S
Spyridon
Guest
I apologize if that’s how you took it, I should not have used the words I did, I was rash and overly harsh on a very sensitive subject.
- Status
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
The USCCB has issued the following:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Some may indeed do that, but there are also some here who are trying to address the subject of the thread “Biblical perspective on DACA” as a scripture question - not a search for or evaluation of solutions to any political problem. Think of it as a bible study open-ended question. It does not have to degenerate to one side calling the other side immoral. Ideally there should not even be “sides” in a bible study, just reflections.
The distinction between the two may not be as clear as you imagine. For example, lead in drinking water is an evil because it damages the brains of children drinking it. But if a city official is grossly negligent (as they were in Flint, MI) and allows an unreasonable risk of this evil appearing, it becomes a moral evil.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes it did. And that statement was issued in the names of three bishops. It is not a joint pronouncement of “the U.S. bishops”, moreover since my bishop has been silent on this comment it carries no weight at all for me.
“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” (Ratzinger)
E
Ender
Guest
I didn’t take it personally. The argument that every political issue is a moral issue, and to oppose a particular proposal means one is indifferent to the suffering of others, is so pervasive that virtually no one sees it as the insult it really is. What I’m trying to do is get people to recognize the implications of “this is a moral issue” thinking.
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t think these ideas are separable. How can one cite any passage if it is not applicable, but if it is applicable then won’t it favor one side of the debate or the other? Beyond that, I think it is decidedly unhelpful for individuals to fling competing passages at one another to which they attach their own interpretation. The church has addressed this issue. It would be more advisable to use her comments, which at least have the advantage of not being personal interpretations of scripture.
Yes, and this is what it always comes down to: a moral judgment of an individual. First, the damage from lead is as you say, a natural evil. As to whether someone was grossly negligent that would require a judgement we who are unfamiliar with the facts cannot make, and in fact are forbidden to make. Second, the simple fact that someone was harmed - even suffering grievous harm - does not necessarily mean the person responsible is morally culpable.
Why do these discussions, which ought to be about the facts of the matter and proposals for solutions, always devolve into personal condemnations? That’s all I object to. Judge the proposal, not the person making it.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I am well aware of the implications. It is part and parcel of Christian living.
E
Ender
Guest
When was the prohibition against judging others rescinded?
P
pnewton
Guest
I have no idea of the bearing of this question on the issue. We are not to judge others, only actions in general. For example, abortion is evil. The woman who had the abortion is not for us to judge.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
That’s correct. Unfortunately on virtually every political issue the opposite occurs. What are judged are not the positions proposed, but the people who propose them. How could it be otherwise if everything is a moral issue, and one side assumes opposition is not simply mistaken but immoral? Do you really not see that attitude in these debates?
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not see it all the time, but I do see it, both ways. I have not forgotten that conservatives first made “liberal” a slur, for example, though I know that lately it is conservatives that are labeled more.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
E
Ender
Guest
I reread your earlier post about the distinction between natural evil and moral evil, and my interpretation of you comment was in error. Your examples were valid, it was my understanding of them that was wrong. I am so used to seeing a particular form of argument I took your comment as simply another example of it. It wasn’t - I apologize.
E
Ender
Guest
Sigh. To quote myself: “I am so used to seeing a particular form of argument…” @pnewton Is this not just another example of what I have been railing against, or have I misunderstood this comment as well? It seems to me it implies that anyone who opposes DACA is likely cursed and on his way to the everlasting fire. If this is not what it means then perhaps someone can interpret it for me, and if that is what it means then I would surely like someone to explain how such a judgment can possibly be considered acceptable.
P
pnewton
Guest
The Scripture is not so specific, but yes, if one is violates what Jesus called the second greatest commandment, then Hell is a possibility. Whatever our political position, if we base in on our needs and prosperity and not those of others, it is not of love. I fear that one of the greatest tools of Satan of late has been Ayn Rand with her recent upsurge of popularity. That stuff can send you to Hell.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes it is, and stating this is not a problem.
The problem comes with assuming that this is the case. That is a judgment we are expressly forbidden to make. You cannot know what another person’s motivation is, and to assume it stems from the worst intentions is what the catechism condemns in the section “Offenses against truth.”
P
pnewton
Guest
I totally agree with this. I also agree that sometimes people here make that assumption of others. But quoting Scripture is not making that assumption, any more that a homily on sin is accusing you specifically of sin.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Sure, I just wonder what the bishops in the countries that are sending these people here think of their relation to Jesus’s teaching.
If I went to another country, should I expect that country to take me in and give me a free path to citizenship? Basically, should we expect the same from the world?
Would they be not doing their Christian duty if they didn’t give me citizenship, or deported me back to America? Would I be just in blaming them?
P
pnewton
Guest
There is a lot of ground between those too extremes, you know. Other violations of the law of the same magnitude may involve a fine, as in a traffic ticket. No free lunch should be given (except an actual free lunch when needed,) but rather somewhere in between. Those that speak about what is best for this country, even without getting into the morality of nationalism, there may well be a way to accommodate most or all of these people in a way that would be of benefit to society at large. I really can’t concede that these people especially are more of a burden than they are a resource.
E
Ender
Guest
That was Rhubarb’s statement, not mine. I was objecting to it.Ender:
Sure, I just wonder what the bishops in the countries that are sending these people here think of their relation to Jesus’s teaching.
- Status