities?
No.
Your comments would be most enlightening.
And I thank you.
“...he’s fearful that there’s a xenophobia going on in America.”
No, we just don’t like being invaded, especially by ill-mannered third-worlders.
What would Jesus do?
I’m going try to just sit back and read the comments, but I will say that it is rather naive to think the Vatican gave money for a “rest stop”. There are a lot of rest stops needed along I-95 that I doubt you’ll get the Vatican putting up money for.
You omitted from your capsule the fact that the shelter is being built in southern Mexico.
False. Many if not most of them are nominal catholics who rarely if ever darken the doors of a church. And they have little to no money.
The church has missions all over the world, including all over Mexico. I’m against illegal immigration, big time, but I’m not ready to throw the church under the bus over this one.
That's a pretty major detail, and it's right in the second paragraph. How did you miss that, Harley?
“he looks at them as Catholics first”
If you examine the things he has said he looks at them as people first. The Catholic church is one of the largest institutions would wide in adoptions of orphans... regardless of the denomination of the orphan.
Thank you, you are correct.
Well don’t let the facts confuse a good opportunity to slam the Church.
Granted they’re ill-mannered and cheap, but you also forgot to say that they’re lazy, shiftless, smell bad, have too many children, and generally have bad fashion sense.
I would thank you for asking the questions so respectfully. As such, I will try to give you respectful answers.
You asked, I would like to know if our Catholic friends condone the use of Vatican money from a Pontif Commission for encouraging illegal immigrants.
If the purpose of the shelter was explicitly to encourage illegal immigration, I would not support the use of that money for that purpose.
I don't see it that way. I see it that the Church sees thousands of Christians that are fleeing a truly horrible situation in an effort to find a better situation elsewhere. And I see where the Church sees this as something to make the trip a little easier on them. A trip that they would be taking anyway.
Frankly, I see the Church taking the mission of caring for the poor, as Christ commended, seriously.
And by the way, do I support illegal immigration? No. Do I support the border fence? Yes. Do I support civilian auxillaries to the border patrol? Yes.
But more importantly, I support the teachings of Christ.
Harley, I don't know if you appreciate the situation in places like Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. I don't know if you've ever been in a real slum (note: we don't have real slums in this country). I don't know if you have seen or smelled what genuine poverty is like. Maybe you have. Maybe you haven't. I have. And based on that, I can't blame somebody for wanting to come to this, the land of milk and honey. On the basis of being a Christian, I truly can't blame them and my heart goes out to them.
At the same time, though, I can see what they are doing to our infrastructure. In the long run, rather than elevating them, they are destroying what we built. They are overloading the schools, they are overloading the emergency rooms, they are destroying middle class neighborhoods by cramming 20 adults in a single family house built for two adults and 3-4 kids. It can't be allowed to continue, because eventually we'll end up as a third world country, which will sort of defeat the purpose.
But this is not really the fault of the illegal immigrants, if you consider it. It's the fault of the socialistic society that we have built, courtesy of such luminaries as FDR and LBJ. When we, Americans, set up a situation where you are paid not to do and when you are entitled to take, can you truly blame somebody for biting at the bait we laid out for them? It's as Ben Franklin said back in 1766:
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? -- On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.
On this part, I firmly disagree with the concept of social justice, not as is stated in the Magesterium of the Church, but rather as is popularly interpreted by AMCHURCH™ (i.e., socialism).
I do agree that these people are human beings and do deserve to be treated with a certain amount of respect that is the right of any human being to receive. I do believe that we, as Christians, have an obligation to care for the poor. Without regard for where they come from. I do believe the Gospel:
Mat 25:34ff Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
And, no the above is not a call for socialism or government assistance. It is a call on each of us who has to assist those who have not. And it is not a call to give endless handouts. As St. Paul said (2 Th 3:10), If any one will not work, let him not eat.
As was reported on a FR thread yesterday, the Holy Father stated, when asked about this on the plane, The fundamental solution [would be] that there is no longer any need to immigrate, that there are sufficient opportunities for work and a sufficient social fabric that no one any longer feels the need to immigrate.
That's a really critical point which, in the long term, is the only way the problem is going to be solved.
Harley, I would love to ask the Holy Father to elaborate on that, though. Does he support us sponsoring revolt against the corrupt governments that exist in almost all of those third world countries? If not, how does he suggest that we help create sufficient opportunities for work &tc in those countries? It's been demonstrated in the past that the vast majority of government-to-government aid simply goes to line the pockets of the ruling elites in those countries, so how does he suggest that they be freed of the burden of an entrenched, corrupt government so that the people could actually be helped? (Who knows, he might actually have a decent idea that hasn't been seriously considered)
I would moreso love to ask the bishops of AMCHURCH™ if they agree with the Holy Father's suggestion. I would dearly LOVE to hear their answer to that question. I'd also love to ask the groups that hang on the Church's coattails the same question.
The short version of the answer is that I, as a Catholic, am torn. I actually understand the predicament of the migrant. I actually, based upon the text of Matt 25 (quoted above), really want to help them. But, on the other hand, I don't want to destroy this country in an effort to help them out. The teachings of the Church support that position. But I don't see the actions of AMCHURCH™ lining up with the teachings of the Catholic (i.e., universal) Church.
