Catholic Bishops against Arizona legislation

[sidbrown]

My friend, you were responding to me and you said, “At least Canadians and Brits are civilized and decent people.” I was asking how it was fair to close the Mexican border to allow the Canadians and Brits free access to our country.

I was coming from the same place as Fr. Corapi in this video above, the dignity of all human life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I never said “all mexicans are uncivilized and indecent.”
I can say Russians are civilised and decent. This does not mean that I have ever said or ever will say that all Chinese are uncivilised and indecent.
Stop misquotinhg me. It is wrong to misrepresent people.
Still, I ask anyone to show me where any Pope has said that the policy of Italy according to which they require foreigners from certain countries, such as Cambodia, to have visas, but they allow other foreigners, such as those from France to come in without visas, is a mortal sin or is in any way immoral. And what is the abortion rate in France as compared to Cambodia? The fact that France may or may not have a higher abortion rate than Cambodia is basically irrelevant to this political decision. Give me one example of where any Pope of the Roman Catholic Church has ever said that such a policy of selective visa permission is immoral and a mortal sin and that you have to leave the Catholic Church if you agree with a policy of selective immigration for Italy.

 

[sidbrown]

JReducation

Thanks for your response. I agree with all you say, here is another video on the Winnipeg Statement by Father Corapi….

Is Father Corapi being disrespectful of the Canadian Bishops? He first says that rapist and murders have a higher place in hell than these Bishops unless they repent, then he states that he has the highest respect for the Bishops and their positions and how difficult their jobs are; that Satin must be after them in an aggressive way. Do you think Father Corapi is judging these Bishops? Is Father Corapi acting as St. Catherine of Siena would have? It sounds like a tight wire act. We are not to Judge but we are also not to remain silent in the face of evil. I know the answer, love the sinner, hate the sin; but it is difficult to do sometimes. No wonder the gate is narrow and few are able to pass through.

In this video Father Corapi hits the Bishops pretty hard and I think rightly so. Do you believe he right? Has he gone too far? Apparently the Canadian Bishops have not withdrawn their statement yet, I read a 2008 letter to the Bishops by the Canadian laity requesting them to withdraw the statement. Since this was over 40 years ago many of these Bishop are probably dead.

youtube.com/watch?v=jo0ElZMS7EY

I don;t think that anyone knows who will or who will not go to hell. This is up to
God alone, and not up to anyone here or in Canada or anywhere else to decide.

 

[JReducation]

gakroeger:

Let’s take his first statement. “The truth was taught faithfully by a successor of St. Peter.” He also reminds us that all of the popes of this era have been: faithful, well educated and saintly, possibly more than any other period in the life of the Church. I would agree with him, that beginning with Leo XIII to today, our popes have been very holy men and well educated.

He also speaks about conscience, which has come up on this thread. He says something very important. Conscience is not free to be out of communion with the Church and it must always be formed by the Church. The mistake made by the bishops was to use the conscience to justify contraception. Where they went wrong was that they failed to teach that conscience must be formed by the Church. We do not have a right to “shape” our own conscience. We have a right to educate our conscience, but we have only one choice where to educate it, that is within the Church.

What I noticed is that Fr. Corapi walks a tight-rope, but stays on the safe-side of the rope, the side with the net. He’s how. He does not name any bishop by name. He does not take away from their authority and their role as apostles. He limits his comments to the erroneous statement that they made. He makes a statement of humility, which we often lack on these threads. He confesses that he has high respect for the bishops and that he understands that their jobs are not easy. This is where he differs from many posts here. We have a lot of condemnation of the bishops’ words. But we don’t have enough professions of faith and no humility as Fr. Corapi does. How many posters here have said that they respect the bishops? How many have admitted that they understand that a bishop’s job is not an easy one? How many have said that they pray for the bishops? How many have said that they engage in dialogue with the bishops?

Fr. Corapi, like St. Catherine of Siena, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, and Bl. Mother Teresa points to the error, gives a fair warning about the dangers, but expresses his fidelity, respect and recognition of their authority and position. He is not saying that they should not be obeyed or that they should be ignored. He’s not saying that they have not right to speak out. He’s simply saying that they said something wrong, but he has the teaching of the Church to back him up. This is the same situation as I posted about Francis and what we know about Catherine and others. When they speak about something that the bishops have done wrong, they can back it up with the teachings of the Church.

To say, “I have never heard a pope say that; therefore, I’m not bound to that,” would be unacceptable to our Church doctors and mystics. Their argument would be, “The Pope cannot address every possibility. That’s why Jesus gives him bishops to govern in communion with him.” They would be right, because this is scriptural. The argument must always be, “The pope said this and the bishop said that. The pope outranks the bishop. I’ll go with the pope.” You always go with the highest ranking speaker, not the silent one. Because you have no way of knowing what the pope thinks on the matter. You can’t appeal to “he never said this, so I don’t have to obey the bishop.” You’re assuming that because he did not say it, that he believes the same as you do. You don’t know that. But you do know what the bishop has said. You can go over a bishop’s head, when there is a clear indication from the pope that there is a conflict.

I was once talking to one of the bishops, a good friend of mine. He said something that I had often forgot. He said, “People often accuse bishops of getting involved in politics, until the government oppresses them. Then they wonder why the Church didn’t bail them out. People are selective in what they want from their bishops. This only makes the bishops’ job more difficult. Another important point is that people forget that bishops have rights as citizens. Like any other citizen they have a right to want what is good for their country. There can never be anything better four any country than to comply with God’s commandment that we love one another.”

I remember St. Giuseppe Moscati, the Italian doctor whom Pope John Paul II canonized for his great works in social justice and charity. Giuseppe told his medical students that if they resolved the patient’s problems and sent them home healthy, they had achieved nothing for which God could bless them. All they were doing was what anyone could do. But if they loved their patients, felt their pain, shared their misery then they were true doctors, because they were like the Divine Physician. The point here is the importance of charity in what we do. It is not enough to follow rules of immigration, medicine, education or whatever. We must feel the pain of the other person, share their misery and desire to feel love for them.

Fr. Corapi does this in his talk. You can hear his desire to love the bishops. He points out what they said and what the pope said. But he does not fail to say how much he loves them and how much he respects them. Like St. Giuseppe, he feels how difficult it is for the bishops, just as St. Giuseppe told his interns to feel the pain of their patients. We too have to feel the burden of the bishop or any other person in a tough situation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I never said “all mexicans are uncivilized and indecent.”
I can say Russians are civilised and decent. This does not mean that I have ever said or ever will say that all Chinese are uncivilised and indecent.
Stop misquotinhg me. It is wrong to misrepresent people.
Still, I ask anyone to show me where any Pope has said that the policy of Italy according to which they require foreigners from certain countries, such as Cambodia, to have visas, but they allow other foreigners, such as those from France to come in without visas, is a mortal sin or is in any way immoral. And what is the abortion rate in France as compared to Cambodia? The fact that France may or may not have a higher abortion rate than Cambodia is basically irrelevant to this political decision. Give me one example of where any Pope of the Roman Catholic Church has ever said that such a policy of selective visa permission is immoral and a mortal sin and that you have to leave the Catholic Church if you agree with a policy of selective immigration for Italy.

No one has said any of the above. I remember telling you that the Church has no problems with immigration laws, as long as they are fair. The Church has spoken a great deal on immigration and on the criteria for fair immigration laws. You can find an entire section on this in Pope Benedict’s encyclical, Veritas in Caritas.

The Church has also said that all human life is sacred. She has also said, as Fr.Corapi reminds us in the video, in the end, economic problems immigration problems, unemployment and so forth, are pale by comparisson to the murder of the unborn.

If you take the Church’s position on just immirgration laws and the Church’s strong condemnation of murder, you can put the two together and figure out that our immigration law has to address the entier hierarchy of evils, not just one evil. That’s how you do theology. You link the concepts

You can’t go on what the pope has never said, you go on what he has said. You don’t know what his thoughts are on what he has not said. But we do know his thoughts on immigration, just immigration practices and laws, and his position on the dignity of all human life. We must put them all together to form a cohesive response to our problems.

