March 20, 2006


Hispanic Catholics Celebrate Faith in Harmony: Worshipers Jam D.C. Armory for Weekend Revival (Mary Otto, 3/19/06, Washington Post)

Sister Olga Lucia Parado had the crowd of thousands moving. Long habit swaying to the beat of the drums, she belted out a lively cumbia and cried Aleluya !

And why not?

"God made the salsa," said Manuel Aviles, looking on yesterday at the swaying throngs in the D.C. Armory. "God made the merengue."

A vast, weekend-long revival and celebration of faith was expected to draw 10,000 Hispanic Catholics to the Washington region's second Encuentro Catolico to sing and pray, weep and dance.

Yesterday, there were rosaries and electric guitars, incense and drums, priests clapping and laborers forgetting their cares as the revival unfolded.

The excitement of the preachers and drummers seemed akin to evangelical and Pentecostal styles of worship that, in recent years, have attracted many Hispanics away from their 500-year-old Catholic traditions. But Catholics too have started to embrace a more charismatic approach, especially in places such as the metro area, where thanks to immigration, the Hispanic population is estimated at more than 575,000 -- although many believe the number is much higher.

It's not competition for souls, said the Rev. Jose Eugenio Hoyos, director of the Spanish Apostolate for the Diocese of Arlington.

"We can't compete for the love of God," he said. This style of worship is "an expression through music to show God is alive."

That is why Ecuadorean-born Ligia Pasquel said she came yesterday -- to bask in the music and the comfort of faith. Immigration can be lonely, said Pasquel, who lives in Silver Spring. Life as a house-cleaner can be hard.

Yet, she added, "God is all the time in my life."

"There is a lot of healing," agreed Jose Morris Gutierrez, a Salvadoran-born plumber, leading his 5-year-old daughter, Belen, by the hand.

He said many in the crowd are struggling.

"They live in a house with no heat, no hot water. They came here to feel better."

In case you ever wondered why the folks who opposed Harriet Miers are so anti-immigration.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 20, 2006 4:54 PM

Values Voters, all of them! They do not exist!! You are not seeing them!!! Deport them!!!!

Posted by: Luciferous at March 20, 2006 5:25 PM

I thought the opposition to Harriet Miers came from Catholics who couldn't believe that anybody worth having on the Court would become Protestant.

Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at March 20, 2006 5:29 PM

Nope--libertarians & neocons.

Posted by: oj at March 20, 2006 5:37 PM

Robert Bork a libertarian? That'd be news to him.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at March 20, 2006 7:22 PM

Bork (and NRO) were against Myers because she didn't have the right pedigree.

Posted by: AWW at March 20, 2006 7:48 PM

No, AWW. Bork was critical because she has no background or track record in constitutional jurisprdence. I doubt anyone would care if she were from Acme Law School if she were published or had experience as a judge. Supporters of Harriet Miers have absolutely no reason for their support. The sceptics have a reason for their criticism regardless of the supporters insistence on categorizing it as thoughtless snobbery. All of the 'prejudice' seems to be on the side of Miers' fans.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at March 20, 2006 8:32 PM

No, for Bork it was just because she didn't go to Yale.

Posted by: oj at March 20, 2006 8:45 PM

Compliments of Oj, Readers here get a constant mischaracterization of most anti-illegal immigration positions.

Nativism hardly, more like respect for the rule of law not to mention illegal immigration is anti human.

Posted by: Perry at March 20, 2006 11:39 PM

How many people who are strongly against illegal immigration are for hugely increasing legal immigration ?

The illegality of most immigration to America is the fig leaf for the anti-immigration position.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 21, 2006 12:11 AM


Call the bluff and find out just how pro-immigration America really is. That is where the debate should be. The current status quo is destuctive and potentially catastrophic. It is bad politics, anti-human not to mention a bad precedent to flaunt the laws on the books.

Posted by: Perry at March 21, 2006 12:24 AM

Bork has stated his reasons for beleiving there were better choices than Miers, Yale was not one of them. Track record and published works are his concern. On what basis do you believe she was the best choice? At least Bork has a reasoned position. Better than name-calling.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at March 21, 2006 6:36 AM


His position isn't reasoned, it's that of an elite intellectual. She was the best choice because W knows how she would have voted. The vote is all that matters.

Posted by: oj at March 21, 2006 6:46 AM

Please get over it. Harriet Miers was the Carswell gambit. An Economy of Force spoiling atttack, for those who see life as war and war as life.

Miers set up the debate to focus on qualifications. The opposition and the MSM (redundancy alert!) were drawn into shaping the battle as a matter of resume. Then Miers steps aside and along comes John Roberts with the best resume in Supreme Court history, and it's all over.

Brilliant. It was like something by R.E. Lee or Norman Schwartzkopf. (More redundancy, as the plan of GW I was picked from Chancellorsville, with a touch of Saipan.)

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 21, 2006 6:54 AM


Even W & Rove aren't that smart. They tried picking someone they could trust and lost. So we got Tony Kennedy Jr..

Posted by: oj at March 21, 2006 7:12 AM


I'd love to do so, as I've written in this forum many times.

Let's see how the new immigration legislation plays out; so far, the shape seems to be to allow most current illegals to stay in the U.S., and work legally.
Presto change-o, the illegal becomes legal, and everyone's happy.

Right ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 21, 2006 7:37 AM

Getting new Americans into the country is too important to leave it up to the American people.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 21, 2006 8:05 AM

"She was the best choice because W knows how she would have voted."

Ha! W, like the rest of us, had no clue how she would vote today on any given subject; besides only lefties can be counted on to cling to dogma year after year, decade after decade.

Posted by: curt at March 21, 2006 8:26 AM

Better nativism than alienism.

Posted by: Paul Cella at March 21, 2006 9:06 AM


That's what Sitting Bull said.

Posted by: oj at March 21, 2006 11:08 AM