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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I thought I had clarified this. I represent my understandings, of the Gospel, and the teachings of the Church that help me form a faith based conscience, and the view I share.

I believe my views are of the Roman Catholic Church, and have explained my agreement through the Gospels, and statements from the men of the Church.
Click to expand...
They are not. They are extreme interpretations of some of the statements by some “men of the Church” which you have applied more extremely (and out of context) than others read those statements. You also have extreme interpretations of some of the broad principles of social justice expounded by the Magisterium, who alone have the authority to interpret the Gospels authentically.

If you want to be a radical extremist, that’s fine, but don’t burden others with some artificial need to live up to your private standards, and then imply that your version of Christianity is somehow more authentic than theirs. That’s not the way we work in the Catholic Church.
I have qualified that I am a sinner, and no better than any other person. That seems to have been overlooked.
Click to expand...
It is overlooked because it is so frequently contradicted by your other statements, that’s why.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
They are not. They are extreme interpretations of some of the statements by some “men of the Church” which you have applied more extremely (and out of context) than others read those statements. You also have extreme interpretations of some of the broad principles of social justice expounded by the Magisterium, who alone have the authority to interpret the Gospels authentically.

If you want to be a radical extremist, that’s fine, but don’t burden others with some artificial need to live up to your private standards, and then imply that your version of Christianity is somehow more authentic than theirs. That’s not the way we work in the Catholic Church.

It is overlooked because it is so frequently contradicted by your other statements, that’s why.
Click to expand...
They are and we draw over the line of being a circular discussion. They are simple interpretations, which I believe to be in context. No one is offering a simple context otherwise.

I am not trying to burden others to live up to my standards, and have more than clarified this. I use the Gospels, and teachings of the Church to form a faith based conscience, that I must act on. We’re all called to do that, and the Church teaches that no one is to be forced to act against that conscience. Sharing a view is not forcing, anymore than you sharing a view is forcing me.

Because it is overlooked does not remove the fact that it was addressed. With all the clarifications I have made, I don’t see the contradictions. My conscience, and view, is applicable to me. I must run my own race, and work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. No one can do it for me.
 
iamrefreshed said:
So when you misrepresent Church teaching have you intentionally been disobedient or is there another force at work?
Click to expand...
I have not misrepresented and gone through great lengths to try and explain it. I have also apologized for my shortcomings of making it so anyone could understand. The Church teaches ‘intentions.’ My intentions are not against Him, His Gospels, or His Church. If I suffered a misunderstanding, I pray for clarification according to His will, not mine.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Where is the outcry from those actually losing their livelihoods? I see people taking up that cause, but it lacks the voice of the people who are directly affected. If the immigrant can cause the border and find the work, why can’t those that are already here? If there were no jobs available, would people continue to come?
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? If you are serious, you might start with these or the half dozen publications on the shelf at your neighborhood book store (That would be under politics and current events, of course!)

nationalreview.com/corner/340913/illegal-immigration-and-black-unemployment-peter-kirsanow

avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/employing-illegal-aliens-nyc-restaurant-owners-guide

fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-taking-u-s-jobs

thesocialcontract.com/booklets/victims-illegal-immigration/victim-construction-worker.html

Does your own interpretation of living a life with Christ agree with the Church that there is no true charity without justice and truth?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The seafood company was ‘raided’ and he lost his workforce. Sorry, I didn’t clarify that. The irony is in the fact of the number of unemployed in this area, and yet those jobs are still open. They pay above minimum wage.
Click to expand...
I see.

How much above minimum wage, one wonders, and for what work? Minimum wage is currently well below the official poverty line. Illegals around here, anyway, make more than that.

Personally, if I was unemployed and could support my family only on unemployment, I would take unemployment. If my family was not dependent on unemployment, I would take minimum wage work if I was physically able to do it.

But not everybody can.

Maybe the proper answer is for seafood simply to cost more, not for the borders to be open so employers can pay low wages and still have employees.
 
Tigg said:
Are you kidding? If you are serious, you might start with these or the half dozen publications on the shelf at your neighborhood book store (That would be under politics and current events, of course!)

nationalreview.com/corner/340913/illegal-immigration-and-black-unemployment-peter-kirsanow

avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/employing-illegal-aliens-nyc-restaurant-owners-guide

fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-taking-u-s-jobs

thesocialcontract.com/booklets/victims-illegal-immigration/victim-construction-worker.html

Does your own interpretation of living a life with Christ agree with the Church that there is no true charity without justice and truth?
Click to expand...
With the exception of the fourth article, they lack any direct connection to those being affected according to the claims. In the fourth article, the write speculates on how another company could bid as they did. With that noted, I imagine there is a greater competitiveness for jobs by an influx of people, but it does not remove looking at ‘ourselves’ over another.

