Something Foul Is Afoot In Red Springs!
Or as The Bard would say - "something's rotten in Robeson County"

WARNING! Harsh Language Alert.

Alas, poor Father Ospina I knew him well. No... really. I know Father Ospina. I've had a couple of "disagreements" shall we say, with him in the past, but I wouldn't wish this on anyone. Well, there are a few (OK, a lot) that I would wish this on, but not good ol' Father Ospina.

Here's some of the article from The Fayetteville (NC) Observer; (Emphasis and comments mine.)

Red Springs parishioners lock out priest in protest

RED SPRINGS - A large group of parishioners of the Iglesia Catolica San Andres padlocked their pastor out of the church Sunday morning to protest his continued assignment to the Spanish-speaking Catholic community of Robeson County. (Any specifics as to why they were muy PO'd at Father? Read on.)

Father Walter Ospina, who is 33, tried to enter San Andres, or St. Andrew Catholic Church, by a side entrance before morning Mass.

In addition to the lock that had been bolted outside the side door, a sign on the glass read, "Iglesia Cerrada hasta que tengamos nuevo parroco. Justicia!!" That loosely translates to "Church closed until we have a new priest. Justice!" (Now I'm just a college edjumacated retired Gyreen, but this has all the signs of a direct challenge to the Bishop of Raleigh. Just my opinion.)

The protesters, who numbered about 150, then swarmed around the priest, many of them holding signs. "We don't want a priest that mistreat(s) a community!" one poster said. (150 people "swarming" one man? Isn't that called "assault"? I'd still like to know what kind of mistreatment he's foisted upon this community of Ecclesiastical Zapatistas.)

Ospina has served as priest of the Red Springs church for about a year, and he also delivered the Spanish Mass at St. Francis De Sales Catholic Church in Lumberton and the missionary station of St. Andrew in St. Pauls. (Sounds to me like an obedient and hard working priest.)

Many of the Hispanics who attend San Andres feel betrayed by this man of the cloth. (Yet again --- How?)

They say he fails to embrace his Mexican parishioners, a flock of lower-income people who, in many cases, have made their way into this country illegally. They say he is aloof and sarcastic to them. (Damn it! Whose ass do I have to kick to get some friggin' specifics, here!? Oh, and they came here illegally? Charming. And by the way... as the article so eruditely points out, MANY OF THEM ARE HERE ILLEGALLY! I do believe the official teaching of The Catholic Church says something about that. Enough of the pew based pandering. These 150 thugs can go pound sand. This isn't Chiapas... this isn't Oaxaca. This is America. To hell with calling in the police department, call in a half dozen INS agents armed with a sack fulla flex-cuffs and a surly attitude.)

They say he is not a man of the people. (IE: a vocal proponent of illegal immigration/social worker, just with better livery. Oh, and that "Jesus" stuff is kinda-sorta importante, tambien.)

An allegation also has been made that the priest has acted inappropriately. St. Paul's Police Chief Tommy Hagens said Sunday the Robeson County District Attorney's Office is looking into an allegation. (*Sigh* So what exactly was so damn "inappropriate'? Possibly his acting aloof and sarcastic? Hang him high! After all... no self-loathing, wrist-wringing, limousine liberal is complete without murmuring the mantra that's become the 11th Commandment: Thou Shalt Kiss Illegal Alien Ass.)

No charges have been filed against Ospina, who, on Sunday, denied doing anything wrong. (How nice to see the Napoleonic Code hasn't been implemented... yet. By the way, "charges"? In this day and age, even a whiff of sexual misconduct involving a Catholic priest, and said priest is indicted posthaste. That hasn't happened. In other words, Father Ospina hasn't done shit wrong.)

The Raleigh Diocese "has no reason to remove Ospina, who will remain pastor of St. Andrew in Red Springs," said spokesman Frank Morock. (Well I should hope to hell not. Now we come to that point in time called "where the rubber meets the road". For years now I've had to listen to all this bullshit emanating from the halls of the USCCB about "comprehensive immigration reform". I reiterate - bullshit. The only thing that needs reforming is the civil will to enforce the laws of this country, and the hierarchical will to enforce the CCC. Specifically 2241. You know, that whole "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens." thing. Oh, and those that don't are in a state of sin. Says who? The Catechism, that's who.)

On Sunday, Ospina clutched a Bible to his heart and toted a travel suit bag after coming down the steps of the locked side door. He conferred briefly with the church secretary and a church official.

"What's the problem?" he asked the parishioners standing before him.

"It's a protest," said 25-year-old Maria Perez, who said she has been attending the church for about 14 years. ("Protest" my ass. This is thuggery in the first degree.)

Red Springs police officer Darron Sutton arrived at the church, responding to a call that somebody was blocking the parking lot. He approached Ospina as the confrontation started to get heated.

Alfonso Arroyo, 52, angrily defended the priest.

"I'm the priest in charge," Ospina told Sutton. "I have a right to get in my church. They have the right to not go in."

He then turned and faced the members of his church, telling them to calm down.

Ospina replaced Father Carlos Arce, who was beloved by the members of Iglesia Catolica San Andres. Arce openly operated as an advocate for the Hispanic community. (Ahhh... the picture gets much clearer now.)

As for Ospina, Julio Sanchez said, "He doesn't make time for us. All we want is a father who is for us. We never had problem(s) until he comes to us." (You mean when you came here illegally, Julio? Excuse me while I give a rat's ass less about your pissing and moaning. What the hell kind of Catholic are you anyways? Locking a priest out of his own church. In every definition of each word - SHAME on every single one of you and your mob of punks and thugs, Julio. And never mind the fact that Fr. Opsina "doesn't have time" for you. Yeah... he only has three parishes to serve. How thoughtless. WHOA! Wait a sec... possibly Julio's pissed because Fr. Ospina "doesn't have time" to lobby to keep Julio's sorry ass in this country illegally. I'll bet that's it.)

Sanchez, who is 27, has attended the church for nearly 15 years. (Yeah... he's been here long enough to know that most White folks will shake and quiver at the mere threat of being accused of racism.)

About 20 minutes after the 10:30 Mass should have started, Sutton escorted the priest to his car. Ospina wanted to stay and worship with his loyal parishioners, Sutton said, but the police officer asked him to leave out of concern for his safety. (Is it just me, or does this sound like how priests were treated during the French Revolution? I wonder what would have happened to Father Ospina if the police officer never showed up? I wonder if Father Ospina is even residing in his own rectory?)

"They tried this before," Arroyo said through a translator. "They had a small meeting and tried to get him out of the church." (Something along the lines of "Bishop? We don' need no stinkin' bishop!)

At noon, some of the protesters were still milling around, talking to one another. (Bilingually? Prolly not.)

"I hope and I pray to God," Perez said, "we get another priest." (or we'll intimidate him (and the bishop) until we get our way.)Speaking of the rubber meeting the road, this little episode has far reaching consequences. Who'll win out? Pew based pandering or rightfully defending one of your own priests? "Comprehensive immigration reform" (IE: kissing the collective asses of a buch of law breakers), or offering up the hide of a loyal priest?

American Slavery For The 21st Century
And the religious and secular leaders who advocate it

Who said slavery ended at the close of The War Between The States? I've got a news flash... slavery is alive and well and consistently being revived... hell, nurtured... in both the halls of Congress and those of your diocesan chanceries.

But before I get to the main course, allow me to set the table -- I've pointed out many a time on this blog that not only the secular immigration laws of the United States consider illegal immigration a crime, so does the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Specifically, #2241 of the Catechism states; Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.And lets not forget that there is a little known Catholic teaching centered around the "Four Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance".

