Churchs' position on immigration

[diggerdomer]

Why do you think? This question doesn’t make sense to me.

I don’t know what to think, that’s why I asked. You seem to be saying the Bishops and Church teaching are wrong (correct me please if I misinterpret you).

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I don’t know what to think, that’s why I asked. You seem to be saying the Bishops and Church teaching are wrong (correct me please if I misinterpret you).

I think the USCCB is wrong, and the catechism is right. The USCCB wants amnesty, along with Pelosi. The Catechism says to respect laws and be a good (legal) citizen.
I agree its a thorny issue, but Pelosi will get is completely wrong in the interests of votes for her party.

 

[Ender]

But if you agree that lay Catholics should be involved in politics, that begs the question of what the Church’s role is. Are lay Catholics supposed to be involved on their own initiative, without reference to Catholic teachings? Are they to form their “political” conscience independent of their Catholic conscience?

The Church’s role is to form the consciences of lay Catholics. The role of the laity is to apply those well formed consciences to the resolution of prudential issues.

Despite the astonishing remarks of bishops Dolan (NY) and Murphy (LA), that is exactly what is being done by those of us who take opposing positions. The Church speaks in generalities - feed the poor, welcome the immigrant - but the details of how best to achieve those ends is left to the laity to determine. There is no Church position on the means, only the ends. This is a further example of the poisonous nature of those comments. It is hard to debate the options if one side simply calls the other side names and refuses to engage in the discussion.

Ender

 

[tjm190]

Oh, so the fact that our country made mistakes and put ourselves in a bad situation means our obligations to the needy are abrogated?

Nations have a responsibility, first and foremost, to their own citizens and to their own continued function.

 

[Lampo]

There is no Church position on the means, only the ends.

That’s because the means can vary as long as they are done with a conscience that has been well formed by the Church and do not contradict teachings that are spelled out by the Church.

 

[pnewton]

Nations have a responsibility, first and foremost, to their own citizens and to their own continued function.

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.

 

[diggerdomer]

I think the USCCB is wrong, and the catechism is right. The USCCB wants amnesty, along with Pelosi. The Catechism says to respect laws and be a good (legal) citizen.
I agree its a thorny issue, but Pelosi will get is completely wrong in the interests of votes for her party.

The Catechism is not wrong regarding the current immigration debate, it simply doesn’t deal with things that are so specific and contextual. The living Magisterium does, though.

 

[diggerdomer]

Nations have a responsibility, first and foremost, to their own citizens and to their own continued function.

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.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Church’s role is to form the consciences of lay Catholics. The role of the laity is to apply those well formed consciences to the resolution of prudential issues.

Despite the astonishing remarks of bishops Dolan (NY) and Murphy (LA), that is exactly what is being done by those of us who take opposing positions. The Church speaks in generalities - feed the poor, welcome the immigrant - but the details of how best to achieve those ends is left to the laity to determine. There is no Church position on the means, only the ends. This is a further example of the poisonous nature of those comments. It is hard to debate the options if one side simply calls the other side names and refuses to engage in the discussion.

Ender

No, the Church does non only speak in generalities. The Church on many occasions, e.g. specific moral issues that arise, speaks much more specifically.

 

[Ender]

No, the Church does non only speak in generalities. The Church on many occasions, e.g. specific moral issues that arise, speaks much more specifically.

On those few moral issues the Church does speak in specifics … but very few issues are moral concerns; almost all are prudential, and on those the Church does in fact speak generically. The only “specific moral issues” about which she does not speak in generalities are the ones involving behavior that is intrinsically evil - abortion, euthanasia, homosexual acts. For everything else - health care, immigration, social programs - her terms are generic.

The questions of how best to resolve the immigration issues are not moral problems, therefore the Church cannot have a position on them and therefore the bishops opinions have no moral force.

Ender

 

[Warthog]

“With the exception of our Native American brethren, every Catholic in the United States today is the descendant of immigrants (in my case, from Germany in the early- and mid-19th century).”

Uh, “Native Americans” are no exception. ALL humans residing on the North and South American continents are descended from immigrants. The “Native Americans” just got here a bit sooner than the others (and they too came in different “waves” of immigration, witness the genetic differences between various groups).

