Churchs' position on immigration

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourAverageJoe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do you disagree with the Bishops?
For myself, I am offended that the bishops have given the impression that there is such a thing as a “Church position” on immigration. The Church has made general statements and identified areas of concern and has clearly stated that both the person desiring to immigrate and the State to which the immigrant wants to go have rights. That those rights may conflict is obvious but the Church makes no statement about where the lines are to be drawn, those are prudential questions about which we have the obligation to decide for ourselves.

My disagreement with “the Bishops” is with those who have failed to make a convincing argument to support their positions and have, regrettably, all too often simply challenged the integrity of those who oppose them.

Ender
 
For myself, I am offended that the bishops have given the impression that there is such a thing as a “Church position” on immigration.
I am not offended by it, but I do understand your point. I agree that the bishops have not made it clear when they go from Church teaching into the application of that teaching.

We must be very careful in not accepting Church authority on morality. Disagreement of conscience can only occur when we are willing to accept our own possible misformed conscience and attempt to understand the mind of the Church. However, when it comes to the prudnetial application of moral teaching, we are free to disagree, as we obviously do quite often and with much enthusiasm. I can not object to the enforcement of immigration laws, although I can oppose any law I see as unjust. One of the requirements of opposing unjust laws is that one must be willing to suffer the consequences for one’s actions.

One more thing, the teaching of the Church goes beyond just immigration, even on when we are discussing immigration. We still are held to treat others with respect and dignity. Labels and name-calling do not do this. It bothers me to see anyone labeled as “illegals”. Yes, they have violated immigration law. Yet this does not make them an illegal anymore than one who violated a traffic law becomes an illegal. Illegal is an adjective, not a noun.
 
I am not offended by it, but I do understand your point. I agree that the bishops have not made it clear when they go from Church teaching into the application of that teaching.
The Church has made general statements and identified areas of concern and has clearly stated that both the person desiring to immigrate and the State to which the immigrant wants to go have rights. That those rights may conflict is obvious but the Church makes no statement about where the lines are to be drawn
These statements are misleading. The UCCCB has released very comprehensive document on immigration reform that passed by a very large margin of bishops. While it does not provide a definitieve statement on what reform should look like, it does make some fairly specific recommendations. I have posted links before, but it still appears that no one has taken the time to read it. I will say it again, catholics cannot make a prudential judgement on this issue without at least reading what the Bishops have to say.

usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml
 
These statements are misleading. The UCCCB has released very comprehensive document on immigration reform that passed by a very large margin of bishops. While it does not provide a definitieve statement on what reform should look like, it does make some fairly specific recommendations.
I am not interested simply in links to documents. If you think the document makes “some fairly specific recommendations” then cite them. I doubt their existence and you can prove me wrong by finding one.
I will say it again, catholics cannot make a prudential judgement on this issue without at least reading what the Bishops have to say.
I have read some of what they have said and have yet to find anything that speaks in other than broad terms and I am therefore justified in deciding for myself what specific remedies to support. Show me where the bishops say that we either must or must not build a fence, where we must or must not give citizenship to illegals, where we must or must not provide or withhold services. They give suggestions, not commands, and we are either free to reject them or not - and if it is a sin to reject their opinions then they should say so. In fact you will not find any of them make such a statement because they know their opinions are not binding.

Ender
 
For myself, I am offended that the bishops have given the impression that there is such a thing as a “Church position” on immigration. The Church has made general statements and identified areas of concern and has clearly stated that both the person desiring to immigrate and the State to which the immigrant wants to go have rights. That those rights may conflict is obvious but the Church makes no statement about where the lines are to be drawn, those are prudential questions about which we have the obligation to decide for ourselves.

My disagreement with “the Bishops” is with those who have failed to make a convincing argument to support their positions and have, regrettably, all too often simply challenged the integrity of those who oppose them.

Ender
Sorry the Bishops’ teaching offends you. Jesus’ teaching often caused offense, too. I guess that’s part of the danger of preaching the Gospel.
 
Yes, they have violated immigration law. Yet this does not make them an illegal anymore than one who violated a traffic law becomes an illegal. Illegal is an adjective, not a noun.
Uh, one who violates the law constantly is illegal. One who enters our country in violation of the law is illegal. This is simple English. Your argument is totally bogus. Words mean things. Saying that they don’t is intellectually dishonest and discredits your position.
 
These statements are misleading. The UCCCB has released very comprehensive document on immigration reform that passed by a very large margin of bishops. While it does not provide a definitieve statement on what reform should look like, it does make some fairly specific recommendations. I have posted links before, but it still appears that no one has taken the time to read it. I will say it again, catholics cannot make a prudential judgement on this issue without at least reading what the Bishops have to say.

usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml
The USCCB is an episcopal conference.

“We must not forget that episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function…The collective, therefore, does not substitute for the persons of the bishops, who are the authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care…No episcopal conference as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that given to them by individual bishops…”
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (1985, and affirmed in Apostolos Suos in 1998 by Pope John Paul II.)
  1. In dealing with new questions and in acting so that the message of Christ enlightens and guides people’s consciences in resolving new problems arising from changes in society, the Bishops assembled in the Episcopal Conference and jointly exercizing their teaching office are well aware of the limits of their pronouncements. While being official and authentic and in communion with the Apostolic See, these pronouncements do not have the characteristics of a universal magisterium. For this reason the Bishops are to be careful to avoid interfering with the doctrinal work of the Bishops of other territories, bearing in mind the wider, even world-wide, resonance which the means of social communication give to the events of a particular region.
Taking into account that the authentic magisterium of the Bishops, namely what they teach insofar as they are invested with the authority of Christ, must always be in communion with the Head of the College and its members,(83) when the doctrinal declarations of Episcopal Conferences are approved unanimously, they may certainly be issued in the name of the Conferences themselves, and the faithful are obliged to adhere with a sense of religious respect to that authentic magisterium of their own Bishops. However, if this unanimity is lacking, a majority alone of the Bishops of a Conference cannot issue a declaration as authentic teaching of the Conference to which all the faithful of the territory would have to adhere, unless it obtains the recognitio of the Apostolic See, which will not give it if the majority requesting it is not substantial. The intervention of the Apostolic See is analogous to that required by the law in order for the Episcopal Conference to issue general decrees.(84) The recognitio of the Holy See serves furthermore to guarantee that, in dealing with new questions posed by the accelerated social and cultural changes characteristic of present times, the doctrinal response will favour communion and not harm it, and will rather prepare an eventual intervention of the universal magisterium.
 
I am not interested simply in links to documents. If you think the document makes “some fairly specific recommendations” then cite them. I doubt their existence and you can prove me wrong by finding one.
\
ie, “don’t expect me to read anything that may challenge my stubborness”

At any rate: here are a few of their recommendations you doubt exist. Your doubt, of an obviously true fact, is proof of your intransience. Note: I will admitted the context of these is very important, but I am trying to walk the fine line between providing too many words for you to read vs over-simplication.

"
When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right."

"
The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows"

"
The U.S. legal immigration system places per-country limits on visas for family members of U.S. legal permanent residents from Mexico. This cap, along with processing delays, has resulted in unacceptable waiting times for the legal reunification of a husband and wife, or of a parent and child. For example, the spouse or child of a Mexican-born legal permanent resident can wait approximately eight years to obtain a visa to join loved ones in the United States. Spouses and parents thus face a difficult decision: either honor their moral commitment to family and migrate to the United States without proper documentation, or wait in the system and face indefinite separation from loved ones.
  1. This is an unacceptable choice, and a policy that encourages undocumented migration. In order to ensure that families remain together, reform of the U.S. family-based legal immigration categories vis-à-vis Mexico is necessary. A new framework must be established that will give Mexican families more opportunities to legally reunite with their loved ones in the United States.17 This would help alleviate the long waiting times and, in time, would reduce undocumented migration between the United States and Mexico.
    "
"
A broad legalization program of the undocumented would benefit not only the migrants but also both nations. Making legal the large number of undocumented workers from many nations who are in the United States would help to stabilize the labor market in the United States, to preserve family unity, and to improve the standard of living in immigrant communities. Moreover, migrant workers, many of whom have established roots in their communities, will continue to contribute to the U.S. economy.
"

"
In the context of the United States-Mexico bilateral relationship, the United States needs Mexican laborers to maintain a healthy economy and should make a special effort to provide legal avenues for Mexican workers to obtain in the United States jobs that provide a living wage and appropriate benefits and labor protections. The U.S. employment-based immigration system should be reformed to feature both permanent and, with appropriate protections, temporary visa programs for laborers.
"

