Pope Francis Says ‘a Christian Lets Everybody Come’

From Breitbart:

Accompanied by Migrants, Pope Francis Says ‘a Christian Lets Everybody Come’
by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.
22 Jun 2016

In a striking gesture Wednesday, Pope Francis invited fourteen African migrants to join him on the steps of St. Peter’s Basilica, urging Europe to open its doors to more refugees.

The fourteen migrants were guests of Caritas of Florence and the European university, and carried banners of the charity that is caring for them along with Vatican flags. On arriving in St. Peter’s Square, Francis embraced them and then asked them to accompany him to his chair and remain near him during his weekly catechesis and greetings.

Comparing the refugees with him to modern “lepers,” the Pope stressed that Jesus would touch those who were excluded, but modern Christians seldom do.

“How many times we meet a poor person who comes to us!” Francis said in his address. “We can even be generous and compassionate, but usually we do not touch them. We offer money, we drop it there, but we avoid touching their hand. And we forget that this is the body of Christ!”

“Jesus teaches us to not be afraid to touch the poor and the marginalized, because He is in them,” he continued. “Touching the poor person can purify us from hypocrisy and make us more concerned for his situation.”

In his remarks, Francis suggested that the refugees left dire situations in their home countries.
“Today I am joined by these young people,” Francis continued. “Many think that it would have been better for them to remain in their homeland, but they suffered so much there.”

“These are our refugees, but many consider them excluded,” the Pope continued. “Please, they are our brothers!”

“A Christian excludes no one, makes room for everyone, lets everybody come,” he said.

This past April, Pope Francis brought a dozen Syrian refugees back home with him on the papal plane when he visited the Greek island of Lesbos. 

During that trip, Francis told his hearers that “we are all migrants” as he greeted the many asylum-seekers awaiting word regarding the processing of their cases. 

Recently, the Vatican brought a second group of Syrian refugees to Rome to be housed by a Catholic charity. Two of the nine refugees are Christians. 

According to the Pew Research Center, more than 1 million immigrants applied for asylum in Europe between July 2015 and May 2016. 

As a result, the compositions of the populations in several European countries have changed notably, since “immigrant shares have dramatically increased since mid-2015.”

This may be a really silly question, but is there an official Church teaching on migration?

I get the idea of helping those in need, but where's the line?  I have no idea accepting *true* refugees (particularly Christians and families) in my neighborhood; I have a good friend who was in this category.  Obviously when someone moves to a new country, they *should* be expected to assimilate, but they will also want to keep some traditions from their home land.  I have no problem with that, but neither do I want my home town turning into Lil Mogadishu.  Welcoming people shouldn't mean cultural suicide.  I'm not thrilled with the idea of bringing lots of Muslims in, but that's also a chance for conversions to the Church.  If people aren't assimilating properly, does the Church allow deportation?

Not trying to go full SJW here, just puzzled.
I think there is a huge difference between accepting those in need, who genuinely want to integrate and build a new life and accepting people who have no love of their host country or its people.  I will gladly help those in need - to the fullest extent that I can but I will not invite a terrorist into my home.  My first duty is to my family . . .
I truly wonder if there is any other person in the history of the Church- hell, in the history of the Planet, who uttered  so much endless, non-stop verbal diarrhea as Francis.
From what I call, even St. Thomas Aquinas argues against just "letting everyone in."
States exist to safeguard their citizens, not the citizens of other states. Therefore, it is not immoral for a state to impose limitations on who may enter into the state.  In fact, the state may have a duty to impose such limitations in order to protect the good of the state and its populace.
(06-24-2016, 09:54 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: I think there is a huge difference between accepting those in need, who genuinely want to integrate and build a new life and accepting people who have no love of their host country or its people.  I will gladly help those in need - to the fullest extent that I can but I will not invite a terrorist into my home.  My first duty is to my family . . .

A link I post frequently, and for good reason:  The Morality of Everyday Life

You're a thousand percent spot on about the differences between helping those in need -- and risking the security and safety of your family and country in order to help those in need or, especially, to help those who are merely "economic refugees" whose cultures are straight-out incompatible with Western culture. Charity begins at home is an aphorism for good reason. Dickens has a character in "Bleak House" -- Mrs. Jellyby -- who's so ate up worrying about starving Africans that she neglects her own children. That character sums up a huge aspect of the liberal mind. Steve Sailer refers to it as "leapfrogging loyalties," a phrase I like and which is in contrast to the traditional idea of concentric loyalties, starting with God, family, friends, towns, States, nations, and then, and only then, the rest of the world. At each circle, we have to ensure that the more inward circle is in good shape before we move on, and in the West, it's pretty clear that we're not in good shape. Not at all.  We have no moral right to steal from our children and grandchildren their heritage, their culture, the way of being shaped by ancestors who worked their butts off and fought and died to make a civilization that the rest of the world's clamoring to get to (and which they could create on their own if they'd accept the Gospel message, quit with the identity politics game-playing,  and WORK!) These leftists who are willing to sell out my grandson, and his children-not-yet-born, all to make themselves feel morally superior to us "backward, science-hating, superstitious, and bigoted trash" -- which is precisely what they think of us -- are sickening to me. They are traitors!

Further, the Mrs. Jellyby character's solutions to things were ridiculous, and that's another aspect of the prog mindset. They're always wanting to "do something," whether or not their doings make things better or, more likely worse. I'm reminded of this article, which I've also posted before, written by an African economist who begs the West to lay off off all their "help," which only serves to keep African countries mired in poverty:  "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!" There's their "solution" to gun violence (to ban guns), which'd only disarm the innocent while allowing criminals free reign. Their answer to violence against homosexuals is to try to normalize homosexuality, condone homosexual acts, portray homosexuals in a rosy light while dissing "white cisgendered males," and push for gay "marriage" -- all of which only exacerbates it all when conservatives get fed up and act out of a backlash mentality. Their failures go on and on and on. Ad nauseam, and sometimes literally so.

Leftist solutions rarely ever work because their premises are skewed, their principles are insane, and they act more out of emotion than logic. They attack, come up with slurs and buzzwords designed to shame and stop all discussion (and which, praise God, are losing their effect!), and pat themselves on the back for being "morally superior" to those who have any sense at all of the importance of culture and the Faith.  Leftism is little more than unhappy people's way of projecting and displacing their B.S. onto others and ensuring that everyone becomes as miserable as they are. Their families were unhappy, so, by Hell, bring in the Muslims so conservatives suffer as much as they think they did while growing up. I am sick to death of them. Frustrated and exhausted by their endless idiocy.

-- But, praise God, at least in the political realm, people are waking up. So much has been going on lately that gives me hope, in temporal terms. But even if all that were to implode, I have hope that Christ has already won, and that "all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well"!

I strongly encourage people look to research these issues at the Denzinger-Bergolgio site, there is a lot to be learned about what the Church clearly teaches and how to try to come to terms with what Pope Francis says.

Now with respect to the OP, there is to much to copy here in the article so some high lights will follow, link is below.


CaptCrunch73 Wrote:from the description

In our day, marked by the welcoming of migrants and the ‘collaborating with people who think differently,’ many may be shocked at the words of the Angelic Doctor: ‘Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile’ (I-II, 105, a.3)

Yes, in this article of the Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas explains the Chosen people’s relations with foreigners in detail: ‘Befriend the foreigner, feeding and clothing him’ (Dt 10:18); ‘You shall not violate the rights of the foreigner’ (Dt 24:17); ‘When a foreigner resides with you in your land, do not molest him’ (Lev 19:33).

But it is also very clear that this benevolence was intended for the outsiders who came seeking to integrate, in some manner, with the Chosen people, and become true compatriots. This was true to such an extent, that all of the laws that God had set for practice by the Jews were also binding for the foreigners: ‘You shall have but one rule, for foreigner and native alike. I, the Lord, am your God’ (Lev 24:22); ‘You shall have the same law for the resident foreigner as for the native of the land’ (Num 9:14). ‘There is but one rule for you and for the resident foreigner’ (Num 15:16). ‘You shall have but one law for him who sins inadvertently, whether he be a native Israelite or an foreigner residing with you’ (Num 15:29). ‘Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him; foreigner and native alike must be put to death for blaspheming the Lord’s name’ (Lev 24:16).

Often the reason why God commands this hospitality becomes clear: He wishes that the true religion be made known to the others, in the desire that He be adored by all peoples, just as he was among the Israelite people: ‘To the foreigner, likewise, who is not of your people Israel, but comes from a distant land to honor you (since men will learn of your great name and your mighty hand and your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this temple, listen from your heavenly dwelling. Do all that the foreigner asks of you, that all the peoples of the earth may know your name, may fear you as do your people Israel’ (1Kings 8:41-44).

But the compassionate attitude God ordained did not dispense a special vigilance in relation to the newcomers, for they could also be the cause of ruin and diminishment of religious fervor among the people. ‘Lodge a stranger with you, and he will subvert your course, and make a stranger of you to your own household’ (Sir 11:34). The Lord said to Moses, ‘Soon you will be at rest with your fathers, and then this people will take to rendering wanton worship to the strange gods among whom they will live in the land they are about to enter. They will forsake me and break the covenant which I have made with them’ (Dt 31:16).

This was certainly realistic, for the careless openness to foreigners could give rise to untold dangers, ‘since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people’ (cf. Summa Theologica I-II, 105, a.3). Consequently, only some immigrants were admitted with benevolence: specifically, those from nations having affinity with the Hebrews. On the other hand, the nations who had treated the Israelites as enemies were never admitted into their conviviality (cf. Suma Theologica I-II, 105, a.3).

CaptCrunch73 Wrote:From section 5

John Paul II
– The presence of non-Christians in traditionally Christian countries is a challenge for the ecclesial communities
– Catholics must know that, over and above any gesture of solidarity, is the proclamation of Jesus – this is the first act of charity towards the human person. In countries of ancient Christianity, the non-Christian immigrants represent a challenge
– The surge of immigration and the phenomenon of tourism have affected certain European dioceses of deep Christian roots and traditions
– The moral and spiritual patrimony of the Church under the risk of secularization

Pontifical Council for Culture
– The phenomenon of migration also destabilizes teaching of the Faith

Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People
– Even when immigrants’ children of another religion are accepted, Catholic schools must not renounce their own characteristics and Christian-oriented education
– We Christians are called to bear witness to the gospel of love and peace in our dealings with migrants and also to proclaim the Word of God explicitly to them
– In the case of non-Christian immigrants, the Church is also concerned with their human development, but above all to open their hearts for the explicit proclamation of the Gospel

John Paul II
– The migration phenomenon poses questions and challenges to pastoral action: people may be induced to indulge in superficial relativism. The Church tries her best not let migrants lack the light and the support of the Gospel.

Pius XII
– Jesus Mary and Joseph are the models of every migrant and refugee
– There never has been a period during which the Church has not been active on behalf of migrants, exiles and refugees

Pius XI
-There are pontifical documents that show the concern of the Church for the Catholic migrant’s difficulties throughout history

Benedict XVI
– Even before the right to migrate, there is need to reaffirm the right not to emigrate
– States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)