Catholics and illegal immigration

[AntalKalnoky]

Then you recognize the bishops’ statements for what they are: their personal opinions. As I’ve said many times before, Catholics may take whatever positions they believe strike the best balance between competing needs. They may support or oppose a border fence, support or oppose the Arizona law, and support or oppose deportation or amnesty. There is no Catholic position on these specific proposals despite various comments from the bishops and what their letters may imply.

Ender

Incorrect, Ender. The USCCB Position, Policy statements are their Official Church pronouncennts, For Our Guidance. on Issues, problems. That is Why They are the USCCB. Their Declarations arethose of The Cathoolic Church of the USA, in accord with the Vatican’s. If we think, act contrary, we are Rejecting the Catholic Church. The Curch does not get involved in Politics, It does issue Morality Positions we should not reject, for Our viewpoints, which usually lack if we disagree.

 

[exnihilo]

Sigh, you’re listening to way too much Rush Limbaugh. No one wants to create a nation of lazy unemployed idiots, there is no left wing conspiracy to bring this about. And the basic goodness of an immigrant group does not have any bearing on the state of their native country. The poorest have no power. They can do nothing about their home country’s state.

I dont listen to Rush Limbaugh so I’ll have to take your word for that. I hope that no one wants to create a nation of lazy unemployed idiots but since the policies people pursue do just that, and are the demonstrated logical consequence, I have to wonder about intention. When people deny reality and common sense while hoping for some different outcome there aren’t many kind ways to describe it. But conspiracy is your word, not mine. I think it is just an unwillingness to recognize truth.

The poor do not have economic power. But they dont have that anywhere. Most poor immigrants come from countries that are representative democracies like the US. Supposedly the poor do have power in such systems which is why they are allowed to vote.

Until a child dies because daddy couldn’t find work or couldn’t make enough to support his family. That isn’t acceptable in my opinion. We should be stricter in having them find jobs, but the above scenario is not acceptable. Read The Grapes of Wrath.

Nobody wants Americans not to work. There is not a conspiracy theory here. Sorry for throwing in the humanitarian argument in my first sentence, but it is a serious problem.

Grapes of Wrath is not a book on economics. It is a tale of tough times caused by people who had bad economic policy, which is the same policy in force today. Charity existed long before government welfare. In fact sadly I have less to give to Christian charity because I am so heavily taxed. My ability to be a good Christian is hampered by the massive welfare state created by Christians. And my children’s children will have to pay for it all.

Again, I hope nobody doesn’t want Americans to work. But the policies people advocate are doing that as clearly demonstrated from the undeniable (but repeatedly ignored) fact that we have 10% unemployment and are still importing laborers and allowing legal and illegal ones to remain. Thus we have foreigners working while Americans dont. This is simply undeniable. So what do the people who advocate this policy want? Chaos? Social upheaval?

I would love to.
I was addressing the first sentence. Nobody is ever too good for manual labor, no matter what degree they have. If citizens do not work because they are too good for labor, that is not an illegal immigration issue, but an American attitude issue. If a brain surgeon is unemployed and needs money, his status as a brain surgeon does not make him too good to build a house or work in a field. I agree with what a degree means. And if an illegal immigrant is able to qualify to get into college, then they are just as entitled to the money as an American citizen. Does that make more sense? Yes, that is for another thread, but he brought up education funding and I felt it was necessary to address it.

You admit some Americans are too good or lazy to work but do you advocate not giving money to those people as we do? Do you deny that people are motivated by necessity? Do you deny that giving things to people makes them value it less? If so do you realize you are denying the idea of spoiled rich kids? Rich kids should be the best people in the world based on American socialism’s underlying theory of human nature. But I notice they rail against the rich all the time. It just baffles me.

 

[karebear92]

Grapes of Wrath is not a book on economics. It is a tale of tough times caused by people who had bad economic policy, which is the same policy in force today. Charity existed long before government welfare. In fact sadly I have less to give to Christian charity because I am so heavily taxed. My ability to be a good Christian is hampered by the massive welfare state created by Christians. And my children’s children will have to pay for it all.

