“Treaty of the Lateran in 1921”

Eight years off.

The Latern Pact 1929: otherwise I agree with a lot you write. 50 million aborted babies have been replaced by 50 million immigrants. When people start moving around it’s hard to stop them.The whole history of mankind is about migration. None us would be here without it. The older I get the more I respect the fact that we all of us are childrn of God. The white people in the USA and Europe have a negative birth rate and have had one for decades. Somebody has to buy and use these assets. The social security systems in most western countries are actuarily bankrupt. I would like to have the nice white country I grew up in but things change. I have black cousins, Mexican cousins, Puerto Rican cousins, Jewish cousins, and my daughter in law even has a little American Indian blood. It’s the way life is today, you have to live with it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t contol our borders and restrict immigration. Tell me who is going to it of the three people running for president.

John Zmirak wrote “most paleocons were happy when Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict rejected American wars against Iraq”.

Did they?  Reject american wars, that is.

One could easily be forgiven for being unaware of any papal objections to the killing of untold numbers of Iraqis as they swan around with the elites, like the mass murderers Kissinger, Bush and the shiney new catholic Blair.

In the spotlight, a birhtday on his visit to america, lots of media coverage but only a few, vague remarks and bring on the cake.

Ray McGovern wrote an excellent article about this - What about the War, Benedict?

To the list of papal decisions that tests one’s patriotism, one can add papal opposition to Magna Carta.

To get closer to the heart of your article:  It is not clear that the excerpt from the Catechism that you quote adequately balances compassion for emigrants with the common good. The Catechism does not say that the nation-state can put a limit on immigration, which it declares is a “natural right” for the poor; the only thing the nation-state can do is make it subject to “juridical conditions.” The rest of the statement somewhat clarifies what this means:  immigrants have to respect the civics, culture and presumably religion of the new country. That is a far cry from excluding immigrants from certain cultural, national or religious backgrounds for the sake of preserving the continuity of the host country’s traditions. It is not even clear that a nation-state could limit immigration on economic grounds, such as maintaining wage rates.

I do strongly disagree with Mr. Zmirak’s assertion that the “Westphalian” doctrine of national state sovereignty implies that the state could “own” the individual “body and soul.” The Netherlands and the United States, when they first began existence as independent political entities, were limited governments that respected individual liberties while zealously asserting national sovereignty. National state sovereignty means that there is no institution that exercises a temporal, juridical, political or quasi-political authority over he nation-state. Non-governmental organizations and the papacy can issue moral judgements, but they cannot issue decrees revoking the legitimacy of the nation-state. This is an eminently sensible arrangement. If any person or organization has the power to make a legal decision on the authority of a state, then that person or organization becomes a de facto state authority. We cannot maintain our individual liberties if the collective liberty of our national communities can be controlled by supra-national agencies, such as the UN or the EU--or the papacy, which used to claim authority over temporal power making the pope a quasi-emperor.

“I do strongly disagree with Mr. Zmirak’s assertion that the “Westphalian” doctrine of national state sovereignty implies that the state could “own” the individual “body and soul.””

Boom:  Cuius regnum, eius religio.  Hence, the Treaty of Westphalia subjected the
religion (i.e. the souls) of citizens to the whims of their rulers. 

And England was a fiefdom of the Papacy under Pope Innocent III, so as feudal overlord
he had a say in what happened in the country, even if he did not hold that capacity
as Pope.

My comments on Innocent III had to do with the Magna Carta comment above.

An excellent article.

Sorry about the Lateran date. Jet-lag. Just flew in back from Rome!
Ciao, amici!

It is a misreading of the Catechism to assert that it holds for a right of immigration.

It does not.

As in other places, the english translation of the Catechism is deceptive on this point, and one must make reference to the Latin edition (the NORMATIVE edition) to find the actual quote.

Here’s 2241 in the Latin:

“2241 Nationes ditiores accipere tenentur, in quantum fieri potest, alienigenam, qui securitatem quaerit et opes necessarias pro vita, quas in sua originis regione nequit invenire. Publicae potestates observantiam curabunt iuris naturalis quod hospitem ponit sub protectionem eorum qui eum accipiunt.