One of these, is defrauding a laborer of his just wages (Deut 24:14-15; Jas 5:4). Do I really need to tell any of you the horror stories of the hard working American citizens who have gone out of business because of cheap, illegal labor? Guys who use to make a decent living in the various construction trades, who now are working for $7.50 an hour, upwards of 60-80 hours a week just so their kids can eat... just so they don't lose their homes. I don't see a lot of bishops weeping alligator tears for these folks and their kids.

That brings me to the meat and potatoes of this post -- the illegal aliens themselves. The vast majority of them are working for peanuts. Those Economic Benedict Arnolds that illegally hire them fully understand that, and want it that way.

I know for a fact, right here in my little corner of North Carolina (Land of a half million illegals, AKA: Mexico's Newest Colony), there is a certain posh, upscale "luxury condo" complex that was recently completed. At almost a half million clams per condo. I also know for a fact that the majority of the work was done - not with licensed, credentialed, qualified, law abiding, tax paying American construction workers - but with illegals who were paid a fraction of what the American workers would have been paid. Sheesh, why do you think nine Guatemalans live in 2-bedroom apartments?

Isn't that essentially economic slavery that these folks are living under? Of course it is.

Now here's the $64,000 Question: why are our bishops condoning and perpetuating this form of modern day slavery? If these Holier Than Thouists really want to make a difference in the lives of the Mexican, Honduran, Guatemalan, El Salvadorian, et al., campesinos that are streaming into the US, then they should speak-out and do something against the corrupt governments in Central America who shit all over their own people.

Oh... and possibly even shell out whatever money is left from the zillion dollar payouts to the victims of the homo-rapists that they protected. You know, possibly set up some job training centers south of the border. What a novel idea.

Nah, that would make too much sense. And after all, it's easier to blame America for everything.

Is Is Illegal Immigration A Bad Thing?
I'm getting mixed signals, here.

First, here's some of an article from the USCCB's version of Pravda; (Emphasis mine) Cardinals say immigration at 'dark moment' in US but call for hope

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Two Catholic cardinals called the current U.S. immigration situation "a terrible crisis" and "a dark moment in our nation's history" in remarks they made July 28 at the opening Mass and plenary session of the 2008 National Migration Conference.

Both Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, and Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles urged participants to hold on to hope in their work with immigrants for local and national church agencies.

Much of the agenda, built around the theme "Renewing Hope, Seeking Justice," reflected the struggles faced by those who work with immigrants.

Workshops were scheduled on topics such as "How to respond to federal raids," "Identifying and supporting survivors of traumatic events," (anything like the 'traumatic event' posted below?) "A Catholic response to human trafficking" and "Parenting challenges from an African immigrant perspective."

Another two dozen workshop sessions dealt with legal issues including "Filing waivers of inadmissibility" and "Immigration law and crimes"; strategies for fundraising; and getting out the church's message on immigration* (here's the REAL Church Teaching).And then we have this from some of the piece done on Spero News; (Emphasis mine) Protecting illegal aliens at US citizens' expense

Members of the Mara Salvatrucha criminal gang allegedly murdered a San Francisco father and two sons. The perps benefited from San Francisco's liberal attitude towards illegal migrants.

It was a Sunday afternoon last June and Anthony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew were almost home from their family picnic. Anthony, driving the family car, briefly blocked another car from completing a left turn down a narrow San Francisco street. Angered by this momentary delay in his trip, according to police reports, Edwin Ramos got out of the car and opened fire on the Bologna’s car with an AK-47, shooting all three men. Tony Bologna, 48, and his son Michael, 20, died at the scene, and Matthew, 16, died a few days later in the hospital.

Police arrested Ramos a short time later, believing he was the gunman, although two other men were seen in the car with him. Ramos is an El Salvador native and a reputed member of the notorious gang known as MS-13, one of hundreds or thousands of illegal aliens in San Francisco who have benefited from the city's long-standing practice of protecting illegal immigrant juveniles who have committed felonies from possible deportation, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.

Now charged with three murders, the 21 year-old Ramos was previously found guilty of two felonies as a juvenile: attempting to rob a pregnant woman, and as part of a gang-related assault on a city bus passenger. By all accounts, Ramos is a vicious animal who has no business being in the United States, and no business being in San Francisco.
Officials with the city's Juvenile Probation Department failed to alert federal immigration authorities following both of the felony convictions because it was the agency's policy not to consider immigration status when deciding how to deal with an offender. Had city officials investigated, they would have found that Ramos lacked legal status to remain in the United States, and should be deported. Three members of the Bologna family would likely be alive today if that had happened.But why pay attention to the law, either Church or secular? Our own leaders don't.

In the meantime, real American heroes, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, remain in solitary confinement for protecting our country.

*2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops prefer Slavery!

Hat tip to Tuleesh who provided this little gem from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens" (CCC 2241)

So I ask all of the Bishops and Priests that support the opposition to Arizona's new law to explain to us faithful just why you would deny this state and the lawful abiding citizens within it the right to protect itself from a lawless and sinful group of people who are clearly not respecting or showing gratitude to this country which has received them? ...........Silence

Also you are being very obtuse in your position. It makes one wonder if the real reason is that you prefer to keep this group of people in their current status so they can continue to work in deplorable conditions and as slaves to their dishonest masters who pay them under the table?........Silence

Could it be because like the progressive politicians you observe keenly that if you invest now, when these illegals take over through propogation you will be in the catbird seat to fill your pews and coffers? ..........Silence

Dare I suppose, in an even more devious and evil way you have chosen to be cowards and turn on God and his directives through the Magisterium in order to keep your cushy and serene lifestyle here on earth? ........Silence

Apply your dumbass logic to any other law, and it would be quickly rebuffed. For example, if we applied the same thought process to someone who is homeless breaking into YOUR rectory because they were in need of a place to stay, would your position would be to allow this person to stay regardless of the illegal occupancy and laws they broke. I doubt it. What if a person who could not afford a car but needed one to get to work, so they stole yours. What illegal immigrants are doing is NO DIFFERENT, and they should be sent back to whence they came.

Once more and I have said this before, if their government is so corrupt that it oppresses its people which need to come to the USA to get their "fair shot at life" Why shouldn't they be instructed to stay in that country and fight for a just government? Isn't that the morally just action for their case?

You guys are doing nothing but destroying what it is that illegals come here seeking, and when they do propogate to the point where they are the majority you will not be treated kindly. Because if they were not willing to work to change their own country what idiotic logic tells you they will do anything to change this government once they and the rest of the progressives corrupt this one.

Yeah, I know...........SILENCE!

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Divine Power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Another "Catholic" College Has Trouble Understanding Catholic Teaching
And so does their local bishop

It's the Dominicans turn. Interesting happenings at their Providence College in Rhode Island. Here's the article from The Cardinal Newman Society;
Tancredo's talk was being organized by Youth for Western Civilization.

Providence College in Rhode Island has rejected the request from student group Youth for Western Civilization to bring former congressman Tom Tancredo to campus for a talk. Providence spokesman Pat Vieira said that Bishop Thomas J. Tobin’s views on immigration contrasted sharply with those of Tancredo.

“The Bishop of Providence… is a member of the college’s Board of Trustees. If a similar request to host a speaker on this topic is made in a future semester, the college will encourage and facilitate a format that allows for multiple points of view to be expressed,” said Vieira.

Terry Gorman, executive director of Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement stated in response, “This college allowed Senators [Ted] Kennedy and [Sheldon] Whitehouse to speak, and they are virulently pro-abortion. That goes against Church teaching, but they were invited to campus.”As I've pointed out in the past, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is quite different from that of Bishop Tobin's. He calls for a "moratorium" against on immigration raids in Rhode Island. But as I've pointed out in the past, #2241 of the Catechism states;
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.Hold on... Tancredo actually advocates exactly what the official teaching of The Church is, but both this Dominican college and the Bishop of Providence advocate that legitimate government not only ignore the legitimate 'juridical conditions', but they also expect the immigrants to disregard obeying the laws of the nation they are now live in?

Some one's way out of step... and it sure as hell ain't Tom Tancredo.

The Bishop Plays Football
Yep, another end-run around Church Teaching

Just when I thought that things were turning around in my old hometown diocese of San Diego... I read the fine print. Looks like Bishop Brom is up to his old tricks of bait and switch.

As I was reading this article from The California Catholic Daily, I was actually heartened about what I was reading. Believe it or not, I was going to do a glowing post on what Bishop Brom has ordered. That is, like I said, until I read the fine print.

Here's some of the article; (emphasis mine) Candidates we cannot “take seriously”
San Diego diocese’s voter’s guide gives little leeway in voting for candidates who support “intrinsic evils”

The Office for Social Ministry of the diocese of San Diego came out with a voter’s guide this month. The guide, "As a Catholic … How Do I Decide?" says it “does not tell an individual how to vote,” but helps “users form their consciences so that they can make sound moral choices.” The guide has several sections, each dealing with a different area of political and social concern: “Protecting Human Life,” “Marriage and Family,” “Protecting Immigrants and Refugees,” (I wonder if 2241 of the Catechism was even mentioned? You know, the section that says that a nation has the right to control immigration, and that immigrants are obliged to obey the laws of their new nation. No, it wasn't.) “Protecting Workers and Working Poor Families,” “Promoting Health Care,” “Safe and Affordable Housing,” “Protecting Families from the Harm of Pornography,” and “Promoting Global Solidarity. ("Global Solidarity"? Will everyone join me in a rousing chorus of L'Internationale?)

“Protecting Human Life” is by far the longest section of the guide. To the question, “Can a Catholic vote for a candidate who supports abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem cell research, that are clearly intrinsic evils?” the guide first responds with the November U.S. bishops’ document, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship -- but then itself gives a more uncompromising explanation of it. “A candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support,” said the bishops. Immediately following this statement, the San Diego diocesan guide adds, “Put simply, protecting human life is paramount in the political arena, and some evils are so profound and egregious that a reasonable person can not take seriously the candidacy of a person who allows or fosters them.” (I sure was impressed by what I had read so far. Until I read the next paragraph...)

The guide gives the example of a candidate “that was right on every issue except for one. Let’s say, because a candidate was so focused on the safety of constituents, that he or she supported and would work for the use of capital punishment for anyone over the age of 16 that was involved in gang membership or gang criminal activity. “Would or could a voter take seriously a politician supporting this position no matter how ‘right’ he or she was on a host of other issues? Obviously not,” says the guide.
Anyone remember Five Non-Negotiables? In case anyone forgot, they're:
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual “Marriage”

And no, you don't have to do a double-take. The death penalty isn't listed, no matter what the Office of Social Ministry of San Diego says. Why do they have to do this collusion... this purposeful heavy dose of authentic Catholic teaching, and insert an outright falsehood giving it the impression that it IS authentic Catholic teaching? Please... stop trying to equate helpless unborn children with sadistic killers.

By the way... how many millions has Bishop Brom had to pay out for protecting rapists? And no, I'm not denying the legitimacy nor the validity of Bishop Brom's episcopacy. I just think he's pissed away any and all credibility he ever had. If Bp. Brom REALLY wanted to bring back any credibility to the teaching authority emanating from the Diocese of San Diego... he's step down and allow another to clean-up the disaster he's created.

He's legitimate, just not credible. Kinda like Arius until he finally went off the deep end.

Doesn't Anyone At The USCCB Ever Read The CCC?
And the answer seems to be 'NO'

I just read that "US bishops oppose 'draconian' Arizona immigration law". Interesting. Here's a blast from the past.

Why Being An Illegal Alien Is A Mortal Sin
This isn't exactly deep theological stuff here

Anyone remember the 10 Commandments? OK, I see a buncha hands being raised... good. Now, how many of you remember what constitutes mortal sin? Ohhhh, even more hands up, great! For those who forget, the conditions are as follows;

1- the matter itself is serious or grave
2- sufficient reflection
3- full consent of the will

Alrighty then... now I'm gonna focus on the 7th and 8th Commandment.

7. Thou shalt not steal. Few will doubt that at least a slim majority of illegals are paid under the table. Hence, no federal tax, no state tax, no FICA... nuttin'. Isn't purposeful tax evasion considered stealing? Sure is.

Should I even bring up job stealing? And don't give me that garbage that 'the illegals are doing the jobs that Americans won't do'. Someone did those jobs before the 12 million strong silent invasion took place, right? And there are plenty of high paying jobs that are being stolen by illegals; plumbers, electricians, framers, etc. And yes, those that knowingly hired illegals and subsequently fired hardworking American citizens are just as wrong.

8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. The Church has always taught that lying falls under the 8th Commandment. Ummm, being in this county, any country, illegally is lying, right? No amount of liberal verbal gymnastics can get around this simple, irrefutable fact.

Now with all that said, let's look again at the conditions that constitute mortal sin.

1. Breaking the immigration and taxation laws of this country pretty much constitute grave, wouldn't you say?

2. I doubt if many of the illegals were just taking a lovely stroll along the border one day and on a lark, decided to jump the fence. I also doubt that many of the illegals jumped the fence on a dare after a rough night of drinking at the Frat House.

3. I also seriously doubt if even a large minority of the illegals were forced to come here. It's a pretty safe bet that the overwhelming majority gave their full consent to illegally enter this nation.

OK, I'm ready for all the comments telling me what a racist I am. BRING IT ON, BABY!
And then here's something else I posted long ago and far away;
According the the USCCB website, the accolades for this gal include the following;

Her understanding of Catholic social teaching has informed her position on immigration reform. “I am passionate about insuring that there is a way for undocumented people to become lawful residents and citizens,” she says. “There are 12 million-plus people living in the shadows. As Catholics, we have a responsibility to help them feel welcome and find their place.”Anyone mind if I inject the official teaching of The Catholic Church?

#2241 - Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
Gee... in other words, the official teaching of The Church is that a sovereign nation actually CAN control their own borders?? And that the same sovereign nation actually CAN expect those who came to that nation legally to actually expected to obey the law??!! What a concept!

Advocate Breaking The Law...
...win cash and valuable prizes!

The USCCB is at it again. Some ridiculous thing called the Cardinal Bernardin New Leadership Award (a perfect example that "new" leadership is much different from "old" leadership) has just been awarded to a Colorado woman who they state is a "Immigration Reform Activist".
According the the USCCB website, the accolades for this gal include the following; Her understanding of Catholic social teaching has informed her position on immigration reform. “I am passionate about insuring that there is a way for undocumented people to become lawful residents and citizens,” she says. “There are 12 million-plus people living in the shadows. As Catholics, we have a responsibility to help them feel welcome and find their place.”Anyone mind if I inject the official teaching of The Catholic Church? #2241 - Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.Gee... in other words, the official teaching of The Church is that a sovereign nation actually CAN control their own borders?? And that the same sovereign nation actually CAN expect those who came to that nation legally to actually expected to obey the law??!! What a concept!

But anyhow, look at that quote from the award winner --
1. The very first sentence - "Her understanding of...". That's a hole of Relativism so big, I could drive a bus through it.

2. The second sentence - "...there is a way for undocumented people to become lawful residents and citizens." First off, their not 'undocumented people'. They're illegal aliens who are breaking the laws of both the United States of America and of The Catholic Church. Secondly, there most certainly is a way to become lawful residents and citizens. It's called obeying the law to begin with. Millions and millions and millions of LEGAL immigrants have done it for decades. It really is that simple.

3. The third sentence - "There are 12 million-plus people living in the shadows". That's normally where you live when you're a fugitive. What's so hard to understand about that?

4. The fourth sentence - "As Catholics, we have a responsibility to help them feel welcome and find their place". Of course we are... but does that include being an active partner in breaking the laws of this country and The Church? Oh, what the hell. Why not? The USCCB has been doing that for decades. Should I even bring up the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out by the bishops themselves for protecting kiddie-rapist "priests"?

Oh, and the award winner was nominated by the darling of the conservative Novus Ordo crowd, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput. Hey, I thought he was a Canon Law & Order kinda guy? Guess not.

If Only Terri Schiavo Had Been An Illegal Alien
The JIFC&CJS is at it again

The world's largest (and worst led) social concerns organization, better known as the USCCB is sending a delegation to the Mexican border to "study the situation of unaccompanied minors in U.S. custody due to the lack of proper immigration status."

First off, one of the stops is the Diocese of Tucson. For those that don't know, Tucson is the home of one certain Bishop Kicanas. The very same bishop who never met a homosexual he didn't love.

Knowing the USCCB's track record with "unaccompanied minors", I don't think it's too good of an idea to make The Fairey-Land in the Desert one of their stops. Nor do they have too damn much along the lines of moral authority whatsoever to tell any of us how kids should be treated. They pissed all that away when they started protecting kiddie-rapers. Once they start conducting themselves like Catholic Bishops should, then I'll pay attention.

And seeing that these glorified Social Workers care so much about the situation of these minor who just so happen to be in US custody due to their 'lacking proper immigration status', I invited them to read up on #2241 of the Catechism.

It says a little something about how sovereign nations have every right to control their own borders, and also that immigrants are obliged to obey the laws of their new nation. That pretty much excludes every single illegal alien that ever snuck in, minor or otherwise.

Also, I'd like to point out a line from the USCCB press release... "They seek to bring attention to the plight of these vulnerable populations and to the Church’s social and pastoral concern for their welfare."

For those of you who didn't catch it, they themselves rate 'social' concern over 'pastoral' concern. See folks, they really do care more about the salvation of society then they do the salvation of souls.

Sheesh... with shepherds like these, who needs wolves?

Papal Nuncio Gives Communion To The Butcher Of Boston
The Cafeteria is OPENED (but was it ever really closed?)

Golly gee. Much beating of breasts and wringing of hands as to just why is it that so many lay Catholics blow off Catholic teaching.

Hmmm... lemme see if'n I can figure this one out. The Pope's representative in the United States personally gave Holy Communion to the Butcher of Boston, John Kerry... the same guy who proudly casts vote after vote after vote to ensure that millions of innocent children are tortured to death in their very own mother's womb.

Here's just a taste of the news story;

The issue of allowing pro-abortion politicians to receive Holy Communion has loomed large in the Catholic Church in the United States with a committee on the matter having been chaired by former Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick concluding only last week. While it was finally decided that bishops should decide for themselves on the matter, the church's canon law and the man who now serves as Pope Benedict XVI have indicated that such politicians "must" be denied communion.

Now if I may be so bold, let's take a gander at what The Catechism says about this.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.

"Formal cooperation". Supporting it... speaking tours in favor of it.... voting to keep it legal. Yeah, I think that would qualify as "Formal cooperation". But who am I to say?

After all, we have priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals (and their lay lackies) here in America that go against Church teaching not only on that subject, but on another hotbutton topic, as well. Again, straight from the Catechism;

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

The Church officially teaches that nations have the right to control their own borders. But who am I to say? I'm just your average, everyday Catholic who understands exactly what "Smoke of Satan" means.

I wonder how those clerics and their lay lackies justify their smashing of official Church teaching? Well, I have read their rationale. And tightly curled and smelly it was.