Archbishop Dolan on Immigration Reform

[pnewton]

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.

If you think a sentence worded “It seems to me… that many people” is rash judgement, then I will just have to part in disagreement on this.

Your comments were analogous to Archbishop Dolan’s but he shoulders the blame for encouraging this type of generic insult…

You preach at me for rash judgement, based on the above formula and then presume to impute blame to an Archbishop. :whacky:

 

[mlund]

I am sure you expressed the same opinions about the Bishops’ qualifications when they commented upon the Health Care Reform Law.

Abortion is an Intrinsic Evil. I also happen to agree with their assessments of what the Healthcare “Reform” Bill makes possible in terms of abortion funding (the repeated rejection of the Hyde amendment is particularly damning). I actually disagree with their assessments as to the rest of the body of the bill in terms of how it goes about delivering “reform” beyond abortion funding.

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.

Yeah, I’ve seen politicos in law-enforcement offices (like the elected sheriff of Pinal County or Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon’s latest pet head LEO) make these claims too. The “sanctuary city” policies of these folks make me believe they should be out of a job.

Just by coincidence, the group who essentially wrote the law is in the business of suing to force enforcement of laws about immigration.

I’d enjoy reading some details on this regard.

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.

Not very familiar with the law, are you?

Citizens are already required by law to provide some sort of valid identification when encountering Law Enforcement Officers in a “lawful STOP, DETENTION, OR ARREST.” Either you provide some valid I.D. at the stop or they run you into the station house and put you in a cell while they investigate your identity.

You don’t really think you can avoid a ticket for speeding or a citation for drunken disorderly by just leaving your wallet at home and refusing to tell police your name, do you?

Given the Governor’s history of trying to get Hispanic voters off the election rolls

That’s a load of garbage. Just because the overwhelming majority of fraudulently registered voters in Arizona happen to be Hispanic does not mean that trying to eliminate voter fraud is just some campaign to disenfranchise Hispanics. Similarly, the fact that the majority of people working with fraudulent I.D.'s happen to be Hispanic doesn’t mean that the E-Verify requirements and investigations put into place are just trying to put Hispanics out of a job.

That sort of loathsome, racist diatribe belongs on forums for La Raza, not here.

• Marty Lund

 

[Art321]

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?

Yes, while it is true that Mexico is more richer that these countries, that doesn’t mean that the Mexican people are weathly. The majority of the Mexican people are indeed rather poor, much more so than the poor here in America. I don’t recall that there is even a middle class in Mexico. If indeed Mexico was weathy and prosperous for its people, there wouldn’t even be a need for so many Mexicans to cross over the border.

Check this out: eslbee.com/causes_of_poverty_in_mexico.htm

Something needs to be done in Mexico to restore order there and for it to thrive for its people. But only the Mexican people can truly change their country around. I hope so. I have hope that they will! Only in time!

 

[JReducation]

Some Catholics. Others of us are well-versed.

Try not to speak for the entire Catholic universe.

This is not the perspective of the Vatican. I believe that we have to understand where they’re coming from, before we get offended by their point of view. Remember, these are men and women who have put in four years of college or university to get degrees in philosophy. Four more years to get Masters degree in theology, when most Master’s degrees are two years. This is just a general theology degree, like a general medicine degree. They they put in three more years to get a specialty in one of the branches of religious studies: theology, law, scripture, history, liturgy or ministry. If they belong to a religious order of men, they are required by canon law to have six additional years of spiritual theology. They are looking at the laity against this background.

What concerns them is not that the laity does not have all of these courses. They understand that this is impossible for the average lay person. First, it would be a financial hardship. You can’t get any of these degrees at a state school. You have to attend Catholic colleges and universities. These don’t come cheap. Second, the average lay adult is married. It is unreasonable to expect all lay people to put in 11 to 17 years of post high school education. It can be done, but not by the majority. And finally, the financial gain from all of this education is not there. People just don’t hire theologians in the same numbers that they hire teachers, business majaors, nurses, sales people and so forth. The opportunity to make a living that can support a home and family with all of this theological and philosophical education is very narrow. Given all of this, the Church does not expect the average lay person to have the same background that clergy and religious have. There are some lay people who go for it, such as Dr. Scott Hahn. Even Scott only has a PhD. To get an STD he would have to go back to school for another three years. Which I’m sure that he would not appreciate doing, since he has a family.

