Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles and others are all in a fluffer, terrified at what a father should say to his son asking him whether he will have to leave the Country.
Typically for our bishops and other leftist, a stupidly emotional argument (which isn't one) is made. Do convicted criminals never have to answer questions about whether they will go to jail? What does Archbishop Gomez think of what a murderer will say to his son? The child of a murderer is just as innocent as the child of an illegal alien.
However, in my goodness I think I should help the archbishop, and suggest some talking point he might convey to his illegal sheep.
Yes, dear boy. Your father may well be deported. And if not, it will not be because of some special merit of his. Your father made something illegal, and he knew that the punishment for that might come at some point. He has raised you in a climate of illegality, and now legality is catching up with him, and the chicken are coming home to roost. It is better for you to learn at a young age that there still are situations in which crime does not pay, or rather stopped paying after a very long while. It is better for you to learn at a young age that the expression “law abiding citizen” isn't an empty word, and your father isn't one of those citizen. It is better for you to learn as a child that crime may result in punishment. It would be very difficult for you to learn integrity and fear of the Lord if you were to grow in an atmosphere of permanent illegality. It truly is morality 1-0-1, but nowadays archbishops don't do morality, merely effeminate claptrap.
If your pa is deported, will it cause you to suffer? Of course it will. If your father had been jailed, this would also have caused you to suffer. But this is certainly not a reason to avoid putting him in jail. The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons. This too, my boy, you had better learn fast. It's uncomfortable, but salutary. Just like all the other things the Archbishop does not say.
There. It wasn't difficult. It's the same reasoning applied in, actually, every circumstance. It's a matter of common sense and elementary justice. It has to do with basic integrity. Poverty has never been an excuse or an exemption from the duty of being honest and law abiding.
If, dear reader, this seems harsh and unjust to you, it means that you are already so accustomed to a culture of illegality, that legality sounds shockingly hard to you. No, it's not a compliment. I come from a Country where this culture of illegality has done enough damage already. It must be stopped, and not only in the USA.
The Archbishop is, like all those who spread the same inclusiveness rubbish, either astonishingly naive or dangerously disingenuous.
I have the impression that the age of stupidity is about to be challenged. In the USA and in Europe alike. Our elected representatives have treated us like children in need of a nanny for too long. One day, history might decide that illegal immigration (on both side of the Pond) was the biggest single issue that caused Western voters to wake up.
Make Europe great again.
As the former Christian Superpower sinks in a sea of depravation and outright atrocity (I will write about the Nazi Doctor explaining how Planned Nazihood is selling body parts of aborted babies when time allows), the Chinese Government has announced today the “moderate” growth of the Chinese economy at around 7%.
I do not think the Chinese statisticians are less disinhibited than their Greek counterparts. But that the Chinese economy is growing, and growing rather fast, I do not doubt in the least. I am not discussing here the ethical standards of such growth. I am merely pointing out that it is taking place.
And it seems to me that we must slowly get accustomed to the fact that the United States might soon become a worldwide force for Satan, as the Christian element is slowly but surely reduced to a persecuted minority of “human rights felons”. In parallel, one can see an opposite movement in China.
As the once possibly most Christian Country on Earth slowly sees Christianity decline and a very evil form of aggressive atheism advance, the once possibly most Communist Country on Earth sees Communism decline as an army of Christians is slowly being raised in the villages and cities, fully undeterred by the open and covert hostility of the powers that be.
In 30 or 50 years, as the U.S. might well have completed their transformation into a true Great Satan a new Superpower might, by God's grace, emerge as its Christian counterpart, able to effectively deter or altogether defeat the aggressive anti-Christian policy of a Country once so proud if its Christian heritage. Christians in the U.S. are far fewer than the official figures say (many are clearly rose water Christian barely worthy of the name), and they are much more numerous in China than the Chinese government wants you to believe. One can see a trend in the last thirty years or so, in both Countries, that seems destined to continue, unless something big happens. To add additional irony today's Russia is also, in its official policies, far more Christian than most Western Countries.
The future of Chtistianity might well lie in the Countries (Russia today, China tomorrow) that so brutally fought against it. I seem to see Providence at work here, and just another demonstration of the Lord's wonderful ways.
