No Catholic bishop has ever taught that having sex with underaged boys is moral. This is a common red herring used by all that attack the Catholic Church.You’re joking right? So we should never question the Bishops? Its a line of thought like that that exasberated the sex scandal.
That is **not **what I am inferring at all. How did you construct that?No Catholic bishop has ever taught that having sex with underaged boys is moral. This is a common red herring used by all that attack the Catholic Church.
It is no sin to disagree with the bishops on what the prudent course of action is in dealing with illegal immigration. However, their degree of unity on some of the defining moral principles should give one pause before saying they are “WRONG, DEAD WRONG.”
And it is your red herring, and no one else’s, if your capital letters refer to the following post by me, which has nothing to do with any “disagreement with the bishops on defining moral principles.” To the contrary, I have stated agreement with the moral principles post after post on this thread. Readers can see for themselves how seriously you misrepresent me since you misappropriate my response below as being to the bishops rather than to you.No Catholic bishop has ever taught that having sex with underaged boys is moral. This is a common red herring used by all that attack the Catholic Church.
It is no sin to disagree with the bishops on what the prudent course of action is in dealing with illegal immigration. However, their degree of unity on some of the defining moral principles should give one pause before saying they are “WRONG, DEAD WRONG.”
Neither the above post, nor the post I am writing, registers “disagreement with the bishops on defining moral principles.” Never once have the US Catholic Bishops said that concern for immigrant poor should override concern for resident poor. Never once. I will thank you to stop misrepresenting me.Wrong. Very wrong. I am speaking of relative impact. Three to five years, for example, is like overnight on some large systems, in some heavily impacted areas. It has nothing to do with gradual increases nationally, but severely imbalanced results locally. Those of us who live in these areas, and serve these populations, know precisely what the differences are, region to region, city to city, and relative to the conflicting budgetary needs and available personnel of those cities and regions.
At the moment, in my region, many local poor are still not being served. That is the crux of the moral dilemma that is being discussed.
No, that was post 65 that said all our bishops are dead wrong.And it is your red herring, and no one else’s, if your capital letters refer to the following post by me, …
No. If someone wants to post here, I will respond to that. It is not possible to respond back and forth to posts from another site.Then for goodness sake, pnewton, please stop reading and replying to my posts on this board. If you will not read a link I supply, I am just wasting my time attempting to answer your requests for info.
This is his full post.If you’re going to challenge a bishop, you had better be as well educated as he is, before you call him on the carpet alleging that “this issue has nothing to do with the faith.” The bishop does not have to prove himself to the faithful. He enjoys the trust of the Holy Father who called him to be a bishop and who appointed him to his see. On the other hand, the rest of us, if we wish to say that the bishop is theologically, pastorally, or canonically wrong, must prove that we have the competence to make such a statement and then show how he is wrong with very specific theological, canonical and pastoral facts.
I commented on JR’s post here - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8289298&postcount=107 - but for those disinclined to read all this, here is the short form.I found this post by Brother J.R. that says well my objection to the attack of the bishops on immigration.
I found this post by Brother J.R. that says well my objection to the attack of the bishops on immigration.
This is his full post.Quote:
If you’re going to challenge a bishop, you had better be as well educated as he is, before you call him on the carpet alleging that “this issue has nothing to do with the faith.” The bishop does not have to prove himself to the faithful. He enjoys the trust of the Holy Father who called him to be a bishop and who appointed him to his see. On the other hand, the rest of us, if we wish to say that the bishop is theologically, pastorally, or canonically wrong, must prove that we have the competence to make such a statement and then show how he is wrong with very specific theological, canonical and pastoral facts.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…39#post8288439
Determining the best solution to our immigration problems does not involve moral issues. We may act immorally in supporting Proposal A if we do so for the wrong reason, but if we believe it to be a good thing to do then we act morally in supporting it. That is, it is not the proposal itself that determines whether supporting or opposing it is immoral; it is our reason for doing so that matters.
**-Ender **This is why the Church has no position on specific proposals: they don’t constitute moral concerns. A claim that a person who supports Proposal A is acting immorally is not actually a claim that the proposal won’t work, rather it is a judgment of the intent of the person who supports it … and a rash and uncharitable judgment at that. I am prepared to admit that my positions on specific immigration reforms may be uninformed and wrong. What I am not prepared to admit is that it is immoral of me to believe otherwise.
For pnewton. Not to bicker, but inform:
I found this post by Brother J.R. that says well my objection to the attack of the bishops on immigration.
This is his full post.If you’re going to challenge a bishop, you had better be as well educated as he is, before you call him on the carpet alleging that “this issue has nothing to do with the faith.” The bishop does not have to prove himself to the faithful. He enjoys the trust of the Holy Father who called him to be a bishop and who appointed him to his see. On the other hand, the rest of us, if we wish to say that the bishop is theologically, pastorally, or canonically wrong, must prove that we have the competence to make such a statement and then show how he is wrong with very specific theological, canonical and pastoral facts.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…39#post8288439
Quarrithbrakka and cmforte, don’t fall into the trap of becoming discouraged about the almost Liberation Theology-like public utterances of some bishops concerning illegal immigration. As I pointed out in # 79 above, bishops are not all-powerful. Yes, some of them are noisy, and some even seem to openly defy at least the spirit of Rome’s instructions and wishes–assurance of solid Catholic teaching in Catholic colleges, not giving Communion to openly anti-Catholic officials, providing reasonable access to the extraordinary form of the Mass, etc.
But notice that the bishops never want the Faithful to believe that the bishops have gone beyond their competence. For example, contrary to the noise on illegal immigration, here is what the USCCB’s FAQ says officially:
KSU, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I even disagree with them on many points in this document:
Does the Catholic Church believe in “open borders?”
No, Church teaching supports the right of sovereign nations to control their borders. Enforcement of our borders, however, should include the protection of the basic human rights and dignity of the migrant and not place lives at risk.
*They are ***not ****“migrants.” They call immigration,-which conjures up images of humans moving between two different sovereign nations,- "migration," because it denotes the images of humans moving in ancient pre-history before those nations and other societies and their borders ever existed, a situation they want revived as pro-globalists. And it are the illegals themselves placing their “lives at risk.” Our immigration laws aren’t doing it!
Does the Catholic Church support illegal immigration?
No. The Catholic Church does not support or encourage illegal immigration because 1) it is contrary to federal law and 2) it is not good either for society because of the presence of a large population living outside the legal structures or the migrant, who is subjected to abuse, exploitation, and death in the desert. Instead, the Church is advocating changing a broken law so that undocumented persons can obtain legal status in our country and enter the United States legally to work and support their families.
Why is it “broken”? Broken for whom? And to “work and support thier families”? What about unemployed and poor Americans who want to work and support their families? What about the fact that we are in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? When do the needs and interests of their fellow Americans come in?
And by the way, I grew up with these people…most of them do not come here to “support their families”, they come here because they think they have some God-given right to do so since this “was part of Mexico” that we “stole from them,” and to heck with our modern border and sovereignty! Check this out: americansforimmigrationlaws.blogspot.com/2010/05/truth-behind-pro-open-borders-pro.html . I’ve even seen many on food stamps and welfare while taking out literally pockets full of cash at the store that they made under the table from jobs they do not report.
I love it too. But I am very concerned about the US Bishops and their loyalty o this country. I really am. It pains me to say that…but I am finding it hard to come to any other conclusion. God help me…and our country!Lord, how I love the Roman Catholic Church.