Politicae auctoritates possunt ratione boni communis, cuius suscipiunt munus, exercitium iuris emigrationis diversis condicionibus subiicere iuridicis, praesertim observantiae officiorum emigrantis erga nationem adoptionis. Immigrans tenetur cum gratitudine patrimonium observare materiale et spirituale nationis eum accipientis, eius oboedire legibus et ad eius conferre onera.”

Note in the second paragraph, where the right is described explicitly, the word used is “emigratio, emigrationis (f)” is a third declension latin noun, composed of the preposition “e” or “ex” meaning “out of” and “migratio, -onis” meaning “a change of abode, move”. The OLD defines it as “the action of moving out (of a house); quitting”.

Thus the “right” the Catechism is talking about states having the duty to uphold is the right to Emigrate from a country, not to IMMIGRATE to another country.

Indeed, it is difficult to percieve how a right to IMMIGRATE would oblige a country of which one is not a citizen.

Catholics do a severe disservice to public discourse when they invent ways in which Catholic Doctrine can be compatible with prevailing currents of political discourse.

Certainly Catholic Doctrine counsels the welcoming of the stranger. But the positing of a right based on that duty, and corrolarly counsel of perfection

Look at the Pope’s actual words:  “I want to encourage you and your communities to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials and to help them flourish in their new home.” N.B.  He does not qualify this statement with “poor people who in fact “respect with gratitude” our heritage, obey our laws, and “assist in carrying civic burdens."”

Of course, the Pope could be wrong on immigration, as Chilton Williamson hints at VDare, in that he could be promoting a position contrary to traditional Catholic teaching: “This is why the logic of Catholic theology points away from—not toward—the misbegotten but much-less-than-official position the Vatican has taken on the immigration issue for over a full century now.”

http://www.vdare.com/williamson/080422_immigration.htm

Thomas Aquinas would seem to support this:  “[A]fter his duties towards God, man owes most to his parents and his country. One’s duties towards one’s parents include one’s obligations towards one’s relatives, because these latter have sprung from [or are connected by ties of blood with] one’s parents … and the services due to one’s country have for their object all one’s fellow-countrymen and all the friends of one’s fatherland.”

But the Church has moved much to the Left since Aquinas and has (along with many Protestants) championed an Enlightenment understanding of “universal human rights.”

I have a sincere question for you (no sarcasm intended):  If, as Jean Raspail “predicted,” we do get a Third World Pope advocating the Third World invasion of the West, where would you stand?  What would you do?

Father Josef Ratzinger is an anti-pope, the 5th antipope.  John xx111 was the first, Paul 2nd, John Paul 3rd, John Paul 4th and now Benedict.

Look at the Pope’s actual words:  “I want to encourage you and your communities to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials and to help them flourish in their new home.”

Indeed, we should look at them.  Mr. Roberts is right that Pope Benedict does not qualify that statement; but he also doesn’t say anything in there about what U.S. immigration policy should be.

Benedict’s words apply equally if the United States lets in 20,000 immigrants per year; 200,000; or 2 million.  The text that Mr. Roberts quoted is, I believe, from Benedict’s remarks to the bishops of the United States, and it simply reflects Christ’s teaching about how we are supposed to treat the stranger.

The Holy Father did not say, “Lobby for lax immigration policies” or “The current level of immigration is not enough [or is sufficient].” We cannot conclude from his silence that he would support a more restrictive immigration policy in the United States; but we also cannot conclude from it that he would be opposed to such a policy.

All we can conclude from his remarks is that bishops and their flocks are supposed to live up to Christ’s teaching.

I blame Adolphe Thiers and the orléanistes.

It seems to me that such a statement is contrary to any policy of attrition or incentives for self-deportation.  First, ‘immigrants’ makes no distinction between legal and illegal.  There is no mention how these people will change themselves or change those communities they join.  And, second, “to help them flourish in their new home” contains no caveat whether they are here legally, whether we want them here, etc.  How does one help them “flourish” if they are unwanted?  Give them enough food and money to return home?  Welfare, room and board for the rest of their lives (and their children’s lives too)?

