Illegal Immigration and Morality

[Contarini]

Just when I think I’m out, they pull me back in. OK, my friend, here we go.

Per Contarini: “I said that Pope Leo never mentioned social welfare. You did not prove me wrong.”

I never said he did use that term; he did not, so why do I have to prove he did? I don’t even know if the term “social welfare” existed in 1899. Come on, my friend. Quit playing games. Why do you keep alleging that I said something; just quote me and stop the games. You don’t quote me because you can’t. That’s been your M.O. all along.

I’m not playing games. I’m trying desperately to understand what our disagreement is. It clearly has something to do with what you think Pope Leo did and did not condemn. You seem to think he condemned some kind of “Leftist” view of social welfare.

However, you’re right that I should take the trouble to look back at your earlier posts to check that I’m getting you right–I was sloppy and I apologize.

Again, neither I nor Fr. HardonI ever said the pope did.

You’re right. I apologize. I should have looked back at your post 174 instead of paraphrasing from memory. What you said there to which I had the right to object was that the Pope was “condemning my brand of Leftist ideology.” I should have asked you to clarify just what you find “leftist” in the views condemned by Pope Leo and how they correspond to my views. Since you have never explained in what way my supposed “leftism” contradicts Catholic doctrine, you didn’t give me a lot to go on. So I assumed that you thought he condemned some supposedly “leftist” view of social welfare which you find me defending. But I should have asked instead of assuming.

If you didn’t mean what I thought you meant, what on earth did you mean?

I have never, once, in this whole discussion suggested that the Catholic Church should change its teaching on immigration. On the contrary, I am defending your own bishops, who themselves are interpreting the teaching of the Universal Church and have not been corrected by the Vatican for any misinterpretations of that teaching.

You never said Fr. Harden was wrong, just biased and inaccurate?

Of course he’s biased, everyone is. He may have had biases that caused him to use that particular phrase and not other equally accurate ones. In a brief reference work you have to choose carefully, and your biases will always influence your choices. That’s why it’s good to read primary sources and to read multiple secondary sources from multiple perspectives.

But as for saying he is inaccurate–perhaps you need to take on board your own words earlier about the importance of quoting the other person exactly!

I said that if properly understood what he said was not inaccurate.

You originally said that Pope Leo was condemning “leftist” ideology. You seemed to be basing this on Fr. Hardon’s use of the phrase “social welfare.”

Fr. Hardon’s description is necessarily general. Perhaps you can flesh out a little more exactly how you are getting from Fr. Hardon’s account of Americanism to Pope Leo condemning “my leftist ideology” as you claimed in post 174.

And I most certainly, positively did not “misinterpret” Fr. Hardon–I quoted him verbatim and in total.

I am baffled by why you think quoting someone verbatim is a safeguard against misinterpreting him.

You said that the Pope condemned “my leftist ideology.” You have yet to explain what this means or how it is supported by the evidence.

Here’s my paraphrase of what I think you are saying:

Pope Leo was criticizing an American emphasis on social welfare that led to a distortion of Catholicism. Modern liberal Catholics fall under this condemnation, because they distort Catholicism in service of their leftist agenda. Modern conservative Catholics, however, do not do this and thus are not “Americanists” of the kind condemned by Pope Leo.

Now if I’m wrong in this summary, please tell me how. Don’t get mad and fulminate about my misunderstanding, just tell me what it is you really are arguing.

If you are not denying that modern “conservative” Catholics may be Americanists insofar as they also distort Catholic teaching due to their nationalism, then I’m not sure what we are arguing about.

If your citation of Fr. Hardon on social welfare was not intended to imply that only political liberals can be “Americanists” because only they distort Catholic teaching in the interests of promoting “social welfare,” then again, I am not sure what you were saying and how it was furthering the discussion.

I’m not trying to distort you. I’m trying to respond to you substantively. Please help me out here.

