Cardinal Mahony compares Arizona immigration bill to Nazism, Communism [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It appears that more bishops are speaking out against this legislation see link below

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=450337

Where are all these voices objecting to abortion? Hasn’t the Church declared abortion an intrinsic evil? Do these bishops believe that the illegal immigrants have greater rights then the unborn or legal citizens?
 
gakroeger said:
It appears that more bishops are speaking out against this legislation see link below

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=450337

Where are all these voices objecting to abortion? Hasn’t the Church declared abortion an intrinsic evil? Do these bishops believe that the illegal immigrants have greater rights then the unborn or legal citizens?
Click to expand...
Something to consider when trying to understand the position of Cardinal Mahoney and other bishops with regard to immigration policy is that the majority of the population of Mexico is Catholic and so are the majority of the Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal.
 
The problem I see with all this is that Catholics like the Church to stick its nose into politics when the issue is abortion. But when it’s illegal immigrants, health care reform, or some other liberal cause, the Conservative Catholics throw a fit. We can’t have it both ways. It leads me to think how much people’s politics come before their religion and how much their religious choices are impacted by politics. I happen to think Mahoney’s dead wrong. I completely applaud Arizona’s wisdom in taking charge and being pro-active. It’s not racism, it’s not Nazism, it’s common sense. In this day and age, everything is racist and any attempts at reform are always race-baited by the Far Left. But as I look at my own views and the views of others politically and religiously in here, we’re all hypocritical to some degree as we don’t want the bishops to speak UNLESS it’s in line with our politics. Mahoney does drive me nuts and I’ll be glad when he’s outsky but the problem is the guy succeeding him is just as lefty and into the social justice mumbo jumbo for illegals as Mahoney is…🤷
 
Karmartia said:
Something to consider when trying to understand the position of Cardinal Mahoney and other bishops with regard to immigration policy is that the majority of the population of Mexico is Catholic and so are the majority of the Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal.
Click to expand...
I understand that, however, it seems they should be concerned also about the minorities (the tax payers) and the more serious offenses by our government against intrinsic evil. It almost seems like they are backing the political party that is pushing, abortion, euphanasia, homosexual lifestyles, etc. Their opposition to abortion seems much more subdued than their opposition to enforcement (and new laws) controlling immigration.

At best the bishops siding with the political party that wants illegal immigrants to receive citizenship to keep them in power (by buying their votes) compromises us who are fighting against the whole far left agenda which includes abortion, euphanasia, and legitimizing homosexual lifestyles; and at worse puts the bishops in the camp of pro abortion party.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The problem I see with all this is that Catholics like the Church to stick its nose into politics when the issue is abortion. But when it’s illegal immigrants, health care reform, or some other liberal cause, the Conservative Catholics throw a fit. We can’t have it both ways. It leads me to think how much people’s politics come before their religion and how much their religious choices are impacted by politics. I happen to think Mahoney’s dead wrong. I completely applaud Arizona’s wisdom in taking charge and being pro-active. It’s not racism, it’s not Nazism, it’s common sense. In this day and age, everything is racist and any attempts at reform are always race-baited by the Far Left. But as I look at my own views and the views of others politically and religiously in here, we’re all hypocritical to some degree as we don’t want the bishops to speak UNLESS it’s in line with our politics. Mahoney does drive me nuts and I’ll be glad when he’s outsky but the problem is the guy succeeding him is just as lefty and into the social justice mumbo jumbo for illegals as Mahoney is…🤷
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing politics and morality. The Church has a perfect right (even and obligation) to express Catholic teaching whether it is politics or morals. The question here is whether these Bishops are placing the correct emphasis on these issues according to the seriousness of the issue according to the magisterium. The magisterium has declared abortion an intrinsic evil; they have not declared the U.S. Immigration laws as such. As I see it the Arizona laws were put in place to substitute for the U.S. immigration laws that were not being enforced.
 
RobbyS said:
Frankly I don’t see how this can be accomplished. Eutopian.
Click to expand...
How many levels form how many Church officials does it take before we see that this is a teaching of the Church?

I sympathize, I really do, with those of you who object to the Church’s teaching here. I have the same issue with the death penalty. However, I realize that as a Catholic it is my duty to take the role of student and allow the Church to be the teacher. The idea that a world authority might make limitations on human rights abuses and yet still allow local subsidiarity might be* Utopian*, but it is still a teaching of our Holy Father. The local bishops in Arizona have now spoken out this law. We have had since the sermon of Jesus during his week of Passion until today a consistent sense of social justice being taught hand and hand with Christianity. If one does not have a sense of responsibility for his brother from another culture who is the foreigner and stranger here, I think at least it is important to acknowledge the remote possibility that one could be wrong and the teaching of the Church, the bishops, cardinals and the Holy Father might be right.

