Catholic Bishops against Arizona legislation

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe I’m just not sophisticated enough to understand why this Az law is so awful. But look, I have known a lot of illegals. Know some now. They didn’t come here from hell or Dachau, they came here from (largely) Mexico, El Savador and Guatemala.

Personally, I wouldn’t want to live in any of those places, though some Salvadorans have insisted to me that it’s a wonderful place to live; preferable to here. Virtually all of them have family in their countries of origin, and the whole bunch doesn’t come here or even try to do it. Absolutely every one of them returns to his/her country of origin frequently. Lots of them return to their countries of origin for medical treatment because it’s cheaper and because a lot of them don’t really have faith in American medicine. Every last one of them I have known worked in the country of origin before coming here. Never, ever, ever have I met a recent arrival who looked like he/'she just arrived from Auschwitz.

The reason they come here is for the differential in pay, wealth and the value of the currency. Many, many, many of them are here to raise capital to go back and do something back home. I know one guy from Guatemala who is buying up land in Guatemala to raise bananas or cocoa. (can’t remember which) He sends the money to Guatemala. His relatives buy the land. His local relatives clear it (as does he when he goes there) and plant and tend the trees, and as soon as he has enough, he’ll go there and never come back. I know another guy from Mexico who alternates with his son in coming here and working. They’re putting together a peach orchard near Mexico City. I was surprised when he told me that peaches cost about as much there as here. So, when he and his son have their orchard producing, they’re gone. They will not only be “home again”, the differential will have shifted once again in their favor. They are “leveraging”, you might say. I have known illegals who have hit the American “litigation jackpot”, and I have never known one who didn’t go back home and stay there. Why? Because with a good enough settlement or award, you can live like a king there.

I have known people whose ambition it is to buy and stock stores in their countries of origin. Evidently a lot of those countries are not all “Walmarted up” like here, and you can make a pleasant living with a small store. But you need the money to buy the store your neighbor can’t buy. Who are we supposed to cry for, then? The guy whose plan to get ahead of his neighbor is upended because he gets deported (for awhile) or the guy who stays there and can’t buy a store any more than most of the people in the town where I live can’t buy a store either?

Such people have an advantage over their neighbors in their own country, because they can earn high-value dollars that go a long, long way where they came from. Similarly, I live in a relatively low-cost part of the U.S. The cost of living is low, but people don’t make here what they make in NY or Cal before the bust. So, a person who manages to accumulate money in NY is going to be able to move or retire here and live better than he would in either place. A lot do. Does that mean that Wall Streeters should give up their jobs to make room for me if I decide to move there and make the “big bucks”? It does not seem so to me.

Is there any moral principle that dictates to people on Wall Street who are licensed to be stockbrokers or bond brokers that they should allow me to do what they do without a license just so I can accumulate money, come back here and be better off than my neighbors here? And there are those (my son-in-law’s family for example) who act like living here is surely the same as living in hell. No theatre. No “good restaurants”. No big bucks. Not very sophisticated populace. No “good stores”. No excitement. Just plain living. To them, that’s just as unthinkable as it would be for me to suddenly find myself a citizen of Mexico.

I understand people live very well in Lichtenstein. All of them, and better than here. A big part of the reason is that it’s a banking center and the government provides all kinds of free goodies and income supplements to its citizens. I can’t just march into Lichtenstein and demand that I have what they have, even though I would be better off economically if I could, and would surely have an easier life. Is there some moral principle that tells those people that they should? I have never heard of it.

An aunt of mine, whose husband left her widowed, found to her surprise that she could draw a lot more from the German government than from social security here, and why? Because her husband had been born in a German embassy in Russia. So, should I, then, be entitled somehow to have the German government pay me too? After all, my aunt’s husband’s German citizenship gave her an advantage over me; evidently a pretty big one. Why should citizenship (even her husband’s) give her an advantage over me, I might ask.

