Catholic Bishops Launch Immigration Reform Campaign

[Brad]

Philip P:

I actually think this is a very good argument. In fact, it’s the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I used to justify my vote for Kerry. No Catholic I know who voted for Kerry argued that abortion was right. They questioned, however, whether criminalizing it would give us the results we seek – namely, to transform our culture and end abortion. Furthermore, they questioned whether it was even possible to make abortion illegal. These are questions of prudential judgment. Now, you can claim they were wrong, incorrect, poor judges. But that’s NOT what you have been saying. No, you’ve gone so far as to say they SINNED by voting for Kerry. Again, if the Kerry voters had argued that abortion is not, in fact, wrong, this would be valid. But that’s not what they argued – they argued that in their prudential judgment, the Bush approach to abortion would not actually end abortion

In light of the fact that abortion is killing an innocent human being, asking the questions of whether criminalizing it is a good idea and/or whether it is possible to criminalize it are themselves activities that promote this evil. With the pass for someone that is very ignorant, asking these questions simply obfuscates and delays an inevitable encounter with reality. These questions usually amount to intellectual muckety-muck and, in so doing, confuse and give license to those that like a social program promoted by a politician that is pro abortion and/or want to ease their consciences in assisting or participating or approving of an abortion by doing mental gymnastics to justify something very bad because it is difficult to stop it.

These questions, as justification for voting for Kerry, are obliterated to their core when Kerry’s record of active funding of abortion in the US and overseas is analyzed as well as his promotion of “choice” to women’s groups the country over.
Philip P:

By now, we’ve gone pretty far OT from immigration reform, but this is an important issue, so feel free to start a thread if you want to discuss this further. Otherwise we should focus on the merits or demerits of the bishops proposal and stop accusing the bishops of being too political (and in case you missed it, my point with Chaput was NOT that he is truly a “Republican shill,” but that he would be one if the same standards you are applying to McCarrick applied to him. Neither, I believe, is shilling for a party).

No matter how many times you say this, it is still FALSE. Chaput has Church documents backing up his teachings and writings. McCarrick and company do NOT have Church documents backing up their immigration reform writing. The same standards are being applied to both - we are looking for the Church teaching that they are referring to. In Chaput’s teaching, we find it.

 

[fix]

Philip P:

I’m a fan of the late Cardinal Bernardin.

I am not.

I think pro-life means more than just abortion, I think it’s an entire culture. Making sure workers are not exploited is being pro-life, making sure children aren’t being aborted is pro-life, and so on. I see no contradiction, and nothing wrong, with bishops speaking out on these issues.

She does say abortion is always wrong. Where does it say every prudential judgment is to be accepted as a doctrine? How these things are to be accomplished may be debated. Doctrine is doctrine, but prudential judgments are another matter.

 

[DustinsDad]

Philip P:

…There’s a bigger issue than immigration here, though, which we’ve backed in to. I’m referring to the idea that, when politically inconvenient, we can just dismiss the bishops, claiming they’re just being political and do not speak with authentic authority. Not all posters have made this argument. Some have been far more balanced and nuanced, admitting that while the bishops’ position does require serious consideration, you disagree with this on the basis that one must exercise prudential judgment in applying values to concrete policies, and you disagree that these particular policies will have the desired affect.

I actually think this is a very good argument. In fact, it’s the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I used to justify my vote for Kerry.

You’re missing the point. Some issues do enable us to exercise prudential judgement. How* best* to feed the hungry, how best to regulate legal immigration, how best to make a fair economy that doesn’t exploit the worker or punish the employer, how best to arrive at a fair and equatable tax policy for a given society. All good questions that fair and God-fearing Christians can and do disagree on. God hasn’t laid out a specific policy on each of these matters, even though we do try to arrive at the same place - justice and fairness.

Some questions don’t allow for prudential judgement whatsoever…such as whether the direct and intentional killing of innocent human beings is a legal “right” to anyone (i.e. abortion, euthanasia, embryonic destruction from stem cell research). There is no wiggle room here, no room for discussion. The “right” does not exist. The answer is no, always has been no, and always will be no.

Even though you say goals are the same with abortion as in the above-mentioned prudential cases, in fact it is not. One cannot say out of one side of his mouth that one ones to remove the scourge of abortion from a given society while promoting and supporting its legalization out of the other.

For you question even the goal of making the scourge illegal. My friend, you don’t remove a scourge from a society by giving it legal protection. And you can’t even argue against this statement as a Catholic since legal protection of abortion is specifically condemned by Catholic teaching.

As far as Kerry is concerned, I don’t think this is the time or place to drag out the overwhelming evidence that this man is one of the greatest supporters and promoters of legalized direct and intentional killing of innocent human beings - this has been demonstrated ad nauseum during the recent campaign. And whatever twisted and distorted reasoning Catholics had to use to justify a vote for this man is just that. Twisted and distorted. Tragic really.

DustinsDad

 

[miguel]

DustinsDad:

You’re missing the point. Some issues do enable us to exercise prudential judgement. How* best* to feed the hungry, how best to regulate legal immigration, how best to make a fair economy that doesn’t exploit the worker or punish the employer, how best to arrive at a fair and equatable tax policy for a given society. All good questions that fair and God-fearing Christians can and do disagree on. God hasn’t laid out a specific policy on each of these matters, even though we do try to arrive at the same place - justice and fairness.

Some questions don’t allow for prudential judgement whatsoever…such as whether the direct and intentional killing of innocent human beings is a legal “right” to anyone (i.e. abortion, euthanasia, embryonic destruction from stem cell research). There is no wiggle room here, no room for discussion. The “right” does not exist. The answer is no, always has been no, and always will be no.

Even though you say goals are the same with abortion as in the above-mentioned prudential cases, in fact it is not. One cannot say out of one side of his mouth that one ones to remove the scourge of abortion from a given society while promoting and supporting its legalization out of the other.

For you question even the goal of making the scourge illegal. My friend, you don’t remove a scourge from a society by giving it legal protection. And you can’t even argue against this statement as a Catholic since legal protection of abortion is specifically condemned by Catholic teaching.

As far as Kerry is concerned, I don’t think this is the time or place to drag out the overwhelming evidence that this man is one of the greatest supporters and promoters of legalized direct and intentional killing of innocent human beings - this has been demonstrated ad nauseum during the recent campaign. And whatever twisted and distorted reasoning Catholics had to use to justify a vote for this man is just that. Twisted and distorted. Tragic really.

DustinsDad

Well put. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

 

[Lisa_N]

DustinsDad:

As far as Kerry is concerned, I don’t think this is the time or place to drag out the overwhelming evidence that this man is one of the greatest supporters and promoters of legalized direct and intentional killing of innocent human beings - this has been demonstrated ad nauseum during the recent campaign. And whatever twisted and distorted reasoning Catholics had to use to justify a vote for this man is just that. Twisted and distorted. Tragic really.

DustinsDad

Not to further hijack the thread but when I learned of Kerry’s RELENTLESS support of abortion at any time for any reason that was a deal killer. I don’t CARE what he had to say on any other issues. This was so egregious, particularly coming from a Catholic (??) that I could not even consider him.

To bring this back to the thread, the point being that there are some things that the Church MUST focus upon and it is virtually the only one that stands firm on the issue of life from conception to natural death. There are plenty of other organizations that support rights for the poor and marginalized and while these roles are essential for the Church, I just don’t think they are on the level of life issues.

Philip I’ll read the rest of the info on the USCCB site. Again I do not disagree with legal immigration nor do I disagree with streamlining the process, particularly for seasonal or temporary workers. But I think we do need to focus on saving innocent life first.

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

To bring this back to the thread, the point being that there are some things that the Church MUST focus upon and it is virtually the only one that stands firm on the issue of life from conception to natural death. There are plenty of other organizations that support rights for the poor and marginalized and while these roles are essential for the Church, I just don’t think they are on the level of life issues.

Lisa N

I think the poor and marginalized are indeed critical Church issues. The reason life issues are more important is that, someone deprived of life is THE poorest and THE MOST marginalized and has NO ability to help himself/herself.

For those that are allowed to live, the Church should reach out to the most needy. They should do this with concrete, measurable, unambiguous plans of action for the Church herself, the Body of her members, to do this out of the goodness of their heart without dependence on the government to do it for them.

The reason I do not like most USCCB “plans” or “teachings” regarding the poor and marginalized is because they are almost always ambiguous and almost never concrete and/or measurable. They rarely, if ever, give a concrete plan for the Catholic in the pew to take to help his/her fellow man. I believe the reason for this is the same as the reason why we rarely ever hear solid moral teaching from the pulpit - they are too afraid of “telling anyone what to do”. This is the opposite of leadership and this is why Church membership is not flourishing in western countries.

 

[St_Francis]

For those that are allowed to live, the Church should reach out to the most needy. They should do this with concrete, measurable, unambiguous plans of action for the Church herself, the Body of her members, to do this out of the goodness of their heart without dependence on the government to do it for them.

Why does the Church need a plan? God has a plan, and it is for us to act inaccord with His grace. It is unfortunate that somany in theworld do not listen to Him, but if we each acted, then much would get done. We do not have to wait for the Church to come up with a plan.

 

[MJE]

I agree w/ Brad. Re: welfare, maybe they could consult w/ Bill Cosby.

 

[Philip_P]

Brad:

I think the poor and marginalized are indeed critical Church issues. The reason life issues are more important is that, someone deprived of life is THE poorest and THE MOST marginalized and has NO ability to help himself/herself.

Brad, I don’t see how pushing for immigration reform takes anything away from the Church’s work on abortion. I think the source of our disagreement (and my fundmental disagreement with many on these forums), though, is in this statement of yours:

For those that are allowed to live, the Church should reach out to the most needy. They should do this with concrete, measurable, unambiguous plans of action for the Church herself, the Body of her members, to do this out of the goodness of their heart without dependence on the government to do it for them.

Rather than dividing politics into “liberal” and “conservative,” I tend to divide it into those who see government as part of the problem, and those who see it as the solution. I’m in the solution camp, and I favor policies and candidates who also view things this way. I don’t understand, frankly, in a democratic society such as ours, this opposition to making full use of our government as a tool in furthering the causes of justice and security. Perhaps we could start a thread on it? Not sure what section it would go under.

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

Rather than dividing politics into “liberal” and “conservative,” I tend to divide it into those who see government as part of the problem, and those who see it as the solution. I’m in the solution camp, and I favor policies and candidates who also view things this way. I don’t understand, frankly, in a democratic society such as ours, this opposition to making full use of our government as a tool in furthering the causes of justice and security. Perhaps we could start a thread on it? Not sure what section it would go under.

Philip what on earth gives you such faith in the government to solve problems? With the exception of our very competent military, government programs in general seem to make many problems worse.

I get the impression you are young (and idealistic ). But I grew up during the era when many massive government programs were put into place. The “war on poverty” has INCREASED poverty and has destroyed the black family for good measure. How 'bout that “war on drugs”? Good grief what an unmitigated disaster. I grew up in the wild 60s. It was NOTHING like it is now with meth addicts responsible for 80% of the property crime in this area.

I honestly believe kicking this back to local communities is a better idea than a huge bureacracy that gathers up millions from the states and then redistributes the money as it sees fit. The whole thing is ridiculous.

I want LESS government not more. Until government proves its competency at anything but military operations, it can stay out of my life.

Lisa N

 

[miguel]

Lisa N:

…I honestly believe kicking this back to local communities is a better idea than a huge bureacracy that gathers up millions from the states and then redistributes the money as it sees fit. The whole thing is ridiculous…

I wonder if Phillip P realizes that your approach has a name…subsidiarity…a principle of Catholic social teaching. Americans had their own name for it…federalism, where the idea of amassing power at the level of the central government, where it is least efficient, was anathema. That’s what the communists tried to do. And that’s why they failed. And it’s the lesson liberals refuse to learn.

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

Rather than dividing politics into “liberal” and “conservative,” I tend to divide it into those who see government as part of the problem, and those who see it as the solution. I’m in the solution camp, and I favor policies and candidates who also view things this way. I don’t understand, frankly, in a democratic society such as ours, this opposition to making full use of our government as a tool in furthering the causes of justice and security. Perhaps we could start a thread on it? Not sure what section it would go under.

I understand that you see it this way. But you need to think about something. The government, as a whole, represents everyone. Most rational people are going to seek their needs from government first. After all, they are paying them, are they not? They want return on their investment, and not just to help the needy, but to help themselves. They don’t work night and day, seperating themselves from our families, to support someone else’s family. Now, all are going to have different levels of this thought pattern, but, let’s face it, when grandma is living on social security checks, she’s going to vote based on whether that check comes or not - she is NOT going to vote based on someone struggling in the inner city or trying to get into the country. That’s human nature. Still others want free drugs (illegal or legal) and will vote based on that. Some want free sex and free abortions. Their are all kinds of motivations and most of them are not relgious and self-sacrificing in nature. My tax dollars go in the big pot of all people’s motivations and I don’t support a good many of those motivations.

To really help people in need, you need groups of people to make a committment to self-sacrifice so that others may be better off. You can never force people to self-sacrifice. This is why government programs are only as efficient as the willingness of government workers and taxpayers to sacrifice themselves. The call to self sacrifice comes from Church, not the government.

The government can help solve the problems that are the most prevalent among the population. They cannot solve the problems that affect small classes of society. That is why, no matter how hard the government tries, rich people will die of drug overdoses and there will always be poor people. As Christians, we are to bridge the gap and reach out to these groups, as Jesus said.

 

[miguel]

osjspm.org/cst/q_subsid.htm

 

[Philip_P]

Miguel - I’m familiar with the concept of subsidiarity. How exactly do you see that applying to immgration? Surely matters pertaining to the national border are properly under the jurisdiction of the national government. If you want to discuss social services, start a thread on that, but the nub of the matter on this thread is reforming the immigration system to make it more sane, moral, and humane.

Brad - I understand what you’re saying, and maybe I’m just a fool, but I really do believe in democracy. If society decides to legalize drugs, then that’s what they’ll do. I think it would be a bad idea (depending on which drugs and how exactly they were regulated), but the risk of bad decisions is one I’m willing to accept to live in a democracy. The government does many things I don’t like. I am strongly opposed to the current war, for instance. Yet I still pay my taxes, and I continue to believe in this country and its form of government. When I criticize it, it is within the framework of its values and institutions - it is our failings to live up to our own standards I critique, not because I disbelieve in its essence.

As to why I see government as a solution, it is because, on balance, I think it’s done far more good than bad. I think many of the New Deal programs were a great success. My generation grew up with a better quality of life than virtually all before it. This didn’t just happen accidentally. Progress is not the natural or default state - it happens because of human actions and human decisions. We can go further into detail if you like, but now we’ve drifted from immigration into a generalized discussion of progressive government.

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

Miguel - I’m familiar with the concept of subsidiarity. How exactly do you see that applying to immgration? Surely matters pertaining to the national border are properly under the jurisdiction of the national government. If you want to discuss social services, start a thread on that, but the nub of the matter on this thread is reforming the immigration system to make it more sane, moral, and humane.

I agree that controlling the border itself is the jurisdiction of the federal government. But what if they don’t? States are left holding the bag. Here in California, about 10 years ago, the voters passed Proposition 187 by a 65-35 majority. That would have restricted all state services (public education, health care, etc.) to legal residents of California. Predictably, some federal judge ruled 187 “unconstitutional” claiming the federal government has sole jurisdiction over immigration matters. Yes, but the effect of the ruling is that Californians don’t have jurisdiction over state money. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has control of state money? As one who understands the importance of subsidiarity, I was outraged by it, even though I did not support 187. And the idea of an unelected federal judge overuling a state election. Is it any wonder people are fed up with judges?