Illegal Immigration and Morality

[Contarini]

I don’t want to “argue” in this thread about whether your ideas are right or wrong.

Yes, I have noticed that.

However, the specific point we have been arguing is whether Pope Leo condemned my brand of “leftist ideology.” And you have yet to show that.

I try only to make points to counter yours.

But you have failed.

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.

Actually I said “conservative.” The scare quotes were there for a reason. I apologize for using the term and will do so no longer, but I was basing nothing on it–just using it as shorthand for those who think like you on this issue, since they generally refer to themselves as conservatives. (I’m happy to drop the term, since I really don’t think you and cmforte are conservative on the points at issue–I think that my position is by far the more truly conservative, but it would be pointless to try to argue about such labels.) If you used “leftist” in the same way I wouldn’t care. What I object to is that you base your argument on this. You seem to think that proving that I am “liberal” or “leftist” by some definition proves that I hold the position Pope Leo criticized. But it doesn’t. You have to show what specifically I am saying that Pope Leo criticized. Since in fact Pope Leo was criticizing people who wanted to alter Catholicism in some way to conform to American culture, and I’m arguing strongly against any such thing, you would have an uphill argument making that case.

I don’t need to “listen to myself.” I wrote those words, and I know what I said. What I need is to be shown either that I am wrong or (in the specific point at issue between us) that Pope Leo criticized my position.

Your penchant for quoting me back to myself, as if you can’t believe that I really mean what I say, is maddening. Especially since you insert phrases in square brackets that often distort what I say, as here:

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

No, I told you in an earlier post what I was talking about here. I was thinking specifically of the role American Catholics such as Fr. John Courtney Murray played in the formulation of the Church’s teaching on religious liberty as found in Dignitatis Humanae.

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)”.

Yes, and I supported this argument by comparing Pope Leo’s description of legitimate “Americanism” (though he doesn’t use the phrase) with President Obama’s description of legitimate “exceptionalism.” cmforte agreed with me that Pope Leo and Obama were, in his view, making the same mistake–in other words, that he disagreed with both for the same reasons.

You are welcome to disagree. But make a substantive argument.

The fact that what I say “grates” on you, regrettable as it is, does not constitute an argument.

You began this exchange by claiming in very haughty and dismissive tones that I was guilty of misunderstanding. You have so far utterly failed to substantiate this. And no amount of repetition and quotation will do the job. Either make an argument or retract your initial claim that I misunderstood both Catholicism and America.

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),

And I countered this by pointing out his explicit limitation on legitimate Americanism–that it constitutes of exalting the specific institutions and characteristics of America in the same way that other nations may do. It seems to follow, then, that any claim of “exceptionalism” not limited by the same qualifications used by President Obama (in other words, allowing for the legitimacy of British or Greek exceptionalism) does run the risk of falling into the error Pope Leo is criticizing.

If this argument fails, I have a second: that any claim that the Constitution is divinely inspired must mean that the Church in America is different from the Church in other countries, since the true Church cannot help but have a very different relationship to a divinely inspired political order than to a merely human one. It is inconceivable that the Church would not function very differently if it had such a great benefit. Pope Leo seems to be criticizing precisely the view that the Church in America can function better because of the superiority of American democracy.

But even if both of these arguments fail–even if you can establish that the “Americanism” Leo criticized had nothing to do with your and cmforte’s brand of “exceptionalism”–it would still be absurd to argue that Leo was in any way condemning my “leftist ideology,” which consists precisely in rejecting *all *brands of exceptionalism as contrary to the claims of the Church.

 

[Contarini]

In other words, I have shown some specific similarities between what Leo criticizes and what you and cmforte maintain. You are welcome to refute them. But even if you do so, you have not established your claim that Pope Leo was somehow condemning my rejection of *all *forms of exceptionalism just because he may have been criticizing a form different from the form you and cmforte uphold.

For the record: insofar as liberal American Christianity does maintain a form of “Americanism”–in other words, insofar as it claims that because modern liberal democracy is superior therefore Christianity must adapt to it–I entirely reject and liberal American Christianity. What you call my “leftist ideology” has nothing at all to do with such a claim. My views as expressed in this thread run counter to such a claim at every turn, as you yourself have painstakingly documented. The fact that you choose to give the same name to both my views and the views of the Call to Action types who want to impose constitutional democracy on the Church as some kind of “right” possessed by all the faithful may simply be a sign that you need a more precise vocabulary for dealing with these issues. (I do wish Catholics would return to the practice of electing bishops, but that’s not because it’s a modern practice but because it’s an ancient one–and I don’t wish or expect the practice of electing bishops in Catholicism to look like the practice of electing political leaders in modern liberal democracies, nor do I think that electing bishops is some kind of absolute “right.”)

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.

I have told you repeatedly that I do not see any inaccuracies in what Fr. Hardon said–however, he was giving a brief summary of the point of the document as he understood it, not an exhaustive analysis. The fact that he did not mention the points I brought up does not mean that they do not exist. Are you seriously suggesting that it is pointless to discuss the actual text, because Fr. Hardon exhaustively and authoritatively described its contents?

My point is that the condemned, leftist movement of the 1890 ties mirrors today’s secular and religious left.

But you haven’t shown how it mirrors my “leftist ideology” (sorry for mistakenly saying “agenda” in the last post). And that is what you need to do.

I remain unconvinced that the agenda of the late 19th century was actually in any meaningful way “leftist,” but perhaps it was. The point would still be irrelevant, because Pope Leo did not qualify his criticisms to apply only to “leftist” alterations of Catholic doctrine.

The only difference I am aware of is that today’s left also agitates for official state and Church acceptance of homosexuality.