Some Latin American countries seem so awful to us because we have more wealth and opportunities than they do. But it doesn’t mean they are awful on some absolute scale. That’s why Mexico has a problem with Guatemalan illegals itself. It’s easier to make a living, evidently, in Mexico than it is in Guatemala. So obviously, to a Guatemalan, Mexico is not hell, but a good place to live and work. With our virtually open border to the south, every last person in Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala should already be here if they all thought it was intolerable where they live.

(continued)

 

[Ridgerunner]

(continued)

Every last illegal knows he could be deported at any time. They knew it when they came. It’s the risk they undertake willingly in order not to wait in line like their fellows have to do. If I sneaked into Lichtenstein and got myself a fake Lichtensteiner ID in order to get the benefits that government pays citizens, would I really have a legitimate complaint if I got caught and deported or even jailed after a second attempt? Would I really have a legitimate complaint if I sold stock on Wall street without a license and got prosecuted for it? I don’t think so.

I just don’t think so many Americans have a proper perspective on this, and I think all the outrage is overblown.

And I will say again, from reading the bishops’ letter, it appears to me they are expressing “concerns” over what “might be”. So, okay, let’s see if Az turns into Nazi Germany. Frankly, I very much doubt it. But I do think there are a LOT of people who have an economic or political interest in allowing the free flow of illegals (not including the bishops in that) and I’m sure a lot of the expressions of outrage stem from that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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
.

Wow! My hat’s off to you, man. No kidding. I know, you’re not looking for that. But still.

 

[mlund]

Wow! My hat’s off to you, man. No kidding. I know, you’re not looking for that. But still.

I second that sentiment. You brothers have a great and worthy mission.

I want to emphasize that whatever disagreements I may have with you over prudential judgments, political theories, and theological interpretations will never compromise that fact.

• Marty Lund

 

[JReducation]

(continued)

Every last illegal knows he could be deported at any time. They knew it when they came. It’s the risk they undertake willingly in order not to wait in line like their fellows have to do. If I sneaked into Lichtenstein and got myself a fake Lichtensteiner ID in order to get the benefits that government pays citizens, would I really have a legitimate complaint if I got caught and deported or even jailed after a second attempt? Would I really have a legitimate complaint if I sold stock on Wall street without a license and got prosecuted for it? I don’t think so.

I just don’t think so many Americans have a proper perspective on this, and I think all the outrage is overblown.

And I will say again, from reading the bishops’ letter, it appears to me they are expressing “concerns” over what “might be”. So, okay, let’s see if Az turns into Nazi Germany. Frankly, I very much doubt it. But I do think there are a LOT of people who have an economic or political interest in allowing the free flow of illegals (not including the bishops in that) and I’m sure a lot of the expressions of outrage stem from that.

Everything that you posted in these two posts is very accurate. I have lived among the Hispanic, Haitian and Brazilian immigrants in several dioceses in the USA and in Ecuador, Colombia, and Mexico. Though my area of expertise is not ecclesiology or moral theology, I was trained in Mystical Theology; I did get enough of a background in the seminary to understand the concepts.

What I see here is an overreaction to the bishops’ statement on two points in the whole law. I truly believe that this reaction has more to do with pent-up anger toward the bishops, than just these two points. I say this because very few posters on this thread have spoken to those two points. Also, no one on this thread, except me, has mentioned the fact that the bishops were not alone in their statement. There was a letter that went to the governor signed by many Protestant leaders. There was another letter signed by several prominent Rabbis.

When I see opposition to the bishops, not to anyone else who protested points in the law, I suspect that the issue is very personal one between the poster and the bishops. Several times I mentioned that there is a system in place within the Church where lay people can have these concerns addressed and they will be addressed. No one has taken note of that nor has anyone said they are going to contact their bishop or the Curia in Rome to get a clarification. What everyone seems to be saying is that they don’t need the Curia or the bishops to explain anything. They have the answers.

