Cardinal Dolan: Visiting With Immigrant Children

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
Immigrant children coming into this country have been the subject of much attention, debate – and, fortunately, great compassion by many – especially our Catholic charitable agencies and parishes. For the most part, they are young people, without their parents, who are arriving in this country seeking a refuge from poverty or gang violence. I was privileged today to travel to Northern Westchester and celebrate Mass for a group of these young people, to meet with them, and learn a little more about their circumstances and see where they are temporarily staying until they can be reunited, most often with their family members.

Former Mayor Ed Koch once told me, “Two women welcomed the immigrants to New York: Lady Liberty and Mother Church.” And he was right. I just returned from a brief trip to Ireland, and people there still talk gratefully of the welcome given to so many Irish refugees during the great famine of the 19th Century. We are called upon again today to care for a new group of immigrants, only this time the immigrants are teenagers – or younger.

Caring for the downtrodden, the outcast, the stranger among us, is part of our call as Catholics, and we here in the Archdiocese of New York have been doing just that for more than 200 years. Lincoln Hall, for instance, where I celebrated Mass this morning, began as a residential treatment center back in 1863 to care for orphans left destitute after the Civil War. The Archdiocese of New York has a long and proud tradition of caring for newcomers to our country.

Now, together, we are facing another crisis, one of children fleeing violence and risking their lives with the hope of finding family and shelter here. Pope Francis said it so well, late last month, when he reminded us that “this humanitarian emergency requires, as a first urgent measure, these children be welcomed and protected.”
And that is just what Catholic Charities, parishes, professionals and volunteers throughout the country are doing.

At Lincoln Hall and in similar residences children receive the temporary housing, education, health, and legal support they need to survive and begin to re-establish their lives.

Immigration is not a new “issue.” I have been very much preoccupied with the vulnerability of our immigrants and refugees because I meet them everywhere I go throughout our archdiocese: men, women, and children so grateful to be in America, so searching to find a home here, so eager to work, settle down, and become part of a nation that has traditionally welcomed and embraced the immigrant. I am grateful to those political leaders on both sides of the aisle, people like Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Peter King, who have led the fight for comprehensive immigration reform. I am more than frustrated that too much partisan and self-interest politics up to this point has trumped the common good of our country. But. I am not giving up hope, nor the struggle. I continue to work and pray for the type of immigration reform our country needs to remain strong.

But these young people can’t wait for immigration reform. As Pope Francis rightly points out, this is a humanitarian emergency, and however they got here, these young people must be cared for now. Politicians and pundits might argue about how best to handle this humanitarian crisis. For us, the answer is simple thanks to guidance Jesus gave us more than 2,000 years ago:

“Whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.”

cardinaldolan.org/index.php/visiting-with-immigrant-children/
 
So which is it, “children” or “young people”, i.e. 16-17 year olds sent by their parents to get citizenship and benefits? I think this difference ought to decide the response.
 
The USCCB’s concern about illegal Immigration (and their other sometime scandal-ridden Social Justice projects such as CCHD and CRS) is a PRUDENTIAL issue.

That is, we can feel free to disagree with the bishops regarding immigration and still remain a “Catholic in Good Standing”.
Issues such as abortion, murder, adultery, birth control, slavery, etc are not prudential judgements so they must always be followed to be considered in communion with the Church (i.e. skip communion if you don’t agree)
Ironically, Nancy Pelosi, who all of a sudden is listening to the bishops is stating that you cannot be a Christian unless you want open borders (and fattening the ranks of her Party since Hispanics vote for her party 60-70% of the time).

Incidentally, Cardinal Dolan got into a tussle with reality when he stated pro-abortion New York Cuomo was a Catholic in good standing

AbortionFri May 17, 2013 - 12:42 pm EST
Card. Dolan ‘would not suggest’ pro-abort Gov. Cuomo not a Catholic ‘in good standing’: archdiocese

NEW YORK, May 16, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan appeared to suggest during a radio interview this week that he may not view pro-abortion Governor Andrew Cuomo as a Catholic “in good standing,” the archdiocese has issued a statement saying that this is not the case, and that Dolan’s remark was misunderstood.

“Cardinal Dolan would not, and did not, suggest the governor might not be a Catholic in good standing going forward,” archdiocesan spokesman Joseph Zwilling said in a statement originally sent to the New York Times, and forwarded to LifeSiteNews.

Dolan made the remark during a discussion about Gov. Cuomo’s intention to propose a law to make abortion less regulated and more accessible. Cuomo announced the initiative during his State of the State address in January, in which he pledged to “protect a woman’s freedom of choice” by enacting a “Reproductive Health Act."

The governor added, repeating three times, “Because it is her body, it is her choice. Because it’s her body, it’s her choice. Because it’s her body, it’s her choice.”

During this week’s radio interview, the host of the show, Fred Dicker, asked Cardinal Dolan how Cuomo “could be a leader on an issue that the Church fundamentally feels so strongly about," namely abortion, and “still be considered a Catholic in good standing?”

“Well, I don’t mind telling you that’s one of the things the governor and I talk about,” Cardinal Dolan responded. “And look, he and I have very grave differences. And this is one of them.”

The cardinal added that while he doesn’t like to “blab on the radio” about private conversations about matters of conscience, “I don’t mind telling you…that’s something that I talk turkey with him about, and leave it at that.”

The remark was interpreted by the New York Times as suggesting that the cardinal has reservations about whether Gov. Cuomo, who was also the leading advocate of New York’s 2011 gay “marriage” law, is a Catholic in good standing.
 
That is strange, last I heard the Govt is not letting anyone visit these children, even a senator that tried to gain access was turned away… I wonder how someone from the catholic church was able to get in?
 
That is strange, last I heard the Govt is not letting anyone visit these children, even a senator that tried to gain access was turned away… I wonder how someone from the catholic church was able to get in?
Cardinal Dolan will probably give a few laughs and be let in.
 
Here Cardinal Dolan smears the illegal immigration protesters by likening them to wicked groups of the past.

cardinaldolan.org/index.php/the-dignity-of-the-human-person/

A week or so ago, I watched with shame as an angry mob in southern California surrounded buses filled with frightened, hungry, homeless immigrants, shaking fists, and shouting for them to “get out!”
It was un-American; it was un-biblical; it was inhumane. It worked, as the scared drivers turned the buses around and sought sanctuary elsewhere.
The incendiary scene reminded me of Nativist mobs in the 1840’s, Know-Nothing gangs in the 1850’s, and KKK thugs in the 1920’s, who hounded and harassed scared immigrants, Catholics, Jews, and Blacks.
I think of this sad incident today, the feast of New York’s own Kateri Tekakwitha, a native-American (a Mohawk) canonized a saint just three years ago. Unless we are Native Americans, like Saint Kateri, our ancestors all came here as homesick, hungry, hopeful immigrants. I don’t think there were any Mohawks among that mob attacking the buses of refugee women and children.
Then on Saturday I watched another scene on the TV news. Again there were busloads of shy, scared, immigrant women and children; again, there were crowds; this time – – in McAndrews, Texas – – the crowd was applauding the arriving refugees, and helping them into Sacred Heart Parish Hall, where parishioners and Catholic Charities workers welcomed them with a meal, a cold drink, a shower and fresh clothes, toys for the kids, and a cot as they helped government officials try to process them and figure out the next step.
This time I was not ashamed, but relieved and grateful, proud to be an American and a Catholic.
We might argue and yell about policies, processes, and politics; we can never argue about the dignity of the human person or the sacredness of life, or yell at people who need our help.
 
That would be magnanimous if cardinal dolan took in two immigrant kids to live at his private residence!

The US should open its southern most borders, withdraw the guards and let everyone into this prosperous nation!
 
That would be magnanimous if cardinal dolan took in two immigrant kids to live at his private residence!

The US should open its southern most borders, withdraw the guards and let everyone into this prosperous nation!
This raises a few questions many people don’t think about (Note: I support legal immigration in an orderly manner)
  1. Why are people who cross the southern border not expected to follow our immigration laws, but people separated by an ocean are expected to follow our immigration laws? I have relatives that immigrated and it took 10 years to get the entire family here following the rules.
  2. Have you thought about the increase of infrastructure costs to support an unregulated flow of immigrants (i.e. schools, healthcare, etc.), as many of the immigrants are poor and may not be able to provide for them? Where will you put them? What does this do to our existing citizens already struggling to get by? (You mention “prosperous”…yet we are 17 trillion in debt, and the workforce participation is the lowest in 30+ years.).
  3. Should we not ensure that those coming into our country don’t have dangerous diseases?
  4. Should we not ensure that those coming into our country are not criminals in their own countries?
  5. Should we not ensure that those coming into our country are not terrorists?
My point is that we need to have a balance between “compassion”, and “pragmatism”…simply opening the southern border and taking everybody does not allow for compassion or pragmatism.
 
So which is it, “children” or “young people”, i.e. 16-17 year olds sent by their parents to get citizenship and benefits? I think this difference ought to decide the response.
Which age does Jesus love?
 
