Illegal immigrants are first 'mothers and fathers, sons and daughters,' says Archbishop Gomez

[PaulinVA]

Not true, not by a long shot. What I say has nothing to do with moral relativism. There is a tendancy to keep making this issue about sin (of others, of course). Judge not lest you be judged is a Jesus principle. In case you did not know, Jesus did not teach moral relativism.

Yes, I know the the Church teaches against moral relativism. That is why I brought it up. You seem to be saying that if I just understood how hard a life these immigrants have I would see that, for them, entering a country illegally is not “wrong”. What is that if not relativism? And, by the way, that whole “judge not” is getting old. We will all be judged, won’t we?

Yes, it can be done. However, the fact that AB Gomez is drawing fire for talking about the dignity of the illegal immigrant tells me that many Catholics are not doing it. Otherwise, why is this even an issue? What is the objection to trying to understand others as more than an “illegal”? Yet here we have people who are Catholic arguing against the statement. Conservative Catholics in America are real big on “Amen!” when our Bishops speak out on abortion or gay marriage, but let the topic stray to a non- Republican bullet point like capital punishment or immigration, suddenly we question them and assert our right to disagreement.

Yes, Bishop Gomez is correct. These people are defined by far more than just being an “illegal”. Until we accept this, we reject the Christ that is in them. Once we understand this, then we can agree or not with deportation, fences and quotas.

After I feed the immigrants who are hungry, and clothe the immigrants who need clothing, perhaps donate to Catholic Charities, am I not allowed to ask the question of why this person, these people, are in our country?

Are you saying that when someone stops being an “illegal” to me and becomes a person with a name that I treat with dignity that I can no longer question why they are here illegally?

 

[pnewton]

What is that if not relativism?

Moral relativism denies that there is any absolute standard of Truth. No one is doing that here.

And, by the way, that whole “judge not” is getting old.

Yes, it is. I hate that it applies in so many cases. In this thread, I still can not understand the objection to AB Gomez’s statement. I think that perhaps too many read past it, or forgot what a simple, Christ-like thing that was being said.

Are you saying that when someone stops being an “illegal” to me and becomes a person with a name that I treat with dignity that I can no longer question why they are here illegally?

Of course not, and neither did AB Gomez. Solutions to the immigration issue can and do vary. That is fine. It is charity that must be the constant.

 

[PaulinVA]

Moral relativism denies that there is any absolute standard of Truth. No one is doing that here.

I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were saying " We do not walk in their shoes." to mean that while illegal immigration might be wrong for some, if you just understood the plight of the people, you would see that *they had *to do it and it isn’t wrong.

Yes, it is. I hate that it applies in so many cases. In this thread, I still can not understand the objection to AB Gomez’s statement. I think that perhaps too many read past it, or forgot what a simple, Christ-like thing that was being said.
Of course not, and neither did AB Gomez. Solutions to the immigration issue can and do vary. That is fine. It is charity that must be the constant.

I think that the “judge not lest you be judged” is a form of Christian bullying when used in discussion forums like this. It’s an attempt to stop the discussion or a line of thought without really having a counter argument. It’s used to say, “Just shut up, you’re a sinner, too.” This is absolutely true, but not at all helpful in a forum where people come to discuss things.

 

[pnewton]

if you just understood the plight of the people, you would see that *they had *to do it and it isn’t wrong.

It might be that we would see it not as wrong. Again, moral relativism denies any absolute standards. Catholic moral teaching has never upheld that obeying every law of man is an absolute good. Rather the possibility has always been in some cases that we might have to obey God rather than Man. Therefore, there is no absolute moral standard in this issue. This is not moral relativism. It is Catholic moral teaching.

I think that the “judge not lest you be judged” is a form of Christian bullying when used in discussion forums like this.

Yet you see nothing wrong with doing the opposite and labeling a bishop’s teaching as relativism? The two are related here, as this message you see as bullying is the bishop’s message to us. If you see this as bullying, feel free to report it as such. I do not, especially when it is used to remind us to be like Christ. As the phrase is the exact words of Jesus, I do not see how Christians can object.

 

[PaulinVA]

It might be that we would see it not as wrong. Again, moral relativism denies any absolute standards. Catholic moral teaching has never upheld that obeying every law of man is an absolute good. Rather the possibility has always been in some cases that we might have to obey God rather than Man. Therefore, there is no absolute moral standard in this issue. This is not moral relativism. It is Catholic moral teaching.

How does what you wrote apply to “However, Catholics do not need to be judgmental of these people for the decisions they made. We do not walk in their shoes.”? What are you trying to convey by that statement?

Yet you see nothing wrong with doing the opposite and labeling a bishop’s teaching as relativism? The two are related here, as this message you see as bullying is the bishop’s message to us. If you see this as bullying, feel free to report it as such. I do not, especially when it is used to remind us to be like Christ. As the phrase is the exact words of Jesus, I do not see how Christians can object.

I am responding to your words, not the Archbishop’s. You said “Judge not lest you be judged is a Jesus principle”, the ArchBishop did not.

Do you disagree that using the phrase “Judge not lest you be judged” is an attempt in these fora to stop further discussion? If not, what is it’s purpose?

(And, I would never report you. This is a* discussion*, and we’re friends here.)

 

[pnewton]

How does what you wrote apply to “However, Catholics do not need to be judgmental of these people for the decisions they made. We do not walk in their shoes.”? What are you trying to convey by that statement?

I am responding to your words, not the Archbishop’s. You said “Judge not lest you be judged is a Jesus principle”, the ArchBishop did not.

I will explain where I see the connection. Again, this is not related to immigration in general, but rather the statement of AB Gomez about immigration.

1. AB Gomez said, "For Christians, empathy means seeing Jesus Christ in every person and especially in the poor and the vulnerable.” For this statement, he has been argued with. Now I believe most of the criticism he has taken here is for what people think he meant. I think some have not even read the article, or are reading more into than was said. That is their perogative, but there is everything that the bishop actually said is very simple Christianity.

2.You have referred to relativism, and the violation of the immigration law has been called sinful. In light of this, I wanted to point out that violating an immigration law is not something that in and of itself always sinful. It can be and may well be a sin, but it does not have to be. Therefore, the charge of relativism (or sin) by necessity involves making a judgment about the act, at minimum.

1. If we were to follow the good AB’s advice, we find that we can not judge. Therefore, I see the two things as a contrast. Do we look at people through the eyes of Christ, or do we attempt to judge them all sinful? Note that I do not say what I think we legal ought to do, in the context of the OP’s link. Only that a charitable view should be the first response.

This post is not an argument and surely not a rebuttal (there is not thing you said I wish to rebut). It is only a clarification of my understanding of what AB Gomez said and how it applies. Perhaps I understand what you were saying when you said that little catch phrase (of all types) are used to shut down dialogue. I trust you can see that is not the case with me. I tend to go on and on… (too much I fear)

 

[PaulinVA]

I will explain where I see the connection. Again, this is not related to immigration in general, but rather the statement of AB Gomez about immigration.

1. AB Gomez said, "For Christians, empathy means seeing Jesus Christ in every person and especially in the poor and the vulnerable.” For this statement, he has been argued with. Now I believe most of the criticism he has taken here is for what people think he meant. I think some have not even read the article, or are reading more into than was said. That is their perogative, but there is everything that the bishop actually said is very simple Christianity.

I totally agree with the Archbishop’s statement.

2.You have referred to relativism, and the violation of the immigration law has been called sinful. In light of this, I wanted to point out that violating an immigration law is not something that in and of itself always sinful. It can be and may well be a sin, but it does not have to be. Therefore, the charge of relativism (or sin) by necessity involves making a judgment about the act, at minimum.

You misunderstand. I am saying that violation of the immigration law is always violation of the immigration law. What I was commenting on was your remark about justifying said violation by just understanding the plight of the immigrant.

1. If we were to follow the good AB’s advice, we find that we can not judge. Therefore, I see the two things as a contrast. Do we look at people through the eyes of Christ, or do we attempt to judge them all sinful? Note that I do not say what I think we legal ought to do, in the context of the OP’s link. Only that a charitable view should be the first response.

You are totally misquoting the good Archbishop. He said, “In the evening of our lives, he told us, our love for God will be judged by our love for him in the person of the least among us. This includes, he said, the immigrant or the stranger.”

I totally agree with this. We will all be judged by God by how we treat the least among us.

This post is not an argument and surely not a rebuttal (there is not thing you said I wish to rebut). It is only a clarification of my understanding of what AB Gomez said and how it applies. Perhaps I understand what you were saying when you said that little catch phrase (of all types) are used to shut down dialogue. I trust you can see that is not the case with me. I tend to go on and on… (too much I fear)

I do not disagree with the Archbishop. I was looking at this issue from the side of the immigrant. The Archbishop is telling us that we have responsibilities as Christians to these immigrants. I am exploring what their responsibilities to their host country are.

 

[VeronicaAnne]

Sure. Immigration is a great thing.

Come on over. Legally. Stand in line behind the others who are visiting here studying and seeking to be legally granted citizenship. No sneaking around.

Otherwise, you’re trespassing. You’re here illegally.

No offense intended. Immigration is a great thing.

However, sneaking in is NOTokay. No matter who you are. No matter from where you originated.

Follow our laws. Including those that have in place a system for accepting immigrants.

I do respect the bishop who says that we need to be “welcoming to immigrants.” I’m on the same page with him!

Though, I know that he is NOT coming from the point of view of the legality of immigration laws. As his role, he is here to speak of how we are to live our lives as Christians. Not to make attempts to re-shape this country’s immigration law.

I don’t see anything at all that I said here to be “unChristian.” Being Christian does NOT mean that you blithely accept any trespassing foreigner breaking the immigration laws of the country they want to live. I really don’t see the financial situation of anybody that’s here who is living here illegally to be the reason for them to bypass the immigration laws.

Thanks for listening.

 

[pnewton]

Come on over. Legally. Stand in line behind the others who are visiting here studying and seeking to be legally granted citizenship. No sneaking around.

I would agree with you, if there was a line. There is no line to stand in. Immigration is granted first on status of the person and what skills they have, not how long they have been waiting. The law favors the rich and discriminates against the poor. This is not rhetoric. It is codified into the quotas. For most of the immigrants, there is no path to legal immigration.

 

[Blacksword]

I would agree with you, if there was a line. There is no line to stand in. Immigration is granted first on status of the person and what skills they have, not how long they have been waiting. The law favors the rich and discriminates against the poor. This is not rhetoric. It is codified into the quotas. For most of the immigrants, there is no path to legal immigration.

Exactly what I was going to say (and have said dozens of times in this thread and on these forums). Why can’t people take the trouble to read the thread first, and/or even better, actually learn something about the background facts of an issue BEFORE offering a completely uninformed opinion on the matter?

 

[PaulinVA]

I would agree with you, if there was a line. There is no line to stand in. Immigration is granted first on status of the person and what skills they have, not how long they have been waiting. The law favors the rich and discriminates against the poor. This is not rhetoric. It is codified into the quotas. For most of the immigrants, there is no path to legal immigration.

I agree that our immigration law gives preference to those immigrants that have the skills to make us a stronger country and will not be a burden on people already here. You can call it rich versus poor, but I would say skilled versus unskilled. I believe it is perfectly logical for a country to have this policy.

It might not be Christian, but it is protecting the assets we already have. I would expect nothing less from our elected leaders. Now, that being said, if the country can benefit from admitting some unskilled people, I am all for it. I am not for amnesty. We did that in the eighties as a one time thing; it shouldn’t happen again. I am in favor of a dream act kind of thing - the children who were brought here by their parents did not make the choice themselves.

So, if a particular person has no legal path to imigrate legally to the US, they should not. If they are here illegally, I think that disqualifies them for citizenship, perhaps even permanent status.

 

[pnewton]

It might not be Christian, but it is protecting the assets we already have. I would expect nothing less from our elected leaders.

That is where I do not agree. I think the blue collar worker, skilled or unskilled are our primary means of real wealth production. They may not make as many dollars, but too many white collar jobs produce no real wealth. People are a resource when they are working on production. Always and of all types. Give me a sharecropper over a lawyer or investment broker any day.

 

[MarisaJean]

I am very shocked over this thread and what it has led to. For all of you who are not directly impacted by immigration then you have no clue how important reform is. I agree people need to read the original thread first and then post your comments, not just pop up and say, “wait in line.” For those people if you had any knowledge on immigration and the difficulties there are just to obtain a visa, I think you would pipe down a little. The bottom line is simple and it has been said over and over…we are GOOD CATHOLICS that are supposed to feed the hungy, help the poor and care for the sick? Did none of you learn that when you were children? You treat others how you want to be treated! If the situation was reversed and you had to go to a foreign land just to make your childrens lives better wouldn’t you??? If you are a decent mother or father you would go to all ends of the earth to help your kids. That is the exact reason most of the illigal immigrants are here!!! Their countries are dangerous and they want better for their families. I do not judge people by the color of their skin or the walk of life they came from or choose to take, they are my brother and sister in Christ. We were all taught that at an early age, but it seems like most have forgotten it along the way. Who are we to put first everyday of our lives? GOD!!! Ask yourself this…do you think it makes God happy when we treat one of his children bad??? I do not think so. So regardless of the MADE LAWS here in the US, we need to remember the REAL LAWS…the laws of God because those are the ones we will be judge on one day.
All I ask is to put yourself in someone elses shoes…really think about it…maybe even spend sometime with someone that faces this problem every single day. Maybe you can learn something not only about them but about yourself too.

 

[Tigg]

I will explain where I see the connection. Again, this is not related to immigration in general, but rather the statement of AB Gomez about immigration.

1. AB Gomez said, "For Christians, empathy means seeing Jesus Christ in every person and especially in the poor and the vulnerable.” For this statement, he has been argued with. Now I believe most of the criticism he has taken here is for what people think he meant. I think some have not even read the article, or are reading more into than was said. That is their perogative, but there is everything that the bishop actually said is very simple Christianity.

If we were to follow the good AB’s advice, we find that we can not judge. Therefore, I see the two things as a contrast. Do we look at people through the eyes of Christ, or do we attempt to judge them all sinful? Note that I do not say what I think we legal ought to do, in the context of the OP’s link. Only that a charitable view should be the first response.

I know where I’m having difficulty in this bishop’s statement, and other similar ones by churchmen who echo his words - it is in what is NOT said. If this is a moral question (and I believe it to be purely driven by politics,) our bishops should be addressing the whole issue, but I have never been able to find any comments which would give guidance as to the huge injustices that have been created by a people who show a lack of respect for us and for our system of ordered law. Those of us who oppose illegal entry are the ones being rashly judged. (See the post directly above.) If we do not favor lawlessness we are consequently told we have a lack of charity and respect for the human person.

How I wish we had an authoritative voice of reason like Fulton J. Sheen, whom, I suspect, would ask the tough questions about what is truly charitable or not. Do we really love our neighbor when we encourage them by tacit approval to lie about their status, steal, or commit fraud? Do we show mercy when we support them in immoral behavior, and please – we all know when we see sinful acts. We are not to judge the intention of the heart, but we, as a society, must judge and punish wrongful actions or there would be complete anarchy. It is a spiritual good to admonish and counsel those who have chosen to live outside the moral law by deceit.

So, I will repeat Paul’s question…….what are the bishops saying to those who choose to illegally cross the border? And why is nothing ever said in terms of our rights to defend the historical and cultural fabric of our society? Earlier social encyclicals have always upheld four major principles. The dignity of the human person, concern for the common good, subsidiarity and the obligation of the state to protect its citizens . Why are three of the core maxims never mentioned or addressed in any way?

And here is the big myth. There is a picture that has emerged that always suggests that these people are starving and oppressed. They are not seeking political asylum from a tyranny government, and even the Pew Hispanic Center has issued reports stating they are leaving their jobs in Mexico to find better paying jobs here. Are they poor? Of course, many are, but one needs to look closer at what is actually happening when upwards of 30 million people unlawfully invade a country.

 

[Blacksword]

I know where I’m having difficulty in this bishop’s statement, and other similar ones by churchmen who echo his words - it is in what is NOT said. If this is a moral question (and I believe it to be purely driven by politics,) our bishops should be addressing the whole issue, but I have never been able to find any comments which would give guidance as to the huge injustices that have been created by a people who show a lack of respect for us and for our system of ordered law. Those of us who oppose illegal entry are the ones being rashly judged. (See the post directly above.) If we do not favor lawlessness we are consequently told we have a lack of charity and respect for the human person.

How I wish we had an authoritative voice of reason like Fulton J. Sheen, whom, I suspect, would ask the tough questions about what is truly charitable or not. Do we really love our neighbor when we encourage them by tacit approval to lie about their status, steal, or commit fraud? Do we show mercy when we support them in immoral behavior, and please – we all know when we see sinful acts. We are not to judge the intention of the heart, but we, as a society, must judge and punish wrongful actions or there would be complete anarchy. It is a spiritual good to admonish and counsel those who have chosen to live outside the moral law by deceit.

So, I will repeat Paul’s question…….what are the bishops saying to those who choose to illegally cross the border? And why is nothing ever said in terms of our rights to defend the historical and cultural fabric of our society? Earlier social encyclicals have always upheld four major principles. The dignity of the human person, concern for the common good, subsidiarity and the obligation of the state to protect its citizens . Why are three of the core maxims never mentioned or addressed in any way?

And here is the big myth. There is a picture that has emerged that always suggests that these people are starving and oppressed. They are not seeking political asylum from a tyranny government, and even the Pew Hispanic Center has issued reports stating they are leaving their jobs in Mexico to find better paying jobs here. Are they poor? Of course, many are, but one needs to look closer at what is actually happening when upwards of 30 million people unlawfully invade a country.

A couple of points: first, just factually, I don’t think it’s anywhere near 30 million. Most estimates are that the current undocumented population is between 8-12 million. Secondly though, you make a common and basic error used in rhetoric from know-nothings in conservative talk radio: you imply that “the other side” is pro-illegal immigration or pro-border anarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not favor, and know of NO immigrant advocates who do favor, illegal immigration or mass law breaking. Leaving the unworkable system as is, in fact, is de facto pro-illegal immigration. Rather, because of my actual knowledge of our laws and the realities of the present system’s dysfunctionality, I, and most advocates, favor sensible reform that creates paths for legalization of those here and contributing, appropriate visa classes for future immigrants as needed by our economy to enter lawfully and safely, and related legal measures that will address our actual labor needs, serve our citizenry, and reflect the kind of image we want the world to see of the U.S. as a nation. A nation of mercy, justice, honor, intelligence, innovation, opportunity, and that cares about family unity and domestic tranquility.

 

[pnewton]

I know where I’m having difficulty in this bishop’s statement, and other similar ones by churchmen who echo his words - it is in what is NOT said.

What are “churchmen”? I know bishops, priests, archbishops, the curia, and national bishops’ councils. However, I do not think there is a position in the Catholic Church of churchman.

So you are criticizing the bishop for what is not said? You do know that no message covers every doctrine every time, don’t you. You are also aware, I hope that the article only reported excepts of what was said and mentioned nothing about what was not said. :whacky:

How do you know what was not said from the article? Assuming, maybe?

I stand corrected. A good Catholic can disagree with what he or she assumes the AB did not say and should have said, if it should be said and assuming it would be reported. If you can follow that, then you’re a better person than I.