Catholic Bishops against Arizona legislation

[mlund]

Here is what Pearce said about immigrants and rights:

This was in the Arizona Capitol Time, but now its in the subscription section so all I have is a blog link:
arizona.typepad.com/blog/2006/04/arizona_state_r.html

About the recent protests here in Arizona on immigration policy, Pearce said, “They’re illegal and they have no right to be marching down our streets. They have no constitutional rights. They don’t have First-, Fourth-, Sixth amendment rights. They’re here illegally and they chose to be here illegally.”

So you did fail to produce any evidence to back up your claim that Pearce, “said his next goal is somehow modifying the 14th Amendment to clarify that it does not apply to illegal immigrants, i.e. so they have no rights under the constitution whatsover.”

To address what you did manage to cite, though, Pearce’s statement is obviously incorrect in that illegal aliens do enjoy some Constitutional rights. Our government does not have free license to do whatever it wants to foreign nationals. I’d have to take that quote as hyperbole for it to make any sense.

He’s right that they have no right to march down Arizona streets. They are law-breaking trespassers - illegals.

In specific, illegal immigrants, foreign diplomats, and visitors, etc. are not considered to be “the people” as defined in the United States Constitution. Thus they do not enjoy 2nd Amendment or 4th Amendment protections by the text of the Constitution itself. For example, an illegal immigrant can be prohibited from owning firearms while the same restriction applied to a citizen might be unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment.

4th Amendment protections are largely moot with foreign nationals. Illegal immigrants are law-breakers. Law-breakers are subject to searches and seizures that would not be “reasonable” if enacted upon a law-abiding citizen but are lawful and reasonable due to the law-breaking behavior. Lawful diplomats and foreign visitors are subject to different jurisdiction through international treaties and agreements.

1st Amendment protections are also largely moot with illegal aliens because of their criminality. Any right to worship, political speech, petition, or assemble while illegally trespassing on U.S. soil can be abridged by the enforcement of the law. You can be handcuffed and thrown into a detention center until you get deported, after all.

Perhaps it is more applicable to say that foreign aliens have no applicable 1st, 2nd, or 4th Amendment protections while engaged in illegal trespassing in the United States.

The 6th Amendment claim is just baffling, though. The only thing I can think it applies to would be the fact that immigration proceedings fall under Administrative Law rather than Criminal Law, and thus no one enjoys 6th Amendment or 5th Amendment protections against immigration detainment or deportation proceedings.

He is also on the record as saying the 14th Amendment does not make the children of immigrants citizens, of course he is wrong about that, as you are.

First of all, legal immigrants are a completely different ball of wax that illegal aliens. One group is abiding the law, and the other is made up entirely of criminals.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

As already noted, being born in the United States does not automatically mean you are validly “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The requires additional law or treaties, which can be modified without a constitution amendment.

• Marty Lund

 

[melekali]

Can anybody explain why the bishops are against this measure? The only point that I can think of is the tearing apart of families, but why can immigration officials not deport entire families?

Is a layperson sinning when they disagree with the bishops’ stance on illegal immigration?

Best,
fish90

catholicnewsagency.com/news/religious_leaders_urge_arizona_governor_to_veto_anti-immigrant_bill/

The opinion of the Catholic Bishops is foolhardy because the present conditions in this country show that US citizens are hiding illegal aliens - this is an undisputed fact. I would like to see an amnesty program that runs like this: You have x years (1 or 2) to become a citizen without penalty, sanction or any other roadblock, excluding convicted felons. After that, if one has not availed self to this, they should be sent back. Not helped, not questioned, simply expelled. Citizens who are proven to have been doing this ought to face criminal penalties and fines. Watch how many people overwhelm the country to become citizens. You cannot stay here illegally and reap the benefits be remaining here - that’s the bottom line for me.

 

[JReducation]

I always go with someone like Catherine of Siena on issues like this. The apostles do not cease to be the apostles. They deserve our respect in the manner that we speak to them and how we speak about them. Of a greater concern is the tone that people are using here to talk about our apostles, as if they were talking about the common man on the street. That’s more important that the law in question. If we fail to recognize the authority of the apostles and the respect that they deserve when they speak, there is something much more seriously wrong with all of us, than a law.

That being said, the apostles do have the authority, given to them by Christ, to call something immoral or to point to the possibility of immorality when they see it. The apostles need not be saints to exercise their office. What I see being challenged here is the office of the apostle. I don’t see anyone asking for the theological, pastoral and moral background behind the bishop’s position and statement. This is the first thing that any disciple of an apostle would ask for, clearer understanding.

