Bishops and Political Action

[Ender]

If the law was not broken, we would not have the problem we do with undocumented workers.

It is not that our laws are defective, it is that they are not enforced and that is because of a lack of will, not a lack of ability. Neither party really wants to enforce the laws because they risk losing the Hispanic vote. We have an immigration problem because our legislators are more concerned about getting reelected than they are about anything else, including - especially - fixing this problem. Why do you think the Obama administration has decided to bring suit against Arizona to stop the implementation of their new law? It is opposed not because it appears unworkable or unfair but because it could be politically harmful to Democrats if it works and when the bishops bumble around opposing the bill it simply gives moral cover to what is otherwise a purely politically motivated tactic.

Ender

 

[tafan]

It is not that our laws are defective, it is that they are not enforced and that is because of a lack of will, not a lack of ability. Neither party really wants to enforce the laws because they risk losing the Hispanic vote. We have an immigration problem because our legislators are more concerned about getting reelected than they are about anything else, including - especially - fixing this problem. Why do you think the Obama administration has decided to bring suit against Arizona to stop the implementation of their new law? It is opposed not because it appears unworkable or unfair but because it could be politically harmful to Democrats if it works and when the bishops bumble around opposing the bill it simply gives moral cover to what is otherwise a purely politically motivated tactic.

Ender

From 1980 to 1995, the border patrol budget increased 7 fold. From 1995 to 2003 it trippled. From 2004-2008 it tripled again. As of 2009 we had 17,499 agents, which is a doubling since 2001. I do not know the figure for 2010, but the Obama’s administration budget calls for adding 2200 more in 2011.

The growth is exponential, where are the results? If there is nothing wrong with the law, why do we keep having to spend more and more money, higher more and more people, and the results do not get better.

If the subject was education, conservatives would be able to understand this argument. But we have our blinders on with respect to immigration.

 

[tafan]

For comparison purposes, we have more people patrollong our southern border than FBI agents and ATF agents combined.

 

[Tigg]

From 1980 to 1995, the border patrol budget increased 7 fold. From 1995 to 2003 it trippled. From 2004-2008 it tripled again. As of 2009 we had 17,499 agents, which is a doubling since 2001. I do not know the figure for 2010, but the Obama’s administration budget calls for adding 2200 more in 2011.

The growth is exponential, where are the results? If there is nothing wrong with the law, why do we keep having to spend more and more money, higher more and more people, and the results do not get better.

If the subject was education, conservatives would be able to understand this argument. But we have our blinders on with respect to immigration.

With all due respect, your comments aren’t even close. There is nothing wrong with the law, and it isn’t “broken”…the only problem is that it isn’t in the best interests of the partnership between our government and Big Business to do anything to curtail the invasion. The Border Patrol is armed only with pistols and are fighting a war with drug cartels which use much more powerful weapons. Not only that, but they need to be very very careful when discharging those weapons because our government will do anything to protect, not American citizens, but illegal aliens crossing over. Just a couple of years ago a federal jury convicted two agents for serious bodily harm, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and a civil rights violation. The alien was a known drug-smuggler and was shot in the buttocks as he fled across the U.S.-Mexico border. There’s more to the story, but as I remember, the agents were given tough sentences, but later released after spending many months in federal prison. This all happened on Bush’s watch, WHO, by the way was NO conservative and did as much as the present administration in enticing illegal aliens here.

Don’t you understand it is our own government corruption we are fighting here? Congress will NOT protect our borders; not because they can’t, but because illegal immigration and the wonderful “pathway to citizenship” that you advocate, is helping to achieve the goals of the progressives and globalists who mean to (and WILL) bring down our national sovereignty.

 

[tafan]

I thought we were talking about immigration, not drug trafficking. Two differnet issues in my mind.

 

[Ender]

From 1980 to 1995, the border patrol budget increased 7 fold. From 1995 to 2003 it trippled. From 2004-2008 it tripled again. As of 2009 we had 17,499 agents, which is a doubling since 2001. I do not know the figure for 2010, but the Obama’s administration budget calls for adding 2200 more in 2011.

The growth is exponential, where are the results? If there is nothing wrong with the law, why do we keep having to spend more and more money, higher more and more people, and the results do not get better.

“The” law? There are any number of laws that aren’t being enforced as should be obvious by the measures that Arizona has just taken which makes a state crime of what is already a federal crime, but since the feds refuse to enforce the law the state is going to do it. Do you think the bishops oppose the law because they don’t think it will work or because they believe, along with everyone else, that it will work just fine? Adding border patrol agents was necessary but is a long way from sufficient. The battle is not over what approaches would be effective, it is between those who want to drastically reduce the number of illegals in this country and those who don’t. The bishops and the Democrats are siding with the illegals. The Republicans are afraid of a political backlash from Hispanics if they do anything effective. That’s why this problem continues to worsen and will not improve no matter how many agents are moved to the border.

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

Why should I care? I am not obligated to share their personal concerns nor do those concerns constitute “Church teaching”. The Church is silent on the Arizona law and I wish the bishops had shown the good judgment to be silent as well.

This is why I am so opposed to what the bishops are doing. When they speak out on political issues they confuse Catholics as to what their obligations are regarding the proper response to their comments. They blur the line between their clerical role as teacher of the faith and their lay role as concerned citizen. We may be be obligated to obey the former but we have no obligation at all to the latter and they do us a grave disservice by implying otherwise.

Ender

You are right, if you are not in the U.S. you are completely (canonically) free to disregard the teaching of the U.S. Bishops.

You are not correct to say “the Church is silent on the Arizona law.” Both the Arizona Bishops and the USCCB have been quite vocal about their (the Church’s) thoughts on the law.

You are free to follow you well-formed conscience regarding the issue, and what weight you give Bishops’ teachings is up to you.

 

[diggerdomer]

Since you want to talk about prophecies, how about this one which is approved by the Church?

Your post implies you believe (as I do as well) that we are in an age of apostasy. The words of Our Lady, as prophecied, is exactly what is going on within the world court of bishops today. I can give you recent, concrete examples such as Bishop Sample of Marquette not allowing a retired auxiliary bishop to come into his diocese to speak to certain social justice groups on homosexuality because his previous talks were CONTRARY to Church teaching. If you do a search on this forum, you can read the actual article. Are you the one who asked, “WHICH bishop are we to believe?” Since they no longer speak with one united voice even to defend authentic Church teaching, WHY do you think we are obligated to accept their statements when it comes to political matters? I suggest that faithful and orthodox Catholics are the ones defending truth. To answer your previous question as I’ve already done in my prior post, Humanae Vitae was soundly rejected by the American bishops in defiance of a papal encyclical.

I do not think we are in an age of apostasy, the link you shared has no relevance in my opinion/understanding to this thread. Humanae Vitae was not rejected soundly by American Bishops despite what you claim (in other words…give me ONE example of an American Bishop who rejects it?).

But back to the point…you didn’t answer the question I posed to you. Did you? Rejecting (which you claim here, and is not true) is completely different than ignoring (which you claimed previously in the post I responded to).

 

[Ender]

You are right, if you are not in the U.S. you are completely (canonically) free to disregard the teaching of the U.S. Bishops.

I believe I am canonically free to disregard the teaching of any bishop other than my own; I am quite sure I am canonically free to disregard the political opinions of all of them.

You are not correct to say “the Church is silent on the Arizona law.” Both the Arizona Bishops and the USCCB have been quite vocal about their (the Church’s) thoughts on the law.

You have the mistaken impression that everything a bishop says becomes a Church teaching merely because a bishop has said it. Given that we have seen bishops take different sides on an issue (think withholding communion) this simply isn’t so. They do not necessarily speak for the Church simply because they speak. Regarding the comments of the Arizona bishops, they did not condemn the law; they expressed concerns, some of which were addressed by a second law amending the first. They have apparently been silent on the second … so what is the “Church” position on the law?

You are free to follow you well-formed conscience regarding the issue, and what weight you give Bishops’ teachings is up to you.

Again, you incorrectly equate a bishop’s political opinion with “the teaching of the Church.” The two are not at all the same. Their political opinions are irrelevant.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

I thought we were talking about immigration, not drug trafficking. Two differnet issues in my mind.

The point is, tafan, that this government has no desire to limit the number of illegal aliens crossing the border (regardless of intent) because that would be contrary to their agenda and they sacrificed two Border Patrol agents who were merely trying to do their job as a warning to “back off” and not get too aggressive with upholding any federal law. Corruption abounds in this government and it didn’t start with the current administration. This makes warning bells go off in my head with regards to our bishops not only concerning immigration, but the fact that they have advocated other political policies near and dear to the ruling elite in Washington. They take a verbal stand against anything that would uphold our Constitution and laws. The official stance of the Church is supposed to be that a sovereign nation has the RIGHT to defend its borders. Not only their statements, but their actions as well (which provide sanctuary to illegal aliens) contradict this. They do not uphold the common good which is a theme running through most of the encyclicals you yourself have posted to prove your own points. They spoke in favor of Climategate, which was finally exposed for the sham that it was and supported socialized medicine in violation of subsidiarity. They even spoke out against our second amendment and our right to bear arms. I cannot guess at their intent, but at a time when our Church most needs the spiritual direction of our shepherds, they seem to be silent on every issue except those which are political. I would rather they reform the error in the Church and give catechetical direction to the faithful.