Where do you find the “Americanists” arguing for a change in Catholic sexual morality or views on abortion or birth control?
Where do you find them advocating for women’s ordination?
Where do you find them, for that matter, suggesting what you would consider “collectivist” social policies? None of the sources you have cited describe any such thing. Perhaps they did, but I have yet to see the evidence for it. (Archbishop John Ireland, sometimes called an “Americanist,” did support labor unions and supposedly influenced the Vatican not to condemn the American labor movement, but since Pope Leo listened to him on that point it surely does not count as something Leo was criticizing. . . . )
And most relevant here, where do you find them advocating for a liberal immigration policy?

There are many, many differences between the Americanism of that era and the “liberalism” of contemporary American Catholicism. However, what many liberal American Catholics have in common with those “Americanists” is the general claim that modern liberal democracy is different and superior from other social contexts in a way that should make the Catholic Church change some of its teaching. Insofar as modern “liberals” teach this, Pope Leo criticized them, and so do I. Insofar as modern “conservatives” teach this, Pope Leo criticized them, and so do I.

Per Contarini: “You claimed that Pope Leo was condemning ‘my leftist agenda’.” No, my friend. What I said was “your brand of Leftist ideology”,

Fair enough. . . .

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.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that Leo criticized the Americanists for not letting American laws stand as obstacles to their agenda? Surely you can’t be serious? Where could you possibly find support in the text for such an interpretation? The whole point is that American Catholics are not to modify the faith to conform to the American context.

And yet again, it remains absurd for you to claim that anything I have said, however “leftist” it may sound to you in general terms, has anything to do with any form of “Americanism,” since I am saying precisely that Catholic principles should take precedence over American political ideology.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

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.

I thought it would be obvious to KSU that I was speaking in the realm of the hypothetical. I really do not conceive of the Church ever making a universal sports declaration. However, we do often have a blurring between morality and politics, and may well disagree on when that line is crossed. We also have a blurring between theology and science with the same issue (e.g. Galileo). So I agree that we are different. When I see an agreement of 100% on an issue, I do not concern myself as to whether I am viewing moral teaching or prudential teaching, because I recognize my judgement could be flawed. I do not believe obedience is ever an abdication of responsibility, or an ill-advised choice, as long as there is no contradiction of moral law or of conscience. This is something I have learned from reading on obedience within religious communities, as well as my time before I was Catholic.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

I do not know about anyone else - but, it was quite obvous to me that you were providing a totally outrageous hypothetical example . But my understanding of an example is to clarify the point not to throw it into an abdsurdity. If in fact your idea was to convey the idea that if the 100% of the USCCB voted on the ‘goodness’ of the Red Sox - and you knew (or, should have known) that thisd isd beyond the scope of their competence and authority - and you went along with it anyway - then your example is showing how you are willing to subordinate your free will to an issue that is inappropriate.

Using the (Vow of) Obedience in religiouds communities as an example of proper subdorination of the will is, in my opinion, misplaced. The Religious Superior can tell the Religious Inferior to do certain work assignments as may be necessary around the Community. The Religious Inferior accepts these chors as if Christ (in the person of the Religious Superior) had made the request. Such an activity is viewed as a virtue and is meritorious. If, however, the Religious Superior told the Inferior to rob a bank - then the Inferior would know (or should have known) that such an activity is not covered under Obedience because, it is morally wrong.

Now, for a less dramatic example: if the Order gathered honey and the Superior wanted all to eat more honey so it would not go to waste and the Inferior did not care for the taste of honey - the Inferior could simply decline to obey because there were other ways of getting rid of the honey and this (reducing the honey supply) could put the Inferior at risk for physical problems and such an order was not really withing the context the usual activitiers of the Community. Note: there would be some Inferiors who would think this is the best idea the Superior has ever had! Gobbling up honey is now seen as a virtue under the Vow of Obedience - but, really, all are to apply right reason to every situation. The Superior is to be prudent in making rules - for not everything he says really falls under Obedience, and the Inferior is to use sound judgment in applying any order. Some benefit would surely develop with the increased consumption of honey - but, this does not relieve the Inferior of using his good judgment in this matter.

God bless

I thought it would be obvious to KSU that I was speaking in the realm of the hypothetical. I really do not conceive of the Church ever making a universal sports declaration. However, we do often have a blurring between morality and politics, and may well disagree on when that line is crossed. We also have a blurring between theology and science with the same issue (e.g. Galileo). So I agree that we are different. When I see an agreement of 100% on an issue, I do not concern myself as to whether I am viewing moral teaching or prudential teaching, because I recognize my judgement could be flawed. I do not believe obedience is ever an abdication of responsibility, or an ill-advised choice, as long as there is no contradiction of moral law or of conscience. This is something I have learned from reading on obedience within religious communities, as well as my time before I was Catholic.

 

[pnewton]

• then your example is showing how you are willing to subordinate your free will to an issue that is inappropriate.Inappropriate? I said, “if.” I am a person of deep faith in God and a firm conviction of His guidance of the Church, the Bride of Christ. If the Holy Spirit choose to do anything extreme, I want to be the first to listen. Yes, what I said was more extreme than reasonable. It is called hyperbole. On this issue, after I hear over and over and over and over, the same message from these people who have undergone Holy Orders and consecrated as bishops, as I notice that they seem to speak as one, without exception, certain messages, then yes, I am more than willing to consider that it is in fact the Holy Spirit’s voice that is sending his Church a message. To that, I do not consider it inappropriate to subordinate’s one’s will.

Using the (Vow of) Obedience in religiouds communities as an example of proper subdorination of the will is, in my opinion, misplaced.

Rather it was the principle behind religious obedience that I find applicable. As it is **my **free will it is mine to freely give it to those I choose. As to robbing a bank, I gave a caveat concerning this in my earlier post. Of course immoral actions are not acceptable for us. I continue to be confronted by ths irony. The right to dissent from what a bishop or bishops teach based on it be a judgment (nor moral teaching) is transformed into the norm. Those of us that agree with them are having to explain away and apologize for our simple obedience. Go figure!

 

[KSU]

Per Contarini: “Either make an argument or retract your initial claim that I misunderstood both Catholicism and America.”

OK, here again are just three examples:

1. “There are numerous points where Catholic social teaching clashes head-on with right-wing American politics. There is a concerted movement by ‘conservative’ Catholics these days to obscure and trivialize this conflict, making Catholics passive puppets of the Republican Party.”

My friend, beliefs like that, on their face, are silly and both anti-America and anti-Catholic. You don’t understand either concept. Attack my beliefs; say whatever you wish, but I reiterate: your assertions are not worthy of debate on this board.

1. “The debate on this thread exists largely because the Catholic bishops clearly take a ‘liberal’ position on immigration…Let’s discuss the fact that your own bishops have said that current immigration law is unjust. Let’s see whether you actually have any reason to disagree with your bishops beyond your political prejudices.”

If nothing I, and lately Ender and tqualey, have explained to the contrary about the competency and authority of bishops, and supported with links, then you are beyond convincing. First, the Catholic bishops said no such thing, and, second, if they had, it would be their own, non-binding, political opinion. Again, Contarini, you do not understand Catholicism. I don’t care that you say you have some sort of doctorate.

3) "...I was thinking specifically of the role American Catholics such as Fr. John Courtney Murray played in the formulation of the Church's teaching on religious liberty as found in Dignitatis Humanae."

Again with Murray, Contarini? Do I have to remind you that he was so out of touch with Church teaching that he was “silenced” by Rome? And since you don’t like my Catholic sources, here is the center-left Wikipedia: QUOTE Murray’s public involvement was complicated by the Catholic doctrines of salvation and church/state relations…his endorsement of full cooperation with other theists led to Catholic complaints that he was endangering American Catholic faith… he advocated religious freedom as defined and protected by the First Amendment …[rather than Church teaching]… eventually argued that Catholic teaching on church/state relations was inadequate to the moral functioning of contemporary peoples. The Anglo-American West, he claimed, had developed a fuller truth about human dignity… Murray’s claim that a new moral truth had emerged outside the church led to conflict with…and the eventual Vatican demand… that Murray cease writing on religious freedom…[While he was invited to contribute drafts to Dignitatis Humanae, which broke no new moral teaching]… he continued… claiming that the arguments offered by the final decree were inadequate…[and] then turned to questions of how the Church might arrive at new theological doctrines…He suggested…a restructuring of the Church, which he saw as having overdeveloped its notion of authority and hierarchy… Robert Drinan was influenced by the position of Murray…It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians “might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order.” END QUOTE

Yet again, Contarini, you do not understand Catholicism or that Leo condemned what you support in Murray.

Per Contarini: “…it remains absurd for you to claim that anything I have said…has anything to do with any form of ‘Americanism’.”

That statement further solidifies my position that you don’t understand Catholicism or America all that well. Pope Leo was not condemning American political ideology; he was condemning the “Americanist” heretical idea that the Church “should adjust its doctrines, especially in morality, to popular culture.” You say your interpretation is better than Fr. John Hardon S.J. who I just quoted. Please, Contarini, don’t bother to argue that point with me again; I won’t reply anymore. And note that the “Americanist” position has nothing to do with America per se; if it had raised its ugly head in some other country it would have been called something else by whomever coined it. It was not the pope.

Per Contarini: “You have to show what specifically I am saying that Pope Leo criticized.”

Your assertions in 1), 2) and 3) above would have been fully embraced by “Americanism”
and thus condemned by Pope Leo.

 

[Ender]

Contarini - I haven’t been following the discussion between you and KSU so I haven’t seen where you made the statements he attributes to you. If you did make them, however, they are worth a comment or two.

1. "There are numerous points where Catholic social teaching clashes head-on with right-wing American politics.

This is inaccurate. Not only are there not numerous points of divergence but I can’t think of even one. This goes to the point I’ve been trying to make all along: there is no Catholic position on how best to solve political issues; that is, there is no Church doctrine that explains how we should resolve issues like immigration, health care, and the economy.

1. “The debate on this thread exists largely because the Catholic bishops clearly take a ‘liberal’ position on immigration…Let’s discuss the fact that your own bishops have said that current immigration law is unjust. Let’s see whether you actually have any reason to disagree with your bishops beyond your political prejudices.”

It is certainly true that a number of bishops have expressed their opinions on any number of issues, immigration being one of the best examples of this. You should not, however, assume that because several of them have spoken out that their position is therefore that of the Church. It isn’t. Nor is it accurate to say “the Catholic bishops” have taken a liberal position as, collectively, they haven’t. Not even all the American bishops have taken a collective position let alone all the bishops of the Church.

At a minimum, KSU is right about this: “First, the Catholic bishops said no such thing, and, second, if they had, it would be their own, non-binding, political opinion.”

Ender

 

[KSU]

“I thought it would be obvious to KSU that I was speaking in the realm of the hypothetical. I really do not conceive of the Church ever making a universal sports declaration. However, we do often have a have a blurring between… theology and science with the same issue (e.g. Galileo).”

No, pnewton, it wasn’t at all obvious to me that you were speaking hypothetically that the Church as a whole can err in the matter of politics, science, sports, etc.Your blurring of whether the Galileo matter was or was not an example of an error on the part of the Church as a whole is why it still isn’t obvious to me. The Church as a whole never said Galileo was right or wrong. In fact, Copernicus, the first to propose consideration of the Heliocentric theory, was awarded a papal medal. How is that a blurring of lines between science and theology? Galileo got himself into trouble for breaking his promise not to publish the then theory as a scientific fact until it could be proven scientifically. Remember that the Church not only developed the scientific method but was its protector as well.

Anyway, while some non-scientist churchmen may have condemned the Heliocentric theory (I don’t recall and am too tired to research it) despite the bestowing of papal honors on its originator, or just plain didn’t like Galileo, the Church as a whole knew better than to condemn the theory. That is a fallacy constantly spewed by enemies and detractors of the Church, and I of course do not include you in that category–just the opposite.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

The basic flaw in your argument is that the type of submissive obedience you are talking about is reserved for the Holy Father and the Magisterium acting in concert with the Holy Father. Groups of bishops do not speak for the Holy Spirit. The proof of that statement in our own lifetime comes out of Winnipeg Canada when the Canadian Bishops in 1968 openly opposed the Pope’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae. So, how does one prepare for statements from bishops that are not consistent with Church teaching? Well, honestly, go easy on the hyperbole about going for the Red Sox because the USCCB said so!

If you make the statement that, 'This is my free will and I can use it as I want" (in conjunction with your Red Sox hyperbole) you are violating a basic principle of your humanity - honoring God with sound judgment, and not intellectually slavish behavior.

We have an obligation to listen to the Bishops. We also have an obligation to be cautious when these men enter into the field of politics. Recall how our bishops were very committed to ObamaCare - even though he was a SOLID supporter of abortion and even advocated infantacide. Recall how our bishops never quite got around to publicly excommunicating those politicians who claimed to be Catholic yet found it OK to support and vote for abortion type legislation.

It seems to me that this is really a bit more complex than you have acknowledged.

God bless

pnewton:
Inappropriate? I said, “if.” I am a person of deep faith in God and a firm conviction of His guidance of the Church, the Bride of Christ. If the Holy Spirit choose to do anything extreme, I want to be the first to listen. Yes, what I said was more extreme than reasonable. It is called hyperbole. On this issue, after I hear over and over and over and over, the same message from these people who have undergone Holy Orders and consecrated as bishops, as I notice that they seem to speak as one, without exception, certain messages, then yes, I am more than willing to consider that it is in fact the Holy Spirit’s voice that is sending his Church a message. To that, I do not consider it inappropriate to subordinate’s one’s will.

Rather it was the principle behind religious obedience that I find applicable. As it is **my **free will it is mine to freely give it to those I choose. As to robbing a bank, I gave a caveat concerning this in my earlier post. Of course immoral actions are not acceptable for us. I continue to be confronted by ths irony. The right to dissent from what a bishop or bishops teach based on it be a judgment (nor moral teaching) is transformed into the norm. Those of us that agree with them are having to explain away and apologize for our simple obedience. Go figure!

 

[Contarini]

1. “There are numerous points where Catholic social teaching clashes head-on with right-wing American politics. There is a concerted movement by ‘conservative’ Catholics these days to obscure and trivialize this conflict, making Catholics passive puppets of the Republican Party.”

My friend, beliefs like that, on their face, are silly and both anti-America and anti-Catholic. You don’t understand either concept. Attack my beliefs; say whatever you wish, but I reiterate: your assertions are not worthy of debate on this board.

That’s a very convenient way for you to avoid actually showing that I am wrong. Why are you so unwilling to do this?

You know perfectly well (as your repeated identification of me with “liberal” Catholics shows) that there are lots of Catholics who agree with me on this point. So even if you consider my position “unworthy” of debate, you surely ought to care about the fact that many of your fellow Catholics are, in your view, misled. Why not provide the argument that shows how badly misled they/we are?

1. “The debate on this thread exists largely because the Catholic bishops clearly take a ‘liberal’ position on immigration…Let’s discuss the fact that your own bishops have said that current immigration law is unjust. Let’s see whether you actually have any reason to disagree with your bishops beyond your political prejudices.”

If nothing I, and lately Ender and tqualey, have explained to the contrary about the competency and authority of bishops, and supported with links, then you are beyond convincing.

Yes, you have given a particular take on the subject–those posts postdated the remark you quoted above, I believe. I wasn’t ignoring what you guys had said, but I didn’t want to get involved in a second subsection of this thread when trying to get through to you was taking up so much time:shrug:

I presume that the links you have in mind are in post #266. The first link is indeed valuable because it cites an encyclical of Pope John Paul II. However, the encyclical does not itself support the dismissive and hostile account of the USCCB given in the blog post. While the blog post describes the formation of the USCCB as motivated by a desire for political respectability, the Pope affirms (sects. 4-6) that episcopal conferences were set up for valid pastoral reasons, and he points to conciliar and papal documents authorizing them.

The Pope also points out (sect. 3) that local councils are a much older institution than permanent conferences, going back to the early Church. Thus, the principle that bishops in a given region can and should come together to exercise their pastoral office jointly is a venerable one and is affirmed by the Pope (not at all the impression one would get from the Dallas blog, which does not refer to those sections of the encyclical).