Don’t get me wrong.  Although Protestant, I generally have supported many of the things said by Pope Benedict.  He (while Cardinal Ratzinger) even once nodded and smiled at me while I was studying at the Vatican in 2001.  But his recent interjections on immigration are disturbing to say the least.

It seems to me that such a statement is contrary to any policy of attrition or incentives for self-deportation.

Not necessarily--again, because it doesn’t address policy.  If the United States adopted a “reverse immigration” policy that offered immigrants a incentives to leave, would that change our Christian duties toward those who don’t?

First, ‘immigrants’ makes no distinction between legal and illegal.

Nor does “stranger,” and this is an important point that we Christians who favor immigration restriction and are adamantly opposed to illegal immigration have to wrestle with.

whether we want them here

The proper place to address that is in policy.

How does one help them “flourish” if they are unwanted?  Give them enough food and money to return home?  Welfare, room and board for the rest of their lives (and their children’s lives too)?

We can’t draw either conclusion from what Pope Benedict said, or from what he didn’t say.  What we do know is that his statement was not directed at policy.

I want to make it clear that I support, as I have for years, a complete moratorium on immigration to the United States, and that I have called in the pages of Chronicles even for the forcible repatriation of certain immigrant groups (in the national interest).

That said, I don’t find Pope Benedict’s remarks at all disturbing; in fact, I find them a refreshing change from the policy-oriented remarks of the U.S. hierarchy.

I must agree with M.A. Roberts.  Though I like Benedict on many things, It is hard for me to reconcile both the Roman Catholic Catechism and the Pope’s remarks to the U.S. catholic bishops on the one hand, and the need to reverse the deluge of foreigners into the U.S. on the other.  I don’t pretend to be an expert on the catechism, and I may be misunderstanding Mr. Zmirak, but it seems that he is arguing for us to resign ourselves to a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious future.

I guess Mr. Scott P. Richert answered my concerns while I was typing them.

Kari,

Numbers do matter.  I suggest you watch this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265

It also matters whence they come.

MR

To find out more about Fr. Josef Ratzinger? go to:- novusordowatch.org or mostholyfamilymonastery.com. We do no longer have a Catholic Church but instead a false church and counterfeit Mass!!! As “Our Lady of La Salette” “ said: “Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ” Would a real Pope consort with mass-murderers?

I agree with Mr. Roberts.  Moreover, the Melting Pot was always a myth.  Assimilation did not occur within a generation or two; at best, what occurred was an “Americanization” that was pushed in the early 20th century at the time that the Melting Pot myth was being spun.

Those who were “Americanized” (Central and Southern Europeans, for the most part) were forcibly shorn of their historic European identities, only to have put in their place an abstract “proposition nation” understanding of America.

It was thin gruel, and it left those European immigrants thoroughly unprepared to resist politically, a couple generations later, when the floodgates were thrown open to non-European immigration in 1964/65.  They would have had a better chance of resisting if they had retained their European culture and ethnic identity while slowly becoming Americans.

But, as I’ve discussed recently on another thread, we always want what we want right now--and the proponents of Americanization in the early 20th century weren’t willing to wait.  What we ended up with was something much worse than a multitude of European ethnic identities slowly evolving into a common American one.

Mr. Zmirak,

“Is there anybody out there who’d care to assert the contrary, that even when we are able—without destroying the wages of our native working class, or endangering our sovereignty—to welcome needy poor people who in fact “respect with gratitude” our heritage, obey our laws, and “assist in carrying civic burdens,” we still shouldn’t accept any immigrants? There might be a few folks out there who simply want to see America shrunk down to 100 million childless ex-Methodists, stoically driving their hybrids to spend Sunday mornings solemnly watching birds. Apart from them, I doubt there are too many people who want zero immigration, who oppose it on principle.

Does “respect with gratitude our heritage” mean assimilation to our culture?  If it does not mean assimilation, then I for one have no problem declaring my desire for zero immigration. The immigration debate must be framed within the context of civilizations which is to say that we must look at long-term costs as opposed to short-term gains.  Whether or not we need immigrants to sustain our economy in the near term is of little importance if we lose our culture in the process. The greatest economic asset to a nation is its culture. Would these immigrants be coming here in the first place if our culture had not first built this great nation? It is time to recognize that immigrants who come here and refuse to assimilate are nothing more than scavengers of a civilization they could never build on their own.

I find it ironic that our Christian religion was once used to justify our expansion and conquest of this land. It gave us a sense of superiority in both quality and value. We were “Christianizing” the savages. And now, sinister agents are manipulating Christianity against us by propagating it as a creed of universalism, equality and diversity. Nietzsche had it right. Christianity is slave morality.

Mike Gavin wrote: “Nietzsche had it right. Christianity is slave morality.”

While I don’t believe this is inherent in Christianity, if we fulfill Jean Raspail’s vision, how do we escape this criticism?

The alien invasion that’s most evident is the alien invasion of Takimag. 

First the pseudo-scientific racialists and “White” supremacists and “White” nationalists, then the Sam-Franciscans, then assorted jingoist ethno-nationalists and apologists for “ethnic cleansing” and genocide, then the Judeophobes and antisemites, then the Benitoesque Fascistas and Clerical Fascists, then the Lincoln idolaters, then the neo-pagans, then the eugenicists, then those who believe the sun circles the Earth, then those who believe that the Blood Libel is a Magisterial Dogma ex cathedra of the Catholic Church, then the Nietzschean haters of Christianity, then the readers of Chick Comics, and NOW ... [drumroll] ... the SEDEVACANTISTS!

Soon doubtless we will be told that Plan Nine from Outer Space is a real swell picture show.

@ Mr Cundiff,

Are you beginning to realise that ‘independent conservative’ might mean something divergent from your own mind ?  Never mind that you need to make strawmen caricatures of the more traditional Catholics with whom you disagree because they are not XXth c. enough—the point is that ‘independent conservative’ does not entail a tidy policy platform based on ideological propositions.

And no, the sedevacantists do not qualify as ‘more traditional Catholics’ if you ask me.

! As “Our Lady of La Salette” “ said: “Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ”

Mary did not say that. Martin Luther did.

That Mary prophesied Rome would become the seat of the AntiChrist is the Damian-delusional progeny issuing from the unholy intellectual marriage of evil
and idiocy.

http://www.unitypublishing.com/prophecy/fake-salette.htm

However, just for the hell of it, pretend that Mary actually said that (she didn’t. That fraud “prophecy” has long been condemned by the Catholic Church).

Even if Satan his own self was kicking back in St. Peter’s or, while drunk, doing wheelies in the Popemobile, Catholics would STILL be required to be obedient to his authority.

If one just stops to think about the possibility for just a moment, one will realise that the Holy Spirit would never, even if the Pope was Satan,let Satan teach error.

(I hope I am challenged on this because the soi disant trads ALWAYS get it wrong when it comes to Jesus and His Church).

One must have Faith that Jesus did not lie when He established His Church as the Pillar and Ground of Truth.

Far too many self-anointed Trads have lost the Faith and when they read such lies attributed to Mary they are anxious to walk the plank off the Barque of Peter.

Unable to stand the test of Faith, they pull up a sede and vacante their minds.

“The Camp of the Saints” was one of the most influential books in my life, alongside Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s “Leftism” and “Brideshead Revisited.” I do worry that the peoples of the West might disappear. But it seems rather thick to blame this demographic phenomenon on, of all things, the Catholic Church. Blame us for the Crusades if you like, for enabling absolutism after the Reformation, and for Folk Mass in the 1970s. But we really aren’t responsible for the auto-genocide that resulted from the Pill.

Zmirak: I wasn’t blaming the Church for demographic decline. I am not at all anti-Catholic. I also agree with almost everything Scott Richert says above.  I was only curious about your views on, and how you would react to, Jean Raspail’s “prediction.”

BTW, Brideshead Revisited is also one of my all-time favorite novels.

So much has been said, to comment would be mostly repetative.

I do wish I had kept my 4 years of German sharp though. Fleeting fantasies of Zurich cross my mind as well. ;).

Most importantly, I can’t fail to comment on one of your stellar essays, Mr. Zmirak. This issue is very close to my heart, being a Catholic; and close to my extremities, living as I do just north of California (which leads back to my heart, as half of my parish speaks Spanish as a first language).