My argument, yet again, was that insofar as “conservative” American Catholics quite frankly put their nationalism ahead of or equal to their Catholicism, this distorts their approach to issues such as immigration (by making national interest more important, and the needs of the immigrants less important, than Catholic teaching does) and thus constitutes “Americanism” of the kind condemned by Pope Leo. And I brought this up only to refute your original claim that I’m getting my idea of Catholicism from “a few dissidents” and am siding with “Amchurch” against authentic Catholic teaching (post 150).

The irony of being accused of supporting “Amchurch” when in fact I was criticising a subordination of Catholic teaching to American ideology caused me to invoke Pope Leo.

I wish to point out, in closing, that in all these many posts you have yet to point out one single particle of my position that is opposed to “authentic” Catholic teaching.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

cmforte:

Only as a political document.

Well, as our friend KSU would say, we clearly are defining terms differently.

What exactly do you mean by “political”? If I were to say that something was only political, I would be saying that it was produced purely by human beings for this-worldly purposes.

How can something be divinely inspired only as a political document? Because it only refers to life in this world? But is it possible to have a document that gives a divinely inspired perspective to life in this world without relating it to the world to come? Is it possible to view this world aright except in the perspective of eternity? If the Constitution doesn’t take eternity into account, then I don’t see how it can be divinely inspired. If it does, then it isn’t a purely political document.

*I don’t believe that. I never said that the Catholic Church in America should “be freer to be itself,” if that is a negative thing, I need to know the context. What did they mean by “freer” and “itself”? I said the exact oppposite. *

That was my language. They appeared to be saying that because of democracy American Catholicism could focus on the “active” virtues and not just the “passive” virtues, and that this was superior to more traditional forms of Catholicism. In other words, that American democracy did not place Catholicism under the same constraints as the defective European forms of political and social life did. I don’t see how you can avoid saying this given what you and the articles to which you linked have said about American exceptionalism, particularly in terms of political structures.

If there were a divinely inspired political system, wouldn’t that be the ideal home for the Church? Wouldn’t the Church be able to function more freely and thus to look more like the eschatological ideal than it did elsewhere?

It seems to me that you can only avoid this conclusion by arguing that Church and state have absolutely nothing to do with each other. And I don’t see how even an American can argue that.

Obviously the very separation of Church and state found in America affects the Church in some fairly major ways.

*I did read it. I never said that Americanism is superior to traditional Catholicism. I said the exact opposite. *

So you think that God’s purposes for the state have nothing to do with His purposes for the Church? God can inspire a political system that results in a local expression of the Church that is no better than–or even worse than–the local expressions found elsewhere? I just don’t get this.

To me, the defects of American Catholicism seem to follow exactly from the defects of American society generally, just as its virtues follow from the virtues of American society generally. How can you avoid this conclusion? You seem to think that the present defects of American society follow from a misunderstanding or failure to follow the original principles. If so, then wouldn’t it follow that if America returned to its “true” principles the American Church would likewise be reformed and purified? And does it not then follow that an American Church in an America that truly followed the Constitution (as you understand it) would be the ideal form of the Church, free from its present defects, which match the defects in society generally and thus must (like them) follow from a failure to conform to genuine American principles?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

How is this? Yes, I have “unconditional loyalty” to my nation, but not to all the specific policies of its government.

Good point. However, I was not speaking of specific policies but of fundamental ideological principles as you understand them.

My problem with your position is your assumption that to be “loyal to your nation” you must accept without questioning that its fundamental legal principles are correct. I don’t know how this position deals with the fact of Constitutional amendment. (Not saying that you can’t deal with it, only that I’m not sure how you do.)

When my government passes laws or acts in a way I don’t like, I can’t just give up my citizenship and move to another country. I am an American. I must use the American legal and democratic system and institutions to remedy the situation.

*That’s certainly a wholly legitimate option, but why “must”?

People have emigrated before now. I’m not saying you should–I would agree that one should only do this as an absolute last resort, if actually driven from one’s home. But it’s not impossible.

It is also possible to remain within the country and fight for it by trying to overthrow the present system by force. I am very uneasy about this option, but I’m not sure I can condemn Bonhoeffer for his involvement in the plot to kill Hitler, so I suppose I have to accept that violent revolution might be acceptable. And you really have to, it seems to me, since the United States was founded through violent revolution against the colonial order (admittedly the Revolution was complicated and could in part be justified in terms of defense of the colonies’ traditional rights–but I think it pretty clearly went beyond that).

It is also possible to remain within the country and use nonviolent but non-legal means to change the present system. Operation Rescue would be a contemporary example.

And finally, it is possible to use purely spiritual means–praying for the repentance of the nation while abstaining from any direct attempt to change its polity by human action.

Obviously the choice among these options, or between any of them and normal democratic political activity, is a difficult one and will depend both on one’s theology (whether one is a pacifist, for instance) and on the perceived gravity of the situation. A government passing a law you don’t like obviously isn’t cause for violence or emigration, or perhaps even civil disobedience. But the Supreme Court giving mothers a right to murder their children in the womb? Pretty serious stuff. More than just “a law you don’t like.”

All I’m saying is that one can’t say unconditionally that one will accept the legal/political system and work only within it. There are some societies (Nazi Germany being the obvious example) to which that would probably not be the best approach.

*You seem to think when one disagrees with their government they can say something like, “Forget the USA!! I’m going to become a Canadian!!!” *

No, I don’t think that at all, and I see nothing in my post that in any way implied this. There are circumstances that would justify emigration, but obviously mere disagreement wouldn’t. In fact, I would go farther–I think that one should not lightly leave the town or even neighborhood in which one finds oneself, and one certainly shouldn’t church-hop, even among parishes. I had a professor in college who described asking the elders of the church he attended in grad school (it was a Presbyterian church, as it happens) for permission to leave the congregation and accept a job offer. He said that they were rather shocked at such a request, since it hadn’t occurred to them that this shouldn’t be a purely individual decision. . . .

As if you haven’t noticed, the Catholic Church isn’t exactly perfect either, but you’re not infering to me to stop having “unconditional loyalty” to it.

Indeed. My claim is not that one shouldn’t have unconditional loyalty to any community, but that one should have loyalty to the founding principles only of the Church, because only the Church is founded on divine revelation. Loyalty in general is a very, very good thing and we need a lot more of it in our society. And unconditional loyalty is a great virtue if that loyalty is to a place or a community of people–but unconditional loyalty to any merely human ideology is a deadly thing. That’s the distinction I’m trying to push you to make.

*You may have a point here. If I was alive during the time of Pope Leo, I probably wouldn’t be Catholic. Anything that is opposed to democracy and to American nationalism is something I don’t want to be a part of. *

And that is why I brought this issue up.

Although, to be honest, I’d have had trouble being a Catholic in some previous eras too–that’s been in the past one of the reasons preventing me from converting. Of course, that’s probably anachronistic, since I’m looking back with eyes shaped by later developments. . . .

Both Pope Leo and Obama don’t understand what true American Exceptionalism is. It doesn’t mean we are the same as other countrues, we are not. Just as I don’t believe in religious relativism, I don’t believe in national relativism.

But it seems to me that if you make that parallel, you are making the nation a kind of religion. Maybe we should discuss what “religion” is. . . . .

Furthermore, I still see you being a bit inconsistent on the question of whether citizens of other (“less favored”) nations ought to have the same kind of loyalty. If you think they should, then you are a kind of relativist, surely. If you don’t, then you can’t defend your version of nationalism in terms of a general duty to love one’s country, as you seem to have been doing in this discussion!

Edwin

 

[KSU]

Per Contarini:
QUOTE Here’s my paraphrase of what I think you [KSU] are saying:
Pope Leo was criticizing an American emphasis on social welfare that led to a distortion of Catholicism. Modern liberal Catholics fall under this condemnation, because they distort Catholicism in service of their leftist agenda. Modern conservative Catholics, however, do not do this and thus are not “Americanists” of the kind condemned by Pope Leo. END QUOTE

First, my friend (and you are my friend because God loves you, and that’s good enough for me), you just got through agreeing in #245 that you should have been quoting me as I asked, rather than assuming what I meant. Nevertheless, the next thing you do is paraphrase what you “think” I meant (see above quote).

You say: “I’m trying desperately to understand what our disagreement is.”

What I am disagreeing about with you, Contarini, already is stated in my posts at 174, 199 and 209. You refuse to acknowledge that the heresy some call “Americanism” condemned by Leo XIII had to do with progressive/Leftist/liberal (choose whichever term you want) clergy who wanted the Church to ignore or abandon some of its doctrine in order to better serve the poor, i.e., become more like a secular, progressive social reform agency. Thus Fr. John Hardon’s perfectly accurate and appropriate mention of “social welfare and democratic equality” in that context. And you know full well Leo was not condemning social welfare.

My friend, Contarini, Father John A. Hardon, S.J., and Servant of God, (1914-2000) was one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of our time. In his spare time he was an author, speaker, retreat master, and consultor for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He is being considered for canonization. Please, forgive me, Contarini, but you show your ignorance of my Church and “Americanism” when you claim Fr. Hardon was biased against the left, and inaccurate in definition of “Americanism.” Had you researched Fr. Isaac Hecker, referred to by Leo XIII, as I requested, I would not have to be working my hunt and peck finger to the bone.

You say: “My [Contarini’s] argument, yet again, was that insofar as ‘conservative’ American Catholics quite frankly put their nationalism ahead of or equal to their Catholicism, this distorts their approach to issues such as immigration (by making national interest more important, and the needs of the immigrants less important, than Catholic teaching does) and thus constitutes “Americanism” of the kind condemned by Pope Leo.”

That’s right, Contarini, the operative words being “insofar as”. I agree, if the right had been advocating what the left advocated, of course Leo would have condemned it. Now, isn’t that just silly?

 

[Contarini]

First, my friend (and you are my friend because God loves you, and that’s good enough for me), you just got through agreeing in #245 that you should have been quoting me as I asked, rather than assuming what I meant. Nevertheless, the next thing you do is paraphrase what you “think” I meant (see above quote).

No, I said that I should have checked more carefully to make sure I wasn’t misrepresenting you. We need to paraphrase each other so that we can correct each other when we misunderstand each other! And I’m going to keep on doing this. I respectfully asked you to tell me if I was misrepresenting you. Please do so. Otherwise we cannot have much of a conversation.

The reason you keep saying that we can’t communicate is that you don’t have a very effective methodology for doing so. When we have different assumptions, we need to paraphrase each other and give the other person the chance to correct any misunderstandings. Otherwise we will just keep talking past each other. You are way too confident in the value of direct quotation. We need to interpret or we will never get anywhere.

What I am disagreeing about with you, Contarini, already is stated in my posts at 174, 199 and 209. You refuse to acknowledge that the heresy some call “Americanism” condemned by Leo XIII had to do with progressive/Leftist/liberal (choose whichever term you want) clergy

What I refuse to acknowledge is that Leo in that letter is condemning anything that has anything to do with any position I have upheld. If you think he is, you need to post the specific thing I said that falls under his condemnation, and the passage from Testem Benevolentiae that condemns it (secondary citations aren’t good enough).

Otherwise you owe me an apology for your claim that Leo condemned “my leftist ideology.”

It’s as simple as that.

On the other hand, I can show a similarity between the position criticized by Leo and the position upheld by cmforte.

and inaccurate in definition of “Americanism.”

Since I have specifically said that he was not inaccurate, you are again falling into the same failing for which you have reproached me. I am not sure how often I have to say something before you will stop saying exactly the opposite.

