Islamic Refugee Crisis: Good Samaritan or Maccabean Response? Or both

What would Thomas Aquinas Say?

What would Saint Thomas Aquinas say about the Refugee Crisis?

We as Christians are debating among ourselves about whether or not we have a moral duty to receive refugees fleeing Muslim nations.

This article is politically incorrect and says things that might shock you. Please read the entire article until the very last two paragraphs before making a judgment or writing incendiary comments. This might be one of the clearest things you’ve read on the topic, because it draws on virtue ethics of Thomas Aquinas – something generally ignored in our day and age. – Godspeed, Taylor Marshall

Are We Good Samaritans?

As Christians we remember Our Lord’s parable about the Good Samaritan recounting how the outwardly religious clerics (the priest and the levite) passed the injured man in the road, but how the Samaritan proved to “be his neighbor” and care for him. Christ rebukes the outwardly religious hypocrites and commends the good Samaritan.

When it comes to the refugee crises, none of us wants to be the hypocrite who turns his steps to the opposite side of road to avoid caring for an injured victim.

Or Are We Good Maccabeans?

Meanwhile, if you are Catholic, you’ve been listening to the book of Maccabees this week in the daily Mass readings. These biblical lessons approvingly recount how Mattathias along with his Maccabean sons and companions rightfully used physical violence against their political oppressors the Seleucid Greeks who were actively using force to undermine the conscience and convictions of the People of God.

So which are we?

Are we the caring Samaritans or the crusading Maccabeans?

The Catholic political theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas can help us with this question:

Thomas Aquinas Black largeLet’s first suspend all emotional appeals, and set down a few logical and calm points of agreement to get us all on the same page:

  • In the Summa theologiae, Thomas Aquinas places politics under the civic virtue of patriotism which is itself a sub-virtue of justice. Our discussion is ultimately not about “politics” but the virtuous duties of justice toward God, our families, our nations, and all of humanity (in that order).
  • For Thomas Aquinas, all political human laws must be: 1) in accord with reason; 2) published or promulgated; 3) by rightful political authority; and for the common good (See STh q. 90, aa. 1-4). If a political law is lacking in any of these four attributes, it is for Thomas, not a law at all.
  • The duty of the political magistrates (the Republic or Kingdom) are by the virtue of justice different than the duty of the civilian person. Citizens are not de facto judges, soldiers, police officers, or legislators (STh q. 90, a. 3).
  • Muslims explicitly affirm that Muhammad is the Last Prophet of God.
  • Muslims explicitly affirm that Our Lord Jesus Christ is certainly not the Son of God.
  • These two Muslim affirmations place all Muslims in implicit or explicit theological contradiction with Christians who profess Jesus Christ as the Son of God and consequently conclude that Muhammad was a false prophet.
  • For Sunni Muslims (the majority of global Muslims), the mandate to erect Sharia law in every human government is a doctrine of faith. Muslims must in accord with their conscience pursue this theological belief that Sharia law must be promulgated in every human society (England, France, Poland, USA, Mexico, etc.)

So how does this apply to Refugees from Islamic nations?

When we move through the logical points above, we begin to discover a few logical conclusions:

  1. Muslims are bound by conscience to erect Sharia law in your nation. This is a bad thing for baptized Christians. At best it means being taxed at a higher rate (the Muslim jizya tax for Christians). At worse it means death.
  2. If you live in a democracy, a 51% political Islamic majority will allow “we the people” to promulgate Sharia law. They are following their conscience and religious beliefs in this matter. They will do this just as they have done in any other community where they captured the majority (Mecca, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, etc.)
  3. It is a duty of of justice for Christian people to strive to prevent the promulgation of false laws (i.e. those contrary to reason or the common good). Christians are called to be politically active and advocates for the common good and natural law.
  4. While we have the Christian duty to care for the refugee, the sick, the victim, and the injured, we have a greater common duty by justice to preserve the state of law and our religious liberty first and foremost.

We see this principle in our Scriptural readings. When it comes to the Samaritan, he rightfully cares for the victim. However, when it comes to the nation and the threat of terrorism (Seleucid Greeks), false laws, and the danger of our children, military, and civic peace, we (like the Maccabees) are politically obliged to resist, protect, and expel…for the common good.

The Analogy of the Familial Home

I am the head of a household. I earn an income to feed my wife and my children. With my surplus, I care for orphans, widows, the church, pro-life causes, single-mothers, and other apostolates that I feel God has called me to support.

Justice and charity demand that I care for the less fortunate and it is a Catholic belief that our salvation depends on how we treat the hungry, the naked, the homeless, and the sick.

MOREOVER….

I am not obliged to take the homeless into my house and have them sleep in my daughter’s bedroom at night. I am not obliged by justice or charity to give the homeless a vote over my financial decisions. He does not have the right to choose what’s for dinner. The homeless man does not (by my charity) receive a right to my continued support. The homeless man cannot share a bed with my wife when I am traveling. Nor may he presume a right over my children’s belongings.

refugees

Since we live in a democracy (“we the people”), political refugees de facto gain a measure of political authority over our laws, taxes, finances, military, religious holidays, and legislative bodies.

This principle applies to refugees universally. It applies even more so when the refugee in his conscience believes that he is morally obligated to introduce and vote for the enshrinement of Sharia law.

There is also the further problem that 5%-20% of global Muslims are considered to be “radicalized,” which means that they are consciously willing to use terrorist tactics to advance their Muslim worldview against the West. If you knew that 10% of your child’s Halloween candy was poisoned, would you allow your child to consume any of it?

So what would Thomas Aquinas say?

I’m afraid that Thomas would be much harsher than most of us would feel comfortable with.

Thomas prizes the “common good” so highly under the virtue of political justice that he openly promotes arms and capital punishment against those who are publicly “dangerous and infectious.”

The common good is the peace of society so that life and faith can thrive. Babies can be born and have a happy life. Grandparents can grow old together. Anyone who seeks to destroy the common good should be, according to Thomas, destroyed.

Thomas Aquinas also taught that anyone that fomented “danger to the community” or heretical movements is worthy of the death penalty:

“Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.” STh II-II q. 64, a. 2.

It is permissible to kill a criminal if this is necessary for the welfare of the whole community. However, this right belongs only to the one entrusted with the care of the whole community — just as a doctor may cut off an infected limb, since he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. STh II-II q. 64, a. 3.

Have no doubt that Thomas Aquinas would have stated that Christian nations should receive Christian refugees but refuse Muslim refugees for the sake of national justice and the common good. The Muslim’s official declaration of faith denies natural law (eg, polygamy), religious liberty (eg, Sharia), and implicitly Muhammad’s doctrine and example of political violence.

What’s our Catholic Response? The Samaritan Uses the Hotel

We Christians should be generous with humanitarian aid toward Muslims and all people. We should send money and resources to those who have been dispossessed. We should be loving and generous with Muslims. Kindness brings about conversion and understanding. We should also try to topple the Islamic State and eradicate terrorism in our lands and in the Islamic lands.

Remember the Good Samaritan! He did not take the roadside victim home with him. Rather, the Good Samaritan put the victim up in a hotel and paid for him to get better. The Good Samaritan was good and commended by Christ. The Good Samaritan did the right thing: humanitarian aid.

We are not required by Christ to take victims that oppose our faith and our way of life and make them into our political heirs. We are not required to take them into our homes.

But we are obliged to help them. And if terrorists use our charity as a pretense to hurt us, then, as Thomas Aquinas says, they should be swiftly destroyed.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Godspeed,
Taylor Marshall

Would this help people you know? If so, please share it on Facebook by clicking here:

facebook-share-button

If you’d like a free book on the thought of Thomas Aquinas (including a brief account of his political philosophy), I’ll give you a free copy of it. Just click here to receive it.

Thomas Aquinas in 50 Ebook cropped

Question: Do you agree? I’d love to hear from you. You can leave a comment by clicking here.

PS: If you like how we broke this issue down into bite-sized theological information and then logically built up a position using the wisdom of Saint Thomas Aquinas, then you are probably a key candidate for becoming a student at our New Saint Thomas Institute:

Certificate_Progress_-_New_Saint_Thomas_Institute

Download My Book for Free
Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages
Over 15,000 copies downloaded! This is a quick and easy way to learn the basic philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The Popes of the last 300 years have endorsed St Thomas Aquinas. Learn more through this accessible resources. Download it for free.

Comments Policy: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic. If your comment contains a hyperlink to another site, your comment automatically goes into "Comments Purgatory" where it waits for release by way of moderation.

  • Cathy Ceigersmidt

    This is such a genuine and healthy and faithful response. Thank you for your courage to share it, God Bless!

  • Bree

    I’m a little confused about point number 4. Where do we find in Scripture that we have a greater duty to protect ourselves than to help the needy?

    • Did I write “protect.” I don’t think so and it makes a big difference here.
      When it comes to “caring,” we do have an obligation to care for ourselves.
      “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” It presumes self-preservation and self-care. If we were to care for the needy more than ourselves, then every single Catholic on earth would already be dead. We would then send 100% all of our food and paychecks overseas and we would die. God does not ask that of us, nor does it ask of those who have made a vow of poverty.

      • Bree

        I’m sorry I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up! I completely agree with the article and find it a very sensible response to all the confusion right now! Off topic, but I’m currently in the process of converting to Catholicism and your articles have been extremely helpful- thank you!

      • Vilhelm

        I don’t think it is a particularly well-chosen analogy to speak of someone dying while helping the needy as being something to be avoided at all costs. It doesn’t seem to be what the saints have done historically, or what Jesus did, for that matter.

        What you’re describing seems more like a failure of prudence than a failure of being “too charitable”. It is clearly not particularly charitable to starve yourself completely to give food to the poor, since that would, as you said, be suicide. However, to abstain from natural goods, such as more food than what you actually need to survive, in order to help the poor does seem, to me, to be caring more about them than one’s own comfort, and certainly *is* something that you will find most saints advocated and did.

        For some reason, it feels like your argument (other than its forgetting about there being a constitution, and it assuming people’s beliefs are constant and unaffected by the society in which they live, and assuming people generally act strongly and in accordance to those beliefs) is a bit weak in how little you justify your prioritization. Specifically, so far there has been exactly zero instances of the doomsday scenario you paint happening to a western country, so we aren’t actually weighing that scenario against helping refugees — we’re weighing an (as of yet unassessed) risk of that scenario against a certainty of doing good for the poor. I think you need to expand with a justification of the choice you made in that dilemma.

        • Rene L

          St Thomas Aquinas on Almsgiving does outline the distinctions for helping others as to those who are closest to us, before those distant from us and does treat that on should give alms from one’s own substance, namely of what one needs and not surplus- otherwise, we may be objects of Jesus praise of the widow versus the rich who gave to the temple. (Some historical contexts about Scripture and Medieval economics may help) but in truth….what we should should be enough. Since God’s Divine Providence is for all, but yes those Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy will make demand on all us on judgment Day. As far as the scenarios of Muslims refugees inciting violence…. Well let’s remember St Vincent De Paul’s advise (at least from the Vatican’s top movies) the poor are over demanding, deal with it. But once they have established themselves they should in good manners learn to live the true American way of life, if that is what God wants for them…. As far as the Constitution there may be originalist who will say the all immigration that is not regulated is a harm to the state….But again….we can say that…but my two cents are: let’s have churches and religious houses provide or aid in providing shelter but without having the federal government telling churches what practices they should do it it goes against their conscience or natural law. Otherwise, we have a bad government who just want us to do what they erroneously but in their mind- or double mind- think is noble. So subsidiarity and common good should be guides. Meanwhile, if approved by Congress aid in getting their land back from Jihadists and problem solved for the moment. Otherwise, I hear it….it may not be very fair…. First prayer, then good judgement and action with a plan may help everyone come to their senses and put everything and everyone where they or we should be.

      • Mark

        The Thomistic analysis is solid, but why stop with Muslims? The synagogue of Satan seeks to press their anti-Christ halakhic and Noahide law upon us. It is not merely a matter of theoretical concern, since they are disproportionately responsible for unjust wars, genocide, usury and other economic crimes against humanity, pornography, abortion, tax farming, and the de-Christianization of our nations. Expel them too! judaism101.proboards dot com

        • Jadissock

          That’s ridiculous and unsupported by any cogent evidence. We are talking about here and now. All the whataboutery (“what about the Jews in the Old Testament…What about the Crusaders”) is what has got us into a situation where we are unsafe in our own cities, streets and schools. Take your Protocols-fuelled anti-semitism elsewhere. There are lives and souls at stake.

          • Mark

            Instead of spouting “antisemitism” name-calling, please read 2,000 years of Magisterium and history. The synagogue of Satan has been the main organized enemy of Jesus Christ, Christians and Christendom. From the Pharisees’ instigation of the judicial murder of Jesus Christ, their instigation of Roman persecutions, talmudists’ collaboration with Islam during Spain’s Reconquista, ritual child murders (documented, not “libel”) to ginning up and profiting from gentile-against-gentile wars, fomenting revolutions since the 18th century, Judeo-Communism’s genocide of over 60 million Christians, historical and current economic crimes against humanity, Zionist genocide, etc., the synagogue of Satan has been exactly as the Word of God says: “the adversaries to all mankind.” 1 Thessalonians 2:14
            Start your education here—plenty of verifiable evidence for you here:
            judaism101.proboards dot com

          • Mark

            Your grip on history is weak. “Chosen People” and their shabbos g oyim (Gavril Princeps his co-assassins of the Judeo-Masonic “Black Hand Lodge”) started World War ONE—25 million died.

            “Chosen People” (the 1933 Declaration of War by World Jewry against Germany) started World War TWO—60 to 80 million died.

            “Chosen People” created (Rabbi Moses Hess and his disciple Marx), financed (Rosenwald, Kuhn, Loeb, Schiff, et al.), propagandized (Ehrenburg, Mikhoels, Khaldei, et al.) exported (Kun, Eisner, Zimanas, Rozanski, Pijade, Rakosi, Olszewsi, et al.), and mostly ran Communism (Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Sverdlov, Litvinov, Andropov, et al.), their secret police (Beria, Yagoda, Bronstein, Yurovsky, Pauker, Slutsky, Gay, Speigelglas, Babel, Zederbaum, et al.), and gulags (the Kaganovich family, Berman, Frenkel,
            Firin, Rappoport, Kogan, Zhuk, et al.). Though “Jews” were only 1 or 2% of the Russian population, over 30% of the general party membership and over 90% of Communist command and control were Jewish—60 million died in the USSR; if you blame Rabbi Hess and Marx for Mao, add another 75 million dead.

            The synagogue of Satan is responsible, directly and indirectly, for the murder of nearly a QUARTER BILLION PEOPLE in the 20th century. How many will you let them kill in the 21st century?

        • Stephen Ferry

          There is not a single thing here that is Thomistic except the use of Thomas.

      • Stephen Ferry

        But having secured private property sufficient for our sustenance, is it not necessary for Christians to ensure that excess material goods, including property, be distributed according to need as Thomas says? “Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, ‘Command the rich of this world… to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’” (IIa-IIae, q. lxvi, art. 2)

        Pope Leo XIII offers a rather good gloss on this Thomistic point in Rerum Novarum. “True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, “for no one ought to live other than becomingly.” But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. “Of that which remaineth, give alms.” It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity – a duty not enforced by human law.” The alms mentioned by Leo cannot be simply interpreted as monetary support, at least not at the national level which, as you must admit–for Thomas does–has different obligations than the family or the person.

        You say that you never said protect. This is true. Instead, you argued that, in order to keep our well being safe–in other words, protect–we need to refrain from admitting refugees–commonly defined as persons who’s actual homes have become uninhabitable due to some injustice–and only give them undefined humanitarian aid.

        “If we were to care for the needy more than ourselves…” This is the slippery slope fallacy. Term A–caring for the needy more than ourselves–does not necessarily lead to Term B–sending all of our sustenance.

    • bookman

      Scripture doesn’t have to point all which is obvious. God has ordered this way.
      God first, then Family, then neighbor. — common sense.

      • AnneM040359

        Rather, God first, others second, self third.

  • avnrulz

    A meme on FB tried to show the Syrian Refugees and the man beaten on the road, and the Good Samaritan as what we are supposed to be, my feeling was that the current crop of ‘refugees’ were more akin to the men who beat up the traveler.

    • OUCH! But the truth hurts.

    • ForsythiaTheMariner

      What makes you say that, though?

      • rpp618

        I imagine he said that because the Syrian refugees ARE beating people up, robbing them and leaving them for dead by the side of the road.

      • bookman

        hmm….all young able bodied men. very few families….

    • Michelle Tavakoli

      Mayb e there are legit refugees, BUT I don’t we have an obligation ( since many are brought by Catholic Social Services) Christians who have been killed just for being Christian way before Muslims who may become a majority here and one day try to vote in sharia law or Muslim laws?

      • bookman

        The majority of these refugees coming to the states are NOT Christians.
        Most are Muslim, as Christians do not have priority under this administration.

        look it up. It’s a real shame, and few people know this.

    • Jo Flemings

      But really these people are mostly fleeing for their lives at great risk on the Med. This is a serious issue and if we make the wrong decision we will carry culpability for their harm, We are the richest most powerful nation on the planet. We can take in a few of these folks- but let’s keep a close eye on them.

      • Nick Pane

        That’s patently untrue. These people are smuggled into the sea, at which point smugglers activate a distress beacon, knowing that the West (still nominally Christian) will not refuse an opportunity to demonstrate their altruism, and many are then rescued. They’re brought to Europe where many have participated in crime and they demand all kinds of luxuries unbecoming of geuine refugees (who typically need medical attention, food and water).

        Do European Governments stop these smugglers? Does the media criticize this? Good heavens, no way. And yet we see similar occurrences in every Western country. We’ve practically opened the boarders to the Hispanics, who have largely crippled the private sector and social services (while simultaneously increasing crime).

        Catholics – indeed, Christians – have failed to influence society and the predominantly white population is barely at replacement level. A country needs people to live one. This is merely a way of ensuring the survival of many countries, naively believing these people want Constitutional law and a free market economy.

        Christians are plagued by Liberal sentimentalism. Unless they stop joining forces with the devil, and calling it the work of God, we’re doomed.

      • DWagner12

        You may have posted without realizing a terrorist who helped bomb Paris killing 128 was on one of those boats in Med going to Greece then moving on to Paris. This shows the lack of conscience or remorse by many who are Muslin even when they have been showed kindness by host countries.

        • Stephen Ferry

          Most of the Paris attackers were born and raised in France though. It was ONE guy who MIGHT have been from Syria but came on a passport, not as a refugee.

          • John D

            Here’ a question that I’d like you liberals commenting here in your shockingly naïve and typically deluded manner of “thinking:” Why aren’t these Moslem refugees being taken in by other MOSLEM COUNTRIES?? Rich Saudi Arabia comes to mind first. There are many others in the region-the other rich oil producers. Why? I suggest you ask Obama why? Sharia law anyone? Massive terrorism and martial law in the USA anyone? Wake up and listen to St. Thomas. Liberals are like Adam: They want to be as gods, deciding what is good and what is evil. But as the great Bishop Sheen used to ask, “what’s your sin?”

