H
HollyMustardSee
Guest
and i don’t recall scripture saying make sure you give your livlihood to people of other lands.
- Status
S
Stylites
Guest
Exactly. The politicians who write the laws (which some try to worship) purposely limit the number of valid visas available which are way under the real numbers which our society needs, and hence the existence of so-called “illegal immigration” when it really ought to be called what it is: a purposeful and cruel withholding of needed immigration visas by cowardly politicians catering to special interests and mean-spirited constituents.
.
L
LilyM
Guest
Jesus said give ALL you possess (without any qualifiers) if you would be perfect. Meaning such behaviour is not essential, but highly desirable, as nothing which is imperfect can enter heaven.
On a more practical note, He praised the widow who gave two mites - and praised her BECAUSE those were not two mites that she had left over after she had provided for her ‘livlihood’, but the only money she had in the world.
Anyone who owns a computer as it looks like you do already has a heck of a lot more than people in many parts of the world, and very likely a lot more than he or she needs to survive.
And remember His answer to the question ‘who is my neighbour’? His point was that we are not just to care about those of the same nationality as ourselves, but that EVERYONE, regardless of nation of origin, is our neighbour.
C
CDNowak
Guest
Unproven assertion (and with 9%+ unemployment and a welfare system buckling under the strain, a difficult case to make). More to the point, this number is in the realm for the state to decide (as acknowledged by the Church). As it stands we take in more immigrants than any other nation and more refugees by a long shot.
J
JReducation
Guest
The problem here is that the person who wrote the blog is misusing the CCC in many ways. First of all, the Church does not recognize illegal immigration, because immigration laws are inconsistent around the world. Many immigration laws violate human rights and offend the dignity of persons.
There is a second problem. The blogger uses the Ambrosian definition of mortal sin incorrectly. The first criteria is that the matter must be morally grave, not serious as he writes in the blog. Immigration, legal or illegal is not recognized by the Catholic Church as a morally grave issue. There are morally grave reasons for migrating such as the good of one’s family, safety, the protection of innocent children, hunger, escape unjust conditions, just to name a few. The act of migrating itself is not a moral act. It is a means to achieve a desired end. The moral question must always be whether the desired end is a greater good than remaining in one’s homeland. Here is the key, greater good. To migrate to another country for the purpose of destroying or doing harm is using migration for a moral evil. Such is the case of those who enter a country for the purpose of terrorizing, selling drugs, escaping LEGITIMATE prosecution, prostitution and other such examples. To enter a country with the desire to work in order to raise one’s children in a better environment than the one in which one lives is not an immoral end. Immigration is morally neutral. Entering without proper documents is illegal, not immoral.
Pope John Paul II made it very clear in Evangelium Vitae that the Church does not recognize every law as moral or binding, because nations often make laws that allow what is immoral and forbid what is moral. Civil law is not a moral measuring stick. In addition, Evangelium Vitae condemns deportation as a sin against human dignity. Therefore, the Catholic Church in any nation may not support such an action. To do so would be to contradict the moral teachings of the Church, which are always binding. There is no appeal here. We cannot appeal or put the moral law on trial. Once a pope says that something is a moral issue, then it becomes the duty of the Church to teach to it.
There is another problem with the blogger’s application of the Ambrosian method. The second criteria is that the person must have full knowledge that the matter is morally evil. If the immigration itself is not a moral evil, legal or not, then there is nothing for the person to know.
The last criteria in the Ambrosian method must also be met. The person must freely choose to do evil. The individual who is migrating must be migrating with the intent of doing evil. This would not apply to most illegal immigrants.
This leaves us with the moral teaching on the rights of the state. The state has the right to create laws that protect its sovereignty. That is not denied or deniable. But the state must enact laws that are just for its citizens and non-citizens. In other words, the law may not protect the rights of one person and violate the rights of another. As Evangelium Vitate clearly states, any action on the part of governments that violates the dignity of the human person is a grave moral evil, even if it’s legal.
Evangelium Vitae, in section III, goes on to list deportation as one of the actions that violates the dignity of human beings. It does not discriminate. If a person commits a crime, the moral good is for the state to prosecute proportionately, not send a dangerous person to another country where he can continue to do harm to innocent people. That is not a moral exercise of law. If you secure the rights of one group, but fail to protect the innocent, no matter where they may find themselves, you have failed to comply with the Divine duty of law.
There is the issue of Democracy. Many will argue that the state has to represent the wishes of its constituency. The Church teaches that this is not so. The constituency can be wrong, as we have seen on the issue of abortion. The state exists to represent Truth as it has been revealed. Again, in Evangelium Vitae, Section 60-64, the Church states the democracy is not an end, but a means. The moral objective is the sanctity of every human life. Democracy is a means to protect the sanctity of every human life from conception to natural death. This includes the stages in between conception and death. We cannot allow government or anyone else, to take action against human beings that are contrary to the dignity of life. Sending someone to live in subhuman conditions is contrary to the dignity of life.
As Pope Benedict rightly says in Caritas in Veritate, the solution to this and other social problems calls for a new humanistic synthesis. We can’t just make laws that protect the interest of one side or another. Laws must protect the interests of humanity. Pope Benedict makes it very clear that “the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity” (seccs 23-25), not one group of people, nationals or immigrants. Solutions must be found that benefit everyone. Catholics have the right to demand that governments look for them.
One moral issue is the conditions that create the need to leave one’s homeland. Catholics must work with the political systems here and abroad to secure that human beings are given opportunities to work, study, receive proper medical care, practice the faith, own property and contribute to the common good
When government has millions of dollars to pay for abortions and contraception in foreign countries, but lacks funds to help its working poor, there is a serious moral problem. “The development of peoples depend above all on a recognition that the human race is a single family” Pope Benedict XVI). We have moral obligations to the entire human race, legal and illegal.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
There is a second problem. The blogger uses the Ambrosian definition of mortal sin incorrectly. The first criteria is that the matter must be morally grave, not serious as he writes in the blog. Immigration, legal or illegal is not recognized by the Catholic Church as a morally grave issue. There are morally grave reasons for migrating such as the good of one’s family, safety, the protection of innocent children, hunger, escape unjust conditions, just to name a few. The act of migrating itself is not a moral act. It is a means to achieve a desired end. The moral question must always be whether the desired end is a greater good than remaining in one’s homeland. Here is the key, greater good. To migrate to another country for the purpose of destroying or doing harm is using migration for a moral evil. Such is the case of those who enter a country for the purpose of terrorizing, selling drugs, escaping LEGITIMATE prosecution, prostitution and other such examples. To enter a country with the desire to work in order to raise one’s children in a better environment than the one in which one lives is not an immoral end. Immigration is morally neutral. Entering without proper documents is illegal, not immoral.
Pope John Paul II made it very clear in Evangelium Vitae that the Church does not recognize every law as moral or binding, because nations often make laws that allow what is immoral and forbid what is moral. Civil law is not a moral measuring stick. In addition, Evangelium Vitae condemns deportation as a sin against human dignity. Therefore, the Catholic Church in any nation may not support such an action. To do so would be to contradict the moral teachings of the Church, which are always binding. There is no appeal here. We cannot appeal or put the moral law on trial. Once a pope says that something is a moral issue, then it becomes the duty of the Church to teach to it.
There is another problem with the blogger’s application of the Ambrosian method. The second criteria is that the person must have full knowledge that the matter is morally evil. If the immigration itself is not a moral evil, legal or not, then there is nothing for the person to know.
The last criteria in the Ambrosian method must also be met. The person must freely choose to do evil. The individual who is migrating must be migrating with the intent of doing evil. This would not apply to most illegal immigrants.
This leaves us with the moral teaching on the rights of the state. The state has the right to create laws that protect its sovereignty. That is not denied or deniable. But the state must enact laws that are just for its citizens and non-citizens. In other words, the law may not protect the rights of one person and violate the rights of another. As Evangelium Vitate clearly states, any action on the part of governments that violates the dignity of the human person is a grave moral evil, even if it’s legal.
Evangelium Vitae, in section III, goes on to list deportation as one of the actions that violates the dignity of human beings. It does not discriminate. If a person commits a crime, the moral good is for the state to prosecute proportionately, not send a dangerous person to another country where he can continue to do harm to innocent people. That is not a moral exercise of law. If you secure the rights of one group, but fail to protect the innocent, no matter where they may find themselves, you have failed to comply with the Divine duty of law.
There is the issue of Democracy. Many will argue that the state has to represent the wishes of its constituency. The Church teaches that this is not so. The constituency can be wrong, as we have seen on the issue of abortion. The state exists to represent Truth as it has been revealed. Again, in Evangelium Vitae, Section 60-64, the Church states the democracy is not an end, but a means. The moral objective is the sanctity of every human life. Democracy is a means to protect the sanctity of every human life from conception to natural death. This includes the stages in between conception and death. We cannot allow government or anyone else, to take action against human beings that are contrary to the dignity of life. Sending someone to live in subhuman conditions is contrary to the dignity of life.
As Pope Benedict rightly says in Caritas in Veritate, the solution to this and other social problems calls for a new humanistic synthesis. We can’t just make laws that protect the interest of one side or another. Laws must protect the interests of humanity. Pope Benedict makes it very clear that “the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity” (seccs 23-25), not one group of people, nationals or immigrants. Solutions must be found that benefit everyone. Catholics have the right to demand that governments look for them.
One moral issue is the conditions that create the need to leave one’s homeland. Catholics must work with the political systems here and abroad to secure that human beings are given opportunities to work, study, receive proper medical care, practice the faith, own property and contribute to the common good
When government has millions of dollars to pay for abortions and contraception in foreign countries, but lacks funds to help its working poor, there is a serious moral problem. “The development of peoples depend above all on a recognition that the human race is a single family” Pope Benedict XVI). We have moral obligations to the entire human race, legal and illegal.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Stylites
Guest
I’m not sure if this sort of thinking could be a sin against charity or a sin against hope, or both.
.
M
mark_a
Guest
After re-reading some of your posts, I can’t figure out which side of the fence you are on.
S
Stylites
Guest
A fence divides. God laughs whenever two brothers draw a string across the land and proclaim: “This side is mine, that side is yours.” God laughs because He owns everything, and there’s nothing we own, certainly nothing we take with us to judgment except our past actions.
Our national fence needs a big gate through which people who seek honest work may come through with dignity and safety.
.
M
mark_a
Guest
Oh. I’m on your side.
Illegal immigration cannot be a mortal sin.
There is no church law that applies to crossing a border into another country.
At best there is a church law concerning following the just laws of the state.
However, violation of this does not constitute a mortal sin.
When looking at mortal sin, we are faced with 3 conditions, the first of these is the seriousness of the sin.
Directly tied to the seriousness of a state law is the seriousness with which it is enforced. In the case of illegal immigration, it is poorly enforced if it is enforced at all.
So how can violation of a law that is rarely enforced actually be considered serious?
Most of us violate the speed limit on a routine basis. This law as well is loosely enforced. Is it a motal sin to speed?
Now the consideration of taxes and the non-payment thereof.
So what? These are not specific to illegal immigration.
It is not possible to claim that illegal immigrants are all guilty of this therefore we cannot tie this sin directly to illegal immigration as a whole.
It is a red herring.
While one could argue that violation of the tax laws are more serious then violation of the border, it still doesn’t make a hill of beans difference of the sinfullness of illegally entering this country.
So what is the answer? Seal the border. Make it difficult to impossible to cross the border through anywhere but where we can legally process these immigrants.
Impose extreme punitive sanctions to employers that pay anyone without the proper taxation involved.
Maybe when this country acts like illegal alians are a serious problem could we call entering the country illegally a serious sin.
There is no church law that applies to crossing a border into another country.
At best there is a church law concerning following the just laws of the state.
However, violation of this does not constitute a mortal sin.
When looking at mortal sin, we are faced with 3 conditions, the first of these is the seriousness of the sin.
Directly tied to the seriousness of a state law is the seriousness with which it is enforced. In the case of illegal immigration, it is poorly enforced if it is enforced at all.
So how can violation of a law that is rarely enforced actually be considered serious?
Most of us violate the speed limit on a routine basis. This law as well is loosely enforced. Is it a motal sin to speed?
Now the consideration of taxes and the non-payment thereof.
So what? These are not specific to illegal immigration.
It is not possible to claim that illegal immigrants are all guilty of this therefore we cannot tie this sin directly to illegal immigration as a whole.
It is a red herring.
While one could argue that violation of the tax laws are more serious then violation of the border, it still doesn’t make a hill of beans difference of the sinfullness of illegally entering this country.
So what is the answer? Seal the border. Make it difficult to impossible to cross the border through anywhere but where we can legally process these immigrants.
Impose extreme punitive sanctions to employers that pay anyone without the proper taxation involved.
Maybe when this country acts like illegal alians are a serious problem could we call entering the country illegally a serious sin.
H
HollyMustardSee
Guest
since when is caring about your current economic state and that of your neighbor (that is NOT here illegally) against charity of your neighbor? I need to provide for my family, and if my job is going to be outsourced, I have a right to my job!
There need to be limits, and that is what immigration laws are designed to do.
And now with the Gulf Coast oil spill, there are PLENTY of AMERICANS needing help
RIGHT HERE !
There need to be limits, and that is what immigration laws are designed to do.
And now with the Gulf Coast oil spill, there are PLENTY of AMERICANS needing help
RIGHT HERE !
S
Stylites
Guest
I looked real hard at our laws and the Constitution, but didn’t find a ‘right to a job.’ While everyone has an obligation to provide for their families, a diet of peace and hope sustains better than angst and hopelessness.
The point here is that current immigration limits are unrealistic and unfair. If 100 hungry people want to come to work here and if they all have a choice of jumping through 30 legal hoops or 1 misdemeanor hoop, I don’t fault the 99 who choose to jump through the 1 hoop, I fault the the politicians for making unrealistic and unjust laws.
.
