The Vatican said on Wednesday it was worried about U.S. President Donald Trump's moves on immigration, in the Holy See's first comment since his executive order banning travel into the United States by citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries.
[The Vatican should stay out of politics, but if it chooses to be a player in the political arena, then it should ask itself where is its immigration policy that permits atheists, agnostics and people of every faith and background to immigrate to the Vatican City State.
[The fact that Vatican City has only "about 100 acres" [2] is not an excuse not to have an immigration policy and not to accept any immigrant. The policy can state that due to its size, it can only accommodate a limited number of immigrants (it could set a low number). Once the policy has been set, then the world can judge what kind of restrictions it will have, if any.
[Perhaps one can have insight as to what kind of restrictions it would have by looking at how many, if any, of the lay workers hired to work at the Vatican is of the Muslim faith, or better yet, a member of ISIL. Only with this kind of inclusiveness can the Vatican have the right to comment on the policies of another sovereign, but then again, perhaps sovereignty applies only to Bergolio--it certainly does not apply to the Order of Malta.]
"Certainly there is worry because we are messengers of another culture, that of openness," the Vatican's deputy secretary of state, Archbishop Angelo Becciu, told an Italian Catholic television station in answer to a question about Trump's order. [Emphasis added.]
[Is that right? Those in the Vatican are messengers of a culture of openness? That truly is laughable. As soon as the Vatican opens both sets (or however many sets) of books (financial statements) that it has for the world to audit, then it can talk about openness.
[Moreover, how "open" are the Secret Archives in the Vatican since "[j]ournalists, students, and amateur historians aren’t welcome" and "there’s no browsing" even for those who have the proper credentials to enter? [3]]
Becciu, who ranks third in the Vatican hierarchy, was asked about the executive order as well as Trump's promise to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico.
"Pope Francis, in fact, insists on the ability to integrate those who arrive in our societies and cultures," he told TV2000.
[Exactly how integrated is Bergolio's personal inner sanctum? To name a few, actually more than a few, are there Afghans, Africans, American Indians, Asians, Bolivians, Fijians, Haitians, Indians, Iranians, Iraqis, Israelis, Pakistanis, Syrians, Turks, lesbians and female transgenders serving him? How able is he in integrating them into his team of core advisors?]
Some Roman Catholic leaders in the United States have criticized Trump's executive order. Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago said on Sunday it was "a dark moment in U.S. history" and that it was "contrary to both Catholic and American values".
[Cupich is an American and has the right to express his opinions on American values, but whether it is equally appropriate for him to opine on Catholic values is a separate matter altogether, notwithstanding the fact that he is a member of the clergy. This blogger doubts that he and his boss' brand of catholicism (with a small "c") is consistent with what Christ had in mind when He asked San Francesco d'Assisi to repair His church "'which has fallen into disrepair.'" [4]]
Last February, while returning from a trip to Mexico, Pope Francis said then-candidate Trump's view about building walls was "not Christian".
[Apparently walls are not Christian according to Bergolio. If that is true, that should apply to a wall that is already built or one that is yet to be built since walls are walls. If walls are un-Christian, Bergolio ought to tell his cardinals to tear down "this" wall, pointing to the wall that surrounds a portion of Vatican City.
[The fact that a certain creature had commented that anyone can walk into St. Peter's Square (even with "formidable" walls on the back side and doors that lock on the opposite front side) meant that it "'[w]as designed to be welcoming and to draw people in like two open arms, to draw them into the heart of the church,.'" [5]
[However, he failed to mention that the "two open arms" would be folded and would not welcome anyone into "the heart of the church" after closing hours or without going through security first. He also failed to mention that there are oceans surrounding the United States of America with shores that can act as open arms welcoming all those who wish to enter the country, and that these shores are without lockable doors.
[It is also interesting to note that the Vatican's deputy secretary of state, Archbishop Angelo Becciu, never stated that openness is only possible after security clearance. For the Vatican to have openness, it should have no need for walls, no need for security screening and no need for security guards. What exactly is he (Bergolio) and the rest of Bergolio's obsequious minions afraid of, ISIL killers slashing their throats?]
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-vatican-idUSKBN15G4HR
[2] https://www.reference.com/technology/big-vatican-city-36b3ca897f0f5183
[3] https://cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/01/whats-hidden-in-the-vatican-archives/
[4] http://www.paceminterris.org/experience-pacem/the-hermitages/st-francis-of-assisi/
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/world/europe/in-defense-of-trump-some-point-wrongly-to-vatican-walls.html?_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment