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

[Ender]

The reason I have not responded to that challenge is that I agree with you that there is no one specific action that we are obliged to take in response to that moral principle. However we should be careful not to use that as an excuse for doing nothing at all.

I certainly agree that something needs to be done; I don’t think anyone is satisfied with the situation we have now. The issue has always been what, exactly, should we do.

Nor should a Bishop be discouraged from making suggestions of specific actions. Now from other postings you have made, I think you are going to object that such pronouncements are too likely to be interpreted by the laity as binding Church law. But I don’t think that fear is justified.

Go re-read some of the posts on this and other immigration threads and see the number of people who make exactly that point: if we don’t agree with the bishops’ opinions we are either ignorant of or dismissive of Church teaching. This confusion is precisely why bishops should be a good bit more circumspect about the comments they make.

I don’t know if the Bishop was misrepresenting his own opinion as Church law or not. And if he was, then I am in agreement with you that such statements would be inappropriate and perhaps heretical. But upon reading the news article cited in the first posting of this thread, I don’t think he was misrepresenting Church teaching. It might be useful to find a full transcript of that talk instead of relying on some reporter’s impressions of what was said.

The point is not so much whether he deliberately misrepresented his opinion as Church teaching, it is that that is how a great number of people will - have - interpreted it.

Ender

 

[Warrior1979]

Maybe I’m missing something…he supports legal immigration and helping those in need. What’s wrong with that???

 

[RobbyS]

Oh swell, another bishop wanders off the reservation. I think what offends me most about statements such as these as they are nothing more than political opinions masquerading as moral insights. Immigration does not present us with moral choices so much as it presents us with practical problems, unclearly grasped. The nature of the problem even as perceived by Abp. Gomez is economic (not, as implied by being a statement from an archbishop, moral) in that he: “identified the root of the immigrant problem as economic globalization that did not provide a standard for movement of labor just goods.”

Nor does he offer any specific recommendations, he merely implies them:

“No country can deny this basic human right to migrate out of exaggerated fears for national security or selfish concerns about threats to domestic jobs or standards of living.”

So, after pointing out that the Church in fact endorses the principle that nations have “the right to control their borders” he tries to eviscerate that notion by suggesting that actually doing so would be selfish. The more the bishops speak out on this issue the more tendentious their remarks become.

Ender

Oh, ,it;s an tragedy, all right, a tragedy owing to the corruption of the Mexican state.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…Go re-read some of the posts on this and other immigration threads and see the number of people who make exactly that point: if we don’t agree with the bishops’ opinions we are either ignorant of or dismissive of Church teaching. This confusion is precisely why bishops should be a good bit more circumspect about the comments they make.

If someone tells you that you are either ignorant of or dismissive of Church teaching, they are just wrong. I don’t think the Bishop needs to curtail his speech just to shield you from misguided accusations. There are a lot worse things in life than that.

As for counting up the number of people who post objections to specific pronouncements, are we then to determine right and wrong by taking a poll?

I am assuming that you don’t personally agree with the specific opinions on immigration offered by this Bishop. If so, that is OK. But what about instances where a Bishop offers an opinion that you happen to agree with personally? Will you be just as vocal in calling for that Bishop to refrain from “confusing” the laity? For example, what about the case during an election when a Bishop strongly recommends that one should not vote for a candidate who has not expressed enough support for ending abortion? Such a voting decision is also a prudential judgment on the part of the voter. Will you be just as quick to say that the Bishop should stick strictly to what is definitively taught and not offer such personal judgments as if they were Church law?

 

[TedDC]

Sure would be nice if somebody would propose vastly increasing the LEGAL quota for poor, unskilled, unconnected immigrants with clean criminal records. Say 80% of the rate at which they come anyays. THEN we could ‘get tough’ on illegal entry.

Who will support them? Our economy doesn’t have enough jobs for unskilled American citizens.

 

[Ender]

If someone tells you that you are either ignorant of or dismissive of Church teaching, they are just wrong. I don’t think the Bishop needs to curtail his speech just to shield you from misguided accusations.

Bishops should engage in less political meddling across the board. The problem is not about me, it is about the bishops giving the impression that their political positions are moral imperatives. It is an improper use of their position as spiritual heads of their dioceses to use that position to further their political objectives.

I am assuming that you don’t personally agree with the specific opinions on immigration offered by this Bishop. If so, that is OK. But what about instances where a Bishop offers an opinion that you happen to agree with personally? Will you be just as vocal in calling for that Bishop to refrain from “confusing” the laity?

