Biblical perspective on DACA?

[pnewton]

Okay. So when you challenged me f… you were not actually making a serious criticism of what I said.

By “No,” I meant “no.” What you said (was it a paraphrase or an extrapolation?) had no bearing on my post as far as I can make out.

Making it clear to people how good one thinks one is, will not enlighten anyone. Indeed, Christ vociferously condemned those who put their supposed virtue on display before others.

The rhetoric you used is where the difference is: “… how good one thinks he is.” Nonetheless, the Sermon on the Mount exists. Accusing people of “virtue-signaling” to shut down people of morals using moral arguments is not in accord with the teaching of Christ I quoted above. It is Satan that wants people to think in worldly terms, forsake morality, and hide the light we are given. Do not do his work for him.

 

[Spyridon]

You’re just not a very good Christian. Christ would support my position.” The possibility of a real debate between competing positions is non-existent.

Isn’t it true though?

How good of a Christian can you be if you literally do the opposite of what Jesus would do?

And shouldn’t a Catholic defer to the Pope and Bishops when they speak in unison on an issue like this?

Who do you think can better discern the mind of Christ?

Right wing Catholic laity

Or

The entire US Episcopate and the Papacy?

 

[Theo520]

Consequentialism. Morality is not a matter of doing what we think will make us better off. The Indians did what they did out of compassion and behaved morally. Those they helped were better off. Christians have to rise above the mentality of selfishness.

You get high marks, that was an excellent deflection away from answering a very straight forward question.

 

[pnewton]

It was not a deflection. If you do not understand why, I will clarify.

The question was inaccurate. The Wampanoag did not have open borders in the modern sense. But they were better off for the help that they rendered. Those that were able to look to the stranger and reach out to him in charity are always better off. That is basic Matthew 25 teaching.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Ender:

They are in the country illegally, so clearly they are in violation of the law, otherwise there would be no way to deport them. It could be argued that they ought to have a path to a green card, but granting citizenship is a reward for violating the law. I would not support it.

Sure their presence certainly isn’t proper, but what would YOU do if your parents moved you to a place you don’t belong. You then grew up in a wholly different culture and, in a decent number of cases, not even speaking your “native” language well? To commit a crime you have make the choice to break it. Many of these people were minors completely dependent on their parents, some not even old enough know what was going on. The law broken by them being here was committed by their parents.

Dare I say their parents really screwed them in general? Are we all pretending that the kids have zero familiarity with their native land, and native tongue?
Sorry, can’t play along with this one.
If their parents didn’t teach them any Spanish (presumably), while they are in a country without permission, and subject to be deported to a Spanish-speaking country, then their parents negligent. I find this hard to believe, and don’t think it’s the job of the US government to remedy this.

 

[Ender]

It need not be an endpoint. If the applicability of St. Paul’s writing to the treatment of immigrants is questioned, one can attempt to refute it just as in any discussion of scripture and its applicability. Unless you don’t think it is ever appropriate to discuss whether scripture is applicable to real-life situations.

The resolution of political problems requires the application of Christian principles, but no solution can be perfect because there are always competing obligations. Solutions that help some will harm others so the problem is about finding the right balance, but finding that balance is made much more difficult when one side is calling the other immoral. If I say your proposal is wrong we can discuss why I feel that way, we will debate why we believe this or that outcome is likely, but if I say your proposal is evil where do we go? In fact it is not even the proposal that is called evil, it is the person who holds it who is judged. That’s what these claims of “I’m doing what Jesus would do” are all about - they are moral condemnations of others. So here’s what I think is the most applicable Scripture passage: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

These debates would be a lot friendlier and a whole lot more productive if that passage was ever considered.

 

[Ender]

The person that concedes that immorality is acceptable for political expediency would not be a good Christian.

This isn’t about the morality of people who do what they know to be wrong, it is about morality of uncharitably judging those who hold political positions one side takes to be mistaken.

On the other hand, of course debate on morality can be acceptable, if one can support another moral position. So which bishops are opposed to DACA?

Supporting DACA is not a moral obligation, regardless of how the bishops feel about it. There is no sin in opposing it so long as the opposition comes from a sincere belief that it is the right thing to do. It may be a mistake to honestly oppose it, but it is not a sin.

 

[pnewton]

So which bishops are opposed to DACA?

 

[Spyridon]

Supporting DACA is not a moral obligation, regardless of how the bishops feel about it. There is no sin in opposing it so long as the opposition comes from a sincere belief that it is the right thing to do. It may be a mistake to honestly oppose it, but it is not a sin.

Then why would someone not be able to use the exact same argument to oppose the Bishops on the use of capital punishment, or euthanasia, or abortion? How about contraception? What about gay marriage?

 

[Ender]

Isn’t it true though?

Here it comes, the exact judgment I objected to…

How good of a Christian can you be if you literally do the opposite of what Jesus would do?

I can’t be a good Christian if I do the opposite of what Jesus would do, but that’s a whole different thing than doing the opposite of what you think Jesus would do. If I am doing what I think is right, on what basis do you judge me immoral?

And shouldn’t a Catholic defer to the Pope and Bishops when they speak in unison on an issue like this?