          • Stephen Ferry

            Because the Saudis are Jerks, Lebanon has taken in over a million already, and Turkey too….and Jordan….and Egypt….so there. Those are just some facts. We are taking in 10,000. That is the least number among all nations taking in refugees. Calm down.

          • John D

            Oh yes, “calm down,” LOL. How old are you Stephen? I suggest you ask your mommy to dry your still wet ears. I remember the “old church” and the real USA. I served Mass for the first time in 1954; that’s right fifty-four! At that time this country had it’s morality problems but it was paradise compared to today. The Church was a bulwark against social immorality-politicians feared it! That’s all changed of course. To understand why and If you are “catholic” I suggest you study-really study, the Fatima message. Then read the messages from Our Lady of Akita and you may get an idea what real moral evils are offending God- they are not refusing to take Moslems who won’t assimilate and instead demanding that Moslems take Moslems. They are institutionalized abortion, sodomy divorce, cohabitation, idolizing filthy Hollywood trash. You will also discover what is in store for the entire world soon. I’m not calm in your book because I am outraged to hear talking-backsides like you mouthing off and making excuses for a “religion” that has murdered, raped, pillaged, enslaved and conquered millions of victims for 1400 years. Go work for Hillary-you’re not fooling anybody on this site.

          • Stephen Ferry

            “I remember the “old church…” As opposed to what? If you implying that the Church, prior to Vatican II, would have advocated the abandonment of refugees, then you need to look at what the Church said about the last refugee crisis.

            ” I served Mass for the first time in 1954…” I am curious as to why you think this is relevant. Age is of no consequence, only Christ.

            “That’s all changed of course.” If you are implying that the Church, the institution founded by Christ, could in any way err, then I am afraid that is typically considered blasphemy. It implies that the promise of infallibility given to the Church in moral matters could be compromised thus making Christ a liar.

            ” I suggest you study-really study, the Fatima message. Then read the messages from Our Lady of Akita…” The private revelations of apparitions are not necessary for salvation and so I do not concern my self with them. They are not edifying for my spiritual life, causing me instead of being expectant of the coming kingdom to be concerned with the worldly affairs of men. Please, if you wish to make an argument that has actual doctrinal force, I suggest you actually present doctrine, not apparitions.

            “You will also discover what is in store for the entire world soon.” Yes, it will be quite glorious, the return of Christ. Whatever happens in the middle can’t really compare, can it?

            “…I am outraged to hear talking-backsides like you mouthing off…” I wonder greatly at your commitment to Christian Charity. Even when he overturned tables, Christ didn’t utter curses.

            “… making excuses for a “religion” that has murdered, raped, pillaged, enslaved and conquered millions of victims for 1400 years.” So your solution is to give them more cause to do all this even more? Shall we return to lex talionis? Shall it be eye for eye and tooth for tooth? Or shall it be the Law of the Cross, the Law of the New Covenant.

          • Nick Pane

            Actually, it’s more than one now. From what I’ve read, a couple others involved in the incident also secured passports and fronted as refugees.

            A few others were stopped in Honduras in route to the US through the oh-so-easy access point that is our Southern boarder.

            Besides this, as the article has noted, as well as many numerous authors and journalists, most of these folks are not attracted to Western civilization. They like sharia law and will implement it as soon as they have a chance; it’s a doctrinal issue for any serious Muslim. Even if they’re not blowing people up, they still want to transform the integrity of our civilization.

          • Stephen Ferry

            Ah yes, two. Two now. And the only things connecting them to Syria are fake passports and the route they took.

            “…will implement it as soon as they have a chance..” They have has ample oportunity in Dearborn but as yet, there have been no beheadings. It is a serious doctrinal issue for SOME Muslims. The lack of scholarship in this article and your reply is evident.

      • avnrulz

        On top of the millions of illegals already here, committing numerous crimes (murder in SF, DUI deaths, etc.)?

      • Yankeegator

        Yes and those Muslims on The Mediterranean Sea throw Christians overboard to drown if they find out they aren’t Muslim…

        • Stephen Ferry

          Evidence?

          • Adrian Johnson

            It was reported in several UK newspapers after one boatload of mixed Muslim-Christian refugees / migrants were rescued. The Christians said that the Muslim men threw several Christians overboard and the rest of them had to lock arms to prevent the murder of more. The offenders were taken into custody.

            Other Christians who landed on Greek islands quietly spoke of similar incidents but were afraid of reporting the Muslims to authorities so long as they were all in the same place for fear of retribution.

          • Stephen Ferry

            So anecdotes? Produce the “several” articles.

          • Phil Steinacker

            Lazy, lazy, lazy. I NEVER take any time to provide links to progressives or other obnoxious contrarians. Sorry, I repeat myself.

            Like I said above, nobody owes the time of day to those who refuse to believe what is said here. This is not an academic thesis defense. Do your own research to prove her wrong, or skip it entirely. YOU are the one with the burden to prove her wrong; not the other way around.

          • Stephen Ferry

            So what you are actually saying is, once presented with the demand for credible evidence, you blame me for not searching for it.

            The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Anyone would tell you that.

          • Phil Steinacker

            No one must provide YOU evidence. You and other progressives make broad claims repeatedly without evidence, but when someone presents them with facts which challenge liberals shibboleths the routine response is to demand evidence.

            Don’t be so lazy. Do y our own work. This is NOT a thesis defense. If you have two brains cells to rub together you can do your own searching to see if you can catch someone in lies or distortions. The anticipation of proving someone wrong should be exciting for you.

          • Stephen Ferry

            Actually, whoever makes a claim must back it up with credible evidence. At least, that is how the justice system works. Perhaps you are against American principles of justice.

    • Stephen Ferry

      Sure, even though that’s not based in reality, lets propogate it as true so we can ignore moral national obligations.

      • FranklinWasRight

        I am saying this with all sincerity and kindness. You are not well informed, you have stated that the things being mentioned are untrue, when they have all been reported by reliable news agencies.

        We can’t make rationale and prudent decisions as a nation unless we recognize and face reality.

        • Stephen Ferry

          Yes, they are untrue. I don’t understand why everyone needs to invent cacodemons when there are actually things wrong.

      • John D

        There you go again. Bend over a little more, I can’t hear you….

      • avnrulz

        What’s not based in reality? The fact the ‘refugees’ are mostly combat/military-aged men?

        • Stephen Ferry

          Your feelings. Emotion has no weight.

          • avnrulz

            My emotions are not at issue; I pointed out the fact the ‘refugees’ are not what the WH wants us to think they are.

          • Stephen Ferry

            People who have spent two years trying to get into the US? Why go through a lengthy documentation process when you can get a fake passport, fly through Europe, and get into the US on a tourist visa? Seriously, there are MUCH better ways of getting into the US than coming in as a refugee.

            Also, you say it was fact but you specifically used the word feeling which betokens emotion, not fact. If it is fact, present the facts. Otherwise, opinions not based in reality must be rejected.

          • Phil Steinacker

            If you knew anything at all, you would know that due to legislation designed to destroy the white majority in America, Teddy Kennedy back in the late 60s or early 70s introduced legislation shutting down immigration from Europe which had been the source for continued white immigration into the U.S. from the start. in favor of opening the floodgates to South America, Asia, and other 3rd world countries. For decades now, European immigration into the U.S. has been severely limited to an annual 50,000 arrivals on temporary visas only, and allotted only by lottery.

            Also, most of the folks who would be authentic refugees as well as the actual terrorists using the idea as cover don’t have the funds either. This is cheap & easy.

            Most of all, however, that scumbag closet Muslim, pseudo-president is the one responsible for using money NOT appropriated by Congress to import 10,000 Syrians most TRUE Americans do not trust into our country.

            Obama has been a liar long before he ascended to the throne. He continues in that regard. Most Americans do not trust him.

          • Stephen Ferry

            Why do I care about white immigration? What possible bearing does that have?

            I am going to guess you have little to say about Thomas and a lot to say about things that really don’t matter, like what a “true” American is.

          • Phil Steinacker

            You’re a joke. Don’t you know that people commonly use the word feelings when they mean thinking? You ought to; it is liberals who began to corrupt the thinking process in this country by substituting feelings for thinking decades ago.

          • Stephen Ferry

            “You’re a joke. Don’t you know that people commonly use the word feelings when they mean thinking?” Then why not use the word thinking? The word is there for a reason.

          • Phil Steinacker

            What emotion?

            OK, that tears it! You just proved you got nothing of substance and so you pull out little, sophomoric tactics like offering a rejoinder that simply doe snot apply to reality. You’ve really missed the mark on that one.

          • Stephen Ferry

            Your response is quite emotional. If you were presenting a logical argument, then you have produced a syllogism by now at least, let along evidence to back up your claims. As such, you have not.

      • Phil Steinacker

        If you want to invoke moral national obligations, then begin by asking why most Muslim lands have not accepted one refugee. Most know who would be slipping into nations hosting refugees. They understand the tactic being used by ISIS to smuggle fifth column terrorists into Europe and the U .S. Islam has used that tactic for centuries, along with an entire playbook to bring down non-Muslim nations.

        You really do not know anything about the Muslim threat, do you? I bet you think it’s a religion, when in fact (observable in the historic record) it is an ideology masquerading as such hell-bent on world conquest.

        You better get started reading; you behind by a few centuries at least. That’s a lot of ground to make up. Oh, and you need to read from the sources you ordinarily refuse to touch or you will not get the truth.

        • Stephen Ferry

          “…why most Muslim lands have not accepted one refugee.” You mean like Lebanon which has accepted 1.2 million? Or Turkey which has accepted 1.8 million? Jordan which has taken in over 600,000? Egypt which has taken in over 100,000? Even Iraq has taken in over 200,000 refugees and they are dealing with emigration themselves.

          “They understand the tactic being used by ISIS to smuggle fifth column terrorists into Europe and the U .S.” Actually, that is not their M.O. at all. Take the Paris attack. The majority of the attackers were French nationals that were radicalized through social media. ISIS doesn’t have the resources to send a fifth column. That isn’t their aim anyway. They want people to join them in Syria and Iraq while having independent actors in home countries perpetrate attacks.

          I certainly know more about it than you, having studied the methodology of terror for the past five years for my job. The fact is that ISIS is not waging war like previous terror groups. They don’t even follow the methodology of Medieval Muslim kingdoms because that follows a separate, distinct logic to it as well.

          I suggest you read “Millitant Islam” by G. H. Jansen

  • Risen Tortoise

    Great article Dr. Marshall. Perhaps your most important article ever, in fact, considering the West’s crazed immigration and refugee policies.

  • Travis Cannon

    As always Dr. Marshall, great article! Very appropriate today. Good to get a better Catholic view point on this situation.

    • Stephen Ferry

      Because who cares about Magisterial authority when you have a guy claiming Thomas is on his side?

  • Excellent, congratulations. You used only Aquinas, it is enough, but so many saints talked about how dangerous and heretical are the muslims: like St John Damascene, St Bernard Claivaux, St Francis of Asisi and St Louis IX.

    • Jane Galt

      St. John Bosco. St. Francis of Assisi attempted to convert the caliph of Egypt and other Muslims (unlike his modern day namesake who once told immigrant Muslims to stick with their faith). I’m sure there are many others.

      • Rene L

        It is said, that at the end of his life due to fear for his life, “Melek El Kamel” was the caliph (San Francisco de Asis, Escritos, biografias” B.A.C. footnote)requested two friars be sent to him so that he would be baptized and this was revealed to the friars by St Francis of Assisi as a promise when they both met since St Francis died first.

      • Stephen Ferry

        Evidence?

    • Stephen Ferry

      I am pretty sure Francis would be appalled. So would Thomas for that matter. Louis IX always gave full quarter.

  • Riki

    BE A GOOD SAMARITAN

    I heard the Good Shepherd’s invitation
    to be a Good Samaritan
    to the destitute of His Creation
    in this love-deprived Globalistan

    If it is really You, my Lord
    calling me to do this chore
    don’t let it be an inedible gourd
    bring me where You want me, I implore

    I want to love You in the needy
    whom You called me to serve
    so that eyes may be bright and beady
    and all tears may quickly swerve

    I’m ready Lord, just pick me up
    don’t let me wait too long
    to drink the longed for stirrup cup
    just let the big bell bong

    I will give myself completely
    until I no longer can
    and will be waiting discreetly
    for the coming of my Good Samaritan

    Rita Biesemans, January 24 2014

    To be a Good Samaritan : Help others in need without any thought for recognition or reward for yourself, for Heaven will be your reward.

    Luke 10 : 25-37

  • Great post, Dr Marshall. Clear reasoning, rather than appeals to emotion, are exactly what we need to hear right now. God bless.

  • Matthew Clarke

    I think the flaw in this article is your premise:

    “For Sunni Muslims (the majority of global Muslims), the mandate to erect Sharia law in every human government is a doctrine of faith. Muslims must in accord with their conscience pursue this theological belief that Sharia law must be promulgated in every human society”

    This seems unproven. There are countries with Muslim majorities where Sharia law is not in force and secular forms of law prevail. What is more I have heard plenty of Muslims say they have no desire to see Sharia law in Britain.

    I think you need to provide some proof of this premise for the article to be convincing. What is more, it is not enough that you show that this is a traditional belief. One could prove that all Christians should oppose Gay marriage, yet many professing Christians support Gay marriage. You need to show that the vast majority of Muslims would want to impose Sharia law everywhere.

    • ForsythiaTheMariner

      I agree. I was taken aback by that point, which provides no evidence. Why would this be a doctrine of faith for Sunni Muslims and Not Shi’a or Wahabi Muslims who also follow the Quran?

      • Kurt K

        Good point, however, scholars will point out that Islam establishes “the permissability” of abusing or mistreating non-Muslims. That’s why some sects can live harmoniously with non-Muslims and others say that non believers must convert or die. According to Islamic teaching both views are acceptable. (See Catholic Answers 20 Answers Islam, by Andrew Bieszad)

      • Lulu

        Wahabi muslims are Sunni and I can assure you they strictly enforce Sharia law

        • Stephen Ferry

          Actually, Wahabbism is mainly practiced in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The reason for such isolation is because the believe democracy to be unclean and even living in a democratic state would make you unclean. A related sect is Salafism which has more prominence but the majority of their adherents eschew from all political involvement with minorities trying to get courts to cede, through normal democratic laws governing the process, mediation authority to mosque leaders. This is not uncommon among certain fundamentalist Christian sects. An even smaller minority is violent. The vast remainder of the movement does not believe in enforcing Sharia through violence or even on non-Muslims in accordance with the Meccan Constitution.

          • Lulu

            “For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia’s dominant faith. It is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran. Strict Wahhabis believe that all those who don’t practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies.” (Source: PBS). “In Muslim countries where Islam is the official religion, sharia is declared to be a source, or the source, of the law. Examples include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates, where the governments derive their legitimacy from Islam…Saudi Arabia employs one of the strictest interpretations of sharia. Women are under the guardianship of male relatives at all times, and must be completely covered in public. ” (Source: Council of Foreign Relations)

          • Stephen Ferry

            Just because those countries use sharia as the basis of law–Iraq after the US invasion did too by the way–does not mean they are Wahhabists.

          • Lulu

            Wahhabism has been spread in Central Asia and even the US through Saudi funding of Mosques and Madrassas. But I’m not sure I see the point of your post as Wahhabis are indeed Sunnis and they do support Sharia. Furthermore, in countries where Wahhabism is dominant non-muslims are virtually non-existent and other muslims are persecuted such as Shia. If your point was to call-out fictional Christian sects as a sort of moral relativeness to a religion that means submission and has millions of adherents persecuting non-muslims world-wide well then go for it…

          • Stephen Ferry

            “Wahhabism has been spread in Central Asia and even the US through Saudi funding of Mosques and Madrassas.” Evidence? You seem to be conflating Wahhabism and Salafism. The former is a Saudi specific form of the latter and only has about 5 million supporters. Saying they represent Sunni Islam is like saying Jehovah Witness represent all Christianity.

    • Matt

      There have been recent polls showing, I believe, that even a majority of Muslims living in the West would like to see Shari’a law enacted in their country of residence.

      In addition, even those Muslim nations without strict Shari’a law usually have legal systems that are based on Shari’a law, or which allow a sort of shadow Shari’a legal system.

    • Cool mick

      We have extensive polling data from Pew that a majority of Muslims
      (outside the US) believe that Sharia should be the official law of the
      land. Support is > 70% in countries from the Middle East such as
      Iraq and Palestine.

      Google ‘pew research muslims sharia’
      (I would add a link, but it gets flagged as spam

      Also- you must also consider those who do not oppose Sharia law…because
      once Islam in total gains a majority or even a plurality, those
      ambivalous Muslims will not oppose the imposition of Sharia.

      • Matthew Clarke

        I believe the USA is taking 10,000 refugees. They are not going to become a majority any time soon.

        • Cool mick

          The article is discussing ‘Islamic’ refugees, not just Syrian. I believe those refugee numbers are upwards of 50k per year and legal immigration numbers much higher than that.

          Majorities can be established in localities / municipalities and the laws and culture of those communities can be impacted.

          As many Islamic leaders have indicated… they are playing the long game. While Westerners have declining birthrates, Muslims have significantly higher birthrates. See the demographics of European nations like the UK, France and Sweden as an example.

          • Matthew Clarke

            The old demographic doomsday scenario.

            Birthrates change. At some point the birthrates of Americans and Europeans will increase. As for Muslims, Muslims in the west tend to have fewer children than those in Muslims countries and some Muslim countries have seen declining birthrates among Muslims.

            The other side of the picture is immigration for Christian nations, particularly Africa. This will act as a demographic counterweight to Muslim growth in the west.

            But like the environmental apocalypse, we in the west love to imagine a thousand different ways in which our civilzation could collapse. Doomsday has always been a part of our culture.

          • TCA

            Boy are you naive.

          • Lulu

            Really because most our muslim immigrants are African and you are aware that they are currently mass converting whole countries in Africa via terror…Furthermore, many European countries have a birth rate lower than any nation or people have ever recovered from and in the U.S. native born whites and blacks have negative birth rates. Go investigate the demographics it is not some long-term doomsday prediction – the UK is on course to be majority muslim in a fairly short time as is Spain and Italy and France aren’t far behind. Europe is lost and we will follow…

          • Deacon_Augustine

            Are you really so blind to the “no-go areas” found in both Britain and France already where the police, fire services, and non-muslims generally cannot go in safety? Have you not learned anything from the epidemic of muslim paedophile gangs who have been able to operate with impunity in our cities because the police fear to tread on the sensitivities of “ethnic minorities”?

            It is this socialist blindness to reality which is already consigning the “west” to extinction. You have already succumbed to “dhimmitude.”

        • Michelle Tavakoli

          NOT YET MAYBE BUT 5 years it wouldn’t surprise ne. Maybe baptized Christians at birth or childhood who don’t practice their faith and atheists, agnostics start practicing their faith and they realize they need to pray and realize what’s going on. Europe is an example.

        • Lulu

          We have taken 2 million muslims since 9/11 and with family reunification that amounts to millions more, then you have their birth rates – they will soon outnumber Jews in the U.S. – then read up on what they do in countries where they number 10 percent of the population – they will not coexist and they will tell you as much

        • “any time soon.”

          Is it alright if we don’t live under Sharia, but our grandchildren do live under Sharia?

        • DWagner12

          I might add that number is closer to 250,000. Recent statistic say there will be more Muslin that Jew in a few years. Muslin families have 8 to 9 children when they have one wife. Muslin men who take more wives in other countries have up to 20 children.
          I think it something that Catholic should return to with only one wife of course. Having a large families.

        • Hugh

          They don’t have to become a majority to move legislation towards sharia. All they have to have is sufficient representation to affect the balance of power and thus have a significant voice. That representation can be quite small – even one seat or member – in an evenly balanced legislature. Minority parties in democracies the world over have had a huge influence on legislation.

        • Phil Steinacker

          You forget the fifth column already here. Check out Dearborn MI to see your future 70-80 years from now.

      • Thank you for the stat.

    • BitterClinger

      Name one. And a muslim that is against shariah is an apostate, not a muslim.

    • Regina Pimentel

      Please name three nations where the majority is Muslim and there is no form/part of Sharia Law. I would like specifics.

      • Chase Padusniak

        Bosnia, Turkey, Albania, Kazakhstan, Mali, to name a few.

        • Stephanie

          There is a big difference between these countries and the Muslims who come from a country where Sharia Law is the law of the land. Sharia Law is a matter of Muslim faith. It would be like using Ireland as an example of a Catholic country. They might say they’re Catholic in a poll, but most Irish today do not practice their faith, and sodomy as a form of marriage never would have passed if Ireland were a truly Catholic country.

          • Riki

            THE SHAMROCK BEWILDERED

            Ireland waving the Rainbow flag
            is provoking the Almighty’s Ire
            jubilating, while dressed in drag
            is sailing towards the eternal fire

            Ireland is blowing the retreat
            back to her pre-christian days
            following the devil’s deceit
            marching the wrongful ways

            The Shamrock is withering
            it’s a long way to Tipperary
            it’s slipping and slithering
            on a dangerous itinerary

            St Patrick got rid of the snakes
            they now came back disguised
            as colorful ducks and drakes
            readying Ireland to be chastised

            That’s the world we’re living in
            God’s Laws are pushed aside
            living in the most deadly sin
            but by worldly laws we abide

            Rita Biesemans, May 24 2015 Pentecost

            Come Holy Spirit, Soul of my soul, I adore You, enlighten me, guide me, tell me what to do, give me Your orders. I promise You to submit myself to all that You desire of me, but please let me know Your Will. Amen

        • Lulu

          Oh it’s there in Mali and Kazakhstan – and Endrogan would love to have it in Turkey – the same Turkey that yelled Allah Akbar during the moment of silence for the French victims at the soccer game yesterday

          • Chase Padusniak

            Actually, it’s not. You can check online if you’d like.

            As for Erdogan, no comment. That wasn’t the question you asked.

          • Lulu

            There are extremist movements in both countries and the principles of sharia are practiced throughout the villages, but I suspect you strongly want to believe what you believe about islam — and my beliefs on the subject are not going to change so we can agree to disagree.

          • Chase Padusniak

            Sorry, I didn’t notice you weren’t the one who asked.

            The problem is, in the countries I listed you’re still not correct regarding Sharia. To take Mali as an example, there is no state religion, conversion is legal, and there is constitutionally protected religious freedom. In practice how does this work? I don’t know; I don’t live in Mali. What I do know is that I was asked to produce Muslim majority countries where Sharia is not legally codified on the level of civil law. I did that, and that’s all I meant to do.

            As for your argument about local villages, that’s not the question. Surely in countries all over the world villages maintain and retain a level of local cultural authority, often rooted in religion, that makes criticizing the set way of doing things hard. That transcends Islam, heck we have versions of that all over the U.S., including among Christians and Orthodox Jews.

            I was asked about the legal codification of Sharia; I produced counter-examples. That’s all I intended to do, and I have done it.

          • Lulu

            And Mali is also a disgusting pit of Christian persecution like all muslim majority countries — Mali however is particularly bad as is much of muslim Africa.

      • Lulu

        Heck name a muslim majority country where religious minorities aren’t persecuted…

    • emiliani

      A lot of countries (e.g., France and Great Britain) already make Sharia exceptions and allowances for Muslims. Why is that? Do you think it’s because no one was demanding or wanting it? And are you telling me that English Anglicans and atheists were demanding it? Who then?

      Muslims.

      Anyone not supporting the various provisions of Sharia is a heretic.

    • This is like saying, “I had a Muslim friend in high school who drank beer and ate bacon, so you cannot definitively say that Muslims forbid alcohol and pork.”

      We don’t need to poll Muslims. We need only to look at what their religion says.

      • NJ

        That would be true, if being a Muslim were cut and dry. I view it like I view the poll on Catholics who use artificial birth control. We all know what the religion says, but sometimes its too hard or too inconvenient to follow. And not all Muslims know their faith (and if they do, they DO choose to ignore parts). This is indeed a Muslim issue – Muslims are claiming to be peaceful, and they may very well be, but they are trying to ignore a basic tenet of their faith. Time for them to come to their senses and convert! Easier said than done.

    • In Irving, Texas where I used to live (and where the young man created the controversial clock, Muslims are already moving for Sharia courts – in Texas. It’s happening.

    • Phil Steinacker

      Wow! No one here needs to be convincing. YOU need to be better informed. It’s not our job to carry water for the obtuse.

      Matthew and Forsythia, you need to do a bit of extensive reading. It is absolutely the case that there is a mandate to erect Sharia law in every human government, and that it is a fundamental doctrine of faith in Sunni Islam. I’ve known this for years…why don’t you?

      I think I know.

      It appears you are both shocked by what you evidently have not yet encountered, which suggests you’ve both been derelict in reading in-depth about Islam. Perhaps you are young and hadn’t casually stumbled upon enough information about Islam to stimulate a greater investigation of its goals and inner workings, but I’ve been doing so since before 9/11, as had my dad. Twenty years earlier he predicted the rise of Islam as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact nations became increasingly obvious. He understood that in the resulting power vacuum, a now unchained Islam – driven by the crazies fueling Radical Islam – would rise and assert itself. He was right, but that’s besides the larger point.

      Actually, it is a little worse than Dr. Marshall suggests. A variation on the article of faith cited by Dr. Marshall is that any land on earth where a Muslim has set foot is immediately regarded as a Muslim land. All that remains is to establish full control, and Muslims have demonstrated far greater patience than socialists in long-term machinations to overthrow an existing political order in favor of their own. Do a little research into the way Radical Islam sees Europe, especially lands they once conquered or came close to conquering: Spain and Portugal (Iberian peninsula), France, Austria, Malta

      They’ve had to because they have always faltered against a strong unified response from the West. However, due to the corruption and degradation of our western culture – primarily by socialists, communists, the sexual revolution fostered by libertines, and the undermining and decline of Christian principles engineered by such groups and many others over the last several centuries, we now have a weak faith throughout the west, we lack the will to survive overwhelming challenges (especially true in Europe; for us there is still time to correct this), and we have progressives here and in Europe stupidly doing everything possible to completely finish the job on the Church begun decades ago.

      I said “stupidly” because progressives seem obtuse to the reality that if the Church were to be destroyed (it cannot be) and western civilization and culture fully dissolved, Islam will replaced it because nature abhors a vacuum. And in Christianity’s place, socialists, communists, progressives, liberals, feminists, homosexuals, and transsexuals will discover that they will be the first to be beheaded – NOT Catholics and other Christians. our lot won’t be easy, but we’ll still be alive.

      If you do not see any of this, you are at the least extremely uninformed, and at the worst grossly ignorant of reality.

      Don’t ask me to document any of this. I’ve been reading on this topic for decades – including news articles long gone – and I could not cite it for you now. However, even if I could I would not. You are so poorly informed you are centuries behind, so you better get started reading NOW!

  • David P. Rundle

    The purpose of terrorism is to provoke extreme reactions. ISIS is succeeding. You cannot send women and children back into a war zone. You also cannot create permanent refugees camps if this war lasts a long time, which seems likely in light of everything that has happened since 1947. I can’t give you a solution. I only know that we need to calm ourselves before reacting. And no, I am not defending Obama’s policy. We need a new one but I have one, I just refuse to act without mugh thought and debate.

    • BitterClinger

      Yes, I can. And I would. NO MUSLIMS! islam is NOT compatible with human civilization.

      • ty4050

        And what of the children who haven’t had time to determine what they faith they will follow?

        • BitterClinger

          What of them? They are brainwashed and tortured from BIRTH. They are also so inbred they are born defective. islam needs to be exterminated.

          • ty4050

            Wow all I can do is shake my head. i can’t have a conversation with a self-righteous “Christian” who hates children. You give Christianity-a religion based on love-a bad name and are just as bad as the people you hate. Good day.

          • ty4050

            If you aren’t Christian then I take back everything I said and accept no more from you.

        • Jerry Reid

          Not long ago on PBS’s “Frontline” program it showed children as young as five years old being taught how to kill the infidel. They were being taught how to behead, cutting throats and other killing techniques.

          • Thomas

            The terrorists have really won if you’ve lost hope in children.

          • Phil Steinacker

            That is horse manure. Mere propaganda.

      • David P. Rundle

        Islam gave us algebra. It preserved ancient Greek texts and gave us poetry.

        It’s blind fear that is incompatible with our Faith.

        • BitterClinger

          You are ignorant. islam has given nothing but fear, violence, torture, rape, robbery, murder and destruction. Not only is it incompatible with western civilization, it is incompatible with HUMAN civilization. They are barbarians working for satan.

        • Phil Steinacker

          The first is not related to the second, and the second is false because our position is based on a cold reckoning with history and NOT on your self-serving shibboleth..

    • Kim

      Some Palestinians have been in refugee camps since they were displaced in 1948. Many Rwandans have been displaced since 1994. There are many very old refugee camps around the world. War creates refugee camp situations; there’s no real way around it. Do you not think those who have been living whole lives in them matter as much as Syrians who might have to also spend time in refugee camps?

    • Lulu

      Please the majority of refugees are men of military age and a woman terrorist just blew herself up in France- I see no concern for the victims of ME genocide the Christians and other minorities – the U.S. is not even taking Christians

      • Adrian Johnson

        Note: French forensic experts in the last 24 hours have concluded that the woman did not blow herself up — there was another terrorist next to her who did.

    • Phil Steinacker

      The weakness in our argument is easy to see.

      First, we can refuse their coming here or into Europe from their war zone, so there is no sending back.

      Second, the world should shame Islamic nations who refuse them now to accept them, or to foot the bill to provide secured areas for them in their own countries. Oil money can do all that is needed rather than support opulence.

      This is a Muslim problem, and it is shunted onto the West because the opportunity to infuse more “invaders” of western governance and culture ti to deliciously tempting.

  • Jennifer Hartline

    Thank you. The best explanation I’ve read yet.

  • Seth Brotherton

    De Regno, no. 138 – “But intercourse with foreigners, according to Aristotle’s Politics [V, 3: 1303a 27; VII, 6: 1327a 13-15], is particularly harmful to civic customs. For it is inevitable that strangers, brought up under other laws and customs, will in many cases act as the citizens are not wont to act and thus, since the citizens are drawn by their example to act likewise, their own civic life is upset.”

  • Ryan Seeley

    It would seem that a false dichotomy is proposed (not by you, but in general) – as if we
    must choose between just-Maccabean-resistance versus Samaritan-care-for-foreigners in need.

    Although the two are vastly different situations, because in the former a political power in need of no assistance oppresses a minority, whereas the latter concerns someone in a position of
    wealth with excess aiding a traveler/foreigner. These are not opposite paradigms, and indeed are consistent, or at least reconcilable.

    To (perhaps over) simplify the different facts, in the former we have a powerful political oppressor
    against which it is appropriate to resist physically with force; and in the latter we have a somewhat wealthy person appropriately aiding traveler with little to nothing.

    But to (perhaps over) simplify the consistent message we see that, (in the Maccabean case) it is correct to oppose those with power over us if they are using their power unjustly, and similarly (in the Samaritan case) we are just (or more rightly charitable) to help someone else (even if to our own detriment) to the extent that we can do so.

    Lastly, I respectfully take umbrage with (some folks’) suggestions that just because over time, a large number of Samaritan-aided foreigners (i.e. read Syrian refugees) might be able to eventually become powerful enough to be like the Greek oppressors, we should not therefore help them to the extent we reasonably can. Indeed, it is by our very helping them that
    we may convert them to Christ and away from false prophecy.

    • Lulu

      Why aren’t their military aged men staying and fighting? Why aren’t they bringing their women and children to safety? Why are over half the refugees coming from outside of Syria?

      • NJ

        Have you done ANY research as to what it is like in Syria right now? Nope. I wouldn’t stay there with my two fists and get in the middle of my government and IS duking it out with barrel bombs. No thanks.

        • Lulu

          If they won’t fight for their own country and lives, that is their problem. Seriously, they should not benefit from all our dead who fought for our freedom when they are unwilling to fight for their own. If they came to our countries, begging to be armed and sent back, or they joined their own military, or signed up with the Kurds (or gee formed their own militias) that would be one thing but they are 20 something men with smartphones complaining about the food and sponging off Western nations (not to mention 50% are not from Syria or Iraq so refugee?). I can’t abide a coward and these men are either cowards or invaders. Kurdish women fight for goodness sake. And to go back to a point they will never deserve our freedoms that were won for us by a small group of men and boys who took on the British Empire — I bet that was scary too..

      • Ryan Seeley

        I am a little confused as to how the above questions relate to my critique, which merely cautions against presupposing the false dichotomy of Maccabean-warrior vs. good-Samaritan – explaining instead how we as Christians can and should embody both examples. Assuming we hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, and as such internally consistent then this should be no surprise since both models are held to be biblical examples of right behavior – both positions should be reconcilable and not at odds.

        So just as my use of force against an oppressor is just regardless of where that oppressor is from; equally so it is irrelevant to be wary of the age, origin, or familial status of the foreign traveler in truly in need. So just as I can fight against a persecutor regardless of his/her origin, equally so I can help a fellow human in need regardless of their origin.

        • Lulu

          My point was and is – military-aged men are not refugees and as such there is no obligation to “help” them.

        • Hugh

          But Dr Marshall is not denying that. He’s not saying we shouldn’t help refugees. In fact he explicitly says we should help all refugees, including Muslims. As far as I read him, Dr Marshall is just saying that we should, out of prudence, help Muslim refugees in ways that aren’t inimical to the flourishing of our own communities. Sounds like common sense to me.

          • Phil Steinacker

            That may begin by shaming those well-equipped Islamic nations who currently refuse to take these so-called refugees. Existing governments – even Islamic ones – fear ISIS whose goal of a restored caliphate over all of old Arabia threatens current leadership in the nations now existing in that same area.

            They need to be made to do their bit.

  • Shane Bryne

    Also consider:

    In ST II:II Q26, especially a. 6 – 8, Aquinas teaches that we are under the obligation to take care of those closest to us before we take care of those more distantly related. Thus, our obligation goes first to our families, then to our friends, then countrymen, etc. Also reference a. 5 objection 3, in which Aquinas teaches that one is not obliged to imperil his own body for the sake of his neighbor’s welfare.

    Now those arguing in favor of accepting all of the refugees also often assert that part of our obligation comes from our own national responsibility for their plight being as it is. In ST II:II Q.62 a.5 Reply 1, Aquinas teaches that while restitution is normally required, it should be deferred in the case in which making it immediately would endanger others.

    One may rightly say that we are either obligated to put oneself at risk for the sake of mercy, or at least that doing so is an act of virtue. Thus, I used to regularly stop to assist distressed motorists or on occasion give rides to hitchhikers who seemed to be in particular need. On one occasion I even paid for a prostitute’s time in order to keep her from earning her take in her usual way at that moment and get the chance to talk to her.

    I would never do those kinds of things now, because I am married with a daughter. Prudence charity, and justice oblige me to abstain from these acts of mercy out of respect to my family, who depend on me and who have a right to my safety.

    Just as I have these obligations to my family, the state is charged with similar obligations towards its citizens. Note that these are *moral obligations* and not simply counsels. It is a violation of the moral law for any country to accept potentially dangerous persons into their borders – even for the purposes of practicing an act of mercy – without having a high level of confidence that there is no risk. On an individual level, it is a violation of the moral law for me to support such a thing – even for the purpose of practicing an act of mercy – unless I can be confident that doing so does not endanger my family.

    We are each called to be merciful, but we are each called to do so subsequently to protecting those closest to us and those whose care and safety God has entrusted to us.

    We are also called to do restitution for injustices that we are responsible for, but we are *obliged* to defer such restitution if it will put *anyone* at danger. The obligation only increases when it is those closest to us, be it family or countrymen – who are to be put in danger.

    Indeed, Aquinas says that we have no obligation to acts of charity towards others when it will imperil even just our own bodies, let alone those of our families. While it can be heroically virtuous to endanger ourselves for the welfare of others, it is a grave sin to endanger *others,* especially those closest to us, for the sake of others’ welfare.

    The suggestion that we need to do accept refugees of uncertain safety because our faith requires us to be merciful to the alien is a disordered suggestion, as it misplaces the care for the alien with the care for those closest to us in the order of charity. It’s like saying that a person must have sex with someone who has low self esteem over a failed sexual experience because we are required to comfort the sorrowful.

    • Beautifully stated, especially regarding the layers of obligation in society.

      • Andrew

        But surely there are exceptions to these layers of obligations. I am sure that Aquinas never meant them to be a stringent set of rules to be followed in all circumstances. During WWII, was it wrong for any man with a family to risk his life fighting against the Nazis because he had a greater obligation to stay home and protect his family? Of course not. In this case, the obligation to assist the innocent victims of the holocaust outweighed the risk that a man may very well be leaving his family fatherless.
        Furthermore, to say that we should reject ALL Muslim refugees – people who are trying to escape one of the most barbaric and savage group of murderers of our time – because there is a *chance* a terrorist could find their way into the group, is ridiculous. To let innocent Muslim refugees, including women and children, remain homeless because you’re afraid Muslims will take over our country and impose sharia law is absurd. We are not talking about having an open invitation to any and all Muslims to come to our country by the millions. We are talking about helping a relativity small group of people who are desperately in need of help right now. As a nation, our focus should be working on how we can get some of these people over here with as little security risk as possible.

        • Phil Steinacker

          No.

          • Phil Steinacker

            You just sweep away everything Dr. Marshal and his well-framed Thomist arguments has posited with your mere uninformed opinion without refuting the substance of his post.

            You want to eliminate Aquinas’ thought so badly you cheat by claiming he didn’t mean it. Aquinas was developing ideas as concrete natural law, and he was no liberal! He would have spit out whatever he was eating if he had heard someone suggest what you just wrote.

            Just like the other, you lack awareness of how Islam works over long stretches of time. YOU have no foundation to lecture anyone from a moral perspective, especially by dismissing or ignoring the profound thinking of a man far more knowledgeable about theology, philosophy, and morality than all of us put together. You certainly have demonstrated your inability to stand up to him.