A “Native American” in reality is someone who was born here. No more, no less.

 

[diggerdomer]

On those few moral issues the Church does speak in specifics … but very few issues are moral concerns; almost all are prudential, and on those the Church does in fact speak generically. The only “specific moral issues” about which she does not speak in generalities are the ones involving behavior that is intrinsically evil - abortion, euthanasia, homosexual acts. For everything else - health care, immigration, social programs - her terms are generic.

The questions of how best to resolve the immigration issues are not moral problems, therefore the Church cannot have a position on them and therefore the bishops opinions have no moral force.

Ender

I disagree. I think the vast majority of issues are moral.

You seem to distinguish “moral” vs. “prudential”? I don’t understand. Can you clarify?

Abortion, immigration, economics, war, stem cell research, poverty, etc. All of these, as I understand them, are moral issues. Catholic teaching of course has general principles to be considered when confronting such issues. But…when specific political/practical applications arise, the Church has always addressed them more specifically, based on principles, in accord with the culture and politics etc. of the times.

Your idea that immigration does not involve Catholic morals is at odds with the teaching of Catholic bishops.

 

[diggerdomer]

“With the exception of our Native American brethren, every Catholic in the United States today is the descendant of immigrants (in my case, from Germany in the early- and mid-19th century).”

Uh, “Native Americans” are no exception. ALL humans residing on the North and South American continents are descended from immigrants. The “Native Americans” just got here a bit sooner than the others (and they too came in different “waves” of immigration, witness the genetic differences between various groups).

A “Native American” in reality is someone who was born here. No more, no less.

Oh come on. “Native American” is typically used to mean the people who lived in the Americas before European colonization.

 

[Ender]

I disagree. I think the vast majority of issues are moral.

You seem to distinguish “moral” vs. “prudential”? I don’t understand. Can you clarify?

In one sense all problems are moral issues in that they present us with the choice of trying to resolve them fairly or not, but once we have chosen to fix the problem what is left are solely the prudential problems of determining what approaches will work best.

Take immigration. I support the new Arizona law while a number of bishops strongly oppose it. Is my support of the law a sin? No, it isn’t and no bishop would make such a charge. I may be wrong, ignorant, uninformed, or too unintelligent to understand the implications … but I commit no sin by believing that the law is a good idea. So - where is the moral issue? Unless it has now become immoral to be mistaken then one can support either side in good conscience. This is why these problems are not moral concerns.

Abortion, immigration, economics, war, stem cell research, poverty, etc. All of these, as I understand them, are moral issues.

Abortion is a moral issue because supporting it is always immoral regardless of intent. The solutions to poverty, economics, immigration, and even war are not moral concerns … unless you assume that someone who takes a specific position does so not because he believes it is right but because he has an immoral objective.

Your idea that immigration does not involve Catholic morals is at odds with the teaching of Catholic bishops.

Be careful here. There are moral concerns that have to be weighed - that are “involved”; simply because a problem is prudential doesn’t imply that any means may be used to resolve it. The bishops have done us a real disservice by suggesting that those who oppose their solutions have immoral motives. They are no more justified in judging others than are you or I. You believe the bishops teach that “immigration is a moral issue.” Give me a single specific example of an action the bishops have declared to be immoral either to do or to fail to do. If you cannot come up with such an example, how is it that immigration can be a moral issue? I sin by supporting abortion regardless of my intent, but how can I sin addressing the problems of immigration if I think what I am doing is for the best?

Ender

 

[Warthog]

Oh come on. “Native American” is typically used to mean the people who lived in the Americas before European colonization.

Yup, and that usage is incorrect. Correct terminology would be “First Immigrants”. The “typical” usage is just another example of a “politically correct” distortion of the facts. Just as “undocumented worker” is the “politically correct” usage for illegal alien.

I’ve got a question, though. You continually contend that the Arizona law is “evil”. Why is that?? The Arizona law is a virtual word-for-word clone of current US law, and more lenient than similar Mexican law. What, precisely, is so bad about it?? Other than the fact that Arizona’s law enforcement officers will actually enforce the law, while the ICE and Border Patrol don’t enforce the comparable federal law ??

 

[elts1956]

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

I do agree with you Ender. Shame on me, I haven’t read the ruling either, (you can put me right up there with Neapolitino), but my impression is the Bishops are agreeing with the liberals that profiling will take place. The law clearly states it will not. The law can say no more than that. It will be up to local law enforcement to make sure the law is carried out.

I also understand this law is no more than a reiteration of what is already stated in Federal Law. It just has the teeth to see the law is enforced.

It appears the good Bishops for the most part, would rather lead when an issue of Purdential Judgement is concerned rather than those of Intrinsic Evil. More wiggle room, I guess.

My question is, why didn’t our liberal Bishops come out in wrath and ire when our present POTUS was being elected? A few peeps from several good men, but most of the Bishops did not make a statement as a unit that could be heard loud and clear saying that in the past POTUS election, the most important issue was the one regarding abortion. And pu lease, I hope NO ONE comes back to me talking about the great USCCB document that confused more than it clarified. Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

In one sense all problems are moral issues in that they present us with the choice of trying to resolve them fairly or not, but once we have chosen to fix the problem what is left are solely the prudential problems of determining what approaches will work best.

Take immigration. I support the new Arizona law while a number of bishops strongly oppose it. Is my support of the law a sin? No, it isn’t and no bishop would make such a charge. I may be wrong, ignorant, uninformed, or too unintelligent to understand the implications … but I commit no sin by believing that the law is a good idea. So - where is the moral issue? Unless it has now become immoral to be mistaken then one can support either side in good conscience. This is why these problems are not moral concerns.

Abortion is a moral issue because supporting it is always immoral regardless of intent. The solutions to poverty, economics, immigration, and even war are not moral concerns … unless you assume that someone who takes a specific position does so not because he believes it is right but because he has an immoral objective.

Be careful here. There are moral concerns that have to be weighed - that are “involved”; simply because a problem is prudential doesn’t imply that any means may be used to resolve it. The bishops have done us a real disservice by suggesting that those who oppose their solutions have immoral motives. They are no more justified in judging others than are you or I. You believe the bishops teach that “immigration is a moral issue.” Give me a single specific example of an action the bishops have declared to be immoral either to do or to fail to do. If you cannot come up with such an example, how is it that immigration can be a moral issue? I sin by supporting abortion regardless of my intent, but how can I sin addressing the problems of immigration if I think what I am doing is for the best?

Ender

You can arrive at your own moral position on issues like immigration and abortion, no problem. But what role does the teaching authority of the Catholic Church play in our conscience formation? It’s ok to agree or disagree with the Bishops based on our own personal opinions, right?

If you are in the U.S. and want to know that the U.S. Bishops consider immigration a moral issue, I’d suggest starting with “Faithful Citizenship”: usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

See para 29 etc.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yup, and that usage is incorrect. Correct terminology would be “First Immigrants”. The “typical” usage is just another example of a “politically correct” distortion of the facts. Just as “undocumented worker” is the “politically correct” usage for illegal alien.

I’ve got a question, though. You continually contend that the Arizona law is “evil”. Why is that?? The Arizona law is a virtual word-for-word clone of current US law, and more lenient than similar Mexican law. What, precisely, is so bad about it?? Other than the fact that Arizona’s law enforcement officers will actually enforce the law, while the ICE and Border Patrol don’t enforce the comparable federal law ??

I said it was evil? Where?

I don’t think it’s evil. I think it’s wrong.

I base that opinion on the teaching of the U.S. Bishops which I agree with: usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-080.

 

[Ender]

You can arrive at your own moral position on issues like immigration and abortion, no problem.

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.

But what role does the teaching authority of the Catholic Church play in our conscience formation?

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’s ok to agree or disagree with the Bishops based on our own personal opinions, right?

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

 

[Warthog]

I said it was evil? Where?

I don’t think it’s evil. I think it’s wrong.

I base that opinion on the teaching of the U.S. Bishops which I agree with: usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-080.

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.