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

[Prodigal_Son1]

??? If one knows many hillbillies or blacks, and if they trust one and don’t think one will go all righteous on them if they speak plainly, then one will hear plenty of complaints about illegals. Plenty. And not just about illegal immigrants, either.

You don’t know this area. It is rural and we have a lot of ‘small boat’ commercial fisherman, who are plain Southern people. We also have a number of African Americans, many of who are Catholic. There is no complaints from these people about our local contingent of ‘Hispanic’ people. In fact, you would find the opposite and see many are receptive to all people.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It most certainly is the teaching of Jesus, in my honest opinion.

What others are going to suffer the cost that we are concerned with?

I’m going to need to leave for the evening, and may not return until after the weekend, but let me say a few.

-Not all that many illegals are on the welfare system, but some are. Phony ID can be bought in any town where there are a lot of illegals. Very good ID, too anymore.

-I have had hundred, if not thousands of occasions to read medical records, and it is perfectly obvious that frequently some Hispanics use the Medicaid or even group health cards of other Hispanics. My favorite was the one when the 70 year old woman claimed to be a woman who had had a child within the year. The doctor caught that one, but mostly they don’t.

-Identity theft is rampant among Hispanics, particularly Hispanic young men. That’s because forgers use their identies to give ID to illegals. A lawyer friend of mine regularly defends legal Hispanics (he guesses they’re legal) against AFDC claims by welfare agencies for women the Hispanic victims never knew. That’s because of identity theft. Usually, my friend wins after DNA testing. The illegal fathers, of course, never pay a nickel, but the taxpayers do.

-ER use, of course, absolutely prevalent among illegals, and they can’t be turned away. ER costs are very high. We all pay for that.

-Unemployed people. It is absolutely incorrect to believe all illegals do seasonal agricultural work exclusively. Around here, they’re mostly in industry, but a lot are in construction, which jobs used to be held by natives, but phases of which are almost entirely performed by illegals now. (particularly roofing, dry walling and framing…some masonry too. Lots of people in Mexico know how to lay bricks or concrete because they have done it there) Everybody knows it, especially those who used to do roofing or drywalling or masonry.

-Blacks. It’s not such a big deal with Central Americans, but Mexicans in particular, despise blacks, and make no secret of it. That’s not a monetary cost, but it’s a social cost.

-Law enforcement. In some places, like here for instance, local law enforcement really does try to enforce the law. And, of course, they have to hire Spanish-speakers 24/7 to translate, as do the courts and the employers and the lawyers, and the license offices. Most legal immigrants have picked up at least passable English. Most illegals haven’t.

-Schools. They don’t “discriminate” against the children of illegals at all. They even have special programs for them.

-And, of course, the “anchor baby” thing. I know you don’t like the terminology, but it’s a short term we all know. They are entitled to all benefits of the state. All of them.

Concluding because I must due to other obligations, this was debated in another thread, and it isn’t at all difficult to find online the statistics on the net cost of illegal immigrants. The clear consensus is that is definitely a net cost, for all the talk of the taxes they pay.

Now, maybe one could argue that this country just, by golly, has a moral obligation to pay such costs. But one certainly ought not to think it’s a slam-dunk argument in the case of citizens of Mexico, for all the reasons I mentioned in my previous posts. Haiti, maybe so. Mexico? No. Not for the citizens of one of the better-off countries in the world, and better off by a very long way compared to most.

If we want to argue for unlimited immigration from mexico, let’s do it on a sound basis.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If we want to argue for unlimited immigration from mexico, let’s do it on a sound basis.

Christ said love one another as He loves us. As far as I can see, that’s an unconditional love and pretty sound.

We can’t judge an entire group of people for the imperfect acts of a few. If we did, where would our Church be with it’s history of imperfect people?

 

[Blacksword]

I’m going to need to leave for the evening, and may not return until after the weekend, but let me say a few.

-Not all that many illegals are on the welfare system, but some are. Phony ID can be bought in any town where there are a lot of illegals. Very good ID, too anymore.

