Illegal Immigration and Morality

[KSU]

Re “tomrin”.

My bad, but is it “tomarin” as your posts are styled, or “Tomarin”, as in “And by the way, it’s ‘Tomarin’”?

Re “I would be much more impressed if…”

It’s not my intention to impress you. I thought you were being open and above board when you asked questions of me.

 

[KSU]

veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/a-short-history-of-the-usccb/

the-american-catholic.com/2010/02/06/the-many-scandals-of-the-usccb/

 

[tomarin]

Re “tomrin”.

My bad, but is it “tomarin” as your posts are styled, or “Tomarin”, as in “And by the way, it’s ‘Tomarin’”?

Re “I would be much more impressed if…”

It’s not my intention to impress you. I thought you were being open and above board when you asked questions of me.

It’s tomarin or Tomarin but not “tomrin.” Why do you think I’m not being above board? I simply disagree with your statement that the bishops have not and will not advocate in favor of illegal immigrants – I think there is abundant evidence to the contrary, and that you have to have your head in the sand not to see that. It’s why Ender has to dismiss their advocacy as “prudential judgement.”

 

[Ender]

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

There is no Catholic position on most issues so disagreement about how they may best be resolved is appropriate. Immigration is a good example of this. We may believe as we choose.

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.

The bishops in general do appear to favor soft treatment of illegals. Personal preferences on their part, however, do not translate into moral obligations on ours, and there is no basis for claiming that their position is more moral than anyone elses. We are told to treat our neighbors as ourselves but we are left to our own devices to determine what that means in practice. In this case our “neighbors” often have competing interests and if anything it is our countrymen who have the greater claim to our aid.

It’s why Ender has to dismiss their advocacy as “prudential judgement.”

It is prudential judgment; there is no Catholic position on the specific proposals related to immigration, and while I don’t simply dismiss the bishops’ comments, I recognize them for what they are: their personal belief about how this essentially political issue should be resolved.

Ender

 

[tomarin]

There is no Catholic position on most issues so disagreement about how they may best be resolved is appropriate. Immigration is a good example of this. We may believe as we choose.
The bishops in general do appear to favor soft treatment of illegals. Personal preferences on their part, however, do not translate into moral obligations on ours, and there is no basis for claiming that their position is more moral than anyone elses. We are told to treat our neighbors as ourselves but we are left to our own devices to determine what that means in practice. In this case our “neighbors” often have competing interests and if anything it is our countrymen who have the greater claim to our aid.

It is prudential judgment; there is no Catholic position on the specific proposals related to immigration, and while I don’t simply dismiss the bishops’ comments, I recognize them for what they are: their personal belief about how this essentially political issue should be resolved.

Ender

But if they are clearly teaching it is a moral issue how can you simply say that all the options are morally equivalent? (By the way, I am inclined to agree that the standard liberal prescriptions will probably bring about unintended and unwelcome consequences – nevertheless I believe the bishops are doing their duty to provide Christian moral leadership in light of the Gospels and Church tradition. You can’t expect Christian moral leadership to line up behind nationalist and/or conservative positions every time, right?)

 

[Ender]

But if they are clearly teaching it is a moral issue how can you simply say that all the options are morally equivalent?

I believe they are blurring the distinction between means and ends. It is appropriate for them to raise the problems sections of society face and call on government to address those problems. It is not appropriate, however, for them to imply that whatever specific means they think will solve the problems are moral obligations the rest of us have to accept. Finding the best solutions to social problems is no more a moral dilemma than finding the best route from one city to another. Your choices either work or they don’t.

(By the way, I am inclined to agree that the standard liberal prescriptions will probably bring about unintended and unwelcome consequences – nevertheless I believe the bishops are doing their duty to provide Christian moral leadership in light of the Gospels and Church tradition.

This is the point. The results of our actions are unrelated to the reasons we take them. I don’t doubt that the bishops sincerely want to solve immigration problems, but that concern doesn’t translate into knowledge about how to accomplish that goal. They are not (generally) providing moral leadership when they recommend specific actions and you will not find in any of their pronouncements a statement to the effect that “Proposal X is mandated by Church teaching.” They recognize that they are presenting their opinions. If you believe otherwise, give me an example.

You can’t expect Christian moral leadership to line up behind nationalist and/or conservative positions every time, right?)

It is a mistake to believe that the Church has any position whatever on most issues. Aside from positions that deal with intrinsic evil we are pretty much free to follow our own inclinations. If I don’t expect Church teaching to line up with conservative positions it is because the Church has no specific teaching on the right solutions to political issues like health care, immigration, welfare, and budget priorities.