G
GratefulFred
Guest
To understand “migration,” “immigration,” and “illegal immigration” we FIRST need to understand “motivation.” Then “money.”
For as long as we have been growing crops in the West, there has been a constant need for seasonal workers who follow the harvest schedule but are not needed after or before the harvest.
Most human beings will take a job that pays better than the job they currently have or do not have. So Latinos come to America because the jobs here pay better than the jobs or non-jobs they have at home.
Over the decades, the migration for a better job has expanded to construction, hotels, and restaurants, food processing plants, and other places. None of this work is “easy.” Extremely few pay what we Americans would call a “living wage.” Extremely few illegal immigrants were living large in America.
I am not sure, but I believe that current laws DO REQUIRE employers to withhold and pay payroll taxes to the government. False Social Security numbers are rampant. And we all pay sales tax and protery tax is included in our rent. But I also think that illegals do not file annual tax returns and cannot get Social Security.
One is “illegal” ONLY BECAUSE some law limits the number of “legals.” America has chosen, through its elected officials, to create this condition we all dislike. We absolutely need a workable “guest worker” program.
But we need to realize that if we do create a guest worker program then perhaps a whole host of worker protection laws would kick in. That means more would be spent on labor and the cost of goods sold to us would go up.
IF “illegals” were SIGNIFICANTLY preventing Americans from getting employment, it seems to me that there would be more stories in the Media. Unions love to organize and fight for workers.
So there is a need. AND powerful people are making money from the currently setup that will not change until enough Americans write their Congressmen and Senators.
Let us complain about te POWERFUL who exploit and not kick the illegal trying to provide for his family.
Happy 4th of July to all. Freedom and Justice to all.
For as long as we have been growing crops in the West, there has been a constant need for seasonal workers who follow the harvest schedule but are not needed after or before the harvest.
Most human beings will take a job that pays better than the job they currently have or do not have. So Latinos come to America because the jobs here pay better than the jobs or non-jobs they have at home.
Over the decades, the migration for a better job has expanded to construction, hotels, and restaurants, food processing plants, and other places. None of this work is “easy.” Extremely few pay what we Americans would call a “living wage.” Extremely few illegal immigrants were living large in America.
I am not sure, but I believe that current laws DO REQUIRE employers to withhold and pay payroll taxes to the government. False Social Security numbers are rampant. And we all pay sales tax and protery tax is included in our rent. But I also think that illegals do not file annual tax returns and cannot get Social Security.
One is “illegal” ONLY BECAUSE some law limits the number of “legals.” America has chosen, through its elected officials, to create this condition we all dislike. We absolutely need a workable “guest worker” program.
But we need to realize that if we do create a guest worker program then perhaps a whole host of worker protection laws would kick in. That means more would be spent on labor and the cost of goods sold to us would go up.
IF “illegals” were SIGNIFICANTLY preventing Americans from getting employment, it seems to me that there would be more stories in the Media. Unions love to organize and fight for workers.
So there is a need. AND powerful people are making money from the currently setup that will not change until enough Americans write their Congressmen and Senators.
Let us complain about te POWERFUL who exploit and not kick the illegal trying to provide for his family.
Happy 4th of July to all. Freedom and Justice to all.
P
pnewton
Guest
And the immorality of the law is revealed because the limits apply to the poor and unskilled. Professionals are allowed to immigrate freely. We must not forget what God says he has in store for those who despise His poor.
P
pnewton
Guest
That has always been my preference. I will add that the gate needs print scanners to screen people quickly and safely. If we screen at airports, we can do it at border crossings where it is more critical.
G
Geremia
Guest
I don’t think we are saying any particular person is in a state of mortal sin but that immigrating illegally is a risk to one’s soul, and these people deserve charity.
Deporting an illegal alien is never compassionate?
G
Geremia
Guest
I don’t think we are saying any particular person is in a state of mortal sin but that immigrating illegally is a risk to one’s soul, and these people deserve charity.
Deporting an illegal alien is never compassionate? If harboring criminal tendencies—as one does when in a country illegally—is harmful to the soul, regardless whether it leads to a venial or mortal sin, then is it not charitable to deport these people deserve so they are no longer breaking the law?
G
Geremia
Guest
So economic benefits are more important than the needs of souls?
G
Geremia
Guest
Not all the people who are anti-illegal-immigration are anti-immigration. I, e.g., am not. I think that the reason there is not more legal immigration is because of some politicians’ involvement in and gain from the drug trade.
S
Stylites
Guest
Kindly read JReducation’s post #45. In it, you will learn that there is no sin, venal or otherwise, in illegal immigration. If this issue of misdemeanor border-crossing by some members of the body of Christ is much more important to you than the Gospel, then good luck with your Pharisee Crusade.
.
- Status