Friday, October 30, 2009

A Day without a Mexican (A New Film?)

Day without a Mexican shot in 2004 is a film with the premise of how terrible life would be without illegal aliens around. I can see Cardinal Mahoney watching the film approvingly and scowling disapprovingly at those who might find the intrusion of a group of people that systematically abuses social services and breaks laws with rabid frequency a little much, forgetting of course, his own mistreatment of his largely immigrant Mexican (and presumably legal) workforce.

It strikes us as odd that people, like Catholic Bishops, would want this situation to prevail, especially since Illegals engage disproportionately in organized crime, have high incarceration rates, abuse of social services, lowering of the cost of labor and raise the expense of health care when they receive treatments for procedures they aren't insured for or intend to pay.

Illegals kill!

It's at this point when we wonder what life would be like without a Mexican and you could imagine a film with a similiar premise, but contradictory conclusion. Life without Mexicans wouldn't be too bad. You could start by asking the recently murdered New Jersey priest, Fr Ed Hinds, (white like the ghost of Jacob Marley) who confronted a man named Jose Feliciano because of his history of fake identities, and for previous to his employment, indecent assault and corrupting a minor. Father Hinds was just firing him, nothing to lose your life over. Sure, it's not clear whether or not the murderer was an Illegal Alien, but since he had a few fake identities, it's entirely possible that he had a fake SSN and ID, a common practice among Illegals.

The Catholic Council of Bishops is very eager to defend the rights of these people who break the laws of the country they find themselves. It's strange that they're willing to lend their spiritual capital, as depleted and devalued as it is to this date, to a cause that is so clearly aligned to Marxist front groups like La Rasa or the Southern Poverty Law Center who love, with sickening predictability, to take on cases like these for the "poor and downtrodden" like a latter day Lillian Helman.

It's really little different than other liberals who favor attitudes and legislation promoting the degradation of the society and increasing disrespect for the rule of law, and as it so happens, disrespect for the lives of others.

You might also ask any number of other Americans what they think life without a Mexican would be like. Just ask the liberal writer Adrian Shelly, who wrote and appeared in the film Waitress in 2004 and was herself murdered by an Illegal. Heck, while we're at it, we might ask any one of the 9,000 Americans murdered every year by Illegals what they think.

Since the beginning of the War on Terror, more Americans have been killed by Illegals than by Insurgents. Perhaps they are one in the same? It's not as if La Rasa identifies itself with the USA, they detest it.


Michael said...

this is disgusting

and not very Catholic

Anonymous said...


Go crawl back to the Bath House where you came from!

Anonymous said...

This is a rather disgusting and hate-filled screed, unbecoming of one claiming the name of Christ, and especially from a Catholic. I'm a firmly traditionalist, conservative type, but this cafeteria Catholicism won't do. This is no better than "singing a new church into being", and indeed is the same kind of filth.

romanreb said...

I think it's a very good article.

And if you label me a "bad Catholic" because I think so, be prepared to tell Jesus, on the last day, why you claim the privelege of judging hearts when you deny others the duty to judge actions.


Tancred said...

We were wondering what was so "uncatholic" to respect the laws of one's own nation.

Anonymous said...

"327. Which are the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance?

The four sins crying to heaven for vengeance are:
Wilful murder (Gen. 4);
The sin of Sodom (Gen. 18);
Oppression of the poor (Exod.2);
Defrauding labourers of their wages (James 5).
Being very unjust or cruel, harming a person.
Taking away by deceit or by cheating."

It is laughable that after a post condemning Bishops, one should whine about called on Cafeteria Catholicism and how unfair it is. The Catholic Church is not "the Republican party at prayer", ironically enough that used to be the Episcopalians. We are more than that, and calling for the oppression of foreigners because you don't like their kind is un-Christian, indeed Antichristian. Repent, and turn towards Christ and the teachings of the Church!

Let it be noted what the sin of Sodom is (Ezekiel 16:46-50):

"And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters.

"Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy ways. As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

The Democrats might be fighting for Gay Marriage, which is bad enough, but it is the Republicans who support institutional Sodomy. A pox on both your houses.

Anonymous said...

"We were wondering what was so "uncatholic" to respect the laws of one's own nation."

Nothing, when the laws are just. This country's immigration laws are manifestly unjust, as the Magesterium has repeatedly pointed out. The solution is not to round up the undesirables, it's to change the laws to be just and workable, which the current ones are not. This is why the Bishops insist that any health-care reform bill include treatment of illegal immigrants in addition to protecting the life of the unborn.

Tancred said...

There are no Magisterial pronouncements such as you describe.

"The Catholic Church is not "the Republican party at prayer", ironically enough that used to be the Episcopalians."

Agreed, but then neither is it the DNC or the Communist International at prayer either.

Anonymous said...

"There are no Magisterial pronouncements such as you describe."

I'm not talking about the Extraordinary Magesterium (infallible Papal pronouncements, Ecumenical Councils), I am refering to the American Bishops use of the Ordinary Magesterium (Whenever they open their mouths, basically; this power of authority rests in the hand of all Bishops in communion with the Pope). They have been quite firm in their defense of the rights of immigrants over and against American Nativism, which is a recurring problem, as you yourself complain about above.

If they went and claimed, say, that Jesus wasn't really the Son of God, that wouldn't count. But when they teach from the Tradition and Scripture, as is the case with the Bishops on immigration and aboirtion, they exercise the Magesterium, which is Latin for teaching office.

"Agreed, but then neither is it the DNC or the Communist International at prayer either."

Absolutely my point. All human political parties are subservient to the truth, which the Bishops present to the world. Whether it's torture & immigration from the Republicans, or abortion & euthenasia from the Democrats, wrong is wrong.

Tancred said...

"Absolutely my point. All human political parties are subservient to the truth,"

And the Bishop'snon-authoritative and politically leftist public announcements have no more authority than their condemnation of nuclear weapons, inter-faith attempts to nullify St. Paul's teaching on the Jews or praise of Brokeback Mountain.

Anonymous said...

"And the Bishop'snon-authoritative and politically leftist public announcements have no more authority than their condemnation of nuclear weapons, inter-faith attempts to nullify St. Paul's teaching on the Jews or praise of Brokeback Mountain."

And that right there is why you are a Cafeteria Catholic just as much as the nuns under investigation by the Vatican. You put your political loyalties over the Church, and call those who disagree with you leftists and pinko commies. You would do better to pay attention to the Pope and the shepherds in authority over you.

And you call yourself a Monarchist.

Tancred said...

Your interpolations and irrelavent scripture quotations and empty rhetoric and namecalling don't make your case for you.

Accordng to your logic, you seem to think we should join you in your adulation for Brokeback Moutain.

We wouldn't be surprised, however, if you gave more weight to Cardnal Bernardine's seamless garment than to previous, definitive teaching that contradicts it.

Perhaps you agree with the Bishops too that we shouldn't work to convert the Jews and the equally heretical statement that their covenant is salvific?

Anonymous said...

So, because I'm not anti-immigration, I'm pro-Brokeback Mountain? I actually campaigned for Proposition 8 in California to defend traditional marriage, so I find that to be a bizarre accusation. I googled and found that there was, indeed, a review of the movie on the USCCB website that was positive. Because one online review from some random aide invalidates the Apostolic mandate.

I don't know Cardinal Bernadine from Adam, and only have a vague notion of this "seamless garment" you mention. I don't tend to hang in those circles. All I know is what you wrote flies in the face of scripture (which I wasn't quoting out of context, the passage specifically addresses what you are doing in this post, and there is more where that came from in the Bible), and in case you missed the first citation, the Baltimore Catechism. I'm at a loss to know what you would consider more traditional than that.

As to the Jewish issue, they did clarify that the Jews still are in need of the Gospel:

The Bishops speak with authority from God Almighty. One should not ignore and ridicule them lightly, for petty political reasons. It is worse when one throws in neglect of the Scriptures for good measure.

But of course I disagree with you, so I must be a fagot and a Communist, and even worse a Democrat (I'm a Republican myself, actually. I just support immigration reform, because the present laws are ridiculous and untenable). Fair enough. You keep up the good work.

Tancred said...

Must have touched a nerve. You started by referring to us haughtily and using contumely, but according to your rules regarding the Bishops, we suppose you must think Brokeback Mountain was a great film and that we should all share the USCCB's gushing view of it and their corresponding half-hearted view of the Passion. Doesnt do wonders for their credibillity, or yours.

Anyhow, despite all of your fluster and indignation, aimless quotations and tangential arguments, you're still mistaken, the CCB did revise its statement to "protect" Jews from undue conversion.

Your Berkley location,, politcal affiliation and insulting comments do not lessen our skepticism about the "fruit" of your contemplations.

Anonymous said...

I've not seen the film myself, as I have no interest in it, but I think this fairly reviews the movie from a Catholic perspective:

"The Passion of the Christ is one of my favorite movies actually, though I have to tell you that ironically it is one of Michael Moore's favorites as well. And that Mel Gibson is a fan of Farenheit 9/11. The world is not as simple as one might wish it.

My political affiliation being Republican, or anti-gay marriage? Because I don't agree with your departure from Catholic teaching in one area, I must depart from it in another (and yes, you are departing from from the Tradition. See the Baltimore Catechism, which I consider to be a higher authority than you are). Doesn't follow. I follow the teachings of the Church, wherever they lead, I don't try to force them to fit a predetermined paradigm.

Berkeley is a weird city, I'll admit, but that says little to nothing about me I'm afraid. Indeed, my roommate, who is actually from Berkeley, is one of eleven kids in a traditionalist Catholic family, and I myself am going to school with quite conservative Dominicans (one of my professors writes for New Liturgical Movement, actually). "Can anything good come out of Nazaeth?" was a silly question when St. Nathaniel asked it, and so it is now.

Another "irrelevant" bit of the Bible regarding your pick-and-choose approach to religion:

"Therefore love the foreigner; for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt." (Deuteronomy 10:19)

Anonymous said...

Ah, Robert Sungenis. Quoted positively. I see. Well then, never mind. The attitude towards the Magesterium makes sense now.

Tancred said...

You are simply angry because you are incapable of doing more than making emotive statements which you ocnfuse with authoritative Church teachinig.

And if you don't know who (or what) Cardinal Bernardin was, we suggest you inform yourself.

It's all about you, Sam, and you can't refrain for one moment from casting haughty insults because you no doubt do it habitually.

If you have a case, make your case and stop wasting our time.

Tancred said...

Tancred said...
If you're going to attack Mr. Sungenis' Catholicity, we suggest you take it up with him, his pastor and Bishop.

As far as we know, quite a few orthodox clergy are fond of Mr. Sungenis' work and once again, you make a groundless assauplt on someone's orthodoxy, quite ill advised, without concern for their reputation without evidence.

Let us know when you're done graspng at straw and have something cogent to say.

We have seen men like you before.