-I have had hundred, if not thousands of occasions to read medical records, and it is perfectly obvious that frequently some Hispanics use the Medicaid or even group health cards of other Hispanics. My favorite was the one when the 70 year old woman claimed to be a woman who had had a child within the year. The doctor caught that one, but mostly they don’t.

-Identity theft is rampant among Hispanics, particularly Hispanic young men. That’s because forgers use their identies to give ID to illegals. A lawyer friend of mine regularly defends legal Hispanics (he guesses they’re legal) against AFDC claims by welfare agencies for women the Hispanic victims never knew. That’s because of identity theft. Usually, my friend wins after DNA testing. The illegal fathers, of course, never pay a nickel, but the taxpayers do.

-ER use, of course, absolutely prevalent among illegals, and they can’t be turned away. ER costs are very high. We all pay for that.

-Unemployed people. It is absolutely incorrect to believe all illegals do seasonal agricultural work exclusively. Around here, they’re mostly in industry, but a lot are in construction, which jobs used to be held by natives, but phases of which are almost entirely performed by illegals now. (particularly roofing, dry walling and framing…some masonry too. Lots of people in Mexico know how to lay bricks or concrete because they have done it there) Everybody knows it, especially those who used to do roofing or drywalling or masonry.

-Blacks. It’s not such a big deal with Central Americans, but Mexicans in particular, despise blacks, and make no secret of it. That’s not a monetary cost, but it’s a social cost.

-Law enforcement. In some places, like here for instance, local law enforcement really does try to enforce the law. And, of course, they have to hire Spanish-speakers 24/7 to translate, as do the courts and the employers and the lawyers, and the license offices. Most legal immigrants have picked up at least passable English. Most illegals haven’t.

-Schools. They don’t “discriminate” against the children of illegals at all. They even have special programs for them.

-And, of course, the “anchor baby” thing. I know you don’t like the terminology, but it’s a short term we all know. They are entitled to all benefits of the state. All of them.

Concluding because I must due to other obligations, this was debated in another thread, and it isn’t at all difficult to find online the statistics on the net cost of illegal immigrants. The clear consensus is that is definitely a net cost, for all the talk of the taxes they pay.

Now, maybe one could argue that this country just, by golly, has a moral obligation to pay such costs. But one certainly ought not to think it’s a slam-dunk argument in the case of citizens of Mexico, for all the reasons I mentioned in my previous posts. Haiti, maybe so. Mexico? No. Not for the citizens of one of the better-off countries in the world, and better off by a very long way compared to most.

If we want to argue for unlimited immigration from mexico, let’s do it on a sound basis.

Much of this post contains hyperbole and unsupportable conjecture still. I must say the statement about “Mexicans hating blacks” is offensive and seems a bald-faced attempt at fomenting racial tension. Please don’t make such generalizations. Also, no one claimed most unodcumented workers are working in agriculture, rather, it is the case that most agricultural workers are undocumented, to the tune of 70-80% by most estimates.

Please note that, as has been covered in other threads, it is false to claim most studies show a net cost to illegal immigration. Rather, most studies by economists on this issue show a consensus of there being a slight net benefit to illegal immigration, or at worst no net effect on the country.

“Anchor baby” is a known term, yes. But so is a simpler term that has legal meaning and accuracy: “U.S. citizen”. That one, therefore, seems much better.

It’s odd I must say that so much of some of the comments you have made smack of anti-immigrant prejudice, and yet you have shown such courageous kindness in, from your story earlier, having signed an affidavit of support to assist an immigrant family in need. I commend your generosity in that. I can only conclude from this apparent dichotomy that you are probably a very charitable, kind person overall in real life, and perhaps the vagaries of internet posting do not always allow this to come through.

It’s regretable that we do not agree on more on this topic, as you are the only member of the…enforcement-minded, shall we say, crowd on these forums who has offered a rational, cogent, and fair assessment of my legal proposals to solve our immigration woes. I daresay it seems from your critique we are not too far off on much of those ideas, and I bet we could sit down and shortly have hammered out a spectacular bargain for comprehensive reform that would please everyone who actually has honest intent and some degree of understanding of the problem! But getting Congress to listen to such reason, that’s the hardest part of all likely…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Much of this post contains hyperbole and unsupportable conjecture still. I must say the statement about “Mexicans hating blacks” is offensive and seems a bald-faced attempt at fomenting racial tension. Please don’t make such generalizations. Also, no one claimed most unodcumented workers are working in agriculture, rather, it is the case that most agricultural workers are undocumented, to the tune of 70-80% by most estimates.

Please note that, as has been covered in other threads, it is false to claim most studies show a net cost to illegal immigration. Rather, most studies by economists on this issue show a consensus of there being a slight net benefit to illegal immigration, or at worst no net effect on the country.

“Anchor baby” is a known term, yes. But so is a simpler term that has legal meaning and accuracy: “U.S. citizen”. That one, therefore, seems much better.

It’s odd I must say that so much of some of the comments you have made smack of anti-immigrant prejudice, and yet you have shown such courageous kindness in, from your story earlier, having signed an affidavit of support to assist an immigrant family in need. I commend your generosity in that. I can only conclude from this apparent dichotomy that you are probably a very charitable, kind person overall in real life, and perhaps the vagaries of internet posting do not always allow this to come through.

It’s regretable that we do not agree on more on this topic, as you are the only member of the…enforcement-minded, shall we say, crowd on these forums who has offered a rational, cogent, and fair assessment of my legal proposals to solve our immigration woes. I daresay it seems from your critique we are not too far off on much of those ideas, and I bet we could sit down and shortly have hammered out a spectacular bargain for comprehensive reform that would please everyone who actually has honest intent and some degree of understanding of the problem! But getting Congress to listen to such reason, that’s the hardest part of all likely…

It’s not false to say there is a reasonable consensus on the costs of illegal immigration. cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf. But yes, there are estimates and studies all over the place.

And it’s absolutely preposterous to claim that Mexican/African American relationships in the U.S. are good. americansc.org.uk/Online/Ezekiel.htm. You don’t even have to know what it’s like to be black in a workplace where the majority are Mexican.

It is irritating, but perhaps understandable to hear you accuse me of being anti-immigrant. I’m not. But it is tiresome to hear people defend illegal immigration from essentially romantic standpoints, and it is irksome to see people called names who are only calling for an honest look at the issue.

Again, as I have said before, it may be NECESSARY to accept substantial illegal immigration as a matter of tacit national policy. It may be NECESSARY from time to time to amnesty them. If it’s the only way to avoid demographic winter, then that’s probably the way it has to be. And, it does appear that accepting it from south of the border is reasonably acceptable to the American public, and is the easiest to ignore. But if that’s going to be national policy, then we ought to at least accept the reality of it, and face the problems with it. And first and foremost, we ought to stop being dishonest about it. And romanticizing it is dishonesty. If we’re going to continue discriminating in their favor, then let’s admit that we are, honestly admit the economic and social costs of it and declare why, exactly, we think it needs to be our national policy nevertheless.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Much of this post contains hyperbole and unsupportable conjecture still. I must say the statement about “Mexicans hating blacks” is offensive and seems a bald-faced attempt at fomenting racial tension. Please don’t make such generalizations.

Offensive to whom? To you? How, exactly, am I fomenting racial tensions by stating what I have seen and heard and read many times, and stating it in a forum that’s virtually all Anglo white? How does it serve any useful purpose on here to throw the “racist” card at me just because I told the unpleasant and embarrassing truth that everybody knows anyway who is at all familiar with the subject? Maybe if people in the Anglo white world knew how really it is outside their own suburban ghettos, they would be more introspective about their own prejudices.

Yes, yes, yes, there are exceptions here and there to everything. We know that.

 

[Ender]

An article appeared in our paper today by Dianne Solis, immigration writer for the Dallas Morning News in which she makes this claim: *"In the first eight months of this fiscal year, about half of new criminal charges in the nation’s courts focused on that charge *[re-entry into the US after deportation] or the similar entry without inspection."

Half of new criminal charges in the nation’s courts deal with illegals. I’m thinking that’s got to be an expensive way to deal with the problem. Not to mention an apparently ineffective one.

