Illegal Immigration and Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter MOTHBALL83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris, don’t confuse the meat, “No, we don’t support it”, with the rest which is the not very artfully crafted, politically correct bone the bishops think they must throw to the activists.

You won, the activists and Liberals lost.🙂
 
Chris, don’t confuse the meat, “No, we don’t support it”, with the rest which is the not very artfully crafted, politically correct bone the bishops think they must throw to the activists.
You won, the activists and Liberals lost.
Unfortunately, we are actually losing. The open borders, hate-and-blame America first crowds and pro-globalists are winning. Check out what just happened here in California: johnandkenshow.com/

-Chris
 
Unfortunately, we are actually losing. The open borders, hate-and-blame America first crowds and pro-globalists are winning. Check out what just happened here in California: johnandkenshow.com/

-Chris
The people are against Illegal Immigration, but the Government does not go by what the people want in this case.
 
A great **And you do realize, right, pnewton, that there are plenty of “educated” people, even other christian leaders, and even some priests who disagree with the Bishops on illegal immigration? **
I know that there are many people who are educated that disagree with the bishops (and the Church) on all sorts of issues. I, however, am a Catholic, not a Baptist, atheist or Jew. I am interested in what the Church is teaching on this, and every other subject. I also understand that there is a spectrum of belief concerning immigration that we may disagree on and still be obedient to what the Church is teaching on the subject. I would be interested in what anyone with an expertise in Catholic moral teaching has to say on the subject. However, I am not interested in blogs, political pundits or those who do not have the vision of the Catholic (universal) Church.

I also acknowledge that my own position toward immigration is more lenient than others who are equally orthodox. As Ender points out, when it comes to specific actions, there is the prudential application of what the Church teaches, which we can disagree with. We can not go past that, though, into a nationalism that elevates one soul above another, or treats those here, even illegally without dignity. Nor can we dismiss what the bishops are teaching because it disagrees with our political ideology. That is nature of the Catholic Church.
 
Chris, don’t confuse the meat, “No, we don’t support it”, with the rest which is the not very artfully crafted, politically correct bone the bishops think they must throw to the activists.
It is not a “political bone”. It is part of the moral teaching. Catholic can not pick one phrase from a statement and discount the next. For that matter, this is not an honest way of reading anything. The Church is opposed to illegal immigration, with the understanding that immigration laws need to be just and humane. For the record, I am neither an activist or a liberal.
 
**We can not go past that, **though, **into a nationalism **that elevates one soul above another
So you are against the concept of nationhood and of the people living within that nation deciding the fate and destiny of it for themselves? You are a pro-globalist: one who wants to abolish all borders and unite as one human race thinking that somehow will bring world peace? A nation’s sovereignty really doesn’t matter to you?

-Chris
 
…that elevates one soul above another
But this is exactly what amnesty does: Elevating the “souls” of illegals over that of the citizens that are rightfully in a nation. Do we really need more competition for jobs right now? (And that is just one negative side affect).

-Chris
 
The US federal government’s sole obligation is to ensure we Americans continue to live in a free society where we have the opportunity to help ourselves and achieve success, to “pursue happiness.” In everything it does, in every decision, it must always ask, “how does this benefit Americans?” That is the government’s sole job. It is not a global charity and our nation is not a global homeless shelter.

That said…as individuals and as a Church we do have the obligation to help our fellow man in need depsite their citizenship or immigrant status. I don’t make a distinction when I volunteer at my parish, because I know that that is not The Church’s job. The Church’s job is to bring all humanity to salvation through Christ and His Church and to provide for the needs of the less fortunate, no matter who they are.

There are two different entities with two different roles: a nation’s secular government which must look after the best interests of those living in that nation…and a religious organization, the Catholic Church, which must look after the best interests of all human kind.

That’ just how I see it. I am a nationalist…and a Catholic christian.

-Chris
 
Chris, when I said, “You won, the activists and Liberals lost”, I was referring only to the fact that you and the bishops and the Church are officially on the same page regarding the OP’s issue. The USCCB must and does admit in writing that the Church does not support illegal immigration. Your core position on the matter is held to be correct by the bishops, to the grinding and gnashing of activists’ and Liberals’ teeth.

Smile. Don’t worry about the nonsense going on; like the poor, it will always be with us. God wants us to struggle against evil, including Socialism, and trust in Him.

“Fear not, for I am with thee: turn not aside, for I am thy God: I have strengthened thee, and have helped thee, and the right hand of my just one hath upheld thee.”
 
Chris, when I said, “You won, the activists and Liberals lost”, I was referring only to the fact that you and the bishops and the Church are officially on the same page regarding the OP’s issue. The USCC must and does admit in writing that the Church does not support illegal immigration. Your core position on the matter is held to be correct by the bishops, to the grinding and gnashing of activists’ and Liberals’ teeth.
Smile. Don’t worry about the nonsense going on; like the poor, it will always be with us. God wants us to struggle against evil, including Socialism, and trust in Him.
“Fear not, for I am with thee: turn not aside, for I am thy God: I have strengthened thee, and have helped thee, and the right hand of my just one hath upheld thee.”
👍

-Chris
 
So you are against the concept of nationhood and of the people living within that nation deciding the fate and destiny of it for themselves? You are a pro-globalist: one who wants to abolish all borders and unite as one human race thinking that somehow will bring world peace? A nation’s sovereignty really doesn’t matter to you?
No, on all three counts.
 
Boy, what a discussion! You did well to open this subject, OP.

pnewton, I’m afraid you are fighting a losing battle in supporting the positions of the Bishops on illegal immigration, especially those in Georgia and Alabama who have determined they cannot support new state laws enforcing the national law.

I find it amazing that, given the present national debate, the president has determined to do an “end run” around Congress and actually grant amnesty to illegals.

I ask only one consideration: how does the position of some bishops supporting illegal immigrants affect the LEGAL immigrant population? How do they, who have jumped through all the hoops to be here LEGALLY, feel about churchmen who elevate the illegals to a “higher” status? Do they feel these bishops actually speak from a MORAL viewpoint?

In my way of thinking, amnesty damages the rule of national law in more than one way, but the two main ways are to encourage future “illegals” to cross the border with impunity, and second, to give LEGAL immigrants the feeling that they have been fooled.

Our bishops have a moral responsibility to promote observance of lawful and beneficial laws, rather than even APPEAR to subvert them.
 
pnewton, I’m afraid you are fighting a losing battle in supporting the positions of the Bishops on illegal immigration,
Letting the bishops do the teaching is what Catholics do.
How do they, who have jumped through all the hoops to be here LEGALLY, feel about churchmen …
Churchmen? And Jesus was just a godman? I find the use of this word used exclusively by those who wish to belittle the authority of those in the One Holy Catholic Church through whom the Holy Spirit speaks.
Our bishops have a moral responsibility to promote observance of lawful and beneficial laws, rather than even APPEAR to subvert them.
The thing is, they do not have the moral authority to promote observance of* unjust* laws. Your statement presumes the opposite of what the bishops have said. Begging the question.
 
:
Originally Posted by cmforte
So you are against the concept of nationhood and of the people living within that nation deciding the fate and destiny of it for themselves? You are a pro-globalist: one who wants to abolish all borders and unite as one human race thinking that somehow will bring world peace? A nation’s sovereignty really doesn’t matter to you?
No, on all three counts.

But you said you are against nationalism, and you are against laws that “elevates one soul over another” which is exactly what a nation’s very existence does; the government of a nation’s sole role is to do what is best for the citizens of that nation, thus “elevating one soul over another.” (Mind you, I said this is the ***government’s ***job, as individuals and as a Church we can help anyone despite their citizenship status),-ergo you are against the concept of nationhood. If not, then please feel free to elaborate on your words.

-Chris
 
:

But you said you are against nationalism, and you are against laws that “elevates one soul over another” which is exactly what a nation’s very existence does; the government of a nation’s sole role is to do what is best for the citizens of that nation, thus “elevating one soul over another.”
No, that’s what you think the government’s job is. The traditional Christian understanding is that the government’s job is to rule the people of that nation in justice according to national law. Of course the government should provide first for its own citizens, but not in ways that involve callousness and cruelty toward others.
(Mind you, I said this is the ***government’s ***job, as individuals and as a Church we can help anyone despite their citizenship status)
If you separate government’s job from the Christian duty of individuals and the Church, you make government a demonic beast.
-ergo you are against the concept of nationhood. If not, then please feel free to elaborate on your words.
I won’t speak for penewton (though I agree entirely with his/her posts on this thread insofar as I’ve read them), but historically the rise of the nation state was the death of Catholic Christendom. Good Catholics ought to be at the very least suspicious of nationalism. Unfortunately, many “conservative” Catholics are locked into patterns of interaction with government that were the product of Christendom’s defeat in the Reformation. The Post-Reformation Popes “settled” for an alliance with Catholic rulers that sanctioned their nationalism (and absolutism) in order to preserve the influence of the Church.

This isn’t the ideal Catholic position at all, it seems to me. The great Catholic humanists of the early sixteenth century fought the rise of nationalism and the ensuing breakdown of the unity of Christendom. St. Thomas More is in many ways a martyr to the cause of Catholic “globalism” against the heretical nationalism of King Henry and Cromwell. Perhaps Catholics who support their bishops on this should take him as their patron.

Edwin
 
:

But you said you are against nationalism, and you are against laws that “elevates one soul over another” which is exactly what a nation’s very existence does; the government of a nation’s sole role is to do what is best for the citizens of that nation, thus “elevating one soul over another.” (Mind you, I said this is the ***government’s ***job, as individuals and as a Church we can help anyone despite their citizenship status),-ergo you are against the concept of nationhood. If not, then please feel free to elaborate on your words.

-Chris
Perhaps this will help,
Patriotism is not “My country, right or wrong.” That attitude is associated with nationalism, not patriotism, and, as Chesterton remarked, it’s as foolish as saying, “My mother, drunk or sober.” We ought to love our mothers, even when they are not sober, but we don’t love them for their insobriety but in spite of it. So with our country. We ought to love it whether it is in ascendency or, as now, in decline—and, if it is in decline, that love should manifest itself in efforts to reverse the decline.
catholic.com/thisrock/2010/1003lw.asp

The only thing I am against is giving a nation allegiance due God alone. I can not subscribe to the idea of charity begins at home (not in the Bible, btw), because true charity always begins with the most needy. If those needy are immigrants, legal or not, that is where my charity must be directed. FYI, I also totally oppose any bilingual education not directed at bringing the students into the American culture. Those that come here have the moral responsibility on their part to contribute to this society and embrace this culture.

My parish is very heavily new immigrant. We do everything bilingual and have a priest that has no tolerance for parishioners who complain about the Spanish. However, in VBS, where many of the kids were Spanish-speaking, he made it clear that the prayers were going to be taught in English, as they needed to learn them in the language of their adopted country. I think this illustrates my opinion of the balance of what a country should do for their immigrants and immigrants should do for their host.
 
Greetings all,

Many things have been said in this thread since it opened. These statements make it apparent that this issue needs much clarification. I will provide some links that will lead to a speech made by Blessed John Paul II on the subject; I’ll also provide a link to a pastoral letter, written by Bishop Anthony Taylor, that explains (in detail, with citations) the current US immigration policy and the problems of illegal immigration. This is to respond to the many claims made in this thread apparently without much knowledge either of US immigration policy or of illegal immigration.

The original question was:
“Is it morally OK for a Catholic to be against Illegal Immigration?”
That would depend on what you understand to be “illegal immigration” and everything it entails. Fulton Sheen once said, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is of course, quite a different thing.” This teaches us to be informed about something before making judgments about it. Read the links (and more), then decide what you believe, but make an educated, informed decision based on reality. Keep in mind, and this goes for everyone here, that we are members of the Catholic Church and that, first and foremost, our citizenship is to the City of God, rather than to some nation of man.
“Is it a sin for an immigrant to migrate to a country illegally?”
That depends. Both immigrating and breaking a law are not intrinsically evil, so it would depend on the reason for the action and on the circumstances surrounding each particular case. One can break the “law of the land” if that law is unjust (ie. if it is obligatory by law to kill your first-born child, you not only can break that law but must break it because it is gravely immoral).

Here are the links I mentioned:
A Pastoral Letter on the Human Rights of Immigrants

The Church and Illegal Immigration by Blessed John Paul II

“For Christians, the migrant is not merely an individual to be respected in accordance with the norms established by law, but a person whose presence challenges them and whose needs become an obligation for their responsibility.” - Blessed John Paul II

As for my own position on the matter, I was an illegal resident of the United States from age 1-22. I left the country to enter the seminary and am now in Mexico City starting another year of priestly formation. While I was in the United States, however, I never once had to confess being in the country illegally as one of my sins 😉

Peace,

Agustin
 
“Of course the government should provide first for its own citizens, but not in ways that involve callousness and cruelty toward others.” Contarini

Accusing America of callousness and cruelty towards illegals ends all reasonable chance of debate.

“If you separate government’s job from the Christian duty of individuals and the Church, you make government a demonic beast.” Contarini

To call King Henry a demonic beast is a tad overboard. For an Episcopalian to call him that is weird.

“St. Thomas More is in many ways a martyr to the cause of Catholic “globalism” against the heretical nationalism of King Henry and Cromwell.” Contarini

Wow! I’m sure St. Thomas would be surprised. Catholic globalism is a meaningless term, and its connotation is not a positive one. Also, because the word “Catholic” itself means universal, what you said is that St Thomas gave his life for universal globalism.

“I won’t speak for penewton (though I agree entirely with his/her posts…)”

Yup.
 
No, that’s what you think the government’s job is. The traditional Christian understanding is that the government’s job is to rule the people of that nation in justice according to national law. Of course the government should provide first for its own citizens, but not in ways that involve callousness and cruelty toward others.

This is not the position of the Founding Fathers of the USA. A wise man once said, “what a government gives, it can take away.” We, having the freedom to do so, are to work and provide for ourselves. When we need help, we should look to private sources for it, like a church or charity group, not the government. The first century christians didn’t look to the government for help, for obvious reasons. We should try to follow their example. A nation’s government’s job is not to do what is in the best interest of all humanity, just what is in the best interest of that nation. And whether you like it or not, individual nations exist. Now, individual nations can** try to help out another nation**, and in that way helping out another part of humanity, but that is not a requirement. Here is what Pope Benedict said, “…For well over a century, **the United States of America has played an important role in the international community. **On …America has traditionally shown herself generous in meeting immediate human needs, fostering development and offering relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am confident that this concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of **international diplomacy **to resolve conflicts and promote progress. In this way, coming generations will be able to live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can flourish – a world where the God-given dignity and rights of every man, woman and child are cherished, protected and effectively advanced.”

The Church is a different entity with a different role.

If you separate government’s job from the Christian duty of individuals and the Church, you make government a demonic beast.

I don’t seee how I am doing that.

I won’t speak for penewton (though I agree entirely with his/her posts on this thread insofar as I’ve read them), but historically the rise of the nation state was the death of Catholic Christendom. Good Catholics ought to be at the very least suspicious of nationalism. Unfortunately, many “conservative” Catholics are locked into patterns of interaction with government that were the product of Christendom’s defeat in the Reformation. The Post-Reformation Popes “settled” for an alliance with Catholic rulers that sanctioned their nationalism (and absolutism) in order to preserve the influence of the Church.

This isn’t the ideal Catholic position at all, it seems to me. The great Catholic humanists of the early sixteenth century fought the rise of nationalism and the ensuing breakdown of the unity of Christendom. St. Thomas More is in many ways a martyr to the cause of Catholic “globalism” against the heretical nationalism of King Henry and Cromwell. Perhaps Catholics who support their bishops on this should take him as their patron.

I believe in the separation of church and state, a fundemental American belief. As Catholics, we should know better than to want the oppposite. Yet, the Catechism also suppports it. Here is a quote (from vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7W.HTM ): “The Church, because of her commission and competence,** is not to be confused in any way with the political community.” ** And here is what the Holy Father said, " (catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=172 ) : “Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the **freedom to worship God in accordance **with the dictates of their conscience,”

And one problem I still wrestle with as a Catholic: Its historic opposition to the nation-state and its support for gloabalism. A global church, yes. A global government, no. Yet, it seems the Church has, if not changed, at least ***clarified ***its position on this subject. Here is the Catechism’s stance on the concept of “political authorities”: "2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the **civil authorities **to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. ***the love and service of one’s country ***follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community."The Catechsim continuously uses the word “nation,” infering nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept, for example: “Political rights are meant to be exercised for the common good of **the nation **…” And no where does it implies globalism, that all nations should unite as one.

Edwin
-Chris
 
Patriotism is not “My country, right or wrong.” That attitude is associated with nationalism, not patriotism, and, as Chesterton remarked, it’s as foolish as saying, “My mother, drunk or sober.” We ought to love our mothers, even when they are not sober, but we don’t love them for their insobriety but in spite of it. So with our country. We ought to love it whether it is in ascendency or, as now, in decline—and, if it is in decline, that love should manifest itself in efforts to reverse the decline.
When did I ever say that the US is **always right **and is perfect? I am a nationalist in that I believe in the concept of the nation-state and its right to enforce its sovereignty as a nation. And I fail to see how being against illegal immigration or “comprehensive immigration reform” (amnesty) would make a nation wrong?

-Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top