Rotating Header Image


Pope Benedict has now returned to the Vatican — his visit to the United States was a wonderful experience to receive — but I’d like to offer my individual reflections upon the issue of illegal immigration as raised by Pope Benedict, referred to him as “immigration” and “immigrants” and “their families.”

Dot-Red-SML I wondered often while listening to some of the statements by Pope Benedict why he was not touring Central America — especially Mexico — and emphasizing the wrongdoing of brutality many Mexicans/Central Americas inflict upon the laws and citizens of the United States.

I often also wondered this past week, as I have at many times past, why Latin American bishops do not instruct citizens in their respective congregations as to moral, chaste, honorable ethics and behaviors because that so many of the people from Central America leave their nations and enter and remain in the U.S. illegally and illicitly, engaging in a myriad of very morally wrong behaviors in light of Catholicism and certainly illegal acts in light of the laws of the U.S.A. (if not also amoral and immoral acts in light of our laws) is the issue, as to beliefs and contexts of immortal souls and Christian morality.

Instead, we receive the lectures from nations that produce a great deal of amoral, immoral and troubled people with troubled families — people who bear children as tools for economic gain and without regard for their personal responsibility for the economic and moral liabilities involved, engage in sexual contact with children as soon as females are of child-bearing age (yet still children themselves), bear multiple children without regard for a dedicated family (or Christian) relationship with or often without Church involvement — generally what I describe as individuals by the millions who engage in exceptionally irresponsible behaviors to the point of utter selfishness (and sin accordingly) that disregards all humane recognition of “human rights” and for purposes solely of ethnic and political motives.

Dot-Red-SML Everyone always “needs” more. Mexico, for example, appears to do very little to next to nothing for it’s poor citizens. Why do so many people from Mexico, from all of Central America, “need” to enter and use the U.S. illegally and illicitly? I do believe it is need that motivates them but it isn’t the same need that the Church attempts to convince us here in the U.S. of as to why we must or have to accommodate the illigitimate, illicit behaviors by illegal aliens, inherent in their illegal immigration if nothing else (but their behaviors are compounded afterward, which I don’t hear the Church addressing — somehow it always comes back to the U.S. under some pressure to allow these illicit acts and amorality). And I see a lot of illegal aliens — a LOT of them — in the U.S. with a lot of money to spend. Many have new cars. They never seem to lack money for beer and fast food, cell phones, radios and big screen television sets…

Dot-Red-SML No, the “need” that is motivating a lot of illegal immigration is the need to proliferate bad character and amorality, that includes a great deal of political amorality followed by political method replacment in regards to the U.S. as a democracy and as a sovereign nation. There is most decidedly a “need” to proliferate one ethnicity and replace other ethnciities and races, which is certainly not reflective nor indicative of a renewed soul as a Christian. It is, actually, quite a “lower order” behavior as it also is a “lower order” motivation.

Thus, many of these who are illegal aliens who also present as “Catholics” appear to be affiliated with the Church on socio-cultural terms without reflection in their individual lives, oftentimes, of what the Church holds as principles of faith and moral, spiritual requirements. The Church provides them a cultural meeting point, so to speak, that then can be used to rationalize ongoing amoralit and illigitimately, without regard for the Christian context. Because God demands charity, not works. If we are demanded upon to “love” or otherwise engage in “charity,” the Christian context is absent. And if we steal, we violate even moreso what God commands.

So there is no basis in Christianity in my view to rationalize striking out directly or indirectly at anyone when it involves gratuitous rewards and supplements gratuitous, cruel, irresponsible acts.

Illegal aliens arrive in the U.S. without regard for our United States legal contexts and/or remain here similarly. These behaviors inflict, intentionally, real harm on the United States of America and in that, upon the citizens of this nation. Reducing wages and employment opportunities and conditions overall for U.S. citizens is not a friendly act, nor a conscientious one, nor does it indicate a thoughtful, considerate state of mind by the illegal aliens who are responsible for the detriment of our nation from so many aspects. Mexico, especially, has made this type of usery of the United States a form of government. It reflects an amoral culture, not a Christian one, not a Catholic one.

Dot-Red-SML Hearing Pope Benedict and many Catholic bishops and priests — an exceptionally liberal priest (“Father Edward Beck”) just appeared on The O’Reilly Factor today, lecturing for amnesty in an accusatory tone because, as he says he feels, the U.S. has some “moral obligation” to accommodate “those suffering from economic hardship,” that we “force people to go elsewhere to support their families” (as to citizens of other nations somehow being “forced to” arrive and remain in the U.S. illegally), to grant amnesty to “families already here” (irregardless of the negative impacts) and to disregard our laws and many other liabilities inorder to do that, without regard for what harms may be placed upon others in doing so.