I was presenting you with a scenario that may occur again if we cut welfare benefits. They uprooted their family. the kids were starving, they ate literally flower and water, and they traveled hundreds of miles searching for a phantom job. Thats the reality of being poor without welfare benefits. Yes, there are lazy Americans who take advantage of the system and I think that it needs to be regulated differently, but I fear taking them away could end in with starving/dead people. We are a better country than that.

exnihilo:

Again, I hope nobody doesn’t want Americans to work. But the policies people advocate are doing that as clearly demonstrated from the undeniable (but repeatedly ignored) fact that we have 10% unemployment and are still importing laborers and allowing legal and illegal ones to remain. Thus we have foreigners working while Americans dont. This is simply undeniable. So what do the people who advocate this policy want? Chaos? Social upheaval?

No, they do not want that. They want hardworking people to work for them. Like I said, I agree the system is broken and needs to be regulated more strictly, but if you cut too much people may starve.

exnihilo:

You admit some Americans are too good or lazy to work but do you advocate not giving money to those people as we do? Do you deny that people are motivated by necessity? Do you deny that giving things to people makes them value it less? If so do you realize you are denying the idea of spoiled rich kids? Rich kids should be the best people in the world based on American socialism’s underlying theory of human nature. But I notice they rail against the rich all the time. It just baffles me.

I bolded the key word. Some. We have a 10% unemployment rate. Not every one of that ten percent is lazy. Not every child of the unemployed parent deserves to starve or go to school without shoes if we take welfare benefits away.

People are motivated by necessity. I agree, but do you think that if we completely cut welfare benefits that our unemployment rate would be zero? The obvious answer is no. Comparing spoiling rich kids and giving welfare benefits to the poor is a bit of a leap, don’t you think? They aren’t getting coupons to buy iPods, Macs, and Ferraris. They are getting a very modest place to live and food to eat.

 

[exnihilo]

People are motivated by necessity. I agree, but do you think that if we completely cut welfare benefits that our unemployment rate would be zero? The obvious answer is no. Comparing spoiling rich kids and giving welfare benefits to the poor is a bit of a leap, don’t you think? They aren’t getting coupons to buy iPods, Macs, and Ferraris. They are getting a very modest place to live and food to eat.

Unemployment is a factor of lots of things. If we cut welfare benefits the unemployment rate would drop substantially. But what would really drop it is stopping illegal immigrants who take jobs that could and should be done by our unemployed.

 

[karebear92]

Unemployment is a factor of lots of things. If we cut welfare benefits the unemployment rate would drop substantially. But what would really drop it is stopping illegal immigrants who take jobs that could and should be done by our unemployed.

So Illegal immigrants are here because Americans are lazy and Americans are lazy because illegal immigrants are here? Or because they receive welfare? If it is the latter, you can not blame illegal immigrants for the problem. Because then illegal immigrants are here to fill the jobs that Americans won’t do because they are lazy and on welfare. Yep, that sounds about right. Immigrants come for jobs. If there were no jobs, they would not come.

 

[PodunkMommy]

While I agree that learning English is important for them, I think it is equally important to teach English-speaking kids Spanish. Also, lets face it, most immigrants aren’t moving into the middle of an all-white, all-english-speaking community, and their schools reflect that, so teaching bilingual education is typically not much of an issue. Learning multiple languages allows us to be more united with all people, and not just those in the United States.

While I agree it is very important for American citizens to learn a foreign language, why does it have to be Spanish? If they it is North America and they live by Canad, would French not provide them with better job opportunities in bi-lingual careers?

European countires have always taught their citizens English because it was the business language and the language of trade. Now it seems as if Mandarin Chinese is the next business language, if I am not mistaken.

When our grandparents immigrated her from Italy, Russia, Germany, etc., they had to learn the English language, and fast if they were to assimilate. No one was going to learn their language.

