Why We Eat Fish and Muskrat on Lenten Fridays

On seeing a recent NPR piece concerning Lenten fast rules, an economist of my acquaintance remarked:

I was just chastised for poking fun at the apparently important theological ramifications behind a debate that is also apparently central to the core of Christianity. I was reminded that the importance of Lent is to revisit medieval arguments about the edible appropriatness of land versus aquatic mammals. 

Wanna know why fewer people are going to church?

What gave rise to his mirth? Why, the discovery that the Church classifies animals in a different way than modernity does:

Many Catholics abstain from eating meat on Fridays in observance of Lent, the season of penance between Ash Wednesday and Easter. The church has made exceptions — at times, in some places — for aquatic mammals such as beavers, muskrats and capybara....  According to Dolly Jørgensen, an environmental historian in Sweden, the medieval theological debate about forbidden foods during Lent didn't distinguish between mammals and fish, but rather, creatures of the land and sea. So, while meat from chicken, cows and sheep was considered off limits, "other animals that spent their time in the water qualified as aquatic and could be eaten at Lent," she wrote.

Although both economics and theology are frequently considered to be non-sciences, both actually ARE formal sciences. And, just as theologians should be careful when they assess what appears to be ludicrous in economics, so economists should be careful when they assess what might seem to be, at first glance, ludicrous in theology.

In Christian theology, water is tightly linked to baptism (Ephesians 5:26). And, again, according to most Christian theologians (some Protestants being the sole exception), baptism is understood to be the means to salvation (1 Peter 3:21). Succinctly put, water = baptism = salvation.

Now, Christ's death in the flesh on Friday, and His burial on Friday is ALSO linked to baptism (Romans 6:4 we are buried with him in baptism so that we might rise to new life). So, since Christ walked the earth, died in the flesh and was buried in the flesh, Christians have historically not eaten the flesh of land animals precisely to commemorate that Christ died in the flesh during Lent - the period when we suffer with Christ and spiritually die to our sins with Him.

However, since Christ died precisely to accomplish our salvation, and water is our salvation, we may eat the flesh of water animals, because that reminds us WHY Christ died in the flesh - to save our sinful flesh through the washing that is baptism.

If you have ever wondered why Catholics eat only fish on Friday, it is precisely because fish - the creatures that swim in baptismal waters - link together Christ's suffering, death, burial and resurrection.

And if you never knew this until now, well, that's the state of Catholic education today.

Why America Will Pay for Trump's Wall

If Mexicans sent $21.3 billion in US dollars to Mexico in 2013, and if Trump himself said in early February that his wall would probably cost $8 billion, then wouldn't Mexico be paying for our wall with our money?

Isn't the claim made that all those illegals are stealing American jobs? They took that money from Americans as surely as if they stole American wallets. It was our money, until our jobs were stolen, right?

So... in what sense is Mexico going to pay for our wall?

Is Sex Dirty! Thank God, Yes!

Question 1: Kathy Schiffer asks the perennial question, "Is Sex Dirty?"

The Answer: Of COURSE sex is dirty.

But not for the reason you think.

Look, when a rabbi reads from the Torah, as soon as he finishes reading, he has to go and wash his hands, because the Holy Torah has defiled him.

How can a holy thing defile you?

When I was a boy, we would play outside until the street lights came on. In the twilight, as I approached the door, my mother would sometimes snap on the porch light and exclaim, "My heavens you are dirty! Get in here right now and take a bath."

Now, if I were a Jewish rabbi, the proper response would be, "I'm not dirty. I was fine out in the field just a minute ago. It's the light. The light made me dirty!"

Sex is participation in the divine act of creation. Through sex, we assist God as He creates an immortal being. We aren't worthy of that kind of work, but He allows it, even requires our participation in it. So, when we participate in the work of the God Who is Life, we become aware of our own unworthiness, our own sinfulness. We recognize that we are dirty.

Sex makes us dirty in the same way the porch light makes us dirty. I explain this and much more in my book, Sex and the Sacred City.