No one has said leave the Church, don’t require visas, etc. The point that has been made is that we listen to the bishops and ask ourselves how we apply what they teach us. We must ask ourselves what are the evils that we have to challenge and what is the priority.

In this case, the issue is over, because the governor has ammended the regulation and cleared up the wording that concerned the bishops. I understand that the good governor is not off the host seat yet. The Jewish leadership are not happy with some words in the law. Their may be more changes coming. The Jewish leadership did not co-sign the bishops’ letter. They wrote independently. The Protestants wrote independently. No one knew that the other was going to write. But the moral outrage by all three faiths was strongly felt by the governor of AZ. From my humble position, I believe that on those rare occasions when there is this kind of agreement between faiths, God is trying to tell us something and we must stop and listen. Slow down and realize that this is not just coincidence.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[gakroeger]

JReducation

Thank you again for your insightful comments. Two more questions for you. Why do you think after 40 years and virtually every practicing Catholic believing that Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae was not only correct at the time it was written but has been proven to be prophetic; that the Canadian Bishops have still not acknowledged their error?

And, don’t you believe that since the Canadian Bishops have been so wrong for so long that we should be especially cautious about assuming that Bishops are always correct? Apparently only 6 Bishops out of over 100 in Canada dissented in the Winnipeg Statement. Surely these Bishops can see (as we all here can see) that their 1968 Winnipeg statement was not only incorrect but it has done irreparable damage to the Church, its followers, and society in general. I would think they would be anxious to correct this error.

I totally agree that their human failings have no effect on their authority to ordain Priest such as Father Corapi (although ordained by Pope John Paul II) are a gift from God through human weakness, however, I am struggling with accepting their political views. I also agree with your comments about looking to the higher authority and as stated by Father Corapi, we have been extremely blessed in our life time to have had extremely wise, intelligent, and Holy men as our Popes. It is so unfortunate that all of our Bishops do not seem to recognize this.

 

[sidbrown]

If you take the Church’s position on just immirgration laws and the Church’s strong condemnation of murder, you can put the two together and figure out that our immigration law has to address the entier hierarchy of evils, not just one evil. That’s how you do theology.

This is not true. The Pope has never said that it is all right for Italy to have lax immigration laws with Portugal, but it is required for Italy to have strong immigration laws with reference to immigration from France, because one is easy on abortions whereas the other is not.
You can belong to the Catholic Church and maintain that a country can have strict immigration laws for country 1, but lax immigration laws for country 2. It is not a sin or immoral to do so on the basis of political or prudential judgement.
Give me one single example of anyone in the world who was ever excommunicated from the Catholic Church on the basis that they favored immigration from France, but not from Portugal.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation

Thank you again for your insightful comments. Two more questions for you. Why do you think after 40 years and virtually every practicing Catholic believing that Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae was not only correct at the time it was written but has been proven to be prophetic; that the Canadian Bishops have still not acknowledged their error?

I can’t speak for someone else. But I can say something practical here. This statement was made 40 years ago. None of those men are in office. You don’t become a bishop until you’re past the age of 40. You must retire at age 75. The youngest bishop would have been 40 back then and he would have retired 35 years later. That would be five-years ago. The current bishops have nothing for which to apologize. They inherited a problem.

And, don’t you believe that since the Canadian Bishops have been so wrong for so long that we should be especially cautious about assuming that Bishops are always correct?

Actually, the men who were wrong are no longer around. But we must always examine what we hear against the background of what the Church teaches or what the pope has said. If they are in conflict, we go with the higher authority. If they are not in conflict, then we proceed.

Many times bishops have to make calls on something that never occurred to the folks at the Holy See, because they have no idea that it is happening. The bishops have a right to make a call on any subject that is moral, pastoral or doctrinal. In the case of immigration, the Church has laid down the policies that law makers must follow. She’s done this several times. The last time it was by Pope Benedict XVI in Veritas in Caritas. The bishops have an obligation to take those writings, study them and see how they can best apply them in their country.

