Cardinal denounces political push for open order

[Annie]

First, let me clarify that I am talking about unfettered immigration, illegal immigration and the like. I would suggest that 1. Not everyone thinks our society is weak, and 2. So what if it is weak?

If I go to the hospital with an infection which has weakened me, I would think it was a bad thing if I got another infection at the hospital, right? The second infection would have the potential of doing even more harm due to my already-weakened state.

Secondly, it will also become more difficult to recover from the first problem.

I think immigration is one of those things which there can be too much of and too little of. Buy right now, allowing people entry Willy-nilly, without proper vetting, is too much.

And the other problem is that the issue then distracts us from the oeiginal problems already weakening our society.

 

[RobertAdams]

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.

The causes of the fall of Rome are too complex for me to attribute to a single one. However, I can say with confidence that had Rome been “defined” by the criteria you suggest, it would have remained a village on the palatine hill. We wouldn’t know about it. St. Paul would not have been a roman citizen, and we certainly wouldn’t be Roman Catholics.

 

[HarryStotle]

abucs:

do you really need that question answered?

It should be obvious to you.

It is obvious to me, and it isn’t Muslim immigration. We’re doing it all by ourselves (I include Canada, where I live, and Western Europe in this). We’ve allowed our culture to become detached from its foundational principles, i.e. Judea-Christian ethics. We have become unchurched. It’s not surprising that we now fear the invasion of hordes, not of infidels but of, surprise surprise, people with a strong faith system. Nature abhors a vacuum.

If we had a strong culture, we wouldn’t have to worry about Muslim (or Buddhist or Hindu) immigration, because we would be strong enough to not have to fear others we could live in a climate of mutual respect.

But we’ve weakened our own culture by throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

We need to get back to our own roots. Stopping Muslim immigration won’t fix the root cause. We’ll continue to flush our culture down the toilet on the altar of Me, Myself and I.

One reason that “we’ve weakened our own culture” is that multiculturalism has been the dominant ideology amongst the political, commercial, educational, and media elites since about the 1960s or prior.

Diversity is our strength! has been the mantra of the ruling elites in Europe and North America. No one stopped to assess whether it actually makes any sense to permit mass immigration from various regions all over the world, each with its own cultural, moral and religious values and then sit back and let the dust settle with the assumption that everyone will merely assimilate without any weakening of “our own culture.”

How does that make any sense at all?

No one has “flush[ed] our culture down the toilet on the altar of Me, Myself and I.” “Our culture” has simply been lost in pressing throngs of so many differing cultures brought together by the globalization of media, trade, education, politics and the economy.

It isn’t a vacuum at all, it has been a positive flood of so many conflicting differences that sorting them out is nearly impossible, especially when the most verbal of the advocates just keep calling for more flooding rather than taking a rest from the action to assess the situation.

 

[HarryStotle]

Tbrightson:

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.

The causes of the fall of Rome are too complex for me to attribute to a single one. However, I can say with confidence that had Rome been “defined” by the criteria you suggest, it would have remained a village on the palatine hill. We wouldn’t know about it. St. Paul would not have been a roman citizen, and we certainly wouldn’t be Roman Catholics.

The reason Rome became a vast empire is because it used military strength to dominate the other cultures it assimilated. It promised Pax Romana – a kind of imposed order and security – provided the conquered group was willing to trade Roman rule for the improved infrastructure and security. Eventually, the empire became so vast that it was virtually impossible to maintain the order by imposition. The empire was split between three co-equal emperors, and order was maintained by hiring mercenary military bands of barbarians and paying them through taxation imposed on the citizens.

Short version of the story is that assimilation of diverse groups can be maintained for a time, but only at great cost. Eventually, disintegration will occur. The only question is when.

It could be argued that we are at that point now in western culture, with some – perhaps even many – groups positively wanting the crash of the culture to occur. Some of those are very politically active at this moment precisely because they believe they will be there to pick up the pieces by imposing order through their current holdings.

It isn’t by mistake that the most wealthy and asset-laden individuals are those pushing hardest for mass migration. They are all about weakening currently sovereign nations – those that try to represent their citizens’ needs and well-being – by undermining responsible representation, by breaking apart social identity and common values, by holding much of the debt of nations, and by promoting certain social and political agendas that put nation-states even further into debt.

 

[abucs]

This is only partly true. I agree with what you said but there is a deliberate plan by sections of our community to destroy what we would call western civilisation.

