Illegal Immigration and Morality

[Contarini]

What "dark history’? Not in America.
We’ve made mistakes, yes,

So the deportation/extermination of the native population; the creation of an ideology glorifying chattel slavery in one section of the country; the imposition of national unity on that section by the dominant North through a war that killed half a million people; and the contemporary legal situation in which murdering a child in the womb is treated as a constitutional right–these are all just “mistakes”?

I’m not picking on the U.S. You claimed that the U.S. is an exception. It isn’t.

but over-all it was this nation-state and its belief in democracy, in the rule of the people and not of monarchs, tyrants, or even Popes that has advanced the good of the world.

I know that this is something Americans want very badly to believe. And I am not going to dispute that America has done a lot of good in the world. But I find your absolute, sweeping claim to be both historically untenable and theologically heterodox.

Here is what I wrote on the subject: (from: facebook.com/chris.mforte#!/note.php?note_id=217825461590760), "Americans, spared from the history of Europe, spared from all the negative effects of chauvinist and bellicose nationalism, still believe in their own nation and its institutions and ideals, sometimes called the American Creed (cmods.org/Units/Unit1/Cmod3TheAmericanCreed.pdf ), and therefore do not put much legitimacy into the international community and international laws. This is why we still, to a degree, act unilaterally, ignore world opinion, and put our interests in front of those of others.

I’m sorry, but this is an incoherent claim, and anyone who was either not an American or not an adherent of your particular faction within America could see this immediately. You say that America is spared from the negative effects of chauvinist and bellicose nationalism, and then proceed to outline an ideology of chauvinist and bellicose nationalism.

To say “Europeans have this dark history and thus have nothing to teach America” makes no sense. It’s precisely because Europeans know from hard experience what “chauvinist and bellicose nationalism” looks like that Americans should heed them when the Europeans warn that just such an attitude is prevalent in America right now.

I live in a small town in the Midwest. I go to church with folks who belong to the Tea Party. I hear “chauvinistic and bellicose nationalism” all around me, all the time.

Your position (which is shared by many Americans, I know) seems to presuppose a kind of nationalistic Pelagianism–a belief in the fundamental innocence of America, so that what becomes demonic and destructive in other, more sinful nations is OK for Americans, because Americans can be trusted not to give in to the darker side of nationalism.

To most people in the world, including many Americans, this seems like blatant self-delusion. And one of the benefits of being a Catholic ought surely to be that you have safeguards against engaging in that kind of self-delusion. But if you choose selectively not to listen to the Church when it warns against the particular idolatries that you find appealing–well, I guess there’s not much that can be said to you

“Europeans, in contrast, with a negative and disastrous history because of nationalism, while recognizing the limited role of nations and governments to govern a limited area in certain limited contexts, believe that the nation-state and nationalism are always negative concepts and are concepts of the past, and therefore place more trust and legitimacy into international bodies, like the UN, the WTO, the World Court- and into international law.”

That’s a huge stereotype of Europeans. As you can see these days, there’s still quite a bit of nationalism in Europe. Many Europeans worry (rightly, it seems to me) about the increasing power of the EU bureaucracy. There are actually decentralizing movements in Europe–look at “devolution” in Scotland and Wales, for instance. One good effect of the EU has been to allow more local loyalties to re-emerge.

The United Kingdom, for instance, really isn’t a singular “nation” historically at all, but an unequal and generally unjust fusion of several earlier nations under the dominance of the largest (England).

The medieval model of many levels of governmental authority, each with specific rights and duties, seems healthy and reasonable to me–and one of the things I like about the U.S. is the partial preservation of that model in the form of federalism.

 

[Contarini]

And I would love to see the evidence supporting the assertion that nation-states have a more “dark and bloody” history then a time when there were absolute monarchs and popes.

First of all, there still are Popes. And in the second place, why are you setting absolute monarchs over against nation-states? Absolute monarchy and the nation-state developed together. Absolute monarchy in Western Europe is a creation of the nation-state and at the same time the shaper of the early nation-state.

