Catholic Bishops against Arizona legislation

[catharina]

But as I understand what I’m reading, the Governor now has to ammend the law or that’s what she’s trying to do. I’m I understanding correctly or am I missing something?

Thanks for the clarification.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, the governor is amending the law.
The headline for the quoted article is this:

"Ariz. gov signs bill revising new immigration law"

 

[JReducation]

Yes, the governor is amending the law.
The headline for the quoted article is this:

"Ariz. gov signs bill revising new immigration law"

That’s what I was reading into it. Thanks.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mlund]

But as I understand what I’m reading, the Governor now has to ammend the law or that’s what she’s trying to do. I’m I understanding correctly or am I missing something?

No no no.

Please don’t let the unnecessary and uncharitable snarky behavior injected into this thread distract or confuse a happy truth that AZ House Bill #2162 was signed by the governor of Arizona and signed into law today.

azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_043010_StatementGovBrewer.pdf

azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

Another interesting change - the felony provisions for repeat offenses have been removed.

• Marty Lund

 

[JReducation]

No no no.

Please don’t let the unnecessary and uncharitable snarky behavior injected into this thread distract or confuse a happy truth that AZ House Bill #2162 was signed by the governor of Arizona and signed into law today.

azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_043010_StatementGovBrewer.pdf

azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

Another interesting change - the felony provisions for repeat offenses have been removed.

• Marty Lund

So the final edition of the law conforms to what the bishops have asked? I have not read the final edition. You’ll have to educate me until I have permission to read the paper. But I won’t be able to call my superior until tomorrow.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sidbrown]

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
.

Well, you are doing a lot, and you will have to be thanked and congratulated for that. But let’s be realistic here about the situation in the USA with regard to Catholic women who are using contraceptives and those who are aborting. All the statistics that I have seen show that there is no difference in the percentage of Catholic women who are aborting with the percentage of those in the general population. And the same holds true for contraception. So, the topic here is Catholic bishops against Arizona legislation I don;t see where it makes any sense to bring up Canada here. In fact, it seems like you might be the one who is doing the racial and national profiling when you are bashing Canada. And you are failing to mention the almost one million aboritons per year in Mexico. So Catholic women are aborting in Canada, they are aborting in the USA, and they are aborting in Mexico. Further, Catholic women are using contraceptives in Canada, they are using contraceptives in the USA and they are using contraceptives in Mexico. So, this idea of bringing up the number of abortions in Canada is a smokescreen desigined to take us away from the topic at hand.
You might ask yourself what is the reason why this law passed? My guess is that it had nothing to do with Canada, and it had nothing to do with abortions. BTW, I thought that that AZ governor signed a bill rejecting federal funding of abortions under the new federal health law.
Let us ask ourselves as to why Arizona felt the need to pass this law. Why did this law pass.
I don’t see where it is a mortal sin or immoral in any way for a country to require foreigners to hold visas or to register. This has been done in Europe and in other countries around the world for many, many years and the Pope has not spoken against it. IF this were immoral, or a mortal sin, the Pope would have addressed this issue a long time ago, since this has been the traditional situation in Europe, where visas and work permits were required before the time of the EU.
To say that this Arizona law is immoral or a sin is a prudential decision on your part. And to relate it to the number of abortions taking place in Canada is a prudential decision on your part. Your prudential decisions on this issue are not binding on Catholics, and there is no need for Catholics, such as Patrick Buchanan, to leave the Catholic Church if they disagree with you on this issue.

 

[catharina]

So the final edition of the law conforms to what the bishops have asked? I have not read the final edition. You’ll have to educate me until I have permission to read the paper. But I won’t be able to call my superior until tomorrow.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, it’s a little difficult to pull the changes into a precis

• especially since there’s still opposition to the revision.

So sorry.

 

[fish90]

JR,

I have a few questions.

1.) When the state rejects immigrants, is the state operating under the moral context of a situation like stealing? (this is immoral but not culpable)

2.) If the bishops concerns were met like the part about illegal immigrants being fearful of deportation and I forget the other, would the Church allow the law?

3.) Is tough illegal immigration (also other “politically conservative” positions) law a dangerous thing for Catholics to support?

Thanks so much,

Best,
fish90

 

[JReducation]

Well, you are doing a lot, and you will have to be thanked and congratulated for that. But let’s be realistic here about the situation in the USA with regard to Catholic women who are using contraceptives and those who are aborting. All the statistics that I have seen show that there is no difference in the percentage of Catholic women who are aborting with the percentage of those in the general population. And the same holds true for contraception. So, the topic here is Catholic bishops against Arizona legislation I don;t see where it makes any sense to bring up Canada here. In fact, it seems like you might be the one who is doing the racial and national profiling when you are bashing Canada. And you are failing to mention the almost one million aboritons per year in Mexico. So Catholic women are aborting in Canada, they are aborting in the USA, and they are aborting in Mexico. Further, Catholic women are using contraceptives in Canada, they are using contraceptives in the USA and they are using contraceptives in Mexico. So, this idea of bringing up the number of abortions in Canada is a smokescreen desigined to take us away from the topic at hand.
You might ask yourself what is the reason why this law passed? My guess is that it had nothing to do with Canada, and it had nothing to do with abortions. BTW, I thought that that AZ governor signed a bill rejecting federal funding of abortions under the new federal health law.
Let us ask ourselves as to why Arizona felt the need to pass this law. Why did this law pass.
I don’t see where it is a mortal sin or immoral in any way for a country to require foreigners to hold visas or to register. This has been done in Europe and in other countries around the world for many, many years and the Pope has not spoken against it. IF this were immoral, or a mortal sin, the Pope would have addressed this issue a long time ago, since this has been the traditional situation in Europe, where visas and work permits were required before the time of the EU.
To say that this Arizona law is immoral or a sin is a prudential decision on your part. And to relate it to the number of abortions taking place in Canada is a prudential decision on your part. Your prudential decisions on this issue are not binding on Catholics, and there is no need for Catholics, such as Patrick Buchanan, to leave the Catholic Church if they disagree with you on this issue.

 

[mlund]

So the final edition of the law conforms to what the bishops have asked? I have not read the final edition. You’ll have to educate me until I have permission to read the paper. But I won’t be able to call my superior until tomorrow.

I sometimes forget the burdens of the religious. All me to provide the relevant information.

This is the original release that carries the signature of Bishop Thomas Olmstead:

diocesephoenix.org/_localnews/2010/04April.html#immigrationbill

From there I drew out the 3 moral concerns in yesterday’s post.

The relevant portions of House Bill #2162 that was signed into law today. Formatting from our legislature’s official Web site has been reproduced to the best of my ability. Existing, unaltered law is in black, additions are in blue, and removals are in red with brackets (the legislature’s Web site has this text struck through, which requires custom BB tags that I doubt Catholic.com has implemented).

B. For any lawful [contact] stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not [solely] consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

So the word “solely” has been removed so that race, color, or national origin is explicitly completely prohibited except the extent permitted under the AZ and US Constitutions.

More importantly, the term “any lawful contact” has been replaced with “any lawful stop, detention or arrest.”

**H. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that the maximum fine is one hundred dollars and for a first violation of this section [is:] the court shall not sentence the person to more than twenty days in jail and for a second or subsequent violation the court shall not sentence the person to more than thirty days in jail.

[1. A class 3 felony if the person violates this section while in possession of any of the following:

(a) A dangerous drug as defined in section 13-3401.

(b) Precursor chemicals that are used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine in violation of section 13-3404.01.

(c) A deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument, as defined in section 13-105.

(d) Property that is used for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism as prescribed in section 13-2308.01.

1. A class 4 felony if the person either:

(a) Is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section.

(b) Within sixty months before the violation, has been removed from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229a or has accepted a voluntary removal from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229c.]**

This has removed the felony provisions entirely. It is still a crime to be here without papers, but it is not a felony.

Other changes were also made, including reducing some fines and whatnot, but that’s the meat of the changes as they relate to my bishop’s concerns.

• Marty Lund

 

[JReducation]

These are very good questions. Some answers are theological and others are pastoral. Let me try one by one.

JR,

I have a few questions.

1.) When the state rejects immigrants, is the state operating under the moral context of a situation like stealing? (this is immoral but not culpable)

The state has the moral right to refuse admission to immigrants under several moral conditions:

1. If they are not in danger.
2. If it places the state in danger of aggression by a foreign force.
3. If it causes and undue burden to the state that the state cannot afford to handle.

The state may not do certain things that are sins against justice.

1. It cannot force people into situations where they will suffer unnecessarily. You can’t send someone back to either be killed or starve.
2. It cannot allow anyone, immigrants or nationals to endanger the general public.
3. It cannot discriminate against immigrants in human rights: housing, education, healthcare, and nutrition. Those are inviolable human rights.
4. It cannot punish an entire group for the sins of some or even one. For example, it is immoral to separate members of a family unit.
5. The state cannot discriminate when it comes to evil. It cannot decide to attack one evil and turn a blind eye toward another evil. It must always choose the great good. The greater good is fighting the greater evil.