Again, the problem is not caused simply by a bishop speaking out on something; it exists when he speaks on issues that have no moral aspect to them … like immigration. Unfortunately, I think many (and perhaps most) bishops haven’t separated the aspects of wanting to do the right thing (a moral choice) from knowing what the right thing is (a prudential guess).

For example, what about the case during an election when a Bishop strongly recommends that one should not vote for a candidate who has not expressed enough support for ending abortion?

This is a bit disingenuous. First, bishops don’t even come out against candidates who are vocal and unyielding in their support of abortion, let alone those who express insufficient opposition. Second, and here’s the difference, abortion is one of the few political issues that is also a moral issue and where a bishop’s outspokenness is appropriate.

Such a voting decision is also a prudential judgment on the part of the voter.

Not exactly. Abortion is a grave sin. Formal cooperation with grave sin is itself a grave sin. Material cooperation with grave sin can be sinful. It is the bishops’ obligation to point out this connection and make the point that those who enable this sin are not guiltless. Abortion is not like immigration because the former is a moral issue and the latter is not.

Will you be just as quick to say that the Bishop should stick strictly to what is definitively taught and not offer such personal judgments as if they were Church law?

You are welcome to search for examples where I have been inconsistent on this point.

Ender

 

[tafan]

Since you highlighted the phrase “to the extent they are able” perhaps you can indicate where in Church doctrine we can find the extent to which the US is able to absorb immigrants.

You took exception to the Archbishop saying “No country can deny this basic human right to migrate out of exaggerated fears for national security or selfish concerns about threats to domestic jobs or standards of living”, I was simply highlighting the phrase I did to indicate that the Bishop was merely stating Catholic teaching. You by disagreeing with the Bishop on that particular statement, were directly contradicting the teaching. We can use our judgement to determine how much we can allow immigrants in, but it cannot be because of exagerated fears or because of selfishness, as that would directly go against the teaching “to the extent they are able”.

 

[Ender]

You took exception to the Archbishop saying “No country can deny this basic human right to migrate out of exaggerated fears for national security or selfish concerns about threats to domestic jobs or standards of living”, I was simply highlighting the phrase I did to indicate that the Bishop was merely stating Catholic teaching. You by disagreeing with the Bishop on that particular statement, were directly contradicting the teaching.

Not at all. I was objecting to the implication that opposition to “enforcement, detention, and deportation” was due to “exaggerated fears” and “selfish concerns.” Which is not Church teaching.

We can use our judgement to determine how much we can allow immigrants in, but it cannot be because of exagerated fears or because of selfishness, as that would directly go against the teaching “to the extent they are able”.

True enough. What we may not do is to assume that support of strict immigration controls is immoral because it is merely an expression of selfishness, which is what Archbishop Gomez did and encourages others to do. I do take exception to that.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…Second, and here’s the difference, abortion is one of the few political issues that is also a moral issue and where a bishop’s outspokenness is appropriate.
… Abortion is a grave sin. Formal cooperation with grave sin is itself a grave sin. Material cooperation with grave sin can be sinful. It is the bishops’ obligation to point out this connection and make the point that those who enable this sin are not guiltless…

Yes, I agree. That is the general moral principle. And it is possible for me to be in complete agreement with everything you have said and still decide that voting for a specific candidate is not in fact cooperating with abortion, even though some Bishop thinks that it is. It is not the moral principle that is in dispute. It is the application of that moral principle to a specific decision. Just as you said “show me one specific action that is required” in response to the moral principle of welcoming the foreigner, I could say “show me one specific candidate that I am required not to vote for” in response to the moral principle of the evil of abortion.

…Abortion is not like immigration because the former is a moral issue and the latter is not…

I am not equating abortion with immigration. I am equating decisions about voting (due to concerns about abortion) with decisions about immigration. I admit that abortion is a more serious issue than immigration. But both issues are based in morality. I can’t see how the call to uphold the dignity of the human person by welcoming the foreigner is not a moral issue. Again, we can disagree on the specifics of exactly how this should be done. But it is still a moral issue.

 

[tafan]

Not at all. I was objecting to the implication that opposition to “enforcement, detention, and deportation” was due to “exaggerated fears” and “selfish concerns.” Which is not Church teaching.

Sorry, I reread your initial post which I responded to and you said nothing about “enforcement, detention, and deportaiton”. I stand by my analysis of your initial post. You can’t pretend to say something you didn’t

Ender:

True enough. What we may not do is to assume that support of strict immigration controls is immoral because it is merely an expression of selfishness, which is what Archbishop Gomez did and encourages others to do. I do take exception to that.

Ender

Where did Gomez assume that? Please provide a quote of reference of his comments which supports this statement of yours. You want to ignore any Bishop who encourages more liberal immigration policies, so you misconstrue all of their statements to fit your arguments.

 

[Ender]

I am not equating abortion with immigration. I am equating decisions about voting (due to concerns about abortion) with decisions about immigration. I admit that abortion is a more serious issue than immigration.

Abortion differs from immigration because abortion is an intrinsic evil where positions in support of it are immoral regardless of intent, while with immigration none of the (rational) positions are inherently immoral therefore Catholics may properly take opposing sides since the morality of the choices is determined entirely by intent. This is not true of abortion and the handful of other issues involving intrinsic evils.

But both issues are based in morality.

“Based in morality” is too vague. Explain what makes determining the best solutions to various immigration problems a moral problem rather than a prudential one.

I can’t see how the call to uphold the dignity of the human person by welcoming the foreigner is not a moral issue. Again, we can disagree on the specifics of exactly how this should be done. But it is still a moral issue.

It is not a moral issue precisely because we can disagree about the specifics of the solution. The only moral decision to be made is deciding whether to honestly try to solve the problems or not. Once that decision is made, everything else is prudential. Solving immigration problems is no more a moral issue than solving the problems of the crippled Japanese reactors; it’s all about finding what works.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Sorry, I reread your initial post which I responded to and you said nothing about “enforcement, detention, and deportaiton”. I stand by my analysis of your initial post. You can’t pretend to say something you didn’t

I suppose I could have quoted the archbishop’s entire comment, it just didn’t seem necessary. Since I objected to his use of the vague (and uncharitable) phrases “exaggerated fears” and “selfish concerns” it seemed reasonable to identify the actions to which he applied them. If you had read the citation provided by the OP you would have known that.

Where did Gomez assume that? Please provide a quote of reference of his comments which supports this statement of yours.

OK, here’s what the article states:

[The archbishop noted] that the current policies of enforcement, detentions and deportations are a ‘humanitarian tragedy.” …* "In closing he concluded “No country can deny this basic human right to migrate out of exaggerated fears for national security or selfish concerns about threats to domestic jobs or standards of living.”*

It seems quite reasonable to infer from his comments he believes that those who support enforcement, detention, and deportation are responsible for a humanitarian tragedy. Since there can be no justification for deliberately causing such a tragedy, the most likely explanation (in his mind) is exaggerated fears and selfish concerns on the part of those who support such policies.

You want to ignore any Bishop who encourages more liberal immigration policies, so you misconstrue all of their statements to fit your arguments.

Nah - I don’t need to misconstrue his statements; they are damaging enough as they are.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…Explain what makes determining the best solutions to various immigration problems a moral problem rather than a prudential one.

It does not have to be an either/or question. In fact it is both. One can make prudential decisions about moral problems. Prudential does not mean devoid of moral considerations. It just means that specific instances are open to debate. To reference an example I gave earlier, going to mass on Sunday is a moral imperative. However prudential decisions about my state of health can influence my response to that moral imperative in specific instances.

It is not a moral issue precisely because we can disagree about the specifics of the solution. The only moral decision to be made is deciding whether to honestly try to solve the problems or not. Once that decision is made, everything else is prudential.

OK, so suppose that I have made the moral decision to honestly oppose abortion. Then everything else is prudential. So I can possibly decide that voting for a candidate of a particular political party is consistent with this decision. I am merely trying as best I can to find what works, as you said referring to the Japanese reactor.

 

[tafan]

Ender:

…Explain what makes determining the best solutions to various immigration problems a moral problem rather than a prudential one.

Even asking this question, shows that you have a lack of understanding what prudential judgement means. The idea that there is no moral component when making a prudential judgement is absurd. Most prudential judgements should be primarily decided on moral grounds.

A list of things a Catholic should keep in mind when considering poltical, prudential judgements:

1. Catholics cannot separate their faith life from their political life.
2. The bishop is entitled to deference and consideration, even in matters of prudential judgment.
3. The church’s experience deserves consideration.
4. An informed conscience must guide our decisions.
5. Any policy must conform to moral laws and ethical standards.
6. A decision must conform to Catholic social teaching.
7. The policy must use licit means.
8. The position must be based on reason and fact.
9. Personal motive must be pure.
10. We should avoid the appearance of moral relativism.

Taken from ndcatholic.org/editorials/june04/ . I find this list very helpful, it has primarily been used in pro-life causes. It is apparent that many of the anti-immigration people on this forum could care less what the Church has to say, in fact they want the Church just to shut up and be quiet. It would do them good to study this list.

