Posted on 10/27/2010 2:03:58 PM PDT by NYer
Pope Benedict has called on immigrants to respect the laws and national identity of their host countries.
He said that every country had the right to regulate the flow of migration and immigrants had a duty to integrate.
The Pope's comments are likely to add to the Europe-wide debate about integration of foreigners.
The Vatican traditionally identifies with migrants and refugees and recently criticised France for deporting 1,000 Roma (gypsies) to Romania and Bulgaria.
During the summer, about 200 camps were dismantled.
The policy aroused a sharp response from the EU and prompted the Pope to tell French pilgrims they should "accept legitimate human diversity".
More recently, he met French President Nicolas Sarkozy in what was seen as an attempt to repair relations.
'One family'
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also entered the debate on immigration, arguing that attempts to build a multicultural society have "utterly failed".
Like the pope, she called on immigrants to do more to integrate.
In his message to mark the Roman Catholic Church's World Day of Migrants and Refugees next January, Pope Benedict said there should be "one family of brothers and sisters in societies that are becoming ever more multi-ethnic and intercultural".
Archbishop Antonio Veglio, head of the Vatican's migration commission, told a news conference that it would be "ideal" if every government had a policy of "integration, of multiculturalism, a positive approach to immigrants... which is missing at the moment".
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Which is more important...to Hate Catholics and, thus, support illegal immigration.
Or to oppose illegal immigration but admit that the Pope is right.
Dang, that's a really tough choice.
You may have really stumped some people with that one.
Well played.
Ping!
Aliens from a slightly different perspective...
I have the most respect for the Pope it seams as if this country is far exceeding his wishes, we must eat cake and like it..
Hyphenation is bad for civilization.
Immigration is one of those issues about which Catholics can disagree with their Bishops, and still be within the teachings of the Church, because it's not one of the more morally fundamental issues like abortion.
“I suspect that’s covered by “respect the laws” of the host country (i.e. you can not enter a country illegally and show respect for its laws).”
It ought to be, but the two sides of the Roman Catholic Pope’s mouth as well as the Vatican’s mouth in general are never joined in the same breath to elicit the depth of any moral duty on the part of illegal migrants TO NOT BE illegal immigrants.
They talk about “respect for the law” when it’s convenient and leave out the importance of it at their choosing. On Sunday January 10, 2010, Benedict “called on Italians to respect the rights of immigrants”; while failing to make any distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, and any difference in THEIR moral duties. His words to Italian authorities were caused by incidents at the time in southern Italy - incidents involving nearly completely ILLEGAL immigrants. He condemned violence against the “immigrants” and said nothing of the two days of riotous violence on the part of the “immigrants”. In that message he made no call to the “immigrants” to “respect” the fact that they were NOT legal immigrants. He showed exactly what I said about NEVER joining the two issues IN THE SAME BREATH. It is clear they don’t really believe what they say about “respect for the law”.
When the Roman Catholic Pope issues a call for ILLEGAL immigrants to honor their moral duty to respect the laws of the countries they have gained illegal entry to, AND GO HOME, he will have then, and only then stopped speaking out of both sides of his mouth on “immigration”. I won’t hold my breath.
It looks like the media coverage of the Pope's remarks were certainly skewed to be sympathetic to the illegals, but a little thoughtful digging shows that in addition to the limited quote you cite, in that very same speech he also said, "An immigrant is a human being, different in where they came from, in their culture and tradition, but a person to respect who has rights and responsibilities." Moreover, he didn't condemn "violence against the 'immigrants'," so much as he condemned violence, period. "Violence must never, for anyone, be the way to resolve differences."
You may disagree with the sentiment, as I do, but I don't see how those words in any way, absolve the violence of the illegals.
As I said to another FreePer in a similar thread:
“When the Roman Catholic Pope issues a call for ILLEGAL immigrants to honor their moral duty to respect the laws of the countries they have gained illegal entry to, AND GO HOME, he will have then, and only then stopped speaking out of both sides of his mouth on ‘immigration’. I won’t hold my breath.”
Gee, I'd think after I took a few moments to look at what the Pope actually said in order to point out your misrepresentation and lack of context, you'd at least have the courtesy to address what I wrote instead of copying and pasting a generic reply to somebody else. When the Pope says that immigrants have their "responsibilities" as well as rights, what do you think he meant by that? Do you think that sanctioned law breaking?
It would be nice if you took a moment to provide a thoughtful answer, but I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath for that.
“When the Pope says that immigrants have their “responsibilities” as well as rights, what do you think he meant by that? Do you think that sanctioned law breaking?”
If he actually believed he was trying to communicate what I said he SHOULD say, what he should directly say (ILLEGALS HAVE A MORAL DUTY TO GO HOME), then he’d just say it, directly, instead of leaving his euphemism open to individual translation and interpretation. He doesn’t because he doesn’t believe it.
When the Pope says that immigrants have their “responsibilities” as well as rights, what do you think he meant by that? Do you think that sanctioned law breaking?
All he said was immigrants. Didn't talk about illegals once.
“Where does he say illegal immigrants?....All he said was immigrants. Didn’t talk about illegals once.”
EXACTLY. He refuses to make a “moral” distinction.
“When the Pope says that immigrants have their “responsibilities” as well as rights, what do you think he meant by that? Do you think that sanctioned law breaking?”
IF he really and truly believed that those “responsibilities” INCLUDED the responsibility for an ILLEGAL immigrant to return home, HE WOULD SAY SO DIRECTLY. He never does.
But, he evades any distinction between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigrant when he CHOOSES to, to direct the direct moral obligations of the “host” nation(s) to certain requirements un-specifically, indistinctly to “migrants” or “immigrants” period.
The combination of specifics and lack of specifics makes it clear that in terms of the “host” nation he sees no moral distinction in what the host should do, once it has become the “migrant’s” or “immigrant’s” host nation.
Quit asking for people to interpret what an indirect statement is supposed to be assumed to mean and start addressing the fact that the specifics said to be in your assumption have in fact NOT been said, DIRECTLY.
They are not said DIRECTLY because neither the Roman Catholic Pope nor most of the Catholic hierarchy are willing to address, publicly, their stance on what those DIRECT meanings of “respect for the law” might be.
They want to leave those implications assumed, or not assumed in the ears of the listener so that they can sit on the fence on the direct issues like “amnesty” and the moral obligation for the illegal migrant to go home. If that were not the case, they would direct the specific issues SPECIFICALLY.
It is clear to anyone reading this that your only intention is to try to brand the pope as a illegal-immigrant sympathizer. And based upon what he said, it is clear that your efforts are in vain. You are parsing his words in an attempt to justify your own senseless dislike of the pope.
“You are parsing his words in an attempt to justify your own senseless dislike of the pope.”
Sorry, it is he and his church that refuses to be DIRECT about these matters, preferring to use euphemistic statements that opponents and proponents can claim to mean what THEY interpret them to mean.
When they decide to speak directly about specifics, they will reveal their hand (if they ever do) and I have no doubts it will be not what you think.
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.