Ender

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tomarin,

I really do not see the position of the USCCB declaring illegal immigration a matter of Catholic Morality - and an obligation to be believed. You appear to be giving their opinions more weight than they deserve. When they write (and getting every US Bishop on the same page is not a given) they are expressing their best opinion on a particular topic tht every Catholic should strongly consider. This opinion, however, does not bind the conscience.

The example was given by Ender about consideraton for our own citizens first before looking to the citizens of another country. If there is a claim being made, justice must be satisfied first and then we move to charity. If you go with charity first, you may not be able to fulfill the requirements of justice.

In my opinion, employers who deliberately advertise and then hire illegal immigrants are violating the requirement of justice to our citizens and at the same time breaking valid US Law. My understanding is that we are not allowed to do evil so that good can result from it. We delude ourselves with misplaced ‘social justice’ issues when we go about violating justice to others. If no one wants the job being offered to US workers, then this is a job for the US Government to modify the laws so that the needed work can be accomplished. Those ‘foolish’ people in foreign countries who are actually obeying the Law so they can arrive here legally are being pushed aside by the illegals coming into the country. This is certainly a violation against justice by those who break the Law.

There is on easy answer here - and, while the US Bishops have an idea, it is not the only idea out there that needs to be considered and eventually acted upon. Based on my reading of the USCCB statement, it really sounds like just another lobbying group for a special vested interest. On a similar topic, they do not want any foreign aid cut from the new budget - even though we have an unsustainable debt of $14+ trillion and our abilit to borrow has now been quetioned (Standard and Poors) in the open market. We can not claim to be a prosperous nation when we are borrowing everything just to make it day to day (or, debt ceiling to debt ceiling).

God bless

But if they are clearly teaching it is a moral issue how can you simply say that all the options are morally equivalent? (By the way, I am inclined to agree that the standard liberal prescriptions will probably bring about unintended and unwelcome consequences – nevertheless I believe the bishops are doing their duty to provide Christian moral leadership in light of the Gospels and Church tradition. You can’t expect Christian moral leadership to line up behind nationalist and/or conservative positions every time, right?)

 

[Ender]

The example was given by Ender about consideration for our own citizens first before looking to the citizens of another country.

I was citing Aquinas:

"Wherefore in matters pertaining to nature we should love our kindred most,* in matters concerning relations between citizens, we should prefer our fellow-citizens**, and on the battlefield our fellow-soldiers. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 2) that “it is our duty to render to each class of people such respect as is natural and appropriate.” *(ST, II-II 26,8 - The Order of Charity)

In my opinion …

And the point here is that whether I agree or disagree with your opinion, I have no basis on which to call it immoral. I may be justified in calling it wrong, but even if it is I am still not justified in calling it immoral. I generally don’t argue for or against specific proposals (whatever my comments may imply); what I attack is the idea that different solutions can be divided into moral and immoral categories. They cannot. Within reason all suggestions are simply amoral guesses which might be right or wrong but are not moral or immoral … even when supported or opposed by the clergy.

Ender

 

[tomarin]

I really do not see the position of the USCCB declaring illegal immigration a matter of Catholic Morality - and an obligation to be believed. You appear to be giving their opinions more weight than they deserve. When they write (and getting every US Bishop on the same page is not a given) they are expressing their best opinion on a particular topic tht every Catholic should strongly consider. This opinion, however, does not bind the conscience.

I’m not sure how that’s different from anything else they’ve ever published or said, really. I think we have the option of saying “the bishops are wrong here” but I object to you and Ender drawing “morality free zones” around certain issues because your method is arbitrary and what gives you that authority?

The example was given by Ender about consideraton for our own citizens first before looking to the citizens of another country. If there is a claim being made, justice must be satisfied first and then we move to charity. If you go with charity first, you may not be able to fulfill the requirements of justice.

But remember there’s a higher law than the laws of men.

In my opinion, employers who deliberately advertise and then hire illegal immigrants are violating the requirement of justice to our citizens and at the same time breaking valid US Law. My understanding is that we are not allowed to do evil so that good can result from it. We delude ourselves with misplaced ‘social justice’ issues when we go about violating justice to others. If no one wants the job being offered to US workers, then this is a job for the US Government to modify the laws so that the needed work can be accomplished. Those ‘foolish’ people in foreign countries who are actually obeying the Law so they can arrive here legally are being pushed aside by the illegals coming into the country. This is certainly a violation against justice by those who break the Law.

But the argument has been made here by Contarini that IF (and I agree it’s a big if) the immigration laws are unjust laws then not following them is not “doing evil to do good.”

There is on easy answer here - and, while the US Bishops have an idea, it is not the only idea out there that needs to be considered and eventually acted upon. Based on my reading of the USCCB statement, it really sounds like just another lobbying group for a special vested interest. On a similar topic, they do not want any foreign aid cut from the new budget - even though we have an unsustainable debt of $14+ trillion and our abilit to borrow has now been quetioned (Standard and Poors) in the open market. We can not claim to be a prosperous nation when we are borrowing everything just to make it day to day (or, debt ceiling to debt ceiling).

I tend to feel that foreign aid is a form of political blackmail but I imagine that the reason the bishops wish to preserve it is that they are concerned that the basic needs of the less fortunate need to be met, which is probably why they sound like a “special interest lobby” for illegal immigrants to you as well.

 

[Contarini]

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?

I regret the necessity of saying things that people find insulting, but I am not going to stop defending what I believe to be true just because someone is insulted by it. Nor is your feeling of being insulted an argument against what I’m saying.

Nothing you have said has logically countered my claim. You have still not shown in what way Pope Leo was condemning anything I have said. Your argument appears to be

1. Pope Leo condemned “leftist ideology”
2. Contarini maintains “leftist ideology”
3. Therefore Pope Leo condemned Contarini’s views.
   (As always, I beseech you to tell me how I am misinterpreting you, if I am, and to explain what your argument actually is.)

But of course, to sustain this argument you have to show that “leftist ideology” means the same thing in both cases, especially since in both cases the term is yours, not either Pope Leo’s or mine. You can’t, in short, argue that two things are the same simply by choosing to apply the same label to both. You have to show that they are the same.

Show where I have said that the Catholic Church should change its teaching to adapt to the American situation? I have never argued any such thing. I maintain, on the contrary, that one of the many great virtues of the Catholic Church is that it can speak prophetically to American culture and to other cultures where those cultures espouse false or evil values. Everything I have said–including many of the things that you label as “leftist”–expresses this conviction.

Perhaps you likewise don’t realize how some of the ideology of liberal American Catholics mirrors yours.

Of course I realize this. But I don’t care. I don’t care whether in the context of a particular society made up of fallen humans a given position appears “liberal” or “conservative.” I care whether it is true–whether it agrees with natural law and divine revelation–whether it conforms to the principles of the Gospel. Why not discuss the matter on those grounds?

Insofar as “liberal Catholics” are people who want American Catholicism to conform more fully to the ideas held by secular society and are embarrassed by its counter-cultural aspects (which is the sense in which you can argue that “liberalism” was criticized in Testem Benevolentiae), I certainly do not agree with them. And on the present issue that is clearly not the case. It is the “conservatives” who place American nationalism above the principles of orthodox Christianity in determining their position on immigration. Thus, as I said, is is the “conservatives” (if anyone) who are “Americanists” in the unorthodox sense of the term on this issue. Obviously on other issues it’s the other way round.

 

[Contarini]

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/

I have a good deal of sympathy with the position espoused in that article. In fact, if I were not a Christian, I think I would agree with it altogether. Certainly my very transient personal and family history makes it hard for me to figure out what my local community is, but in many ways that history makes me desire such a community all the more ardently. If I had my druthers, I’d go live in Shetland where my father’s ancestors come from, where my grandfather was born in a farmhouse overlooking St. Ninian’s Isle, and my great-grandmother is buried in the cemetery of a ruined church where the Papil Stone was originally discovered. But as a Christian–and as a Christian with some pretensions to be Catholic–I have to subordinate my preference for “localism” to the moral imperatives to show generosity and hospitality to the stranger, and to put my identity in Christ ahead of my identity as a member of a local community, much less a nation-state. And my vocation and divine providence have led me to live and work in a small Indiana town with a strong German Catholic identity. This identity is admirable in many ways. But it has a dark side. Unless my neighbors, who have lived in the town for decades, are lying to me, African-American victims of a train crash were shipped to the nearby large city for treatment because the local hospital refused to admit them because of their race. Unless one of my colleagues, who has researched the subject, is lying or mistaken, there was a concerted effort in the mid-20th-century to drive black people out of the town and indeed out of the county, so that in fact there is an abandoned African-American cemetery in the southern part of the county. I who long to live near the graves of my ancestors cannot harden my heart to the plight of the dispossessed who were driven from the graves of theirs because of the prejudice of those who wanted to create a monolithic local community. (And that’s before we even consider the Miami–the much earlier “local community” who lived in this place.)

I care about these things because I am a follower of Jesus, because I listen to the voice of the universal Church throughout time and space. I don’t care what political label you put on these views. I care whether or not you can show me that I am wrong in my understanding of the claims of the Gospel as preserved and interpreted by the Catholic Church. And so far you have not done so.

—“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.

So you are saying that an orthodox Christian would never, ever question American law? If that’s not the heretical version of “Americanism,” I don’t know what is.

Never mind that I didn’t actually say that American law was callous and cruel, only that avoiding callousness and cruelty should be a primary concern.

—“If you separate government’s job from the [liberal concept of] Christian duty of individuals and the Church, you make government a demonic beast.”

I remain highly amused–in an annoyed sort of way–by the fact that you routinely demand that I quote you directly and never, ever paraphrase you, and then turn around and blatantly misrepresent the very posts of mine to which you’re replying–in this case actually inserting words that falsify what I said.

I was not addressing any particular view of the Christian duty of individuals and the Church. I was addressing the claim that whatever the Christian duty of individuals and the Church may be, the government’s job is likely to be something completely different. If you want to argue that I’m wrong in my view of the Christian duty of individuals and the Church, I’m open to hearing that argument. That was not what I was addressing.

and “Unfortunately, many ‘conservative’ Catholics are locked into patterns of interaction with government that were the product of Christendom’s defeat in the Reformation.”

How about we discuss this historically? I mean, don’t you ever want to talk about truth? Is everything a matter of labels for you?

I would love to debate any and all of these propositions. But you seem to think that you sufficiently refute them by calling them “liberal.” You are caricaturing your own position far more cruelly than any opponent could ever do by embracing such a method of “argument.”

 

[Contarini]

—Your belief that St. Thomas More died for a kind of Catholic “globalism”. That smacks of something out of the Catholic Worker.

First of all, I don’t know much about the contemporary “Catholic Worker.” I do greatly admire Dorothy Day and am not aware of any point on which she was unorthodox. However, again this is an irrelevant attempt at guilt by association that contributes nothing to the argument.

Why not just say, “The pope over the King.”

First of all, obviously saying "The pope [leader of the global Church] over the King [leader of a particular Christian “commonwealth”] is endorsing “a kind of Catholic ‘globalism.’” (My phrase “a kind of” seems to have been lost on you. I am not necessarily talking about what you may imagine by “globalism.”)

But furthermore, there’s been a lot of debate about More’s ecclesiology and whether he was in some sense a “conciliarist”–that is, whether he identified the authority of the worldwide Church primarily with the Papacy or with a General Council. The most balanced treatment of the subject I was able to find in a quick online search was this article by Francis Oakley. Note in particular this quotation which Oakley takes from John Headley (the scholar maintaining that More did emphasize papal primacy and believe it to be of divine institution):

More’s resort to a
council like his enduring adherence to the divinely founded papal primacy
is real enough but in each instance, whether he is appealing to council or
to pope, his intention is directed beyond the narrowly-constitutional
issues of the church to the greater realities of the common corps of
Christendom and of the consensus begotten by divine inspiration.

That is precisely what I meant by “a kind of Catholic ‘globalism.’”

—"“American [liberal] Catholics have contributed a great deal to help the Church as a whole think through these issues.”

Again, you add a word because what I actually said apparently isn’t easy enough to caricature.

Golly gee, thanks, liberal Catholics. The Call To Action, Dignity and Pax Christi certainly have been a great help to the Church.

I was thinking more of the work of John Courtney Murray, who had a significant effect on Vatican II. That does not mean, of course, that I agree with everything Fr. Murray taught or think that his legacy was necessarily in all respects good. There’s a very interesting article here discussing (and criticizing) the claim by some liberal Catholics that Murray’s principles would justify a pro-choice political position. Note that those who make this argument are extrapolating from what he said about the legalization (not the moral legitimacy) of contraception–the author of the article makes a convincing argument, I think, that Murray wouldn’t have applied this argument to abortion. But at any rate, my point was not that specific figures such as Murray were in all respects to be admired, but that the longstanding American debate (reflected also in *Testem Benevolentiae) *about how to apply Catholicism to the context of American democracy has been of benefit to the universal Church.

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.

