Cardinal denounces political push for open order

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tbrightson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tbrightson

Guest
Truth!

The cardinal was indirectly rebutting Pope Francis’ political activism in telling Christian nations that they should open their borders to Islamic “refugees” and be more “welcoming.” Sarah said that using the Bible to promote migration constitutes a “false exegesis,” and said it is better “to help people flourish in their culture than to encourage them to come to Europe.”

https://canadafreepress.com/article/vatican-cardinal-denounces-political-push-for-open-borders#
 
How does he expect to help citizens in countries with intractable civil wars to “flourish in their culture”?

Does he propose returning refugees from such places to their culture where they can “flourish” while they dodge bullets, rockets and mortar fire?

Frankly his suggestion sounds naive. People will escape war zones and dysfunctional places, and are in some cases even driven out of their countries by racist governments. It is inevitable. How we deal with the issue will say a lot about how serious we are as followers of Christ.

Treating every stranger as if it were Christ Himself is not “false exegesis”, it is one of the major principles of the 1500 year-old Rule of St. Benedict, and itself comes straight from the Bible, “I was a stranger and you welcomed me” (Cf. Matthew ch. 25). Or did he miss that verse?
 
Last edited:
The vast majority of current “migrants” are economic migrants. These people need to fight to change their countries, not bail on them.

Countries have the right to dictate who can come in and who cannot. Countries have the right to maintain their cultural identity. Why do you think Rome fell? “Migrants” flooded Rome and had no interest in adopting Roman ways leading to balkanization and collapse. Borders, Language,and Culture define a nation. Sarah gets this.
 
Last edited:
Tbrightson said:
The vast majority of current “migrants” are economic migrants. These people need to fight to change their countries, not bail on them.
Click to expand...
A significant portion of both Canada and the US was built on economic migrants. The Canadian Pacific Railway was largely built by Chinese coolies in the West, with a lot of Italian immigrants in Ontario. Just to name a couple.

Or is this all about a certain kind of immigrant?
 
Yes it certainly is about “certain types” of migrants. They come in illegally, many are looking for the generous freebies the respective countries provide and so and refuse to work, they refuse to assimilate, and they bring in a religion wholly incompatible with western civilization values. Economic immigrants of the past, like my grandfather, came here LEGALLY to work, worship Christ, and assimilated.
 
Last edited:
Yes. “Islamic refugees” in the first post.

FWIW, in highly secular Quebec, at the last place I worked before retirement, the colleague most respectful of my Catholic faith was a Muslim lady wearing a headscarf. We would mutually encourage each other during Lent and Ramadan, she would respect my brief break to pray Sext, and she was simply very kind (and highly competent).

She was, in short, a joy to work with. Give me a devout Muslim over a secular atheist any day. We have far more in common with them than the unchurched.

And theirein lies the root of the problem: a religious and spiritual desert in Western society filled with all sorts of false idolatry. And a birth rate below the replacement rate.

Nature abhors a vacuum.
 
OraLabora said:
Give me a devout Muslim over a secular atheist any day.
Click to expand...
Muslims come in different denominations. While I have had experiences similar to yours, we have learned that some schools of Islam are not quite so friendly. Their devoutness leads them to different attitudes.
 
I would have to go with the athiest. You can be an atheist and still subscribe to the Bill or Rights. Islam is more than a religion, it calls for theocratic governance, and its not pretty.
 
OraLabora said:
She was, in short, a joy to work with. Give me a devout Muslim over a secular atheist any day. We have far more in common with them than the unchurched.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t bigotry go both ways?

Isn’t prejudice all about making an unsubstantiated judgement based upon limited personal experience? Painting all secular atheists or all devout Muslims with the same brush?

If someone were to denounce Islam based solely upon their experience with one particularly annoying individual wouldn’t you call them prejudiced or bigoted?

Yet, here you are making a case for the entire belief system of Islam based upon your experience with one individual.

Peculiar, no?

Why is Pope Francis pushing countries to “open their borders” when most of Europe has already been destabilized by vast numbers of migrants who are at this very moment overtaxing the welfare systems of most of those nations because only a very small proportion have been able to find work?

Why would open borders from Mexico to the United States be a prudent or wise strategy? Doesn’t a nation have the right to determine for itself how many immigrants it can safely accommodate and integrate without destabilizing its society?

Or does Pope Francis truly believe unstable societies are a good thing? In particular when the world is in such upheaval as it is?

Shouldn’t he be advocating calm, civility and giving sovereign nations time to consider properly how and what their well-considered contributions to the wider world should be, instead of brow-beating them for not being “welcoming" enough?
 
Last edited:
You could say the same about Christianity. Certain sects have been very hostile to Catholicism, and deny that we are Christian.

Moreover there has been plenty of home grown, non-Muslim terrorism.
 
HarryStotle said:
Yet, here you are making a case for the entire belief system of Islam based upon your experience with one individual.
Click to expand...
No. One example. I have worked with and known many Muslims over the years. All were kind, peaceful and competent colleagues.
 
OraLabora said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Yet, here you are making a case for the entire belief system of Islam based upon your experience with one individual.
Click to expand...
No. One example. I have worked with and known many Muslims over the years. All were kind, peaceful and competent colleagues.
Click to expand...
Move to Pakistan, Iran or Iraq or a year or two. Perhaps the experience of Asia Bibi might provide a balance to your position.
 
A balanced position wouldn’t consider that all Muslims are potential terrorists because of the experience of Asia Bibi.
 
Last edited:
OraLabora said:
A balanced position wouldn’t consider that all Muslims are potential terrorists because of the experience of Asia Bibi.
Click to expand...
A balanced position would look at the actual teachings of Islam and attempt to distill from those teachings what leads hundreds of millions of Muslims to believe and act as they do, rather than merely extrapolate from one’s personal experience with a few individuals who happen to reside near you or work beside you.

