This is true, but there are many different committees to which various bishops head and belong. These committees do speak for the USCCB as a whole. I believe that he vast majority of Catholic Bishops agree with the statement of these bishops since they are only promoting Church teaching.Until a bishop says that they speak for him they do not.
No bishop can speak for another. The USCCB has no binding power over the bishops.
You only got half the story. God dispersed the people because they thought they were greater than Him. We are abouot to celebrated Ephiany, the kings represent all countries coming under the rule of Christ and at Pentecost, all nations heard the word of God.You know, from the OT to the New, the Bible has much to say about the entity of nations.
And let‘s not forget what happened in Babel when humankind in their pride tried to construct a tower of universality - a multicultural society, or utopia, a social re-construction if you will, which God dispersed.
.
Yes, they do speak for the USCCB but the USCCB does not always speak for all the bishops.This is true, but there are many different committees to which various bishops head and belong. These committees do speak for the USCCB as a whole. I believe that he vast majority of Catholic Bishops agree with the statement of these bishops since they are only promoting Church teaching.
Brother,Yes, they do speak for the USCCB but the USCCB does not always speak for all the bishops.
As for it only promoting Catholic Teachings I disagree. No where in Church Teaching are there guidelines for nations to allow a path to citizenship, that is just one example.
We need to stop mislabeling mindless sentimentality as “compassion” so we can stop being complicit in this horrible form of abuse. It’s time to take responsibility instead of engaging in this hypocritical exercise in public almsgiving (with other people’s rights and property, no less) like a bunch of Pharisees.Their human rights are part of our social teaching and the only way for them to have them fully is to have legal status.
You are throwing out huge blanket statements, anti immigrant talking points, and falsehoods.We need to stop mislabeling mindless sentimentality as “compassion” so we can stop being complicit in this horrible form of abuse. It’s time to take responsibility instead of engaging in this hypocritical exercise in public almsgiving (with other people’s rights and property, no less) like a bunch of Pharisees.
These are not refugees and asylum-seekers without a nation we are talking about. The bulk population that poses the problem here are all citizens with full legal status in MEXICO. These are folks doing business with murderous criminal cartels enabling massive smuggling and racketeering operations. They are facilitated by corrupt politicians in Mexico City trying to offload the social welfare burdens of Mexico (one of the wealthiest nations in the world) onto the U.S. taxpayers so they can continue to line their own pockets.
By this means they’ve effectively exported 20-25% of their eligible voters who are dissatisfied with the way Mexico is run - creating huge benefits for kleptocrats and the gansters that they’ve allied with it.
We need to exacerbating the problem with all this “open borders,” amnesty, and “comprehensive immigration reform” nonsense. We need secure borders, defeated smuggling cartels, and lawful immigration where living in Mexico gives you no special ability to just step over people using the lawful route to escape true oppression and poverty in places like Africa, Asia, and South America.
- Marty Lund
The Church also teaches that a State has a right to set its own laws including those that cover immigration.Brother,
Of all who post you should understand the basis of Catholic Social Teaching. There may not be a teaching on the path to citizenship, except perhaps to welcome the foreigner among you since you were once one. But for theses individuals to work with just compensation, access top affordable health care, housing, family unity and all other freedoms including at some point the right to vote to have proper representation, there needs to be a way to first give them legal status, then as with all other generations of immigrants a way to full citizenship if the desire so. Their human rights are part of our social teaching and the only way for them to have them fully is to have legal status.
Well, here’s a little bit of truth for you.We each need to aske ourselves , will we be the sheep of the goat. I was the staranger, the alian, the immagrant amoung you and you did not welcome or help me. Lord when was this so? What you dis to the least of my brothers and sisters, you did unto me……
I have done what I suggest, I stand with my bishops not only out of obediance as a deacon, but out of conscience and out of the truth of Christ.
I agree. Part of the issue is that immigration laws were not enforced and the whole thing became a wink and knod. Now that these people are here and have grown in numbers, they have now in some way became a threat. In part is comes down to old fasion bigotry. They look different, talk different, act different.The Church also teaches that a State has a right to set its own laws including those that cover immigration.
The hertitage foundation only gives one side or one part of the issue. They fail to calculate the billons in economic growth cause by immigrants, the way this country has always used.Well, here’s a little bit of truth for you.
I was struck by this morning’s headlines in our local paper because the agency which provides the Meals on Wheels to seniors in our area is eliminating some of those meals due to budget cutbacks and a depletion of the reserves they once had. We are talking about the urgent and immediate need to alleviate hunger among our own elderly. The last time I looked, the Heritage Foundation had calculated the costs for “free” services to illegal aliens at $113 billion (that’s with a “b”) annually. These “free” services contribute in a major way to the funding crises experienced on all levels of government entitlement programs. So I guess you’re saying I should continue to welcome the stranger and pay his keep even though the middle class is close to a meltdown and our nation is bankrupt, while ignoring the **immoral **consequences to the neediest among us and the injustices done to the common good! This isn’t even close to Catholic social justice teaching.
Yes we need just laws. Justice has nothing to do with fairness.I agree. Part of the issue is that immigration laws were not enforced and the whole thing became a wink and knod. Now that these people are here and have grown in numbers, they have now in some way became a threat. In part is comes down to old fasion bigotry. They look different, talk different, act different.
The bishops point in part is the this immigration population has helped the county prosper. Now that we are in economic hard times, they suddenly become the scapegoat?
We need fair laws that take into account our labor needs and the rights of those who are already here. It is good that the bishops are giving voice to help push for a Christian solution to the opportunity.
There is not reason why laws cannot be both fair and just. That is the goal of most laws.Yes we need just laws. Justice has nothing to do with fairness.
Since crossing the border without a visa is a misdameaner, then it the law is just, a $150.00 fine life a speading ticket is in order. I only have heard a few exteamist who think that there should be no penilty for comming in illegally, but there also has to be something other than mass deportation which will also not work. Many of these are families who’s children are American Citizen by birth, what about their rights? or will they be punished for the crime of their parents?We also need to treat those who follow the laws better than those who have chosen not to follow them regardless of the lack of the will of the Federal Government to enforce those laws.
.I do not see how it is just to allow those who break the law a path to citizenship when those who follow the law do not have the same advantage
Sorry, I thought I did answer all your post.I also see that you have chosen to ignore the rest of my post.
Peace, no reason to get upset.Either address all that I have to say or address none of it.
We need to stop labeling people we do not agree with as “mindless”.We need to stop mislabeling mindless sentimentality as “compassion” so we can stop being complicit in this horrible form of abuse.
To be just and fair those who enter illegally should be made to leave and apply to reenter legally and be place at the back of the line behind all those waiting for entry legally.Since crossing the border without a visa is a misdameaner, then it the law is just, a $150.00 fine life a speading ticket is in order. I only have heard a few exteamist who think that there should be no penilty for comming in illegally, but there also has to be something other than mass deportation which will also not work. Many of these are families who’s children are American Citizen by birth, what about their rights? or will they be punished for the crime of their parents?
Yet the path to citizenship being put forward is doing just that.Certainly those who came in leagally should be at the front of the line. Those who did not, can pay a fine appropriate the the crime (see above) then pay the same fees and process as the others. This is not giving them an advatage.
You just addressed the last sentence of my post. You did not address that the Church makes no statement on requiring States to grant citizenship. You said that the document form these bishops just reiterates Church teaching which I disagreed with and gave an example where I thought you were wrong.Sorry, I thought I did answer all your post.
I an not upset just disappointed that you would ignore this part of the discussion we were having.Peace, no reason to get upset.
Br.To be just and fair those who enter illegally should be made to leave and apply to reenter legally and be place at the back of the line behind all those waiting for entry legally.
Yet the path to citizenship being put forward is doing just that.
You just addressed the last sentence of my post. You did not address that the Church makes no statement on requiring States to grant citizenship. You said that the document form these bishops just reiterates Church teaching which I disagreed with and gave an example where I thought you were wrong.
I an not upset just disappointed that you would ignore this part of the discussion we were having.
Peace to you as well.
Really I am not sharing my personal ideas, just playing a little devils advocate.Br.
I am a little supprised at you ideas. For many years my parish was sheperd by the Carmelites and the idea that these children of God should be forced to leave was not one they seemed to share with you.
There is currently a way for them to legalize their status. It is for them to return to their country of origin and then to apply for entry into the country in the proper manner.I agree that they should not be given preferential treatment, but there should be a way to leaglize their status.
I do not think this is true. There is nothing that I can think of that is called for by the Church’s teachings on social justice that requires citizenship. Can you point something out that I am missing?I had agreed with you that there is no church teaching requiring the granting of citizenship, my point was that in most countries, including this one, the only way a individual can obtain all that the Church’s social doctrine calls for is to have leagal status which could include citizenship.
Brother, I’m not trying to patronize or put you in a bad light.Really
May I ask your intentions in stating such?
I would also ask that you stop using language in an attempt to paint what I am saying in a bad light. There may be disagreement but there is no need to insult each other. No where have I implied that those in this country are not “children of God”. If you insist on continuing this then you can do so alone (and please do not attempt to patronize me again by telling me not to get upset, I am not upset I am just expecting a nice adult conversation).
You may not have intended it but your choice of words did this. I find it troubling that you fail to recognize it.Brother, I’m not trying to patronize or put you in a bad light.
My intent on asking the question is to understand your opinion and perhaps to persuade you. As I said, after being around Camelite priests for years and learning from their sense of compassion and carring, I find your comments and stance courious.
You may disagree but as I stated earlier I have not given my personal stand on this issue.We will have to disagree, since deporting people and splitting families is a terrible option.
These type of decissions and practices ahve real human cost. A article in our local paper talked about how immigrants have arrangments with neighbors to take care of their children in case they do not come home because immigration has raided the buisness the work for and hauled them off. If they get sent back to their country of origin, this means not seeing their children for months and in some cases years.
The question has to be asked, on this the feast of the Holy Family, is that a just solution? a moral solution? a Christian solution? Is it fair to have these people live in constant fear? Is this following Catholic Social Doctrine? The answer to all of these is no.
You and I are not speaking the same language (see your previous response to me and I will not bother to post links to refute what you believe is true.) btw, in our area, Meals on Wheels does rely on both government funding and private donations. If you have no idea of the serious negative impact on seniors due to the state of the economy, (and illegal immigration is a huge factor) then there’s nothing more to be said.We will have to disagree, since deporting people and splitting families is a terrible option.
These type of decissions and practices ahve real human cost. A article in our local paper talked about how immigrants have arrangments with neighbors to take care of their children in case they do not come home because immigration has raided the buisness the work for and hauled them off. If they get sent back to their country of origin, this means not seeing their children for months and in some cases years.
The question has to be asked, on this the feast of the Holy Family, is that a just solution? a moral solution? a Christian solution? Is it fair to have these people live in constant fear? Is this following Catholic Social Doctrine? The answer to all of these is no.
What if the only way you could provide for your family and children was to risk your life, cross a border in the dark of nightm risk death, and persecution. Would you do this for your children? These people are. Mexico has two classes of people, the rich and the poor, the vast majority are the poor and the rich do nothing to help them.But your comments above bring up another important point, and for the lurkers, it deserves to be addressed. How is it that any personal responsibility on the part of illegal aliens always seem to be absolved by the open borders, pro-amnesty crowd? If I were to expose my children to the risk and danger of being in a country illegally, this would be gross parental misconduct on my part. My conscience would never allow me to do such a thing and I cannot even imagine the horror of being separated from them because of my own poor choices and poor judgment, let alone the fear they would always experience knowing that they must hide and live their lives in secret because the family is breaking the law. What an environment and bad example to expose them to. Parents are the sole defenders of their children, and they alone would be accountable for any negative results - they made the choice to put their family at such horrific risk.