These are the same elements that have previously through education and media sought to create the situation of weakening the Christian culture that you talk about.

There is a malevolence here and we should recognise where it comes from.

 

[Thorolfr]

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.

For hundreds of years, the Muslim world was the model for advancement in the world in science, astronomy, philosophy and many other areas of learning while the West had become largely a backwater. It was the Muslims who preserved many works of Greek antiquity by translating them into Arabic and these and many other works by Muslims were then translated by Christians into Latin in the Middle Ages.

 

[OraLabora]

Diversity is our strength! has been the mantra of the ruling elites in Europe and North America.

Well it has. Chinese and Italian labourers built the railways. Montreal has always been a fascinating mix of Anglo, Franco, Jewish, with thriving communities of many generations of Portuguese, Greeks, Italians, and French (from France). More recently, Haitians (who btw are largely Catholics and Protestants), Algerians, etc. For foodies, it’s been great! I can get fantastic Portuguese chicken, Jewish smoked meat and bagels, and a whole plethora of fantastic international cuisine within walking distance of each other. The best pasta I’ve ever had in Canada was, most unlikely, in Thunder Bay, Ontario, due to the large community established there since building the railway. The restaurant made it fresh on the premises.

Or, again, is it a particular kind of diversity (i.e. Muslim) that we are trying to protect ourselves against?

Because it seems to me that we have always been a fairly diverse society at least in urban areas.

No one has “flush[ed] our culture down the toilet on the altar of Me, Myself and I.

Nonsense. The individual is god now in Western society.

There is a malevolence here and we should recognise where it comes from.

Sounds vaguely like a conspiracy theory. I generally don’t subscribe to those. Again I think making the individual his/her own god, has caused a general erosion of Judea-Christian values. The malevolence, if there is one, is the exaltation of self.

As my spiritual director put it, in today’s society one is called to express one’s self, instead of surpassing one’s self (i.e. flamboyantly display his or her sins instead of trying to overcome one’s passions).

 

[HarryStotle]

Or, again, is it a particular kind of diversity (i.e. Muslim) that we are trying to protect ourselves against?

Are you attempting to make the case that there is no diversity that we ought to protect ourselves against?

What about a diversity that enslaves and brutalizes women and children for the mere fact that they are not a particular brand of Muslim? Are you saying that kind of diversity does not exist except in the heads of those objecting against it?

So ISIS was only a figment of the imagination of those racists who dreamed it up?

Well, okay.

The malevolence, if there is one, is the exaltation of self.

Wouldn’t that depend entirely upon whether or not that self is, in fact, malevolent?

I mean the name God – the God I assume you believe in as a Christian – contains three selves: I AM WHO I AM.

So three times malevolent for exalting himself three times?

Are selves automatically malevolent merely for being selves? Should we abolish self entirely? Kill selves? Reduce selves to the causal order, to technological automata and be done with self, entirely?

Perhaps you have completely misunderstood Christianity? Perhaps Christ didn’t preach against the “self,” per se, but against false selves, malevolent selves, fallen and pride-filled selves, constructed or artificial selves?

What does it profit them if they gain the whole world, but lose or forfeit their very selves? (Luke 9:25)

 

[OraLabora]

What about a diversity that enslaves and brutalizes women and children for the mere fact that they are not a particular brand of Muslim? Are you saying that kind of diversity does not exist except in the heads of those objecting against it?

No. Straw man. Nowhere do I say that we should keep violent would-be immigrants of any creed or religion out. I am saying that we should evaluate the individual, and not tar and feather him or her simply for being a Muslim.

Or should we keep all Americans out too because of the KKK , Timothy McVeigh, Columbine, Vietnam, etc.?

Wouldn’t that depend entirely upon whether or not that self is, in fact, malevolent?

All of us, bar none, have a malevolent streak in us, save Christ and the Virgin Mary. It’s why we needed a redeemer.

Are selves automatically malevolent merely for being selves? Should we abolish self entirely? Kill selves? Reduce selves to the causal order, to technological automata and be done with self, entirely?

I suggest you might find the answer in the Rule of St. Benedict, the gist of which is to make our own will God’s will, a process btw that takes a lifetime. As an oblate, I am bound to embark on that process through inner conversion.

Perhaps you have completely misunderstood Christianity? Perhaps Christ didn’t preach against the “self,” per se, but against false selves, malevolent selves, fallen and pride-filled selves, constructed or artificial selves?

