Actually, I tend to agree with JBuford with regard to illegal immigration–I think that, on this matter, our fallible U.S. Catholic conference of bishops continues to err on the side of lawlessness. I don’t support much of what the American Catholic episcopacy has done in that field.
Is it appropriate for the bishops to make a prudential judgement about a prudential matter like national immigration policy? Yes. Is it appropriate for them to promulgate that judgement from their offices as bishop? Yes. Is it incumbent upon all Catholics to fully and seriously weigh the advice of their bishops on this issue? Yes.
But is this an infallible teaching? No. Does the bishops’ voice on this issue bear the same clarity or weight as their teaching on, say, anti-abortion voting? Not even a little bit. Can a Catholic in good conscience disagree with the bishops’ view on immigration policy? Definitely. Does it make a Catholic a racist to worry about the supplanting of American life and American identity in America? Hell, no! Not unless you think G.K. Chesterton’s The Napoleon of Notting Hill was the moral equivalent of Mein Kampf.
JBuford, you have a lot of misdirected anger at the bishops here. They honestly disagree with you on this issue, they are promulgating that view, and they are demanding that Catholics take their view seriously without forcing it upon them. You can still be a Catholic and not be sinning by disagreeing with them in charity and love.
This is in sharp contrast to the Church’s teaching on, say, abortion, which is an absolute, inherent, and entirely non-prudential matter. There can be no question that all Catholics must agree on the abortion teaching, and, the way I read the teaching, they must also vote accordingly, as the single most important, dominant issue on the market. As an incidental practical matter, this probably bodes better for your particular issue-of-interest in the long run.
So calm down, clear your mind of wrath (a deadly sin), and focus your energies at more appropriate entities.