Posted on 04/29/2010 10:34:06 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
The controversy over Arizona's immigration law should be used to highlight the shameful role of the Roman Catholic Church in facilitating the foreign invasion of the U.S.
This scandal deserves as much attention as the seemingly never-ending cases of sexual child abuse involving priests.
In a major embarrassment for followers of the U.S. Catholic Church, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles compared Arizona's new law to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques." He actually wrote this on his personal blog, under the headline, "Arizona's Dreadful Anti-Immigrant Law."
Mahony is described by the Los Angeles Times as "a nationally influential figure who heads the nation's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese with 4.3 million members." In other words, he is not a fringe player. Indeed, he is typical of Catholic Church leaders.
Why do Catholic officials want to encourage illegal immigration? The answer is quite simple. Most of the illegal aliens are Catholics. Plus, the church makes lots of government money by hosting and serving the immigrants.
These facts are considered by some to be anti-Catholic, which is why you seldom read or hear about them in the major media. But the fact is that millions of American Catholics are disgusted and outraged by the Catholic hierarchy's statements and antics on this issue. They are organizing across the country.
James Russell, a Catholic who serves as National Secretary of Catholics for a Moral Immigration Policy, tells the story of betrayal of America by the Catholic Bishops in the book, Breach of Faith: American Churches and the Immigration Crisis.
In a major decision this week, the Supreme Court ruled that a Christian cross could remain on public land, despite the so-called separation of church and state. It has become a national controversy. But where is the debate or discussion over the Catholic Bishops getting $51 million a year from the government? A lot of that money is being used to cater to immigrants, legal and illegal. These immigrants, in turn, go to church, contribute to the collection plate, and vote the way the liberal priests and bishops dictate.
In short, the evidence shows that the Catholic Church hierarchy has become an agent of the government in facilitating a foreign invasion of the United States. There is no other way to describe it.
This explosive story of scandal and corruption must be told because "comprehensive immigration reform" cannot be defeated unless the role of the Catholic Church is exposed and addressed.
If you are in the market for more outrageous statements from Catholic officials, take a look at Russell's book, Breach of Faith. He notes that Cardinal Edward Egan of New York and Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn supported and addressed a 2003 illegal alien "Freedom Riders" rally in Flushing Meadows Park in New York, "not far from the site where five illegal aliens had assaulted a woman and her boyfriend, then dragged her to a makeshift hut in the vicinity of Shea Stadium, where they repeatedly raped her and nearly beat her to death."
Russell formed the group, Catholics for a Moral Immigration Policy, in order to expose the Mahony-type characters in the church and church institutions.
In another book, On the Immorality of Illegal Immigration, also distributed by Catholics for a Moral Immigration Policy, Father Patrick Bascio notes that an estimated 70,000 criminal gang members have infiltrated U.S. cities. His book charges that Catholic Church leaders have aided and abetted "all the evils connected with illegal immigration" and have become corrupted in the process.
In going into detail about Catholic Church corruption on the immigration issue, Russell notes that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) promotes amnesty for illegal aliens through its funding of such groups as ACORN and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC). The CCHD is funded by ordinary parishioners asked to provide money to assist the poor.
He says one of many American Catholic Bishops who have "achieved notoriety" for pro-immigration activism is Gerald F. Kicanas of Tucson, Arizona, who solicits donations of cash and first-aid items for illegal aliens making their way into Arizona.
So the Catholic Church in Arizona has aided and abetted the problem that the citizens of Arizona, through their elected representatives, have now decided to confront. It is a major breakthrough.
Russell traces the church's involvement in the entry of illegal aliens into the U.S. to the Marxist-oriented "liberation theology" movement, also known as "social justice." Russell particularly faults Jesuit Catholic institutions such as Georgetown University for adopting this approach and indoctrinating students to be in favor of liberalized immigration policies.
Russell is honest about the motivation behind these efforts, noting that the Catholic Bishops and their agencies, some which get government money to provide services to illegal aliens, "benefit from immigration by increasing the number of Catholics in the United States."
He cites figures that most of the new immigrants to the United States are Catholics coming from Latin America.
He goes on, "When Catholic immigrants become naturalized, they may vote for candidates who support church policies." What's more, he writes, "The network of Catholic agencies relies on high rates of immigrants in need of social services to maintain government funding."
Many Americans don't realize that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which receives a federal tax exemption as a non-profit entity, gets one-third of its annual $146 million budget from the government.
