Catholic Bishops against Arizona legislation

[gakroeger]

Thank you for your post, JReducation. You are very wise indeed!

Ditto JReducation

A great informative piece; this is a real dilemma; I think most of us know of these situations in isolated bytes, this is a great job of tying events together to better understand this issue.

I did search the USCCB website for current information. I found many articles from up to 10 years ago but very little on this particular situation. Most of the articles from the Bishops seems to be from second hand sources. Maybe you need to write something for the Bishops on their USCCB website.

I think the thing that causes Catholics like me concern is the track record of the USCCB with pedophile priest, donations to ACORN, a seemingly lack of clear direction on abortion, general support for this particular administration in spite of their obvious anti Catholic agenda, etc.

I was very pleased however, with their recent stand on the healthcare legislation.

 

[gakroeger]

While searching for material on this controversy I came across this video by Father Corapi which is apparently from before the November 2008 election; as you being watching , many will think this is just another rant about abortion and on relevant to our discussion on the Arizona legislation. Others may not watch it because it is dated or have seen it before. In opposition to these views, I submit that this is exactly on the point and because the message is somewhat dated it becomes prophetic. Please watch it again and pass it around, we need to once and for all learn the lesson Father Corapi is teaching in our current culture and has been taught in many cultures of the past for the last 2000 years.

aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=722&posts=11

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re making a lot of assumptions here. First of all, how do you know Americans wouldn’t fill those jobs? This is a TOUGH economy. There are plenty of folks out there who could fill these jobs if a) we’d quit extending unemployment to everyone without end and b) if we’d deport these people and have less competition from people who are willing to work for next to nothing.

Another thing you take for granted here is the corrupt actions of the employers. Many many times these people get paid under the table in cash and don’t even make minimum wage. That’s the whole idea! Why should Joe Farmer pay laborers $9 per hour to work in the fields when he can pay Miguel from Mexico $4 per hour cash no questions asked?

And you’re also forgetting that before all this massive influx of illegal immigration, white, black, and other racial groups mowed lawns. I remember the days. I have seen Americans, legal Americans, with lawn businesses go under because they could not compete with these illegals. The Americans, because they were bonded and INSURED and legit, as well as wanted to make a nice living wage, would charge a family $100 per month to mow the lawns. Here comes the immigrant willing to do it for $50. Add up enough of those and you just lost a family business. Or how about cement? In my area most of the Portuguese and Anglo small cement businesses have tanked and gone out of business because the Mexicans will work for 40-50% even 60% cheaper.

This happened in the Roman Republic in the second and first centuries AD. Rome had such a huge influx of slave labor after the Punic Wars that they inundated the land with slaves who replaced Romans in labor. It led to mass unemployment, loss of tax revenue, and sheer havoc, later civil wars came as plebeians were living in squalor.

Illegal immigration plugs up emergency rooms, it plugs up social services like mental health, court rooms, jails, prisons, and the education system here in California has been crippled by illegals. All the $$$ poured into curriculum, technology, and training to cope with English-learners who can’t survive public education. Medical, insurance premium rises, enormous gang problem in Los Angeles and Oakland, and other violent crimes as well as huge drug-trafficking are all the legacy of our inability and/or unwillingness to deal with the reality–illegal immigration is killing us.

I love it when people use this thought. I don’t see these poor american citizens running out to take the jobs that the majority of illegal immigrants have which is your law man, your janitor, a mjority of construction workers, or working in the fields picking the food you eat…etc. These are jobs that Americans don’t want. If they did then businesses never would have looked to illegals. Alot of these jobs pay above min wage but i don’t see many people flocking to do construction work.

I also agree with the Cardinal. I believe one part of the legistlations makes immigrants carry their documents on them. That isn’t even required for american citizens to carry IDs on them at all times. Kind of reminds me of Jews having to wear yellow stars…

There is no affirmative requirement that anyone has to turn someone in if they are illegal. If you apply for a job and your documents don’t turn out well with everify then the employer doesn’t have to do anything except not hirer you. The gov’t isn’t going to come round up that illegal.

 

[Beircheart]

Beircheart, please come back to reality. AZ police are trying to defend law abiding citizens from being killed by illegal immigrant criminals. Also AZ citizens are scrapping to feed their families insted of paying even more taxes for social services stolen by illegal immigrants. Your theories reek of the kind of social justice propaganda used in Spain in about 1935…just befor the Reds unleased one of the most murderous persecutions in history against the Catholic Church.

