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

[tafan]

Sherry G, it is a very difficult problem to solve, there is not doubt about that. But there is a solution, or at least a solution that will be clost enough to work. We are still a rich nation, lots of potential to support a lot more people, that is why there is a solution. It was stated above, with our budget problems, we are no longer a rich nation, but that is just equating our government with society. This is the wrong way of thinking, but common in our day, perhaps its a hold over from having communism controlling almost half the world, as equating the state with society was a fixture of their dogma.

Besides that, your post is excellent, it is a moral question, you are correct!!!

hxcCatholic413, very good point.
starshiptropper:

Why should illegal aliens be allowed to continue breaking the law?

No one has figured out how to get them to stop, now have they? The results, despite massive increase in money and manpower have been less than satisfying to you. Your solutions, in addition to being very barbaric, would require a totalitarian government (slave labor, lashings, large increases in prison capacity, likely significant inflation, possible food shortages, likely closings of catholic churches due to lack of priests).

 

[praxising]

You are trying to take a few select pieces of scripture to tell us that we don’t understand the gospel message if we oppose illegal immigration.

Wow. That’s the worst interpretation of anything I have ever run across. Ever. LOL! *** I ***oppose illegal immigration.

We really do get it!

You do? Where is all the protest then against flogging? Where is there some insistence on compassion? Where are the Catholics who will take the Bishop’s message, and discuss it respectfully? THAT was the thread topic, after all.

IF there was judgment here, it has been others of me, as far as I can see, and y’all make lousy mind-readers. I think that sense of condemnation is coming from your own heart.

I do wonder at those who CAPITALIZE ILLEGAL and then want to violate the Constitution of the United States, that which actually is the United States, by deporting legal citizens, illegally, in the form of children born here.

I wonder at those who complain that illegals are “taking jobs from Americans” who weren’t rejected when they applied at the carwash, the lettuce farm, the kitchen dishwashing station, for a job as a nanny/housekeeper/slave for these much-sought-after positions, by the employer who preferred an illegal alien over themselves.

I wonder what keeps you in denial of the fact that you would be paying **FIVE TIMES MORE **at least, for produce without the slave labor of those illegals. Life here would be much worse without our slaves. We owe them. We always have.

And while it hadn’t occurred to me that I am in some moral/ethical/Christian way better than folks hereabouts, I am, in this case, apparently, a whole heck of a lot better informed. As for Christianity:

God, IMO, doesn’t care a whit what human laws anyone obeys or does not. I think He might care, that we have computers and game systems and telephones and His children die of thirst.

There are no “Americans” in heaven.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It also won’t be: did you follow the letter of human made laws and vigorously persecute those who do not.

I think you were pulling out from its context my comment that you quoted, i.e., you quoted the second paragraph which merely referred to the first paragraph as “a subject I will keep in public view.” The “subject” I referred to is not “man-made laws.” The subject I will keep in public view is the deprivation of equal public education to impoverished existing residents, whatever the cause of such deprivation – including if that cause is illegal immigration. Because the poor not receiving education is a SOCIAL JUSTICE issue, in Catholic terms and Christian, Biblical terms. So I’ll repaste what I said:

But since my heart breaks for the poor who are not receiving an adequate education in areas where they are a minority (poor and black or southeast Asian, legally here) within a majority (illegally here), I have an affirmative moral responsibility to correct this situation by at least bringing it to public awareness, since I am aware of it, and He knows I am aware of it. That is also called social justice – the kind that He will judge me for. My teaching privately the few among those poor legal residents whom I have time to teach is not enough.

And I will keep this subject in public view, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes people feel, including people on discussion forums, regardless of how politically incorrect it may be at any given time. Because the question at the Particular Judgment will not be, Did you do what was politically correct?

So it’s immaterial to me whether a single poster on this thread, or whether millions of posters not on this forum, choose to reduce Catholic Social Justice and biblical social justice to their fave topic: illegal immigration. I don’t guess or wonder – I know – that God will not be judging me, Elizabeth, as to whether I promoted only one element of social justice and ignored the rest. He will be asking me to account for all the social injustice that I was aware of in my sphere of influence (by voting, by profession, by volunteer activity, by prayer, by whatever), and he will ask me what I did about all those areas.

