Do you support the Minutemen? Well don't

[sprout]

Again, I agree with you.

What the Bishops, and Vatican officials for that much, should be doing is first of all an ***in-depth study ***of the specific problem going on in Mexico, the U.S. and the southern border. Instead of giving platitudes that are designed to sound like the Beattitudes.

We have serious illegal drug smuggling, human trafficing, child pornography, Islamic-terrorist threats going on near our southern border – not just poor families seeking relief.

The Church HAS ADDRESSED each and every one of these issues. They’re in the links I gave earlier on Papal Statements* if you would take the time to read them*.

In fact, at the USCCB website there is an entire page called Vatican Statements On Human Trafficking: usccb.org/mrs/vaticanTIP.shtml complete with links to the actual documents. Here, I’ll list them for you:

Vatican Statements Regarding Trafficking in Persons

First International Meeting for the Pastoral Care of Street Children (PDF)
Final Report from the meeting in Rome, Oct. 24-25, 2004
Pontifical Council of Migrants and Itinerant People
From the Vatican, 4 December 2004
Letter Of John Paul II To Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran
On The Occasion Of The International Conference
“Twenty-First Century Slavery -The Human Rights Dimension To Trafficking In Human Beings”
From the Vatican, 15 May 2002
Intervention By The Delegation Of The Holy See At The 11th Economic Forum On “Trafficking In Human Beings, Drugs, Small Arms And Light Weapons”
Prague, 20 May 2003
Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People
People on the Move - N° 93, December 2003
Work among Trafficked Women in Thailand
Sr. M. Supaporn CHOTIPHOL, R.G.S.
Fountain of Life Centre
Pattaya City (Thailand)

THESE REFERENCE TRAFFICKING
Message Of His Holiness John Paul II For Lent 2004
“…a word must be said about the selfishness of those who do not “receive” children. There are young people who have been profoundly hurt by the violence of adults: sexual abuse, forced prostitution, involvement in the sale and use of drugs; children forced to work or enlisted for combat; young children scarred forever by the breakup of the family; little ones caught up in the obscene trafficking of organs and persons.”

Message Of His Holiness Benedict XVI For The 92nd World Day Of Migrants And Refugees (2006)
“Migrations: a sign of the times”
…
“In this context it is necessary to mention trafficking in human beings - especially women - which flourishes where opportunities to improve their standard of living or even to survive are limited. It becomes easy for the trafficker to offer his own “services” to the victims, who often do not even vaguely suspect what awaits them. In some cases there are women and girls who are destined to be exploited almost like slaves in their work, and not infrequently in the sex industry, too.”

In the document Strangers No Longer that I quoted earlier and gave a link to, and that you later quoted it begins by saying:

1. In preparing this statement we have spoken with migrants, public officials, enforcement officers, social justice activists, pastors, parishioners, and community leaders in both the United States and Mexico as part of a process that lasted two years. Our dialogue has revealed a common desire for a more orderly system that accommodates the reality of migration and promotes just application of civil law. We seek to measure the interests of all parties in the migration phenomenon against the guidelines of Catholic social teaching and to offer a moral framework for embracing, not rejecting, the reality of migration between our two nations. We invite Catholics and persons of good will in both nations to exercise their faith and to use their resources and gifts to truly welcome the stranger among us (cf. Mt 25:35).

Clearly the Church and her Bishops have given this issue much, much, more thought than either you or I or even our politicians have given.

I think the problem, judging by the comments on this topic, is not that the Church doesn’t know what she’s taking about, rather it’s that many Catholics are unfamiliar with what the Church has been saying on these issues for decades.

I can’t do your reading for you. I can’t post entire articles on this forum and even if I could I don’t have all day to go to each and every article and cut & paste them. DUDE! I’m not your secretary!

What I can do is to direct you to where you can go to get the information. As they say, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make 'em drink”

 

[jmj603]

I do think you’re on to something there, though. Of all the immigrant groups that have been hated and reviled in the US most have been Catholic i.e. Italians, Irish, and now Latin Americans. There hasn’t been an issue with Protestants coming to the US.

In fact, most of the nations whose citizens are free to come into the US without applying first for a Visa are guess what? Protestant.

This post smells of “ethnocentrism”.

Oh sorry, I meant racism. It should be removed. Does CAF support racism?

 

[Ender]

The Church HAS ADDRESSED each and every one of these issues. They’re in the links I gave earlier on Papal Statements* if you would take the time to read them*.

In the document Strangers No Longer {it says}:

1. … Our dialogue has revealed a common desire for a more orderly system that accommodates the reality of migration and promotes just application of civil law.

By “addressing” these issues I think you mean that the Church has identified many of the separate problems and voiced its concern that they be fairly solved. The “here’s a problem, solve it equitably” comments are a far cry from specifying particular solutions such as “no fences”, “no deportation”, etc. No one is dismissing the exhortations for a just solution; what many of us reject are the prudential opinions of a few random bishops. I accept that the Church knows what she’s talking about because she has not prescribed specific solutions; it is the clergy who believe that their notions of how to resolve the problems represent the one true moral path that we dismiss.

On the other hand, I haven’t read most of the documents you listed so if there is one concrete demand in any of them either that we must (or must not) do X then I would like to know about it. I suspect however that they content themselves with identifying the ends to which we are to strive and avoid specifying the means we must use to achieve them.

Ender

 

[aspawloski4th]

really? you made a jump and crossed the border? did you have papers?

I do think you’re on to something there, though. Of all the immigrant groups that have been hated and reviled in the US most have been Catholic i.e. Italians, Irish, and now Latin Americans. There hasn’t been an issue with Protestants coming to the US.

In fact, most of the nations whose citizens are free to come into the US without applying first for a Visa are guess what? Protestant.

Ever heard of the “Know Nothing Party”? fitting name isn’t it.
newadvent.org/cathen/08677a.htm

proves my dad’s age old saying dont believe everything you hear or read. I have irish ancestors, and polish ancesotrs, they didnt experiece that so called hatred to talk of. they were too busy farming!! the illegal immegration that you want so so so bad to keep going is now hitting home on my front door step. I watching wages go down especially in construction, I have a brotherin law who was let go from a job so they could hire cheaper illegal immigrant labor. there was a time capitalism meant a company not only competed for customers, but competed for workers too. thanks to the illegal immigrant those days are gone. teenagers cant find jobs anymore where I live because the illegals took a good amount of them, one of those teenagers happens to be my youngest brother who is 16. jobs taken by those who have no wirght to them whatsoever! I say take the federal police agencies off the war on drugs that has been lost for years and put them on tracking down illegals and shipping them out! this illegal immigration problem not being taken care of by our federal government reeks of a business, government compiracy for cheap labor to me. you liberal who are anti big business are helping big buness by the support of doing nothing about illegal immigration…

 

[sprout]

By “addressing” these issues I think you mean that the Church has identified many of the separate problems and voiced its concern that they be fairly solved. The “here’s a problem, solve it equitably” comments are a far cry from specifying particular solutions such as “no fences”, “no deportation”, etc.

Although I agree with most of your post the Bishop’s Statements I have quoted are not a mere matter of “prudential judgment” on politics & government. As individual clerics they have as much right as you or I to voice their opinion. As Pastors to the faithful the Bishops are teaching in union with the entire Church and the Holy Father as evidenced from the references to scripture, encyclicals, and historical church teachings. It is pastoral in that they are “teaching” the faithful how to apply their faith to current events.

We all know that nations can and do make laws that violate God’s law. Abortion/ESCR is the most grave example of a law that violates God’s law.

From what I understand of what I’ve read the Church opposes a fence at the border as “inhumane” (see Cardinal Renato Martino’s statement above) and this excerpt from a letter to the President by Bishop Skylstad:

“To be clear, the U.S. Catholic bishops are supportive of efforts to enforce immigration law and secure our borders, so long as the mechanism and strategies applied toward this end protect human dignity and protect human life,” Bishop Skylstad wrote. “However, we are opposed to this legislation because we believe it could lead to the deaths of migrants attempting to enter the United States and increased smuggling-related violence along our border. We also believe it would send the wrong signal to our peaceful neighbor to the south, Mexico, as well as the international community.”

“In our estimation, the erection of a border fence would force migrants, desperate to find employment to support their families, to seek alternative and more dangerous ways to enter the country, contributing to an increase in deaths, including women and children,” Bishop Skylstad wrote.

The Catholic Church bears witness to the poverty that drives desperate people to seek employment in our country, and these root economic issues that drive illegal immigration will not be solved by more fencing and barriers. *“From this universal perspective, we strongly feel that the development of just global economic and trade policies designed to help create living wage jobs in countries of origin would permit persons to remain home and support themselves and their families,” *Bishop Skylstad said.usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-197.shtml

{emphasis mine}

Much of the activity of the Bishops has been in opposition to certain proposed legislation. Some that would directly affect their pastoral care i.e. requiring Church workers who provide food, medical care, shelter, clothing, etc. to first check to make sure the individual receiving the care is a legal resident. This proposal is preposterous and such a condition cannot ethically be placed on the Church.

Some of the opposition involves laws that would break apart families and we all know how important families are to the Church:

U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents must endure many years of separation from close family members who they want to join them in the United States. The backlogs of available visas for family members results in waits of five, ten, fifteen, and more years of waiting for a visa to become available. The bishops call for a reduction of the pending backlog and more visas available for family reunification purposes.justiceforimmigrants.org/bishops_call.html

this is a very complex issue in and of itself, adding Church teaching to the issue does complicate the issue even more, but to my way of thinking there is no other “moral” way to go about it. I see God’s authority, as taught by His Church, as the only absolute moral authority. If I’m not looking to the Church I’ll only be tossed about by the seas.

 

[ChristianVet]

By “addressing” these issues I think you mean that the Church has identified many of the separate problems and voiced its concern that they be fairly solved. The “here’s a problem, solve it equitably” comments are a far cry from specifying particular solutions such as “no fences”, “no deportation”, etc. No one is dismissing the exhortations for a just solution; what many of us reject are the prudential opinions of a few random bishops. I accept that the Church knows what she’s talking about because she has not prescribed specific solutions; it is the clergy who believe that their notions of how to resolve the problems represent the one true moral path that we dismiss.

On the other hand, I haven’t read most of the documents you listed so if there is one concrete demand in any of them either that we must (or must not) do X then I would like to know about it. I suspect however that they content themselves with identifying the ends to which we are to strive and avoid specifying the means we must use to achieve them.

Ender

Thank you. You are much more articulate about this problem than I have been. We all appreciate it.

What I’ve been trying to say is that it is not enough for priests and bishops to throw out personal theology and dictates.

If they want to get into politics, the social and political views on HOW to solve something, they are not going to be able to go just half-way and call it a day.

If you claim you’re all about social justice and procede to criticize those who are actually effecting change for the Good of All (such as the Minutemen are doing) then you better be prepared to not only “lay down a heavy burden” for others to follow; but you better roll up your sleeves and get into the fray.

If you delineate specific problems with lofty solutions and then judge others who are working in the trenches when it comes to some of the nastiest problems this world has faced, your moral authority crumbles and you become a clanging symbol.

To all the bishops and priests who put so much work into the analysis of the problem, but reject what others actually do on the border to curb these issues, people are not listening to you.

You yourselves could stand at the border all day and hand out pamphlets on “how to love and help each other”; it won’t stop one criminal from running past you and probably shooting you in the process.

Again, the Minutemen have their function, they meet fire with fire. And maybe one day if Congress can appropriate enough funds and manpower to actually Control the Border and process everyone wanting to cross – we will see who the innocents are and let them cross — but until then, the criminals hide among them, use and abuse the innocents and exploit religious and political systems at every chance they get.

 

[sprout]

If you claim you’re all about social justice and procede to criticize those who are actually effecting change for the Good of All (such as the Minutemen are doing) then you better be prepared to not only “lay down a heavy burden” for others to follow; but you better roll up your sleeves and get into the fray.

The Minutemen “effecting change for the Good of All” ???

not in the least, hence the subject of this topic.

First: They’re all about only one class of people - People they can easily identify as US Citizens.

Second: They’re not protecting anyone. And as far as I know they don’t meet fire with fire (are they allowed to fire their weapons?)

The Minutemen in the article this topic is about are protesting in front of a ***Catholic Church ***in Fallbrook. Making alot of noise and racist remarks over a bullhorn, upsetting alot of families taking their children to Mass to receive their first communion, carrying a poster caricturing the Pastor as the devil, and one of the Minutemen group actually sprayed a man with mace.
Not exactly a group of militia, more like a group of bigoted anti-catholics.

 

[ChristianVet]

The Minutemen in the article this topic is about are protesting in front of a ***Catholic Church ***in Fallbrook. Making alot of noise and racist remarks over a bullhorn, upsetting alot of families taking their children to Mass to receive their first communion, carrying a poster caricturing the Pastor as the devil, and one of the Minutemen group actually sprayed a man with mace.
Not exactly a group of militia, more like a group of bigoted anti-catholics.

Exactly. More like La Raza activists pretending to be Minutemen in order to tarnish their reputation and defuse support for them.

Only the truly naive would believe that these actually represent the true minutemen.

The Minutemen have come to Defend this country against illegal entry, rather by criminals or terrorists or opportunists.

How much have you ***really read ***about the origins of La Raza? They are The Race that calls others racists. Need I say more?

Curiously, what do the Bishops have to say about this group?

 

[Ender]

As individual clerics they have as much right as you or I to voice their opinion.

Of course they do, but it is improper for them in their official capacity to suggest solutions and imply that their political opinions are moral requirements.

As Pastors to the faithful the Bishops are teaching in union with the entire Church and the Holy Father as evidenced from the references to scripture, encyclicals, and historical church teachings.

Only when they teach what the Church teaches, not when they proclaim their prudential preferences - which is the case here.

It is pastoral in that they are “teaching” the faithful how to apply their faith to current events.

When I want to know how to apply my faith to economics I will ask a Christian economist not a bishop. The latter should know the faith but is unlikely to know much about economics. The same is true for immigration.

From what I understand of what I’ve read the Church opposes a fence at the border as “inhumane” (see Cardinal Renato Martino’s statement above) and this excerpt from a letter to the President by Bishop Skylstad:

Neither Cardinal Martino nor Bishop Skylstad speaks for the Church. Furthermore the objection to the fence is based on his prudential opinion that it would lead to more deaths. Can anyone seriously claim that it is immoral to disbelieve that this would be the result?

This is the core of my objection to the clergy’s involvement in political issues: I am really tired of being told that my opinions are not merely wrong but immoral. It is a sloppy judgment of the morality of actions. I get enough of that from political opponents without being piled on by “the Church”.

Ender

 

[Ender]

How much have you ***really read ***about the origins of La Raza? They are The Race that calls others racists. Need I say more?

Your comments about La Raza are interesting as it was reported that they were given a say in the proposed immigration bill that was so recently shot down. Apparently they knew what was in the bill - and approved of it - before it went to the Senate.

It may be too stark to divide the positions into the Minutemen on one side and La Raza on the other but the more contentious this issue becomes the more likely it is that people will see this as the choice they have to make. La Raza has had a lower profile than the Minutemen but I think they’ve been having a greater influence.

Ender

 

[ChristianVet]

It may be too stark to divide the positions into the Minutemen on one side and La Raza on the other but the more contentious this issue becomes the more likely it is that people will see this as the choice they have to make. La Raza has had a lower profile than the Minutemen but I think they’ve been having a greater influence.

Ender

In the end, this is about bad behavior by a few Minutemen. I do not believe they represent the Minutemen as a whole, and Mr. Donohue, whom I greatly respect, should not have called for people to not support them.

I have already condemned their bad behavior, but I do support their mission to protect and defend this country. It is a noble one.

All Catholics want to see economic conditions improve in Mexico. None of us want to see the poor marginalized and suffer more than they have already. Certainly Americans give, I would say, more generously than most other nations.

However, NAFTA creates poverty and benefits only the 1% wealthy elite, globally. The sooner the Bishops address the crux of the problem, the sooner the vast majority of Catholics, and Americans, will rally behind them.

Illegal immigration is not the answer to poverty.

Publicly denouncing corporate interests that seek to put profits above persons and a living wage – whether those profiteers exist in Mexico or the U.S. – more directly addresses the real problem.

All of us should continue to pray for our bishops; these are tough times and they will need self-mortification and moral courage to lead us in the coming months.

 

[Ender]

However, NAFTA creates poverty and benefits only the 1% wealthy elite, globally. The sooner the Bishops address the crux of the problem, the sooner the vast majority of Catholics, and Americans, will rally behind them.

Oops … well, so long, pardner. I disagree with your assessment of NAFTA and I disagree that the bishops should address the crux of the problem (assuming any of us knew what it was) unless that problem is a specifically moral one. If it is not a moral issue the proper involvement for the bishops is to ask the right questions and raise the awareness of the problem - but not to take sides on political choices. Helping the poor and downtrodden is a moral imperative; the best means of doing so is a prudential opinion.

Ender

 

[ChristianVet]

Oops … well, so long, pardner. I disagree with your assessment of NAFTA and I disagree that the bishops should address the crux of the problem (assuming any of us knew what it was) unless that problem is a specifically moral one. If it is not a moral issue the proper involvement for the bishops is to ask the right questions and raise the awareness of the problem - but not to take sides on political choices. Helping the poor and downtrodden is a moral imperative; the best means of doing so is a prudential opinion.

Ender

Well, the crux of the problem is a moral issue – this is where the Bishops do come in.

Where they don’t come in is deciding a political solution for the moral problem.

The Moral Problem is that many of, maybe not all, but many of the globalists are in for the money. They are in it not just for profits (which is not morally wrong) but for profiteering.

Profiteering, as I understand it, is putting Profits before People, and the needs of people.

Here they do have a Moral lesson to voice. And the moral lesson is that people come first — before “the bottomline.”

They should not go so far as to tell the greedy exactly how to stop being greedy economically. The moral principle is enough.

For those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear, they will know what they have to do.

 

[Ender]

Well, the crux of the problem is a moral issue – this is where the Bishops do come in.

In the sense that people’s lives are impacted you could claim that almost any issue is a moral one but I think that definition is too wide. Where the object of the action is wrong - as in abortion or euthanasia - the issue is clearly moral and the bishops have not only the right but the obligation to speak out.

Where the object of the action is justified only if specific criteria are met - such as war - the bishops should reiterate the criteria and may give an opinion as to whether those criteria have been met but must make clear that their opinion is prudential and is made without access to all the necessary facts.

Where there is no issue about the morality of the actions needed to address the problem - e.g. immigration and health care - the bishops should limit themselves to highlighting the misery and hardships people face and insistently call for their mitigation … but here’s the point: the best solution is usually unknown and it is inappropriate to assume that the other side isn’t interested in a just solution when they oppose our position. Any specific recommendation from a bishop, however, will be seen as a moral obligation and this is utterly invalid - which is why the bishops shouldn’t make any.

The Moral Problem is that many of, maybe not all, but many of the globalists are in for the money. They are in it not just for profits (which is not morally wrong) but for profiteering.

Some are. Some politicians are concerned only with how immigration affects them or their party. Some people will have ulterior motives on every problem; that’s not enough to justify inappropriate involvement from the bishops.

Ender

 

[ChristianVet]

As an American, you certainly are entitled to your opinion. I’m not sure that as a Catholic, the catechism would affirm all of your opinions.

My personal opinion is that the Bishops have not only a right, but a duty, to speak up about moral issues.

The way the poor are treated by different societies is indeed a moral issue. And, they have every right to object when they see an injustice.

My entire issue is with the fact that they are attempting to publish a political solution, alongside their moral contempt.

And, as you say and I agree, they cannot possibly know all of the facts. It is true when they speak about anything, particularly when offering a political solution, many Catholics mistakenly see it as morally obligatory. They do not necessarily differentiate between the Bishops’ individual right to have a political opinion and their Christian moral authority.

Its entirely possible that some of the Bishops themselves confuse their God-given moral authority with their individual right to have a political opinion.

They should not involve their political opinion in a moral clarity statement.

It would be similar to saying: Abortion is always wrong; only vote Republican.

They would be doing a disservice not only to the pro-life Democrats (and there are a few) but, in fact, not all Republicans are pro-life.