L
Loy
Guest
It is entirely possible to discuss this topic in an intelligent and fact-finding manner without making it personal.
- Status
T
Tigg
Guest
The USCCB makes statement after statement that echoes the words and intent of a leftist partisan government and I am beginning to wonder why. (And which government, quite frankly, I’m becoming frightened of.) In the 80’s, JP II clearly told priests to get out of the politics in Latin America because some were embracing Neo-Marxism. I agree that the Church should be the conscience of every nation, but what appears to me to be glaringly absent in the episcopate statements is the lack of spiritual concern and direction for the immigrant poor. Go to any link on the USCCB website that touts “Justice and Peace” and you will find concerns only for the corporeal. The core message of authentic Catholic social justice teaching must include the encounter of the Gospel as it relates to the spiritual needs of a people. ArchBp Chaput was recently quoted as saying, “The leadership of the Catholic Church has abdicated its role in instruction and faith formation, which one can see in church life on a daily basis. “ And no, Brother JR, we will not leave our Church, but charitably question, again and again, why we are hearing a message not consistent with the social encyclicals of the past.
And once again:
And here is a perfect example of that as it appeared on a social justice page of the USCCB website during Lent!
realcatholictv.com/cia/stations.pdf
J
JReducation
Guest
Canon law says that every Catholic has a right to receive the sacraments. In another section it also says that the bishop, without the consent of the pope, has the authority to deny someone the sacraments if the bishop judges that the person is not in communion with the Church. In another part of Canon Law it states that the Church is where the bishop is.
This makes things a little complicated. There are the rights of the faithful, but the law would suggest that the rights of the faithful are subject to communion with the bishop. The only time when one can go over the bishop is when the bishop is in conflict with the Holy Father. As long as the Holy Father remains silent on the issue, the local bishop has the last word.
It is rare that bishops will deny a Catholic the sacraments. It’s a judgment call that they can make. The Church allows them to make this call, because the bishops are Apostles. The Apostles always had this right. It is transmitted from generation to generation.
If a Catholic is told that he is not in communion with the bishop, that person has the moral obligation to settle the issue with the bishop, not in the public arena, but in private. The bishop has the right to ask the person not to present himself to Holy Communion until the issue is settled to the bishop’s satisfaction. This is very important and delicate at the same time. The issue has to be settled to the bishop’s satisfaction, not the satisfaction of those who are subordinate to the bishop. I say delicate, because in this country people are allergic to the word “subordinate.”
Actually, a bishop is given the authority to teach his own views and to hold the faithful accountable to him as long as those views are not in conflict with Church teaching or with the position or mandate of the Holy Father. This is part of Apostolic Succession. The Apostles were not only concerned with the global issues, but also with the local issues. For example, the other Apostles did not write as extensively as Paul did and some did not write at all. But they governed the Churches that they led. They interviened in both spiritual and temporal affairs. We find this in Church history. The Church was always part of the temperal power.
What Pope John Paul II told the clergy and religious, not only in Latin America, but around the world was that we cannot become involved with a particular government nor can we hold public office. This is really common sense. There is no political party that has all of the truth. If you are part of one party or another, you’re going to be in conflict somewhere.
Do bishops have authority in temporal matters? Well, that’s a diffcult question to answer. They do not participate in government. They are to be the conscience of govermnent and citizens. They don’t have the same authority as elected officials. However, bishops do have the authority to punish the laity and they can do this in several ways: close parishes. close services, ask religious orders not to provide services to certain people, or deny sacraments. Even if the faithful got so angry that they never dropped a penny in the basket, it would not put a dent on the authority of the bishop. This has been done before. It has been centuries since it has been done, but it’s still allowed. The case must then be taken before a tribunal that decides if the bishop has violated the rights of the faithful. Because the bishop exercises authority that is given to him by Christ and has the fulness of the priesthood, he also has responsibility for the full man,not just the spiritual man. He must be a full priest as Christ was a full priest. Just as Christ healed and defended people, which had little to do with spirituality, the bishop can also exercise the same kind of temporal ministry.
It is really inappropriate to say that the bishops or the pope do not have authority or a voice in these matters. They have a voice, because they have the fullness of the priesthood. They have authority because there are canonical measures that they can use to discipline the faithful, until proven that they are guilty of abuse. This is very hard to do. If there is a conflict between a bishop and those who are subordinate, the bishop is always right until proven wrong. In other words, in Church law, the benefit of the doubt is always given to the person of higher rank.
It’s very important to limit our comments to the bishops’ comments and not to their person. That’s where people have gotten into trouble in the past, when they begin to talk about the pope, bishop, priest, deacon, brother or sister. If the bishop says that this law is wrong because A B and C. We can all say that it is also right because of C D and E. We’re on safe ground. If we say that the bishop should shut up, then we have raised the bar. That’s not allowed in the Church.
It’s interesting, the Church not only discourages us from attacking clergy and religiuos, but from attacking political leaders and heads of state too. I don’t know if this helps or not.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Loy
Guest
Did you mean, Pope Benedict’s encyclical, Caritas in Veritatae? It is here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
I have read and reread the encyclical, and I could find no pronouncement which declares that immigration law is excluded from the general moral precept of obedience to authority. If that sort of declaration would have been anywhere in the encyclical, it would likely have appeared in paragraph 62. If I am mistaken, or if you have a better citation, please point it out to me.
I cannot find this anywhere. Curiously, the aforesaid paragraph 62 states as follows: Every migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance
While migratory people have God-given rights, that is quite different from the proposition that all immigrants, each and every one, has a right to seek a better life, safety, education and healthcare wherever they can find it.
Migratory peoples, indeed all peoples, have a fundamental inalienable right to lawfully obtain what they need. To the extent that immigration law arbitrarily denies a migrant person what he or she needs, it is unjust. But it is difficult to argue that a law is unjust with regard to a person who would be able to obtain what he or she needs through compliance with the law, or by not immigrating at all. Those persons have a moral obligation to obey the law.
S
sidbrown
Guest
It seems to me that if the USA were to allow 5 billion poor people to migrate to the USA so that they can exercise their right to a better life, safety, education, and healthcare, that this would bankrupt the country and therefore would destroy the life, the safety, the education and the healthcare for American citizens. It is nice to help the 5 billion poor people in the world today, but I don’t see how the American household many of whom are being evicted from their foreclosed homes, will be able to afford to pay for the safety, the education, the healthcare, the food and shelter of these 5 billion poor people.
J
JReducation
Guest
This didn’t work. I wanted to keep the citation from the CCC. Oh well, readers can scroll back. Governement certain has God-given rights. There is not a question here. The governmen’ts authority is not absolute as is that of the Church. The government’s authority is what we in theology call finite. A government as authority in those areas where the government acts justly. Therefore, there are going to be areas where we have to follow the government’s rules, because they are just rules and they conform to the teachings of the Church. There are other areas where the rules are unjust and they do not conform to the teachings of the Church.
Aquinas makes this very clear in his treatise on obedience. Obedience must always be to the higher good. On the other side of this same coin, government must always seek the highest good.
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. In this case, I believe that the Governor of AZ did go back and try to reword those parts of the law that the bishops are concerned about. Which is what a just government must do. Once the government does that, then the individual must comply.
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. It’s unnecessary to restate that human beings have the right to look for a better life for themselves and their families. It is unnecessary to restate that human beings have basic human rights: shelter, food, healthcare, safety, education, religious freedom. These rights are simply part of being a human being. No matter where you go, you have these innate needs that God has impressed on the human person. Therefore, they become rights. This is a basic principle of ethics.
Don’t ever expect any pope to spell everything out. That’s not the pope’s role or job description. They expect you and me to do the homework and go back to the different thinkers who have already defined certain points. They will refer to them such as the “rights of the immigrant” or “human rights”. They won’t go into it in detail, because someone else did that. The papacy does not work that way. It is not meant to spell out everything that we have to believe or do. The pope has other priorities in his life and work, that does not include repeating what has been said.
Right now Pope Benedict’s greatest priorities are the relationship with the Jews and Muslims. He is also very concerned about the conversion of European Catholics. He has to deal with the sexual abuse fallout. He is dealing with the investigation of certain religious institutes. He is concerned about Catholic scholarship. Basically what he has told bishops and religious is to take care of these issues at the ground level and direct the laity from there. He does not want to be bothered with issues that can be taken care of by the bishops.
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. So if a bishop says it and the pope agrees, he (the pope) moves on to something that the bishop cannot handle, such as the relationship with Islama and Judaism, which is a big priority to Pope Benedict and academia, which is also a big priority to him, because Catholics are not well versed in philosophy and theology.
We have to connect the dots beginning with the one statement whether it’s from the CCC or a papal writing and other writings that have come from the pen of other Church leaders or Christian thinkers.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Some Catholics. Others of us are well-versed.
Try not to speak for the entire Catholic universe.
4
4elise
Guest
It is also interesting that those who hold that one would be un-Catholic to disagree with the bishops on the health care issue, find it so easy to disagree with them on this one.
T
Tigg
Guest
Yes, this would be unjust and further would violate the principle of solidarity (the common good.)
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
K
kimmielittle
Guest
HiyasIt is also interesting that those who hold that one would be un-Catholic to disagree with the bishops on the health care issue, find it so easy to disagree with them on this one.
Nice try
But I fail to see your point.
On Health care the USCCB showed the unjust portions of the bill…i…e exclusion of Conscious clause. The immoral portions of the health care bill…i.e., allowing federal funding of abortions.
In this case…no Bishop has showed this law as unjust…It mirrors the Federal law already in place .
Or immorality of this law.
In short: This was nothing more than a Commentary by ArchBishop Dolan…as such we are free to disagree with his commentary
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
Speaking for myself only, I supported most bishops in opposition to the abortion funding and lack of conscience provisions within the health insurance reform bill. I feel that every Catholic needs to against abortion.It is also interesting that those who hold that one would be un-Catholic to disagree with the bishops on the health care issue, find it so easy to disagree with them on this one.
However, many bishops favored the rest of the health insurance reform bill; something that I was against. On that issue I completely disagreed with those bishops.
The same situation is now occurring with opinions about illegal immigration. I disagree with many of the bishops both on the issue as well as how they are expressing themselves. I don’t feel that Catholics are obliged to agree with opinions that are not expressed in church teachings.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
I invite anyone, to show me, that I am amoral or unjust, in expecting all populations in my country to be law-abiding.
I invite anyone, to show me, that I am amoral or unjust, in expecting my country not to entitle one selected population… accommodations - not afforded / over other populations.
I invite anyone, to show me, that I am amoral or unjust, in expecting my country not to entitle one selected population… accommodations - not afforded / over other populations.
T
Tigg
Guest
I see many of the same nuances in the immigration issue as I do another confusing “teaching?” (or not) which has permeated recent social justice statements and that is the “preferential option for the poor argument.” Not surprising that this was coined by the priest who started the Lib Theology movement.
As faithful Catholics we are under obligation to study our faith and it’s evolvement under the social conditions we currently find. Which brings us to the Compendium of Social Justice and it’s many confusing chapters and sometimes seemingly contradictory passages. I thought it was just ME, and then I found this article which was enlightening and made me think that perhaps, I wasn’t the only one so bewildered. It’s long, but contains some very valid points. It’s for printing out and reading at leisure (with the Compendium in one hand.)
As faithful Catholics we are under obligation to study our faith and it’s evolvement under the social conditions we currently find. Which brings us to the Compendium of Social Justice and it’s many confusing chapters and sometimes seemingly contradictory passages. I thought it was just ME, and then I found this article which was enlightening and made me think that perhaps, I wasn’t the only one so bewildered. It’s long, but contains some very valid points. It’s for printing out and reading at leisure (with the Compendium in one hand.)
S
sidbrown
Guest
Yes. Please see post #80 which shows that there are 120 countries which are poorer than Mexico. Why should the USA turn a blind eye toward these 120 countries and instead help immigrants from Mexico which is a relatively wealthy country, relative to these 120 countries which are poorer?
If everyone has a right to safety, education, healthcare, food and shelter, who will foot the bill for that?
E
Ender
Guest
And I have always responded that I don’t offer my personal interpretation of Scripture; I always cite sources which the Church has either authored or approved.
You said:* “It seems from me after listening to debate on this over the last week, many people take a stance based on what effects them and their pocket book, not what charity demands.”
