|
Post by SedNomini on Nov 11, 2020 16:14:42 GMT
... "Black pill" just means any argument or point which is depressing or pessimistic. So if you are "blackpilled" you are depressed about the state of affairs, or about some particular story or issue. "White pill" is the opposite. It's anything optimistic. I think I've got that right. I am a bit of a fogey too! I stand to be corrected if I'm not. This was a great rundown, the only thing I'd add is the pill is usually a story, or a piece of data, or a meme or some kind of distinct, administer-able piece of information. White I would say is more a Hope pill, and I would say Catholics should ultimately be "White-Pilled". I would say the Black Pill is despair. Not to pester, but has anyone done any work, or read anything, or heard anything that can give a Catholic grounding to repatriation in response to Mass-Immigration being used as ethnocide? I understand that deporting an individual as an individual may be illicit, but the state acting in response to an attack to protect a Nation of people I would think can be easily grounded. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 11, 2020 17:10:11 GMT
I did a lot of reading onto this and, as far as I can tell, there is no room in Catholic teaching for restricting immigration in order to preserve one's culture or national distinctiveness. I was rather hoping there would be, but I couldn't find it. The Catechism says: 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 recent Popes seem to very much put the emphasis on welcome immigrants: www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/migration.index.1.htmlwww.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/migration.index.htmlwww.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/migration/documents/papa-francesco_20200513_world-migrants-day-2020.htmlSt. Thomas Aquinas is sometimes quoted, but I don't know that Aquinas would trump recent papal pronouncements. And even then, it seems a bit of a stretch. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/09/aquinas-contra-globalism.htmlIf there's anything I'm missing, I would be happy to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by SedNomini on Nov 11, 2020 17:52:19 GMT
I did a lot of reading onto this and, as far as I can tell, there is no room in Catholic teaching for restricting immigration in order to preserve one's culture or national distinctiveness. I was rather hoping there would be, but I couldn't find it. The Catechism says: 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 recent Popes seem to very much put the emphasis on welcome immigrants: www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/migration.index.1.htmlwww.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/migration.index.htmlwww.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/migration/documents/papa-francesco_20200513_world-migrants-day-2020.htmlSt. Thomas Aquinas is sometimes quoted, but I don't know that Aquinas would trump recent papal pronouncements. And even then, it seems a bit of a stretch. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/09/aquinas-contra-globalism.htmlIf there's anything I'm missing, I would be happy to hear it. I think that there is a lot of grabble and fog in Church documents over the last 70 years. You need a doctorate in historical and continuous Church teaching to correctly navigate some of them and to read them in the light of Tradition. I think the case can be easily made based just off of: the material and spiritual heritage. Mass immigration destroys the Nation, it destroys the spiritual heritage. No one could ever pretend that Birmingham has retained its spiritual heritage after years of mass migration. What about Paris? London? Berlin? even Dublin? The rate of immigration is necessarily destroying these places (by design?). There is also this recently released argument. I think ClassicalTheist does a great job of how the Church has bounded the discussion, while also giving us the fire-power to defend our Nations, as our consciences demand. I really hope bigger brains than me really start making this argument air-tight, concise and viral. We need to win the next 5 years in Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 11, 2020 19:12:10 GMT
That's very interesting, especially some of the quotations from the Popes.
I think a lot of this comes down to the use of the word "race". It was commonly used to mean ethnicity up until quite recently. Today it tends to be used to mean, basically, skin colour. "The Irish race" was an uncontroversial term until recently.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Nov 11, 2020 20:54:59 GMT
I did a lot of reading onto this and, as far as I can tell, there is no room in Catholic teaching for restricting immigration in order to preserve one's culture or national distinctiveness. I was rather hoping there would be, but I couldn't find it. The Catechism says: 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 recent Popes seem to very much put the emphasis on welcome immigrants: www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/migration.index.1.htmlwww.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/migration.index.htmlwww.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/migration/documents/papa-francesco_20200513_world-migrants-day-2020.htmlSt. Thomas Aquinas is sometimes quoted, but I don't know that Aquinas would trump recent papal pronouncements. And even then, it seems a bit of a stretch. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/09/aquinas-contra-globalism.htmlIf there's anything I'm missing, I would be happy to hear it. The catholic church occasionally gets it spectacularly wrong on a matter of prudential judgement. In the 19th century the papacy opposed Nationalism, free speech , religious liberty , and democracy. There was a context naturally of concerns over anti clericalism , masonry etc but sometimes when the Vatican strays into areas that perhaps it should remain more agnostic on , it ends up with egg on its face. Few would argue now that you will go to hell for being a believer in democracy. Maybe if you are a Nationalist or a free speech advocate.....! The Church opposed Irish independence until it became inevitable regarding rebellion as a serious sin. The Irish bishops caught up with the popular mood and quietly forgot about all the previous position. What happened before may happen again.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Nov 18, 2020 14:37:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 18, 2020 20:23:42 GMT
But why, from a Catholic perspective, would we give more weight to some guy writing for Crisis magazine than the Pope and bishops? Isn't there a danger of "cafeteria Catholicism" here? We conservatives like Catholic teaching on marriage, abortion and the family, but we don't like it on immigration. I'm obviously being provocative here but this thought does occur to me.
