"The First Wetbacks Were Jesus, Mary, and Joseph" - the Cardinal of Guatamala City

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caveman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Caveman

Guest
My take is here. (And I disagree strongly with the Cardinal’s assertion.)

The article from Spero News is here.

Here’s a portion of the article:

In his homily on December 30, Cardinal Quezada Toruño recalled the life of Jesus and what he described as “the first emigration in the New Testament: the flight of the Holy Family from Bethlehem to Egypt” in order to express his concern for fellow Guatemalans who have left for the United States. “The first wetbacks were St. Joseph, the Virgin Mary and Jesus. They had no choice but to bundle up their things, without taking recourse of a visa, because they certainly would not have been given one”, said the cardinal.

“Also, this year, 23,000 Guatemalans - 20 times the number who fit within the Cathedral - have been deported, sometimes even suffering assaults upon their human rights, while some 100,000 fellow citizens have crossed the border towards the United States”, added the cardinal.
 
Both sides get unnecessarily riled up to the point of just adding fuel to the fire at times. Is this the same bishop who characterized the US / Mexico fence debate as “shoot on sight?”

That was another one that stuck in my craw. I’m no fan of the anti-immigrants, but sometimes the immigrant activists are their own worst enemies.
 
manualman said:
Both sides get unnecessarily riled up to the point of just adding fuel to the fire at times. Is this the same bishop who characterized the US / Mexico fence debate as “shoot on sight?”

That was another one that stuck in my craw. I’m no fan of the anti-immigrants, but sometimes the immigrant activists are their own worst enemies.
Click to expand...
I know no one who is anti-immigrant, but I know plenty of people who are anti-illegal immigrant. And the last time I checked the Catechism it strongly suggests that we obey the law.
 
What a shockingly ignorant comment from a Prince of the Church.
 
RWMorris said:
I know no one who is anti-immigrant…
Click to expand...
You don’t? Do you know what the quota for Latin American immigrants without family or job skills on the special desireable list is? Miniscule. We have a formal anti-immigrant (as traditionally defined) policy in this country. We have repudiated the sentiment of “Give us your tired, huddled masses yearning to be free” with “send us your well-connected, rich and/or educated people that can further enrich our nation for us.”

To support the current policy is to embrace an anti-immigrant sentiment.

I hate illegal immigration too. I think the quotas ought to be MUCH higher. THEN I’ll support all the fences the Border Patrol says are necessary.
 
manualman said:
You don’t? Do you know what the quota for Latin American immigrants without family or job skills on the special desireable list is? Miniscule. We have a formal anti-immigrant (as traditionally defined) policy in this country. We have repudiated the sentiment of “Give us your tired, huddled masses yearning to be free” with “send us your well-connected, rich and/or educated people that can further enrich our nation for us.”

To support the current policy is to embrace an anti-immigrant sentiment.

I hate illegal immigration too. I think the quotas ought to be MUCH higher. THEN I’ll support all the fences the Border Patrol says are necessary.
Click to expand...
Why do we “need” immigrants at all?
 
This whole problem is easily solved.

The United States merely needs to annex Latin America. (We’re accused of being “imperialists” anyway, we might as well make good on it.)

They get white bread, paved roads, flush toilets and a reliable mail system; we get raw materials, cheap labor, and oil, plus it makes us the biggest trading bloc in the world, bigger than the EU, bigger than Japan, bigger than Commie China. And we get rid of Fidel and Hugo Chavez to boot.

It’s a win-win.
 
mschrank said:
Why do we “need” immigrants at all?
Click to expand...
You mean ‘What’s in it for you?’ From a short term pragmatic point of view, nothing. But we are a stupendously wealthy country and can afford to share it. Surprisingly, it doesn’t really cost us much as immigrants tend to produce the most energetic and productive kids which usually pay us back in the next generation.

From a longer point of view, we have an economic system totally dependent on population growth. If we shut off the tap, we don’t have enough babies to sustain the economy (and government) that we have.
 
Not bad reasons really!

I think my problem is more the presumptive clothes position most of these pro-immigration groups take. Like immigration is a right of the person wanting to come here, or, even more annoying, I’m evil if I don’t support open borders or some version of that.

If they simply said, “America doesn’t need immigrants, but we’ve got enough wealth to go around so let’s be generous” I think most Americans including myself would be more receptive. It’s just the incessant militant demand for “rights” that rubs me the wrong way… to be honest, the style reminds me a lot of the gay lobby and their in-your-face ‘pride’.
 
I’m with you. That’s why I opened with the statement that immigrant rights folks often shoot their own cause in the foot by the rhetoric they employ.
 
Wolseley said:
This whole problem is easily solved.

The United States merely needs to annex Latin America. (We’re accused of being “imperialists” anyway, we might as well make good on it.)

They get white bread, paved roads, flush toilets and a reliable mail system; we get raw materials, cheap labor, and oil, plus it makes us the biggest trading bloc in the world, bigger than the EU, bigger than Japan, bigger than Commie China. And we get rid of Fidel and Hugo Chavez to boot.

It’s a win-win.
Click to expand...
I have heard this “plan” by others on totally different boards before and find it just as ludicrous each time it comes up.🤷 :rolleyes:

If you are looking at immigration, world money markets are the first place to look as international money markets and movement of capital encourage displacement of people from their local area in order to maximize profits and their local trade agreements (e.g. CAFTA, NAFTA, etc…).

The Cardinal does have a valid point, it is sad he had to use that term to get attention to this issue, but that is what it took. Immigrants have been and sadly always will be scapegoats to others in whatever native country they go into (the US is not alone, the mantra is the same in other countries). It is very easy for our biases to look down on others and we always struggle daily with this.
 
mschrank said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Neocatechumenal Way “theology”.

Dunno what that means…
Click to expand...
The Neocatechumenal Way is a cult within the Catholic Church —that is trying to overtake and replace the Catholic Church.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Here is what it actually is, you can ignore the “cult” comment, it is just one more recent way to direct your spirituality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocatechumenal_Way
Quote:
As time passed, this kerygma was embodied in a catechetical synthesis, founded on the tripod: “Word of God-Liturgy-Community”, that seeks to lead people to fraternal communion and mature faith.
Click to expand...
That is a bunch of propaganda. The Neocatechumenal Way is a non-Catholic cult.
 
manualman said:
This requires an official catholic reference repudiating the group. Back it up, man.
Click to expand...
It took a Council to repudiate the Arian heresy—yet until that council was called—the Arians had corrupted most of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top