The question to ask is whether the development of nation-states in the early modern period (roughly from the late fifteenth through the late seventeenth centuries) was a good thing for humanity or Christianity? I’m not convinced it was. Granted, the Middle Ages had plenty of bloodshed as well. I would like to find some good scholarship comparing the Middle Ages and the early modern period in that regard. (The early modern period was certainly much worse in other forms of violence, like witchcraft trials and religious conflict, though of course one could argue that the latter was simply the result of greater religious diversity.) I think it’s unquestionable that the scale and destructiveness of warfare increased immensely with the rise of the nation-state, but if (which I’m not sure is true) war became relatively less frequent, maybe the scale balances out. On the whole, it seems to me that criminal justice became harsher in the early modern period, if only because it was more often enforced–I don’t think that crime became less, but maybe it did, and maybe criminal justice was just as harsh.

So when I said that the nation-state had a bloody history, I was not necessarily making a comparative claim. But even if bloodshed didn’t get worse in the early modern period (I’m strongly inclined to think that it did, but I can’t prove that yet), it’s still possible that other paths (such as those suggested by the Christian humanists of the early sixteenth century, folks like More and Erasmus) might have led to better results. In other words, the frequent internecine conflicts of the Middle Ages were certainly a problem–but was the wholesale, massive, ruthless violence of the nation-state really the best answer?

Not clear to you? Don’t you know the history before the development of modern democracy and the nation-state?

It’s because I know something of that history that I question the Whig propaganda you accept.

And actually, as explained above, the nation-state does the exact opposite: by keeping power de-centralized it prevents tyranny, just as Reagan said. And your assertion that the nation-state is " 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," is just a matter of opinion.

The phrase “ideally shaped” is polemical, but the historical connection between the two is undeniable.

The nation-state centralizes power–it doesn’t “keep it decentralized” at all. Of course turning the world into one vast nation-state would be both impossible and monstrous. What I advocate (and Pope Benedict seems to advocate as well) is precisely the reverse. Put subsidiarity into practice while also developing international structures that can keep nation-states in check to some degree. It’s the inherent absolutism of the nation-state that leads you to think about international structures as tyrannical in the first place, because you assume that those who advocate such structures must want them to look like the nation-state.

The problem is in the whole concept of “sovereignty”–that the best way to limit violence is to give all coercive power to a single authority. (Never mind that the U.S. actually doesn’t entirely follow such a model anyway–and in my opinion is much the stronger for it.)

A nation-state, if it is democratic, ruled by the people, like the US, is actually a bulwark aganst tyranny and an absolute monarchy.

The major bulwark against tyranny in the U.S. is (in my opinion) the separation and balance of powers both among branches of government and between federal and state government. The more typical modern nation-state is not the U.S. but France–and any American can see how this kind of democracy can easily become tyrannical.

Being “ruled by the people” is historically no sort of bulwark against tyranny at all, as far as I can see.

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

But just because they fill out the paperwork does not mean they get citizenship status. Whether or not they get citizenship would be based on the needs of our country. If we can not accommodate them then we may send them back to their respective country or find another country for them to migrate to…

Exactly! That is why I want to see the law changed. We have to apply what John Paul II said to our situation. I see nothing in his statement that should be interpreted that we use a false offer of a chance for regularization to round them up and ship them back. The fact is, the poor have zero chance to stay because our our quota system being stacked against them, in contradiction to Catholic moral teaching. That is why the bishops are against the current immigration situation. They do not think just about what is best to keep middle Americans in a new car, a better house and more stuff.

 

[pnewton]

Which is one of the assertions I that really offend me made by pro-amnesty people; as if we are treating illegals “poorly”. Even with our current system, we are not.

-Chris

There is no reason to be offended unless you think it is you that the Holy Father was talking about when he made this assertion. There are plenty of people that do take advantage of the illegal immigrant, even in America, targeting them for crime or depriving them of wages.

 

[cmforte]

There is no reason to be offended unless you think it is you that the Holy Father was talking about when he made this assertion. There are plenty of people that do take advantage of the illegal immigrant, even in America, targeting them for crime or depriving them of wages.

Well, the Bishops at least seem to think that by arresting and deporting them, by verifying a persons’s identity before they are hired to do a job (E-Verify), that by trying to secure the pourous parts of our border by putting up a wall, and by impounding an illegal’s car when they drive without a license and insurance (even my car was impounded once for that very reason, but I guess illegals should get special treatment), we are treating them “poorly”.

And I would I think it is “me”? What have I ever done to treat an illegal "poorly’?

But as to “depriving them of wages”…since they shouldn’t even be in this country (illegally that is) why should they get any wages in the first place? I never understood that.

-Chris

 

[KSU]

Contarini, if I missed it I apologize, but what is your specific solution to the problem, assuming you see it as a problem, of illegal immigration in America.

Secondly, I find your philosophy and therefor your debate with cmforte fascinating. It takes me back to my early university days when I had no real understanding of America or Catholicism, yet an intuitive love for and an exhilarating need to defend both of them. I see this expressed in your arguments, the difference being of course your burning need to more or less attack rather than defend them. This is not all that surprising, given your background and misunderstanding of both. Nor am I saying you don’t have a right to express your beliefs. This is America, after all, and that much you seem to acknowledge.

It is very much doubtful that we could have a productive debate because we don’t have the same definition of two basic terms; America and Catholicism. From what I’ve gleaned, your concepts of those two terms are the concepts put forward by Catholic and American dissidents (including a few bishops), not the actual, traditional, plain English wording in official Church promulgations and the Constitution.

Please keep in mind, my friend, that Amchurch and American-flavored Socialism bear slight resemblance to orthodox Catholicism and America as founded by Christians/Deists. That makes debate very difficult.

 

[pnewton]

And somehow that speaks for all 300 million Americans? Ok, if you say so…

All I hear from illegals and their supporters is pride, arrogance, and chauvinism and an outright contempt for this nation’s sovereingty and laws

So are you saying over generalizing is bad, except when you do it. You use a little sarcastic smiley in one post, then generalize in the next. I know it must be generalizing because accusing the all bishops of pride and arrogance would be positively scandalous for a Catholic.

As far as my statement, I included that as data and made not attempt to use an “all” statement, as you did in the very next post. I never claimed to speak for a whole generation. If I did though, it would be no different than the claim that Americans are hard-working. Both are a generalization. That is why I word things carefully.

What I gave was only my experience, prefaced as such, and the fact that there is a lot of training being done just to help deal with this up-coming generation:

google.com/#hl=en&cp=13&gs_id=12&xhr=t&q=gen+y+seminar&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=gen+y+seminar&aq=0v&aqi=g-v1&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1d753b302b4e010e&biw=1680&bih=850

 

[cmforte]

Quote:
As an American and as a Catholic, both ideologies must coalesce.

Why “must”?

Because I am an American. I can not except any belief that is anti-American, and I don’t think that Catholic ideology and American ideology have to contradict each other.

Do you believe that either the creators or the current shapers of American ideology are/were infallible or divinely inspired?

Divinely inspired? When the pilgrims discovered and settled this continent, when the British colonists rebelled against England, wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Absolutely! (who are we to say they didn’t have the Holy Spirit guiding them at some points?) Infallible? As to what context? No human is totally “infallible.” It is only when they speak about faith and morals that the Pope and Bishops are infallible, but as humans they can mess up everywhere else.

Why is it so inconceivable that mere mortals got some stuff wrong?

Why is it inconceivable to you that Popes and Bishops, as mere mortals, can get stuff wrong? Unless you don’t think they are mortal. And am I getting this right? Ae you saying our Founding Fathers got it wrong when they fought for freedom and wrote up the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the very foundations America?

And why can’t an American think this?

Because unlike you, we love our country. And by the way, I never said this nation was perfect. None are. in fact I said the complete opposite. But overall, we’ve done more good for the world than negative.

It’s a long story. The short version is: born in England of partly American parents (my mother has dual U.S./British citizenship; my father dual British/Australian), moved to the States when I was six.

I knew it!!! Discussing the merits of America with you is futile. I’ll just say I believe in American Exceptionalism: nationalreview.com/articles/268588/defense-american-exceptionalism-clifford-d-may and parcbench.com/2011/06/09/a-case-for-american-exceptionalism/, youtube.com/watch?v=oQsCW1hbOGw .

I must say, my step-mother comes from England, Stevenidge to be exact, and is not a full citizen yet.

Oh, as to whether or not Europe is better or worse off than the US, haven’t you heard of the complete social breakdown in Greece and England recently? economist.com/node/21525945 , time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2078011,00.html .

-Chris

 

[pnewton]

But as to “depriving them of wages”…since they shouldn’t even be in this country (illegally that is) why should they get any wages in the first place? I never understood that.

Well for one thing, it is one of the few sins that cries to heaven for justice. God’s point of view on this particular sin is quite clear and vivid, if we wish to believe the Bible. Unfortunately, others use the excuse that they should not be here anyway to put them to work and deprive them of wages.