This is a matter of grave concern to me, because it reflects a great deal of anger, distrust, hostility and deviation from the apostolic tradition. There is no greater enemy to the soul than anger. Anger, no matter how justified, if it is never addressed, can turn to poison. It becomes spiritual poison that divides the soul against itself. One part of the soul is committed to the faith and to the bishops as apostles and the other part of the soul denies them respect and the right to answer questions.

It is never wrong to ask questions, unless you’re a Franciscan. But that’s another topic and there is a good reason for that. It is always wrong and very dangerous to the soul to question someone who is not present to defend his position and never give him the opportunity to do so.

I can’t write to a bishop and ask him to explain their position on this law. I’m not allowed to do this. But the laity is allowed to do this, so are secular priests and secular deacons and many religious orders may allow it, I don’t know how many. If you have this bug about this, ask the question and let them answer. The worse thing that you can do to your soul is to take on the apostolic college. One challenge and one doubt leads to another challenge and another doubt and it keeps growing and growing until you lose your inner peace and you are no longer in communion with apostles, because your anger does not allow you to love them or respect them.

The argument that they have lost credibility does not fly in the spiritual life. Love, respect, recognition of authority, faith in the apostolic succession and genuine dialogue are not dependent on the other person deserving it or having credibility. In the spiritual life, we give these things because we love those whom Christ loves as he loves them. We believe in the Church the way that he set her up, despite her human frailties. We believe that he knew these frailties would happen and he allows them to happen as part of his plan for our salvation. Our part is to take those frailties and respond as we know Christ wants the saints to respond. Our highest goal is not about our country and our boundaries. Life is not that simple. Our highest goal is to become saints. Saints to do not store up anger and they have always asked questions and allowed the Church to answer their questions. After that, even though they may have disagreed, they obeyed. Christ calls us to be saints.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I second that sentiment. You brothers have a great and worthy mission.

I want to emphasize that whatever disagreements I may have with you over prudential judgments, political theories, and theological interpretations will never compromise that fact.

• Marty Lund

Thank you for that. Many people do not understand why men become religious brothers. This comes to play here. A brother is a man who imitates Christ’s brotherhood. Christ is the first-born among many brothers, is he not?

Would Christ ever stop loving a brother or sister over a disagreement? If that were true, he would not have redeemed the Pharisees, the Romans, the High Priests and even Peter with whom he had nany disagreements.

Whatever differences we may have, I am still your brother. I’m always inspired by the one line in the OT when the Hebrews arrive in Egypt and Joseph says, “I’m your brother.” Can you imagine the love and the power of forgiveness? They had sold him as a slave and all he has to say to them is, “I’m your brother.” There is no anger, no lack of trust, not disrespect, only a brother’s love.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ridgerunner]

Everything that you posted in these two posts is very accurate. I have lived among the Hispanic, Haitian and Brazilian immigrants in several dioceses in the USA and in Ecuador, Colombia, and Mexico. Though my area of expertise is not ecclesiology or moral theology, I was trained in Mystical Theology; I did get enough of a background in the seminary to understand the concepts.

What I see here is an overreaction to the bishops’ statement on two points in the whole law. I truly believe that this reaction has more to do with pent-up anger toward the bishops, than just these two points. I say this because very few posters on this thread have spoken to those two points. Also, no one on this thread, except me, has mentioned the fact that the bishops were not alone in their statement. There was a letter that went to the governor signed by many Protestant leaders. There was another letter signed by several prominent Rabbis.

When I see opposition to the bishops, not to anyone else who protested points in the law, I suspect that the issue is very personal one between the poster and the bishops. Several times I mentioned that there is a system in place within the Church where lay people can have these concerns addressed and they will be addressed. No one has taken note of that nor has anyone said they are going to contact their bishop or the Curia in Rome to get a clarification. What everyone seems to be saying is that they don’t need the Curia or the bishops to explain anything. They have the answers.

