PS

I dated a Catholic Italian girl from Bellmore, LI, not far from where Mr. Joel grew up. He was royalty for many in those parts of Longuyland back in the day. A gentleman will never tell when good Catholic girls start whatever it is he was banging on about.

🕉

PS: Alarmist, I just read James Robb's article from 30 years ago. (!) I like the way he writes, first of all, and he made an effort to question Vatican people about this quandary. So, besides the secretary who can't answer questions, nobody's gotten back to him in 30 years, as far as I know...

This was a doozy, from John Swenson, executive director of Migration and Refugee Services, U.S. Catholic Conference (a layman):

'The very idea of immigration has a very powerful meaning for Catholics and Christians in general,' Swenson explained. 'It's the notion that humanity is, in its essence, migratory, in that the earth isn't its final destination, that we're passing through." What kind of BS is that?!

Mr. Robb also gave a nice quick history lesson there. I'd read a book or 2 about Middle Ages Popes, but I had no idea, for example, that the current situation of the Vatican was solidified as recently as 96 years ago, and by Mussolini.

Only 109 acres! Hell, I was looking at a piece of land in east Tennessee bigger than that - shoulda bought it too .. woulda been richer than the Pope!

PS: Good morning, too, SafeNow. That was Pope Paul VI - I had to look that up. I do remember his death in the late '70s and leaning about the whole deal with the white smoke and all. Where I grew up, there were not many Catholics either (where I lived at that age, at least), so the whole thing was just a big curiosity.

However, when Pope John Paul II came to town - a little bit before he helped defeat European Communism (at least the official version) - I remember cop cars along the Interstate, etc. - pretty big deal, but more akin to a big football game than any big religious experience for most.

Of course I am familiar with that particular Billy Joel song, SafeNow. I could recite the words without the www, I'm pretty sure. It was a clever song with a great tune, from back in Billy Joel's heyday - his best songwriting.

I can see how some people would take offense too, but unlike had he sung a song about "Those Moslem girls... something about you never know what you'll get, like a box of chocolates..." (Sorry, can't think of a good one now, and my timeline's off.), he wouldn't be dealing with people who understand that he's got every right to sing that, no matter it's offensive to them. Thing is, there was nobody Moslem where I lived, and same for most of us, so it wouldn't have mattered THEN, but also, the song would have not related in any way either... good times back then!

PS: Good morning, Adam. The only excuse I got is that so-called-Pope Francis' eyesight was failing him at his age. He mistook some black Africans for Jesus. Could happen to anyone... At least he didn't use he hair to wash their feet - that'd have been tricky.

From that BBC article:

"Depictions of Christ's parents Mary and Joseph have been included in the piece.". [Big statue of illegal/legal migrants of various sorts]

"Pope Francis once famously likened the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem to the migrations of millions of refugees fleeing wars."

They came there for the census, did they not? That guy's supposed to know stuff like that... I thought (?)

PS
I was living on Long Island when the Pope visited NY City in 1965, and held mass at Yankee stadium. There was extensive local news coverage. I distinctly recall my surprise at Catholics explaining that their in-person visit with the Pope
was…wait for it… among the highlights of their entire lives. I came to realize that many Catholics care a whole lot about what the Pope says or does. Thus, one should not underestimate the impact of Leo’s recent foot-washings and pronouncements.

As Billy Joel said about Catholics in “Only the Good Die Young”:

“The stained-glass curtain you're hiding behind
Never lets in the sun.”

Good advice. (And the ‘“Catholic girls start much too late” parts are hysterical. “I might as well be the one.”. Check-out this great song if you don’t know it.)

PS: Good evening, gentlemen,

https://time.com/4272146/pope-francis-washes-feet-muslim-migrants/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49886953

I don't have anything to add but as usual, I agree.

☮️

PS: I didn't know this behavior went back that far, Alarmist. I figured JPII was generally a good guy. I need to read your article. Thanks.

PS

Oh, apparently Francis took in a handful of token migrants last year.
+++++


Currently, there are 20 Syrian refugees living in the Vatican, which consists of 1,000 inhabitants.

While the Pope has clearly been doing his part in the Syrian refugee crisis, the issue has not been solved. However, using the Pope as a model by taking in refugees to the Vatican and treating them with respect, many individuals in Europe and around the world should have a better outlook on Syrian refugees and how they should be treated.

