T
TheOne33
Guest
Does the Church have a stance on recent issues such as Universal Healthcare and the Immigration Policy?
No. The Church has principles that should guide our behavior but she provides no specificity as to how the general objectives - feed the hungry, heal the sick - should be accomplished. The best means of providing health care and dealing with immigration issues are not for the Church to specify; they are problems the laity is charged with resolving.Does the Church have a stance on recent issues such as Universal Healthcare and the Immigration Policy?
There have been Hispanics in this country before this was a country. Anyone who knows an assimilated Hispanic would never have a problem with Hispanic immigration as such.All Americans should never forget that our governments immigrations laws and policies are based in racism and religious bias…and we should be ashamed of ourselves.
The original immigration laws were inacted in the late 1800’s and denied admission to Asians, mainly Chinese and Japanese. Congress stated that it was to fight “the yellow peril”
After the mass immigration of Jews and Catholics from Eastern Europe and Italy from the 1890’s until WWI, Congress passed new laws restricting immigration from all of Eastern Europe and Italy. These laws remained in effect until the end of WW II. This occured because there was an outcry from New England (Particularly Connecticut and Massechusetts), the Mid-West, and California that the US was being overun with Jews and Catholics! The main effect of these laws was the slaughter of several million Jews in the Holocust who were not only denied entry to the US, but to neighboring countries whose regimes were foced by our government to deny these refugees entry.
A similar thing is happening today! The reasons that we have laws denying Mexicans entry is that 1.) they are racially Amerinds, and 2.) they are Catholic. Their very existance in the US is a threat to the WASPS who reside in California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico-the states who are behind the anti-immigration sentiment.
The fact of the matter is, the Mexicans, like every other immigrant group before them take the lowest level jobs when they first come into our country. They take jobs that no American will take, whatever their racial background is. As an example, go into the kitchen of any restaurant and try to find an American pot or dish washer, or kitchenman!
For those of you who state that the restaurant owners should pay these people more, if they did, the restaurant would not be in business too long, because no one would be able to afford to eat there.
The USA is large enough that we should allow entry to anyone who is not a violent felon and who is smart enough to raise the price of his/her passage, and cut through the red tape in their own country to leave, and has the guts to come here.
It is these people who made the US as vibrant and strong as it is, not the bureaucrats who sit on their fat behinds nor the 3rd or 4th generation spoiled rotten and prejudiced sons and daughters of immigrants who elected them.
You have identified exactly what you will find when you review those documents: the “political stance” of the people who wrote them. I am not inclined to take political advice from the USCCB.You indicate that you are in the U.S. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has extensive documentation of their viewpoints on these issues. Take a look at their website for documents and press releases and other information regarding their political stance.
This is incorrect. There is no obligation to assent to the opinions of anyone, including those of the bishops. As you acknowledge, these documents do not represent Church teaching and it is rather regrettable that political policy statements are being presented as if they were in fact doctrines.It should be noted that this is not firm “Church teaching”. Episcopal conferences have no teaching authority and little legislative authority in the Catholic Church, but these documents are the best efforts of the American bishops to convey a cohesive policy regarding the most important local issues affecting us today, so while their pronouncements are definitely not regarded as morally binding, they should certainly be viewed with an attitude of obedience.
In overstating your case you miss the point which is simply this: papers emanating from the USCCB are … opinions. They are not doctrines, they don’t represent Church teaching, and Catholics have no moral obligation to accede to them. To disagree with the political opinions they express is not to belittle them.I knew that even if I couched it in the most weaselly terms possible, that someone would be along shortly to belittle and contradict the opinions of the USCCB.
What is the argument that we should take political guidance from the bishops? There is no question of following Church teaching when in fact the Church leaves it to the laity to find the best practical solution to practical problems.I am quite curious as to why this forum is so overwhelmingly opposed to consideration of their documents when they represent the best efforts of the local bishops most involved with these issues to formulate opinions and stances based on Church teaching and political realities and their sacred office as pastors of the local Church.
If you find their opinions helpful then by all means accept them but don’t suggest that others who find their opinions misdirected are rejecting Church teaching by rejecting those suggestions. The Church provides the objectives toward which we should work and the guidelines within which we must conform our actions … but she does not specify solutions to political problems and she does not require us to accept the political solutions of others including the bishops.But I find their pronouncements invaluable to forming my political conscience and interpreting Church teaching in light of the needs of the here-and-now and I will continue to view their opinions with an attitude of obedience.
Yes.Do the Catholic bishops not present their opinions in the light of Church teaching and their pastoral experience and authority as the principal teachers of the faith?
In matters of faith and morals, yes; in prudential, political matters, no.Do Americans not owe their obedience to individual bishops as their local ordinaries and pastors of the whole territory which is entrusted to them?
Since there is no obligation of obedience there can be no question of disobedience.Then what makes the episcopal conference particularly worthy of disobedience and disregard of their pronouncements?
The laity, who is charged with that responsibility and who has acquired the expertise.If not, then I would ask: who is better equipped to guide us on matters of public policy?
The opinions of those who are experts in the relevant fields of economics, politics, immigration, health care, etc. Inasmuch as the bishops are (generally) not experts in these fields their prudential opinions are not compelling.Whose opinion should we hold as more important than the local ordinaries of the United States?
Pretty much everyone who understands the issues involved. Remember, we are not talking about moral choices but prudential solutions to social problems and that is precisely the province of the laity, not the clergy.*“By issuing policy statements on matters that lie beyond their specific competence, and that pertain rather to experts in secular disciplines, the bishops diminish their own credibility in speaking about matters with which they are specially charged as spiritual leaders of the church.” *(Cardinal Dulles)Who is worthy to contradict the opinions of our pastors, given their authority and guidance?
Two things that should be pointed out here: first, this is not a Church document explaining her position but a white paper written by an individual from the Franciscan University. Second, as the writer acknowledges in his first sentence, what the Church presents on immigration are basic principles. There is nothing whatever in any Church document that specifies precisely how immigration problems are to be solved. Those prudential choices are the responsibility of the laity to determine.Here is a document on the Church’s position on Immigration:
studentsforafairsociety.org/uploads/1/3/0/5/13050527/estradakeithmichael.sfs.churchandmigration.20120417.pdf
I agree with you to this extent: the bishops have deduced what seems to them to be beneficial. The problem with that is it represents a prudential opinion, not Church doctrine, and as such we are not obligated to agree with it. What I object to is the presentation of opinion based on doctrine as doctrine itself. The Church does not oblige me to support the DREAM act or Obama’s executive order or to oppose SB 1070, which is convenient as I find myself on the opposite side of all of them. You are free to argue that I am mistaken in my positions but you are not free to argue that I have rejected Church teaching in holding them.Also, while the Church does present particular principles, it seems that with those you could deduce, as the Bishops have and continue to do so, which legislation seems more beneficial for the common good and which isn’t - yes to the DREAM act, yes to Obama’s executive order, no to SB1070 and Georgia’s laws etc.
Correct (i.m.o.) in the sections I pasted.As someone who has just very recently come back to my faith as a catholic, and someone who works in ‘the system’ for a government funded human services agency that provides services to different populations of ‘less fortunate’ people such as those with major mental illness, developmentally disabled, etc here are my views on the matter:
IMO the government sets up people who have difficulties in life on entitlement programs where they are given for free just enough to get by and puts huge disincentives in their path towards possible employment so they stay unemployed and dependent on the government. IMO this generally HURTS them over the long term. In the short term it’s like throwing a life raft to someone drowning in the ocean. In the long term they wind up floating around alone in the ocean in a life raft… They are discouraged from being rehabilitated because they wind up receiving goods and services equal to someone working full time @ about $12.00/hr. And they are given this, entitled to this. If they go get a job their benefits get slashed signficantly so a $10.00/hr job turns into a $2.00/hr job.
And lets not forget that most all low paying job workers held by citizens get free health insurance. Dunkin Donuts, etc…
Now think about 3rd and 4th generation inner city poor welfare recipients. What % of them go onto working full time to support themselves and their families and what % of them wind up doing what their parents and grandparents did, go on welfar or similar?
…Now think of the inner cities, filled with 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients without any goals for the future or much in the way of opportunity out of poverty given the climate of a 4th generation welfare recipient family, heck, a welfare recipient neighborhood. All of these people are getting free healthcare, free housing, free food, free everything (I’m exaggerating to make a point). And their role models are drug dealers, professional athletes, and professional musicians (good luck becoming one of the latter 2 of the 3).
And the inner city schools? The teachers spend their days correcting bad behavior, not teaching. All those US citizens are destined for a life of poverty that will be paid for by other US citizens…All those poor inner city children (for the most part) are not learning that at home and not learning that on the streets and not learning that in school. They could be inspired. They could learn about setting goals and working hard and reaping the rewards. Heck, they could graduate. They could avoid prison and street gangs.