This is a matter of grave concern to me, because it reflects a great deal of anger, distrust, hostility and deviation from the apostolic tradition. There is no greater enemy to the soul than anger. Anger, no matter how justified, if it is never addressed, can turn to poison. It becomes spiritual poison that divides the soul against itself. One part of the soul is committed to the faith and to the bishops as apostles and the other part of the soul denies them respect and the right to answer questions.

It is never wrong to ask questions, unless you’re a Franciscan. But that’s another topic and there is a good reason for that. It is always wrong and very dangerous to the soul to question someone who is not present to defend his position and never give him the opportunity to do so.

I can’t write to a bishop and ask him to explain their position on this law. I’m not allowed to do this. But the laity is allowed to do this, so are secular priests and secular deacons and many religious orders may allow it, I don’t know how many. If you have this bug about this, ask the question and let them answer. The worse thing that you can do to your soul is to take on the apostolic college. One challenge and one doubt leads to another challenge and another doubt and it keeps growing and growing until you lose your inner peace and you are no longer in communion with apostles, because your anger does not allow you to love them or respect them.

The argument that they have lost credibility does not fly in the spiritual life. Love, respect, recognition of authority, faith in the apostolic succession and genuine dialogue are not dependent on the other person deserving it or having credibility. In the spiritual life, we give these things because we love those whom Christ loves as he loves them. We believe in the Church the way that he set her up, despite her human frailties. We believe that he knew these frailties would happen and he allows them to happen as part of his plan for our salvation. Our part is to take those frailties and respond as we know Christ wants the saints to respond. Our highest goal is not about our country and our boundaries. Life is not that simple. Our highest goal is to become saints. Saints to do not store up anger and they have always asked questions and allowed the Church to answer their questions. After that, even though they may have disagreed, they obeyed. Christ calls us to be saints.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I know nothing about these Az bishops, so I’m not talking about them here. But sometimes I think we can be angry with bishops, and sometimes it’s legitimate. I really do like our present bishop. A lot. He’s a recent appointee, young for a bishop, and most of the new ones seem very good. But we have all seen some things that really were worthy of anger. I’m not talking about hatred or anger upon which one acts, or which one nurses and fixates upon. But anger is just an emotion; a reaction. It’s what we do, not how we react emotionally, that matters.

 

[Hilda_Carter]

There do seem to be some legitimate concerns about the bill. Something like this is needed, but maybe this bill goes too far, or does not provide protection where necessary? For example, it seems like illegal immigrants could be in legal danger if they go to the police… they might fear even reporting that they saw someone they know is a dangerous criminal. So maybe this particular bill is bad (altho I know some bishops would be against anything other than granting full citizenship to illegal immigrants…)

 

[JReducation]

I asked someone a question about this bill today, a lawyer who helps us with adoptions. But he said that the law was not clear on this. Here is my question as I put it to the lawyer.

My father’s family is Hispanic. They have been here since 1902. I have a Hispanic sur-name. My mother was Israeli. She was the immigrant, not my dad.

I have a Hispanic last name and a Mediterranean appearance, due to the Hispanic and Israeli blend. I could pass for Arab or Latino. Until I open my mouth and people realize that I’m from the south.

Here is my question. I do something illegal, like running a red light. The police stop me and ask me if I’m Mexican or however they ask the question. I tell them that I’m an American. Do they have to take my word for it or do I have to prove it?

The lawyer said that he had not seen that point addressed in the law, but there could be more coming. Which I understand. However, he did say something that made a lot of sense to me. He said that we do not have a law that requieres American citizens to prove that they are Americans unless they are entering or leaving the country. Even in criminal cases, all of your demographic papers are produced to prove identity, not citizenship. If it’s uncovered that you’re a foreigner, it’s an accidental discoverey which may or may not be germain to the crime.

