I
Ituyu
Guest
What letter? What orders?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
bones_IV
Guest
These are the principles set forth by Cardinal Ratzinger:What letter? What orders?
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles by Joseph Ratzinger 1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83). 2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74). 3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. 4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915). 5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. 6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2000], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin. [N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
I
Ituyu
Guest
What is the source? There’s no letter head or signature. Who was it sent to? And, relevent point do you feel you’ve made?These are the principles set forth by Cardinal Ratzinger:
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles by Joseph Ratzinger 1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83). 2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74). 3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. 4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915). 5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. 6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2000], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin. [N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
Is it this one:
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=32073
M
matt1985
Guest
I don’t understand why it the USCCB feels that it is moral to allow drugs and violent criminals our boarder daily.
F
Fremont
Guest
The USCCB is the governing body of the Church in America?The USCCB is the governing body of the Church in America. It has legitimate opinions and concerns over the issue and it supports no political party over the other. But, let’s say that you’re correct, where have they gone contrary to either Pope’s message?
The USCCB has no authority over any bishop, the USCCB has no authority over any priest, the USCCB has no authority over any Nun. The USCCB has no ability to issue any instructions, orders or discipline to any bishop, priest or religious. How can that be governing?
It is a political organization with an agenda. A far left agenda.
On the other hand, if it represents moral integrity why no official word on contemporary moral issues like lying and deceit? Why no letters on the moral and legal responsibility to protect our children?
With the various letters and statements issued by the USCCB I do not recall any in recent years that call for respect for truth. I do not recall any that criticized the many bishops who lied about their activities in the sex abuse scandal. Bernard Law got into at least as much trouble for lying about his acts as he did for the acts themselves.
I do not recall any that criticized the many bishops that covered up the horrid acts of abusive priests and then, even worse, transferred them so those same priests could repeat their abuse on new victims.
I do not recall any that criticized the many bishops that paid bribes to the victims of abusive priests to keep them quiet and enable the bishops to cover-up the foul deeds.
I do not recall any that criticized bishops who refused to report sexual abuse of children to the police – as required by law.
I do not recall any that called for the bishops to “now come clean” about abuse in their diocese to local authorities. What we do see are bad bishops like Phony Mahoney in LA thumbing his nose at the authorities. Is it just that the bishops and the USCCB consider themselves above the law?
After the scandal blew up in their face the USCCB did issue a half hearted indication of regret and some wimpy words about what should happen in the future. Even then not all bishops agreed and any thing that was said binds none of them.
Even a recent issue of the Catholic Answers magazine This Rock addresses the frustration of what to do about “bad bishops”. Certainly the USCCB can and will do nothing.
That does not sound like a “governing body” to me.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
He did… and I for one agree with him.
Yeah yeah, but can you answer the question please?
I
Ituyu
Guest
United States Conference of Catholic Bishopsquote=Fremont;1537951]The USCCB is the governing body of the Church in America?
The USCCB has no authority over any bishop, the USCCB has no authority over any priest, the USCCB has no authority over any Nun. The USCCB has no ability to issue any instructions, orders or discipline to any bishop, priest or religious. How can that be governing?
It is a political organization with an agenda. A far left agenda.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, [search](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Conference_of_Catholic_Bishops#search(name removed by moderator)ut)
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Usccblogo.gif
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (also known as the USCCB) is the official governing body of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. Founded in 1966 as the joint National Conference of Catholic Bishops and United States Catholic Conference, it is comprised of the American hierarchy of bishops, archbishops and cardinal archbishops. The USCCB adopted its current name in July 2001. The organization is a registered corporation based in Washington, DC. As with all bishops’ conferences, the decisions and acts of the USCCB must be approved by the Roman dicasteries, which are subservient to the immediate and absolute authority of the Pope.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Well as long as the Pope shows no interest in it, it’s ho hum to me too.He did… and I for one agree with him.
F
Fremont
Guest
You have made your point and I respect your source.United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, [search](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Conference_of_Catholic_Bishops#search(name removed by moderator)ut)
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Usccblogo.gif
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (also known as the USCCB) is the official governing body of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. Founded in 1966 as the joint National Conference of Catholic Bishops and United States Catholic Conference, it is comprised of the American hierarchy of bishops, archbishops and cardinal archbishops. The USCCB adopted its current name in July 2001. The organization is a registered corporation based in Washington, DC. As with all bishops’ conferences, the decisions and acts of the USCCB must be approved by the Roman dicasteries, which are subservient to the immediate and absolute authority of the Pope.
Actions speak louder than words and it seems to me the USCCB is doing a poor job of governing anything.