I think that what you are getting from him is a bit skewed–you are using him to support your claim that Leo was condemning “leftism” and to “refute” my claim about what Leo was condemning. But he doesn’t in fact contradict anything I have said.

Had you researched Fr. Isaac Hecker, referred to by Leo XIII, as I requested, I would not have to be working my hunt and peck finger to the bone.

I know something about Fr. Hecker–I took a seminar on American religious thought in grad school. I don’t claim to know a great deal about him. But since it appears (see the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Hecker) that Hecker probably wasn’t guilty of the errors condemned by Leo, Hecker really isn’t the point. Leo’s letter condemns certain tendencies that he worries about–while Hecker’s work was the occasion for the letter, he never claims that Fr. Hecker actually falls into these errors.

I am not sure what your point is about Hecker. Suppose, again, that you descend to specifics. That would be really helpful. Instead of saying “go research Fr. Hecker,” say, “Fr. Hecker believed this; you also seem to believe this; Pope Leo condemned this.”

You began this whole unpleasant exchange by belligerently and rudely accusing me of “misunderstanding” Catholicism. Yet you have not substantiated it.

That’s right, Contarini, the operative words being “insofar as”. I agree, if the right had been advocating what the left advocated, of course Leo would have condemned it. Now, isn’t that just silly?

Yes, your persistent use of the terms “right” and “left” is pretty silly.

The only way you can substantiate your argument is to name a specific position that I have upheld which falls under Pope Leo’s condemnation.

I have named a specific position you and cmforte have upheld–that American political structures are uniquely good in such a manner that they can be called “divinely inspired.” I have shown (and cmforte has admitted) that Pope Leo allows for “American exceptionalism” in the sense maintained by Obama and criticized by “conservatives.”

You have yet to make similarly specific arguments, which makes your entire argument empty.

Edwin

 

[KSU]

Contarini, in #210 you said, “Note that I’m not denying that the opinions of many ‘liberal’ American Catholics do fall into ‘Americanism’”, but now you say I owe you “an apology for your claim that Leo condemned ‘my leftist ideology’.”

My claim, Contarini, is to counter your preposterous claims that when Pope Leo XIII condemned “Americanism” he was condemning the “belief that the Constitution was in some way divinely inspired [and amounted] to an exaltation of modern liberal democracy (particularly as exemplified in America)”.
cmforte had put it well, “…they are both exceptional…one is an Exceptional nation, the other is an Exceptional Church. It’s not one or the other, or America over Catholicism.” But you replied, “And that is in fact the Americanism Leo attacked”. Perhaps you don’t understand how insulting that liberal position is to orthodox Catholics and lovers of traditional American values–the Pope condemned us!! Really, Contarini?

Perhaps you likewise don’t realize how some of the ideology of liberal American Catholics mirrors yours. Here are a few more of your statements in this thread:
—“The debate on this thread exists largely because the Catholic bishops clearly take a ‘liberal’ position on immigration–a fact that KSU and cmforte very badly want to explain away.” This fellow says it better than I can, viz: frontporchrepublic.com/2011/08/citizenship-localism-and-catholicism/
—“There are numerous points where Catholic social teaching clashes head-on with right-wing American politics. There is a concerted movement by ‘conservative’ Catholics these days to obscure and trivialize this conflict, making Catholics passive puppets of the Republican Party.”
—“Of course the government should provide first for its own citizens, but not in ways that involve callousness and cruelty toward others.” Only a liberal would say that about American law.
—“If you separate government’s job from the [liberal concept of] Christian duty of individuals and the Church, you make government a demonic beast.” and “Unfortunately, many ‘conservative’ Catholics are locked into patterns of interaction with government that were the product of Christendom’s defeat in the Reformation.”
—Your belief that St. Thomas More died for a kind of Catholic “globalism”. That smacks of something out of the Catholic Worker. Why not just say, “The pope over the King.”
—"“American [liberal] Catholics have contributed a great deal to help the Church as a whole think through these issues.” Golly gee, thanks, liberal Catholics. The Call To Action, Dignity and Pax Christi certainly have been a great help to the Church.
—"…one would think that an undocumented migrant worker living within the borders of the U.S. was part of the ‘nation’ called the United States".
—“None of that affects the more basic point that the ideology of those opposing ‘amnesty’ is contrary to orthodox Christianity and to natural law.”
—“the principal rival of Christianity in the United States… is ideological American nationalism or ‘American exceptionalism’”.
—“Your position (which is shared by many Americans, I know) seems to presuppose a kind of nationalistic Pelagianism–a belief in the fundamental innocence of America, so that what becomes demonic and destructive in other, more sinful nations is OK for Americans”.
—“I question the Whig propaganda you accept.”
—“Let’s discuss the fact that your own bishops have said that current immigration law is unjust. Let’s see whether you actually have any reason to disagree with your bishops beyond your political prejudices.” Again, I recommend frontporchrepublic.com/2011/08/citizenship-localism-and-catholicism/
—“In short, Leo agrees with President Obama that Americans may believe in ‘exceptionalism’ only in the same way that members of other nations legitimately do. This is the position mocked and denigrated by the so-called conservatives’ who promote ‘American exceptionalism’.”
—“Maybe in the 80s it was true that liberal media dominated. It certainly isn’t true today…I do, by the way, listen to MSNBC from time to time, and I find them less stomach-churningly smarmy than Fox.”
—“I brought up Pope Leo simply to point out that when I worry about American nationalism’s effect on Christianity, I’m not saying anything new or ‘leftist’ but am echoing the concerns of a 19th-century Pope.”

Again, Contarini, you are echoing no such thing. Pope Leo was not attacking America, American exceptionalism or the Founding Fathers’ vision of America. In fact, he was condemning a small band of “Americanist” clergy; a liberal ideology which claimed that the Catholic Church should ignore or change its doctrines (its very reason for being) in order to emphasize social welfare and democratic equality for the disadvantaged. Fr. Hardon got it right, and you would be wise not to hold your breath for me to apologize for what you have shown to be your ideology.

Wikipedia: “More relevant to this controversy, Pope Leo XIII expressed concerns about the liberalism of some American Catholics: he pointed out that the faithful could not decide doctrine for themselves (see Cafeteria Catholic). He also emphasized that Catholics should obey the magisterial teaching authority of the Church, which, according to Catholic doctrine, is infallible in matters of faith and morals. In general, he deemed exposing children to public schools as something to be avoided when possible.”

 

[tomarin]

Edwin, the debate on this thread has gotten me to wondering whether you think there is any meaningful, qualitative difference between patriotism and nationalism? Or are they one and the same?

 

[Ender]

Edwin, the debate on this thread has gotten me to wondering whether you think there is any meaningful, qualitative difference between patriotism and nationalism?

Given that the debate in this thread is supposed to be about illegal immigration and morality, I’m wondering if the debate will ever get back on topic.
Ender

 

[tomarin]

Given that the debate in this thread is supposed to be about illegal immigration and morality, I’m wondering if the debate will ever get back on topic.
Ender

Sorry, my bad.

 

[Ender]

Sorry, my bad.

No at all; this has very little to do with what you posted.

Ender

 

[tomarin]

No at all; this has very little to do with what you posted.

Ender

The discussions that I find most interesting are usually tangential.

 

[KSU]

Ender, the OP’s question, “Is it morally OK for a Catholic to be against Illegal Immigration?”, was answered long ago in this thread: No, of course it’s not immoral unless the opposition to illegal immigration is based on an immoral reason, e.g., hating immigrants.

Opposition to illegal immigration in itself is not in any way immoral. An exclamation point was added to that by a quote from Pope JP II, “Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants.”, and by quoting the USCCB’s official FAQ.
See post #84.

The current debate in this thread is between those who want to ignore/confuse* the above and those (me, for example) who will not let them get away with it and therefore defend what the pope and bishops officially say (as well as what the Catechism says).

• E.G., Contarini: “There are numerous points where Catholic social teaching clashes head-on with right-wing American politics. There is a concerted movement by ‘conservative’ Catholics these days to obscure and trivialize this conflict, making Catholics passive puppets of the Republican Party.” and
  “The debate on this thread exists largely because the Catholic bishops clearly take a ‘liberal’ position on immigration–a fact that KSU and cmforte very badly want to explain away.” and
  “Let’s discuss the fact that your own bishops have said that current immigration law is unjust. Let’s see whether you actually have any reason to disagree with your bishops beyond your political prejudices.”

 

[tomarin]

Ender, the OP’s question, “Is it morally OK for a Catholic to be against Illegal Immigration?”, was answered long ago in this thread: No, of course it’s not immoral unless the opposition to illegal immigration is based on an immoral reason, e.g., hating immigrants.

Opposition to illegal immigration in itself is not in any way immoral. An exclamation point was added to that by a quote from Pope JP II, “Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants.”, and by quoting the USCCB’s official FAQ.
See post #84.

The current debate in this thread is between those who want to ignore/confuse* the above and those (me, for example) who will not let them get away with it and therefore defend what the pope and bishops officially say (as well as what the Catechism says).

• E.G., Contarini: “There are numerous points where Catholic social teaching clashes head-on with right-wing American politics. There is a concerted movement by ‘conservative’ Catholics these days to obscure and trivialize this conflict, making Catholics passive puppets of the Republican Party.” and
  “The debate on this thread exists largely because the Catholic bishops clearly take a ‘liberal’ position on immigration–a fact that KSU and cmforte very badly want to explain away.” and
  “Let’s discuss the fact that your own bishops have said that current immigration law is unjust. Let’s see whether you actually have any reason to disagree with your bishops beyond your political prejudices.”

In order to win the argument though you have to deal somehow with the fact that our bishops seem to be pro-illegal immigrant. Ender has done so but in a way that I find confusing because to me, based on what I know about Jesus from the New Testament, it seems to me they are engaging in authentic Christian witness (though I can also easily imagine how their analysis of the situation could be flawed or naive).

 

[KSU]

tomarin, I don’t know anyone who is not “pro-illegal immigrant” in the humanitarian sense. But OFFICIALY the bishops can’t go beyond that–and they don’t. Can you please quote the bishops saying that it would be unjust to oppose open boarders or amnesty without conditions we all would accept?

I’ll bet you can’t. And that’s what this current debate is about.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KSU,

In truth neither major political party has a hold on the Catholic Church. Genuine Catholic Social Teaching is totally congruent with Genuine Catholic Moral Teaching - so it seems that neither Democrates or Republicans have caught the significance of all life having value and on-going wars and torture are immoral.

It is my understanding the imputing motives to another poster is a violation of forum rules.

Maybe you would like to discuss your own view instead of the views of others as you have just demonstrated.

God bless

• E.G., Contarini: “There are numerous points where Catholic social teaching clashes head-on with right-wing American politics. There is a concerted movement by ‘conservative’ Catholics these days to obscure and trivialize this conflict, making Catholics passive puppets of the Republican Party.” and
  “The debate on this thread exists largely because the Catholic bishops clearly take a ‘liberal’ position on immigration–a fact that KSU and cmforte very badly want to explain away.” and
  “Let’s discuss the fact that your own bishops have said that current immigration law is unjust. Let’s see whether you actually have any reason to disagree with your bishops beyond your political prejudices.”

 

[tomarin]

tomarin, I don’t know anyone who is not “pro-illegal immigrant” in the humanitarian sense. But OFFICIALY the bishops can’t go beyond that–and they don’t. Can you please quote the bishops saying that it would be unjust to oppose open boarders or amnesty without conditions we all would accept?

I’ll bet you can’t. And that’s what this current debate is about.

Really? Why are their views so controversial among the good folks who post at these forums then?

 

[tomarin]

tomarin, I don’t know anyone who is not “pro-illegal immigrant” in the humanitarian sense. But OFFICIALY the bishops can’t go beyond that–and they don’t. Can you please quote the bishops saying that it would be unjust to oppose open boarders or amnesty without conditions we all would accept?

I’ll bet you can’t. And that’s what this current debate is about.

What’s the difference by the way between being pro-illegal immigrant in the humanitarian sense and being pro-illegal immigrant in the Christian sense? And I ask this as someone who is very dubious about the practicality of the pro-immigration stance.

 

[KSU]

“Really? Why are their views so controversial among the good folks who post at these forums then?”

Because, tomrin, some folks on this forum don’t know that the USCCB has no authority to bind anyone with what it says (individual bishops do, but only for their own diocese and only if the statement comports with Church teaching). And some don’t know that often the bishops as a group don’t authorize a statement-- statements have been written by liberal staff members and published by a committee. More than one statement has been written by Sister Snakebite or Fr. Twinkletoes with an ax to grind. Bishops have a right to support any cockamamie view they want to; they are Americans with the same political rights as you. But see below.

“What’s the difference by the way between being pro-illegal immigrant in the humanitarian sense and being pro-illegal immigrant in the Christian sense?”

tomrin, I don’t know what is meant by “Christian sense” anymore than you do. It can be given any meaning anyone wants to give it. But the difference between being pro-illegal immigrant in the humanitarian sense and being pro-illegal immigrant in the Roman Catholic sense is vast. The Roman Catholic sense is what the Church (the Pope or some official authorized to speak for him) teaches as truths which you and I MUST accept (i.e., “doctrine”). If anyone tells you that you must support illegal immigration just as much as all other Church doctrine, politely ignore him–just as I ignore some posts in this thread.

Again, tomrin, the bishops are never going to exceed their authority by telling you that support of illegal immigration is necessary; they never have and never will.

 

[pnewton]

More than one statement has been written by Sister Snakebite or Fr. Twinkletoes with an ax to grind.

:bigyikes: WOW! An axe to grind, you say?

 

[tomarin]

“Really? Why are their views so controversial among the good folks who post at these forums then?”

Because, tomrin, some folks on this forum don’t know that the USCCB has no authority to bind anyone with what it says (individual bishops do, but only for their own diocese and only if the statement comports with Church teaching). And some don’t know that often the bishops as a group don’t authorize a statement-- statements have been written by liberal staff members and published by a committee. More than one statement has been written by Sister Snakebite or Fr. Twinkletoes with an ax to grind. Bishops have a right to support any cockamamie view they want to; they are Americans with the same political rights as you. But see below.

“What’s the difference by the way between being pro-illegal immigrant in the humanitarian sense and being pro-illegal immigrant in the Christian sense?”

tomrin, I don’t know what is meant by “Christian sense” anymore than you do. It can be given any meaning anyone wants to give it. But the difference between being pro-illegal immigrant in the humanitarian sense and being pro-illegal immigrant in the Roman Catholic sense is vast. The Roman Catholic sense is what the Church (the Pope or some official authorized to speak for him) teaches as truths which you and I MUST accept (i.e., “doctrine”). If anyone tells you that you must support illegal immigration just as much as all other Church doctrine, politely ignore him–just as I ignore some posts in this thread.

Again, tomrin, the bishops are never going to exceed their authority by telling you that support of illegal immigration is necessary; they never have and never will.

How is this any different from conservative cafeteria Catholicism? You want to emphasize what you like and downplay and marginalize whatever you don’t.

I would be much more impressed if you owned up to the fact that our bishops do seem to be in favor of soft treatment of illegals and then explained how they were wrong in light of Christian tradition and the gospels (which you have to admit, I hope had something to say about treating your neighbor as you would have them treat you) rather than simply pretending they don’t or that the inmates are running the asylum.

And by the way, it’s “Tomarin”.