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

[RACJ]

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

Yes, and those who are “kind and good” often vote for those who support the jamming of scissors into the skulls of preborn infants. Oops, I shouldn’t speak such truth, I suppose! Rob

 

[TEPO]

God created the earth and men divided it.

…So you believe in a one world government…? Yet you believe in national souls…?

Honestly, this is why I have a hard time with ‘pastoral guidance’ -sometimes a lot of it changes with the rise and fall of clergymen as well as with regions… A lot of it seems to contradict other things, or just doesn’t make logical sense. In a way, this is the reason why I’ve always defended Glen Beck in regards to his rejection of social justice programs. I struggle here.

 

[Ender]

Yes, and those who are “kind and good” often vote for those who support the jamming of scissors into the skulls of preborn infants.

This is another reason to oppose the involvement of the bishops in various and sundry political issues: because their influence on issues that truly have a moral component is diminished. I think we saw the diminution of their influence glaringly on display when they took a virtually unanimous position in opposition to the HHS mandate and the response of the faithful was … pretty much nothing at all.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

…So you believe in a one world government…? Yet you believe in national souls…?

Great catch!

 

[RACJ]

This is another reason to oppose the involvement of the bishops in various and sundry political issues: because their influence on issues that truly have a moral component is diminished. I think we saw the diminution of their influence glaringly on display when they took a virtually unanimous position in opposition to the HHS mandate and the response of the faithful was … pretty much nothing at all.

Ender

About 20 years ago, some despotic judge fined the Catholic Church (i.e.parisioners) $100,000 per day until they surrendered all their records to PLANNED PARENTHOOD, of all people. I think that the Church ultimately won or settled this case, but I remember being stunned that so many church members remained silent at this raw abuse of power. I mused to people then that the church was dead and simply didn’t realize it yet. The salt is devoid of saltiness. Rob

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

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.

I have posted scriptures. If one feels they speak directly to them, they should give them consideration, in my honest opinion.

How do we, as worldly people, achieve the kingdom of God? Through our spiritual view of what He taught us, and not the fleshly view.

Joh 6:63 (6:64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Please show me where Christ promoted the separation of people because of earthly borders. He commanded the apostles to go out to ALL nations. He didn’t tell them to check in with immigration first.

Also, show me the bishops who speak for closing borders, and mass deportations to include the separation of families. That would be a very important piece of evidence for me to consider.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

I have clarified my intentions. There was no implication other than to explain how I arrive at my view. Disliking my view does not change that. If the scriptures give one pause to consider, then it’s not me speaking to them, but the same driving force that brings me to my faith formed conscience, and view. Is there an objection to sharing scriptures on these forums?

As I’ve asked others, show me the bishops that call for closed borders and mass deportation to include the separation of families.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

…So you believe in a one world government…? Yet you believe in national souls…?

Honestly, this is why I have a hard time with ‘pastoral guidance’ -sometimes a lot of it changes with the rise and fall of clergymen as well as with regions… A lot of it seems to contradict other things, or just doesn’t make logical sense. In a way, this is the reason why I’ve always defended Glen Beck in regards to his rejection of social justice programs. I struggle here.

Show me where I said ‘one world government’? I speak for the Kingdom of Christ. Is that divided in your opinion?

Show me the bishops that speak for closed borders and mass deportations to include the separation of families. Without that, I would have a hard time with ‘pastoral guidance.’

 

[livnlern]

Are laws being broken when someone has an abortion? Laws are not always in line with the Gospel teachings. That’s why we are discussing ‘immigration reform,’ no matter what one’s personal view of the best solution is.

I believe our faith in Christ is that Christ is in charge, according to His will. Is our faith full if we say, ‘we have problems we must take care of first?’ The fullness of faith is to place all things in His hands, and according to His will. He can provide, if we have faith He can, as opposed to ‘we can,’ which is saying we have to take care of our problems first, in my personal view.

You say, “Is our faith full if we say, ‘we have problems we must take care of first?’”
My answer to that is we have responsibilities to our children and grandchildren to be good stewards of our nation and what they will inherit when they become adults. Are we supposed to totally disregard their future and what this country will be for them by spending recklessly?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You say, “Is our faith full if we say, ‘we have problems we must take care of first?’”
My answer to that is we have responsibilities to our children and grandchildren to be good stewards of our nation and what they will inherit when they become adults. Are we supposed to totally disregard their future and what this country will be for them by spending recklessly?

We have responsibilities, the greatest is to place all in Him, in my opinion. The scriptures provided shows that God knows our needs and will supply those needs if we seek God’s justice.

 

[Geist]

Show me the bishops that speak for closed borders

The Bishop Emeritus of Rome did.

nytimes.com/2010/10/27/world/europe/27pope.html?ref=immigration-and-emigration&_r=0

and mass deportations to include the separation of families. Without that, I would have a hard time with ‘pastoral guidance.’

So you then advocate deporting the entire family or having no criminal law whatsoever?

Because thats the only other two alternatives.

Either they all get deported or none of them do in your scenario. Neither is morally acceptable at all.

 

[TEPO]

Show me where I said ‘one world government’? I speak for the Kingdom of Christ. Is that divided in your opinion?

You said that God created the earth and men divided it -meaning that nations were not created by God, but rather by men. Now, I’m not sure, but it seems like you’re changing that to be indicating that you meant the Catholic Church rather than nations… But that’s not what we were discussing so that cant be what you meant.

Besides, why would God create “national souls” if he created men to live as one…? I just don’t understand.

…and no, I do not believe that the kingdom of Christ is divided.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Bishop Emeritus of Rome did.

nytimes.com/2010/10/27/world/europe/27pope.html?ref=immigration-and-emigration&_r=0

So you then advocate deporting the entire family or having no criminal law whatsoever?

Because thats the only other two alternatives.

Either they all get deported or none of them do in your scenario. Neither is morally acceptable at all.

It’s not my scenario. My scenario is to repeat the scenario spoken of by the men of the Church.

Here’s a link to the full text of what the Pope said.

Pope Benedict Tuesday, 15 April 2008

“…I certainly will touch on this point. I have received various “ad limina” visits from the Central American bishops and also from South America, and I have seen the amplitude of this problem, above all the grave problem of the separation of families. And this is truly dangerous for the social, moral and human fabric of these countries. Nevertheless, one must differentiate between measures that must be adopted right away and long-term solutions.

The fundamental solution is that there would no longer exist the need to emigrate because there would be in one’s own country sufficient work, a sufficient social fabric, such that no one has to emigrate. Therefore we should all work for this objective, for a social development that permits offering citizens work and a future in their land of origin. And also about this point, I would like to speak with the President, because above all the United States should help with the aim that these countries can develop in this way. This is in the interest of everyone, not just of these countries, but of the world, and also of the United States.

Besides this, short-term measures: It is very important to help the families above all. In the light of the conversations that I have had with the bishops, the principal problem is that there be protection for the families, that they not be destroyed. What can be done should be done. In the same way, naturally, all that is possible must be done to work against the instability of the situations and against all the violations, and to help so that they can have a truly dignified life where they find themselves in this moment.

I would like to also say that there are many problems, many sufferings, but there is also a lot of hospitality! I know that above all the American episcopal conference collaborates a lot with the Latin American episcopal conferences in the face of needed help. With all the sorrowful things, let’s not forget also so much true humanity, so many positive actions that also exist.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You said that God created the earth and men divided it -meaning that nations were not created by God, but rather by men. Now, I’m not sure, but it seems like you’re changing that to be indicating that you meant the Catholic Church rather than nations… But that’s not what we were discussing so that cant be what you meant.

Besides, why would God create “national souls” if he created men to live as one…? I just don’t understand.

…and no, I do not believe that the kingdom of Christ is divided.

We form the national soul, which is not meant to be taken literally. It’s how we, as a nation, approach issues. Christ sent the apostles to all nations, without any regard of seeking permission to be in those nations. This ‘immigration’ thing is man made, and now being upheld by a country built by immigrants.

 

[livnlern]

We have responsibilities, the greatest is to place all in Him, in my opinion. The scriptures provided shows that God knows our needs and will supply those needs if we seek God’s justice.

I think you’re kind-hearted and believe what you say. But you have to be practical and have a plan when dealing with large numbers of people who have to be provided for. And there’s no screening of who comes in so we’re getting who knows how many criminals along with everybody else.
If the illegals are allowed amnesty, who’s going to pay for all the new government programs they’ll need? Tax-payers in our country are already overburdened as it is. And the cost of everything continues to go up and up.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think you’re kind-hearted and believe what you say. But you have to be practical and have a plan when dealing with large numbers of people who have to be provided for. And there’s no screening of who comes in so we’re getting who knows how many criminals along with everybody else.
If the illegals are allowed amnesty, who’s going to pay for all the new government programs they’ll need? Tax-payers in our country are already overburdened as it is. And the cost of everything continues to go up and up.

Christ is more than practical. In Matthew 6, Christ specifically addresses the needs, and how ‘all these things shall be added unto you.’ Faith.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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

Easily.

On the one hand, the current administration wants to change all current laws respecting marriage and is going to court to enforce that view. But on the other hand, it refuses to enforce immigration laws.

The laws themselves do not make immigration “lawless”. It was the failure of the Bush administration to enforce them and, worse, the Obama administration’s outright refusal to enforce them that makes the situation “lawless”.

If one is convinced, as it appears you are, that no nation has a moral right to have any laws governing orderly immigration, then all laws governing it at all are going to seem immoral to you. However, the Church does recognize the right of states to have immigration laws. The question is not whether states do, but what kinds of laws are just and do not unreasonably burden the peoples involved.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Tell me, which ones do not allow immigration?

I never said none did. Some are extremely restrictive, some less so. But none of which I know allows “global” or “open” immigration. Nor have you named any.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Please show me where Christ promoted the separation of people because of earthly borders. He commanded the apostles to go out to ALL nations. He didn’t tell them to check in with immigration first.

Please show us where Christ spoke of, open immigration.

Of course, during His time, essentially every known place was part of the Roman Empire; a “world government” we would call it now, and people from one part of it were free to travel to any other part of it. So it would not have been a topic of conversation in Jesus’ time. But even so, Roman citizenship was not granted to all. And yet, Jesus never spoke of that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I never said none did. Some are extremely restrictive, some less so. But none of which I know allows “global” or “open” immigration. Nor have you named any.

While I am not opposed to ‘open’ immigration, I’m not sure how, or why, it was expanded to ‘open’ immigration. Irregardless, it’s America’s ‘soul’ the Archbishop speaks of, specifically. As an American Catholic, I offer my view.