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Nov 18, 2020 20:41:05 GMT
But why, from a Catholic perspective, would we give more weight to some guy writing for Crisis magazine than the Pope and bishops? Isn't there a danger of "cafeteria Catholicism" here? We conservatives like Catholic teaching on marriage, abortion and the family, but we don't like it on immigration. I'm obviously bring provocative here but this thought does occur to me. That's a very interesting article. If only we had Pope Francis on the forum to discuss! I like the comparison with adoption and the reference to the common good. I was watching a video of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin at the World Economic Forum in 2014. A lot of that diversity thing is to do with economics, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Nov 18, 2020 20:43:22 GMT
But why, from a Catholic perspective, would we give more weight to some guy writing for Crisis magazine than the Pope and bishops? Isn't there a danger of "cafeteria Catholicism" here? We conservatives like Catholic teaching on marriage, abortion and the family, but we don't like it on immigration. I'm obviously bring provocative here but this thought does occur to me. Isn´t that the constant dilemma in our day? When Papal teaching is vague, all laymen intellects for many reason need to "think about it" as far as they be able. There need not be any problem per se about it. Only difficulty would be if they oppose the variety of views and claim only one side of the issues as the only possible road. But to have some width and breadth could hardly be wrong. Looking to other eras in Church History this is rather small "discussions" in comparison (presumably). Politics will always polarise, and the Church is wise enough to let its members have some personal room for choice is those areas. Mass-immigration is so huge that no single strategy could emerge as "the only possible choice" anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Nov 19, 2020 16:49:57 GMT
Conservatives have traditionally dallied with the Ultramontane heresy which overephasises the petrine or papal office to the detriment of the ordinary magisterium (The college of bishops) , holy scripture and sacred tradition. Up to the recent past popes by and large didn't depart in radical ways from the catholic tradition and scriptures so there was no dilemma.
Up to Pope Paul VI Popes took an oath not to break with the traditional faith up to then. That oath stressed the popes duties and limited his abilities to invent novelties. Now we seem to have an absolute monarch who can have his own personalised magisterium ( literally in the case of Francis). He seeks to continue this after his death by stacking the college of cardinals but he prevents them meeting as a group for some strange reason.
The idea that each pope can have his own personalised magisterium borders on megalomania. We can potentially see Pope Francis II being contradicted by Pope Patrick and so on if ecclesiastical whims and policies change in future papacies . This reduces the faith to a stale secularised political caricature.
In our history we have had anti popes , immoral popes and popes who taught falsehoods. It's only chronological snobbery to pretend we cannot have a similar or an ultimately catastrophic crisis involving the papacy in our time.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Nov 19, 2020 17:20:32 GMT
Conservatives have traditionally dallied with the Ultramontane heresy which overephasises the petrine or papal office to the detriment of the ordinary magisterium (The college of bishops) , holy scripture and sacred tradition. Up to the recent past popes by and large didn't depart in radical ways from the catholic tradition and scriptures so there was no dilemma. Up to Pope Paul VI Popes took an oath not to break with the traditional faith up to then. That oath stressed the popes duties and limited his abilities to invent novelties. Now we seem to have an absolute monarch who can have his own personalised magisterium ( literally in the case of Francis). He seeks to continue this after his death by stacking the college of cardinals but he prevents them meeting as a group for some strange reason. The idea that each pope can have his own personalised magisterium borders on megalomania. We can potentially see Pope Francis II being contradicted by Pope Patrick and so on if ecclesiastical whims and policies change in future papacies . This reduces the faith to a stale secularised political caricature. In our history we have had anti popes , immoral popes and popes who taught falsehoods. It's only chronological snobbery to pretend we cannot have a similar or an ultimately catastrophic crisis involving the papacy in our time. I´m afraid there is a good piece of truth in this summation. Why on earth should the centuries of solid evaluations of core wisdom in holy Truth become trumped by our last semi-politicised decades, the post 60s period admittedly by any standard perceivable not the high summit of mankind in terms of cultural or social achivements, only by thoughts because these are the last years closest to ourselves? Risk to say it would be both chronological snobbery and navel gaze. In practical terms it may not be as negative as sometimes is perceived, but reflecting on such an important subject like Papal magisterium the entire history of tradition could hardly be waved away?
|
|
|
Post by cato on Nov 19, 2020 18:43:23 GMT
At the risk of slightly undermining myself my remark on the papal oath above appears to be incorrect. Too much listening to podcasts without checking their claims! There was as far as we can tell no such papal oath. Mea culpa. Moderators of this site are clearly not infallible.
|
|
|
Post by MaryB on Nov 19, 2020 19:41:20 GMT
I remember reading at some stage that church teaching advised that the rights of the population of a country should be weighed against immigration rights eg immigration should be controlled in order not to put excessive pressure on healthcare housing and education in the host country. Edward Feser quotes the CCC and bases his argument on this.
