There have been scattered reports in the media for a while about an increase of anti-Semitism in Europe. While I’m sure they have some skinhead hooligans over there who get sick jollies by spraypainting symbols and insults on synagogues and Jewish tombstones, I’ve suspected that the real rise in European anti-Semitism isn’t due to the influx of vast numbers of illegal (and legal) Muslim immigrants from North Africa and parts east.
Now I’m starting to wonder.
HERE’S A DISTURBING POST FROM POWERLINE ABOUT ANTI-BLACK RACISM IN EUROPE.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
It stands to reason that racism would be on the rise as the Church loses Her prestige in Europe.
Certainly part of the problem is mass immigration, which the Roman Church unfortunately supports.
I didn’t know that the Latin rite ecclesia sui iuris of the Catholic Church had a policy statement out on this. Could you link to it? 😉
The Catechism states:
“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.”
This sounds like approval of “mass immigration” to me. While I know of know “official” RC document that blesses the current immigration policies of the EU nations, it seems fair to say that the hierarchy of the Chuch supports it.
I suppose my question wasn’t fair. Sorry for the confusion.
The point I was making was that the phrase “Roman Church” was being misused. The phrase “Roman Church” *means* the Latin rite ecclesia sui iuris that is part of the Catholic Church. It does not refer to the Catholic Church as a whole.
When misused in the manner above (as done by many Protestants) it is insulting. This may not be your intent (I assume it is *not* as you have always seemed to be a stand-up guy), but the term originated as an anti-Catholic insult and still carries this ring to Catholic ears.
As this is a Catholic blog, please respect Catholic term usage when posting here.
Thanks much!
Oh, incidentally, note the number of qualifiers in the passage from the Catechism (which is a document of the entire Catholic Church and not just the Roman Church). There is not a mandate for flinging the borders open to all from hither and yon.
It is certainly fair, however, to say that much of the Church hierarchy is supportive of mass immigration. It is definitely true in the U.S.
The point I was making was that the phrase “Roman Church” was being misused. The phrase “Roman Church” *means* the Latin rite ecclesia sui iuris that is part of the Catholic Church. It does not refer to the Catholic Church as a whole.
It can be used in that sense. “Roman Church” can be used to refer to the diocese of Rome specifically, or to the Latin sui juris Church of which the Pope is the Patriarch, or (colloquially) to those Churches who use the Roman Rite of Mass, or it can refer to the Catholic Church as a whole. It is not insulting to be called “Roman”; it is a compliment. And I’m sure Mr. Jackson meant it that way. 😉
Now “Papist,” “Papic,” “Popish,” etc. — these terms are insulting.
Jimmy,
There are caveats, but it refers to immigration as a “right” and says that countries are “obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner . . . .” The US is “able” to allow many more immigrants than it does.
There is also a certain naivite in the catechism about the immigrants respecting the country they move to. Does the pope really think that Moslems and Hindus are going to respect a Christian nation’s customs against Sunday shopping?
I admit that the position of some liberals like Cardinal Mahoney in arguing that “undocumented aliens” (his term for law-breaking immigrants) should have drivers licenses go beyond what follows directly from the Catechism, but as DCS points out the hierarchy of the church supports mass immigration. A couple years ago a Cardinal in Italy said immigration should be limited to people from catholic countries and it created quite a stir.
Switzerland is one country, where INSTITUTIONALISED RACISM does exist not only in daily life but also among scientific community. If there are people who raise their voices they are threatened for life, or ruin their careers. All is not white in this picturesque country. Ask the presidents of the Federal Insititute and the universities in switzerland. They portray a different marketing strategy and reality is different. They are sick people living here. SICK to the extreme.