You are going to have to explain how what I wrote is in any way reeking of social justice tripe. I don’t disagree with your assessment of the need to deal with the crime or financial impact of illegal aliens. But that approach is much like dealing with the symptoms of a disease without addressing the root causes. In other words, useless!

The bishops are guilty of this too. They see the suffering of these people in the here-and-now and do not grasp that by assisting the illegal activity today they are actually promoting the suffering to continue for generations. As an example, why should Mexico change its policies if there is a pressure relief valve here in the US that enables them to continue ignoring the plight of their own citizens?

Enforcement of our immigration laws would force Mexico to either clean up their act or face the anger of its citizenry. They would choose to survive and so make the changes necessary.

 

[JReducation]

So this is a duty of our country, to provide a just snd decent environment for its citizens. This is what people are trying to do, insure that their children are safe against the drug lords, against the kidnapping and against the criminal element which Americans are now experiencing from the criminal element from the border to the south. This is an excerpt from an article by the Roman Catholic and former candidate for the presidency of the United States - Patrick Buchanan:
“Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America’s immigration laws.
…The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in…Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk. …” More at: buchanan.org/blog/whose-country-is-this-3955
Here is what Tom Roeser has to say. By the way, in 1988 he and Mrs. Roeser was named by John Paul II as Knight and Lady of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem.
“Actually, the bill is well-crafted and definitely needed for many reasons.
These include the current tsunami of illegals and drug pushers streaming past the Arizona border and the failure to enforce its borders by a timid Obama administration as well as the failure of the Homeland Security department and Dem congress…some Republicans included…to act because of paralytic fear they will alienate the Hispanic vote—including building a
fence that would take care of most of the problem.”
see: blog.tomroeser.com/2010/04/personal-aside-raising-arizonaanatomy.html

It is the duty of nations to protect their citizens from crime and other moral evils. But there are several things that we as Catholics must remember in protecting our sovereignty.

1. The Church has always taught us that we must make a preferential option for the poor. This requires us to protect the innocent who come to our nation as well as the innocent who live in our nation. The protection of the poor must extend to everyone who is in need.
2. The Church requires her bishops to always take the side of the immigrant poor, not the criminal, but the immirgrant poor. This has been a mandatum since Leo XIII, repeated by several popes, including Benedict XVI. We’re never goint to get the hierarchy’s support on any action that can do harm to both the criminal and the innocent, other than we have to fix the law to ensure that the innocent immigrant does not suffer the fate of the criminal.
3. In Catholic moral law, illegal immigration is not immoral. Crime againt people and property are immoral. A terrorist the enters a country legally for the purpose of blowing something up, is acting immorally. Don’t expect the Catholic Church to call illegal immigration immoral. Objectively it is not.
4. The other point that we must remember here is that crime enters our country in many ways. As I have stated before, we allow the Canadians the the British to enter without visas. But they are two of the four most murderous nations in the world, the other two are the USA and China. They have legalized and promote abortion. They kill millions every year, more than any drug cartel can kill in a lifetime. They advocate same-sex marriage, a gravely immoral act. The Church will expect us to be truly protective of our safety. That would been limiting the entrance of those who advocate grave sins against humanity, such as abortion and who undermine the dignity of the family, such as same-sex marriage. When the Church looks at the reaction of Americans toward Mexicans and our indifference toward Candian and British immigrants, the Church has to scratch her head and ask itself if we really understand the meaning of the work “evil.”

There is a lot for the Church to consider here and for the laity to pray over.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

And I am extremely unhappy that even bishops don’t distinguish between moral issues and prudential ones. The concerns they expressed are entirely prudential - there is no moral component attached to them* whatever. *Think about it carefully: what is the moral concern? If I do something that is itself not intrinsically immoral, with good intent and reasonable expectation of achieving a good outcome then I cannot be committing a sin even if everything goes horribly wrong. This is what the Arizona legislators have done so unless we are going to hold that it is a sin to be mistaken there can be no question of immoral behavior on their part, and there is no moral concern on the part of the bishops.

Ender

We need to be very careful here. There is basic principle in moral theology that is not taught to the laity, but it is taught to clergy and religious. The principle goes like this. We may never allow for the existence of an immoral situation, if we can avoid it, even though such a sitution will be accidental and not desired. Therefore, there is no subjective culpability on the part of the person who makes the mistake. But there is culpability on the part of those who allowed the potential to exist, because when one knows that there is potential for an injustice, one has the moral duty to minimize that potential.