As long as the USCCB continues rhetoric largely on political issues from a far left perspective and refuses to even try to clean up the acts of the bishops I only see a political organization. As long as it refuses to criticize the bad acts of the bishops but shows no qualms about criticizing the US government I see insincerity.
I have little respect for such operations.
If the Pope and the Vatican support the low respect for the truth seen in so many of the bishops and if the Pope and the Vatican support bribes to victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy so bishops can more completely cover-up the abuses then maybe the USCCB just reflects such policies and is indeed doing the job intended.
I would be very disappointed if that is the case.
I
Ituyu
Guest
When you consider what happened of course we cannot deny that we were let down. But, we were let down because they did NOT follow Catholic Teaching. What the culpable were guilty of was not defensable through Church Teaching. Yet, our history is full of past failures and the Church continues. The position the Bishops have taken on the Immigration issue seems to me in direct agreement with what out Holy Fathers past and present have held and of course with Catholic Teaching. I would agree that there are areas in which we can disagree about how best to achieve measures that achieve the “Common Good” but some of these measures which you and others advocate just seem inconsistent with the idea of an “eye for an eye”, the punishment should be commensurate with the crime. Measures that are too severe are not “Just” and is true of measures that are too lenient. But, in the overall picture at least from the economic aspect and the element of harm, they help us economically and there was little if any harm. Some of the measures you support hurts us all not just the “illegal” and are too extreme as well as expensive than more reasonable alternatives.You have made your point and I respect your source.
Actions speak louder than words and it seems to me the USCCB is doing a poor job of governing anything.
As long as the USCCB continues rhetoric largely on political issues from a far left perspective and refuses to even try to clean up the acts of the bishops I only see a political organization. As long as it refuses to criticize the bad acts of the bishops but shows no qualms about criticizing the US government I see insincerity.
I have little respect for such operations.
If the Pope and the Vatican support the low respect for the truth seen in so many of the bishops and if the Pope and the Vatican support bribes to victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy so bishops can more completely cover-up the abuses then maybe the USCCB just reflects such policies and is indeed doing the job intended.
I would be very disappointed if that is the case.
F
Fremont
Guest
My point is that the USCCB is still populated by bishops who betrayed the faithful with lies, bribes and cover-ups to help sexually abusive priests continue to harm children. They are not worthy of respect and I choose to disregard what they say – particularly when they criticize the US.When you consider what happened of course we cannot deny that we were let down. But, we were let down because they did NOT follow Catholic Teaching. What the culpable were guilty of was not defensable through Church Teaching. Yet, our history is full of past failures and the Church continues. The position the Bishops have taken on the Immigration issue seems to me in direct agreement with what out Holy Fathers past and present have held and of course with Catholic Teaching. I would agree that there are areas in which we can disagree about how best to achieve measures that achieve the “Common Good” but some of these measures which you and others advocate just seem inconsistent with the idea of an “eye for an eye”, the punishment should be commensurate with the crime. Measures that are too severe are not “Just” and is true of measures that are too lenient. But, in the overall picture at least from the economic aspect and the element of harm, they help us economically and there was little if any harm. Some of the measures you support hurts us all not just the “illegal” and are too extreme as well as expensive than more reasonable alternatives.
Who in h**l are these corrupt people to say anything about what we do when the USCCB not only refuses to apply appropriate disciplinary measures to the guilty among their ranks the USCCB even coddles them.
There was another article in the press today about sexual abuse by priests. This time it was children in Mexico. One priest has been arrested while celebrating Mass in Mexico and the other fled to the US. (Kind of ironic, the guilty fleeing from Mexico to the US.)
A judge issued the arrest warrants last year but their whereabouts was just recently discovered.
A Mexican Cardinal, Roberto Riviera, was fully aware of the location of the priest who was arrested but covered that up and conspired to hide the guilty priest from the Mexican authorities. He also conspired in the transfer of the other priest to Los Angeles where he has been hiding under another cover-up by Phony Mahony.
Legal action has been filed against both Cardinals, Roberto Riviera and Roger Mahony, for conspiracy to hide and protect the abusive priest.
To me this is just another example of the corrupt and unjustifiable behavior of bishops and another demonstration that their atrocious behavior, lack of morals and poor judgment is ongoing.
The article is by Ms. Lisa Adams of The Associated Press and is entitled “Priest arrested, accused of raping 9-year-old.
I am sorry I could not figure out how to post it here as a link.