2.) If the bishops concerns were met like the part about illegal immigrants being fearful of deportation and I forget the other, would the Church allow the law?

The bishops were concerned about several points:

1. The fact that people would be afraid to call the police when they need them, for fear of being deported. So if someone is raped, but that person is an illegal immigrant, they may be afraid to call the police. This causes another danger. The person is raped and there is a rapist on the loose.
2. Under the original poroposal anyone who was in contact with a police officer could be subject to interrogation about their legal status. The bishops felt that this again creates a fear of the police.
3. The other part of this was that the law made no distinction between children and adults. The bishops are concerned that children cannot pay for the sins of the adults.

From what I’m hearing here, it sounds like the governor is ammending the law to avoid these problems. If these problems are avoided, the bishops will be very happy. They do not want to force the state to allow crime. What the concerns the Church is that many things are labeled as crimes, not only in our country, but around the world and they are not really crimes. Treating people like criminals, because they break your law which is unfair, is a sin against justice. If your law is unfair, then there is no sin if I disobey it. If the law is fair, the Church will never oppose a fair law. The Church has already spoken on the importance of having good immigration laws. She’s not against that. Her concern is that Catholics are often sold on what policians call good laws without consulting the Church. Politicians are never going to tell you that their law is immoral or has the potential for immorality. They are good sales people. Only the Church can tell us what is moral or immoral or has the potential. Our job, as Catholics, is to make sure that the state only passes laws that meet the moral standards set by the Church. Because the fulness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church, not the state. If the law is good. The Church is happy.

3.) Is tough illegal immigration (also other “politically conservative” positions) law a dangerous thing for Catholics to support?

The Church does not oppose tough laws as long as they treat all people fairly. That’s why I mentioned the Canadian border. It is unfair to close the southern border and leave the northern border open. To be fair, both borders should be closed and entry should be equally scrutinized on both ends of the country. While the Mexicans may bring drugs and violence from the south. The Canadians are adding to our existing problem with abortion and homosexuality. In the hierarchy of evils, who is doing the greater evil?

If you are tough on evil all the way around, the Church has no problems. If you are tough with some people and lenient with your friends, the Church has a problem. We have accused the bishops of being lenient with abusive priests. The accusation is a very very valid one. But now we have to take our own medicine. We cannot be lenient with those who do evil either, just because they are our friends.

We Catholics have to decide, do we want to keep out the Mexicans or to keep out evil?

If it’s the Mexicans that we want to keep out, that’s discrimination and the Church cannot support it. If it’s evil that we want to keep out, the Church will be our strongest ally. But then we have to attack evil on all fronts, not just the southern border.

Do you see what the Church expects of Catholics? She expects us to always choose the greatest good, not just what is good for us.

The ammendments to this law is a good beginning. But it can’t stop there. We Catholics still have to queston our government’s liberal policy allowing the culture of death to continue to enter the USA without restrictions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ender]

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.

It doesn’t matter who else signed the letter; additional signatures add nothing to the logic it expressed. The comments are either valid or invalid and the determination of which isn’t altered by the number of people who agree with it.

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.

The only reason the bishops’ opinion is even given a second thought is because we have an obligation to thoughtfully consider their comments; it certainly has nothing to do with the force of their arguments. And you should more forcefully resist the temptation to impugn someones intentions.

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.

I wrote to my bishop two years ago specifically asking if I was morally obligated to assent to his position on immigration. I received no response. I also personally spoke with our bishop emeritus after he gave a talk on immigration and asked him the same question. He danced around the question but even he was unwilling to impose that obligation on me and it’s easy to understand why. No such obligation exists. I have included part of that letter below and I think what I was asking was crystal clear .

I went to the diocesan website and read your letter to our congressional representatives containing your guidelines for a just approach to resolving the problem of illegal immigration, and I am confused as to what my response should be.

If the recommendations are merely political then I am free to follow my own opinion and reject yours, our political perspectives are significantly different. If your comments, however, are meant to define the sole moral response to this issue then they present me with a serious problem as I am obliged to follow your direction when you speak on faith or morals.

*I have assumed that your comments on illegal immigration are prudential; surely if we were in error on a moral issue you would be clear on correcting us. That you have not done so I take to mean that you are not claiming that your solution to the issue is the only moral alternative. *

Ender

 

[JReducation]

I sometimes forget the burdens of the religious. All me to provide the relevant information.

This is the original release that carries the signature of Bishop Thomas Olmstead:

diocesephoenix.org/_localnews/2010/04April.html#immigrationbill

From there I drew out the 3 moral concerns in yesterday’s post.

The relevant portions of House Bill #2162 that was signed into law today. Formatting from our legislature’s official Web site has been reproduced to the best of my ability. Existing, unaltered law is in black, additions are in blue, and removals are in red with brackets (the legislature’s Web site has this text struck through, which requires custom BB tags that I doubt Catholic.com has implemented).

B. For any lawful [contact] stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not [solely] consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

So the word “solely” has been removed so that race, color, or national origin is explicitly completely prohibited except the extent permitted under the AZ and US Constitutions.

More importantly, the term “any lawful contact” has been replaced with “any lawful stop, detention or arrest.”

H. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that the maximum fine is one hundred dollars and for a first violation of this section [is:] the court shall not sentence the person to more than twenty days in jail and for a second or subsequent violation the court shall not sentence the person to more than thirty days in jail.

[1. A class 3 felony if the person violates this section while in possession of any of the following:

(a) A dangerous drug as defined in section 13-3401.

(b) Precursor chemicals that are used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine in violation of section 13-3404.01.

(c) A deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument, as defined in section 13-105.

(d) Property that is used for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism as prescribed in section 13-2308.01.

1. A class 4 felony if the person either:

(a) Is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section.

(b) Within sixty months before the violation, has been removed from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229a or has accepted a voluntary removal from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229c.]

This has removed the felony provisions entirely. It is still a crime to be here without papers, but it is not a felony.

Other changes were also made, including reducing some fines and whatnot, but that’s the meat of the changes as they relate to my bishop’s concerns.

• Marty Lund

Thank you. I think this should meet the moral requirements. In fact, I think they took out things that they could have left in there such drugs, explosives, the whole point on terrorism. The Church would not have been unhappy with that. Those things protect people.

But I don’t know what the Protestants and Jews asked for. Maybe there is more to this story. The Rabbis, especially, were more irate thant he bishops were. The Orthodox Rabbis were threatening to file a class action suit against the state of AZ. They said that this was equivalent to Naziism. The Protestants said that it was just plain unnecessary, because there already is a federal law and the problem is that AZ has to get tougher with the Federal Govt. Actually, that point made sense to me. I don’t understand why the governors are so soft on the Federal Govt on these issues. The Federal Govt exists to support the states not the other way around.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

It doesn’t matter who else signed the letter; additional signatures add nothing to the logic it expressed. The comments are either valid or invalid and the determination of which isn’t altered by the number of people who agree with it.
The only reason the bishops’ opinion is even given a second thought is because we have an obligation to thoughtfully consider their comments; it certainly has nothing to do with the force of their arguments. And you should more forcefully resist the temptation to impugn someones intentions.
I wrote to my bishop two years ago specifically asking if I was morally obligated to assent to his position on immigration. I received no response. I also personally spoke with our bishop emeritus after he gave a talk on immigration and asked him the same question. He danced around the question but even he was unwilling to impose that obligation on me and it’s easy to understand why. No such obligation exists. I have included part of that letter below and I think what I was asking was crystal clear .

I went to the diocesan website and read your letter to our congressional representatives containing your guidelines for a just approach to resolving the problem of illegal immigration, and I am confused as to what my response should be.

If the recommendations are merely political then I am free to follow my own opinion and reject yours, our political perspectives are significantly different. If your comments, however, are meant to define the sole moral response to this issue then they present me with a serious problem as I am obliged to follow your direction when you speak on faith or morals.

*I have assumed that your comments on illegal immigration are prudential; surely if we were in error on a moral issue you would be clear on correcting us. *That you have not done so I take to mean that you are not claiming that your solution to the issue is the only moral alternative.

Ender

This is a good letter. You can make the tone a little more humble, but the questions are very clear. He should have answered you. The Bishop Emeritus can’t answer your question. He’s not allowed to do so. He has no jurisdiction.

I would sent a copy of this letter and the letter that your bishop wrote to Cardinal Laveda at the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, because it is a moral issue. And I would HUMBLY explain that I did not get a response and I’m in a bind. can you help me. You will get an answer. You’ll have to be patient. It may take about 90 days.

By the way, I’m not impugning anyone’s intentions. My job is to preach the Gospel of Life. I don’t judge consciences. I simply analyze actions and share with others how they appear on this side. Remember, we can’t see or hear each other. Therefore, what you say may not come across the way that you want it to come across. I just throw back how it came across…

If I sounded as if I was making a moral judgment, please don’t take it that way. I do not do those things. My only concern in life is to ensure that the Gospel of Life is observe by all for the benefit of all. As I said before, I’m not an ecclesiologist or a moral theologian. I took the same courses that every priest takes. But my doctorate is in Mystical Theology. I deal in matters of the soul. I can misunderstand what the pope and bishops are saying as well as the next guy. They are the doctors in moral theology, canon law, ecclesiology and so forth. In fact, all of our bishops in the USA are theologians. We’re one of the few countries that has an entire conference of theologians.

That doesn’t always make them easy to understand or follow them. They have an insight into the tiniest details of theology that most of us would completely overlook, because it appears insignificant.

But to close, write to Cardinal Laveda, because you should have gotten an answer or you can write to Cardinal George too. You know who is an expert on immirgation theology? Cardinal Sean of Boston. He has done this for over 30 years. He was my superior when I worked with immigrants. I learned a lot from him. He will answer your letter. He’s very kind. Also Archbishop Chaput is very kind. He and I lived together for five years before he went to Kansas.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

There are two changes I like.

For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state

This last phrase does away with the idea that the arrest might be made solely on violating the law of being in the country illegally. That was a rather circular possibility, but I bet some cops would try it. Also, I like this change.

person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy (or practice) that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws,

The part in red is deleted. Thus an agency can not codify what has been call sanctuary laws, but they also do not have to have quotas to make sure that illegal aliens are being arrested. It is a nice middle ground.

 

[JReducation]

There are two changes I like.

This last phrase does away with the idea that the arrest might be made solely on violating the law of being in the country illegally. That was a rather circular possibility, but I bet some cops would try it. Also, I like this change.

The part in red is deleted. Thus an agency can not codify what has been call sanctuary laws, but they also do not have to have quotas to make sure that illegal aliens are being arrested. It is a nice middle ground.

I believe that they did a good job. As I said above, they took out some things that the bishops had not mentioned.

But I never saw a copy of the two other letters: Rabbis and Protestants.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sidbrown]

sidbrown;6588165:

You’re completely missing the point. If the idea of closing borders is to keep evil out, then let’s be consistent. There is evil coming into the country from other places. That’s the point. Don’t just close the door to one group and allow another to enter. No one, not even the pope said that it is immoral to require visas. In fact you do not need visas to enter the European Union if you’re an American or a Canadian. Once you enter one country, you can enter all of them. But that’s another issue.

The point here is that if you are truly interested in keeping evil out, which is a good thing, then let’s be consistent. As Catholics we have a moral duty to be consistent in keeping evil out of any country.

We know that we have abortions and contraception in this country. We set the standard for it. But do we turn a blind eye to one evil that is coming in through another door and only address the evil that is coming in through the south? That’s the point.

Make good immigration laws. Let Catholics push for good immigration laws. Immigration laws should protect the people from evil, regardless of where it comes from. Why do we as Catholics need to allow open boarders to more abortionists and more pro abortion people? Why do we as Catholics need to allow same-sex married couples to cross the border? Why can’t we as Catholics take a position against all forms of evil, inside the country and outside the country, regardless of where it comes from?

If we truly believe what our faith tells us, that there is no greater sin against humanity than abortion, then we cannot close the border to Mexican drug peddlers and leave it open to abortionists. We should be telling our government that we want neither the drug peddlers nor the abortionists.

By the way, Pat Buchanan is not always in good standing with the Catholic Church. I would not use him as a model for Catholics. He and Pope John Paul II had a very serious falling out over Iraq. Then he had the same falling out over Iraq with Benedict XVI. He thought that Pope Benedict felt differently, since many mistakenly believe that Pope Benedict is more conservative than Pope John Paul II. Actually, they are two sides of the same coin. But that’s another subject.

The point here is to stop all evil from entering our country so that we can get a grip on our moral decadence.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Canada has nothing to do with the Arizona law, and by bringing up Canada you are clouding the issue. Further, the EU is selective about who is and who is not allowed to enter without visas. Some people do not need visas whereas others do. No Pope has ever said that this was immoral or a mortal sin or that you have to leave the Catholic Church if you follow this policy. So you are off the board, and way out when you claim that your prudential view on this is one that Catholics must follow.

 

[sidbrown]

It doesn’t matter who else signed the letter; additional signatures add nothing to the logic it expressed. The comments are either valid or invalid and the determination of which isn’t altered by the number of people who agree with it.
The only reason the bishops’ opinion is even given a second thought is because we have an obligation to thoughtfully consider their comments; it certainly has nothing to do with the force of their arguments. And you should more forcefully resist the temptation to impugn someones intentions.
I wrote to my bishop two years ago specifically asking if I was morally obligated to assent to his position on immigration. I received no response. I also personally spoke with our bishop emeritus after he gave a talk on immigration and asked him the same question. He danced around the question but even he was unwilling to impose that obligation on me and it’s easy to understand why. No such obligation exists. I have included part of that letter below and I think what I was asking was crystal clear .

I went to the diocesan website and read your letter to our congressional representatives containing your guidelines for a just approach to resolving the problem of illegal immigration, and I am confused as to what my response should be.

If the recommendations are merely political then I am free to follow my own opinion and reject yours, our political perspectives are significantly different. If your comments, however, are meant to define the sole moral response to this issue then they present me with a serious problem as I am obliged to follow your direction when you speak on faith or morals.

*I have assumed that your comments on illegal immigration are prudential; surely if we were in error on a moral issue you would be clear on correcting us. *That you have not done so I take to mean that you are not claiming that your solution to the issue is the only moral alternative.

Ender

It is a prudential decision and you do not have to leave the Catholic Church if you think that this is a good law.

 

[JReducation]

It is a prudential decision and you do not have to leave the Catholic Church if you think that this is a good law.

We’re not on the same page. I don’t think that we’re going to help each other. You’re focussing on one problem and I’m focussing on minimizing evil from every angle.

I thought that your letter was good and that should send it to either Cardinal George or Carindal Laveda and you didn’t even acknowledge it.

I don’t know what else I can say to you that will bring you to meet me half-way.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[lelhajj]

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?

Dear Sidbrown, whatever you wrote above does not condone that you have the right to generalize and judge a person by his/her race. I do not like to fight, but, i can also answer you the way you just answer me, not because i want revenge but because maybe in that way you can feel and meditate what it means to be judged in a generalized way. Therefore, i will say and claim that "all americans are drug addicts, killers, promiscuous, explotation, etc?
How does that feel? and i told you before, i am not a person that likes to hurt people, it is even against my own profession and moral values, but i did it just to make you feel the pain and meditate about the danger of making such kind of comments in a generalized way.
From the bottom of my heart i advise you to be more humble and have a wider mental approach when you judge not a person, but a country or race.
When we are so self centered that we can not see beyond our own eyes and we can not accept that so many times we are wrong and we can not grow mentally and spiritually.
I believe our franciscan brother reEducation has a wider knowledge, experience and better approach on such moral and political issues.
Let’s not forget that if we only see earthy things we can not see God’s laws which are our ultimately goal on this earth. We are here on earth in a transitory way but our main goal should be to live the way Jesus told us to live, in order for us to be near our Lord in heaven.

Thank you again, for reading this post and may God bless you and guide you.

 

[Kathy_Kounselor]

I’m so encouraged that the vast majority of the posts here are clearsighted, i.e., expressing the truth that the USA is not the welfare state of the world and that neither is she the Emergency Room to the world.

To criticize the opinion of the USCCB, and that of Bishop Mahony (calling those who disagree with amnesty ‘Nazis’ and ‘Communists’) is not to disrespect the episcopal authority of our Bishops. Far from it. Like the others on this post I am an obedient child of the Church when our Pope, Bishops, Cardinals and holy priests speak on matters of dogma, faith, and morals. But neither I nor any other Catholic is bound by the political opinions of Church heirarchy. The Az. law v. the illegal invasion fits into the latter, not the former, category.

As all of us know, there are in effect ‘2 Catholic Churches’. There is the ‘liberal’ Church which is fine with: bishops giving Holy Communion to gays in drag wearing ‘habits’ ridiculing real nuns youtube.com/watch?v=x_FDI1XX7js and ‘sisters’ selling their souls supporting Obamacare/abortion to get a pen from Obama’s signing of the bill a la Richard Rich betraying St. Thomas More at his trial: youtube.com/watch?v=bLIsqYKDqY8. In the liberal Church ‘social justice’ goes far beyond the charity we are bound as Catholics to give to those in need and extends to [supposedly] incurring sin if we demand border enforcement.

I’m not fooled-and judging from 99% of the posts here, neither are other Catholics like us.