Catholic bishops call for end to "inhumane" worksite ICE raids (CNA)

[Ed_Rand]

You need to report it and start over legally!

End of rant…

As I said, it costs illegals thousands of US dollars to come to the US. They could also die in the deserts. If it were easier to come legally, I think they would love the idea. Because of the immense risk and cost, some families stay separated for years while the male works and sends money home.

Sorry for not addressing the rest of your post. I just don’t see what that has to do with illegals as a whole. If anything, it’s proof that there needs to be a better system to allow for legal immigration and documentation, which is what I and the bishops are saying is the first step. Without the government taking substantial first-steps to correct this problem, nothing will change. Raids of terror such as this seem a bit below our standards of human rights here in the US. Ah, but things have been changing lately. Perhaps the Church should just go with the flow…

 

[Lynn-D]

Are you saying that anyone the government decrees to be a criminal is therefore an immoral person? Are you saying that governments cannot act unjustly?

The U.S. is a country of law and not a declaration of those who govern. And yes, knowing one is breaking a law is an immoral act in my book.

Laws about border regulations are in existence to serve the common good. When twelve million people have felt impelled to disobey these laws, the laws are clearly not serving the common good and need to be changed. There is no moral high ground in insisting on enforcing a law just because it has been passed by some government or other.

The common good?? Are you talking about the citizens common good or the intruders? Your statement might well serve as an invitation to open borders. To restrict borders is a soverign nations right; the dogma seemingly decreed from the ‘high moral ground’ is that which denies that right.

Very simply. Because a country isn’t a home. The analogy is specious.

The analogy is between two specific circumstances. And that is how all law is measured.

Breaking into someone’s home violates their human dignity. Crossing the border of their country without permission from the government does not.

Here in the USA the government is me and every other citizen and constitutionally designed to protect and serve. It is not to be ignored to benefit one who has no right to be here in the first place. Illegals are not dignified with US citizenship and therefore should not expect to be treated with the dignity of citizenship and its rights.

I see. So all illegal acts are equal? Are you sure you really want to defend this.

All illegal acts are not equal and that is why we treat all lawbreakers with varying degrees of punishment. Entering a country without permission is illegal and should be punishable by laws that are equally applied to all…no matter if only one or 12 million.

Some illegal acts are intrinsically wrong (and these are of widely varying degrees of gravity). Others are not intrinsically wrong but are properly forbidden by the government for the common good. Others are actually good and the government is unjust in forbidding them.
Edwin

Are you saying that, ‘Others are actually good…’ to mean illegal acts that are unjustly forbidden by the government? To say I am confused is to put it mildly.

I don’t want my neighbor intruding upon my property nor will I accept the illegal trespasser to claim I am unjust in denying him the right to do so. An illegal act is just that under law…illegal. If you don’t like the law then change it but until then it is the law of the land. Or might we now only adhere to ‘Contarini Law’?

Lynn-D

 

[JReducation]

Here in Massachusetts, the recent raid was on a factory, not a farm. The majority of illegals came from Brazil and Guatemala, but there were Haitians and Dominicans as well.

Ironically, as a result of information obtained in the raid, law enforcement officials manage to apprehend some illegals who were wanted for major crimes, including rape and murder.

Our local Bishops protested the raid.

The good part is, Americans ended up being hired for the jobs the illegals were doing. In fact, the company couldn’t hire all that applied.