Question 2:

Now, when this question is raised, a related question often comes with it: why does religion get so upset about sex? Can't they just leave it alone and go do something else? The Answer: Nearly every religion has detailed rules about sexual behaviour precisely because every religion deals with the problem of suffering. We know there is suffering in the world. The existence of suffering is considered, by every religion, to be a sign of the world's broken-ness. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity - all the major religions are centered in helping men and women deal with the suffering they encounter in life. Christianity is the most obvious, of course, since it is centered around a crucified man. What is the easiest, most sure-fire way to bring suffering into your life? Having sex with the wrong person, or even having sex with the right person at the wrong time (e.g., before you are married). You can spend the rest of your life returning to the error, trying to figure out how to remove yourself from the suffering the event brought you. The question really isn't why religions have such stringent rules around sex. The question is, why do so often insist on causing ourselves this kind of suffering?

Pacifism Against a Sinful Peace

We may have a horrific choice ahead, a choice between Hillary Clinton and her alter-ego, Donald Trump. I have already publicly indicated that I have no intention of voting for either one. I am not a politician. I am not required to sell out my principles in order to support the most popular of two equally evil candidates.

There are those who agree with this analysis, but hold up the Amish as an example to follow. They argue that we should at least vote the down ticket, the local elections, even if we cannot find a way to stomach the national candidates. That is one solution. But can we go even further?

Many consider it some kind of civic sin to not participate in the political process. Is it?

If war is just the continuation of politics by other means and
It is not a sin to refuse to participate in a sinful war (war-time pacifism) then
It is not a sin to refuse to participate in a sinful peace (political pacifism).

Now, it is possible for war to be just, or moral. If a war is just, then, clearly, we might sin by refusing to participate in that just war.

But, everyone also recognizes that we can justifiably refuse to participate in a war that we consider sinful. Now, as CS Lewis pointed out, "If war is ever moral, then sometimes peace can be sinful." The thought is initially startling, but clearly accurate. This is, after all, the reason a just war is waged - the peace is sinful, and can no longer justly be borne. If we can refuse to participate in a sinful war, then we must also be able to refuse to participate in a sinful peace.

When can we refuse to participate in a sinful peace? Consider the four criteria of the just war, namely.

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

In a sinful peace, we may have no "serious prospect of success(fully)" removing the sin while retaining the peace, so we cannot justly wage war. What can we do in this sinful peace? That is, what can be done, short of war, when the political process itself has been so corrupted that we end with a choice like Hillary vs. Bernie vs. Donald? The first two are clearly fungible. If you have reason to doubt Trump's recent conversion to a "conservative" outlook, then all three individuals are entirely fungible. Voting for any particular one creates essentially the same consequences as voting for either of the others. If this country actually reaches that point, then voting, participation in the process, is merely validation of the process. My vote merely rubber-stamps horror.

Now, opponents of non-voting might point out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country (emphasis added)

Why yes, yes it does. But the Catechism also says:

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way. (emphasis added again)

If war-time provisions can be made for those who cannot, in good conscience, fight an unjust war, then - by the same principle - provisions can also be made for someone who cannot abide the electoral farce that exists in an unjust peace. Just as someone can refuse to contribute to the 98% electoral victory of Josef Stalin, so that same someone can refuse to contribute to the electoral victory of either candidate in a Hillary vs. Trump contest.

And there is good reason to do this. As has been pointed out elsewhere, you can't vote with a question mark or an asterisk. A begrudged vote for Hillary/Bernie/Donald is identical to an enthusiastic vote for the hydra-headed beast. Both the enthusiastic vote and the clothes-pin-on-the-nose vote  count the same, a vote for any one of them has the horrific effect of contributing to that one actually getting the office. Even if the one I vote for does not gain office, even if one of the others gets the office instead, s/he can still point to my vote against them as at least a blessing of the process. No matter what happens, my vote validates their occupancy of the office.

Catholic Faith does not require me to validate a politician's office. For instance, in a monarchy, I would validate the office by granting public assent to the actions of the king. Thomas More became a political pacifist, he dropped out of the political process, he refused to give his "vote" of assent to the actions of the king. Instead, he "voted" by resigning the royal office that had been given to him and retiring to private life. His refusal to "vote", his refusal to give assent to the political process, led to his death as the king's good subject, but God's first. The king recognized More's refusal to participate in the monarchy's political processes, his political pacifism, as an act of war against the government. Thomas More was declared a saint for refusing to participate in an unjust political process.

In a democracy, I validate the office holder by voting. When I consciously refuse to vote, I imitate St. Thomas More's action. Not voting is not "taking no action." I can choose not to have sex with my spouse on fertile days.I can choose not to bear arms in war. I can choose not to vote in order to avoid validating ANYONE in the process.

