During their public safety announcements, flight attendants advise passengers that, in the event of the loss of cabin pressure, they should secure their own oxygen masks before attempting to assist others. That makes sense. If you pass out while fumbling to help someone else, the flight attendants will then have two more people to care for.

We're hard-wired to look out for ourselves and our immediate family members before we render aid to others. As with anything else, this instinct can be taken to extremes. "Sc**w you Jack, I've got mine" is an all-too-common attitude. That's why we respect those who give of themselves to the extent that their own well-being suffers. We admire Mother Theresa of Calcutta, and the Sisters in her order live a life of radical poverty that few would willingly choose to emulate. St. Damien of Molokai ministered to the lepers of Hawaii, selflessly attending to them until he himself succumbed to the disease. Who among us would have joined him in that ministry?

The reality is that most of us have immediate family members; spouses, children, parents, or grandparents whose physical, emotional and spiritual needs must be met. A dynamic balance must be struck. Charitable contributions and service hours spent volunteering to help others must sometimes take a back seat when someone falls ill or large bills must be paid. This is normal. People have always done it and while Americans are very generous, like everyone else, we have to set priorities.

This is why I became incensed the other day when, during a sermon the preacher mentioned "...some remarks made by a certain Vice President who I will not name." This comment was met with smug chuckling from the leftists in the pews. The preacher was referring to a January interview in the Irish Times when JD Vance said, "There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world."

The preacher had begun the sermon with a discussion of the parable of the Good Samaritan. At the end, Jesus asks “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Yes. Absolutely. Go and do likewise. If you come across an individual who needs your help, do what you can to assist him. But what happens if you come across ten such people? Or a thousand? What about the millions upon millions that were welcomed into the country by pResident (not a typo) Biden? At what point does the individual lack the resources to render sufficient aid and so must defer to organizations dedicated to that endeavor? Jesus was able to multiply a few loaves and fishes and feed a vast number, but some people struggle just to feed their own families.  

Pope Leo took issue with Vance, stating in a post on 'X': "JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others." This sentiment is echoed in St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews: "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."

This is all well and good and when we come across those who need help we do the best we can. We buy a meal for a homeless person or volunteer some time at the soup kitchen. But I do not feel much sympathy for large numbers of military-aged men whose faces are covered in demonic tattoos. Are such people really on the verge of developing fusion power or brokering peace in the Middle East?

Immigration is a hot-button debate topic, and I like to ask leftists how many immigrants the U.S. should admit in a single year. Just give me a number. We currently admit, on average, about one million legal immigrants annually. Should we take more? How many more? And when we reach that number how do we prevent more people from entering? Should we give preference to professional people such as medical doctors, engineers, scientists, and tradespeople, or should it be first-come-first-served? Do Americans have the right to pick and choose who enters? What criteria should we then use? Leftists are normally unable or unwilling to answer those questions.

One wonders if Pope Leo is going to cancel Pope Francis' decree on Vatican security. That decree states, in part, "...unauthorized entry into Vatican City is punishable by fines ranging from €10,000 to €25,000 and imprisonment for one to four years. The penalties apply to those who cross Vatican borders through violence, threats, or deception. Violations involving weapons, dangerous substances, or group offenses will incur harsher penalties..."

I wish I could fully embrace the ideal. But until the Powers-That-Be demonstrate some effort to live up to their own standards, I think I'm going to continue to set reasonable priorities.

Does that make me a bad Christian?

Image: Jan Wijnants