Imagine the irony: a Country that willfully abandons its clear – if faulty, because largely Protestant – Christian roots and is pushed into second spot (or worse) by one of its former archenemy, who has in the meantime become Christian, would show once again that God has a wonderful sense of humour.
In the meantime Christianity in China grows massively, as it declines with the same degree of obviousness all over the West, but nowhere as brutally as in the once do proudly Christian U S of A.
Funny indeed. Or perhaps a warning.
Time will tell. Let us pray for a new Christian superpower. The old one is rapidly turning against God, and it is so… proud of it.
Let us imagine the Church in the US were to say that from now on a free “all you can eat” buffet will be offered to the pewsitter after Mass.
Would there be an increase in Mass Attendance? Probably. Would this be the result of more people embracing the values of the Only Church? Nope.
Already this would be enough to silence every supposed “argument” concerning the increase in Mass attendance that has come from certain probably not entirely disinterested corners. If you take Christ out of the Church and tell them church life is a party, you will get the ear of those interested in partying. With his kindergarten version of something that is not anymore recognisable as Catholicism, Francis has done exactly that: getting the ear of those eager to delude themselves their way of living is fine, and the enthusiasm of the enemies of the Church.
But has this led to, at least, an increase in Mass attendance? No. It just hasn't. Notice, the news is launched from a liberal site; that is, from the people who desperately need to sell this Pope to the masses in order to promote more church devastation. This is no good news for them, for sure.
Surely the US, a country with 60 or 70 million Catholics, is big enough as a statistical sample of the West at the very least. The more so considering that this country, plagued by a huge number of CINOs, should have reacted extremely favourably to such “party time”- announcements, leading to an army of people formerly feeling “rejected” (or so they say) now enthusiastically embracing the end of the age of “narrow-mindedness”.
Alas, it's not happening; and it's very easy to see why.
By all talk about “peace and joy” in the expectation of an unavoidable salvation, as long as no seriously edible buffet is offered most will prefer to go to real parties – or simply to go on with their lives – rather than going to Mass. And why wouldn't they? If salvation is open even to atheists and following the individual conscience is all that is required, the only requisite will be that one's conscience does not demand – with implicit Papal blessing – that one attends; and if one happens to be an Atheist, his despise for the Church and his general unbelief will only grow and be reinforced by the praise of a Pope so much out of tune with Church teaching. They will like, perhaps, the man; they will certainly think even less of the Institution. Most certainly, they will not feel motivated to give Christianity a second, hard thought.
The Francis effect is the V II effect on steroids, and it will yield in the end exactly the same dividend: the banalisation of everything Catholic in the hope of awakening an interest that will never materialise, whilst the Church slowly disappears as a mass religion, and Christianity as the defining religion and mindset of the West.
Such are the fruits of Vatican II. The remedy to such a disgrace is not to further dumb down everything Catholic – embracing a man in a wheelchair every now and then – but rather to recover in its entirety the message preached everywhere before the disgrace of V II.
I am persuaded that the best and fastest way of doing this is to ditch V II in its entirety, making tabula rasa of everything that has come out of it and has happened after it: the new liturgy, the encyclicals, the catechisms, and so on: in short, everything from the children's books to the Ford Focus.
There is no aspect of Church life for which an extremely rich Church tradition, or sound Catholic sources, from pre V II are not available. One could utterly and absolutely ditch every word that has been written during and after V II and discover a far more beautiful Church that he ever imagined, utterly free from the temptation to be loved, or liked, or at least not mocked.
The solution is doing everything the Catholic way, without compromise; and I am sorry to have to say this to you, but the whole V II is nothing but a big fat compromise.
“A 12-year-old girl in a New York City school cannot be given an aspirin by her teacher, even if she has a fever. The same girl cannot buy a large soda during lunchtime because Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decreed that it is not good for her. But she can be given a pill, unbeknownst to her parents, that could arguably abort her baby,” he said in a statement.
These words are from Micheal Donohue, of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, after the ruling from a New York judge that the so-called “morning after” pill be made available to people of absolutely any age without restriction.
If the Nazi judge gets his or her way, abortion will be available over the counter for people (I assume here: boys as well as girls) of absolutely every age: cue the girl of 12 (or the boy of 13) going at the counter without anyone having the right to ask them for identification of proof of age. The equally idiotic nannying of the very same girls in New York City only makes the contrast more unreal.
I know “what has the world come to” is an abused expression, but it does not lose any of its validity just because we must nowadays ask the question more often.
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Read here an article of the National Catholic Reporter about the vocation crisis among the US Hispanics.
The article is particularly interesting for some, I think, rather extraordinary affirmations of Auxiliary Bishop Nevares of Phoenix; affirmations that I would like to share with you:
Auxiliary Bishop Eduardo Nevares of Phoenix believes that because Hispanics have such a strong sense of family that they don’t want to leave to attend seminary
This is very interesting. We learn from this that in the past, when Mexico and Latin America didn’t even know how to spell “vocation crisis”, the sense of the family must not have been so strong. Bad times, I suppose.
Even better is the second explanation:
Additionally, young Hispanic men have a sense of obligation to help support the family financially, which they cannot do in the seminary.
This is also very instructive, because it teaches us that in the past, when Mexico was infinitely poorer than the Hispanics today living in the US are, young boys did not hesitate in plunging their families into destitution and utter misery.
Bishop Nevares’s conclusion is, then, perfectly aligned with his “pass the buck” premises:
“We need to persuade young married people that having a son that is a priest is honorable and will bring many blessings to a family,” said the bishop. “It is a wonderful gift to have a child that is a priest.”
Yes, let us make a bit of marketing for the priesthood, says the bishop. If we just could explain. Perhaps a Power Point presentation would be useful? This way the bishop could impress the family, who would then say to him “Pedro and Armando are already too much into wine and songs, but we’ll talk to our youngest, Benito, who might be interested”.
It seems to me that bishop Nevares looks for the culprit in the wrong place – the society out there – rather than where he should – inside the Church structures, and in the mentality reigning within her -.
The mere idea of a bishop thinking that priesthood be a matter of mentality of his faithful is not very reassuring. This is an entirely secular thinking, which in turn cannot but reflect the way a diocese organises its affairs and, in turn, the way it is seen by its faithful. A Church focused on the world will never have enough vocations, a Church focused on God always will.
Is it a surprise that the Hispanic population, who has been so systematically deprived of the very bases of Catholic instruction – at the point of giving massive support to Obama in the 2008 election – does not produce vocations? Where is the relentless defence of Catholic values that would allow the Hispanic families to rediscover the importance and dignity of the priestly office? Where are the brave, manly priests able to inflame a child’s heart with love for God and to let him desire to be, one day, himself on that pulpit, fighting God’s fight? Where is the constant stress of the role of the priest as Alter Christus, the explanation and constant reminding of his unique role in the economy of salvation, the constant stressing of the miracle which takes place daily through him?
If you make of a priest a vaguely pathetic wannabe social worker who can’t marry – and rather often not even a very masculine one at that – is it a surprise that this priest will not be taken as model, will not inspire anyone to want to become as largely irrelevant and vaguely superfluous as they themselves are? Vocations are the result of the young being taught properly and being instructed about the role of the priest, and of the young seeing these priest both taking their sacramental role seriously and fighting the good fight. Prestige is not a matter of marketing or of persuasion, and the uniqueness of the priest’s role can’t be properly transmitted if the rest of the church’s activity, and the daily actions of the priests themselves, contradict the marketing slogans.
I wonder how many Traditional Masses these dioceses with vocation problems have, because I do not know any situation in which a massive use of the Tridentine Mass doesn’t go together with healthy, or very healthy, vocations. For crying out loud, the SSPX is in imperfect communion and they don’t know where to put all their seminarians – seminarians who look forward to suspensio a divinis the day they are ordained! – and reasonably wealthy, growing communities of dioceses perfectly aligned to Rome complain about vocations and blame the “secular mentality” out there? Where do they think the conservative/traditionalist orders live, on Mars?
Again, both the analysis of the bishop and the proposed solution show where the problem lie: the consciousness that vocations will come when Catholicism (in the liturgy; in the instruction of the faithful; in the defence of Catholic values) is taken seriously again is just not there.