Yesterday I raised a number of questions about the sudden increase in the number of children being sent from Mexico and points south of there to the United States. I had suggested that perhaps the children were seized from their parents. Another possibility might be that Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and other countries are emptying their orphanages and juvenile detention centers and literally dumping their problems and responsibilities into our laps.
Read about the deal cut between Mexico and Guatemala. They call it the Southern Border Program to Improve Passage. It sounds so nice and official, doesn't it? Unlike the US today, Mexico takes its border control responsibilities seriously - particularly to its south. However, Mexico is cutting its immigrants a break, provided that their ultimate destination is the United States via our porous southern border. People coming into Mexico will receive a "Regional Visitor's Card", allowing them to stay in Mexico for up to 3 days - enough time for them to make their way to the northern border. Of course other countries such as Honduras and El Salvador will be sending their migrants through Mexico, too. Wanna bet that the Obama regime is in on the scheme?
We also hear that on Friday some Central American leaders pressed Vice President Biden to "improve migrant rights". One might wonder why Biden didn't retort that these countries should be addressing their national ills that would impel their citizens to leave their countries. But again, Biden is in on the scheme. One of these (so-called) Central American "leaders" was Jorge Ramon Hernandez, president of Honduras. He threatened to continue the rapid influx of Honduran children "unless immigration reform" happens. That's nonsensical. Suppose the US "reformed" immigration to his liking; does that mean he'd stop sending Honduran children? But wait! Let's leave that irony aside for the time being! Didn't we just read of another Honduran leader trying to cajole the US into accepting Honduran children - "problem children" to be precise? Read yesterday's post! That other Honduran leader, closely echoing his president (and NOT Church teaching) is Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga. They're spouting the same talking points, hoping we won't notice.
As far as Church teaching goes on the matter of immigration, might not the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas have something to say on the matter? Here is the second part of the first part of his work; scroll to Article 3. John Horvat has commentary on it. Time prohibits me from going into a full analysis. Suffice it to say that the Angelic Doctor clearly states that a nation has the right and responsibility to control who gets to enter into the nation and if/how immigrants assimilate into that nation. St Thomas states that the nation's leaders have a responsibility to secure the best interests of the nation and its citizens.
Getting back to the massive shipment of Central American children to the US, one must wonder if the USCCB is being complicit in what may be a child-trafficking scheme. With the millions of grants they've received these past two years, do they care?
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thomas Aquinas is not “Church Teaching.” His work is a source from which the magisterium draws but it is not, of itself, official Church doctrine. On the other hand, Papal Encyclicals and Conciliar Documents do comprise official Church teaching. In fact, whenever the Holy Father speaks—not extemporaneously but officially, and that means in his various addresses such as major homilies (as opposed to a reflection at daily Mass), his weekly Angelus Message, his weekly audience message, his “words of greeting” at State Visits, etc—it is not doctrinally binding but it does constitute his role as Teacher of the Faith. To this end, his homily at Lampedusa last year has more to say, as Church teaching, about Immigration than the works of Saint Thomas.
ReplyDeleteAll, here is the homily to which Consolamini refers: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130708_omelia-lampedusa.html.
DeleteWhen the Holy Father laments the immigrants dying, to whom would he refer in this case? Might it not be the Mexican and Central American governments, who are literally stuffing the trains to the US border, and sometimes forcing the children to ride atop the trains? At least in regard to the US situation, this homily has no more to say than does the Summa.
I might suggest a careful reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2241. It is the prerogative and responsibility of the host country to determine the extent to which they are able.
I am always amazed at the many so-called apologist for the wrong doings of pope Francis. I suggest that was is always missing is that Reason is King over Authority. Peter Abelard (1079-1142) agreed with St. Anselm that reason was important, but he inverted the scholastic understanding that everything must be checked against revealed truth. Abelard believed reason took precedence over faith, or at least over what anybody said about faith. Many scholars wanted to quote some authority figure like a pope or an early Christian writer in response to any theological issue, believing that this solved the problem, so Abelard put together a work called Sic et Non (Yes and No) that brought together statements from many different Church authorities on 157 different issues of doctrine. The statements often contradicted one another, and that was Abelard’s whole point: how could you just quote an authority to make your case if someone else could quote another authority and prove the opposite
DeleteActually he wasn't referring to the American situation at all in the homily at Lampedusa, you seem to read more into it than he meant. But he does lay down some general thoughts about the responsibility we have to be "our brother's keeper," that transcend the particularities of the European situation. I think we need to keep the Holy Father's remarks in the context of the catechism but also allow the catechism to be interpreted by the Holy Father's remarks. Each helps us understand the other as far as Church teaching goes.
ReplyDeleteI know the Holy Father wasn't referring to the American situation in that homily. Therefore I cannot understand why you broached it in your earlier comment - regarding my post on the American situation.
DeleteGood post. However, you need to correct an error. Your link to Aquinas's "Summa Theologiae" is to the *first* part of the *second* part of this work -- rather than to the "second part of the first part of his work." Some might think this is splitting hairs. But for those who know Aquinas's work very well, it is a distinction that makes all the difference. Please consider correcting this in your post. Thank you and be assured of my prayers for you and the good work you've been doing and will do on this blog. As one who was raised in Bethesda, MD, I am particularly grateful for all you do!
ReplyDeleteYours in Christ,
Mike Sirilla
It was a little confusing trying to locate that quote in the online Summa. Hopefully the rather direct link will alleviate confusion on this occasion.
Delete