I really don’t understand your last question, in light of the many explanations I have offered.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I see.

How much above minimum wage, one wonders, and for what work? Minimum wage is currently well below the official poverty line. Illegals around here, anyway, make more than that.

Personally, if I was unemployed and could support my family only on unemployment, I would take unemployment. If my family was not dependent on unemployment, I would take minimum wage work if I was physically able to do it.

But not everybody can.

Maybe the proper answer is for seafood simply to cost more, not for the borders to be open so employers can pay low wages and still have employees.
Click to expand...
Those seafood processing jobs pay 8 to 10 dollars an hour, starting and depending on what the job requires. It includes unloading boats, and processing seafood to packaging for shipping.

I know the minimum wage, and it’s level. Should the minimum wage increase to the proposed amount, my wife would get a raise and she makes over minimum wage now.

I recently became a paramedic. As an EMT I made 9.50 an hour, which is higher than some counties in this area. I received a 3.50 hour raise as a paramedic. This career choice is mine. I made much more money as a salesman, but this gives back to the community and I find it much more rewarding, and wish I had done this years ago.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Those seafood processing jobs pay 8 to 10 dollars an hour, starting and depending on what the job requires. It includes unloading boats, and processing seafood to packaging for shipping.

I know the minimum wage, and it’s level. Should the minimum wage increase to the proposed amount, my wife would get a raise and she makes over minimum wage now.

I recently became a paramedic. As an EMT I made 9.50 an hour, which is higher than some counties in this area. I received a 3.50 hour raise as a paramedic. This career choice is mine. I made much more money as a salesman, but this gives back to the community and I find it much more rewarding, and wish I had done this years ago.
Click to expand...
I have known paramedics and EMTs. Like most police and fire, the ones I know do not do what they do for the money. It’s a way of life. Indeed, it does give back to the community, but it’s also exciting frequently, with many an adrenalin rush.

In my opinion, setting a high minimum wage is hard on entry-level people and young people. But I also believe we, in this country, pay too little for a lot of the products we consume.
 
Do immigrants have a responsibility to God? Didn’t Jesus say render unto Caesar that is Caesars? Isn’t part of that obeying the law? Isn’t coming to this (or any) country illegally against the will of God?🤷
 
pete_29 said:
Do immigrants have a responsibility to God? Didn’t Jesus say render unto Caesar that is Caesars? Isn’t part of that obeying the law? Isn’t coming to this (or any) country illegally against the will of God?🤷
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says immigrants should respect the laws and customs of the place to which they are going.

On the flip side, it may be questioned whether they should have any more respect for our laws than our president does. Since he doesn’t respect our immigration laws, they might legitimately ask why they should.
 
I hate to follow myself, but I am going to.

I think the immigration situation is much more of a problem than many make it out to be. For one thing, much of the world is different, and many potential immigrants are different.

For a long time, people who immigrated wanted to be citizens. Now, many do not, or they do simply because it confers certain economic advantages to them or to their children.

For a long time, people had to give up citizenship elsewhere in order to become U.S. citizens. Now they no longer do, and one is put to wonder whether it now really means the individuals really do pledge their allegiance to this country when they simultaneously retain citizenship in another country; particularly another country where they can still vote, and often do.

I also think the political correctness our courts have adopted will eventually cut off immigration. On the one hand, the “system” is in chaos. But if it is regularized, we have to wonder whether it will be enforced, since the current system isn’t enforced. We also have to wonder just who potential immigrants will be. Are we going to opt for unskilled workers who will compete with our own people in a time of poor employment? Are we going to opt for family relationships that seem to put people on our welfare rolls? Are we going to opt for better educated people, which will probably mean more people from a very doubtful Middle East?

The courts won’t allow “discrimination” in favor of Christians or people with western culture and values. Will the people of this country long tolerate big inflows of unskilled workers who have no intention of really joining this society? Will the people of this country long tolerate big inflows of members of the Muslim Brotherhood? Should this country accept big inflows of tech people from China whose interest might be more in aiding China against the U.S. rather than aiding the U.S,? Will the courts allow us to somehow prefer educated Filipinos if the policymakers opt for educated immigrants? I doubt it.

Personally, I guess I would prefer gearing immigration to those countries that have direct and open alliances with the U.S. Such people are more likely to be friendly to this country and its people than others, and more likely to share our values and goals. Thus, we would prefer Filipinos over Chinese; Poles over Russians, Brits over Egyptians, South Koreans over Cambodians, even Colombians over Mexicans notwithstanding there has always been a cultural “half affinity” with Mexicans.