In simple words, we cannot take the risk of an immoral situation cropping up, that can be avoided. Even if the persons involved at the time that it happens are not guilty, because it was not their intent. Those who foresaw the possibility and said nothing, should have said something. They are not guilty of grave sin, because they are very removed from the unjust act. But there is the potential for subjective culpability, even in a mistake.

You cannot allow yourself the luxury of making a mistake that you can avoid, because it can be anticipated. If it cannot be anticipated, that changes the entire moral picture.

But in essence the moral pinciple is that injustice is alwasy immoral, even when there is no subjective guilt. It does not cease to be immoral.

We go back to the case of war. Killing is always immoral. But the solidier who kills in self-defense is not subjectively guilty of sin. He did in fact commit an immoral act, but he did not sin, because he had no choice. However, the deed is real and is done.

You always try to anticipate any moral problems and to minimize the possibility.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ender]

In simple words, we cannot take the risk of an immoral situation cropping up, that can be avoided.

This is way too broad. Pretty much every choice we make involves some risk - and what do you mean by “immoral situation”? People are immoral, situations are not. They may be good or bad but they cannot be immoral.

You cannot allow yourself the luxury of making a mistake that you can avoid, because it can be anticipated. If it cannot be anticipated, that chages the entire moral picture.

This caution applies equally to you and the bishops; the problem of course is that we simply disagree over which of us is mistaken. This is no more a caution to me than to you.

But in essence the moral pinciple is that injustice is alwasy immoral, even when there is no subjective guilt. It does not cease to be immoral.

This not applicable here. The question is which side is right in its anticipation of the results of this law. One side is surely mistaken but neither side commits an immoral act by being wrong.

Killing is always immoral. But the solidier who kills in self-defense is not subjectively guilty for having committed an immoral act. He did in fact commit an immoral act, but he did not sin, because he had no choice. However, the deed is real and is done.

This would really take us off track if we pursued this, but I disagree: killing is not always immoral and I challenge you to provide support for this claim.

Ender

 

[JReducation]

This is way too broad. Pretty much every choice we make involves some risk - and what do you mean by “immoral situation”? People are immoral, situations are not. They may be good or bad but they cannot be immoral.
This caution applies equally to you and the bishops; the problem of course is that we simply disagree over which of us is mistaken. This is no more a caution to me than to you.
This not applicable here. The question is which side is right in its anticipation of the results of this law. One side is surely mistaken but neither side commits an immoral act by being wrong.
This would really take us off track if we pursued this, but I disagree: killing is not always immoral and I challenge you to provide support for this claim.

Ender

I’ll save the killling for another day or you can look it up in the CCC. But there are such things as immoral situations, Catholic moral theology teaches this. That’s why I said, there are many points of moral theology that are not taught to the laity, but are taught to religious and clergy in their formation, with the expectation that religious and clergy will lead the laity if and when these principles are needed.

The average lay person does not have the time or the interest in spending eight years studying Catholicism. What you give to the average person, in the time alloted, it what will be most useful for daily life.

This type of issue is not a daily occurrence, otherwise it would have been included in your religious education in school or CCD or some other place.

What you have to do is to ask the bishop to explain for you what they mean by this statement and how it applies to Catholics. It’s that simple.

Being online debating with bishops who are not online is not going to get you the answers that you need from the bishops. Write them. Write Cardinal Laveda at the Congregation for the Faith. You will get a response. Just send in a copy of what you read that causes you doubts. Explain your doubts and ask them to explain what they mean or what they want. As long as you approach the subject with great humility, always acknowledging that the bishop at the other end is an Apostle and deseves your respect and the best treatment that you can give him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tpw]

By your logic then since bishop’s are not experts on medical science and their advisors are suspect, then the bishop’s can’t speak out on abortion.

The danger you run into is relativizing the bishop’s role as moral teachers and becoming “a cafeteria Catholic” as liberals are so often accused of.

The point of the teaching is to engage people’s thinking. Good people may disagree, but on reasonable grounds… However, keep in mind the bishops teaching is often rooted in the lives of its parishes, priests, religious and lay ministers who are “on the ground”. It doesn’t come from inflammatory left or right wing pundits who sit far removed from people’s lives and yet who make magesterial type pronouncements which more often than not reflect their own political biases, their own personal biases (read these threads for incredible comments about “all immigrants”). The bishops are moral teachers who attempt to inspire their people to look at the world through a moral lens. Politics is where the moral drama plays out…

tpw

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.

