“He who thinks only of building walls and not bridges is not Christian.”
What an incredibly asinine thing to say. I mean, I’ve heard open boarders arguments that sound intelligent, but only a complete imbecile talks like this. It’s right up with “You can’t hug with nuclear arms.”
Christopher Ferrara marvels at the pontiff’s shamelessness in contradicting himself from one sentence to the next.
Responding to Trump’s suggestion that the Pope is too “political,” Francis offered this clever riposte: “Thank God he said that I am political, because Aristotle defined the human person as a political animal, and this means that at least I am a human person.” Wow. Devastating. Except that when Aristotle says that man is by nature a zôion politikòn, he is not referring to politics in the modern sense, but rather man’s natural inclination to life in the polis or city-state emerging from a community of families.
Funny, isn’t it, how the same Pope who refuses involve himself in political affairs when it comes to the mass murder of unborn children or the legalization of “unions” based on sodomy—precisely where he should be involved—not only wants to talk politics but also to suggest how Catholics in America should vote when it comes to ending all state barriers to illegal immigration (except in the Vatican State, of course).
Concerning Francis and politics, something good did come out of this press conference. Only one question later, Francis was finally smoked out on “gay marriage.” Asked for his position on the movement for approval of “civil unions” for sodomites in Italy, where a bill legalizing this abomination is now moving through parliament, Francis refused to comment because “the Pope does not place himself into the concrete politics of a country. Italy is not the first country to have this experience.” This from a Pope who, only a moment earlier, had boasted of being “a political animal” and who is constantly meddling in concrete political issues concerning the environment, wealth distribution, immigration, housing, education, clean water, prison conditions, the death penalty, the Scottish independence movement, and anything else that arouses his always politically correct ire. The duplicity was stunningly shameless.
This doesn’t even touch on the most evil parts of the interview, the pope’s encouragement to contraception and eugenics. Save that for another discussion.
Still, we should be thankful for His Holiness’s stupidity, for his policy on the annihilation of Western civilization is identical to that of his predecessors. A more intelligent pope would have stated his evil belief more clearly. John Paul II was an intelligent man, and Jim Kalb shows quite clearly the former pope’s horrifying genocidal beliefs here.
Here’s the Pope’s message for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, which I gather is an annual event in the Catholic Church: “To Overcome Racism, Xenophobia and Exaggerated Nationalism”. What he says is in one sense typical — it follows the line all respectable Christian religious leaders now follow — but in another sense quite extraordinary:
- He speaks of “undocumented migrants” as among “the most vulnerable of foreigners,” of “the Christian duty to welcome whoever comes knocking out of need,” of “true acceptance of immigrants in their cultural diversity,” and of “Christ, who through us wishes to continue in history and in the world his work of liberation from all forms of discrimination, rejection, and marginalization.”
- He “urge[s] Catholics to excel in the spirit of solidarity towards newcomers among them.” “Such openness builds up vibrant Christian communities.” Therefore, “Christians must struggle to overcome any tendency to turn in on themselves.” He further points out that “if newcomers feel unwelcome as they approach a particular parish community because they do not speak the local language or follow local customs, they easily become ‘lost sheep’. The loss of such ‘little ones’ for reasons of even latent discrimination should be a cause of grave concern to pastors and faithful alike.”
- He further requests that Catholics work with other ecclesial communities to create “societies in which the cultures of migrants and their special gifts are sincerely appreciated, and in which manifestations of racism, xenophobia, and exaggerated nationalism are prophetically opposed.”
- He notes, however, that “solidarity does not come easily. It requires training and a turning away from attitudes of closure, which in many societies today have become more subtle and penetrating. To deal with this phenomenon, the Church possesses vast educational and formative resources at all levels. I therefore appeal to parents and teachers to combat racism and xenophobia by inculcating positive attitudes based on Catholic social doctrine.”
What does all this add up to?
First, it appears that every country should have open borders. If they aren’t open, some migrants will be undocumented and therefore become the special objects of hospitality and care. But if we have to welcome and care for them anyway, why not make it official and give all comers papers at the border?
Second, the flood of immigrants should be welcomed by local communities just as they are, and truly accepted in their cultural diversity. No boundaries of any kind may be drawn, because even the hint of a boundary would be latent discrimination. The Catholic Church should use its vast resources to inculcate such attitudes, and work with others to spread them through society generally. That, as all “social concerns” bureaucrats agree, is the prophetic function of the Church.
But what of the local culture? The Pope “also invite[s] the immigrants to recognize the duty to honor the countries which receive them and to respect the laws, culture, and traditions of the people who have welcomed them.” So it appears the net effect is to be a world without boundaries of any kind, in which each is equally present to all others and each respects and honors the particularities of all.
By calling for such a thing the Pope is saying nothing new but simply repeating with his usual intellectual and moral fervor the view all official moral teachers hold today. What he and other moral teachers leave unexplained, however, is how the particularities that are to be honored will be able to exist as anything but individual idiosycrasies in a world utterly without boundaries in which no culture is authoritative because each is equally present and equally honored.
The short answer is that they won’t. A culture is a particular complex of habits, understandings and loyalties that are normative although mostly unstated among a particular group of people. As such, it requires boundaries. A culture can exist as a culture only among a group of people who have grown into it together and feel that among themselves they can take it for granted. Such conditions cannot exist in a group that feels obligated to be utterly and continuously open to numerous new arrivals, avoiding even latent discrimination, and called to honor them in all their otherness.
What the Pope is calling for is therefore not the honoring of culture but the abolition of culture by the abolition of every social setting in which any particular culture can exist…
The odd thing is that the Pope seems to understand the problem. He says “The path to true acceptance of immigrants in their cultural diversity is actually a difficult one, in some cases a real Way of the Cross.”
So there you have it. The pope calls for the crucifixion (his own metaphor) of Western civilization, our utter annihilation as a distinct people with a distinct history and way of life.
I plead once again to the princes of the Church to qualify these statements. In your blinding hatred for white Europeans and their civilization, you have laid out a principle that demands the destruction of all distinct cultures everywhere. Even if you insist on eradicating us, surely you don’t intend such an inhuman fate for all mankind?
Filed under: Uncategorized |