But with this particular bill, it’s not clear what happens if you’re pulled aside by an officer and you’re an American. Can they legally force you to prove it, since this is not a policy or practice in this country. In many countries people have to carry a state ID. But we don’t have that. You don’t even have to have a license. I don’t know of any state that requires that you have a state-issued ID card. Are there any?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

You believe that law enforcement should be selective? Some laws enforced and some not based on the decision of the law enforcement agency?

Absolutely. Sometimes when you are stopped for speeding you get a citation, sometimes you get a warning and sometimes you get nothing. If you are intoxicated in public, sometimes you go to jail and sometimes you get told to go home. The difference may be some circumstance in the person, like a person going to an emergency, a recent change in speed zones, a drunk who lives down the street and has a driver, etc. The difference may be in the officer, like someone about to get off work, the only patrol unit in their district, etc. There are laws, in addition to common sense, that mandate police action in many instances, like a domestic violence, a drunk driver. This is because a threat is eminent.

You may not agree (until you are the one pulled over speeding) but then there is a reason we use human beings for law enforcement and why we must get good people capable of sound judgement. And no, I do not think an agency should selectively enforce laws. The problem I address is inherent in any policy. What is needed is sound judgement.

 

[Hilda_Carter]

Hilda_Carter:
What I don’t understand is why the catholic clergy supports illegal immingrants. They are breaking the laws of this country. That makes them criminals. Why as catholics are we to support and protect criminals? I believe in helping the poor in all areas. We already have so many poor in this country. Now the catholic clergy wants us to harbor, protect and support criminals. Sorry, I don’t get it.

I wonder what one of those priests, bishops or archbishops would do if an illegal immingrant stole and used his identity and/or social security number! I have seen numerous cases where this has happened and the problems these victims of the theft were horrible. Add this to crime of illegal entry. These are facts.

I don’t think our catholic clergy should engage in political issues and concerns if there is law that protect the innocent people in this country.

 

[JReducation]

I know nothing about these Az bishops, so I’m not talking about them here. But sometimes I think we can be angry with bishops, and sometimes it’s legitimate. I really do like our present bishop. A lot. He’s a recent appointee, young for a bishop, and most of the new ones seem very good. But we have all seen some things that really were worthy of anger. I’m not talking about hatred or anger upon which one acts, or which one nurses and fixates upon. But anger is just an emotion; a reaction. It’s what we do, not how we react emotionally, that matters.

We all get angry and we all get over it. If we don’t get over it, then we’re in spiritual trouble and the least of our worries is civil law. Festering anger not only affects the soul, but also the mind.

The natural anger that we all feel at a person or a situation is just that, an emotional reaction. But the anger that generates hostility and triggers mistrust is much deeper than an emotional reaction. It is a moral state that has to be addressed before we do ourselves some serious spiritual harm.

Do you see what I’m saying here?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[gakroeger]

I asked someone a question about this bill today, a lawyer who helps us with adoptions. But he said that the law was not clear on this. Here is my question as I put it to the lawyer.

My father’s family is Hispanic. They have been here since 1902. I have a Hispanic sur-name. My mother was Israeli. She was the immigrant, not my dad.

I have a Hispanic last name and a Mediterranean appearance, due to the Hispanic and Israeli blend. I could pass for Arab or Latino. Until I open my mouth and people realize that I’m from the south.

Here is my question. I do something illegal, like running a red light. The police stop me and ask me if I’m Mexican or however they ask the question. I tell them that I’m an American. Do they have to take my word for it or do I have to prove it?

The lawyer said that he had not seen that point addressed in the law, but there could be more coming. Which I understand. However, he did say something that made a lot of sense to me. He said that we do not have a law that requieres American citizens to prove that they are Americans unless they are entering or leaving the country. Even in criminal cases, all of your demographic papers are produced to prove identity, not citizenship. If it’s uncovered that you’re a foreigner, it’s an accidental discoverey which may or may not be germain to the crime.

But with this particular bill, it’s not clear what happens if you’re pulled aside by an officer and you’re an American. Can they legally force you to prove it, since this is not a policy or practice in this country. In many countries people have to carry a state ID. But we don’t have that. You don’t even have to have a license. I don’t know of any state that requires that you have a state-issued ID card. Are there any?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I live in Florida and I know that ID’s are available if you do not have a drivers license. I do not know if it is manditory to have one; probably not, however, I don’t know how one would survive in our culture without an ID of some kind. You need one for virtually every business transaction you make. You cannot get a hotel room, a bank account, rent a car, buy a car, etc. etc. without an ID.

 

[mlund]

But with this particular bill, it’s not clear what happens if you’re pulled aside by an officer and you’re an American. Can they legally force you to prove it, since this is not a policy or practice in this country. In many countries people have to carry a state ID. But we don’t have that. You don’t even have to have a license. I don’t know of any state that requires that you have a state-issued ID card. Are there any?

I do not believe so.

To your specific example, though, you do need a state-issued ID card to lawfully operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Failure to carry it on your person or in the vehicle while driving is a crime - albeit not as serious a crime as operating without being licensed at all. Failure to produce your physical license creates probable cause to arrest you, but we’ve got a convenient system to investigate your true status of being licensed to drive right from the patrol car - saving all the hassle of bringing the forgetful into the precinct.

A U.S. citizen not having their ID on in public is no crime in Arizona. The police do not have to take you at your word that you are a in the country legally, though. If reasonable suspicion exists they can detain and question you. If the questioning leads to probably cause they can arrest you. After the arrest the burden of proof lies fully upon law enforcement. That’s why their next step is to run your information through databases to verify that you lack citizenship and lack legal status.

A legal visitor, immigrant, or citizen simply has the available means to avoid all the hassle of the arrest and verification process by producing proof of legal status, thus removing probably cause and reasonable suspicion.

• Marty Lund

 

[JReducation]

What I don’t understand is why the catholic clergy supports illegal immingrants. They are breaking the laws of this country. That makes them criminals. Why as catholics are we to support and protect criminals? I believe in helping the poor in all areas. We already have so many poor in this country. Now the catholic clergy wants us to harbor, protect and support criminals. Sorry, I don’t get it.

In Catholic moral law illegal immigration is not objectively immoral. Therefore, popes, bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity cannot call it what it is not. Here is the rationale. Throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition, our people, including the Holy Family, had to migrate, legally or illegally to protect themselves and to find a better life. These stories are all over the Bible, especially in the Old Testament and later in the Diaspora after 70 AD. Jews were not the only ones who were dispersed from Jerusalem, Christians were too. They entered other territories where they were not welcome. They were considered criminals by those people too.

But the Church is not bound by the state. It’s the other way around. The state is bound by the moral teachings of the Church. What we have today is the state saying that they do not need the Church, because it does not need God. It can be its own God. That’s why the state legalizes abortion without losing a night’s sleep. It sees itself as independent from God and morality.

Therefore, Catholics, Orthodox, Orthodox Jews and some Protestants do not follow the state on everything that the state calls a crime. Immigration is a perfectly good example. It is the one point where Orthodox Jews, Eastern Othodox Christians, Catholics and many Protestants disagree with the state and call the state to task for not enacting laws that are fair and that are easier to implement and follow. Because the whole immigration system in this country is chaotic.

To sum it up, a crime is not always a sin. I Muslim countries it is a crime to convert to Judaism or Christianity. In most countries it is a crime to steal. Is it a sin to become a Christian? No. Is it a sin for a hungry man to steal? Never. Like this there are many laws around the world that say this or that is a crime. But those laws are not what we should use as our moral compass. Our moral compass is the teaching of the Church.

I wonder what one of those priests, bishops or archbishops would do if an illegal immingrant stole and used his identity and/or social security number! I have seen numerous cases where this has happened and the problems these victims of the theft were horrible. Add this to crime of illegal entry. These are facts.