Defer to a bishop’s expertise on theology, but never feel compelled by the same onus to defer to a bishop’s advisor’s expertise on worldly matters of economics, law, or medicine.

• Marty Lund

 

[sidbrown]

so, what do you mean by that, sidbrown? canadians and british are civilized and decent people, therefore, because i am not civilized and decent person, eventhough i have gone to the university and have gotten my masters and i am also indecent, just because i am a mexican/american? i certainly believe you are completely wrong and racist.

Well, where are the problems with the drug lords, the murders and the kidnappings? Where is the fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in? Where were the police murdered?

 

[sidbrown]

It is the duty of nations to protect their citizens from crime and other moral evils. But there are several things that we as Catholics must remember in protecting our sovereignty.

1. The Church has always taught us that we must make a preferential option for the poor. This requires us to protect the innocent who come to our nation as well as the innocent who live in our nation. The protection of the poor must extend to everyone who is in need.
2. The Church requires her bishops to always take the side of the immigrant poor, not the criminal, but the immirgrant poor. This has been a mandatum since Leo XIII, repeated by several popes, including Benedict XVI. We’re never goint to get the hierarchy’s support on any action that can do harm to both the criminal and the innocent, other than we have to fix the law to ensure that the innocent immigrant does not suffer the fate of the criminal.
3. In Catholic moral law, illegal immigration is not immoral. Crime againt people and property are immoral. A terrorist the enters a country legally for the purpose of blowing something up, is acting immorally. Don’t expect the Catholic Church to call illegal immigration immoral. Objectively it is not.
4. The other point that we must remember here is that crime enters our country in many ways. As I have stated before, we allow the Canadians the the British to enter without visas. But they are two of the four most murderous nations in the world, the other two are the USA and China. They have legalized and promote abortion. They kill millions every year, more than any drug cartel can kill in a lifetime. They advocate same-sex marriage, a gravely immoral act. The Church will expect us to be truly protective of our safety. That would been limiting the entrance of those who advocate grave sins against humanity, such as abortion and who undermine the dignity of the family, such as same-sex marriage. When the Church looks at the reaction of Americans toward Mexicans and our indifference toward Candian and British immigrants, the Church has to scratch her head and ask itself if we really understand the meaning of the work “evil.”

There is a lot for the Church to consider here and for the laity to pray over.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Since when has it been a mortal sin to say that a country has a right to defend its borders and require foreigners to have visas?
BTW, if you are so concerned with abortion and birth control, why is it that Catholic women in the USA are aborting and contracepting at the same rate as others? Why is it that at Catholic colleges, the polls show that a large number, if not a majority of, Catholic students are in favor of abortion rights, same sex marriages and contraception in marriage? Why blame Canada for that situation which is in the USA today? Canada has nothing to do with this discussion, so it is absurd to bring up Canada.

 

[fish90]

It is the duty of nations to protect their citizens from crime and other moral evils. But there are several things that we as Catholics must remember in protecting our sovereignty.

1. The Church has always taught us that we must make a preferential option for the poor. This requires us to protect the innocent who come to our nation as well as the innocent who live in our nation. The protection of the poor must extend to everyone who is in need.
2. The Church requires her bishops to always take the side of the immigrant poor, not the criminal, but the immirgrant poor. This has been a mandatum since Leo XIII, repeated by several popes, including Benedict XVI. We’re never goint to get the hierarchy’s support on any action that can do harm to both the criminal and the innocent, other than we have to fix the law to ensure that the innocent immigrant does not suffer the fate of the criminal.
3. In Catholic moral law, illegal immigration is not immoral. Crime againt people and property are immoral. A terrorist the enters a country legally for the purpose of blowing something up, is acting immorally. Don’t expect the Catholic Church to call illegal immigration immoral. Objectively it is not.
4. The other point that we must remember here is that crime enters our country in many ways. As I have stated before, we allow the Canadians the the British to enter without visas. But they are two of the four most murderous nations in the world, the other two are the USA and China. They have legalized and promote abortion. They kill millions every year, more than any drug cartel can kill in a lifetime. They advocate same-sex marriage, a gravely immoral act. The Church will expect us to be truly protective of our safety. That would been limiting the entrance of those who advocate grave sins against humanity, such as abortion and who undermine the dignity of the family, such as same-sex marriage. When the Church looks at the reaction of Americans toward Mexicans and our indifference toward Candian and British immigrants, the Church has to scratch her head and ask itself if we really understand the meaning of the work “evil.”

