Churchs' position on immigration

[diggerdomer]

We can still sin even if we follow our conscience because our conscience may be poorly formed. Following our conscience does not guarantee that our decision about what is moral is correct. I don’t make a distinction between committing a sin and doing wrong; I distinguish between doing wrong in the sense of doing evil and doing wrong in the sense of making a mistake.

I think the Catholic Church does make a distinction between doing wrong and sin. I think you and I are very close if not in agreement, we may indeed be arguing semantics/approaches.

Yes, certain acts are wrong, objectively, regardless of circumstances, intent, knowledge, freedom, etc.

Imputing personal responsibility for sin is a bit more complicated, as I understand it. Clearly for mortal sin, more ambiguously perhaps for venial sins.

On one hand, we are taught to follow our conscience by the Church. Our conscience, however, can be inadequately formed, so even following our conscience can result in us doing wrong. Or perhaps evil, perhaps even sin. I’m just a little cautious about objectively declaring another’s sinful status based on their following conscience. But I think this is one of the more ambiguous areas.

Having an abortion is evil regardless of ones intent because abortion belongs to that small category of intrinsically evil acts. Passing laws restricting immigration is not intrinsically evil so what makes actions on such laws moral or immoral is ones intent. You and I could vote exactly the same way and one of us could be acting morally and the other immorally based on the reasons for our vote. This is why I claim that “immigration” - by which I mean creating laws and institutions to resolve the issue - has no moral component.

I agree regarding abortion, but I disagree regarding immigration. Again, a given act/issue being taught by the Church as intrinsically evil does not mean other issues are not moral ones. As you note, only a small category involves intrinsically evil acts. That does not mean that the majority of human acts have no moral issues. Far from it, I think exactly the opposite. Every human act is a moral act, as one has the opportunity to act in accordance with faith, the Gospel, Christ, Church teaching etc…or not.

Give me an example of the distinction you see here.

Regarding immigration, the Arizona law, etc., I would ask…are one’s Catholic opinions on this issue based on Catholic teaching or not? i.e. when forming one’s opinion, shouldn’t something like this be the first resource for forming conscience (in the U.S. at least)?

usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml

Or are those in the U.S. or affected by this law, who are Catholic, claiming other sources as more important for forming their conscience?

 

[diggerdomer]

If you think of the argument as being between two sides both of which are asking “what will work best” then I think it is easy to recognize that this is not a moral issue.

I think this is an excellent example of exactly why it definitely is a moral issue. Catholics have a choice to make…what will work best?

In accordance with what standards or principles? What are the effects of proposed alternatives? How do certain proposed alternatives cohere with Catholic moral teaching?

Seems a perfect example of a moral issue. Aren’t these the kinds of questions that all moral issues raise?

 

[Ender]

I think this is an excellent example of exactly why it definitely is a moral issue. Catholics have a choice to make…what will work best?

In accordance with what standards or principles? What are the effects of proposed alternatives? How do certain proposed alternatives cohere with Catholic moral teaching?

Seems a perfect example of a moral issue. Aren’t these the kinds of questions that all moral issues raise?

“What works best” is not a moral dilemma, it is a practical problem. Take a different example: suppose you witness someone getting hit by a car. Is this a moral issue? Yes, but only to the extent that it forces you to choose to help or ignore the victim. Once you decide to help, the moral aspect disappears and you are left with the practical problem of what to do. He is bleeding profusely, not breathing, and his neck may be broken. If you act improperly - or even don’t act at all - he may die but none of that makes this a moral problem. The difficulty is that you don’t know what will work best so even if you act mistakenly and he dies you have not sinned. It is the same with immigration. Once a person has decided to resolve the problem as best he can the moral question is answered and, although his choices of solutions may be mistaken and even harmful, he does not sin by choosing them. A mistake is not a sin.

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

“What works best” is not a moral dilemma, it is a practical problem. Take a different example: suppose you witness someone getting hit by a car. Is this a moral issue? Yes, but only to the extent that it forces you to choose to help or ignore the victim. Once you decide to help, the moral aspect disappears and you are left with the practical problem of what to do. He is bleeding profusely, not breathing, and his neck may be broken. If you act improperly - or even don’t act at all - he may die but none of that makes this a moral problem. The difficulty is that you don’t know what will work best so even if you act mistakenly and he dies you have not sinned. It is the same with immigration. Once a person has decided to resolve the problem as best he can the moral question is answered and, although his choices of solutions may be mistaken and even harmful, he does not sin by choosing them. A mistake is not a sin.

Ender

Morality is not only about theory and decision, but also involves practical acts.