Your judgment of the motivations of “many people” constitutes the very definition of rash judgment as you cannot possibly know their motivations, *and what charity demands is that you interpret a persons words in the best possible light, not the worst one as you have done.
Your comments were analogous to Archbishop Dolan’s but he shoulders the blame for encouraging this type of generic insult with his insinuation that those of us who support the Arizona law are mean spirited, scared, closet Klan members concerned solely about ourselves and racial purity. If it is any consolation to you, his insults were significantly worse than yours, which is surely a good thing as this forum would not countenance those characterizations if one of us used them.
Ender
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
The bishops have taught this fairly consistently, and have done so with reference to Papal encyclicals that have similarly addressed this matter over the last century and a half. The bishops themselves do exercise ordinary magisterial powers. In fact, the local bishops are the leaders of the local community and the primary place in which the typical Christian encounters the teaching office of the Church.
So I am not clear what people here mean when they treat the bishops as if they were expressing private opinions which we are free to agree or disagree with, however it suits our mood. Instead Catholics are called upon to submit their intellect and will to the teaching of their local bishop. The bishops have spoken officially on this topic in the past, and their announcements of late, in opposition to the Arizona law, have done nothing but recall Catholics to Church teaching. They have not been mere expressions of private opinion.
salaam.
M
mlund
Guest
No, they have been expressions of both private opinions (judging people to be mean-spirited or racist) and prudential judgments (extrapolating that the implementation of the law is bad).
My own bishop brought up concerns about specific implementations of that law. All those concerns that could be address on a State level have already been addressed by signing HB2162. The other matter (what to do with illegal adults brought here as children and now stranded in the U.S.) is a Federal matter.
My bishop has his See in Arizona, so it is his business to be more informed to the particulars of this law and his teachings actually have authority over some Arizona voters. He’s been quite prudent about avoiding jumping on the bandwagon of dismissing people as racists and railing against any and all enforcement of our borders.
- Marty Lund
P
Phil_Stone
Guest
I am sure you expressed the same opinions about the Bishops’ qualifications when they commented upon the Health Care Reform Law.
Actually, I have seen law enforcement officials in Arizona say that this law is a mess, and impossible to extensively enforce without illegal profiling, but at the same time the bill aims to help those who support it by encouraging them to sue law enforcement they believe is not enforcing it strongly. The police are caught in the middle.
Just by coincidence, the group who essentially wrote the law is in the business of suing to force enforcement of laws about immigration.
The real point is just this: While the law can require that legal aliens always have their papers (which probably makes them easier to lose or be stolen) the law doesn’t require that I must always be able to prove my citizenship, nor any other American. And that includes Americans of Hispanic ancestry. But if we don’t, we can go to jail.
Given the Governor’s history of trying to get Hispanic voters off the election rolls, and given Arizona’s notorious past in this area, what this is probably really about is voter suppresion. It is just another way to put more fear into Hispanic voters so fewer will go to the polls out of fear of being challenged. Not everyone trusts the police. Ed Rollins famously admitted doing things like this to frighten African-Americans away from voting.
P
Phil_Stone
Guest
Actually, the claim that the bill endorsed Federal Funding for Abortions was false. But without that claim, the case against the bill was far weaker among Catholics. The Nuns however were pretty explicit in saying that the Bishops had read the law incorrectly on this matter, so they supported its passage.Hiyas
Nice try
But I fail to see your point.
On Health care the USCCB showed the unjust portions of the bill…i…e exclusion of Conscious clause. The immoral portions of the health care bill…i.e., allowing federal funding of abortions.
In this case…no Bishop has showed this law as unjust…It mirrors the Federal law already in place .
Or immorality of this law.
In short: This was nothing more than a Commentary by ArchBishop Dolan…as such we are free to disagree with his commentary
Whether a concscience clause is just or not is a different matter all together. If my aunt with kidney disease is raped and her doctor prescribes a drug to insure that she does not die due to a pregnancy, I dont think she is obliged to justify hersely to some guy at Wal-Mart or Revco or Publix or Osco who says no. If he wants to be licensed by the state, than he needs to find away to respect her legal rights. The Civil Rights Act obliges him to serve people regardless of their race, regardless of his religious beliefs about opther races. THe same idea holds here.
The Bishop is no less qualified to comment on this law than on hte other.
- Status