Prudence needs to be applied to all moral decisions that affect society apart from moral laws such as abortions which is always evil
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Nov 19, 2020 21:55:09 GMT
But why, from a Catholic perspective, would we give more weight to some guy writing for Crisis magazine than the Pope and bishops? Isn't there a danger of "cafeteria Catholicism" here? We conservatives like Catholic teaching on marriage, abortion and the family, but we don't like it on immigration. I'm obviously being provocative here but this thought does occur to me. I think that abortion for example is clear cut, black and white issue. Immigration is much more fluid, for want of a better term. For example, is what we are experiencing in Europe over the last number of years really 'immigration'? Is part of it a social engineering experiment that accommodates the liberal and globalist attempt to dilute nation states by bringing in outsiders, many with incompatible cultural attitudes? Was cheap labour also an issue? There were many migrants that Turkey released at the Greek border some months ago, that Greece wouldn't allow to pass. Several weeks later the same migrants were attacking the border police with anything they could get their hands on. There seems to be a sense of entitlement and hatred for Western countries that doesn't take long to manifest itself. Wouldn't it be risky to just import such large numbers, including many young men, into a stable population? Looking at the UK census of 2011, some 13.4% of people in England and Wales (7.5 million people) were born outside the UK, according to the 2011 Census. Isn't 7.5 million enough? Would it not be possible to say that the UK has already done its duty, way beyond the call of duty. If immigration was to be without limit, then England would surely cease to be England anymore, just a collection of unconnected people living apart in their own districts. In the end the nation would collapse economically and spiritually and both the native English and the new arrivals would suffer, so a no win situation for all. Didn't we all think of refugees in the past as those fleeing famine and war? And refugees poured into a neighbouring country where international help was made available in that neighbouring country. Sometimes exceptionally refugees were accepted formally in Western countries. I remember some Vietnamese boat people arriving in N.Ireland after the end of the Vietnam war and settling there. But, although unclear, many of the migrants arriving in the likes of Ireland appear not to be fleeing war torn countries or famine and don't fit in with our picture of those people who we imagine to be the refugees most in need. I suspect that as time goes on and the Covid virus ends many jobs, there will be also be more and more jobs lost to AI and new technologies in coming years. We could have a situation where fewer and fewer jobs are available and more and more people are in competition. Can we keep on taking in more people? Have we a responsibility to look after our own people first and foremost? Have we done enough already?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 20, 2020 9:59:39 GMT
I suppose the question is whether the Church's "line" on immigration over the last few pontificates is a genuine development, something organic, or actually in contradiction to Scripture, Tradition and previous doctrine. It would be interesting to hear someone from the Vatican or Pope Francis address the question of sheer numbers, which never seems to be addressed. It seems to ME as though the numbers we have, which seem to be hovering around fifteen per cent in most developed countries, are a lot already. Bishop's conferences, and the Pope, seem to assume we could be doing a lot more. We are told open borders is not the Catholic position but other than the vague terms used in the Catechism, we never really hear any talk about how much is enough.
St. Basil the Great famously said: "The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat unused in your closet belongs to the one who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the one who has no shoes; the money which you hoard up belongs to the poor." Does this literally mean that, as long as we have a higher standard of living, we are obliged to keep taking newcomers until there is no more inducement to come?
On the other hand, I guess I feel the "damage" is done already. We are living in multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic societies and it's hard to see how there is any going back to the days of relative ethnic homogeneity. Although there has been some discussion on this thread about repatriation, it's hard to know what this would actually mean. Deportation? I think most of us would baulk at that. Voluntary repatriation, with financial inducements? My father used to argue for this, but I wonder if it would really be taken up. And, given the reluctance of the natives in developed countries to have babies (which might have a lot to do with property prices, two-income households, unpaid "internships" etc.), it would seem that the non-native (or newcomer) population is going to increase even if there was no more immigration. I do worry that a nostalgia for old-style ethnonationalism (I don't mean in the Alt Right sense, merely in the sense that every Irish nationalist would have taken for granted a hundred years ago) may lead to ethnic strife and resentment in the future.
(And I do sometimes find myself wondering if I could really have moral courage to say to someone who came here from another country: "I don't think you should be here; I want you to go away".)
In the end it's not really multiculturalism I fear so much as anti-culturalism. Surely if everybody attended to their own traditions and heritage, there would be room enough for all of us-- although I am nostalgic for the days when "us" meant something highly specific, which included a shared memory and heritage.
|
|