The sections quoted in the blog to which you linked (10-12 and 19-20) make the point that episcopal conferences do not have the same kind of authority as the College of Bishops as a whole or as an individual bishop acting within his own diocese. Indeed. Even among us Anglicans this basic principle of Catholic ecclesiology is not altogether unknown, as you can see from this letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury (of course, apart from the fact that many American Episcopalians really think that the Episcopal Church is a Church, we have the problem that the Anglican Communion is at the very best only equivalent to one of the “sui juris” churches that make up the Catholic Church, and is certainly not itself the Universal Church–but that’s my problem and not yours).

 

[Contarini]

However, once again it’s worthwhile to look at the sections that the blogger omitted. In sect. 13 we find the following:

Likewise, the organizations formed by the Bishops of a certain territory (country, region, etc.) and the Bishops who are members of them share a relationship which, although presenting a certain similarity, is really quite different from that which exists between the College of Bishops and the individual Bishops. The binding effect of the acts of the episcopal ministry jointly exercised within Conferences of Bishops and in communion with the Apostolic See derives from the fact that the latter has constituted the former and has entrusted to them, on the basis of the sacred power of the individual Bishops, specific areas of competence.

Note that the Pope says explicitly that the joint pastoral exercise of the episcopal ministry within regional conferences is binding. The difference is that while the worldwide college of bishops has an authority that goes beyond that of an individual bishop, the regional conferences derive their authority from the Apostolic See and function on the basis of “the sacred power of the individual bishops.” In other words, the conferences have a binding authority, but this authority is derivative of the authority both of the universal Church and of the local bishops.

As I take it, the Pope’s basic point is that there isn’t a pyramidal hierarchy in the Church in which regional conferences are greater than the individual bishops and the universal Church is greater than regional conferences. Regional conferences, rather, are institutions set up by the universal Church for pastoral purposes in order to pool the resources of individual bishops.

I fail to see how any of this means that a USCCB document has no authority at all, or that (as Ender claims) it is simply an expression of opinion.

I fully understand that a Catholic may disagree with such a document without being a heretic. You will not find that I have ever claimed otherwise.

On the contrary, I implied that you might have good reason to disagree with the USCCB. I don’t see that this is in fact the case in this issue, but I recognize readily that it could be the case in principle. Indeed, what I actually said did not use words like “teaching” or “authority.” Even if Ender’s right and USCCB documents are just private opinions (though this doesn’t seem to agree with the papal encyclical just discussed), my challenge would still be a valid one: what substantive reasons do you have for disagreeing with those opinions? Are those reasons rooted in Catholic teaching or simply in your political prejudices?

Once again, your claim that I “misunderstand Catholicism” does not seem to have any substance behind it. But perhaps I remain mired in misunderstanding. If my arguments are fallacious, please explain specifically why and how.

the Catholic bishops said no such thing

The USCCB document cited in #200 makes the following claims:

1. “Survival has thus become the primary impetus for unauthorized immigration flows into the United States.”
2. In pursuit of their legitimate desire to meet their basic needs and those of their families, immigrants are exposing themselves to great danger, and many of them are dying.
3. The present limitations on immigration are “woefully insufficient” to meet these needs.
4. Good government has the duty “to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person” (and also, of course, the duty to protect the borders of the nation).
5. " Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations." (Note that this is supported by a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is probably the key claim in the document, and it is not just the “opinion” of the bishops or their appointed spokespersons–it is part of the ordinary teaching of the Catholic Church.)
6. The present policy breaks up families and thus often fosters illegal immigration (since the relative of someone who has immigrated legally may not be admitted for years).
7. The 1996 IIRIRA takes away due process rights.

1-3 clearly imply that present policy is unjust, especially in light of the principles articulated in 4-5. Furthermore, these points are rooted in the teaching of the universal Church, as the quotation from the Catechism shows. Points 6 and 7 could be discussed separately.

 

[Contarini]

  Do I have to remind you that he was so out  of touch with Church teaching that he was "silenced" by  Rome?

Yes, and do *I *have to remind you that he was rehabilitated at Vatican II and wrote the third and fourth drafts of Dignitatis Humanae?

Are you disputing this? I can find you more solid sources than the Catholic News Service if you wish.

I never said that all his views were orthodox. That isn’t the point. I said that he contributed to the formulation of Catholic teaching. And that’s unquestionably the case.

And since you don’t like my Catholic sources

It has nothing to do with “liking” or “not liking.” It has to do with the nature of the evidence.

You used Fr. Hardon to avoid actually dealing with the text of Testem Benevolentiae. It had nothing to do with Fr. Hardon. It had to do with the fallacious argument “if Fr. Hardon didn’t say it in a brief reference article, then it can’t be a valid interpretation” and with your extrapolation from Fr. Hardon’s reference to “social welfare” to the wild and weird conclusion that Pope Leo condemned “my leftist ideology.”

Yet again, Contarini, you do not understand Catholicism or that Leo condemned what you support in Murray.

Did Leo condemn Dignitatis Humanae?

Of course I grant that Murray was an Americanist. That was my original point (I think)–that even though Pope Leo worried about the distinctive ethos of American Catholicism threatening orthodoxy, nonetheless American Catholics wound up having important contributions to make.

The overall point is that local, cultural perspectives must be subordinated to the teaching of the universal Church and subject to that teaching for correction. But the Church’s doctrine does develop, and particular perspectives, even when flawed in many ways, can contribute to that development.

Pope Leo was not condemning American political ideology

I know that and never said anything else.

he was condemning the “Americanist” heretical idea that the Church “should adjust its doctrines, especially in morality, to popular culture.”

I agree. And my original argument was that when you and cmforte say that American political ideology is divinely inspired, and you use that as an excuse to construct your view of immigration based on your secular political views rather than on the principles of Catholic teaching, you are arguably falling into the “Americanism” Pope Leo criticized.

You say your interpretation is better than Fr. John Hardon S.J. who I just quoted.

No, I don’t. I say that we need to have a substantive conversation about the primary source. You want to shut down conversation by citing one brief reference article. That’s not how historians use sources. Secondary sources don’t end conversation. You have to read all of them critically, no matter how authoritative. And in fact, from a scholarly perspective, a brief article in a very general handbook, written by someone whose original area of specialization was Bellarmine (fairly close to my own period, in fact), isn’t all that authoritative, no matter how learned and holy its author. In scholarly discourse, the most authoritative kind of source is a monograph by someone who specializes in that particular subject.

Again, I never said that anything Fr. Hardon said was wrong. I am simply trying to get you to discuss the original source and get past your very strange idea that if Fr. Hardon didn’t mention a particular implication of the text, that implication must not exist.

Please, Contarini, don’t bother to argue that point with me again; I won’t reply anymore.

You are welcome not to reply, of course. I probably shouldn’t bother to argue the point. But I remain hopelessly optimistic that, as a rational being created in God’s image, you have the capacity for substantive dialogue buried inside you somewhere.

And note that the “Americanist” position has nothing to do with America per se; if it had raised its ugly head in some other country it would have been called something else by whomever coined it. It was not the pope.

Both very valid points.

Your assertions in 1), 2) and 3) above would have been fully embraced by “Americanism”
and thus condemned by Pope Leo.

Thanks–that’s a start toward substantive dialogue.

However, you still need to flesh out how 1 or 2 are “Americanist.”

We both agree, do we not, that the basic error of “Americanism” was its desire to alter Catholic doctrine? So to support your claim, you need to show that I

1. am attempting to alter Catholic doctrine on these two points; and that I
2. am trying to do so in order to conform with distinctively American values.

Point no. 3 is much more valid. However, it’s a historical claim primarily. It’s simply undisputed that Vatican II *did *take up many of Murray’s ideas. My statement to that effect was a concession and formed no part of my main argument. Furthermore, the position endorsed by Vatican II certainly did not hold that Catholicism should be something different in America than in other countries–indeed, it applied the ideas of religious liberty that American Catholics had helped develop to other countries. And it in no way endorsed the superiority of active to passive virtue. Thus, I think we can get Vatican II off the hook. But you mistake entirely if you think that this is part of my argument about immigration. Quite the contrary. It’s an admission that America, and even Americanists, *did *have something valid to contribute.

Edwin

 

[Ender]

what substantive reasons do you have for disagreeing with those opinions? Are those reasons rooted in Catholic teaching or simply in your political prejudices?

My opinions, like theirs, are formed by my political prejudices - aka what I believe about what will or won’t be effective in solving particular problems.

The USCCB document cited in #200 makes the following claims:

1. “Survival has thus become the primary impetus for unauthorized immigration flows into the United States.”

This is clearly an opinion and a debatable one at that. Given that Mexico is an upper middle class nation the idea that Mexicans are coming here as a question of survival seems spurious on its face.

1. In pursuit of their legitimate desire to meet their basic needs and those of their families, immigrants are exposing themselves to great danger, and many of them are dying.

I question whether their desires are legitimate given my comments above, but I agree that some of them die as a result of their attempts to illegally enter this country.

1. The present limitations on immigration are “woefully insufficient” to meet these needs.

This all turns on distinguishing needs from wants for those who would immigrate here and it inappropriately ignores the legitimate needs and wants of those already here.

1. Good government has the duty “to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person” (and also, of course, the duty to protect the borders of the nation).

OK - so where in that statement is anything that indicates where the line should be drawn between too many and too few immigrants? That there isn’t one is the point I’ve been driving at. That is a prudential decision which the Church does not make for us … nor does she cede that right to the bishops.

1. " Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations." (Note that this is supported by a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is probably the key claim in the document, and it is not just the “opinion” of the bishops or their appointed spokespersons–it is part of the ordinary teaching of the Catholic Church.)

Note that what is at issue are competing rights: the rights of an individual to immigrate and of a nation to determine what immigrants to accept. More to the point, there is nothing there that defines where the line between too many and not enough is to be drawn. Determining the proper balance is entirely prudential and there is no moral difference between saying it should be up here or down there.

1. The present policy breaks up families and thus often fosters illegal immigration (since the relative of someone who has immigrated legally may not be admitted for years).

Being a parent does not keep someone out of jail if he commits a crime. The policy is not intrinsically evil and there may be legitimate disagreement about when it is appropriate to use.

1-3 clearly imply that present policy is unjust, especially in light of the principles articulated in 4-5.

(1) Church teachings are not implied; they are clearly stated. (2) Even agreeing that the present policy is unjust provides no specificity in determining how to fix it, and that is what the argument is about. What - specifically - should we do? On that question the Church is silent. (3) As you say, items (4-5) are principles. There is no disagreement over what the principles are; the arguments are over how to implement them. The Church tells us to feed the hungry but she has not one word to say about how we should go about doing that. The same is true of immigration. The details are up to us.

Furthermore, these points are rooted in the teaching of the universal Church, as the quotation from the Catechism shows.

The Church identifies the ends, the laity determine the means.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Hi, Pnewton,

The basic flaw in your argument is that the type of submissive obedience you are talking about is reserved for the Holy Father and the Magisterium acting in concert with the Holy Father.
Where does the Church say this? Can a man not also choose to listen and obey a superior officer in the military? Or the a spiritual director? Or a religious superior? Since I exempted action that is sinful, where does the Church make this claim you make?