And lastly, he will not ask me whether I followed pnewton’s, Ender’s, tafan’s, Tigg’s, praxising’s, starshiptrooper’s, LeafbyNiggle’s, and other posters’ interpretations of social justice. He will evaluate me by what opportunities were available to me to promote social justice and to expose social injustice. Our Particular Judgments are just that: particular to us and to no one else. (Because many of us will be required in fact to answer to higher standards than others will, not necessarily lower or less complete standards.) I would never presume to know what that standard will be for anyone else but myself - although there’s a boatload of presumption going on about others, from others, on this thread. But I am going to assume it will be high for myself. It’s just that others don’t have access to that standard, nor do I have access to the standards for other people.

It’s a misconception to assume that One Size Fits All, when it comes to gospel compliance. He actually does ask us to do, differentially, our utmost within the opportunities for action that we have; some have a lot of opportunities and can be expected to act on those.

 

[pnewton]

Speeding tickets are criminal misdemeanors, as is illegal entry into the United States or staying in the United States after a visa expires. Seems like a good analogy to me. As to what you said, the Bishop used breaking up of families as a unjust response to these violations of law.

Not true, at least I could find nothing like this in the articles. He spoke of deportation for violation of immigration laws, but no where that I can find did he address the deportation of convicted criminals as being immoral. I think I am pretty much in agreement with what Bishop Gomez has said. Perhaps the problem is that you and others are going beyond what he said and using him as an authority. If Bishop Gomez spoke against deporting criminals, other than those for specifically violating immigration laws.

I would also like to clarify two points. First, incarceration breaks up families just a surely as deportation. Yet I have never heard anyone in the Church say we should stop punishing crime by incarceration. Second, traffic violations are not criminal. Ask any pro-pot advocate and they will explain the difference between legalization and decriminalization.

 

[pnewton]

True enough, but you still haven’t grasped that on this issue the Church speaks in generalities and leaves the implementation of specific policies up to the laity.
Hold that thought; it’s the key to this debate.
Being charitable means treating immigrants fairly; it assuredly does not mandate their acceptance into this county. The Church has been rather clear on the point that countries have a right to control who crosses their borders. As I’ve said before, a reasonable debate can be held over whose solutions are better but no reasonable debate is possible over whose solutions are more moral since no question of morality is involved.

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. As to the question of morality, I think that morality can be involved. Surely, there is not a moral solution, as in the right way to go, but a solution can be immoral. If, for example, it is cruel, like flogging men, women and children as a example. If a system allowed favoritism for the rich and oppressed the poor, it would be immoral. If a system enslaved a group of people, it would be immoral. However, as you point out, most of what is discussed here is not immoral, so between most other choices on immigration, there is no moral component, only one of prudence.

 

[Ender]

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. As to the question of morality, I think that morality can be involved. Surely, there is not a moral solution, as in the right way to go, but a solution can be immoral. If, for example, it is cruel, like flogging men, women and children as a example. If a system allowed favoritism for the rich and oppressed the poor, it would be immoral. If a system enslaved a group of people, it would be immoral. However, as you point out, most of what is discussed here is not immoral, so between most other choices on immigration, there is no moral component, only one of prudence.

Yes, this is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make.

Ender

 

[RobbyS]

Yes, this is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make.

Ender

The situation cannot be resolved because the mass immigration of the Latin American peoples is just an effect of some much that has happened during the last forty years. Maybe simplistic to say so, but certainly the huge number of abortions tore a hole in American social fabric and left a labor shortage. Between 1920 and 1965, most of our growth was natural growth and it took place during a period when the European ethnic groups were becoming assimilated to one another. The prosperity of the '50s and '60s accelerated this. Religiously, the situation then prevailing is what is described in Will Herberg’s “Protestant, Catholic, Jews.” Then came the civil rights movement, as blacks sought to breach the walls that kept them from sharing equally in the freedoms and riches of the country.

The Immigration act of 1965, however, changed the basic policy of keeping the ethnic makeup the way it has been in 1920. With border controls less strict, Mexicans and others began to drift north. It gradually became a flood, because business did as it had done before 1920, welcomed the hands willing to work for less and less.

The problem is, however, that our southern border is also a cultural border, and
this has created the same issues that faced the United States in earlier periods of mass, unrestricted immigration from culturally different states.

Unfortunately the cultures of the Spanish-speaking peoples and the English-speaking peoples are very different. Take the simple question of language. A language is not just a matter of saying the same thing in different words. It represents a different experience of the world. It is the work of an historic community, and when a member of that community abandons that language and takes up the language of another community, he/she has immigrated from one mental world to another. Furthermore, the child of a poor Mexican family who comes to the United States will be fortunate if he can be raises in a community
that is bilingural in a true sense. That is, in the sense that there are leaders in that community who can translate the new culture in terms of the old. BUT if the number of immigrants is too large, then the process of translation breaks down.