Ender

 

[Blacksword]

It’s not false to say there is a reasonable consensus on the costs of illegal immigration. cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf. But yes, there are estimates and studies all over the place.

And it’s absolutely preposterous to claim that Mexican/African American relationships in the U.S. are good. americansc.org.uk/Online/Ezekiel.htm. You don’t even have to know what it’s like to be black in a workplace where the majority are Mexican.

It is irritating, but perhaps understandable to hear you accuse me of being anti-immigrant. I’m not. But it is tiresome to hear people defend illegal immigration from essentially romantic standpoints, and it is irksome to see people called names who are only calling for an honest look at the issue.

Again, as I have said before, it may be NECESSARY to accept substantial illegal immigration as a matter of tacit national policy. It may be NECESSARY from time to time to amnesty them. If it’s the only way to avoid demographic winter, then that’s probably the way it has to be. And, it does appear that accepting it from south of the border is reasonably acceptable to the American public, and is the easiest to ignore. But if that’s going to be national policy, then we ought to at least accept the reality of it, and face the problems with it. And first and foremost, we ought to stop being dishonest about it. And romanticizing it is dishonesty. If we’re going to continue discriminating in their favor, then let’s admit that we are, honestly admit the economic and social costs of it and declare why, exactly, we think it needs to be our national policy nevertheless.

See, it’s actually funny that I’m the one in these discussions who gets accused if being pro-illegal immigration. I find the idea that we should look the other way or tacitly accept the status quo sad. I dislike illegal immigration and the endemic problems our current system has created very much. I just don’t blame the immigrants themselves so much for the way things are. I want to fix the system so that illegal entry ends.

And I must point out again that the generalizations about Mexicans not liking black people are offensive. Please stop. I am not naive, and I’m well aware that there are bigots of every ethnic variety, but I find it unfruitful to make blanket generizations, and try not to bother giving such base aspects of our humanity much thought. I try very hard to take every individual person on their own merits, and have absolutely no presuppositions about them, that’s what I believe Jesus would want.

The statement remains offensive, and that should be obvious. If I said “Southern white people hate black people” I’ll bet lots of posters would readily, and rightly, be very offended. I fail to see a difference between that sentiment and the one you’ve expressed.

 

[Blacksword]

An article appeared in our paper today by Dianne Solis, immigration writer for the Dallas Morning News in which she makes this claim: *"In the first eight months of this fiscal year, about half of new criminal charges in the nation’s courts focused on that charge *[re-entry into the US after deportation] or the similar entry without inspection."

Half of new criminal charges in the nation’s courts deal with illegals. I’m thinking that’s got to be an expensive way to deal with the problem. Not to mention an apparently ineffective one.

Ender

I’m sorry, but I’m not understanding the relevance. The link itself confirms these charges are immigration violations, rather than robbery, felonious assault, or some other non-immigration related crime against the public. And the whole point of comprehensive immigration reform is to fix the system so would-be workers won’t need to commit such offenses in order to enter to work, so then said costs on the judicial system will evaporate.

 

[Ender]

I’m sorry, but I’m not understanding the relevance. The link itself confirms these charges are immigration violations, rather than robbery, felonious assault, or some other non-immigration related crime against the public. And the whole point of comprehensive immigration reform is to fix the system so would-be workers won’t need to commit such offenses in order to enter to work, so then said costs on the judicial system will evaporate.

The relevance goes to the cost to this country of illegal immigration. Nor is it clear how how you fix this problem if you cannot control who comes across the borders. No matter how many people we legally admit there will always be millions more who will want to get in because life here is better than life there (wherever “there” is). Simply raising the number of work permits we issue won’t change this.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

See, it’s actually funny that I’m the one in these discussions who gets accused if being pro-illegal immigration. I find the idea that we should look the other way or tacitly accept the status quo sad. I dislike illegal immigration and the endemic problems our current system has created very much. I just don’t blame the immigrants themselves so much for the way things are. I want to fix the system so that illegal entry ends.

And I must point out again that the generalizations about Mexicans not liking black people are offensive. Please stop. I am not naive, and I’m well aware that there are bigots of every ethnic variety, but I find it unfruitful to make blanket generizations, and try not to bother giving such base aspects of our humanity much thought. I try very hard to take every individual person on their own merits, and have absolutely no presuppositions about them, that’s what I believe Jesus would want.

The statement remains offensive, and that should be obvious. If I said “Southern white people hate black people” I’ll bet lots of posters would readily, and rightly, be very offended. I fail to see a difference between that sentiment and the one you’ve expressed.

I am well aware that you make your living getting visas approved, primarily for high-end employees on behalf of employers. If I strayed from directly addressing that more narrow question to clarify how I feel about romanticizing illegal immigration, then I’m to be faulted for that. I’ll try to stay on track with you when addressing your posts, counselor.

I was speaking of illegal immigration generally, whether you believe in accepting it or not.

If you said “southern white people hate black people”, you would probably be right among some, and in some places, (same with northern white people) but objectively wrong in general. But, it would not be wrong to say, for example, that at one point in time most southern white people approved of segregation, because it was manifestly true, as demonstrated by voting patterns, among other things. But it would also be wrong to say that most whites in the U.S. have no preconceptions (prejudices) about Black people, because they do, notwithstanding contrary individual to individual relationships, and what we would all prefer to believe about it.

It is absurd to suggest that there are not cultural problems between Blacks and Mexicans. Same with Mexicans and Central Americans generally. It’s a hard thing to pin down, though I have produced an examplification for you and you have not produced anything telling us that it isn’t so. I am also aware of how those relationships have worked out in some production facilities of which i am aware, and it’s a well known phenomenon among those who have to live with it. I am certainly not going to change my impression about that just because you are personally offended and instruct me to do so, and I have as much right to speak as you do even though my impressions might be less politically correct than yours.

Nor have I blamed the illegals themselves. They are taking advantage of a profoundly dishonest system this country has, itself, engendered. In rewarding and romanticizing dishonesty, we are instructing them in dishonesty.

But having said that, the question remains whether, given the moral and political failings that threaten population decline in our own society, we really have any practical choice other than to simply accept George Bush’s “Hispanic preference” in immigration. I asked you about that, and you ultimately responded.

I realize that’s not your interest. When it comes to importing skilled and professional workers, which is your profession, it appears, then those who feel it imposes a hardship on them (unemployed engineers, for instance) or a need for it (employers who can’t find engineers), can give voice to their impressions of it and, at times have done so in these threads. Personally, I have a concern that greatly expanding that, which you seem to advocate, may have adverse consequences for immigration generally.

Finally, as I have previously said, if, indeed, the American school systems are unable to produce highly skilled people to take high-paying jobs, then we do need to ask ourselves whether the priority is to fix the school system (if possible) or to import foreigners instead.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Nor have I blamed the illegals themselves. They are taking advantage of a profoundly dishonest system this country has, itself, engendered. In rewarding and romanticizing dishonesty, we are instructing them in dishonesty.

[bolding to emphasize an important immoral component in policies and positions that are spun as moral]

This is what I have separately realized quite some time ago, and I believe that this is the subtext of much of the so-called immigration “reform” movements from the Left, in any case. To summarize what I said in another thread this morning, it’s not really about true reform, but rather enabling and political advocacy.

It’s also about the romanticization of immigration itself. I realize, and applaud, that such is clearly a birthright of this nation: our sense of idealism about immigration, given our own origins as American peoples, plural. But neither poverty per se, nor immigration, per se, is all about romanticism. It’s just that romanticizing is the effective rhetoric:

All immigrants are hard-working and honest; in fact they’re more hard-working and more honest than most/all residents
All immigrants are here for legitimate reasons (not to exploit, etc.)
All immigrants are the Best Family People Ever. (Tell that to all the single Latina women who have been abandoned since immigrating to this country.)
All/most immigrants from Latin America in particular practice their Catholicism and encourage that in their offspring

 

[pnewton]

I am well aware that you make your living getting visas approved, …

That’s funny, and a little ironic. I guess for full disclosure I deal a whole lot with illegal immigrants and have actively deported hundreds, and housed thousands. I definitely think deportation is part of the answer, at times.

 

[Blacksword]

That’s funny, and a little ironic. I guess for full disclosure I deal a whole lot with illegal immigrants and have actively deported hundreds, and housed thousands. I definitely think deportation is part of the answer, at times.

I think that it’s fascinating that we are effectively at cross purposes by the system and yet are more in agreement seemingly about how to fix things than most others on here…

 

[Blacksword]

The relevance goes to the cost to this country of illegal immigration. Nor is it clear how how you fix this problem if you cannot control who comes across the borders. No matter how many people we legally admit there will always be millions more who will want to get in because life here is better than life there (wherever “there” is). Simply raising the number of work permits we issue won’t change this.

Ender

Except this isn’t about having “more” work visas but rather any at all, since right now we effectively have none for the kind of immigrant and labor at issue.

 

[Blacksword]

[bolding to emphasize an important immoral component in policies and positions that are spun as moral]

This is what I have separately realized quite some time ago, and I believe that this is the subtext of much of the so-called immigration “reform” movements from the Left, in any case. To summarize what I said in another thread this morning, it’s not really about true reform, but rather enabling and political advocacy.

It’s also about the romanticization of immigration itself. I realize, and applaud, that such is clearly a birthright of this nation: our sense of idealism about immigration, given our own origins as American peoples, plural. But neither poverty per se, nor immigration, per se, is all about romanticism. It’s just that romanticizing is the effective rhetoric:

All immigrants are hard-working and honest; in fact they’re more hard-working and more honest than most/all residents
All immigrants are here for legitimate reasons (not to exploit, etc.)
All immigrants are the Best Family People Ever. (Tell that to all the single Latina women who have been abandoned since immigrating to this country.)
All/most immigrants from Latin America in particular practice their Catholicism and encourage that in their offspring

I don’t know anyone in any national media forum or personally who thinks any of the silly things you wrote above. Do you? Has anyone made such silly generalizations anywhere? ALL Latin Americans are wonderful and hard workers? Really?

 

[pnewton]

I think that it’s fascinating that we are effectively at cross purposes by the system and yet are more in agreement seemingly about how to fix things than most others on here…

Most of my contacts professionally are criminals, yet my parish is largely immigrant, with bigger Spanish Masses that English. Thus, I know mostly the hard-working illegal immigrant who is my brother, while recognizing we also get a criminal element crossing over, that I totally support sending back after they have served their time. Perhaps that helps explain my centralist position.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t know anyone in any national media forum or personally who thinks any of the silly things you wrote above. Do you? Has anyone made such silly generalizations anywhere? ALL Latin Americans are wonderful and hard workers? Really?

That’s unfortunate that either you have not read the same large number of opinion pieces and slices that I have, or that you interpret them differently. You may dismiss my summaries as “silly” in an effort to diminish me, but the facts are that you can do a search on immigration and illegal immigration on CAF, on NYT, on Yahoo News, and a whole host of sites, and find the above generalizations, by many posters. They do not use the word “all” (most of the time). However, they simply generalize toward idealization, which is the same thing. They’ll say

immigrants are hard-working and honest; in fact they’re more hard-working and more honest than most/all residents
immigrants are here for legitimate reasons (not to exploit, etc.)
immigrants are the Best Family People Ever. (Tell that to all the single Latina women who have been abandoned since immigrating to this country.)

Then, when confronted with examples of exceptions to the above, they merely deny the exceptions. Thus, the modifier “All” is very much a (false) belief.

And when specifically confronted on the issue of religiosity, they often will in fact say:
All/most immigrants from Latin America in particular practice their Catholicism and encourage that in their offspring

 

[Ender]

Except this isn’t about having “more” work visas but rather any at all, since right now we effectively have none for the kind of immigrant and labor at issue.

If we either don’t have or don’t enforce laws which mandate that any person hired in the US must demonstrate he is in the US legally then handing out more identification cards won’t do anything to stop illegal immigration. If the illegal can get a better job in the US than in his own country then why would he not come? Handing out work visas won’t change that. You have to dry up the availability of jobs for illegals.

But none of this is relevant to this thread which is about a comment a USCCB functionary made that the Church approves of the president’s new deportation policy. That statement is still false inasmuch as the Church has no position whatever on the matter.

Ender

 

[cmforte]

These are good questions and very legitimate. To be very blunt, formulating the answers is not always easy for those of us who are not moral theologians. Most of us who went through the seminary have two-years of Moral Theology and one-year of Ecclesiology under our belts, that’s it. Remember, we’re expected to cover the basics of every branch of theology in a four-year master’s program. It sounds like a lot, but it’s not. It’s like medicine. You don’t become an expert until you go out and do more specific work in one area. But I’ll give it a shot with the little knowledge that I have. I just wanted to add the disclaimer that I’m nowhere near as proficient as most bishops are in Moral Theology and Ecclesiology. Those guys are experts on the matter. Otherwise, they can’t be selected to be bishops. Academics is one of several requirements for the position. I’m certainly not their peer in this branch of theology.

We (not just you) must examine the response, especially, if we’re not too clear on it or the statement is opaque, which often happens when intellectuals speak. They tend to forget that most people don’t know how to do the mental gymnastics that they do. Part of examining the question is asking more questions of those in authority. One may never act on a doubtful conscience.

Disagreement is tricky. One can certainly disagree. If the matter is not morally binding, one need not comply. Here is the tricky part. The Pontiff shares his authority to bind and unbind with the bishops and some issues. In other words, he allows them bind and unbind in some areas. If the bishop binds the people of his diocese, they have a moral obligation to comply, even if they disagree.

This rarely happens. Most bishops try to avoid this, because it sets people up to sin. There are always going to be those who disagree and will not comply. They reserve this card for when they have no other choice. A bishop can bind those under his jurisdiction not only on moral matters, but also in prudential matters. He is binding them to obedience, which is a moral matter.

Let’s have a little fun with this. The bishop may bind the people in his diocese to wear grass skirts to mass on Sunday. In and of itself, this is neutral. Once he binds, he has made it law for his diocese. A very good example that is not so silly is CITH. The law says that the bishop can allow it. Those who challenge it are stepping on a slippery slope, because they have raised the bar. From the hierarchy’s point of view, there is an issue of infidelity to the authority of the bishop. The military calls it insubordination. One is challenging that which the bishop has a right to do. However, you can point out that the order is illegal.

Whenever we express an opinion on a serious matter and it deviates from that of the person in authority, we have a duty to the person in authority and to others to support our position. From that point forward, we’re not responsible for what the other person decides. He can choose to follow us or the bishop. Fidelity requires that we be honest and as clear as possible. Otherwise, we come across as antagonistic toward the authority that makes us Catholic. Apostolic Succession is essential to Catholicism. Without it, there is no Church. We must be very careful to say things in a manner that puts Apostolic Succession ahead of our opinions. I’ve always tried to make comments such as, “The bishop says that we cannot support the division of families through deportation. He and I are not looking at this the same way. However, he is the bishop, not I.” Then I can proceed to explain how I’m looking at it, without having falling into the sin of detraction against a bishop and without questioning his right to speak authoritatively.

They’re not always as separate as we think. We have the moral duty to form our consciences according to the mind of the Church. When the Church says that something is a matter of conscience, we have a duty to pay attention, try to understand, and to assent.

The issue for some people is that they think of the Church as the Holy Father or an Ecumenical Council. They reduce the Church. In fact, Ecclesiology teaches us that the front line of the Church is the bishop and that the highest authority in the particular Church is the bishop. The pope is the highest authority over the universal Church. Ecclesiology also teaches us that bishops must teach, govern and sanctify in union with the pope and with each other. The latter is part of the whole principle of collegiality. Here again, things get tricky. To teach in union with the pope and other bishops has two expressions. Expression 1: The bishop must teach what the pope and his brother-bishops hold. Expression 2: He can also teach or command something that is not taught or commanded by the pope or the other bishops as long as it’s not contrary to Church teaching and not dangerous to the soul or the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for this, Br. JR, OSF.

-Chris