I do believe ALL citizens should learn a foreign language (I think they should learn 2 if possible) but I don’t think it should be limited to Spanish.

Blessings.

 

[karebear92]

While I agree it is very important for American citizens to learn a foreign language, why does it have to be Spanish? If they it is North America and they live by Canad, would French not provide them with better job opportunities in bi-lingual careers?

European countires have always taught their citizens English because it was the business language and the language of trade. Now it seems as if Mandarin Chinese is the next business language, if I am not mistaken.

When our grandparents immigrated her from Italy, Russia, Germany, etc., they had to learn the English language, and fast if they were to assimilate. No one was going to learn their language.

I do believe ALL citizens should learn a foreign language (I think they should learn 2 if possible) but I don’t think it should be limited to Spanish.

Blessings.

Neither do I. I think we should learn many languages, but Spanish should begin in elementary and pre-school. French should in areas where they encounter French often. Other languages then should be offered in Middle and High School. We put our students at a serious disadvantage to their bilingual counterparts. American students can learn Spanish or French just as easy as an immigrant can learn English (actually, English is much harder).

 

[PodunkMommy]

If you have a similar conflict, how do you deal with it?

There are so many posts that I have to get through so I will answer my own thoughts about the issues at hand first.

I have severe conflicting feelings. My relatives came over on the boat to Ellis Island from Italy, Sicily, and Ireland. They had to benefit the American society in order to be able to stay. Some even got sent back. Imagine that, being sent back!! Yes, I am being sarcastic, but not everyone who wants to come to America gets to stay. They didn’t speak the language and had to learn it quickly if they were to survive because no one spoke their foreign language and no one was going to provide for them or cater to them either.

I have known people who were here from Mexico illegally because they were looking for a better life and our government made it difficult for them to become citizens. I believe it was $10K per person and when you have $0 and large families, there is no way you will have that kind of money. My thoughts were they are just trying to make a better life for themselves.

On the other hand. I lived in neighborhood where drugs were on the rise, helicopters were out nightly to try to catch the dealers and their were gunshots, etc. I have friends who live on the border and witness firsthand trash, debris, and violence from the cartels and the coyotees.

I also know of people who have had their ID"s stolen and have been given to illegals to use to work. Some of these illegals rape and kill and nothing happens to them because they are in “America”. That is pure evil. That is not justice. That is wrong. I watch this insanity because America has to be “politcally correct”

My thoughts, no one goes in or out of the border. We each stay to our own side unless the proper paperwork is provided. Yes, the really poor people of other nations will suffer but that is inevitable. People can start charities to raise funds for them like they’ve done in the past. They don’t need to sneak in and come here illegally. It is actually more dangerous for them. They run the risk of the women getting raped and the people themelves being killed and their bodyparts being harvested to use for organ donations.

So, yes, I have very conflicting feelings. We are supposed to do the right thing, the charitable thing, but we, as a Nation, can’t leave our door opened to everyone. We end up putting the safety of our entire country at jeopordy.

God help us as we pray for our leaders to make the correct decisions to protect us.

Blessings.

 

[karebear92]

I also know of people who have had their ID"s stolen and have been given to illegals to use to work. Some of these illegals rape and kill and nothing happens to them because they are in “America”. That is pure evil. That is not justice. That is wrong. I watch this insanity because America has to be “politcally correct”

Hi, PodunkMommy.
I don’t quite understand this part. I understand the ID part, but after that I don’t quite understand. You say some of them rape and kill and nothing happens…why? They would not get away with rape or murder just because their were undocumented. Unless you mean they rape and murder other illegal immigrants and the victims and families are too afraid to do anything because they are illegal…that I would understand. I am just trying to clarify.

PodunkMommy:

My thoughts, no one goes in or out of the border. We each stay to our own side unless the proper paperwork is provided. Yes, the really poor people of other nations will suffer but that is inevitable. People can start charities to raise funds for them like they’ve done in the past. They don’t need to sneak in and come here illegally. It is actually more dangerous for them. They run the risk of the women getting raped and the people themelves being killed and their bodyparts being harvested to use for organ donations.

Are their body parts really harvested to use for organ donation? That is rather bizarre and cruel. Obviously rape and murder are, too, but organ harvesting is a little bit more bizarre.

PodunkMommy:

So, yes, I have very conflicting feelings. We are supposed to do the right thing, the charitable thing, but we, as a Nation, can’t leave our door opened to everyone. We end up putting the safety of our entire country at jeopordy.

God help us as we pray for our leaders to make the correct decisions to protect us.

Blessings.

I just don’t believe illegal immigrants are more dangerous than American citizens.
God bless!

 

[exnihilo]

So Illegal immigrants are here because Americans are lazy and Americans are lazy because illegal immigrants are here? Or because they receive welfare? If it is the latter, you can not blame illegal immigrants for the problem. Because then illegal immigrants are here to fill the jobs that Americans won’t do because they are lazy and on welfare. Yep, that sounds about right. Immigrants come for jobs. If there were no jobs, they would not come.

Illegals are here for many reasons. Some come for jobs. Some come to live off of the system (like Obama’s aunt). Some come to commit crimes. Some come to escape their native land.

I dont blame the illegals who come here to work for the conditions American voters create for wanting to come here (I do blame them for violating the law). I blame the American voter for creating the system that allows Americans to not work. The American voter applauds and endorses an insane system that bankrupts the country and immorally places the burden of their folly on their children’s children.

 

[karebear92]

I dont blame the illegals who come here to work for the conditions American voters create for wanting to come here (I do blame them for violating the law). I blame the American voter for creating the system that allows Americans to not work. The American voter applauds and endorses an insane system that bankrupts the country and immorally places the burden of their folly on their children’s children.

This, my friend, I completely agree with. I think we still disagree about the correct way to fix it, however, but thats okay:yup:

 

[Blacksword]

So Illegal immigrants are here because Americans are lazy and Americans are lazy because illegal immigrants are here? Or because they receive welfare? If it is the latter, you can not blame illegal immigrants for the problem. Because then illegal immigrants are here to fill the jobs that Americans won’t do because they are lazy and on welfare. Yep, that sounds about right. Immigrants come for jobs. If there were no jobs, they would not come.

This is true enough. In fact, the most recent years show a declining population of undocumented people due to our economic implosion. Some are leaving as there is not enough work…so, if one wants to see them leave, one way of accomplishing this appears to be causing economic collapse in the U.S. Who wants to sign up for another Depression?

 

[Blacksword]

There are so many posts that I have to get through so I will answer my own thoughts about the issues at hand first.

I have severe conflicting feelings. My relatives came over on the boat to Ellis Island from Italy, Sicily, and Ireland. They had to benefit the American society in order to be able to stay. Some even got sent back. Imagine that, being sent back!! Yes, I am being sarcastic, but not everyone who wants to come to America gets to stay. They didn’t speak the language and had to learn it quickly if they were to survive because no one spoke their foreign language and no one was going to provide for them or cater to them either.

I have known people who were here from Mexico illegally because they were looking for a better life and our government made it difficult for them to become citizens. I believe it was $10K per person and when you have $0 and large families, there is no way you will have that kind of money. My thoughts were they are just trying to make a better life for themselves.

On the other hand. I lived in neighborhood where drugs were on the rise, helicopters were out nightly to try to catch the dealers and their were gunshots, etc. I have friends who live on the border and witness firsthand trash, debris, and violence from the cartels and the coyotees.

I also know of people who have had their ID"s stolen and have been given to illegals to use to work. Some of these illegals rape and kill and nothing happens to them because they are in “America”. That is pure evil. That is not justice. That is wrong. I watch this insanity because America has to be “politcally correct”

My thoughts, no one goes in or out of the border. We each stay to our own side unless the proper paperwork is provided. Yes, the really poor people of other nations will suffer but that is inevitable. People can start charities to raise funds for them like they’ve done in the past. They don’t need to sneak in and come here illegally. It is actually more dangerous for them. They run the risk of the women getting raped and the people themelves being killed and their bodyparts being harvested to use for organ donations.

So, yes, I have very conflicting feelings. We are supposed to do the right thing, the charitable thing, but we, as a Nation, can’t leave our door opened to everyone. We end up putting the safety of our entire country at jeopordy.

God help us as we pray for our leaders to make the correct decisions to protect us.

Blessings.

A few things here need to be stated:

First, Latin American immigrants, legal and not, are assimilating and learning English at about the same rate as have all prior immigrant groups, and the research on this overwhelmingly confirms this fact. Generally, it is not the first generation that becomes fluent and American, but their children, and especially their grandchildren.

Secondly, no one DOES get in at the ports of entry without the “proper paperwork” already. That’s the definition of entering without inspection: it means they are crossing in secret, the CBP is not simply letting people cross without any legal status. A related point: we deport record numbers of people each year, the number keeps going up, so the Feds are trying to enforce the law, it’s just that the laws are dysfunctional, and they are overwhelmed. Enforcement only strategy is not working. Are you advocating militarizing the borders, and all ports of entry, and forbidding any immigration into, or exit from, the U.S.? Surely not!

Thirdly, your statements about illegals murdering people is a little disturbing. Again, the research shows beyond doubt that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a tiny fraction of the rate that American citizens do. So, while certainly it does happen that among a population of 12 million or so people, a couple thousand may commit heinous crimes, I’d frankly take my chances in the company of a group of undocumented gardeners and dishwashers from Mexico in the inner city than I would with many other people one would be likely to find about in a bad area of a large city! Suffice to say that undocumented workers are not roving about our cities and countrysides in pillaging and raping the populace. The drug traffickers are a major problem, but here’s the thing: they are separate and for the most part completely unrelated to the undocumented immigrant problem. The fact that they may happen to cross the border illegally as well does NOT make them similar or related. Rather, all too frequently they victimize the vulnerable undocumented workers and aliens trying to enter for work even moreso than they do Americans unfortunate enough to get in their way. One issue is a sociology-economic and labor problem, the other is a criminal law and public safety problem.

 

[pnewton]

Some of these illegals rape and kill and nothing happens to them because they are in “America”. That is pure evil. That is not justice. That is wrong. I watch this insanity because America has to be “politcally correct”

The archetype of the rapist illegal is often used to demonize them. I think it muddies the waters of thought. No one is pro-rape or pro-murder whether the perpetrator is here illegally or the town doctor.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AntalKalnoky.

We may need to get a clarification on this matter - but, the USCCB does not speak for the Catholic Church - they have issued a pastoral opinion on various subjects - but, this is not binding as a article of Faith. Binding articles of Faith come from general councils with the Pope in agreement.

This is not to say that the pastoral letter by the USCCB can be dismissed as without value - we need to read what is being said and understand what their pastoral guidance means. If, however, we are seriously convinced that there is a misstatement or a misdirected emphasis we need to conisder this, too.

I think to say that if we as members of the Catholic Church in the US do not agree with the pastoral guidance of the USCCB in a particular area for serious reason we are rejecting the Catholic Church is a gross overstatement and in fact is in error. Also, please note that no where in the USCCB document that it proclaims their pastoral letter to be a binding matter of Faith. The bishops are aware of their limitations.

To put this in context, in 1854 the Pope declared that from the first moment of conception, Mary was free of original sin as a article of Faith newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm For a Catholic to deny this as a binding article of Faith would be in the same breath to leave the Catholic Church. One can not be a Catholic and doubt the Immaculate Conception. On the other hand, one can be a member of the Catholic Church in the US and actively debate and question how our country is addressing illegal immigration - and how our US bishops are addressing this matter.

God bless

Incorrect, Ender. The USCCB Position, Policy statements are their Official Church pronouncennts, For Our Guidance. on Issues, problems. That is Why They are the USCCB. Their Declarations arethose of The Cathoolic Church of the USA, in accord with the Vatican’s. If we think, act contrary, we are Rejecting the Catholic Church. The Curch does not get involved in Politics, It does issue Morality Positions we should not reject, for Our viewpoints, which usually lack if we disagree.

 

[pnewton]

Hi, AntalKalnoky.

We may need to get a clarification on this matter - but, the USCCB does not speak for the Catholic Church - they have issued a pastoral opinion on various subjects - but, this is not binding as a article of Faith. Binding articles of Faith come from general councils with the Pope in agreement.

CCC 888

they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think to say that if we as members of the Catholic Church in the US do not agree with the pastoral guidance of the USCCB in a particular area for serious reason we are rejecting the Catholic Church is a gross overstatement and in fact is in error.

Indeed. Guidance is to be distinguished from an explicit and narrow directive. I do believe that principles are important. When principles are issued by clergy, regarding contemporary matters, they are to be followed, but the caveat there is that it is a matter of application of those principles. (As with all moral issues, because this is the way Catholic moral theology works.) Thus, prioritizing the needs of illegal immigrants in opposition to the poor who reside legally in our land (when and if specific conflicts in justice occur), is not what the statement means. It couldn’t be the meaning, because good ends (justice) are never to be achieved at the cost of evil means (injustice). The bishops know this as a principle better than anybody here. They may in fact, however, be unaware (particular bishops may be) of specific injustices to poor legal residents. I say that because clearly many people who do not work in service industries such as I do are utterly unaware of these conflicts. They may not work in affected schools, hospitals, other institutions; they may not work in locations of massive numbers of illegal immigrants. They tend to assume that ‘it couldn’t happen’ that such displacements and preferences are occurring, sometimes because of sheer numbers. Therefore such people are skeptical that it “could” happen, and they repeatedly question whether violations of justice are being allowed to continue.

Also, there is such a thing as being current. The bishops are not political experts, not immigration experts, not economic experts, not public education experts. Their job is to provide moral guidance, but nowhere have they said that migration is an absolute right even when and if equally poor people who are not migrants suffer injury on account of such migration. (I mean not minor discomfort, not inconvenience, but deprivation of the same essential rights that the bishops have stated migrants have a moral right to seek.) The right to earn a living, the right to an education, the right to the food of the earth, the right to health, etc. In 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1980 the country – even if not every locality – could absorb several million ultra-poor, illiterate immigrants per year without jeopardy to the national economy, and mostly with minor jeopardy to local economies. Microeconomies are quite different now. State after state, municipality after municipality, are out of funds – often for essential public works and public services. Not every state in the Union, but many of them, including many in which illegal immigrants form a large, sometimes majority, population.

No one in this country, legal resident or not, leaves no footprint on the national economy either. There are federal services of various categories that are built into our economy and our political system, and these services have to be distributed to the entire population. The more needy (due to lack of education, due to language barriers, due to cultural differenes) any population is, the more reliant that population will be on governmental services, and the larger such a population is, the greater that factor. With legal immigration, the size of that population (and the realistic ability to offer such services) is manageable & thus controlled. But with exponentially larger & uncontrolled immigration, the ability to render those services to the entire U.S. population is compromised.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Unemployment is a factor of lots of things. If we cut welfare benefits the unemployment rate would drop substantially. But what would really drop it is stopping illegal immigrants who take jobs that could and should be done by our unemployed.

Unemployment is the new standard after the Enrich-The-Richest policies of the 1980’s and 2000’s. Are you not aware that those adminstrations Exported U.S. Companies and especially Jobs to Other Nations, Subsidized (Welfared) by us Taxpayers? There are 5 People trying for every Job available in the USA now. Our Nation’s Richest and most profitable Corporations, flush with incredible wealth, are creating 4 Jobs overseas for every one in the USA currently. It’s not the Poorerst, but the Richest That Are the problem after the Radical Economic Policies of 2001-2009.

                                                                                                                     Why  did we  pay  $100  Million welfare  to the   the  Largest  Profits  corporation  in the world last year,  while That   Mega-Profit  Corporation  paid No  USA    Income  or Profits  tax:  Exxon-Mobil?   The   answer  are the  Chaney  2001  Enrich the Richest New  laws,  that the    Tea  Party  has   destroyed the    Credit-worthines of the USA  last few  weeks  To  Prevent   any Tax  Payments  or  stopping  Massive  Welfare the The  Richest!  That was The   Issue:  No  Tax  increases  on the Richest  (Over  $250  k  Profits)  Only.   Why  does our Media   and Poltiscians  avoid that giant  topic?  Because the few  Mega-Rich  now  control  even Congress.

• Why has the actually Booming USA economy of the 1990’s with full USA employment of 4.5%, and Massive Federal Supluses, massive profits Businesses, been Reversed in 2001, with slashed taxes and Free-Market unregulated Big Finance? Exactly to Tranfer USA Wealth and Welfare to the Very Richest, most profitable few, proven by All Data.
  ** The Way it was done was Propagandizing Against Taxes and Welfare. We Are permanently suffering the Results, incurable now. The Media mogul who Repeated Those themes is now facing Criminal Staff Charges, and FBI/Justice invesdtigations here also. His Theme: Communist Socialism conspiracy here is the Threat to 1776 policies. [SIGN] Fallen for those lines? Opposite of the Social Teaching of Our Lord and His Church

. USCCB “Faithful Citizenship”*
[/SIGN]

 

[AntalKalnoky]

CCC 888

they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ.

And the USCCB is also Moral Voice of The Church on main Issues, Problems here, as The Holy Father is worldwide.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Would that things were that simple.

In 1968 the Canadian Bishops meeting in Winnipeg, issued their own direct challenge to the encyclical of Pope Paul VI condemnation of artificial birth control. Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement

Then we have this controversy with the Irish Bishops and their actions toward the sex abuse scandal in that country.

But, possibly more remarkable than these examples is the Great Schism - where hundreds of consecrated bishops have turned their back on Rome and gone their own way. The key to this entire matter on Catholic Dogma lies with Pope and the Magisterium - and not in a collection of Bishops. Again, there is nothing in this document from the US Bishops that declars or defines Catholic Dogma.

I do not want to sound dismissive because I really am not - but, somewhere along the line as we address just who is responsible for defining dogma - and how events like the Great Schism can take place if the Bishops are right (yet we have two camps that have condemned the teachings of the other) - we see that it is the entire Magisterium and the Pope who are responsible.

To my way of thinking we are to be charitable to all - and that means illegals, too! We are to be just before we can be charitable - for justice holds the first place. I have seen no evidence that our laws are UNJUST - confusing, difficult, silly, loaded with inefficiencies and those are probably the good points! But, which law are we going to pick apart and find such problems. US laws are intended primarily to protect US citizens and promote the common good. While no US law does either perfectly - they can be changed or abolished once enacted. Merely having individuals throw out laws they do not like is to invite chaos.

This may be a good topic for another thread - so, let me place this within the context of this particular thread. As Catholics we are required to listen to the teaching authority of the Church. We are required to listen to our Bishops. When it comes to illegal immigration I see two tacks have been developed: 1- The Bishops have effectively despaired of Mexico, Central and South America ever making their respective countries a place where their citizens want to stay and raise a family while building up their country and that leads to 2- The Bishops have singled out the US as now responsible for the health and welfare of those who flee their own country because we have ‘more’.

The US can not absorb the world. The US can work to help other countries to make improvements - but, it can not supply the political will in each repressive nation to come up with workable and successful economic systems that promote their own citizens.

God bless

Now, let’s take a look at what else the CCC teaches…

CCC 888

they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ.

**
The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.**