From the Office of the Bishop of Tucson

[tad]

While on vacation recently, I popped into CAF on my new cell phone only to read some disturbing accusations about my bishop, Bishop Weisenburger of the Diocese of Tucson. The great thing about being Catholic is that we never have to take someone’s word for it, we can always look things up ourselves.

So, now that I’m back home, I decided to look up what the Bishop said and found this letter on the diocese website.

An excerpt:

In the midst of that conversation I made a very
brief statement to my brother bishops asking the
question of whether or not we should be discussing
the topic of canonical penalties for Catholics who
participate in this inhumane action. Despite
references to the contrary, my statement never
included the words “excommunication” or “deny
people the sacraments.”

https://diocesetucson.org/Communica...8- Bishop statement on immigration issues.pdf

It’s a compelling letter, and runs contrary from what I heard from some Catholics here at CAF. I’m sticking with my bishop on this one.

 

[angel12]

It’s a compelling letter, and runs contrary from what I heard from some Catholics here at CAF. I’m sticking with my bishop on this one.

Thank you for checking this out. It’s an excellent cautionary tale on the dangers of rushing to judgement instead of taking the time to find the facts.

 

[Augustinian]

Despite
references to the contrary, my statement never
included the words “excommunication” or “deny
people the sacraments.”

What other "canonical penalties are there, besides excommunication?

 

[Dca2018]

Exactly right, the bishops statement is disingenuous.

 

[yankeesouth]

I am baffled at how our culture has arrived at this point and why we appear to be losing our moral compass.

He’s only thinking this now? Not at anytime through the previous anti Catholic, pro contraception, pro abortion, redefining marriage, supporter of the Planned Parenthood that you’ve seen in the undercover videos admistration which as a side hobby laughed at the idea of religious liberty did he think that?

 

[Arkansan]

The video of the Bishop’s comments is public. Anyone can watch it and see what he said.

There are no canonical penalties that can be applied to ordinary laypeople that don’t involve denial of the sacraments.

 

[Arkansan]

When someone says they think canonical penalties should be applied very sparingly, and then advocates applying them to police officers for arresting criminals, it means he’s being overtly partisan. I hate to say that about a bishop but it’s clearly true here.

 

[Augustinian]

that don’t involve denial of the sacraments.

They can be denied a Catholic burial, or refused interment in a Catholic cemetery or mausoleum. Those are not sacraments for the deceased

 

[Rob2]

It’s a compelling letter, and runs contrary from what I heard from some Catholics here at CAF. I’m sticking with my bishop on this one.

That’s a wise thing to do , @tad .

I am sure Bishop Weisenburger is more knowledgeable about what he said than some on Catholic forums who appear to claim they know the bishop’s own words better than he does .

Things like this remind me of the words of Jesus - - - - - - - “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

Some just don’t want to hear .

Some just don’t want to understand .

They are too engrossed in following their own agenda .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When someone says they think canonical penalties should be applied very sparingly, and then advocates applying them to police officers for arresting criminals, it means he’s being overtly partisan. I hate to say that about a bishop but it’s clearly true here.

What you are saying is that the Catholic view of immigration is contrary to your political ideology and therefore it must be wrong. I was taught that the Church is our guide to what is right and wrong, not the other way around.

 

[tad]

Thanks for your replies, everyone. Like Bishop Weisenburger, I’m horrified at the separation of families, in many cases Catholic families, at the border. As he said, words aren’t enough. The Church has a strong, local presence on this issue and, if nothing else, this thread has inspired me to pull myself away from the internet and to see what tangible things I can do to stop this injustice. The great thing about it is I’ll have the full support of my parish, my pastor and my bishop who are already in the fray.

 

[Ender]

What you are saying is that the Catholic view of immigration is contrary to your political ideology and therefore it must be wrong. I was taught that the Church is our guide to what is right and wrong, not the other way around.

When it comes to specific policies, which is what is involved here, there is no “Catholic view on immigration.” The church has laid out a number of objectives and guidelines, but the application of those guidelines is a prudential matter that is in fact the responsibility of the laity to implement. That said, if policies clearly exceed the guidelines then it is appropriate for the bishops to speak out.

The problem is that just because some bishops have spoken out doesn’t necessarily mean that the guidelines have in fact been exceeded. I am not aware of any comments that actually address the nature of the problem beyond the fact of the separations. Perhaps their comments would carry more weight and appear less political had they been issued in previous decades when this policy was also being applied.

We know that there are justifiable instances where parents and children are separated, so that fact alone does not invalidate this practice. So, in the overall context of the illegal immigration problem, what makes the separation immoral?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

What you are saying is that the Catholic view of immigration is contrary to your political ideology and therefore it must be wrong. I was taught that the Church is our guide to what is right and wrong, not the other way around.

When it comes to specific policies, which is what is involved here, there is no “Catholic view on immigration.”

But when it comes to moral guidelines, there certainly is a Catholic view on immigration.

The church has laid out a number of objectives and guidelines, but the application of those guidelines is a prudential matter that is in fact the responsibility of the laity to implement. That said, if policies clearly exceed the guidelines then it is appropriate for the bishops to speak out.

The problem is that just because some bishops have spoken out doesn’t necessarily mean that the guidelines have in fact been exceeded.

It takes willful ignorance to look at the Church’s teaching on immigration and look at the practices currently in effect not to recognize that we are not fully abiding by those moral principles.

I am not aware of any comments that actually address the nature of the problem beyond the fact of the separations. Perhaps their comments would carry more weight and appear less political had they been issued in previous decades when this policy was also being applied.

The statements from our clergy, especially our bishops, carry weight because of the authority given them by Jesus Christ, not because of how they appear in the light of man’s judgement about whether they appear political, or whether they were applied fairly to all.

We know that there are justifiable instances where parents and children are separated, so that fact alone does not invalidate this practice. So, in the overall context of the illegal immigration problem, what makes the separation immoral?

I may not be the best qualified to defend the bishops’ statements, but it is my humble opinion that the separation from loving parents always harms the children. The cases you refer to, where the separation is justified, are instances where the “loving parent” has already been “separated” from their child by circumstances, such as drug addiction. In that case the harm has already been done before the state got involved. The state is just trying to keep matters from being worse. But in the cases in question, the parents are, prima facie loving parents still. The fact that drug addicted parents can sometimes be justifiably separated from children who have already been harmed by their parent’s addiction does not diminish the harm caused when children are snatched from loving parents. They fact that circumstances have driven them to take desperate measures does not disqualify them from being loving parents. All they need to continue to be loving parents is a safe and secure place to live. To forcibly break the sacred bond of the family just because they were unfortunate enough not to have a safe place to live is not living the gospel message.

 

[Augustinian]

It takes willful ignorance to look at the Church’s teaching on immigration and look at the practices currently in effect not to recognize that we are not fully abiding by those moral principles.

The situation at the border right now, isn’t a question of immigration at all. These are asylum applicants, people who have stated they are escaping violence at home and were forced from their ordinary domiciles. Not voluntary migrants seeking a permanent home and better life someplace else, not people seeking employment elsewhere either.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It takes willful ignorance to look at the Church’s teaching on immigration and look at the practices currently in effect not to recognize that we are not fully abiding by those moral principles.

The situation at the border right now, isn’t a question of immigration at all. These are asylum applicants, people who have stated they are escaping violence at home and were forced from their ordinary domiciles. Not voluntary migrants seeking a permanent home and better life someplace else, not people seeking employment elsewhere either.

What is your complaint? That some asylum applicants just want temporary shelter from the violence and intend to return home when conditions improve there? How does that change the applicability of the gospel message?

 

[Augustinian]

I may not be the best qualified to defend the bishops’ statements, but it is my humble opinion that the separation from loving parents always harms the children

That is certainly an opinion that has merit. And that’s why vetting migrants and ascertaining that the children accompanying them are their children is part of it. President Trump is actively against trafficking, his initiatives against pimping websites shows he is walking the walk, and the concern that the “parents” of these “families” are pimps or other operatives is something to be concerned about.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I may not be the best qualified to defend the bishops’ statements, but it is my humble opinion that the separation from loving parents always harms the children

That is certainly an opinion that has merit. And that’s why vetting migrants and ascertaining that the children accompanying them are their children is part of it. President Trump is actively against trafficking, his initiatives against pimping websites shows he is walking the walk, and the concern that the “parents” of these “families” are pimps or other operatives is something to be concerned about.

I think Trump is using the fear that parents are pimps to justify ignoring the needs of real parents and children in need. If Trump wanted to vet them more thoroughly he would have called for more immigration judges. But no, he said he didn’t want any judges. Are those the actions of someone who is genuinely concerned about the welfare of these refugee children?

 

[Ender]

But when it comes to moral guidelines, there certainly is a Catholic view on immigration.

Since I also made this exact point, clearly I agree with it. It is in the application of those guidelines where there is no “Catholic view.”

I may not be the best qualified to defend the bishops’ statements…

So, you can’t defend their comments, but I show “willful ignorance” by questioning them?

The statements from our clergy, especially our bishops, carry weight because of the authority given them by Jesus Christ, not because of how they appear in the light of man’s judgement about whether they appear political, or whether they were applied fairly to all.

Jesus Christ gave them no authority to make political pronouncements, and the church recognizes that, unlike moral doctrines, we have no moral obligation to assent to their opinions. Or is it your position that all of their comments and actions during the sex abuse scandal also require our approbation?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Jesus Christ gave them no authority to make political pronouncements

The authority of Jesus extends to all aspects of life. There is nothing special about “political” decisions. In fact, political decisions tend to be especially in need of being made with Christian values as a guide.

, and the church recognizes that, unlike moral doctrines, we have no moral obligation to assent to their opinions.

This is a straw man. You may indeed ignore the guidance of all the bishops without necessarily falling into the state of mortal sin. Just admit that you are doing it.

 

[Axsenex]

It’s tough in the era of misinformation because it’s fast just like an epidemic.