When Pope Benedict communicates with bishops, clergy and religious about his concerns regarding the theological formation of the laity he’s not expressing a concern that the laity does not have all of these degrees, because most diocesan priests don’t have them either. Only bishops and members of religious order are obliged to have them. Diocesan priests have to get a four-year Master’s of Divinity and can stop there. They don’t even have to get a Master of Arts, which requires a thesis and a defense.

What the Holy Father is concerned about is whether or not we (religious and clergy) are providing the necessary theology to the laity. By necessary, the Vatican is referring to necessary to live a good Catholic life, necessary to engage in certain ministries (especially religious ed), necessary to educate their children, necessary to engage in the public square. So that when issues like these arise the man or woman in the pew can stand up and say “The bishop says this and this is what he means and it must be implemented this way, because . . . .” It doesn’t do too many people a favor if they have no clue where their bishops are coming from. A bishop can be coming from some obscure writing by some saint, Doctor, theologian, Father of the Church, Pope or council. He may be coming from a single line in scritpure, who knows. If the individual knows and understands, he can make sense of it all. He may still disagree, but he understands where the other person is grounding himself.

In this regard, the bishops have failed. Archbishop Chaput pointed to this. He is of the belief that the laity does not properly understand many social teachings of the bishops, because the bishops themselves have failed to teach the faith correctly. Pope Benedict is not the only person concerned about the lay person’s knowledge of the faith at that deeper academic level. Bishops are beginning to be concerned too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually, the claim that the bill endorsed Federal Funding for Abortions was false.

I would like to see where in the Health care bill - that it excludes federal funding of abortions - if it doesn’t - it includes federal funding..

The Nuns however were pretty explicit in saying that the Bishops had read the law incorrectly on this matter, so they supported its passage.

Explicit…yes…Correct in their findings…no. I invite you or the good Sisters to prove the Bishops wrong - The good Sisters to this day haven’t, but if you’d like to support this statement.

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.

Hmmmm…I fail to see your point. A conscious clause doesn’t obligate your aunt to justify anything. But it does protect me from being forced into taking part in something, I believe to be immoral, without me being obligated to justify my beliefs.

The Bishop is no less qualified to comment on this law than on hte other.

Since the article was merely the ArchBishops opinion - there are no ‘qualifiers’ needed. Just as I don’t need a qualifier in rebuttal of his commented opinions.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is not the perspective of the Vatican. I believe that we have to understand where they’re coming from, before we get offended by their point of view

I’m not “offended by their point of view.” I’m offended by your point of view, by which you have taken opportunity to make assumptions about lay people which are not founded in fact but in speculation. By contrast, I don’t hear that from the Vatican.

You made a broad, sweeping statement that “Catholics” are not well-educated in philosophy and theology. Wrong. Some of – hundreds of us – are extremely well educated in both. So I would appreciate your refraining from such statements which tend to come off as offensive, and suggest instead that you exercise some suspension of judgment and grant that perhaps I am thoroughly educated in philosophy and theology, and am here on CAF to debate issues about which I am well qualified to debate (as are many other posters, for sure), rather than my having repeatedly to defend whether I’m “educated” enough to debate. You have a right to your opinion, and you have a right to find my contributions not valuable, but I know for a fact that there are some posters here who have found and do find my contributions valuable, and educated.

I think you have to assume that posters on CAF would rather debate the issues than debate whether they’re even qualified to discuss issues. That may be your private view (that no one’s qualified except those in clerical positions), but if the forum owners as a whole agreed with what you seem to imply, it is doubtful then that this forum would have been opened with an inclusive spirit. Rather, they would have opened it in some password protected manner by which only clerics could participate, and declared that only a certain category of people could participate, and/or “discuss issues.”

Summary: not everyone on CAF is “the average Catholic.”

Thank you.

 

[sidbrown]

I believe that we have to understand where they’re coming from, before we get offended by their point of view. Remember, these are men and women who have put in four years of college or university to get degrees in philosophy. Four more years to get Masters degree in theology, when most Master’s degrees are two years. This is just a general theology degree, like a general medicine degree. They they put in three more years to get a specialty in one of the branches of religious studies: theology, law, scripture, history, liturgy or ministry. If they belong to a religious order of men, they are required by canon law to have six additional years of spiritual theology. They are looking at the laity against this background.

What concerns them is not that the laity does not have all of these courses.

I don’t think that having a degree in philosophy or theology is any guarantee that a person knows better than a peasant or farmer what is right or what is wrong, or what is immoral or what is moral.
Take for example Professor Mary Daly. Before obtaining her two doctorates in sacred theology and philosophy from the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, she received her B.A. in English from The College of Saint Rose, her M.A. in English from The Catholic University of America, and a doctorate in religion from St. Mary’s College. Mary Daly, although she said that she hates the Bible, taught theology classes at the Catholic Jesuit Boston College from 1967 to 1999, She is the author of the book Gyn/Ecology which she said was about goddess symbols and myths that were direct sources of the Christian myth. In her theology classes at the Catholic Jesuit Boston college, she refused to take any questions from male students, and only allowed questions from women. She claims that 9 million witches were killed in a Gynocide, and what Church do you suppose was responsible for this?
The bottom line is that all of those doctorates and degrees in theology, philosophy, english, and religion have really not given some people a clearer view of reality than what the simple peasant farmer has. And I think that this is also borne out by what we are reading in the NYT about the number of perverts, and protectors of perverts, who have had degrees in this area.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well, sid, I can’t argue with you that possessing several advanced degrees in philosophy and theology is no guarantee of accurate moral discernment, nor is the reverse true. (One is not disqualified on the account of an advanced education.)

I was arguing, though, something slightly different: That the very existence of this forum is an acknowledgement that both the barely educated and the abundantly educated have something to contribute. The last time I checked, there was no requirement to state one’s credentiials when logging in and posting.

Certainly if anyone is uncomfortable that those with “lesser” formal knowledge are being allowed to contribute and to be taken seriously, all he or she has to do is not to participate in some or all of the discussions.

 

[sidbrown]

Well, sid, I can’t argue with you that possessing several advanced degrees in philosophy and theology is no guarantee of accurate moral discernment, nor is the reverse true. (One is not disqualified on the account of an advanced education.)

I was arguing, though, something slightly different: That the very existence of this forum is an acknowledgement that both the barely educated and the abundantly educated have something to contribute. The last time I checked, there was no requirement to state one’s credentiials when logging in and posting.

Certainly if anyone is uncomfortable that those with “lesser” formal knowledge are being allowed to contribute and to be taken seriously, all he or she has to do is not to participate in some or all of the discussions.

Of course you are right again. What you have said is reasonable and makes a lot of sense also.

 

[rodomonte]

Or, more succinctly, wisdom and knowledge are two different things.

 

[WatchingMedia]

There is too much speculation on what may or may not happen in Arizona.
This can make many speaking out in public look foolish.

Arizona law is modeled after Federal Law so it is probably Constitutional. Obama and Congress is not living up to their Oath of Office - which includes protecting our borders.

Arizona has a right and obligation to protect its citizens including its Legal immigrants.

Has anyone heard of these Bishops ever making news to have the US borders closed, and only legal immigrants with green cards or appropriate papers be admitted to the US ?
This would solve all the problems they seem to be concerned about.

By getting involved in speculative politics, the Bishops are making it more difficult for Catholics to follow their lead in other real important issues since their judgement will be questioned.

If the USCCB files a friend of the court brief against Arizona, I would expect donations to drop significantly, since many American Catholics would object to their money being spent this way.
If specific Diocese want to waste their money, that is up to those who support that Diocese.

We all must show ID if stopped for a suspected crime including speeding.
Why should immirgrants get a pass on showing a green card or other appropriate paperwork when suspected of a crime ?
The law is very specific, and only those suspected of a crime can be stopped.

.

 

[WatchingMedia]

By being involved in speculative politics, if the USCCB files a friend of the court brief against Arizona, as requested by an Arizona Bishop, - - - -
we can speculate that they will be jumping in bed with the ACLU, the Obama “Party of Death”, and other Socialist organizations who want to destroy our Country.
Lawlessness should never be supported.

 

[Ender]

You preach at me for rash judgement, based on the above formula and then presume to impute blame to an Archbishop. :whacky:

Someone is guilty of rash judgment who:* “even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation , the moral fault of a neighbor.”* You claimed that “many people take a stance based on what effects them and their pocket book, not what charity demands.” This is an assumption of a moral fault for which their is no foundation at all, let alone a “sufficient foundation.”

Archbishop Dolan’s comments were even more egregious and he enjoys no special exemption because he is an archbishop. He was (mis)judging intent, something which neither he nor anyone else can know of another person; I was judging an action which is apparent to everyone, and he is guilty not just of rash judgment but of calumny as well. As I said before, his comments were so over the top that it is difficult to believe he actually wrote that article himself. Similar aspersions are regularly ridiculed when someone on this forum resorts to them; his comments would likely have earned him a warning from a forum administrator had he posted them here first. They were quite beneath his dignity as an archbishop and he should apologize for them.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

Or, more succinctly, wisdom and knowledge are two different things.

Indeed. Way more succinct.

 

[Ender]

Remember, these are men and women who have put in four years of college or university to get degrees in philosophy. Four more years to get Masters degree in theology, when most Master’s degrees are two years. This is just a general theology degree, like a general medicine degree. They they put in three more years to get a specialty in one of the branches of religious studies: theology, law, scripture, history, liturgy or ministry.

I am unimpressed with the argument that claims a person is right because he ought to know more than someone else. A statement is either right or wrong based on its merits and on that basis alone. One of the great things about Catholicism is that it’s all written down and readily available to anyone who seeks it out … and it doesn’t require a degree of any kind to do it, so if I am presumptuous enough to engage in debate with someone who “knows more” than I, I am on solid ground so long as I can defend my position with what the Church has actually said.

Since this thread is about Archbishop Dolan’s comments on immigration reform we can test that theory without getting off topic. I have claimed that he is guilty of rash judgment and calumny because of the inappropriate and unfounded charges made in his article and I base my opinion on the definition of those terms given in the Catechism. So - am I right or do you believe that Archbishop Dolan was justified in referring to supporters of the Arizona law as mean-spirited, narrow-minded, closet Klansmen?

Ender

 

[Tigg]

Or, more succinctly, wisdom and knowledge are two different things.

and…let’s not forget about spiritual discernment which is the action of the Spirit within us and calls us to test everything in the depths of our hearts as to its merit and efficacy.

 

[Tigg]

Another reason to use prayerful discernment - seems not all of our bishops are in concert with Archbp Dolan on this issue.

See Bishop Slattery’s statement that we need to secure our borders in the Politics section, new thread.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please remember the rules of charity and respect, esepcially when speaking to or about clergy or religious. Please read this if you have not done so already CLICK HERE

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[davy39]

I don’t know what the pro illegal immagration people want. Should we just do away with our borders, and let anybody in that shows up? Do they think that this is the answer? Would the Bishops be so concerned is the illegals were mostly Lutherans or Mormons? I think that the argument that the illegals are just looking for a better life is false. Many are selling drugs and starting Mexican gangs here. A lot of them don’t want to become Americans. They want to transplant their country here. This is really a mess, I’ll admit, but in this day of terriorism, but I think the first thing they should do is secure our borders. Without border enforcement, we have no country, which is what some of them want. End of rant.

 

[4elise]

I have not had that experience. Having ministered to thousands of immigrants over the years, I have found them to be devout Catholics, humble people, hard working and very honest. The only law they broke was how they entered the country, but hat’s not a sin. This does not mean that I have not met those who are also dysfunctional people. But the percentage of dysfunctional people among the immigrants that I have ministered to is no higher than the percentage of those in mainstream America.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you Br. JR for your content on this thread - I am grateful for the perspective you have shared…

We are a nation of immigrants. Closing the door now that we are in is not a new instinct… but as the Bishops have said (and you have done such a beautiful job of clarifying) it is time to make changes that reflect our knowledge that all the huddled masses are created in the image of God - and we as individual Catholics should take the lead in speaking in their defense.

We already have laws against drug dealing and violence - those who break these laws should be punished under existing laws.