America's 'soul' at risk over immigration, Archbishop Gomez warns

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your post didn’t address any specific poster, but I’ll answer it nevertheless.

I can’t see myself trying to explain for one millisecond how I could reconcile a capable brain and education with my rationalization that illegal immigration for a minuscule few from one country is a formula for His social justice. He will ask me to account for my information base vs. my actions and my attempt to educate.

My post addressed several posters at once. Disagreeing with my view doesn’t change it.

I have said, for all, in all countries. It’s not a ‘minuscule few from one country.’

Where are the qualifications of ‘information base vs. actions’ from Christ?

Indeed. Which is why it’s so crucial, in support of such a national soul, to examine more effective and more permanent solutions to the social justice mandate of the Gospels than merely a passive response to an accidental immigration policy, which is frankly what we mostly have now. I don’t see a single one of your posts addressing that fact and that reality.

Reality for me is to view all things ‘spiritually.’ I have offered scriptures of Christ’s promises towards those who seek God’s justice. I don’t see how our country will gain if it does not place all faith in Him to deliver us, from ourselves. Men, and their laws, cannot not. What He spoke to us individually is applicable to us collectively. As Archbishop Gomez said, ‘America’s soul is at risk.’

 

[Ridgerunner]

What we apply to ourselves individually, is also applied to what we support in our country. Collectively, ‘America’s soul,’ is all of us.

But is it? Most people in this country are at least somewhat religious. A very substantial minority is very religious. What we have in this country is a thoroughly pagan elite that has power, including the power to persuade the ignorant. Certainly that elite includes the elites of the media, of academia, and perhaps most of all, of the current administration.

When the people of thirty states have spoken their disapproval of homosexual marriage, yet the media and the government massively promote it, you pretty well know that.

When it comes to immigration, I think most people favor it. What people do not favor is the lawlessness in immigration we have had for decades and which gets worse all the time.

And now we have this group and that group promoting “immigration reform”. But to what end? So the government can ignore yet another set of laws? This is not a matter of uncharity. It’s a matter of not trusting those who have betrayed trust time and again.

 

[Ender]

I have offered scriptures of Christ’s promises towards those who seek God’s justice. I don’t see how our country will gain if it does not place all faith in Him to deliver us, from ourselves.

I’m sure there are also scriptural objections to uncharitable judgments which is what you make when you assume that others are not equally concerned with justice for all.

As Archbishop Gomez said, ‘America’s soul is at risk.’

His uncharitable judgment does not justify your own although it has obviously encouraged it.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

My post addressed several posters at once. Disagreeing with my view doesn’t change it.

I have said, for all, in all countries. It’s not a ‘minuscule few from one country.’

You have not yet told us which countries allow, as you said many do, open immigration.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But is it? Most people in this country are at least somewhat religious. A very substantial minority is very religious. What we have in this country is a thoroughly pagan elite that has power, including the power to persuade the ignorant. Certainly that elite includes the elites of the media, of academia, and perhaps most of all, of the current administration.

When the people of thirty states have spoken their disapproval of homosexual marriage, yet the media and the government massively promote it, you pretty well know that.

When it comes to immigration, I think most people favor it. What people do not favor is the lawlessness in immigration we have had for decades and which gets worse all the time.

And now we have this group and that group promoting “immigration reform”. But to what end? So the government can ignore yet another set of laws? This is not a matter of uncharity. It’s a matter of not trusting those who have betrayed trust time and again.

Governments are of men and cannot deliver. When we, collectively, follow His Gospel, He will deliver. Until such a time, I seriously doubt any government of men can stop the spiraling downward we see in any issue.

How can we speak against the government actions on homosexual marriage, but hold up the laws that make immigration lawlessness from the same government?

 

[Elizabeth502]

My post addressed several posters at once. Disagreeing with my view doesn’t change it.

Do you assume that you can project how Christ will judge me, or Ridgerunner, or anyone else on this forum?

Hmm. I probably know much better than you do how Christ will judge me. Just as you know much better than I know, how Christ will judge you. I trust that process, and in charity you are required by the Roman Catholic Church and by her founder, Jesus, also to respect that process. You have no clue how Jesus will judge me with regard to social justice. In fact, Jesus was quite specific about different eternal outcomes in store for those with different opportunities and circumstances. The Church has affirmed this teaching over the centuries.

