Cardinal George on border kids: ‘We need to protect these abandoned children’

[markomalley]

So you think Catholic Charities is doing this to get money back? In your opinion it sounds like your saying, that they are doing it out iof greed and not to help? I think you are so wrong b/c Catholic Charities tends to have a very good reputation, and I know these guys are not doing it for the show and attention, but they are doing it b/c it is the right thing to do.

No, I don’t think that they are doing it to get the money back. I think that they see the government funding as a means to an end.

Actually, my beef is not with Catholic Charities in of itself. My beef is with the government and how it corrupts everything it touches.

BTW, for reference on this, keep in mind a couple of things:

1. Government requirements for religious organizations accepting federal money:

What are some legal obligations that come along with a government grant?

Some of the legal obligations that come along with a Federal government grant include the responsibility to separate any explicitly religious activities from programs funded by direct government grants. Explicitly religious activities (activities that involve overt religious content, such as religious instruction, devotional exercises, worship, proselytizing or evangelism) must be clearly separated in either time or location from the federally funded program. These religious activities also must be privately funded and purely voluntary for program beneficiaries. Organizations receiving Federal funds may not discriminate against beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries on the basis of religion or religious belief. Further, if a beneficiary or prospective beneficiary objects to the religious character of an organization providing federally funded services, the beneficiary must be referred to an alternative provider. For more information about these issues, click here.

Extract from Motu Proprio, ]Intima Ecclesiae natura (on the Service of Charity)

Art. 10. - … § 3. In particular, the diocesan Bishop is to ensure that charitable agencies dependent upon him do not receive financial support from groups or institutions that pursue ends contrary to Church’s teaching. Similarly, lest scandal be given to the faithful, the diocesan Bishop is to ensure that these charitable agencies do not accept contributions for initiatives whose ends, or the means used to pursue them, are not in conformity with the Church’s teaching.

Further, consider the words of Pope Francis:

Our Lady, he continued, “also wants to bring to us, to all, the great gift that is Jesus; and with Him she brings his love, his peace, his joy. Thus the Church is like Mary: the Church is not a business, it is not a humanitarian agency, the Church is not an NGO; the Church is sent to bring Christ and his Gospel; it does not bring itself - whether it is small, large, strong, weak, the Church brings Jesus and should be like Mary when She went to visit Elizabeth. What did Mary bring? Jesus.

Sadly, I fear that the acceptance of government monies with the restrictions shown above insert an inherent conflict of interest in the Church’s mission, as clearly and beautifully stated by Pope Francis. Additionally, I fear that dependence upon government monies injects an aspect of patronage that will at least have the appearance of a conflict, similar to a “benefice” bestowed upon an individual bishop by a king back in the middle ages. [For the impact of this, think of how many bishops went into schism with Henry VIII as an example]. That is not to say that there is an actual conflict, but there is definitely the possibility of the appearance.

As St Paul said, Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? (2 Cor 6:14-15)

Don’t get me wrong, I think it is incumbent upon the Church (through her apostolates that perform the corporal works of mercy) to do this. But I don’t like that government money be used to do so.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

If my wife and I wanted to adopt some of these children, what are the chances that 6 months, 1 year, 2 years from when we adopt them, that their parents show up and want their kids back?

 

[SuperLuigi]

When you stand before The Lord on that fearful day, do you think He will be satisfied when you say, “I made sure the rich paid their fair share” or “I voted for Democratic politicians who implemented strong social justice programs to make sure the poor were cared for” will suit Him well?

Hardly.

It comes down to this:

• What did YOU do to make that stranger welcome?
• What did YOU do to give the hungry food?
• What did YOU do to] give the thirsty drink?
• What did YOU do to visit the sick?
• What did YOU do to come to the prisoner?

So once YOU have gone and taken some of them into your home, once YOU have used YOUR personal time, talent, and treasure to feed and clothe them, once YOU have visited the sick among them and bathed those infected with tuberculosis, scabies, and other infectious diseases, and once YOU have visited those of them who are incarcerated because they are members of MS-13 or 18th Street, then come back and talk to me.

(And, oh, by the way, if you do take some kids in, be sure to not accept the $6,000 a month being offered to do so…because it ain’t charity if you’re getting paid. Just like it ain’t charity if your “charities” gets paid $997,456,398 to provide services over the past couple of years. Or if your “relief services” gets paid $1,609,113,260 to do its thing over the past couple of years.)