In reference to abortion, I consider that an irrelevant false dichotomy. Teaching on social justice, immigration or other areas of concerns does not in the least prevent teaching on abortion euthanatia or the Holy Trinity.
 
gakroeger said:
I think you are confusing politics and morality. The Church has a perfect right (even and obligation) to express Catholic teaching whether it is politics or morals. The question here is whether these Bishops are placing the correct emphasis on these issues according to the seriousness of the issue according to the magisterium. The magisterium has declared abortion an intrinsic evil; they have not declared the U.S. Immigration laws as such. As I see it the Arizona laws were put in place to substitute for the U.S. immigration laws that were not being enforced.
Click to expand...
👍
People tend to forget that all clergy are required to study Philosphy, not just theology. Our greatest governments are all based on philosophical ideas. It’s how we attempt to make life better, more clear. Not everything is clear. If there were not laws against killing 2 years and below people would do it when they get frustrated. In fact, in ancient times that is what happened when a child was born with a birth defect. These poor people were just born in the wrong family and/or wrong country, at the wrong time.
 
pnewton said:
How many levels form how many Church officials does it take before we see that this is a teaching of the Church?

I sympathize, I really do, with those of you who object to the Church’s teaching here. I have the same issue with the death penalty. However, I realize that as a Catholic it is my duty to take the role of student and allow the Church to be the teacher. The idea that a world authority might make limitations on human rights abuses and yet still allow local subsidiarity might be* Utopian*, but it is still a teaching of our Holy Father. The local bishops in Arizona have now spoken out this law. We have had since the sermon of Jesus during his week of Passion until today a consistent sense of social justice being taught hand and hand with Christianity. If one does not have a sense of responsibility for his brother from another culture who is the foreigner and stranger here, I think at least it is important to acknowledge the remote possibility that one could be wrong and the teaching of the Church, the bishops, cardinals and the Holy Father might be right.

In reference to abortion, I consider that an irrelevant false dichotomy. Teaching on social justice, immigration or other areas of concerns does not in the least prevent teaching on abortion euthanatia or the Holy Trinity.
Click to expand...
We are not discussing here issues clearly taught by the magisterium. The abortion issue is clearly taught by the magisterium. Immigration laws are not. The Bishops objecting to immigration laws are not in line with the magisterium. The Bishops’ position is in several ways in contradiction to the magisterium. The Church rejects socialism, and refusal to enforce federal laws on immigration is IMHO supporting a form of socialism. The Bishop in rejecting enforcement of immigration laws is in effect forcing the redistribution of wealth which is socialism. The Church believes that individuals should share of the own free will, it does not believe that a government entity should FORCE individuals to forfeit their possessions to others whether deserving or not.
 
gakroeger said:
We are not discussing here issues clearly taught by the magisterium. The abortion issue is clearly taught by the magisterium. Immigration laws are not. The Bishops objecting to immigration laws are not in line with the magisterium. The Bishops’ position is in several ways in contradiction to the magisterium. The Church rejects socialism, and refusal to enforce federal laws on immigration is IMHO supporting a form of socialism. The Bishop in rejecting enforcement of immigration laws is in effect forcing the redistribution of wealth which is socialism. The Church believes that individuals should share of the own free will, it does not believe that a government entity should FORCE individuals to forfeit their possessions to others whether deserving or not.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? No one is advocating socialism. If I have missed that somewhere, please provide the quote. The Church has always supported (again since Jesus) the right to taxation, though. This thread is not about abortion. While the issue is not as clear-cut as abortion, that does not mean that the Church can not remind the faithful of our the moral teaching which does touch on the subject. The Church can also challenge us to question whether what we do reflects the love that Christ would have for all, especially the poor.

Since this is not a matter defined, but rather one of prudence, yes, of course Catholics can (and evidently do) disagree on the best course of action. But you said one thing that I would like to issue as a challenge. You said that the bishops contradict the magisterium. The bishops are a big part of the Magisterium. The Holy Father has been quoted. So, my challenge is this. Do we have any bishops that have come out in support of this law?
 
pnewton said:
What are you talking about? No one is advocating socialism. If I have missed that somewhere, please provide the quote. The Church has always supported (again since Jesus) the right to taxation, though. This thread is not about abortion. While the issue is not as clear-cut as abortion, that does not mean that the Church can not remind the faithful of our the moral teaching which does touch on the subject. The Church can also challenge us to question whether what we do reflects the love that Christ would have for all, especially the poor.

Since this is not a matter defined, but rather one of prudence, yes, of course Catholics can (and evidently do) disagree on the best course of action. But you said one thing that I would like to issue as a challenge. You said that the bishops contradict the magisterium. The bishops are a big part of the Magisterium. The Holy Father has been quoted. So, my challenge is this. Do we have any bishops that have come out in support of this law?
Click to expand...
I have not seen any bishops supporting this law, which disturbs me. Regarding the socialism, I stated IMHO the federal governments refusal to enforce existing immigration laws is a form of socialism because it forces tax paying citizens to provide for those who do not pay taxes. (redistribution of wealth).
 
gakroeger said:
Regarding the socialism, I stated IMHO the federal governments refusal to enforce existing immigration laws is a form of socialism because it forces tax paying citizens to provide for those who do not pay taxes. (redistribution of wealth).
Click to expand...
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Man, this is a tough issue. It is one in which we will have to respect the fact that Catholics will not all see eye to eye.
 
pnewton said:
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Man, this is a tough issue. It is one in which we will have to respect the fact that Catholics will not all see eye to eye.
Click to expand...
Very true, we all want to do what is right, but sometimes it is not all that clear. Prayer is the only answer…Pray the rosary every day.
 
RobbyS said:
When the European immigration began after the War of 1812, the country was in great need of labor. A hundred year later, the need was still there, but greatly diminished by the closing of the Frontier. The Immigration laws of the '20s, which after the Chinese Exclusion Act, was the first formal effort to limit immigration, were enacted after the post-war depression, and helped keep jobs open for demobilized war veterans but also for the
farmers displaced by th sudden collapse of commodity prices after France, for one began to get its fields back into production. The boom of the mid
20s caused a quick growth of the middle-class in the USA and this was caused by the general rise in wages. Immigration generally falls in Hard Times, but the limited immigration mitigated competition for scarce jobs after 1929. In general, immigration policy ought to focus on the needs of the country rather than some abstract principle of social justice. Furthermore, there should be no line jumping. People applying to immigration find it hard to get into the country because illegals have rushed into to fill so many jobs that there is little political pressure to ease legal restrictions.
Click to expand...
So we should look at people for what they can give us rather than what we can give them? That’s a Machiavellian way to look at the world.
 
gakroeger said:
I stated IMHO the federal governments refusal to enforce existing immigration laws is a form of socialism because it forces tax paying citizens to provide for those who do not pay taxes. (redistribution of wealth).
Click to expand...
That’s interesting, because Cardinal Mahony descibed a bill designed to stop illegal immigration as reverting to Russian Communist techniques. So you have socialism either way whether you approve or disapprove of illegal immigration.
 
gakroeger said:
We are not discussing here issues clearly taught by the magisterium. The abortion issue is clearly taught by the magisterium. Immigration laws are not. The Bishops objecting to immigration laws are not in line with the magisterium. The Bishops’ position is in several ways in contradiction to the magisterium. The Church rejects socialism, and refusal to enforce federal laws on immigration is IMHO supporting a form of socialism. The Bishop in rejecting enforcement of immigration laws is in effect forcing the redistribution of wealth which is socialism. The Church believes that individuals should share of the own free will, it does not believe that a government entity should FORCE individuals to forfeit their possessions to others whether deserving or not.
Click to expand...
I think that, in reality, is exactly what the Bishops are teaching, and what they are hoping for. It causes me to wonder how much of the Bishops’ views are informed by Church teaching, and how much by socialist, communist and America hating ideology.

The Bishops do not seem to care one whit about the effect of massive illegal immigration on the American people. They couldn’t care less about our loss of health services, jobs, failing schools, the fracturing of our society, the American victims of criminal aliens, or anything else. All the Bishops seem to care about is that the pie which the evil Americans have baked for their own society, families and future gets carved up and given to others so that we can all be “equal.”

Personally, I can’t think of a better working definition of “socialism” than that.
 
Too many people are buying into the Socialist garbage of the Obama administration and their media machine.

Arizona’s law is fashioned directly from the Federal Law.
Crime is running rampant in Arizona and they have the statistics to prove it. Many of the criminals are drug runners from Mexico.
Federal Law requires all immigrant workers to carry their Green Card on their person at all times.

I wonder why there are so many on this site who support law breakers.

If Obama (and other Presidents before him) had lived up to his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution - which requires them to Protect our Borders, none of this would have happened. Immigrants who were here would have been legal for the most part.

Mahoney should be working on doing his own job - spreading the word of the Gospel and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Instead his is too involved in politics for illegals.
He does not deserve the respect of the title of Cardinal.
 
WatchingMedia said:
Too many people are buying into the Socialist garbage of the Obama administration and their media machine.
Click to expand...
As easy as it is to by into the media sound bites (and media in this case is more of the conservative talk show type), this is a simplistic and untrue generalization. Many who support immigration reform have no interest or support of the President or socialism. Going from one media machine to another is scarcely an improvement.
Mahoney should be working on doing his own job - spreading the word of the Gospel and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Instead his is too involved in politics for illegals. He does not deserve the respect of the title of Cardinal.
Click to expand...
While a leader of the Church may go to far, promoting the social teaching of the Church is part of the gospel, if we are to listen to *all *of what Jesus said and not just the convenient parts. And yes, he is deserving of respect. That too is part of our Catholic faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top