Let’s at least be clear about this: there is no unanimity among the pope and bishops on DACA. Individual bishops may have expressed their personal opinions on the matter, but this is a prudential problem about which it is proper for the laity to form its own opinion.

Who do you think can better discern the mind of Christ?

Christ left us guidelines, objectives; he left the application of those doctrines to us.

 

[Spyridon]

Individual bishops may have expressed their personal opinions on the matter, but this is a prudential problem about which it is proper for the laity to form its own opinion.

When the USCCB releases a statement like this, it is the express consensus of all of the Bishops in America. There will always be individual dissenters from the majority consensus.

And Pope Francis has been clear about his position on these questions.

It is clear that both the Bishops and the Pope support DACA.

 

[Spyridon]

he left the application of those doctrines to us.

Correction:

He left that to the Successors of the Apostles, the Bishops.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

Supporting DACA is not a moral obligation, regardless of how the bishops feel about it. There is no sin in opposing it so long as the opposition comes from a sincere belief that it is the right thing to do. It may be a mistake to honestly oppose it, but it is not a sin.

Then why would someone not be able to use the exact same argument to oppose the Bishops on the use of capital punishment, or euthanasia, or abortion? How about contraception? What about gay marriage?

The telling thing with this argument is that all of the issues you mentioned (except capital punishment) involve intrinsic evils which the church explicitly opposes. That is, there is only one side of these issues that may morally be taken. That you didn’t use issues such as health care, the minimum wage, gun control, or any of the other obviously political issues (of which immigration is just another example) shows that you recognize the difference between these issues, even if you are unwilling to address them.

 

[Spyridon]

health care, the minimum wage, gun control, or any of the other obviously political issues (of which immigration is just another example) shows that you recognize the difference between these issues, even if you are unwilling to address them.

The Church has spoken on all of these issues.

Minimum wage should be a fair amount, therefore I support raising the minimum wage to $10.10/hr.

Health care should be available to all, therefore I support the ACA and Medicaid/Medicare.

Gun violence should be mitigated, therefore I support gun legislation.

Immigrants should be loved and treated as humans, therefore I support DACA.

Life should be protected at all times, therefore I oppose abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment.

Marriage is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman, therefore I oppose gay marriage.

Republicans accuse me of being a leftist, and Democrats accuse me of being a rightwing conservative.

My political views are formed by Church teaching, not partisan political platforms.

 

[pnewton]

The telling thing with this argument is that all of the issues you mentioned (except capital punishment) involve intrinsic evils which the church explicitly opposes.

Involving an evil is not the same as being that evil. Immigration “involves” an evil, one that you can end in weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, according to Jesus. Abortion is intrinsically evil. Laws permitting abortion, however, I oppose because of Church teaching, not because I believe any specific law is intrinsically evil.

 

[Ender]

When the USCCB releases a statement like this…

Like what? Provide a link.

… it is the express consensus of all of the Bishops in America. There will always be individual dissenters from the majority consensus.

Is morality determined by popular vote? A consensus is now all that is necessary to specify right and wrong? This is a novel understanding of morality.

This line of argument simply makes the point I raised earlier: if the debate is about who is moral and who isn’t there will be no discussion of the actual problem. You can see it in these posts. The real questions are overwhelmed and ignored either in making the charge “You’re evil” or in protesting against them. Perhaps if we gave up the judgment of others for Lent we could make some progress.

 

[pnewton]

Republicans accuse me of being a leftist, and Democrats accuse me of being a rightwing conservative.

I feel you. This year, the GOP in Texas had 11 propositions of which I could only vote for three.

 

[Spyridon]

what? Provide a link.

"WASHINGTON—Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), along with USCCB vice-president, Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles, and Bishop Joe S. Vásquez, chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration, have issued a call to U.S. Catholics and people of good will across the nation to take part in a “Call-in-Day” on February 26 for the Protection of Dreamers.

With the March 5th deadline looming, we ask once again that Members of Congress show the leadership necessary to find a just and humane solution for these young people, who daily face mounting anxiety and uncertainty.

Therefore, the bishops are asking individuals to contact their Members of Congress to urge them to:

Protect Dreamers from deportation

To provide them a path to citizenship

And, to avoid any damage to existing protections for families and unaccompanied minors in the process"

National Call-in Day for the Protection of Dreamers, Feb. 26 | USCCB

 

[Ender]

Ender:

he left the application of those doctrines to us.

Correction:

He left that to the Successors of the Apostles, the Bishops.

Then again, maybe not.

I suggested that it is a mistake for bishops to squander their credibility as teachers of faith and morals by issuing pronouncements, especially politically partisan pronouncements, on matters beyond their competence as bishops. These are typically matters of prudential judgment on which Catholics (and others) of equal intelligence and good will can and do disagree. (Fr. Richard Neuhaus)

Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his own distinctive role. (Gaudium et spes)

 

[whichwaytogo47]

Help the immigrant, deport the masses. If someone needs help, seek to give them sanctuary and bread. Seek their spiritual conversion and to guide them to lead a holy life.

That said, when it comes to the masses, restore the rule of law. Have sovereign borders. Deport those that don’t belong here. Build a wall to keep people out not pen people in. Only admit those that you can vet and make sure that they will assimilate not indoctrinate.