Archbishop Dolan on Immigration Reform

[kimmielittle]

The economic, educational, demographic situations are vastly different than what was historically true, so your analogy cannot be directly applied.

The more statements I see from CAF members who are not directly surrounded by huge influxes of immigrants affecting their states adversely, particularly poor people in those states, the more I see the lack of wisdom in such statements. That’s fine, you contact your bishops, while I continue to contact congress. I know where the morality lies: it does not lie in exploiting the lower-middle-class and the under-class who are already here, so that we can turn a blind eye to them and support millions of others who require extreme services from bankrupt states, and so that the evil exploitation by their own countries of origin can be directly and indirectly supported. No, I know my conscience will not support such rationalization, and therefore I activate my conscience in support of those whose educational and employment lives have been made quite uncomfortable. I speak for those who are uncomfortable; my own relative comfort is immaterial. In fact, it is those who are most comfortable – least personally touched or professionally touched by illiterate immigrants consuming scarce resources in the same cluster of regions, repeatedly – who can afford to make ivory-tower pronouncements ** based on theory, not reality.**

And the bolded is the reality…nice theories without substance

 

[kimmielittle]

Opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has one. Of course we all can express our opinion, that is why we are on this forum. It is far fetched to say that anyone suggests that any entitlements be given. That is a huge leap from the original thought concerning fair treatment for all of God’s children.

We Americans who post here now are only in the USA by the grace of God. We are no better or worse than the rest of the world’s population. As I stated earlier, we share a border with Mexico, making migration much more plausible for the poor and downtrodden. Since the Mexican government is totally corrupt and content to allow its own to starve or suffer from diseases that are easily preventable, human nature would certainly lead any one of us who happened to be born there to seek a way out. All I can say is that Jesus expects us to share what we have. If a man asks for your cloak, give him your tunic also. If he asks you to go a mile with him, go two. Have mercy on those who have not.

Expecting immigrants to - Enter legally…become a legal resident…a legal citizen…is not being unmerciful / unethical or amoral.

If so, please offer your proof.

Life boats can only carry so many at a time - overload it - and ALL you are trying to save - drown.
.

 

[kimmielittle]

We Americans who post here now are only in the USA by the grace of God.

I have a hard time with this argument…Herein is where it lies; If it’s by the Grace of God that I am here in America…It’s also by the Grace of God that anybody is in the country - they are in. …is it not?

 

[Loy]

The more Catholics post here, the more I see the wisdom of our bishops in this issue.

Shouldn’t we be basing the formation of our conscience upon the whole of Catholic teaching, rather than reacting to the microcosm of thought that exists here at these forums?

 

[St_Francis]

Funny you should mention. There was an article in the Sacramento Bee religious section on a Saturday in 1997 if I remember correctly, about a black Catholic family who attended a suburban church. Every Sunday they arrived early and went down to the very first pew. No one ever joined them in that pew. Eventually they smelled a rat and went to another church where they were welcomed.

In all the Catholic churches I have been to, the front pews are the last to be filled. Don’t ask me why… but there it is.

I have also noticed that if there is space elsewhere, people don’t join families in pews, unless the pews are very long (in which case everyone hangs out at the ends and there is no one in the middle…)

And Catholics in general are in church to meet with Our Lord rather than with each other. I have seen people come and go and never be greeted by anyone else–that’s the nature of Catholicism.

So, i think that this experience was attributed to the race of the family when it is actually pretty normal, and a big complaint of Protestants of all races who enter the Church.

I know what the Church says, but I can provide other examples that there was no concerted “Catholic action” to desegregate neighborhoods. I would say the Church was complicit by its silence in maintaining segregated neighborhoods. This is why the Church’s relationship with Hispanics looks, well, unusual.

Archbishop Rummel ordered the desegragation of Catholic institutions in New Orleans in 1953

North Carolina diocese desegragated in 1953: Within churches, a parishioner, [Bishop] Waters announced, should “sit or kneel wherever he desires and to approach the sacraments without any regard to race or nationality.”

(continued below and later (have to go feed hungry family!) as this posted before I was ready–sorry about that!)

 

[pnewton]

The more statements I see from CAF members who are not directly surrounded by huge influxes of immigrants affecting their states adversely, particularly poor people in those states, the more I see the lack of wisdom in such statements.

If you are referring to me on this, well, it is ill-advised to assume. I assure you my home town and state have a very large immigrant population (number two in the nation, number three per capita).

 

[pnewton]

I speak for those who are uncomfortable; my own relative comfort is immaterial.

As do I.

Shouldn’t we be basing the formation of our conscience upon the whole of Catholic teaching, rather than reacting to the microcosm of thought that exists here at these forums?

Yes. That is what I said. Agreement with the bishops. People here only show me their wisdom. Again, that is what I said. I think the latest teaching on social justice, Caritas in Veritate, is an excellent way of forming a conscience of concern for those across our own borders. That document too was criticized by many Catholics. Combine this with the teaching of Jesus and the history of the early Church, one can see why the bishops are saying what the say.

 

[St_Francis]

From here: In Andrew Moore’s article, “Practicing What We Preach: White Catholics and the Civil Rights Movement in Atlanta,” he points out that** in 1958 Bishop Hyland of Georgia** used **the Vatican’s desegregation order **to formulate a plan to help Georgian Catholic parishes integrate. By gradually integrating schools and churches, no unrest was caused, and churches like St. Peter Claver were used as examples of how and why integration could work. However, in Randall Miller’s discussion of the history of Roman Catholicism in the South, he mentions the fact that most Southern dioceses were wary of integration and were resistant to social change. Nonetheless, Catholic churches and schools integrated faster than those of Protestants and in the public sector.

From here: 1954: St. Anne Catholic School, at the church rectory on Saluda Street, becomes the first racially integrated school in South Carolina. A new school is built on South Jones Avenue in 1958.

From here: 1954: Bishop Ireton desegregated diocesan schools on the eve of Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme court decision [earlier than other VA schools]

The fact that the Catholic Church was not very well accepted either in the South (which is predominantly Protestant), which may be why they did not engage in civil rights activities. Since the Church was already regarded with suspicion, they would not have added anything good to the situation.

 

[Loy]

As do I.
Yes. That is what I said. Agreement with the bishops.

I’m confused. You stated that what Catholics have posted has convinced you of the bishops’ wisdom. What was said that is so convincing?

Now, what do you mean that you agree with the bishops? Do you agree with everything they have said on immigration? Do you agree with everything they have said about the Arizona law?

Caritas in Veritate, is an excellent way of forming a conscience of concern for those across our own borders.

Nowhere does Caritas in Veritate advocate that states must admit unlimited numbers of migrants. Which Catholic teaching supports this?

That document too was criticized by many Catholics. Combine this with the teaching of Jesus and the history of the early Church, one can see why the bishops are saying what the say.

I am not getting the point you are trying to make.

 

[Loy]

The fact that the Catholic Church was not very well accepted either in the South (which is predominantly Protestant), which may be why they did not engage in civil rights activities. Since the Church was already regarded with suspicion, they would not have added anything good to the situation.

Although this is getting off-topic, there were plenty of Catholic priests, religious and laity involved in civil rights marches and demonstrations in the South. That did not endear the Church with those Protestants who strongly believed in segregation.

 

[pnewton]

I’m confused. You stated that what Catholics have posted has convinced you of the bishops’ wisdom. What was said that is so convincing? Now, what do you mean that you agree with the bishops? Do you agree with everything they have said on immigration? Do you agree with everything they have said about the Arizona law? Nowhere does Caritas in Veritate advocate that states must admit unlimited numbers of migrants. Which Catholic teaching supports this?

It is hard to respond to five questions. I do not know which are rhetorical and which are genuine. No, Caritas in Veritate does not address the immigration law. It is a basic moral teaching. Here are some snipets:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

I would like to consider two of these in particular, of special relevance to the commitment to development in an increasingly globalized society: justice and the common good.

