Quote :

"VATICAN CITY - A senior Vatican cardinal on Tuesday condemned the building of walls between countries to keep out immigrants and said Washington’s plan to build a fence on the U.S.-Mexican border was part of an “inhuman program”. Cardinal Renato Martino made his comments at a news conference presenting Pope Benedict’s message for the Roman Catholic Church’s World Day of Migrants and Refugees, in which the Pope called for more laws to help immigrants integrate. “Speaking of borders, I must unfortunately say that in a world that greeted the fall of the Berlin Wall with joy, new walls are being built between neighborhood and neighborhood, city and city, nation and nation,” said Martino, head of the Vatican’s Council for Justice and Peace. President Bush signed legislation last month approving the construction of a 700-mile fence -- a move that angered Mexico’s government. Bush defends the fence as necessary to tighten control of the border to keep criminals and terrorists out. Thousands of poor Mexicans risk their lives each year sneaking across the 2,000-mile border to seek jobs. Wrong Asked if the U.S.-Mexican fence was the wrong thing to do, Martino said: “Yes, that’s exactly what it is.” Martino praised Mexican and U.S. bishops for opposing what he called “an inhuman program, which is what the construction of that wall and all others is”. Israel is building a barrier comprised of concrete and razor-topped steel fences along and inside the occupied West Bank. It says the barrier, which is about half-finished, stops suicide bombers. Palestinians call it a land grab that will deny them the viable state they seek in the West Bank and Gaza. Saudi Arabia said it would start work next year on a security fence along its border with Iraq to stop Islamic militants entering the country. In his message for the Church’s World Day of Migrants and Refugees, the Pope called for more laws to help immigrants better integrate in their new countries. “Much is already being done for the integration of the families of immigrants, although much still remains to be done,” he said. “(But) it is necessary to provide for legislative, juridical and social intervention to facilitate such an integration.” Integration of immigrants is a big political issue in a number of European countries. The question of whether Europe is doing enough to integrate Muslims into society has been urgently addressed by governments across the continent since the London attacks of July 2005 when British-born Muslim suicide bombers killed 52 people. Tensions remain high in Paris’s run-down suburbs, where poor job prospects, racial discrimination, a widespread sense of alienation from mainstream society and perceived hostile policing touched off a wave of riots in October 2005. The pope also called for more protection for women immigrants who end up as victims of human trafficking and forced prostitution."

Its such a convienient position being against measures to stop illegal immigration and also calling for more protection from women who are victimized by illegal immigration. Im not really opposed to the fence, although i do think some of its supporters are just xenophobes, but how exactly is it inhuman?

also i bet the wolfpacks are pissed that they have to be against this now

11/14/2006 6:05:30 PM

Cause God doesn't recognize nations other than Israel and the harlot, making countries in a Christian context near irrelevant?

11/14/2006 6:08:24 PM

why does everyone make america look like the bad guys when it comes to enforcing laws

is that not what a government is suppose to do when people break the laws of the country

or are we just suppose to give them free passes because they are so pitifully uneducated and poverty stricken

11/14/2006 6:25:03 PM

11/14/2006 7:36:28 PM

I don't think that it's Cardinal Renato Martino's place to offer his commentary and an official church position on the matter.

11/14/2006 7:39:17 PM

he was speaking on behalf of the pope

11/14/2006 7:48:15 PM

that's what i was implying by "official church position"

11/14/2006 7:58:36 PM

uh i know what you were implying, he was supposed to be speaking for the pope so it is his place

11/14/2006 8:00:11 PM

you are correct (although the Pope isn't the only high Catholic authority offering his opinion where it is neither wanted or needed)

allow me to rephrase:

I don't think that it's Pope Benedict's place to offer his commentary and an official church position on the matter.

11/14/2006 8:03:12 PM

With the growing mexican population, the catholic church is growing in its influence on the USA. Of course they are going to be against it.

11/14/2006 8:09:04 PM

fuck whatever any religious leader has to say about any governmental policy

11/14/2006 8:11:03 PM

i don't know if that has anything to do with their position (it's plausible). It sure as hell shouldn't be how they're basing moral decrees (not that I think the Church should be making moral decrees, period...it's a problem I have with Catholicism...it should be open to individual interpretation, but I digress).