            You don’t even know your facts, much less how to argue properly from what you can conjure from your distortion of Catholicism and your political ideology.

  • Tomas Diaz

    Dr. Marshall,

    Would it be improper for Catholics to beseech the holy father to preach a crusade? I have no hope of it happening under the current pontificate, but I keep wondering if some real movement was begun now, it may lay the groundwork for a renewal of crusading activity in the next decades – maybe even attempts to reform the military orders. I’d like to believe things will calm down and we’d have no need for them, but I’m not holding my breath.

    There are theological (Use of temporal power in spiritual aim), political (Could military companies be given Crusader indulgences? How does this work without the feudal structure?), and practical issues (What would be the attainable goal? How to move from Crusade to Christian colonizing? How can such a war be waged and organized?), but part of such a movement would be hammering these out. Perhaps we need less a defense of the historical crusades and more or a sober reigniting of their spirit.

    Or should this be left as a relic of the past and new methods of solving the issue found? Just curious on your thoughts.

    • Dawg_em

      If I may… I believe you have touched on something. Personally, I don’t trust the evil, secular war machine to properly execute a just war. Actually, with NATO as the tip of the spear, they have instigated this entire mess. What does need to happen is for holy and righteous warriors, completely obedient to Christ, pious and pure, to take up the cross.
      I hate war. But cruel injustice needs to be opposed.

    • Matthew Clarke

      Wow, great way to provoke even more violence from Muslims.

      • BitterClinger

        The koran commands violence. That’s all they need. Any whining about cartoons, “islamophobia”, etc., is just smoke and mirrors.

      • JefZeph

        I agree with an earlier poster. Naivete does seem to be your forte Matthew. Don’t you understand that having one be a non-Muslim is provocation enough?

        • Lulu

          Or the wrong kind of muslim, or a canine, or playing music, or going to school, or wearing the wrong clothes, or not growing a beard, or smoking, or drinking, or even a husband and wife smiling in each other’s presence in Saudi Arabia, or any mention of pigs or products made from pigs, etc.

      • Phil Steinacker

        You don’t need to worry about provoking violence from Islam. Commands – NOT suggestions for consideration – to inflict it upon all sorts of people for a great range of reasons run throughout the Koran and the Sura.

        Islam, of its own nature, is intrinsically violent. Its 1400 years history is replete with example after example.

        You don’t sound as though you are truly aware of what we are up against. Your comments bespeak someone who has not yet read extensively on Islam & its fundamental tenets, and then the tactics and other activities to be utilized against heathens like you (and me).

        Historically Islam takes over a country slowly over generations, if prevented from doing so militarily as has mostly been the case since its expulsion from France and later Spain, and the failed invasions of Vienna in the 16th and 17 centuries. The Koran preaches that once a Muslim has set foot in a non-Muslim country, that nation is to be considered a Muslim nation in the making.

      • Adrian Johnson

        So we shouldn’t, in the name of organized self-defence, resist the current level of Muslim violence; we should just passively let ourselves be martyred (which is OK) and our dependent children with us ( not OK) ? Aquinas didn’t endorse Pacifism as an ideology.

  • Tom Saltsman

    Thank you for shedding much light on this difficult situation.

    II John 1:10 makes it very clear that we are not even required to welcome ANYONE, Christian or not, who does not want to be subject to proper ecclesial authority. By that I mean the Catholic Church and its traditional, longstanding teachings or the pope.

    It is also true that kindness out of a pure and loving heart to those in dire need will go a long way for converting them to the faith of the Holy Spirit, that is, the spirit of holiness.

    I hope we are all praying overtime at this dangerous time in history. In our prayers, let us not forget to bless our enemies.

    • Good point. According to Saint John in 2 John, heretics are not to be received into our homes.

      • ty4050

        What about the children among the refugees? Would you consider them heretics?

        • Lulu

          Yes

          • Ty

            Wow for a Catholic site, there there are some really un-Christian statements on here. So you’re saying a 5 year old kid has the knowledge to willfully choose to be be a Muslim or be anything anything for that matter. Can’t stand self-righteous “Christians”

          • Ty

            Apologies for the double words. Phone is messing up.

          • beebee

            5 year olds travel with their parents, or another adult authority figure. Haven’t seen a 5 year old willingly travel alone, halfway around the world, breaking across various national boundaries. The 5 year old must be considered part of the parent/adult. That includes religious choices. In the Muslim world, my children would be automatically be considered Christian, and treated accordingly. That’s the way it is in the real world. Sorry.

          • Tom Saltsman

            Are you saying St. John, the Apostle of Love, is unchristian by what he writes in II John 1:10 & 11? Wow! Is the NT also unchristian in I Timothy 5:3-16 where St. Paul says the Church should take care only of those widows who have led an exemplary, holy life and don’t have Christian relatives to take them in?

            Let’s be clear here. As Dr. Taylor said, the Good Samaritan set the injured party up in a hotel and paid the bill. Let’s not ignore Dr. Taylor’s good point, people. While showing charity, one must not be blasting away carelessly at God’s boundaries. Anyone who thinks God doesn’t have boundaries needs to re-read the hard and countless warnings of Jesus Christ in the gospels.

            Charity toward the poor is not charity if it encourages them in their sins. “Love does not rejoice in iniquity, but only in the truth.”

          • Phil Steinacker

            You’re not qualified to make that sort of judgment. In fact, it exposes your ignorance, possible youth and inexperience, and likely your anti-Christian bigotry – which tends to travel often with uninformed ignorance.

            Your comments offer every cause to suspect you are not a Christian yourself, and if you think you are, then those who “formed” you seem to have left out a few parts.

            Lulu answered correctly, I assume because she recognizes that the hypothetical child you put forth is already thoroughly a product of Muslim childrearing, and no one is going to separate that child from its parents.

            The child, therefore, while not able to articulate Islam yet, is being formed in a heretical religion, and technically, a heretic.

            Simple enough, and remember, YOU asked.

          • Ty

            Well I am a practicing Catholic and have been educated at the Josephinum seminary. I was getting mad at the lack of compassion towards children who don’t know any better and by your standards “once mislead always mislead, but now I just feel sorry for you. So I guess we can agree to disagree and I pray for you. God bless.

          • Phil Steinacker

            That’s too bad. Another example of the very sad state of our seminaries.

            Please don’t feel sorry for me; that is nothing more than an attempt to denigrate those disagreeing with you by flaunting your belief in your own moral superiority. Your obtuseness does not earn you that right.

          • Phil Steinacker

            Again, I challenged you the other day to suggest how we can legitimately separate “innocent” children (you ignore that they begin training them in killing at that age) from their parents in an attempt to propose a partial solution I quickly realized would never be allowed.

            You imply that you were “educated” at your seminary but evidently only in the modernist worldly notion of faux mercy over justice, as well as a complete avoidance of Thomist training. That is par for seminaries today, except for those with a traditionalist focus.

            It is obvious you do not touch one of Dr. Marshall’s central points, especially those Thomist tenets forming the bedrock of his argument. Frankly, you nave left his post untouched and, I suspect, he is unfazed by your efforts.

          • Adrian Johnson

            See above for the distinction between “formal” and “material” heresy. It’s a technical term, not an insult.

        • Adrian Johnson

          Heretic is a technical word, not an insult. I love Johan Sebastian Bach’s music and respect him greatly. But as he was a Protestant, I have to regard him as a heretic.
          However as Bach was born into a Protestant family and country; so, like the naive children of Muslims, he was a “material” heretic; in contrast to Martin Luther who was a “formal” heretic: one who deliberately & maturely rejected his religion.

      • Tom Saltsman

        What II John 1: 10 & 11 actually says in the NAB is, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even great him; for whoever greets him shares in this evil works.” With all due respect, I can’t find anything there that applies ONLY to heretics, Dr. Taylor.

        Logic reveals that “greeting” these rebels is a reference to wishing them success in their evil activities, either carelessly or worse yet, intentionally. Neither charity or scripture prohibit good manners. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

      • Adrian Johnson

        I think (correct me if I’m wrong) St John meant “formal” heretics — He might approve entertaining a “material” heretic at one’s home in order to evangelize them. . . .

  • Cool mick

    And yet Pope Francis and my Bishop says we MUST accept these refugees into our nation.

    It is hard for Catholics to make this argument when our non-Catholic friends can throw this in our faces. We are placed in the embarrassing position of saying our Church leaders don’t know what they’re talking about and/or have no authority on this matter.

    • Dawg_em

      It is indeed painful to watch the PC ignorance of our supposed leaders.

    • Lulu

      Notice Francis is not opening up the papal palace or hotels to these refugees

      • Phil Steinacker

        And so far he has failed to comment substantively on the Paris attacks.

    • Pope Francis and your Bishop are not infallible on public policy.

      • NJ

        Neither is Thomas Aquinas.

        • Phil Steinacker

          No, but his views are consonant with the teachings of the Church on such matters than those of contemporary ecclesial scofflaws. We are free to reject modernist distortions of what the Church has always taught. The Church is not a political system whose “ideology” and “policies” can change according to the new regime.

        • Adrian Johnson

          St Thomas Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church because the under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church declared his “Summa Theologica” an infallible guide on, among other things, principles of public policy.

          (He was not, however, an infallible on the Immaculate Conception, which is not Aquinas’ fault; in his era, that doctrine had not yet been defined.)

    • Phil Steinacker

      Fortunately, there are responsible ecclesial voices in the Church like Cardinals Burke, Sarah, and Napier, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider who continue to adhere to the traditional teachings of the Church, recognizing that NO ONE has the authority to change Church teaching OR to change “pastoral” practice in such manner as to undermine it and thereby change what Catholics believe contrary to it.

      Also, we can – using essentially Catholic Christian resources like Aquinas – reason past the terribly ignorant, uninformed, and theologically suspect distortions of the Faith which have been recently streaming out of Rome, South America, and Germany.

  • jeannonkralj

    It is valuable to know what is right and good Catholic theology and philosophy, however, the situation we are facing with the “Islamic refugee crisis” is not properly evaluated and assessed with these idealistic truths.

    It is very possible that the “refugees” are being engineered to have to flee to other countries and planned to have trained terrorist among the numbers of innocent Muslims who have made their homes uninhabitable.

    It is very possible that those who are engineering the “refugee” crisis is the USA and Israel and other Western countries’ intelligence agencies.

    Democracy and 51 percent of the vote does not have much meaning if the entire electoral process, including vote counting is rigged.

    As for “rightful” political authority, please explain how anyone is not a one hundred percent follower of Jesus Christ can be a “rightful” political authority.

    Yes, the Muslim religion is anti-Christ and so is the religion of Judaism.

    Sorry, but I find this article does addressi our real situation.

    • Dawg_em

      There’s no doubt the destruction of relatively stable despotic regimes was meant to create a vacuum to be filled by the most radical Islamists. Order out of chaos.

  • Dawg_em

    There’s a reason Jesus told us to buy a sword. And it wasn’t to carve the Christmas ham.

  • smith_citizen

    a fair rendition and interpretation; I hope a few bishops may be reflecting on this….

    • mariamgal

      When the debate about the Syrian refugees coming to America began, I was in doubt because, as a Catholic, I believed in being charitable; but after the Paris attack took place I became more aware of the danger of being infiltrated by terrorists posing as regugees. Your article is excellent. It has brought new light to my mind. Now I feel more comfortable with the idea that helping the needy does not mean to surrender our freedoms and inalienable rights for their sake. We should help them while making sure that we continue to protec our families and ourselves against the dangers they may pose for our country, our culture, and our freedom of religion. Thank you, Dr. Marshall, and may God bless you. +

      • Matthew Clarke

        So how exactly should we help them?

        • BitterClinger

          Why should we help them? They want us subjugated and dead. Why should we help them overturn human civilization?

          • mariamgal

            We are talking about helping the refugees that are in need, victims also of the oppression and persecution of ISIS. The best way is to fast, make sacrifices, and pray for all of them and for peace, discern what we should personally do, perhaps send monetary donations and also make others aware of what is happening. Many do not do anything to help because they are ignorant of the situation. Above all, we should not lose hope and make sure we persevere trusting in Jesus. Our stregth comes from Him and our victory too. God blesses a kind and humble heart. +

          • BitterClinger

            There are no refugees in need. Except the non muslims that will not be allowed into this or any country.

        • Lulu

          We could stop arming ISIS, we could stop being PC and tell the truth about Islam, we could be good Christians and try to actually convert them so they don’t go to help, we can demand that our government stop pretending to be bombing ISIS, we can pray the Rosary for their conversion, we could demand Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. take refugees but they won’t because they say they’re terrorists, we can set up refugee camps in Syria or Iraq, we can refuse entry to all military aged men because they should be fighting if they aren’t they are either invaders or cowards…

        • Phil Steinacker

          We should NOT. Keep in mind that not a single Muslim refugee has been welcomed by ANT Muslim nation in the Middle East.

          They know how rife their ranks are filled with those who seek to destabilize Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc., and transform them into Islamic states.

          Of course, they’re perfectly comfortable in sending them to the West because even the relatively moderate Muslim governments share the centuries-old goal to Islamize Europe.

          You seem to have a penchant for asking the wrong question. The better question by far – and appropriate where yours is not – is:

          Why should the West take on a problem inherently and geographically Islamic?

          We didn’t start this nonsense, if one takes the long view. It was once called Arab terrorism, but upon the collapse of the old USSR which had contained much of the growth of Islam, the world which had long forgotten the evils of Islam has over last few decades become reacquainted with Islam.

          The West should refuse ALL Muslim refugees and place responsibility squarely where it belongs: on the oil-rich nations of the Middle East which spawned this scourge upon the West.

  • Lady Bird

    Thank you. It is important to recognize that at the heart of the problem is that Sharia law is incompatible with democracy by their own admission and their holy books.

    • Matthew Clarke

      Have you spent long studying the topic of Islam, Sharia and the relationship of those things to democracy?

      • BitterClinger

        Just read the unholy book of satan and pay attention to what they have done for 1,400 years right up to this minute? What other proof do you need?

      • Lulu

        Wow I thought you were naive, but this post gives it away you are either a progressive seeking massive muslim immigration, a Jimmie, or a muslim.

      • beebee

        Some of us have been students of Islam, the Middle East, and all things related, for close to 30 years. These issues have been around for decades, even of you haven’t noticed, or been around. The reality hasn’t changed, no matter how much we may idealistically may want it to.

      • Phil Steinacker

        Matthew, you lack some basic social skills. Are you deliberately trying to insult Lady Bird or otherwise antagonize her and others?

        I have been reading on those topics for almost 40 years now, and those like Lady Bird whom you suggest are ignorant of Islam consistently demonstrate more substantive grasp of it than you do.

  • GrayMA

    Very well said, Taylor. Thank you for posting this.

  • Dr ExCathedra

    Your post makes clear how deeply contemporary Christian assumptions come not from The Faith but from the hostile and suicidal cultural liberalism which has infected it, the current incumbent of the Throne of St Peter being the prime example. As you note, the Samaritan paid for the wounded man to be taken care of in an inn; he did not bring him home…

    • Precisely. Sad but true. So much of public discourse is reaction and emotionalism.

  • Dr.von

    You are exactly on target. Without a willingness of Catholics to fight for our Faith and lands (Christendom) there will be no Faith left on earth. They must be sent back to their homeland, and destroyed if they refuse.

    Indeed, most of the Middle East was Catholic land, part of Christendom, until the muslims conquered it. We should be working for its return, and supporting Christians there, as well.

  • Trenmar

    Thank you for your well written and cogently argued article. It’s good to see a reasoned approach to the refugee issue instead of the usual emotion based appeals from our Church leadership.

  • jane kosco

    Your essay is helpful, good logical thinking, a true Thomist! However, it doesn’t answer the pertinent question of what to do about the influx of refugees among whom are both Christians and Muslims and very possibly some radicalized Muslims who wish us harm. We want to help, we empathize with the persecuted peoples of the Middle East. For the common good in this instance, what should be done if it is a problem separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, when there isn’t much solid data on those seeking asylum. I know the bishops gathered in Baltimore say we must take the risk and take in the refugees.

    • Lulu

      Well the U.S. is not taking Christians so…As for the rest you send them back half aren’t even from Syria and over half are military aged males…

    • Adrian Johnson

      I haven’t in the past been much impressed by the pronouncements of US Bishops except for Burke, Chaput and Cardinal DiNardo.

  • rpp618

    This is an excellent analysis of the morality of helping people in certain situations. Truly, we cannot be suicidal in helping refugees.

  • Patti Day

    I was listening to a report the other day that seventy-eight percent of these so-called refugees are able bodied men under 35 years of age. Only twenty-two percent are women and children. It is impossible to vet any of these people, as the US government says they will do, because all the records in Syria have been destroyed. So, how are we to determine which of them are terrorists. It happened in France. Are we to believe the government that it won’t happen here?

  • WhyDoYouCare

    One would have thought this was coming from the Vatican…

  • Geoffrey Caudry

    I respectfully declare this article bullpoopy and am disgusted by the fearmongering

    We risk Sharia law if Muslims gain 51% control? There are over 150 million registered voters, that would mean over 75,000,000 people would need to be of the Muslim faith and actively attempt to gain control, which just because they could doesn’t mean they would. There are currently 3-5 million muslims in the US right now, are they beating down the doors demanding Sharia law? Nope… And what should we do with those that are here? Force them from their homes and out of the country?

    And who said anything about letting the homeless sleep with my wife or in my daughters bed? Again, fearmongering…

    Also, why do they need to be labelled as homeless, can’t they just be called people?

    I could go on and on but you’re basing your entire slanted bigoted position on the fact that these people fleeing for their lives from the scum we want to eradicate are duty bound to fight tooth and nail for Sharia law? What kind of Christian are you? What kind of person are you?

    I’m sure this will be gone soon but I’d love to hear an honest answer regarding your or anyone else’s reasoning for not helping these people that doesn’t include a Saint that lived 750 years ago or that they’re all terrorists waiting to be set into action

    Remember, your parents or Grandparents or Great Grandparents once immigrated to this country as well. What if we denied you?

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Geoffrey Caudry:

      You wrote in part: “Remember, your parents or Grandparents or Great Grandparents once immigrated to this country as well.”

      Both Senators Jacob Javits and Ted Kennedy (RIP both) enacted legislation limiting the immigration of European Christians in to the USA.

      and in part:

      “I’d love to hear an honest answer regarding your or anyone else’s reasoning for not helping these people”

      The good Doctor does not call for these folks NOT to be helped; just the opposite. He only suggests that we not allow these folks to enter our homes.

      and in part:

      “basing your entire slanted bigoted position on the fact that these
      people fleeing for their lives from the scum we want to eradicate are
      duty bound to fight tooth and nail for Sharia law?”

      No. The Assad regime is fighting Sunni Muslims in the main. It has allied itself with minority groups to include Christians. The USA is importing Sunni Muslims from Syria.

      and in part:

      “and who said anything about letting the homeless sleep with my wife or in my daughters bed? Again, fearmongering…”

      Sweden is now the rape capital of the world. The victims are post Christian Swedes and the rapists are Muslims who make up now (according to which expert one consults) 28% of the population.

      and in part:

      “We risk Sharia law if Muslims gain 51% control?”

      Probably a lot less. The Levant, North Africa and most of teh Middle East were once Christian but were conquered by tiny Muslim Armies (Alexandria, a citi of 500,000 fell to a Muslim column of 7,000.)

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

    • Stephanie

      It’s not “fearmongering,” it’s being realistic. Look what happened historically when Muslims gained majority in any country: Sharia Law. Until they reached those numbers, they lived relatively peaceful lives. In the European countries they’re in now where their numbers are increasing (not a majority, but a higher percentage than in the U.S.), they are demanding more and more accommodation to their religious beliefs; unlike our immigrant ancestors, they are *not* interested in assimilating to their new country. In Paris, the immigrants have formed religious ghettos where Sharia Law rules in certain neighborhoods and the police either cannot or do not touch them. It is something we need to be aware of.

      The homeless was an *analogy* (not to be taken literally) and the post said as much. It’s showing a case to make a point: we are required by faith to care for the refugees, but not at a risk to our personal safety. We also have a moral duty to make sure the faith gets passed on to the next generation, which isn’t going to happen if we have to worry about being murdered for being Christian.

      Our country is far from a Muslim majority, but we need to be aware of what Islam is and what it teaches before it’s too late. Not only are there Muslim refugees, but Muslims have a higher birth rate compared to the Christians and atheists/agnostics of the West. Someday they will be a majority if things don’t change.

      Are the refugees really fleeing for their lives? I don’t doubt that many of them are, and of course those people should be taken in. But when a very high percentage of them are men between the ages of 20-40 (where are the women and children? the middle-aged and elderly?) and they’ve started to rape young European girls in their new countries, something doesn’t add up. Please remember that the mainstream media is very politically correct so they are not going to cover this stuff lest they appear anti-Islam. Islam is consistently portrayed as positive unless it’s grouped with Christianity (then it’s “religion is bad and is the cause of all wars”). You have to look at other sources, talk to people who live in those countries, etc. to find out what’s really going on.

    • Lulu

      Please where are the Christians in the ME? They have been eradicated along with Jews and now the muslims are doing it to Africa. There are no go zones all over Europe, massive amounts of tapering European women and children by Muslims, and in every country where they hit ten percent they start persecuting non-muslims

    • Geoffrey,

      You have lots of name-calling (bigot, what-kind-of-Christian-are-you, fear-mongering). No reasoning.

      Such a comment doesn’t merit a response. Please unsubscribe and don’t come back.

      • E Campbell

        Please read Matthew 25. Please.
        Your accusing Geoffrey of lack of reasoning is ludicrous. He begins to tear your tirade apart but tires of it because he’s obviously dealing with an argument that fits the “facts” to suit the plea.
        I admire and venerate the great Aquinas. But he also wrote, in the same section you quote, about the requirement that we love the sinner – all those Jesus suffered and died for.
        And what of the U.S. Bishops stance on capital punishment? Not infallible, but neither was Aquinas
        I’m baffled how someone as highly educated as you can misread the Good Samaritan parable. Take them to a hotel!! Send them humanitarian aid!! But don’t dare touch them. So sad.
        I’d love to see your answer to the question in Geoffrey’s penultimate paragraph. Dismissing it will not work.
        I could go on, and on, and on. But like Geoffrey, I see no point.
        Thank God there have been and are Christians who think and act otherwise, like Mother Theresa, Vincent de Paul, Damian of Molokai, Pope Francis, among so many many others.
        Please notice that there need not be a contradiction between Mattathias the Maccabean and the Good Samaritan. Both were virtuous but in entirely different contexts. And please pay particular attention to Mt. 25.

    • Jason in KT

      Sir, please watch the video “The Insidious Nature of Islam” to see what happens when even a small minority of moslems enter a community.

  • emiliani

    I have linking my Catholic friends who think differently about this Muslim invasion the MYRIAD of articles about the chants of Alleju Akhbar, the intimidation of natives, the demands made by refugees, and the threats of conquest.

    Honestly, it falls on deaf ears, Marshal. We have been beaten to the punch: faux “compassion” and “mercy” seem to be the only message people can comprehend…it’s so patently 2-dimensional. Its so frustration.

    I tell them that there will be more rapes, murders, honor killings, clitorectomies, acts of terror

    • Alicia Summers

      The same old bad arguments crop up…Jesus, Mary and Joseph were “refugees”…yes ONE family and they returned back to Nazareth when the threat was over…They were NOT economic welfare shoppers looking for Egypt to give them all freebies..

  • Alicia Summers

    Christian refugees should be taken in by Christian countries in Europe. Muslim refugees should be taken in by Muslim countries. Why is it ALWAYS the West that has to take Muslims in, many who hate the West but live off the West’s welfare system and freedoms?

    • Richard W Comerford

      Ms. Alicia Summers

      You posted in part: “Christian refugees should be taken in by Christian countries in Europe.”

      May I respectfully point out that there are no really Christian countries left in Europe – even Malta has gone down teh toilet?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      • Nick Pane

        I must agree. Mostly nominal Christians or even “Victorian Christians” (as I like to call them) who are largely concerned with social practice and appearances (not an actual transformation of the heart) but never fail to participate in all kinds of perversions when the doors are closed and locked. One only need to visit their local Catholic University to witness what I’m talking about here.

  • Terry

    Excellant article Taylor. Many of us have been struggling with this issue.

  • Reader Yesterday

    The Know-nothing Party believed that Catholics would, if they became a voting majority, place the country under the leadership of the pope, a foreign prince. Your fear of Sharia law sounds just as Nativist and bigoted. In fact, unlike Catholicism, which does have a visible head, hierarchy of authority and published doctrines, even the adherents of Sunni philosophy don’t all agree on either doctrine or practice.
    .
    Further, looking at the parable of the Good Samaritan from the allegorical perspective, the inn represents the Church, who offers salvation freely to all. Shouldn’t we then welcome, as a Church, those in need and teach them?

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Reader Yesterday

      You posted in part:

      “The Know-nothing Party believed that Catholics would, if they became a voting majority, place the country under the leadership of the pope, a foreign prince.”

      In a sense the Know Nothings were right. It is called the social Kingship of Christ the King.

      and in part:

      “Your fear of Sharia law sounds just as Nativist and bigoted.”

      The Know Nothings ,as cited above, were in a sense very right, and as 1400-years if Islamic Conquest proves so is Dr. Taylor.

      and in part:

      “even the adherents of Sunni philosophy don’t all agree on either doctrine or practice”

      There are now, reportedly some 80,000 different Christian Sects in North America.

      and in part:

      “Shouldn’t we then welcome, as a Church, those in need and teach them?”

      I agree. We should convert all the Muslims to the One, True Faith. Where are all the catechists lined up by the USCCB?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

    • We should welcome them into the Church’s sacramental life. Absolutely. That doesn’t mean that the Church alone houses, feeds, educates, and provides health care for them at no cost. See 2 Thess 3:10:

      “Don’t you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.”

      • Reader Yesterday

        It seems pretty clear that St. Paul is addressing those already among the Christian community who had fallen idle, not those outside the community. And unfortunately your use of that text again brings to mind the Protestant warnings against the Catholic immigrants; the “drunken” Irish and the “lazy” Italians, for example.
        .
        Perhaps we should take some time to reflect on the 25th chapter of Matthew.

        • Phil Steinacker

          Perhaps you should take some time to study first and then reflect upon the 1400 year history of Islam in detail. You make facile use of your limited understanding of Scripture and it cripples your ability to grasp the reality before all of us. You are not helpful.

          Thank God most of the nation is waking up and the cretinous thinking of liberals will be further rejected by Catholics, other Christians, and atheists with each new violent act of Islamic terrorism, like today’s attack which killed 27.

    • Phil Steinacker

      If you do not fear living under Sharia law then one must conclude you are either a Muslim masquerading as a bona fide Westerner or you are as ignorant as a pile of bricks on the matter. The parable you cite does not apply, unless the “injured” man strikes down the unsuspecting Samaritan offering to help him.

  • Paul

    Although refugees and illegal immigrants should not be allowed, we have much bigger threats to deal with. Come on folks, our own government orchestrated 911, killing over 3000 Americans and then thousands more on pretend wars chasing a pretend enemy.

  • ty4050

    I understand about protecting ourselves and families first but I can’t get the pictures of the innocent children who are being led back to a warzone – a place where they’ve seen family members die right in front of them. I think the children get lost in this debate. When people categorize all Muslim refugees as bad and hateful towards Christians, it bothers me because children are part of this so-called evil refugee group. They haven’t had the time to determine if Islam is the faith they want to follow. If they get sent back to this warzone by us so-called Christians, of course they will hate us and the religion we are associated with.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr ty4050:

      You posted in part:
      “but I can’t get the pictures of the innocent children who are being led back to a warzone”

      Great point! However reportedly the majority of the “refuges” are young, fit men of military age.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      • ty4050

        It’s not 100% though. A single child (or any human being) should warrant the love we should show him or her. Yes, there most likely are bad seeds in this group but what of all the good ones or the ones who haven’t been molded into good persons yet? Just put yourself and your family in their shoes and image what it’s like, especially as a child who’s faith and trust in humanity is declining every day. To view western countries as a mean to the end of the terrible life they’ve lived so far and then to have these countries turn their backs on them is something no child should experience.

        • ty4050

          And that’s the problem I’m seeing among everyone here: they’re seeing this group as a collection of people with the same ideals and ethics when, in actuality, this group is made up of individual human beings who are just like you in and me. Yeah, we may differ in religion (and I do believe Islam is not a religion of peace), but there are those among the refugees who still have to make that choice.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr ty4050:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “but there are those among the refugees who still have to make that choice.”

            And do their “hosts” have a choice too?

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • ty4050

            I was just having this debate about the adults in the group and my fellow debatee brought up the solution of taking in only the kids and then taking the adults in later after they’ve been screened. I don’t know if that’s plausible or not.

            To answer your question about choices, I was referring to the children who still have to make the choice of who they will be and what kind of person there will become.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr ty4050:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “the solution of taking in only the kids ”

            Why not just protect the internal refugee camps in Syria?

            and in part:

            “children who still have to make the choice of who they will be and what kind of person there will become.”

            As in saving their immortal souls; and what better way then instructing them in the One,True Faith?
            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • ty4050

            I’d be all for protecting refugee camps in Syria is we could truly protect them from the extremists but I don’t see that as a possibility right now with how much influence ISIS has in Syria right now. It’d be like trying to protect a life raft in a sea full of hungry sharks who aren’t afraid of killing themselves. I don’t know about you but I’d rather be around people who have no fear of death and who have no respect for life. That is a dangerous combination.

            In response to your second quote: I agree with instructing them in the Catholic faith. It’s just seems to be more difficult to do that in a place where suicide bombers and terrorist are everywhere.

          • ty4050

            It seems as if my comments are disappearing. Let’s test this one.

          • ty4050

            Or they are going through moderation. I don’t know why they would all of a sudden have to do that. I thought this was a good civil debate. O well. It was insightful while it lasted. I’m hoping my comment aren’t being deleted. That would be sad.

          • Thomas Again

            I’d be all for protecting refugee camps in Syria is we could truly protect them from the extremists but I don’t see that as a possibility right now with how much influence ISIS has in Syria right now. It’d be like trying to protect a life raft in a sea full of hungry sharks who aren’t afraid of killing themselves. I don’t know about you but I’d rather be around people who have no fear of death and who have no respect for life. That is a dangerous combination.

            In response to your second quote: I agree with instructing them in the Catholic faith. It’s just seems to be more difficult to do that in a place where suicide bombers and terrorist are everywhere.

          • Phil Steinacker

            They are NOT just like you or me. Your ignorance of the ugliness and evil of Islam is chowing. Come back when you are able to demonstrate an informed grasp of reality.

          • Thomas

            You know I expect the terrorists to do what they do because they’ve been tricked by the devil. To see a bunch of so-called Christians hate as much as they’d do is dispicable. You people only love when it fits you and not your enemy as Christ teaches. Your hate is on the same level as their’s and the devil has you wrapped around his finger just like them. I can’t imagine receiving the Eucharist and then spitting the hatred you preach. If we teach our children to hate other children then we deserve the same damnation the terrorists are headed towards. I’m done with all of you exclusive “Christians” and your pseudo-love.

        • Richard W Comerford

          Mr ty4050:

          Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

          “To view western countries as a mean to the end of the terrible life they’ve lived so far and then to have these countries turn their backs on them is something no child should experience.”

          And exactly why is it such a great idea to take a child from his home country and place him in a godless Western culture where sodomy, abortion adn other intrinsic evils are glorified?

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

          • ty4050

            Because their home country is a warzone full of extremists who kill you just because you’re not Muslim. (Plus removing the children takes away potential recruits that the terrorists could convert to extremism.) At least in the U.S., they could convert to Christianity and practice their faith. Yes, I agree that western civilization has many, many flaws, but we don’t live in a society based on fear and in one where one cannot become a Christian without fear of being murdered. And yes, I do believe there is a hidden war against Christianity in western civilzation but at least we have freedom to practice our faith here.

          • Richard W Comerford

            r ty4050:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            ” removing the children takes away potential recruits”

            The USA has no right taking children from their home country for any reason.

            and in part:

            “At least in the U.S., they could convert to Christianity and practice their faith.”

            Same – same under the Assad regime.

            and in part:

            “but we don’t live in a society based on fear and in one where one cannot become a Christian without fear of being murdered.”

            I think there are folks in Dearborn MI who might disagree with you.

            and in part:

            “at least we have freedom to practice our faith here”.

            And how many practicing Catholics are there in Congress – one?

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • ty4050

            We aren’t aggressively taking kids from their country. We are passively accepting them. There’s a difference between the two.

            You bring up good points but the Dearborn, MI city example is not a good one to compare with an entire country where terrorism on Christianity is rampant. The majority of our country is not like Dearborn. To assume that the entire country will become like Dearborn is a slippery slope argument that is futile.

            The percentage of practicing Catholics in Congress does not prohibit any freedom from practicing Christianity here. Also, the Congressman are free to practice whatever faith they want. They may lose votes because of it but that choice to be Christian, Muslim, Atheist–anything–is there without fear of loss of life.

            Do you really believe the kids are better off in Syria than here? Compare their childhood to our children’s.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr ty4050:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “We aren’t aggressively taking kids from their country.”

            Sadly we do not know what our government is doing.

            and in part:

            “Do you really believe the kids are better off in Syria than here? Compare their childhood to our children’s.”

            Yes. The Syrian children of all faiths come from largely intact families where natural law is respected.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • ty4050

            I guess we found the root of our disagreement. Agree to disagree!

          • ty4050

            My reply disappeared (or something went wrong) but I’ll reply again. We aren’t TAKING children but are ACCEPTING them. There’s a big difference. The Dearborn example is a bad example to compare with an entire country full of extremists. And if you believe the the rest of the US will become like Dearborn, you are headed down a slipper slope which is futile. The number of Catholics in Congress has no affect on our freedom to practice Catholicism here. If there weren’t any Catholics in Congress, we would still be able to practice our Faith without fear of death.

          • Thomas Again

            My reply disappeared (or something went wrong) but I’ll reply again. We aren’t TAKING children but are ACCEPTING them. There’s a big difference. The Dearborn example is a bad example to compare with an entire country full of extremists. And if you believe the the rest of the US will become like Dearborn, you are headed down a slipper slope which is futile. The number of Catholics in Congress has no affect on our freedom to practice Catholicism here. If there weren’t any Catholics in Congress, we would still be able to practice our Faith without fear of death.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Thomas Again:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “We aren’t TAKING children but are ACCEPTING them.”

            How do you know that the exodus is not forced?

            and in part:

            “if you believe the the rest of the US will become like Dearborn, you are headed down a slipper slope which is futile”

            That is exactly what folks in the EU were told when the bureaucrats started importing huge numbers of Muslims after WW II.

            and in part:

            “The number of Catholics in Congress has no affect on our freedom to practice Catholicism here.”

            Really try getting a government or corporate job as a Catholic who defends the Church’s teaching on contraception, abortion and sodomy.

            and in part:

            “If there weren’t any Catholics in Congress, we would still be able to practice our Faith without fear of death.”

            An estimated 700- 1,000 Catholic mothers murder their children in abortion mills daily.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • ty4050

            I also I thank you for your respectful replies in this debate.

          • Richard W Comerford

            You are welcome; but my wife beats me when I am impolite.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

        • Lulu

          The 150 dead French were somebody’s child. The thousands of British children prostitute for years by Muslim gangs while the police purposely did nothing are children too, and the massive amounts of Swedish women and children raped by Muslims so that they are the rape capital of Europe are deserving as well – sorry saving 1 child of a 100 doesn’t make sense when you would sacrifice other people to do so.

          • Ty

            I don’t know how you as a Christian cpuld be so dismissive towards an innocent child. I guess God will judge your actions in the end.

          • Lulu

            It is you who are dismissing children – not I – I see that the greater good is served by protecting thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people including children from the invasion of unfriendly military aged men who at the very least find it acceptable to rape women and children – but I don’t judge your religious convictions while you who said you disliked self-riteous Christians do just that here and throughout this comment section. I also would suggest that you base your opinions on facts, history, and objective truth not sentiment and emotion as Western media, education, and modern Churches would have you do.

          • Ty

            Well when I see someone announcing their hatred towards children it it does make me angry. But go ahead and continue loving only those who you think deserve love and not everyone including your enemies. Im not saying agree with them but at least show compassion to kids who dont know any better and only have been taught the mislead ways of Islam. Love makes no exceptions unless you of course it doesn’t benefit you, right? I pray for you and hope you don’t teach your children to love some and hate others. That sounds like another religion…hmm

    • Most refugees are post-adolescent men, but, yes, certain considerations need to be made for the children.

      • Thomas

        Finally some compassion for the children. Thank you. Even though we disagree it’s good to know you acknowledge the children and aren’t so dismissive of them like others.

        • Richard W Comerford

          Mr. Thomas:

          You posted in part:” Finally some compassion for the children.”

          And is it compassionate to tear children from their native land, separate them from their parents and place them into the care of godless Western social bureaucracies?

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

    • Phil Steinacker

      You cannot separate the children from their families, yet it is TOTALLY UNACCEPATABLE to allow Muslims refugees of ANY age to enter the West because we can already see only some of the long term effects. With what we know of the inner workings of Islam, we are committing incremental suicide which will materialize after a couple generations. The canary in the mineshaft for us is France, followed by England where it is not yet as bad but is hurtling towards it fast (and in some ways, the ways in which it is worse are extremely subtle).

  • Lee Ann Brenner Williams

    So well put. Thank you for verbalizing what we all have been thinking. I am so tired of being called all kinds of names because I don’t think taking in un-vetted refugees is a good idea.

    • People resort to name-calling when they lack rationality and logical thinking.

