Church teaching on illegal immigration

[d97c]

Hey Dallas…check out how illegals cost your state BILLIONS…Write 'em a check today !!
"Analysis of the latest Census data indicates Texas’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to more than $3.7 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $725 per Texas household headed by a native-born resident. "

fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research2859​

Impact of Illegal Immigration—> Crime and MS-13

usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_gangs.html

---

 

[tafan]

Elizabeth502:

Nor does God believe so. (according to classic Catholic theology)

References please. Where does the church teach that all nations are equally favored by God? Why is my personal belief about the Mexican people at odds with Catholic teaching? If it is, I really want to know.

 

[Ender]

I did educate myself on the USCCB’s message and I, like thousands of other catholics, do not approve. In my opinion the Bishops have shirked their responsibility to educate us on the meaning of Charity and instead have requested that we assign change to the Government.

One of the major problems with what comes out of the USCCB is that the messages are rarely from the bishops; they are from secular committees written by the activists who have taken them over. The good news is that almost nothing that comes from them is binding on our conscience; the bad news is that very few people realize this.

We are entitled to different means of achieving any certain objective, and in most cases I think we would agree on the end product.

These two statements are so obviously true one wouldn’t think it was necessary to make them, but what is obvious from one side is completely rejected by the other. The arguments involved are twofold: “the bishops say thus-and-so” so if you don’t go along you are a cafeteria Catholic and need to go to confession; and, “your ends are evil, greedy, selfish, racist, bigoted, etc”. The first argument is the natural conclusion the functionaries at the USCCB aim for with their cheesy pronouncements on every aspect of political life; the second argument is the same charge that has been used by the left for decades: “your disagreement with us represents a moral deficiency on your part.”

I know the arguments for and against immigration but they are not the issue here; the question at hand is what the Church teaches … and (in my opinion) how we are being deceived on that point by the bishops and the USCCB.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

tafan, why do you personalize everything? I don’t know what your “personal beliefs” are about Mexicans. I was responding to a particular comment by a different poster, not to you personally. I’m making the general statement not about “nations” (as in governments) but about groups of people, categories of people, self-identification of people/peoples.

God does not love poor people “more” (categorically than rich people), Mexicans “more,” North Americans “more,” Europeans “more,” Anglos “more.” You can’t have “more” than infinite. God is infinite love. It is infinitely available to anyone, and God desires to share that infinite love with everyone, not “more” with a particular people. (IOW, in classic Catholic theology, God is impartial. This goes back to Paul’s Epistles, but is further elucidated in later writings by Fathers of the Church.)

Poverty, including the chosen poverty of religious, is an opportunity to make oneself, or use that state, to avail oneself of God’s graces because such poverty often facilitates humility and honesty, which are two essential elements to knowing God. But poverty by no means guarantees such availability. It is frankly a problem in the church that poverty (anywhere) is too often romanticized. Poverty also breeds very ugly by-products: dishonesty, expediency, and predatory behavior bred from desperation, as well as the accompanying bitterness and self-justification of deceitful & opportunistic behavior. None of that is very holy or “favored” by God. None of those are paths to friendship with God. God does not co-exist with evil. Unchosen poverty is an objective evil which facilitates many subjective evils which are incompatible with God and his presence.

The chronically poor who are not predators or cheaters or criminals, but who are gratefully dependent on others and receive help simply and graciously, I do believe they have a “special place,” as it were, in God’s eyes. Their very awareness of their helplessness does promote friendship with God, as well as being a sign/witness to others. That’s what (I believe) some religious mean when they talk about the “privilege” of serving the (chronically) poor, and how they consider it “receiving more than giving” when they perform such ministry.

Just be very careful of generalities. Not having enough to survive is an objective evil. It is not a blessed state. It is not something God “wishes” or “prefers” for any human being, nor a situation God “loves.” He loves the person, but he doesn’t love any of their actions that result from that state if those actions are evil, and particulary if those actions hurt others.