^^and particularly what any Catholic leader has to say about political issues, because Catholics aren't as "free" to say "Whatever, I think you're wrong." It's more (to varying degrees, depending on the situation) "what the Church says, goes."

[Edited on November 14, 2006 at 8:14 PM. Reason : asfasdf]

11/14/2006 8:12:01 PM

Im really confused by why you dont think the Pope is in a position to comment. We are talking about church position for catholics, and he is the Pope.

Or are you saying the religious leaders in general shouldn't comment on political issues? Thats a totally seperate issue

[Edited on November 14, 2006 at 8:44 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2006 8:44:08 PM

the latter, in cases of issues that are not related to religion (obviously that opens a grey area, but i certainly don't think this one qualifies)


oh, and to clarify: i'm talking about talking in political forums.

11/14/2006 8:48:44 PM

I'm Catholic, but I didn't need the pope to tell me that the fence is a stupid idea.

11/14/2006 9:09:08 PM

fuck the vatican and all religion

but since he said it every catholic in america is gonna go up in arms about it

except the republican catholics

11/14/2006 9:13:16 PM

Quote :

"in which the Pope called for more laws"

11/14/2006 9:26:20 PM

can someone explain why a wall would be inhuman? i understand a lot of the arguments against it, but i dont understand that

11/14/2006 11:38:04 PM

We (Wlfpck4life and I) do not have to be against it - this again shows your complete ignorance of the things that you are talking about. I suggest going to the library (the big building with all the books in it - ask someone if you get lost) and reading about things so you will actually know what you're talking about. Kthx.

11/15/2006 7:07:49 AM

oh no you are going to hell now

11/15/2006 7:12:59 AM

Maybe, maybe not. But I know for sure that you aren't going to the library.

11/15/2006 7:18:07 AM

Quote :

"can someone explain why a wall would be inhuman?"

It is my sincerest hope that the senior cardinal meant "inhumane" rather than inhuman.

I believe that the reasoning for inhumanity being attributed to the wall is that people who still try to enter the country will now have an even more dangerous journey and are more likely to die. It is also inhumane in that it blocks the poor from being able to come here for a better life.

I'm not defending that position, just trying to explain it. I hate the wall on economic grounds and I refuse to be upset by something that is good: namely the free flow of people and ideas.

11/15/2006 7:19:31 AM

what if we volunteered to ship people to the vatican en masse... the poor and unfortunate, would they absorb them willingly?!?!.... they dont have the issue to worry about, of course there gonna take that position.


with that said, i agree with allowing mexicans over en masse, just in a more organized fashion.

11/15/2006 8:33:55 AM

Quote :

"Vatican cardinal condemns West Bank Israeli fence "

OH NO, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

11/15/2006 8:37:39 AM

Call me crazy but isn't there a gigantic wall around the Vatican?

11/15/2006 9:30:42 AM

haha... i think your right.... at least there was in MI:3. ive never been there, but can anyone substantiate this?

11/15/2006 9:45:12 AM

wolfpack can disagree with the church, just not senators

11/15/2006 9:57:04 AM

I think the pope should be worried about European countries and the ridiculous xenophobia going in them and not the US and some stupid fence.




also, wasnt the pope part of the Nazi youth?

11/15/2006 10:09:02 AM

thats probably why he had a cardinal voice that opinion and he didnt say it himself...

11/15/2006 10:17:42 AM

Quote :

"I believe that the reasoning for inhumanity being attributed to the wall is that people who still try to enter the country will now have an even more dangerous journey and are more likely to die. It is also inhumane in that it blocks the poor from being able to come here for a better life. "

thats a really weak statement right there.

11/15/2006 1:21:38 PM

really really weak.

11/15/2006 5:29:02 PM

I am particularly glad that JonHGuth found time out of lobbying for his, or um a gay/lesbian center so he could bash the Church.

Quote :

"also i bet the wolfpacks are pissed that they have to be against this now"

You can disagree on these issues and still be in good standing with the Church, genius. It hasn't been declared to be an infallible teaching.

[Edited on November 15, 2006 at 5:46 PM. Reason : stupidity reigns]

11/15/2006 5:35:43 PM

Sure, its a weak argument, but its the argument they might make, I think.