  • Kurt K

    Thank you, Dr Marshall for bringing clarity to what just might be THE single most important social, political, philosophical, moral and theological issue (in reverse order of importance) of our day. I must admit feeling ambivalent on the matter BEFORE I read this article. I was ambivalent because I could not reconcile within myself how I could support a call to “turn our backs” on the needy. After-all, church leadership, all the way up to Pope Francis, have called upon us to show mercy by opening up our communities to Christian and Muslim refugees alike. Your article opens the opportunity for prayerful dialogue for those of us who have “ill-uninformed” contradictions in our thinking. By all means, let’s provide humanitatian aid but in a manner that does not put our Christian worldview at risk. Question: Does this issue beg to ask: Are internment camps” moral if not “politically correct”? What’s the Aquinian reaponse to that?

    • Stephanie

      I think it depends on the conditions at the camp. If the camp is designed to provide food, shelter and job training so they can assimilate to their new country, I think it is fine. If they are being beaten, forced to work in dangerous conditions, not given enough food, and/or not being given the medical care they need, then it is not moral.

      • Kurt K

        Your former comments certainly sounds like “humanitarian aid”; the later like a POW or concentration camp. I agree with you for the most part. The difficulty comes into ones definition of “assimilate”. If maintaining language, culture and nationalism, is preferred to accepting existing culture, languange, etc (when in Rome?) as has been the experience of US immigration of late with many (certainly not all) then I think it presents conflict, in which case I would support a return to their homelands once the persecution ends or conditions improve. The stakes are raised when constitutional protections of religious freedom (under our current philosophy of relativism and tolerance) legally open the door for Sharia Law and “death to infidels”. If this is not possible in our lifetime, it certainly can be when Judeo-Christian principles become the minority opinion in a democracy.

  • Jo Flemings

    I think there is an underlying assumption in your piece that is flawed. Our society is not a Christian society. We do not have ‘that’ to uphold and defend in the same way TA would have considered it. If Muslims become a majority in the right places with the right political clout then yes, we would have a serious problem UNLESS, western materialism infects them as far as it has every other creed or faith context- then of course we are talking about severely secularized Muslims- about as much a force to contend with as Catholics are….even though we have held power in every institution of government at least once or twice in the last generation but still have laws upholding abortion to our credit and now laws redefining marriage. I think we are WAY more a threat to ourselves than any refugee will ever be.

    As well, I think we as Americans need to think about our national character. That woman in New York Harbor with a torch in her hand- gift of the French in honor of our commitment to …”liberty and justice for all.” is a constant reminder of what we believe about the dispossessed. I am not in any way ready to retreat from that icon into a talk to the hand- not our problem posture, and I never will be. HOWEVER, strict surveillance is a good idea/plan/procedure- and should be enforced, until there is more information necessarily requiring intervention, containment, and incarceration.

    “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles.
    From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    “”Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”” cries she
    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

  • Michel White Bachman

    It’s my understanding the the Good Samaritan risked his personal safety to help the injured traveler. I realized this after seeing the old Roman road to Jerusalem (and surrounding desert) for myself. Just by stopping on that road, I suspect the Samaritan took a real risk.

    I’m not saying we all have to take that risk, but I think the “the Samaritan used the hotel” analogy is flawed.

  • Janet Baker

    Excellent treatment of this topic. My one minor quibble is that Mattathias et al did not use “violence”; they used force. Catholic moral theology defines violence as “the unjust use of force”. They used force in a just manner.

  • Gina Nakagawa

    This post is the voice of sanity crying in the wilderness. Thank you, Dr. Marshall. I have personally known some very wonderful people who are Moslems. However their “religion” is one that honors and force the demonic. We need to face that fact sad as it is.

  • I am not Spartacus

    Excellent, but it is to be expected that free-floating guilt will drive many in here to respond the we have to accept these refugees but what about the duty of other Muslim countries to accept Muslim refugees?

    Many sites and blogs have rehearsed the many reasons why accepting Mahometans is a bad idea but none have done it by sourcing the universal doctor.

    Kudos, Dr. Intelligent and compassionate as truth is the first way station on the way to compassion.

  • Jonathan

    What a depressing piece of sophistry. =(

  • DWagner12

    I am glad you made a sound scriptural response to what is now being presented to us by the open borders and uncontrolled immigrations crowd. If you wish to work 24/7 helping the needy start today in your neighborhood and cities. The Poor are being hurt by illegal immigrations and they are left out and behind with programs that are not fixing their problems. I work daily with poor trying to find jobs. I am speaking from first hand experience.
    We are destroying the future of an entire generation of young people who can’t find work and no longer know how to hold a job when they get one. We have an over load of work before us to help our own people. Other countries need to account for their irresponsible methods of handling poverty of their own people. There is no Biblical famine or drought in these countries.
    Muslins are at War with anything that isn’t Muslin. They will never find peace without Christ.

  • Jack

    Brilliant!

  • Peter

    I must say that I have serious reservations about the thesis here and some of the assumptions used to back it up – not because any of these are “politically incorrect”, but because they are based on incorrect assumptions of fact. More precisely, there are a number of oversimplifications here which, once pointed out, cause the larger argument to stumble badly.

    Let’s set aside the Thomistic analysis for a moment and look at the assumptions made here regarding Islam and democracy.

    First, it is NOT true that all Muslims wish to establish Sharia law any more than it is true that all Muslims wish to wreak violence on “nonbelievers”. Islam is like many other religious faiths in the world in that some people take its scriptural precepts very literally and seriously, while others do not. In fact, in most faiths, the latter are the majority. Do all Mormons support legalized polygamy, simply because Joseph Smith endorsed it? No. In fact, I would argue that most Mormons find Smith’s position to be rather embarrassing to their faith and have no desire to legalize it. Also, there are plenty of Jews who do not believe in supporting or living many of the practices mandated in the Torah (so-called “secular” or “reformed” Jews, especially). The world of Islam is much the same way. In fact, there are large regions of the world which are mostly Muslim, but where one would find many precepts of Islam to not be widely-observed at all (Indonesia, the former Soviet Central Asian republics, etc.). It is inaccurate and ultimately prejudicial to assume that ALL Muslims wish to enact every precept in the Koran literally and that all of them therefore wish to enact Sharia law. This is especially true when one considers that Islam is NOT a single, unified faith with a unified doctrine and authority, as Roman Catholicism is. There are multiple major branches of Islam, and many sub-branches underneath those. Some of those branches are very non-literalist in how they interpret the Koran. We cannot take what one group of Muslims believes and assume that all other Muslims believe the same. It is a much more “amorphous” faith than Catholicism.

    Even on just an anecdotal level, I can tell you that Mr. Marshall’s assumption is incorrect. I am a high school history and government teacher, and I have taught plenty of Muslim students. I have yet to know one who has shown ANY inclination towards establishing Sharia law anywhere. In fact, no matter how traditional their parents may be, most Muslim students I have taught are quite “Americanized”. That’s what happens when immigrants come here, as we have seen throughout our history. They may or may not assimilate – but their kids usually will.

    Second, Mr. Marshall uses what I would consider a sort of “scare” argument, raising the specter that Muslims might become 51% of the population and use that majority status to enact Sharia, under the premise that we are a democracy and, therefore, the will of 51% of the population will necessarily prevail. I’m sorry, but this is both unrealistic and flat-out wrong regarding how our system works. First, how many Muslims would have to move here in order to have a majority in any jurisdiction? The most that could happen is that a few small cities around the country might, if given another decade or two, become majority Muslim, but that’s about it. For this to happen on a national level, we would need to have an increase in our Muslim population of close to a couple hundred million people. Not gonna happen. Secondly, our system is NOT one where a majority simply wills whatever the heck it wants. Our representative system has a bunch of safeguards to prevent this (checks and balances, judicial review, etc.), and I would point out that many conservatives feel today that our system no longer represents our population effectively anyways. Do we really believe that a court system that is currently determined to make government as secular as possible is really going to reverse course – and allow our system to be based on Sharia??? Even if Muslims became a majority in a suburb of a major city AND chose to try to enact Sharia, we have to remember that cities are not sovereign in most matters. They are subject to the laws and constitutions of their states, first of all, and then obviously to the laws and Constitution of the U.S. Democracy is not as oversimplistic as Mr. Marshall states. “We the people” is a phrase that introduces a document. It is not a law, nor a statement of procedure for making law.

    So, if many (if not most) Muslims do NOT wish to enact Sharia, if there is no realistic scenario by which they could become a majority over even the next century, and if our system does not allow a simple majority here to enact Sharia anyways . . . then most of the analysis that Mr. Marshall provides of St. Thomas Aquinas doesn’t apply. His analysis assumes an inherent and obvious threat to the U.S., its law, and its culture. If that threat is not present on anywhere near the scale that Mr. Marshall claims, then we cannot use Aquinas’ statements to support violence against, a priori, Muslims in general, nor can we use them, in themselves, as a reason to reject all Syrian refugees.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Peter:

      You posted in part: “I would consider a sort of “scare” argument, raising the specter that Muslims might become 51% of the population”

      The Muslims do not need 51 % to dominate a society by fear. Consider: Sweden is the rape capital of the world and the perpetrators are Muslim, Paris is ringed by Muslim suburbs which are no go areas for the police, Sharia law is recognized by British Courts, a quarter of the population of Amsterdam is Muslim, the most popular boy’s name in Europe is Mohamed.

      Everywhere in the world where Islam comes into contact with the non-Islamic world there is bloodshed.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

    • Peter

      I mistakenly referred to Dr. Taylor as “Mr.” above. Apologies for the oversight.

  • Jennifer Joseph

    If ISIS is supposedly part of “Islam”, then why is it targeting Mecca? They say that they will blow up the Kaaba, one of the central monuments of Islam. They also gave a message for the people of Gaza (a predominantly Muslim area) that they aren’t following the true Islam…I don’t understand this at all.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Ms. Jennifer Joseph

      The Muslim world is fractured.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

    • Rene L

      They may be interpreting some parts of the Koran that may give the hint- that those who are weak towards Jihad should be sent to “God”. They may not be too generous to God and to their own souls. Besides the point that Islam has waged war for centuries among themselves and the Catholic-Christian- (and now Relativist West)

    • The Islamic State believes that most of the Muslim world is lax and not fully living the teachings of Muhammad. They believe places like Egypt and Turkey have become sellout Muslims.

  • Luis

    Is St. Thomas always right? No, his take on the death penalty is today outdated (CCC) for example. The Catholic reads the Scripture and also St. Thomas guided and obedient to the Magisterium. My opinion is that first and foremost, a person in need is a human being, not a Muslim or a Christian, and is entitled to respect and benevolence for his inviolable dignity. Whether this fellow might cause harm to the community in the future, has nothing to do with his current misery, and should be treated separately. Islam is certainly not the true religion, which is the Catholic Faith, but it is not all out wrong or evil either. A truth seeking individual, even society, be it Muslim or pagan, is on the way to meet Christ.

    • Rene L

      States per the CCC have the legitimate power to the death penalty if last resort. But St JPII says that it is today the case “non-existent” Doctrine: Legit; practice: non-existent per JP2. The good doctrine can be abused, yes and it is and has. But it remains true. Per Vatican II & Code of Canon Law, St Thomas Aquinas remains the model for teaching in Catholic Higher learning and in the formation of priest. (There are other things to him, Leo XIII said that do not apply because they are indeed outdated…but to get there, my opinion is to know St Thomas or his thought, be a Thomist 😉

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr Luis:

      You posted in part: “No, his take on the death penalty is today outdated (CCC) for example.”

      I believe that St. Thomas and teh CCC are in perfect accord with one another.

      and in part:

      “My opinion is that first and foremost, a person in need is a human being, not a Muslim or a Christian,”

      Unfortunately our government is acting in a most secretive fashion in this matter and we have no idea what the true status of the “refugees” is.

      Also an evil cannot be done in order to achieve a good. Forced exodus, forced resettlement on an unprepared and uninformed community is unjust. Charity to be fruitful must be voluntary.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

  • Rene L

    When St Thomas treats of Unbelief, article 8, he says that unbelievers should not be coerced to believe even though we war in defense of the Faith of Christ, if the unbeliever would be captured, he should remain free to accept the faith or not. It is free. And when he treats of praying for one’s enemies (article 8) and to act accordingly in legitimately attacking them so that they repent, but aiding them in the individual needs because of the shared human nature Prayer and works do not contradict that they repent and as long as they do not harm the faith. And lastly, in Almsgiving, we should aid from what we need, not what our surplus. He does say we should aid first those are near us.
    Thank you

    • Richard W Comerford

      Ms Rene L:

      You posted in part: “He does say we should aid first those are near us.”

      So St Thomas tells us to do what the Swedes have done and turn their country into the rape capital of the world, sacrificing our wives, mothers and daughters to the lusts of foreign men in order to practice Christian or at the very least fashionable charity?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

    • 100% agree. It’s mortally sinful to force a person to make a profession of Christian faith. Faith is volitional.

  • Thomas Lynch

    What would Jesus Do?. He was God. He gave His life for us, so if we were asked to die for Him? Over 2000 years, thousands have and are saints with Him in Heaven, is not this the end we all Seek Muslim and Christian alike

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr.
      Thomas Lynch:

      You posted in part: “What would Jesus Do?.”

      He would tell the Muslims to follow HIm not Mohamed.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      • Reader Yesterday

        Mr. Richard W. Comerford,
        .
        It is charitable of you to post courteous and thoughtful replies. You are appreciated.
        .
        I think we should remember the part of the gospel in which Our Lord meets a Roman centurion. The centurion was an oppressor of the Jewish people, yet he made bold to ask Christ for healing for his servant.
        .
        Jesus commended him for his faith, and healed his servant.
        .
        Jesus did not first request that he abandon his pagan gods, nor did he demand that the centurion leave his duties and follow Him. It is very likely that the centurion did indeed convert, but what we see is that Jesus reaches out with help that may eventually inspire full conversion.
        .
        We must do likewise: offer help first, stand always ready to teach and defend the faith, and pray for conversions.
        .
        In Christ,
        Reader Yesterday

        • Richard W Comerford

          Mr. Reader Yesterday
          Re: Luke 7: 4-6

          Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: ” The centurion was an oppressor of the Jewish people”

          I am confused. Which Centurion are we talking about?

          4 And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, 5 for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue.”

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

  • Joseph Kaiser

    Well written.

  • Paul Mac

    Thank you, Taylor, for a great piece of clear Catholic thinking. One point that should be made is that the “war” is not against “terrorism”, an abstract idea, but against Satan, evidenced by the diabolical love of death and hatred of life that we see in ISIS. And that’s a spiritual war. Nonetheless, military “police” action is needed on this earth for the reasons you have outlined.

  • Cam G

    I appreciate your effort to address this according to your faith, but I think you are mistaken. Your first argument is Muslim citizens vote for Sharia law, Sharia law threatens us, ergo Muslim citizens threaten us. Except that you do not have evidence that all or even most Muslims would vote for Sharia law (how many Catholics vote in favor of gay marriage?); that anyone voting for Sharia law actually threatens us (because the Constitution would prevent it and it runs counter to the fabric of our society–as a lawyer, I say good luck getting this accomplished without lawyers, and nearly every single lawyer in the country would be staunchly opposed to this); or that there is any conceivable situation in which our nation becomes mostly Muslim (approximately one-fifth of the Muslim population in the world would have to immigrate for that to happen). As to the last point, perhaps you would say that in many generations, Muslims might out-reproduce non-Muslims and become a majority, but again, given that the current 12 million Muslims in the US represent only 3% of the population, even adding several hundred thousand immigrants would have virtually no effect on the trajectory of religious demographics in the US.
    As to your other point, that some Muslims are radical and therefore dangerous, I do not think this is compelling either. There could certainly be measures to screen and monitor those who enter. There are many families whose fathers have been killed, and the only refugees would be young mothers and young children. Let’s start with them, at least.
    Finally, the analogy of the inn versus your daughter’s room is interesting but unpersuasive. I think a better analogy would be the inn in the Good Samaritan’s town, or an overcrowded inn that is understaffed and does not have enough beds but is outside the walls of the Good Samaritan’s town. The Good Samaritan certainly still took on personal risks in attending to the individual; obviously the road was dangerous, and he was more vulnerable to attacks himself by his lengthening his trip, slowing his progress, and depleting his resources. The best analogy for your approach would be that the Good Samaritan left the man on the road, went to a town, and hired someone else to go help the traveler. That would be humanitarian aid, but I do not think that is what Christ would intend. Peace to you and your family.

  • Waldini

    I don’t even know where to start on this. The entire argument is a feeble house of cards built on fear. Muslims here couldn’t enforce Sharia law even if they wanted to, for the same reasons we can’t enforce ‘Christian Law’ in America, even with a majority. These refugees are looking for safety from having their families murdered in front of their very eyes. They are running from Muslim extremists, not looking to spread Sharia law and take away your freedoms.

    Secondly, the Maccabees are a terrible analogy. Do you really think you’re still allowed to go kill Pagans? If you want to be a Maccabee, join the military and seek out the actual Extremists enacting violence on Christians and Muslims. Don’t force families and children to suffer because you lump them all together.

    Finally, while I love Aquinas, why look to him when you have Jesus. You glossed over a dozen places where the NT is clear how we are to treat ‘foreigners’, how to treat those in need, how to treat those who will die without our help. This is a great time to ask “What would Jesus do?” even if you’d prefer to ask Aquinas.

  • Josh

    Dr. Marshall, how does this analysis apply to Muslims who are US citizens or legal residents? If we refuse Muslim refugees because being Muslim is a lethal threat to national justice and the common good, but allow Muslims already here to stay, wouldn’t that mean that our rights of citizenship and protections for legal residents trump national justice and the common good?

  • Deborah8050

    I would point out that the good Samaritan did not bring the injured into his own home and have his family care for him for the rest of the man’s life, but rather temporarily provided accommodations, food, and medical care in the region where he found him until he was able to return to his own home and life.

  • Adam Anderly

    In short, charity begins at home. By helping those closest to us first and taking care of our house, we increase the chances we will be able to help others and sustain it.

  • Philosophical Actuary

    Your analogy does not seem to translate from the home to the nation. It would be a great burden to receive a strange into one’s home and certain an offense to violate your privacy and possessions in certain ways. However, receiving refugees into the US does not place a significant burden upon us. Whatever political authority they may wield as refugees, we are talking about 10,000 to 300,000,000, which would have almost no impact on our politics even in a democracy even presuming their steadfast determination in imposing Sharia and presumed destruction of the nation that provided refuge. Thus, it is not analogous to the direct, significant and immediate impact of taken in a stranger into your home who specifically violates your possessions and privacy.

    I would encourage you to examine the topic of how many refugees have committed acts of terrorism or are radicalized. Merely stating some percentage are radicalized does little good in identifying what percentage of refugees are radicalized. Moreover, we can’t ignore the thorough and intense vetting process there is for refugee status, a status more difficult to come by in the US then other methods of entering the country. If I more thoroughly inspected and tested the candy for poison than the FDA or more than Chinese toys are tested for lead, would it then be worth consuming? But then we are not talking about something trivial like candy, but human beings fleeing violence and death and seeking refuge.