There is a lot for the Church to consider here and for the laity to pray over.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Can you please explain the preferential treatment for the poor? Does this mean that the poor must get treatment similar or even equal to the rich in society?

Also, do you think that “social justice” gets warped into marxist and socialist ideology? Is it wrong to say that proper Catholic social justice is that which comes from the people themselves, not forced but out of their own heart?

Also, I wish to mention and I hope Brother will clarify if I am wrong that America is not our land. America has the right to patrol our borders, yet her citizens must realize this is God’s land not ours. We do not have the right to be here just as much as we do not have the right to be chosen by God to be created. This helps in understanding the immigration understanding of the bishops and the Church in my opinion.

 

[gakroeger]

I was looking on line for any comment by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput on this issue because I believe him to be a well informed, wise, and Holy man. Unfortunately, I could not find where he has made any recent public statements on the current situation; however, I did find a 2007 interview with him on this subject at the link provided below.

After reading his comments, I am more impressed then ever with the Archbishop, we could certainly use more Bishops (and Cardinal) like him.

Here are a few pertinent excerpts from that interview……….

“Archbishop Chaput: The U.S. immigration problem is systemic. Attacking the symptoms – in this case, undocumented workers in a meatpacking plant – does nothing to address the root cause, which is economic.

Some 40 million abortions and billions of contraceptives later, Americans have a work-force shortfall. Why is anyone surprised?

We want a strong economy and a good standard of living, but we also don’t want to do a lot of the unpleasant jobs that help sustain that standard. So we live with a curious kind of schizophrenia. We need the “illegals,” but we also want to complain about them.

candidly, I don’t think all religious voices are equally helpful in the national debate. Accusing Americans of national racism, or prematurely threatening civil disobedience to immigration law, is unwise.

Sometimes common sense is more useful than “prophetic witness.” The security concerns most Americans feel are very legitimate. Citizens have a right to be worried about disrespect for the law and the solvency of their public institutions.

If Americans are angry about the immigration issue, it’s not because they’re instinctively bigoted. They’re frustrated and afraid, and too many of our public servants have failed us by not really leading with vision – in other words, by following their polls and ambitions, instead of their brains and consciences, to find a solution.”

FULL ARTICLE

 

[Ender]

This type of issue is not a daily occurrence, otherwise it would have been included in your religious education in school or CCD or some other place.

I am an adult convert. I never went to CCD, never attended a Catholic school, and my RCIA program was pretty much useless. Given that I have no background in Catholicism, if I am wrong it should be a simple thing to rebut my arguments. So far I don’t think you’ve made much of a case. Merely declaring yourself to be right isn’t persuasive.

What you have to do is to ask the bishop to explain for you what they mean by this statement and how it applies to Catholics. It’s that simple.

In a statement about the Arizona law, Archbishop Dolan of NY said the bill was “mean spirited” and “narrow minded.” His comment of course doesn’t refer to words on a piece of paper but to the legislators who crafted them. So let me ask you this: am I required to accept this rash judgment of the Arizona congressmen because an archbishop has made it? This puts me in a real pickle: I can sin by rejecting the archbishop’s comment - on the basis that it is apparently a sin not to accept their judgments in everything - or I can sin by accepting it because I then share responsibility for that rash judgment. I may not be very familiar with Catholic theology but I’m pretty sure there aren’t any “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situations.

Ender

 

[JReducation]

Since when has it been a mortal sin to say that a country has a right to defend its borders and require foreigners to have visas?
BTW, if you are so concerned with abortion and birth control, why is it that Catholic women in the USA are aborting and contracepting at the same rate as others? Why is it that at Catholic colleges, the polls show that a large number, if not a majority of, Catholic students are in favor of abortion rights, same sex marriages and contraception in marriage? Why blame Canada for that situation which is in the USA today? Canada has nothing to do with this discussion, so it is absurd to bring up Canada.

No one said that it is immoral to protect a nation’s borders and that’s not what I said. It’s immoral to punish the innocent witht he guilty.

