Bishops and Political Action

[Ender]

"Tiggs:

I oppose illegal immigration and illegal immigrants. I would seal the border tomorrow. I support the new Arizona law. I oppose granting citizenship to children who just happen to be born on American soil. If you (or anyone else) can show me anything the Church teaches in opposition to any of these particulars I’ll change my position, but pointing to stack of Church encyclicals that speak only in general terms and require interpretation in their implementation does not meet that requirement. It is not sinful to hold any of those positions.

Did a Bishop say it was sinful?

This wasn’t Tiggs comment, it was mine, and, no, no bishop has said any of these positions are sinful. That’s my point.

They cannot say it is sinful to believe these things because that would be untrue so what they have done is to imply it. Does anyone doubt that a sizable number of bishops support amnesty? Do we have to support amnesty because they do? No. But implicit in any bishop’s statement is the moral duty of Catholics to follow his teaching and they abuse their authority by implying that obedience is also due them in their political pronouncements.

Ender

 

[Ignatius]

Am I alone?

You are most certainly not alone! There are many Catholics beginning to stand up to these very grave trends in The Church and in society in general. Here is some of the clearest exposition of the issues that I have seen: youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/a/u/0/43lOy9xo9yo

 

[Ender]

But the U.S. Bishops have clearly taught some things in practice. Like their response to the Arizona law.

No, this is completely incorrect. First, “the U.S. bishops” have said nothing at all about the Arizona law. There have been comments from individual bishops but nothing that could be considered to be the opinion of “the U.S. bishops.” Second, even those bishops who outspokenly opposed the law never taught that it was immoral to support it. The Arizona conference of bishops expressed “concern” but what possible rationale could there be for believing that their concern becomes our obligation?

Yes, generally, the Church teaches principles, but the Church also teaches about specific applications of principles, as warranted by contemporary circumstances.

Name one.

It doesn’t matter to me whether you support the Arizona law or not. I’m just wondering how the teaching of the U.S. Bishops influences your thoughts. You are free to disagree with the teaching of the Bishops.

I am not free to disagree with the teaching of the bishops when they speak about faith or morals; I think you know that we have a moral obligation to assent in those areas. I am free, however, to reject their political opinions. More to the point, the bishops have taught nothing whatever about immigration other than “be fair.” There is not a single specific recommendation they have presented to us as being the “Catholic” position.

Ender

 

[tafan]

This wasn’t Tiggs comment, it was mine, and, no, no bishop has said any of these positions are sinful. That’s my point

Your post implied someone had said it was sinful, or why write it. Thats the only reason why I asked. I am glad no one has said so.

 

[tafan]

I think you know that we have a moral obligation to assent in those areas. I am free, however, to reject their political opinions. More to the point, the bishops have taught nothing whatever about immigration other than “be fair.”

This is my point. The Bishops have done more on immigration than just say “be fair”. They have put out an excellant document on the topic. But you guys won’t even take the time to read their information. You don’t have to follow their teachings on these matters, but you owe it to them to read them before condemning them.

 

[Ender]

This is my point. The Bishops have done more on immigration than just say “be fair”. They have put out an excellant document on the topic. But you guys won’t even take the time to read their information. You don’t have to follow their teachings on these matters, but you owe it to them to read them before condemning them.

Name a single specific recommendation … I mean, obligation … they have identified. How am I supposed to “follow their teachings” regarding implementation if they haven’t specified any?

Ender

 

[Tigg]

But the end result:

is completely contradictory with the statement that Social Justice should be equated to Liberatino Theology.

I’m not understanding this comment. There have been links galore that show the connection between the U.S. bishop’s idea of social justice, lib theology and community organizing; which groups we Catholics have been funding for a very long while.

But I would think you would be thankful for the pro-life lobbying the bishops have done.

Are you talking about the statement they made that federal funding should not be in the healthcare plan after first telling us we needed to support a universal healthcare plan? I’ll ask again……….why do you think they support groups who clearly advocate abortion? See previous links.

In general the message is to learn the social justice teachings of the church and use your conservative principles to affect change in that direction.

I agree……unfortunately no one seems to knows what social justice means anymore because the term has been hi-jacked to further the goals of the progressives.

Finally, it should be pointed out that a key compenent of the church teachings is a preference for the poor. And I see nothing in these threads which shows any regonition of that fact

This is one of the most misunderstood concepts of authentic social justice teaching. I refer you to the document from the Congregation of Divine Worship entitled ” Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation.” (Yes, that again,) which tried to clarify and correct the MARXIST interpretation of this principle. Please note this is a Vatican document:

The “theologies of liberation,” which deserve credit for restoring to a place of honor the great texts of the prophets and of the Gospel in defense of the poor, go on to a disastrous confusion between the “poor” of the Scripture and the “proletariat” of Marx. In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle. For them the “Church of the poor” signifies the Church of the class which has become aware of the requirements of the revolutionary struggle as a step toward liberation and which celebrates this liberation in its liturgy. (LN, IX.10)

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html

The key component in authentic SJ teaching is the dignity of the individual. The poor are not virtuous by merit of the fact that they are poor. I’ll try to find which encyclical it was where Pope Leo explained this one.

 

[tafan]

I’m not understanding this comment. There have been links galore that show the connection between the U.S. bishop’s idea of social justice, lib theology and community organizing; which groups we Catholics have been funding for a very long while.

I had posted a statement criticizing a priest on EWTN radio for equating the two and you emphatically said the priest was correct. So my last comment is an attempt to say you do not understand social justice if you think it is the same as liberation theology.

This is one of the most misunderstood concepts of authentic social justice teaching. I refer you to the document from the Congregation of Divine Worship entitled ” Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation.” (Yes, that again,) which tried to clarify and correct the MARXIST interpretation of this principle. Please note this is a Vatican document:

The key component in authentic SJ teaching is the dignity of the individual. The poor are not virtuous by merit of the fact that they are poor. I’ll try to find which encyclical it was where Pope Leo explained this one.

The fact that Liberation Theology people confuse the between the “poor” of the Scripture and the “proletariat” of Marx has absolutely zero bearing on if the church includes a “preference for the poor” as a key tenant of her social justice teaching. She does. JP II spoke of it often. It goes back a long ways. And I provided a a reference illustrating it, I will do so again.

“This social doctrine also entails a duty to denounce, when sin is present: the sin of injustice and violence that in different ways moves through society and is embodied in it[120]. By denunciation, the Church’s social doctrine becomes judge and defender of unrecognized and violated rights, especially those of the poor, the least and the weak” Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Paragraph 81

For a list of those rights (they are probably not what most Americans think of as rights):

“The teachings of Pope John XXIII,[314] the Second Vatican Council,[315] and Pope Paul VI [316] have given abundant indication of the concept of human rights as articulated by the Magisterium. Pope John Paul II has drawn up a list of them in the Encyclical Centesimus nnus: “the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother’s womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the growth of the child’s personality; the right to develop one’s intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth; the right to share in the work which makes wise use of the earth’s material resources, and to derive from that work the means to support oneself and one’s dependents; and the right freely to establish a family, to have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of one’s sexuality. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right to live in the truth of one’s faith and in conformity with one’s transcendent dignity as a person”
" Paragraph 155

A thought comes to mind about this:

Tigg:

unfortunately no one seems to knows what social justice means anymore

I could find many, many quotes to support my claim that a preference for the poor is a church teaching. The fact that you don’t know this, means that maybe you need a mirror

 

[tafan]

Name a single specific recommendation … I mean, obligation … they have identified. How am I supposed to “follow their teachings” regarding implementation if they haven’t specified any?

Ender

I’m sorry, but I am not going through this again. Obligation ??? I suspect you are trying to play a word game and try to trap me into saying you have to support their position or you are sinning. Not biting.
As for specific recommendations, a month or so ago, I was given the exact same challenge and I went through this document (the main document the Bishops put out on immigration in 2003):

usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml

and posted several exact recommendations they have made. People either ignored it or denied it existed when it was right before their eyes. I am not going to spend the time doing it again. I simply do not think you guys are interested in an honest discussion. You want everyone to acknowledge you point. Shut down the border, send them all home, be done with it. Ok, if you think it will work or is doable…

 

[Ender]

I’m sorry, but I am not going through this again. Obligation ??? I suspect you are trying to play a word game and try to trap me into saying you have to support their position or you are sinning. Not biting.

Catholics have a moral obligation to assent to the teaching of the Church and to the teaching of their bishop on matters of faith and morals. If what the bishops are saying about immigration is a matter of morality then we have an obligation to accept their positions in preference to our own. If, however, what they are saying about immigration is merely their own prudential opinion then we have no such obligation. So either we do or we do not have an obligation to assent and that is based on whether they are teaching about a moral issue. If I don’t have to accept their position then it can only be because it is not a moral question … which has been my point all along.

As for specific recommendations, a month or so ago, I was given the exact same challenge and I went through this document (the main document the Bishops put out on immigration in 2003):

usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml

and posted several exact recommendations they have made. People either ignored it or denied it existed when it was right before their eyes. I am not going to spend the time doing it again.

Fine, just point me to the post you made and I’ll read it. I have yet to read a single statement about any specific solution that the bishops have stated we must implement. All you have to do to prove my position is wrong is find one such example.

I simply do not think you guys are interested in an honest discussion. You want everyone to acknowledge you point. Shut down the border, send them all home, be done with it. Ok, if you think it will work or is doable…

This discussion is not about what approaches will work, it is about whether the bishops have identified ***any ***action that we are morally obligated to try.

Ender

 

[tafan]

Ender:

This discussion is not about what approaches will work, it is about whether the bishops have identified any action that we are morally obligated to try.

Its a discussion you want to have. No one else does. It is not in the topic of the thread. You seem hung up on it. Perhaps its because you don’t want a real meaningful discussion on the issues or perhaps its because of some subconscious guilt. I don’t know. I don’t really care.

 

[Ender]

Its a discussion you want to have. No one else does. It is not in the topic of the thread. You seem hung up on it. Perhaps its because you don’t want a real meaningful discussion on the issues or perhaps its because of some subconscious guilt. I don’t know. I don’t really care.

Actually I am making the point that the bishops, for all of their political involvement, have never claimed that we have any moral obligation to follow their lead except in generic ways. It would seem that any “meaningful discussion on the issues” ought to be specific in the recommendations made to resolve the problems being discussed, and it also seems appropriate to point out that the bishops are generally rather vague on this. They imply what their positions are but they never come out and state that their preference represents the moral choice and that rejection of their position is immoral.

And the reason behind this is: their political opinions carry no more moral weight than those of the local butcher.

Ender

 

[tafan]

Ender:

Actually I am making the point that the bishops, for all of their political involvement, have never claimed that we have any moral obligation to follow their lead except in generic ways. It would seem that any “meaningful discussion on the issues” ought to be specific in the recommendations made to resolve the problems being discussed, and it also seems appropriate to point out that the bishops are generally rather vague on this. They imply what their positions are but they never come out and state that their preference represents the moral choice and that rejection of their position is immoral.

That is just flat out false. The document I pointed to has recommendations and guidelines that solutions should take into account. Instead of wanting to read them , you ask for

Name a single specific recommendation …** I mean, obligation **… they have identified

So you can show you can dismiss them ahead of time because they are not obligaions.

 

[Ender]

That is just flat out false. The document I pointed to has recommendations and guidelines that solutions should take into account. Instead of wanting to read them , you ask for

Fine, I’ll select comments from the document and give you my interpretation.

19. Our common faith in Jesus Christ moves us to search for ways that favor a spirit of solidarity. Nothing specific here; you search for your ways to show solidarity, I’ll search for mine.

*In modern times, one of the ways this work of the Spirit has been manifested is through Catholic social teaching, in particular the teachings on human dignity and the principle of solidarity. *Dignity and solidarity … but nothing that specifies what this means as far as implementing solutions.

Catholic teaching also states that the root causes of migration–poverty, injustice, religious intolerance, armed conflicts–must be addressed so that migrants can remain in their homeland and support their families. Does this mean we’re supposed to do something about the government of Mexico? What? No details here.

30. While recognizing the right of the sovereign state to control its borders, Exsul Familia also establishes that this right is not absolute, stating that the needs of immigrants must be measured against the needs of the receiving countries: Yes, well this is the question isn’t it? How to balance the needs of the immigrants against the needs of the US. Telling us this is the problem doesn’t provide much direction in resolving it.

I’m sure there are any number of like statements I could cite but I think this makes the point: there are no implimentation details. None. Therefore there is no Church position on any specific proposal to address the problems.

So you can show you can dismiss them ahead of time because they are not obligations.

Not at all. I’m trying to point out that there are two reasons we have no obligations: the bishops haven’t specified anything we could act on even if we wanted to and they haven’t framed any statement in a more compelling form than an expression of concern. Really, do you consider a bishop’s statement of concern to be morally compelling? Additionally, I am confused by your comment. If the bishop’s political opinions impose no obligations on us, why should we care about them? Why shouldn’t I dismiss them if they have nothing to do with faith or morals?

Ender

 

[tafan]

Ender:

Additionally, I am confused by your comment. If the bishop’s political opinions impose no obligations on us, why should we care about them? Why shouldn’t I dismiss them if they have nothing to do with faith or morals?

I have specific documentation on this thread that the Churc has a responsibility to speak out on social justice issues because they are about morals. we went throught this a while back. You think, that if the bishops are not reading something verbatum, from an infallible document, we can simply ignore them. I believe, that when our bishop teaches us about something, we have an obligation to listen and we can only dismiss his teaching after our own prudential judgement.

Ender:

I’m sure there are any number of like statements I could cite but I think this makes the point: there are no implimentation details. None.

Well, I guess you are simply trying to take advantage of the fact that I said I would not post the recommendations again. But sine you are so misrepresenting the document by claiming there are none, I change my mind. Here are some examples of very specific recommendations which we can use to judge any immigration solution supported.

As border regions are the focal point of the migration phenomenon, resources also should be directed toward communities on the United States-Mexico border. Such additional resources would augment existing efforts by border residents to aid migrants in meeting their most basic needs

The U.S. legal immigration system places per-country limits on visas for family members of U.S. legal permanent residents from Mexico. This cap, along with processing delays, has resulted in unacceptable waiting times for the legal reunification of a husband and wife, or of a parent and child. For example, the spouse or child of a Mexican-born legal permanent resident can wait approximately eight years to obtain a visa to join loved ones in the United States. Spouses and parents thus face a difficult decision: either honor their moral commitment to family and migrate to the United States without proper documentation, or wait in the system and face indefinite separation from loved ones.

1. This is an unacceptable choice, and a policy that encourages undocumented migration. In order to ensure that families remain together, reform of the U.S. family-based legal immigration categories vis-à-vis Mexico is necessary. A new framework must be established that will give Mexican families more opportunities to legally reunite with their loved ones in the United States.17 This would help alleviate the long waiting times and, in time, would reduce undocumented migration between the United States and Mexico.

1. Approximately 10.5 million Mexican-born persons currently live in the United States, about 5.5 million of whom reside legally, and the remainder of whom have undocumented status. Each year, an estimated 150,000 Mexican migrants enter the United States without authorization, working in such industries as agriculture, service, entertainment, and construction.18 Despite the rhetoric from anti-immigrant groups and some government officials, they labor with the quiet acquiescence of both government and industry.

1. A broad legalization program of the undocumented would benefit not only the migrants but also both nations. Making legal the large number of undocumented workers from many nations who are in the United States would help to stabilize the labor market in the United States, to preserve family unity, and to improve the standard of living in immigrant communities. Moreover, migrant workers, many of whom have established roots in their communities, will continue to contribute to the U.S. economy.

1. In the context of the United States-Mexico bilateral relationship, the United States needs Mexican laborers to maintain a healthy economy and should make a special effort to provide legal avenues for Mexican workers to obtain in the United States jobs that provide a living wage and appropriate benefits and labor protections. The U.S. employment-based immigration system should be reformed to feature both permanent and, with appropriate protections, temporary visa programs for laborers.

1. A certain number of work visas should be created to allow laborers to enter the country as legal permanent residents. Family ties and work history in the United States are two of the possible factors that should be considered in allocating such visas. A visa category featuring permanent residency would recognize the contributions of long-term laborers and would ensure that their labor rights are respected.

1. A certain number of work visas should be created to allow laborers to enter the country as legal permanent residents. Family ties and work history in the United States are two of the possible factors that should be considered in allocating such visas. A visa category featuring permanent residency would recognize the contributions of long-term laborers and would ensure that their labor rights are respected.

1. Moreover, in order to honor the labor rights of foreign-born workers, the United States should sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which lays out principles for the protection of the labor and human rights of migrant workers.20 Mexico, already a signatory, should implement its principles without current reservations.

 

[tafan]

1. In addition, the U.S. record of handling undocumented unaccompanied minors from Mexico and other countries is shameful. Mexican children intercepted along the U.S. border often are placed in dilapidated detention facilities for days at a time until they can be repatriated. Children from Mexico and other countries in Central America often are not given the option to contact an attorney, guardian, or relative, or to file for asylum. These practices must stop. Because of their heightened vulnerability, unaccompanied minors require special consideration and care.

1. Although we acknowledge that the government of Mexico has improved the administration of the migration system and is attempting to bring the rule of law to it, Mexican immigration policies remain unclear and inconsistent. Corruption continues to weaken the Mexican migration system and to hurt the common good. We urge the Mexican National Migration Institute to strengthen the participation of civil society organizations in its Delegation Councils22 as partners to bring healthy transparency to the country’s migration system.

1. We urge both the U.S. and Mexican enforcement authorities to abandon the type of strategies that give rise to migrant smuggling operations and migrant deaths. Care should be taken not to push migrants to routes in which their lives may be in danger. The U.S. Border Patrol has recently launched a border safety initiative to prevent migrant deaths. We ask the Border Patrol to redouble their efforts in this area and to work more closely with community groups to identify and rescue migrants in distress. We also urge more concerted efforts to root out smuggling enterprises at their source using a wide range of intelligence and investigative tactics. In other church documents, the U.S. bishops have also expressed concern about the increasing drug-trafficking industry.25

1. Similarly, we call upon both nations to undertake joint efforts to halt the scourge of trafficking in human persons, both within our hemisphere and internationally. Trafficking in persons–in which men, women, and children from all over the globe are transported to other countries for the purposes of forced prostitution or labor–inherently rejects the dignity of the human person and exploits conditions of global poverty.

1. In 1996, the U.S. Congress eviscerated due process rights for migrants with the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which authorizes the detention and deportation of migrants for relatively minor offenses, even after they have served their sentences. IIRIRA has caused the unjust separation of untold numbers of immigrant families.26 We urge the U.S. Congress to revisit this law and to make appropriate changes consistent with due process rights.

1. We restate our long-held position that asylum seekers and refugees should have access to qualified adjudicators who will objectively consider their pleas. We urge both countries to take a leadership role in the Regional Conference on Migration (Puebla Process) and to work with our Central American neighbors to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees throughout our hemisphere have access to appropriate due process protections consistent with international law.

 

[diggerdomer]

No, this is completely incorrect. First, “the U.S. bishops” have said nothing at all about the Arizona law. There have been comments from individual bishops but nothing that could be considered to be the opinion of “the U.S. bishops.” Second, even those bishops who outspokenly opposed the law never taught that it was immoral to support it. The Arizona conference of bishops expressed “concern” but what possible rationale could there be for believing that their concern becomes our obligation?
Name one.

I am referring to this statement by the USCB chairman of the Committee on Migration: usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-080.shtml

This statement includes this:

The U.S. Catholic bishops stand in solidarity with the bishops of Arizona in opposing this draconian law. We call upon the Administration to review its impact on civil rights and liberties. We renew our call for the Administration and Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to enact comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible.

Catholics are only obliged to follow that teaching according to their properly formed conscience, as the Church teaches.

 

[Tigg]

I’ve ordered a new book by a Catholic priest entitled “The Immorality of Illegal Immigration” by Father Patrick Bascio. I’m hoping this book will offer me more insight into what I have already discerned on my own. He has a video on line in which he tells the story of when he went back to visit friends in Harlem. They told him they wanted to show him something and they spent the morning going in and out of different stores. After a while he finally noticed what they were trying to bring to his attention. There were no longer any black people employed in these stores. They were all illegal aliens. And this was HARLEM!!!

I’d like to ask the proponents on this thread who carefully follow every word our bishops say on this matter, “Is this social justice?” My properly formed Catholic conscience says NO!

 

[diggerdomer]

I’ve ordered a new book by a Catholic priest entitled “The Immorality of Illegal Immigration” by Father Patrick Bascio. I’m hoping this book will offer me more insight into what I have already discerned on my own. He has a video on line in which he tells the story of when he went back to visit friends in Harlem. They told him they wanted to show him something and they spent the morning going in and out of different stores. After a while he finally noticed what they were trying to bring to his attention. There were no longer any black people employed in these stores. They were all illegal aliens. And this was HARLEM!!!

I’d like to ask the proponents on this thread who carefully follow every word our bishops say on this matter, “Is this social justice?” My properly formed Catholic conscience says NO!

If you live in the U.S., have you read what the U.S. Bishops teach? I tend to think Catholics in the U.S. should give a bit more weight to the Vatican and the U.S. Bishops than individual authors.

 

[Tigg]

If you live in the U.S., have you read what the U.S. Bishops teach? I tend to think Catholics in the U.S. should give a bit more weight to the Vatican and the U.S. Bishops than individual authors.

What they “teach” regarding faith and morals or just their political partisanship? A better question to ask might be, “why do the American bishops continue to ignore certain Papal encyclicals?” (Hint: Humanae Vitae just for starters!)