And so, I can become Thomas More, retiring to the countryside, refusing to participate in the corrupt political process which gave us the fake "choice" between Hillary and Donald.

Many feel the process can be saved, so they will write in a candidate. That is a valid opinion to hold, and a valid course to follow. We could tear off the offensive part of the ballot. We could leave parts blank. Or we can refuse to vote at all, we could retire from the irredeemably corrupt political process, as Thomas More did. We are allowed to repudiate the entire process. We can refuse to participate in both a sinful war and a sinful peace.

And, if our political pacifism fails, then we have a final option.
Remember the Battle of Athens.

Reasons Not To Vote For Trump

Actual Trump Quote: "the Chinese government almost blew it ... but they put [Tiananmen] down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.": For this alone, he should be cast out of society until he publicly repents in sackcloth and ashes.

Trump lied about writing Art of the Deal

Trump pals around with George Soros

Trump says his supporters are fine with murder

Trump Vows to commit International War Crimes: it is a crime to target civilians, even in wartime. We hanged Germans for doing this.

Trump Vows to take away Constitutional Rights: The right to free speech would be curtailed under Trump.

Trump Takes Jobs away from American Workers: He is more than happy to take away jobs from the poorest American workers.

Trump has extensive Mafia connections: Obama brought in the Chicago mafia and lined their pockets, now Trump will bring in the New York mafia and line HIS pockets.

Trump uses illegal labor: No hard hats, no safety from electrocution.

Trump's business was built with government handouts: Not with hard work, but by buying off politicians

Trump is a lousy businessman: He could have made more money simply by investing in stocks

Trump is still battling numerous lawsuits for fraud and malfeasance: And he'll use the power of the White House to get himself out of trouble.

Most of Donald Trump's Money went to Democrats: Trump bought Democrat politicians by the truckload. He can't afford to lose his investments. He is beholden to the Democrat machine.

How Dana Loesch came to her opinion about Trump

Taxes vs. Wealth

The rich complain about how they pay most of the taxes in the nation (and they do). The social justice types complain about how the wealthy own 80% of the countries assets (it's actually 85%). Both sides presents numbers, but neither side ever presents the other side's numbers.

So, let's do that.

The tax numbers are primarily from the CBO's 2011 data, while the wealth numbers are primarily from Wikipedia's 2007 data. I tried to compare 2011 to 2011 data, but was unable to find any newer wealth data than Wikipedia's. If you know where the 2011 data is at, or where any newer data is at, let me know.

	% Taxes Paid	% Wealth Owned	Govt. Transfers (Raw $$)	Average Market Income
Top 1%	24	34.6	??	1447500
Top 20%	68.7	85.1	11000	240800
2nd 20%	19.3	10.9	14100	89600
3rd 20%	8.9	4	16500	55400
4th 20%	2.5	0.2	15700	31100
Bottom 20%	0.6	0	9100	7900

Now, you will notice a few things right away.

First, looking at the first column, it is obvious that the top quintile really does pay nearly 70% of taxes. Second, when you combine the first two quintiles, the top 40% of taxpayers pay a staggering 88% of taxes. The remaining 60% of the population pays only 12%, and most of that 12% is still in the top 50%.

Fully 50% of the population pays less than 10% of the taxes. Once you figure in government transfers, that is, money transferred directly to the taxpayer through food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, etc., the bottom 50% does not pay any taxes at all.

Not only doesn't that bottom 50% not pay any taxes, the people in it actively make money simply by breathing and filing a tax return.

But..... this is not as rosy for the bottom 50% as it appears, because.... well...
More on that in a bit.

The second column helps explain why the bottom 50% doesn't pay any of those taxes. It doesn't have any money. The bottom 20% of this country has ZERO percent of its wealth. None. Nada. Goose egg. Empty Set. We're looking at the inside of a great big empty.

The bottom 60% of the country has less than 5% of the country's wealth.
The bottom 80% of the country has only about 15% of the nation's wealth.

Of course the wealthy pay almost all of the taxes.
They have almost all of the money.

But isn't a lot of their money transferred to the poor?
Why, yes. Yes, it is. But look at that transfer column.
The rich actually get more government transfer money, in raw figures, than the poor do. In fact, the group that gets the least money is the bottom 20%. The poorest of America's poor receive the least of America's transfer payments. The biggest payments go to.... wait for it... the middle class. But even the rich make out better than the poor do.

