Archbishop Gomez: Detentions and Deportations are a ‘Humanitarian Tragedy”

[JFarrish]

It is the parts that weren’t that were the problem. You are imputing dissent where there is no dissent. It is rather distasteful.

Let’s return to your original statement, which I quoted and which was the context for my response:

I have always understood, and written, that the Church only give moral guidelines. Church leaders as individualt may make suggestions, but they do not carry the weight of the Church.

Now let’s go to my first quote, from the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown so that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” Lumen gentium 25

You say, “but they do not carry the weight of the Church.” The Dogmatic Constitution says that they are “authentic teachers” with the authority of Christ and “the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.”

It certainly APPEARS to be a direct contradition. However, I happen to be a big fan of St. I of Loyola as well (you cite CCC 2478), so I tried to focus solely on accurately correcting true Church teaching (with the words of the church) and left determining rather or not you truly intended to promote dissent (or, technically, in this case schism) up to you.

 

[JFarrish]

You misunderstand the meaning of the term as it was used in the documents you referred to.

He stated that Church leaders do not carry the weight of the Church.

I quoted the Dogmatic Constiution which explains that they are authentic teachers and are to be obeyed with religious assent.

That was the primary point. The only reason that Immigration entered it is I wanted to take the time to demonstrate that this is, in fact, an issue of faith and morals because the pope (popes actually) have said it is, and their authority to determine what is and is not a moral issue is also, dogmatically established (hence my additional quotes of dogmatic documents).

I bothered with that because I am familiar with some of the arguments typically used when folks are trying to redefine Catholicism to match an emotionally held point of view (ex. the death penalty, which is covered in a papal encyclical, the universal catachism, and the local catechism in the US). Arguing that a subject is not faith and morals, or being dismissive of the bishops or a pope’s non dogmatic teachings… This behavior is understandable emotionally but, again, it is very poor Catholicism.

Since you missed the actual subject of my post, which I thought was highlighted by what I chose to initially quote, and the initial dogmatic quote a I put after it, I hope you will forgive me if I do not give your assessment of my reading and comprehension skills much weight.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

He stated that Church leaders do not carry the weight of the Church.

Well, sometimes they do and sometime they don’t. When they are speaking in their capacity as teachers of the faith, then they do. When they are offering their own opinions on how that faith applies to specific cases, then they don’t. (even though they should still be listened to and respected)

…The only reason that Immigration entered it is I wanted to take the time to demonstrate that this is, in fact, an issue of faith and morals because the pope (popes actually) have said it is, and their authority to determine what is and is not a moral issue is also, dogmatically established (hence my additional quotes of dogmatic documents).

One can agree that it is an issue of faith and morals, and still disagree with statements that are applications of the faith and morals involved. With respect to immigration, I would like to see what you consider the dividing line between a question of faith and morals on this issue vs. a question of applying faith and morals to specific cases. Because if that can be clarified, maybe we can see if there is really a disagreement here or not.

 

[pnewton]

Let’s return to your original statement, which I quoted and which was the context for my response:
*

*I have always understood, and written, that the Church only give moral guidelines. Church leaders as individualt may make suggestions, but they do not carry the weight of the Church. *

I agree totally with Lumen Gentium. It is you that I do not agree with. A bishop is not bound to speak only on matters of faith and morals. A bishop has the freedom to address politics, sports, science, or even to post here. When they act in that capacity, they also have the freedom to restrain from speaking from authority. The Venerable John Paul II, in addition to his papacy was a first rate theologian. Read the fuller article on what the Archbishop said. He spoke about our duties to our fellow man. He was the teacher to his flock. Then he made a grammatical shift from say what the Church teaches to what he thought. This is not random and accidental. Archbishop Gomez knows what he is doing. He does not make the claim, nor expect anyone to assume that what he says has the authority of the Church when he clearly states that this set of ideas came from him. Of course as a very moral man with a charism of wisdom, what he says is of tremendous value, but it is not the teaching of the Church. You can go on and on about Lumen Gentium, but I think I and most everyone else understands this distinction.

Let us look at the quote I gave earlier:

He pointed out that a nation’s immigration laws, however important, could not be given absolute priority over the bonds of family – which precede the state itself, according to the natural law.
“Practically speaking,” he stated, “I would like to see a moratorium on new state and local immigration legislation. And, as the U.S. bishops have called for, I would like to see an end to the severe deportation policies.”

Do you not the difference in the two sentences? The first is stated as a fact. It is teaching that we should heed, and I think we all do. Now in light of that, he states what he likes, not what the Church teaches. If we are going to listen to the bishops, then let us listen to what they say, not what we want them to say. He gave no instruction to the faithful in that statement or even claimed that his suggestion is best. He only said he would like to see it.

 

[JFarrish]

I agree totally with Lumen Gentium. It is you that I do not agree with.

I see. You agree with Lumen Gentium. But when I quote it and there is a stark contrast with your words, the disagreement is with me. Interesting.

A bishop is not bound to speak only on matters of faith and morals. A bishop has the freedom to address politics, sports, science, or even to post here. When they act in that capacity, they also have the freedom to restrain from speaking from authority.

And no one has said otherwise. I have taunted one particular bishop about his sports team loyalty on more than one occassion.

Let us look at the quote I gave earlier:

OK, but the subject was your quote that I provided. Look at the first sentence. It remains false. The Princes of the Church are specifically charged with teaching us how to properly apply Catholic teaching in our time and culture.

Do you not the difference in the two sentences?

He is seperating specific response from the underlying moral problem. This is appropriate. Immigration is an issue of faith and morals because the pope (popes actually) have said so. Immigration policy and law in the US is at odds with the Catholic faith for the same reason. It was one of the subjects that Pope Benedict publicly noted he addressed with President Obama.

But the specific course, states stop certain political activity, is his personal moral opinion. Not something that is being presented as the collective wisdom of his conference or the whole college. He is still speaking in his capacity as an Archbishop, but not in his capacity as a chair in the USCCB.

This is, again, understdood and appropriate. But you are trying to change the subject. Look at your own two statements:

pnewton:

I have always understood, and written, that the Church only give moral guidelines. Church leaders as individualt may make suggestions, but they do not carry the weight of the Church.

pnewton:

Of course as a very moral man with a charism of wisdom, what he says is of tremendous value, but it is not the teaching of the Church

He is an Archbishop, his soul indellibly marked by full holy orders. He is not the Vicar of Christ, but he is a rightful successor to the apostles and has authority delegated to him.

Further, when he gave his testimony to Congress, he was speaking as Chair of the USCCB committee on migration. He did not use the singular, but the plural - we. See the Catechism for an explanation of how the college works in uninimity.

So he is a modern apostle, recognized for his undestanding of a particular moral issue by his peers, publicly speaking on a matter of faith and morals. We should not defer simply because he is wise and moral. We should attempt to defer because we believe in apostolic succession and a heirarchal church.

As individuals, we cannot disobey the certainty of our own moral conscience. Because in doing so we would be be damned (CCC 1790). But the same paragraph warns us that our conscience can be in error.

When one wants to go further, and present a public argument that an ‘authentic teacher’ is in error on teaching and application and can be reasonably disregarded, then one must act properly as a Catholic theologian:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

See section IV, particularly B, the Problem with Dissent.

The Church understands dissent, but notes that it should be handled in a certain way. If we want to disagree with certain statements from members of the magisterium, so be it. But the Church sees problems with using the court of public opinion and/or downplaying heirarchal moral authority.

Multiple people, including you, seem to want to make this about a specific topic. Take a stand on Jan Brewer and her phantom beheadings, or whatever. But the only point that concerns me is proper respect and deferrence to Princes of the Church acting in their capacity.

This is particularly important when our collective princes, the conferences of bishops in the US, are taking repeated public stands that are at odds with majority trends in overall public opinion, such as immigration, health care, the death penalty, and abortion.

Catholics who disagree should be seeking better understanding and communion with the Magisterium (see the link above), not publicly downplaying the moral authority of our local princes.

I’ve quoted dogma twice and pointed to Church guidance on proper handling of disagreement and the danger that concerns me. There is really nothing more I can say.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

You misunderstand the meaning of the term as it was used in the documents you referred to.

He stated that Church leaders do not carry the weight of the Church.

Whatever someone else stated is not relevant to what you stated and it was your comment to which I was referring.

Since you missed the actual subject of my post, which I thought was highlighted by what I chose to initially quote, and the initial dogmatic quote a I put after it, I hope you will forgive me if I do not give your assessment of my reading and comprehension skills much weight.

Since I was responding to a comment contained within your post, what you consider to be its subject isn’t relevant. I’ll make this is as clear as I can: the word “deportation” used in the document you cited has nothing whatever to do with whether or not individuals should be deported from a country they have entered illegally so, on this point, the infallibility of the documents concerned is irrelevant: they don’t address the issue.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

And no one has said otherwise. I have taunted one particular bishop about his sports team loyalty on more than one occassion.

OK, but the subject was your quote that I provided. Look at the first sentence. It remains false…

No, it is not false. You just think it is. As the above sentence makes clear, you do not believe that the bishop speaking as an individual, sports fan in your case, carries the weight of the Church. If it did, then your taunts would be against the Church. That simply makes no sense.

Again, I do not dissent from Church teaching. I dissent from your teaching. If you can not see the difference, I will just trust that the difference is obvious to others. Continue to beg the question if you wish.

I see. You agree with Lumen Gentium. But when I quote it

I agree when you quote it, but not your application to every word that proceeds from the Mouth of Archbishop Gomez. That is** not** what Lumen Gentium says.

 

[pnewton]

. But the only point that concerns me is proper respect and deferrence to Princes of the Church acting in their capacity…

I am a little confuse here. Did AB Gomez get appointed a Cardinal?

 

[Peepers]

The interesting thing to me about immigration policy is that it only affects the poor. our policy is a reflection of our attitudes about those who are poor. technology is equalizing the labor market for former middle class workers who now compete with their counterparts in india, china, and pakistan. a software engineer in the US with a master’s degree expects to earn $50+ per hour. his or her counterpart in china or india is delighted with $12 per hour, and probably has a more rigorous education.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

The thread is so long but there was discussion about what the CCC teaches. What is the definition of welcoming?

1. Is it a request by the host to enter the house with no conditions?
2. Is it a request by the host to enter the house but with conditions?
3. Is it a request by someone to the host to enter the house and then does what the host requires?
4. Is it someone who invites themselves into the house and then demands to stay?
5. Is it someone who invites themselves into the house, and demands to stay, regardless of what the house owner requires?
6. Is it someone who invites themselves into the house, hopes to stay, and the house owner doesn’t mind?
   7, Is it someone who demands to enter the house?

Is it one of these things?
Is it some of these things?
Is it all of these things?
Is it none of these things?

We did not create this planet nor the souls on it. We were banished from The Garden. The only desire should be Heaven – following Christ’s steps and whatever people can do to help as many as possible to get there.

On one hand maybe we should be glad people still want to enter the United States, however, if the entrants desire things that does not include following Christ are they running away from The Cross?