Claiming that a bishop is “doing theology” doesn’t erase the non-theological underpinnings of his judgment - such as what the bishop assumes to be true about complicated worldly matters like law, economics, or medical science.
You are right - I think I misunderstood (and therefore misrepresented) Pearce’s position - my apologies for that. Upon further review, its clear that he believes that the 14th Amendment already does not cover illegal immigrants, and he wants the laws enforced consistent with his beliefs. Fortunately, he is mistaken and all people will continue to be afforded basic civil rights in the US.
Asking what I am willing to do about it does not argue anything. The point remains, we will have one set of laws for the northern border and one for the southern. That is because we are making it a point of law to despise the poor, something for which God promised he would extract vengence.
BTW, I want to be clear - I know that many fine people support this law that do not agree with Pearce’s extreme beliefs. I just think we need to acknowledge that at least some of the supporters of this and other anti-immigration measures- both politicians and regular folks - support stripping whole classes of people of their basic rights. In my view, that is a danger we must acknowledge and guard against, in this arena as well as others.
So then Jesus had no right to speak about or teach about complicated worldly matters?
That’s the point, I so agree.
Bishops have no onus (burden) to prove their teaching.
Do you know how many people the Canadians kill a day?
I agree with you. We need to be very respectful toward the clergy, not just because CAF is cracking down on it, but because it is a sign of our faith in the Sacrament of Holy Orders and in the Religious Life. Regardless of our disagreements or the sanctity of either clergy or religious, the Sacrament and the Vows remain sacred and the person who is signed by them stands for something. We as Catholics cannot be the first to attack our own and then cry fowl when the outside attack our clergy and religious.
I don’t believe that anyone disagrees with the fact that we have a moral responsibility to help those who are oppressed by an immoral government in our neighboring countries. This is very clear Church teaching. The question here is; do we or the Church (Bishops in this case) have a right or obligation to force American tax payers to subsidize these people who have illegally entered our country. It is one thing to tell people what they “should do” and totally another thing to tell them what they “must do”. This is most definitely not a Church right or obligation. All humanity has been given free will by our creator. By opposing the enforcement of existing federal immigration laws and by opposing enforcement of this new Arizona law (which is the same thing), they are asking the government to mandate that American tax payers pay for these illegal immigrants against their will.Do you know how many people the Canadians kill a day?
Canada not only has abortion, it has legal infanticide, legal euthanasia, legal mercy killing and legal same-sex marriages.
It looks like our neighbors to north and south are equally criminal.
Therefore the solution is not to combat an evil by violating a moral law, but by writing a civil law that is based on moral truth.
The bishops challenged two maybe three points in the whole law. You have gone on a defense of this law as a whole and you have not addressed their two concerns. Maybe if you address their two moral concerns, you wouldn’t be having such an issue with the bishops. If you’re a Catholic and the bishop says “This point lends itself to moral abuse.” You have a duty to look at that point and rewrite it, then go back to the bishop and ask, “Does this comply with the social teachings of the Church?” It’s that simple.
If you’re unsure if the bishop is correclty representing the social teachings of the Church, then you ask the bishop for a clarification or you write to Rome for one. You don’t attack your own and defend those who murder mullions of unborn children, sick people and elderly people.
By making the statement that you’re making about the Canadians, you’re ignoring the horrors that they have legalized and you’re doing great harm to your Canadian Catholic brothers and sisters who are tyring to fight these laws. Because the way that this comes out to a pro-abortionist is, “The Catholics in the USA approve of what we believe.” That’s not true.
The Canadians have killed more people than drug pushers and drug cartels and when in fact no one has the right to kill. The only difference between the Canadians and the Latin Americans is that the Canadians follow the same immoral political culture of death as the USA does.
OK, let’s eliminate the drug cartel and he hoodlums on the streets and let’s turn a blind eye to the millions of murders that our Canadian, British and American friends commit each year, because that does not put my property and my family in danger. That’s someone else’s problem. Therefore, these people are good citizens and are welcome in my neighborhood, regardless of how many innocents they kill.
That does not fly with Catholic moral teaching. Either its alway wrong or not. All that the bishops are pointing out it to two points and you’re not willing to look at them or dialogue with the bishops on those points. But you are willing to exhonorate and welcome those who kill children and who promote same-sex marraigees.
There is a serious problem here that is unacceptable to any Catholic with a moral conscience. How are Canadian murderers more desireable than Latin American murderers? How is this position supporting the Catholic men and women in Canada and the UK who are fighting to protect the unborn and the sick? How does this help them in their fight for the dignity of the family? Afterall, American Catholics don’t care if the Canadians cross the border and add more to the numbers of pro-abortion, pro same-sex marriage, pro infanticide, pro authanasia, as long as they don’t belong to a drug cartel. Who has done more harm to human lives?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I believe that Satan plays a larger role in all of this than most of us realize. I believe he is the architect of the relativism that allows us to create different truths. These different truths divide us and keep us fighting each other as liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Black, White, etc, etc. instead of what we really are one body of Christ that has one common enemy, Satan.I agree with you. We need to be very respectful toward the clergy, not just because CAF is cracking down on it, but because it is a sign of our faith in the Sacrament of Holy Orders and in the Religious Life. Regardless of our disagreements or the sanctity of either clergy or religious, the Sacrament and the Vows remain sacred and the person who is signed by them stands for something. We as Catholics cannot be the first to attack our own and then cry fowl when the outside attack our clergy and religious.
If we’re that unsure about the value of the bishops, priests, deacons and religious, then we should really just leave the Catholic Church. Without the Bishops, you have no Church. A bishop can be alone in the world and there is a Church, because there is a bishop. If a lay person were alone in the world, there would be no Church, since there is not bishop. There would only be a baptized Christian, not a Church.
We have to keep this in mind and remember not to go against the attack against the men to whom we owe the existence of the Church.
Also, we must always keep in mind that the ultimate good is the salvation of our soul. Satan uses anger, hostility and quarrel to poison us against each other and against the Church. Let us not slip into his little tricks. Let us keep our cool and our manners.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The bishops are not asking for anything less. Did you read their letter? They point to two moral concerns in the whole law. They are not alone. They were not the only moral leaders to point to the same two points in the law. Protestant leaders and Jewish Rabbis pointed to the same thing and they all pointed independently.
Your argument is absurd because in 2008 the Supreme Court of Mexico affirmed the right to abortion when it declared that “to affirm that there is an absolute constitutional protection of life in gestation would lead to the violation of the fundamental rights of women”. And since 2007 Mexico City offers abortion on request to any woman up to 12 weeks into a pregnancy. It is estimated that there are just under one million abortions carried out in Mexico per year. So let’s close the borders to Mexico and support the Arizona immigration law, since there are so many abortions there.Do you know how many people the Canadians kill a day?
Canada not only has abortion, it has legal infanticide, legal euthanasia, legal mercy killing and legal same-sex marriages.
It looks like our neighbors to north and south are equally criminal.
Therefore the solution is not to combat an evil by violating a moral law, but by writing a civil law that is based on moral truth.
The bishops challenged two maybe three points in the whole law. You have gone on a defense of this law as a whole and you have not addressed their two concerns. Maybe if you address their two moral concerns, you wouldn’t be having such an issue with the bishops. If you’re a Catholic and the bishop says “This point lends itself to moral abuse.” You have a duty to look at that point and rewrite it, then go back to the bishop and ask, “Does this comply with the social teachings of the Church?” It’s that simple.
If you’re unsure if the bishop is correclty representing the social teachings of the Church, then you ask the bishop for a clarification or you write to Rome for one. You don’t attack your own and defend those who murder mullions of unborn children, sick people and elderly people.
By making the statement that you’re making about the Canadians, you’re ignoring the horrors that they have legalized and you’re doing great harm to your Canadian Catholic brothers and sisters who are tyring to fight these laws. Because the way that this comes out to a pro-abortionist is, “The Catholics in the USA approve of what we believe.” That’s not true.
The Canadians have killed more people than drug pushers and drug cartels and when in fact no one has the right to kill. The only difference between the Canadians and the Latin Americans is that the Canadians follow the same immoral political culture of death as the USA does.
OK, let’s eliminate the drug cartel and he hoodlums on the streets and let’s turn a blind eye to the millions of murders that our Canadian, British and American friends commit each year, because that does not put my property and my family in danger. That’s someone else’s problem. Therefore, these people are good citizens and are welcome in my neighborhood, regardless of how many innocents they kill.
That does not fly with Catholic moral teaching. Either its alway wrong or not. All that the bishops are pointing out it to two points and you’re not willing to look at them or dialogue with the bishops on those points. But you are willing to exhonorate and welcome those who kill children and who promote same-sex marraigees.
There is a serious problem here that is unacceptable to any Catholic with a moral conscience. How are Canadian murderers more desireable than Latin American murderers? How is this position supporting the Catholic men and women in Canada and the UK who are fighting to protect the unborn and the sick? How does this help them in their fight for the dignity of the family? Afterall, American Catholics don’t care if the Canadians cross the border and add more to the numbers of pro-abortion, pro same-sex marriage, pro infanticide, pro authanasia, as long as they don’t belong to a drug cartel. Who has done more harm to human lives?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
It’s not absurd, because how long have the Canadians been killing babies?
It might have something to do with the costs involved with illegal immigration from Mexico. But it also has to do with the kidnappings, human smuggling, drug trafficking, murders by the gang cartels, which are not a problem with people coming from Canada.
I apologize if you previously referred to “their letter” I am not sure which letter you are referring to. I have read several of the Bishops letters even the one where one clergy referred to the law as like the Nazis. Please provide a link to “their letter” and I will be sure to read it. Again, I apologize if you have already done this, I have been jumping back and forth between several threads and I sometimes confuse myself.The bishops are not asking for anything less. Did you read their letter? They point to two moral concerns in the whole law. They are not alone. They were not the only moral leaders to point to the same two points in the law. Protestant leaders and Jewish Rabbis pointed to the same thing and they all pointed independently.
Why aren’t you folks looking at those two points and asking what’s immoral about these points and how can we rewrite them so that they protect us and not violate moral law?
That’s all that these leaders are asking for. Everyone here is acting as if the bishop had taken away their civil rights. Also, why is everyone jumping all over the bishops and no one has said anything about the fact that the Protestant and Jewish leadership also voiced their concern on the exact same points?
This is like the New York Times. Let’s attack the Catholic bishops and ignore the fact that others are in the same position. Let’s assign blame to them for things that they have not done or said. They are not asking anyone to violate immirgation laws. They are asking for immigration laws that do not violate Catholic teaching. In this case, they are saying that there are two points in this law that have to be revised or the law should not be passed.
As Catholics we have a duty to look at those two points and ask for help in revising them. Why can’t Catholics get this?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
One million innocent unborn children being killed in Mexico per year is a good enough reason to close the borders with Mexico. Add to that the kidnappings, human smuggling, the drug traffic, the murder of innocent children and the enormous costs to the hardworking US taxpayer, well it is chaos. Every country has a right to patrol its borders. And have you actually read the law? It is very mild actually. Since 1940, it has been a federal crime for alens to fail to keep registration documents with them. All this law does is to say that it is a misdemeanor in Arizona for them to do so. So it is nothing new.It’s not absurd, because how long have the Canadians been killing babies?
Do the Mexicans have legalized infanticide?
Do they have legalized euthanasia?
Do they have legalize partial birth-abortion?
Do they have legalized same-sex marriage?
The only thing they have is an on-going battle between their congress and their supreme court on legalized abortion within the first 10 weeks. And they’re looking to pass an ammendment to the constitution to eliminate this. It’s being pushed by the Mexican bishops and their congress is listening.
You only addressed the conflict that Mexico is having over this since 2008. You forgot that there are 24 Latin American nations that do not have aborrtions, infanticide, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and some don’t even have divorce.
No one said that the drug cartels are good. But you said that the Canadians were preferable to the drug cartels. The Canadians have killed more innocent people than the cartels or even the Mexican abortion law, because their law has tight restrictions on it. We either stand for life or not.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Are you insinuating that Jesus was merely a human being and an apostolic successor? You’d have to be to make any relevant connection between my point and your question.
You are obviously quite confused. The words I wrote, though intention and grammatical meaning, that an onus is put upon us to heed the bishop’s theological instructions - not the bishops to prove them to us.
This is incorrect in that it is overly broad. Not all views and opinions offered by bishops carry the teaching authority of their office. That is reserved for theological matters, and can still be contravened by conflict with the existing body of infallible dogma. Certainly no assertion of non-theological fact carries the teaching authority of the episcopate behind it - especially those that are observably or demonstrably false.