– Bella Chaffey
source: https://borgenproject.org/vatican-city-refugees/
+++++

PS

I tried searching on “How many refugees does the Vatican take,” and stumbled through this:

+++++

From the Vatican, the various bishops of Rome (later called popes) presided over their far-flung flocks for a millennium and more. Complications arose, however, starting with Constantine himself. Not long after his conversion, the emperor decided to build and reside in a second capital city, Byzantium, far to the east (present-day Istanbul). He left the civil rule of Rome - not just the Vatican area, but the entire city - to the pope. (The concept of separation of church and state had no meaning in the ancient world.) This arrangement continued for hundreds of years. Then, as the Roman Empire began to break apart, the popes broke with Byzantium, managing to hold onto Rome as their own kingdom.
In the year 754, the French King Pepin gave the pope additional provinces in central Italy to govern directly. These 'papal states' were held, and very often fought over, for a thousand years.6 During much of this time the church, through its popes, maintained armies, conducted wars, exchanged ambassadors, and otherwise behaved like a secular power.
The church's civil power began unraveling in the 19th century. Pope Pius IX nearly fell victim to assassins when revolutionaries violently took the city in 1848. Though the French placed him back on his throne two years later, in 1860 the newly united Kingdom of Italy annexed all the Holy See's territory except for the city of Rome. Finally, the Eternal City itself was taken in 1870, without violence. Furious, the pope sealed himself up in the Vatican, refusing ever to leave again. The Vatican was his last citadel and eventual tomb.7
Thus began a long and unpleasant cold war between the Italian government and the Vatican. Neither side recognized the claims of the other (the church wanted compensation for seized property, for example). Finally, in 1929, the Holy See signed a treaty with the Fascist leader Mussolini, which granted independent city-state status to Vatican City.
Today, Vatican City operates something like a miniature Monaco. Totally surrounded by Rome, the city-state is in no way self-sustaining. Yet it does have a large, unionized workforce, a highly professional diplomatic corps, and a fairly good cash flow (due to support from Catholic parishes).
What it does not have is any immigrants. Nor refugees. None. I tried to get the Holy See's official point-of-view on this question by contacting its official representative in the U.S., Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, the papal nuncio. His assistant insisted she could answer no questions, and all official questions must be addressed to the archbishop himself in writing. I faxed a few simple questions over in April but received no reply.
So, is Vatican City too tiny to support even a few immigrants and refugees? If you just concentrate on the state's absolute size, 108.7 acres, it seems small indeed. But a cursory statistical analysis suggests that many cities in the United States of similar or greater population density are presently doing much more.
Take New York City, for example. It is huge, with a 1995 metropolitan-area population of 14,648,000, living on 1,274 square miles. That works out to 11,482.8 persons per square mile. If you isolate New York City proper, of course, the density grows much greater. In 1990, New York had a population of 7,311,966 residing on 308.9 square miles - that's 23,671 persons per square mile.9
Vatican City, meanwhile, with approximately 1,000 full-time residents10 sharing 108.7 acres, has a population density of just 5,900 per square mile - a fourth that of New York City.
In 1993, greater New York took in 128,434 legal immigrants, or .877 of its area population.11 (Illegal immigrants would have swollen that number considerably.) Against that standard, Vatican City should not object to taking a similar percentage of its population, especially with its relatively lower population density. That works out to just 8.7 persons each year (not counting illegals).
Since none at all are accepted, one begins to see a bit of a credibility problem. Namely, why should the Catholic hierarchy ask the United States to do (i.e., accept huge numbers of immigrants and refugees) what its own little country will not?
Perhaps the Vatican would argue that even 8.7 persons a year would eventually overwhelm its resources. In 50 years, after all, that would amount to 435 additional citizens, plus all their offspring. Accounting for the relatively high birthrates of refugee families, 50 years might well see a doubling of Vatican City's population.
Too much of a burden? Exactly. Vatican City will never have more acreage, but neither will New York.

+++++

RTWT: https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0504/article_473.shtml

Even in the ‘90s, we had a problem even though an actual Catholic was an actual Pope. It ain’t getting better with these antipope bolshies.