I have said, for all, in all countries.

Which is what I thought: you believe in limitless global migration, legally or illegally, for everyone on the planet, to the United States of America. Would that be 7 billion now? More than half of the non-U.S. population would love to improve their circumstances, and if given the opportunity to do so, would emigrate from their much less cushy countries. However, we cannot sustain both them and our own without violating social justice.

It’s not a ‘minuscule few from one country.’

I believe that Archbishop Gomez was referring largely to Latin American immigration, the bulk of which is Mexican currently. Compared to those who barely make it through illegal means, that number is minuscule compared to the social injustices within Mexico, let alone other Latin American countries, let alone African and Asian countries.

Where are the qualifications of ‘information base vs. actions’ from Christ?

I didn’t say “versus” actions. I said the combo of my information base + my attempt at redressing social injustice relative to that info base. He will look at that, and judge whether there is any consistency in the two. He’s not going to look at whether I blindly adopted someone else’s insufficient information base, and used that as my dishonest conscience salve. He also knows,and will know, what access I had to information, and whether I chose to ignore new information.

Reality for me is to view all things ‘spiritually.’ I have offered scriptures of Christ’s promises towards those who seek God’s justice. I don’t see how our country will gain if it does not place all faith in Him to deliver us, from ourselves.

So Jesus required countries (not individuals, in their own lives) to “place faith in Him” – the economic consequences be damned? We should abandon prudence and reality, and just welcome 7 billion people into the USA? No, he didn’t actually. That is a significant misread of the Gospels.

 

[ishii]

Christ’s Gospel is what compels those in favor of immigration reform, that would allow a pathway to citizenship for those here.

You’re naive if you really believe that. What compels the left to support “immigration reform” (i.e. amnesty) is crass political opportunism. More immigrants = more votes for Democrats and “Hooray!” - more support for the Democrat philosophy - gay marriage and abortion rights! And the welfare state. I think an earlier poster said it well when they compared the situation to the oxygen masks that drop down in airplanes in emergency situations: the first thing is to put one on, then you will be able to help others. Look at California - it is a fiscal basket case! It has been taking on millions of immigrants and having to fund the infrastructure to support them. And so, while our country is trillions in debt, we do nothing to secure our borders to atleast stop the stream of illegals coming across. Inviting more and more illegals to benefit from our generous welfare state -*** and leaving future generations to foot the bill*** is not charity but the height of irresponsibility.

First - secure the borders. Second, allow a path to citizenship that treats the illegals who are already here with compassion and dignity but is not amnesty.

Ishii

 

[Ridgerunner]

My post addressed several posters at once. Disagreeing with my view doesn’t change it.

I have said, for all, in all countries. It’s not a ‘minuscule few from one country.’

Where are the qualifications of ‘information base vs. actions’ from Christ?

Reality for me is to view all things ‘spiritually.’ I have offered scriptures of Christ’s promises towards those who seek God’s justice. I don’t see how our country will gain if it does not place all faith in Him to deliver us, from ourselves. Men, and their laws, cannot not. What He spoke to us individually is applicable to us collectively. As Archbishop Gomez said, ‘America’s soul is at risk.’

In Jesus’ time, Roman citizenship conferred superior rights to those who had it. I believe St. Paul was a Roman citizen, but none of the other disciples were. One would look in vain for anywhere Jesus said everybody had a right to Roman citizenship or condemned anyone for denying it to all.

The souls of various American citizens are undoubtedly at risk, and for a lot of reasons. But if this country’s leaders follow immoral paths, which they demonstrably do, that does not mean any individual soul is condemned because of their leaders’ actions, unless, of course, one supports those leaders or fails to oppose them.

Now, among the various political leaders who have proposals for immigration reform, which ones did Apb Gomez say were immoral? Rubio’s? Obama’s? Whose?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have not yet told us which countries allow, as you said many do, open immigration.

I have spoken on Islam not spreading across Europe through conversions alone. I addressed those who pour over the borders to escape war torn countries. Did you miss it?

I would have no problem with ‘open immigration.’ I have said that I believe there should be a pathway to citizenship for those already here. For those wishing to come to this country, we should be fair to include the ‘poor’ who wish to come also.

This country was built on immigrants, and used to receive with open arms. We’re losing that, and risk losing America’s ‘soul’ with it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m sure there are also scriptural objections to uncharitable judgments which is what you make when you assume that others are not equally concerned with justice for all.
His uncharitable judgment does not justify your own although it has obviously encouraged it.

Ender

I have not made any uncharitable judgements, and it was not my intention that my posts be taken as such. I share those things that help me form my own faith based conscience, in an attempt to explain my view as a whole.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have spoken on Islam not spreading across Europe through conversions alone. I addressed those who pour over the borders to escape war torn countries. Did you miss it?

Not good enough. You asserted that “many” countries have open immigration. Now state which ones they are.

Simply stating that “there are lots of Muslims in France” for example, does not mean France has open immigration. I could explain why, if you want, but you are the one who made the assertion.

So tell us which ones.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you assume that you can project how Christ will judge me, or Ridgerunner, or anyone else on this forum?

Hmm. I probably know much better than you do how Christ will judge me. Just as you know much better than I know, how Christ will judge you. I trust that process, and in charity you are required by the Roman Catholic Church and by her founder, Jesus, also to respect that process. You have no clue how Jesus will judge me with regard to social justice. In fact, Jesus was quite specific about different eternal outcomes in store for those with different opportunities and circumstances. The Church has affirmed this teaching over the centuries.

Why are my posts spun to be something I have not said? I have spoken for myself, and why my view is as it is.

Which is what I thought: you believe in limitless global migration, legally or illegally, for everyone on the planet, to the United States of America. Would that be 7 billion now? More than half of the non-U.S. population would love to improve their circumstances, and if given the opportunity to do so, would emigrate from their much less cushy countries. However, we cannot sustain both them and our own without violating social justice.

His Kingdom has not borders. There is neither Jew, nor Gentile. He created the earth, men divided it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re naive if you really believe that. What compels the left to support “immigration reform” (i.e. amnesty) is crass political opportunism. More immigrants = more votes for Democrats and “Hooray!” - more support for the Democrat philosophy - gay marriage and abortion rights! And the welfare state. I think an earlier poster said it well when they compared the situation to the oxygen masks that drop down in airplanes in emergency situations: the first thing is to put one on, then you will be able to help others. Look at California - it is a fiscal basket case! It has been taking on millions of immigrants and having to fund the infrastructure to support them. And so, while our country is trillions in debt, we do nothing to secure our borders to atleast stop the stream of illegals coming across. Inviting more and more illegals to benefit from our generous welfare state -*** and leaving future generations to foot the bill*** is not charity but the height of irresponsibility.

First - secure the borders. Second, allow a path to citizenship that treats the illegals who are already here with compassion and dignity but is not amnesty.

Ishii

The issue is politicized by partisans. Again, economics is not a reason I can try and explain not embracing any of His to the Lord. I, personally, don’t believe His Gospel is that complicated that I should try and approach it legalistically.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In Jesus’ time, Roman citizenship conferred superior rights to those who had it. I believe St. Paul was a Roman citizen, but none of the other disciples were. One would look in vain for anywhere Jesus said everybody had a right to Roman citizenship or condemned anyone for denying it to all.

The souls of various American citizens are undoubtedly at risk, and for a lot of reasons. But if this country’s leaders follow immoral paths, which they demonstrably do, that does not mean any individual soul is condemned because of their leaders’ actions, unless, of course, one supports those leaders or fails to oppose them.

Now, among the various political leaders who have proposals for immigration reform, which ones did Apb Gomez say were immoral? Rubio’s? Obama’s? Whose?

Christ invited everyone to His kingdom. There is neither Jew nor Gentile. God created the earth and men divided it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not good enough. You asserted that “many” countries have open immigration. Now state which ones they are.

Simply stating that “there are lots of Muslims in France” for example, does not mean France has open immigration. I could explain why, if you want, but you are the one who made the assertion.

So tell us which ones.

Tell me, which ones do not allow immigration?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Why are my posts spun to be something I have not said? I have spoken for myself, and why my view is as it is.

You have repeatedly implied that Jesus will judge negatively those posters on this very thread who disagree with your particular interpretation of social justice, which is your interpretation and is not indicated by the Magisterial teachings of the Church.

His Kingdom has not borders. There is neither Jew, nor Gentile. He created the earth, men divided it.

Again, your scriptural understanding (application) is seriously lacking. The Kingdom to which he referred was a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly one. This is one of the essential concepts in Christianity, one to which Jesus Himself referred (Jn 18:36)

Yes, his spiritual kingdom has no borders. Yes, his spiritual kingdom welcomes Jews and Gentiles alike. Yes, He created earth; yes, men divided it, partly for possessive reasons, partly for pragmatic reasons. Men had and have a mixture of motives when it comes to establishing and preserving territoriality. He never once advocated in the Gospels abolishing earthly territory. That, I repeat, is a misread of the Gospels, and you will not find authoritative Catholic interpretations of scripture to include the abolition of all sovereign borders in the 21st century. I seriously doubt Archbishop Gomez himself would agree with such a radical interpretation of the words of Jesus. It is your private interpretation, and we do not support private interpretation of scripture in the Roman Church. That’s what Protestants do, and one reason why they remain our separated brethren.

 

[Ender]

I have not made any uncharitable judgements, and it was not my intention that my posts be taken as such. I share those things that help me form my own faith based conscience, in an attempt to explain my view as a whole.

It is one thing to claim that your position is based on scripture but it is quite a different matter to imply that someone else’s is not. Nor in fact does citing scripture help in any way to determine what is to be done. Should we have open borders or not? That is not a moral question and no amount of research into the thought of the Early Fathers or classes on Biblical interpretation will be of any use in answering it. Citing scripture does nothing at all but suggest that those who have a different opinion about solving practical problems are somehow deficient in their faith. If you support the idea of open borders then make an argument for it based on its merits, and, contrary to Archbishop Gomez, that does not include assertions about the state of people’s souls.

Ender

 

[Frank_Drebin]

It is one thing to claim that your position is based on scripture but it is quite a different matter to imply that someone else’s is not. Nor in fact does citing scripture help in any way to determine what is to be done. Should we have open borders or not? That is not a moral question and no amount of research into the thought of the Early Fathers or classes on Biblical interpretation will be of any use in answering it. Citing scripture does nothing at all but suggest that those who have a different opinion about solving practical problems are somehow deficient in their faith. If you support the idea of open borders then make an argument for it based on its merits, and, contrary to Archbishop Gomez, that does not include assertions about the state of people’s souls.

Ender

You aren’t going to get specifics. Just more scripture quotes and vagues hints. 20+ pages of non specifics.

 

[Ender]

You aren’t going to get specifics. Just more scripture quotes and vague hints. 20+ pages of non specifics.

Perhaps, but my real beef is less with Prodigal Son than with Archbishop Gomez and I want to challenge the widely held belief that the question of immigration is represented by those who are kind and good on one side against those who are selfish and uncaring on the other. That in fact has become the standard division in political imagery: the side of goodness and light against the side of evil. This is what I am challenging and it is a challenge that is severely complicated by the bishops continual involvement in issues that have no moral questions. Disputes about how we should help the poor are not disputes about whether we should help them and the “how” debate involves no ethical decisions despite what any bishop may say about how he thinks the problem should be resolved.

Ender

 

[RACJ]

Archbishop Gomez is the one who called on religious to be the ‘voice of conscience’ and also referred to ‘America’s soul.’ I have offered my view of what he is speaking about, but I have not seen anyone else attempt to explain it in other terms. Personally, I don’t see it being that difficult to understand. I haven’t seen anyone offer one of our bishops speaking in favor of mass deportations, to include separation of family members, as a solution to the immigration reform debate.

I simply do not believe, in light of the scoundrels who won office in the past election, that there is any law, or series of laws, that could save the mess that has become the body politic, or “American soul”. American law enforcement officials are being assassinated now, very possibly by Mexican drug gangs, some of whose guns have been supplied by our Injustice Dept. through the Fast and Furious atrocity. The desire by conservatives to get a handle on protecting the lives of public officials, and to dramatically curb the illegal alien lawlessness first, makes solid moral sense to me. Rob :sad_yes: