Illegal Immigration and Morality

[tqualey]

Hi, KSU,

Glad you liked it…

Ah, any comments about the rest of the post…?

God bless

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

Gotta remember that one:thumbsup:

 

[Contarini]

cmforte,

You invited me some time ago to respond to this post–I apologize for not doing so sooner.

tqualey, thank you for your question and the link. Here is my point-by-point response to that document (put into two posts):

Catholic Social Teaching

**Persons have the right to immigrate… **

I don’t agree with this. No one has the “right” to go to another country. That country allows you to enter it, and on its terms.

And this is an example of the point where we fundamentally differ, and where I think you differ from basic Catholic teaching. You give an absolute authority to the state that is not supported by Catholic teaching.

Note that the document cites the Catechism on this, from section 2241:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the *foreigner *in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Whatever you may think of USCCB documents, this is not just a USCCB document speaking.

I think we are not all that able to "welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin."

Well, first of all I think that you’re selling your own creed of American exceptionalism short here. Even though I don’t hold to your view of America, I recognize that America is a very remarkable country with a highly resilient culture and political system. I think that to say that America can’t welcome immigrants because of the present economic downturn is extremely short-sighted and unreasonable. America even in economic difficulties is still one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I think that the “inability” would refer more to a country that was heavily overpopulated or where the majority of the people already there lived in abject poverty. For instance, when there’s a civil war in one African country, people may flee to another which is slightly more stable but suffers from great poverty, and this immigration may threaten to push the second country over the edge. With all due respect, I don’t think you have a clue as to what genuine inability to receive immigrants would look like.

And it’s by no means clear that immigrants hurt the American economy anyway. It seems far more likely to me that a generous immigration policy would help the American economy. But that isn’t the primary consideration here.

A further argument against your position is that lots of illegal immigrants are already here contributing to the American economy.

I think that the burden of proof is on you to show that America really can’t handle any more immigrants. I think that’s a highly unlikely thesis. And it still doesn’t deal with the question of what to do with the folks who are already here.

*Where do Americans go when they can’t support their families and find employment? *

Where they can find better opportunities to do so. I believe that it is part of your dogma that no such place exists

It would seem to follow from your logic that no country needs to accept immigrants unless it has 100% employment, which is almost never the case. More people, after all, means more employment. For instance, more non-English-speaking immigrants mean more jobs for English teachers and translators.

That statement doesn’t take into account changing economic circumstances, like the high unemployment rate in the US at the current time.

Yes, it does. I think that in principle this is a valid argument, but I think that it’s wildly inappropriate when applied to the present circumstance, given how much wealthier America still is than most other countries.

What strikes me, rhetorically, about your argument is the huge gap between the extravagant patriotism of your earlier posts and the fearful guardedness of your actual views regarding the prospects of the country whose exceptional nature you praise so highly. I hold to a less exalted view of America in principle, but I have a far more optimistic view of it in practice. I’m not accusing you of a lack of patriotism on this point–I don’t think that real patriotism has anything to do with optimism (though I think it has a lot to do with hope). It just worries me when American exceptionalism becomes divorced from what I regard as the most morally praiseworthy aspect of such exceptionalism, which is a generous embrace of immigrants. One of the arguments for American exceptionalism I’ve heard my whole life is that America is a nation made up of people from all over the world. It horrified me the other night to hear Michelle Bachmann in effect reverse Emma Lazarus’s famous poem by saying that a good immigration policy would accept only people with money in their pockets.

This I may agree with, if nothing else because I know some illegals who are good people with “moral character”, despite the fact that they disrespected my country by violating its laws and borders, and because deporting tens of millions of people might be logistically impossible.

I think that the tension between your observation of the good moral character of “illegals” and your belief that they disrespected your country should point you toward questioning the second premise. I suspect that the people you have in mind are willing, in the Catechism’s words, to respect the laws of the country that receives them. But it is contradictory to expect them to respect the laws of the country that receives them by consenting not to be received. And it is an odd sort of disrespect for a country that consists of earnestly desiring to be part of that country.

Edwin

 

[KSU]

Per tqualey: "Hi, KSU,

Glad you liked it…

Ah, any comments about the rest of the post…?"

Yes. The sorry example of the Winnipeg Declaration by the Canadian Bishops should be enough to convince anyone of your point that, in the end, we have to walk this lonesome valley by ourselves. We can’t say, : “Yes, Lord, we know what you told us about the fruit of the tree, but the serpent said, blah, blah, blah.” Catholicism is not always easy.

I would advise anyone to at least consider not placing total, unquestioning faith in our religious leaders; listen to them, of course, and with respect. But, listen first with the sense God gave you, and listen even more closely to what you know God said. Our shepherds are, after all, fallible human beings with a horribly poor pastoral record after VC II-- their writings and pronouncements and reluctance to actually implement VC II or to obey the Vatican have led directly to the almost sinful destruction of our church interiors, musical and liturgical heritage and education of our children and college students.
We have lost at least two generations because of our leaders’ incompetence, arrogance, laxity and cowardice in the face of the wolf–heresy and sexual filth .
Rome burns while they fiddle with political correctness and bureaucracy, e.g., amnesty, gun control, etc.
But thanks be to God we know that, in the long run, the gates of hell can’t prevail. A new (traditional and orthodox) group of bishops and priests is starting to renew the Church. Even Rome, which “thinks in terms of centuries” rather than years and which gives great deference and respect to successors of the Apostles, has had enough. The signs of a Vatican crackdown are increasing and, to confirm that it’s so, the National Catholic Reporter is complaining with great alarm

 

[Ender]

I think that to say that America can’t welcome immigrants because of the present economic downturn is extremely short-sighted and unreasonable.

It is, however, true that America cannot welcome everyone who would like to immigrate here. I don’t think anyone has said we should welcome no one and the point is, the Church does not draw the line for us between all or none.

And it’s by no means clear that immigrants hurt the American economy anyway. It seems far more likely to me that a generous immigration policy would help the American economy.

This determination is entirely prudential and a reasonable belief that they are hurting the country is justification for limiting the number who may enter.

I think that the burden of proof is on you to show that America really can’t handle any more immigrants.

No it isn’t. The burden of proof is one an individual owes himself so he may be comfortable that his actions are reasonable. Our burden of proof is no different than yours.

It just worries me when American exceptionalism becomes divorced from what I regard as the most morally praiseworthy aspect of such exceptionalism, which is a generous embrace of immigrants.

“Generous” here means nothing more than “a level I personally approve of.” Naturally I consider my own limits to be generous as well - even though they are surely very different than yours.

Once again, however, I’ll point out that there is no Church doctrine that addresses the actual level of immigration we should allow. It is certainly valid to argue for whatever level you think is best, but it is not valid to claim that the Church supports your position over that of mine or anyone elses.

Ender

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Edwin,

Your post is well written and thoughtful. Yet, I do have a couple of problems with your overall thrust. Let me explain…

And this is an example of the point where we fundamentally differ, and where I think you differ from basic Catholic teaching. You give an absolute authority to the state that is not supported by Catholic teaching.

Note that the document cites the Catechism on this, from section 2241:

First, let’s get the entire entry for 2241: 2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

In Mark 12:17 Christ responded to the Jews who questioned the lawfulness of paying taxes to the government. I think it would be a mistake to limit Christ’s words only to the payment of taxes. Caesar receives our renderings in many ways! And it is these two concepts that I think should be considered.

Note 2241 does not confer an absolute right or an absolute obligation - both are qualified. I was not saying that government had an absolute right here - and, if that is the impression I gave, let me correct it right now. The writers of 2241 apparently recognized that there are limits to the amount of immigration can accept. The writers also acknowledge that it is the country that can set limits as to number, and the imposition of requirements for those ‘strangers’ to be welcomed into the country. This does not address coming in so as to evade the justly passed laws of the country.

This is not an easy issue to address because there are so many facets that have developed over time. Not to sound silly about this but the usual reason people immigrate is because there is a problem in their home country that is not being fixed or fixed fast enough. I am not aware of any Catholic Document that actually addresses the responsibilities of soverign states to clean up their act so that economic and political justice is established and native citizens are not forced to flee. We have an obligation to feed the hungry - but, this does not only mean handing out food. Locals can be taught to farm and work on being self-sufficient.

When we ‘…render unto Caesar…’ we are acknowledging that God has appointed in His Own Way these representatives of civil authority. While we would like them to always mix justice with mercy - they must first be just to their own citizens before they can be just or merciful to others. Asserting even a qualified right implies that everyone is willing to abide by the rules and move forward. The US really does have an immigration policy - and, it works. People from foreign countries, complete all paperwork requirements and are processed and really do enter this country legally. It is a big day in the lives of these immigrants when they raise their right hand and become US Citizens. To imply some type of ‘nativeism’ where foreigners are forbidden to come to the US is simply not true. To argue that not everyone who wants to come to the US can - is a valid concern - but, one that recognizes reasonable limits.

Ultimately, I think the US is following a reasonable policy specific to immigration. And, while this policy probably could be improved in certain ways - the US is the only country I know that granted a wholesale amnesty program under President Reagan - and it was quickly forgotten. Honeslty, I think I am the only one who has mentioned it (several times) on this thread. Maybe it is time to look at just what it is that other countries could do to make their ‘Caesars’ more accountable.

God bless

 

[Contarini]

It is, however, true that America cannot welcome everyone who would like to immigrate here.

Probably not. However, I don’t think one can reasonably suggest that the country is anywhere near the limit of its capacity. Of course we can disagree about that–and this is surely what you have the pastoral guidance of your bishops for. You seem to hold the view that anything not “official teaching” is just private opinion. I don’t see that dichotomy being supported in any of the actual teaching of your Church. (In other words, your opinion about what is “teaching” and what isn’t doesn’t itself seem compatible with Catholic teaching to me, though of course you may be able to show me evidence to the contrary.) As I said above, Pope John Paul II spoke of episcopal conferences having “binding authority” in the exercise of their joint pastoral functions. I take the point that this authority does not supersede that of local bishops, but surely it is something that an individual lay person should at the very least respect and take seriously rather than dismissing as “just opinion.” Why otherwise would JPII speak of “binding authority”? What do you suppose that phrase meant?

This determination is entirely prudential and a reasonable belief that they are hurting the country is justification for limiting the number who may enter.

Right, but you are essentially claiming the right to decide for yourself what is “reasonable” and what isn’t, rejecting any pastoral guidance from your own bishops or their representatives. That seems highly unwise to me, and given the religious/cultural context in which we both live it strikes me as most likely the result of your being influenced by the individualism of American Protestant culture rather than a legitimate expression of Catholic tradition. You acknowledge the binding authority of the Church down to a certain level, and then claim that any pastoral documents “below” that level are nothing but private opinion, giving you a generous space in which to exercise the kind of individual judgment so beloved of your Protestant brothers and sisters. When I read papal and other official Catholic documents, on the other hand, I don’t get the impression that there is any such space for a purely individual decision. Rather, there is a gradation of authority, from conciliar and ex cathedra texts that must be accepted as a matter of faith, down to what your local priest may say in a sermon or a counseling session, or even what lay Catholics may say on a forum as an expression of the sensus fidelium. In other words, what I have always thought was the Catholic view–and have found very appealing–is that one is never acting or thinking apart from the guidance of the Church, and that this guidance cannot be limited to a finite set of “official” teachings.

No it isn’t. The burden of proof is one an individual owes himself so he may be comfortable that his actions are reasonable.

Again, I see no warrant for this kind of individualism in the Catholic tradition. You have pastoral statements from your bishops and/or their representatives making some fairly strong judgments about how to apply Catholic teaching. I recognize that you have the right to disagree. What I said–and continue to say–is that there’s a burden of proof on you to show why you reach conclusions so different from those of your bishops, since it is highly likely that your disagreement with them is due to your acceptance of ideological principles foreign to Catholic tradition. It’s by no means certain, of course. But surely even a minimal respect for the pastoral office of your bishops (carried out collectively through an episcopal conference and those who work for it, according to the norms laid out by JPII) would cause you to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Where we differ is in your apparent belief that below a certain level of “official teaching” pastoral documents issued by the hierarchy leave the playing field completely level–leave you acting as an individual exactly in the same way that someone not a member of the Catholic Church would do.

“Generous” here means nothing more than “a level I personally approve of.”

No, it doesn’t mean that. It’s a relative term. It doesn’t mean a particular level.

And the question here is not what I approve of, but what the bishops exercising their pastoral responsibilities either directly or through their representatives approve of. Again, I’m not suggesting that you are required to agree with them, only that you surely owe their pastoral guidance some respect and are obligated to have very strong reasons for disagreeing–reasons that need themselves to be rooted in the principles of Catholic teaching and/or in clear empirical evidence leading you to apply those principles differently than the bishops do.

So, for instance, one could argue that the bishops are simply naive in their belief regarding what levels of immigration the country can handle. One could show this by pointing to the work of economists and sociologists working from a wide variety of ideological perspectives, not limited to a particular partisan faction within contemporary American politics. I haven’t seen such an argument. Perhaps that is due to my inattention.

Once again, however, I’ll point out that there is no Church doctrine that addresses the actual level of immigration we should allow. It is certainly valid to argue for whatever level you think is best, but it is not valid to claim that the Church supports your position over that of mine or anyone elses.

No, I claim that the Church has laid out certain principles, and that your bishops, in their pastoral function, have suggested certain concrete applications, which ought to be given the benefit of the doubt in the absence of a very strong argument rooted in Catholic tradition and/or indubitable empirical evidence.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

In Mark 12:17 Christ responded to the Jews who questioned the lawfulness of paying taxes to the government. I think it would be a mistake to limit Christ’s words only to the payment of taxes. Caesar receives our renderings in many ways!

Well, it certainly does apply to taxes, so can we both agree that the whole “taxation is theft” argument you hear from some folks these days is sheer nonsense?

How far you apply it–well, that’s a matter on which folks disagree. The dominant view among contemporary NT scholars seems to be that Jesus meant it in a very limited sense–maybe even in the sense of “throw the idolatrous trash back to that pagan tyrant–you shouldn’t have polluted yourself by taking it in the first place.” (N. T. Wright, for instance, takes this view–I would welcome examples of scholars who disagree.) That is certainly compatible with what Jesus says, whether or not it’s the best interpretation. So I am not going to be very convinced by any argument that builds too much on a supposed pro-government message in this passage. It should never be forgotten that Jesus is talking about a pagan, despotic regime (despotic with regard to conquered peoples, at least) that occupied the Holy Land by military force. So any meaning of “render to Caesar” that wouldn’t apply to such a regime is highly suspect.

Note 2241 does not confer an absolute right or an absolute obligation - both are qualified.

No dispute there.

I was not saying that government had an absolute right here - and, if that is the impression I gave, let me correct it right now. The writers of 2241 apparently recognized that there are limits to the amount of immigration can accept. The writers also acknowledge that it is the country that can set limits as to number,

If this isn’t an absolute right on the part of the nation (which I think would make nonsense of the language of “obligation” and “right” used by the CCC), then I am not quite sure what you mean. Of course a country can set limits. But if it sets limits lower than those imposed by necessity, then according to the CCC it is failing in its obligation, denying the natural right to immigrate, and thus acting unjustly–which would mean that such a limit would have no moral force whatsoever.

I am frankly dumbfounded by the suggestion that the present limits are the highest possible. Also, just as I find it ironic that so often the people who cry “government is bad” when it comes to taxation are quick to use a passage speaking of taxation to give government carte blanche in other areas (not speaking of you here–I don’t know whether you sign on to the “government is bad” rhetoric of the Tea Party folks or not), I also find it ironic that so often the people who extol American exceptionalism seem to have a very fearful and pessimistic attitude regarding one of the most glorious and distinctive features of this Republic, which is its capacity to receive large numbers of immigrants from widely diverse societies. None of this is a logical argument, and none of this applies to your posts based on what I can remember. I put it in for the benefit of anyone reading this who may think in this way and may be open to reconsidering the merits of such an attitude.

 

[Contarini]

and the imposition of requirements for those ‘strangers’ to be welcomed into the country. This does not address coming in so as to evade the justly passed laws of the country.

But it is patently illogical to argue that the CCC is justifying a country for rejecting immigrants on the grounds of not respecting its laws, when the only laws they have failed to respect are the laws that deny their natural right to immigrate in the first place. The CCC says that immigrants must respect the laws of the country that receives them. This cannot apply to laws that refuse to receive them. When such laws conflict with the natural rights of immigrants and the obligations of the host country, they are unjust and morally invalid.

As I said in my earlier post, if you want an example of a country that possibly can’t receive more immigrants, think of immigration from one impoverished African country to another. Uganda might be such an example. Can anyone seriously question that the U.S. is much more capable of receiving immigrants than Uganda? Yet Uganda apparently continues to receive immigrants. . . . It’s very hard for me to take this argument seriously, frankly. I think that the mere fact that people make such an argument shows how much need exists for pastoral guidance on this point. (And yes, I recognize that there are many points where my ideas are no doubt equally absurd and in need of pastoral guidance. I look to your bishops, far more than to my own, for such guidance, because yours are in communion with Rome and mine are quite obviously, as a national body, at odds with historic Christian teaching on various points, though my own local bishop is excellent.)

This is not an easy issue to address because there are so many facets that have developed over time. Not to sound silly about this but the usual reason people immigrate is because there is a problem in their home country that is not being fixed or fixed fast enough. I am not aware of any Catholic Document that actually addresses the responsibilities of soverign states to clean up their act so that economic and political justice is established and native citizens are not forced to flee.

I think that CCC #2235-37 covers such responsibilities, though in a general way. If you mean that there is no document that lets rich countries off the hook on the grounds that their neighbors are at fault for the situations that lead to emigration, then you’re right, there is no such document, most surely because the Church doesn’t teach that such a circumstance lets rich countries out of the obligations imposed by CCC #2241

We have an obligation to feed the hungry - but, this does not only mean handing out food. Locals can be taught to farm and work on being self-sufficient.

Indeed, but none of this affects the moral duty described in #2241. Furthermore, interfering in the internal affairs of another country is generally injudicious and frequently immoral, even when well-intentioned.

Again, the whole notion that immigrants are a liability disturbs and somewhat surprises me. . . .

When we ‘…render unto Caesar…’ we are acknowledging that God has appointed in His Own Way these representatives of civil authority. While we would like them to always mix justice with mercy - they must first be just to their own citizens before they can be just or merciful to others.

But this way of thinking seem to have absolutely no basis in Catholic teaching. Where on earth do you find the suggestion that nations have obligations of justice only to their own citizens? CCC 2241 very clearly states the exact opposite.

And I’m not clear as to the relationship between the first and second sentences quoted above. As I said earlier, Jesus’ words were addressed to Jews living under Roman occupation. Yes, the governing authorities are “ordained by God”–just as God used the ancient Assyrians as the “rod of His wrath.” But obviously such authorities may act unjustly, and if one had the ability to change their unjust behavior (as American citizens do with regard to the actions of the American government), one would be obligated to do so. I therefore see no connection whatever between the first sentence and the second, which makes a prescriptive statement about what governments ought to do.

 

[Contarini]

Asserting even a qualified right implies that everyone is willing to abide by the rules and move forward.

Yes, of course–but as I said, the “rules” exclude the vast majority of those who wish to immigrate, so it’s both cruel and unjust to reproach such people for not meeting the conditions for something that is denied them anyway.

The US really does have an immigration policy - and, it works.

In the highly narrow and almost meaningless sense you describe below (i.e., it does admit some people and those people are happy to be admitted), sure. But I think most people on both sides of the issue would laugh in horror to hear that the present policy “works.” If it “worked” there wouldn’t be vast numbers of illegal immigrants in the country. Now I grant that some Republicans seem to think that the only thing need to make it “work” is to kick out all those presently here illegally and erect a system of border security that will keep out those people and any others for whom the system manifestly does not “work.”

But of course, whether something “works” is not a moral criterion. The moral criterion laid down by the Catechism is that wealthy countries have the obligation to receive immigrants insofar as they are able. For all your protestations, I can’t make any sense of your post except on the supposition that you think “able” is equivalent to “willing”–that governments get to decide unilaterally how “able” they are and no one is in a position to criticize such a decision. If that is what you are saying, then I think you’re reducing the passage in the Catechism to meaninglessness.

To imply some type of ‘nativeism’ where foreigners are forbidden to come to the US is simply not true.

Nativism doesn’t have to consist of keeping all foreigners out. I don’t see how one can listen to contemporary rhetoric about immigration and not hear nativist concerns. But certainly few national politicians would express “nativism” of the kind that some 19th-century politicians did–some progress has been made.

Anyway, that’s not really the point. The Catechism’s requirements are not satisfied simply by letting in some people, but by allowing for immigration to the extent a nation is able. And clearly your bishops think the U.S. is far short of its maximum ability at this point. I am amazed that anyone could disagree, but I guess I misjudge how fearful and pessimistic many Americans are these days.

To argue that not everyone who wants to come to the US can - is a valid concern - but, one that recognizes reasonable limits.

I think that the strongest reason for presuming that the limits are not reasonable is the sheer number and desperation of the people who violate them. As American nationalists are fond of pointing out (at least in other contexts), the fact that people desperately want to come to this country is evidence that people in this country have it much better than people in most other countries. And that’s also surely strong evidence against the claim that immigration is at its maximum capacity at this point. Not conclusive evidence–I could imagine a situation in which people desperately wanted to come but there really was no way to admit them–but evidence that would need strong arguments on the other side before being dismissed.

Furthermore, as I keep saying, your bishops have made the pastoral judgment that the present policy is inadequate. Again, we all agree that they could be wrong. But given that people can look at the situation and come to very different judgments, surely Catholics should rejoice in having pastoral guidance on this difficult and important point.

And, while this policy probably could be improved in certain ways - the US is the only country I know that granted a wholesale amnesty program under President Reagan - and it was quickly forgotten.

I have heard it mentioned frequently, in fact. However, it obviously didn’t fix the root problem, which is the disparity between the limits on immigration and the desperate need to immigrate.

One final point of clarification: Ender has pointed out several times that one shouldn’t insist dogmatically on a particular solution–and I for one certainly do not. I think there are a number of just solutions. A guest worker program would be one. I think there are dangers to such a program, because you will wind up with a large number of legal residents who aren’t citizens, and that could start to fray the fabric of the Republic (a few weirdos like me probably don’t matter). Still, it would be better than the present situation.

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

Are you practicing on your own straw-man arguments?

Not at all. I am responding to the criticisms I have come into for giving the bishops a more generous hearing, as I believe that they are in fact giving moral teaching and then a political and* moral* application of that teaching. As I have always told Ender, I understand that Catholic may disagree with the application, but here at CAF it seems like Catholics are accused of all manner of clericism and abdication of responsibility for agreeing with the bishops. Go figure.

I did not respond to Ender’s last post, but I should have. What he said was reasonable and something I totally agree with.

 

[KSU]

Maybe Michael Voris reads my posts

See his video today.

youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhee#p/u/0/F7md3Lrsecs

 

[pnewton]

Maybe Michael Voris reads my posts

See his video today.

youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhee#p/u/0/F7md3Lrsecs

I heard nothing on immigration. Normally, I tune people out once the rhetoric level reaches to the level of “churchman”, a term designed to minimize the authority of the clergy. However, as I listened, I heard him twice impute motive to two popes that would require mind-reading. Obviously, it is* his* opinion he imputes to them. But thanks, KSU, you gave me a good reminder of why I do not care for Voris, besides the fact he runs an unapproved ministry.

So tell me, as I missed, what thing, even one, did Voris have to say about immigration here, or do you just plug him when you can?

 

[SanAgustin]

I endured the rantings of that video too, searching for an opinion on immigration and nothing …

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Contarini,

Wow… this was quite a rant. So, let’s see if we can put this in some kind of logical context.

Well, it certainly does apply to taxes, so can we both agree that the whole “taxation is theft” argument you hear from some folks these days is sheer nonsense?

How far you apply it–well, that’s a matter on which folks disagree. … It should never be forgotten that Jesus is talking about a pagan, despotic regime (despotic with regard to conquered peoples, at least) that occupied the Holy Land by military force. So any meaning of “render to Caesar” that wouldn’t apply to such a regime is highly suspect.

Maybe you’d like to tell me just how many democratic governments in the world there were at this time? Your criticism of a, "… pagan, despotic regime…’ is hollow indeed. John 19:11 identifies how Christ viewed how Pilate got his position - “Jesus answered [him], “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.” This is what the world was working with at the time with every government at the time. The issue, however, is that God is responsible for the leaders there were back then and what we have today.

If this isn’t an absolute right on the part of the nation (which I think would make nonsense of the language of “obligation” and “right” used by the CCC), then I am not quite sure what you mean.

It probably would make a lot more sense if you did not delete sections of the quote you find do not coinside with your presentation. I gave the entire quote. Please go back and just read the entire statement. It is the government that had the responsibility of making the decision.

Contarini:

Of course a country can set limits. But if it sets limits lower than those imposed by necessity, then according to the CCC it is failing in its obligation, denying the natural right to immigrate, and thus acting unjustly–which would mean that such a limit would have no moral force whatsoever.

I guess it is here you imply that the government is not acting in good faith unless the ‘limits’ that are set are essentially limitless. ‘Necessity’ is a term that gives ‘vague’ a whole new meaning. Times and conditions change - and so do necessities. To claim, in effect that if there is anyone who has not yet immigrated - there is still an unfufilled right is simply not reasistic. Tell me, just what other counties can you identify that meet this criteria as you have developed it?

I am frankly dumbfounded by the suggestion that the present limits are the highest possible. None of this is a logical argument, and none of this applies to your posts based on what I can remember. I put it in for the benefit of anyone reading this who may think in this way and may be open to reconsidering the merits of such an attitude.

What an incredible jumble. First, I never said the present limits are the highest possible - I think I was clear that real improvements need to be made in immigration. The issue I also made was that President Reagan granted an amnesty to illegal immigrants - and this has yet to be addressed by anyone. Whining about the US not doing enough and failing to acknowledge what it has done in the past and contiues to do today is simply a shady double standard that withers under the rays of any daylight.

Really, Contarini, if you want to put something out for the benefit of others, don’t piggy-back on my post to do it. Thanks.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

I have gone and ‘figured’ - and the focus is on how you can justify your position when you claim that the Bishops can tell you which ball club to cheer! Yes, I know, this was your hyperbole … but a stretching of the facts to show or demonstrate what? That whatever they say you will go along with? This is simply a refusal to use your mind and claim in so doing this is virtue.

The example I gave to you about the Winnipeg Declaration by the Canadian bishops challenging the Pope has yet to get a response from you. Seriously - all of these validly elevated Catholic Bishops defied the Pope. Now, what does the Faithful in the pews do? If it is not use their heads - and follow the infallible teachings of the Church (something those Winnipeg bishops did not have … just like the USCCB don;'t have … unless they are following the directives of the Vatican).

The way I see it, to wave a flag and say, “My bishop right or wrong” is not being faithful.

God bless

Not at all. I am responding to the criticisms I have come into for giving the bishops a more generous hearing, as I believe that they are in fact giving moral teaching and then a political and* moral* application of that teaching. As I have always told Ender, I understand that Catholic may disagree with the application, but here at CAF it seems like Catholics are accused of all manner of clericism and abdication of responsibility for agreeing with the bishops. Go figure.

I did not respond to Ender’s last post, but I should have. What he said was reasonable and something I totally agree with.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think one can reasonably suggest that the country is anywhere near the limit of its capacity. Of course we can disagree about that–and this is surely what you have the pastoral guidance of your bishops for.

Determining the effects immigrants have on local communities, states, and the nation has nothing to do with pastoral guidance. There aren’t any moral concerns involved and there is no reason to believe the clergy has a better grasp of these issues than the local greengrocer.

You seem to hold the view that anything not “official teaching” is just private opinion.

Any time you begin with “You seem to believe…” you’re off to a bad start. I believe what I say, nothing more. My point in all this is that the application of the guidelines to the solution of particular problems is prudential rather than moral and it is the responsibility of the laity to solve those problems.

your opinion about what is “teaching” and what isn’t doesn’t itself seem compatible with Catholic teaching to me

The Church tries to be very clear when she speaks on an issue. I have challenged you and everyone else on these threads to cite any example of a Church doctrine that obliges us to support or oppose any specific proposal on any issue whatever. Other than issues dealing with intrinsic evil, you will find nothing. Since you (all) can’t find where the Church says we must or must not do something it is inappropriate and incorrect to claim that the Church supports ones personal inclinations - even if one is a bishop.

Pope John Paul II spoke of episcopal conferences having “binding authority” in the exercise of their joint pastoral functions.

They have not exercised any joint pastoral function regarding immigration and documents issued by the USCCB are not examples of such.

Right, but you are essentially claiming the right to decide for yourself what is “reasonable” and what isn’t, rejecting any pastoral guidance from your own bishops or their representatives.

You keep calling it “pastoral guidance” yet, as I pointed out before, there is no moral component to their pronouncements so it can hardly be considered pastoral. We do not have any obligation to accede to prudential opinions, even of bishops; we are justified in making such decisions for ourselves. It is not we who go too far in rejecting the bishops proposals but they who overstep the line in making them and implying they are speaking for the Church. As I’ve pointed out, the Church is silent on the specifics.

That seems highly unwise to me, and given the religious/cultural context in which we both live it strikes me as most likely the result of your being influenced by the individualism of American Protestant culture rather than a legitimate expression of Catholic tradition.

I don’t feel like arguing this point because it is irrelevant. I’m either right or I’m wrong and the reason for taking my position has no effect on the validity of that position.

Ender

 

[Ender]

cont.

what I have always thought was the Catholic view–and have found very appealing–is that one is never acting or thinking apart from the guidance of the Church, and that this guidance cannot be limited to a finite set of “official” teachings.

The Church defines the ends, the laity determines the means.

it is highly likely that your disagreement with them is due to your acceptance of ideological principles foreign to Catholic tradition.

Whether I agree or disagree with what some bishops have said is irrelevant to the question of whether what they said was appropriate. Deal with that issue and leave off the psychoanalysis.

It’s by no means certain, of course. But surely even a minimal respect for the pastoral office of your bishops (carried out collectively through an episcopal conference and those who work for it, according to the norms laid out by JPII) would cause you to give them the benefit of the doubt.

You keep saying bishops (plural) without recognizing that there is no document from the US bishops that requires me to accept any particular position on anything. What we have are letters issued by individual bishops and particular committees within the USCCB implying support for certain actions. What we do not have is any statement that obliges assent, and the reason we don’t have such a statement is that no such statement would have the support of Church doctrine.

Where we differ is in your apparent belief that below a certain level of “official teaching” pastoral documents issued by the hierarchy leave the playing field completely level–leave you acting as an individual exactly in the same way that someone not a member of the Catholic Church would do.

Define “pastoral document.” You keep using that term as if it was some kind of talisman.

And the question here is not what I approve of, but what the bishops exercising their pastoral responsibilities either directly or through their representatives approve of.

Bishops do not have representatives; no one speaks for a bishop.

Again, I’m not suggesting that you are required to agree with them, only that you surely owe their pastoral guidance some respect and are obligated to have very strong reasons for disagreeing–reasons that need themselves to be rooted in the principles of Catholic teaching and/or in clear empirical evidence leading you to apply those principles differently than the bishops do.

The application of the principles - perhaps something worth discussing.

one could argue that the bishops are simply naive in their belief regarding what levels of immigration the country can handle. One could show this by pointing to the work of economists and sociologists working from a wide variety of ideological perspectives, not limited to a particular partisan faction within contemporary American politics.

This is, in fact, the kind of analysis that needs to be done … and you’ll note it has nothing whatever to do with a moral analysis of any kind. The investigations need to be done by economists, sociologists, statisticians, areas completely outside of a bishop’s role, therefore I look to economists et al for guidance in this area. I no more look to the bishops to identify the economic impact of immigration than I would look to them to validate the science behind AGW.

Ender

 

[KSU]

I heard nothing on immigration. Normally, I tune people out once the rhetoric level reaches to the level of “churchman”, a term designed to minimize the authority of the clergy. However, as I listened, I heard him twice impute motive to two popes that would require mind-reading. Obviously, it is* his* opinion he imputes to them. But thanks, KSU, you gave me a good reminder of why I do not care for Voris, besides the fact he runs an unapproved ministry.

So tell me, as I missed, what thing, even one, did Voris have to say about immigration here, or do you just plug him when you can?

pnewton, what you missed, obviously, was Voris’ confirmation of the thoughts expressed in my last post (# 327 ). That’s why, as an intro to the video, I said “Maybe Michael Voris reads my posts.”

And you apparently also missed the entire purpose of my post #327; it was to support tqualey’s attempt to explain to you that blind adherence to gratuitous, semi-political statements of the bishops (for example, on illegal immigration and amnesty) is not required of Catholics; especially in view of their horrendous pastoral record since VC II.

I’ll not reiterate the bishops’ record here, or Voris’s confirmation of my thoughts, because that’s not the point per se. The point is that bishops are fallible, and sometimes worse–tqualey’s example of the Winnipeg Declaration is an example that completely destroys your argument for blind obedience to bishops no matter the subject, so long as it’s “not sinful.” ( Moreover, we probably would not agree even whether or not something was sinful. Don’t laugh, after VC II some “Catholic” education held that it’s highly unlikely that we actually are capable of sin in the pre-VC II sense.)

Personally, I don’t care what you want to believe about statements by the bishops. Unless you ask my opinion, I won’t try to argue you out of yours.

As to your assertion that Voris “runs an unapproved ministry”, out of justice and charity and to avoid unintended detraction, you may wish to reconsider that sort of tactic. Here is Voris’s explanation of the August 17, CNA attack you no doubt refer to, and it has nothing to do with ministry; it concerns the official status of St. Michael’s Media as a 501(c) 3., a non-profit with the State of Michigan:

“[CNA ] reported that according to the state, St. Michael’s Media is not in good standing. That is true. What the article did not make clear is that this is the case because St. Michael’s Media has not filed the annual reports that were supposed to be filed. That is entirely my fault… I did not know that had to be done. Again, totally my fault…we had a short-term helper who was handling all the paperwork…When that worker left, I did a poor job… We are now in the process of getting our records up to date…when the paperwork is corrected, the company is re-established in good standing as though nothing had gone wrong. There is a small $5 fine to have to pay for each back annual report and we will of course pay that… Again, totally my fault and I accept the responsibility…and I will have it all done in as short a time as possible…the 501(c) 3 status of St. Michael’s Media is in no way compromised. 501(c) 3 is a designation awarded by the U.S. federal government, the IRS — not the state of Michigan… I let the state side of the paperwork go, the IRS paper work is up to date and the 501(c) 3 status has never been a question.”

BTW, pnewton, it’s not surprising to me that you failed to mention information on various blogs which make the claim that CNA or its affiliate is itself four years behind on its own filings. But CNA slants to the left, so that’s not important, right? Does CNA "run an unapproved ministry?

 

[KSU]

#1) "Hi Contarini,

"In my opinion, I think you have not only made yourself clear, but have provided a valid presentation. I really have been a bit surprised by the vigor of KSU’s argument given there are many ways to view this entire matter.
“Not to sound silly about this, but you have really been consistently making valid Catholic arguments…”​

#2) "Hi, KSU,

"In truth neither major political party has a hold on the Catholic Church. Genuine Catholic Social Teaching is totally congruent with Genuine Catholic Moral Teaching - so it seems that neither Democrates or Republicans have caught the significance of all life having value and on-going wars and torture are immoral.
"It is my understanding the imputing motives to another poster is a violation of forum rules.
“Maybe you would like to discuss your own view instead of the views of others as you have just demonstrated.”​

#3) "Hi, Contarini,

"Wow… this was quite a rant.
"It probably would make a lot more sense if you did not delete sections of the quote you find do not coincide with your presentation. I gave the entire quote.
"What an incredible jumble. First, I never said the present limits are the highest possible… Whining about the US not doing enough and failing to acknowledge what it has done in the past and continues to do today is simply a shady double standard that withers under the rays of any daylight.
“Really, Contarini, if you want to put something out for the benefit of others, don’t piggy-back on my post to do it. Thanks.”​

---

Hi, tqualey,
Earlier, I wasn’t sure who’s side you were on in this matter, and of course pnewton used your posts #1 and #2 as an excuse to pile on. And where you ever got the idea that I believe the Republican “party has a hold on the Catholic Church” or thinks like the Church, is beyond me. I never said that and absolutely don’t believe it. It sounds like something my friend Contarini would accused me of because I am a Conservative. I don’t belong to any party.
Anyway, after walking now at least a quarter of a mile in my moccasins, how do you like “debating” with my good friend Contarini? Don’t answer that
Contarini, sorry; I couldn’t resist. The Republicans made me do it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KSU,

It dose look a bit silly … doesn’t it?! Thanks for bringing this to my attention…

While I would like to say - and say honestly, that I was responding to individual posts and had not really thought too much about the poster or their over-all position when taken as a whole. Sometimes clear thinking (ah, and that would be defined as thinking more in line with my own… ) prevails … and, alas, sometimes it doesn’t.

This is really a very complex thread - at least for me. Here we have God’s chosen successors to the Apostles gathered together to provide guidance to their flocks as they themselves gather with Peter’s Successor to give them true direction. But, it is only the Pople and Magesterium that has infallible teaching authority on matters of faith and morals. Individual bishops and groupings of bishops do not have this - and the Winnipeg Declaration should serve as definitive proof of that statement being accurate. No matter the position one has on immigration, I do not think anyone would argue with this statement on limits of the bishops.

The way I read the CCC statement, nations must decide what is best for themselves (their citizens) based on justice and charity BEFORE extending anything consideration to others. To read this any other way would mean that there is an obligations based on justice that must be given to non-resident-citizens FIRST and then to citizens. Such an approach or the application of some abstract principle simply makes no sense.

We can not read this, however, to mean that immigration is prohibited. In fact, the US has a working immigration policy - and even provided amnesty for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS as recently as President Reagan. There is no doubt that the US could do more - but, everything must be held in some kind of balance - and achieving a perfect or even near-perfect balance is not possible in this life. But, we try - and that is where the entire dynamic of this process lies. It isn’t ‘good vs evil’ but, rather good vs better - at least this is how I see it.

God bless

Tom

#1) "Hi Contarini,

"In my opinion, I think you have not only made yourself clear, but have provided a valid presentation. I really have been a bit surprised by the vigor of KSU’s argument given there are many ways to view this entire matter.
“Not to sound silly about this, but you have really been consistently making valid Catholic arguments…”​

#2) "Hi, KSU,

"In truth neither major political party has a hold on the Catholic Church. Genuine Catholic Social Teaching is totally congruent with Genuine Catholic Moral Teaching - so it seems that neither Democrates or Republicans have caught the significance of all life having value and on-going wars and torture are immoral.
"It is my understanding the imputing motives to another poster is a violation of forum rules.
“Maybe you would like to discuss your own view instead of the views of others as you have just demonstrated.”​

#3) "Hi, Contarini,

"Wow… this was quite a rant.
"It probably would make a lot more sense if you did not delete sections of the quote you find do not coincide with your presentation. I gave the entire quote.
"What an incredible jumble. First, I never said the present limits are the highest possible… Whining about the US not doing enough and failing to acknowledge what it has done in the past and continues to do today is simply a shady double standard that withers under the rays of any daylight.
“Really, Contarini, if you want to put something out for the benefit of others, don’t piggy-back on my post to do it. Thanks.”​

---

Hi, tqualey,
Earlier, I wasn’t sure who’s side you were on in this matter, and of course pnewton used your posts #1 and #2 as an excuse to pile on. And where you ever got the idea that I believe the Republican “party has a hold on the Catholic Church” or thinks like the Church, is beyond me. I never said that and absolutely don’t believe it. It sounds like something my friend Contarini would accused me of because I am a Conservative. I don’t belong to any party.
Anyway, after walking now at least a quarter of a mile in my moccasins, how do you like “debating” with my good friend Contarini? Don’t answer that
Contarini, sorry; I couldn’t resist. The Republicans made me do it.