It is difficult for me because I do know with certainty just how accommodating and generous our nation is as to immigrants and immigration (the legal kinds). There are many areas in the U.S. today where the majority of residents are not “native born” and many are not even citizens, nor here legally, and certainly don’t speak English, don’t want to speak English, don’t have much regard for the U.S. and are exceptionally disrespectful to and about citizens, and, aside from the U.S. being in some need to accommodate “immigrants,” I wonder where the responsibility is for non-citizens to respect citizens, for people from other nations to respect the United States, and why the Catholic Church is silent in these regards.

And if a person from another nation does not want their “family” broken-up, then they are certainly capable of not allowing such to happen. The importance of personal responsibility of illegal aliens, if and as they are in the U.S. illegally, is entirely absent from the message from the Church: if an illegal alien does not want their family divided, they can take their family with them and return to their native country. Better yet, they can remain there with their family and take up their grievances with their own government.

Dot-Red-SML Certainly there is nothing in the Catholic Catechism that addresses unique responsibilities of the citizens of the United States — nor to and about our government — inorder to be Christian and maintain honorable participation in the Catholic Church. There are Christian instructions, there are Catholic traditions and understandings of faith and principles, but there are no specific requirements of the U.S.A. and citizens to act in some unique fashion inorder to be Christian and Catholic. That is, our nation and citizens are under no specialized customizatons that all Christians and Catholics otherwise are. Individuals are Catholic and Christian, or, they are not, and the terms are universal.

Our nation, however, does have unique requirements to be a citizen and to behave in observance, legitimately, of our laws. These are two distinct areas of moral observation, with the religious principles being, of course, of far greater reverence yet neither are disrespectable nor to be advised against inorder to be one or the other.

But there ARE areas in the Catholic Catechism, as also in the Bible as to Christianity (and even Judaism, that is, in both the New and the Old Testaments), as to charity and love of onesself and one’s neighbor — to briefly paraphrase the essential statements of accountability and responsibility with family and community — and, love of self and others that can be said to come to bear in these areas of “immigration” emphasised by the Church, and by Pope Benedict. But the Catechism, nor the Bible, does not command (and therefore, require) anyone inorder to be faithful to Christ to disobey civic, legal requirements.

This priest that was guesting today earlier on O’Reilly rationalized his emphasis on amnesty for illegal aliens by way of suggesting our nation’s laws or some of them were “not just.” That, as he reprimanded, it was right to violate the laws or any law if it was “not just.”

Which is anarchy from a position of civics, certainly the method that most criminal processes rely on inorder to engage in violations of our laws, when there’s awareness of violations involved and a persistence to violate ensues. An individual makes an individual, moral and ethical choice to violate, and, when they do, the liabilities for their actions are theirs. Civilly and as a Christian, either or both.

Dot-Red-SML So I was repelled by this particular priest’s remarks. We are not called as Christians NOR as Catholics to NOT observe whatever civic laws, the requirements of the state, so to speak. And, to violate a law or laws because an individual defines them as “not just,” but then to expect the violators to be regarded BY that legal process is…irrational.

It’s circular, rationalizing thinking to expect and demand amnesty for illegal aliens because the legal requirements for legitimate entry into and/or residence in the U.S. are “not just,” yet by way of amnesty be granted recognition under those very same laws, and what context that degree of rationalization about this particular issue remains not an aspect of Catholicism, but one of socio-political decision by an unnnamed author or process.

Dot-Red-SML What I think is involved here, in all due respect, is that certain people like this particular priest on O’Reilly and more than a few bishops — in the U.S. and in Central America — are caught up in “churchiosity,” so to speak, a way of life that is highly preoccupied with “religiousity” that then manufactures or bastardizes a religious context to rationalize wrong doing, irresponsibility, amorality, violations of laws, the whole scope of offenses that has beset our nation as presumed upon us largely by people from other nations without regard for the liabilities they create, or for the offenses they commit against us, this nation, this United States of America.