    Moreover, it seems strange that your only direct invocation of St. Thomas is his discussion of the death penalty. This is perhaps an editorial criticism, but the context of your quotation should make potentially “infectious” Muslims and other non-Christians shake with fear for their lives. Perhaps an editorial qualification or note is called for, lest some confuse you for saying that it is righteous to kill non-Christians already in the US.

  • Michelle Ragusa

    I think you are posing the wrong question. Instead of asking what would Thomas Aquinas do, we should be asking what would Jesus do?

  • Laura Y.

    Thank you for a thoughtful take on this awful situation. As I have been hearing and reading this week’s lectionary, the readings from Maccabees have been particularly powerful and insightful. I am thrilled that you used the parable of the Good Samaritan for it demonstrates the Christian response to suffering. Jesus told us to be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves. We who call ourselves disciples of Christ must actually read and understand what our Lord is telling us throughout Scripture. Yet, it is clear that a large number of the refugees are not suffering….many if not most of them are able-bodied men. We hear countless stories coming out of Europe about the demands that they are making and have seen video of violence that many are committing.

  • Senhorbotero

    Dear sir,
    Thank you for this article. I have been agnonizing over the apparent modern church position on this matter. I have been prepared to abandon the church since what it teaches presently appears to me to be suicide, also a sin. You have brought sanity in your expose of aquinas and it has brougt comfort to me in my attitude toward Rome and the US Bishops all of whom are treading dangerously close to treason against the people of Europe and the US. I would say that this comfort is not in feeling closer to them but in being able to with vigorous thought become able to resist their cheap sentimentalism and to accept a proper policy with regards to immigration without feeling myself in opposition to the real church, what i see now is that the present church is not the church of my fathers and thus i will find a different way of relating to them.

    Interestingly this entire situation we face now is bringing to the fore very real arguments over just exactly who are we and what really are our values. in listening to both republicans and democrats they over and over state that we should not stop the invasion but only pause it because it goes against our values. I would love to ask what those values are really since the invasion as you eloquently state is precisely against our values and likely to hasten our demise. We are in the midst of shallow to ignorant thinkers and all are traitorous to the way of life our ancestors worked so hard to deliver….

    • Stephen Ferry

      “…Rome and the US Bishops all of whom are treading dangerously close to treason against the people of Europe and the US.”

      It profit a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world, but for Europe and the US?

      • Senhorbotero

        Lose my soul….are you kidding me….i am for protecting my people….what matters to you….is it always self first…..

        • Stephen Ferry

          And who protects the refugee? Better to be despised by the world than ignore the command of God and his Church.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Stephen Ferry

            Pardon me for butting in; but a few questions regarding this matter:

            1. How do we know that the refugees are in fact need of refuge?

            2. If, in fact, these folks need protection why not protect them in their home country?

            3. If they need to be moved then why move these folks to a land which embraces the culture of death and why not to a rich country full of their coreligionists like Saudi Arabia?

            4. Is it true that their Imams have inflamed these folks with a passion to invade and subdue the USA by immigration?

            5. In so far as the same U.S. government which fanatically murders 3-4,000 babies a day is moving forward without either transparency or mandate from the voters on this matter – can we trust it?

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Senhorbotero

            And what command would that be…..that of Acquinas or that of pope francis….do you not see how you have been suckered into accepting the tenants of a liberalism that is leading you to the killing yards….can you not simply observe, let alone discover thru writings that certain people/cultures are not compatible. Do you see how you are being brought down by this egalitarian ideal….does not reason or even common sense refute this for you….this issue is bigger then an islamic invasion….it encompasses the last 400 hundred years of our development….i think each of us must now dig down way deep and purge from ourselves the entrenched doctrines of the left which is liberalism/multiculturalism and for our children and grandchildrens sake begin pushing back….i say again the people leading us do not have the interests of our people nor our cultural heritage at heart they are traitors to it and to us…..God does not ask you to commit suicide…he does not require you to dishonor yourself….he expects you to,live with dignity not cowardice and sentimental pleas to irrationalism….otherwise He would not have endowed you with a mind.

          • Senhorbotero

            And one last point, there are other ways to,protect the refugee beside more cultural obliteration….expand your horizons do not fall meekly into the mass media order of things

          • Stephen Ferry

            Seeing as the Pope has magisterial authority, it is better to err on the side of the Pope. Aquinas has been proven wrong by Duns Scotus no less. Aquinas also said that the Divine Law supersedes all other laws. Seeing as the Divine Law commends that we cannot harass the sojourner, then it is clear what we must do.

          • Senhorbotero

            Here are my basic premises….an individual has a right to exist….a family is formed of individuals…the family has a right to exist….a nation is formed of families…a nation has a right to exist….what is an individual…it is a being with identity based on race, sex and heritage….nations are collections of individuals….based on race, sex, heritage….a nation then is something rather specific and unigue….part of the diverstiy of the human species….but all nations are not alike….all peoples are not alike but all peoples deserrve a nation that is unigue to them…..a nation may offer itself to another but the other has a duty to not disturb the identity of the nation when the others very essence threatens the nation then it is to be defended against….evidence so far suggest that our conitnued offerings to the other are filled with risk….so do we defend ourselves or do we follow deadly ideology that flies in the face of natural law…..Because if what i have described is not foundational to natural law then the idea is useless since all we are is a mass of amorphous beings with no distinction. This sadly is What i think the west and especially the usa is becoming…..little more then a business propositionwith the intention to dominate economically…it possesses only an economic identity which i think is supported by the idea of the american dream….essentially come here, get rich, do what you want…..it is on this basis alone that we entertain the idea of allowing the world to come here….that and the idea that everyone is equal and can be bent to become whatever we want to make of them….if you care to live under this well not much i can say…i prefer to live in a place where there is something more…..

          • Stephen Ferry

            “.an individual has a right to exist” This presupposes the existence of individuals. I contend that, along with every right thinking Thomist, there are no individuals, only persons. Individuals are, as you described, defined by being separated from some whole and have no identity except with respect to being a part of something else. Instead, I contend that the world is made up of persons, each endowed with a tripartite nature of body, intellect, and soul. Their identity is inherent in their personhood, not in the exterior accidents of birth. You see, I reject the notions of classical liberalism that each person is somehow this part that can somehow stand on his own and should stand on his own. To say that an individual has a “right to exist” is to say that whiteness, maleness, or Irishness has a right to exist. You may as well say that redness or purpleness has a right to exist since these are not things inherent in the person, but exterior accidents of their being.

            It is on this fundamental principle that you and I and all right thinking Thomists disagree. You attribute a person’s worth based on their exterior accidents while I believe each person has inherent dignity.

          • Senhorbotero

            I beleive a person is both biology and spirit….biology is race and sex…spirit is heritage and genetic tendency and soul…it js on this basis that One possess personhood and thus possess inherit dignity….their existence confirms their biology/individuation and their accidents comfirm their personhood….both modes possess rights….and yes i fully beleive that irishmen and white people etc have a total eight to exist….you have now told me that you are fully imbued with a pathology and i see clearly how you cast in with the suicidal….and you cannot make the conclusion that i ever said an indivdual stands apart and alone…this is what my idea of heritage becomes….but neither should a collective become greater then the parts….both confirm the other….each one requiring the other for civilized survival…..

          • Senhorbotero

            I should probably clarify that accidents to my mind are not bodily in full. Accidents are as well place and colloective formations….things given by culture….but they form a distinct person who forms a distinct nation/culture

          • Stephen Ferry

            “you cannot make the conclusion that i ever said an indivdual stands apart and alone” Actually, I can because that is what the word means. It is derived from the Latin meaning that which cannot be divided further or a single part. Basically, your whole philosophy is based in liberalism, specifically the definition of man based on exterior accidents. For someone decrying the evils of liberalism, you definitely buy into their philosophy quite well.

          • Senhorbotero

            Well in the real world an individual as you define it can stand alone….we have evidence but it does not mean that such is fully actualized….do you just want to play word games with me. You seem to enjoy using defintions to twist meaning….Define individual to me, define personhood to me, tell me how humans are distinct from animals and what words to use in the discussion….i gave you my use of the words and embedded within those usages are a person who becomes as part of a collective. I use the word individual in what i think is a conventional understanding and it means i think in your terms a person.

          • Stephen Ferry

            I have already given definitions. You can either contend the definitions by giving your own rational basis for the disagreement or you can concede them. Accusations of twisting words is the work of sophists.

          • Senhorbotero

            You know God rigged up a pretty complex world of physical reality and i doubt he intended for us to live totally in the abstraction of metaphysics….neverthe less if you wish to continue discussion on your terms i will try and use person to express my intentions….you have not done anything in this converstaion accept attack thru word definitions and ignore meaning….if a person is not the combination of its biology and its learning then i am lost as to what one is….abstract terms like body, intellect and soul are attributes that may lead to becoming but in and of themselves strike me as rather empty otherwise…do you contend my assertion that a culture is an outcome of the attributes of persons based on race, sex and heritage…(i define heritage as the sum of past and present aspects of a cultural worldveiw). you alluded to concepts like whiteness, irishness, maleness, red, purple have no basis for preservation….what then do you think is worth preserving….do you see these as irrelevant to life….sorry but you are quite unclear to me….tell me what is a person….i have asked and have received nothing beside body, intellect and soul….also does a person have a right to exist…..

          • Stephen Ferry

            “You know God rigged up a pretty complex world of physical reality and i doubt he intended for us to live totally in the abstraction of metaphysics…” Seeing as metaphysics is the study of first principles of things, it may be decent for you to start there. If the foundation of your beliefs can be eroded so quickly through poor metaphysical grounding, then what does that say about your argument in general?

            “you have not done anything in this converstaion accept attack thru word definitions and ignore meaning…” On the contrary, I provided alternative definitions for man–i.e. defining him as a person–and individual i.e. by taking it back to the Latin root to explain the dictionary definition. If you contend these definitions are not true, you must refute them, not pass over them because you disagree.

            “if a person is not the combination of its biology and its learning then i am lost as to what one is” If that were so, no judgment could be made on any person whatsoever. For if biology dictates that a man be vicious, then how is he to be held accountable for his vice? Further, if a man is vicious because all he has been taught is vice, then how can he be held responsible for any vicious act he commits?

            “abstract terms like body, intellect and soul are attributes that may lead to becoming but in and of themselves strike me as rather empty otherwise” How can the body be abstract when it is clear that man has a body? Can there be a human person without a body? If so, then what do they consist of and why are they considered human? Can a human person not be said to have an intellect? If not, how is it possible that a person can reason without a principle by which to do so? I could go on, but it is laughable you think these are so abstract.

            “do you contend my assertion that a culture is an outcome of the attributes of persons based on race, sex and heritage” No, I do not contend that because I do not agree with it. Learning the definitions of words might be helpful to you. Contend means, “to assert something as a position in an argument.” I reject it because it defines each human person by extrinsic things. Marx held the same idea. The Bourgeoisie were defined by sex, race, financial status. They were always going to oppress the Proletariat because it was so much a part of them. It was in their culture, their learning, and so on. So by all means, be a Marxist; I still won’t agree with you.

            “what then do you think is worth preserving” Life.

            “do you see these as irrelevant to life” Duh. It was the justification for racial purges as well.

            “tell me what is a person….i have asked and have received nothing beside body, intellect and soul” You answered your own question there.

            “does a person have a right to exist” Duh.

          • Senhorbotero

            I am not arguing defintions with you…i have been trying to clarify mine….what i am arguing is to approach meaning and define terms if they are misleading….i think i could have this converstaion easily if someone was not fixated on the words…..common meanings are acceptable….

            Agree most do not deny the body but then what does it mean….what does possession of a human body mean…what does being a human male or female mean, what does being white, black, yellow or brown mean, what then does it mean to being in possession of that body in western, eastern, middle eastern culture….what does the body mean to a democrat, to a dictator….stopping at the body is not distinguishing from most other creatures on earth as i have said over now several times.

            Possession of an intellect is meaningless except as providing potential….viciousness for example may be a feature of the body driven by its instincts but when encompassed by intellect somethjng else evolves entirely….culture then becomes a part of the personhood of being human….it transforms vai the intellect the moral structure….i have an intellect and i live in a dark cave alone what am i then….

            So we preserve life….how then do we determine what life….only ours, everybodies, all animals, insects…when does our life become more important than anothers….so seriously do not talk basic metaphyscial principles to me by proposing abstractions and beleiving that they lead somewhere, somehow politics and reality need to enter the discussion….thus far i see little by way of moral structure that can guide ones behavior in the model that i foresee developing from your points….in my case the person, the family and the nation are all worthy of preservation and these are specific and identifiable and belong to the order of things….again i say that as best i can understand you, you lead to the amporphous mass and the egalitarian being who is himself no more and no less then all other human beings….therefore preserving one over the other is of no consequence….thus allow anything….

          • Senhorbotero

            And if you have the patience i wou.d be interested in your defintion of personhood…..certainly it is not limited to abstractions like body, intellect and soul without some distinguising characteristics of each that contributes to the making of the person….these three things could rather easily define an animal…..in which case you have come back to my critigue of the amoprphous mass….

  • Chris Ferrara

    Spot on.

  • Laura

    This is a great article if your point was that we should stop all migration to the United States who professes to be a Muslim. I am curious, though,Why are non-Muslims so eager to convince Muslims that they should want to kill us? I mean, it doesn’t matter if -I- think it’s the more rational theological interpretation; most Muslims, including serious Islamic scholars not just the cultural Muslim whose never picked up a Quaran in his life, do not. It is like going to up to an LDS who doesn’t want to live near FLDS because they support polygamy that he really ought to stay there because his faith supports polygamy.

  • SJB

    I am not a Catholic but I totally agree with what you have written. There was nothing PC about this article and we as a nation need more to speak out as you have. I’m a senior citizen and not a PhD—-but it was very clear to me when the whole Politically Correctness started it was going to be our down fall—-it made no sense then and certainly doesn’t now. God Bless you for speaking out with the truth.

  • NJ

    I guess I can’t pick apart everything in this article, but one thing that has really bothered me lately is the uninformed comparison of the refugee and the homeless. For a million reasons, they should not be treated similarly in our minds in any way. The majority of the homeless in America are those with severe mental disabilities, disorders, addictions, or are in similar disturbing or criminal realities, etc… Of course, inviting one into your home would be risky. I do not, however, see how this should be used as a comparison to vetting refugee families and allowing them to live in our country. Because you base your reason on the fact that their religious majority could threaten our country, would you be in favor of kicking out those who already live here and are Muslim? Since they are such a huge threat to everything our country is built on? I think this would logically be your next step to a “healthy” protection of home and hearth. When I look for guidance, I don’t look to the potentially fallible (although arguably great and saintly) followers of Christ, I look to Christ Himself” “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave
    me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you
    clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came
    to me. . . Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of
    these my brethren, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:35-36, 40).”

    No stipulation on Religion there.

  • marymorstan

    Yesterday I suggested to my husband that, since as Catholics our highest duty is to love God above all and with all, and secondarily but relatedly, to love our neighbors as ourselves for the sake of God, we might be morally obliged to refuse admittance to Muslim refugees, knowing that they, by their religion, must try to overcome our religion. Also as believers in Mohammed’s teachings, Muslims are obligated, as you point out, to overwhelm our country’s laws. In my analysis, as in yours, this is detrimental to the common good, as well as the dignity of the individual person (especially women under shari’a law). Very glad to see someone reasoning this out according to St Thomas.

  • Richard W Comerford

    Re: Nice thread

    A Thank you to the good Doctor for the excellent article. May we pray for our Muslim brothers; and their victims.

    And also a thank you to the folks I chatted with. Enjoyed it. If I offended anyone my apologies. Not intentional.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • mtm

    Let’s not forget, most Catholics in this country are living in the home of First Nations people, and most humanitarian aid never makes it to the individual. These people need a home more than humanitarian aid.

  • Jim Grasser

    Regarding point 1, I’m not so sure that death would be the worst. Your children’s apostasy from the holy Catholic faith and induction into Mohammedism is, to my mind, worse than death, as it will lead to their damnation. Secondly, I’m not so sure that we do have an affirmative obligation to help those all around the globe. We have a positive obligation to help those within our literal arms length, as did the Samaritan. Perhaps because the West has tampered with the Middle East for our economic benefit, the principle of “You break it, you buy it” might apply, but in general I think our obligation might only apply to those we have contact with.

  • mtm

    Not sure where this statistic came from! “There is also the further problem that 5%-20% of global Muslims are considered to be “radicalized,” which means that they are consciously willing to use terrorist tactics to advance their Muslim worldview against the West. If you knew that 10% of your child’s Halloween candy was poisoned, would you allow your child to consume any of it?”
    According to the Pew Research Center at high estimates ISIS militants are 0.016% of the entire Muslim population that totaled over 1,600,000,000 in 2010.

  • Yankeegator

    Just an amazing article !!! Amen!

  • Kerry

    “Since we live in a democracy…”, um, no. We have a constitutional republic, where elected representatives (are supposed) to do the will of the People. “Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Were the U.S. a ‘Democracy’, all issues would be decided by mass public votes. The founders rightly feared democracies, and their likelihood to become mass tyranny. We are surprised your facility with Aquinas let this (grammatical?) oops past the Ox’s filter.

  • Theofile

    Great article. I agree. Angela Merkel is inviting in the 5th column and doesn’t seem to know it. I believe it will be the end of Europe as we know it. Being German, I don’t think that the regular guy will tolerate this for too long. Blood will be shed. We pray: Lord have mercy.

  • RodH

    Excellent piece. Very interesting. Thank you Dr Marshall. The suicidal pathology of Western political and Catholic leaderships on this issue demands analyses of this exact type.

  • Br. Gabriel Mary, FI

    Ave Maria!
    Thank you very much Dr. Marshall for being so clear minded and courageous in your evaluation of the current crisis. There need to me more people who see the situation as it really is.

    Reflecting on this, I can’t help but think that a major world wide Rosary Crusade needs to be initiated for the defeat of the Islamic State (ISIS) and their conversion. Since you have so great a following, perhaps you could be one of the first to spearhead it. If we don’t get our Lady involved quick, we may find ourselves before we know it under sharia law. Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch has already reported on “Syrian Refugees” being caught trying to sneak into Texas from Mexico.

    In Jesus and Mary,

    Br. Gabriel Mary, FI

  • Matthew Stoch

    This was a great little read and I agree with some of its contents.

    However, when it comes to the ‘scripture’ of Maccabees and better the authority of whether or not they were under the direct instruction of God I would say that the answer lies within its own writings.

    1 Maccabees 4:46 “They stored the stones in a suitable place on the temple mount, until the coming of a prophet who could determine what to do with them.” (NAB) Now this is in reference to the stones that had been dismantled of the altar of which a pig had been sacrificed on in an act of blasphemy by non-believers. Since the stones had been desecrated they were no longer ceremonially pure for further sacrifices to the Almighty God. Thus after the victorious military campaign of the Maccabees they dismantled the altar and hid these stones up until instructed what to do with them. Now if the Maccabean fighters were under the direct instruction of God Almighty they would have had instruction as to what to do with these desecrated stones and therefore for them to not have instruction and wait for a later date of some prophet, although noble their actions, concludes they were not under the direct instruction of God to have done what they had. Were they zealous for God and believed in the Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth? No doubt in my mind. Where they under the direct instruction of God to ‘revolt’ militarily against the opposing force? I believe the ‘scripture’ answers no, as evidenced by their actions/thought process recorded in 1 Maccabees 4:46.

    I must also comment on the poisoned candy analogy utilized within this article, “If you knew that 10% of your child’s Halloween candy was poisoned, would you allow your child to consume any of it?”

    Now although clever it is flawed, for the only truly affected individual is the one eating the candy and negates the fact that the other good or non-poisoned candy represents people.

    An all are good are accepted or not and therefore discarded approach to this is an unacceptable answer for we are not talking about candy but people.

  • DebZeppelin

    The Good Samaritan who found the Jew beaten alongside the road picked him up, tended to his wounds and brought him to an inn – where he instructed the innkeeper to look after him and even paid the bill. And yes, that is absolutely the sort of love and compassion to which we are called as Christians, even when we’re talking about someone we typically regard as an enemy. But, two things. First, the Samaritan did not take the man into his own home. He paid the bill, but he did not in any way put himself at risk of harm from the man. Even more importantly, the Samaritan made a free choice of his own will to help the man.

    But the responsibility of government is to protect its people from harm, and the government is well aware of the fact that previous terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by people who slipped in as refugees or asylum-seekers. Knowing full well that this one of the enemy’s tactics, and doing absolutely nothing to prevent them from succeeding at it, is not “Christian compassion.” It’s a dereliction of duty.

    We can help and we should. But not by putting ourselves in jeopardy. If individuals are called by the Lord to take a risk and help a potentially dangerous person, then those individuals should trust the Lord. But for the leaders of our nation to decide that we all have to take that risk is neither scriptural nor moral. It’s just plain wrong.

  • Richard Aroza

    This article is of great help. Thank you, Taylor. GOD be with you always !!!

  • Yukon

    Comparing a homeless family crossing into your land to live in an apartment or home and look for work with a man sleeping in your wife’s bed or your daughter’s bedroom is just ridiculous. Denying passage to a family based on how they “might” in my own ideas and imaginations, based on stereotypes and generalizations, someday vote, is ludicrous. Do you really believe the world is going to be a safer place 20 years from now if we deny them, and instead allow a million or so people to live and raise their kids in desperation, in tents and camps? Do you really believe the world will be safer in that case? I don’t. I think the world you are arguing for will be far more dangerous in the long run than this one. Did not read the whole article, sorry; the whole fear-mongering of comparing immigrant families with a strange man sleeping in your wife’s bed is just….too…irresponsible. I had to stop. Sorry, if it is a choice between obeying Jesus or imitating the historical figures in the Book of Maccabees….I pick Jesus. You do what you want.

  • Yukon

    If these one million desperate people are not allowed passage to a safe place where they can live in peace, many of them will die. They have nowhere to live. People are actually actively campaigning to have them blocked. The people are innocent, but we are afraid that ‘someday’ ‘maybe’, they will cause us problems. How is that any different from the arguments used to justify abortions? Is it any different? NO, it is the same argument!!!

    • Richard W Comerford

      Yukon:

      You posted in part: “If these one million desperate people are not allowed passage to a safe
      place where they can live in peace, many of them will die.”

      Why then do you wish to send these desperate people to contries which promote the culture of death?

      and in part: “They have nowhere to live.”

      Reportedly these folks are living in refugee camps in Syria.

      and in part: ” People are actually actively campaigning to have them blocked. The
      people are innocent, but we are afraid that ‘someday’ ‘maybe’, they will
      cause us problems.”

      You may have missed the news but jihadists are already causing their host countries problems.

      and in part: “How is that any different from the arguments used to justify abortions?”

      Abortion is an intrinsic evil. The decision to admit alleged refugees is not.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

  • Imelda Tobin

    I agree with Brother Gabriel Mary. A worldwide Rosary Crusade would be far more effective than all the politically correct or incorrect comments anyone can make regarding the Refugee Crises.
    Our Lady said “My Immaculate Heart will triumph”. We need to believe Her promise in these confusing times and put our trust in The Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The solution lies there.
    If the Holy Father called all Catholics to make this pledge instead of kissing the Qu’ran and placing Islam on a par with Christianity the world would be a safer place,
    We need to use Spiritual weapons when we fight spiritual wars.
    Thank you Doctor Marshall for your brave article.

  • se

    Superb analysis, Dr Marshall. You are an oasis of reason in a sandstorm of doubt and confusion!

  • ADAM

    MUSLIMS ARE THE DESPISED SAMARITANS OF OUR DAY in the sense of being a kind of “arrested development” heretics coming from the original People of God. Yet JESUS PRAISED the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan leper whom he healed as one of ten, who alone returned to thank him, as well as the Samaritan woman in John 4, who was first to recognize Jesus as Messiah.

    “The JEWS answered and said to him, ‘Are we not right in saying that you are a SAMARITAN and are possessed?’ Jesus answered, “I am not possessed; I honor my Father, BUT YOU DISHONOR ME.” (Jn 8:48,49)

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. ADAM:

      You posted in part: “MUSLIMS ARE THE DESPISED SAMARITANS OF OUR DAY”

      Is that a good example? Our world leaders describe Islam as the “religion of peace”. As does our Holy Father Francis. The Samaratins of Our Lord’s time were a tiny minority. Islam is starting to dominate teh world.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

  • Kurt 20008

    As counseled, I read the whole article. I find it totally unconvincing. You make assertions about the Muslim people. An outsider could say the same about Catholics (in fact, for most of American history, the Protestant majority did) based on what you presented — that Catholics may deem laws not to be laws if they do not meet all four points of Aquinis. Bigots could (and have) turned that into the basis of their hate just as others do to Muslim people.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Kurt 20008

      You posted in part: “Catholics may deem laws not to be laws if they do not meet all four points of Aquinis”

      I think you are exactly right. IIRC Aquinas cites Aristotle on this matter. The good and right thinking man will feel no moral obligation to obey an evil or unjust law…like our abortion laws.

      A Christian is always at war with the world.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      • Kurt 20008

        You make a serious point. And an anti-Catholic might take that statement to justify discrimination and oppression against Catholics, who are always at warfare and who put Catholic judgment ahead of civil law. It is then easy to see Muslims similarly accused.

        • Richard W Comerford

          Mr. Kurt 20008You posted in part: “And an anti-Catholic might take that statement to justify discrimination”

          Of course. Christ promised us that His followers would be persecuted. Which is why Roman Catholics have always been at best 2nd class citizens in the USA.

          and in part: ” It is then easy to see Muslims similarly accused.”

          They are not. Our President (King Herod) refused to even mention the word “Muslim” in connection to the recent tragedy in Paris.

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

          • Kurt 20008

            While our President is a decent man, many other indecent people have made bigoted accusations. Our Holy Father, acting like the President and not the bigots on this matter, as to be expected.

  • Mary Ann Deming

    Its all been very confusing to so many who wish to do the moral thing. This very much helped me understand. We are often too generous even to the point we desire to make people feel happy and better even when we know the opposite may happen if its a dysfunctional sinful situation. We often do things so we can feel better to and often we miss that it could harm us. We need to do what we do even if its hard. We can’t always take the easy route, like abort a baby because our life will be easier doing so. It feels right, one may feel relief but its still wrong and in the end everyone loses. To bring Muslim’s in even if 10% are bad will in the end change our society and everyone loses in the end. We are not replenishing our race but Muslims are which means in in the USA they could become the majorit by numbers. If they have more children here and don’t believe in abortion, we are in trouble because majority rules. May take ahile but will hapien. We already have allot of Muslims. MN has the highest number in the USA in Minneapolis. Yet our govenor is letting refugees in much too easily. We will lose and we are in deep trouble already I fear. I’m not predjudce, just realistic. Is it possible what is happening with Muslim refugees a plan to begin the process. I heard a holy Priest talk about the possibilities 20 years ago and its the first thing that came to mind in this discussion. Heaven help us do the moral right thing. Thank you for your article. It was a breath of fresh air.

  • donna

    very good analysis and it is too bad so few of our Catholic intelligensia are incapable of making this case. In addition these people are not refugees. The UNITED NATIONS has stated 75% to be young virile men and 50% of them already missing. Where are the persecuted Christians from region that our muslim president refuses sanctuary to ? When Bashir al’Assad has to be estimated a better protector of these communities something is quite amiss. In addition this is the implementation of a very old plan. An english orientalist circa 1913 was in a souk in downgraded Ottoman empire and went to a book seller where he found a volume titled “the green line’ which laid this plan for invasion along exact lines maps show them infiltrating into europe today.

  • SFrancisdesales

    Hi Taylor- I’m just wondering where you got the statistic about 5%-20% of Muslims being what we would consider “radicalized.” This would greatly help in discussion if it could be backed up. Thanks.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. SFrancisdesales:

      You posted in part: “where you got the statistic about 5%-20%”

      Brigitte Gabriel: “The radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25 percent, according to all intelligence services around the world,”

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

  • Sam

    but but but…the islamist in chief says there are good terrorists coming and he wants them to enter into our gates with a free pass, no questions asked 8-/

  • T. T.

    I think the article is brilliant. And I think John D. hits the nail in the head too.

  • Giovanni Serafino

    A very excellent and well written article. It is time people get their heads out of the sand and realize what is happening. I’ve studied Islam for many years, and it goes without saying, that wherever they go, they cause problems and difficulties. At first when they are a minority they are passive and law abiding, but once they become the majority all the problems begin.

    Several years ago in Michigan, Moslem taxi drivers refused to pick up passengers if they were carrying alcohol. What will be next, refusal to pick up women unless they are wrapped up from head to toe like a banana? The Muslim taxi drivers were told that they had to pick up anyone since they have a public license. So, they lost this one.

    What will happen in a few years when they become the majority? It is now time to stop the madness before we lose control of the situation.

  • Imelda Tobin

    On a lighter and more worldly note, I think the Good Samaritan would be redundant in the present Refugee Crisis. How many “victims” are lying on the roadside waiting for his help? On the contrary, the majority of refugees are young, able bodied men who are very capable of kicking down or climbing over barriers, while they surge past on duty border police,to jump onto the awaiting luxury coaches which are provided by Western Governments for their safe passage to equally luxurious “centres” or family homes where they are fed and clothed and welcomed by unsuspecting hosts. They are seen using their latest model iphones to encourage following travellers as to the easiest route to take, where they will avail of the opportunities that await them in Europe. Anyone who raises an objection or even asks a question is branded as “Uncharitable” “Intolerant” or “Racist”
    It is well known that many Muslims have settled in Europe, and live “peacefully” here. It is very easy to be peaceful when everything works in your favour. I would like to draw attention to some of the changes which were brought about in Ireland to appease our Muslim brethren. In contrast to many Christian/Catholic “preferences”, it seems the “demands” of Muslims must be met, As far back as twenty years ago when a Group of concerned Catholics approached the Department of Education to oppose the secular programmes proposed for Catholic schools, we were silenced by the Catholic Bishops who had entered into partnership with the Department of Education and Inter Religious Groups. We were treated like “fundamentalist/fringe lunatics”. The Muslim schools,on the other hand REFUSED to allow those programmes into their schools and were exempt on the grounds that they were contrary to “Family Values”. In all Catholic schools, the religious curriculum obliges pupils to study all religions. I wonder does this apply to Muslim schools? I think not! In places where churches are closing, mosques are sprouting up like mushrooms. In the Health Service where I worked we were told that “non national” was a forbidden term and in the name of “tolerance” the staff canteen provided halal food FOR ….guess whom?! Yet, if a Catholic staff member requested fish on Friday or on Fast Days, we were politely told to “stick to the menu”. In one Dublin hospital, the Christmas Crib had to be removed a few years ago as “some of the staff” (Muslim) found it offensive. After a lot of rumpus it was replaced. Roll on Christmas 2015!
    These all may seem like very trivial issues , but in my opinion they really are only the tip of a floating iceberg. Sadly, most Catholics do not object to these subtle changes since “pluralism and equality” is the new “charity”. Many also think there is nothing wrong with having Muslim male “Health Care Assistants” delivering personal care to female Senior Citizens in hospitals and Nursing homes,regardless of opposition by patients and staff who find this offensive to their dignity. Again, we are silenced and told “they have equal rights and need work in our country”.
    I wonder If a senior (or younger) female from the Muslim community was offered a similar service i.e be “attended to” by a male non Muslim care assistant, what the reaction would be?.
    Islam is far more than “another religion” It is Way of Life which encompasses culture, politics, law, education religion and every aspect of Life. It is at variance with Christianity which is based on Truth. Islam is clearly based on lies.
    May Our Lady protect us fro all evil.

  • Johnny

    Not meaning to make any excuses for Muslims and I am against them coming to Europe and here and I can imagine the threat they will pose to Italy and the Vatican if they keep streaming across the Mediterranean but much of this present situation stems from our ill advised foreign policy. First a peaceful resolution should have been established for the Palestinian situation and next a clear plan should have been implemented in regard to Iraq instead of pulling out and leaving a vacuum for Isis. We got rid of Qaddafi in Libya and look how it is now. Other Arab countries should shelter these refugees instead of the West and they know how to complain about Muslim lives lost whenever it is at the hands of the West but where are they when they kill each other. Next, Italy and the Mediterranean countries should enact a naval blockade on their coasts nor should we feel obligated to accept everyone who wants to come here. Then ISIS should be defeated with a concerted effort. If 50,000 members of ISIS cannot be defeated by the USA and other committed countries then the world is in a sad state of affairs.

  • Johnny

    Where is the church on all this? These are very grave threatening evils we are facing right now. The church has much power at its disposal but is not effectively utilizing it to its advantage. The Pope should instruct all bishops and priests throughout the world to instruct congregants of what we need to do. Rosary recitation should be established either before or after every Mass. And during homilies priests should speak about these evils and what we need to do to combat them. Explaining the reading of the day is important but much emphasis needs to be placed on these issues we are facing.

  • jacobum

    Outstanding article. Using our made in the Image of God given intellect, reason and truth over emotions, manipulation and feel good political correctness. Your article is in keeping with some sage wisdom and advice of Venerable Archbishop Fulton J Sheen advice to all of us who love and live by Truth. There will never be another Bishop Sheen but you are doing a highly commendable job as a layman commentator. Thanks and God Bless You , Your ministry and your beautiful family.

    1) “Who is going to save our Church? Do not look to the priests. Do not look to the Bishops.It’s up to you, the laity, to remind our priests to be priests and our Bishops to be Bishops.”

    2) “Leaders are afraid to speak on vital truths to their troops, fearful that they may incite a revolt or be unloved.”

    3) “America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot”

  • tryscavage

    I kind of remember that we were instructed by God to make a plan but never to write a script. Saint Thomas told us to ‘help’. We should help the people who need help. However we should not write a script. Bringing those people here as opposed to having them stay near their homes and care for them there so just as the Israelites found out things change.

  • Fr Stanislao

    Reading this article made me ashamed to be Catholic. Obviously anyone can use anything to prove their point but it pushes my button when the Gospel is used in such a terrible way. Using the Parable of the Good Samaritan in this way is very bizarre. Firstly, you forgot that it is a parable and the point is NOT where the Samaritan placed the victim but that he, who was considered to be a bad person, behaved more like God. Then you forgot to mention than the Samaritan was traveling; if you follow the plot, then it’s awesome that he tried to help the victim considering where he was and what he had at his disposal. You also seem to forget that in the culture of Jesus, hospitality was mandatory and not optional as you portray (see the story of Abraham, the poor lady and the child who feed the prophet, etc.). You also forgot to put the parable within the larger context of the Gospel and do not take into consideration that Jesus also said “whatever you’ve done to the least of my brothers you have done it to me.”

    The Maccabean revolt had nothing to do with terrorism or refugees. The Crisis was caused by the Jews who took a strong liking to the philosophy and lifestyle of the Greek. You, once again, are using biblical texts to fit your own politically motivated agenda.

    The way you use Scripture to validate your points is horrific ,and very much not in the way the Catholic Church reads the Bible. If you take those lenses off, you will see that the Gospel puts us under a strong obligation of helping the refugees and loving them.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Fr Stanislao:

      You posted in part: “Reading this article made me ashamed to be Catholic”

      Why? The good Doctor Taylor is not the Pope. A Catholic is a member of the mystical body of Christ. The Church is His immaculate bride. A Catholic’s faith is the One, True Faith established by Christ Himself. By claiming to be “ashamed to be Catholic” you are also claiming to be ashamed of Christ…your Savior.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      • Fr Stanislao

        Mr Comeford,
        My shame does not come from being a member of the Body of Christ. As a priest I consecrated myself to Christ through that Body! I am ashamed because a catholic mis-used the Word of God to convey a point that is contrary to the same Word, and does not seem to follow what the Pope is asking us to do.

        • Richard W Comerford

          Mr. Fr Stanislao:

          Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: You posted in part: “My shame does not come from being a member of the Body of Christ.”

          Webster tells us that shame is: “a feeling of guilt, regret, or sadness that you have because you know you have done something wrong” Perhaps you are using the wrong word.

          and in part: “As a priest I consecrated myself to Christ through that Body!”

          No. Your Bishop or Abbot ordained (consecrated) you to be a priest of the living God. You did not ordain yourself.

          and in part: “I am ashamed because a catholic mis-used the Word of God”

          Apparently the Angelic Doctor agrees with Dr. Taylor.

          finally in part: “does not seem to follow what the Pope is asking us to do”

          Holy Father Francis is not protected from teaching error by the Holy Ghost in this matter. Kindly remember when the Holy Father was an Archbishop in his own country he aggressively supported a fascist, military dictatorship which launched an unjust invasion of another country and murdered its political opponents.

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

  • what to do

    one verse that comes to my mind when i am divided and confused about the above issue is Matthew 16:24

    24Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 25″For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.…

  • Brian

    Two things which are more black and white – we clearly have a right to kill the violent aggressors, and we clearly have a duty to help innocent refugees. Two things in the gray area are what about the refugee of unknown intention and what about taking in a refugee populace with a known violent subset? Aquinas’s praise of killing the dangerous man who poses a threat by his sin, and the example of the Seleucid Greeks and Maccabees, follows more that of the black/white than the gray area. These refugees seem to come straight out of Matthew 25. Jesus and 11 of his apostles were martyred bringing the Word to violent people. Do you refuse to rescue 10 people from a burning barn just because you know the arsonist is in there and another 4 support the arsonist? Christ would accept the refugee and try to reach him, even if it cost him his life.

  • ragweed

    please clarify one thing. if all of what you write is true, then why is Pope Francis suggesting every church take in one family?

  • Rachel Rudd

    Brilliant and courageous writing here. Few people in America seem to care about the lawlessness and ingratitude of these economic migrants. They complain about not getting cigarettes after they have violently stormed borders to get here. They throw what few children and women are present around like sandbags to push their agendas. Shame on the people who blindly want to push these opportunists in, while the privacy of their own homes and commonwealths are intact.