He would say Render unto Caeser what is Caeser’s and unto God what is God’s. Jesus did not tell us to ingore authority, but rather to obey authority which includes governmental authority. Illegal Immigration is included in that. That being said to be charitable is totally fine, but to knowingly support an action that is illegal is another...
The two can be associated but also may be mutally exclusive at the same time.
Very true. Our church grew over 50% in the last few years...all hispanic and drove away the Anglo parishioners. Our collections are down about 50%. The collections from the Hispanic mass are very low.
As a matter of fact, yes I have been to a few of these countries and understand the deplorable conditions in which many live. But the reason we have established immigration policies is to manage the influx of immigrants into this country. Encouraging peoople to disobey these rules not only harms the people who are trying to escape their situation and get into the country legally, but also harms social programs of this nation. I know you understand this based upon your excellent post.
You touched upon a very thorny issue; how much help does one provide and to whom? Does one provide aid to Central America and leave Africa to starve? Does one provide aid to someone living in this county who can't afford their medication? Christians cannot solve these problems.
I would say that the church's/Church's responsibility isn't to help the poor; rather it is to convert the sinner. Our Lord stated that we will always have the poor, so the thought that we will eradicate poverty contradicts the very spoken words of God. I understand how you can be torn on a subject like this. To me it seems that its good people doing bad things for the wrong reason.
sandyeggo-That's a pretty major detail, and it's right in the second paragraph. How did you miss that, Harley?
I don't see the significant of where the shelters are being built. Vatican money is being used to build shelters for illegal immigrants to travel to the United States under the approval of this pope (he virtually states his support for illegal immigrants in his message to the bishops). Mexico doesn't care that these shelters are being built but is that any surprise?
*BTTT*
And then what?
I don't disagree with much that you say here. However, one thing I will point out. I have heard others use the statement, "Our Lord stated that we will always have the poor, so the thought that we will eradicate poverty contradicts the very spoken words of God," used by some groups to justify not providing any assistance to the poor.
But when we take a look at the two Gospel accounts where Our Lord uses the expression, we see its true context:
Mar 14:3ff And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." And they reproached her.
But Jesus said, "Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me. She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying. And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."
Jhn 12:2ff There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Laz'arus was one of those at table with him. Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.
But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?"
This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.
Jesus said, "Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."
While the statement "we will always have the poor" is accurate, the context is not a justification for not assisting the poor. Rather, it is an affirmation that providing assistance for the poor is not a good reason to not providing the proper reverence for the Lord.
Again, let me emphasize that I do NOT consider this to be a justification for socialism. I think that the Lord has a much more challenging task for us Christians: for each of us to take this on as a personal responsibility. And I do believe that the Church has a role to play in this. As St. Luke recorded in the Acts of the Apostles:
Act 4:32ff Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.
This is a passage that is often misused by the liberals to be an endorsement of socialism, but they neglect to mention that the people did what they did voluntarily and that neither the Roman government (equivalent to the Feds) nor the province of Judea (equivalent to the states) were involved: the one responsible for administering this social aid was the Church (i.e., the apostles).
That's why I would be interested to hear the Holy Father expound. Because I see, clearly, that we have (as individuals) a responsibility. But I don't like to waste my time or resources for something that is a waste.
>> Illegals are by-and-large Catholic. <<
Less than 40% of Mexican immigrants in the US are Catholic. They certainly don’t have much to contribute to the collection plates... not compared to the numbers of English-speaking Cathoics who are very offended the immivasion.
Further, I’m very suspicious about this article. Why build a shelter for immigrants seeking to invade the United States in SOUTHERN Mexico?
Confirming my suspicions, this shelter is in Southern Mexico, near the Salvadoran and Guatemalan border, in Oaxala, the southern-most state in Mexico. I’m not sure if USA Today is just trying to stir up hostility against Catholics, trying to make it seem to Catholics that their leadership is pro-immivasion, or has been confused by Mexican politics.
Ping!
Should be lots of jobs in Vatican City that cardinals won’t do . . . .
Well done. You speak for me also, although I could not have said it so well as you did.
It is disgusting.
Well, I do see significance in where the shelter is being built. From your only posting the first paragraph, I, and no doubt others, might conclude this was taking place in the U.S.
Vatican money is being used to build shelters for illegal immigrants to travel to the United States under the approval of this pope (he virtually states his support for illegal immigrants in his message to the bishops)
As Mark quoted upthread, and as I heard reported myself, the Holy Father said The fundamental solution [would be] that there is no longer any need to immigrate, that there are sufficient opportunities for work and a sufficient social fabric that no one any longer feels the need to immigrate.
Something many Americans forget is that the Pope is the head of a worldwide church - he's not just the Pope of America. He worries for all people, everywhere.
That's a surprising viewpoint you have, in direct contradiction to Matt. 25: 31-46.
So do you support illegal immigrants?
No.
I don’t know why I bothered. I guess it was just an opportunity to have another argument with Catholics, huh?
This simply shows that no matter how much one raises the slightest criticism towards Rome and the Pope, Catholics take offense.
No, it only shows the frequency with which the criticism is raised. I'm not a whiner, so don't go putting that tag on me. I am a realist. So in reality, go dump on someone else.
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.