 

[tafan]

Not true, at least I could find nothing like this in the articles. He spoke of deportation for violation of immigration laws, but no where that I can find did he address the deportation of convicted criminals as being immoral. I think I am pretty much in agreement with what Bishop Gomez has said. Perhaps the problem is that you and others are going beyond what he said and using him as an authority. If Bishop Gomez spoke against deporting criminals, other than those for specifically violating immigration laws.

I would also like to clarify two points. First, incarceration breaks up families just a surely as deportation. Yet I have never heard anyone in the Church say we should stop punishing crime by incarceration. Second, traffic violations are not criminal. Ask any pro-pot advocate and they will explain the difference between legalization and decriminalization.

You misunderstand my point. Most illegal immigrants have done nothing more illegal than committing a misdeamenor. As such breaking up their family for the violation is perfectly analogous as breaking up a family for a speeding ticket. Traffic violations are misdemeanors, if you don’t consider that criminal, then you should not consider illegal entry into the united states criminal.

Of course if they committ a serious crime while they are here, its a different situation.

 

[Ender]

The situation cannot be resolved because the mass immigration of the Latin American peoples is just an effect of some much that has happened during the last forty years.

You might be right but I am not that pessimistic; I believe a number of simple actions could be taken that would go a long way to alleviating this problem. Nonetheless, this thread is less about how to solve the problem than about Archbishop Gomez’ comments on the issue, and specifically whether detention and deportation are a humanitarian tragedy.

The punishment for entering this country illegally should be obvious: you are returned to your own country. Arguing that you should be exempt from the law because it brings hardship on your family is a bit like asking for leniency for being an orphan after having slain your parents. Your illegal activities created the situation and you must accept the consequences, and if you don’t want to be separated from your family, take them with you.

Ender

 

[JFarrish]

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’m sorry, but that understanding is quite incorrect. We are a hierarchal Church which believes in apostolic authority and apostolic succession. We state this, aloud, during the profession of faith (“We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church…”).

The implications of this line are explained in both the Universal Catechism and in all the approved local Catechisms around the world. This is dogmatic, and reinforced in 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.” Lumen gentium 25

In this particular case, there is very little doubt that the Archbishop is in communion with Rome, since he is reciting additional Catholic dogma, such as the Pastoral Constitution of the Church (which is also dogmatic and represents the infallibility of the Church in its highest form):

“Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.” Gaudium et spes 27

Similiarly, there is no doubt for Catholics that this is, in fact, a matter of “faith and morals” because two popes, including our current one, have stated so on US soil, speaking directly to US Catholics. Returning to the Dogmatic Constitution:

“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

The prior version of the Dogmatic Constitution was even blunter:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema.” Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ 3

For Catholics, immigration policy in the US as a matter of faith and morals is not debatable. The highest possible moral authority has spoken. Likewise, the intrinsic evil nature of deportation, and it’s attack on the inalienable rights of the human person and the the fundemental building block of the human family is not debatable. It is already infallibily held to be so (see above).

The Church acknowledges that there is room for disagreement on how to best meet these “fundemental ethical demands”, but, again, the obligation to meet the demands themselves is not open for reinterpretation. If Catholic dogma is in opposition to the certainty of our own moral conscience, then we must follow that conscience (CCC 1790). But we cannot disregard the possibility for our own error, or undermine the faith through failure to show proper respect to the rightful Vicar of Christ, whose power and authority is wielded, by proxy, by the princes of the church.

ALL Catholics are in varying degrees of dissent. Just as we ALL fail Christ on a regular basis. That is why we call to mind our unworthiness at Mass. But we are most definitely NOT Protestants! Bishops, in communion with Rome, are “authentic teachers”, speaking with the authority of Christ. There primary purpose is to teach us the proper application of the faith in the modern world and society that surrounds us.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.” Gaudium et spes 27

I think you are misreading that Gaudium quote. Or else the definition of deportation is different. I can’t believe that it would apply to the case of an alien who just crossed the border today, had established no residence, no family, and was here on criminal business. It would not be an insult to human dignity to escort such a person back across the border the same day he arrived. And yet you might call that deportation.

Now granted, such a description does not apply to the vast majority of immigrants (legal or not). And I am not calling for harsh treatment of all illegal immigrants. But I present this example to show that without considering some details you can’t say that the Church condemns all deportations.