And please don't be tempted to say, "Good heavens, man. The difference between the payouts for the rich and the poor is a mere $2000. That's hardly a difference at all." Sure, if you're in the top quintile, making a quarter million dollars a year, then $2000 is a rounding error. But if you're in the bottom quintile, making only $7900 a year, then $2000 constitutes 25% of your income. That extra $2000 the rich pick up is, for the bottom 20%, the difference between living in an apartment and living on the street.

Here is a more complete rendering of CBO data, breaking out, by quintile, exactly how much money each group gets in income and pays in taxes, on average. The CBO does not provide the numbers for areas that have question marks.

Table 1 - Average Household Income, Transfers and Taxes by Before-Tax Income Group, 2011

	Bottom Quintile	Second Quintile	Middle Quintile	Fourth Quintile	Top Quintile	The Top 1%
% Taxes Paid	0.6	2.5	8.9	19.3	68.7	24
% of National Income	5.3	?	14.1	?	52	14.6
Tax as % of Income	1.9	7	11.2	15.2	23.4	29
Market Income	15500	29600	49800	83300	234700	?
Government Transfers	9100	15700	16500	14100	11000	?
Before-Tax Income	24600	45300	66400	97500	245700	?
Federal Taxes	500	3200	7400	14800	57500	?
After Tax Income	24100	42100	59000	82600	188200	?

Note: The numbers in the second table are largely drawn from CBO Table 2. Numbers are different because " In Table 1, households are ranked by before-tax income, which includes income from government transfer programs, including Social Security and Medicare; in this section (Table 2), households are ranked by market income, which excludes income from transfer programs."

So, don't beat on the rich for not paying taxes. They do.
And don't beat on the poor for sucking at the government teat.
Compared to everyone else, they don't.

Update: Some 2021 numbers are here. 

A Collection of Backdoors

For those of you who like software that can be used as spyware:

http://techrights.org/2015/02/11/microsoft-back-doors/

http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-back-doors.en.html

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428642,00.asp

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/08/22/nsa-windows-8-exploit/

http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5263/1.html

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606776/hacking/155947-Biggest-baddest-boldest-software-backdoors-of-all-time.html


Microsoft bought Skype from Ebay to insert their patented 'Legal Backdoor' technology
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&p=1&S1=20110153809&OS=20110153809&RS=20110153809

This is why it is important to keep up with the news. The first you hear of a vulnerability on your network maybe the morning email.

Mousejacking: http://www.cnet.com/news/i-got-mousejacked/

Use a wireless mouse? This $15 hack could compromise your laptop www.cnet.com "Mousejacking" takes advantage of a flaw in many wireless USB dongles.

USB security hole:  http://www.wired.com/2014/07/usb-security/

Why the Security of USB Is Fundamentally Broken | WIRED www.wired.com Computer users pass around USB sticks like silicon business cards. Although we know they often carry malware infections, we depend on antivirus scans and ...

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/how-crackers-make-minced-meat-out-of-your-passwords/

Anatomy of a hack: How crackers ransack passwords like ... arstechnica.com Risk Assessment / Security & Hacktivism Anatomy of a hack: How crackers ransack passwords like “qeadzcwrsfxv1331” For Ars, three crackers have at ...

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/03/how-i-became-a-password-cracker/

How I became a password cracker | Ars Technica arstechnica.com Risk Assessment / Security & Hacktivism How I became a password cracker Cracking passwords is officially a "script kiddie" activity now.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/virginia-hacking-voting-machines-security

Voting machine password hacks as easy as 'abcde', details ... www.theguardian.com Voting machine password hacks as easy as 'abcde', details Virginia state report

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-frankel/the-black-box-voting-mach_b_8082384.html

The Black Box: Voting Machines - The Huffington Post www.huffingtonpost.com The 2014 midterm election results may have been a complete farce. All it takes is one insider who knows how to flip a switch and the outcome changes. When ...

http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5263/1.html

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606776/hacking/155947-Biggest-baddest-boldest-software-backdoors-of-all-time.html


Microsoft bought Skype from Ebay to insert their patented 'Legal Backdoor' technology
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&p=1&S1=20110153809&OS=20110153809&RS=20110153809

The Myth of the Ecological Indian

"“You may say to them that the Indians do not eat all the game they take,–that it is not supposed they eat more than four-fifths of the deer they kill. The skins are of great value to them, and having secured these, the bodies are left for the wolves to devour, and it is much the same with the buffalo; they are hunted for their tongues, and skins, of which they manufacture robes, and sell them to the fur traders."

https://thehistoricfoodie.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/native-american-waste-of-the-buffalo-c/

The Indian Americans were so good at destroying forests that a team of Stanford environmental scientists think they caused a mini ice age in Europe. When most of the Indian Americans died in the plague, so many trees grew back that it had a reverse global warming effect. More carbon dioxide was sucked from the air, the Earth’s atmosphere held on to less heat.

http://anonhq.com/5-lies-schooltaught-native-americans/

Kay documents a strong inverse relationship between Indians and wildlife.  That is, there was little wildlife in the “core areas” of the various tribes, while big game animals were abundant in the “buffer zones” between tribes at war.     Kay found no exceptions to the relationship.  If Indians were resident in an area, wildlife populations were significantly reduced.   That relationship held true, not just for buffalo, but for all of the large animals...elk, antelope, bighorn sheep,  mule and white‐tail deer, moose...even large predators such as wolves, black and grizzly bears.

http://www.vorebuffalojump.org/pdf/Effect%20of%20Indian%20hunting%20on%20wildlife.pdf

In Australia and the Americas, where humans arrived comparatively late, the extinctions were the most extreme, Sandom said.

"You've got this very advanced hunter arriving in the system," he said, not unlike the invasive species that cause native extinctions today. The researchers did not find a strong overall relationship between extinctions and climate, except in Eurasia, Sandom said. Climate there might have interacted with human arrival in a complicated way, with temperatures determining where people migrated, he added.

Overall, humans' arrival was responsible for 64 percent of the variation in extinction rates around the globe, while temperature changes explained 20 percent of the variation, mostly in Eurasia.

http://www.livescience.com/46081-humans-megafauna-extinction.html


http://www.amazon.com/The-Ecological-Indian-Myth-History/dp/0393321002
There is no room for the Ecological Indian here. As Martin himself wrote in 1967, "that business of the noble savage, a child of nature, living in an unspoiled Garden of Eden until the `discovery' of the New World by Europeans is apparently untrue, since the destruction of fauna, if not of habitat, was far greater before Columbus than at any time since." For Martin, that realization is "provocative," "deeply disturbing," and "even revolutionary." To no surprise, Martin's findings fed the conservative press who argued that because of the (supposed) sins of their earliest ancestors, Native North Americans today lack authority to occupy the moral high ground on environmental issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/krech-indian.html

Justice Scalia Funeral Mass

Link to the full Justice Scalia funeral Mass.
Homily is at 1:05:20

http://www.c-span.org/video/?404962-1/justice-antonin-scalia-funeral-mass

Two Vatican Memes

Fun Facts about the Vatican Nation-State

Terrorists and Vatican Passport Policy

America's Anti-Catholicism

It's 24 hours after the initial Reuters-inflamed conflagration, and a few things have become clear.

The facts are now easily available to anyone who wishes to find them.

What has become clear is this: to a large group of people out there, the facts don't matter.

They hate the Pope, they hate the Catholic Church.
It doesn't matter what the Pope actually said.
The fact that Trump attacked the Pope is manna to them.
There are even Catholics in this group.

They want to hate, and they are not going to let ANYONE take their hatred away by citing a few tawdry facts.

So, it doesn't matter that the Pope didn't actually say Trump wasn't Christian.

It doesn't matter that the Vatican is a 100% immigrant city, with absolutely open borders, a nation state that has already taken in refugee families and whose leader has directed every European parish, monastery and shrine to take in refugee families.

It doesn't matter that the Pope has never said people should not build any walls, but has instead said that someone who wants to build only walls is not Christian. It does not matter that the Pope even expressed doubt that anyone would hold such a position.

All that matters to the people who are now pushing this meme is that they have a legitimate political opportunity to express hatred and contempt for this Pope, and by extension, for the Catholic Church.

They thank God and the MSM for giving them the chance to spew out their anti-Catholic hatred. This is a golden opportunity to legitimately express bigotry, and by heaven!, they will not miss the chance.