The crimes that you have identified are not only committed by illegal immigrants. Most of the time they are committed by legal nationals. But the person’s nationality or immigration status has nothing to do with the morality of the act. Stealing for any reason, except hunger and health, is a sin against justice. You are not allowed to take what is not yours. The Church looks at the act, not the who. It makes no difference who steals your identity or your property. This is a grave sin against justice and you are the victim of an injustice. This sin should have consequences. The clergy, religious and Catholic laity would not support such crimes, regardless who committed them. At least you should not support them. That would be immoral and unreasonable.

I don’t think our catholic clergy should engage in political issues and concerns if there is law that protect the innocent people in this country.

The Catholic Church has to engage with every government of the world. It is her mission given to her by Christ. It is her job to ensure that all laws are consistent with the Gospel. The Church’s job, among many, is to scrutinize law. Our job is to save souls. We cannot save souls, if we let people make rules that are in violation or lend themselves to violations against the Church and the faith. When we spot the potential for sin, it is our job to challenge men to rethink their proposals, laws, and positions and to rewrite them.

For example, the healthcare bill includes abortion. There are proposals for same-sex marriage laws. There are laws that protect infanticide. There are ways of legally circumventing teachings on euthanasia. Now, after the whole screaming and hollering about the priest sex abuse scandals and cover-ups, Planned Parenthood was given permission not to disclose to the police when minor girls are impregnated by legal adults. Planned parenthood argued that if they were mandated to report these cases to the police, the girls would not come to them for help. Their definition of help means abortions. The courts in most states have approved this and the Supreme Court has not said anything.

In Florida the people voted to parental notification. It passed. No minor can have an abortion without her parents’ knowledge. Planned Parenthood finds lawyers to go to the judge with a request for a bypass, because the girl says that her parents are going to kill her. She does not have to provide evidence that she has ever been beaten or abused by parents. The courts are granting the bypass in 95% of the cases presented.

These are some examples of why the Church must involve herself with the political system. The system is out of moral control as it is. Can you imagine without a Church presence? How would Catholics even know what to think or support with so much information telling them two or three different sides of an argument. It’s confusing. There has to be an authority who speaks about absolute moral rules. We need that and I beleive that we really want that kind of help. None of us really has full knowledge of the moral absolutes.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mlund]

Stealing for any reason, except hunger and health, is a sin against justice.

Even those reasons are arguable. Hunger can only excuse stealing if all other licit means of obtaining food have been exhausted. Only a lack of ability and means excuses theft, not a lack of willingness to employ licit means.

Also, I have a theological question: is stealing an objectively immoral act, even if the thief escape guilt due to being forced to do so for survival’s sake?

• Marty Lund

 

[JReducation]

I do not believe so.

To your specific example, though, you do need a state-issued ID card to lawfully operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Failure to carry it on your person or in the vehicle while driving is a crime - albeit not as serious a crime as operating without being licensed at all. Failure to produce your physical license creates probable cause to arrest you, but we’ve got a convenient system to investigate your true status of being licensed to drive right from the patrol car - saving all the hassle of bringing the forgetful into the precinct.

A U.S. citizen not having their ID on in public is no crime in Arizona. The police do not have to take you at your word that you are a in the country legally, though. If reasonable suspicion exists they can detain and question you. If the questioning leads to probably cause they can arrest you. After the arrest the burden of proof lies fully upon law enforcement. That’s why their next step is to run your information through databases to verify that you lack citizenship and lack legal status.

A legal visitor, immigrant, or citizen simply has the available means to avoid all the hassle of the arrest and verification process by producing proof of legal status, thus removing probably cause and reasonable suspicion.

• Marty Lund

So there is a problem that the law is not addressing and the bishops did not notice either. I don’t travel with my US passport or birth certificate when going from one state to another. I simply have a wallet. In my case, I have a driver’s license. If I’m in AZ I can show a license that proves that I live in the USA, when I was born and so forth. But it does to prove citizenship. If I’m not mistaken, driver’s licenses are not on a national database and cross–referenced with health departments, which are usually the keepers of vital statistics, such as births. Nationalized citizens don’t even show up in our vital statistics. They were not born here. They are not issued an ID when they become citizens.