 

[pnewton]

Here I somewhat disagree. I believe culture is a neccessary and natural part of human nature and life, and that borders, and the nation-states within them, exist partly for preserving a certain culture, especially if that culture is in danger of disappearing. That is also why I think borders are important and why I support the concept of the nation-state. However, this does not preclude common justice.

-Chris

I do not think what you said is opposed to the Holy Father. He is just saying that our communion should not be based in culture, not that culture is not helpful. Don’t forget, respecting the culture of the host nation is one of the responsibilities or the immigrant. Church teaching has never been a one-way street. Those that come here are expect and are morally obligated to become Americans first and Hispanic, Asian or whatever, second.

 

[cmforte]

So are you saying over generalizing is bad, except when you do it. You use a little sarcastic smiley in one post, then generalize in the next. I know it must be generalizing because accusing the all bishops of pride and arrogance would be positively scandalous for a Catholic.

To say that our Church leaders are 100% perfect is scandalous. No human being is. This is exactly the kind of thinking anti-Catholics accuse us of.

And this is ***not a “generalization”. Everytime a pro- illegal activist goes on TV or writes an op-ed they say stuff like that, and come to a high school or college campus here in Southern California. I am speaking from experience, not making “generalizations”…by the way, can you please read my whole ***post? I said, that “not all illegals may think like that.”

And wait, when did I say the Bishops were full of pride and arrogance on this issue? (though some were, especially when they were interrogated for their roles in the sex scandal, I’m thinking Cardinal Law, …this is part of what is called clericalism).

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Well for one thing, it is one of the few sins that cries to heaven for justice. God’s point of view on this particular sin is quite clear and vivid, if we wish to believe the Bible.

I don’t remember him using the words, “illegal immigrants.” A “stranger” or “alien” is not always synonamous with “illegal immigrant.” And don’t forget that some illegals commit fraud, a crime, when they lie to employers and say they are legally able to work here. I think some employers should sue them, like in the Meg Whitman case last year: nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/Meg-Whitman-Illegal-Immigrant–104020663.html

Unfortunately, others use the excuse that they should not be here anyway to put them to work and deprive them of wages.

Another reason why we should stop illegal immigration and not grant amnesty, that can start a negative precedence, and deport illegals to stop them from being exploited by some employers. Is this not a “compassionate” or christian thing to do? And if they don’t want to be exploited or “deprived of wages,” then they shouldn’t come here illegally. They put themselves in that unfortunate position. This may sound cold, but it is true.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

I do not think what you said is opposed to the Holy Father. He is just saying that our communion should not be based in culture, not that culture is not helpful. Don’t forget, respecting the culture of the host nation is one of the responsibilities or the immigrant. Church teaching has never been a one-way street. Those that come here are expect and are morally obligated to become Americans first and Hispanic, Asian or whatever, second.

Great!! We do agree on some stuff!!

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Keep in mind, Contarini and pnewton, I did say this:

As I said before, in the name of justice and mercy, we should take each case individually and judge them on their own merits, I do agree there…its not that I “hate” illegals, its that I hate how they are framing the issue and how they act when they present it**…if they would just be more humble and apologetic, and stop insulting Americans, then people like me wouldn’t be so resentful and so legalistic**…

And:

I do agree here. **I think exceptions should be made for certain illegals. We should take each one on a case-by-case basis, looking at the reasons they came here and their behavior while here, for example, I would let this guy stay: **msnbc.msn.com/id/21950265…escues-us-boy/

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Contarini, if I missed it I apologize, but what is your specific solution to the problem, assuming you see it as a problem, of illegal immigration in America.

Secondly, I find your philosophy and therefor your debate with cmforte fascinating. It takes me back to my early university days when I had no real understanding of America or Catholicism, yet an intuitive love for and an exhilarating need to defend both of them. I see this expressed in your arguments, the difference being of course your burning need to more or less attack rather than defend them. This is not all that surprising, given your background and misunderstanding of both. Nor am I saying you don’t have a right to express your beliefs. This is America, after all, and that much you seem to acknowledge.

It is very much doubtful that we could have a productive debate because we don’t have the same definition of two basic terms; America and Catholicism. From what I’ve gleaned, your concepts of those two terms are the concepts put forward by Catholic and American dissidents (including a few bishops), not the actual, traditional, plain English wording in official Church promulgations and the Constitution.

Please keep in mind, my friend, that Amchurch and American-flavored Socialism bear slight resemblance to orthodox Catholicism and America as founded by Christians/Deists. That makes debate very difficult.

Exactly, KSU. Exactly.

By the way, the thinking of Contarini is rampant among college and university professors in California.

FYI, here is my solution: americansforimmigrationlaws.blogspot.com/2010/05/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-our-current.html

-Chris

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well for one thing, it is one of the few sins that cries to heaven for justice. God’s point of view on this particular sin is quite clear and vivid, if we wish to believe the Bible. Unfortunately, others use the excuse that they should not be here anyway to put them to work and deprive them of wages.

Wait. Are you saying that they are either slaves or indentured servants? If so, that should be reported to law enforcement agencies. Same for if they’re being paid below minimum wage. Those are all covered by laws. If you’re assuming that every illegal immigrant should be paid more, across the board, for whatever he or she is doing, you’ll need to quantify that and document that. An awful lot of them, including those with low skills, are getting paid more than legal residents are for similar work in some cases, for higher level work (by the legal residents) in other cases.

Except for what is required by law, or regulated through union membership, or dictated by pay structures for specific jobs within individual companies, the way wages work in this country is by market demand, relative to supply, as well as relative to employer choice (what the employer values less or more). Skilled, educated, capable teachers often earn less of a salary (not accounting for hours spent even) than commercial janitors and other employees with much less education. There are plenty of manual-labor jobs, such as in domestic employment, hospitality work, construction, and even ‘entry-level’ tech & medical jobs --which employ thousands of illegal workers-- which earn the same & higher pay than a whole variety of similar and different jobs held by legal residents.

Or are you talking about sweatshops, which are largely East Asian enterprises opened in the States? (And the feds do prosecute those shops when they are discovered.)

Or are you saying that the illegal workers are “entitled” to a particularly high wage, regardless of their skill level, their verified illegal status through e-verify, “because” they are here illegally?

If so, that’s quite an argument.

 

[KSU]

Right on, Chris! I’m amazed to still find such optimism and the will to fight the Leftist hate and nonsense in California.

 

[Contarini]

Because I am an American. I can not except any belief that is anti-American, and I don’t think that Catholic ideology and American ideology have to contradict each other.

But they might, right? What about the nature of things guarantees that American ideology will be 100% correct?

Divinely inspired? When the pilgrims discovered and settled this continent, when the British colonists rebelled against England, wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Absolutely! (who are we to say they didn’t have the Holy Spirit guiding them at some points?)

Well, many people may be guided at some points. But what the points are needs to be measured against what we already believe to be divinely revealed.

You seem to me to have two religions, in the sense that both American nationalism (in your own particular understanding thereof, which differs from that of many other people) and Catholicism seem equally “fundamental” for you. In fact, I’m being generous in saying that–if anything, it seems that you take American nationalism more seriously.

I can understand the impulse to have two religions, but as I said elsewhere I’d have more respect for someone who tried to add Buddhism to Catholicism. It’s less clearly incompatible.

Why is it inconceivable to you that Popes and Bishops, as mere mortals, can get stuff wrong?

It’s not inconceivable at all. I’m not sure why you are saying this. However, given the choice I’m certainly going to trust the Pope and bishops and councils of the Catholic Church above the American Founding Fathers or any other human authorities. I’m a skeptical kind of person, so I don’t trust the Catholic hierarchy too far either. . . . . But I really believe that God entered into a covenant with St. Peter and with his successors the bishops of Rome, just as he did in the OT with Abraham and Moses and David. . . .(God help me, I *am *a disciple of Scott Hahn after all.) I have no similar reason to believe that he has entered into a particular covenant with America.

Unless you don’t think they are mortal. And am I getting this right? Ae you saying our Founding Fathers got it wrong when they fought for freedom and wrote up the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the very foundations America?

Specifically, the most obvious place they got it wrong was in writing in a tacit allowance for slavery. I understand why they did it, and for mere mortals they did a darned good job of drawing up a blueprint for a just society. You are playing the typical ultra-nationalist game of accusing me of being anti-American simply because I see the U.S. as no different in principle from any other nation.

As for the Revolution–one of the reasons I’m in no haste to become an American citizen is that I am by no means convinced that the Revolution was just. I don’t have extremely strong opinions about it either way, but I certainly don’t see it as a glorious struggle against tyranny in which the right was clearly on the side of the “Patriots.” (My American ancestors appear to have been Tories, so in a way I’m being loyal to them in holding these views!)