Rush Limbaugh and the Vatican Wall

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Well, there's big news to open the program with. CNN just reporting that il Papa, Pope Francis, upon boarding the pope jet on the return to Italy from Mexico said that Donald Trump is not a Christian. Man are they pulling out all the stops now. The Pope says that Donald Trump is not a Christian, because Christians do not build walls, they build bridges. Nevermind that the Vatican is surrounded by a wall and we won't even talk about who built that wall. But that's what the pope said. And given the pope's political leanings I'm surprised he isn't on the campaign trail for Bernie Sanders. But maybe Bernie Sanders is too far to the right for the pope.

Perhaps someone should tell Rush: 

1. The Vatican is the only 100% immigrant country in the world,
2. Anyone can enter the nation-state of the Vatican, any time of the day or night, without a passport,
3. The Vatican has not only accepted refugee families, it has directed every parish, monastery and shrine in Europe to also welcome refugee families. It has also accepted homeless refugees from Italy.
4. At 1.5 crimes per citizen, Vatican City has the highest crime rate in the world, all directly attributable to its open borders. Many of the people who cross its borders every day are pickpockets who target all the other people who cross its borders each day, or shoplifters. It has no working prison. 
5. And, yes, we know who built the wall. The Popes did. In fact, part of the wall was built in order to prevent the Muslims from raiding the city, as they had in 846 AD. 

The Vatican has already taken in 2% of its population in Syrian refugee families alone, not counting the dozens of Italian homeless. To match population refugee percentage, the US would have to take in 6,581,298 refugees a year (2%). 

The population density of Vatican City is 1884 people per square kilometer.
The population density of the US is 35 people per square kilometer.
To match population density, the US would have to take in 18,527,256,000 refugees. That's over twice the entire world's current population.

Update:
Now that many people are beginning to understand how generous the Vatican is, I hear people making this complaint:

The Vatican is not welcoming millions of settlers, that's the difference. Those millions are tourists who go home, they don't overstay their visas and disappear into Vatican City.

Americans misunderstand. 

All the Pope is asking is that people be afforded food, shelter and dignity.
That's it.

If the US had a program wherein everyone who came across the border got fed,  bid a fond farewell, and were then put on a plane to a safe home somewhere else in the world, we would have done all that the Pope asks. We would have been a bridge for them to a new life. 

If our laws don't allow for that, or if our laws allow refugees to do something else, that's not the Pope's fault. That's on Congress and the President and us, the citizens who elected them.

It is really very simple.
We don't want to be the rich man in the story:

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Mexico, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores...."


Or, as another commentator points out: 

To tear down those walls would be to destroy historically significant structures. Destruction like that, for symbolic purposes, is like what ISIS did when it razed Palmyra!

The preservation of historical structures — whatever they might symbolically mean — is dramatically different from the question whether to build something new.

"Pope Francis, tear down that wall!" might seem funny at first, but look again. You are unwittingly giving support to the terrorists who blow up temples and sledgehammer statues.

Update:
Today, 26 August 2018, the Vatican has taken over a hundred additional immigrants off Italy's hands.

Pope Francis On Donald Trump

The media is exploding about the remarks Pope Francis reportedly made about Donald Trump. Let's take a close look at EXACTLY what was said:

Phil Pullella, Reuters: Today, you spoke very eloquently about the problems of immigration. On the other side of the border, there is a very tough electoral battle. One of the candidates for the White House, Republican Donald Trump, in an interview recently said that you are a political man and he even said that 

1. you are a pawn, an instrument of the Mexican government for migration politics. Trump said that if he’s elected, 
2. he wants to build 2,500 kilometers of wall along the border.
3. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, separating families, etcetera. I would like to ask you, 
4. what do you think of these accusations against you and if a 
5. North American Catholic can vote for a person like this?

 Pope Francis' response:  

1. Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'animal politicus.' At least I am a human person. 
2. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don't know. I'll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, 
3. a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. 
4. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. 
5. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.

Now, let's take note of a few things.

1. The reporter said Trump disparaged the Pope,
2. The reporter listed only Trump's negative proposals, failing to mention that Trump welcomes legal immigrants,
3. He reiterated Trump's disparaging remarks,
4. And asked the Pope to get involved in America's political process.

Looking at the points in the question, a casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that the reporter was deliberately trying to bait the Pope.

The Pope responded precisely as he should:

1. He assumed the reporter was acting in good faith (Christian benefit of the doubt towards the reporter),
2.  Refused to take the bait on the name-calling,
3. Pointed out that, if the reporter's synopsis was accurate, this is not the attitude of a Christian,
4. Refused to get involved in the political process,
5. Gave Trump the benefit of the doubt by asking if this was really an accurate summary.

Now, as my friend, Dan Severino pointed out, the reporters' synopsis was inaccurate. It left out salient facts. But someone reported the papal remarks to Trump - whether accurately or not, we don't know.

We can be fairly certain the reporter's question was not included in the summary to Trump. Thus, Trump had no idea that the reporter seemed to be deliberately baiting the Pope to attack Trump. If he didn't have access to the Pope's reply, Trump would not have had a chance to examine the nuance with which the Pope spoke. 

In any case, Trump immediately attacked the Pope. Perhaps a reporter had helped him misunderstand the Pope's answer, or perhaps he did that on his own, but here is the relevant portion of Trump's response (full response at this link)

For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. 

If Trump had spent some time, gotten the full context of both the question and the answer, and had spent some time in thoughtful reflection, there would be no news story.

But, in ironic imitation of Ted Cruz's response to the CNN report that Carson was dropping out, Trump didn't check his sources. 

Instead, he went for the quick, politically safe response. And, in Protestant America, disparaging the Pope is always a politically safe response. In fact, it is a guaranteed vote generator in certain areas of the South.

In both the Cruz-Carson flap, and in the Trump-Pope flap, reporters have been the go-betweens. The accuracy of their reporting is suspect. But the popularity of the controversy their reporting generates.... ahhh, it is, as the French say, magnifique!  

From a political perspective, this whole mess is a win-win. The media gets their conflagration, lots of clicks, and lots of people tuning in to watch while Trump gets lots of votes. Nobody is left out but Catholics, and they deserve the blowback. So, the Pope was certainly used as a pawn... but not by the Mexican government. 

UPDATE:

Now you can watch the video!

Theocracy

I have heard some people complain that Ted Cruz is a Dominionist who would attempt to impose a Dominionist theocracy on the United States. This is, according to the whiners, hateful. After all, we are Americans, who have and cherish separation of Church and state!

Now, let us leave aside the fact that, for Catholics, separation of Church and state is heresy, and deal with the simple fact: in America, we neither have nor cherish separation of Church and state. Consider: if the Church and the state were truly separate, then actions undertaken on religious grounds could not be prohibited. But they ARE prohibited.

Followers of the Aztec religion cannot kill and eat each other. Muslims aren't allowed to rape and behead non-Muslims. In many cities, Christians are not permitted to feed the homeless. Obamacare requires Catholics to buy contraception, and requires religious sisters to pay for abortion.

We ALREADY live in a non-Christian theocracy. There is no separation of Church and state in this country. There is only domination of the Church by the state. That's it.

As a Catholic who very much opposes Dominionist theology, I have no serious issue with Cruz wearing his religion on his sleeve nor would I have serious problem with any attempt he makes to impose his beliefs on the nation. His beliefs are not any worse than what has already been imposed on us. Dominionist theology may be whacked in many respects, but at least Dominionists don't murder babies.  And, today, that's a pretty high bar.

Homosexual Activity is ALWAYS Rape

If I contracted with someone so that, under the right conditions, I agree to be their slave, that is not a valid contract. I have neither the right nor the ability to consent to that, nor can the person I contracted with enforce that contract.

Maybe I WANT to be enslaved, because I don't have to worry about income or taxes anymore - that's my owner's problem. Maybe my owner WANTS me to be a slave, because s/he always wanted to experience that relationship. Maybe my slavemaster treats me very well, and that's why I want to be his/her slave.

NONE of that matters. I don't have the ability to consent to such a relationship, nor does the one who wants to enslave me. The Declaration of Independence makes quite clear that our rights are:
(1) inalienable and
(2) endowed by our Creator.

The only theology that holds both of those principles to be true is Christianity. Christianity says that we have rights because: (1) God has rights and (2) we are made in God's image and likeness, so we have a share in the divine rights. No other theological system makes those two statements.

It isn't a question of emotion. No one has the ability to consent to homosexual activity. Period. Because no one has the ability to consent to the act, the act is always rape.