Groups of bishops do not speak for the Holy Spirit. The proof of that statement in our own lifetime comes out of Winnipeg Canada when the Canadian Bishops in 1968 openly opposed the Pope’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae. So, how does one prepare for statements from bishops that are not consistent with Church teaching?

Okay, the strawman is long past dead. For the fifth or sixth time, I have always given the caveat that what is said and obeyed is not sinfu.

We have an obligation to listen to the Bishops. We also have an obligation to be cautious when these men enter into the field of politics.

Really? Where in the Catholic Church impose this obligation on all the laity? Furthermore, what you are saying only begs the question on when politics begins and moral teaching ends.

Recall how our bishops were very committed to ObamaCare - even though he was a SOLID supporter of abortion and even advocated infantacide.

There in no such thing as ObamaCare, except in the realm of political rhetoric. What they supported was universal healthcare, you know, as per the Gospel. What they did, was abandon support for the specific bill that has been labeled ObamaCare when it allowed support for abortion.

FYI - It is not a sin against anyone but the Church of Rush to support immigration reform or universal healthcare. This is why I can not be a part of either political party as both have areas that they prefer an ideology in their platform that I can not accept as compatable with Catholic moral teaching.

 

[pnewton]

My opinions, like theirs, are formed by my political prejudices - aka what I believe about what will or won’t be effective in solving particular problems.

It need not be that way. We are capable of approaching something first from a mora position and from that developing the political possibilities.

The Church identifies the ends, the laity determine the means.

Yes, but with one caveat. Some means are deemed to be immoral. I would rather say the Church identifies both the ends and the boundries.

 

[KSU]

A) ) Per Contarini: There are numerous points where Catholic social teaching clashes head-on with right-wing American politics. There is a concerted movement by ‘conservative’ Catholics these days to obscure and trivialize this conflict, making Catholics passive puppets of the Republican Party.

KSU: My friend, beliefs like that, on their face, are silly and both anti-America and anti-Catholic. You don’t understand either concept. Attack my beliefs; say whatever you wish, but I reiterate: your assertions are not worthy of debate on this board.

Contarini: That’s a very convenient way for you to avoid actually showing that I am wrong. Why are you so unwilling to do this?​

Because, Contarini, it’s impossible for me to prove a negative. Your assertion is false. If it were true, you would have proved it by reference to an objective source.​

B) Per Contarini: Pope John Paul II…affirms…that episcopal conferences were set up for valid pastoral reasons, and he points to conciliar and papal documents authorizing them.​

So what? Nobody on this thread disputes that under certain circumstances and with respect to matters of faith and morals, individual bishops may officially agree to act jointly and authoritatively as bishops in such a way as to bind the conscience. Every 40 years or so they even get around to doing so, e.g., The bishops of England and Wales are preparing the faithful for the resumption of the obligation to abstain from meat on Fridays. Those who cannot or choose not to eat meat as part of their normal diet will be required to abstain from some other food which they regularly eat.​

C) Per KSU: Do I have to remind you that he [Fr. John Courtney Murray] was so out of touch with Church teaching that he was “silenced” by Rome?

Contarini: Yes, and do I have to remind you that he was rehabilitated at Vatican II and wrote the third and fourth drafts of Dignitatis Humanae? Are you disputing this? I can find you more solid sources than the Catholic News Service if you wish. I never said that all his views were orthodox. That isn’t the point. I said that he contributed to the formulation of Catholic teaching. And that’s unquestionably the case.​

First, there was no NEW teaching by VC II in the dogmatic sense, so I don’t believe he formulated substance. Second, Murray was not rehabilitated by VC II with respect to his silenced opinions, as implied in the typically liberally slanted CNS article. At least you recognize that the CNS is not a very solid Catholic news source, and for that you deserve a commendation for being honest. (It’s a private firm greatly unliked by orthodox Catholics like me and of course much admired by USCCB staffers who support it as an organ of the USCCB). Third, his drafts were not fully adopted in the final document which was eventually written by orthodox authorities. That led to his whining about the inadequacy of the pastoral–note, pastoral-- Dignitatis Humanae, and his wish to “reform” the Church. Fourth, it is impossible for you to say how much if any of his opinions were adopted; certainly his wrong opinions were not. I think that what he did contribute, if anything, was a new way of allowing Church interests to dialog with secular authorities, especially in Communist nations. My remembrance of Murray is that his opinions on “religious freedom” led directly to past and present dissidents in the U S Congress rationalizing their pro-abortion legislation. Murray has gone to his reward so we will never know for sure if he favored such rationalization; I therefore make no pretence of knowing his heart. And my opinion of the writing style of VC II documents is that dissidents like Murray (and I’m not saying him personally because I don’t know) wanted less than clear pronouncements. Some day after I’m gone those documents will be clarified.

---

Continued

 

[KSU]

D) Per Contarini: You [KSU] used Fr. Hardon to avoid actually dealing with the text of Testem Benevolentiae. It had nothing to do with Fr. Hardon. It had to do with the fallacious argument “if Fr. Hardon didn’t say it in a brief reference article, then it can’t be a valid interpretation” and with your extrapolation from Fr. Hardon’s reference to “social welfare.”​

You ignore my repeated requests to stop putting words in my mouth to construct straw men; it’s your debate tactic and apparently you will not abandon it. I never said or ever thought anything resembling your false quote of my words. That tactic detracts from your argument, if any.​

E) Per Contarini: Again, I never said that anything Fr. Hardon said was wrong.​

You said, at least, that he was misleading and inaccurate. Same difference.​

F) Per Contarini: It’s simply undisputed that Vatican II did take up many of Murray’s ideas…Furthermore, the position endorsed by Vatican II certainly did not hold that Catholicism should be something different in America than in other countries.​

