Only those with appointments to the Vatican (primarily clergy), certain maintenance personnel and their families, and the Swiss Guard and their families live in the Vatican.
Only a subset of those living in Vatican City have Vatican citizenship, which is given based on appointment to the Vatican and which ends when the appointment ends.
Immigration to Vatican City isn’t very feasible with its area of a little over 100 acres and a population around 800.
Sounds like you might want to consider a vocation to the priesthood.
Here is an explanation of the problem from CGP Grey.
I’m pretty sure that the Church’s policy on immigration is that a country has a duty to accept immigrants at a reasonable level.
For a country scarcely the size of a city, there is a very small cut-off for feasible immigration.
I feel like the main problem to think about is countries like the USA. The USA is huge and has plenty of living space to go around, yet there are so many people rejecting immigrants at the social level. Even Catholics. It’s ridiculous.
Think about “We don’t want them here because they are different” as opposed to “We cannot accommodate more people in this country”. The Vatican says the latter. There are too many people who tend to say the former.
The people who don’t want immigrants in the US have largely bought into the overpopulation myth and the belief that more people = more drain on the national and local economies, which is also largely a myth. Immigrants are hard workers, tend to have larger families, and in general, love their country of residence, even if they are culturally attached to the old one.
This is why I believe that xenophobia and opposition to immigration reform is part of the Population Control agenda, because it goes hand-in-hand with a belief in overpopulation and carries with it a fear of large families. Hispanic immigrants are also majorly Catholic, and some anti-Catholicism may well be in play for many Republicans such as Evangelicals and Baptists and the like.
Immigration is an area of prudential judgement where Catholics can legitimately disagree on the policy and the policy will vary from country to country. The US Bishops speak forcefully in favor of immigration reform, and once again find themselves fighting on the side of Democrats. Unfortunately since the Democratic party is fundamentally hostile to the Church and Catholics, the bishops are not going to like what they get if it passes under Obama, nor are they likely to enjoy it if it is passed instead by Republicans in the future, but this is one big political football that the USCCB loves to play with. I wish them all the best but, haven’t they learned from the ObamaTax fiasco?
I am so inspired by Pope Francis. My favorite saint after Our Lady is St. Francis of Assisi. The holy father lives as a poor man like St. Francis. He does not live in the Papal palace but in a small room as I understand. This fact has inspired me to think new thoughts outside the box as it were regarding the poor of Italy. I have seen pictures of Castel Gandolfo. How beautiful are the ground there. I think that the Church could allow immigration there. Many homes or apartment buildings could be erected to welcome them. We could start a collection throughout the world in our parishes and with the money. Of course shelter is not enough so we would need to dig deep into our pockets to feed and clothe them as well.
Shelter, food and clothing is not nearly enough either. It is a start, but it falls dreadfully short of the goal of alleviating the suffering of the poor and lifting them out of the cycle of poverty. Yes, we need to provide these emergency needs on an ongoing basis, but I believe that if we truly want to help the poor, then we would not merely concentrate on spending, spending, spending, but rather on investing wisely. I am talking about programs which provide job placement, vocational rehabilitation, and technical training so that people can go back to work. I am talking about health care, health education, and establishing water treatment so that they can start to be healthier and live longer, more fruitful lives. I am talking about education and training in agriculture and animal husbandry, and grants to start farms and plant crops, so that they can begin to provide for themselves the food that they need desperately. I am talking about microloans so that they can start small businesses or do other things that they simply didn’t have the money to do before.
Helping the poor needs to be regarded holistically and not seen as supporting and enabling behavior which keeps people poor. If I am giving money to a beggar on the street, nine times out of ten I am supporting an addiction. If we feed the hungry for free, nine people out of ten will be back again and again and come to rely on us. If we open a homeless shelter, then people will enjoy living there for free and free up money for addictions and waste. I am not saying that we shouldn’t do these things because there are always people who will truly need these necessities to get them through life until they can get by on their own again. But I am saying that that warm, fuzzy feeling we get from helping the poor should not end there, we should lift them up until they can say they are better off than before and perhaps they won’t need our help anymore and that frees up our resources to help another person.
People are poor for many different reasons. Some hate being poor and long for a better life. Some are too proud to ask for handouts and live in poverty even when they don’t have to. Some don’t mind being poor but they wish they could find some way out. Some enjoy being poor and consider it liberating, and enjoy the handouts they get for free, and reject anything like an investment that would help them get a leg up and out of poverty. We need to convince all these types of people about their need for a better life and a need for independence. We all rely on each other for certain things we cannot provide for ourselves, but we are always called to a greater mode of productivity, a more vigorous work ethic so that we can get by in life more easily without having to rely on handouts and entitlements so much.
I don’t know if housing the poor at the Vatican or Castel Gandolfo is a good idea. EmperorNapoleon says that the Vatican has vast amounts of land holdings in Italy and throughout Europe, so it seems to me that some percentage of that could be converted into service centers for the poor, not merely shelters, but a center where the poor could get housing, health care, a hot meal, and then once they are ready, employment training, job placement, microloans for small business, agricultural education, and all of those other things that they might need to get a leg up and lift themselves out of poverty so that eventually they will be freed from the iron grip of the vicious cycle that threatens to make us all victims of Mammon.
EmperorNapoleon says that the Vatican has vast amounts of land holdings in Italy and throughout Europe,
Secularists love to exaggerate the resources of the Vatican (wittingly or not); I suppose in at least some cases so they can shove off the burden of helping the poor onto others while they take the credit.
What is being referenced in such comments is the false idea that the Vatican controls any and every inch of property of a Catholic Church.
so it seems to me that some percentage of that could be converted into service centers for the poor, not merely shelters, but a center where the poor could get housing, health care, a hot meal, and then once they are ready, employment training, job placement, microloans for small business, agricultural education, and all of those other things that they might need to get a leg up and lift themselves out of poverty so that eventually they will be freed from the iron grip of the vicious cycle that threatens to make us all victims of Mammon.
Sounds nice, that is until greedy government inevitably gets involved and uses these people (by sending them money in the mail like they do with other constituencies) to recruit votes for anti-Catholic, progressive politicians like they do in the USA.
If one truly wants to break the cycle, this needs to be done the smart way and without emotional, corrupt political interests. :yup:
Or, it won’t get done and the situation will get worse for a lot of people.
There are those who just like to peddle feel-good talking points while their shelter is adequate and bellies are full and there are those who want results.
No, I would be in favor of eliminating governmental influence on Catholic charities, and the service centers I envision would be wholly run by Catholic apostolates, whether associated with the episcopal conferences or totally independent, but always with faithful Catholic oversight to ensure that Catholic teaching is always observed in providing services and that the clients are not propagandized and led away from Christ, but always towards Him, gently if possible.
It’s certainly not possible to be 100% free of all governmental interference, because they will always dig in their claws with certification and licensing, zoning and inspections, and things of that nature, but I think the key thing is to reduce and eliminate reliance of the sort that is found in the USA, where charities take large chunks of government dollars and are then found to be beholden to government influence even when it means compromising or repudiating their beliefs and teachings.
I do believe that if we lower taxes we could use the income to better serve the Lord. Instead of money going to things like Solyndra, planned parenthood and pork such as $5 million for tropical fish breeders and transporters we could fulfill Jesus command to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, cloth the necked. The commands are given to individuals who will, as individuals stand before Him at judgment day. I do believe that a good start would be for the Church to take in the hungry and homeless who cross borders for a better life and I don’t mean just the US. There are plenty of people around the world who are poor and need assistance. I reference Italy because it is right there Italians would not have to walk too far to cross the border into the Vatican. But there is more land available I referenced Castle Gondolfo because I know about that. I wonder how many poor Italians we could care for there? I wonder what other land is available and unused or underused. I did hear that every diocese at least in the US has property that it bought for future use and they sit idle. If so, what a wonderful way to begin with property already owned and people already on their way.
It would get pretty crowded if people started moving to the Vatican, it is a very small place.
Oh sure. That would be just the beginning. There is Castle Gondolfo for another place and property all over the world where we could take in those who cross the borders of the different countries. The US is being flooded with those mostly from south of the border and as someone pointed out, many if not most of those folks are Catholic. We can fight higher taxes and if we can prevail we can take care of our own when the come. We could find out how much property each diocese owns that are either unused or under used and begin building housing for these folks. this is just a start, I have many other ideas and would like to hear if anyone else has ideas regarding this human rights issue.