I
Ituyu
Guest
The point is simple. The Scandal did not undo Church Teaching and was avoidable by adhereing to Church Teaching. All the more reason to stick to Church Teaching on the Poor and Human Rights.My point is that the USCCB is still populated by bishops who betrayed the faithful with lies, bribes and cover-ups to help sexually abusive priests continue to harm children. They are not worthy of respect and I choose to disregard what they say – particularly when they criticize the US.
Who in h**l are these corrupt people to say anything about what we do when the USCCB not only refuses to apply appropriate disciplinary measures to the guilty among their ranks the USCCB even coddles them.
There was another article in the press today about sexual abuse by priests. This time it was children in Mexico. One priest has been arrested while celebrating Mass in Mexico and the other fled to the US. (Kind of ironic, the guilty fleeing from Mexico to the US.)
A judge issued the arrest warrants last year but their whereabouts was just recently discovered.
A Mexican Cardinal, Roberto Riviera, was fully aware of the location of the priest who was arrested but covered that up and conspired to hide the guilty priest from the Mexican authorities. He also conspired in the transfer of the other priest to Los Angeles where he has been hiding under another cover-up by Phony Mahony.
Legal action has been filed against both Cardinals, Roberto Riviera and Roger Mahony, for conspiracy to hide and protect the abusive priest.
To me this is just another example of the corrupt and unjustifiable behavior of bishops and another demonstration that their atrocious behavior, lack of morals and poor judgment is ongoing.
The article is by Ms. Lisa Adams of The Associated Press and is entitled “Priest arrested, accused of raping 9-year-old.
I am sorry I could not figure out how to post it here as a link.
L
Lance
Guest
Thank God the USCCB is not in charge of the security of our nation.
F
Fremont
Guest
Amen.Thank God the USCCB is not in charge of the security of our nation.
I
Ituyu
Guest
The USCCB is not alone in its opposition to the fence:
The Department of Homeland Security and the National
Border Patrol Council. T.J. Bonner, President of the Council said," “San Diego is the most heavily fortified border in the entire country and yet it’s not stopping people from coming across.”
The fence wont’ work! What a waste!!!
msnbc.msn.com/id/15201000/
The Department of Homeland Security and the National
Border Patrol Council. T.J. Bonner, President of the Council said," “San Diego is the most heavily fortified border in the entire country and yet it’s not stopping people from coming across.”
The fence wont’ work! What a waste!!!
msnbc.msn.com/id/15201000/
L
Lance
Guest
For once you and I agree. The answer is to go after the companies who hire the illegals. If a few company owners and CEO’s go to prison for 5 or 6 years you will see the job market for illegals dry up and if there are no jobs for them they wont come. As long as there is a job for them they will find a way to get here.The USCCB is not alone in its opposition to the fence:
The Department of Homeland Security and the National
Border Patrol Council. T.J. Bonner, President of the Council said," “San Diego is the most heavily fortified border in the entire country and yet it’s not stopping people from coming across.”
The fence wont’ work! What a waste!!!
msnbc.msn.com/id/15201000/
I
Ituyu
Guest
What? You agree that the fence won’t work and a waste of our valuable resources? What is going on? Oh yeah, Friday the 13th.For once you and I agree. The answer is to go after the companies who hire the illegals. If a few company owners and CEO’s go to prison for 5 or 6 years you will see the job market for illegals dry up and if there are no jobs for them they wont come. As long as there is a job for them they will find a way to get here.
Now as far as punishing and jailing businessmen, how will that solve our need to fill jobs that would otherwise go unfilled?
L
Lance
Guest
There is no job Americans will not do if they are paid a fair wage. You may end up paying 10 cents a head more for lettuce or a $1 more for your meal at a restaraunt but your insurance premiums will go down because the illegals are not going to the emergency room for free medical care. You will not have to pay to fix your car because some illegal hit you and had no drivers license or insurance and just left town after the accident. You will be much better off if the workers in America are legal even if goods cost you more.What? You agree that the fence won’t work and a waste of our valuable resources? What is going on? Oh yeah, Friday the 13th.
Now as far as punishing and jailing businessmen, how will that solve our need to fill jobs that would otherwise go unfilled?
I think we should build the fence but across the whole border. It will make us more secure but it is not the ‘end all be all’ that the politicians are telling us it will be.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Look Lance, as taxpayers we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on education on every person graduating from our schools. They have opportunities that virtually nobody has. And, you would want these people to be grape pickers, janitors, bus boys and to wait on tables? Facts are that wages of Americans go up not down from immigrant labor, legal or “illegal”.quote=Lance;1567896]There is no job Americans will not do if they are paid a fair wage.
Again Lance, your assumptions don’t fair well against the facts. You forget that agriculture, for example, is labor intensive and has become a young man’s job. The majority of our agriculture worker’s are immigrants and the majority of them are “illegal”. Why? Because we don’t have enough young men to fill those jobs and our kids, rightfully so, are doing internships and working on careers not just “jobs”.You may end up paying 10 cents a head more for lettuce or a $1 more for your meal at a restaraunt but your insurance premiums will go down because the illegals are not going to the emergency room for free medical care.
And, I’m afraid you’re really naive if you think insurance premiums are coming down permanently for any reason.
These ills are a function of the “illegal” status. Make them legal and they will have the proper licenses and insurance. And, if goods cost more people buy less. If people buy less, our economy suffers. It’s a vicious cycle but that’s the way it works and always has. Remember immigration has always worked for us. “Illegal” immigration is a recent invention used against people who are doing nothing different than they have always done, come here for jobs. A fence goes against nature. Nature ultimately wins. We either accept nature or set ourselves up to lose.You will not have to pay to fix your car because some illegal hit you and had no drivers license or insurance and just left town after the accident. You will be much better off if the workers in America are legal even if goods cost you more.
Homeland Security and those who represent our Border Patrolmen think that there are alternative ways of securing our border. They already accept that this fence won’t work. I agree that is has major faults, will cause harm to our environment, and damage our relationship and business interests on both borders. That’s why I favor a more realistic legal process that is basically paid for by the applicants, not by us. And, it addresses the “problem”. A fence only addresses “symptoms” not the “problem”. And, we will have some major issues to hurdle, as a nation, down the road. Look at what is happening in the rest of the Western World. I’m sure they would trade our “immigration” issues for their problems anytime.I think we should build the fence but across the whole border. It will make us more secure but it is not the ‘end all be all’ that the politicians are telling us it will be.
L
Lance
Guest
Many if not most of the kids who graduate or drop out(which a lot of them do) from the Chicago public schools(I don’t think Chicago is different most cities) are going to end up as janitors, bus boys and waiting on tables if they are lucky. Just as a side fact, my daughter who teaches school also waits tables on the weekend. Many times she makes more waiting on tables than she does as a teacher, now that’s a sad state of affairs.Look Lance, as taxpayers we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on education on every person graduating from our schools. They have opportunities that virtually nobody has. And, you would want these people to be grape pickers, janitors, bus boys and to wait on tables? Facts are that wages of Americans go up not down from immigrant labor, legal or “illegal”…
I understand the need for farm workers. I just want them to be legal and them or or their employer pay their fair share of school taxes, medical cost, etc. Again many inner-city kids are not doing internships and working on careers, I know they can’t do farm work but the can bus tables, cook, work in construction and many other jobs the illegals do.Again Lance, your assumptions don’t fair well against the facts. You forget that agriculture, for example, is labor intensive and has become a young man’s job. The majority of our agriculture worker’s are immigrants and the majority of them are “illegal”. Why? Because we don’t have enough young men to fill those jobs and our kids, rightfully so, are doing internships and working on careers not just “jobs”…
Obviously you have never had your car smashed up by one of the illegals you spend your days worrying about. I have, he had no drivers license, expired plates, and no insurance. He was arrested and taken to jail where he posted his $500 bond, so obviously he had money, and skipped town. My insurance company and I were left holding the bill. Don’t tell me that my rates are not affected by this.And, I’m afraid you’re really naive if you think insurance premiums are coming down permanently for any reason.
These ills are a function of the “illegal” status. Make them legal and they will have the proper licenses and insurance. And, if goods cost more people buy less. If people buy less, our economy suffers. It’s a vicious cycle but that’s the way it works and always has. Remember immigration has always worked for us. “Illegal” immigration is a recent invention used against people who are doing nothing different than they have always done, come here for jobs. A fence goes against nature. Nature ultimately wins. We either accept nature or set ourselves up to lose.
My walls and roof on my house go against nature too but I would not be without them.
If you are refering to Europe they have their own immigration problems, both legal and illegal. My wife’s relatives in Italy tell us that within 50 years Italy will cease to be a Chritian nation if things are not turned around.Homeland Security and those who represent our Border Patrolmen think that there are alternative ways of securing our border. They already accept that this fence won’t work. I agree that is has major faults, will cause harm to our environment, and damage our relationship and business interests on both borders. That’s why I favor a more realistic legal process that is basically paid for by the applicants, not by us. And, it addresses the “problem”. A fence only addresses “symptoms” not the “problem”. And, we will have some major issues to hurdle, as a nation, down the road. Look at what is happening in the rest of the Western World. I’m sure they would trade our “immigration” issues for their problems anytime.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.