"
A certain number of work visas should be created to allow laborers to enter the country as legal permanent residents. Family ties and work history in the United States are two of the possible factors that should be considered in allocating such visas. A visa category featuring permanent residency would recognize the contributions of long-term laborers and would ensure that their labor rights are respected.
"

“. We urge both the U.S. and Mexican enforcement authorities to abandon the type of strategies that give rise to migrant smuggling operations and migrant deaths. Care should be taken not to push migrants to routes in which their lives may be in danger”
 
“When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.”
I agree, but the common good is to be maintained without undue burden being placed upon the country to which they go. The migrants, in kind, "have an obligation to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”
“The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows”
What additional wealth? American workers are suffering with a 10% unemployment rate, our economy is in a severe state of flux, our manufacturing base is outsourced to other countries, students and the American poor (like the black community) are not able to find jobs with a living wage due to the depressed wages an immigrant is willing to work for, our hospitals and emergency care centers are going bankrupt and our educational system is being made to bear the financial and academic hardship of bi-lingualism, taking from those who once “had” in order to give preferential treatment to another ethnic group coming in. Unsustainable burdens are being placed upon social programs, and our national security is at risk due to our government’s lack of responsible border control. This is social justice?
 
Tigg,

Sorry, I am not going to get in a discussion about my quotes from the Bishops’ document. One really should read the whole document, or at least the relavant sections. All I could do to answer your questions would be go back to the document and take it less out of context. The Bishops’ explain things quite well in my opinion. I only quoted parts of it because ender refused to read it, yet denied what was in it.

If you take this issue seriously, from either side, and you are a Catholic, I feel like that document should be something you read to help you make a prudent judgement on what is right and wrong. Thats my main point. If you guys are too lazy to read it, I have a hard time taking any of your points serisously.

Good day
 
Words mean things. Saying that they don’t is intellectually dishonest and discredits your position.
Of course they do, which is why the should be used correctly. When we strive for charity, words should not be used to demean.

I noticed you said English is simple, yet in your response to my opposition of the use of “illegal” as a noun, you used it as an adjective, which was not my objection. Perhaps many use the word incorrectly out of ignorance, not know “simple” English. In any case, people will use what language they want. When they use it to dehumanize people though, it is hard to accept that what they say is underlaid with Christian Charity.
 
. In any case, people will use what language they want. When they use it to dehumanize people though, it is hard to accept that what they say is underlaid with Christian Charity.
Nobody is demeaning anybody.

The objection is to illegal ACTIONS, initial and ongoing, perpetrated by a group of people who have broken and continue to break our laws. ANY adult illegal migrant has committed multiple felonies, and has to in order to work.

The idea that such a group should be granted citizenship is not acceptable. I don’t care if they are Mexicans, Vietnamese, Congolese, Sudani, Irish, German, or Polish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, or Buddhist.

And the FIRST recipients of Christian charity should be our own poor, who are the ones most harmed by the huge number of illegal migrants.
 
Perhaps there are two Catholic Church’s positions on immigration:

One applies solely to the United States; the other applies to the other 260 or so countries of the world.
 
And the FIRST recipients of Christian charity should be our own poor, who are the ones most harmed by the huge number of illegal migrants.
Who is “our” poor. I own none. I prefer to help the poorest of the poor first. I believe that is a better reflection of the Church’s teachings than nationalism. In fact, our duties to those beyond our own citizens was taught in Caritas in Veritate.
 
For myself, I am offended that the bishops have given the impression that there is such a thing as a “Church position” on immigration. The Church has made general statements and identified areas of concern and has clearly stated that both the person desiring to immigrate and the State to which the immigrant wants to go have rights. That those rights may conflict is obvious but the Church makes no statement about where the lines are to be drawn, those are prudential questions about which we have the obligation to decide for ourselves.

My disagreement with “the Bishops” is with those who have failed to make a convincing argument to support their positions and have, regrettably, all too often simply challenged the integrity of those who oppose them.

Ender
SO, some Bishops have failed. Can you help us by letting us know which Bishops we should follow, and which we can safely ignore? Thanks.
 
I am not interested simply in links to documents. If you think the document makes “some fairly specific recommendations” then cite them. I doubt their existence and you can prove me wrong by finding one.

I have read some of what they have said and have yet to find anything that speaks in other than broad terms and I am therefore justified in deciding for myself what specific remedies to support. Show me where the bishops say that we either must or must not build a fence, where we must or must not give citizenship to illegals, where we must or must not provide or withhold services. They give suggestions, not commands, and we are either free to reject them or not - and if it is a sin to reject their opinions then they should say so. In fact you will not find any of them make such a statement because they know their opinions are not binding.

Ender
Of course their statements are not binding…politically. But, Catholics’ political views should, as Catholics, be shaped by the teaching of the Church.

If you are really interested in what the U.S. Bishops teach regarding immigration and all more specific related issues (like the terrible law recently passed in Arizona), here’s a good list of many statements: justiceforimmigrants.org/statements.html

Yes, they usually do not go to the specific concrete opinions of this or that legislative or political ballot or initiative, because, again, the Church is about forming our consciences, not establishing a political regime.

Our opinions on walls, amnesty, etc. are as you correctly note a matter of our conscience. But…and this is the key point…Catholic consciences should be formed by what the Church teaches. Bishops are the authoritative teachers, like it or not. There is room for dissent, but I think it’s dangerous to presume that is an easy way out to salve our own personal opinions and biases.
 
If you are really interested in what the U.S. Bishops teach regarding immigration and all more specific related issues (like the terrible law recently passed in Arizona), here’s a good list of many statements: justiceforimmigrants.org/statements.html
Justice for Immigrants was the campaign that networked into some 80 different branches across the country under various names. It is community organizing which attempts to give political clout to those entering the country illegally despite the official church stance that it does not support illegal immigration.

catholicmediacoalition.org/church_immigration_reform.htm
Yes, they usually do not go to the specific concrete opinions of this or that legislative or political ballot or initiative, because, again, the Church is about forming our consciences, not establishing a political regime.
We would hope so, but if true, why did the bishops pay their dues and join this group which lobbies Congress for abortion rights for the immigrant poor? Also check out something else disturbing called “Get the Immigrant Vote.org

insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7632&Itemid=48
Our opinions on walls, amnesty, etc. are as you correctly note a matter of our conscience. But…and this is the key point…Catholic consciences should be formed by what the Church teaches.
You need to connect the dots regarding the immigration issue as it appears on the surface and the reality that the bishops have funded and supported pro-illegal organizations which work directly against what the Church teaches. For instance, this forum is full of info regarding the Center for Community Change and their ties to the USCCB. The CCC is a member of the National Coalition for Immigrant Women’s Rights (NCIWR) and one of their goals is “equitable access to confidential and non-coercive family planning services and contraceptive equity. Of course, no issue is more critical to women’s economic opportunity than the ability to choose when and under what personal circumstances to raise children. Access to reproductive health services including abortion has had a terrible legacy of class bias in the United States.”

bellarmineveritasministry.org/
Bishops are the authoritative teachers, like it or not. There is room for dissent, but I think it’s dangerous to presume that is an easy way out to salve our own personal opinions and biases.
In his comments on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, St. Thomas said it is an act of mercy to respectfully correct a prelate. In view of the disturbing facts above, we resist and our personal opinions and biases have nothing to do with it. Seems we are the ones defending authentic church teaching.
 
Suggest interested folks take a paid subscription to

www.thewandererpress.com

There is an interesting article in this on-line edition; don’t know how long the article will stay before the Web site is updated.
 
Of course their statements are not binding…politically. But, Catholics’ political views should, as Catholics, be shaped by the teaching of the Church.

If you are really interested in what the U.S. Bishops teach regarding immigration and all more specific related issues (like the terrible law recently passed in Arizona), here’s a good list of many statements: justiceforimmigrants.org/statements.html

Yes, they usually do not go to the specific concrete opinions of this or that legislative or political ballot or initiative, because, again, the Church is about forming our consciences, not establishing a political regime.

Our opinions on walls, amnesty, etc. are as you correctly note a matter of our conscience. But…and this is the key point…Catholic consciences should be formed by what the Church teaches. Bishops are the authoritative teachers, like it or not. There is room for dissent, but I think it’s dangerous to presume that is an easy way out to salve our own personal opinions and biases.
The USCCB’s position was predictable and wrong
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top