Because otherwise, you’re just trying to be generous with somebody else’s money.

Normally not a fan of using “you” on the forums, but I see the point here.

This is what I’ve been trying to say.

Caring isn’t enough, especially by political standards in the West.

Action (helping these kids) and Logic (having a secure border) are what is needed.

 

[SuperLuigi]

One of the struggles I am having with this is that there are many children in the world who need protection, not just the ones who have been taken to U.S. borders by parents who are banking on the good will of Americans. It seems a shame that all of the oppressed children in Africa can’t be brought here, too. And all the suffering children in all nations of the world.

How do we reconcile helping so few and ignoring so many? I realize that that U.S. is doing what we can to help the children of the world, but we are not taking them into our country like we are these children from South of the U.S.

The recognition that only so much can be done.

What seems to be greatly misunderstood is that some people, be it foreigners or the homeless, don’t want our help. Some of them have been so bombarded with foreign assistance they’re very cold to its reception because they know it won’t work in the long-term. In some cases it’s even made things worse.

It’s amazing to me how many people in the First World today don’t seem to understand that.

Also, a lot of people around the globe are their own worst enemies. In some ways, there’s not much that can be done about that----how can we help someone who ultimately doesn’t want to help themselves?

Also, the Church is pretty clear that we are not obligated to bring everyone into North America and recognizes there are limits.

That’s not the solution. As Bill O’Reilly noted about this particular situation “these kids don’t have the jobs skills to compete.”

So really, what are we to do? Borrow money from Asia and our future kids to help in the here and now? Is that moral? What about the value of the dollar and our role in managing that currency?

Unfortunately, on these issues people get so wrapped up in emotion they aren’t thinking straight.

The point I’m trying to get across is that emotions and caring make for bad policy decisions. It’s always fine to care from a Christian POV, but it can be quite counterproductive when we are trying to be logical and optimize the situation.

The solutions need to be practical, and it starts first and foremost with the understanding that the USA federal government cannot help all the world’s children.

 

[SuperLuigi]

If my wife and I wanted to adopt some of these children, what are the chances that 6 months, 1 year, 2 years from when we adopt them, that their parents show up and want their kids back?

That even happens state-side.

 

[johnmann]

We can’t help everyone so let’s help no one isn’t the right way to think about it.

If I see an infant abandoned at my front door, I don’t ignore it. But I also don’t go around looking for infants abandoned at front doors. Also, I may take the infant in and clean her up and feed her but then I might hand her over to social services.

Penny-less children without families have shown up at the door of our country. We must tend to their immediate needs. Then we have to figure out what’s next. Maybe it’s to accept them. Maybe it’s to send them back. Maybe it’s to help fix their countries.

Also, these aren’t people looking to make a quick buck. They’re escaping violence. I find it odd that some want to accept persecuted Iraqi Christians but not persecuted Central American Christians. I think the difference in attitude may be that the Iraqi Christians are considered innocent victims and the Central American Christians are considered responsible for their own plight. It’s absurd. These children aren’t responsible for failed governments and narco-terrorists. What separates them from Iraqi Christian children is merely geography.

Imagine the states bordering your’s closed its borders so you couldn’t easily leave your state. Imagine you lose your job and can’t find one that will pay enough to support your family. Imagine crime has risen out of control. Imagine you have absolutely no hope of your children achieving anything in life. The next state over is debating whether or not to accept you and/or your children. What would you advocate?

 

[Path_Finder]

We can’t help everyone so let’s help no one isn’t the right way to think about it.

If I see an infant abandoned at my front door, I don’t ignore it. But I also don’t go around looking for infants abandoned at front doors. Also, I may take the infant in and clean her up and feed her but then I might hand her over to social services.

Penny-less children without families have shown up at the door of our country. We must tend to their immediate needs. Then we have to figure out what’s next. Maybe it’s to accept them. Maybe it’s to send them back. Maybe it’s to help fix their countries.

Also, these aren’t people looking to make a quick buck. They’re escaping violence. I find it odd that some want to accept persecuted Iraqi Christians but not persecuted Central American Christians. I think the difference in attitude may be that the Iraqi Christians are considered innocent victims and the Central American Christians are considered responsible for their own plight. It’s absurd. These children aren’t responsible for failed governments and narco-terrorists. What separates them from Iraqi Christian children is merely geography.

Imagine the states bordering your’s closed its borders so you couldn’t easily leave your state. Imagine you lose your job and can’t find one that will pay enough to support your family. Imagine crime has risen out of control. Imagine you have absolutely no hope of your children achieving anything in life. The next state over is debating whether or not to accept you and/or your children. What would you advocate?

I think one poster here amply showed, what is needed is to “fix these countries” as said. That seems to be the pragmatic solution. Now, if that means somehow developing manufacturing jobs in these countries or what, I’m not sure. I do think prayerfully, there should be a Christian solution. A Christian solution that could help the whole world but meanwhile, the wolf is at the door regarding the world, the wolf imho is fundamental Islam.

 

[anthony022071]

This issue gets morally confused because the Christian obligation to feed and protect the illegal migrant children gets entangled with other intentions that are questionable,such as the intention to keep the children and have them become citizens,and to use them for political purposes. Spokesmen for Catholic conferences and charity organizations,and some bishops, are calling this a humanitarian crisis,which means that we are supposed to view the situation and respond to it the humanitarian way - which is to treat people as creatures of needs and to disregard what is appropriate. They are saying that we should put aside politics - as if concern for national borders and the rule of law and safeguarding American society and towns and returning illegals to their homelands is just politics. The Church is participating in human trafficking.

Feds want to use Catholic Church

cal-catholic.com/?p=14895

HHS money to church entities long before waves of illegal immigrantsgrants/

wdtprs.com/blog/2014/07/hhs-m…al-immigrants/

youtube.com/watch?v=Y2dw-KnKEak

 

[Magdalena59]

One of the struggles I am having with this is that there are many children in the world who need protection, not just the ones who have been taken to U.S. borders by parents who are banking on the good will of Americans. It seems a shame that all of the oppressed children in Africa can’t be brought here, too. And all the suffering children in all nations of the world.

How do we reconcile helping so few and ignoring so many? I realize that that U.S. is doing what we can to help the children of the world, but we are not taking them into our country like we are these children from South of the U.S.

I guess I would answer similarly to the way I heard St. Theresa of Avila answer a like question to her sisters in the book The Interior Castle. She pretty much told them you can’t take care of the whole world. Not to worry about caring for the whole world but take care of the ones God has given you to care for.

I also read today at Simply-Franciscan website: Francis taught his followers, “Let whoever may approach them, whether friend or foe, or thief of robber,
be received kindly.”

These are the ones coming to us asking for help. These are the ones God has put in our path.

 

[Tomdstone]

I agree with Cardinal George,…

Absolutely. It is really admirable that Cardinal George has voiced his strong support for these border kids, who in many cases have risked their young lives to escape from the violence of the drug traffickers in Central and South America. And what country do you suppose feeds these drug dealers by its insatiable demand for drugs?

 

[Tigg]

This issue gets morally confused because the Christian obligation to feed and protect the illegal migrant children gets entangled with other intentions that are questionable,such as the intention to keep the children and have them become citizens,and to use them for political purposes. Spokesmen for Catholic conferences and charity organizations,and some bishops, are calling this a humanitarian crisis,which means that we are supposed to view the situation and respond to it the humanitarian way - which is to treat people as creatures of needs and to disregard what is appropriate. They are saying that we should put aside politics - as if concern for national borders and the rule of law and safeguarding American society and towns and returning illegals to their homelands is just politics. The Church is participating in human trafficking.

Feds want to use Catholic Church

cal-catholic.com/?p=14895

HHS money to church entities long before waves of illegal immigrantsgrants/

wdtprs.com/blog/2014/07/hhs-m…al-immigrants/

youtube.com/watch?v=Y2dw-KnKEak

This situation illustrates a huge deficiency in social justice principles. While the bishops are looking at the human person (which should be the first priority as far as basic necessities and maintaining dignity) they are naive about the huge political ramifications which are detrimental to the common good. There is a global agenda at work here which has been spoken of by certain high ranking govt officials since before 1990. There are absolutely no good intentions here on the part of the govt for this nation which has given so much to the world in foreign aid and the innocents are being used merely for political gain. Social engineering is evil and they care nothing about the peoples they are enticing here. These immigrants come from socialist countries and have been primed that the U.S. will now provide. This issue is huge and I suspect we will shortly see the affects to our country which is no longer sovereign. I cannot understand why more Americans are not concerned about the absolute annihilaltion of the law of the land.

 

[Tomdstone]

These immigrants come from socialist countries…

Why should that be an issue? According to what I heard on talk radio, the USA is also a socialist country or at least has become one under Mr. Obama.