 

[tafan]

Elizabeth502, I wasn;t personalizing anything. You were responding to a post by markbrumbaugh, which was written in response to me. His response to me was based on a couple of comments I had made, most completely described in the last paragraph of post #37. Now, I fully admit that what that paragraph descibes is my own personal belief, which I believe is well supported by history and I do not hold it against anyone for not subscribing to that belief. Its just worth thinking about in my opinion.

UNLESS, that belief is at odds with Church teaching. Now, I do not think it is, but for my own sake, if it is I would really like to know that. Hence my request for you to expound on your comment.

God does not love poor people “more” (categorically than rich people), Mexicans “more,” North Americans “more,” Europeans “more,” Anglos “more.” You can’t have “more” than infinite. God is infinite love. It is infinitely available to anyone, and God desires to share that infinite love with everyone, not “more” with a particular people. (IOW, in classic Catholic theology, God is impartial.

I don’t think I said God loved them more, I think I said that the Mexican people have a special place in Our Lady’s heart (and hence in Our Lords’s). So I think the way markbrumbaugh described it is better, not more loved, more more favored. I think I would say more blessed, but his word favored might actually fit better.

As to God’s love itself, it may not be more or less, but that does not mean it is the same for everyone.

Anyway, my request for an explanation as to why my statement was at odds with Church teaching was very sincere. If I am wrong about that, I want to know. I think I may submit it as a different subject on the theology forum.

Just be very careful of generalities. Not having enough to survive is an objective evil. It is not a blessed state. It is not something God “wishes” or “prefers” for any human being, nor a situation God “loves.” He loves the person, but he doesn’t love any of their actions that result from that state if those actions are evil, and particulary if those actions hurt others.

This doesn’t have much to do with my original point about the Mexican people being specially favored by God, but I will comment anyway. Something doesn’t quite sound right with this paragraph. I am not for sure being poor is an objective evil. And in Luke, Christ does say “blessed are the poor”, although in Mather it says “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”. In general, I do not beleive suffering is an objective evil. But this is a digression.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Depends on your definition of “poor,” tafan. Poor as in barely enough is one thing. Poor as in desperation, insufficiency, malnutrition is another. The latter is absolutely an objective evil and not "favored’ or willed by God in any way. Illness is another example of an objective evil. It doesn’t mean that illness cannot be redemptive. Again, this is classic Catholic theology and philosophy.

Be careful of words like “special” and “specially favored” unless you are quite clear about the context of that “favoritism” or “specialness” (such as I did, above). Helplessness can be an occasion for grace, but it can be equally an occasion for sin. Deprivation, similarly.

Mary, like her Son, is also impartial. She does not “favor” anyone God does not “favor.” Now, a particular person, or a particular people’s devotional habits to a particular holy person, may advantage that person or people to receive graces via the intercession of such a holy person. Fr. Corapi can tell you that Mary has specially favored him his whole life, and has specially favored his earthly mother, who prayed her brains out to Mary for his conversion, which worked; and he’s still quite devoted to Mary. He’s Italian-American. I can tell you that Mary has been My Main Woman since early childhood; she has rescued me from suicide and from any number of evils; yet I’m Irish-Hungarian.

Be careful of false equations & generalities.

 

[tafan]

One of the major problems with what comes out of the USCCB is that the messages are rarely from the bishops; they are from secular committees written by the activists who have taken them over. The good news is that almost nothing that comes from them is binding on our conscience; the bad news is that very few people realize this.

These two statements are so obviously true one wouldn’t think it was necessary to make them, but what is obvious from one side is completely rejected by the other. The arguments involved are twofold: “the bishops say thus-and-so” so if you don’t go along you are a cafeteria Catholic and need to go to confession; and, “your ends are evil, greedy, selfish, racist, bigoted, etc”. The first argument is the natural conclusion the functionaries at the USCCB aim for with their cheesy pronouncements on every aspect of political life; the second argument is the same charge that has been used by the left for decades: “your disagreement with us represents a moral deficiency on your part.”

I know the arguments for and against immigration but they are not the issue here; the question at hand is what the Church teaches … and (in my opinion) how we are being deceived on that point by the bishops and the USCCB.

Ender

It is safe to assume, if the USCCB puts out a statement and your bishop uses it as his position, it is part of his teaching. Where did anyone on this thread say “The arguments involved are twofold: “the bishops say thus-and-so” so if you don’t go along you are a cafeteria Catholic and need to go to confession; and, “your ends are evil, greedy, selfish, racist, bigoted, etc”.”. I will repeat again, you owe it to the Bishop’s teaching, due to their position as our primary teacher, to give its it due respect. Which would be defined as, truly understanding it before one disagrees with it. And you cannot say everything you Bishop says about a political subject is a matter of prudential judgement. Certainly many details about their immigration policy are matters of prudential judgement, but not by any means is the whole document.

For example, from what I say on the Houston ArchDiocese website about the Cardinal’s comments on the healthcare reform, almost none of it is a matter of prudential judgement, since it all addresses what any healthcare reform bill needs to take into account with respect to pro-life issues.

This has been my point of view on this whole thread, I simply think you guys go to far on the prudential judgement. I would recommend reading the following, it is very much worth reading for anyone who is going to disagree with their Bishop’s stance. BTW, I do not necessarily agree with the example in point 7 of the document, but the points made are valid.

ndcatholic.org/editorials/june04/index.html

 

[tafan]

Elizabeth502:

Mary, like her Son, is also impartial. She does not “favor” anyone God does not “favor.” Now, a particular person, or a particular people’s devotional habits to a particular holy person, may advantage that person or people to receive graces via the intercession of such a holy person. Fr. Corapi can tell you that Mary has specially favored him his whole life, and has specially favored his earthly mother, who prayed her brains out to Mary for his conversion, which worked; and he’s still quite devoted to Mary. He’s Italian-American. I can tell you that Mary has been My Main Woman since early childhood; she has rescued me from suicide and from any number of evils; yet I’m Irish-Hungarian.

Be careful of false equations & generalities.

Can you provide a reference please for Mary and/or God not favoring anyone or any group? But as to your examples of yourself and Fr. Corapi, I never said thatMary exclusively favored Mexicans, so I don’t see how those examples are pertinant to the discussion.

The types and amounts of graces bestowed on us are not equal. We are all given sufficient grace to enable our salvation, but by no means are they equal. If they are not equal, I do not think you can say that the “favor” (too imprecise of a word) does not vary amoung people.

Lets get back on topic, here is my exact post that originated this sub-thread:

"Even a cursory review of Mexican history from a Catholic perspective highlights a very important issue that is very relavant to these discussions. The Mexican people have a special place in Jesus’s heart. A country that was beset with the worse culture-of-death in the history of mankind was converted to the Christian faith through the direct intervention of Our Lady. Through a subsequent 500 years of suffering and 200 years of (often extreme) anti-christian government persecution, these people have kept the faith. This can only be attributed to the Mexican people continuing to be very special to Our Lady and her intercessions with Our Lord. This point was beautifully made by JP II in his very first international trip as Pope. And as anyone who has visited the Bascillica of Our Lade of Guadelupe during the annual feast day can attest, the Mexican people return this love of our lady in a very special way.
I would hate to meet Jesus on my judgement day and say that I have slandered or mistreated the Mexican people. May the Lady of Guadelupe’s example of love for these people, guide us in this important matter.
"

 

[AnotherVoice]

Lets get back on topic, here is my exact post that originated this sub-thread:

"Even a cursory review of Mexican history from a Catholic perspective highlights a very important issue that is very relavant to these discussions. The Mexican people have a special place in Jesus’s heart. A country that was beset with the worse culture-of-death in the history of mankind was converted to the Christian faith through the direct intervention of Our Lady. Through a subsequent 500 years of suffering and 200 years of (often extreme) anti-christian government persecution, these people have kept the faith. This can only be attributed to the Mexican people continuing to be very special to Our Lady and her intercessions with Our Lord. This point was beautifully made by JP II in his very first international trip as Pope. And as anyone who has visited the Bascillica of Our Lade of Guadelupe during the annual feast day can attest, the Mexican people return this love of our lady in a very special way.
I would hate to meet Jesus on my judgement day and say that I have slandered or mistreated the Mexican people. May the Lady of Guadelupe’s example of love for these people, guide us in this important matter.
"

This is a very nice statement but the original thread was “Church teaching on illegal immigration”. There are plenty of people who could write wonderful things about the Polish, Russian, and English immigrants as well, but we are talking about the need for immigration controls. And I think more importantly is there a Church teaching on this?

 

[tafan]

AnotherOne, it was only one comment, and my motivation for writing it was that, IMO, some very uncharitable things had been said on this thread. But don’t be so pedantic, w.r.t. the title of this thread. This thread has touched on many aspects of the problem which are not necessarily in the scope of church teaching, from the very first post.
And there have been an abundance of posts on, from both sides, on church teaching.

 

[Ender]

It is safe to assume, if the USCCB puts out a statement and your bishop uses it as his position, it is part of his teaching.

It is seldom that something put out by the USCCB is specifically endorsed by individual bishops. USCCB output is a resource for activists who incorrectly insist that anything attached to the USCCB represents Church teaching to which we are bound to assent.

The fact that my bishop personally endorses a USCCB document still does not mean that I am bound to accept it. It must first and foremost be representative of what the Church teaches. Anything that is prudential is not binding.

Where did anyone on this thread say "The arguments involved are twofold: “the bishops say thus-and-so” so if you don’t go along you are a cafeteria Catholic and need to go to confession; and, “your ends are evil, greedy, selfish, racist, bigoted, etc”.

I made the statement that those are the basis for the arguments used; it is others who use those arguments. For example here is a quote from your post (#52) "As for calling people racists on this forum, ok, I quit that". This goes to the second point I made above.

I will repeat again, you owe it to the Bishop’s teaching, due to their position as our primary teacher, to give its it due respect.

This goes to my first point. First, on prudential matters - which this is - the bishops are not our primary teachers; second, the reason you keep repeating your comment is that we keep rejecting the idea that we have an obligation to accept whatever a bishop says simply because it is a bishop who says it.

And you cannot say everything you Bishop says about a political subject is a matter of prudential judgement. Certainly many details about their immigration policy are matters of prudential judgement, but not by any means is the whole document.

The documents are a mix of Church teaching and political philosophy. What we reject are the political opinions; what you imply is rejection of Church teaching.

For example, from what I say on the Houston ArchDiocese website about the Cardinal’s comments on the healthcare reform, almost none of it is a matter of prudential judgement, since it all addresses what any healthcare reform bill needs to take into account with respect to pro-life issues.

This is a perfect example of the disingenuous nature of these documents. We are called to oppose specific problems, which is fine, but the implication is that, once those few problems are fixed, the rest of the health care plan is something we should support. That is a political position masquerading as a moral imperative.

This has been my point of view on this whole thread, I simply think you guys go to far on the prudential judgement. I would recommend reading the following, it is very much worth reading for anyone who is going to disagree with their Bishop’s stance. BTW, I do not necessarily agree with the example in point 7 of the document, but the points made are valid.

You keep belaboring the same issue (the first of the two arguments I identified earlier). The bottom line is this: even after giving a bishop’s prudential opinion “deference and consideration” we have no obligation to assent to it; a point about which neither you nor the bishops disagree.

Ender

 

[JLChamberlain]

Can you provide a reference please for Mary and/or God not favoring anyone or any group? But as to your examples of yourself and Fr. Corapi, I never said thatMary exclusively favored Mexicans, so I don’t see how those examples are pertinant to the discussion.

The types and amounts of graces bestowed on us are not equal. We are all given sufficient grace to enable our salvation, but by no means are they equal. If they are not equal, I do not think you can say that the “favor” (too imprecise of a word) does not vary amoung people.

Lets get back on topic, here is my exact post that originated this sub-thread:

"Even a cursory review of Mexican history from a Catholic perspective highlights a very important issue that is very relavant to these discussions. The Mexican people have a special place in Jesus’s heart. A country that was beset with the worse culture-of-death in the history of mankind was converted to the Christian faith through the direct intervention of Our Lady. Through a subsequent 500 years of suffering and 200 years of (often extreme) anti-christian government persecution, these people have kept the faith. This can only be attributed to the Mexican people continuing to be very special to Our Lady and her intercessions with Our Lord. This point was beautifully made by JP II in his very first international trip as Pope. And as anyone who has visited the Bascillica of Our Lade of Guadelupe during the annual feast day can attest, the Mexican people return this love of our lady in a very special way.
I would hate to meet Jesus on my judgement day and say that I have slandered or mistreated the Mexican people. May the Lady of Guadelupe’s example of love for these people, guide us in this important matter.
"

Why should Americans feel anything for these people? What did they do in the last 500 years that makes them the chosen people. What gives them the right above all other races or nations to be first in line for the jobs that Americans don’t want.Simply being the neighboring country to the US does not give them any special privilages and I believe God would agree with me on that.

 

[tafan]

Ender:

This goes to my first point. First, on prudential matters - which this is - the bishops are not our primary teachers; second, the reason you keep repeating your comment is that we keep rejecting the idea that we have an obligation to accept whatever a bishop says simply because it is a bishop who says it.

Your second point first, show me one place on this thread where I said we have an obligation to accept whatever a bishop says simply because it is a bishop who says it. One place. I keep repeating myself and being very careful not to say this. It is starting to seem like are simply being disgenuous. Do you think if you repeat the same thing about me often enough, I will get tired of refuting it and then people will finally believe you?

On your second point, I do not think you have a full understanding of prudential judgement. It seems like you keep implying that anything one’s Bishop says that is not part of the infallible teaching of the church can lightly be disregarded under the concept of prudential judgement. But the key word is prudence. A moral teaching of a Bishop, even if not a matter of faith, needs to be carefully discerned if one is truly excersiing prudence.

It is seldom that something put out by the USCCB is specifically endorsed by individual bishops. USCCB output is a resource for activists who incorrectly insist that anything attached to the USCCB represents Church teaching to which we are bound to assent.

The fact that my bishop personally endorses a USCCB document still does not mean that I am bound to accept it. It must first and foremost be representative of what the Church teaches. Anything that is prudential is not binding.

I do understand the faults of the USCCB, but many of their statements are endorsed by individual bishops. And when one’s Bishop endorses it, one needs to take it seriously.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

God does not love poor people “more” (categorically than rich people), Mexicans “more,” North Americans “more,” Europeans “more,” Anglos “more.” You can’t have “more” than infinite. God is infinite love. It is infinitely available to anyone, and God desires to share that infinite love with everyone, not “more” with a particular people. (IOW, in classic Catholic theology, God is impartial. This goes back to Paul’s Epistles, but is further elucidated in later writings by Fathers of the Church.)

Poverty, including the chosen poverty of religious, is an opportunity to make oneself, or use that state, to avail oneself of God’s graces because such poverty often facilitates humility and honesty, which are two essential elements to knowing God. But poverty by no means guarantees such availability. It is frankly a problem in the church that poverty (anywhere) is too often romanticized. Poverty also breeds very ugly by-products: dishonesty, expediency, and predatory behavior bred from desperation, as well as the accompanying bitterness and self-justification of deceitful & opportunistic behavior. None of that is very holy or “favored” by God. None of those are paths to friendship with God. God does not co-exist with evil. Unchosen poverty is an objective evil which facilitates many subjective evils which are incompatible with God and his presence.

The chronically poor who are not predators or cheaters or criminals, but who are gratefully dependent on others and receive help simply and graciously, I do believe they have a “special place,” as it were, in God’s eyes. Their very awareness of their helplessness does promote friendship with God, as well as being a sign/witness to others. That’s what (I believe) some religious mean when they talk about the “privilege” of serving the (chronically) poor, and how they consider it “receiving more than giving” when they perform such ministry.

Not having enough to survive is an objective evil. It is not a blessed state. It is not something God “wishes” or “prefers” for any human being, nor a situation God “loves.” He loves the person, but he doesn’t love any of their actions that result from that state if those actions are evil, and particulary if those actions hurt others.

I am so glad to read your words Elizabeth. How many problems must be caused by the glorification of poverty? I don’t see the Vatican selling its treasures, nor should they. I think many have misunderstood this gospel message and would like folks more enlightened than I, to speak on it some more.

 

[AnotherVoice]

I believe that bishops are entitled to opinions regarding immigration laws, and their opinions should be considered, but we are not required to agree.

I would consider the opinions of officials at the INS to be just as informed.

I see many trying to open the borders to allow the free flow of people from other countries, I am not in favor of that. If anything we should tighten our policies on student permits. I have not seen anything published by the bishops which demonstrate they have thought the process through. Why open our borders to Iran and Iraq? Certainly they don’t want a separate set of laws for Mexico or do they? What about background checks, sponsors, employment and places to stay while settling in?

Our immigration policies have helped us become a very strong nation. Millions have followed the law and become good citizens. There are many more that are legally here and following the naturalization process; we need to help them in every way possible.

 

[tafan]

AnotherVoice:

I believe that bishops are entitled to opinions regarding immigration laws, and their opinions should be considered, but we are not required to agree.

So far good.

I see many trying to open the borders to allow the free flow of people from other countries, I am not in favor of that. If anything we should tighten our policies on student permits.

Pretty much a different subject, but I disagree. In general, students who come here, end up staying and we need more educated americans.

I have not seen anything published by the bishops which demonstrate they have thought the process through.

If we should consider their opinions, then I strongly suggest you read this document. You may disagree with some of the detail, but after you read it, you cannot say it was not throught through. If you haven’t read it, you have not truly considered their opinion.

usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml

Why open our borders to Iran and Iraq? Certainly they don’t want a separate set of laws for Mexico or do they? What about background checks, sponsors, employment and places to stay while settling in?

Our laws already provide preferences and special visas for certain types of employess, people of different status and people from various countries. As I have stated before, the idea that our immigration laws should be equal opportunity is absurd. There are lots of reasons why we might want to give Mexicans priority over people from Iraq or Iran. First and foremost would be cultural. It makes perfect sense to give preference to people who have a closer cultural background than those who don’t. If you don’t believe this, do some research into how the societal conflicts presented by large scale muslim immigration into Europe. Mexicans are entrepenurail, hard working, tight knit families, similiar religious heritage, self-reliant. Lots of traits that fit into our society well.
Another reasons is geographical closness. It simply makes more sense, from a national interest standpoint, to help out your neighbors first. Although many people make charitable donations all over the world, local charities are often supported by these same people. Wonder why?

Our immigration policies have helped us become a very strong nation. Millions have followed the law and become good citizens. There are many more that are legally here and following the naturalization process; we need to help them in every way possible.

But lets cut back the numbers? Why?

 

[Ender]

Your second point first, show me one place on this thread where I said we have an obligation to accept whatever a bishop says simply because it is a bishop who says it.

You haven’t said it. Like the bishops, you imply that, because a bishop says something, it deserves special consideration simply because a bishop said it. If it is on faith and morals we are obliged to assent; if it is simply political it can be rejected out of hand. The problems come when the bishops and the USCCB blur the line between the two and imply that the former consideration is due to the latter type of pronouncement.

On your second point, I do not think you have a full understanding of prudential judgement.

Right. Ok - explain it for me. If a bishop makes a prudential statement are we obliged to assent to it? Yes or no.

It seems like you keep implying that anything one’s Bishop says that is not part of the infallible teaching of the church can lightly be disregarded under the concept of prudential judgement.

This is a distortion of my comments. I have spoken about their prudential statements only. Limit your objections to statements I have actually made.

A moral teaching of a Bishop, even if not a matter of faith, needs to be carefully discerned if one is truly excersiing prudence.

Interesting - explain how a moral teaching may not be a matter of faith.

Ender

 

[tafan]

You haven’t said it

Ok, then lets not bring it up again.

Right. Ok - explain it for me. If a bishop makes a prudential statement are we obliged to assent to it? Yes or no.
This is a distortion of my comments. I have spoken about their prudential statements only. Limit your objections to statements I have actually made

Maybe this is the root cause of our disagreement. You obviously are talking about something else than I when using the term “prudential judgement”. “Prudential Judgement” is not an adjective to be place on a bishop’s teaching. “Prudential judgement” is an act you and I make when we agree or disagree with a bishop’s teaching. Your bishop teaches, he does not say, “this is prudential”. WE are allowed to use “prudential judgement” in deciding to follow a Bishop’s teaching when his teaching is NOT part of the deposit of faith. The prudence is to be excersiced by you/me, not the bishop. If you reread my posts with this in mind, perhaps you will understand why I say “we must give the Bishop’s teaching its due consideration”.

So, I think what you are actually asking is ". If a bishop makes a statement that is not part of the deposit of faith, are we obliged to assent to it italics are my modifications to your question. And the answer is no we are not, after excersing OUR prudential judgement we may decide to not assent.

Please Note, this answer not apply for governing actions Bishop can make, which we must follow due to obediance ( when he is excersing his valid authority), even if his decision was wrong. A trivial example: a Bishop can say, your Easter Vigil mass must start after this time in the evening, and we must assent.

Interesting - explain how a moral teaching may not be a matter of faith

I used the term faith a little too loosely, I should have said something like “deposit of faith” or magersterial teaching. Sorry about that.

 

[Ender]

Ok, then lets not bring it up again.

You make a distinction without a practical difference. Neither you nor the bishops actually say we are obligated to assent to their prudential opinions but both of you infer the need for more deference than is appropriate.

 "Prudential Judgement" is not an adjective to be place on a bishop's teaching.    "Prudential judgement" is an act you and I make when we agree or disagree with a bishop's teaching.

I disagree. Prudential opinions/judgments apply to all of us. If their comments were not prudential they would be doctrine to which we are bound to assent; we are free to dissent only when their comments are prudential.

Your bishop teaches, he does not say, “this is prudential”. WE are allowed to use “prudential judgement” in deciding to follow a Bishop’s teaching when his teaching is NOT part of the deposit of faith. The prudence is to be excersiced by you/me, not the bishop.

Here are two comments from an article by Cardinal Dulles (explaining the new teaching on the death penalty) demonstrating that your understanding is incorrect:

*The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded *…

In coming to* this prudential conclusion**, the magisterium* …

** If a bishop makes a statement that is not part of the deposit of faith**, are we obliged to assent to it italics are my modifications to your question. And the answer is no we are not, after excersing OUR prudential judgement we may decide to not assent.

Good. Then, as I said, we may reject their prudential judgments … which is what most of their comments on immigration are. What offends me is that the bishops deliberately blur this fact and imply that we are obliged to give their comments more weight than they deserve.

Ender

 

[tafan]

I disagree. Prudential opinions/judgments apply to all of us. If their comments were not prudential they would be doctrine to which we are bound to assent; we are free to dissent only when their comments are prudential.

You are close. Yes making prudential judgements apply to all of us. That is why we obliged to excersise our prudential judgement before we reject ANY teaching of our bishop.

You are focused on the plain and simple fact that we are free to reject some of our Bishop’s teachings, which I have acknowledge on multiple times on this thread, the first time, way back on post 36. My focus on what we are required to do before we make that rejection. We can’t just say “its prudential judgement” or “its not infallible”, we are obliged to excersize our prudential judgement first. That is the point I have been trying to make this whole time. Do you disagree?