W
Worthy5
Guest
My apologies.
Cardinal Mahony compares Arizona immigration bill to Nazism, Communism [CWN]
- Status
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
The Church *does *have that responsibility. If she didn’t have it, it would be morally permissible to turn a blind eye to immoral laws and policies:
“It is the duty of citizens to work with civil authorities for building up society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom” [CCC 2255]
"Citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order. “We must obey God rather than man.” [Acts 5:29] [CCC 2256]
"It is a part of the Church’s mission to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it…" [CCC 2246]
“As far as possible citizens should take an active part in public life.”
[CCC 1915]
Pope Benedict XVI stated:
"The Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. . . .The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time** she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.**
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html (28)
Pope John Paul II stated:
Opposition to intrinsically evil acts that undercut the dignity of the human person should also open our eyes to the good we must do, that is, to our positive duty to contribute to the common good and to act in solidarity with those in need.** The fact that only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandment. Both opposing evil and doing good are essential obligations.**
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html (52)
The following quotes are from:
usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
"The Church equips its members to address political and social questions by helping them to develop a well-formed conscience. Catholics have a serious and lifelong obligation to form their consciences in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church.
"Catholics may choose different ways to respond to compelling social problems, but we cannot differ on our moral obligation to help build a more just and peaceful world through morally acceptable means, so that the weak and vulnerable are protected and human rights
and dignity are defended.
"There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor.** Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons…They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.**
"… Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.
I don’t know if the CCC states anything about opening “our borders to any and all who want to come across.” But the USCCB does have this to say:
"The Gospel mandate to “welcome the stranger” requires Catholics to care for and stand with immigrants, both documented and undocumented, including immigrant children.
Comprehensive reform is urgently necessary to fix a broken immigration system and should include a temporary work program with worker protections and a path to permanent residency; family reunification policies; a broad and fair legalization program; access to legal protections, including due process and essential public programs; refuge for those fleeing persecution and exploitation; and policies to address the root causes of migration. The right and responsibility of nations to control their borders and to maintain the rule of law should be recognized.
usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf (83)
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thank you.My apologies.
G
gakroeger
Guest
Cardinal Mahony finds himself in agreement with the Dem’s again.
thehill.com/homenews/house/93451-dems-urge-white-house-to-shun-ariz-immigration-bill-push-for-reform
L
livnlern
Guest
I will admit that the Church should help the poor and afflicted. But what’s wrong with doing things the legal way? Immigrants should be screened as to whether they’re criminals or have mental problems before they come here and put our citizens at risk. The numbers should be controlled so as not to overwhelm our already overburdened society. We have to have some control over this.
Bishop Mahony offers no responsible alternative to what authorities want to do. He just disagrees with them and calls other people names. What’s responsible about that?
S
s4angel
Guest
I do not know much about Mahony…
I live here in AZ and I have watched while hundreds of people are found dead in the desert because a “coyote” dropped them off. I have watched as my nieghbors have been robbed, raped or gunned down and nothing was done about it. I watched as the house next to me was busted with more than 20 illigal immigrants held inside for ransom.
I am just a simple person but equating this bill with what happened to the jewish people is crass and with out thought to the real human abuse that is going on. This bill was only brought up because when we asked for help from the federal government we only heard crickets chirping in the night. The straw that broke the camels back was the murder of Rob, I knew him, he was good people as I am sure those that were held captive in the house next to mine were. I want all of you to keep in mind that a lot of our law enforcement is hispanic in origin and those fearful ideas that they will somehow treat these people as less than humans is totaly wrong.
I have been asked if I were an american citizen before and was required to show proof, I never gave a thought to it because I always carry my I.D. with me and the one time I didn’t I was fined for not doing it. I know from experiance that people who cross the border illigaly are more often treated as the Jewish people once were than what this bill is trying to accomplish and it is simply No More, we are done watching this travesty this bill does not only protect us but also those that choose to come into our country illigaly. I hope this bill wakes those people up there on the white house lawn and for once they enforce those laws that protect all of us not just the few.
I live here in AZ and I have watched while hundreds of people are found dead in the desert because a “coyote” dropped them off. I have watched as my nieghbors have been robbed, raped or gunned down and nothing was done about it. I watched as the house next to me was busted with more than 20 illigal immigrants held inside for ransom.
