Bishop Michael Barber, SJ, Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland, has issued the following statement regarding President Trump’s executive orders on immigrants and refugees and responses to those orders:
With all the rancor and division circulating in the media recently, I think it is good to remind ourselves who we are as Catholics and Christians.
We are Christ-centered, not politician-centered.
Christ and His teachings must come before our favorite political party, not the other way around.
Therefore, as a Catholic, I am grateful for the support given by the new U.S. President to Life and protecting children in the womb. There have been 58 million abortions in our country since Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973. That was a sad day for America.
As a Catholic, and a disciple of Jesus Christ, I also believe that the decision to build a wall between Mexico and the USA is very disturbing. Every country has a right to protect its borders. But Communists build walls, not Americans. Remember President Reagan’s words to President Gorbachev at the Berlin Wall in 1987.
I urge you to read the recent executive decisions by the President regarding immigration alongside Pope Francis’ 2015 address to the US Congress.
In that memorable “world-pulpit” Pope Francis stressed the “transcendent dignity of the human being.” Francis stressed we are human beings first. The Holy Father went on to say that the duty of government is “to protect, by means of the law, the image and likeness fashioned by God on every human face.”
I notice that Lyft, the ride-sharing alternate-taxi service, just donated $1 million dollars to the ACLU to support refugee resettlement in the USA. We’ve been doing that in our diocese for a year. Over half our parishes have volunteered to sponsor refugees, once vetted and cleared by the U.S. State Department. I hope we will continue to be able to perform that act of compassion under the new regulations. If you feel strongly about the President’s recent decisions, why not join us in acts of mercy, rather than join the public fray of hate and division?
In closing, I wish to make my own the excellent statement crafted and released by our diocesan Catholic Charities of the East Bay. I would only change one thing. Instead of saying “Catholic Charities of the East Bay stands with the immigrant, refugee, and migrant community”. I would change it to “The Catholic Church” . . .
“stands with the immigrant, refugee, and migrant community. We oppose actions that promote fear and hostility towards people of all faiths and nationalities. We remain committed to our mission of welcoming the stranger through legal services, refugee resettlement, education, and community outreach. Toward this end, our legal team is resolved to continue filing applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) as long as the program exists.
Our country has welcomed people fleeing religious or political persecution, war, poverty or violence since its founding. The spirit and tenacity of our shared immigrant ancestry has shaped and defined our nation. As a faith community, the Catholic Church is an immigrant church with a long history of embracing newcomers and caring for migrants.
We know the stories of persecution, violence, and oppression that drive people – including children — from their homelands seeking safe haven in the United States. Despite the rhetoric of fear, we believe that people of good will and conscience understand that for many this is a life or death situation, and choose to be on the side of life.”
Full story at Diocese of Oakland website.
Really, Bishop? So much written on so little of a topic. Sure, we all feel a wish to help those honestly wishing to come to America, and they can. But that is not your true concern, is it? No, better to shake your fist at something you cannot control and that is on the list of “important” topics of your Masters at the USCCB (and fellow CA bishops).
What is wrong with you? Churches getting to near empty. Schools being abandoned. Sexual “rights” going unchallenged by you and your brothers: contraception, abortion, homosexual sex, all of this leading people away from salvation; the true job of the Church. But that is not important much, is it?
(Part Deux) ” . . . No, what is important is popularity, social acceptance, compatibility with the NY Times, Washington Post and Democratic Party.
Why are you not in the streets attacking abortion? When was the last time you went public against sex outside of marriage, particularly homosexual sex? When was the last time you preached on the reality of Hell and the many that will go there? You and the Oakland Diocese are failures, bishop. Try to tell the family of Kate Steinle about the wonderful illegal immigrants that want to come to CA. Time to find a monastery, Bishop.
Wonder if this has anything to do with the authors comments?
During FY16, the USCCB received federal grants totaling a whopping $91,132,305.
According to the USASpending.gov, the top programs carried out by the USCCB, on behalf of the Obama Administration were:
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program $53,405,755
Refugee and Entrant Assistance Voluntary Agency Programs $21,714,000
Unaccompanied Alien Children Program $9,240,908
Interesting to see what pops up when you follow the money. Reduction/loss in National Security can have many shameful excuses.
Well-stated, Thomas B.
