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

[pnewton]

…the only problem I see is that some people are taking this “national soul” thing a bit too seriously. Surely it was only a figure of speech, and is pastoral not dogmatic.

I take most of what people like AB Gomez seriously. Christians should be a voice for the poor and downtrodden. Regardless of where we end up on immigration, a Chrisian must be true to the charity of Christ in our motivation. This does not mean give, give, give and it does not mean that we have to agree. However, I have read too many posts here that have directly stated the need for selfishness and the need to abandon compassion to disregard the AB’s comment. Add to that those that have overtly put politics ahead of Church and AB Gomez expresses a real concern. Now, when we consider that most posters do not overtly and directly reveal their motives, I see the most important aspect of the statement by the Archbishop be that we need reflect on our own motives and heart in the matter. If we believe we should continue to deport aggressively, is it for holy motives? If we want to bring them all in and have an open border, is that done for holy motives? From there, we can consider the wisdom of each action.

Get our soul straight and we will be better able to reach a morally just solution.

 

[Brendan]

America is losing it’s soul, but it isn’t over immigration.

That is my thoughts as well given the prevalence of abortion, contraception and the push for gay ‘marriage’

. While his Excellency is 100% correct, it’s kind of like telling a mass murderer his soul is at sake because he missed Mass on Sunday. While 100% correct, it is not the only, nor largest, reason his soul is at stake.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That is my thoughts as well given the prevalence of abortion, contraception and the push for gay ‘marriage’

. While his Excellency is 100% correct, it’s kind of like telling a mass murderer his soul is at sake because he missed Mass on Sunday. While 100% correct, it is not the only, nor largest, reason his soul is at stake.

We don’t neglect the smaller because of the larger. That only leads to smaller becoming larger, or having an impact on the larger, making it even worse.

 

[Brendan]

We don’t neglect the smaller because of the larger. That only leads to smaller becoming larger, or having an impact on the larger, making it even worse.

I never said that nothing should be done, to use the anolgy above, yes, the mass murderer should not miss Mass on Sundays.

 

[TRH1292]

If somebody supports the Church’s teaching on Abortion and Marriage, but ignores the Church’s teaching on Immigration, Healthcare, Help for the Poor, and War, then they have views more in common with American protestants than they do with the social teachings of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is not an American institution and does not modify it’s teachings to fit a cultural conservative zeitgeist.
The Church stands in opposition to Abortion and Gay Marriage, but also to poverty, injustice, aggressive wars, and the like. Picking and choosing Church teachings is a protestant attitude. All of the Church’s teachings are to be accepted by the faithful, including social ones.

 

[rlg94086]

Enough of this strawman already. AB Gomez did not say that we are losing our soul because we do not shelter as many immigrants as we can in our homes. “We have lost our ability to talk about issues in religious and moral terms,” Gomez said. “We have become more and more a secular society.” Just reading this thread reveals this. We speak of voters and politics instead of Jesus. If we have lost all feelings of sympathy for those for whom Jesus died, then yes, we have lost our soul. While we can have a range of morally good opinions about the problem of immigration, if we lack charity for all involved, then we have lost our soul.

It’s not a straw man. It is a fair question. And, btw, I didn’t mention anything about Archbishop Gomez in my post. The quote I responded to was directly from Jesus. I have plenty of sympathy for immigrants and am a big proponent of true reform. I just tire of the finger-wagging fellow Catholics who wish to assume that because others take a harder line on immigration that they don’t care about the immigrants or are lacking in charity. It’s hypocritical nonsense.

And, YOU are speaking of “lack of charity for all invloved?”

 

[rlg94086]

That is my thoughts as well given the prevalence of abortion, contraception and the push for gay ‘marriage’

. While his Excellency is 100% correct, it’s kind of like telling a mass murderer his soul is at sake because he missed Mass on Sunday. While 100% correct, it is not the only, nor largest, reason his soul is at stake.

Exactly…well said.

 

[pnewton]

It’s not a straw man. It is a fair question. And, btw, I didn’t mention anything about Archbishop Gomez in my post. The quote I responded to was directly from Jesus. I have plenty of sympathy for immigrants and am a big proponent of true reform. I just tire of the finger-wagging fellow Catholics who wish to assume that because others take a harder line on immigration that they don’t care about the immigrants or are lacking in charity.

If you are tired, you can always take a break. The phrase** was** used “I have zero sympathy for anyone deported or their families.” I did not make this up. If you jump in the middle of a debate, you only have yourself and your conscience to thank for comments you take personal.

And yes, I will stand that any questioning of my personal practice of charity is a strawman. Unless we abandon anonymity and whip our our 1040’s it is a strawman.

And, YOU are speaking of “lack of charity for all invloved?”

To which I already responded, “I see the most important aspect of the statement by the Archbishop be that we need reflect on our own motives and heart in the matter. If we believe we should continue to deport aggressively, is it for holy motives? If we want to bring them all in and have an open border, is that done for holy motives?” Yes, I speak of lack of charity as a question for all.

 

[pnewton]

That is my thoughts as well given the prevalence of abortion, contraception and the push for gay ‘marriage’

. While his Excellency is 100% correct, it’s kind of like telling a mass murderer his soul is at sake because he missed Mass on Sunday.

Abortion is not the biggest evil in America. It is a symptom of evil. The life of the unborn are terminated because the value of life is deemed less than than the value of ease and comfort, or the value of sexual liberation. There is nothing wrong with ease and prosperity, unless or love of money, ease, sex or power becomes more important than the life of an unborn child, or our duty to the needy.

 

[Sarcelle]

I am not speaking about criminals. Not all who come here without documentation are criminals. The largest majority are **not. **

I, in fact, have. Neither have I advocated for government spending in regards to the undocumented. It would be nice if you would avoid making assumptions and judgements on other, as well as refrain from scatological slang. It is enough that God will judge use, and he will judge our hearts and how we have loved and helped those most in need, at least if one is to believe Jesus.

If they came here illegally they broke the law. That makes them felons. They may not be rapists or thieves or murderers but they still broke the law.

I can speak from experience since a family member came here illegally. About 3:00 AM in the morning the INS came knocking. Imagine our shock when we found out he did not have proper documentation. He was deported immediately.

 

[pnewton]

If they came here illegally they broke the law. That makes them felons.

No, it it does not. Entering illegal is not even a misdemeanor. It is not criminal. This is why no one can be sentenced to prison in the civil deportation hearing (not trial). They can only be deported.

 

[Sarcelle]

No, it it does not. Entering illegal is not even a misdemeanor. It is not criminal. This is why no one can be sentenced to prison in the civil deportation hearing (not trial). They can only be deported.

Oh, okay. This explains why a member of my family who entered here illegally was deported and not imprisoned.

He later came back legally.

 

[rlg94086]

If you are tired, you can always take a break. The phrase** was** used “I have zero sympathy for anyone deported or their families.” I did not make this up. If you jump in the middle of a debate, you only have yourself and your conscience to thank for comments you take personal.

And yes, I will stand that any questioning of my personal practice of charity is a strawman. Unless we abandon anonymity and whip our our 1040’s it is a strawman.

What makes you think I took it “personal?” You crack me up.

 

[MattinTex]

No, it it does not. Entering illegal is not even a misdemeanor. It is not criminal. This is why no one can be sentenced to prison in the civil deportation hearing (not trial). They can only be deported.

You are correct. That being said, are we not supposed to obey just laws? Unless our immigration policy is considered unjust (which it may be, although i cannot say that it is) how is desiring that all obey the law a sin? The Church recognizes the civil authority and requires that we obey it when just to do so.

The best I can suggest is that perhaps we should have more lax requirements, and personally, those who have been here for several years and established a life while the civil authority consciously decides not to deport seems unjust.

Is there a specific remedy you believe would be just?

 

[Frank_Drebin]

If somebody supports the Church’s teaching on Abortion and Marriage, but ignores the Church’s teaching on Immigration, Healthcare, Help for the Poor, and War, then they have views more in common with American protestants than they do with the social teachings of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is not an American institution and does not modify it’s teachings to fit a cultural conservative zeitgeist.
The Church stands in opposition to Abortion and Gay Marriage, but also to poverty, injustice, aggressive wars, and the like. Picking and choosing Church teachings is a protestant attitude. All of the Church’s teachings are to be accepted by the faithful, including social ones.

I doubt anyone disagrees. Who opposes helping the poor, or supports aggressive wars? Stats bear out the conservatives give more to charity year in and year out. Ron Paul was the most isolationist candidate on either side, and he is a Republican.

Saying you oppose amnesty, or support securing the border to protect our national security in no way violates Church teaching.

The Church is specific on abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia. They are never acceptable (and one is impossible). The teachings on the other issues you mentioned are much more nuanced, or else they would definitively be able to state things like"all wars are bad" or “we must never secure our borders.” You can support access to proper healthcare as well without endangering people’s lives and the nation’s financial future by supporting Obamacare as well.

Also, none of the things you mentioned fall into the intrinsically evil category like abortion and gay marriage, so let’s not be too quick to presume equivalence. We need to heed our Church, but the picture is much less distinct on the latter issues than the first two.

 

[msokeefe]

I agree with Arch Bishop Gomez. I also think that burglarizing a house should be a path to home ownership.

 

[psr13]

Ok, this is just a question. I am not a debater. I am seeking an answer that isn’t based on emotion.

If I entered a country illegally and later was found out and sent back to the States, maybe without my family, shouldn’t I bear the responsibility for what I chose to do? Even if I was trying to “have a better life” or make more money or whatever, shouldn’t I realize I amy get caught and my family torn apart because of it?

Yes. My husband and his eight sisters have all come to this country LEGALLY. It has taken a long time for all of them to get here, and they still have one brother over in the country they are from. It will take a long time for him to be able to come over here LEGALLY, but he isn’t going to come over illegally. One of my husband’s brothers-in-law’s brothers was here illegally and went back to visit the Philippines knowing he wouldn’t be able to get back into this country. Yet, the family wasn’t wailing or anything. They knew that it was his fault for being here ILLEGALLY.

 

[Brendan]

No, it it does not. Entering illegal is not even a misdemeanor. It is not criminal. This is why no one can be sentenced to prison in the civil deportation hearing (not trial). They can only be deported.

Actually, it is a Federalcrime that carries jail time for subsequent offences

Section 1325 [of Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII].

Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Ok, this is just a question. I am not a debater. I am seeking an answer that isn’t based on emotion.

If I entered a country illegally and later was found out and sent back to the States, maybe without my family, shouldn’t I bear the responsibility for what I chose to do? Even if I was trying to “have a better life” or make more money or whatever, shouldn’t I realize I amy get caught and my family torn apart because of it?

Interestingly, in the topic about the Cyprus government forcibly taking people’s money from their savings because the government mismanaged their own financial affairs, the general consensus appeared to be “technically, they should have known it was a possibility.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=770909

Not that I agree, but if that is the case, one could argue any separated from their family “should have known better.”

 

[pnewton]

Actually, it is a Federalcrime that carries jail time for subsequent offences

It is not a federal crime. Only subsequent re-entry after deportation is a crime, and that is a misdemeanor.