I will tell you honestly, I understand the conflict of heart and mind and soul in searching within ourselves for these answers. It wasn’t until I retired that I had time to really read and research what was going on in this country. I was agonizing and praying because the truth as I began to understand it regarding the direction of government was so evil I couldn’t take it all in. That, coupled with the error in the Church, made me physically ill for a time. As I’ve posted before it was only the recourse I had to our Blessed Mother and much prayer that finally brought me some peace. We are going to see terrible times ahead as has been spoken of during the End Times that we are in, but we must cling to what is true and good and holy and not be confused by false prophets. Remember that “even the elect will be fooled.”

Stay with this with an open mind and read all you can calling upon the Spirit for discernment in all things. You, like myself and others I have known, will begin to connect the dots. Blessings to you and yours.

 

[Ender]

This makes warning bells go off in my head with regards to our bishops not only concerning immigration, but the fact that they have advocated other political policies near and dear to the ruling elite in Washington.

Regardless of ones position on these political issues, we should all be concerned that the bishops have become overly involved in politics. That is not their responsibility, it is ours, and it is just as inappropriate for them to usurp our rights as it is for us to usurp theirs. Their behavior in this area is all the more troubling inasmuch as they seem - based on the numbers of Catholics leaving the Church, divorcing, contracepting … - to be doing a very indifferent job at what is their responsibility.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

I agree, Ender.

 

[diggerdomer]

I believe I am canonically free to disregard the teaching of any bishop other than my own; I am quite sure I am canonically free to disregard the political opinions of all of them.

no, Catholics are not free to disregard authoritative teachings of the Pope (I am assuming you are not in the diocese of Rome).

You have the mistaken impression that everything a bishop says becomes a Church teaching merely because a bishop has said it.

Nope. But I am also not conceding that everything a bishop (or a conference or synod of bishops) says is optional.

Again, you incorrectly equate a bishop’s political opinion with “the teaching of the Church.” The two are not at all the same. Their political opinions are irrelevant.

Ender

Nope. I am not equating the same. But, again, I am not proposing that the two are mutually exclusive, as you seem to do?

 

[Tigg]

Humanae Vitae was not rejected soundly by American Bishops despite what you claim (in other words…give me ONE example of an American Bishop who rejects it?).

But back to the point…you didn’t answer the question I posed to you. Did you? Rejecting (which you claim here, and is not true) is completely different than ignoring (which you claimed previously in the post I responded to).

It is true - perhaps you’ll believe Fr. Corapi. “The rejection of Humanae Vitae was pivotal.” The Canadian bishops put it in writing and it spread throughout the U.S. Why do you think we have huge numbers of re-married Catholics receiving communion without benefit of an annulment?

IMHO, the bishops should really be working on fixing this sacriligious condition of the Catholic community (instead of dabbling in politics) since the sanctification of the faithful is supposed to be their primary concern.

youtube.com/watch?v=cLZyN8x8gNE&feature=related

 

[Tigg]

I meant to include this in above post…to further support the allegation of the rejection of Humanae Vitae by American bishops. Note again, this is an episcopal, or bishop’s conference speaking (as a collective bureaucratic body, not part of the teaching Magisterim.)

Overnight, dissent became a front-burner issue. Any number of episcopal conferences mentioned its possibility and legitimacy. The **American **bishops in their pastoral letter, “Human Life in Our Day” (Nov. 15, 1968), even laid out the norms for licit dissent.

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10960

Human Life in our Day

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/USBPSHV.HTM

 

[Ender]

no, Catholics are not free to disregard authoritative teachings of the Pope (I am assuming you are not in the diocese of Rome).

I was referring to bishops, not the Pope. I’m sure you realize this. Nor were we talking about authoritative teachings.

Nope. But I am also not conceding that everything a bishop (or a conference or synod of bishops) says is optional.

I am not in the archdiocese of New York: am I bound by the opinions of Archbishop Dolan - yes or no?

I am not equating the same. But, again, I am not proposing that the two are mutually exclusive, as you seem to do?

Opinions, even those held by popes, are not binding. Political opinions of random bishops carry only the weight of their argument, but none of their office.

Ender