 

[markomalley]

Similiarly, there is no doubt for Catholics that this is, in fact, a matter of “faith and morals” because two popes, including our current one, have stated so on US soil, speaking directly to US Catholics.

Well, once again, let us look at what the Universal Magesterium teaches:

(From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)298. Institutions in host countries must keep careful watch to prevent the spread of the temptation to exploit foreign labourers, denying them the same rights enjoyed by nationals, rights that are to be guaranteed to all without discrimination. Regulating immigration according to criteria of equity and balance [643] is one of the indispensable conditions for ensuring that immigrants are integrated into society with the guarantees required by recognition of their human dignity. Immigrants are to be received as persons and helped, together with their families, to become a part of societal life.[644] In this context, the right of reuniting families should be respected and promoted.[645] At the same time, conditions that foster increased work opportunities in people’s place of origin are to be promoted as much as possible.[646]

Footnotes:

[643] Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 2001 World Day of Peace, 13: AAS 91 (2001), 241; Pontifical Council “Cor Unum” - Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Refugees: a Challenge to Solidarity, 6: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City 1992, p. 10.

[644] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2241.

[645] Cf. Holy See, Charter of the Rights of the Family, art. 12, Vatican Polyglot Press, Vatican City 1983, p. 14; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 77: AAS 74 (1982), 175-178.

[646] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 66: AAS 58 (1966), 1087-1088; John Paul II, Message for the 1993 World Day of Peace, 3: AAS 85 (1993), 431-433.
(From the Catechism)

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

By definition, if you cross a country’s border illegally, you have not respected the laws of the country. By definition, if you gain employment illicitly, you have broken at least one other law (as have the people who have hired you).

I agree…let us support the Magesterium.

 

[markomalley]

Similiarly, there is no doubt for Catholics that this is, in fact, a matter of “faith and morals” because two popes, including our current one, have stated so on US soil, speaking directly to US Catholics.

Of course, the above quotes are not the only authoritative statements:Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international co-operation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment.

Pope John Paul II, Message for World Migration Day 1996
​

1. 
   ] While illegal immigration has to be prevented, the criminal activities that exploit immigrants must also be combated. In the long-term there has to be international co‑operation which aims to foster political stability and to ** addresses the causes of irregular migration*.[NB: that does NOT mean allowing uncontrolled illegal immigration]
   *] The Church respects civil law, including migration law, but also advocates that it be just.
   *] Anti-immigrant propaganda can infect the Christian community, which has to be helped to understand why some migrants act illegally.
   *] Migrants in such situations need to be helped to live and, when possible, to regularize their status. If a the community gives shelter to migrants in irregular situations, the aim is not “civil disobedience” but the defense of people who have not been properly treated before the law or whose cases merit review.
   *] When no solution is foreseen, these migrants can sometimes be helped to be accepted in another country [NB: that means a *third country.] If that fails, they need to be assisted to return in dignity and safety to their country of origin.
   *] The Church is called to advocate with governments for more adequate legislation, in particular for the case of de facto refugees who cannot return home without risking their lives.
   *] The Church is the place where these immigrants are “recognized and accepted as brothers and sisters. It is the task of the various Dioceses actively to ensure that these people, who are obliged to live outside the safety net of civil society, may find a sense of brotherhood in the Christian community” (n. 5).
   
   
   - Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Migration and the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2002
   
   I don’t know what Magesterium you are following, but the one that comes out of the Vatican pretty clearly states that a State has the right to protect its borders. A State has the right to regulate immigration. It also says that illegal immigration is a legitimate issue. It also says that the way to resolve the issue is to improve the situation at home so people don’t feel a need to migrate. It does state that migrants, whether legally or illegally present, should be treated with dignity. But treating one with dignity is not synonymous with allowing the criminal action to continue.
   
   I personally agree with the actual words that Archbishop Gomez stated (I posted links to his actual words upthread): there needs to be a better way to resolve the problem. But NOWHERE has he stated that illegal immigrants should just be left here in their illegal status. But nowhere has he spoken ex cathedra.
   
   ​

 

[JFarrish]

I don’t know what Magesterium you are following, but the one that comes out of the Vatican pretty clearly states that a State has the right to protect its borders…

Whenever a dialog starts with “I don’t know what Magesterium you are following,” It is a pretty safe bet that the context of the discussion is not wholly Christ.

See CCC 2478, which the Catechism puts in the context of the 8th Commandment (which, in turn, is placed in the context of the second commandment of Love, placed on us directly by Christ).

Obviously my post stirred you to emotionally respond, but the vast majority of it is simply dogmatic Catholic documents, so perhaps we should start with just my points, as I understand them. Then go from there.

1. First and foremost, I stressed that we are an apostolic Church

Look at the quote I responded to. The Church does not just provide moral generalities and leave it up to the laity to decide. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Bishops teaching in communion with him are “authentic teachers”.

1. Dogma is not debatable

The reason that the Church rejects deportation is that the human family is the foundational building block of any valid society. Tearing apart a family is an attack on society and on the inalienable rights of the human person. These rights cannot be abridged by man because they come from God (see Christifidelis Laici for a good explanation).

This rejection is not prudential. It is in an ecumenical document promulgated by a pope. It is dogma, unchangable. There is room to debate the best way to serve the moral obligation, but the morality and obligations are set.

1. The Archbishop’s statements are very well aligned with Catholic dogma and the present Vicar of Christ

I quoted dogma, but there are plenty of contemporary papal writings and statements as well.

1. If a Catholic’s certain moral conscience disagrees with Catholic dogma, so be it, but the moral opinion of the laity does not carry the same weight as the rightful moral leadership of the Church and all members of the laity must respect that in expressing their dissent

CCC 1790 sums this tension and need for humility nicely:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.”

---

Please note, nowhere did I contend that boarders cannot be maintained or laws enforced.

However, in this case I agree with Rome and the US bishops. I’m not going to number this, because the Church can (and does) express its point of view better than I. So disagreement on these issues should be directed there.

However, one additional point from your message:

1. Only the pope can speak ex cathedra (from the chair)

When all bishops and the pope are in universal agreement, a teaching is presumed to be infallible. But the gift of divine revelation cannot be delegated.

If you would like to identify which of the above you disagree with, I would be happy to discuss the specifics of Church teaching involved. However, when a post that is 90% quotation directly from dogmatic documents and the rest primarily paraphrasing of papal statements explaining them the problem is probably not that I am not deferring to the Mother Church. Most likely, the problem is one of selectivity. But, as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith pointed out in a Doctrinal Note:

“In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.” CDF Doctrinal Note 2002

We have to strive to accept our Catholic obligations in their totality, not just the portions that coincide with, say, our political beliefs. Further, as the the US Bishops noted in a related document:

“Although choices about how best to respond
to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for
principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or
permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues.
Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns,
but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life
and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith
fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.” Faithful Citizenship Statement, approved 2007

In addition to reiterating the instructions from Rome (which are actually quoted in the bishops’ document), the Bishops appear to be stressing that we should not use our disagreements on how to best respond to a moral requirement as an excuse to create divisions. All Catholics, after all, pray for unity and peace at Mass.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The reason that the Church rejects deportation is that the human family is the foundational building block of any valid society. Tearing apart a family is an attack on society and on the inalienable rights of the human person.

But not all deportations tear apart a family. Those that do are certainly to be condemned. But this is where we get into prudential judgement. One would need to consider the details of a particular deportation to decide if it was an insult to human dignity or merely an enforcement of borders.

Please note, nowhere did I contend that boarders cannot be maintained or laws enforced.

if you continue to assert that there is no prudential judgement involved in deciding who can be deported, then you are indeed contending that borders cannot be maintained or laws enforced.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry, but that understanding is quite incorrect. We are a hierarchal Church which believes in apostolic authority and apostolic succession. We state this, aloud, during the profession of faith (“We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church…”)…
ALL Catholics are in varying degrees of dissent.

What in the world are you going on about. All your quotes deal precisely with those areas over which the Church and the bishops do have authority. No one is question that, if your are following this. Archbishop Gomez in his address indicated when he spoke for the Church and when he spoke his own opinions. Calling those of a different opinion dissenters is nothing short of divisive and uncharitable, so it is best not to go that far in our debates. One is not dissenting from Catholic teaching unless one dissents from Catholic teaching. We are no more obligated to be Republican or Democrat than we are a Red Sox fan or a Yankees fan, depending on what team our bishop supports.

I think you are poking a strawman. No one is suggesting that we dissent from Church teaching, only that we may disagree with opinions of individual leaders of the Church in areas of prudence and judgement. If you think otherwise, then I will simply have to disagree, but you will not find support in the Church for such a position. The Church teaches faith and morals, not economics, chemistry or baseball.

