When The Holy Fathers Speak
Twice now I’ve run into a problem with quoting the wisdom of the Holy Fathers, on the issue of immigration, and now the issue of torture.
The problem is usually put this way: “well, there’s no official statement on this, it isn’t clear in the Catechism, it isn’t a part of the Magisterium, etc,.”
For instance, Pope John Paul II’s remarks on World Migration Day in 1996, which clearly call upon all Catholics to not only respect the ‘illegal immigrant’, to meet his human needs without preconditions, to even consider his burderns their own – all of this is brushed aside as nothing more than a ‘speech’. These specific remarks haven’t made their way into the Catechism, so, we are free to disregard them and by the tone some take, obliged to disagree.
On torture, I’ve been citing a speech given by Pope Benedict in 2007 where he quotes, verbatim, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church: “I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances“
I’m waiting for similar reasons to disagree to start showing up. The debate over what constitutes torture may continue. But it is also evident that there are many who believe that things we can all agree are torture should still be used in order to gather information that might save lives or for some other serious reason.
Now is a good time to look at what at least one Catholic authority teaches about how to listen to the Popes when they speak. The document I am refering to is called “The Modern Catholic and the Magisterium of the Pope” by Cardinal Laurean Rugambwa.
The Cardinal begins by acknowledging the impulses of the modern Catholic in questioning what the Church teaches:
Modern man wants to see for himself, to be given proofs, to take his own decisions, to apply the rule of thumb of his own conscience and experience. Criticism is in the air and nothing escapes from it.
But this acknowledgment is far from approval. A little later on he describes the limits of freedom and the duty to listen:
An honest man will come to the conclusion, at times painfully acquired, that his freedom has its limits. He must be willing not only to express what he thinks, feels, or presumes is right, but also to listen. And this all the more so in matters revealed by God or linked up with revelation. We cannot just identify without further ado our own convictions with the word of God.
Is it ever really justifiable for a Catholic to casually dismiss what the Pope has said on an issue where there is not yet an absolutely clear statement in the Catechism or elsewhere? To snoop endlessly for loopholes and evasions instead of addressing, head on, what was actually said? The Cardinal say:
[T]he Catholic is obliged in conscience to make serious efforts to see what the Pope means, to discover the deeper motives animating a ruling, an encyclical, a reprimand. Too often he is ready to indulge in a wholesale rejection of all that comes from the top. This would denote a spirit of unwillingness to listen to Christ who said: “Anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me” (Lk. 10, 1).
Criticism of the Church and even of the Pope is not discouraged, however. It may be done, but only with a certain approach, in a certian spirit:
A critical mind can be either a very good or a very bad thing… It can be and should be inspired by real love. Only then can there be question of truly constructive criticism.
Forgive me if I note that ‘love’ is not the first word that comes to my mind when reading objections to what the Popes have said on both sides of the political spectrum.
The Cardinal quotes Paul VI’s Lumen Gentium as well on the nature of ‘religious submission’ to the authorities of the Church and the Pope himself, even on matters that are not ex cathedra:
This religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that this supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest will and mind. His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking
I could go on, but I think I’ll stop there for now. I recommend that everyone read article by the good Cardinal. I don’t mean to single out conseravtive or right-leaning Catholics because there are many on the left side of the spectrum who have just as much disregard for the Holy Fathers. I used the examples I did because those are the ones I have personally encountered so far.
To conclude, we may not have absolute, authoritative statements on any number of issues, but we do have a duty and an obligation, as faithful Catholics, to study the speeches and writings of the Popes on the issue in question, to discren their meaning, to do so with an open and loving heart, and to maintain a submissive orientation towards their clearly expressed intention and will. It would be rather absurd to assume that some official statement in the future about torture is going to conflict with what Benedict said in 2007, or what John Paul II said much earlier, or what the Catechism clearly teaches now.
Comments are closed.
Truth be told, I really don’t need a letter from the Pope, the Archbishop of Canturbury or the General Moderator of the Presbyterian Church USA to tell me torture is wrong. I’m sorry to hear there are others holding out until they get something in the mail.
“I’m sorry to hear there are others holding out until they get something in the mail.”
Me too :(
It is a sad reflection of the state of ‘intellectual’ life in America and with respect to the Catholic blogosphere.