Second, you ask about Canada; people are upset because of the damage done by durg cartels and other forms or crime and want to tighten the borders. The Church would have no problems with that as long as the provisions were equally applied. This is where the Canadians and the Brits enter the picture. We allow both groups to enter the USA without permits. However, they have committed more crimes against humanity than the drug cartels and street gangs. Their presence in the USA contributes to a culture of death and a culture of sexual immorality. Therefore, it would be equal and fair to say that we want to protect our nation from all forms of violence and crime. Therefore, everyone who enters the country must be screaned, but have rules in order to stay or must leave within an allotted number of days. This tight screaning is not applied to the British and the Canandians.

Many will argue that not all Brits and Canadians are part of the culture of death and not all are in favor of the gay agenda. This is very true. The same has to be said for the poor that come in from the south. Not all are part of the crime wave and not all are part of the drug cartels. They are simply poor people asking for help.

To close the borders to the south, which will exclude criminals as well as poor families, but leave the gates open for those who promote the culture of death and denigrate the sanctity of the famil, is a double standard.

What Catholics in this country do or not to is not part of the issue for one simple reason, we’re stuck with them. They’re citizens. But we are not stuck with others who adovcate immorality and murder and are not citizens, nor should we give them carte blanche to enter the country and close the door to the poor. The only reason that they get carte blanche is because they bring money into the country to spend.

This is what leaves moral theologians scratching their heads wondering whether we really understand the meaning of evil. Or is something evil only when it bothers me?

Moral judgment must keep three things separate here: evil, civil law and our duty toward the poor.

We must never condone evil in any shape. We must always make a preferential option for all the poor, not just one group of poor. We must never allow civil law to violate our Catholic faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Can you please explain the preferential treatment for the poor? Does this mean that the poor must get treatment similar or even equal to the rich in society?

Also, do you think that “social justice” gets warped into marxist and socialist ideology? Is it wrong to say that proper Catholic social justice is that which comes from the people themselves, not forced but out of their own heart?

Also, I wish to mention and I hope Brother will clarify if I am wrong that America is not our land. America has the right to patrol our borders, yet her citizens must realize this is God’s land not ours. We do not have the right to be here just as much as we do not have the right to be chosen by God to be created. This helps in understanding the immigration understanding of the bishops and the Church in my opinion.

Preferential option for the poor is a very ancient term. Many people today associate it with Marxism, because Maxisms uses a lot of the Church’s language, not the other way around. We wee here before Marx was ever conceived.

The term was first introduced by St. Francis of Assisi and the Franciscans. This day, it is part of our rule. But at the Lateran Council, Francis introduced it to Pope Innocent and the Cardinals at the council. The concept did not go over very well with many wealthy cardinals, but Innocent III, guided by other cardinals stated that if the Church denied Francis’ proposal to insure that the needs of the poor were taken care of, then the Church was denying the Gospel, because the Gospel clearly says that we shall be judged on what we do for the least of Christ’s brothers and sisters. The concept is not to make the poor rich. The concept is to provide for their needs: employment so they can take care of themselves, education so they can compete in society, health which is a human right, housing which is another human right, food which is another human right, the right to live in peace–another human right, and encouragement and even legal demand (if needed) to give something back to society when the person has made progress, because it’s a moral duty.

Is America our land? From a theological pespecive the world was given to man that he may enjoy it and create a place where God would reign as king. Morally speaking, the world belongs to God and man is its caretaker. Therefore, man does not have the right to consume more than he needs. That’s an exploitation of the world. Nor does man have the right to deprive others of resources, that’s an injustice.

For the sake of order, nations were born in which men have carved out sections of the globe for them, their families and neighbor. Observe the key words, “for the sake of order”. It is not for the sakew of power. Order and properity are good. Power is very dangerous. Authority is good, because it includes responsibility toward those whom you govern. Power has to be exercised with great responsibility, in which case it’s legitimate authority. Power for the sake of acquiring things at anyone’s expense is immoral, because it is irrresponsible.

We have a right to protect what we call the USA, but never at the expense of the poor, either those who are here or those who ask for our help. Christ does not turn anyone away. This is very clear in the teachiings of St. Benedict. Benedict taught us that the immigrant can never be turned away, because to do so is to turn Christ away. Christ was also an immigrant and a refugee in Egypt. His parents fled Palestine for the same reasons that many people flee from Mexico, to preserve their son’s life. Many people come here to the sake of their children’s lives.