"The USCCB is generally recognized as the single most active and most influential religious force for liberalization of American immigration policy, as well as for refugee resettlement, and hence merits our scrutiny," Russell writes.
Pastor Ralph Ovadal of Pilgrims Covenant Church in Monroe, Wisconsin, is also providing that scrutiny. Ovadal has been pointing out for years "that the Roman Catholic Church is aiding and abetting the criminal invasion of America from Mexico because the illegals are almost all Roman Catholics."
Ovadal says the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church is "looking to turn America, founded and still a Protestant country, into a Roman Catholic country."
These comments may sound harsh, but when a Catholic writer such as James Russell documents most of the information that lies behind such tough statements, one has to pay serious attention.
If anything, Russell writes, the position of the USCCB over the years has become more radical, to the point where the Bishops are emphasizing that amnesty for illegals-they call it "legalization"-has to be a "central component" of any federal immigration proposal.
Russell makes the case that current religious attitudes toward immigration "did not evolve slowly and authentically from traditional Christianity, but rather have been assiduously advanced by radical intellectuals, both Protestant and Catholic, whose goals have been primarily political, and have run counter to the best interests of the vast majority of native-born American citizens."
The hijacking of the Catholic Church by Marxist elements is now front and center. Who in the major media has the courage and guts to write about it?
According to you every one that has ever been a Catholic is a permanent Catholic, no matter what they do.
According to you, Glenn Beck is a Catholic.
Not going after anyone in particular, especially not you.
The shame — meant — a shame that people don’t pray.
Didn’t mean for you to take it that way.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
On what issue? Catholics have always been ferociously anti-communist forever. And voting Republican does not mean voting right on issues. Cathoilics supported the Vietnam War under Kennedy , Johnson, and Nixon. They supported Nixon over McGovern in 1972. Until 1976, the Republican Party was the pro-abortion party. Gerald Ford was more pro-abortion than Carter.
When you examine the black vote, it is even worse than you think, Roosevelt permanently bought them off in one single election, the switch took place that election and has never gone back.
There was no gradual political movement or political growth, it was an open purchase, and it flipped them completely.
By the way, next to blacks is the Jewish vote, about a 100 year average of 75% liberal hitting 90% several times, I have never found a Jewish vote for an American president, they are much worse than Hispanics, or even homosexuals, and even worse than Catholic Hispanics.
There was no gradual political movement or political growth, it was an open purchase, and it flipped them completely.
In 1936 there was no legalized abortion and no movement to create "gay marriage." As I said, it isn't the economic issues that surprise me. It's the fact that all mainstream Black politicians bought into the radical, unheard of ideologies spawned from the Sixties, and there was no line they were unwilling to cross.
By the way, next to blacks is the Jewish vote, about a 100 year average of 75% liberal hitting 90% several times, I have never found a Jewish vote for an American president, they are much worse than Hispanics, or even homosexuals, and even worse than Catholic Hispanics.
This is well known and a frequent topic of heated conversations here on FR.
Catholics gave us Vietnam and the third world conquest of our nation, they put Kennedy in office, they tried to put Humphrey in office, they kept Roosevelt in office, Carter, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Obama, Catholics vote liberal.
Obama sits in that office today with 55% of Protestants having voted against him, while Catholics gave him a solid 54%, even Hispanics that are Protestant only gave him 52% of their vote.
I got you now, politicians, preachers, church goers, non church goers, American blacks never blinked.
You are correct, and that baffles all of us, I'm always at a loss on trying to explain that, I have a sense that it isn't pretty and I'm glad that we never go down that road here.
I don’t think the point of all this is so much about what percentage of Catholics vote for one party or the other versus what percentage of Protestants vote for one party or the other. The far more important point is what in the name of heaven do either Catholic or Protestant clergy think they are doing by engaging in political commentary at all? They have no business doing so. They were not called by the Lord of the Church to do any such thing. The only difference between Catholic and Protestant on this point is that Catholic clergy, following the long-standing example of the popes, have been interfering in political matters for centuries, to the neglect of the true spiritual needs of their people.
There is a reason Jesus told all to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. There is a reason that Paul and Peter both commanded Christians to honor the king. There is a reason that you will not find the apostles ever interfering in matters that concern the left hand kingdom of God (government/politics). Their Lord gave them plenty to do in the kingdom of His right hand. It is a certainty that whenever clergy are messing around in the kingdom of the left, be they Protestant or Catholic, they are neglecting their God given duties in the kingdom of the right ... and the souls of people are left to pay the price. It is not simply shameful; it is sinful.