I don’t like comparing immigrants that came to America in past centuries to these children. It was a very different time. Our country had Zero debt. We did not have a welfare system. The previous immigrants came here to work hard and make a better future for themselves and also help the nation. They were not looking for handouts. They were not breaking any laws.

In our current situation, due to our large and increasing debt, we have to decide whether to steal money from our children and our children’s children in order to help the new “immigrants”. These people are not prepared to work hard and support themselves as were previous immigrants. Most of them do not have the necessary skills. The children have been poorly educated and are already far behind American kids who will have a hard time supporting themselves, even with all the advantages of being born here. They are purposely breaking our laws.

It’s not even close to apples and apples.
 
This raises a few questions many people don’t think about (Note: I support legal immigration in an orderly manner)
  1. Why are people who cross the southern border not expected to follow our immigration laws, but people separated by an ocean are expected to follow our immigration laws? I have relatives that immigrated and it took 10 years to get the entire family here following the rules.
  2. Have you thought about the increase of infrastructure costs to support an unregulated flow of immigrants (i.e. schools, healthcare, etc.), as many of the immigrants are poor and may not be able to provide for them? Where will you put them? What does this do to our existing citizens already struggling to get by? (You mention “prosperous”…yet we are 17 trillion in debt, and the workforce participation is the lowest in 30+ years.).
  3. Should we not ensure that those coming into our country don’t have dangerous diseases?
  4. Should we not ensure that those coming into our country are not criminals in their own countries?
  5. Should we not ensure that those coming into our country are not terrorists?
My point is that we need to have a balance between “compassion”, and “pragmatism”…simply opening the southern border and taking everybody does not allow for compassion or pragmatism.
I could add another 5 points to your list, but suffice it to say that all of the above violate a major principle in the SJ teaching of the Church and that is the common good.
 
I could add another 5 points to your list, but suffice it to say that all of the above violate a major principle in the SJ teaching of the Church and that is the common good.
I’m sorry, could you clarify? My points violate the SJ teachings of the Church?
 
I’m sorry, could you clarify? My points violate the SJ teachings of the Church?
I would be confused as well. It seems if one is cautious about not wanting contagious diseases brought into the country, a disease like Ebola for instance, one is being concerned about the Common Good.

The UCSSB has their teachings on immigration.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm

Maybe this is an older document, one can check more current ones but I don’t see your points in violation of “SJ”.
 
I’m sorry, could you clarify? My points violate the SJ teachings of the Church?
Sorry…my post was unclear. I was actually affirming your view and trying to state that upholding the common good is a major tenet in SJ teaching. Your questions succinctly pointed out that is not being done.
 
Don’t mean to nitpick, but an episcopal *conference * is not, per se, a teaching office.
That is because they are not an office, but a conference. National episcopal conferences are established by Canon Law though.

Can. 447 A conference of bishops, a permanent institution, is a group of bishops of some nation or certain territory who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions for the Christian faithful of their territory in order to promote the greater good which the Church offers to humanity, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place, according to the norm of law.

Since the bishops, who are granted the office of teaching, have chosen to use the USCCB as a way of promoting the greater good of humanity, the documents issued should not be so lightly dismissed.
 
That is because they are not an office, but a conference. National episcopal conferences are established by Canon Law though.

Can. 447 A conference of bishops, a permanent institution, is a group of bishops of some nation or certain territory who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions for the Christian faithful of their territory in order to promote the greater good which the Church offers to humanity, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place, according to the norm of law.

Since the bishops, who are granted the office of teaching, have chosen to use the USCCB as a way of promoting the greater good of humanity, the documents issued should not be so lightly dismissed.
Which is exactly what I said, except I should have said mission, not office. There is no disagreement in the docs themselves, only that the episcopal conferences do not have a *teaching *mission. Those are the words used in the Ratzinger report and it was upheld by JP II in a document, the name of which momentarily escapes me. The poster I responded to said, “The UCSSB has *their *teachings on immigration.”
 
Those are the words used in the Ratzinger report and it was upheld by JP II in a document, the name of which momentarily escapes me.
I found it here. He adds the word “as such” to clarify that the authority they have is derived from the individual episcopal authority.

books.google.com/books?id=z-c-D6N0u3cC&pg=PT141&lpg=PT141&dq=ratzinger+%22teaching+mission%22&source=bl&ots=MEznBfMzcg&sig=P2XnBbdVardfRfszoNNscWIyz78&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tmTmU8rrCMP4yQSopoDQAg&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ratzinger%20%22teaching%20mission%22&f=false
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top