Sunday, August 16, 2015
When a Cardinal Spoke Out Against Muslim Immigration
In an ironic sense this is fitting. European civilization used to be Christian civilization. It is now more accurately called liberal civilization. But everything that is still good in it it owes to its Christian past. The current Catholic Church has for all extents and purposes renounced that past. And so it has fallen mainly to non-Christians–honest liberals and libertarians who have been perversely labeled as “conservatives” because they oppose the death cult of Islam–to defend it.
The recent European martyrs to Islam–Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh and the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, among others–were for the most part atheists.
Remember them. The current Church won’t defend you. They did.
In the Catholic Church today, cowardice gets you promoted. And courage earns you exile. If you’re lucky.
Five weeks ago, Italian Cardinal Giacomo Biffi passed away at the age of 87. Though he was a fascinating and important figure within the Church–he was once thought to be a possible successor to John Paul II–his death didn’t make headlines in the non-Catholic press. For that matter it hardly made headlines in the Catholic press.
Cardinal Biffi epitomized everything that used to be good about the Church. No doubt there are still a few like him, though many of those are relatively silent, biding their time so as not to get prematurely purged by the false apostles of “dialogue”.
I wanted to recall some of the Cardinal’s words on immigration, published in a pastoral letter written in 2000. This was of course a few months before 9/11, when the current threat wasn’t as clear to the rest of us. But the Cardinal saw it, even then.
His words–intended for Italy but now relevant to every Western European country–should be reprinted on the front page of every European daily. They should be plastered on billboards and subway trains. Actually, of course, even a blog post reprinting them now could earn the author an indictment for “hate speech”.
Note that while he refers to “Catholic” and “Christian” culture, his point in this context isn’t even religious per se. The Dutch atheist Fortuyn would have agreed with him 100%. My emphases in red:
Italy is not an empty or partially uninhabited moor, with no history, with no living and vital traditions, without it’s own unmistakeable cultural and spiritual physiognomy, which one can fill up indiscriminately with just any population at all […] a truly “secular” State should have among it’s principal concerns that of promoting a peaceful integration of the populations. Therefore concrete measures have to be taken to ensure that those who intend to settle down here may absorb the culture of the spiritual, moral and juridical reality of our country, and get to know as well as possible the literary, aesthetical, religious traditions of the particular humanity which they have come here to join. In a realistic perspective (all else being equal, especially regarding honesty of intentions and correct behavior), there ought to be a preference for the Catholic, or at least Christian, populations, whom it is far easier to integrate (with reference, for example, to the Latin Americans, the Philipinos, the people from Eritrea and the ones from many Eastern European countries, etc.), followed by the Asians (such as the Chinese and the Koreans) who have shown how capable they are of fitting in with great ease, while maintaining the distinctive features of their culture…
…It is obvious that the case of Muslims must be treated separately. And it is to be hoped that the people in charge will not be afraid to confront it with eyes wide open and no delusions.
Muslims—the vast majority of them, with few exceptions—come here determined to remain foreign to our “humanity,” whether individual or in groups, in what is most essential to it, most precious and most “secularly” indispensable: more or less openly they come to us determined to remain substantially ‘different,’ in the expectation of substantially remaking us into something similar to them.
They have a different kind of food (not much of a problem in of itself), a different holiday, family laws that are incompatible with ours, a concept of women vastly different from ours (to the point of polygamy). Above all they have a rigorously fundamentalistic view of public life, so much so that the perfect interpenetration between religion and politics is a part of their indubitable and unrenounceable faith, even if they are wise enough to wait until they are a numerical majority before imposing it on us.
So it is not the men of the Church but the modern states of the West who must do some wise book-keeping in this regard. Further, if our State really believes in the importance of civil liberties (among which is religious freedom) and in democratic principles, it should work on spreading them, having them practiced and accepted more and more, everywhere. A little tool which could be of use to achieve this purpose could be “reciprocity,” a request that this not be just an empty word in the countries of origin of the immigrants who come here. [….]
However foreign to our mentality and even paradoxical it may seem, the only effective way of promoting the “principle of reciprocity” on the part of a truly “secular” State wishing to spread human liberties would be for the authorized institutions to allow to Muslims here only what Muslim countries actually allow to others over there.
Of course the last point is an obvious one that is too rarely made. Muslim states do not allow the same liberties that Muslims howl about deserving in non-Muslim states. Restrictions on, say, mosque buildings are denounced. And yet within Islam, the building of new Christian churches is strictly prohibited. And evangelization or conversion is criminalized and often punished by death.
Oh, I know, turn the other cheek and all that.
The misuse of which is of course a lie. Cowardice, fear and apostasy wearing the mask of charity.