"Holy Father tear down those walls!"

I bit. Hard! I thought I knew what he was complaining about, but when I saw the map,I had to investigate.

Good one.

Perhaps we should send him a letter questioning his opinion on the Mexican walls (and armed troops) at their Guatemala and Belize border on the south.

Cardinal Martino could -- I'm not saying he should, mind you, just that as far as my druthers are concerned he could -- spend a good long time shutting up.

I am no fan of the border wall. But Cardinal Martino needs to butt out of this controversy. By the way, a good argument can be made for walling off the Vatican in light of numerous sackings of Rome, the last of which (I believe) was by the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, in the early 16th century.

the last of which (I believe) was by the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, in the early 16th century.

I recall reading that it was done by Charles V's mutinous troops, including some German Lutherans, but was not ordered by the emperor himself.

...I don't see what's wrog with the Cardinal's statement. Sorry. I also don't see the need to nitpick the Cardinal for holding a legitimate opinion that doesn't oppose Catholic teaching.

COme on now, do any of you Christianites read your rule book? God's views on immigration are clear

When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34-7

Notice there is no exception for guest workers or illegals. Nor is there a sunset clause allowing to persecute them now. So if you don't treat them with respect, you're going to hell.

Patrick,

One could argue that the good Cardinal's opinion is contrary to Church teaching as the Church acknowledges a country's right to defend itself. Surely control of the border is a legitimate part of that right. Even if it isn't contrary to Church teaching, though, can't we be depressed at a Cardinal who seems unable to differentiate between a wall meant to keep people in (and thus violate their right to migrate) and one meant to defend a country's border?

FWIW, I hate the idea of the wall, and would prefer that we start by enforcing the law as it is.

Hoodlum, please read what the Catechism states.

2241 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. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

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.

I live in Dallas and there are many illegals here, I have a friend who is not a legal citizen, but has a work visa that is renewed regularly. He has two jobs and works very hard, while being very respectful of the laws in this country. I also have several grandkids that are half hispanic because their dads are hispanic so there is no prejudice here, just want to make that plain and clear.

If a wall goes up then why the worry for those who want to come here for the good of the whole? They can go through the process and come here the legal way like many I know have. Too many are coming across the border and are not doing it legal and this causes problems for them as well as for the state of Texas and other states.

You have to look at all this with reason and not emotion or "feelings".

What about the ones who fly here? How will a wall stop them? MOST illegals are here not from walking/swimming across the border but from coming here with a student/work visa or who were "just visiting" and stayed never to return home. We do not need a wall!

Anna B.

As JohnS says, there's a real difference between, on the one hand, keeping people in against their will, and, on the other hand, keeping people out who have no right to enter in the first place. If everyone were entitled to go anywhere at will, including other people's property, we'd have to ban door locks -- not to mention gated communities, where some of the objectors to the fence may happen to live.

The point is that if people want to enter a place legally, there are legal ways to do it, and the first condition is permission of the people who already live there. Those who enter without permission are called trespassers, not guests or residents. Similarly, "immigrants" are people who have received permission to enter and have followed the rules and conditions of entering, even if they haven't yet attained full resident status. Those who haven't are trespassers at best and invaders at worst. And yes, people DO build fences to keep out trespassers.

I get really tired of being told I'm uncharitable and un-Christian for wanting to keep trespassers out of my home. I think all those folks who criticize me for locking my door should be forced to take the locks off their own doors. How cruel of them to bar entry to anyone who wants to come in! Shame on them.

Anna B, I'm afraid "We don't need a wall" doesn't follow logically from "some trespassers fly here so the wall won't stop them." If the point is to stop trespassers from getting in, and if even some of the trespassers are crossing on the ground (as many are), then we still need the fence to keep those trespassers out, and we need other measures to keep the others out.

Note that this isn't meant as a judgment on whether we should or shouldn't have a fence (although I'm in favor of it myself), or whether we should or shouldn't have those other measures (although I think we should). I'm just trying to keep things logical here.

Anna B. I hadn't heard that before and it is contrary to the estimates I have heard. Do you have a source to support your assertion?

Thanks,

Calling the wall "inhumane", and comparing it to the Berlin Wall, is frankly silly. A better criticism would be that this wall will be practically useless (since it doesn't cover a large section of the border), and a ridiculous waste of money. This from a country with a deficit now over one trillion dollars. Unbelievable. Good thing China is willing to lend lots of money, on interest.

Semperficatholic, Hoodlum posted nearly the exact statement a month ago on another post. I answered him then but evidentally he doesn't bother to read the replies.

Semperficatholic, Hoodlum posted nearly the exact statement a month ago on another post. I answered him then but evidentally he doesn't bother to read the replies.
Miss Jean: Of course he doesn't read replies. This is just a kid who rings doorbells and runs away. Pay him no mind.
As to the wall - I am no fan but I can certainly understand the point of view of those who are.
Great satire in the post! I bit completely right up until the tour times....

Jesus Peace be upon him Christ, what is up with all these lies? I've replied to multiple posts and engaged in days long debate. Ohh wait, you all are Christians( or as the altar boys at my old church say "we're not Christians;we're Catholics.) ;)

Semper, all know is that the bible says one thing, and your man led church says something different. Which either means, the bible is wrong, or the Catholic Church is wrong.

Well I guess the Vatican is just following along the lines of JPII's quest for the "New World Order" where all faiths are equal, Catholicism is on equal footing with Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism and the UN reigns supreme (dont forget that John XXIII and JPII are the only two Popes in history to be announced as Time Magazines "Man of the Year"). Wonder why???

You had me pretty darn confused for a minute there.

As far as U.S. border wall goes, I balk at the cost. The federal government is unsurpassed in its ability to spend huge amounts of money to accomplish absolutely nothing. Furthermore, I can tell you right now that any wall project would be more laden with pork-barrel spending and political backscratching than anything we've seen in years. Frankly, given the politcal feelings regarding this wall, and the notoriously incompetent way our government manages big projects like these, I just don't see it doing much of anything to stop illegal immigration, either. This just looks like another pork project to me.

Ah, Hoodlum, why didn't you respond to the last two weeks' worth of questions directed your way? Have you been ill, or did your boss finally threaten you if you kept using the computer for personal use?

busy with my Catholic history of baltimore research. A lot of the local museums are trying to find Catholic linkage so they can sponge off the visitors to the Basilica, so I have been working on exhibits, tour scripts, and the like for a lot of the local history places. And because of the Carroll family, the Nunnery Riot, and all the idiocy going down between the Know Nothings and the local Irish, I've been busy.

Plus, I only respond if I think the thread's being actively read. If I see a stopage of referrals from the thread to my blog, I move on to the next blog.

But you're always welcomed to email me.

I'm rather disturbed by the way some of you refer to our leaders (even Pope John Paul II). I have no opinion on the wall: I'm not a resident of the US or Mexico. I just think somethings that are said here are a bit uncharitable.

God bless
Dom

Re: "Plus, I only respond if I think the thread's being actively read. If I see a stopage of referrals from the thread to my blog, I move on to the next blog."

I just have to start by saying that this is, IMHO, the most ridiculous reason to cut off a conversation that I've ever encountered; even weaker than leaving an argument because you're losing. It's like me saying that I won't talk to you at a party unless you can get enough of your friends to listen to me at the same time. Either a conversation is worth having, or it isn't; regardless of who's listening. (Such as the heapin' helpin' of nobody who will probably ever see this little rant!)

Further, Hoodlum's original scripture text is as much a non-sequitor as the Cardinal's tangent on human trafficking. First off, a wall has nothing to do with how people are treated once they immigrate; it merely prevents a certain portion of illegal immigration. Nor does it reduce the ability of anyone to legally immigrate and set up residency. (As which time they most certainly should be treated as one of our native-born; right down to expecting them to learn to communicate with their neighbors, as I expect of my native-born children...)

But even moreso in the case of human trafficking, wouldn't a wall be a good thing? How many women and children 'slaves' are brought into the country legally and openly? I didn't dig too deeply, but everything I read seems to refer to the slaves being here illegally. If so, wouldn't anything that reduces illegal immigration be a step against trafficking?

Hoodlum said "Jesus Peace upon Him" - does this mean he is Muslim? That would explain a lot of his silly ranting and disjointed arguments, non-sequitors, and shallow research. If he isn't, then I guess he just likes to taunt Catholics.
Sounds like jealousy and a deep down self-hatred to me. I suggest we all pray for the poor deluded soul.

Here is some info worth reading.

http://justiceforimmigrants.org/myths.html

We don't need a wall!!!

Anna B.

Actually, it's about time that Hoodlum starts to try to get himself banned from the site. That's usually the next stage in trolldom: either get oneself censored or banned outright. Then comes the objections of "censorship". Of course, sometimes a persistent troll will attempt to return using a different handle and address.

This is interesting. Hoodlum commented on my site too. Well, prayers coming from here too!