With regard to immigration, both the Catechism and Pope John Paul II recognize the sovereignity of nations, their rights to control their borders and who can cross them under what circumstances and each requires of the immigrant that he “obey” the receiving country’s laws. Crystal clear.
Pope Benedict XVI, as well as JP II, have also stated that it is to be preferred that economies be fixed so citizens don’t feel the need to leave.
Mayo,
We are Catholics. We are not fundamentalists. And as such we value Tradition. We interpret the teachings of the Magisterium as a whole. You talk about what John Paul II and Benedict XVI have said about the sovereignty of nations and their rights to control their borders. Well… they also said this about immigration (which is the question at hand):
His irregular legal status cannot allow the migrant to lose his dignity, since he is endowed with inalienable rights, which can neither be violated nor ignored.
–John Paul II, World Migration Day 1996
The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.
–Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana
Again, every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own State. When there are just reasons in favor of it, he must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there.(22) The fact that he is a citizen of a particular State does not deprive him of membership in the human family, nor of citizenship in that universal society, the common, world-wide fellowship of men.
– John XXIII, Pacem in Terris
The Church considers the problem of illegal migrants from the standpoint of Christ, who died to gather together the dispersed children of God (cf. Jn 11:52), to rehabilitate the marginalized and to bring close those who are distant, in order to integrate all within a communion that is not based on ethnic, cultural or social membership, but on the common desire to accept God’s word and to seek justice. “God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).
–John Paul II, 1996 World Migration Day
“I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” (Mt 25:35)
Katerina,
Thanks for those other references. They will be added to my automatic mental reference list :)
“Fundamentalists”? Wow, Katerina, do they have Catholics on Mars, other than you?
Nothing I said the Catechism and Popes JP II and B 16 said contradicts the statements you cite. In fact, they reinforce them.
Lame, very lame.
Mayo,
What is it exactly you want to say?
Here’s what I say, and what the Church says:
policies that result in the break up of families are unacceptable
wealthy countries have a responsibility to take necessary measures to address the economic imbalances between rich and poor countries
the law alone cannot serve as a guide in dealing with illegal immigrants from poor countries to rich countries
We can have reasonable immigration policies, somewhere between open boarders and mass deportation. My problem isn’t with reasonable policies but with the attitude of intolerance and pettiness. People who screech “they broke the law!” are completely missing the point. The law is not absolute.
If that’s not what you do, we have no beef.
Nothing I said the Catechism and Popes JP II and B 16 said contradicts the statements you cite. In fact, they reinforce them.
Katerina didn’t mention any sort of contradiction, so I am puzzled as to why you are so quick to jump at her and dub her point “lame.” Surely you are capable of civil discourse without references to “Mars.”
If you read the passages you cite along with those that Katerina provides, you will see that the sovereignty of nations is always secondary to the dignity of human persons, including the right to immigrate. The Church is “crystal clear” that the right of national sovereignty is not absolute cannot be exercised at the expense of absolute human rights. Pope Pius XII is perhaps the clearest on this point. No nation has the right to close its borders to those in grave need.
Your failure to see this is why Katerina mentioned your seeming fundamentalism, clinging to isolated CCC paragraphs instead of reading them in the total context of the Church.
On the torture issue: I think many people, like myself, are still reeling on this one, and some of us are just trying to come to grips with it, to work it into our belief systems. It’s not something we ever gave much thought to, one way or another. And there are some legitimate questions about *certain* practices.
But I hate how misleading examples are used. “Well, all we’re doing is waterboarding” or “All we’re doing is playing loud music.” Even if you deny these things constitute torture, that is not “all” that they’re doing. They’re doing some very sadistic stuff, and I just think “how long before they start doing that to their own citizens?”
As for the immigration quotes, the thing with social teachings like immigration is that the Holy Fathers set out all sorts of different criteria we have to follow. There is always room for a certain prudential judgement, as John XXIII says in _Mater et Magistra_, *so long as all criteria are taken under consideration.*
There are so many factors to consider than an absolutist stance on illegal immigration from either side is inadequate to what the Church actually teaches.
Here’s a thoght that occured to me yesterday, thinking about your facebook post: we often talk about “My ancestors were immigrants, but they were *legal* immigrants.”
I’m not really sure how many of my ancestors *were* legal immigrants. I know there are family legends about my Slovak great-grandfather hoboing his way across the country on trains and even stabbing a man in self-defense when he was 12 years old. It could alos be likely he stowed away on the boat to get here.
On one side of my family my ancestors just walked through Ellis Island. Not a very rigorous screening process.
I’d like to focus for just a moment on the word “criticism” regarding responses to the various Pontiffs’ statements.
The word “criticism” is not a bad or ugly word from the standpoint of a pedagogue, although it is often taken to be so in the United States, and in English-speaking countries in general. In fact constructive criticism is what the Evangelicals in your country call a “love-gift,” because it is implicitly stipulated that real criticism is necessarily the result of intense LISTENING; Abraham Lincoln is said to have remarked that “he only has the right to criticise who has the heart to help,” and the Jesuit principle of “obedience” DEMANDS that an objection to a superior’s decision be voiced to the superior himself.
Taking all that into consideration, consider a story I once heard about a Jesuit cardinal’s dispute with John Paul II’s rather arbitrary-seeming statement that he could not possibly foresee how any future successor would be able to award women sacerdotal office within the Apostolic Church. The cardinal fully understood the Holy Father’s reasoning: he understood that the Pope believed that part of the argument for restricting holy order to men was on account of the reverence we Christians have for the appearance, in history, of the Messiah-Saviour as a man. However, the Jesuit’s main consideration seems to have been the historical dis-empowerment, by the Church, of her female devotees, so he said, “OK, Holy Father, I fully understand your reasoning here, and I accept it, whether I disagree with it or not, but I should like to remind you that there are many positions within the Church’s hierarchy and administration which are NOT ‘sacerdotal’; for instance, the office of cardinal-elector of the Roman pontiffs is NOT ‘sacerdotal’; boy-princes and statesmen have been cardinals and sometimes persons elected had to be made priests the NIGHT BEFORE their enthronement.” “So, Holy Father,” the Jesuit cardinal is supposed to have asked, “so long as the actual office of Roman pontiff is not in question, I’d like to ask you what in your theology prevents a woman from serving as a member of the Sacred College of Cardinals?”
I don’t take that to have been an impertinent question–despite John Paul II’s quite revealing angry response to it (the Jesuit was supposedly never invited back to a consistory)–and I DO believe that it respects John Paul II’s position as Supreme Teacher in the Apostolic Church.
I think that the real problem in the highly politicized American Catholic Church is that most American Catholics do not know HOW to truly “listen” to an institution so ancient and historically-minded as the Apostolic Church–they don’t know how to listen to her in a spirit of awesome reverence and love, and so they can’t actually HEAR the echo of received wisdom of two millenia. They don’t understand, being of a culture that prioritizes so-called “progress” and the “bottom-line” of “immediate gratification,” that the Popes generally speak in a spirit of total disregard of the immediate, and in total focus on what is timeless and patient and SLOW. One reason I could never leave the Catholic Church is that I DO have have this kind of reverence for what is seamlessly traditional and have never valued what is merely “new” or “practical.” What Erasmus told Luther when asked to join his revolt against the institutional Church has always seemed correct to me: “Yes, you are right about many things, but I cannot partake of your egotism in setting yourself up against a millenium of divinely-inspired wisdom and tradition”–the implication being that you may “revolt” all you want, but that it must be from WITHIN the Roman Catholic Church that you do so.
So I think that, if one reveres and loves the SPIRIT in which the Popes teach and actually LISTENS to their words, then one is entitled to offer criticism, in a spirit of reverence and solidarity with the Magisterium.
At the same time that the papal bureaucracy have always seemed to me to constitute a sort of “oracle in the Vatican” that the world would profit by better HEARING, it has also seemed to me–and particularly of late–to be somewhat coccooned against the legitimate and respectable opinions of their faithful. That’s why I think that the choice of Ratzinger as successor to John Paul II was a mistake–not because I disagree with some of his Augustinian and pessimistic theological tendencies; I can respect both those theological tendencies and his profound scholarship–but simply because he had scarcely ever been a pastor, and I think those chosen for very high office should be vetted more on their success as pastors than on the rigour of their theological orthodoxy.
Unlike most American Catholics, especially the doctrinaire, fundamentalist-inspired “new Catholics” in your country, I don’t actually believe that the crisis the modern Catholic Church faces has much to do with challenges to orthodoxy. Instead, I think that her faithful, world-wide, are perceiving a lack of imaginative, constructive engagement, on the part of the clerical caste, with the real problems that hyper-inflated materialism and unregulated technologies are posing for ordinary people everywhere. And, in particular, there is a total lack of appreciation among American Catholics for what I suspect the “oracle in the Vatican” appreciates quite well: that the real source of revolution against tradition and organic cultures such as that of the Church is the “Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism” which actually IS predicated upon the neo-Hegelian, Marxist notion of the constant “transvaluation of all values” so that the only value to life MUST, in practice, actually become a Marxist, a materialist, a quantifiably–and “scientifically”–MEASURABLE one.
What American Catholics have absolutely no feel for–and it shows up in their support for torture’s “results,” or in their advocacy of “test results” as a solution for “school reform”–is that their own economic system and its implicit values are the CHIEF ENGINE of the world-wide moral revolt against the received wisdom of two millenia of the Christian experience. Here in Europe there seems to be a much deeper understanding of this, and a willingness to retreat and purify the well-springs BEFORE attempting to engage in any sort of “re-evangelization” of the anarchic, secularized and pagan culture which sorrounds us.
Ok,
I erased my previous post because I went about it the wrong way. I was originally a little ticked off at Digby, but, instead of returning fire with fire I’m just going to make my rebuttal short and to the point.
1) Stop trying to generalize American Catholics. You accurately describe some of us, but only some.
2) Marxism and Thomism have always shared the position that a) reality exists objectively, outside of our experience and b) that reality can be understood by the human mind. Does that make the Church secretly Marxist? No.
3) If you reject scientific criteria for the definition of life, how is it established? Through feelings? Linguistic analysis? Does the mother decide what is a living being or not? It’s all nonsense. We cannot have a policy debate or a moral debate about abortion unless we can establish what it is that is being aborted. And we can’t do that without some knowledge of its objective, natural characteristics. Maybe those aren’t sufficient, but they are necessary.
4) Try to lose the attitude. Do you think anyone here wants to be yelled at? Whose mind do you think you will change? Are you here to listen to yourself talk or engage in a discussion? Because if its the latter, you aren’t doing a good job.
You are a crude, bigoted nationalist, obviously.
There is no possibility of engaging with you; this comment was supposed to be in general SUPPORT of what you’d written, but you obviously can’t stand ANY criticism at all of the American Catholic Church, which, I promise you, is generally completely out of sync with European and other forms of Catholicism.
I will now refrain from ever commenting on another one of YOUR posts, but, believe me, your attempt to bully here with the first paragraph will not deter me from commenting on other posters’ entries.
And just WHERE in my post did I say ONE THING about abortion?
For your information, I SUPPORT the Church’s theological position regarding the sanctity of all life; I just don’t like the highly politicized way that American Catholics go about opposing abortion. I don’t think it’s useful or respectful of the positions of those who disagree–those who need to be PROPERLY and RESPECTFULLY evangelized.
The anti-abortionists in your country treat those who disagree with them like you just treated me. But that’s my last word to you–ever!
I’m the bigot?
You make a bunch of generalizations about American Catholics in an insulting way, and you accuse me of bigotry?
I can stand criticism when it is done in the manner outlined in the original post – with respect, if not love. What was respectful about your post?
Are you saying that this:
“the only value to life MUST, in practice, actually become a Marxist, a materialist, a quantifiably–and “scientifically”–MEASURABLE one.”
Has nothing to do with the abortion debate? Isn’t this at the heart of the debate over life issues?
I’m not a nationalist. Far from it! Since when do nationalists argue for the rights of immigrants? I just don’t appreciate you tarring American Catholics with a broad brush. That’s what you did.
You obviously have anger management issues. Get those under control and then we can talk.
I was ACTUALLY thinking of education and the management of all education “reform” in terms of teaching to tests–not about abortion at all.
Abortion is on your brain, constantly. It seems–to me, to all the German, the French, the Italian Catholics I’ve met during my recent expatriation here–to be all that American Catholics think about.
And you’ve just proved it to me–with the issue that provokes so much anger in you that you can’t even begin to “manage” it.
But I really must stop talking to you here–in all charity, actually.
You said “value to life”. What does that mean?
I will admit that abortion is constantly on the brain here. But even if you weren’t talking about abortion, to suggest that Americans think life can only be measured in quantitative terms – that’s not bigotry?
No, that’s your boundless charity, right? It’s so obvious that your post was meant to thoughtfully engage Americans.
I’ll ask again – are you off your meds?
Joe Hargrave wrote: “On one side of my family my ancestors just walked through Ellis Island. Not a very rigorous screening process.”
Really, Joe, as the person who raised the topic on this thread, you might be expected to be less inadequately acquainted with the facts. You obviously know nothing about Ellis Island. No one “just walked through”.
If your family really did enter there, you can see their entry papers on line. I traced a friend’s ancestor and we saw that he had a medical exam, had a certain required amount of money with him, had a specific address to go to attached to a specified receiving person plus we saw the answers he gave while being questioned (no, he said, he wasn’t an “anarchist”).
Joe,
I decided to refresh my memory of Pope John Paul 2′s remarks in 1996 on the occasion of world migration day. H-m-m. I guess you were in the fancied “spirit” rather than the actual letter when you misleadingly – even spuriously – mischaracterized his remarks.
“Migration is assuming the features of a social emergency, above all because of the increase in illegal migrants which, despite the current restrictions, it seems impossible to halt. Illegal immigration has always existed: it has frequently been tolerated because it promotes a reserve of personnel to draw on as legal migrants gradually move up the social ladder and find stable employment.
2. Today the phenomenon of illegal migrants has assumed considerable proportions, both because the supply of foreign labour is becoming excessive in comparison to the needs of the economy, which already has difficulty in absorbing its domestic workers, and because of the spread of forced migration. The necessary prudence required to deal with so delicate a matter cannot become one of reticence or exclusivity, because thousands would suffer the consequences as victims of situations that seem destined to deteriorate instead of being resolved. His irregular legal status cannot allow the migrant to lose his dignity, since he is endowed with inalienable rights, which can neither be violated nor ignored.
Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international co-operation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment. The present economic and social imbalance, which to a large extent encourages the migratory flow, should not be seen as something inevitable, but as a challenge to the human race’s sense of responsibility.”
Shame on you, Joe.
“Illegal immigration should be prevented…The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international co-operation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment. The present economic and social imbalance, which to a large extent encourages the migratory flow, should not be seen as something inevitable, but as a challenge to the human race’s sense of responsibility…”
Pope John Paul II, 1996
And then he says: “When no solution is foreseen [to enable longstanding illegal immigrants to legalize their presence through lawful channels], these same [social & charitable] institutions should direct those they are helping, perhaps also providing them with material assistance, either to seek acceptance in other countries, or to return to their own country”. Yikes!!!
Mayo,
Why is it always uncharitable? Shame on me? Was that necessary?
Did I ever give you the impression that I wasn’t open to being corrected in the event I was wrong?
Before getting to what JP II said, here’s what I want to say: this is the entire problem with online debate. Why is it that we refuse to give one another the benefit of the doubt? Are you that eager to score a point?
I’m happy to admit when I am wrong, when you show me a reasonable argument. How about you remember that for the future.
Now, two things with regard JP IIs remarks and your unfortunate and inaccurate reading of what I said.
1) First of all, nothing you quoted, contradicts a single thing I wrote. I never said that JP II said the opposite of any of the points you listed. What you’ve done is assumed that his remarks are somehow mutually exclusive with mine. That is an error.
2) This is what I said JP II’s remarks effectively do:
“call upon all Catholics to not only respect the ‘illegal immigrant’, to meet his human needs without preconditions, to even consider his burderns their own”
Now, this is what JP II said:
a) “The first way to help these people is to listen to them in order to become acquainted with their situation, and, whatever their legal status with regard to State law, to provide them with the necessary means of subsistence.”
b) ” It is necessary to avoid recourse to the use of administrative regulations, meant to restrict the criterion of family membership which result in unjustifiably forcing into an illegal situation people whose right to live with their family cannot be denied by any law.”
c) “Solidarity means taking responsibility for those in trouble. For Christians, the migrant is not merely an individual to be respected in accordance with the norms established by law, but a person whose presence challenges them and whose needs become an obligation for their responsibility. “What have you done to your brother?” (cf. Gn 4:9). The answer should not be limited to what is imposed by law, but should be made in the manner of solidarity.”
Nothing I said is in contradiction with what JP II said here. And nothing JP II said is in contradiction with what you said either.
The answer here is clear: WHILE formulating policies to address the problem of illegal immigration, we must have a certain attitude and we have certain obligations to illegal immigrants, especially from poor countries, while they are here.
That is ALL that was argued. So why is there always a knee-jerk reaction?
I mean, “yikes” indeed concerning
“The answer should not be limited to what is imposed by law, but should be made in the manner of solidarity”
Your use of the term “Holy Fathers” is confusing. At first I thought you meant the Fathers of the Church, but apparently you meant “popes.” Please do not introduce new terminology into our tradition.
You are mistaken. The Popes are called “Holy Father” in our tradition. I’ll take this simple snippet from Wikipedia:
Forms of address
* “Your Holiness”
* “Holy Father”
* “Il Papa”
That’s pretty basic. Is there some reason to doubt the information here? Or the dozens of Catholics in the course of my life I have heard refer to the Pope as Holy Father?
I can’t even imagine what motivated you to comment on this in the first place.
If you don’t like Wiki, though, you can look at what the Vatican website says
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/
I think the fine people of vox nova should seriously consider adding digbydolben as an official contributor.
A number of digbys comments in my view would make great posts, would make for interesting debate and add very positively to the blog.
Please do not introduce new terminology into our tradition.
Deacon Eric Stoltz,
The Vatican web site refers to the pope as the Holy Father.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/index.htm
Hopefully you found the title “When The Holy Fathers Speak” momentarily confusing only because it was plural, since there is nothing novel about referring to the pope as the Holy Father.
Yes, Holy Father is correct as a form of address or in referencing the current pope. No argument there. However, using it in a plural form is unusual. You will not find this usage in any Vatican document, I bet; rather in referring to popes of the past they will use “The Roman Pontiffs” or “the Successors of Peter” or in a singular case “The Holy Father X of blessed memory.” Using it in the plural is generally reserved to the Fathers of the Church, especially in the East, or in some cases to refer to all the participants of an Ecumenical Council.
Let us say that ‘Holy Fathers’ is not yet a tradititional reference to popes.
So what?
Do you think that nothing ever originally happened in history that then eventually became a part of— or was seen as a legitimate development of– a tradition?
You could have at least specified that you meant the plural form.
In that case you may be right. But it’s really quite nitpicky, don’t you think?
By the way, Digby is an American Catholic. He just thinks he’s cooler (of higher quality) than us because he currently lives in Europe and has been for the last couple of years. In the same way, Morning’s Minion says he’s Irish, but he’s American, too. Notice the trend.
What a bogus ad hominem if I’ve ever seen one!
Sorry, but I HAVE to come back here for a moment, to correct “Joseph’s” lie:
I am a HALF-American Catholic of legal British AND American ancestry. (My paternal grandmother was a British subject, and half my family has always lived in the British Isles.)
It is, however, absolutely true that I feel much more comfortable with European Catholicism than I do with the American variety, and that part of my motivation in expatriating myself BACK to Europe was so that I could practise the form of Catholicism I’m most comfortable with in a culture that I believe is more conducive to it.
My mother’s mother was Irish. Though that means I’m of Irish blood by maternal line, it doesn’t mean that I was born with a connection with the Emerald Isle or their culture. You are from New Mexico, hardly British. You’re American, sorry to say. Get over yourself.
Some of the confusion on these issues is some of us tend to confuse the individual’s responsibility with the state’s responsibilities. We as individuals should, of course, treat people with great regard for their human dignity with no concern for their citizenship. However, the state has a separate obligation to ensure security and various other concerns. This is similar to the confusion some have about charity. Some feel voting for state taxation of some and redistribution to others equates to being charitable. No, we are called to be charitable. We are not called to compel charitable action by others.
For Digby,
There are no half Americans. You are either an American or not. Even those who like to throw an nation of origin and a hyphen before American are really just Americans. My grandparents (or great grandparents) may have been Irish, French, German, etc by birth, but once they chose to migrate to America they became Americans.
To the idiots, Largebill and Joseph: Tell that to the European Union which has issued me a United Kingdom passport.
Largebill and Joseph: You can go tell that to the officialdom of the European Union who have issued me a United Kingdom passport based upon “parentage.”
Digby,
The only idiots are those with an identity crisis based on cool factor. That sort of behavior should end when one graduates from high school.
You’re so cool that you have a U.K. Passport! Guess what, I’ll be getting an Irish one soon! That makes me no less of an American by culture and background.
You’re an American by cultural identity and by natural birth. Try to deny it as you might, the only ones buying it will be the teenagers who hang out on the street corner outside of their high school smoking cigarettes and ditching class. You’re so cool.
Digby,
Nice to see you are are capable of holding a conversation without resorting to name calling. Oh wait a second – skip that.
I repeat, Joseph, you’re a TOTAL idiot: I was born in the UK. How’s that for “natural birth”?
Oh, and then, how about THIS, Joseph:
“…It doesn’t mean that I was born with a connection to the Emerald Isle or their culture.”
Then WHY will you be getting an Irish passport “soon”?
It seems to me that, if one was born with a lot of strong but divergent cultural strains in one’s background, one is, indeed, entitled to choose among them in terms of forging one’s identity. My family has always, ever since 1829, had one foot in Europe and the other one in America: my mother had me when she was visting my father’s extended family outside of London, but I spent my earliest childhood in the suburbs of New York City, my childhood in the American South, went to university in Virginia, spent my junior year of college in Paris, went to graduate school in South Carolina, taught high school in South Carolina, lived in South Asia for a decade, then in the suburbs of Philadelphia, and then, finally, during the last eight years, lived in the American Southwest.
How can you DARE, then, to tell me where I belong, culturally, linguistically or by ethnic affinity? I don’t even know myself, unless I CHOOSE, and I know a lot of other internationals who are just like me.
Only stupid people like you presume to tell us what nation or culture we should or shouldn’t identify with.
Tell me, do you say the same thing to American Jews, when they speak in enraptured terms of the “return” of the Jewish people to “Zion”? I’m darned sure that you don’t, because, if you live in New York City or Miami, you know what would happen to you if you did!
Then WHY will you be getting an Irish passport “soon”?
Because my wife is Irish.
So your parents were living in New Mexico and your mother gave birth to you on vacation in England? Else, why bring up the “my granny was British” validation?
Sorry, I’m not in high school. I’m not drinking Schlitz at some lame party in New Mexico with the money I got from selling my baseball cards. I’m not buying it.
Digby,
I don’t even know myself, unless I CHOOSE, and I know a lot of other internationals who are just like me.
You don’t even know yourself so you choose your own identity? That sounds like something you learned in self-esteem class in a New Mexico public school and/or on MTV.
So, you’re a European stuck in a New Mexican’s body? Was there an afterschool special about something like that?
The rest of your last comment was just garbage and a further display of the cloud of confusion you are drifting in.
Only stupid people like you presume to tell us what nation or culture we should or shouldn’t identify with.
One more thing… stupid is as stupid does… you remember that movie right? You watched it while you were living in New Mexico before you even had an American passport or driver’s license.
I personally believe that I identify more with the Irish, but that doesn’t mean that they automatically identify with me. It would be vanity to presume that. The fact is, they probably don’t identify with me. But, I’m O.K. with that, because I understand that we were both raised in different cultures. I’ve done some acting in my time, so, if I wanted to, I could develop a character that would afford me the level of acceptance that would be similar to that of my American friends and aquaintances, but that would be lying to myself and to them. I can’t shake the American culture as if it never existed or had an impact on my personality, just like an Irishman could never completely assimilate culturally in America today.
But, I think this response is way too nice to you, so I’ll stop.
What a vile piece of work you are!
I teach in a school right now that is filled with people of the same sort of background I have. Just because YOU don’t know any international people who have been expatriated throughout their lives for various reasons relating to jobs and national allegiances doesn’t mean we don’t exist.
And I have NEVER been a “New Mexican”; I happened to live there for seven years. I’m no more “New Mexican” than I am Indian or Sri Lankan, though I lived in South Asia for EIGHT years.
In the same way, Morning’s Minion says he’s Irish, but he’s American, too.
MM was not born in the U.S.