Because unlike you, we love our country.

In a way that people of other countries are not supposed to love their countries? Or do you hold that members of all countries are supposed to believe that the operative political principles of their countries were infallible? I’m baffled by your argument–you seem to be substituting emotional rhetoric for logic.

And by the way, I never said this nation was perfect. None are. in fact I said the complete opposite.

Right–but one isn’t supposed to question the basic political principles of the country, right? I guess we both need to be more specific about what those were. In my original remark, I was thinking of the general ethos of the Founding Fathers more than any specific legal prescriptions found in the Constitution. So we may be talking past each other.

But overall, we’ve done more good for the world than negative.

I’m not sure how one would measure this or what it would signify if true. But if that’s your reason for being patriotic, then you don’t love your country at all. It’s a pretty poor patriotism that depends on a prior analysis of how much good your country has done in the world. Give me Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s (or Thomas More’s) version of patriotism any day.

I knew it!!! Discussing the merits of America with you is futile.

If what you believe about America is rational, shouldn’t you be able to give reasons to an unbeliever?

I’ll just say I believe in American Exceptionalism

Definition and reasons, please? One of the two articles to which you linked gives about four very vaguely defined reasons, and the other one gives one that is significantly different from those listed in the other. It’s hard to argue against such a vaguely defined target.

Oh, as to whether or not Europe is better or worse off than the US, haven’t you heard of the complete social breakdown in Greece and England recently? economist.com/node/21525945 , time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2078011,00.html .

Yes, they’re going through a rough spot. It’s amusing that you leap to conclude that Europe as a whole is in some kind of general, terminal breakdown because of a short-term crisis. Now you may be right–possibly things are just going to get worse in Europe in various ways. But this is all so vague. Many Americans are in quite a bad way too.

More to the point, I wonder why you want to embrace a view of the world that depends on gloating over the flaws of other societies.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, if I missed it I apologize, but what is your specific solution to the problem, assuming you see it as a problem, of illegal immigration in America.

I am not in a position to shape public policy, obviously. But the view that makes most sense to me is that those currently in the country should be given a path to citizenship that is not overly punitive, unless they are criminals (in some way other than simply by being here illegally); that immigration law should be changed to take account of need more adequately than it currently does; and that once the law has been changed to meet the genuine needs of would-be immigrants, border security should be much more rigorously enforced against those who may wish to cross the border for drug trafficking or other nefarious reasons.

I’m sure that there are many flaws to my ideas about practical solutions. None of that affects the more basic point that the ideology of those opposing “amnesty” is contrary to orthodox Christianity and to natural law.

Secondly, I find your philosophy and therefor your debate with cmforte fascinating. It takes me back to my early university days when I had no real understanding of America or Catholicism, yet an intuitive love for and an exhilarating need to defend both of them. I see this expressed in your arguments, the difference being of course your burning need to more or less attack rather than defend them.

Perhaps you can give your reasons for thinking that I am attacking Catholicism. I take myself to be defending Catholicism as the central expression of orthodox Christianity against the principal rival of Christianity in the United States, which is ideological American nationalism or “American exceptionalism” (it is no less a rival because it is embraced by many Christians).

QUOTE]This is not all that surprising, given your background and misunderstanding of both.

Given the complete lack of substance in your post, you are hardly in a position to patronize me.

Show me how I misunderstand either American nationalism or Catholicism? Why on earth should I or anyone else take your word on the matter?

It is very much doubtful that we could have a productive debate because we don’t have the same definition of two basic terms; America and Catholicism. From what I’ve gleaned, your concepts of those two terms are the concepts put forward by Catholic and American dissidents (including a few bishops), not the actual, traditional, plain English wording in official Church promulgations and the Constitution.

Then define them. Don’t just throw sneers around, but explain what you think I take “America” and “Catholicism” to mean, and how I err.

You appear to be grandstanding for the sake of Catholics on the thread, attempting to give them the impression that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

This in spite of the fact that I am essentially reproducing the arguments of the 19th-century Popes against what they called “Americanism.”

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

I don’t remember him using the words, “illegal immigrants.” A “stranger” or “alien” is not always synonamous with “illegal immigrant.”

You are right. Jesus never made this distinction, nor did any prophet in the Bible. It is not a distinction to be found anywhere in Scripture or moral theology.