Bishops' Call for Immigration Reform Not a Call for Amnesty, Utah Bishop Clarifies

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
there are may conservatives that break ranks with the radio pundits on this issue.
I disagree - there are some Republicans supporting it, but that party is no longer synonymous with conservatives - not anymore, and not since the days of George Bush!
No, we are not. The issue here is only imigration. It is easy to describe others in monolithic terms, but immigration is a separate issue.
The point being that the “immigration reform” the bishops seem to be calling for is the same agenda as George Soros (who funds two dissident Catholic groups, Catholics for the Common Good, and Catholics United) and the amnesty Congress has been working on these past few years. (As were the bishops in favor of socialized healthcare, Climategate, and they even issued statements against our 2nd amendment right to bear arms in lockstep with our progressive government.)

Instead of catechesis, we get politics, and I’m sorry but what I see in our shepherds is an extension of the Democrat party.
It is insulting and demeaning to call bishops “puppets”. They deserve more respect than this
I wasn’t - see previous post!
 
I disagree - there are some Republicans supporting it, but that party is no longer synonymous with conservatives - not anymore, and not since the days of George Bush!
All I can say is that it seems that you define conservative as meaning anyone who agrees one hundred percent with you. I know you are mistaken in two cases - me and one other who posted here. I do have a couple of issues I agree with George Soros on. I might even like the same brand of soda for all I know. That does not make me any less conservative. My political opinion is secondary and subordinate to my moral conscience, not the other way around.
 
I’m reading all of these thread and many posts are fascinating for different reasons. My personal opinion does not count here, because I have already been told what my opinion has to be by my superior. That’s that the end of that discussion.

But I had a funny thought last night. I thought that I would feel terrible shame going to confession to a bishop and saying, “Bless me Father for I have sinned. I can’t forgive your sins as I want you to forgive mine.” Another scenario that came to mind was being on my deathbead and needing a priest to absolve me. How would I say to him, “I have bad mouthed the clergy, but now that I’m dying I need the clergy’s absolution.”

The rule that appleis to bishops is the same as the rule that applies to parents. We honor them, not because they’re always right. We honor them because they are our parents. Therefore, they have legitimate authority over us. So do the bishops. If they have the authority to absolve us and to ordain those who absolve us, they also have the authority to teach. There is no requirement that they be right every time. The requirement is that they be honest, faithful, charitable, and alwasy show a preferential option for the poor. The requirement on the faithful is to be deferential, respectful, obedient, and discrete in our disagreements. But judging their motives, agenda, thoughts or even character is still a moral evil that we must go back and confess to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Mark Mallett is a respected orthodox Catholic, writer, public speaker and song writer who has written extensively about Catholic prophecy. Odd that in light of the last couple of posts, I would find this in my in-box today. He says it so much better than I could.
THERE is a strange new “virtue” which has appeared in our culture. It has crept in so subtly that few realize how it has become so highly practiced, even among high ranking clergy. That is, to make peace at all costs. It comes with its own set of prohibitions and proverbs:
“Just be quiet. Don’t stir the pot.”
“Mind your own business.”
“Ignore it and it will go away.”
“Don’t make trouble…”
Then there are the sayings specifically developed for the Christian:
“Don’t judge.”
“Don’t criticize your priest/bishop (just pray for them.)”
“Be a peacemaker.”
“Don’t be so negative…”
And the favorite, designed for every class and person:
“Be tolerant.”
PEACE—AT ALL COSTS?
Indeed, blessed are the peacemakers. **But there can be no peace where there is not justice. And there can be no justice where truth does not abide. **Thus, when Jesus dwelt among us, He said something startling:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household. (Matt 10:34-36)
How do we understand this coming from the mouth of the One whom we call the Prince of Peace? Because He also said, “I am the truth.” In so many words, Jesus announced to the world that a great battle would follow in His footsteps. It is a battle for souls, and the battleground is “the truth which sets us free.” The sword Jesus speaks of is the “word of God”…
…penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart.(Heb 4:12)
The power of His word, of truth, reaches deep into the soul and speaks to the conscience where we discern right from wrong. And there, the battle begins or ends. There, the soul either embraces truth, or rejects it; manifests humility, or pride.
But today, few are the men and women who will unleash such a sword for fear they may be misunderstood, rejected, disliked, or become wreckers of “the peace.” And the cost of this silence can be counted in souls.
WHAT’S OUR MISSION AGAIN?
The Great Commission of the Church (Matt 28:18-20) is not to bring peace to the world, but to bring Truth to the nations.
She exists in order to evangelize… —POPE PAUL VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi, n. 24
Orthodox Catholics are not being disrespectful or uncharitable toward their bishops when they question their political ideology. Most are completely loyal to our Holy Father who has recently issued warnings to us regarding the damage that can be inflicted upon society by the modern secular State. Every manner of evil is coming at us via this godless government; denying us the freedom of conscience clause, mandated federal funding of abortions, homosexuality, redistribution of wealth - I can’t begin to name them all.

And this preferential option for the poor? This did not come from the earlier social encyclicals (many by Pope Leo) which defended the fundamental principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. The person who coined this phrase was the founder of the Liberation Movement, Fr. Gutierrez, himself. I will stick to my orthodoxy and continue to resist with all fervor the “new social justice” which isn’t social justice at all, but Alinskyian style community organizing like the Industrial Area Foundation and it’s various activities including advocating for illegal immigrants.
All are highly political and connected to left-wing activism. The Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), for instance, with about 55 affiliates and millions of Catholic dollars in its pockets, has been spreading liberation theology and its political opinions among Catholics for decades.
Oh, and one more thing our Precious Benedict said just recently? The greatest enemies of the Church today are from WITHIN!
 
I’m reading all of these thread and many posts are fascinating for different reasons. My personal opinion does not count here, because I have already been told what my opinion has to be by my superior. That’s that the end of that discussion.
Some may not appreciate this, but I have to say it has an attractive simplicity.
 
The point being that** the “immigration reform” the bishops seem to be calling for is the same agenda as George Soros** (who funds two dissident Catholic groups, Catholics for the Common Good, and Catholics United) and the amnesty Congress has been working on these past few years.
I read through the Bishop’s interview and it appears the “‘immigration reform’ the bishops seem to be calling for is the same agenda” as President George W Bush. In fact, it looks like it matches up 100%. I think it is unfortunate that we weren’t able to get this reform done during the last administration.

I pray that President Obama goes for the same reform. My biggest fear is that we have ceded the issue over to a Democrat-controlled Congress and President that may institute a true amnesty or open borders (which the bishops are not calling for).
 
I read through the Bishop’s interview and it appears the “‘immigration reform’ the bishops seem to be calling for is the same agenda” as President George W Bush. In fact, it looks like it matches up 100%. I think it is unfortunate that we weren’t able to get this reform done during the last administration.
You know, you are right! I keep forgetting that Bush had an “R” behind his name. :rolleyes: We have the conservative Republicans (very, very few of those left,) and the Corporate Republicans (which true conservatives used to call Bush) and the latest term I read was “Rockefeller” Republican. It’s becoming harder to distinguish between the two parties. Which is why I am now registered Independent.
I pray that President Obama goes for the same reform. My biggest fear is that we have ceded the issue over to a Democrat-controlled Congress and President that may institute a true amnesty or open borders (which the bishops are not calling for).
Don’t forget there were a number of the “R’s” that supported the amnesty that was last debated two or three summers ago. I remember because both Lindsay Graham and Bush called us xenophobes and bigots!

And I know the bishops say they aren’t for amnesty, but in my heart of hearts, I wonder! I fear a true amnesty/open borders as well - I’m a Catholic first, but a true Patriot as well (I blame it on the Sisters of Charity and their patriotic stories that used to enthrall me) and I can’t help but believe that the dark side of this entire issue is the deliberate destruction of our sovereignty!
 
And I know the bishops say they aren’t for amnesty, but in my heart of hearts, I wonder! I fear a true amnesty/open borders as well - I’m a Catholic first, but a true Patriot as well (I blame it on the Sisters of Charity and their patriotic stories that used to enthrall me) and I can’t help but believe that the dark side of this entire issue is the deliberate destruction of our sovereignty!
The bishops aren’t for amnesty; neither was President Bush. “Amnesty” was the battle cry of those who rejected any reform which allowed a way for many of the illegal aliens to stay and come out of the shadows by jumping through certain hoops - no criminals, pay a fee, learn English, etc. That’s what the bishops are in favor of, as am I.
 
I’m reading all of these threads and many posts are fascinating for different reasons. My personal opinion does not count here, because I have already been told what my opinion has to be by my superior. That’s that the end of that discussion.
Intriguing. Your opinion on what? On amnesty or on immigration reform?
 
Intriguing. Your opinion on what? On amnesty or on immigration reform?
Yes. When you’re in solemn vows you may not publicly express any opinion contrary to your major superior, the bishop of the diocese in which your community exists, any of the Sacred Congregations in the Curia or the Holy Father. To dissent is a sin against obedience.

If the superior wishes to do so, he may bind you under the vow of obedience. In which case, if you dissent, you are being disobedient to Church authority AND (in our case) to Francis of Assisi. Francis of Assisi left very specific orders that he was to be obeyed beyond death under penalty of eternal damnation. The superior can invoke his Franciscan succession, meaning that as the successor of the founder he commands you to [fill in the blanks]. Superiors rarely use this right, because it is very dangerous for the person receiving the command. If he disobeys, he has committed a very grave sin. You try not to put people in a postion where they can do serious harm to their souls, if you can avoid it. You can’t always avoid it. Some people are stubborn and then you have to pull out the big guns. Generally, a superior will simply say, we go by what the bishop says, end of discussion. That does not place you under penalty of grave sin, but still a sin if you disobey the superior.

The rule is very specific, that you may never disobey, even when you know that your are right. You must obey with love and accept the sacrifice as a penance. The only time that you may disobey when given a direct order by your superior is if the superior commands you to do something that the Church says is sinful. It cannot be something that YOU believe is sinful. What you believe is irrelevant. Sin is decided by the Church, not the individual. The exception to that is if you believe that something is sinful and you really don’t know the Church’s position. Then you have the right to follow your conscience, because you have no other guide.

On this subject, the bishops are exercising their ordinary authority, just like a parent. Parents don’t need to be right to be obeyed. They just can’t command sin. Bishops don’t need to be right to be obeyed. They just can’t command sin.

Since the bishops are not commanding a sin that is recognized as such by the Church, then there is no sin involved. Our local superior has the authority to state the opinion that he wants us to hold and we must place distance between us and any opinion that is different. This can be done by the local superior of the house, the major superior or by the Holy Father. The only person who cannot tell a religious what opinion he or she must hold is a bishop. Bishops have authority over diocesan priests and over the laity in their dioceses, never over religious except in those cases allowed by canon law, which are very few.

But we don’t need a bishop to order us, because the superior can do that and his voice is the voice of Christ. There is a theological point here. If you appeal to a higher superior and you are granted the hearing, if the higher superior rules differently, then that is the voice of Christ. If both superiors agree, it’s just Christ repeating himself. If the higher superior denies your request for an appeal, it’s Christ telling you that he has already spoken and the conversation is closed.

This is what we embrace when we make a solemn vow of obedience. That’s why most religious communities do not make solemn vows of obedience. They make simple vows of obedience. The superior is less autonomous, he has to govern with a council. In a solemn vowed community, the council is only advisory. The superior trumps the council and even the vote of the community. It’s all advisory. His voice is Christ’s voice. The three founders who agreed to this were Benedict, Augusttine and Francis.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Mark Mallett is a respected orthodox Catholic, writer, public speaker and song writer who has written extensively about Catholic prophecy. Odd that in light of the last couple of posts, I would find this in my in-box today. He says it so much better than I could.

Orthodox Catholics are not being disrespectful or uncharitable toward their bishops when they question their political ideology. Most are completely loyal to our Holy Father who has recently issued warnings to us regarding the damage that can be inflicted upon society by the modern secular State. Every manner of evil is coming at us via this godless government; denying us the freedom of conscience clause, mandated federal funding of abortions, homosexuality, redistribution of wealth - I can’t begin to name them all.

And this preferential option for the poor? This did not come from the earlier social encyclicals (many by Pope Leo) which defended the fundamental principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. The person who coined this phrase was the founder of the Liberation Movement, Fr. Gutierrez, himself. I will stick to my orthodoxy and continue to resist with all fervor the “new social justice” which isn’t social justice at all, but Alinskyian style community organizing like the Industrial Area Foundation and it’s various activities including advocating for illegal immigrants.

Oh, and one more thing our Precious Benedict said just recently? The greatest enemies of the Church today are from WITHIN!
Actually, the term “preferential option for the poor” was originally commanded by St. Francis of Assisi to his three orders in 1209. Fr. Gutierrez is quoting Francis.

Francis was very explicit in what that meant. If you could only serve one of two people or two groups, you had to serve the poor under pain of excommunciation. That still stands today in the Franciscan tradition. That’s what preferential option meant. In other words, you could serve those who had more, as long as you did not sacrifice the poor.

Social justice also came from Francis of Assisi. It was in the Rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, also known as the Secular Franciscans. What the rule said was that Franciscans who lived in the secular world were forbidden under obedience to pledge allegience to any nation, including their own. They could not bear arms for any nation, incuding their own. They could not be prosecuted for refusing to do so. If they were prosecuted, the prosecutor would have to face the risk of eternal damnation for violating the Gospel of Justice. That’s where the concept comes from. Today there are still over 800,000 Secular Franciscans who vow to live by that rule until death. The rule also contains other things. But just to clarify where the term social justice was introduced into Catholicism. It was by Francisans.

Later it was picked up by Vincent de Paul, the Jesuits, the Christian Brothers, and eventually the popes and Church law. But the concept of social justice is not Franciscan. Only the language is. The conept came from the Gospel. That’s where Francis learned it and from where he taught it. But as he translated the concept from the scriptures into law, the terminology was born and adopted by the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Some may not appreciate this, but I have to say it has an attractive simplicity.
As any Franciscan will tell you, especially someone like Fr. Benedict G., Mother Angelica and Br. JR, 😃 . . . when one obeys, life becomes very simple and inner peace and silence reign again.

I will add my own to cents to this. Unless you have inner peace and inner silence, without anger, without quarrels, without conflicts with others or with self, you will not hear the whisper of God’s voice. The solutions to life’s complexities come to us in a divine whisper.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Yes. When you’re in solemn vows you may not publicly express any opinion contrary to your major superior, the bishop of the diocese in which your community exists, any of the Sacred Congregations in the Curia or the Holy Father. To dissent is a sin against obedience. . . .
Wow. That is impressive.

(Not to cause a drift, but are all priests supposed to refrain from disagreeing in public with the Pope)?
 
Wow. That is impressive.

(Not to cause a drift, but are all priests supposed to refrain from disagreeing in public with the Pope)?
Not all priests are religious. Only men who belong to religious orders make solemn vows. Most priests are secular men. They make no vows. They promise to obey the local bishop on pastoral matters only. They promise to remain celibate. These are promises, not solemn vows. Secular priests who work for a bishop are called diocesan priests. Since this is a pastoral matter, the bishop can order his deacons, priests and auxiliary bishops to withhold their opinions. He cannot order them not to have an opinion. He can only order them not to share it.

Priests who belong to a religious order are monks, friars or clerks regular. They are not subject to the authority of the bishop. They have their own superior. Their superior tells them what to do in specific situations such as this one. The religious superior has more authority over the brothers and priests in his order, than the bishops have over the clergy in their diocese. A religious superior can order you not to have an opinion., which goes over and beyond not sharing your opinion.

In my community the policiy is very simple. The superior has ordered, under pain of grave sin, that we must not have an opinon on this matter unless it’s the same as that of the bishops. We simply do not think about it. It’s that simple. You get used to and you appreciate the freedom it brings. I wish the laity would know this freedom. It’s an incredible feeling, just to be totally open to God’s lead on such matters and let Christ speak through those who are our masters.

This internal silence allows our lives to continue in peace and inner silence. In that inner silence we hear the whisper of Christ’s presence.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Brother JR,
The superior has ordered, under pain of grave sin, that we must not have an opinon on this matter unless it’s the same as that of the bishops.
The US bishops have not agreed on amnesty (or have they)?

Actually, apart from very technical terms of whether something is a solemn vow or not,
don’t all Catholics promise to defer to the Pope’s position on everything? I think my confirmation promise had something about the Pope in it. So I think it holds for all priests, and we really should not have priests ever publicly questioning things like celibacy.
I wish the laity would know this freedom. It’s an incredible feeling, just to be totally open to God’s lead on such matters and let Christ speak through those who are our masters.
Yes. Sigh. But it is hard for those of us with jobs and kids to live as radically as Franciscan brothers and sisters.
 
Brother JR,
The US bishops have not agreed on amnesty (or have they)?
I don’t think so. If they have, I have not heard about it. Which is another good reason to say only what the bishops say in common and say no more.
Actually, apart from very technical terms of whether something is a solemn vow or not,
don’t all Catholics promise to defer to the Pope’s position on everything? I think my confirmation promise had something about the Pope in it.
That is implied at Baptism and at Confirmation when you are asked, “Do you believe everything that the Church teaches?” The wording is important here. It does not ask if you believe every moral and dogmatic teaching. It says EVERYTHING.
So I think it holds for all priests, and we really should not have priests ever publicly questioning things like celibacy.
It holds for all Catholics.
Yes. Sigh. But it is hard for those of us with jobs and kids to live as radically as Franciscan brothers and sisters.
Obedience and silence on certain matters is possible for everyone, even people with kids, look at those saints who had children.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top