In this particular case, there is very little doubt that the Archbishop is in communion with Rome, since he is reciting additional Catholic dogma, such as the Pastoral Constitution of the Church (which is also dogmatic and represents the infallibility of the Church in its highest form):

Of course he is in communion with Rome, as the alternative is that he is out of communion, or ex-communicated. However, he is not infallible, just because he quotes dogma, no more than you are infallible because you have a quote from Lumen Gentium. That charism only goes as far as the quote, not in any prudential application of the quote.

 

[pnewton]

You misunderstand my point. Most illegal immigrants have done nothing more illegal than committing a misdeamenor. As such breaking up their family for the violation is perfectly analogous as breaking up a family for a speeding ticket. Traffic violations are misdemeanors, if you don’t consider that criminal, then you should not consider illegal entry into the united states criminal.

Of course if they committ a serious crime while they are here, its a different situation.

Actually, I am not too far from you on this one. From what I understand from a reading a lawyer here who knows immigration law, illegal entry is not considered a criminal offense. Maybe I can find him and have him weigh in again. Also, I never said, nor do I think, that all misdemeanors should result in deportation. Some things that are considered misdemeanors though are serious enough in my book to merit that action.

 

[pnewton]

Obviously my post stirred you to emotionally respond, but the vast majority of it is simply dogmatic Catholic documents, .

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

1. First and foremost, I stressed that we are an apostolic Church

Look at the quote I responded to. The Church does not just provide moral generalities and leave it up to the laity to decide. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Bishops teaching in communion with him are “authentic teachers”.

1. Dogma is not debatable

No one is debating dogma. That is why I said you are setting up a strawman. Take for example:

The reason that the Church rejects deportation is that the human family is the foundational building block of any valid society. Tearing apart a family is an attack on society and on the inalienable rights of the human person. These rights cannot be abridged by man because they come from God (see Christifidelis Laici for a good explanation).

No one is denying the doctrine of the family as the basic foundation of society. That would be dissent. However, your conclusion that no one should be deported is not doctrine and is logically flawed in two ways. One, the option could be excercised to deport the whole family, thus keeping the family unit intact. Second, there are other reasons that society can legitimately separate the family. If for example, the father kills a dozen people in a foiled armed robbery, then society can choose to separate him from his family for the protection of society at large.

This rejection is not prudential. It is in an ecumenical document promulgated by a pope. It is dogma, unchangable. There is room to debate the best way to serve the moral obligation, but the morality and obligations are set.

The last part is what all the debate centers on.

1. The Archbishop’s statements are very well aligned with Catholic dogma and the present Vicar of Christ

Yes they are. However, that is not to say his is the only position that can line with Catholic moral teaching.

However, when a post that is 90% quotation directly from dogmatic documents and the rest primarily paraphrasing of papal statements explaining them the problem is probably not that I am not deferring to the Mother Church

. .It is the additions that have caused confusion.

 

[Ender]

I think you are misreading that Gaudium quote. Or else the definition of deportation is different.

Deportation as the term is used in that quote has nothing whatever to do with immigration. What was being referred to was the form of deportation that was prevalent during WWII with the deportation of Jews to concentration camps and the mass deportation of “undesirables” like the gypsies. The term here means the forced removal of people from their homeland; it surely does not mean the return of individuals from countries they have illegally entered. This comment by JPII makes the point a little more clearly.

*All who profess the Gospel of peace have the duty of declaring with one voice that every form of violence, ethnic cleansing, deportation of peoples and their exclusion from society *(JPII, Letter to the Patriarch of Moscow)

As does this comment from BXVI on the 50th anniversary of the death of Pius XII:

• His voice broken by emotion, he deplored the situation of “hundreds of thousands of men and women who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only because of their nationality or race, have been consigned to death or to a slow decline” (AAS,xxxv, 1943, p. 23), with a clear reference to the deportation and extermination of the Jews.*

Ender

 

[Ender]

• For Catholics, immigration policy in the US as a matter of faith and morals is not debatable. The highest possible moral authority has spoken.
• The Church acknowledges that there is room for disagreement on how to best meet these “fundemental ethical demands”

So which is it? If the Church has spoken on immigration policy as an infallible matter of faith and morals then the matter is decided. If, however, as you acknowledge, there is room for disagreement on how best to meet the guidelines she has set forth, then you are agreeing with pnewton’s position.

Likewise, the intrinsic evil nature of deportation, and it’s attack on the inalienable rights of the human person and the the fundemental building block of the human family is not debatable. It is already infallibily held to be so (see above).

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

Ender