• On the one hand, charity demands justice: recognition and respect for the legitimate rights of individuals and peoples. It strives to build the earthly city according to law and justice. On the other hand, charity transcends justice and completes it in the logic of giving and forgiving.*
• Besides the good of the individual, there is a good that is linked to living in society: the common good. It is the good of “all of us”, made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society.*

risk for our time is that the de facto interdependence of people and nations is not matched by ethical interaction of consciences and minds that would give rise to truly human development. Only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and humanizing value. The sharing of goods and resources, from which authentic development proceeds, is not guaranteed by merely technical progress and relationships of utility, but by the potential of love that overcomes evil with good (cf. Rom 12:21), opening up the path towards reciprocity of consciences and liberties.

Etc.

It is only a starting point, of course.

 

[Loy]

The governmen’ts authority is not absolute as is that of the Church.

The bishops, as well, are subject to the Church. The bishops are not the Church.

If the government creates a law that causes chaos, anger, confusion and pain to the innocent and the guilty at the same time, that is not the highest good. Therefore, the governent has the obligation to back peddle, not the individual, because the individual did not create the law that caused the chaos.

I can’t find this anywhere in Catholic teaching. Where does it say this?

As to Pope Benedict’s statement on the rights of the immigrant. He does not spell them out, because they have been spelled out many times by other popes, by the governments, by Catholic writers, by the United Nations.

You’ve lost me here. When Pope Benedict speaks of fundamental rights in Caritas in Veritate, he is discussing natural God-given rights, not state created rights, correct? The state is obligated to honor state-made rights, but those are not “fundamental” at least as that term is used in the encyclical.

It’s unnecessary to restate that human beings have the right to look for a better life for themselves and their families.

Hold on, please. I was asking you to point out a specific citation, and you responded with Caritas in Veritate, but it’s not there. How can I verify that what you claim is true? I think it is incorrect. I need a citation so that I can compare what you have said with what the Church has said. Precision as well as accuracy are important in Church teaching. Here is your statement, which I contend is incorrect:
JReducation; 6593592:

The Catholic Church also holds that a person has the right to seek a better life, safety, education, and healthcare where ever they can find it.

Are you able to provide a source in support of it?

I think that we often put too many expectations on the popes. If they don’t say something, it has no validity. This is not true. Popes often remain quiet when a bishop or bishops say something that they support. They are not into the business of repeating what someone else said.

Except when a bishop says something that is wrong. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why a pope might be silent despite that a bishop has misstated Church teaching. Maybe he was overwhelmed with the sex scandal and couldn’t be bothered with it. Maybe he hasn’t dealt with it yet. Logic and reason teach us that arguing from silence is extremely problematic.

Regardless, please show me where a bishop has taught that a person has a fundamental right to seek a better life, safety, education and healthcare where ever they can find it, and we can start from there.

 

[Loy]

It is hard to respond to five questions. I do not know which are rhetorical and which are genuine.

They are all genuine.

No, Caritas in Veritate does not address the immigration law. It is a basic moral teaching.

It is not basic in any sense of the word “basic”. It is complex. It is new. It addresses many concerns that are specific to this period of contemporary time, moreso than timeless generalities. But it does address immigration:
62. Another aspect of integral human development that is worthy of attention is the phenomenon of migration. This is a striking phenomenon because of the sheer numbers of people involved, the social, economic, political, cultural and religious problems it raises, and the dramatic challenges it poses to nations and the international community. We can say that we are facing a social phenomenon of epoch-making proportions that requires bold, forward-looking policies of international cooperation if it is to be handled effectively. Such policies should set out from close collaboration between the migrants’ countries of origin and their countries of destination; it should be accompanied by adequate international norms able to coordinate different legislative systems with a view to safeguarding the needs and rights of individual migrants and their families, and at the same time, those of the host countries. No country can be expected to address today’s problems of migration by itself. We are all witnesses of the burden of suffering, the dislocation and the aspirations that accompany the flow of migrants. The phenomenon, as everyone knows, is difficult to manage; but there is no doubt that foreign workers, despite any difficulties concerning integration, make a significant contribution to the economic development of the host country through their labour, besides that which they make to their country of origin through the money they send home. Obviously, these labourers cannot be considered as a commodity or a mere workforce. They must not, therefore, be treated like any other factor of production. Every migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance.
I can’t find anything in the encyclical that even remotely suggests that states should have no numerical limits upon immigration. Where is the prudence in such a policy? Does anyone have a clue how many immigrants would come to the U.S. if there were no numerical limits, or how they would all be processed? What effect would that have on assimilation? How would security be addressed? Every earthly institution must in prudence understand its limits.

