Bishops' immigration expert calls new policy a step in the right direction

[RobbyS]

I thought the Republicans were until '72.

As I said, Gerald Ford and Betty Ford were big supporters of Planned Parenthood. As for Nixon, he made some noise after Roe v. Wade, but did nothing to slow the opening of the abortion floodgates; indeed, his administration quickly put new rules into effect that facility abortion on demand. Nixon here, as in many other ways, was liberal, and his views represented those of California.After all, he put the Minesoata Twins on the Supreme Court. Nancy Reagan and her brood were of course pro-choice. Reagan himself started out that way but he seems to have regarded Roe. V. Wade as a bridge too far. The same effect it had on Judge Noonan, btw. Birth control yes, abortion no. When he came to power he and Judge Clark and others were pro-life and they brought the prochoicers into line by arranging a deal with the Pro-life Party not to run a Third Party candidate in 1984. Even this got fudged, however. Scalia was nominated to the Supreme Court, but a stealth pro-choice woman was also. Then, of course, we get the Bork disaster, and Kennedy, a hedger.

But as mixed as the Republican record has been, it is nothing like that of the Democrats, which is unequivocally pro-choice. The President is in fact an extremest on the issue.

 

[RobbyS]

There is no such order. Perhaps a branch of the Secret Illuminati under control of the Black Pope of the Jesuits?

Well,mainly those bishops and others under the spell of the late Cardinal. But that is an oversimplification, I admit. He was basically just a spokesman for clerics who shared his opinions. The moniker for such people today is “Social justice” Catholics.

 

[IrishSFV]

IrishSFV asked, “Why?” A simple answer is sufficient. Charity. This is no reflection on anyone else who would disagree with my understanding of my duty as a Catholic. Likewise, I have no obligation to defend an opinion in concert with Church teaching and my own call to charity. The option of supporting in charity illegal immigrants should be totally understandable even to Catholic that do not agree.

Ok then, pnewton…I’m hurting for dough. Why don’t you be a charitable lad and send me some money every week? Or better yet, why don’t I have the government dock your pay to line my pockets? ‘Charity’, huh?

 

[pnewton]

Ok then, pnewton…I’m hurting for dough. Why don’t you be a charitable lad and send me some money every week? Or better yet, why don’t I have the government dock your pay to line my pockets? ‘Charity’, huh?

These questions are a complete non-sequitor to the topic, and the question of why we should welcome immigrants. Furthermore, the answers are obvious, reflect a misunderstanding of charity and are an attempt to do one of the following forbidden things:

1. Solicite money
2. Imply I am uncharitable.

I know the first is unlikely. I only mention it to avoid the obvious reply, " I didn’t *say *you were uncharitable.

This post does nothing to address the issue of immigration, but is a feeble attempt to show hypocricy. I say feeble because the charity to immigrants here regardless of their status is in no way related to sending money to random strangers or approving tax money for those not in need. I would suggest a reading of Caritas in Veritate if the the difference alludes you.

 

[pnewton]

Well,mainly those bishops and others under the spell of the late Cardinal. But that is an oversimplification, I admit. He was basically just a spokesman for clerics who shared his opinions. The moniker for such people today is “Social justice” Catholics.

As Catholic Answers has a forum with this label, the Catechism has a chapter dedicated to this topic and one of the first encyclicals of the Holy Pontiff addressed this, I would say that railing against social justice Catholics is dissent from Church teaching. If that is your definition, then put me down as one of those Catholics with a funny label, though it is the Holy Spirit working through the Church, the Holy Father and the shepherds of Christ’s flock I follow.

 

[RobbyS]

Social justice Catholics are those who try to minimize, even smother the issue of sexual morality, under the Seamless garment rhetoric. However, the truly distinguishing mark of these people is their statism, their tendency to entrust the social duties of Catholics to their neighbors to the central government. Since I last wrote the HHS mandate has changed the conversation, so their may be some backing away, and for the first time we see the bishops beginning to admit that the American Church, like other national bodies in the west, failed to teach the doctrine of humanae vitae. Now it, and indeed, the Syllabus of Errors, that old bane of liberal Catholics, have reminded us that error ought not to have “rights,” but must be corrected. Back in 1965, Jacques Maritain warned about “genuflecting to the world.”

 

[YoungIreland]

I can’t imagine the lack of charity expressed by some people on this thread. I also think that it as bit rich of them considering that nearly all of their ancestors were immigrants at some point (even if it is going back 250 years). Without immigrants, America would not exist, simple as.