It’s “undisputed” only in liberal minds, and it’s unsupported. And it’s completely meaningless because the phrase “did take up many of Murray’s ideas” does not exclude the possibility that it took up and rejected most or all of the substance of his ideas-- even you have to agree that VC II would have rejected the ideas that earned him a silencing.​

G) Per Contarini: Furthermore, the position endorsed by Vatican II certainly did not hold that Catholicism should be something different in America than in other countries.​

There you go again putting words in my mouth. I never said that and I never would. I don’t believe Catholicism is or should be something different in America than in other countries. I do believe our Bill of Rights and Constitution are inspired by the Holy Spirit. If you want to attack that personal belief, feel free, but it’s not germane to the OP’s issue.​

Contarini, my friend, this is the last time I will respond to your same, old assertions and arguments. Please come up with entirely new arguments about illegal immigration if you wish.

 

[Ender]

We are capable of approaching something first from a moral position and from that developing the political possibilities.

And this is what most people have done and it is why there is generally no moral distinction to be made between one solution and another.

Yes, but with one caveat. Some means are deemed to be immoral. I would rather say the Church identifies both the ends and the boundaries.

Yes, that’s a good modification, but within those boundaries there is still room for vast differences. No one is suggesting that immoral means be used; the disagreements are solely over what effects certain actions will have and about which there are no moral differences.

What they supported was universal healthcare, you know, as per the Gospel.

What I’m pretty sure of is that there is nothing in the gospels about universal health care. Nothing the Church teaches goes into that level of specificity. “Heal the sick” does not translate to “implement a government run health care system” regardless of who supports the concept.

It is not a sin against anyone but the Church of Rush to support immigration reform or universal healthcare.

I’m sure Rush doesn’t oppose immigration reform in general. What he (and I) oppose are particular recommendations. It is wrong to assume that because someone rejects your solution that he also opposes your objective. Again, the fight is over the means, not the ends.

This is why I can not be a part of either political party as both have areas that they prefer an ideology in their platform that I can not accept as compatible with Catholic moral teaching.

There is nothing in Catholic moral teaching that requires anyone to accept a particular proposal offered as a solution to a social problem. I challenged Contarini on this point and challenge you as well: cite the Church doctrine that obliges our assent to any **particular **solution to a social problem. I think you’ll find … nothing.

Ender

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton

Let’s see what we have here… how about beginning with the CCC. The bishops are not infallible - only the Pope is and that is all I am saying:

Where does the Church say this? Can a man not also choose to listen and obey a superior officer in the military? Or the a spiritual director? Or a religious superior? Since I exempted action that is sinful, where does the Church make this claim you make?

894 “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

896 The Good Shepherd ought to be the model and “form” of the bishop’s pastoral office. Conscious of his own weaknesses, “the bishop . . . can have compassion for those who are ignorant and erring. He should not refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his very own children. . . . The faithful . . . should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father”:428

Are you practicing on your own straw-man arguments? Military subordinates have an obligation to obey military superiors - this is not an option. Failure here brings significant punishment. But, this is not a virtue under the Vow of Obedience. Religious subordinaes have an obligation under their Vow of Obedience to obey their Religious Superiors in lawful commands - and, this is a virtue. Of course, you are personally free to obey anyone you choose.

The entire issue of the Winnipeg Declaration by the Canadian Bishops - which you simply dismissed is a perfect example of how Bishops, either individually or collectively are not infallible. You will have to show where such an obvious violation of the Bishops loyalty to the Pope is not of concern.

There have been heretic Bishops and Priests throughout the Church’s history - and this would simply be an extreem example of how these clerics do not have infallibility.

Not quite the straw-man you would like to see… There are morally neutral items (i.e., not sinful in themselves) that have no business being commanded by the Bishops. Your hyperbolic example, Pnewton, of the Red Sox is truly classic. Cheering for the Red Sox, buying tickets for their games, puttng a bumper sticker on your car are all examples of morally neutral acts - but acts that should not be required by the Bishops. Recall, I am using your abject example to show you have you have gone off the beam.

pnewton:
Really? Where in the Catholic Church impose this obligation on all the laity? Furthermore, what you are saying only begs the question on when politics begins and moral teaching ends.

I guess the obligation is on everyone to use the brain God gave you to think. This is not specific to the laity - but, to all human beings. Your use of the Red Sox hyperbole is the example of non-thinking - and that is what I am responding to.

pnewton:
There in no such thing as ObamaCare, except in the realm of political rhetoric. What they supported was universal healthcare, you know, as per the Gospel. What they did, was abandon support for the specific bill that has been labeled ObamaCare when it allowed support for abortion.

Yes, you are right. I used ObamaCare as a shorthand for "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) But, please note - this is not a spiritual, philosophical or geographich concept - it is POLITICAL. And, you know, I would like you to please show me where in the Gospels there is a requirement or support universal health care. Their decision to support the legislation (pick whatever name is least offensive to you) was initially flawed. Finally they saw their own error, but only after the House that was stopping it caved in. Look how they failed to stand up for conscience. You can’t play cards with the Devil and expect to have an honest game.

I notice you ignored the lack of action on the part of the Bishops in publically condemning politicians who promote abortion (current Gov of NY living with his mistress and receiving communion from the Bishop) may be a good ‘straw-man’ example of how the Bishops have failed in upholding Vatican teaching opposingviews.com/i/vatican-ny-gov-andrew-cuomo-shouldn-t-get-communion

God bless

 

[KSU]

" You can’t play cards with the Devil and expect to have an honest game."

Gotta remember that one:thumbsup: