American Bishops -



It is becoming more and more apparent that the American Bishops, as a group, constitute a major constituency of the Godless Democrat Party. Other than feigning limited vocal outrage about certain life issues all the while never taking any action whatsoever to go on the offensive regarding those life issues, is there any issue with which the American Bishops are not lock step with the American Communist Party (formerly known as the American Democrat Party)?



We all know that the bishops for the most part supported the communist takeover of American medicine. We all know that the bishops as a group haven't got a clue about micro or macro economics and are easily influenced by the sophistry of populist politicians. We all know that the bishops are for the most part silent about what is the most corrupt presidency in American history and I for one view this silence as tacit approval. I would not be surprised at all to learn that the vast majority of American bishops actually voted for "Obama The Terrible." But even if we were to assume that the bishops were not giving their tacit approval through their silence and that they were just respectfully declining to comment on national political matters, how does one explain the support for something like ObamaCare (remember, the bishops as a group said the bill was just fine as long as the Dems banned federally funded abortion) and now the vocal condemnation of Arizona's rightful attempt to defend it's state border?



What amazes me is that if anyone of these bishop's jurisdictions were violated by the SSPX or some other traditional group they would have an aneurism. We know this because we have witnessed many examples of this over the years. For instance, can you imagine the reaction of a bishop if a group of lay persons decided that their spiritual needs were suffering and that in order to provide the best chance for their families to receive the graces necessary to persevere with God unto death they formed an independent chapel, or better yet took over one of the diocesan churches, and invited an independent priest to serve as pastor? Can you imagine the reaction from the bishop?! Oh wait a minute, we could imagine the reaction. We have seen the reaction. In some instances, immediate excommunication for all involved. Which by the way means you go to Hell. The bishop would go out of his way to suppress (or repress) the disobedience all the while screaming about canon law!



And yet, Arizona is not allowed to protect its geographic area and Arizona is not allowed to protect its citizens from the ill effects of what is no less than a hostile invasion of people. Now my understanding of the Catholic faith is that we as Catholics view the spiritual realm as much more important in the long run to every individual than the temporal realm. Hence, salvation is more important than being able to freely migrate to another country at a whim to find a job without first following the target country's laws of entry. That being the case, and using the bishop's own logic, how in the world is it "just" for a bishop to suppress a rebel traditionalist priest and excommunicate all involved for their involement in violating that bishop's jurisdiciton but at the same time unjust for Arizona to have its police officers ask for proof of legal residency when conducting an interview of a person who is ALEADY stopped or ALREADY in custody for violating some other law?

Its just a question I have. Why is the bishop's jurisdiction sacrosanct and Arizona's so easily dismissed as irrelevant. Is the USCCB going to empty out all of the diocesan coffers to help Arizonans pay for the social services that are bankrupting that state as a result of the illegal immigration problem? Is the USCCB going to start selling off all the church property in the country in order to provide unemployment benefits to the Americans who lose their jobs as a result of illegal immigration and/or is the USCCB going to start supplementing American's wages as they become more and more depressed as a result of illegal immigration?

I am just asking. If the bishops feel it is within their competency to chastize Arizona over this issue, will the Bishops step up and help Arizona pay for all of the people the bishos apparently think the Arizona welfare state should pick up?

I am going to answer my own question. Of course the bishops are not going to do this. And for good reason! Church property does not belong to the bishop it belongs to Church and it is to be used for the salvation of souls. If the bishops squander all of the Church's property for a single generation then how will the Church serve future generations? After all, this is why Christ gave us successors to the apostles. Christ did not just come for that first generation of Christians, he came for every generation. No bishop has the right to squander the properties acquired by the Church over hundreds of years. And it is this fact that has all of us so darn angry at bishops like Mahoney who so freely waste 600 million dollars in diocesan funds on hush money. It is this fact that has us so angry when we see wreckovations! Bishops have no right to destroy a beautiful church built on the backs, sweat and tears of our peasant ancesters. But I digress . . .

In the same token, the politicians of today have absolutely no moral right to squander the wealth of this nation on the current generation of citizens or the current generation of illegal residents. They have no right to impoverish future generations of Americans. In fact, quite the opposite, they have an obligation to preserve it. The wealth of this nation does not belong to any president or bishop or individual. The wealth of this nation belongs to America and is to be preserved for future generations of Americans as well as future generations of immigrants coming to America to seek a better life. It is also to be preserved for future generations around the world so that America may continue to be the "bread basket of the world."