While the burden is for the state to prove that I’m not a citizen, in the meantime, they are holding me. This raises a question that has to be better addressed. You should not be holding your citizens because you suspect that they are not. On the other hand, if the courts say that you cannot detain a citizen, just to prove that he’s a citizen, then anyone can claim to be one.

I’m not a lawyer, but I can see this happening to a citizen and I can see this being taken to court by some group such as the ACLU. These details need to be ironed out, before people get hurt.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[canadianguy1143]

So there is a problem that the law is not addressing and the bishops did not notice either. I don’t travel with my US passport or birth certificate when going from one state to another. I simply have a wallet. In my case, I have a driver’s license. If I’m in AZ I can show a license that proves that I live in the USA, when I was born and so forth. But it does to prove citizenship. If I’m not mistaken, driver’s licenses are not on a national database and cross–referenced with health departments, which are usually the keepers of vital statistics, such as births. Nationalized citizens don’t even show up in our vital statistics. They were not born here. They are not issued an ID when they become citizens.

While the burden is for the state to prove that I’m not a citizen, in the meantime, they are holding me. This raises a question that has to be better addressed. You should not be holding your citizens because you suspect that they are not. On the other hand, if the courts say that you cannot detain a citizen, just to prove that he’s a citizen, then anyone can claim to be one.

I’m not a lawyer, but I can see this happening to a citizen and I can see this being taken to court by some group such as the ACLU. These details need to be ironed out, before people get hurt.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Can Illegal immigrants get a driver’s license?

 

[pnewton]

But with this particular bill, it’s not clear what happens if you’re pulled aside by an officer and you’re an American. Can they legally force you to prove it, since this is not a policy or practice in this country. In many countries people have to carry a state ID. But we don’t have that. You don’t even have to have a license. I don’t know of any state that requires that you have a state-issued ID card. Are there any?

In Texas, if you are pulled over, you have to have your driver’s license on you. If not, you may be ticketed, or even arrested. A better scenario will be where the darker citizen in question is a passenger or a pedestrian. However, as one poster noted in an update, the phrase “lawful contact” has been adjusted to something like “arrested or detained.”

 

[JReducation]

Even those reasons are arguable. Hunger can only excuse stealing if all other licit means of obtaining food have been exhausted. Only a lack of ability and means excuses theft, not a lack of willingness to employ licit means.

I didn’t go into all those details, becasue I know that you guys know the criteria.

Also, I have a theological question: is stealing an objectively immoral act, even if the thief escape guilt due to being forced to do so for survival’s sake?

• Marty Lund

Yes. The act is immoral, but the person is not culpable. This is the difference between the objective and subjective. Objectively, stealing is always immoral. We can’t go back and rewrite the Commandments. “Thou shalt not steal cannot be rewritten.” However, we can go back in Judeo-Christian history and see where the moral law is violated and the violator is not morally guilty. An excellent example was David stealing food from the temple. Another example was the disciples picking fruits on the Sabath. In both cases, God exhonerates them from guilt. But he never says that they did not violate the moral law.

You can violate the moral law without being guilty. If you are forced to do something for survival and you have no other option, you are not culpable.

Here is the principle that we extract from scripture. God looks at the situation and he chooses the higher good. It is good not to take what does not belong to you. It is a higher good to eat if you’re starving.

This applies to the whole immirgation question. It is good to protect a country’s sovereignty. It is a higher good to take care of the poor who knock at our door.

As I was pointing out in the cases of abortion, Mexicans, Canadians and Britons. It is good to protect our country from durg dealers, vandals and other common criminals. It is a higher good to protect our country from the culture of death. Therefore, if we want to protect the country, we must do both goods. To do the lesser good and not address the higher good is unbalanced.

I don’t know if this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF