Catholic Response to TRUMP Bans 7 Countries

So a lot of people are very upset with Donald Trump's newest announcement that he will be banning people from 7 different countries.  The countries that are being banned include Iran Iraq Syria Sudan Libya Yemen and Somalia. These countries have been known to export dozens of  terrorists into other countries who have committed savage acts of violence.  However some people say the US has no business Banning people from entire countries. It should be done on a case-by-case basis. For instance if somebody is determined to be a terrorist or have terrorist ties then it will be legitimate to ban that particular person but not to ban an entire country.

 There are a number of problems and things that people are not looking at the situation. First of all no country has a moral obligation to accept any and all refugees from any other place in the world. It is a Prudential judgment how many people a particular country will take in. This can be debated. For one thing Donald Trump won the election which means that he was given a mandate by the People based on what he said he would do during the election. One of his promises was to ban Muslims until we can figure out what exactly is going on and help us to deal with the situation. People decided that this was the best thing to do in this case and they voted for him and now that's what he's banning some people on a limited basis. Again this doesn't affect moral teachings in this area because this is a prudential judgment. We are not obliged to take in every and all refuge in the entire world.

 Secondly, reports from Gallup and others have indicated that approximately 138 million people would and really want to come to United States to live as immigrants. However each year the United States takes in just 1 million people which represents .7% of the total who applied. This means that the United States refuses immigration to 99.3% of people who want to come. Obviously the country must arbitrarily decline Millions upon millions of applications to become immigrants. To me it does not seem overly crazy for the United States to ban people from a few countries that have been known to support and export terrorists into other countries. Another way to look at it is to realize that beforehand the United States was banning 99.3% of immigrants into the country. Now they are increasing that to 100% for certain countries. It's not as if the US was taking every single Refugee from all around the world and now they've suddenly stopped taking anybody from anywhere. The chances already of entering the United States as an immigrant were infinitesimally small.

 The people  who have a real moral obligation to take care of refugees are the actual countries themselves where the refugees live. We must make sure to place the blame on what is causing all of these refugees in the first place. For instance there are wars being caused by Islamic extremists which are displacing millions of people. We have to realize that the Islamic extremists are the people to blame not the United States or Donald Trump just because he doesn't want to allow terrorists to come into the country.

 Anyway as usual many Catholics and Christians in general have made the question of immigration and allowing and refugees the number one issue in their faith. But this is far from the truth. We must more than ever focus on being good moral and decent people. If you want to help somebody else, clothe the naked or feed the hungry please go ahead and do so but that does not mean that if somebody does not want to take in people from certain regions of the world which have been known to sponsor terrorism that that makes them a bad person no more than you not inviting every single person you meet into your home to live there makes you an evil person.

 Plus we are entering into the realm of prudential judgement which means that there can be a legitimate debates among Catholics on this issue. This is unlike abortion where there is no room for legitimate debate on that topic. It's morally wrong and that's all there is to it. However when it comes to immigration and accepting refugees that is a different story. In those cases we must follow our conscience is to decide what is the most moral way to proceed but we cannot vilify others just because they do not share our opinions. I've heard some pretty awful nasty things coming from so-called Christians and Catholics on this issue. They will call anybody who disagrees with them Hitler and they will say that anybody who supports immigration limits are the same as Hitler. Well I want to make 100% clear that Hitler actually slaughtered millions of innocent people. If all Hitler did was prevented immigration into Germany from certain other countries nobody would even know his name anymore. So let's calm down the rhetoric and try to have some good will towards other people who may not share our opinions word-for-word.

TRUMP stands up for Christians

Yesterday, Sunday, January 29, 2017, trump wrote the following:

Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2017

He's absolutely right! According to the Center for the Study of New Religions, in 2016, Christians were the most persecuted religion in the world. 90,000 Christians were executed for their faith. Obama pretty much did nothing. Our Canadian Prime Minister doesn't even care about Christians who are being persecuted. He has focused exclusively on bringing in Muslims into the country.

I think a lot of people are upset because Donald Trump is challenging this view of many people that all religions are absolutely identical. So saying that we need to stand up for Christians who are being persecuted more than any other religion is really terrible to these people. They somehow think specifically mentioning the plight of Christians will diminish their belief that all religions are the same despite the fact that they are absolutely and completely different in practically every way.

Christians have a view of the universe and of God which is very spiritual and goes beyond our human nature. However Muslims do not have the same view. Islam is a very human religion which sees God as sort of a master and that we must serve him or we will be punished severely. However if we obey our Heavenly master then we will be rewarded with lots of food and virgins and all of our carnal desires will be fulfilled.

Christians have a much more spiritual and transcendent view of the afterlife and the rewards that are in store for those who follow God's will. Another difference is that Islam would find it repulsive to call God Father. They do not see God as a father but as a harsh master who is punishing people for disobeying him. Christians obviously on the other hand see God is a loving father who is loving them so much that he would do anything for them including giving his only son to die for them so that they could have eternal life in spiritual union with God.

It's so refreshing to finally have a president of the United States who is willing to call things what they are. He says that Christians are suffering and he actually uses the word Christian. He doesn't just say many people of various different faiths or something very generic like that. He points them out and he names them. Secondly he points to the root cause of so many of our world problems which is Islam. He doesn't beat around the bush and call it "other people" or radicalism or some other generic euphemism. He comes right out and calls it what it is - Islamic extremism.

BREAKING NEWS: 5 DEAD IN MOSQUE SHOOTING

Photo Credit: CBC News

There are very few details yet, but it seems not long ago, there was a shooting at a Quebec City mosque. One report says there are 5 dead. This happened in Quebec City, which is in the province of Quebec in Canada. In total there are about 250,000 Muslims in the province of Quebec out of a total of about 8.18 million, or about 3%.

Quebec was once the hub of Canadian Catholicism, but since the 60s, Quebec has turned strongly against the Church. There was a massive revolt. It's so bad that most Quebecois swear words are words from Catholicism, such as references to the tabernacle, the wounds of Christ, the chalice of Holy Communion and more.

Let's hope this incident is now over.

More information here:
CBC
Globe and Mail
Global News

What I think faithful Catholics want to see from Pope Francis

Pope Francis needs to focus way more on speaking to the faithful about personal sanctity and how to achieve peace and joy in our lives. He seems to spend an awful lot of time talking about the environment or calling pro-lifers and people who like the traditional Latin Mass “rigid” and other mean words. Basically any traditional Catholic can find himself at the end of a critical comment by the pontiff. What’s going on with this? A couple of days ago, he issued a statement about the US election where he insinuated that Trump’s rise is the same as HitIer’s and we must be very weary of Trump as president for the same reasons. I don’t recall him mentioning anything about how Trump is pro-life and has ended funding for international ab0rtions.

The thing I also find is that the pope will say pro-lifers and traditional Catholics are rigid and mean-spirited and not loving enough, but then he will say things like capitalism is the greatest evil, and just use very over the top language when describing people or behaviors he doesn’t like. He bashed anyone who questioned his encyclical about giving communion to divorced and remarried Catholics. So while he is saying some people are mean, he acts very meanly himself.

I think part of the blame lies in the reporting that we hear. Whether or not the pope is aware, the media yearns for stories of dissent, or for any indication the Church will accept their immoral views. So those stories are widely reported with glee. The pope has issued strong statements opposing ab0rtion and many lgbt causes, but these are less reporter and often when they are it’s in the context of something like “although he has said x, the pope is changing the direction of the church”.

As I’ve said before I think the pope should stick to official pronouncements and seek to avoid confusion rather than adding confusion through off the cuff interviews on an airplane or issuing encyclicals and denouncing anyone who asks questions about it. These actions add confusion which we definitely don’t need right now.

The Young Pope: My Review

First of all, I want to mention that I haven't watched all episodes of this new show called "The Young Pope" yet. In fact, I have not watched complete episodes. What I have watched is a large selection of 1-5 minute clips available on YouTube of this show.

The show seems somewhat interesting from a fictional point of view. But I think it's very far from reality. As with most shows and movies from secular sources, they portray the Vatican, the pope, and cardinals in a very particular way. Let me know explain.

In most fictional portrayals of the Holy See, the pope and cardinals are seen as very and exclusively political. They have little, if any, spiritual aspect whatsoever. Usually cardinals are scheming and plotting in order to advance their own causes. They are seeking most power, but also wealth and notoriety. These "church politicians" have people blackmailed, assaulted, or even killed to advance their evil. Plus they are so powerful, little can be done about it.

This particular series is no different. It is produced by Sky and HBO, and it has a clear resemblance with the Sopranos, also produced by HBO. The pope, played by Jude Law, is ambitious, rigid, and Machiavellian. He is a control freak and power hungry. He is not very Christ-like.

The activity within the Vatican seem no different than within a political party or something portrayed on West Wing, except in West Wing the characters aren't nearly as evil.

In the show, the pope and cardinals discuss doctrine as if it is as changeable as the policies of any political party. For example, the pope and a bishop who was almost elected are discussing abortion. But the way they talk about it was the bishop was urging the pope to change the Church's teaching on abortion. To say that it's not the intentional killing of a human person and therefore murder. They made it seem like the pope, on a whim, could easily just change the Church's teaching.

This betrays a complete lack of understanding of how doctrine works. It's not a "coincidence" that most popes don't change anything with regards to doctrine. Rather, once something is declared a doctrine it does not change. The only things that are changeable are disciplines. For example, not eating meat on Friday is a form of penance and practice, but not an eternal moral law. Therefore, a pope, or the church in general can change this teaching. But the Church does not see itself as having the ability to change the teaching on murder or abortion or marriage, or other issues such as this. I hope that makes sense.

The sad part about all of this is that people are left with completely incorrect views of how the Church functions and the people in it. The pope isn't a politician who can change any law, no more than a physicist can change any law of physics, even if he is the head of a department. Also, after watching the show, many non-Catholics and fallen away Catholics are left with the impression that the pope and cardinals, and others in the Church are conniving, ambitious, immoral people, which is very far from the truth. To see why, we need look no further than the last several centuries of popes to see their personal holiness which is usually exemplary.

For example, both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were known for living very simply. JPII didn't even usually remember what he ate because he was too focused on his dinner guests. They had small rooms and did not live in luxury. To improve himself spiritually, John Paul II would even use a discipline or small whip to "mortify" his flesh. These great holy men would pray (and in the case of Benedict XVI continue to pray) for hours daily for the needs of the Church and the world.

The papacy is not somewhere a traditionally ambitious person would want to end up. Most of a pope's days are spent entertaining guests and dignitaries, attending events and making big decisions. When a bishop is first elected pope, he goes to a room to get his outfit. This room has been dubbed the Room of Tears, given that most new popes break down in tears upon realizing the huge responsibility they are now charged with. Pope Benedict XVI made clear his desire not to be pope, but when elected anyway, he accepted.

On the bright side, it is possible that if people find this show interesting, they may seek more information themselves. Perhaps in their search they will find the truth and be attracted to it.