Henry Cabot Lodge gave us Vietnam as much as Kennedy did. He was the one who gave the go ahead for the murder of the Diem brothers. Catholics voted for Eisenhower in 1956, and McCarthy was a Catholic. Some Catholics are liberal. Most mainstream Protestant bodies are liberal.
So what church do you belong to?
Where do you go on Sunday?
Or do you go to church more than three times a week like I do?
Luther and Calvin certainly interfered in political affairs. Zwingli was killed in battle. John Knox took part in the deposition of Mary Stuart from the Scottish throne. The Huguenots were as much a political group as religious. The so-called “Religious” Wars were caused by the mingling of political and religious interests. The Church of England was a religious monopoly maintained by the Crown, and to this day no Catholic can sit on that throne. The New England colonies had —except for Rhode Island—Established churches. One reason for the First Amendment was to keep Congress from violating the rights of those state Establishments. etc.
Too much effort for me, when you start saying that the president did not get us into his war, then you are doing what is so common on these threads and among salesmen, you want to weave a tale, sell a narrative in an effort to overcome the actual facts.
The voting graph in post 62 tells a gruesome tale, and mainline Protestant are still voting Republican, and to the right of Catholics.
Think 2008 and Obama.
I know that Catholics voted for Obama, and have always been a very dependable Democrat constituency.
It is their duty, I want Catholics to take over their churches and demand more red blood and meat from their priests, and I want them to try and force their church to so something about the liberal indoctrination that Hispanic Catholics are getting.
I will add, so that I am not misunderstood, that there is nothing wrong with Christians becoming active in politics. But they should do so as citizens not of the kingdom of God’s right hand, i.e., as Christians, but as citizens of their nation, whichever it is. In our country government is constitutionally to be of, by, and for the people. The Constitution (along with its precursor document, the Declaration of Independence) functions as our “king,” governing all the people, including those in the government itself.
All valid argumentation and discourse under the Constitution is to be made under the authority of nature’s God, which was simply the founders’ way of referring to the One we Christians would more comfortably call “God Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” or “our Father who art in heaven.” But because those whose duties and authority is, by definition, in the kingdom of the left, simply “God” or “nature’s God” is as far as they have in the past and should in the future go in identifying and defining God according to their duly held offices. Why? Because God didn’t call them to preach and teach about Him and His beloved and only-begotten Son, and so oversee the hearts of men, but rather to govern only the actions of men, and so oversee the conduct of men.
Today, unfortunately, politicians of the left to a greater extent and politicians of the right to a lesser extent co-opt and corrupt the church in all its many visible denominations in order to accomplish their earth-bound, temporary, and political purposes. To the extent the leaders of the church allow themselves and their people to be co-opted to such purposes they do wrong, whether the issue itself is right or wrong. And in the meantime, they neglect their duties to pursue issues that are spiritual and eternal. Their people suffer and the nation not only is not benefitted, but it becomes more and more confused as to who is to be doing what, who is to be proclaiming what to whom, and respect for all authority, of both the right and left hand kingdoms of God is lessened in the eyes and hearts of all. This is the mess we have made for ourselves.
As long as you are interested in facts, Mainline Protestant does not include evangelicals. Ir means Episcopal, Presbyterians, Methodist, and northern Baptist. Only Southern Baptists tend to support conservative causes.
Yes, and to the extent any of them did (and some did so in rather minor ways and others in more significant ways), they did wrong. I already said that. But do not forget that Roman popes had been interfering grossly and directly with secular government and raw politics for centuries before the Reformation (think Crusades, for one example).
But, again, the point is that Christ gave the church one thing to do and earthly government another thing to do. When one presumes to do the other’s work, watch out!
The popes were engaged for several centuries in keeping the secular authority from gaining control of the Church. That would be from the late 10th to the 13th Century the Holy Roman Emperor. Thereafter the national kings. As for the Crusades, this was the pope’s response to the Turkish threat to the Byzantine Empire. In the last quarter of the 11th Century, what is now Turkey was overrun by the Muslim Turks and Constantinople itself was threatened. The Byzantine Emperor asked the pope for help, and he preached the first Crusade. It did take the political pressure off from the Church, which was threatened by the Normans who had taken control of Sicily and who were also ambitious to gain pieces of Greece. The pope was the main organizer of resistence to the Muslims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.