Perhaps I don’t. When we exalt self, we exalt the good with the bad. Often, if not usually, exaltation of self is to feed one’s passions.

For Saint Benedict, the gist of the problem consists of knowing which will drives us. Is it our self-will, or God’s will? The desires of the flesh, or the desire for God? However in our era where we insist on the necessary and full autonomy of the person, we have difficulty comprehending why self-will becomes an obstacle. We have, in effect, so often much difficulty freeing our self-will from all obstacles, of other wills that hold it hostage, in our families and our lives.

Dom Guillaume Jedrzejczak, abbot of Mont-des-Cats (Trappist) in France, from his commentary on the Rule of St. Benedict (my translation from the French).

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

What about a diversity that enslaves and brutalizes women and children for the mere fact that they are not a particular brand of Muslim? Are you saying that kind of diversity does not exist except in the heads of those objecting against it?

No. Straw man. Nowhere do I say that we should keep violent would-be immigrants of any creed or religion out. I am saying that we should evaluate the individual, and not tar and feather him or her simply for being a Muslim.

Or should we keep all Americans out too because of the KKK , Timothy McVeigh, Columbine, Vietnam, etc.?

This is your own straw man, however.

Being American isn’t an ideology, so to paint “American” with the tar of the KKK, McVeigh, Columbine, Vietnam, etc., is a gross error.

The correlative would be to paint being Arab with the tar of ISIS, terrorism, anti-Semitism, fundamentalism, etc.

Category error both ways.

Islam IS an ideology, however, so what adherents to Islam purportedly and actually believe is a relevant point, not a straw man.

The correlative to that would be to assess what Christians, Buddhists, Jews, etc., actually believe.

It is true that there is some leeway because there are varying commitments to central tenets in each of the ideologies by different individuals, but there may be key features of the belief systems that are potentially problematic. Sharia Law in Islam being a point in fact. The remarks and activism of individuals like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Linda Sarsour being cases in point. These are not outliers because two of them have been elected to political office by their constituents, who are in significant numbers supposedly moderate Muslims. Do the actions and talking points of Omar and Tlaib concern you at all, given that they are elected representatives of their constituencies?

 

[HarryStotle]

Perhaps I don’t. When we exalt self, we exalt the good with the bad. Often, if not usually, exaltation of self is to feed one’s passions.

Is there anything inherently wrong with feeding “one’s passions?” I thought the issue was with inordinate passions, not with passions per se. Passions being an entirely human mode of existing.

It does involve a great deal of sorting out given our fallen state and concupiscence and all, but I don’t think it is accurate or helpful just to lump all “passions” into a heap and dispose of them entirely.

The goal is self-control, not self-destruction or self-immolation; redemption, not destruction or nullification.

 

[OraLabora]

Being American isn’t an ideology, so to paint “American” with the tar of the KKK, McVeigh, Columbine, Vietnam, etc., is a gross error.

Islam is not per se an ideology any more than Catholicism is. It is, for most people, a religion, albeit one that is fairly heterogeneous and without central authority. But then too is Christianity. There are some ideological factions in Islam just as there are religious integrationists in Christianity. Catholicism itself once promoted violence to forward its agenda. To paint all Muslims with the same brush is unfair.

Is there anything inherently wrong with feeding “one’s passions?” I thought the issue was with inordinate passions, not with passions per se. Passions being an entirely human mode of existing.

The Rule of St. Benedict does not make the distinction, and for a good reason. When one feeds one’s passion, regardless of how harmless it may seem, we put that passion before God. Unless our passion, is passion for God, to do His will. As such any passion (golf, biking, whatever) can become an obstacle to union with God.

Our activities, our gifts, are gifts from God and we are certainly to put those gifts to the service of God, for example as I do working as a translator and librarian for our abbey (it’s a second, post-retirement career after a career in applied science and information technology). But the Rule teaches that if gifts start to go to one’s head, when one is exercising service for the monastery, then the monk is transferred to another service.

It’s a very Benedictine view. I am a Benedictine.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Being American isn’t an ideology, so to paint “American” with the tar of the KKK, McVeigh, Columbine, Vietnam, etc., is a gross error.

Islam is not per se an ideology any more than Catholicism is. It is, for most people, a religion, albeit one that is fairly heterogeneous and without central authority. But then too is Christianity. There are some ideological factions in Islam just as there are religious integrationists in Christianity. Catholicism itself once promoted violence to forward its agenda. To paint all Muslims with the same brush is unfair.

It might be argued that Catholicism is as much an ideology as Islam, given that both have assertions or theories to make about the “sociopolitical” ends for human beings.

ideology​

noun

Definition of ideology​

a : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

b : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

c : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture

How isn’t it equally unfair to paint “Catholicism itself,” as having “once promoted violence to forward its agenda,” as unfair as painting “all Muslims with the same brush,” given that any such promotion of violence by some Catholics was far less than its promotion by Islam throughout its history?

Islam does, in fact, have a “central authority.” That would be the Koran as delivered by Mohammed. Christianity also has a central authority that would be Christ himself.

You, yourself, are demonstrating ideology at work, in the first sense – the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, namely you – in the manner that you are depicting different religions.

 

[HarryStotle]

Or, again, is it a particular kind of diversity (i.e. Muslim) that we are trying to protect ourselves against?

No actually. It is this particular kind of diversity that we ought to protect our families and communities from.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...illegal-aliens-terrorist-nations-roam-free-us

Or are you suggesting we ought to embrace that kind of diversity for the sake of live and let live?

Perhaps it is only the imagination of the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) based on reliable information from government sources that causes unwarranted concern?

 

[OraLabora]

I’m certainly in favour of properly vetting immigrants.

I am very suspicious though, of the source of your article.

 

[HarryStotle]

Of course you are. Are you as suspicious of the facts in the article or just the source as a way to deflect from the facts? Do you have facts to dispute those facts or suspicions just to avoid dealing with them?

What were you saying about exalting oneself and feeding one’s “passions,” or closely held beliefs? Don’t those count as exalting self?

What about this article…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1117170542749077504

New York has money to the tune of $600 million for healthcare, legal fees and education for individuals illegally in New York but nothing for veterans. Why would a government make that choice? Illegals yes, veterans no?

Are you going to be suspicious of the source or do you have facts that contradict the article?

Doesn’t being suspicious of the source begin with doubting the facts and supporting your suspicions, or are mere personal suspicions sufficient?

That is an easy way to deal with facts that run contrary to our cherished beliefs, I suppose. Just dismiss the source. No warrant required. Wouldn’t one’s own self-cherished beliefs then be safely secured? Couldn’t that be a case of exalting oneself in the sense of reinforcing held beliefs rather than looking at the truth detached from self?

 

[abucs]

For hundreds of years, the Muslim world was the model for advancement in the world in science, astronomy, philosophy and many other areas of learning while the West had become largely a backwater. It was the Muslims who preserved many works of Greek antiquity by translating them into Arabic and these and many other works by Muslims were then translated by Christians into Latin in the Middle Ages.

Well this is off topic but i’d like to give you a different perspective that doesn’t come from the secular atheist quarter of academia.

The Muslim religion and its early adherants came from the Arab states which were a scientific backwater. By aggression they conquered much of the Eastern Roman Empire and Persian Empires which had exhausted themselves fighting each other just at the birth of Islam. It was these empires who led the world in knowkedge and it was from these areas, conquered by the Muslims that continued to be the main area of (proto-early) science (together with that part of the Eastern Roman Empire that had not been conquered),

The Muslims got copies of the Greek masters from the areas conquered that belonged to the Roman Eastern empire, which still spoke Greek. They got these works from Christians and those Christians in the Roman Eastern Empire that were not conquered never lost these works.

The intellectual and advanced Christian civilisation of northern Africa was decimated.

The Western Roman Empire lost many of the Greek works because 1) they spoke Latin and were not the main centre of the Roman Empire and 2) they were conquered by the German speaking tribes who did not have a written language and thus caused the Dark Ages in western Europe.

Even in Spain Muslim conquerors found a civilisation more advanced than their own and wrote as much in letters back to their homelands. Spain too had been conquered by a Germanic tribe named the Visigoths. But their culture was more advanced than the Arabised Muslim Berber tribes that invaded their kingdom from north Africa.

The Islamic world was never the ‘model’ for advancement in science. It conquered regions that were advanced in knowledge and could possibly have developed an early prototype of a scientific culture.

Science however did not take root there and it was in Western medieval Christendom that the scientific revolution would be born develop and eventually become part of the culture.

 

[ontheway1]

Just ask any of those kind Muslims you know whether they follow Sharia law and if they think it should be imposed in Canada.