We must never forget the teachings of St. Francis of Assisi on this point. The bishops are always to be heard and they are always to be considered as our spiritual and moral leaders. Even if a bishop is the most corrupt man in the world, without him there would be no Catholic Church. The bishop of each diocese is the Church. The rest of the faithful are not the Church without the bishop. But the Church can exist without the laity as long as there is a single apostle or bishop. St. Francis of Assisi reminded us that we must never forget how essential a bishop is to our life of faith and grace.

The best spiritual advice that I can offer here is to try to find out what the theological, pastoral and moral teaching the apostle is building on when he makes a comment on something such as this law. Let us pray for each other that we may never forget the true meaning of the Church and her place in the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[catharina]

I always go with someone like Catherine of Siena on issues like this. The apostles do not cease to be the apostles. They deserve our respect in the manner that we speak to them and how we speak about them. Of a greater concern is the tone that people are using here to talk about our apostles, as if they were talking about the common man on the street. That’s more important that the law in question. If we fail to recognize the authority of the apostles and the respect that they deserve when they speak, there is something much more seriously wrong with all of us, than a law.

That being said, the apostles do have the authority, given to them by Christ, to call something immoral or to point to the possibility of immorality when they see it. The apostles need not be saints to exercise their office. What I see being challenged here is the office of the apostle. I don’t see anyone asking for the theological, pastoral and moral background behind the bishop’s position and statement. This is the first thing that any disciple of an apostle would ask for, clearer understanding.

I agree with you Brother, no exceptions, and I’ll add that the Apostles and their successors, our Bishops, have not only the right but the DUTY to teach and correct, especailly with issues of morality. From the time of Peter, they were told “Feed my lambs … feed my sheep.” An old Sister, likely long dead now, was a farm girl in MO in her youth. She was quite descriptive with me regarding the difficulties of caring for sheep - sheep being difficult to herd and maintain and guard, not like lambs at all. As a city girl, I found that news to be of great interest.

We must never forget the teachings of St. Francis of Assisi on this point. The bishops are always to be heard and they are always to be considered as our spiritual and moral leaders. Even if a bishop is the most corrupt man in the world, without him there would be no Catholic Church. The bishop of each diocese is the Church. The rest of the faithful are not the Church without the bishop. But the Church can exist without the laity as long as there is a single apostle or bishop. St. Francis of Assisi reminded us that we must never forget how essential a bishop is to our life of faith and grace.

The best spiritual advice that I can offer here is to try to find out what the theological, pastoral and moral teaching the apostle is building on when he makes a comment on something such as this law. Let us pray for each other that we may never forget the true meaning of the Church and her place in the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

… and as for Catherine of Siena, yippee!

 

[anthony022071]

Many bishops have gone along with socialistic ideas of social justice,and do not respect national sovereignty and the right of persons to keep and protect their property. They would have the government take care of the poor and needy as if it were an individual Christian,and would have the nation drop its defenses and open itself up to everyone in the manner of the Church. Even John Paul and Benedict,as orthodox as they are,have been influenced by socialistic trends and have proposed measures which entail a socialistic state and a world government.

 

[JReducation]

Many bishops have gone along with socialistic ideas of social justice,and do not respect national sovereignty and the right of persons to keep and protect their property. They would have the government take care of the poor and needy as if it were an individual Christian,and would have the nation drop its defenses and open itself up to everyone in the manner of the Church. Even John Paul and Benedict,as orthodox as they are,have been influenced by socialistic trends and have proposed measures which entail a socialistic state and a world government.

They are still the apostles and the question that you must alwasy ask them is to help you understand the theological and moral basis for their teachings. Even John Paul II and Benedict XVI have very strong theological and moral foundations for their social teachings. The apsotles teach from revelation. You must always treat them as apostles and be willing to learn from them as the first generation Christians learned from the first apostles. This is the part that is missing in this thread, the recognition that we’re talking about the apostles, not one of us.

Our arguments carry no weight before God when we deny the respect and the attention that he wants us to give to his apostles. Unless they are teaching heresy, they must be heard out and if we do not agree, we must always assume that we are wrong until proven right. Because we do not have apostolic succession to speak on matters of faith and morals, they do.

Let us always assume that there is something that we’re missing, until it is proven otherwise. That is the least the Christ and the saints ask of us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[soflochristmas]

hope your using hyperbole here… Who is it that you think is too lazy to work? I’v rarely met anyone who is just downright lazy… sometimes people appear to be so for reasons unknown to anyone but… God anda few others… and even if they are lazy as long as they are not vilating any laws… they should be left alone… The gov already is too intrusive into people’s lives.

We have made a industry of living off the government in this country. People who are more than capable of working. Those are the people I am thinking of, albeit using a bit of hyperbole, when I say lazy.

the same??? why do you think that US citizens shouldbe put on the same level as non-citizens??? i cant see where any poster has done that…

Because they are both human beings.

can u see Jesus calling people hypocrites?

can u see Jesus calling people vipers?

can u see Jesus calling people liars?

can u see Jesus using a whip to run people out of the temple for wrong-doing?

We must accept Jesus as He is

personally i adore Him the way He is… wish i was with Him now in the Real Presence in the Church

Yes I can see all Jesus doing all those things…but I can’t see him passing this law and treating human beings in the way this law treats them.

 

[soflochristmas]

Now, I know that the law is the law is the law is the law is the law is the law,

Are all laws just?

 

[soflochristmas]

The problem here is the abuse of the 14th Admendment! Illegals are milking and draining the U.S… They are putting a bad name on the good immigrints who dor the proper process.

Let’s talk about that “proper process”. What do you know about it?

Allow me to pose a hypothetical. What if that process was deliberately crafted to allow only the very rich, well educated or connected to immigrate “legally”? Are we loving our neighbor as we do ourselves? But you ask who is our neighbor? Certainly not a Samaritan. The one who showed him mercy.

 

[soflochristmas]

The problem is that the “proper process” is full of red tape and a good number of people fall through the cracks. There are people in this country who had temporary visas when they came to this country and applied for green cards in the 1980s, but the wait was so long that their visas expired. People who had pending applications from before 2001 were not allowed to leave the country. And so they’re stuck as “illegal immigrants”, even though the government knows who they are and where they live. There are people still waiting for over ten years for their green card. My parents came here and applied for their green cards in the early 80s and they’ve just got their green cards in 2002. A lot of people here don’t seem to understand how slow and messed up the process is. And the wait will be a lot longer if you’re not from a “good” (a.k.a. western European) country.

I am glad the bishops spoke about this. Around here it seems that when people like what the bishops say, then everyone should listen…but if they don’t like it, then “they need to keep quiet and stay out of it”. This is a moral issue and they have every right to address it.

Amen and well said. People don’t realize the red tape, time, MONEY, etc. involved in immigrating legally. We like to pretend we are pro immigration but it’s a bit like saying you’re pro “adoption” but then putting countless regulations in place which inhibit adoption. Or saying you’re pro 2nd amendment but then making it so difficult to own a gun that it’s practically outlawed.

You HAVE to look at the process and judge how just the existing law are instead of repeating “legal” immigration like it’s some mantra.

 

[Ender]

Some of our bishops, sadly, are way out of their depth when it comes to addressing the issue of this law. They aren’t lawyers, economists, or civil administrators. They are already subject to disagreements when they step outside of the realm of Intrinsic Evils, Doctrine, and Dogma and venture into the thorny territory of Prudential Judgments. They aren’t here addressing doctrine, dogma, or the faith. …

I agree with everything else you wrote in this post but want to emphasize your next point.

… They are talking about material impact based on conclusions drawn on worldly matters of which they are ignorant.

Even if they were experts in these various fields, a status I’m unwilling to grant to any of them, it wouldn’t matter because, as you pointed out: *“They are talking about material impact.” *Unless someone is suggesting that it is now immoral to be mistaken, there is no moral question involved in disagreeing - even with popes and bishops - about what effects a certain action will have.

This is why I believe that immigration, like health care, global warming, welfare, etc are not moral issues. Every problem is a moral concern only to the extent that we are faced with the choice of addressing it or ignoring it. Once we have decided to address a problem, however, the moral component ceases to exist and we are left with choices about how best to resolve it, choices which are entirely prudential. Both sides want the immigration problem addressed and resolved; what we are fighting over are the outcomes we believe will be best for all involved. Those differences are not moral concerns and the bishops are wrong for implying that they are.

Ender

 

[usemelord]

Not having the time to read nineteen pages of posts I will only say that, being a 30 year resident of Arizona and a five year convert to the Catholic faith, I have to concur wholeheartedly with post #256 by “distracted” who summed it up quite plainly, “What part of ILLEGAL do people not understand?” This is not a moral issue as many would like to believe, rather entirely a political one.

 

[JReducation]

I agree with everything else you wrote in this post but want to emphasize your next point. Even if they were experts in these various fields, a status I’m unwilling to grant to any of them, it wouldn’t matter because, as you pointed out: *“They are talking about material impact.” *Unless someone is suggesting that it is now immoral to be mistaken, there is no moral question involved in disagreeing - even with popes and bishops - about what effects a certain action will have.

This is why I believe that immigration, like health care, global warming, welfare, etc are not moral issues. Every problem is a moral concern only to the extent that we are faced with the choice of addressing it or ignoring it. Once we have decided to address a problem, however, the moral component ceases to exist and we are left with choices about how best to resolve it, choices which are entirely prudential. Both sides want the immigration problem addressed and resolved; what we are fighting over are the outcomes we believe will be best for all involved. Those differences are not moral concerns and the bishops are wrong for implying that they are.

Ender

Be careful here. You’re treading on dangerous ground. The rule of thumb is to err on the side of caution. When the pope or the bishops say that something is a moral issue, we must take it as such until proven otherwise. The reason for this is that we do not have the ecclesial authority that they have, nor the right of apostolic succession that they have. Therefore, they have a right to teach that we do not have. It always requies a higher ranking authority to say that a bishop is wrong, not a lower member of the Church. The Church is setup in a hierarchical system.

When in doubt the laity has three options.

1. Follow the bishop’s lead and see how it plays out.
2. Ask the bishop for futher understanding.
3. Confer with the Sacred Congregation of the Faith or the Sacred Congregation for the Bishops.

But laity, clergy and religious can are not morally allowed to circumvent a bishop, based on their own judgment. Our judgment must always be in communion with the Church… We know that the Church has social teachings regarding the issue of immigration. Those teachings are binding on us, because the popes intended them to be moral teachings. Once the Church calls something faith or morals, we have to pay attention. We can’t dismiss it on our own authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RobbyS]

Not having the time to read nineteen pages of posts I will only say that, being a 30 year resident of Arizona and a five year convert to the Catholic faith, I have to concur wholeheartedly with post #256 by “distracted” who summed it up quite plainly, “What part of ILLEGAL do people not understand?” This is not a moral issue as many would like to believe, rather entirely a political one.

It used to be said that the Episcopal Church was the Republican Party at prayer. Sometimes
I think the USCCB is the DNC at prayer. I want the bishops moral counsel, but I seldom need their political advise.

 

[GratefulDad]

Be careful here. You’re treading on dangerous ground. The rule of thumb is to err on the side of caution. When the pope or the bishops say that something is a moral issue, we must take it as such until proven otherwise. The reason for this is that we do not have the ecclesial authority that they have, nor the right of apostolic succession that they have. Therefore, they have a right to teach that we do not have. It always requies a higher ranking authority to say that a bishop is wrong, not a lower member of the Church. The Church is setup in a hierarchical system.

When in doubt the laity has three options.

1. Follow the bishop’s lead and see how it plays out.
2. Ask the bishop for futher understanding.
3. Confer with the Sacred Congregation of the Faith or the Sacred Congregation for the Bishops.

But laity, clergy and religious can are not morally allowed to circumvent a bishop, based on their own judgment. Our judgment must always be in communion with the Church… We know that the Church has social teachings regarding the issue of immigration. Those teachings are binding on us, because the popes intended them to be moral teachings. Once the Church calls something faith or morals, we have to pay attention. We can’t dismiss it on our own authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Actually the letter of the Cannon Law is we are too follow the teachings of the Pope and the Majist. Keep in mind the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. The Bishops are to follow the Pope and Majist. and carry the teachings forward to the local Diocese/people.

• The Pope has never said, “lets load up all the worlds poor and take them to the USA.” He has clearly called on immigrants to adhere to other countries laws, including immigration laws.
• The USA has great immigration laws in place that have served it’s citizens, kept them safe and allowed very generous immigration. If we have open borders other countries would empty there prisons into the US and that would cause a significant spike in crime by undocumented persons endangering our families and children. Oh wait that is already happening.

Also remember only about 40million Mexican citizens are in the US at this time, what about the 90 - 100 million Mexican left in the squaller and corruption of the Mexican political system. Mexico is severely broken and it is totally hollow and disingenuous for some in the US to sit in their comfortable and safe surroundings and not do anything about the vast majority of Mexicans left behind to suffer. While those same people, try and give away there own laws and sovereignty.

If some Church leaders and Politicians want to help in a serious and genuine way, they should stand up and commit to live and work in Mexico for 10-20yrs to fix the Political and Social problems ALL people of Mexico face. By all accounts Mexico should have one of the highest per capita standards of living in the world. They have a large array of natural resources, 365 day/yr growing season for food, abundant and cheap labor, etc. and yes Mexico can be changed, with seed money from the US and Prayers to our Lady of Guadalupe, they could be the country people clamorer to get into to raise their families and work for a better life.

 

[Kathy_Kounselor]

I’m so glad to read the threads posted saying we have NO ‘religious’ duty to adopt the [Lib] Bishops idiotic stance on illegal immigrants.

I belong to a Trad. Latin rite Church, and I can tell you that the vast majority of our congregation doesn’t give one penny any more to the Bishop’s Appeal or their ‘Call to Share’. Instead, we give it to our building fund and/or the FSSP Seminary because we need TONS MORE FSSP priests. And why don’t we give? Because we found out that our dioceses all use our $ for lobbyists for illegal amnesty. Sorry-no mas.

Now charity for the poor? That’s a different story. The Catholic Church in America is the most generous of all givers, just as our beloved country is. But illegals running around rioting in the streets because we dare to calll them what they are,demanding we speak THEIR language, filling our fed. prisons (1/3 are illegals), bankrupting our states one by one to where we have to pass laws like Az. just did? I’m sick and fed up and so are more and more of our Catholic Churches.

Finally: I hope you all caught Archbishop Mahony calling anyone who wants illegals deported ‘Nazis and Communists’. Excuse me, but he can jump in the lake. As one of the other posts said: I’m an obedient daughter of Holy Mother Church in every single matter of faith and dogma. But newsflash! to these bishops: My politics are my own, and when I need advice on a political issue I’ll ask my Confessor.

In closing: Lib bishops trying to make a case for ‘sin’ if we don’t buy their ‘Social Justice’ line, is really appalling. Indeed, I’d call it heretical.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

When in doubt the laity has three options.

1. Follow the bishop’s lead and see how it plays out.

1. Ask the bishop for futher understanding.

1. Confer with the Sacred Congregation of the Faith or the Sacred Congregation for the Bishops.

i agree that issues concerning poor migrant workers enter into the domain of our catholic faith, but the roman catholic church has lost much credibility. between the post vatican ii liturgical debacle, the sex abuse scandal, and the collapse of the catholic education system, i think the bishops have by in large have failed us as shepherds. why should we listen now considering many–with notable exceptions–have not transmitted effectively our catholic faith. we have seen enough corruption within the usccb to question their motives.

if illegal immigration is contributing to serious violence and crime, maybe arizona has to take matters into their own hands. this is a prudential judgement for the state or local authorities to make. the government hasn’t done very little to secure our borders.

we still must be careful though that we don’t cross the line where we are causing undo suffering on the poor. this is a sin which cries to heaven. it seems that some elements within the catholic church have become so effeminate, that they can’t take a reasonable stance on any matter which involves national defense or disipline. i think this is the case here where any attempts to defend our boarders is immediately attacked by bishops. these bishops must consider the crusades an embarasment to the church.

 

[JReducation]

Actually the letter of the Cannon Law is we are too follow the teachings of the Pope and the Majist. Keep in mind the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. The Bishops are to follow the Pope and Majist. and carry the teachings forward to the local Diocese/people.

• The Pope has never said, “lets load up all the worlds poor and take them to the USA.” He has clearly called on immigrants to adhere to other countries laws, including immigration laws.
• The USA has great immigration laws in place that have served it’s citizens, kept them safe and allowed very generous immigration. If we have open borders other countries would empty there prisons into the US and that would cause a significant spike in crime by undocumented persons endangering our families and children. Oh wait that is already happening.

Also remember only about 40million Mexican citizens are in the US at this time, what about the 90 - 100 million Mexican left in the squaller and corruption of the Mexican political system. Mexico is severely broken and it is totally hollow and disingenuous for some in the US to sit in their comfortable and safe surroundings and not do anything about the vast majority of Mexicans left behind to suffer. While those same people, try and give away there own laws and sovereignty.

If some Church leaders and Politicians want to help in a serious and genuine way, they should stand up and commit to live and work in Mexico for 10-20yrs to fix the Political and Social problems ALL people of Mexico face. By all accounts Mexico should have one of the highest per capita standards of living in the world. They have a large array of natural resources, 365 day/yr growing season for food, abundant and cheap labor, etc. and yes Mexico can be changed, with seed money from the US and Prayers to our Lady of Guadalupe, they could be the country people clamorer to get into to raise their families and work for a better life.

Maybe I’m not making myself clear. Let me try again. If a bishop says that something is immoral, we must assume that he is speaking according to the teaching of the Magisterium. It is our duty to ask what is the moral principal so that we can make choices in communion with the Magisterium. We cannot assume that the bishop is not talking in communion with the Magisterium. That is not allowed to any one: clergy, religious or laity.

Second, we must remember,the Church can exist without the laity. The laity cannot exist with bishops. Without a bishop, you have no Church. They are the only ones who have apostolic succession. You and I do not have apostolic succession or apostolic rights. Since we do not have apostolic rights, we cannot overrule or dismiss what a bishop calls a moral teaching unless an higher ecclesial authority says that the bishop is wrong. This is tied into the theology of Holy Orders and the fact that a bishop has the fullness of the priesthood. Therefore, he’s not John Doe up the street whom we can dismiss because we disagree with him. We must be morally certain that he is wrong. That’s why the Church has the Congregations in place, to deal with those questions when they arise.

Finally, even if the bishp is proven wrong by one of the Roman Congregations, we must be very careful how we speak about them. They are still apostles. We do not have the right to speak to the apostles as if they were commoners. Christ built his Church on the apostles and continues to do so. They are not commoners. I believe that in today’s society we tend to try to equalize everyone. That is a double edge sword. The dangerous side of that sword is when you try to equalize those who are not our equals. We are all sons and daughters of the Father, but we are not all on the same rung on the ladder. The great saints have taught us this lesson over and over again as it pertains to the bishops.

St. Catherine of Siena once said that if we have a problem with our bishops, then all of us are in need of conversion, not just the bishop. In the Church of Jesus Christ there is no room for conflicts.

What I’m trying to get people to see is not that the law is fair or unfair. What I’m trying to get people to see is the slippery slope that they are walking when they dismiss or ignore the role of the apostle in our lives and the respect that is due to an apostle. The Church has created systems to address these disagreements and questions. We have a moral duty to use them, since they are available to us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ender]

When the pope or the bishops say that something is a moral issue, we must take it as such until proven otherwise.

So you accept that we have a moral obligation to support increasing the minimum wage? That is precisely what my bishop claimed … and it was simply bunk. Something doesn’t become a moral issue merely because a bishop declares it so. I agree that we may not casually dismiss what they say but if their comments are obviously flawed they carry no weight.

But laity, clergy and religious are not morally allowed to circumvent a bishop, based on their own judgment.

Even after the misbehavior of so many bishops in the sex abuse scandals you can still make a statement like this? They have their roles and we have ours and they are no more justified in encroaching on our responsibilities than we are on theirs. This issue was addressed at least as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215:

*42. ** Clerics and laity are not to usurp each others rights ***

• Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution.*

Our judgment must always be in communion with the Church… We know that the Church has social teachings regarding the issue of immigration. Those teachings are binding on us, because the popes intended them to be moral teachings. Once the Church calls something faith or morals, we have to pay attention. We can’t dismiss it on our own authority.

You keep saying “the Church” as if “the Church” was actually involved in any of this. There is no Church statement on the Arizona law; all we have are comments from various bishops. Don’t equate the two; you surely know they are not necessarily the same.

Ender

 

[JReducation]

i agree that issues concerning poor migrant workers enter into the domain of our catholic faith, but the roman catholic church has lost much credibility. between the post vatican ii liturgical debacle, the sex abuse scandal, and the collapse of the catholic education system, i think the bishops have by in large have failed us as shepherds. why should we listen now considering many–with notable exceptions–have not transmitted effectively our catholic faith. we have seen enough corruption within the usccb to question their motives.

if illegal immigration is contributing to serious violence and crime, maybe arizona has to take matters into their own hands. this is a prudential judgement for the state or local authorities to make. the government hasn’t done very little to secure our borders.

we still must be careful though that we don’t cross the line where we are causing undo suffering on the poor. this is a sin which cries to heaven. it seems that some elements within the catholic church have become so effeminate, that they can’t take a reasonable stance on any matter which involves national defense or disipline. i think this is the case here where any attempts to defend our boarders is immediately attacked by bishops. these bishops must consider the crusades an embarasment to the church.

I’ll let St. Francis answer this for you. “If you meet the most corrupt priest, the most shameful of men, the most sinful creature and an angel, be sure to venerate the priest first. Onlly the priest can bring you the feal presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Only the priest can forgive your sins. And only the priest is authorized to speak for Christ himself. No matter his sins, the truth that he preaches is always the truth.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF