Illegal Immigration and Morality

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Yours is certainly a reasonable request. I, too, am unaware of any bishop taking a stand for enforcement of existing laws as opposed for effectively condoning the violation of valid US laws. This is truly a problem for me. Am I so insightful in my opinion as to best all of these bishops in their opinion? I just can not answer that even to myself.

Well, let me tell you - my real argument is simply this - and it is one I have never seen addressed by any of the bishops. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 signed by President Reagan gave US citizenship to an estimated 3 to 4 million illegal immigrants. It was done with the understanding that the US would have better border control and stop illegal immigration. The Law was enacted and US Citizenship was granted to all who applied and were qualified under the new Law. It would seem that what was asked for by the US Bishops (now) was done (back then) - but, apparently we need to have an on-going process of granting amnesty every so many years because we can not maintain the integrity of our own borders. Showing how the 1986 Law was unfair, unjust and immoral or even addressing it has not happened from the USCCB - yet criticisms abound about US immigration law. This makes no sense to me.

Saying a law is unjust simply does not make it so. Efforts have been made, at least in my opinion, to render just laws in this country. But all human laws have imperfections at their core and an abundance of unintended consequences in their orbit. “Getting it right” is the challenge of every lawmaker every year they are in office. Sometimes they do a better job at it - but, it is never really perfect.

I submit that the current laws are basically just to our own citizens first and then to those who want to become citizens.

God bless

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?

 

[KSU]

Because the USCCB, rather than limiting its pronouncements purely to issues of faith and morals, frequently crosses the line by inserting itself (or more correctly, its name) into political debate, this is the predictable result:

"September 08, 2011
News (CatholicCulture.org)
Most US Catholics ignore bishops’ political advice

"Only 16% of American Catholics are acquainted with the “Faithful Citizenship” documents released by the US bishops’ conference as a guide for voters, a new survey shows. Only 3% have actually read the bishops’ advice.
“Among those Catholics who are aware of the “Faithful Citizenship” documents, 71% reported that the bishops’ advice would not affect their voting behavior. Thus only 4.6% of the American Catholic surveyed indicated that the documents from the bishops’ conference would have an influence on their political decisions.”

 

[Ender]

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 don’t think I have claimed otherwise. I accept that your opinions are the same as the bishops’ opinions … but that’s not the point. The point is not about opinions but about what the Church teaches regarding specific proposals.

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.

No one is falling all over himself in defense of the current law but if you think the Church (as opposed to some bishops) believes stronger enforcement of US immigration laws is immoral, show us a document supporting your contention.

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?

This is a slight of hand argument. You go from discussing what some bishops have said to the assumption that their words represent Church teaching. In the case of lobbying for a specific solution, they don’t. “The Church” has no position on stronger enforcement, on amnesty, on building a fence, on the Arizona law. Individual bishops surely do but, as these are prudential issues and while the bishops may have opinions, the Church has no teaching. I’m not that interested in documents from bishops. Show me a document from the Church that supports or opposes any particular proposal (generic ends are not specific proposals) and you can make your case. Getting back to the bishops for a moment, find a comment from any of them where they say that “Proposal X is immoral” or “We have a moral obligation to support proposal Y.”

Ender

 

[pnewton]

This is a slight of hand argument.

I do not consider it slight of hand. If you do, then ignore what I said. I posted it for the benefit of those that might value even the prudential opinion of bishops, and how moral law applies to the specific problem of political issues, from immigration to how abortion effects ouf voting.

 

[KSU]

Ender, has anyone ever told you that you are a glutton for punishment?

 

[Ender]

I do not consider it slight of hand. If you do, then ignore what I said. I posted it for the benefit of those that might value even the prudential opinion of bishops, and how moral law applies to the specific problem of political issues, from immigration to how abortion effects ouf voting.

I don’t dispute what the bishops said, what I dispute is what they said is what the Church teaches so it is not appropriate to use the terms “the bishops” and "the Church " interchangeably. Let me add that I do not accuse the bishops of going against Church teaching but of simply going beyond it. For example, a decade or so ago there was a document the bishops put out reminding us of the preferential option for the poor and calling on the government do address the problems the poor face in society. My bishop took that statement a step further and claimed we had a moral obligation to support an increase in the minimum wage. The bishops were right to raise the issue and call for it to be addressed but my bishop was wrong in claiming that support for his solution was a moral obligation.

Let me state again the point I’ve been making: the Church teaches about ends, the goals toward which we should strive, but the means we choose to attain those ends are properly the responsibility of the laity. The Church tells us to feed the hungry. She does not tell us what nutritional requirements to meet or what should be on the menu. Aside from the handful of issues involving intrinsic evils (abortion, euthanasia, …) the solutions to political problems do not involve moral choices.

Ender

 

[tomarin]

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

Ender, I try hard only to make comments about ideas here and not about people as a way of encouraging substantive debate and not name-calling. If something I have said has offended you I’m sorry for that; it was inadvertant.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, regarding your posts at #274, 275 and 276, I humbly bow to your energy and your passion for your cause.

You should address the substance.

But you simply refuse to accept the evidence (quotes from popes, the USCCB and other sources) in my retorts.

Please show me where you have provided such evidence, and briefly state what that evidence supposedly proved.

You continue to construct straw men by putting words in my mouth.

And yet you refuse to explain how I am misunderstanding you, or to restate your argument in a way that corrects my misunderstanding.

Our debates degenerate into a far too personal left v. right (even the meaning of left and right) and a hundred irrelevancies.

Indeed. Because you repeatedly refuse to provide evidence and then falsely claim that you have done so. You refuse to engage in arguments. You seem to think that quoting my remarks proves your point. This is just plain weird. You omit the obvious and necessary step of proving that I am actually wrong.

I of course reject the harsh straw man in the last paragraph of your post at #276

It doesn’t seem particularly harsh to me, and yet again you decline to show that it is a straw man. I have made repeated efforts to understanding what you are arguing. I have begged you to correct me if I am misunderstanding you. Yet you repeatedly refuse to help me out–instead excoriating me for not succeeding in doing what you refuse to help me to do, even though you could easily do so.

• I don’t know or care if, or claim that, you ever “advocated altering Catholic doctrine to suit the American ethos”

You claimed that Pope Leo was condemning “my leftist agenda.”
You have also said that the “leftist agenda” Pope Leo was condemning consisted of altering Catholic doctrine to suit American values such as democratic equality and social welfare.

As always, if I am misstating your position, please courteously restate it instead of excoriating me.

• I do not claim that you are an " ‘Americanist’ in the heretical sense".

Then what on earth did you mean by saying that Pope Leo condemned “my leftist agenda”?

You seem either unable or unwilling to defend statements you have made or to explain them. You just keep restating “I didn’t mean that.”

Then what in blazes do you mean? What are we arguing about?

It appears that you respond emotionally to my criticisms of American nationalism and that you are utterly unable of formulating an actual argument to defend your position. Perhaps you need to cool down, and reflect that if you come onto a discussion forum you will find people with whom you disagree, and that it is more effective to show them how they are wrong than to keep quoting them with expressions of horror.

You further seem to have the strange idea that simply quoting someone is respectful and productive way to discuss their ideas. It isn’t, as our repeated impasse has shown. We could quote each other for hundreds of posts and not get anywhere. You need to compose an argument that explains just what you find wrong in what I am saying and how it violates Catholic teaching. I would love to see such an argument. I recognize that I have never had the benefit of living as a Catholic (except for two months as an official “candidate” for admission to the Church, if that counts) and may well misunderstand Catholicism. But you will only administer “fraternal correction” effectively if you actually take the trouble to explain how I am wrong and what my supposed misunderstanding is.

[QuOTEBut please, my friend, note that when you post maddening assertions like the following, you should not complain about the heat in the kitchen
[/QUOTE]

I’m not complaining about “heat,” but about the absence of light. I’m complaining about your repeated failure actually to point out where I am wrong.

• 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)”.

That’s a rather incoherent pastiche of what I said. But yes, I think that Pope Leo’s letter is incompatible with the belief that the Constitution is in some way divinely inspired. I welcome substantive arguments showing how I am wrong. Obviously he isn’t condemning an “exaltation of liberal democracy” in absolute terms, but an exaltation of the values of liberal democracy and the kind of Catholicism that exists in that context over more traditional forms of Catholicism.

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 I backed up the point, so that cmforte admitted that Leo and Obama were “both wrong” in his view.

• “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’.”

Again, cmforte agreed with me on this.

Now, let’s quit all the political nonsense.

Indeed. We could start by banning words like “liberal,” “conservative,” “leftist,” “progressive,” etc. from the discussion, and instead proceeding on the grounds of reason and divine revelation.

I long for you to construct an argument along those lines. I have been proven wrong many times in my life, and it was always for my good. I do not object to you attempting fraternal correction, but to your utter failure to provide such correction in a substantive way.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Ender]

Ender, I try hard only to make comments about ideas here and not about people as a way of encouraging substantive debate and not name-calling. If something I have said has offended you I’m sorry for that; it was inadvertant.

No, not a bit. If I haven’t directed a comment at you specifically about something you’ve said then don’t take my generic statements personally. There is a particular type of argument that I’ve been attacking, and that is that there are moral and immoral solutions to political problems. People who believe this almost inevitably believe that people who support the “immoral” solutions are themselves immoral, which would probably be a reasonable assumption if there were moral choices involved. What is involved, however, is merely a disagreement over how problems can best be solved. It is not a disagreement over whether the disadvantaged should or should not be helped but over what approaches will help and what won’t. It’s that simple.

Ender

 

[KSU]

Per Contarini: “You refuse to engage in arguments. You seem to think that quoting my remarks proves your point. This is just plain weird. You omit the obvious and necessary step of proving that I am actually wrong.”
I don’t want to “argue” in this thread about whether your ideas are right or wrong. I try only to make points to counter yours. You seem to get annoyed when, after you refer to people with cmforte’s and my ideology as Conservative (and not in any good or even neutral sense), I refer to your ideology as leftist or liberal. But your ideology is just that. Listen to yourself:
QUOTE …when the [immigration] law in question is not prohibiting intrinsically evil behavior, and indeed may be contravening natural law and explicit Church teaching in many cases by preventing people from providing for their families, there is certainly nothing wrong with amnesty…Of course the government should provide first for its own citizens, but not in ways that involve callousness and cruelty toward others. …If you separate government’s job from the Christian duty of individuals and the Church, you make government a demonic beast…Unfortunately, many “conservative” Catholics are locked into patterns of interaction with government that were the product of Christendom’s defeat in the Reformation…Perhaps Catholics who support their bishops on this [immigration issue]should take him [St. Thomas More] as their patron…I’m not convinced that the valiant efforts of American Catholics to bring their religion into line with American ideology can ever be entirely successful. The ideology of the Founding Fathers was fundamentally un-Catholic in a number of ways… Nor is it at all clear to me that nation-states best preserve freedom–the nation-state is in fact an instrument ideally shaped for the imposition of governmental tyranny, and developed largely for that purpose and as part of the development of the ideology of absolute monarchy…(After all, Catholicism as an institution has a dark history as well–all human institutions do, though the nation-state has a particularly dark and bloody one.)…One of the reasons I am content to be a resident alien and not make the necessary effort to sort out my citizenship status is precisely the attitude you’re expressing. I have no interest in adhering to America as to some sort of a religion, as you [cmforte] seem to do. I already have a religion. It’s called Christianity. If I wanted a second one on the side, I think I’d go for Buddhism…I would be happy to be an American citizen if Divine Providence had so ordered … But I have no urge to attach myself to the United States as to some sort of salvific covenant community. Figuring out how I relate to the Church is confusing enough…American Catholics [such as our pro-immigration bishops and their supporters] have contributed a great deal to help the Church as a whole think through these issues…I entirely agree with you about the dangers of concentrated power. That’s precisely why I’m dubious about nation-states. Why should they be “sovereign in their own spheres,”…There’s room for a lot of disagreement as to whether the approach taken by the Constitution was really preferable to that taken by, for instance, Britain with its more incremental development… I go to church with folks who belong to the Tea Party. I hear “chauvinistic and bellicose nationalism” all around me, all the time… I question the Whig propaganda you accept…I can understand the impulse to have two religions [America and Catholicism], but as I said elsewhere I’d have more respect for someone who tried to add Buddhism to Catholicism. It’s less clearly incompatible. END QUOTE See in addition, if more quotes are needed, my post at #250.

I repeat: my claim in #250 was to counter your 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”.

That liberal/leftist/progressive (pick whichever you like) ideology is grating to orthodox Catholics who love both our Church teachings and traditional American values. Your assertion that the Pope condemned our conservative ideology was countered by my assertion that Pope Leo XII was not attacking America, American exceptionalism, the Founding Fathers’ vision of America, or even the Tea Party (hey, you brought it up), but that in fact he was condemning a brand of Leftist ideology; a movement which, during a time of heightened immigration, claimed that the Catholic Church should downplay its teaching in order to emphasize social welfare and democratic equality. I backed it up with a verbatim quote from no less of a Catholic authority than Fr.John Hardon.You disagreed, but did not back it up.

My point is that the condemned, leftist movement of the 1890 ties mirrors today’s secular and religious left. The only difference I am aware of is that today’s left also agitates for official state and Church acceptance of homosexuality.

Per Contarini: “You claimed that Pope Leo was condemning ‘my leftist agenda’.” No, my friend. What I said was “your brand of Leftist ideology”, not agenda, and then only in the narrow context of the condemned leftist/“Americanist” clergy’s ideology, i.e., that the perceived harsh or somehow deficient official teachings or laws should not be allowed to stand as obstacles to furtherance of their actual agenda. I don’t know if you even have an agenda, and it’s none of my business. Still, I could have explained it better rather than play tit for tat with you.

 

[tqualey]

Hang on a minute, Mike,

This honestly did seem to be a side-stepping of the issue (if you do not like the term, “slight of hand”). Presenting the documents of the USCCB as the prudent judgment of our bishops is fine - as far as it goes. The problem, at least as I see it, is that it does not go far enough when it comes to addressing the immorality or morality of a specific proposal, as Ender has identified.

For example, we are expressly forbidden to hate others because of any human attribute - and we can take this as a general morally binding principle. This is not the same as saying that you must not pass a particular law to protect one’s own borders in this particular manner. The government has a moral obligation to protect its own citizens first (justice) before helping others from other countries (charity).

In my view, this is what must at least be addressed so that a discussion can be had on this aspect of the thread.

God bless

I do not consider it slight of hand. If you do, then ignore what I said. I posted it for the benefit of those that might value even the prudential opinion of bishops, and how moral law applies to the specific problem of political issues, from immigration to how abortion effects ouf voting.

 

[tomarin]

Hang on a minute, Mike,

This honestly did seem to be a side-stepping of the issue (if you do not like the term, “slight of hand”). Presenting the documents of the USCCB as the prudent judgment of our bishops is fine - as far as it goes. The problem, at least as I see it, is that it does not go far enough when it comes to addressing the immorality or morality of a specific proposal, as Ender has identified.

For example, we are expressly forbidden to hate others because of any human attribute - and we can take this as a general morally binding principle. This is not the same as saying that you must not pass a particular law to protect one’s own borders in this particular manner. The government has a moral obligation to protect its own citizens first (justice) before helping others from other countries (charity).

In my view, this is what must at least be addressed so that a discussion can be had on this aspect of the thread.

God bless

Isn’t the phrase “sleight of hand”?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tomarin,

Yes, it is - thanks for spotting the error

God bless

Isn’t the phrase “sleight of hand”?

 

[pnewton]

Hang on a minute, Mike,

This honestly did seem to be a side-stepping of the issue (if you do not like the term, “slight of hand”). Presenting the documents of the USCCB as the prudent judgment of our bishops is fine - as far as it goes. The problem, at least as I see it, is that it does not go far enough when it comes to addressing the immorality or morality of a specific proposal, as Ender has identified.

This is what I said:

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?

At no point did I define anything as prudential judgment, doctrinal teaching or attempt to dissect the two. There is not deception, just because I would rather read than learn than obfuscate and argue. I do not value my own judgment enough to disregard something that is consistently said with one voice, even though in be prudential judgment, lest I find my own prudence lacking.

On the other hand, I have always acknowledged elsewhere, that other Catholics may do otherwise and still never violate any moral teaching. I am fully aware that even the Church as a whole can err in the matter of politics, science, sports, etc. There is not slight of hand just because I do not use this.

I would even be a Red Sox fan if all the bishops agreed I should (and I hate baseball).

 

[KSU]

“even the Church as a whole can err in the matter of politics, science, sports, etc.”