Jim

Help me out here. I’m having trouble with a Carmelite rolling his eyes at something that the bishops take to be very serious and see within the context of the Church’s position on national boundaries, human rights and the poor. I guess this comes more strongly across when one of those bishops is Cardinal Sean, OFM Cap, the Archbishop of Boston, who has always been a protector and a servant to the poorest of the poor, not the State. Whose holiness and and sincerity is unquestionable by those who know him personally. He is someone who deserves to be heard. He is a very holy man and more knowledgeable about the issues regarding immigration than the average American. This has been his ministry since he was a young friar.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s not what I was addressing with that comment. That was sort of disingenuous for you to modify my quote in such a way. I wasn’t questioning your own observations. I was questioning where you got the idea that the bishops don’t understand the “reality” of life as an illegal. Some of these bishops and priests have been there first-hand to watch the devastation of these raids. They might also have a better knowledge of the situation since they have the most intimate contact with illegals who go to confession. You still haven’t explained how you come to the conclusion that bishops across the country are being “gamed”. Actually, I don’t expect an explanation because you really couldn’t have any knowledge of such a thing.

I meant you no offense, Ed Rand, and I’m sorry that I did. I really wasn’t being disingenuous, I misunderstood you. Never have I claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I, too, have seen the raids. I have talked to families of people who have been deported from the raids. I have talked to people who were grabbed up in the raids. I have seen some of them come back within a month or two of being deported. I agree the raids and deportations are unpleasant, and they do deprive people of the money they were making before. No doubt about it. But again, they don’t shoot them. They don’t sell them into slavery. They send them back to where they came from.

It needs to be recognized as well that illegals go back to their home countries a lot, on their own, and many return. They all have places and families where they came from, and to which they can return. Being deported really doesn’t end their lives. It puts them back into the world into which they were born.

Of course priests can be “gamed”, just like protestant preachers are often “gamed”. I have seen it happen myself. You have to realize that while priests do hear confessions, they often do not see what people do, and are not in a position to test the truth or falsity of what people tell them. Most don’t have the professional “tools” to distinguish between genuine representations and misrepresentations. Nor, generally speaking, is it their inclination to be skeptical about what they are told about someone’s condition in life. They are priests, for goodness sake, not lawyers, investigators or judges.

But again, I don’t question that it’s different where you live.

 

[Ed_Rand]

If you don’t like the law then change it but until then it is the law of the land.

That’s exactly what the bishops and everyone else is talking about!!! We must change the law because the “law of the land” is
unjust at this point. That’s what this whole conversation has been about. As it is, you can’t criminalize and terrorize the illegal immigrants because the laws are unjust.

And yes, knowing one is breaking a law is an immoral act in my book.

Let’s remember that Nazi Germany also had a whole bunch of laws. Breaking a law is sometimes the most moral thing to do.

 

[Ed_Rand]

I meant you no offense, Ed Rand, and I’m sorry that I did. I really wasn’t being disingenuous, I misunderstood you. Never have I claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Don’t be modest. You have such vast knowledge. Perhaps I watch you more closely because I know darn well that you’re razor-sharp. No offense taken, friend.

But again, I don’t question that it’s different where you live.

Yes it is different. But even in the brutal conditions that I witness everyday, there is mutual benefit. That doesn’t make it right though. I’ve seen some pretty awful things. Some of the worst effects of this unjust situation are evidenced in the employers. When an institution or state encourages unjust treatment, the people who feel free to “follow suit” will lose their own humanity. I manage a business that employs illegal immigrants. It’s very hard not to treat them differently than I would anyone else. It is wrong for the state to encourage this.

On a more positive note, I am often jealous of the situation of illegal immigrants. A quick glance at the Gospels will show me that they’re in a much better position to enter the Kindom of Heaven. How noble it is that some of them are the best of people, the most hardworking, the most family oriented, and yet they recieve so little on earth for a whole lifetime of struggle and suffering. No doubt they have so much waiting for them in heaven. We citizens, we elites of the richest country on earth, should be quite concerned that we have already recieved our due pay in this life.

Peace be with you Ridgerunner, you’re quite a gentleman.

 

[JReducation]

The Church is not talking about crime, it’s talking about the way illegal immirgrants are being treated. They are not speaking about those who commit crimes against humanity and property.

Immigration is of special concern to the Church, because human beings living in sub-standard conditions while others live with more than they need is a violation of God’s scale of justice.