 

[Sherry_G]

I have a hard time with this argument…Herein is where it lies; If it’s by the Grace of God that I am here in America…It’s also by the Grace of God that anybody is in the country - they are in. …is it not?

You have a hard time understanding that you and I have all these benefits of freedom, choices of food, clothing, medicine, freedom to worship, dissent, become educated, own property, etc just because we happen to have been born in the United States while billions, yes billions of people are literally starving, going without simple antibiotics that could save lives lost thru a simple infected cut, people who live in the jungle just outside a garbage dump where they forage for food (seen in Mexico City), untreated illnesses that could be easily cured IF a person lived in the USA.

Is this truly a lack of understanding?

 

[Elizabeth502]

You have a hard time understanding that you and I have all these benefits of freedom, choices of food, clothing, medicine, freedom to worship, dissent, become educated, own property, etc just because we happen to have been born in the United States

You do have a hard time understanding that those freedoms and benefits are not universal to Americans, particularly to those residents severely lacking in income and who live in or near border towns, or who live in states/regions overwhelmingly impacted by millions of illegal immigrants. They do not have “the freedom to become educated.” (The information about that is in my earlier posts on several immigration threads.) Certainly not (suddenly, and newly) in their native English language. Maybe you believe, and do have, “all those benefits,” but millions of other legal U.S. residents do not. They lack clothing, food, medicine, often shelter, and other necessities.

The illegal immigrants that are the subject of the Archbishop’s comments had freedom to worship in their own country/countries. There are Catholics, Jews, Protestants, other religions in Mexico and other Latin American countries.

 

[kimmielittle]

You have a hard time understanding that you and I have all these benefits of freedom, choices of food, clothing, medicine, freedom to worship, dissent, become educated, own property, etc just because we happen to have been born in the United States while billions, yes billions of people are literally starving, going without simple antibiotics that could save lives lost thru a simple infected cut, people who live in the jungle just outside a garbage dump where they forage for food (seen in Mexico City), untreated illnesses that could be easily cured IF a person lived in the USA.

Is this truly a lack of understanding?

If you read my post again, I mentioned nothing of benefits. I addressed your use of the following statement as an emotive argument.

  			Originally Posted by **Sherry G** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6623335#post6623335) 				
  		*We Americans who post here now are only in the USA by the grace of God.*

And I stated this

I have a hard time with this argument…Herein is where it lies; If it’s by the Grace of God that I am here in America…It’s also by the Grace of God that anybody is in the country - they are in. …is it not?

It doesn’t work - because God’s Grace places ALL…as I pointed out and you replied with another emotive statement.

Why is it that the Liberal feel goods ] attempt to use guilt emotes to promote their ideals and agendas? This is a poor defense of any debate.

I should feel guilty because by the Grace of God - I live in America? If you succeed in making me feel guilty - it does nothing to address ** Responsible solutions **.

How about elevating Liberal ideals - past emote statements as if they need to teach us - please give us credit for knowing our responsibilities ]. Try arguing / debating - in reality of substance, with logic?

It is logic that provides responsible solutions - not emotive diatribe.

 

[WatchingMedia]

We have never been told of genocide, starvation, or religious prosecution in Mexico in our lifetimes.

Therefore, all ILLEGAL immigrants are breaking our law.
They must have a Green Card or other required paperwork to be in this Country legally.
According to the Catechism, immigrants must obey our laws.

Further if starvation was taking place, each Diocese in the USA would be obliged to send food or the equivalent to Mexico so that people would not suffer.

I also blame our Federal Government for not protecting our borders. If the Feds had done their job, and if employers were prosecuted for hiring illegals, we would not be in this mess.
It is objectionable that any governmental agency in the US would have to go to the expense to put out documents in any language other than our own.
Due to constant over-spending, our Government is close to bankruptcy. They just keep printing more dollars. We own billions to China and Japan. We are not the rich Country that we used to be.

It is important to note that Latin America is just like the USA regarding being in need of Evangelization per the Vatican.
The divorce rate, abortion rate, and percentage of Catholics attending Mass on a regular basis is about the same as the USA.

Our Bishops (and Nuns) need to stay out of politics and stick to religious issues unless there is a moral law being broken. No one has yet to define any moral law being broken with illegal immigration and Mexico.

 

[kimmielittle]

Our Bishops (and Nuns) need to stay out of politics and stick to religious issues unless there is a moral law being broken. No one has yet to define any moral law being broken with illegal immigration and Mexico.

IMHO, it is immoral to support illegal immigration as a solution to say as example ] Mexico’s problems - Illegal immigration does nothing more than ignore our responsibilities to the country / people of Mexico. It sweeps the underlying problems, so colorfully expressed by some Bishops, some liberals - of Mexico …under the rug.

Our true moral obligation of the Church and people of U.S.A., as I see it - is to help the Country of Mexico overcome these inequities - Not promote illegalities within our country.

These efforts by us, help ALL the Mexican Population - not a selected population.

 

[Sherry_G]

IMHO, it is immoral to support illegal immigration as a solution to say as example ] Mexico’s problems - Illegal immigration does nothing more than ignore our responsibilities to the country / people of Mexico. It sweeps the underlying problems, so colorfully expressed by some Bishops, some liberals - of Mexico …under the rug.

Our true moral obligation of the Church and people of U.S.A., as I see it - is to help the Country of Mexico overcome these inequities - Not promote illegalities within our country.

These efforts by us, help ALL the Mexican Population - not a selected population.

Why not face the reality that we have the problem in the here and now instead of prattling on and on about what should be happening? The people who are already here need to be dealt with in a responsible way. My original post was addressing the here and now, not some theory or liberal ideology as you put it. While people go on and on endlessly blaming who did or did not do their job, still the reality is we need to deal with the actual problem at hand. All this talk about blaming who did or did not do so and so provides not one concrete idea about addressing the issue that we all live with every day. I asked people to consider providing a legitimate path for all those who are in the situation. Why keep on sticking your heads in the sand and pretend that somebody will build a huge fence or get millions of people to trot back to the crushing poverty they left behind?

 

[St_Francis]

You have a hard time understanding that you and I have all these benefits of freedom, choices of food, clothing, medicine, freedom to worship, dissent, become educated, own property, etc just because we happen to have been born in the United States while billions, yes billions of people are literally starving, going without simple antibiotics that could save lives lost thru a simple infected cut, people who live in the jungle just outside a garbage dump where they forage for food (seen in Mexico City), untreated illnesses that could be easily cured IF a person lived in the USA.

Is this truly a lack of understanding?

The situation is Mexico is not as good as that of the US, I agree with you there. But the situation in Mexico is not that bad, either, in that in Mexico people can receive health care, on a sliding scale and free if they are very poor. And their health care is good, maybe not as good as the US, but many of their doctors have studied in the US so definitely of high quality. The life expectancy at birth is about the same as ours.

And people in Mexico are not starving. The general population is living a decent life. There is access to education, and few are unemployed. Like the US, there are some people who fall through the cracks. We have homeless people here, don’t we? And sometimes they die of exposure, don’t they? And yet we do not see the US as a nation in which people are homeless and dying of exposure, do we?

Moreover, unlike in the US, you don’t need a prescription to get antibiotics–as it turns out, this is not such a good thing as they do not always take them appropriately and there are now more antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases there than here, but people are not dying for lack of access to health care or antibiotics.