One aspect that bothered me in the Sunday Mass celebration from Yankee Stadium yesterday was the format of the Second Reading. The Mass was being celebrated in the English language with a few aspects recited in Latin. The Second Reading, however, was done by a female Hispanic in the Spanish language with an interjection that was rude — it abruptly interjected the Spanish language into the Mass without regard or introduction — and in rendition was presumptuous because the Reading referred to “the race” as to CHRISTIANS yet when read by this Hispanic woman, the expression was unduly emphasized with apparent bastardization to direct the expression toward Hispanics using this Spanish language format.

The Catholic Mass is celebrated in many languages but always by preannouncement: people know what Mass in what language they’re attending and there’s no exclusion by language to the general celebrants by suprise of alternative, unusual or unknown language. If a person who is from Germany feels more comfortable at Mass celebrated in the German language, they can seek out such a celebration of Mass if/as available. Same goes for Korean, Spanish, Italian, French and I’m sure many dialects in Africa, as from other nations, also, around our globe.

And yesterday’s Yankee Stadium Mass was in English, in the U.S., begun in English, carried forward in English, with this one Reading sprung as interruption in Spanish, referring to “the race.” It was hardly happenstance or accidental, is my point. That there were, later in the Mass, more than a few other languages making declarations of faith in the celebration was a noted aspect to the Mass, as it is also when the Pope reads his greetings in multiple, international languages, but the abrupt interjection of Spanish in that Reading alone was very unusual and certainly was not reflective of a casual plan.

So, as much as I loved and adored participating in the past week’s visit and wonderful visit from and by Pope Benedict, what his visit has now brought more into the light is that the Church is, in fact, involved in aiding and abetting illegal immigration to the U.S. but especially doing so as to people from Latin countries.

Dot-Red-SML The Church does not advise people to lie, cheat, steal, violate others, to be promiscuous, to forge, to be dishonest. But the Church is doing that by not chastising those who do; in other words, by surreptiously attempting to apply pressure to the U.S. to accommodate people from other nations who ARE engaging in these acts and not working to encourage these people to act morally and ethically in keeping with Christian principles of faith — certainly in keeping with principles of faith as defined by Catholicism — in doing so, the Church assumes a responsibility for these substantial and ongoing sins.

Dot-Red-SML It was hugely commendable that Pope Benedict revealed a genuinely sorrowful heart (and mind, meaning, morally) as to accepting responsibility for the terrible sexual abuse of the (I hope by now) past by a small but greatly damaging percentage of priests (but priests no longer, I hope), but, we should all recall the conditions that existed in the Church during the dreadful years this abuse was occuring: there was an emphasis on accommodating and understanding (and “assisting”) homosexuals, even as priests, in “accepting” and such and much rationalization about liabilities involved, if even recognition of liabilities at all.

That same environment, unfortunately, today appears to characterise much of the Church as to illegal immigration. Illegal aliens do not “simply” enter our nation illegally in defiance and disregard of our laws. They do so with intention (indicates poor moral and ethical character, despite the justifications, at least indicates a moral dilemma that should not go unaddressed), they then persevere in proliferating wrong doing afterward (fraud, stealth, cheating, lying, use of resources for political purposes, including sexual promiscuity and bearing children for political purposes, indicative of amorality and severe ethical compromises, as also utter selfishness that affects the lives of others in very negative fashion and by intention, at that), so illegal immigration is not a slight or easily justifiable act, nor are the myriad of behaviors that characterise the act afterward by illegal presence in this nation (or any other).

The Church is using a Christian context, in my view as a Catholic, to rationalize an ultimate result that is politically and perhaps plainly practically profitable for them, but what the result is remains the stuff of speculation.

What is not speculatable after this week is that the Church is engaged in a rationalization or usage process as to illegal immigration that serves to sink their ethical and moral credibility, just as the “sexual abuse scandal” nearly has.

Dot-Red-SML Related:

…a meaningful series of remarks about Pope Benedict’s speech before the United Nations, and, a column that poses many of my same questions


…not such a Catholic culture, in reality


…South America’s drug money funds violence in South and Central America

3 C O M M E N T S

  1. Bonnie Martinez says:

    Although you may have found the Pope’s comments on illegal immigration offensive, let me remind you that Christianity would not have survived if the Blessed Mother Mary and Joseph did not become themselves immigrants as they fled their native country to evade the ruling of King Herod to kill every new born male under the age of 2 years shortly after Jesus’s birth. Do you think Mary and Joseph could’ve gone to their government to argue their cause and would have succeeded? I doubt it highly. The governments that the illegal immigrants are fleeing from are also corrupt. Not everyone is educated enough to argue their points of view and it would take years to get change. They don’t have that much time, they are hungry now, they need medicine now….they need help now.