The Church has no responsibility to support the State’s definition of justice when that definition is in conflict with the Gospel. Jesus himself was an illegal immigrant when his family had to flee into Egypt to protect him from Herod. This is where the Church comes from. Many of the early Jewish Christians were illegal immigrants when the diaspora ocurred. They fled Israel and went to Europe and other parts of the Middle East and were persecuted for being foreigners and for introducing a new religion into their host nations.

Most Catholics who came to this country were illegal immigrants. Most immigrants from Latin America are Catholics.

The Church has a moral obligation to protect the rightsof all people, especially Catholics who have committed no crime but seek a better life for their families.

If anyone were to see how these people are treated by the American embassies and American Consulates in Latin American, they would understand why people cross the border illegally. The American embassies and consulates demand that those applying for a visa to enter the United States have money, property or a full-time job to go to in the USA. If the immigrants had money and property, instead of living in huts, they would not want to leave their countries.

As I said, the Catholic Church does not have the obligation to protect the United States, nor is the Vatican a subordinate state to the USA. In fact, every Catholic is a citizen of the Vatican City State.

There is a conflict of interests here for American Catholics. My vote is with the Church when it comes to moral issues.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[ontologysue]

Are you saying that anyone the government decrees to be a criminal is therefore an immoral person? Are you saying that governments cannot act unjustly?

Laws about border regulations are in existence to serve the common good. When twelve million people have felt impelled to disobey these laws, the laws are clearly not serving the common good and need to be changed. There is no moral high ground in insisting on enforcing a law just because it has been passed by some government or other.

Very simply. Because a country isn’t a home. The analogy is specious.

Breaking into someone’s home violates their human dignity. Crossing the border of their country without permission from the government does not.

I see. So all illegal acts are equal? Are you sure you really want to defend this.

Some illegal acts are intrinsically wrong (and these are of widely varying degrees of gravity). Others are not intrinsically wrong but are properly forbidden by the government for the common good. Others are actually good and the government is unjust in forbidding them.

Edwin

It is not just “some law”, it is the integrity of our border, our sovereignty…this is the number ONE job of any government, to protect its people from outside invasion. No nation has ever survived who has so recklessly ignored it’s border integrity.

What will we think about this when some terrorist, who has come in through the southern border, or the northern border for that matter, sets off a dirty bomb in, say, 5 of our largest metropolitan areas…God forbid!

Protecting and enforcing our own borders does not make us criminals, non-compassionate or anything else, it is suicidal to do otherwise. I worked in law enforcement for along time and you cannot believe all the identity theft that is going on with mexicans stealing ss numbers and then ruining peoples lives, their credit, their security, etc; the traffic accidents alone that resulted in lost innocent American lives just going from point a to point b and then get killed by some illegal driving without a license…this is insanity.

BTW, the analogy fits perfectly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Most Catholics who came to this country were illegal immigrants. ** Absolutely wrong. ** Most immigrants from Latin America are Catholics.** True.**

JR

It might be interesting if people who think our immigration laws are unjust to describe what they think would be a just system.

It would likewise be interesting for people to describe a “just” system that is also in the best interests of the U.S.

 

[ontologysue]

As I said, it costs illegals thousands of US dollars to come to the US. They could also die in the deserts. If it were easier to come legally, I think they would love the idea. Because of the immense risk and cost, some families stay separated for years while the male works and sends money home.

Sorry for not addressing the rest of your post. I just don’t see what that has to do with illegals as a whole. If anything, it’s proof that there needs to be a better system to allow for legal immigration and documentation, which is what I and the bishops are saying is the first step. Without the government taking substantial first-steps to correct this problem, nothing will change. Raids of terror such as this seem a bit below our standards of human rights here in the US. Ah, but things have been changing lately. Perhaps the Church should just go with the flow…

I don’t understand your confusion as to “what it has to do with illegals as a whole.”

Raids of terror? Give me a break!

It is estimated there are 400,000 illegals in the US that have been ordered to leave, of that number 80,000 are considered violent criminals. 25% of our prison population now, that our tax dollars are paying for, are illegals. I know medical doctors who have had to leave hospitals when they closed down due to the financial strain; and, let us not forget, the drug resistant strains of tuberculoses, and other deadly diseases which are also entering our country and our schools because of this invasion of our borders. The gang killings of innocents is becoming epidemic in LA and other big cities; traffic homicides are numerous, and on and on and on. It is simply suicidal not to enforce our borders…that’s what all this has to do with “immigration as a whole.”

There is nothing unethical about a nation enforcing its borders, to equate these laws with the types of governmental laws which directly conflict with our Christian faith, like the abortion laws which ARE in that category, is creating a straw man.

What is compassionate? Is it compassionate for innocent Americans to suffer the assaults of crime, murder, rape, lost jobs, wages, destruction of ranches, property, access to hospitals, emergency rooms, etc?

Is it compassionate to allow terrorists to enter this country and perhaps murder hundreds of thousands in the next terrorist act?

Is it compassionate to create a permanent under class of cheap labor to increase the profit margins of some industries?

This has nothing to do with compassion, it is about our national security, it is about breaking the first and only law that matters—our territorial integrity.

Maybe it is more compassionate to NOT enforce our immigration laws, maybe we should just let anyone and everyone enter and deal with the repercussions but beware, those repercussions may bring on a holocaust of its own.

It is not compassionate to destroy our country–why? Because this country is “the last best hope of mankind,” and it is not compassionate to destroy the nation which the rest of the world depends on whether they admit it or not!

 

[JReducation]

It might be interesting if people who think our immigration laws are unjust to describe what they think would be a just system.

It would likewise be interesting for people to describe a “just” system that is also in the best interests of the U.S.

Bishops are ordained to govern and teach. If they do so in union with each other and with the Bishop of Rome, even if the teaching be ordinary teaching, Catholics have an obligation to give it their attention and their assent, even if we respectfully disagree, which we may do.

It is clear that these instructions are do not have an infallible character. Because they are spoken in union with each other and with the Bishop of Rome, they have ordianry authority that Catholics cannot quickly dismiss in favour of the State. The State may never take presedence over the Church. The Church has a voice in government, not the other way around.

If one wants to know what would be a just way of dealing with this situation one needs to look at what the Church teahes on justice, national boundaries, the sharing of wealth, welcoming the immigrant (legal or not), our attitude toward foreigners and even our attitude toward those who commit crimes against persons and properties. This has been spelled out by the Church beginning with Rerum Novarum all the way to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Documents of Vatican II.

If this were the voice of one isolated bishop, one could dismiss him. But this is the unified voice of our bishops, the successors of the Apostles and their voice reflects the teachings of several Pontiffs and a Council.

If an American Catholic has difficulties when the bishops speak as a unified voice and in communion with the voice of the universal Church, because it appears that this voice is not looking at the interest of the United States, he is mistaken. The Church is very concerned about the interest of the United States, beginning with its soul.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Ridgerunner]

, let us not forget, the drug resistant strains of tuberculoses, and other deadly diseases which are also entering our country and our schools

This is absolutely a serious problem, and not just from people entering with them. In Mexico, you can buy almost any drug over the counter. Both illegal and many legal immigrants bring immense quantities into this country, and take them without prescription and without having any good idea when to take what; what a proper dosage is, what, exactly, to take them for, and so on.

Antibiotics in particular, are overused and used inappropriately. A perfect recipe for the proliferation of drug-resistant strains.

In almost anyplace where there are a lot of recent Mexican immigrants, there is a brisk trade in those drugs. It would take me maybe an hour to half a day to get a bagful of Methicilin, for example, and I’m an “Anglo”. If I was Hispanic, probably ten minutes. For my daughter, who is known widely among Hispanics to be a nurse, and widely popular due to the free advice and care she often gives, one phone call. She doesn’t get them, of course, but she was offered a full suitcase of antibiotics, heart and diabetic meds, etc. fresh from Mexico, if she would “prescribe” them “properly” to Hispanics in the community. She wouldn’t take the suitcase or the job, but the offer simply amazed her. Doubtless they found someone with even less expertise to do the job.

If I go to a local doctor, of course, he or she will likely underdose me with antibiotics, or not give them to me at all even if they would do me some good in the case of minor infections from which I could probably recover without them, being acutely concerned with development of antibiotic resistant strains.

A truly bizarre situation.

 

[Ed_Rand]

I don’t understand your confusion as to “what it has to do with illegals as a whole.”

Raids of terror? Give me a break!

It is estimated there are 400,000 illegals in the US that have been ordered to leave, of that number 80,000 are considered violent criminals. 25% of our prison population now, that our tax dollars are paying for, are illegals. I know medical doctors who have had to leave hospitals when they closed down due to the financial strain; and, let us not forget, the drug resistant strains of tuberculoses, and other deadly diseases which are also entering our country and our schools because of this invasion of our borders. The gang killings of innocents is becoming epidemic in LA and other big cities; traffic homicides are numerous, and on and on and on. It is simply suicidal not to enforce our borders…that’s what all this has to do with “immigration as a whole.”

There is nothing unethical about a nation enforcing its borders, to equate these laws with the types of governmental laws which directly conflict with our Christian faith, like the abortion laws which ARE in that category, is creating a straw man.

What is compassionate? Is it compassionate for innocent Americans to suffer the assaults of crime, murder, rape, lost jobs, wages, destruction of ranches, property, access to hospitals, emergency rooms, etc?

Is it compassionate to allow terrorists to enter this country and perhaps murder hundreds of thousands in the next terrorist act?

Is it compassionate to create a permanent under class of cheap labor to increase the profit margins of some industries?

This has nothing to do with compassion, it is about our national security, it is about breaking the first and only law that matters—our territorial integrity.

Maybe it is more compassionate to NOT enforce our immigration laws, maybe we should just let anyone and everyone enter and deal with the repercussions but beware, those repercussions may bring on a holocaust of its own.

It is not compassionate to destroy our country–why? Because this country is “the last best hope of mankind,” and it is not compassionate to destroy the nation which the rest of the world depends on whether they admit it or not!

Again, I’ll try to get it through to you that I and the bishops are not saying there should be no laws governing immigration. The current laws and more particularly, the raids of terror, are unjust. Perhaps you should read the OP.

Donald Kerwin, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, emphasized the Catholic Church has never supported an “open borders” immigration policy.

Anyway, I’m tired of arguing with people that don’t listen and want to paint all illegals with very broad strokes. In my short time here at CAF, I’ve had way too many pointless conversations. I’d like to break down your post and point out how obscene some of it is, but I just don’t have the energy. I’ll just post this again:

I am often jealous of the situation of illegal immigrants. A quick glance at the Gospels will show me that they’re in a much better position to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. How noble it is that some of them are the best of people, the most hardworking, the most family oriented, and yet they recieve so little on earth for a whole lifetime of struggle and suffering. No doubt they have so much waiting for them in heaven. We citizens, we elites of the richest country on earth, should be quite concerned that we have already recieved our due pay in this life.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Bishops are ordained to govern and teach. If they do so in union with each other and with the Bishop of Rome, even if the teaching be ordinary teaching, Catholics have an obligation to give it their attention and their assent, even if we respectfully disagree, which we may do.

It is clear that these instructions are do not have an infallible character. Because they are spoken in union with each other and with the Bishop of Rome, they have ordianry authority that Catholics cannot quickly dismiss in favour of the State. The State may never take presedence over the Church. The Church has a voice in government, not the other way around.

If one wants to know what would be a just way of dealing with this situation one needs to look at what the Church teahes on justice, national boundaries, the sharing of wealth, welcoming the immigrant (legal or not), our attitude toward foreigners and even our attitude toward those who commit crimes against persons and properties. This has been spelled out by the Church beginning with Rerum Novarum all the way to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Documents of Vatican II.

If this were the voice of one isolated bishop, one could dismiss him. But this is the unified voice of our bishops, the successors of the Apostles and their voice reflects the teachings of several Pontiffs and a Council.

If an American Catholic has difficulties when the bishops speak as a unified voice and in communion with the voice of the universal Church, because it appears that this voice is not looking at the interest of the United States, he is mistaken. The Church is very concerned about the interest of the United States, beginning with its soul.

Fraternally,

JR

Please no generalities. The Church has not prescribed a particular program. What, precisely, would be your “just” program. How many per year? Upon what criteria would people be admitted or not admitted? Would there be preferences? If so, what sort? How would it be administered? How, exactly, would you do it? Don’t preach to me. Tell me how you would do it.

Of course, if your answer is “admit everybody who comes, no matter what”, I guess that wouldn’t need further clarification.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am often jealous of the situation of illegal immigrants. A quick glance at the Gospels will show me that they’re in a much better position to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. How noble it is that some of them are the best of people, the most hardworking, the most family oriented, and yet they recieve so little on earth for a whole lifetime of struggle and suffering. No doubt they have so much waiting for them in heaven. We citizens, we elites of the richest country on earth, should be quite concerned that we have already recieved our due pay in this life.

I credit you for having a good heart. I do. But I ask you to think about what you just said. Illegals are not “bad” people. Nor are they better, as a group, than anyone else. They’re just people. Some are very earnest, hardworking and religious…truly holy. Some are awful people. Most are somewhere in between, just like everybody else. They’re not subhuman, but neither are they superhuman. They’re just human.

 

[Ed_Rand]

I credit you for having a good heart. I do. But I ask you to think about what you just said. Illegals are not “bad” people. Nor are they better, as a group, than anyone else. They’re just people. Some are very earnest, hardworking and religious…truly holy. Some are awful people. Most are somewhere in between, just like everybody else. They’re not subhuman, but neither are they superhuman. They’re just human.

Any goodness that I have in my heart comes from Jesus Christ. Trust me, I’ve thought a lot about what I just said. I believe they are better because they suffer much injustice. They are the poor, the unfortunate, the persecuted, the least of these, Lazarus at the gate with his dog pillow begging for the scraps. It’s as simple as that for me. I have a very real fear of recieving my due pay here on earth.

 

[ontologysue]

Bishops are ordained to govern and teach. If they do so in union with each other and with the Bishop of Rome, even if the teaching be ordinary teaching, Catholics have an obligation to give it their attention and their assent, even if we respectfully disagree, which we may do.

It is clear that these instructions are do not have an infallible character. Because they are spoken in union with each other and with the Bishop of Rome, they have ordianry authority that Catholics cannot quickly dismiss in favour of the State. The State may never take presedence over the Church. The Church has a voice in government, not the other way around.

If one wants to know what would be a just way of dealing with this situation one needs to look at what the Church teahes on justice, national boundaries, the sharing of wealth, welcoming the immigrant (legal or not), our attitude toward foreigners and even our attitude toward those who commit crimes against persons and properties. This has been spelled out by the Church beginning with Rerum Novarum all the way to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Documents of Vatican II.

If this were the voice of one isolated bishop, one could dismiss him. But this is the unified voice of our bishops, the successors of the Apostles and their voice reflects the teachings of several Pontiffs and a Council.

If an American Catholic has difficulties when the bishops speak as a unified voice and in communion with the voice of the universal Church, because it appears that this voice is not looking at the interest of the United States, he is mistaken. The Church is very concerned about the interest of the United States, beginning with its soul.

Fraternally,

JR

What many American Bishops are doing right now in the age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, by failing to discourage illegal immigration, and, what the tradition of the church has been regarding the justification for a sovereign nation to protect its borders, are two very different things.

The Vatican protects its “boundaries” jealously and the Church has always justified the existential preogative of territorial integrity but the American bishops are acting in conflict with that tradition rationalizing it by the “compassion” straw man. That’s a fact.

The point is…there have been many times throughout history when a Bishop or Bishops have been dead wrong in their words and their actions, justifiying their lack of courage by appealing to the argument you are making, but in fact, they were acting in direct contradiction to Tradition.

It defies logic for them to argue today that it is more compassionate to wreck havoc on a nation’s innocent people, in effect gradually dismantling that very nation, then to admonish illegals that they have indeed broken the law, they must right that transgression perpetrated against a nation and it’s citizens and go about their immigration legally.

 

[JReducation]

Please no generalities. The Church has not prescribed a particular program. What, precisely, would be your “just” program. How many per year? Upon what criteria would people be admitted or not admitted? Would there be preferences? If so, what sort? How would it be administered? How, exactly, would you do it? Don’t preach to me. Tell me how you would do it.

Of course, if your answer is “admit everybody who comes, no matter what”, I guess that wouldn’t need further clarification.

I am not a diplomat. Therefore, I am unqualified to answer these questions in the first person. I am a theologian and in ministry and qualified to say that if the Bishops as one voice proclaim that something in our nation is in violation of the Gospel and their statement is consistent with the voice of the Church, it requires our attention.

It is not our job to define Evangelical justice. That belongs to the Church. As Catholic citizens it is our job to ensure that our country follows the prescriptions of evangelical justice. In this case, I would suggest that the reader go back to the Bishops’ concerns and see to it that the State falls in line with them. We are Catholics first, Americans second. We must see to it that our nation conforms to the Gospel.

I don’t hear the Bishops saying that there should be no laws regarding immigration. What I hear is a denouncement of the manner in which our immigation laws are applied. In their statement they pointed to specifics that cannot be violated, even by the State, not matter how good the intentions. The Church has this right and Catholic citizens have an obligation to ensure that the State conforms to the moral teachings of the Gospel in this matter as we do in other matters.

What I get from some posts on this thread is a sense that some Catholics are willing to place the interests of the State over the the voice of the Church. That is unacceptable coming from Catholics.

I’ll give you an example, in the Rule of the Secular Franciscans, St. Francis prohibited their participation in the armed forces. For this porhibition, thousands have given their lives, because governments imprisoned them or even executed them as traitors. In 1978, Paul VI amended Francis’ Rule to say that the Secular Franciscans could join the armed forces only in the event that their nation was invaded or there was an imminent threat of aggression against their nation, but never as a deterant act. The threat had to be immediate.

This ammendment of the Secular Franciscan Rule by Pope Paul VI reflects the mind of the Church regarding threats from outside of a nation’s borders. The threat must be an act of aggression and the response has to be humane. Families cannot be separated. Children cannot be put in situations that are dangerous to them. Prosecution cannot be for the protection of material afluence at the expense of the poor. The person must be guilty of a crime against people or property. When the Church speaks about crimes against people, She’s talking about physical harm done to others.

The Church does not debate the need for laws and order. In fact, no organization can have more law and order than the Catholic Church. The Church demands a just and humane application of law. If the Church believes that our current system is inhumane and unjust, it has the last voice.

The State and its citizens have the authority to make laws, but only the Church has the authority to define morals and citizens and nations have the obligation to obey unless those laws are a threat to the soul.

The Bishops are not asking for anything that is a threat to the soul. In fact, they are defending the soul of the American citizen. Thus they ask that we hold our leaders accountable to Gospel justice.

If we hold them accountable to Gospel justices regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, peace, the care for the poor sick and elderly, then we must also demand Gospel justice toward the foreigner who has not hurt anyone. That’s all the bishops are saying.

What is the problem with this? Do the sucessors of the Apostles not have the right to preach to our government? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. God is the author of justice. Therefore, his Church has the right to demand that our government act with justice and humanity.

We are responsible to the Gospel first, then the State.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Ridgerunner]

And some, Ed, are racists. Ask a Guatemalan how he’s treated by Mexicans, both in Mexico and here. I also found it amusing when an Anglo employee of mine who married a Mexican wanted to name her daughter “India” (as in the country). Now, I’m not too keen on people not giving saints’ names to children, but her husband just plain wouldn’t let her give the child that name. Why? Because that’s the feminine form of the Spanish word for “Indian”. Indians in Mexico are mightily looked down upon by Mestizos, (notwithstanding that they’re part Indian themselves and know it) and he knew that would be an embarrassing name for his daughter among the Mexicans in the community. His mother also had a fit about it. The child was given a different name.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am not a diplomat. Therefore, I am unqualified to answer these questions in the first person. I am a theologian and in ministry and qualified to say that if the Bishops as one voice proclaim that something in our nation is in violation of the Gospel and their statement is consistent with the voice of the Church, it requires our attention.

It is not our job to define Evangelical justice. That belongs to the Church. As Catholic citizens it is our job to ensure that our country follows the prescriptions of evangelical justice. In this case, I would suggest that the reader go back to the Bishops’ concerns and see to it that the State falls in line with them. We are Catholics first, Americans second. We must see to it that our nation conforms to the Gospel.

I don’t hear the Bishops saying that there should be no laws regarding immigration. What I hear is a denouncement of the manner in which our immigation laws are applied. In their statement they pointed to specifics that cannot be violated, even by the State, not matter how good the intentions. The Church has this right and Catholic citizens have an obligation to ensure that the State conforms to the moral teachings of the Gospel in this matter as we do in other matters.

What I get from some posts on this thread is a sense that some Catholics are willing to place the interests of the State over the the voice of the Church. That is unacceptable coming from Catholics.

I’ll give you an example, in the Rule of the Secular Franciscans, St. Francis prohibited their participation in the armed forces. For this porhibition, thousands have given their lives, because governments imprisoned them or even executed them as traitors. In 1978, Paul VI amended Francis’ Rule to say that the Secular Franciscans could join the armed forces only in the event that their nation was invaded or there was an imminent threat of aggression against their nation, but never as a deterant act. The threat had to be immediate.

This ammendment of the Secular Franciscan Rule by Pope Paul VI reflects the mind of the Church regarding threats from outside of a nation’s borders. The threat must be an act of aggression and the response has to be humane. Families cannot be separated. Children cannot be put in situations that are dangerous to them. Prosecution cannot be for the protection of material afluence at the expense of the poor. The person must be guilty of a crime against people or property. When the Church speaks about crimes against people, She’s talking about physical harm done to others.

The Church does not debate the need for laws and order. In fact, no organization can have more law and order than the Catholic Church. The Church demands a just and humane application of law. If the Church believes that our current system is inhumane and unjust, it has the last voice.

The State and its citizens have the authority to make laws, but only the Church has the authority to define morals and citizens and nations have the obligation to obey unless those laws are a threat to the soul.

The Bishops are not asking for anything that is a threat to the soul. In fact, they are defending the soul of the American citizen. Thus they ask that we hold our leaders accountable to Gospel justice.

If we hold them accountable to Gospel justices regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, peace, the care for the poor sick and elderly, then we must also demand Gospel justice toward the foreigner who has not hurt anyone. That’s all the bishops are saying.

What is the problem with this? Do the sucessors of the Apostles not have the right to preach to our government? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. God is the author of justice. Therefore, his Church has the right to demand that our government act with justice and humanity.

We are responsible to the Gospel first, then the State.

Fraternally,

JR

C’mon, JR, one doesn’t have to be a diplomat to have an opinion. Admit everybody who wants to come here, or only some number? Will we be selective or not?

What’s just, JR?