I think there are plenty of economic reasons not to build a wall, besides that it will be ineffective. I also hate when people pretend it is about stopping terrorists. The Canadian border is more likely to let in terrorists, and we hardly even patrol it.

11/15/2006 5:38:48 PM

Quote :

"wolfpack can disagree with the church, just not senators"

Actually I disagree with a great number of senators.

How was the library?

11/15/2006 5:57:49 PM

Like he could find it.

11/15/2006 5:58:26 PM

Quote :

"We (Wlfpck4life and I) do not have to be against it - this again shows your complete ignorance of the things that you are talking about. I suggest going to the library (the big building with all the books in it - ask someone if you get lost) and reading about things so you will actually know what you're talking about. Kthx."

This is the same circular logic mormons use. If it something I agree with, then you are a bad catholic if you disagree. If it is something I don't agree with then I'm allowed to not agree with it.

11/15/2006 6:12:45 PM

This is not an issue where if you disagree with a Cardinal then it puts you in bad standing with the Church. There's nothing circular about it, it's pretty clear cut that each issue isn't given the same weight by the Church.

Basically what you're saying that if I disagree with this particular Cardinal on a freakin' fence then I am as heretical as somebody who denies, for instance, the divinity of Christ. Should they be given the same weight? Maybe by flame baiting morons, but by most rational and reasonable people, the answer would be no.

11/15/2006 6:19:03 PM

If it something I agree with infallibly or authoritatively declared by the Church, then you are a bad catholic if you disagree. If it is something I don't agree with that is not an infallible or authoritative declaration but merely a Papal or episcopal opinion then I'm allowed to not agree with it.

Not every word that comes out of the mouth of the Pope or a bishop is mandatory for Catholics to accept.

[Edited on November 15, 2006 at 6:30 PM. Reason : add]

11/15/2006 6:28:06 PM

Quote :

"rational and reasonable people"

LMBO

11/15/2006 7:08:56 PM

this thread could be good entertainment...let's sit back and watch, shall we?

11/15/2006 7:11:30 PM

^^^while i think that it's retarded for the Pope to have the ability to speak "infallibly", that's another debate for another day.

my point is that even when he's not speaking infallibly--even when it's not "mandatory" for you to agree (see how retarded that sounds? but i digress...), it is still official Church doctrine. You're not going to hell or anything for disagreeing, but it is a different matter than, say, a Protestant minister saying "I believe this/the Bible says this/etc". While not mandatory, per se, it's more binding (for lack of a better word) than it should be.

[Edited on November 15, 2006 at 7:15 PM. Reason : ^^^]

11/15/2006 7:15:17 PM

A cardinal's opinion isn't official church doctrine any more than Ted Kennedy's opinion is official democratic platform.

11/15/2006 8:20:00 PM

I'm still laughing at "reasonable and rational people." As if people who think that wine becomes blood are reasonable and rational to begin with >.<

11/15/2006 9:28:23 PM

Of course Ratzinger did some inhuman things himself.

11/15/2006 9:42:42 PM

Quote :

"I'm still laughing at "reasonable and rational people." As if people who think that wine becomes blood are reasonable and rational to begin with >.<"

So by your definition, no non-atheist is reasonable and rational? I mean, all religions believe in some "crazy" phenomena. Do the agnostic get by?

11/16/2006 7:32:50 AM

I'm pretty judgmental about this -- pretty much the only way to not look silly over such a silly question is to suspend judgment.

11/16/2006 7:50:56 AM

doesn't vatican city have a wall around it?

11/16/2006 8:26:27 AM

Us agnostics aren't sure if we get by or not, but we're open to the possibility.

11/16/2006 8:27:10 AM

Lf, I've been to Vatican city, but its been quite a while. I think the Vatican itself has a wall around it, in the sense that it is basically a compound/castle. I'm not sure about Vatican City, I don't remember any walls, just guards at the roads.

Although it really isn't a fair comparison. I mean, because the entire country of Vatican City is basically the Vatican, which understandably would need to be guarded, it is more like having a gated community than having a gated country.

11/16/2006 9:10:16 AM

I wonder how anybody goes to the Vatican and remains a Catholic, honestly.

11/16/2006 9:14:16 AM