AmericanPapist Comments
This made a big stink on a conservative talk show today where the host Mike Gallagher (sp?) railed against the Church for courting extinction with her hypocritical policies comparing this to the sex abuse scandals.
At least one of his listeners tried to set him straight but he would have none of it. To him, this was as good as the Pappa Ben himself condemning the wall.
But if you go by what MSM preaches, the Church puts her stamp of approval on abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research.
Mike swallowed it hook, line, and sinker and spent a good part of his show blaspheming Holy Mother Church.
Look, His Eminence should stick to his area of competence and not comment on issues like this which makes him (and by extension, the Church) look ridiculous. When he is prepared to show how Catholic doctrine precludes a nation state (including the Vatican) from establishing secure borders, perhaps then we should at least entertain his comments. Tom
American Papist,
Why so hostile to a Cardinal of the Church who has been placed in a position of prominence and public view by the Pope?
I'm noticing two disturbing trends on your blog:
1. Inconsistency. You have quoted with approval a number of statements from Roman Curia officials on anything from politics to liturgy (e.g. Arinze, Sodano, Ratzinger) because you find yourself aligned with their views. Yet, you do not give the same favor to other members of the same Curia who make statements that are unaligned with your political sensibilites (e.g. Martino). This is hardly the behavior of a self-described "papist", that is, picking and choosing which papally placed officials you like to promote and which officials you'd like to harp on. On the contrary, criticism of senior Cardinals who the Pope himself has hand-picked and placed in vital positions within the Church is just as apalling and destructive as the most virulent criticisms by liberal Catholics.
2. Conflation of religion and politics. First, conservative (and often boldly Republican) political platforms are often conflated with Catholic doctrine and discipline on this blog. There is a distinction, you know. One can no more be a faithful Democrat and a Catholic than a faithful Republican and a Catholic.
Second, Pope Benedict has already criticized the building of a wall to prevent illegal immigration. I did not see you criticize him. Yet you will freely criticize a Cardinal who makes the same comments. You are showing yourself to be out of harmony with the Vatican (Benedict, Lazono and Martino) on this issue. What precisely is it that you do not like about the Vatican decrying the building of a wall on our border? You owe it to your readers to explain this. If it is sheer conservative American politics that drives your ire against Martino, then just say so. But don't pass off your comments as if they are aligned with the Vatican or with the spirit of Catholic social teaching.
I don't mean to come down too hard, but your comments here are no more helpful to orthodox Catholicism than those of Commonweal and its fanciful pluralistic constructs. And you set a very poor example of obedience and trust in our bishops when you criticize them, not because they are doctrinally or liturgically faulty, but because of your homegrown conservative political views conflict with the Vatican's direction on social issues. And no doubt, other political conservatives will come to your rescue on this thread, but the real support must be from you--supporting and bolstering trust in the office of the bishop and in the function of the Roman Curia. And the Vatican has been quite clear: the wall is a mistake and an injustice.
As recent immigrant to the US, as a reader of your blog, and more importantly, as a Catholic, this post is quite disappointing.
Can you please explain why your post demands Cardinal Martino to "hush up"? Even though the Vatican and the Mexican bishops have already opposed building the wall?
What do you know about immigration? Do you know about families being separated because of it? Do you know that our first option was not to leave our families, our cultures, our traditions to come to a strange country? Do you know that because we chose to come here to live in dignity we work hard we work and honor the values of our "new land"?
American Papist, what do you have to bring to the table that backs up your position in this matter? I really want to hear your reasons for saying so, because it truly offends me to hear this from a fellow young Catholic.
By the way, the wall around the Vatican was not built to keep immigrants out, so your comment is not appreciated.
Please be more charitable in the future towards your blog audience.
God Bless,
Katerina
Is this a neo-con blog or one that upholds the teachings of the Church? If it's the former, say whatever you want, it's a free country. If it's the latter, I have a few links for you:
First, Renato, President of the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice (certainly immigration is his field, no?) isn't the first cardinal to speak about it:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data...cns/
0606169.htm
Building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border is a shortsighted move that may hurt the U.S. economy and shows a serious lack of respect for the dignity of Mexican workers, said a Vatican official. "This wall, together with the fact that this border is patrolled by thousands of armed men ready to shoot on sight those who try to cross it, certainly is not respectful of the dignity of the human person," said Mexican Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan.
But, what do Church leaders closest to the issue say?
http://www.catholic.org/internat...ry.php?
id=21824
A Mexican bishop has condemned the building of fence along the U.S.-Mexican border that would total 700 miles. Bishop Renato Ascencio Leon of Ciudad Juarez said the law signed by U.S. President George W. Bush Oct. 26 was "a big mistake. The only thing that building a wall will do ... is divide and alienate our societies," Bishop Ascencio said. "This is not a solution," Bishop Ascencio said. "The only thing (the wall) will achieve is making it more difficult for undocumented migrants. But people will still look for ways to reach their destination, even if it means risking death."
Meanwhile, on this side of the border:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data...cns/
0603443.htm
U.S. bishops continued to press Congress to legislate comprehensive and humane immigration reform the day before their June meeting opened in Los Angeles."We urge congressional leaders and the president to seize this historic moment and enact a just and humane immigration measure," said Bishop Gerald R. Barnes of San Bernardino.
And, of course, there's the U.S. bishops' long-standing policy on immigration:
http://www.usccb.org/mrs/mrp.shtml
Do the U.S. bishops oppose any immigration legislation which has been introduced in Congress? Yes. The U.S. bishops strongly oppose H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Protection Act of 2005, introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Representative Peter King (R-NY). H.R. 4437 passed the House of Representatives 239-182 on December 16, 2005. The legislation includes many harsh provisions which would bring undue harm to immigrants and their families.
So, who should shut up? All the U.S. bishops? All the cardinals? The pope himself? The Gospel (Mt. 25-35, 40)? You seem to be in disagreement with all of them on this issue.
Tom,
Look, His Eminence should stick to his area of competence and not comment on issues like this which makes him (and by extension, the Church) look ridiculous.
Help me understand (according to you) what is Cardinal Martino's "area of competence"?
Last time I checked he was in charge of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace... because if to speak about humanitarian matters is not the Cardinal's job, then what is???
Is it correct that Mexico has a restricted border with her neighbors to the south? In which case speaking against a US policy and not applying the same to the cardinal's own country is a bit inconsistant.
I realize that he is speaking on all the fences going up in different parts of the world, but this does seem dirrected at the US.
Personnally I'm not sure this wall would even work, but I also believe that a country should have the right to control its borders.
If I am off base, I appologize.
What would the Vatican do if a bunch of us - interested in pursuing a better life - decided to scale the walls of the Vatican, camp out in the Papal Gardens, set up homes and demand that we receive health care, education for our children, and financial assistance while we take jobs that Vatican citizens just won't do?
I am sympathetic to your plight Katerina, and that of so many immigrants to this country, but two things need to be said - first, there is a huge difference between legal immigrants and illegal ones, and that difference cannot and should not be minimized; secondly, the true problem is the economic and political situation in Mexico, and THAT needs to be the focus, not American immigration policy. THAT is where Cardinal Martino needs to focus his criticism, and that is not a problem that Americans are responsible for, since we neither elected the Mexican government, nor instituted Mexican social and economic policy.
If americans didn't give jobs to illegal immigrants there wouldn't be any(or much less than today).
The fence is a stupid thing. Beleive me, I lived behind iron curtain.
But Stefan...there's a difference between a fence keeping people out and a fence attempting to keep people in. Do you have walls on the outside of your current residence? A door? a locked door? If so, why?
What would the Vatican do if a bunch of us - interested in pursuing a better life - decided to scale the walls of the Vatican, camp out in the Papal Gardens, set up homes and demand that we receive health care, education for our children, and financial assistance while we take jobs that Vatican citizens just won't do?
Tim, this rhetorical question is pointless on a number of accounts:
1. Immigrants from Mexico have not been "demanding" health care or "financial assistance". You are confusing these immigrants with Democrat strategies in social welfare. Not the same thing. I'm from California and Texas, and I see the issue up close every day.
2. Is the Vatican's economy helping to create impoverishment by aiding governments that do not fairly distribute their country's wealth? Does the Vatican exploit the resource of a country and do nothing for that country's people? You seem to forget that the U.S. has played a significant role in creating and maintaining the horrendous living conditions for the lower classes in Latin America. So when immigrants from Latin America come to the U.S., think a little more deeper before you castigate them for wanting a better life.
3. Comparing the Vatican economy and living conditions to those of the U.S. is perhaps the most ridiculous analogy imaginable on this issue. But since you used it, I'll pose a question to you: Do you think the Vatican would build a taller wall and prosecute those who were seeking a better life within its territory? I invite you to think as a Christian here, not as a conservative politician.
The utter lack of familiarity with papal social teaching from American Papist, Tim and Tom is embarassing. And to think that we would get "papist" perspectives on this blog...
Guys,
Is this a neo-con blog or one that upholds the teachings of the Church? If it's the former, say whatever you want, it's a free country. If it's the latter, I have a few links for you:
Thank you, Mike L. I think we are letting our political ideologies shape our thoughts in immigration and other social issues, rather than listening to the Magisterium, because first of all, immigrants are human beings and their fundamental rights should be respected as much as the right to life of an unborn.
When we try to seek justice in society, we need to look at these issues with eyes of Christian charity which leads us to two principles on which Catholic Social teaching is based:
1. The human person made in the image of God and his fundamental rights take primacy over any other issue.
2. The common good, based on Jesus’ commandment to love one another, calls us to ensure that EVERYONE in society is taken care of and that no one lacks the fundamental things to live in human decency.
Now, with this in mind, let us analyze the immigration issue.
The wall:
Nobody is saying that a country should not protect its borders for political reasons in order to promote order and justice, which the Church does not oppose. However, we are not talking to erect a wall to stop trafficking of arms, illegal substances and other activities, but to stop immigrants to come in altogether, based on what I'm reading. Yes, there are gangs that cross the border and by all means we need to stop them, but the wall is mainly to stop immigration. Why does the Church oppose the wall? Her concern is that the wall is a means to stop immigration with an enforcement-only approach. This is inhumane and has not proven to be work in the past. In fact, it is an individualistic and xenophobic approach, which is far from Christian.
Illegal immigrants:
I know it may surprise many here, but illegal immigrants do not want to be here illegally and, in fact, most of them leave their families behind to earn their bread by labor and be able to support their families in a honest way, and wish to come back to see their families. They happen to be humans too. Many are separated for years and have not returned to see their families. That is why the Church wants a more complete approach: one that can integrate families through legislation (see latest Pope Benedict's address on immigration), provide health care and other basic human rights in an ordered manner, not illegally.
the true problem is the economic and political situation in Mexico, and THAT needs to be the focus, not American immigration policy. THAT is where Cardinal Martino needs to focus his criticism, and that is not a problem that Americans are responsible for
WRONG. This violates the Church’s Social Doctrine principle of the common good and a quite selfish approach. The US, just as any other nation, is responsible for what is happening in other countries, because AN
the true problem is the economic and political situation in Mexico, and THAT needs to be the focus, not American immigration policy. THAT is where Cardinal Martino needs to focus his criticism, and that is not a problem that Americans are responsible for.
WRONG. This violates the Church’s Social Doctrine principle of the common good and a quite selfish approach. The US, just as any other nation, is responsible for what is happening in other countries, because ANYONE should have to suffer and lack basic necessities in life. As Christians we are called to reach out and to do something about it.
John Paul II is very firm on our duty towards EVERYONE and how it should surpass just mere compassion:
"This then is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all." (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 38 )
John XXIII emphasizes how the relationships between nations should be governed by the same principles of any other human relationship: with charity, justice, and love, which demands responsibility and action from other nations when human rights are violated or social justice is not ensured for all:
The solidarity which binds all men together as members of a common family makes it impossible for wealthy nations to look with indifference upon the hunger, misery and poverty of other nations whose citizens are unable to enjoy even elementary human rights. The nations of the world are becoming more and more dependent on one another and it will not be possible to preserve a lasting peace so long as glaring economic and social imbalances persist." (Mater Et Magistra, 157)
Correction:
"Anyone" should have been "no one"
Well, perhaps, papal "Social Teaching" (which is not dogma)needs to be updated and reconciled with the 1900 years or so that preceded it and more recent world changes. Last time I heard, Communism has been consigned to the "dustbin of history." I do seriously question his competence and his judgment when he focuses on the US, the most BENEFICENT country on earth. Why not turn his attention to Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia (sorry, that's unfair because they'd cut his head off). I challenge anyone on this thread to name another that even comes close. I am sick and tired of American bashing by lefty Europeans, including Martino, and the rest of the "blame America first" crowd. Tom
So, Mexico and the democratically elected Mexican government has done nothing to create and foster this situation? I would have less anger over comments by Cardinal Martino and others if their criticisms would also extend beyond the borders of the United States. Yes, the United States has been nothing but the source of evil, suffering, cruelty and inhumanity for the past one hundred years (except for sacrificing millions of her sons and daughters in the cause of liberty, spending billions to rebuild countless nations, educate further millions from other countries to help them build their infrastructures, and serve as a shining example of the blessings of democracy...other than that we've been all about oppression, slaughter and evil...)
Let's be clear - the wall and further border defenses are not intended to stop immigration. They are intended to stop illegal immigration: two entirely separate things. I do not fault those who want to come here. I do not even fault those who want to come here illegally - I can understand why they'd want to come here (despite America being such an evil place and all). I also agree that immigration reform needs to happen, but part of immigration reform is controlling who comes in. If illegal immigration was kept in check, then more immigrants could legally be allowed to enter (and would be allowed, due to the sheer power of the markets).
I'm well aware of Papal social teaching, and aware of the fact that the Church has maintained for centuries the right of nations to police and control their own borders. I'm not arguing for inflicting any cruelty on illegal immigrants, which would be contrary to the teachings of the Church. I'm arguing for permitting the United States the freedom that is permitted for every other country, including the Vatican City State: the freedom to control who comes in and settles within our borders, no more, no less.
Wow. Looks like I've found a nerve and hit it hard. This is what a combox is intended for: discussion of topics and an area for reasoned disagreement.
That said, I've got a real pile-on to deal with here and please understand if I don't have a chance to respond to all the comments posted above. In addition, this week is extremely busy for me with other blog topics and a healthy dose of 2 part-time jobs and full-time school (sometimes I really take on more than I can handle).
I feel there has been enough reasonable criticism in this thread for me to devote a second post in the future to deal with the question. Let me put a couple of my initial reactions below (so people can have a little more target practice):
@ Katrina: What do I know about immigration? I lived within 10 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border for 9 years. I have many friends on both sides of that border. So I know about immigration in a way that most land-locked Michiganders don’t. My father worked for the bishop of San Diego and was part of diocesan efforts to assist Mexicans, etc. etc. So I’m not completely ignorant about the issue.
@ Katrina Please point out to me where Pope Benedict has recently said the U.S.-Mexican wall is wrong. A link and a quote wound be fine. Please also tell me where Pope Benedict supports illegal immigration and denies the right of a country to secure its boarders (see, for instance, Cardinal Schonborn’s adamant defense of Austria’s right to secure its boarders against illegal immigration from Turkey – or should we toss Cardinal Schonborn out?)
I think that it is so sad and disappointing that as Catholics we are all holding our hands and singing the same song of praise when we only talk about matters of faith. However, when we get into the "works" part and when we realize that the Church challenges our political worldviews and calls us to live out our love to neighbor in what we think is a very radical way, we tend to be so selfish, to the point that we don't like it and think that the Church needs to be "updated" in social matters.
The Church has been around longer than us and knows better than us and any of our blogs.
Being a "neo-con" before being a Catholic is just as extremist and as dangerous as being a radical liberal and pro-choice democrat, because we become blinded by these partisan views instead of being guided by Christian principles.
I'm so sorry everyone here is so caught up in your American pride and can't see beyond your political views.
I'm done with this blog and their readers. As an immigrant and first-hand witness of governments from other developing nations, everyone here is showing an embarrassing lack of awareness and ignorance in world affairs, which would be fine if pride wouldn't be so obvious. Most readers here are not papists or HUMBLE followers and servants of the Church. It's all a fallacy.
I'll keep praying for everyone here.
Katerina
Also: the Vatican wall was most certainly created to keep people out. And I’m glad it’s there. Have you been in Rome at night? I have.
Also, Nations do not have an obligation to help the residents of every other country. JP2 was clear about that countries having a primary right to look out for their own citizens in Centessiums Annus. And sure he calls for International Aid as well, but international aid PRESUMES the people are in another country – see how that works?
@ Michael: Do you seriously believe we should agree with every NON-INFALLIBLE statement of a cardinal? Am I not, instead, completely free to disagree with Cardinals Martini and Daneels who have said that people have a DUTY to use condoms if they are infected with AIDS (even while other Cardinals, notably Trujillo and Barragan disagree?). It’s one thing to disagree with AUTHORITATIVE church teaching and a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing to disagree with low-level statements by Cardinals. Please don’t confuse the two. Cardinal Sodano was anti-Israel, does that mean that the Church is anti-Israel? Cardinal Bertoni would seem to disagree.
As for ‘conflating politics and religion.’ Martino is talking about a political issue. I’m a papist first and an American second (forget republicans/democrats, I’m concerned about issues and individuals, not parties). How is it conflating religion and politics when I disagree with a Cardinal who is talking about both? The fence is a political measure.
@ Mike: A scattering of (mostly) Mexican (and a few, notably Mahony) American bishops – who have been opposed by other American bishops is hardly a show of collegiality on the issue. All U.S. bishops? All Cardinals? Who’s exaggerating now?
Although comboxes, by their very nature, make this aspect of exchanges hard to see, Ferguson's posts conclusively carry his point. Opposition to his argument is either disingenious (whether by equivocation or ignorance) or ideological.
Katrina - I had a feeling that a deep personal experience of being an immigrant was flavoring your reaction.
I'm also sorry you've given up discussing or trying to approach the truth. It's a great tragedy whenever someone throws up their hands and gives up like that. It kinda hints at that person not being completely ready to grapple with the topic.
That said, I'll be praying for you as well. God Bless and may you return someday.
Also, I'd like to give my support to what TF has been saying. His points are well taken. Please remain open to having your horizon expanded by reading them honestly.
American Papist,
I'm only aware of Pope Benedict suggesting legislation in the US to support social integration of families in the US.
You keep saying Pope Benedict, Pope Benedict, Pope Benedict... What about the USCCB? That is the local Church of the US and knows about this matter in more details, so I don't know why its validity is not recognized in this matter (or completely disregarded).
The Vatican is NOT the Pope and you should know that. Cardinals are appointed by the Pope for a reason and the fact that Cardinal Martino, whose Congregation deals with this matter, has made an statement about immigration, should suffice. So if the Pope makes a statement tomorrow quoting the same thing that Cardinal Martino said, then it will be right in your eyes? You will approve then? WHY?
Apparently, your nearness to the Mexican border did not teach you the most sensitive issues regarding immigration and I posed the question, because your post showed your lack of charity in this regard. I'm not saying that is how you really feel, but you need to understand that when you write something, it immediately reflects who you are and what you stand for.
I'm done. Good luck.
En Cristo,
Katerina
Something must be done about the current situation on the border. If a wall is necessary for the U.S. to sort out its problems, then perhaps that is necessary.
@Katerina- Your tone is disapointing because I can disagree with someone but at the same time respect their opinion. All Catholics hope for the same outcome, one that facilitates a better life for all peoples. However, our strategy on how to get their will differ, and you must accept that. Like Amp said, this is not an infallible teaching, there is room for reasonable debate on this topic.
Let us pray that the right solution is found to the problems of both countries.
K's post was not visible when I posted. Quick thought: If I refused to read every journal that has ever published something I disagreed with (let's limit it to "strongly" even), watch any broadcast under similar terms, or for that matter talk to any like person, I would read, listen to, and talk to...no one.
(ok, ok, maybe the Bible would get by. ;)
American Papist's flawed and senseless comments:
@ Katrina: What do I know about immigration? I lived within 10 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border for 9 years. I have many friends on both sides of that border. So I know about immigration in a way that most land-locked Michiganders don’t. My father worked for the bishop of San Diego and was part of diocesan efforts to assist Mexicans, etc. etc. So I’m not completely ignorant about the issue.
Seeing that you live in Michigan, attended Ave Maria and the seminary in Detroit for college, and that you're probably no older than 22 or 23, I'm not sure you would have been old enough to understand anything about immigration while you lived in California. Nine years as a child and an adolescent hardly constitutes a familiarlity with immigration issues! I lived in California for 13 years, mostly as a young adult. So what?
Oh, and Michigan isn't land-locked.
Please point out to me where Pope Benedict has recently said the U.S.-Mexican wall is wrong. A link and a quote wound be fine. Please also tell me where Pope Benedict supports illegal immigration and denies the right of a country to secure its boarders (see, for instance, Cardinal Schonborn’s adamant defense of Austria’s right to secure its boarders against illegal immigration from Turkey – or should we toss Cardinal Schonborn out?)
Since you "toss out" Martino, Lazano, the U.S. and the Mexican bishops, why not toss out Schonborn? Or is our American Papist selective in which Cardinals and bishops he likes?
Katerina just cited the new message of Pope Benedict XVI on migration. Read the message first. Then ask yourself if the wall squares with the Pope's teaching. Oh, and while you're at it, could you please point out to me where Pope Benedict has recently said illegal immigration is not included in his support of immigration? A link and a quote would be fine.
Also: the Vatican wall was most certainly created to keep people out. And I’m glad it’s there. Have you been in Rome at night? I have.
Katerina and I have both been to the Vatican at night, thanks for asking. Katerina did not tell you the wall was designed to keep people out. Rather, if you would read her comments more carefully, she noted that the Vatican wall was not constructed to keep immigrants out. If you want to talk intelligently about the topic, you need to actually think about what others are saying.
Also, Nations do not have an obligation to help the residents of every other country. JP2 was clear about that countries having a primary right to look out for their own citizens in Centessiums Annus. And sure he calls for International Aid as well, but international aid PRESUMES the people are in another country – see how that works?
You don't need to point Katerina to Centessimus Annus. As a theology student at a real university, she has read through every papal social encyclical thoroughly. And, unlike you, she actually provides citations and references. Anybody can say "look at 'x'" or "JP2 was clear on..." without having actually read it. But not just anybody can actually demonstrate a knowledge of an encyclical's contents. I'm sure you've seen Katerina's exposition on the social encyclicals, which has been circulating around the internet for a while now: Catholic Social Teaching
@ Michael: Do you seriously believe we should agree with every NON-INFALLIBLE statement of a cardinal? Am I not, instead, completely free to disagree with Cardinals Martini and Daneels who have said that people have a DUTY to use condoms if they are infected with AIDS (even while other Cardinals, notably Trujillo and Barragan disagree?).
A real "papist" would realize that Martini and Daneels were not the prefects or presidents of congregations or councils that dealt with the issues of sexual morality, disease and poverty. A real "papist" would realize the Cardinal Martino is Benedict XVI's hand-picked PRESIDENT OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE PASTORAL CARE OF MIGRANTS AND ITINERATE PEOPLE. Martino is speaking directly within his capacity as president of the Vatican's own council on immigration! A real "papist" would also realize that attacking and mocking Martino is not only a poor Catholic example and a resounding display of youthful arrogance, it is mocking the Pope who permits Martino and the Pontificial Council to speak for him:
"In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors."
CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9
You ask if you are free to disagree with "non-infallible" teachings of the Church. I guess...at your own peril. It appears you have not read Lumen Gentium 25. Such a reductionist reading of Catholic teaching is irresponsible and certainly not "papist". I see you quoting and supporting "non-infallible" teachings all over your blog, yet you seem to be very 'Protestant' in your reading of ecclesial documents: you pick-and-choose what's authoritative for you.
Finally, are you, American Papist, going on record stating that we Catholics can disagree with any "non-infallible" teachings of the Church? I can't wait to see how you get out of this corner!
Martino is talking about a political issue. I’m a papist first and an American second (forget republicans/democrats, I’m concerned about issues and individuals, not parties). How is it conflating religion and politics when I disagree with a Cardinal who is talking about both? The fence is a political measure.
You have such a long way to go before you start thinking like John Paul II or Benedict XVI. The division you draw between religion and politics is artificial. At the heart of both is the human person in full dignity. Martino, who again was placed in a position by Benedict to make judgments on "political measure", is concerned not with politics, but with human dignity. Your terrible misunderstanding is the same misunderstanding held by countless people who support abortion because they perceive it to be nothing more than a politically and legally supported right.
I recommend you read the entirety of Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical Deus Caritas Est, especially the second part where the Pope informs us that, for Christians, there is no separation between Christian charity and its application in the social and political sphere.
@ Mike: A scattering of (mostly) Mexican (and a few, notably Mahony) American bishops – who have been opposed by other American bishops is hardly a show of collegiality on the issue. All U.S. bishops? All Cardinals? Who’s exaggerating now?
How many bishops do you need, American Papist? You yourself only rally around a "scattering" of bishops on your blog (Burke, Chaput et al.). What makes Mike any different than you? I'll tell you: the bishops that Mike speaks of are in harmony with Curial officials. And the Curia is not just some body of opinions. The Curia, in its very identity, speaks in the name of the Pope.
American Papist's flawed and senseless comments:
@ Katrina: What do I know about immigration? I lived within 10 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border for 9 years. I have many friends on both sides of that border. So I know about immigration in a way that most land-locked Michiganders don’t. My father worked for the bishop of San Diego and was part of diocesan efforts to assist Mexicans, etc. etc. So I’m not completely ignorant about the issue.
Seeing that you live in Michigan, attended Ave Maria and the seminary in Detroit for college, and that you're probably no older than 22 or 23, I'm not sure you would have been old enough to understand anything about immigration while you lived in California. Nine years as a child and an adolescent hardly constitutes a familiarlity with immigration issues! I lived in California for 13 years, mostly as a young adult. So what?
Oh, and Michigan isn't land-locked.
Please point out to me where Pope Benedict has recently said the U.S.-Mexican wall is wrong. A link and a quote wound be fine. Please also tell me where Pope Benedict supports illegal immigration and denies the right of a country to secure its boarders (see, for instance, Cardinal Schonborn’s adamant defense of Austria’s right to secure its boarders against illegal immigration from Turkey – or should we toss Cardinal Schonborn out?)
Since you "toss out" Martino, Lazano, the U.S. and the Mexican bishops, why not toss out Schonborn? Or is our American Papist selective in which Cardinals and bishops he likes?
Katerina just cited the new message of Pope Benedict XVI on migration. Read the message first. Then ask yourself if the wall squares with the Pope's teaching. Oh, and while you're at it, could you please point out to me where Pope Benedict has recently said illegal immigration is not included in his support of immigration? A link and a quote would be fine.
Also: the Vatican wall was most certainly created to keep people out. And I’m glad it’s there. Have you been in Rome at night? I have.
Katerina and I have both been to the Vatican at night, thanks for asking. Katerina did not tell you the wall was designed to keep people out. Rather, if you would read her comments more carefully, she noted that the Vatican wall was not constructed to keep immigrants out. If you want to talk intelligently about the topic, you need to actually think about what others are saying.
Also, Nations do not have an obligation to help the residents of every other country. JP2 was clear about that countries having a primary right to look out for their own citizens in Centessiums Annus. And sure he calls for International Aid as well, but international aid PRESUMES the people are in another country – see how that works?
You don't need to point Katerina to Centessimus Annus. As a theology student at a real university, she has read through every papal social ency
Consider my comments an idictment based on your faulty theology and political reasoning. You've taught us the following in your posts:
1. We can disagree and openly mock any papally-appointed Curia official, even if he happens to be speaking within his capacity as Prefect or President.
2. Non-Infallible teachings are free to hold or reject by Catholics.
3. You are chronically incapable of providing your readers with any indication that you have actually read carefully any relevant papal documents or remarks.
Michael, pray tell, what are your solutions for the current immigration crisis? If not a wall, then what? What would you have the U.S. do. Since you and Katerina both went to real universities and know the content of all the encyclicals, I am sure you can give me a full answer and together we can fix this wretched system.
If you have no solution, other than your know-it-all attitude, then perhaps you should allow the less intelligent Catholics to try to figure out a reasonable response.
By the way, I have a Chemistry degree, which probably makes my observations worth less than dog poo.
Apherius,
No where did I say that someone without a univesity degree is incapable of providing worthwhile comments. American Papist arrogantly minimized Katerina's remarks, informing her that she is not ready to grapple with the issues and that her experience as an immigrant affects her reason. I simply reminded American Papist that Katerina studies theology in a Masters Program at a university with a paricular concentration on Catholic social teaching and that she is qualified to make her remarks.
The know-it-all attitude is clearly that of American Papist, who continually refuses to acknowledge that he is wrong and inaccuate in a number of areas. I simply had to remind AmP that he is becoming "just your average Catholic" with his uninformed criticisms of the Pope's own men.
Michael - I admire your extended defense of your wife (I did not check her homepage and realize that you two were married), but stand by my comments nonetheless. I think they speak for themselves and I further hope and trust that people will evaluate for themselves what I've actually said re: these issues.
Your plentiful use of bold font and continued heated rhetoric against me being a "papist" causes me to refrain from continuing a debate where I think personal emotions are getting the better of charitable discussion, so I won't be replying to this thread again. Thank you and God Bless.
Michael, No one really wants a wall to be built. It would be wonderful if the nations could find a way to make the situation in Mexico one where families would not have to separated at all. I don't want a wall, but if given no options and no suggestions on how to proceed, I must allow my government to proceed.
What damages the church is that you sometimes cannot provide a definite answer to problems like this. I can explain to someone that the wall is a terrible thing and that the current situation is abhorrent, but I have no solutions to offer. My arguments against the wall have no weight, because I can offer nothing substantive in response.
Michael, I beg you, if you can provide me with a solution that has been given by the Church that I have overlooked, please help me in finding it.
American Papist,
Katerina and I are not married. And I used bold for my comments only because they did not stand-out from the italics I used for your quotes. The title "papist" is self-ascribed. It's your word, not mine.
The charity ended when you told Katerina that she hints at "not being completely ready to grapple with the topic." This was very arrogant for you to say, especially because you provided no support for your positions other than conservative (not Catholic) ideology. And your comments lack any explicit appeal to any Catholic documents.
My emotions are fine. I challenged you with reasonable debate (tis the policy of logical argument), and I await your response. Otherwise, I give to you what you gave to Katerina:
"I'm also sorry you've given up discussing or trying to approach the truth. It's a great tragedy whenever someone throws up their hands and gives up like that. It kinda hints at that person not being completely ready to grapple with the topic."
I cringe when I read some of rash judgments and sweeping generalizations made in this thread, but then I remind myself that when I was the same age of most posters here, and experiencing the first flush of righteous rhetorical vigor, I made some pretty rash and sweeping assertions in print (or otherwise), too. I got some very good advice long ago, which I have followed, and I'll pass it along for what it's worth: Save your earlier writings, and 20 or 30 years from now, re-read them. Really. The exercise will keep you humble (as in, "O Lord, how could I have ever put X that way? Did I really write such and such?" etc.), and hopefully the experience will reinforce the habits of moderation in writing that you all, as obviously intelligent people, will, I hope, have developed by then.
But Stefan...there's a difference between a fence keeping people out and a fence attempting to keep people in.
Both fences are equal... the only difference is on what side of the fence do you stand.
In the spirit of fraternal correction and guidance:
Problem with American Papist
.
It looks like I stumbled upon this fight too late, but I'll still make a brief defense of the American Papist.
The American Papist's criticism of Cardinal Martino should not be viewed in isolation. Cardinal Martino has shown himself to be one of the most outspoken of Vatican Curial officials and has regularly displayed an anti-American attitude. He also routinely jumps into political debates which involve the *application* of Catholic principles and where there is room for legitimate disagreement. Nevertheless, this point is usually lost on the media that reports on Cardinal Martino and the press routinely refers to Martino's political statements as though they are official Church moral teaching.
A few years ago, Martino made headlines after Hussein was captured when he defended Hussein in the media and declared that the American military appeared to be treating Hussein "like a cow." (I'm paraphrasing -- I don't remember the exact quote.)
Martino regularly offers praise for the United Nations and opposes American foreign policy. Again, there is nothing in Church social teaching that requires a sovereign nation such as the United States to defer to an international body such as the United Nations. Despite the U.N.'s political and moral corruption, Martino continues to speak out against America and in favor of the U.N. He has the right to his opinion, but it is not within his special competence (politics being the special province of the laity -- see Deus Caritas Est, para. 29) to make political decisions for all Catholics and we are certainly within our rights to publicly disagree with him.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, just last week, Cardinal Martino spoke out against the Saddam Hussein verdict of death by hanging. This time, Martino completely distorted the Catholic Church's position on the death penalty, basically stating that it is never acceptable to use the death penalty. This is NOT the Church teaching as promulgated by John Paul in Evangelium Vitae and adopted by the most recent edition of the Catechism.
I can understand why Catholics don't like to see Cardinals publicly criticized, but it is *you* (the critics of the critics) who are too quickly rushing to condemn such criticism without realizing the many reasons which exist in support of the criticism.
Also, please remember the difference between Catholic principles -- which all Catholics should adhere to -- and those issues which are political. When Cardinals and Bishops stray into the political arena, they should expect to have their ideas challenged. I would prefer not to have to publicly criticize them, but many members of the institutional Church continue in the mistaken belief that they should be directly engaged in politics. Pope Benedict explained in Deus Caritas Est that this role belongs to the laity and that the Church should instead focus on forming consciences. In my experience of his writings, the American Papist does not pi
Come on, people. Can't we just get along?
;)
Besides, the real focus for conflict this week should be about how Ohio State is going to kick the crap out of Thomas' home-state team this Saturday.
Hmm. . . I don't know why my comments got cut off.
My final point was merely that in my experience, the American Papist does not pick and choose Church teaching, but instead limits his criticisms and disagreements to those areas where disagreement is legitimate.
And Jay, don't start on Ohio State. ;)
Ohio State is going to eat grass hard. :)
Boethius: You provided a well reasoned and rational response to this debate. Martino generally sets me off precisely for the point you make: he is making political judgments and he is ALWAYS anti-American. Thanks again. Tom
Boethius,
"Anti-American" and opposition to "American foreign policy" are not static terms. They are interpreted from within a preconceived political perspective. Perhaps you are dissatisfied with Martino criticizing the policies of George W. Bush. This does not make Martino un-American (this would make John Paul II very un-American based on his sharp criticisms of American economic and foreign policies during the Reagan, Bush and W. Bush admins). Be careful with such sweeping generalizations.
It matters not what Martino may have said in the past on issues other than "the pastoral care of migrants and itinerants". Martino's comments on immigration come from his very post as President of the Pontifical Council and fit within the context of the other Vatican statements on immigration.
There is no proper hermeneutic to decipher what is "opinion" or "offical policy" of the Church, especially when it is the Pope's own spokesperson on issues in immigration. If we apply your comments on "Catholc principles" and "political issues", then we draw an arbitrary and artificial line straight through the heart of the papacy of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, both of whom refused to see religion and politics as distinct. Christian principles, particuarly the dignity of the human person, extends to the political sphere. The division you speak of is far more secular than Catholic and it simply does not square with the totality of Benedict's Deus Caritas Est.
Michael, you stated: "Christian principles, particuarly the dignity of the human person, extends to the political sphere."
Exactly! No disagreement. Deus Caritas Est certainly stands for this proposition (as does a host of other Church teaching). But Deus Caritas Est then explains how this plays out.
It is the *laity* and NOT the institutional Church which must *directly* engage in politics. The Church's role is to form the consciences of the laity regarding Catholic social teaching. This does not mean taking political positions on whether there should be a fence or how long a fence should be or how many thousand Mexican guest workers America can assimilate in its immigration policy.
Pope Benedict contemplates that the Church will form the lay faithful regarding the fundamental dignity of every human person and that the lay faithful will then, once properly formed, seek to enact political policies which are consistent with this fundamental principle.
I would suggest that Cardinal Martino should stay out of specific policy disputes (to the extent a proposed policy does not clearly and fundamentally violate the dignity of the human person) and stick to forming the consciences of the faithful regarding the dignity of the human person, solidarity with immigrants, subsidiarity, and other principles of Catholic social teaching.
Also, the fact that Cardinal Martino was appointed by the Pope to speak on immigration does not mean that his views are immune from criticism or that he will always be perfectly consistent with the views of the Holy Father. Even the Holy Father is not immune from criticism. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger explained in 2004 that "[t]here 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." See http://www.priestsforlife.org/
ma...gerommunion.htm
Pope John Paul was pretty explicit in his opposition to the death penalty, and yet then-Cardinal Ratzinger explained that disagreement in this area remained "legitimate." Even more so is the criticism of Vatican curial officials "legitimate" when they occasionally stray too far into political policy debates.
I see you updated your post in order to bolster your opinion. I also noticed that you appealed to bloggers and Michael Novak rather then to anything authoritative from a prelate or pope. Such is the way of one who defends one's position, not from ecclesial trends or documents, but from conservative American ideas.
Where is the outcry from any bishop in the Church over Martino's comments? Outcry in the blogosphere hardly constitutes support for your position. More smokescreens from American Papist.
Michael: How do you square Martino's appealing to the UN (wildly pro-Abortion and a thugacracy) with Church Teaching? Why is he not critical of that organization or is the press just surpressing his criticism of it along with his criticism of China, Cuba, etc. Tom
Tom,
Like American Papist, you are referring to a number of policy statements that extended beyond his competency and responsibility as President of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerants. And like American Papist, you do not seem to understand that what may have been said in the past, however wild and off-putting, does not invalidate his point on immigration, which is within his proper boundaries according to the Vatican.
Martino's papally-approved job is to form the consciences of Catholics on questions of migrants and refugees. He has made his statement on migration. If you choose to turn a deaf ear, so be it. But if you choose to mock Martino like American Papist, you prove to be far more American than you are Catholic.
.
Problem with American Papist (2)
.
Michael, to try to get back to the original point just once: How can you continue to claim that Martino's condemnation of the wall is in harmony with Pope Benedict's message, let alone my quotation of CCC 2241?
How is "migration", which Benedict speaks about, suddenly "illegal immigration", which we are talking about here? Do you not see that there is difference between the two in light of CCC 2241?
Further, when Pope Benedict says "I wish to underline how the tendency is to stop at the question of their [migrants] arrival while disregarding the reasons for which they left their native land." Do you not see that Pope Benedict is talking about curing the problems of the mother country (in this case, it would be Mexico) instead of giving its citizens an automatic right to enter another country (in this case, the USA)?
Putting aside whatever umbrage you took at my tone, and noting that you have admitted Martino "could" be wrong if he goes outside of his role (and by the way, Sodano was "in" his role as Sec. of State when he revealed himself to be heavily Anti-Israel, I still want to know if you think that makes JP2 and B16 necessarily anti-israel), what about the actual issue? Can't political bias cut both ways?
Finally, if you want to accuse me of being "red", it would have been nice if at some point you had outted yourself as one of the Catholics who "support the bulk of Democratic social policy." Just in the interest of fair disclosure. And I'm not red.
@ Mike: A scattering of (mostly) Mexican (and a few, notably Mahony) American bishops – who have been opposed by other American bishops is hardly a show of collegiality on the issue. All U.S. bishops? All Cardinals? Who’s exaggerating now?
I don't think I was exaggerating, just giving you the opinions of those ordinaries of the local Church who are closest to the issue. None of the stories reference Mahony. They do reference the bishops of Ciudad Juarez and San Bernardino. Are their views not important? Are these bishops' views less important than the ordinary's in Vienna?
As to "all U.S. bishops," yes, the link I provided refers to the immigration policy page of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, "an assembly of the hierarchy of the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions on behalf of the Christian faithful of the United States." So, the statements of the bishops' conference do speak for all the bishops of the United States. To wit, from the page mentioned many posts above: "The U.S. bishops believe that our current immigration system is not good for our nation and contributes to the human suffering of migrants. Thus, they seek to point out the moral consequences of a broken system."
If you're looking for the word straight from the horse's mouth, here's paragraph 65 of John Paul II's apostolic exhortation Ecclesia in America from 1999 (emphasis is mine):
65. In its history, America has experienced many immigrations, as waves of men and women came to its various regions in the hope of a better future. The phenomenon continues even today, especially with many people and families from Latin American countries who have moved to the northern parts of the continent, to the point where in some cases they constitute a substantial part of the population. They often bring with them a cultural and religious heritage which is rich in Christian elements. The Church is well aware of the problems created by this situation and is committed to spare no effort in developing her own pastoral strategy among these immigrant people, in order to help them settle in their new land and to foster a welcoming attitude among the local population, in the belief that a mutual openness will bring enrichment to all.
Church communities will not fail to see in this phenomenon a specific call to live an evangelical fraternity and at the same time a summons to strengthen their own religious spirit with a view to a more penetrating evangelization. With this in mind, the Synod Fathers recalled that “the Church in America must be a vigilant advocate, defending against any unjust restriction the natural right of individual persons to move freely within their own nation and from one nation to another. Attention must be called to the rights of migrants and their families and to respect for their human dignity, even in cases of non-legal immigration”.
Migrants should be met with a hospitable and welcoming attitude which can encourage them to become part of the Church's life, always with due regard for their freedom and their specific cultural identity. Cooperation between the dioceses from which they come and those in which they settle, also through specific pastoral structures provided for in the legislation and praxis of the Church, has proved extremely beneficial to this end. In this way the most adequate and complete pastoral care possible can be ensured. The Church in America must be constantly concerned to provide for the effective evangelization of those recent arrivals who do not yet know Christ.
Exactly, and the rights of migrants in cases of non-legal immigration does not necessarily extend to residence in that nation. Again, it's one thing to care for individuals who have crossed the boarder, it's another thing to say that people must enter legally in the first place if they are to remain.
JP2's words that one must be vigilant against "unjust restrictions" implies that three can well be JUST restrictions upon immigration (this is the desperate fight that Schonborn is waging in Austria. Britain, France and Italy are facing similar problems). Such a decision about restrictions on immigration is a prudential one on behalf of the state and you notice that every Pope refrains from making a call on those specific issues. They instead affirm the person's dignity without denying the right of a country to maintain its boarders and provide for the common good of its citizens.
CCC 2241 completely agrees with my interpretation of JP2 and B16's political doctrine. For all the accusations thrown at me for not basing my position on documents, I find it surprising that no one has yet answered my use of this text.
Or are we picking and choosing which Catechism paragraphs we find valid?
Please, tell me how I'm to read this text differently:
"Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."
Fundamentally that's all I'm arguing. And I'm still wondering why people take such exception to my restatement of the Catechism.
Sigh...
American Papist, Katerina and I have already shown you how Martino's comments are within the greater context of John Paul II's idea of "one America", the social encyclicals from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI, and the TWO messages of Benedict for the past two World Days for Migrants and Refugees. I summarize my positions in two posts on my own blog:
The Problem with American Papist
The Problem with American Papist (2)
You have yet to respond to these posts, which cite the greater context in which Martino's comments are to be interpreted.
You, on the other hand, quote a couple of Catechism paragraphs that shed very little light on the issues at hand (no doubt, you spent all day trying to find them). These paragraphs, which you isolate, are from an entire tradition of Catholic social teaching that constantly evolves. You know quite well that quoting a paragraph or two of the Catechism won't even give you a passing grade in a theology 101 course. So why then do you attack Katerina and me, portraying yourself as one who truly knows the papal teachings on social justice and immigration? If you are going to do this, you better give us some substance rather than scattered CCC quotes and links to other people's blogs! Where are your references to the popes themselves??? In contrast, I think our posts speak for themselves.
I recommend you do not wait to take the course at the seminary that covers the Catholic social encyclicals. I recommend you stop blogging on questions that you can only provide a few Catechism quotes for and read the real intellectual stuff from our popes.
Katerina and I will put this matter to rest on your blog. I invite you to respond to my posts if you are so certain that I do not understand the force of Martino's remarks.
Oh, and to respond to another of your hastey and haphazard readings of my comments: I am not a Democrat, nor did I provide coverage of Democrat campaigns as you did with Republicans. Nate said it best over at my blog: you show every sign of being a conservative American first, a "papist" second. You have yet to show us any evidence that you are acquainted with the Church's social teaching--or even Benedict XVI's at that, yet you sure talk the talk of the GOP. Thus, your attacks on Katerina's intellect and my own synthesis of Catholic social thought must come from pride rather than from wisdom. I know that sounds harsh, but the truth is in your details.
Even your beloved bishops such as Burke, George, O'Malley and Chaput agree with Martino:
U.S. Bishops against the Building of Wall
.
AmericanPapist,
I interpret your one paragraph of the Catechism as a call for immigrants to obey the laws of their host country once they are actually settled, having thus immigrated. Being that this paragraph is under the heading of "The duties of citizens," this makes more sense than applying to those who are trying to enter a nation. But, this is splitting hairs.
I think the broader point is made in the first part of that same paragraph, "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin." You emphasized "to the extent they are able," I assume because you think that the U.S. is not able to welcome these individuals searching for a better life. But, if not the United States, then what country would you say fits this description?
Your point is still valid, however, that those trying to enter the country should follow its laws. You are correct in asserting that nowhere does the church promote an absence of law, nor does it support illegal immigration. But, what the U.S. bishops are saying is that our country's existing immigration laws do not work: "Instead, the Church is advocating changing a broken law so that undocumented persons can obtain legal status in our country and enter the United States legally to work and support their families."
The changes they are proposing would err on the side of mercy for all those attempting to find a better life in our country. And as St. Benedict said, we should always prefer mercy to justice.
(BTW, you keep referring to "boarders" instead of "borders." While nitpicky, a little proof-reading will go a long way to give your arguments more legitimacy.)
For those of you who are against the wall, you must provide an alternative argument, and alternative solution. I asked Michael for one and he was unable to provide one.
If you can only provide criticism, then you need to admit to not having spent the time to actually consider the situation. Criticism alone is worthless.
If you don't want the wall, THEN GIVE ME AN ALTERNATIVE!!!!!!!!!
I don't think that anybody wants the wall, especially if there was no reason to build it. But you must provide an alternative!
Apherius--So do you need an alternative to avoid teen pregnancy in order to make abortion illegal? No. We oppose abortion, because it is a violation of human life. Same with the fence. We just know that the fence is not the right answer and we should be coming up together with one. The problem is that no one here agrees with the fundamental principle. Some here may not see it as a violation of human rights, but it is and we just know as Catholics and based on what the Magisterium is voicing out that the fence will constitute more loss of life.
Apherius,
Katerina has given you a number of alternatives over at her blog.
American Papist,
My response to your fundamentalist Catechism quoting:
Does CCC 2241 make Provision for the Wall?
Al Qaeda Operative captured crossing the Mexican border in November 2005:
The al-Qaida operative "had been in Mexico, living just about 60 miles east of El Paso," Rep. Culberson said. "He was captured in a little town called El Porvenir, right across from Fort Hancock."In 2004, the Washington Times reported that A top al Qaeda lieutenant has met with leaders of a violent Salvadoran criminal gang with roots in Mexico and the United States:
Rep. Culberson said the detainee had been living in Mexico for up to a year, where the terrorist "was taking careful notes on the movement of people, police officers, wildlife, etc."
The Iraqi national "had apparently aggravated a neighbor in Mexico, who turned him in to Mexican authorities," he explained. Mexican officials then turned him over to the U.S. officials, who temporarily housed him in the Brewster County jail.
Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a key al Qaeda cell leader for whom the U.S. government has offered a $5 million reward, was spotted in July in Honduras meeting with leaders of El Salvador's notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang, which immigration officials said has smuggled hundreds of Central and South Americans — mostly gang members — into the United States. Although they are actively involved in alien, drug and weapons smuggling, Mara Salvatrucha members in America also have been tied to numerous killings, robberies, burglaries, carjackings, extortions, rapes and aggravated assaultsOrganized gangs have been smuggling drugs and guns across the borders for decades -- it is to be expected that militant Islamists will see this as an opportunity and exploit their experience, seeking a strategic relationship with these gangs or else adopting their tactics.
I'm not particularly interested in inserting myself into this debate except to say that this is one aspect that is not really being discussed and can't be easily dismissed. Whatever decision is made about the border, national security is a relevant factor.
Someone said : "Look, His Eminence should stick to his area of competence and not comment on issues like this", it comes in a handy because Card. Martino is currently the President of two Pontifical Councils: Justice and Peace and the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People......
Commenting by HaloScan