We cannot deny children the right to health, education, housing, and formation in the faith. If they can’t get that in their homeland, We as the Body of Christ have a moral duty to help them find it among us. We are not only saving lives, but we are also saving souls.

We do have the right to fight against all forms of violence, but we cannot limit this fight just to drug cartels or street gangs and forget those who bring the culture of death into our country and support an already desintegrating moral fibre in our country. When we look at things from a faith perpsective, we have much more in common with the Mexicans who are our Catholic brothers and sisters than we do with the British and Canadians who do not share our faith in the Gospel of Life. We must protect ourselves from both forms of violence, physical and moral. One way to do it is to strengthen our faith community with more people of our own faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sidbrown]

No one said that it is immoral to protect a nation’s borders and that’s not what I said. It’s immoral to punish the innocent witht he guilty.

Second, you ask about Canada; people are upset because of the damage done by durg cartels and other forms or crime and want to tighten the borders. The Church would have no problems with that as long as the provisions were equally applied. This is where the Canadians and the Brits enter the picture. We allow both groups to enter the USA without permits. However, they have committed more crimes against humanity than the drug cartels and street gangs. Their presence in the USA contributes to a culture of death and a culture of sexual immorality. Therefore, it would be equal and fair to say that we want to protect our nation from all forms of violence and crime. Therefore, everyone who enters the country must be screaned, but have rules in order to stay or must leave within an allotted number of days. This tight screaning is not applied to the British and the Canandians.

Many will argue that not all Brits and Canadians are part of the culture of death and not all are in favor of the gay agenda. This is very true. The same has to be said for the poor that come in from the south. Not all are part of the crime wave and not all are part of the drug cartels. They are simply poor people asking for help.

To close the borders to the south, which will exclude criminals as well as poor families, but leave the gates open for those who promote the culture of death and denigrate the sanctity of the famil, is a double standard.

What Catholics in this country do or not to is not part of the issue for one simple reason, we’re stuck with them. They’re citizens. But we are not stuck with others who adovcate immorality and murder and are not citizens, nor should we give them carte blanche to enter the country and close the door to the poor. The only reason that they get carte blanche is because they bring money into the country to spend.

This is what leaves moral theologians scratching their heads wondering whether we really understand the meaning of evil. Or is something evil only when it bothers me?

Moral judgment must keep three things separate here: evil, civil law and our duty toward the poor.

We must never condone evil in any shape. We must always make a preferential option for all the poor, not just one group of poor. We must never allow civil law to violate our Catholic faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think it is absurd to condemn Canadians for abortions and do nothing about the Catholic women in this country who are aborting and contracepting at the same rate as everyone else. Why don’t you do something to change the situation in the USA instead of going around bashing other countries?
It has been just recently that we are hearing about how immoral it is for a government to require foreigners to have visas. This is a novel teaching and it is not an infallible one, so I don;t see it as a mortal sin. In fact, I beleive it is a prudential judgment and as such, Catholics are not in any way bound to follow your political opinions under pain of mortal sin.

 

[sidbrown]

We do have the right to fight against all forms of violence, but we cannot limit this fight just to drug cartels or street gangs and forget those who bring the culture of death into our country and support an already desintegrating moral fibre in our country.

Are you forgetting about the one million abortions per year in Mexico? Why allow this moral degradation into the USA?

 

[mlund]

By your logic then since bishop’s are not experts on medical science

Correct

and their advisors are suspect

I’d prefer the term “fallible” to “suspect,” but you have the gist of it.

then the bishop’s can’t speak out on abortion.

That is incorrect. You’ve made a leap of logic that you have not supported.

Firstly, I never claimed the bishops could not speak to the issue. Rather I illustrated that the application of their theological view might be invalid due to a faulty premise about a non-theological matter.

The bishop would have to be taking an erroneous non-theological position on the medical science for this situation to be applicable. In their principled teachings about abortion the bishops have done no such thing.

Their core premises:

• The “fetus” (child) is a human being in the sight of God (theological)
• Human beings have Human dignity and an inalienable right to life (theological)
• The abortive act kills the fetus (non-theological)

There is no disagreement, contention, misunderstanding, or error in the bishop’s understanding that abortion kills the fetus.

A bishop could, however, wrongly condemn a specific action as abortive if he had an erroneous understanding of the facts of that specific action. For example, if he believed a procedure killed a child, but in fact the procedure was done with full knowledge that the child was actually already dead, for example, he would be in error not in his moral judgment but in his knowledge of non-theological matters in a such a way as to make the judgment inapplicable to the circumstance.

JReducation:

Don’t expect the Catholic Church to call illegal immigration immoral. Objectively it is not.

Yet in specific circumstance illegal immigration or even a willful failure to prevent illegal immigration could indeed by immoral. This is likely why my own bishop, in addressing his concerns about SB1070, does not question the validity of the State’s goal of wishing to curtail illegal immigration.

JReducation:

You cannot allow yourself the luxury of making a mistake that you can avoid, because it can be anticipated. If it cannot be anticipated, that changes the entire moral picture.

Of course, inaction is a sin as surely as action can be. Failing to act to correct a greater injustice for fear of accidentally creating a lesser injustice could lead to sin through inaction. Could you perhaps expound on the idea of Double Effect?

JReducation:

Christ was also an immigrant and a refugee in Egypt. His parents fled Palestine for the same reasons that many people flee from Mexico, to preserve their son’s life. Many people come here to the sake of their children’s lives.

Of course, in the modern day we have specific terms such as “Asylum Seeker” and “Refugee” that should be employed for the sake of clarity rather than lumping everyone into one confused, vague lump as “immigrants.”

In fact, we should take great care that we do not overlook or serve in a lesser capacity those desperately seeking asylum or refuge from violence simply because they are geographically further away than those in better circumstances (enjoying the ability to vote, work, and own property in their homeland) with the ability to simply walk across a border.

JReducation:

We cannot deny children the right to health, education, housing, and formation in the faith. If they can’t get that in their homeland, We as the Body of Christ have a moral duty to help them find it among us. We are not only saving lives, but we are also saving souls.

Of course, we must always be careful to remember that not all means to that end are morally permissible. The means must be scrupulously chosen by Faith, informed by Reason, to achieve practical and sustainable solutions that respect the human dignity of all people - not just the material needs of the poor and not just the dignity of those nearest at hand. Depriving human beings of essential liberty to increase access to health services by means of say, something akin to slavery, would be morally illicit and prudentially destructive in the long-term.

Meanwhile, acts of private charity (including missionary work) are perhaps the noblest and most effective solutions that don’t involve creating / instigating / supporting public reforms in their nations of origin.

Moreover, we should not confuse a right to access or obtain something through one’s own liberties with the right to have something provided to us on demand, nor overlook the critical role of the Principle of Subsidiarity in establishing where the moral onus lies to provide for the needs of others. It is all too easy to get Sentiment confused with Charity when such concerns aren’t kept front-and-center in dealing with emotionally charged issues such as the plight of the poor.

If you have a moment, good brother, could you tell us a bit about Cardinal Ratzinger’s teachings on the abuses of liberation theology?

• Marty Lund

 

[JReducation]

I think it is absurd to condemn Canadians for abortions and do nothing about the Catholic women in this country who are aborting and contracepting at the same rate as everyone else. Why don’t you do something to change the situation in the USA instead of going around bashing other countries?

I’m not bashing any country. I’m pointing out that there has to be an equal attempt to keep evil out of our country.

As to what am I doing about it:

1. I run five pregancy centers.
2. I run an education program for expectant fathers.
3. My brothers and I run a chastity education program for every high school in the diocese.
4. We visit every parish several times a year and teach the Gospel of Life.
5. We have trained 200 volunteer pregnancy counselors.
6. We have sonograms.
7. We provide trianing for priests, religious and seminarians on the morals and ethical issues regarding life
8. We care for the sick and the elderly who have no one to care for them to prevent them from being euthanized. We sit with them until they take their last breadth. We work with their families.
9. We help young parents in crisis pregnancies to find adoptive parents for their unwanted babies.
10. We run a earn while you learn program that trains people to enter the work force and we pay them while they are in class.
11. We take care of their children.
12. We provide the poor with everything that they need for their babies: from cribs to diapers, including food and medical care, for free.
13. We spend nights under bridges with homless people who may be in danger of death to bring them into emergency rooms.

Aside for that we spend five hours in prayer, we live in community and we educate Catholics online and in every area where the Gospel of Life has to be proclaimed. We are the Franciscan Brothers of Life. We do need more men to do this work for the unborn and to protect the innocent and the vulnerable. If you or anyone you know wants to do this work and live the Gospel in the manner of St. Francis, I’d be inerested in hearing from them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF
.