No, the Church as a whole cannot err, because the Church as a whole, never makes pronouncements except in matters of faith and morals. Individuals and groups within the Church, when they go beyond their competence can and do err.

 

[tqualey]

Hi KSU,

Good point!

God bless

“even the Church as a whole can err in the matter of politics, science, sports, etc.”

No, the Church as a whole cannot err, because the Church as a whole, never makes pronouncements except in matters of faith and morals. Individuals and groups within the Church, when they go beyond their competence can and do err.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mike,

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post.

God bless

This is what I said:
At no point did I define anything as prudential judgment, doctrinal teaching or attempt to dissect the two. There is not deception, just because I would rather read than learn than obfuscate and argue. I do not value my own judgment enough to disregard something that is consistently said with one voice, even though in be prudential judgment, lest I find my own prudence lacking.

On the other hand, I have always acknowledged elsewhere, that other Catholics may do otherwise and still never violate any moral teaching. I am fully aware that even the Church as a whole can err in the matter of politics, science, sports, etc. There is not slight of hand just because I do not use this.

I would even be a Red Sox fan if all the bishops agreed I should (and I hate baseball).

 

[Ender]

I would even be a Red Sox fan if all the bishops agreed I should (and I hate baseball).

I think this is a good example to highlight the difference between us. Even if every bishop in the world wanted us to become Red Sox fans I would not do it because the issue is outside of their domain. They simply don’t have the authority to make that determination for us and quite frankly I consider it an abdication of our own responsibility to make those choices for ourselves. There are lines beyond which a bishop’s authority does not extend, and while those lines are not clearly drawn, if he oversteps them he leaves his authority behind.

This issue was addressed as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1213.

*42. **Clerics and laity are not to usurp each others rights ***
*Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution.
*
Ender

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ender,

Thanks for your excellent post!

I was amazed at the Red Sox analogy … and wondered just what would make someone think that apparently EVERY UTTERANCE from the USCCB would be treated as a matter of Faith.

As I understand the statements on immigration from USCCB, we are not to have hatred for others based on race or national origin or their desire to come to this country. In my best judgment, the US has passed not only fair immigration laws but has been most generous in granting amnesty to illegal immigrants under President Reagan. While more could be done, let’s remember getting other countries to improve their economic, political and human rights issues may be a major step in keeping their citizens from wanting to leave their homeland.

This is strictly an opinion of mine - with not much objective data to support it! But, let me share it with you. When Fidel Castro overthrew the US-friendly dictator, Baptista, and established a Communist dictatorship - a lot of people fled from Cuba to the US. Having an open immigration policy and boycotting that island country seemed like the right thing to do. Looking back over these past 50 years I really do not think this approach was either effective or well-thought-out. By allowing such open immigration from those fleeing Communist rule - we may have acted as a safety valve keeping the Communist dictator isolated from his repressive policies because all who opposed him and could leave - left. Those who could not leave wound up in jail. My guess is that Castrol would have soon had another revolution - and this time he would be seen as the oppressor. Continuing on with my guessing - I think Cuba would be a lot closer to having a genuine democracy today had the US not intervened as it did. Just a thought.

God bless

I think this is a good example to highlight the difference between us. Even if every bishop in the world wanted us to become Red Sox fans I would not do it because the issue is outside of their domain. They simply don’t have the authority to make that determination for us and quite frankly I consider it an abdication of our own responsibility to make those choices for ourselves. There are lines beyond which a bishop’s authority does not extend, and while those lines are not clearly drawn, if he oversteps them he leaves his authority behind.

This issue was addressed as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1213.

*42. **Clerics and laity are not to usurp each others rights ***
*Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution.
*
Ender

 

[KSU]

tqualey, regarding your opinion about the Fidel Castro regime, your point is well taken and not illogical. But you underestimate the barbarity and limitless capacity for evil of a Socialist regime supported by the USSR.

Had we not opened our doors to the Cuban anti-Communists, I believe we would have condemned them to untold horrors; gulags, “re-education” systems and “mental health” institutions. Castro simply would have killed as many tens of thousands as he believed necessary. I don’t recall whether or not U S bishops asked our government to open our doors to the Cuban people, but given the then prevailing circumstances and our strong economy, it seems likely some did. If so, I think such bishops acted justly.

A different ball game than we have today.