Archbishop Gomez: Detentions and Deportations are a ‘Humanitarian Tragedy”
- Status
M
manualman
Guest
Now if only somebody would listen!
It’s really absurd that American politics is divided between just two opposite and equally absurd camps:
It’s really absurd that American politics is divided between just two opposite and equally absurd camps:
- Leave immigration policy as it is and vigorously enforce it via arrest and deportation without regard for the injustice of the current legal immigration process.
- Leave immigration policy as it is and ignore illegal entry and employment because it makes for whole new generations of “correct” voters angry with group #1 above.
E
Ender
Guest
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
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
T
The_Old_Medic
Guest
And Bishop’s wonder why people are leaving the church!
Did those people come to the USA in violation of the laws of this country?
Yes, they did, and 100% of them should be arrested and deported back to their country of origin.
I am 100% in favor of immigrants, but LEGAL immigrants.
Had I known, before he died, that my father was an illegal alien, I would have turned HIM in. He was in the US illegally, and he was coached by his father how to pretend to be an American Citizen (he voted and pretended all of his adult life).
No person has the right to immigrate to another country, in violation of that countries laws.
Since the vast majority of the illegals are from Mexico, lets use Mexico’s stance on illegal immigrants as a perfect example. If they catch people from Guatamala, Honduras, etc., they toss them in jail, and then they deport them after a year or two of hard labor.
They are VERY harsh to any illegals that they catch.
The fact that people in Mexico are poor does NOT give the the right to come to the US. Frankly, Mexico would be a LOT better off if they would stay home and formulate a revolution.
Did those people come to the USA in violation of the laws of this country?
Yes, they did, and 100% of them should be arrested and deported back to their country of origin.
I am 100% in favor of immigrants, but LEGAL immigrants.
Had I known, before he died, that my father was an illegal alien, I would have turned HIM in. He was in the US illegally, and he was coached by his father how to pretend to be an American Citizen (he voted and pretended all of his adult life).
No person has the right to immigrate to another country, in violation of that countries laws.
Since the vast majority of the illegals are from Mexico, lets use Mexico’s stance on illegal immigrants as a perfect example. If they catch people from Guatamala, Honduras, etc., they toss them in jail, and then they deport them after a year or two of hard labor.
They are VERY harsh to any illegals that they catch.
The fact that people in Mexico are poor does NOT give the the right to come to the US. Frankly, Mexico would be a LOT better off if they would stay home and formulate a revolution.
T
tafan
Guest
It sounds to me like Bishop Gomez was simply stating Catholic teaching on the subject:
From the CCC
But when it comes to immigration, there are not too many people interested in what the Church has to say, its too bad.
E
Ender
Guest
If you can rebut my argument, do so but at least try to understand the points being raised. Catty comments are just not helpful. This is the kind of thing that got the last thread closed.
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. No? Can’t find the answer? Probably because the question requires a prudential estimate, which means we have to determine the answer for ourselves. It is not a moral question, which is also why the archbishop didn’t attempt to answer it but merely hinted at the answer he would like to see us reach. And you seem to have reached the conclusion he wanted you to reach. Good for you. I reached a different conclusion, but here’s the thing: there is no moral difference between your understanding of what “to the extent they are able” means and my understanding of it. One of us will surely reach a more accurate position but, unless you’re claiming it is immoral to be mistaken, both of our estimates are morally neutral.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It may be true that the interpretation of “to the extent they are able” is a prudential judgment, and people of good faith can come to different conclusions. But that does not remove the moral nature of the underlying question.
There are many examples of prudential judgments over moral questions. For example, you are obliged to attend Sunday mass, unless prevented by illness. The decision over how sick is sick enough to miss mass is a prudential judgment. Various guidelines can be established, but there will always be borderline cases where the final decision could go either way.
So just because a moral principle involves a prudential judgment that does not mean we can totally disregard that moral principle.
E
Ender
Guest
This is the distinction I’ve been driving at (and thank you for the tone of your argument). We have a moral obligation to do good - clearly that is a moral issue - but once we have decided to meet that obligation, the means we choose are prudential. Problems may face us with moral choices but determining the best solutions to those problems does not.
Yes, good example. If we are equally sick yet I believe I am too sick to go and you believe you are not, neither of us has sinned. We have made opposite decisions with the same intent: do the right thing, but our decisions in this case are not moral ones, they are prudential.
Of course, the moral principle can never be disregarded. That is what informs us as to the goal we should try to attain - but the principle does not carry with it any explanation as to how best to achieve the goal. If you assume that I am as serious about finding the best solution to the many immigration problems as Archbishop Gomez, how would you fault my positions? If one could no longer impugn my integrity, how would they argue? We would argue about the perceived consequences of various proposals … that is, our debate would be entirely prudential.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You may be unnecessarily generalizing the moral principle involved. The moral principle, as stated by 2241 of the Catechism is more specific than “do good”. It calls out a specific area in which we are called to do good, namely, the area of welcoming the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. It would not be living up to this principle if I decided that I was going to “solve the problem of immigration” some other way, such as by donating to charities that help people in their home country. This would be similar to saying that I was going to decide to satisfy my Sunday mass obligation by going to mass on Tuesday instead. Now it is a good thing to go to mass on Tuesday - no doubt about that. But it is not a suitable replacement for going to mass on Sunday. Similarly, as good as various other efforts might be to better the lot of the potential immigrant, those actions do not comprise a suitable replacement for the admonition of 2241. Now if someone began proposing specific degrees to which we must welcome the foreigner, such as requiring the granting of legal status, or X number of jobs for them, then that would be a prudential decision about “to the extent they are able”, and people of good faith can disagree about that.
E
Ender
Guest
Well, yes and no. I am told to feed the hungry, heal the sick, welcome the stranger… but surely the point is that what I am not told is how best to achieve those goals.
But this is precisely what is taking place and why the arguments about immigration are prudential. There are competing interests which have to be balanced and this is why I have said that the question of whether or not to (e.g.) build a fence or support the Arizona law are prudential. They are all about finding the proper balance between too lenient and too severe. Finding that point does not involve moral choices, it involves predicting the outcomes of taking option A instead of option B.
Perhaps I can make the point this way: choose any specific action and explain why support of that action is a moral obligation. The only requirement is that the action be specific and not simply an objective.
Ender
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Ah, yes, the old canard of “prudential judgment.” That’s the one where you can decide to ignore the spirit of the Church’s teaching in favor of your personal gain or political ideology.
E
Ender
Guest
Perhaps you can answer the question I put to LeafByNiggle: what specific action are we morally obligated to take regarding immigration and what Church teaching supports your answer? There is a reason specifics generally involve prudential judgments.
Ender
R
Redratfish
Guest
Bishop is the key word. he is not the Pope. He is making a statement of opinion, I am free to disagree with his opinion as I see fit. And a lot of the falling away from the Church in the current day is thanks to Bishop teaching, so acting like they are far more intelligent than the average man on social issues is a lame argument.Just who do you think you are to judge a BISHOP?
He’s not even your Ordinary.
The Church has said that a country has a right to control its borders. As Ender has pointed out, Mexico has far stricter immigration policies than we do. If I steal from a store, but say I need it to live, what is the Churches response? It is a matter of opinion how desperate I am.
To think that revolution used to be the way to topple corrupt governements and correct them. Now people just move to another country.
S
Sherry_G
Guest
The archbishop is a good shepherd and is stating Catholic principles as someone already pointed out in citing the Catechism #2241 under Duties of Citizens. We have been fighting this same battle in the political arena for years and so far are really doing absolutely nothing concrete to end the problem. Discussion is good among us and can lead to a solution in the end. Ask yourselves WHY no reasonable solution has been implemented over all these years. This is America and historically we can do anything we set our minds to as history has proven. What makes this border/illegal immigration situation so impossible to solve? 
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
The powers that are in a position to solve it lack the political will to do so.What makes this border/illegal immigration situation so impossible to solve?
G
Georgia
Guest
I think what is going on with this discussion illustrates just how hard this problem is to solve. Read several of the posts and you will see that it quickly devolved into trading insults. Even here, we are having trouble talking about the issues without emotions running away with us.
One point I will argue, hoping what I offer here is true and is said with charity. If I am wrong, let me apologize in advance.
The opinion of any given bishop is just that. It is his opinion. It is not binding on the Church as a whole unless he speaks with the unified voice of the Magisterium. Unless he is speaking ex cathedra, that too applies to what any given pope says. Certainly they approach their statements with backgrounds that are beyond most of ours and should be accorded respect, but under everyday circumstances our clergy is just as human as the rest of us.
One point I will argue, hoping what I offer here is true and is said with charity. If I am wrong, let me apologize in advance.
The opinion of any given bishop is just that. It is his opinion. It is not binding on the Church as a whole unless he speaks with the unified voice of the Magisterium. Unless he is speaking ex cathedra, that too applies to what any given pope says. Certainly they approach their statements with backgrounds that are beyond most of ours and should be accorded respect, but under everyday circumstances our clergy is just as human as the rest of us.
S
Sherry_G
Guest
Hello, Georgia. Reading your post led me back to my CCC for a second opinion. While I agree that you could technically reach your conclusion in regard to infallibility of our Pope, I submit to you that a bishop is not just a man after receiving holy orders- a sacrament of our Church. Just as you are technically just the same in your personhood after receiving the sacramental graces of Baptism, Confirmation or the Holy Eucharist, you are the recipient of incalculable graces, our priests and bishops are even more sacred and set apart as teachers, ministers and shepherds. Refer to your CCC Part two, Article 6 and expecially para. 1558 and then get back to me about yor opinion in light of Church teachings. Thanks.
E
Ender
Guest
You need to understand the distinction between expressing the teaching of the Church and expressing opinions; we are obligated to assent to the former but have no such obligation toward the latter. Clearly, what Archbishop Gomez was expressing was a combination of the two. I have no problem with what the Church teaches but I disagree with the archbishop’s opinion about the application of those principles.our priests and bishops are even more sacred and set apart as teachers, ministers and shepherds. Refer to your CCC Part two, Article 6 and expecially para. 1558 and then get back to me about yor opinion in light of Church teachings. Thanks.
If you’ve been following this thread you would have noticed my challenges to LeafByNiggle and LCMS_No_More to identify any specific action they think the Church obliges us to take. It is not likely that either of them (or anyone else) will be able to come up with a single example of a proposal Church teaching obliges us to either accept or oppose, and the reason for this is that that isn’t the Church’s task, it is ours.
From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and solutions arises.* It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions **– and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person. *(CDF - Cardinal Ratzinger, 2002)
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
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. 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. 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.
- Status