Islam is an ideology. Progressivism is an ideology. Socialism is an ideology. Even Christianity is an ideology. The difference is that adherents of the first three are also politically motivated to bring their ideology to dominance on Earth.

You don’t necessarily obtain the foundational premises of ideologies from those who hold to them or attempt to live them out completely, especially if those individuals happen to be strong adherents to that ideology and their principal motivation is to convince you as an outsider to join them.

Something like going on a first date – first impressions may not be the same as the the fully realized underlying reality. Pakistan, Iran and Iraq are virtually 100% Islamic. Take notes.
 
HarryStotle said:
Or does Pope Francis truly believe unstable societies are a good thing?
Click to expand...
Read this one calmly, Harry,
I apologize for the google translate but you may find it in English perhaps.

Aciprensa in Spanish


Now comes the translation. I will edit my post.

Here it is:

https://translate.googleusercontent...700253&usg=ALkJrhhoZEC9kJH2aFJy2nuplUBrUErEWQ

“Pope Francis has summarized in four verbs the general approach of the Catholic Church to the global challenge of migration: These four verbs are welcome to protect, promote and integrate.”

" Welcome, " he continued, "means offering migrants varied options to enter the countries of destination safely and legally, and ensure that their repatriation, which is usually voluntary, is carried out under fair and safe conditions (…). In all instances, the centrality of the human person obliges us to treat every migrant with dignity and respect ".

" Protect : All necessary steps must be taken to defend the fundamental rights and dignity of migrants regardless of their immigration status. That protection begins in the country of origin and consists in offering reliable and verified information before departure; as well as giving security to illegal recruiters, human smugglers and traffickers. "

This protection must continue in the place of destination and every effort must be made to find alternatives to the detention of migrants.

…

" Promote : Going beyond the protection of the rights and dignity of migrants, policies and programs should be put in place to ensure that migrants who can contribute to their own maintenance, exercise their fundamental rights, improve their capacities, participate in the life of their host community and contribute to the common good ".

On the last verb, integrate , the Nuncio to the UN stressed that "when migration is well managed and a culture of encounter is encouraged…”

( I meant to share the four pillars but it is short so you can read it all)
…
 
Last edited:
graciew said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Or does Pope Francis truly believe unstable societies are a good thing?
Click to expand...
Read this one calmly, Harry,
Click to expand...
The problem is that the words of Pope Francis do amount to support for the open borders migration policies being pushed by the UN.

The lack of clarity in his off-the-cuff comments that can be read in various ways or with connotations that could be supportive of various conclusions is what he needs to work on.

Rather than speak informally so frequently, perhaps his words need to be more deliberate and well-considered.

The Vatican is supportive of the UN Migration Pact, as per this article…
Pope Francis’ message was sent to participants in a June 14 symposium titled “II Holy See-Mexico Colloquium on international migration,” which was organized by the Vatican Secretariat of State’s section for Relations with the States and the Mexican embassy to the Holy See.
…
Speakers highlighted the need to respect the right of people both to migrate and to stay in their own country, and to increase protection for immigrants at every stage of their journey. They also spoke of the need to identify and eliminate the root causes of forced migration, and urged nations to comply with the UN global compacts on migrants and refugees.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...tected-especially-children-and-families-84641
Click to expand...
The difficulty with the migration pact is that it normalizes migration and seeks to characterize opponents to various aspects of migration with the typical PC jargon.

Take these two points under Objective 17

c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media
d) Establish mechanisms to prevent, detect and respond to racial, ethnic and religious profiling of migrants by public authorities, as well as systematic instances of intolerance, xenophobia, racism and all other multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination in partnership with National Human Rights Institutions, including by tracking and publishing trends analyses, and ensuring access to effective complaint and redress mechanisms.

The language smacks of politically correct euphemisms that could very likely end up in making critique of the Pact itself a criminal act in countries that have signed on.

Continued…
 
Last edited:
It is further, a push towards globalization that has undermined the legitimate national sovereignty of nation states, by moving the legislative functions of the state further out of the hands of the people they are supposed to represent, under the guise of progressivism.

Centralized global authority structures should be of concern to each of us, especially given that subsidiarity is what the Church teaches. “…nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization.”

Yet, here is the Vatican pushing hard for the opposite – globalizing another aspect, not just migration, but also the freedom to discuss it by potentially making it illegal to criticize aspects of it.
 
I get what you may feel.
Sometimes, I honestly think that we forget they are addressing very critical situations , and that is what they have in mind.
And we, kind of instinctively, tend to think they are always talking about us and our problems.( which can be really very small compared to migration by ratial persecution of minorities that have to flee, war, etc).

I just mean to draw you closer to what his words are and what the Church teaches, which is sometimes lost in snippets.
I understand you may have your sensibilities, and difficulties to understand his off the cuff. About that, which doesn t bother me in all honesty, there is nothing much I can say or do 🙂 nor help any further as in with your UN concerns. There are better ones at that…
Only that just sometimes I hear this repetition of a sort of “ chaotic “ open borders stance by the Church , when in all honesty that is not what is being proposed.( not saying you, Harry, but in general…).

Thank you for looking up an article in English , Harry! Thank you very much!
 
Last edited:
What we are talking about is an ongoing situation involving the mass movement of an endless stream of millions of people that will destroy the harmony, culture and development of the countries which have been the model for advancement in our world.

It is largely based on a socialist mindset that has no idea what is needed to be such a successful model. This mindset is stuck in the destructive and naïve view that you can just keep taking from other people, especially if you denigrate them first.

It is evil. It is not Christ-like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top