K
KSU
Guest
So, where are we in this debate? Here is how it looks to me.
First, no authentic Catholic would say it’s immoral to be opposed to illegal immigration for any reason not in itself wrong. As stated above, hate is an example of a wrong reason. But that has nothing to do with the separate issue of whether illegal immigration is objectively wrong; it usually is. The Holy Father, as quoted above, said so, economic common sense says so (look at California) and the Catechism says so. Most of the other rhetoric surrounding the issue is meant to pettifog and cloud objectivity.
Second, if it were believed that illegal immigrants would vote with the Republican Party after amnesty, State and Federal troops would be stationed along the boarder immediately and such immigration would stop. It’s a socialist political issue at its core.
Third, after some 50 years of pettifogging and clouding the teachings of the Church, is it really surprising that some bishops, incompetent theologically, display incompetence in civil matters as well? Clericalism is alive and well.
From Wikipedia: “Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based, leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of either the church or broader political and sociocultural import. In a pejorative manner, “clericalism” is often used to denote an ecclesiolatry approach to issues beyond the church by either clergy or their supporters while the term has also been applied in a pejorative manner to describe the cronyism and cloistered political environs of the Church—mainly in reference to the Roman Catholic Church.”
Ouch, “mainly in reference to the Roman Catholic Church.” We Catholics should hang our heads in shame that it has come to this. If it were otherwise, the OP would never have had to even ask the question.
First, no authentic Catholic would say it’s immoral to be opposed to illegal immigration for any reason not in itself wrong. As stated above, hate is an example of a wrong reason. But that has nothing to do with the separate issue of whether illegal immigration is objectively wrong; it usually is. The Holy Father, as quoted above, said so, economic common sense says so (look at California) and the Catechism says so. Most of the other rhetoric surrounding the issue is meant to pettifog and cloud objectivity.
Second, if it were believed that illegal immigrants would vote with the Republican Party after amnesty, State and Federal troops would be stationed along the boarder immediately and such immigration would stop. It’s a socialist political issue at its core.
Third, after some 50 years of pettifogging and clouding the teachings of the Church, is it really surprising that some bishops, incompetent theologically, display incompetence in civil matters as well? Clericalism is alive and well.
From Wikipedia: “Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based, leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of either the church or broader political and sociocultural import. In a pejorative manner, “clericalism” is often used to denote an ecclesiolatry approach to issues beyond the church by either clergy or their supporters while the term has also been applied in a pejorative manner to describe the cronyism and cloistered political environs of the Church—mainly in reference to the Roman Catholic Church.”
Ouch, “mainly in reference to the Roman Catholic Church.” We Catholics should hang our heads in shame that it has come to this. If it were otherwise, the OP would never have had to even ask the question.
That’s the key. Stop the flow and we can deal with the ones already here. I’m all for amnesty then.
In the US there are increasing numbers of micro “Third World countries” which have resulted from uncontrolled (i.e., illegal) immigration. It tends not to move a local economy forward, including for these immigrants themselves, for whom immigration in that case merely replaces one kind of stasis for another. Economists tell us that a certain level of prosperity is needed for an economic region to continue to be healthy and not to put undue burdens on social services (health, education, etc) when the ratio of the prosperous to the non-prosperous is too tiny to provide a counterbalance (not enough property owners to pay handsome taxes to maintain excellent school systems, etc).