Socialism (def): (Merriam-Webster) “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
The now-socialist US Bishops ( I am deeply saddened to read Bp. Barber’s completely distorted political-speak on this subject above) are dependent on the “distribution of goods” (our US tax $$), which actually makes all of us irrelevant to the aims of the Soros-Merkel-Davos-UN-USCCB orgs. Enormous amounts of $$, which do not go for traditional Catholic charitable concerns, are make the bishops mere processing houses for “refugees” (they are not: they are migrants).
Dear Campion, the very definition you use above for socialism contradicts your point. There is no American bishop who does not believe that there should be no private ownership. NONE! Therefore your repeated contention that the US bishops are socialists IS FALSE AND WRONG!
What is your point? Yes, the Catholic Church in the US contracts with the government to provide humanitarian services. Why is that a bad thing? Seems like a great partnership, to me. Unless you are prepared to step up and fund those humanitarian efforts yourself, why are you complaining?
The Fellow Catholic, who is ordinarily very clever and adroit at understanding matters, just cant, just cant understand the point. As Thomas B elsewhere pointed out (2/6/17): ” According to USASpending.gov, the federal government’s website of federal contracts and grants.,overall, for FY16 Catholic Charities collected: $84,339,422 as Total Prime Recipient; $118,008,202 as a Total sub-award transaction.”
The socialist bishops are owned by the Great Beast of the Socialist State. (there, is that clear enough?)
: “No Catholic can subscribe to even moderate socialism..” (Mater et Magistra, #34, 1961).
Wow Campion, THANK YOU for finally saying something nice about me. I’m not sure I deserve those titles ‘clever and adroit’, but I am in such shock at finding someone saying something nice I literally have no response. Thank you!
What is your point? Yes, the Catholic Church in the US contracts with the government to provide humanitarian services. Why is that a bad thing? Seems like a great partnership, to me. Unless you are prepared to step up and fund those humanitarian efforts yourself, why are you complaining?
“Unless you are prepared to step up and fund those humanitarian efforts yourself…” Aren’t we doing that already through our taxes?
As you know, “YFC,” with government money comes government obligations. Many stings are attached to the federal teat, including advancing federal “affirmative” goals regarding advancing sexual deviancy, contraception, abortion and the like.
This is not hard to understand, YFC. The point is not to accept money to do this or that which is good, the point is not to accept money when you know that doing something bad and against Christ is the price of the “gift.”
I don’t disagree with you that there are strings attached to Federal money. But you didn’t address my point that if you object to the strings, fund the programs yourself.
And exactly why should we fund socialism and its inherently destructive programs—cancers on our society and our commerce?
Did any California bishop object or issue a statement or even say one word when President Obama banned Cuban refugees from entering the United States during his waning days in office? Obama’s order wasn’t even to protect the U.S.; it was political retaliation for Florida voting for Trump. These California bishops are showing their political bias in their statements, and all their empty, hollow, selective, misleading appeals to Catholic faith to justify their pathetic, leftist political statements make me even more deaf to their irrelevant blather than I already was. Sorry, CA bishops, I don’t respect your authority because you misuse your office.
16 countries ban Jews from Israel (not Wolf Blitzer, therefore) from entering their country. They include among them: Pakistan, Malaysia, Syria, Iraq, Iran (who’d have guessed?), and of course, Saudi Arabia.
No one has asked former high-level Saudi operative and agent, Khizr Khan, about this.
Many of the US Bishops have made a big stink over the [fake news] “Muslim-travel ban”; but are remarkably silent that Israeli Jews are completely banned from travel into these wonderfully generous hospital countries.
No non Muslim can step foot in Mecca. They consider everyone else “unclean”. Only Muslims can go there.
President Obama did not ban Cuban refugees. He simply ended the policy of assuming that a person who touches one foot on US soil is a refugee. In fact, what that means is that Cuban refugees actually get vetted, for the first time in a couple decades.
Meanwhile, Trump attempted to ban all refugees from certain countries, even Christian refugees.https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/us/syrian-family-reunited/index.html
….and set up safe zones for refugees in their own country. You may think the USA is the only place to live but many people do not want to leave the country of their birth to the rebels that would make it a wasteland.
Some want to be safe, yes, but not leave the culture that they know and love.
Refugees should have a viable option, not be forced for political purposes of those who would exploit their suffering in destroying the concept of national sovereignty. The whole mess smacks lose to the exploitation of women in crisis pregnancies being used as the vehicle to usher in abortion. Sorry. Not buying it.
AM you string together a whole mess of phrases and incomplete sentences and expect us to pick up the pieces for you? You don’t remotely discuss anything that we are discussing. People who are asking for refugee status in the US is what we are talking about. The merits of what they are asking of us, vs “safe zones”, which is itself a ridiculous fake fact, is not even an issue here. Do you really honestly think that the Syrian President is going to allow “safe zones” in his country? You make it seem like these people leave their country to get better beer or a different brand of hummus.
Sorry, YFC, if you couldn’t pick up on the reality that people just want to be safe, not necessarily uprooted to the UNITED STATES or anywhere else. But it works to the purpose of those who seek to destabalize our country to pretend that open immigration is the only solution.
That is much like those who pretend that abortion is the necessary solution to unwanted pregnancy. Especially when the one’s pushing abortion also promote isolating the vulnerable from alternative, and far better solution.
You erroneously make it sound like people don’t have their own voice. Many want to stay in their homeland. Not hop to the supposed wonderland of the USA.
You’re full of fake “facts”. Like the Syrian President is the one who will make…
… said decision. The King of Saudi Arabia is already on board. Perhaps these refugees would be better served taking shelter closer to home.
You playing dumb doesn’t suit.
OF COURSE refugees would prefer not to be uprooted. But refugees uproot themselves, they aren’t packed up and shipped out. They aren’t out to destabilize anything, they are out because they are wives and husbands, children and grandparents, who have experienced wicked persecution or have a real fear of it. This conversation has nothing to do with random migration of people or with abortion, or anything about someone’s “voice” (Which by the way I made no reference to). As to nearby location, on that point you are right. Generally, refugees are best dealt with regionally. Which is why we should not build a wall to keep refugees escaping the central American wars out of our country.
And then there’s the Catholic Church’s golden calf of federal funds, Catholic Charities. According to USASpending.gov, the federal government’s website of federal contracts and grants. Overall, for FY16 Catholic Charities collected: $84,339,422 as Total Prime Recipient; $118,008,202 as a Total sub-award transaction. The International Catholic Migration Commission(ICMC) headquartered in Boston also joined in on the goodies. In FY 2016, the ICMC was awarded: $17,715,636 Total as a Prime Recipient. The purpose is stipulated for U.S. Refugee Resettlement. The USCCB quietly assisted the Obama administration in resettling into the US, tens of thousands of Muslim Syrian refugees. Only a tiny fraction of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians are…
Sadly, the Bishop has no knowledge of history. The Moslems destroyed Christian civilization in the Middle East, turned Constantinople into a pagan capitol. They invaded Europe several times, were defeated at the Battle of Lepanto by the power of the BVM and the Holy Rosary prayed by the faithful throughout Europe by order of St. Pius v. We could go on and on, but if a person has no desire to know history, what is the point?
Bishop Barber says: “Christ and His teachings must come before our favorite political party.” Does that include the Democratic Party, for which CalChurch has “carried much water”?
Also His Excellency alludes to President Reagan’s words to President Gorbachev at the Berlin Wall in 1987. He should not forget some other of President Reagan’s words to President Gorbachev which he used on more than one occasion:
From Martin Klimke’s book “Trust, but Verify”: The Politics of Uncertainty and the Transformation of the Cold War Order, 1969-1971:
U.S. President Ronald Reagan once famously quipped, “Nations do not mistrust each other because they are armed. They are armed because they mistrust each other.” To transcend this quagmire,…
Bishop Barber says: “Christ and His teachings must come before our favorite political party.” Does that include the Democratic Party, for which CalChurch has “carried much water”?
Also His Excellency alludes to President Reagan’s words to President Gorbachev at the Berlin Wall in 1987. He should not forget some Reagan’s other words Gorbachev used on more than one occasion:
U.S. President Ronald Reagan once famously quipped, “Nations do not mistrust each other because they are armed. They are armed because they mistrust each other.” To transcend this quagmire, Reagan employed the strategy “Trust, but Verify,” one of his signature phrases, during the second half of the Cold War. Presenting this maxim as a translation of a Russian…
… Reagan predominantly used it when describing U.S.-Soviet relations. In December 1987, for example, the two countries signed the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty), which set forth the destruction of all land-based nuclear missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles, a permanent halt in the production of such missiles, and—crucially for Reagan—mutual inspection rights. When he announced at the subsequent press conference in Washington that the spirit of the agreement was in keeping with his aforementioned motto, his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev only replied with amusement, “You repeat that at every meeting.” – Martin Klimke
Practically no bishops believe traditional Catholic morality today. Yes, we must be kind to aliens, but the state has a right and a duty to protect her citizens. Also abortion is a mortal sin, as is sodomy, and to support promoters of these two abominations cries to Heaven for vengeance. Because of Bernardine’s seamless garment, moral theology became twisted. May God have mercy on the souls of the bishops who have led so many people to hell.
What you say, “Herman,” is key: our bishops are, in the main, non-believers. Oh, they say this and that, but do not have the same fire of belief as do many Muslim imams, for example (or someone like Rev. Hoye, a Protestant). Instead, they are pretty much like the Germans, wanting the big government paycheck. Sure they bray about “being generous” with your money, but then offer no evidence of Faith.
Go ahead, try to ask virtually any of them for reintroduction of Catholic Tradition for anything (e.g., bring back an altar rail or two, say Diocesan Masses ad orientem, etc.). You will get a stern lecture, and perhaps warnings, too. These men are not qualified (some few exceptions) to be priests, much less bishops.
No borders right Bishop let them all in, we are dissolving as a nations state….
Bishop Barber invoked the work of Catholic Charities. He should explain to us why 98% of the political contributions made by employees of Catholic Relief Services go to pro-abort politicians. https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/08/15/98-of-catholic-relief-services-contributions-go-to-pro-abort-politicians/
US bishops’ talking point error #1: These are not “refugees” (because, as the Archbp. of Iraq Bashar Warda has observed) the true refugees are the Christians, who have been horribly persecuted and discriminated against out of all proportion (1) to their actual numbers and (2) to their likelihood of being murdered, burned alive, raped, tortured, abandoned for dead.
https://the-american-catholic.com/2017/02/03/iraqi-archbishop-on-trumps-executive-order-regarding-refugees/
US Bishops’ talking point error #2: Their denial of the security issue. Tashveen Malik, the co-murderer (only 1 year ago, Dec 2 2015) in San Bernardino, was let in on an F4 (spousal) visa: State Dept and DHS routinely has the power to deny “spouse” visas for…
US for one of 5 reasons—2 key reasons with regard to Malik, regarding security, are “fraudulent marriage” or crimes or associations in the originating country.
https://www.jcsimmigration.com/top-5-reasons-a-greencard-is-denied/
The fact is there was no “vetting” at all under Obama’s administration (just as James Comey testified in Oct. 21, 2015) when Malik was let into the US in Aug. 2014 on an F4 visa.
DHS admitted 9/28/16 they allowed “refugees” into the country on their own testimony alone (House Judiciary Sub-Committee):
US for one of 5 reasons—2 key reasons with regard to Malik, regarding security, are “fraudulent marriage” or crimes or associations in the originating country.
https://www.jcsimmigration…
I’m a bit confused. Can someone explain to me why a wall is doctrinally not permissible while other forms of protecting the border are permissible?
Why, Seitz, a waalllll is too haaa-aaarsh. It is meeeeeean spirited.
On the other hand, herding mass numbers of humanity into a strange and vastly disparate country where because of profound belief and cultural differences they will hate the established system and inherently become a disaffected and angry minority, that is the charity of the bishops.
It looks like no one directly answered my question. Frankly, I don’t think Bishop Barber was forthright when he said we must be Christ-centered and not politically-centered but then renders a non-Catholic political opinion about walls.
He also was a bit careless by not distinguishing between walls that keep people in (e.g. Soviet Russia/prison walls) and walls that keep people out (e.g. Israeli/protection walls).
For some reason, I was expecting better from Bishop Barber.
Final most important US Bishops’ Talking Point error #3: Implicit in the USCCB’s statements are that the “refugees” (no, migrants) are “women and children. ”
However, the UN has been caught lying–consistently–about the data. Political Insider demonstrated this fact from the UN’s own website in Sept 2015, showing that 72% of the migrants are Syrian males (it was later quickly taken down):
https://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/heres-one-fact-dismantles-syrian-refugee-myth/
That is consistent with the European Union’s own data that shows similar overwhelming numbers of males age 18-59 among the influx. Now, when they are allowed to chain-migrate their polygamous families to the US, then what, USCCB?
Right:…
It would seem that these California bishops are calling each other up and whatnot. But clearly not just about what the other will be wearing.
Seriously… the good bishop would do well to find out what, exactly, the executive order does and why. It is the height of irresponsibility to lecture Catholics that support this attempt to improve the vetting process for immigrants fleeing countries suffering from jihad. It isn’t a ban on Muslims. It isn’t even a ban on immigrants. Its a temporary measure to make sure those entering this country intend us no harm… us being EVERYONE, non-muslim and muslim alike. The false dichotomy the good bishop proposes between a political party and a faith is complete and utter nonsense.
Communists build walls? The Iron Curtain was built to imprison citizens of commie countries!
With all due respect, I am indignant with the Oakland bishop’s pretense of high moral ground, and pretense of only one compassionate view here, namely his. The bishop does not speak for the Catholic Church. Let’s be honest and truly compassionate. In a world which is complicated and compromised by the colossal evils all around us, including Islamic terrorism, contraband drugs, human trafficking, the beheading of Christians, the fact that our Catholic grammar schools and universities are over-run with apostates, just to name a few of the current assaults from Hell . . .oh, and the movement for a One World Order which does not have Christ as its King nor Subsidiarity as a principle . . . these things against which all of the bishops should…
Let’s stipulate that a country has the right and obligation to protect its borders. How it does that is up for discussion. Do we want refugees and immigrants coming to our country who are not carefully vetted to ensure that they are going to be good citizens? No! Are the immigrants and refugees coming from the Middle East well vetted or not? The President is telling us they are not and he wants to take some time to review the process. Nothing wrong with that, except that the refugees and immigrants are well vetted in an 18-24 month process after they have been declared refugees by international agencies. The problem with the “Ban/not a Ban?” is that it smacks of scare tactics, and is designed to create fear in the population, in…
Horse-leavings, Bob One: “refugees and immigrants are well-vetted in 18-24 mo process”. This is your mantra, it is utter falsehood.
As Campion noted, James Comey (Oct 21, 2015) in sworn testimony before a Congressional committee stated there was no effective verification of migrants entering the country. DHS swore before Ted Cruz’ questioning (also noted above) just this past Sept 2016 that applicants were allowed to ‘self-state’ their backgrounds—no verification at all. Here it is on youtube: educate yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rC-qX6Q5m8
Moreover, why do you, Bob One, insist on demonizing valid criticism—look at the series of attacks we have suffered, they aren’t enough for you?— as”scare tactics”? There is NO effective verification of entrants. JudicialWatch.org has shown that the FBI, then in 2015, had over 1000 active ISIS and active terrorist investigations involving recent migrants that had entered the US—and just like the Berlin Christmas Market Murderer, who was under surveillance—they cant keep up with them:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/11/fbi-has-nearly-1000-active-isis-probes-inside-u-s/
How many have to die, for you Bob One, before enough is enough?
Bob One,
While I disagree with some of your conclusions, I appreciate the way how you navigated the immigration issue in your post. Good job!
micah 7:11 ‘ in that day the time for building your walls shall come’, a prophecy of israel’s restoration and relief from enemies., in the extended pericope 8-13. it was normative and necessary fo( cities to have walls to protect themselves in a perpetual state of war ( for us, ‘cold war’). jesus ‘ teaching about shrewd preparedness from attack in his ‘if 20,000 come against you’ phrasing is set in the well understood context of constant desert raids. ‘enter by the narrow way’ is set in the well understood context of walled cities with gates that shut all out who were not vetted visually by daylight. the cities closed…
for the night. ezekiel 22″30 ‘ i looked for someone who would build up the wall and stand in the gap.” this one comes with approval ofwall-building but also border patrols aganst illegal breaches. in the biblical world, civilization needed walls to preserve the community’s well being. and the most effective walling off of valuables from human exploitation is the genesis passage where the legendary park(garden in old english) is guarded from entry by humans adam and eve who became illegals by breaking the Law . the first and most monumental deportation. i am sure that the ‘flaming sword’ probably outclassed any scifi weaponry…
“…Christ and His teachings must come before our favorite political party, not the other way around.”
This is precisely why the USCCB needs to get out of bed with the DNC and those globalists who would feign that national sovereignty is now a high crime. If the Bishop doesn’t feel very good about a border wall being erected between the United States and Mexico, he can, in part, blame the USCCB for using Christ’s Church as a weapon to disrespect the lawful authority of the state in upholding her duty to protect her citizens. To include legal immigrants.
Time to stop determining the Faith by how you feel, your Excellency, and look to what the fullness of the Faith teachings. It is not merely obedience for obedience sake, even…
Let us speak candidly. The reason why the American bishops speak this way is two-fold: the federal government cash cow for the USCCB and Catholic Charities and because large numbers of those in the pews are illegal aliens and their citizen/permanent resident family members. A third reason is also true for many of them: many are incorrigible leftists. I’m of the opinion that Bishop Barber is NOT a leftist, but the first two reasons stand. A reasoned discussion of refugees, a nation’s right to control its borders, the Islamist threat, etc. is called for here, but so far no US bishop is willing to speak along these terms because they don’t want an exodus from the pews and the piggy bank.
…follow the money is true, Father. It always tells the tale.
Thank you for your forthright post. You have God’s blessing already. That is why you can speak the truth!
“Fr.Michael”: You seem a good and concerned priest; thank you for that. Perhaps you cannot say it, but the true reason why American bishops take these silly positions is that they do not believe in the Catholic Faith. Oh, they label this and that as “Catholic,” and urge worship of Pope Francis and his rantings, but they do not hold to much of what the Catechism says (or the Bible, for that matter).
Amoris Laetitia is only a symptom, Father. These men are lost and their diocese, like Oakland, will wither and blow away. Nope, they are Protestants, by and large, and not good ones, either.
FrMichael,
You nailed it on the head! Bishop barber is def NOT a leftist… so yes, pews populated with illegal aliens are driving this as well as federal funding. This clouds the truth that we can be compassionate when it comes to illegal aliens and also be sensible about the uncontrolled flow of them and illegal drugs across our virtually nonexistent borders.
There is an interesting article on line on the Gray Report called: “Democrat or Republican? The politics of California Wine Country”. It certainly explains a whole lot.
I have a question for myself. What have I Done or Failed to do
that I have been given a set of “leaders” such as the American Bishops?
Not to defend them – but what’s my part in this sorry state of affairs?
Anne O., we have no say in the “Greater Catholic Church” today, and the bishops and their apparatchiks, some of them the well-known sychophantic canon-quoting “the-bishop-can-do-no-wrong” finger-waggers that pop up on this very web site, want to keep it that way.
Just fill up the collection envelope and drop it in the basket and ‘shut up’ (rhetorically speaking).
From St. John Eudes “The Priest: His Dignity and Obligations”–
‘THE MOST EVIDENT MARK of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clerics’ who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds.
“Instead of nourishing those committed to their care, they rend and devour them brutally. Instead of leading their people to God, they drag Christian souls into hell in their train. Instead of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world, they are its innocuous poison and its murky darkness.”
A wall works for Israel. It slows down terrorists and drug smugglers.
“I also believe that the decision to build a wall between Mexico and the USA is very disturbing”??? Oh really…do you find the wall around the Vatican City disturbing?
Some countries build walls (Russia, Germany) to keep their citizens from escaping to freedom. Building a wall to protect our border from keeping unvetted, illegals from entering is protecting our citizens. Big difference, Bp. Barber.
Why can’t our priests, bishops, cardinals and Pope act like Catholics and shepherd their flocks toward holiness instead of promoting people to break the laws of the land?
Again, is there a wall or not that was built around the Vatican and would love for someone to ask the Bishop if or if not is there a fence around his residence ? Correct me if I’m wrong but are not Catholic Churches doors closed and locked after hours to help prevent vandalism and theft. Stay out of politics and get back to doing your job. Some Bishops have the will to defend this sort of topic but lack the courage to stand up against politicians that approve the killing of a child inside its most sacred place, the womb. “COWARDS”
If you think the Iron Curtain was a just and fair solution, then you will love the Trump wall.
ummm…. the Iron Curtain was NOT a physical wall for one thing. For another, it represented efforts by the rulers of the USSR to block information from the people in the USSR… not to protect its boundaries from an inflow of people. Read some history.
fair enough, you are right. I should have said the Berlin Wall.
Well, that still doesn’t work the way you’d like. The Berlin Wall was built by the communists to keep people inside East Berlin from escaping to the West… not to control the flow of illegal immigrants into East Berlin.
….you’ll love the Trump wall, too, YFC. You’ll have endless real estate on which to wail.
He’s Jesuit. Save your breath.
Where’s the priority on helping Catholics / Christians when the “refugees” in question are from the Mideast / predominantly moslem countries instead of from south of the border ? From last Sunday’s (Feb. 5th) first reading (Isaiah 58: 7-10) at Mass : “Thus says the Lord: Share your bread with the hungry, shelter the oppressed and the homeless, clothe the naked when you see them, AND DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON YOUR OWN” [emphasis added].