They also have an obligation to keep a careful watch on the civil government to make sure that the government does not step outside of what the Church teaches or outside of what the Church is hoping to accomplish. It may not even be a doctrine. The Church often has pastoral plans for the future and the bishops are privy to them, but we’re not. These plans are between the pope and the bishop. When the government does something that may do harm to these plans, the bishops have to intervene. But they can only say as much as Rome allows them to say. The reason for the secrecy is because these plans are not well developed. They don’t want to say that they are going to do something and in two weeks come back and say that they changed their mind or that it would not work. Until they are sure, they are quiet about it.

Apparently only 6 Bishops out of over 100 in Canada dissented in the Winnipeg Statement. Surely these Bishops can see (as we all here can see) that their 1968 Winnipeg statement was not only incorrect but it has done irreparable damage to the Church, its followers, and society in general. I would think they would be anxious to correct this error.

Let’s look at one thing first. Nothing can do irreperable damage to the Church. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit. These things can do damage and make our lives and work more difficult. That’s true. The bishops of Canada are working very hard on life issues. As I said, this is a new generation. They are working very hard to correct the problems that were caused by the Winnipeg Statement.

I totally agree that their human failings have no effect on their authority to ordain Priest such as Father Corapi (although ordained by Pope John Paul II) are a gift from God through human weakness, however, I am struggling with accepting their political views.

The bishops are always going to have political views and opinions. It’s part of their job description. If they keep silent on political issues, the pope would have some serious problems with that. Their job is to keep everyone on the narrow path. We are not alwasy going to like what they have to say. We have to give them the benefit of the doubt. That’s why I always tell people to write their local bishop and politely ask questions. Someone will answer. If you don’t get an answer within a reasonable amount of time, you have the right to send a copy of your letter to Sacred Congregation for the Faith and tell them that you want an answer to your question. Or you can write the President of the Bishops’ Conference. There are systems in place for asking questions. The saints have used them all through history.

Catherine of Siena used them, Mother Teresa, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis would just stroll down to Rome and pay the pope a visit and ask his questions. But what these people had in common was a great love for their bishops. They did not go to the Church to complain about their bishops. They simply stated their question. When asked why they had not asked the local bishop, they told the truth. They had asked, but had not received an answer. One should never stop asking questions. Just be humble in doing it.

I also agree with your comments about looking to the higher authority and as stated by Father Corapi, we have been extremely blessed in our life time to have had extremely wise, intelligent, and Holy men as our Popes. It is so unfortunate that all of our Bishops do not seem to recognize this.

I wouldn’t say half. I would say many. But you would be surprised how many bishops I know and how many I can say are lose canons. Suffice it to say that I have worked with 13 bishops and none of them are loose canons. They’re very good men with different strengths and different weaknesses, just like me.

Fraternally

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

This is not true. The Pope has never said that it is all right for Italy to have lax immigration laws with Portugal, but it is required for Italy to have strong immigration laws with reference to immigration from France, because one is easy on abortions whereas the other is not.
You can belong to the Catholic Church and maintain that a country can have strict immigration laws for country 1, but lax immigration laws for country 2. It is not a sin or immoral to do so on the basis of political or prudential judgement.
Give me one single example of anyone in the world who was ever excommunicated from the Catholic Church on the basis that they favored immigration from France, but not from Portugal.

You know what, discussion is not possible with you, because you read more into things than what is said.

Second, you want a statement from the pope on everything from immigration to paper towels. You have to learn to do theology. If you don’t want to learn to do theology, then let theologians answer the question without reading into it things that are not there.

The fact that a pope has not said anything about immigration from France and Portugal, does not mean that he approves or disapproves. It means that he has not said anything. That’s all.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sidbrown]

You know what, discussion is not possible with you, because you read more into things than what is said.

Second, you want a statement from the pope on everything from immigration to paper towels. You have to learn to do theology. If you don’t want to learn to do theology, then let theologians answer the question without reading into it things that are not there.

The fact that a pope has not said anything about immigration from France and Portugal, does not mean that he approves or disapproves. It means that he has not said anything. That’s all.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I never asked for the Pope to make any sort of statement on paper towels. This is a misrepresentation of what I have said. Paper towels are irrelevant to the argument here and have nothing to do with immigration laws.
I have said that for many, many years, Italy and in fact all of the European countries have had selective immigration laws, and there has been no declaration from the Pope or anyone else in the Vatican, as to whether or not it is a mortal sin or in any way immoral for Catholics to support these laws.
Give me an example of a research article in a reputable theological journal, where any theologian in the Roman Catholic Church has ever said that it is immoral or a mortal sin for a Catholic to be in favor of the system of immigration laws in effect in Europe either today under the EU, or in the past before the EU.

 

[sidbrown]

I came across the following article which purports to describe the immigration laws of Mexico. I don’t know how accurate it is, but from the article, it looks like the immigration laws of Mexico are quite strong. The article suggests that the USA try the same immigration laws as are in effect in Mexico today. According to the article:
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are
• in the country legally;
• have the means to sustain themselves economically;
• not destined to be burdens on society;
• of economic and social benefit to society;
• of good character and have no criminal records; and
• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
• …
• Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
• The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
• Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
• A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
• A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
• Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
• Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
• Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
• Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
• Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico – such as working with out a permit – can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony.
See: citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/waller5-8-06.html

 

[gakroeger]

I can’t speak for someone else. But I can say something practical here. This statement was made 40 years ago. None of those men are in office. You don’t become a bishop until you’re past the age of 40. You must retire at age 75. The youngest bishop would have been 40 back then and he would have retired 35 years later. That would be five-years ago. The current bishops have nothing for which to apologize. They inherited a problem.

I am not sure I agree with this statement, while your logic is flawless, the current Bishops have allowed the Winnipeg statement to stand unchallenged.

Actually, the men who were wrong are no longer around. But we must always examine what we hear against the background of what the Church teaches or what the pope has said. If they are in conflict, we go with the higher authority. If they are not in conflict, then we proceed.

Agreed

Many times bishops have to make calls on something that never occurred to the folks at the Holy See, because they have no idea that it is happening. The bishops have a right to make a call on any subject that is moral, pastoral or doctrinal. In the case of immigration, the Church has laid down the policies that law makers must follow. She’s done this several times. The last time it was by Pope Benedict XVI in Veritas in Caritas. The bishops have an obligation to take those writings, study them and see how they can best apply them in their country.

Agreed

They also have an obligation to keep a careful watch on the civil government to make sure that the government does not step outside of what the Church teaches or outside of what the Church is hoping to accomplish. It may not even be a doctrine. The Church often has pastoral plans for the future and the bishops are privy to them, but we’re not. These plans are between the pope and the bishop. When the government does something that may do harm to these plans, the bishops have to intervene. But they can only say as much as Rome allows them to say. The reason for the secrecy is because these plans are not well developed. They don’t want to say that they are going to do something and in two weeks come back and say that they changed their mind or that it would not work. Until they are sure, they are quiet about it.

Agreed, however, I don’t think this applies to Winnipeg, maybe it does to the Arizona law. Again my problem with the U.S. Bishops is their track record.

Let’s look at one thing first. Nothing can do irreperable damage to the Church. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit. These things can do damage and make our lives and work more difficult. That’s true. The bishops of Canada are working very hard on life issues. As I said, this is a new generation. They are working very hard to correct the problems that were caused by the Winnipeg Statement.

I stand corrected…

The bishops are always going to have political views and opinions. It’s part of their job description. If they keep silent on political issues, the pope would have some serious problems with that. Their job is to keep everyone on the narrow path. We are not alwasy going to like what they have to say. We have to give them the benefit of the doubt. That’s why I always tell people to write their local bishop and politely ask questions. Someone will answer. If you don’t get an answer within a reasonable amount of time, you have the right to send a copy of your letter to Sacred Congregation for the Faith and tell them that you want an answer to your question. Or you can write the President of the Bishops’ Conference. There are systems in place for asking questions. The saints have used them all through history.

Good advice

Catherine of Siena used them, Mother Teresa, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis would just stroll down to Rome and pay the pope a visit and ask his questions. But what these people had in common was a great love for their bishops. They did not go to the Church to complain about their bishops. They simply stated their question. When asked why they had not asked the local bishop, they told the truth. They had asked, but had not received an answer. One should never stop asking questions. Just be humble in doing it.

Agreed

I wouldn’t say half. I would say many. But you would be surprised how many bishops I know and how many I can say are lose canons. Suffice it to say that I have worked with 13 bishops and none of them are loose canons. They’re very good men with different strengths and different weaknesses, just like me.

Fraternally

Br. JR, OSF

If I understand what you just said, you believe that many Bishops are out of control? Scary…

 

[pnewton]

Give me one single example of anyone in the world who was ever excommunicated from the Catholic Church on the basis that they favored immigration from France, but not from Portugal.

Might I ask the relevance of this request. It seems rather odd. Excommunication is a canonically penalty. Not all that is wrong is subject to this penalty, so this is an arguement from an irrelevant absence.

 

[tpw]

Since the bishop’s role as you have stated is to teach faith and morals and immigration like any other social issue is in fact a moral issue what exactly do you object to in the USCCB’s call for immigration reform? Moral issues have attendant public policy implications.

Public morality inclludes pro-life issues but also takes into account a far greater array of issues than abortion alone. Read the documentary history of Catholic social teaching going back to 1891 for some exposure to this rich tradition of moral reflection. Going back even further to Aquinas, Augustine and others you will also see a graphic Catholic concern for an entire array of public issue as esentially moral concerns.

It’s also interesting how you appeal to “clear-sighted” thinking of others on this post. I find much of it profoundly xenophobic and ignorant as to the state of immigrants to this country. To reduce issues to a simple “follow the law” mandate assumes the law itself is just and reasonable.

Unfortunately or fortunately as the case may be - I suspect most of us on this post have very little idea what it’s like to live in or be forced to flee from profound poverty and violence. In our safe little worlds “follow the law” seems reasonable. But we speak in blindness to the realities from which many of these people are coming from.

True, not one should be expected to allow passage to violent criminals, drug lords, et al.
But to the degree that these people prey on others in their own countries or engage themselves in trafficking of immigants thus exploiting vulnerable people, they should be confronted. The bishops certainly aren’t asking for that.

The law is in desperate need of overhaul given that social and economic conditions have changed dramatically in the past 23 years since the last immigration reform. The passage of NAFTA in 1994 profoundly impacted Mexico’s rural dwellers who had lived for generations scraping out a living. NAFTA changed all of that by mandating changes in Mexico’s land policies. While a handful of big business interests have profitted handsomely from NAFTA and other free trade agreements it’s interesting that there never called on the carpet…the men and the women in the shadows pulling the levers if you will.

Moreover, industries like textiles have left Mexico for China to take advantage of even lower wages and absent environmental regulation. This industries employed many, many people in Mexico. Like Americans who lost jobs and have been unable to find suitable work since then, Mexicans are faced with the same crisis.

I’d also encourage you to read the Pope’s comments of the past few days to the Pontifical Academy of the Social Sciences where he urgently calls upon social scientists to find constructive ways to address the exploitive economy which has grown in the past twenty or so years. The Pope squarely sees the problem which is causing a worldwide crisis impacting all sectors of society including playing a significant role driving immigration.

If you actually talk to immigrants as do the lay people, priests, religious and bishops do, you would develop quite a different understanding provided you are teachable…

 

[tpw]

Abortionists, abortion supporters, gay couples are now flooding to and knocking at the gates of the border? What a fanciful idea. What world do you live in?

Mexican and Latin American families are very conservative in these matters. You need to go out and speak to people instead of composing half-baked notions…

 

[JReducation]

If I understand what you just said, you believe that many Bishops are out of control? Scary…

While this may be scary, it’s not a surprise. A man is not born a bishop. He is born within a family and a culture. Our families and our culture are out of control. It would be a shock if we had no one who was affected by the current situation of society. Heck, it wouldn’t be a shock, it would be a miracle.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ridgerunner]

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

Yes I do. But I would make a further distinction between hostility and mistrust. I might remain entirely peaceful, kind and respectful to a person, but I might not trust him. Trust is something that ought to be based on rational analysis, and there is more than one manifestation of it. I might trust a person to act in good faith, for example, but I might not trust him to act wisely. When it comes to bishops, one should trust in every respect unless and until the bishop’s actions reasonably cause us to question his wisdom in certain ways.

No one could reasonably doubt that various bishops acted unwisely in, say, the abuse scandal. One ought, however, to believe they acted in good faith, and I believe they did with one possible exception who later was shown to have seriously violated his own vows over a lengthy period of time himself.

 

[JReducation]

Yes I do. But I would make a further distinction between hostility and mistrust. I might remain entirely peaceful, kind and respectful to a person, but I might not trust him. Trust is something that ought to be based on rational analysis, and there is more than one manifestation of it. I might trust a person to act in good faith, for example, but I might not trust him to act wisely. When it comes to bishops, one should trust in every respect unless and until the bishop’s actions reasonably cause us to question his wisdom in certain ways.

No one could reasonably doubt that various bishops acted unwisely in, say, the abuse scandal. One ought, however, to believe they acted in good faith, and I believe they did with one possible exception who later was shown to have seriously violated his own vows over a lengthy period of time himself.

If I’m understanding you correctly what you’re saying is that we can trust that people act in good faith, but even when acting in good faith, they can and do make mistakes. We can’t assume that someone never makes mistakes. If this is what you’re saying, I agreee 100%.

This is where saints like Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Ignatiues of Loyola and many others are good role models for us. They did several things that were very holy. 1) They expressed their concerns to the bishops and popes, not to the world. What we know, we found out about it long after they died. They were the epitome of discretion.

1. They never gave the morality of the bishop’s or pope’s actions a second thought. This allowed them to see them as they are, the Vicar of Christ and the successors of the Apostles. Francis of Assisi explained it well. When you see a sinner, it is too easy to forget who the sinner is. You must look beyond that to who he is. You discuss the sin in very objective form.
2. They never saw themselves as equal to the bishops and the popes. They always saw themselves as subservient to them. This is somethign that we have forgotten. We are not their equals. What has happpened is that you get priests, religious and laity making statements as if they were equal in authority to the bishops and popes. Look at those sisters who spoke in favor of the healthcare reform. They did not have the authority to speak on that issue. They had never been given permission to do so. They assumed authority. The saints have always demured.
3. The saints have alwasy concluded their presentation of their concerns with a pleged to do whatever the bishop or the pope orders, unless he orders something that is EXPLICITLY forbidden by the Church. You cannot disobey on something that you assume is sinful. It has to be declared a sin by the Church, because only the Church has the authority to define sin.

If we take these examples, we should do fine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sidbrown]

MyLet’s not just fight against drugs and street gangsters, while we forget the most serious and dangerous criminal of all, the abortionist. Catholics have a moral duty to demand that the government address all of the evil that it allows to enter our country.

Canada says it will refuse to fund abortions according to the G8 plan. Does that mean then that it is immoral to allow people from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom to enter the USA, since they are in favor of funding abortions according to the G8 plan?
theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-refuses-to-fund-abortion-in-g8-plan/article1547671/

 

[Kathy_Kounselor]

My post was not divisive. That’s in the eye of the beholder if I may say so. I said ‘2 Churches’ because that is what I and millions of Catholics every day opine. The divide is already there; I simply state it.

On the one hand we have churches/priests who preach that Holy Communion is not the real Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Savior Jesus Christ. They also preach that abortion is not intrinsically evil but a ‘private matter’ for a woman to decide. My trad Latin Rite Church teaches the Magisterium. Those churches are bursting at the seams, because the Faithful want the real Church, not a watered-down false one.

As for the priest ‘not noticing’ the gays in drag-drag ridiculing holy nuns-that’s, to me, preposterous. One clearly sees in the video that he hesitates before giving Communion, but give it he does. That is wrong and desecrates Christ Himself.

I don’t understand the point about the many posts critical of the nuns who are pro-Obamacare and pro-abortion. Are those posts bad, too? Because they speak the truth about such false nuns?

Finally: I’ve read Br.'s post on the present immigration laws being ‘immoral’. I do not agree. They are just; and they serve the greater good. America is the world’s lifeboat: Overload it, and everyone drowns. We are a sovereign nation and have borders, language and culture. We have the right-legal and moral-to do all that is necessary to maintain our beloved USA as the strongest, most self-sufficient, generous and benevolent nation on earth. Our first duty is to our own citizens.

In closing, Brother wrongly refers to illegals as ‘immigrants’. As a lawyer I know there is a very great distinction between the two. An illegal is already a criminal for crashing the border, then working here (with or w/o a stolen SS# which is another crime, i.e., identity theft). Were it not for misguided Americans who actually join in the illegals preposterous demands, we’d not have the present riots of illegals who have the gall to illegally enter OUR county; then have the further effrontery to ‘demand’ what they wrongly consider their ‘rights’. They have no ‘rights’ to remain here-they are an invasive force.

 

[catharina]

My post was not divisive. That’s in the eye of the beholder if I may say so. I said ‘2 Churches’ because that is what I and millions of Catholics every day opine. The divide is already there; I simply state it.

So you imagine you know better than the Vatican. Sure.

On the one hand we have churches/priests who preach that Holy Communion is not the real Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Savior Jesus Christ. They also preach that abortion is not intrinsically evil but a ‘private matter’ for a woman to decide. My trad Latin Rite Church teaches the Magisterium. Those churches are bursting at the seams, because the Faithful want the real Church, not a watered-down false one.

**I’m a 64 yr old lifelong Roman Catholic. I’ve lived in different parishes around the USA. I’ve NEVER heard of anything like what you are alleging. You are spreading rumors - and in my opinion, tremendous falsehoods re the Catholic Church. SHAME ON YOU. **

As for the priest ‘not noticing’ the gays in drag-drag ridiculing holy nuns-that’s, to me, preposterous. One clearly sees in the video that he hesitates before giving Communion, but give it he does. That is wrong and desecrates Christ Himself.

"The priest" was a bishop and an old man. I believe he saw exactly what he says he saw; nothing too out-of the ordinary. Was his eyesight weak? Probably. Yet YOU condemn him. How completely unspeakable of you.

I don’t understand the point about the many posts critical of the nuns who are pro-Obamacare and pro-abortion. Are those posts bad, too? Because they speak the truth about such false nuns?

You miss every point. My point about the many posts on CA - including my own posts - who condemned the actions of those “nuns” is that the condemnation was correct. If you’re here to fight - because you like to fight - go fight some heretics or your own judgementalism.

Finally: I’ve read Br.'s post on the present immigration laws being ‘immoral’. I do not agree. They are just; and they serve the greater good. America is the world’s lifeboat: Overload it, and everyone drowns. We are a sovereign nation and have borders, language and culture. We have the right-legal and moral-to do all that is necessary to maintain our beloved USA as the strongest, most self-sufficient, generous and benevolent nation on earth. Our first duty is to our own citizens.

Our first duty is to GOD. The primary law is CHARITY.

In closing, Brother wrongly refers to illegals as ‘immigrants’. As a lawyer I know there is a very great distinction between the two. An illegal is already a criminal for crashing the border, then working here (with or w/o a stolen SS# which is another crime, i.e., identity theft). Were it not for misguided Americans who actually join in the illegals preposterous demands, we’d not have the present riots of illegals who have the gall to illegally enter OUR county; then have the further effrontery to ‘demand’ what they wrongly consider their ‘rights’. They have no ‘rights’ to remain here-they are an invasive force.

**Your opinions put you at odds with charity. Brother is absolutely correct in his use of terms. The term is “IMMIGRANT.” It can be modified as “legal” or “illegal.” Most recently the term (more in use is “undocumented.” Why don’t you know all of that? To prove your point, you simply forget it? Sure, “counselor.” **

**PS - as a matter of law and even of common usage, I’ve never heard the term “illegals” used as an appropriate term by ANYONE - including you. Properly the word “illegal” is an adjective. Most often, IMO, the people who use the term “illegals” as a noun are simply bowing down to biased and disrespectful thinking . **