And we might have a special “charity category” for Haitians, to whom anybody’s heart should go out.

But I would say the likelihood of any of that happening is approximately zero.

And therefore, I believe the current efforts at “reform” will result in a sudden influx, lack of enforcement and eventual cutting off immigration.
 
Ridgerunner said:
And we might have a special “charity category” for Haitians, to whom anybody’s heart should go out.
Click to expand...
^ something I advocated some time ago. I believe this was indicated by Christian charity but has not been done so far, at least in significant numbers. (There was supposed to be a token increase, temporarily.)
And therefore, I believe the current efforts at “reform” will result in a sudden influx, lack of enforcement and eventual cutting off immigration.
Click to expand...
Ridge, I don’t see how you come to this conclusion. I think if anything non-reform would just result in more artificial pushes for “amnesty.” I believe that the only thing that will revise immigration in a more western-friendly way would be another internal terrorist attack. And since even 9-11 didn’t accomplish such reforms in immigration and enforcement, I’m not hopeful that immigration will ever be “cut off.”

Maybe when, if, the U.S. economy gets a wake-up call about how much low-skilled laborers must be subsidized by the gov’t in so many ways, will proportional immigration be reinstated, based on potential outgo of the immigrant as well as the personal needs of that immigrant & family.

We are quickly becoming a socialist State in the manner of France, which by the way has significant immigration itself. There are people on this board who really are even more math-challenged than I am, which is quite a feat. They must believe that there are never-ending funds to subsidize and benefit workers who will never be sufficiently independent in a modern, technological, and educated society, because such posters want “no quotas.”
 
Elizabeth502 said:
^ something I advocated some time ago. I believe this was indicated by Christian charity but has not been done so far, at least in significant numbers. (There was supposed to be a token increase, temporarily.)

Ridge, I don’t see how you come to this conclusion. I think if anything non-reform would just result in more artificial pushes for “amnesty.” I believe that the only thing that will revise immigration in a more western-friendly way would be another internal terrorist attack. And since even 9-11 didn’t accomplish such reforms in immigration and enforcement, I’m not hopeful that immigration will ever be “cut off.”

Maybe when, if, the U.S. economy gets a wake-up call about how much low-skilled laborers must be subsidized by the gov’t in so many ways, will proportional immigration be reinstated, based on potential outgo of the immigrant as well as the personal needs of that immigrant & family.

We are quickly becoming a socialist State in the manner of France, which by the way has significant immigration itself. There are people on this board who really are even more math-challenged than I am, which is quite a feat. They must believe that there are never-ending funds to subsidize and benefit workers who will never be sufficiently independent in a modern, technological, and educated society, because such posters want “no quotas.”
Click to expand...
You could be right. I’m only speculating about the future, and that’s always chancey.

But let’s say there is a sudden in-flooding of immigrants, both legal and illegal. Let’s also suppose the American people (including Hispanics, many of whom don’t like the illegality either) don’t like the result. Let’s further assume there is a significant influx, both legal and illegal from the Middle East. Let’s further assume there are cultural clashes with some of the concentrations of the latter. Then let’s assume there is either a 911-type attack or a series of small ones.

Yes, I could picture a popular demand down the road to end it altogether. I suspect the public is pretty fed up with, and distrusting of, the political class. A big betrayal, whether intended or unintended, but perceived, will not be well received.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I can agree. The only difference is that I believe the increasing secularism is not confined to a single political view. The statement you make about partisans using scriptures goes both ways. Neither political party is made up completely of believers. In this world we only have believers, and non-believers, and that crosses all man made, and defined, lines. QUOTE

Perhaps the materialism of the capitalist right which seeks cheap labor through illegal immigrants could be thought to be secular: at least in practice. However, anyone with intellectual honesty would admit that it is on the modern left that secularism finds itself most at home. While some leftists may give lip service to faith in God, their true faith is in the state. The soul of America is becoming increasingly dominated by the state. There isn’t room for an almighty, all encompassing state and an authentic faith in God.

Ishii
Click to expand...
 
This:
ishii said:
anyone with intellectual honesty would admit that it is on the modern left that secularism finds itself most at home. While some leftists may give lip service to faith in God, their true faith is in the state. **The soul of America is becoming increasingly dominated by the state. ** There isn’t room for an almighty, all encompassing state and an authentic faith in God.
Click to expand...
[bolding mine]
Very perceptive about where the real “soul” of America is right now and what the real dangers are to that soul.
👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top