I am just a simple person but equating this bill with what happened to the jewish people is crass and with out thought to the real human abuse that is going on. This bill was only brought up because when we asked for help from the federal government we only heard crickets chirping in the night. The straw that broke the camels back was the murder of Rob, I knew him, he was good people as I am sure those that were held captive in the house next to mine were. I want all of you to keep in mind that a lot of our law enforcement is hispanic in origin and those fearful ideas that they will somehow treat these people as less than humans is totaly wrong.
I have been asked if I were an american citizen before and was required to show proof, I never gave a thought to it because I always carry my I.D. with me and the one time I didn’t I was fined for not doing it. I know from experiance that people who cross the border illigaly are more often treated as the Jewish people once were than what this bill is trying to accomplish and it is simply No More, we are done watching this travesty this bill does not only protect us but also those that choose to come into our country illigaly. I hope this bill wakes those people up there on the white house lawn and for once they enforce those laws that protect all of us not just the few.
S
Shaken
Guest
Expressing an opinion is a guaranteed freedom in the USA. The Cardinal is not running for office nor threatening excommunication to those who do not support his opinion. I don’t see that this violates the understanding about separation of Church and State.
I think the State would benefit society more by imposing a separation between itself and Psychiatry.
I think the State would benefit society more by imposing a separation between itself and Psychiatry.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
So would the Church. Had it not been for an undue trust in psychiatry, the “priest abuse scandal” would have been far, far smaller than it was. It’s possible, of course, that churchmen have come to be less trusting of psychiatry now, having experienced how dreadfully wrong it can be.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’m sorry, but my opinion doesn’t matter, does it? What I posted was Church teaching. I can’t change Church teaching, nor would I ever even want to. I bow to the Magisterium. Always, on every subject.
Did you read my entire post? (I know it’s kinda long. It took me three hours to research and write it.) If you haven’t read everything, please read the last sentence of the last quote. That might make you feel better. Really.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Is this on-topic? Psychiatry? I thought this thread was titled “Re: Cardinal Mahoney compares Arizona immigration bill to Nazism, Communism [CWN].”
What does psychiatry have to do with that?
L
livnlern
Guest
Okay, the last line was very good! And I’m impressed with your thorough job of researching this.I’m sorry, but my opinion doesn’t matter, does it? What I posted was Church teaching. I can’t change Church teaching, nor would I ever even want to. I bow to the Magisterium. Always, on every subject.
Did you read my entire post? (I know it’s kinda long. It took me three hours to research and write it.) If you haven’t read everything, please read the last sentence of the last quote. That might make you feel better. Really.
I also completely agree with Church teaching but think that the Bishop is causing problems with his remarks. People are trying to come up with concrete ways to deal with this situation. When I say people, I mean people in the border states. Washington doesn’t seem to want to step in when they’re needed. This is surprising since they’re more than willing to step in when it suits them.
P
pnewton
Guest
Boy, it is reaaaaally hard for some to stay on topic. Pelosi, abortion, priest scandals. The topic is the Arizona immigration bill. Is that too hard?
I am with Lujack and the Cardinal on this one, but only because of the way the law is written:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
The problematic portion for me is “reasonable suspicion.” Unfortunately, for too many police, that reason may be no more than the skin color, language or location. None of these should be a criteria for being made to identify oneself to a police officer. For those who see no problem with this in rounding up illegals I ask this. Would you support a law requiring you to show papers on demand to any law enforcement officer? Would you be willing to submit to arrest if you are somewhere without your papers?
FYI - I do live in a border state and illegal immigration is a problem. I just also happen to be a fan of freedom and a foe of the police state.
I am with Lujack and the Cardinal on this one, but only because of the way the law is written:
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THISSTATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
The problematic portion for me is “reasonable suspicion.” Unfortunately, for too many police, that reason may be no more than the skin color, language or location. None of these should be a criteria for being made to identify oneself to a police officer. For those who see no problem with this in rounding up illegals I ask this. Would you support a law requiring you to show papers on demand to any law enforcement officer? Would you be willing to submit to arrest if you are somewhere without your papers?
FYI - I do live in a border state and illegal immigration is a problem. I just also happen to be a fan of freedom and a foe of the police state.
W
Worthy5
Guest
It is, as it applies to individuals in their own behavior, but not to the government’ public policy.
Yes, there is----again, the **Catholic Church has no rubric of authority on issues of American law. **
And for those who say that is off topic—not really, Mahony can certaintly voice his opinion as a citizen----but no Catholic has to agree with him to be in " good standing" with the Church.
Likewise, the CC has no authority to dictate to the American govt how it should deal with the abortion problem.
L
Lujack
Guest
Does it seem to anybody ironic that the state of Arizona recently legalized concealed carry without a permit? So you now need identity papers to walk around, but not to add a gun to your walking around.
L
Lujack
Guest
Explain the rationale, then. Because the reason you can’t is very simple:
- To be a Catholic, you must accept the principle that life begins at conception, and that an abortion is the same as the killing of an infant.
- It would be grossly immoral to support making abortion legal, if you accept the Catholic premise that life begins at conception, which you must in order to be Catholic.
- Therefore, a Catholic must oppose legal abortion.
Nobody has claimed that the Catholic Church has the authority to order the American government around, but it does have the authority to tell Catholic citizens of the United States what the moral course of action is.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Yes, this poster can, and you legal pro-life people, God bless you, know that the counterargument has merit.
Being a Catholic does not require one to *not accept *the policy of limited government, nor does it require one *not to accept *the fact that America is a democractic-republic based on a limited government. This is not an autocractic theocracy.
Being Catholic, does not mean one cannot be an American citizen. And as an American citizen one can decide that the govt does not belong in this area—regarding the individual decision for a women to have an abortion in the early stages.
One should morally do what an individual can do to help fight the abortion problem—but that does not mean supporting the use of the govt police power in the process.
But that is what the Church is trying to do when it says as a Catholic you have to vote always against a pro-choice politician. The voters vote in the govt officials. The Church thinks it can hijack the sacraments in order to tell American Catholics----who are also American citizens------how to vote. This is especially a problem with a two-party system.
The Church is out of line…out of its jurisdiction of authority.
Yes moral actions in their own behavior, but not what may constitute the law in a limited govt society.
Got to keep up the debate----right. God Bless
L
Lujack
Guest
But you can’t, since the Catholic Church requires one to believe that the early stages are not different in terms of the soul, life, and therefore rights of a fetus. You can’t get out of that; if the fetus is alive and has the life of a living baby, it must also have the rights of a living baby, most importantly the right to life.
One should morally do what an individual can do to help fight the problem of throwing three-month old babies out of windows-but that does not mean supporting the use of the govt police power in the process.
Think about how crazy that sounds; if you accept the Catholic belief on why aboritions must not take place, you can’t leave room for it being legal. It won’t work that way.
Not at all. Especially not on the abortion issue.
No, very much what may constitute law. That is part of the moral authority of the Catholic Church.Got to keep up the debate----right. God Bless
W
Worthy5
Guest
Look this is off topic and they are going to kick us out. There are plenty of threads on this issue. But this goes to the issue of Bishops going outside of their authority like Mahony if he is saying that Catholics have to agree with him on this issue—which I am not certain he is. But again:
Let us do this one more time-----the CC has no authority on issues of American law. American law is not soley and exclusively about what is moral. For example, the Court in Roe is saying that what is morally wrong does not matter—what matters is the notion of ’ privacy ’ or ’ restrictions on state action’-----------that the govt cannot regulate there.
As an American citizen one can support the notion of limited government—it is what leads to a free society.
God Bless
L
Lujack
Guest
But again you are wrong, because if the Court had acknowledged that the fetus is alive and therefore has a right to life, it would have had no choice but to rule that the fetus must not be killed. Think about it-from the Catholic position, Roe v. Wade ruled that there are living human beings in the United States that it is permissible to kill at will; how can a Catholic support that continuing?
But there are certain things that even limited government must outlaw, and the killing of living human beings is one of them.God Bless
W
Worthy5
Guest
First off all it made no determination about the fetus as life or no life. But that does not matter—because govt cannot regulate there! Start a new thread my friend, we can debate all day long.
No, it said that the govt cannot use its police power to address the problem in certain cases. Govt can do other things if it desires and the Court developed that in Casey.
A catholic does not, but a catholic, that is also an American citizen values the policy of limited govt.
Fine, be legal pro-life—it is a reasonable position to have—but the counterargument exists.
This poster is not responding any longer to this as it if off topic.
Regards, God Bless
- Status