In Boston as elsewhere the Catholic Churches sometimes*** lock their*** doors.
Why?
What would be said is … to avoid vandalism and theft.
Or - it’s too expensive to keep 24 hour security around the Churches guarding them.
Another awkward parallel: The Catholic Church has rules restricting some of its benefits to its members. Holy Communion, etc. It does not encourage the illegal reception of such as being just as good as going through the proper prerequisites.
So … though I approve of Bishops outreaching to everyone in the world, trying to ease the plight of those who are in need (physically as well as spiritually) … perhaps these same Bishops might set a more concrete example to secular states as to what should be done:
– per “immigration” < (note the absence of the terms legal or illegal) - by opening all their Churches 24/7, and/or “Church grounds” to the homeless (including use of running water, a bit of food, basic shelter, etc.) without many or any requirements. That way a person who “illegally” broke onto “Church property” would have a perfect right to do so … especially when their own “life” or quality of it were to be at stake (“another pro-life issue” - that the faithfull should not oppose perhaps).
– and per Church closures (for the sake of economics, “lack of support”, or other business reasons); when “the people” should come first.
These issues of course are knottier than the simple things proposed here. But there would be more consistancy between what a crusading Church leader did on the road and in the glow of positive publicity … and at home, where HE had to make the tough decisions that
are sometimes NOT so emotionally warm and fuzzy.
A pointed question to any such Church leader might be: Per facilitating peoples’ emigration to heaven … is ONE hour of the Sacrament of Penance per week per parish
sufficient to absolve all the mortal sins in that Parish if penitents came? < Such would seem an inhibition to emigration to heaven … though no one seems to be holding sensational demonstrations at any Diocesan Headquarters that I know of.
What I’m saying is … this can look more political than truly charitible. Especially when the term “pro-life” gets watered down from – opposing the outright murder of the innocent without a trial and for any reason … and with government monies and power behind it and …
… to including the “moderation of laws that already ALLOW legal immigration by the millions” (and without the
goal of killing ANY of those temporarily denied immigration status - even the criminals that are sometimes caught crossing the borders).
To be sure I don’t want people stealing from the Church or vandalizing it. But I wonder if any clergy in Boston has ever called the cops because someone (anyone!) was trespassing.
If this comparison is not apt … surely some of the intelligent people here might make the distinctions a bit more clear to me.
If someone showed a picture of a person “denied entry to the US” on the streets … there would not be much kerfuffle I think. When the results of abortions are photographically displayed … quite the reverse. Does Bishop O’Malley REALLY equate these things? Or just seem to … given the headlines … and his interview, which included the term “pro-life” but almost nothing on abortion.
IMO - the result of such as this further muddies the waters and gives cover to people who
will now (or again) vote for pro-abortion candidates who strategically give a bit of lip service toward improving the immigration laws.
And it would mean they just don’t want different people living next to them.