 

[Ender]

It does not have to be an either/or question. In fact it is both. One can make prudential decisions about moral problems. Prudential does not mean devoid of moral considerations.

What makes an action immoral? The nature of the act itself, the intent, and the circumstances, although Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves - CCC 1754. Therefore, if the act is not intrinsically wrong, it is the intent alone which determines the morality of the action so it’s not clear just where the moral concern exists in prudential choices.

It just means that specific instances are open to debate. To reference an example I gave earlier, going to mass on Sunday is a moral imperative. However prudential decisions about my state of health can influence my response to that moral imperative in specific instances.

But surely the point is that either choice is moral so long as it is based on an honest intent. I keep reiterating: the choices themselves are morally neutral, they are entirely prudential. You may impugn a person’s motivation for making the choice he made but as there is no moral component to the choice itself it cannot be faulted on grounds other than whether it less accurate than another choice.

OK, so suppose that I have made the moral decision to honestly oppose abortion. Then everything else is prudential. So I can possibly decide that voting for a candidate of a particular political party is consistent with this decision.

Abortion is intrinsically evil so when you talk about it you now include an aspect of morality not applicable to immigration: the nature of the act itself. Supporting abortion, regardless of the intent, is always immoral. This is a different argument than discussing immigration where the choices don’t involve intrinsic evils.

I recognize this distinction: we can both oppose abortion but disagree over how best to combat it and to that extent it is just like immigration. There is this difference, however, in that some solutions are per se immoral and you may not choose them even if you think they would be the more effective approach. Supporting abortion is immoral as is supporting a politician because he supports it.

Ender

 

[ANNE_2]

Bishops and all other Religious are restricted in their involvement in politics to the fundamental rights of the person, common good, and whenever the salvation of souls requires it. (CCC 2245, 2246)

Nations have the right to make immigration laws for the common good of its citizens and Immigrants are required to obey the law (CCC 2241).

Due to huge Federal debt of over $14 Trillion, not to mention States’ debtloads, the USA is no longer a prosperous nation. US unemployment is about 8.8% with a total unemployment rate of about 18%.

Solving the problem: Neither the USCCB, nor Abp Gomez has addressed illegal immigration from the standpoint of solving the real problem. In the mid-80’s, the USA gave amenesty to all illegal aliens. Now the problem is worse than ever.

1. Close the border except for legal immigration at defined checkpoints.
2. Work with Mexican Bishops to insure Catholics in Mexico understand that they should not come to the USA without proper visas or green cards.

This will accomplish:

1. slowing drug trafficking into the USA which is destroying our society;
2. slowing human trafficking into the USA;
3. stop US Government employees from the Justice and State Departments from providing guns to the Mexican drug cartels;
4. stop the splitting of families;
5. help slow advances of a one-world government where the individual will have no (name removed by moderator)ut and human freedom and subsidiarity will be squashed.

We also need to:

1. Punish all employers who hire illegal aliens (as provided for in the Immigration and Control Act of 1986).
2. Streamline the green card process for employers who can not find American workers to fill jobs.
3. Treat all immigrants fairly, without discrimination in favor of Mexicans immigrants.

There are no problems with LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Problems stem from ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION (breaking the law), including abuse by some employers.

Then we can address other issues that should be addressed.

 

[Ender]

The idea that there is no moral component when making a prudential judgement is absurd.   Most prudential judgements should be primarily decided on moral grounds.

I don’t think you are able to separate the process of decision making from the decision the process leads to. My position is that the decision reached, whatever it is, is amoral unless it involves an intrinsic evil. If in the process of reaching my decision I behave properly then my action is moral (whatever decision I reach); if I behave improperly then my action is immoral (whatever decision I reach) but in neither case can the choice itself be considered either moral or immoral. That is, I can behave morally or immorally in coming to my position but that is a comment about me, the position itself is morally neutral.

A list of things a Catholic should keep in mind when considering poltical, prudential judgements:

Yes, these are things that guide me, that determine whether my actions are moral … but they have nothing whatever to do with the nature of the specific proposals themselves that I choose to support. The proposals are not changed in any way by how I come to select them. If I support building a fence from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico because I am bigoted against Mexicans then my action is immoral, but, and here’s the point I’ve been trying to make: actually building the fence is neither moral nor immoral. My reasons for choosing it may be moral or immoral but that says something about me, it says nothing whatever about the action chosen. If I support building a fence because I genuinely believe it will be best for all involved then my action is moral even if it turns out that I was mistaken.

