Church teaching on illegal immigration

  • Thread starter Thread starter poetryforjesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizabeth502 said:
Mary, like her Son, is also impartial. She does not “favor” anyone God does not “favor.” .
Click to expand...
Elizabeth, Not meaning to disrail the discussion, but it just so happens I went to my catechism class tonight and we touched on this very subject. And I thought you might be interested. It turns out that the word “favor” does have a particular theological meaning, and it is not the meaning any of us were using on this thread, so the following explanation is not meant to prove myself right or you wrong on any point. I just thought you might be interested.

In the CCC, 2003

"2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning “favor,” “gratuitous gift,” "benefit."53 Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.54
"
A favor by God (the greek word is charism) is a special gift or talent of the holy spirt. We are given them in order to perform some good for the church. According to my pastor, we are never given them for our own benefit. So, any given talent, is not necessisarly a favor of God. On the other hand, there are many different favors of God. And yes God does favor some more than others, ie give them more special talents to do good for the Church than others.

Thought you might be interested.
 
thanks for the effort, tafan, but actually I know what favor means. Unfortunately what you heard is in the context of a noun, not the infinitive (verb) “to favor,” which in common English connotes preference, not gratuity. Context and part of speech make all the difference, and change the meaning.

Now, if you were talking (earlier) about something in the Mexican culture that promotes a relationship with Mary, as well as an unusual receptivity to God’s graces due to simplicity, due to valuing emotion sometimes more than intellect, etc., I won’t dispute that. That’s entirely possible. Cultures which focus on self-sufficiency outside of God are not cultures as a whole which encourage humililty (obviously). Ditto for cultures caught up in materialism, which leads to greed, not to mention a lack of perceived need for God.

But as with the United States, individuals represent a culture to varying degrees. There are lots of U.S. Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and non-denominational believers who strive to live a counter-cultural life. Similarly, there are plenty of Mexicans in their government who are corrupt (dishonest, greedy, immoral, manipulative), and apparently a whole host of Mexican thugs who make some of our domestic gangs look like Boy Scouts, with their ultra-violent turf wars which extend into the U.S.

God, again, is impartial. He judges not by country of origin, race, economic status (positively or negatively). Only by the individual. All are welcome, all are “favored” because his graces are boundless.

It’s very offensive when any country or culture assumes "favoritism, " “being favored” (by God) because that signifies preference.

Each of us is bestowed by God with special charisms and favors in the sense of graces/gifts. More of these are not offered to particular groups of people by virtue of their group identification. There’s nothing in Catholic theology that would ever support such a prejudice.
 
We bring way too many high school drop out immigrants into this nation
heritage.org/wherewestand/hif/hifvideo.cfm?vid=41

In fact…with the economy tanking, many are going back to Mexico…
To coin a phrase…ADIOS !!!
Suspend non-essential immigration…we dont NEED ANYMORE…
numbersusa.com/content/resources/video/recommended/roy-beck-urges-house-forum-suspend-non-essential-immigration.html

here’s a good Texan fighting for Americans…Remember the Alamo !!!
numbersusa.com/content/news/november-9-2009/house-members-urge-president-enforce-immigration-laws-lower-unemployment.html
 
tafan said:
But lets cut back the numbers? Why?
Click to expand...
No, let’s not cut back the numbers, some facts are always helpful. The United States has averaged over 1 million people per year being legally admitted for the past two decades. Over 50% of those have been from Latin American countries. That legal process can handle even more people.

Regarding the bishop’s 2003 report on their conferences, it is a series of statements between the bishops in only two countries, the U.S. and Mexico. I don’t see it as a “Church teaching on illegal immigration”. Also, it needs to be updated to reflect today’s environment.

Reports need to start mentioning how program initiatives will be funded. States such as Arizona and California can not absorb the cost of hosting undocumented immigrants; it is a net cost that totals tens of billions. California is on the verge of bankruptcy and is already cutting back assistance programs for those that are citizens. Why should we allow illegal immigrants to drive those states even deeper into debt?

There are 18,000 agents being used to patrol the border between the U.S. and Mexico and with the number of violent attacks against agents steadily increasing that number will need to increase. Taxpayers are being asked to shoulder more and more and with 10% plus unemployment there are fewer shoulders upon which to place the burden.
 
It’s very offensive when any country or culture assumes "favoritism, " “being favored” (by God) because that signifies preference.
Click to expand...
I did not initiate the use of the word favor. I said they had a special place in Mary’s heart, and as such you can assume they have a special place in our Lord’s heart. I was hesitant to even keep using the word, because I was not for sure its exact meaning in a theological sense, and I suspect it had one. And of course, the standard english definition of words is often different than how the church uses words in their teaching. My last explanation was only meant to present the word with respect to the church’s teaching. If you want to use the english defintion, thats fine. It is totally irrelavent to my original point about the mexican people, because I did not use the word regardless of definition.
 
No, let’s not cut back the numbers, some facts are always helpful. The United States has averaged over 1 million people per year being legally admitted for the past two decades. Over 50% of those have been from Latin American countries. That legal process can handle even more people.
Click to expand...
Can you please provide the statistics source for this? I really want to study it.

I am glad there is someone who agrees with me finally on this thread. With respect to actual policy, my points can be summarized as, we need to control the border, we need to expand legal immigration, and in doing so we need to rework our immigration laws, ie we need comprehensive immigration reform. With respect to the Bishops’ statements, my point has been that we are obliged to give their position its due consideration.

Everyone arguing with me seems to support the following ideas:

We need to reduce the amount of legal immigration from Mexico (stated explicitly by d97c),
or
Our laws are good, they just need to be enforced (stated explicety by markbrumbaugh).

With respect to the Bishops’ statements, I am still trying to nail down Ender’s position.

That seems to summarize the immigration debate that has occurred on this thread so far, seperating out all the chafe and tangential issues that we have also discussed (by no means all a bad thing).
 
tafan said:
We can’t just say “its prudential judgement” …, 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?
Click to expand...
I agree with this; this is in fact the truth of the matter. Unfortunately what is generally implied is something altogether different and this is what I oppose. When a bishop speaks out on an issue the immediate presumption is that it is a moral question, that the bishop, as spokesman for the Church, is explaining the Church’s position on the issue, and we have a moral obligation to assent. Obviously it is never explained this way because it isn’t in fact true. It is simply implied.

This is why I find it so offensive when any bishop misuses the authority of his office by wandering off into political issues and blurring the distinction between which of his comments we are obliged to follow and which we are allowed to reject. The optimal solutions to the problems of immigration are not moral issues; they are entirely prudential and the bishops do us a disservice by weighing in with their political proposals.

Ender
 
tafan said:
Can you please provide the statistics source for this? I really want to study it.

Go to DHS.gov; look under Homeland Security.

I am glad there is someone who agrees with me finally on this thread. With respect to actual policy, my points can be summarized as, we need to control the border, we need to expand legal immigration, and in doing so we need to rework our immigration laws, ie we need comprehensive immigration reform. With respect to the Bishops’ statements, my point has been that we are obliged to give their position its due consideration.
Click to expand...
To be sure; you and I are not in agreement. You feel we need new immigration laws; I feel we need to enforce the ones we have.
 
tafan said:
I said they had a special place in Mary’s heart, and as such you can assume they have a special place in our Lord’s heart.
Click to expand...
My points are several:

You, I, the Catholic bishops, politicians, political groups, La Raza, the Catholic laity, and CAF members have no basis, and would have no basis, for making such a statement. As a people, there is no more “special place” for Mexicans (in Mary’s heart, in our Lord’s heart) than any other people. Again, if we’re talking about a cultural disposition to be oriented toward the appreciation of Mary, etc., then such a cultural disposition, when adopted, when committed to, may very well lead to “special graces.” But that is for the individual in that culture to activate, and does not produce an automatic benefit for an entire people or nation unless all the other members are equally disposed – which is patently not true.

God is not prejudiced (partial); therefore Mary is not; she cannot be. No genuine Catholic theology would support that.

The biblical meaning of the word “favored” (and hence the theological implication) is not one which supports any notion of the English “favoritism” which your statement implies. Phrases in the OT, for example, which include, “so God favored him…” are descriptions of God rewarding a particular individual’s open heart and righteous behavior with graces, support, strength, protection (not with arbitrary preference). And not an individual by virtue of membership within a group.

God does not arbitrarily favor an entire people unless that entire people is disposed to receive God’s favors. Clearly that is not true of Mexico, nor the U.S., nor any other country. Mexican drug lords do not have a special place in Mary’s heart.

I’m well acquainted with theological terms on the graduate level.

I think that the Bishops are an embarrassment when they try to direct immigration policy, of which they mostly are ignorant. If they want to suggest to the gov’t some basic principles of humanity, derived from Catholic morality, that should influence policy, that’s another thing. But overall, they are out of their league on this one. So are any priests who parrot them.
 
I agree with this; this is in fact the truth of the matter. Unfortunately what is generally implied is something altogether different and this is what I oppose.
Click to expand...
Ender, for about 5 or 6 pages, the only person who you have been arguing with is myself. In my one of my first posts *#18) on the matter, I stated plainly (and I quote): “We have a moral obligation to give our Bishop’s opinions their due consideration”. I have quoted this time and time again and now you say you agree? I give up. Have a good day.
 
AnotherVoice said:
To be sure; you and I are not in agreement. You feel we need new immigration laws; I feel we need to enforce the ones we have.
Click to expand...
No, let’s not cut back the numbers, some facts are always helpful. The United States has averaged over 1 million people per year being legally admitted for the past two decades. Over 50% of those have been from Latin American countries. That legal process can handle even more people.
Click to expand...
Ok, I made a bad decision. You think that our current legal process can provide for more immigrants from Latin Amercia, you are objectively wrong on this account. The current legal process has hard caps in all categories of immigration. So I was simply assuming that you actually meant we needed to expand the legal process to allow for more. I will let you clarify your position, since simplyt enforcing current laws does not allow for handling more people.

Do you have the source for the statistics you quoted?
 
tafan said:
Ender, for about 5 or 6 pages, the only person who you have been arguing with is myself. In my one of my first posts *#18) on the matter, I stated plainly (and I quote): “We have a moral obligation to give our Bishop’s opinions their due consideration”. I have quoted this time and time again and now you say you agree? I give up. Have a good day.
Click to expand...
You really should have quoted a bit more from post #18 inasmuch as it was a response to what I had said in post #13:

The most significant point is this: we have no moral obligation whatever to act in accordance with their wishes, expressed or implied.

to which you replied:

*Ender This is wrong. The bishops have a moral responsibility, as our primary teachers, to provide guidance on moral issues, even when they are politically charged. *

Let’s understand what I agreed to. What we have been arguing is not so much a difference of fact but a difference of emphasis and implication since both of our statements are true; that is, we have no obligation to assent to their prudential comments (me) but we have an obligation to seriously consider them (you). What I am contesting is the general misconception that as Catholics we are bound to assent to our bishops directions, pretty much regardless of what they are. Catholics give the comments of their bishops too much consideration when those comments stray into the political arena. I see that as harmful and am trying to lessen their political influence. You see it as useful and are endeavoring to maintain their political influence undiminished.

Ender
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I think that the Bishops are an embarrassment when they try to direct immigration policy, of which they mostly are ignorant. If they want to suggest to the gov’t some basic principles of humanity, derived from Catholic morality, that should influence policy, that’s another thing. But overall, they are out of their league on this one. So are any priests who parrot them.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree with this but would go even further. Far too many of our bishops simply do not - or cannot - distinguish between ends and means, between moral issues and prudential ones. The fact that the USCCB is run by lay functionaries who use the organization as a means of advancing political goals simply compounds the problem.

Given that the USCCB even has a position on something as arcane as “net neutrality” and has come out opposing companies like Verizon for their policies of offering different levels of service, there is no other way to characterize them but as just another group of lobbyists. Their building should be plowed under and the ground sown with salt.

Ender
 
Dallas, this really is easy.
We have read the Bishops’ letters. We get bombarded by liberals in the parish who tell us we must go along with Obama’s amnesty bill because the Bishops like it. BUT we can read. We have considered the Bishops, and since we disagree on the cure of the problem, we say, "No, we dont agree, AND WE DONT HAVE TO AGREE, especially since our decision has come after reading the Bishops’ letters. This isn’t the abortion argument. Catholics can disagree on the resolution of the illegal immigration phenomenon, and when Bishops get into specifics, we can say…here are some other opinions that we think make more sense. Since this is a political resolution, we can vote for those who dont want to open the borders of this country to everyone who wants in here. is that concept hard for you to grasp. WE HAVE READ THE BISHOPS’ LETTERS AND WE THINK THEY ARE WRONG…ON THE DETAILS OF THE SOLUTION.
 
40.png
Ender:
You really should have quoted a bit more from post #18 inasmuch as it was a response to what I had said in post #13:

The most significant point is this: we have no moral obligation whatever to act in accordance with their wishes, expressed or implied.

to which you replied:

Ender This is wrong. The bishops have a moral responsibility, as our primary teachers, to provide guidance on moral issues, even when they are politically charged.
Click to expand...
Well, now you are leaving off the last sentence of my paragraph. But FYI, when I said, “This is wrong”, that was directed explictly at your last sentence “The bishops have seriously overstepped their authority to imply otherwise”, which I believe that my entire paragraph should have either made clear, or at least been satisfatory to your point of view.

That’s it, good day.
 
d97c said:
Dallas, this really is easy.
We have read the Bishops’ letters. We get bombarded by liberals in the parish who tell us we must go along with Obama’s amnesty bill because the Bishops like it. BUT we can read. We have considered the Bishops, and since we disagree on the cure of the problem, we say, "No, we dont agree, AND WE DONT HAVE TO AGREE, especially since our decision has come after reading the Bishops’ letters. This isn’t the abortion argument. Catholics can disagree on the resolution of the illegal immigration phenomenon, and when Bishops get into specifics, we can say…here are some other opinions that we think make more sense. Since this is a political resolution, we can vote for those who dont want to open the borders of this country to everyone who wants in here. is that concept hard for you to grasp. WE HAVE READ THE BISHOPS’ LETTERS AND WE THINK THEY ARE WRONG…ON THE DETAILS OF THE SOLUTION.
Click to expand...
Fine, I summarized the two positinos pretty well in post 106. You are not telling me anything new. Good day.
 
Hers’ something new for you…

One of the reasons we disagree with the Bishops…

Look at what illegals are doing to Nevada
judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/nov/no-illegal-aliens-welfare-doubles

so we read the Bishops “letters” and then we say…How can the Bishops do this and give Nevada NO solution except “legalize these people” so they can access MORE freeebees and send Nevada into bankruptcy…Shut down the building of the fence say the Bishops…so that more and more and more of them can come in here…
Its idiotic…and FEELING GOOD ABOUT MEXICANS doesnt pay the bills…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top