But he doesn’t say that. You are inserting loaded language in order to make Pope Leo say what you want him to say. It is, again, ironic that you think that your words should never be paraphrased, and yet you seem to think that not only I but Pope Leo XIII are unworthy of the same consideration!

I don’t object to paraphrase as you have claimed to do. But in this case you seem to confuse a paraphrase (especially if written by Fr. Hardon) with the original text.

Pope Leo did not say that altering Catholic doctrine to accommodate the ethos of American society was a problem only if it was motivated by desire to promote equality for the disadvantaged. He said it was a problem, period.

Since, as I repeat, I have never advocated altering Catholic doctrine to suit the American ethos–and absolutely nothing you quoted me as saying remotely said such a thing (indeed many of the quotes you find objectionable seem “liberal” to you precisely because I don’t do this)–your repeated claims that I am somehow an “Americanist” in the heretical sense are absurd and slanderous. You have repeatedly failed to substantiate your accusations. You have not once shown what Catholic doctrine I want to alter, or how I am influenced by an American ethos in doing so.

Edwin

 

[Ender]

I’m not sure how that’s different from anything else they’ve ever published or said, really.

Their documents on immigration are in fact not different than anything else they’ve put out: they carry no moral weight other than what individual bishops give them. Nothing put out by the USCCB can be interpreted to mean “the bishops said this …”

I think we have the option of saying “the bishops are wrong here” but I object to you and Ender drawing “morality free zones” around certain issues because your method is arbitrary and what gives you that authority?

The method is hardly arbitrary inasmuch as (I believe) it is based on Church teaching - which doesn’t include USCCB documents. Certainly I may be wrong and you are invited to show what I have misunderstood, just as I try to demonstrate why I believe I am right. As for having “authority”, JPII indicated what that is:

The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.

But remember there’s a higher law than the laws of men.

This is not an argument that Aquinas was wrong.

But the argument has been made here by Contarini that IF (and I agree it’s a big if) the immigration laws are unjust laws then not following them is not “doing evil to do good.”

If you think the bishops are suggesting that we are morally justified in violating immigration laws, say so.

Ender

 

[tomarin]

Their documents on immigration are in fact not different than anything else they’ve put out: they carry no moral weight other than what individual bishops give them. Nothing put out by the USCCB can be interpreted to mean “the bishops said this …”

If their documents carry no moral weight whatsoever then I wish someone would tell them they needn’t bother publishing them. It’s a waste of paper.

The method is hardly arbitrary inasmuch as (I believe) it is based on Church teaching - which doesn’t include USCCB documents. Certainly I may be wrong and you are invited to show what I have misunderstood, just as I try to demonstrate why I believe I am right. As for having “authority”, JPII indicated what that is:

The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.

But how does that mean that you and Tqualey can take illegal immigration out of play as a moral issue contra the bishops?

This is not an argument that Aquinas was wrong.

I wasn’t aware we were discussing Aquinas.

If you think the bishops are suggesting that we are morally justified in violating immigration laws, say so.

I don’t know if they’d go that far, but there is one state (Alabama) in which the Archbishop of Mobile and another Alabama-based bishop are suing the state over their new immigration law which they say interferes with their religious duties and “God’s command to be a Good Samaritan” according to this article. So extrapolating from that I could imagine the bishops taking a stand against a similar law passed at the national level.

 

[Ender]

If their documents carry no moral weight whatsoever then I wish someone would tell them they needn’t bother publishing them. It’s a waste of paper.

It isn’t a waste of paper for them as their documents are influential, even if they carry no moral weight, mostly because people are unaware of that fact.

But how does that mean that you and Tqualey can take illegal immigration out of play as a moral issue contra the bishops?

Immigration is a moral issue inasmuch as it is badly handled now, it negatively affects peoples’ lives, and we have a moral obligation to address it. The means we choose, however, are not moral problems, they are prudential ones so when the bishops raise the issue of immigration in general they are on firm ground. When they opine about what approach would best resolve the many problems, however, they don’t speak for the Church but only for themselves.

I wasn’t aware we were discussing Aquinas.

The position you objected to was one Aquinas put forward. I merely cited it.

I don’t know if they’d go that far, but there is one state (Alabama) in which the Archbishop of Mobile and another Alabama-based bishop are suing the state over their new immigration law which they say interferes with their religious duties and “God’s command to be a Good Samaritan” according to this article. So extrapolating from that I could imagine the bishops taking a stand against a similar law passed at the national level.

If the law actually interfered with their religious duties they would be justified in opposing it. I have read the archbishop’s analysis of the law’s presumed effects as well as the law itself and frankly don’t see what all the fuss is about. It isn’t obvious from the provisions of the law just how the restrictions he listed could actually occur.

Ender

 

[KSU]

Ender and tqualey, your posts at # 268, 270, 271, 272, and 277 should be required reading for all who had been wondering about the OP’s question (and for all American Catholics with open minds). Unfortunately, if some good-hearted fellow’s compassion already has clouded his wisdom, attempts at instruction will be fruitless.

BTW, Ender, in #272 you said, "…what I attack is the idea that different solutions can be divided into moral and immoral categories. They cannot. Within reason all suggestions are simply amoral guesses which might be right or wrong but are not moral or immoral … "

I understand what you meant by that. Nevertheless, sometimes the passion of some who care deeply about an issue will override charity (no, really), and you will be accused of condoning immorality. For example, a serious, official proposal by the (hypothetical) mayor of a town to use captured illegal immigrants in chain gangs for community service can be considered an immoral act in itself, especially if such proposal is likely to be adopted. Your above qualifier, i.e., "Within reason " will be given no weight because, in my example, the mayor can be seen by some to be acting “within reason.” Trust me, as an orthodox Catholic and political “conservative”, I have been accused of all sorts of inanities. No, I am NOT now referring to participants in this thread.

 

[Ender]

I understand what you meant by that. Nevertheless, sometimes the passion of some who care deeply about an issue will override charity (no, really), and you will be accused of condoning immorality. For example, a serious, official proposal by the (hypothetical) mayor of a town to use captured illegal immigrants in chain gangs for community service can be considered an immoral act in itself, especially if such proposal is likely to be adopted. Your above qualifier, i.e., "Within reason " will be given no weight because, in my example, the mayor can be seen by some to be acting “within reason.” Trust me, as an orthodox Catholic and political “conservative”, I have been accused of all sorts of inanities. No, I am NOT now referring to participants in this thread.

It shouldn’t have been necessary to add “within reason” as any fair minded reading of my comment should assume that. I have unfortunately found that reasonableness is not something one can count on. I’ve been vociferous in combating the argument that “My political solutions are supported by the Church” precisely because I’ve gotten so tired of hearing that refrain. In any event, I’m no longer concerned about the charge that I’m a cafeteria Catholic with no sense of morality. Anyone capable of rebutting my arguments wouldn’t need to insult me; those who insult me do so out of frustration that they have no argument.

Ender

 

[KSU]

" In any event, I’m no longer concerned about the charge that I’m a cafeteria Catholic with no sense of morality. Anyone capable of rebutting my arguments wouldn’t need to insult me; those who insult me do so out of frustration that they have no argument."

Good for you, my friend.

 

[KSU]

Contarini, regarding your posts at #274, 275 and 276, I humbly bow to your energy and your passion for your cause. But you simply refuse to accept the evidence (quotes from popes, the USCCB and other sources) in my retorts. You continue to construct straw men by putting words in my mouth. Our debates degenerate into a far too personal left v. right (even the meaning of left and right) and a hundred irrelevancies.

I of course reject the harsh straw man in the last paragraph of your post at #276 (you forgot the old rule of cooling off before you post), but I hope my following replies will help. Regardless of anything said heretofore:

• I don’t know or care if, or claim that, you ever “advocated altering Catholic doctrine to suit the American ethos”, and finally
• I do not claim that you are an " ‘Americanist’ in the heretical sense".

But please, my friend, note that when you post maddening assertions like the following, you should not complain about the heat in the kitchen:

• 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”, and
• " the more basic point [is] that the ideology of those opposing ‘amnesty’ is contrary to orthodox Christianity and to natural law.", and
• “the principal rival of Christianity in the United States… is ideological American nationalism or ‘American exceptionalism’”., and
• “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’.”

Now, let’s quit all the political nonsense.

 

[pnewton]

I. I’ve been vociferous in combating the argument that “My political solutions are supported by the Church” precisely because I’ve gotten so tired of hearing that refrain.

I have worded this a little more precisely. My opinion on immigration is in line with what every bishop in the United States has said, that I have read so far. I have asked earlier if anyone has heard one,* even one*, bishop take a stance similar to conservatives, where they said we need stronger enforcement, or that the current immigration law is just. If there is not even one voice out there from the Church that agrees with one’s positions, shouldn’t that at least give a good Catholic pause to try and understand better what those in the Church are saying?