It is apparent that many of the anti-immigration people on this forum could care less what the Church has to say, in fact they want the Church just to shut up and be quiet.

It is apparent that many pro-illegal-immigration people on this forum are unaware of what the Church actually has to say and cannot distinguish the doctrines of the Church from the opinions of bishops.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…But surely the point is that either choice is moral so long as it is based on an honest intent. I keep reiterating: the choices themselves are morally neutral, they are entirely prudential. You may impugn a person’s motivation for making the choice he made but as there is no moral component to the choice itself it cannot be faulted on grounds other than whether it less accurate than another choice.

No need to reiterate. I agree with all that.

Abortion is intrinsically evil so when you talk about it you now include an aspect of morality not applicable to immigration: the nature of the act itself. Supporting abortion, regardless of the intent, is always immoral. This is a different argument than discussing immigration where the choices don’t involve intrinsic evils.

Yes, abortion is intrinsically evil. I am not proposing that decisions about the basic nature of abortion are prudential. I only said that decisions of whether a particular candidate really supports or opposes abortion is prudential. Candidates positions are sometimes obfuscated by their own rhetoric - and for good reason. They want to appeal to as broad a base as possible. So parsing their rhetoric involves judgement - prudential judgement. That’s all I was saying. So when a priest or bishop says that a particular party is pro-abortion, he is offering a prudential judgement. If I happen to know a candidate from that party that is pro-life, then I can exercise my judgement and vote for that candidate, the priest’s advice notwithstanding.

Similarly, with Bishop Gomez, who offered his personal judgement on what he thinks is important in immigration. And I see nothing wrong with that either.

I recognize this distinction: we can both oppose abortion but disagree over how best to combat it and to that extent it is just like immigration. There is this difference, however, in that some solutions are per se immoral and you may not choose them even if you think they would be the more effective approach. Supporting abortion is immoral as is supporting a politician because he supports it.

Yes, if you are sure that he does support it. That is where the prudential judgement comes in.

 

[ANNE_2]

Bishops and all other Religious are restricted in their involvement in politics to the fundamental rights of the person, common good, and whenever the salvation of souls requires it. (CCC 2245, 2246)

Nations have the right to make immigration laws for the common good of its citizens and Immigrants are required to obey the law (CCC 2241).

Due to huge Federal debt of over $14 Trillion, not to mention States’ debtloads, the USA is no longer a prosperous nation. US unemployment is about 8.8% with a total unemployment rate of about 18%.

Solving the problem: Neither the USCCB, nor Abp Gomez has addressed illegal immigration from the standpoint of solving the real problem. In the mid-80’s, the USA gave amenesty to all illegal aliens. Now the problem is worse than ever.

1. Close the border except for legal immigration at defined checkpoints.
2. Work with Mexican Bishops to insure Catholics in Mexico understand that they should not come to the USA without proper visas or green cards.

This will accomplish:

1. slowing drug trafficking into the USA which is destroying our society;
2. slowing human trafficking into the USA;
3. stop US Government employees from the Justice and State Departments from providing guns to the Mexican drug cartels;
4. stop the splitting of families;
5. help slow advances of a one-world government where the individual will have no (name removed by moderator)ut and human freedom and subsidiarity will be squashed.

We also need to:

1. Punish all employers who hire illegal aliens (as provided for in the Immigration and Control Act of 1986).
2. Streamline the green card process for employers who can not find American workers to fill jobs.
3. Treat all immigrants fairly, without discrimination in favor of Mexicans immigrants.

There are no problems with LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Problems stem from ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION (breaking the law), including abuse by some employers.

Then we can address other issues that should be addressed.

In the 1980’s the USA gave amenesty to ILLEGAL Aliens. This is ultimately what some Bishops are asking for now. Obviously its worse than ever, so what is their plan to stem the problems and make certain it does not happen again? and again ? and Again?
I’ve posted one suggestion above - are there other plans out there?

 

[tafan]

Sure there are other plans. We have been trying aggressive enforcement for 5 or 6 years at least. You obviously aren’t too happy with it. It is time to admit that our immigration laws are messed up. Look, our economy is dependent on workers from Mexico. Do you want to pay twice as much for fruit, 50% more for milk? What about landscaping services? Conservatives, of all people, should realize that it is very difficult for a government to stop market forces, short of a completely totalitarian result. We need to secure our borders from drug traffickers.
We need a easy to access, temporary worker program, where people can come here for work and go back home when needed. Where the workers are legal and do not have to live underground. Where families (I know of three personally) are not split up by our government. Then the illegal traffic across the border will be reduced and we can focus on those who are intent on causing harm.