Judging you only by your writing, sir, I say you are a true son of our Mother.

“The alien invasion that’s most evident is the alien invasion of Takimag.

First the pseudo-scientific racialists and “White” supremacists and “White” nationalists, then the Sam-Franciscans, then assorted jingoist ethno-nationalists and apologists for “ethnic cleansing” and genocide, then the Judeophobes and antisemites, then the Benitoesque Fascistas and Clerical Fascists, then the Lincoln idolaters, then the neo-pagans, then the eugenicists, then those who believe the sun circles the Earth, then those who believe that the Blood Libel is a Magisterial Dogma ex cathedra of the Catholic Church, then the Nietzschean haters of Christianity, then the readers of Chick Comics, and NOW ... [drumroll] ... the SEDEVACANTISTS!”

Your absolutely right Sid, recently this site has become a magnet for:  Radical Traditionalists and/or sedevacanists, true anti-semites, and white nationalists.  I as a Libertarian Catholic have to deal with these nuts as well as Liberals and Neocons as well.

But as far as the Pope and immigration, both Catholics and Non-Catholics must realize that the Pope cannot speak infallibility on immigration, so we are left to decide that issue for ourselves.

I agree with Messrs. Zmirak and Roberts on the greatness of “Brideshead Revisited.” Maybe we should have a Takimag forum on this wonderful book.

FYI. To all those who use this forum to badger the Living Magisterium in the name of some imagined knowledge of Tradition, put this in your schismatic thuribles because this is evidence you must never allow to be publicised.

Council of Constance

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, which is a general council, for the eradication of the present schism and for bringing unity and reform to God’s church in head and members, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit to the praise of almighty God, ordains, defines, decrees, discerns and declares as follows, in order that this union and reform of God’s church may be obtained the more easily, securely, fruitfully and freely.

First it declares that, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.

Next, it declares that anyone of whatever condition, state or dignity, even papal, who contumaciously refuses to obey the past or future mandates, statutes, ordinances or precepts of this sacred council or of any other legitimately assembled general council, regarding the aforesaid things or matters pertaining to them, shall be subjected to well-deserved penance, unless he repents, and shall be duly punished, even by having recourse, if necessary, to other supports of the law.

Everything old (schism) is new again. (the insane hateful heretical antisemitic sspx)

Consistory Allocution of 2 June 1944, “The mandate Confided to Peter”, Pope Pius XII stated:

<I>Mother Church, Catholic, Roman, which has remained faithful to the constitution received from her divine Founder, which still stands firm today on the solidity of the rock on which His will erected her, possesses in the primacy of Peter and of his legitimate successors, the assurance, guaranteed by the divine promises, of keeping and transmitting inviolate and in all its integrity through the centuries and millennia to the very end of time the entire sum of truth and grace contained in the redemptive mission of Christ.

Pope Pius IX: Quanta Cura

1) <I>“We cannot pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that ‘without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.’ But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.”

Proposueramus quidem “To Michael the Emperor” 865 a.d.

<I>...Furthermore if you have not heard us, it remains for you to be with us of necessity, such as our Lord Jesus Christ has commanded those to be considered, who disdained to hear the Church of God, especially since the privileges of the Roman Church, built upon Peter by the word of Christ, deposited in the Church herself, observed in ancient times and celebrated by the sacred universal Synods, and venerated jointly by the entire Church, can by no means be diminished; for the foundation which God has established, no human effort has the power to destroy and what God has determined remains firm and strong...

For you Sedes and schizzies -

Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium declares that no man, even one in league with the devil, can destroy the foundation God established and the modern Popes are not ones rational beings can claim are in league with the devil. Even IF the Pope were in league with the devil you would still be under his authority ...

If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor was a proposition of Wyclif which was condemned at the Council of Constance.

The sedes and schizzies, despite their absurd claims to expertise and their personal judgments about H.M. Church, are but Protestants in Fiddlebacks - and poorly informed ones at that.

“I am not Spartacus”, very good quotes, although I doubt they will satisfy the schizzies

Sedes and schizzies?

I must say it’s remarkable how some people, when discussing matters of religion and faith, can be so seemingly filled with hate.

I notice also that no one has offered an answer to the simple question - how can a holy man, if he be such, consort with mass murderers?

La Salette: inthe year1846, lucifer,together with a large number of demons will be loosed from hell; they wil put an end to Faith little by little, even in those dedicated to God. They will blind them in such a way, that, unless they are blessed with a special grace, these people will take on the spirit of these angels of hell; several religious institutions will loose all Faith and will lose many souls” Our Lady of Salette, France, September 19th 1846.

I know a few will be offended, and warn of slippery-slopism…

But, as a certain amount of censorship has made the comments much more readable, and the site more respectable, I suggest deletion of completely off-topic, axe-grinding posts. I know it would require a lot more work to weed them out, but perhaps regulars could flag them and allow the admin to sort them out.

I added the “axe-grinding” clause, since simple praise of “Brideshead Revisited,” and follow-up comments is brief and in a collegial spirit.

I certainly don’t wish to stifle debate, and so I, for one, would not “report” heated polemics in as mmuch as they RELATE TO THE ORIGINAL POST. It is, of course, easy to get far afield in an in-depth discussion. But common sense should be able to see the difference between heading to left field and starting there.

Mr. Zirmak, thanks again for your labors. Keep up the good work.

We readers could help, too, by simply not replying to off-the-wall posts. I believe the kiddies refer to it as feeding the trolls.

(Yes, it is worthwhile to reply to egregious statements sometimes and somewhere; but doing so here often leads to hijacking of the thread.)

Somebody tell Anna to hit the road and stop her nonsense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_La_Salette

“I must say it’s remarkable how some people, when discussing matters of religion and faith, can be so seemingly filled with hate.”

In the case of us Catholics teaching a lesson to the Sedevacanists, it’s the principle of “the more you know, the more responsibility you have” I obviously should be more firm with people who claim to be Catholic than those who are , let’s say, Buddhist and know nothing of the faith.

“I notice also that no one has offered an answer to the simple question - how can a holy man, if he be such, consort with mass murderers?”

Even Jesus hung out with the outcasts, all of us have to deal with the Fed’s every once in a while, I hope that answers your question

It most certainly does NOT answer the question.

Nonsense?  Because YOU say so?  Because you attach a wikipedia link?

Jesus did <hang out with> outcasts, as you put it, and He did admonish the mob by saying that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.  Here’s the rub, however.  He also then told the sinner to go and sin no more.
He made it clear that she was a sinner.

Do you understand?

The way some people here, supposedly good catholics all, discuss/debate another with a differing viewpoint, i must say, is disheartening.

They call names and mock and display elitist snobbery.

Do you think Jesus would have discussed things like that?  Do you think He would have used love or verbal abuse the way some of you do?

I’ve said this before with regard to the repeated snide remarks about muslims.  Do you think that by displaying such spite for them that you’ll win them over?  Isn’t that what we SHOULD be trying to do?  Win them over for Christ?

It seems ironic in the extreme the way some of you argue, seemingly saying <catholicism is a religion of peace! Let’s curse out and kill everyone else!>

To me Waugh and Raspail make strange bedfellows.  Waugh was not worried by the Hindus, but by the Hoopers, and I am with him on that.  The only South Asian noticed at the Vatican lately was the one shipped off to Colombo for taking the side of the Pope on the Latin Mass issue.  Waugh shows us what is worth preserving, protecting, defending.  Raspail elaborates a sick fantasy of little brown people as hungry animals who must be killed before they steal our food.  To the Tancredos of the world who pander to the racists, the little brown people are evil, not because they are brown, or even because they are hungry, but because they are Catholics.  Like Zmirak and even (Russian Orthodox wannabee) me.  There are very legitimate concerns about immigration.  There is also the apostates’ and heretics’ hatred of Christ and His church.

Sedes and schizzies?

Those are nicknames meant in the nicest way possible, Patrick.

I also agree with Zmirak on the overwhelmingly influential nature of Camp of the Saints, one of the best novels, in my opinion, of the 20th century.  Chilton Williamson in his book Conservative Bookshelf reviews Camp of the Saints among the greatest conservative classics, praising it as “one of the most uncompromising works of literary reaction in the 20th century.”

Pseudo-Spartacus,

Surely you are aware that the SSPX can read the entire Council of Constance, the encyclical Quanta Cura, and the other documents from which you posted portions of Catholic doctrine, and yet not in any way compromise the central claims of their position ?  For instance, I, a supporter of the work of the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre, support everything you posted with the assent of faith and obedience.  Contrary to your expectations, however, I feel that it vindicates the integralist position, for if the Church has always had the authority of Christ in the apostolic Deposit of Faith, those who introduce novelties and attempt to mar the pure doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ—which has been organically refined over two millenia under the guidance of the Holy Ghost—with ideologies are guilty of direct disobedience to the Church.  In the same vein, those who try to subject the intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of the eternal Truth to the spirit of a particular age and historical circumstance are disposed to a materialism that qualifies as blasphemy.

>how can a holy man, if he be such, consort with mass murderers?

Sorry, can’t pass this up…

While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he consort with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Mark 15-17

I’d like to wish everyone here an awesome Cinco de Mayo. I personally plan to spend it watching “Plan 9 from Outer Space” - one of my all time faves.

Erich,

perhaps you missed my comment just a few posts above your own.

Whereas there was no ambiguity in Jesus message, this pope made no mention (or did I miss that?) of the utter evil of this war of naked aggression.

Patrick,

Do we have record of Jesus clearly and publicly chastising every sinner every time he encounters him?

Also, do we have knowledge of the Holy Father’s personal conversation with George Bush? Remember too, that the President is not a Catholic.

Do not forget, that the Magesterium’s position on the Iraq war is very clear. If it is not widely known by non-Catholics, that is lamentable, and perhaps our fault. But, the Iraq war, as evil as it is, is not the only evil in progress, nor the only concern of the Holy Father or the Church. We are not a “single issue” community. I think our last Pope especially helped the hierarchy understand that we live in an age of sound-bites. This can be an advantage and disadvantage. I am certain that the Holy Father is ever-cognizant of this as well. (O, that more American bishops were as well.)

All of those things taken into consideration, I sympathise with your outrage and wish that there was more public decrying of the tradgedy. I wish I could find some meaningful civil disobedience to participate in.

Surely you are aware that the SSPX can read the entire Council of Constance, the encyclical Quanta Cura, and the other documents from which you posted portions of Catholic doctrine, and yet not in any way compromise the central claims of their position ?

Post one single time The Angelus ever posted those quotes in support of their schism. What you have written is so absurd that it could only be believed by those whose Faith has been hopelessly corrupted by Satan’s Sevants, the SSPX.

I doubt you have even read the quotes before.

For instance, I, a supporter of the work of the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre, support everything you posted with the assent of faith and obedience.</I?

<I> Contrary to your expectations, however, I feel that it vindicates the integralist position,

Once you wrote that the excommunicated msgr was “saintly” everything that followed was predictable.

You exercise judgment upon the Church and refuse to be judged by her or to submit to her authority.

You are a practical Protestant pretending you are a Catholic.

In his political sermon at his failed attempt to ordain Bishops to serve his schism, Lefevbre not only said he was the one Mary said would save the Church

I excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety - saving the priesthood by forming good priests. I do not say that prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them, since they are recorded and deposited in the archives of this apparition.

He explained away his perfidy and schism by introducing what he knew was the condemned part of the LaSalette Appartition.

Of course, you well know the apparitions of Our Lady at La Salette, where she says that Rome will lose the Faith, that there will be an “eclipse” at Rome; an eclipse, see what Our Lady means by this.

I understand he is your hero. I do not understand why he is. He, clearly, was insane and,one hopes, avoided final damnation due to his insanity.

Jerry You wrote:"I as a Libertarian Catholic” aahh I see “Libertarian” as in “What is that to us? look thou to it.” Or the modern definiton: a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.No such thing as a Libertarian Catholic.  But hey it’s a free country you can call yourself what ever you want but it does not make it so, does it? Either you behave like a Roman Catholic and give counsel to others based on Catholic Morals or you don’t. Telling another that your counsel to another is “to do what ever you feel like” is not Roman Catholic Counsel, but worldly, and no different than the counsel of the chief priests of old: “What is that to us? look thou to it.” Yeah, nice, real fraternal correction.  Hey Libertarian Catholic, avarice is still a sin, regardless of what the Von Mesis Institute tells you.And notice that the traitor to Jesus Christ chose the counsel of the “Libertarian” chief priests of old than to fly to the Counsel of Wisdom Himself. But this lesson may surely be lost on you.

But as far as the Pope and immigration, both Catholics and Non-Catholics must realize that the Pope cannot speak infallibility on immigration, so we are left to decide that issue for ourselves.

On elucidating the moral principles involved in evaluating immigration issues, I cannot say the Magistrium would not be infallible.  But as to a specific policy to implement, yes, we are left to ourselves, but not without moral guidance.

I am not Spartacus you wrote"He, clearly, was insane and,one hopes, avoided final damnation due to his insanity.
I am not Spartacus Your real name. No, of course not.  But hey this is the Internet you can hide. Right?
“For the Lord knoweth all...no thought escapeth him, and no word can hide itself from him”
oopps! I guess you forgot that you can not hide your sins from the Blessed Trinity. Even on the internet when you do not use your real name the Blessed Trinity still knows who you are. And knows that you have slandered a Priest of His. Either you run to confession to confess this or you will be punished with the same thing you attribute to others.

Patrick you wrote:
“Do you think Jesus would have discussed things like that? Do you think He would have used love or verbal abuse the way some of you do?”

Patrick do you pay attention?

“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness” and so on……

Honestly, there is a time and place for everything Jesus Christ should be the model and His example one is to follow, so name calling is allowed. It must be done properly and done with effect.

I am not Spartacus
I looked for the words: “the Living Magisterium” in the documents you posted but I failed to find these words. Please help me out here. Where are they?

To the misguided here at Taki’s
“Rome would lose the Faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ”
Rome does not mean the Office of the Holy Roman Pontiff. But the Usurped Political Office of the
the antichrist

@ Michael Warning

As a Catholic myself and raised with good knowledge and appreciation for the various apparitions of Mary - one of which is La Salette, I find your fear-mongering disedifying and probably counter-productive to the intended results (i.e., the “conversion” of the Damned that frequent Takimag).  I am no scholar but I do know that one of the things Jesus said was something akin to removing the logs out of one’s own eye before pointing out the splinters in others’.  Look to your own salvation, Mr. Warning.

“(Indeed, in denouncing the Treaty of Westphalia, the Church rejected the modern notion of absolute State sovereignty—and rightly so, unless you think that the government owns us, body and soul.)”

ok Innocent X Bull “Zelo domus Dei” but what are the points in the treaty that were condemned in this Bull

Thanks

Mr. Zmirak you wrote:“Even if one assumed that the Church had no interest in moral consistency,”
One of the points found in the Treaty of Westphalia:…besides the religions named [Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist] above, no other shall be accepted or tolerated in the Holy Roman Empire.’

The above is denounced as ‘null and void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, condemned, rejected, absurd, without force or effect.’ Pope Innocent X in his Bull Zelo domus Dei.  What is the Pope Innocent X denouncing? That only three religions will be tolerated in The Holy Roman Empire? And more should be tolerated?  Or that only one religion should be tolerated in The Holy Roman Empire i.e. the Roman Catholic faith.

Pope Benedict XVI today:  “Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard.”

So who is wrong the popes or the nation states?  You have The Holy Roman Emperor and his Treaty of Westphalia allowing three religions to be tolerated within it’s borders condemned by Pope Innocent for allowing the toleration of any religion other than the True One i.e. The Roman Catholic Faith And you have present day America for allowing all religions to be tolerated within it’s borders which is praised by Pope Benedict XVI.

It’s not that the Church has no interest in moral consistency, it’s the Churchmen who have no interest in moral consistency. Can not blame the Bride of Christ, agreed?. So the inconsistency is on the part of the men in the Church.

The business of open or closed borders belongs to the temporal sphere not the spiritual. The Churchmen may give their opinion but it is not binding.