The "Hermit of Loreto" and Donald Trump
(03-01-2017, 01:11 AM)Poche Wrote: You are rIght. it is not up to me to judge. but in order to lead there must be a clear vision. In the case of Donald Trump I don't see a vision that is compatible with the Catholic Faith.

Not seeing what you're seeing at all. Besides which, is there any government anywhere on earth that is perfectly "compatible with the Catholic Faith"? If not, then why are you singling out Trump, who, in spite of not being Catholic, is one who honors most the principle of subsidiarity, who is doing all in his power to restore the Middle Class and bring back jobs to unskilled American workers, who has the same approach to immigration that the Church has always *traditionally* (see below), who explicitly talks about defending Christianity in this country, who is trying to unify this country, who has all the usual suspects -- big banks, globalists, the media types, George Soros, radical feminists, Leftist fascists, et. al.  -- treating him as an enemy, who is trying to prevent war rather than begging for it like Hillary was, who wants to keep radical Muslims out of the West, who has a traditional Catholic as his main strategist, who is vocally and strongly anti-abortion, who wants to repeal the Johnson Amendment, who brought up and wants to do something about the genocide against Christians in the Middle East that's gone totally ignored by Hilary and Obama, whose wife opens a rally with the Lord's Prayer, who has Satanists and witches out to destroy him, who is pro-2nd amendment, who wants to totally get rid of Common Core, who wants for vouchers or charters to be available so parents can get good educations for their kids, whose campaign was self-funded for the most part which leaves him beholden to no one -- I could go on for a long, long time. I mean, what do you want? King St. Louis IX? If so, well, who doesn't? But we don't live under a monarchy, and this is a country founded mostly by Protestants. So, given what the real world is like, what do you want? And what do you expect? Unless you don't believe in borders at all, and you don't believe that a country has a right to determine who enters it (and see below to get what the Church actually teaches), you're not making any sense with your Trump hatred. And if you don't believe in borders and don't believe a country has a right to determine who enters it, then you don't believe what the Church teaches.

Seriously, Poche, what is your trip? My hunch is that you have it in your head -- thanks to the corporate media, which I urge to to turn off --  that he is "anti-Mexican," which is a lie (my Mexican civil husband voted for him, as did his family), but one you've swallowed and take personally because you're Hispanic.

[Image: latinos.jpg]

Traditional Catholic teaching about immigration, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, as opposed to the open borders nonsense being shoved down our throats by a Jesuit (speaking without invoking infallibility, of course) and by Bishops who make lots of money off of immigration. URL, my emphasis:

"The legal control of migration began when it ceased to be collective and began to be individual. Laws have been passed preventing people from leaving their native land, and also, by the country of destination, forbidding or regulating entrance thereto. Extensive regulation has been found necessary applying to transportation companies and their agents, the means of transportation, treatment en route and at terminal points. The justification of public interference is to be found in the right of a nation to control the variations of its own population. The highest necessity is that arising from war: on this ground nations almost universally regulate very closely the movements of population, forbidding emigration, that they may not lose their soldiers, and guarding immigration as a military precaution. Restrictive measures are also justified on grounds of health and morals, and on the general ground that a national family has a right to say who shall join it...

...The attitude of the United States at the present time (1910) towards foreign immigration is one of caution. Actual and projected legislation aims, not at exclusion, but at selection. It is recognized that the assimilative power, even of America, has its limits. Legislation must, by the application of rational principles, eliminate those incapable of assimilation to the general culture of the country. Great care is, of course, necessary in determining and applying these principles of selection: an educational test, for instance, while it would exclude much ignorance, would also exclude much honesty, frugality, industry, and solid worth. It is probable that a more vigorous system of inspection of immigrants at ports of entry will be put in force, while a stricter control will be exercised over the steamship companies. At the same time, the co-operation of foreign governments is needed, if the exclusive measures designed for the protection of the United States against undesirable immigration are to be made thoroughly effective."

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)