  2. -S- says:

    You’re justifying violations of legal, ethical, moral AND RELIGIOUS contexts and requirements (one is a Catholic, a Christian, or one is not and what defines Christianity is very specific theology not generalizations of “feel good” or not) on gratuitous, self-gratifying behaviors and “needs.”

    People who are “hungry” don’t get to eat your family members (or anyone else’s) and be accepted or encouraged in doing so just because they’re hungry. On sheer terms of CIVILIZATION alone (even disregarding Christian theology), there are requirements as to who is human and who is not. Homo Sapiens (us) are all animals (we’re a species among the animal life on this planet) yet there are some behaviors that MOST human beings reject and reprimand and punish because those behaviors are loathesome to others.

    Theft, lying, general deceit and manipulations (sneaky theft, misleading others with intention due to individual “need” that rejects social and cultural definitions and requirements) are punished by most human civilizations BECAUSE THEY ARE LOATHESOME TO MOST and in that, run contrary to the core of what people define as civilization.

    Our laws in the U.S. define our nation, are our general “rules” that define our United States of America as what it is: a nation self-governing, a civilization with definitions and requirements.

    Let’s put this very simply: you have a car, someone else “needs” your car, they steal it, are they then justified in stealing the car? Does their theft get a “pass GO” card from God as to His commandments? If he does not believe in God, is the thief not stealing and therefore not deserving of any reprimand as to his theft?

    I don’t dislike nor reject what the Pope has to say, nor said in his tour of the U.S.A. on the East Coast recently. I love and admire Pope Benedict. I do not love and admire nor attempt to rationalize taking good intents by the Pope, the Vatican, and then manipulating those good intents and good statements to rationalize violating basic (very basic, even by the Commandments) commands by God as to how we human beings are to behave. And I knew — * I KNEW * — that persons such as yourself would USE what Pope Benedict has said to rationalize Marxist, Socialist, political and social “need based” behaviors as to U.S. security and immigration requirements.

    The Catholic Church (previous Pope’s opinions) says that people are free to migrate as they chose. BUT the Church (neither past nor present Pope) “commands” nations to lay down their laws and allow whoever, whenever, to roam (or “migrate”) over, into, through various laws, civil requirements, national boundaries.

    In fact, the Catholic Catechism DECLARES: it calls on hosts to welcome immigrants to the extent they are able but it also calls upon the immigrants to respect and integrate themselves into their new nation’s culture, respect the heritage of that nation, obey its laws and be good citizens.

    The Catholic Church (by way of the Catechism) does not call anyone to allow anyone else to pummel them just because some thinks they “need” what someone else has. To respect and love onesself is a requirement of God, as also our neighbor, but God does not call us to love our neighbor but hate and ruin oursself.

    Part of self respect is caring for who one is and what one has, using it judiciously. If the U.S. throws open all borders and laws and just allows anyone and everyone to enter and remain (and USE) our nation at will, what hope for a future civilization have we? And same goes for other nations worldwide.

    The U.S.A. is already far more generous as to allowing ongoing immigration and providing huge amounts of aid and assistance to “needy” nations worldwide. We, in fact, have an ongoing high degree of immigration (legal process) that is then abused by “needy” people from anywhere without too much to any regard for what is good for the U.S. in their efforts to satiate what they deem is good for them individually (anarchist, if not criminal behavior at it’s worst).

    The Catholic Church is not calling the U.S. to just allow any “need” to be explored by anyone using the U.S. Yet, of course, Socialist and Marxist individuals attempt to justify that degree of damaging exploitation of our nation and it’s population (and laws) to justify both condemmning the U.S. and in further exploiting it.

    Education isn’t so much the separating factor as to who behaves responsibly and who does not. Ethics and morals are a reflection of character, not of an educational level. The cultures that produce the largest percentages of illgal aliens in the U.S. are (1.) Hispanic/Latino nations and (2.) nations where Catholic Bishops and the Church maintain a presence. So there is REASONABLE inquiry there as to what responsibilities the Church actually has IN APPLICATION and involvement in those civilizations as to the moral character of those civilizations, such as they are. There seems to me to be a need for the Church to be addressing the moral failings in those civilizations that encourages a disrespect for the U.S.A. to the extent that many from those civilizations bear little moral hesitation in exploiting the U.S.A. via illegal immigration.

    And a hungry person is not exempt from moral and ethical requirements.

    And the nations you describe as being “corrupt” in governments are the product of those people you allege are “hungry” and somehow justified in abandoning accordingly. They have a responsibility to change the nations they’ve built (or their forefathers did) and to not be hungry, and to exercise a certain Christian (if they are Christian) morality in going about buidling a civilization that does not produce “hungry” (and uneducated, as you also allege) people by the millions (or in any quantity).

    The U.S.A. is under no oblgiation to allow ruination of moral, ethical, legal dimensions of our society to further accommodate anarchy from people demanding their “needs” be met (because they are not being met in their home nations) — one wonders why they’re yelling NOW and didn’t take correction actions years ago, to change their own conditions, the nations they built or allowed to be built right in their own neighborhoods.

    Cuba, Haiti, Mexico and Nicauragua are prime examples of former civilizations that have descended into utter anarchy by way of increased tolerance of crime, of degenerating standards among individuals by routinely compromising moral, ethical (and governmental) standards. It’s indicative of utter breakdown of human society in many aspects of all of those nations, and has existed there for years. Same as to areas in Africa.

    The world sends food and clothing and builds them houses and buys them schools, hospitals, medical care and more…yet they exploit the very helps given. So the problems originate and exist WITHIN THE CULTURES and are not visited upon them by invading forces from outside Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, etc. These are human beings by population who barely resemble human civilizations.

    The Church needs to devote greater effort to hold offending human groups such as in those areas responsible for their own liaibilities. Sending those liabilities to the U.S.A. (as Mexico has done, as Cuba has done and continues to try to do) is no solution, and as Christians, when people illegallly enter and exploit the U.S.A. accordingly, they bear little relationship to Christ when their complaints, as in your case here, are political in nature and the goals appear to be to ruin the U.S.A. inorder to satiate “needs” from other corrupt groups.

    On April 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pm, jlibertarian said:
    Being welcoming to immigrants and treating illegals humanely doesn’t mean you have to have a chaotic open border. Immigration control isn’t punitive, it brings order, security and fairness. So people shouldn’t interpret the Holy Father’s comments as an endorsement of open borders or as a slap at a border fence.

  3. -S- says:

    I disagree with you suggesting that illegal aliens are justified in their exploits of the U.S. because the Holy Family were at one time religious refugees. I think it’s indicative of a certain exploitation or usery of the Holy Family to do so.

    Illegal aliens are predominantly NOT religious refugees, nor political refugees. All human need, I agree, can be evaluated in terms of Christ and/or the Holy Family, but you exclude any respect for our laws of this nation.

    The Constitution of the U.S.A. defines our democracy by “the rule of law.” We abandon that, we abandon our democracy.

    And our laws are not “inhumane” or “not Christian” for the most part. In theory, most of what our nation represents is well integrated with Christian theology. But to suggest that laws should be abandoned due to needy people being “hungry” and therein like the Holy Family, is fine as to your own religious beliefs, but it does not justify violating our laws if you literally “just” disagree with them.

    If any individual wants to sponsor anyone else from other nations as to legal immigration, there’s nothing stopping them (or you) from doing so. You can guarantee them a place to live (with you), guarantee that they’ll be fed and housed and employed (with or by you), you can pay them to here and then pay for their language instructions and studies as to U.S. civics so that they can apply for citizenship. Nothing prevents any U.S. citizen from sponsoring others as to legal immigration.

    However, what you’re suggesting is that the NATION provide for illegal aliens (I don’t read that you’re stepping up to do so, but if you are, great), and that’s a Marxist politic. The “nation” is nothing more than citizens, and citizens as taxpayers and voters in respect of our laws.

    The U.S. isn’t a Good Ship Lollipop that can continually and without limits allow any and all who may want to get on the boat. Eventually, the supplies run out, the boat sinks, everyone perishes. I believe that our laws are the basis of organizing the proper use of the nation (as to us being a “boat” in this analogy). Few would argue that reducing the U.S.A. to another depleted nation in peril by overpopulation, bad planning and legal chaos, political anarchy, would be a good idea as to solving the needs of the world’s needy.

    P.S.: I’m curious as to you commenting here via an email IPA. Are you a participant in an email network for Democrat activists? I also note your “healthcare” associated email IPA, which is similar to several others who have written Liberal, pro-Democratic Party (all from “healthcare” associated organizations as to originating IPAs) comments here.

    But as to Democrats, that you are supporting a political party that has “abortion on demand,” and by taxpayer funding, as a part of it’s political platform (among other objectionables) tends to dissipate any credibility in my view as to you referencing the Holy Family as example of justifying illegal immigration.