10 Responses

  1. pat says:

    But, then, the Holy family did not enter Egypt in violation of any of their laws, did they?
    I guess driving the Mohammedans from Spain was not a good idea, or fighting the battle of Lepanto.

    • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

      Common reply, but no one knows enough of Ancient legislation to know if the Holy Family came to Egypt ilegally or not. If they did come legally, it was because ancient laws were more liberal than today’s… which may also be a part of Western culture.

      On the other hand, the “legal vs. ilegal” distinction is kind of a sleight of hand, because people advocating for such a distinction are also advocating for tighter regulations, so that the “legal” status is less easily achieved. So it is kinda paradoxical that people will say: “We only have problems with ilegal aliens, not legal ones; You gotta obey the law and we’re gonna make it as hard as possible to be legal”.

      As for the exemples you mentioned, I fail to see their relevance. I know that they are tired examples that get trotted a lot in some conservative Catholic circles, often in an oversimplified and over-romanticized way… but I was not talking about wars. I was talking about being hospitable to the stranger.

      • Pat says:

        But, of course all our laws or potential laws around immigration are unjust aren’t they? So, there is sleight of hand on both sides.

        It would be nice if one could protect Western civilization or Catholic civilization by allowing Europe and America to be overrun by non-western, non-Christian people who are not on the diversity, tolerance and inclusion crusade that we are, but it’s not likely.

        It does occur to me that the article was not about war, but one could argue that war is not a Christian virtue too. It’s just too simplistic to say that if you’re not for open borders (or open American borders) you’re not Christian, just as it is to say that if you fight a war, you’re not Christian. That seems to be the only message on WPI in one form or another, lately though.

        • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

          What is simplistic is the easy strawman from conservatives that postulates that, just because we think the laws they are advocating are unjust, then all laws regarding immigration are unjust, or the other strawman according to which if we want to repeal their unjust laws, we are advocating for open borders.

          As far as WPI’s position, it is consistent with the Pope’s and bishops’ pleas regarding immigration and with the Church traditional teachings on the matter. It’s not with WPI’s position you’re taking issue.

          If you are willing to repeat the same tired talking points that propaganda sites have taught you to throw around (“open borders!”) whenever someone criticizes certain policies, then certainly you can find it in you a willingness to assent to what the Church clearly wants you to do regarding today’s immigrant crisis. It’s just a matter of switching the people you give your obedience to.

  2. Elows says:

    Fascinating that an article which is to a great part about the motives of people in favor of restricting immigration for preserving “western civilization” does not mention “Islam”, “Islamism” or at least “Islamophobia”.

    “How is it possible then, that we have Christians defending anti-immigration stances on account of preserving Western culture?”

    If you attempt to answer that question without touching upon how those “civilization preserver” perceive Islam and Islamism and/or upon Islam and Islamism directly, you are guranteed to arrive at an at least incomplete answer.

    As an example, Poland who according to some is ruled by a xenophobic party/governement took in between 2014 and 2017 about 800000 ukrainians:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Poland
    “was provided by the Ukraiński Świat Society in 2015 – with their headquarters at Nowy Świat in Warsaw – placing the number of Ukrainians in Poland at 400,000 by the current estimate.[3]”

    “1,200,000 (Estimate 2017)”

    So taking in lots of immigrants is not an issue for the supposedly xenophobic polish government.

    What is an issue was worded drastically by some party member recently:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzfPVQJ8C2g&feature=youtu.be

    That politician and presumbly the rest of his party cares about not letting “muslims” in (he also says “illegal”, but i presume he would also be unhappy about legal muslim immigration); and his justification is directly related to islamistic terror.

    You can call his arguments and reasoning wrong, unchristian or whatever; but ignoring that at least in Europe the drive for closing borders is motivated by the perception of Islam and Islamism makes any analysis faulty.

    • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

      A reasonable criticism, and I admit the incompleteness of my article on that regard. I didn’t want the article to be bigger than what it already was (writing about Islam would need an article of itself) and, either way, this text was prompted mostly by the American immigration crisis (and most of our viewership is American), which targets mainly Hispanics (who are fellow Catholics).
      **************
      Regarding Islam, many of the prejudices against it stem from the fact that many people perceive it as a monolith. But Islam is a religion without any central authority and therefore, it is extremely diverse (just to name an example, the mouthpieces from the Portuguese Islamic community were extremely supportive of Pope Benedict during the Regengsburg kerkuffle.) So it is unfair to treat all Islam the same, namely as a way of eschewing due hospitality to people in dramatic situations.

      (Mind you, I am equally eerie of those people who will claim that all Islam is peaceful, ignoring the evidence that there are extremely violent strains of Islam, and that we should protect ourselves from them; only by acknowledging reality may moderate Muslims start addressing the problem within their own religion.)
      **************
      However, the article is not about Islam, but about our own Civilization and how we, as Christians and Westerners, should respond to this crisis, in light of our culture.

      You’re entirely correct that the clash of civilizations between Islam and Christendom has molded the development of Western Civilization. Pat has mentioned Lepanto and the Iberian Reconquista, for instance (I’m surprised Pat didn’t mention the Crusades also.)

      Nevertheless, we can’t oversimplify. Even in the Iberian Peninsula there were extended periods of peaceful coexistence between the three monotheistic religions. And a similar experience can be observed in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with, if I’m not mistaken, the Tartar Muslims. This also is part of Western Civilization.

      The legend of El Cid is a part of our civilization just as much as the stories about Lepanto.

      Which one is the true representative from Western civilization? I believe the former is more “traditional”, nevertheless.

      I do believe that Xenia is meant to be extended to people from other civilizations also. The Iliad mentions episodes of the Acheans (Greeks) extending Xenia to the Trojans, even in wartime. The Good Samaritan parable seems to point basically in the same direction (I remind you, Samaritans we’re not Jews) or the aforementioned story of Ruth, the Moabite.

      But even if we take the side that Lepanto is the most legitimate representative of our relations with other civilizations (namely Muslims), we can’t deny that the seeds of extending Xenia to them may be found in the episodes I mentioned. They are a legitimate development of Western culture and one that, in my opinion, makes our values (namely Christian) shine the more. The Pope (a traditional mouthpiece of our civilization) seems to agree.

  3. Elows says:

    “Regarding Islam, many of the prejudices against it stem from the fact that many people perceive it as a monolith. But Islam is a religion without any central authority and therefore, it is extremely diverse (just to name an example, the mouthpieces from the Portuguese Islamic community were extremely supportive of Pope Benedict during the Regengsburg kerkuffle.) So it is unfair to treat all Islam the same, namely as a way of eschewing due hospitality to people in dramatic situations.”

    The problem is as Islam is not monolithic, nobody can know or foresee how it will develop.

    If groups within Islam trying to overcome a too verbatim adherence to verbatim scripture manage to become dominant, then everything will be fine.

    If groups within Islam trying to stick to verbatim adherence, then countries like France might in the latter part of this century run into the risk of literal civil war.

    Important point is here “within Islam”; that is hard to influence for catholics; and even harder to influence for states (how could it be justified for a state to try to incluence the theological struggles within a religion to further the state preferred theological approach?).

    So however the outcome is, it might not be ours to decide.

    And based on that i do not see anything wrong if some politician says: “Ok, not my business and expertise to predict or influence, how Islam will develop in the coming decades; but it is my business and expertise to ensure that the safety in my country does not depend upon how some theological issues within Islam will play out; hence, i do not want to have a situation like in France; one way to achieve that is to have few muslim immigrants; of other ways i am not aware.”

    How that goal is pursued, is of course also relevant, as the end does not justify the means. But the intent to keep one’s country from being dependent upon which schools of thought in Islam gain or lose influence, is an unproblematic one; and if limiting muslim immigration by all legal and legitimate means is the only way, then i see also no fundamental fault.

    A catholic opting for the alternative approach – lets hope that this complex false religion based on lies (from catholic perspective it is a lie to proclaim Muhammed being God’s prophet) if not on demonic influence (somehow the lie must have startet; either solely in Muhammeds mind or otherwise, as Muhammed himself told about demonic interactions) will develop in a compatible way – should accept that his approach is neither foolproof nor mandated by catholic doctrine or teaching.

    Me personally of course i would also potentially like a third alternative: let them all in – and preach to them clearly and openly the gospel to counter the lies they have grown up with; e.g. next time when washing feet of muslim refugees also before or afterwards try to preach them in a respectful and intelligent manner that Muhammed is a false prophet as Jesus rose from the dead and that the strive of the Muslims world where they had to flee from shows this and that therefore they should convert (“respectful” and “intelligent” could even mean doing this in a rather indirect and maybe prolonged way and spreading it across several people; but doing it would be the point)

    That by the way might be the better deterrent than anything nationalist politicians could come up with to keep away people only wanting to migrate; cause the fear of their sons turning apostate would certainly lead to many parents trying to dissuade their sons from attempting to go to Europe more than fear of water or wire ever could.

    But here i must submit to papal teaching authority that it somehow would not be okay to take in refugees and activively try to convert them into good catholics.

    As far as i know only some minor protestant groups try that approach and are critized by mainline protestant and catholic church for attempting that nefarious thing.

    • Pedro Gabriel Pedro Gabriel says:

      As I said, I do believe that it is wrong to judge all Muslims on account of the actions of just some of them. Of course, it is only consistent that I think it is wrong to judge all Muslims on account of what the actions of some of them *might be* in a putatite future that has not yet come. “They might evolve into a not compatible form of religion.” What you speak of is mere extrapolation… in other words, not factual. So should we turn our backs to one of the worst humanitarian crisis of the last decades (something concrete, happening *now*), because of fears that have yet to materialize (if ever)?

      As for preaching the Good News to the newcomers, I have nothing against it and would in fact encourage it, but not with the mindset you seem to be proposing. We should not take advantage of a desperate situation to impose the Gospel as a kind of condition, like: “listen to our preaching or do not enter.” Even more terrifying is this idea of yours of using the Gospel as a deterrent to immigration, as if the Gospel should have any other purpose than leading people to the path of holiness.

      People should enter into the Church through the gates of sincere conversion. I would indeed frown upon such a way to do things, for a good intent can be carried out through bad means, as you yourself say. I think that accepting and welcoming them would be a much more effective at evangelizing than forcing them to hear our words. Telling them “we only let you in with the second intention of converting you” would close the hearts we had opened with our seemingly selfless demonstration of kindness.

      You are indeed correct that States should not try to interfere with the way one conducts his religion. More than Islam, it is important to grasp how that would be misconstrued by the States to try to change our own religion, which is also viewed as extreme by secular culture. But can’t the use of the Gospel as a deterrent for immigration backfire too? Can’t Muslims then use the same logic and deny help to Christians, unless they accept indoctrination? Should a Christian be forced to choose between getting his family to safety or have their children face the risk of apostasy? If not, then we should at least out of respect not do that to members of other religions.

      In the end, we can do something about it… not through political power, but through our stances as individual Christians. We can show Muslims what Christianity is all about, by rising to the challenge when faced with a humanitarian crisis such as this. And we can avoid the danger of falling into wahabist propaganda (both nationalists and radical Muslisms are the ones propagating the idea that wahabism is the true representative of Islam), and try instead to build bridges with Moderate Islamism, so as to give them strength and notoriety. States should not do that, but I see no problem in individuals doing this.

      As for immigration, by all means, vet people who come here, so that terrorists and other dangerous folk do not enter. But vet them according to objective criteria, not with an ideological bias of suspicion to appease populist and prejudiced fears. And while we vet them, try to treat them in a humane fashion. And do not talk of “deterrence”, but try to evaluate each case on its own merits… our function is not to deter someone who may need to come in, but to see if said person can come in. Finally, be generous… the caveat “we can’t take more of them in” should be based on actual limitations and concerns, not as an ideological kneejerk reaction to seeing a crowd of foreigners needing our help… and those who can’t take more of them in, should try to find alternatives for them. That is, if we really care for their well-being, as we should do as Christians.

      This seems to me to be a much more realist approach. I am not naive enough to claim it does not have risks… but in the end, it seems to be less risky than many of the things proposed by those who advocate tighter border controls, for everything you said seems for me to be more conducive to that Islamic radicalization you seem to fear. Above all, what I proposed is more suitable to our Christian values, and that should be the most important consideration of all.

      • Elows says:

        “As I said, I do believe that it is wrong to judge all Muslims on account of the actions of just some of them.”

        I am not judging all muslims; i am not even judging any individual muslim; i tried to show what the consequences might be in case islamic theology develops in certain direction (which depends upon which groups prevail in the theological struggles within islam).

        Statements about islamic theology and/or different groups influencing islamic theology are not in any way judgements about all or individual muslims; at most they could be judgements about some of said groups , if some of said groups had been named.

        Since you think i am judging all muslims and/or individual muslims with statements which do not comprise any judgement, there is a serious misunderstanding between us.

        “We should not take advantage of a desperate situation to impose the Gospel as a kind of condition, like: “listen to our preaching or do not enter.””

        I did not suggest that. Just a deliberate effort to preach at all to muslims; not necessarily only those arriving as refugees.

        Furthermore, there is nothing fundamentally wrong about preaching in desperate situations, as long as help is not tied to conversion. Preaching or witness even happened in trenches under constant enemy fire or with people on the deathbed.

        “Even more terrifying is this idea of yours of using the Gospel as a deterrent to immigration,”

        It is not an idea, intent or anything like that; it is a side effect, which i think is possible.

        “I think that accepting and welcoming them would be a much more effective at evangelizing than forcing them to hear our words.”

        Didn’t work the last decade. How should one realize that Mohammed is a false prophet if no one ever hints at him being a false prophet?

        If the Church is to take St. Francis as a role model, maybe they should consider that in 1219 he supposedly entered as part of the 5th crusade the enemy military camp during a ceasefire in an attempt to convert the Sultan of Egypt; as some non-official rules from 1221 of his order suggests, that while being humble among the sarracens, the christian should also proclaim and preach about the holy trinity, it seems unlikely that St. Francis did not in one way or another try to make the Sultan understand, that he was following a false prophet.

        “If not, then we should at least out of respect not do that to members of other religions.”

        I am not suggesting to do anything to them. Just that after giving them shelter, something to eat, etc. that christians then try to tell them about Jesus being God and Mohammed being a false prophet however indirectly it might be prudent.

        “that States should not try to interfere with the way one conducts his religion”

        “As for immigration, by all means, vet people who come here, so that terrorists and other dangerous folk do not enter.”

        States being not allowed to interefere with religion cannot vet for dangerous religious ideas. Hence, vetting does not work.

        “Above all, what I proposed is more suitable to our Christian values,”

        As you did not understand what i suggested, that claim is empty.

  4. Tom says:

    “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.” Matt. 6:33
    is the tenor of this piece, and indeed, submit and agree we all have to.

    And it is precisely in it’s temporal application, qualification, technique, motivation, … that we all, demonstrate our ‘Clay Feet.’

    What to do indeed !!!

    Let us know that this is not directly our burden, it rests on those politicians and each country’s appropriate authorities, …
    but indirectly we must discuss, address, debate, distinguish, parse, nuance, hopefully not ad absurdum, but
    in fora like this, “let the Games begin.”
    Remember “Communication” does include a virtual or even literal “Slap in the Face” (being PeeCee ‘offended’ ? ) and that is ‘good’ but possibly we might “Duc in Altum” (‘into deep water’) a little bit more.
    😉
    To me being branded a “Racist, Hater, Bigot, Islamophobe” blah blah blah, comes with the territory, and it is all good.
    We must listen to their meaning and import and ask even more questions, definition of terms etc., in a ‘proper respectful way’ that foments continued dialogue,
    and if they do not respond positively, then that will show their ‘level of consciousness’ as we have shown ours, and thus, both sides ‘gotta do, what they gotta do.’

    It is the implementation that is the (eternal) RUB !

    I totally agree with the ‘catholic’ tenor of this piece,
    & it doesn’t subsist only in the rarified ‘airs of Philosophy & Theology’ but at the very least,
    it does make us all, come down from our intellectual ‘comfort zones.’ …
    STOP & MAKES ONE THINK.

    When it comes to Islam, which I believe is going to be the next ‘Global Issue’ that will challenge our children and grandchildren, I say,
    “I,D.D., … Islamic Due Diligence.”

    Develop, Know, Research even more, Dialogue, Vet, Parse, Nuance any and all that is Islamic and while you’re at it,
    one might realise that Knowledge of ourselves and our Catholicism is enhanced and “Inshallah” maintained.
    🙂

    Allahu Issa.

    Live Jesus in our Hearts, FOREVER.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *