Churchs' position on immigration

[LCMS_No_More]

Evil/wrong…pretty much synonyms. Why is it “wrong”?? (The link you gave goes nowhere–you really ought to check that links are still active before using them). And you “ought” to base your position on the Catechism…not the bishops.

No, evil is one thing and wrong is another.

2 + 2 = 5 is wrong, but it’s not evil.

 

[Ender]

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” … John Kenneth Galbraith

I think this comment completely captures the nature of the debate on immigration (and most other political issues as well) in that it views the situation not as a disagreement about what is correct and what is incorrect but between those who are good and those who are evil. That is, it is not a debate about ideas but a battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. It is not too surprising that not much progress is made in settling an issue where one side believes “You’re wrong” while the other side maintains that “You’re evil.”

Ender

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I think this comment completely captures the nature of the debate on immigration (and most other political issues as well) in that it views the situation not as a disagreement about what is correct and what is incorrect but between those who are good and those who are evil. That is, it is not a debate about ideas but a battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. It is not too surprising that not much progress is made in settling an issue where one side believes “You’re wrong” while the other side maintains that “You’re evil.”

Ender

Are you willing to admit that the right-wing does so with great frequency?

 

[pnewton]

Are you willing to admit that the right-wing does so with great frequency?

Without a doubt conservative pundits do this, and they are just as mistaken as that quote you have. Name-calling and assigning sinful motives to those who do not agree with us is always a poor argument. On this issue, the accusations of racism are the poor arguement.

 

[tjm190]

I’m more concerned with the Church’s responsibility, meaning the responsibility of all Church members/believers. If there’s a conflict between one’s allegiance to Christ and to a particular nation or political entity, then I guess a tough choice has to be made.

You are welcome to assist members of other nations with every dollar you ever earn.

 

[tjm190]

I am not going to deny this is practical, but is this a moral teaching? I do not recall seeing it anywhere. In any case, this is really not the issue. No one has ever suggested cutting any other programs to help any immigrants, legal or not.

And yet every dollar that is spent on providing services to illegal immigrants is doing just that. Now, the economist in me says that cheap labor for jobs we can’t ‘export’ is a good thing- but free schooling/health care/benefits in general to foreign nationals is imprudent policy, regardless of where those nationals happen to live.

 

[diggerdomer]

This is not correct. First, I cannot derive my own position on abortion because the Church teaches that abortion is an intrinsically evil act; it is wrong in every instance and in no case may I hold otherwise. On immigration, however, the Church has no specific teaching as to how the ideals to which we should strive are to be accomplished. She says both that the States should welcome the less well off - the immigrant - and that the State has the right to limit the number of immigrants she admits. What she does not teach is where the line should be drawn between too many and too few. That in fact is not even a moral question.
The Church informs my conscience no less than it does yours. You keep bringing up this point because you are unwilling to accept that because we disagree on the various solutions to immigration problems that my conscience is not as well formed as yours. We disagree. Instead of making the uncharitable assumption that my conscience is ill formed why don’t you assume that I am simply mistaken?
It is OK to disagree with a bishop’s opinion; I may certainly prefer mine to his. It is only when he is teaching on faith or morals that I have a duty to accept what he teaches … of course in those cases it is not his opinion that he is teaching but that of the Church. In the case of immigration, however, there is no Church teaching about specific solutions so the bishops are giving their own opinions. There are some who don’t like the Arizona law but the Church has no position on that law and there is no way to deduce that we should oppose it from what has been said. I therefore have no obligation whatever to agree with those bishops who happen not to like it.

Ender

I am not saying your conscience is either more or less informed than mine. Sorry if you read it that way, it’s certainly not intended. Yes, we obviously disagree on things.

Abortion being an intrinsic evil does not mean that every act that results in an abortion is sinful. Similarly, just because a specific issue regarding immigration does not involved intrinsically evil acts does not mean it’s not a moral issue.

If the Bishops say immigration is a moral issue (as the U.S. Bishops do) then I accept that it is a moral issue. While it may not involve “intrinsically evil acts” (though it could depending on the particular issue under discussion) it is still a moral issue, and what the Church teaches regarding this or that specific application of more general values or principles is moral teaching by the Church. So, I believe (and I acknowledge this is a point that you or others may disagree on) that such teaching should be attended to, and should have a pride of place in forming our conscience about specific applications of general moral principles. As Catholics.

I am not going so far as to say Catholics are “obligated” to adhere to what the U.S. Bishops teach about immigration. My concern is that I think people too easily dismiss or disregard Bishops’ teachings that they don’t agree with, and in effect make themselves the sole arbiters of conscience, morality, etc. Taken to an extreme, if one (not you) disagrees with the Church on this or that issue, then where does it end? Aren’t we ultimately, then, even free to condition our acceptance of Bishops’ teaching on other moral issues (poverty, racism, abortion, etc.?).

If you are considering the entire Catholic tradition and teaching, and find that you disagree with the Bishops’ teaching on the current immigration issue (Arizona’s law), fine. We can differ on that.

 

[diggerdomer]

You are welcome to assist members of other nations with every dollar you ever earn.

I have no idea what you mean by that or how it relates, but thanks for your permission.

 

[diggerdomer]

Evil/wrong…pretty much synonyms. Why is it “wrong”?? (The link you gave goes nowhere–you really ought to check that links are still active before using them). And you “ought” to base your position on the Catechism…not the bishops.

Sorry about the link, thanks for kindly bringing it to my attention. Let me try again:

usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-080.shtml

Evil and wrong are not synonyms, as both the Catechism AND the Bishops teach.

I’m sorry, as a Catholic I don’t see how Catholics can base a position on the Catechism and NOT the Bishops. The Bishops promulgated the Catechism. It’s an exercise of the Magisterium, who are the Bishops.

 

[Lampo]

Are you willing to admit that the right-wing does so with great frequency?

Funny how liberals preach tolerance and choice until they disagree with someone else’s decisions.

 

[Lampo]

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
John Kenneth Galbraith

That selfishness might include hiring your sister! I hope you get the point.

 

[Ender]

Abortion being an intrinsic evil does not mean that every act that results in an abortion is sinful.

I don’t want to turn this into a word game but it is important to be precise. A miscarriage is sometimes referred to as a spontaneous abortion but that clearly is not the issue. Every deliberate abortion is evil.

Similarly, just because a specific issue regarding immigration does not involved intrinsically evil acts does not mean it’s not a moral issue.

Yes, I think it does. There are moral aspects to the choices we make in attempting to resolve a problem in that we cannot employ immoral means to secure a good end, but beyond that there is nothing about immigration (health care, environmental protection, welfare…) that makes them moral issues.

If the Bishops say immigration is a moral issue (as the U.S. Bishops do) then I accept that it is a moral issue.

If you stick to the position that “bishops are always right no matter what they say” we won’t have much of a discussion. If you actually try to defend their position you will find that it is more difficult than you anticipate.

I am not going so far as to say Catholics are “obligated” to adhere to what the U.S. Bishops teach about immigration.

What do they teach? Have any of them said we have a moral obligation to oppose the Arizona law? To oppose a fence? To support amnesty? What do you mean that we are not obligated to adhere to what they teach? We surely have an obligation to adhere to what the Church teaches, so if we don’t have an obligation to adhere to what the bishops teach it can only be because it is not what the Church teaches. Is that your position?

My concern is that I think people too easily dismiss or disregard Bishops’ teachings that they don’t agree with, and in effect make themselves the sole arbiters of conscience, morality, etc.

Do you believe that a bishops opinion constitutes a teaching of the Church? Bishops routinely disagree with one another; how can I accept what the “bishops” teach when they don’t teach the same thing? You don’t distinguish between Church teaching and prudential opinion … but I do and I am prepared to ignore their opinions when they don’t appear to be well formed.

If you are considering the entire Catholic tradition and teaching, and find that you disagree with the Bishops’ teaching on the current immigration issue (Arizona’s law), fine.

Show me where “the bishops” teach that we should oppose Arizona’s law.

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t want to turn this into a word game but it is important to be precise. A miscarriage is sometimes referred to as a spontaneous abortion but that clearly is not the issue. Every deliberate abortion is evil.

I agree, completely. Thanks. I, too, do not want to turn this into a word game, and I agree it’s important (and difficult!) to be precise. I struggle with precision in these matters.

By “deliberate” do you mean an act intending, as its end/purpose, the termination of life? Or something else? Thanks for any clarification.

Yes, I think it does. There are moral aspects to the choices we make in attempting to resolve a problem in that we cannot employ immoral means to secure a good end, but beyond that there is nothing about immigration (health care, environmental protection, welfare…) that makes them moral issues

If you stick to the position that “bishops are always right no matter what they say” we won’t have much of a discussion. If you actually try to defend their position you will find that it is more difficult than you anticipate.

I disagree that the issues you mention are not moral issues. I am not taking the position that “the bishops are always right no matter what they say.” Far from it, as any sentient being on earth the past ten years knows for sure if they didn’t before.

My point is, at least here in the U.S., Bishops do teach that things like immigration, health care, environment, etc., are indeed moral issues. Pope Benedict has also been quite clear on the moral issue of the environment. (Just one example, see para 7 vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html

My point is…I don’t see how any “action” we as Catholic humans might take, or any view we hold here on earth, is actually NOT a moral issue. Shouldn’t every thought and action we take/hold be inspired by Christ? Taken/held as part of our faith? Or does our faith (and Church) only apply to certain limited and exclusive areas of our lives?

What do they teach? Have any of them said we have a moral obligation to oppose the Arizona law? To oppose a fence? To support amnesty? What do you mean that we are not obligated to adhere to what they teach? We surely have an obligation to adhere to what the Church teaches, so if we don’t have an obligation to adhere to what the bishops teach it can only be because it is not what the Church teaches. Is that your position?
Do you believe that a bishops opinion constitutes a teaching of the Church? Bishops routinely disagree with one another; how can I accept what the “bishops” teach when they don’t teach the same thing? You don’t distinguish between Church teaching and prudential opinion … but I do and I am prepared to ignore their opinions when they don’t appear to be well formed.
Show me where “the bishops” teach that we should oppose Arizona’s law.

Ender

Well, regarding specifically the immigration issue and Arizona, I’d invite you to consider this Pastoral Letter from the Arizona Catholic Conference, issued in 2005:

usccb.org/jfi/documents/you-welcomed-me.pdf

Note how they refer to general/universal Catholic moral principles, and yet feel called to speak out regarding a moral issue that affects their flock. And they teach regarding the specific ramifications that their flock is experiencing in light of general moral principles, as I think any good shepherd should. Moral teaching is not limited to general/universal principles. Moral teaching also affects the practical, daily choices we encounter.

If immigration (for example) is NOT a moral issue, why would these Bishops teach this?

 

[Ender]

By “deliberate” do you mean an act intending, as its end/purpose, the termination of life?

I mean by “abortion” the deliberate termination of the life of an unborn person. This would specifically exclude operations intended to save the mother that result in the death of the fetus.

My point is…I don’t see how any “action” we as Catholic humans might take, or any view we hold here on earth, is actually NOT a moral issue.

When we are faced with a problem we are also faced with a moral choice in deciding how to respond. We can act morally and try to resolve the problem in the best way possible or act immorally either in ignoring the problem or trying to take advantage of it to benefit ourselves. Once that decision is made, however, what remains - the solution - has no moral component to it; it is purely prudential.

If immigration (for example) is NOT a moral issue, why would these Bishops teach this?

There are significant immigration problems and the bishops are - properly - exhorting us to resolve them. This goes to the first aspect of the nature of problems I mentioned above, the part that does include a moral choice. What the bishops have done improperly is to go beyond the moral aspect and get entangled in the debate over (entirely prudential, amoral) practical solutions.

The choice of whether or not to seek a fair solution to the immigration mess is a moral question. The choice of methods we believe will most likely achieve that solution are not. The bishops have failed to make this distinction.

Well, regarding specifically the immigration issue and Arizona, I’d invite you to consider this Pastoral Letter from the Arizona Catholic Conference, issued in 2005:
usccb.org/jfi/documents/you-welcomed-me.pdf
Note how they refer to general/universal Catholic moral principles, and yet feel called to speak out regarding a moral issue that affects their flock. And they teach regarding the specific ramifications that their flock is experiencing in light of general moral principles, as I think any good shepherd should. Moral teaching is not limited to general/universal principles. Moral teaching also affects the practical, daily choices we encounter.

Give me an example of a specific action they oblige us to take. They imply a lot about what they would like done but I’m willing to bet (I didn’t read it all) they don’t state that we have a moral obligation to assent to any particular solution.

Ender

 

[John_Pascendi]

First in the ten commandments I am sure there is something concerning…stealing: When my parents came over from Italy they went to Ellis island…showed their passports and health certificates.also that they knew someone here…the padrone…who would vouch for them etc…they then went to work…at nite to school to learn english and history of this great new country etc etc etc…anyone who sneaks into a country without a passport or health check is committing a sin and if a religious leader is silent about this he is also commtting a sin…a very grave sin. Why do you hear about hospitals closing and also schools…because there are folks using these facilities without paying taxes…the major question is why would the ruling class permit this invasion,what is proven by this and what gain for their power? The various presidents send our national guard overseas to protect other nations yet then leave our own borders open to drug peddlers etc etc…and of course if our school text books down grade and insult the founders of our nation,then the children of these illegals feel,hey its no big deal this is an evil nation anyway…more and more Christianity is being swallowed up by secular humanism,americas official religion!..well lets trust our leaders…o look here comes the emperor…what a great lovely new robe he is wearing…how compassionate and great he is…we owe all of our freedoms to him…all rise …

 

[Ender]

I think the statement from the bishops of the Arizona Catholic Conference on the new Arizona immigration law is probably an excellent example of how the bishops address prudential issues. They are clearly opposed to the new law but here is how they express that opposition:

“we are concerned that the present language of these bills does not clearly state…”

“Another aspect of these bills that concerns us is that…”

“We believe it would be far better to withdraw these bills…”

“The problems with our immigration system are complex, and it is our prayer and hope that Congress will ultimately address this broken system with comprehensive immigration reform. In the meantime, we are concerned that local legislation not create new problems for families or have a negative impact on public safety.”

diocesephoenix.org/acc/documents/BishopsStmtonLegisREvulnerablepopulationsMarch2010.pdf

What is important to note is that while they are clear about their opposition to the bill it is equally clear that there is nothing here that obliges anyone else to share that opinion. These comments do not represent Church teaching. There is nothing here that even obliges Catholics in Arizona to oppose the law, let alone that obliges the members of the world wide Church to do so. The personal concerns expressed by individual bishops should be taken seriously but have no moral authority over our decisions.

Ender

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Funny how liberals preach tolerance and choice until they disagree with someone else’s decisions.

Non sequitir. Your facts are uncoordinated.

(Points to whoever gets the reference)

 

[LCMS_No_More]

That selfishness might include hiring your sister! I hope you get the point.

Eh? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Non sequitir. Your facts are uncoordinated.

 

[Lampo]

Eh? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Non sequitir. Your facts are uncoordinated.

“Non sequitir. Your facts are uncoordinated.”
Is that your favorite line?

You are wrong, it does follow. My point was the selfishness that is mentioned in your moniker provides jobs for other people. Your moniker equates conservatism with selfishness, which may or may not be true. It depends on the individual. What you might think is selfishness on my part (growing a business) does not necessarily mean I am doing it solely for my benefit. Saying “your sister” was just a way of saying “anyone”.

 

[Lampo]

Non sequitir.

Doesn’t follow what?

Your facts are uncoordinated.

Prove it. Do liberals preach tolerance and choice? Yes. If I don’t agree with them, than I am an idiot according to them and my thoughts shouldn’t be considred. Does that sound like tolerance?

(Points to whoever gets the reference)

Yes, so? So it won’t make sense to people who don’t understand the reference. What’s wrong with that?