Illegal Immigration and Morality

[pnewton]

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?

Huh? What does this have to do with anything. I did not mention CNA because you did not post from CNA. You are correct that they are an unapproved group. I could go on, and do, about them, but since they are not the topic, I will just say that my opinion of them is very low. I would like to point out, for those that do not know it, that Catholic Answers is approved through their local diocese. While this is not exactly an imprimatur, it does provide some accountability and dependability.

 

[pnewton]

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

That is because I get tired of chasing the same strawman over and over and over and over again. This is just this week.

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 sinful.

. As to robbing a bank, I gave a caveat concerning this in my earlier post. ** Of course immoral actions are not acceptable for us**.

Go back further if you want more. The Winnipeg Statement is it’s own topic. Too big of a rabbit to chase here.

 

[Contarini]

Maybe you’d like to tell me just how many democratic governments in the world there were at this time?

I fail to see how this is relevant. I am simply describing the situation Jesus was addressing. Any interpretation of “render unto Caesar” that doesn’t apply to that situation is going to need some further justification.

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.

And for Hitler and Stalin, of course. At this point we may want to start qualifying pretty heavily what it means for God to be “responsible,” lest we ascribe evil to God. God providentially permits everything that happens. As I said, God used the Assyrians to serve His purposes. No dispute there–but I fail to see how this affects our disagreement.

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.

Of course I read the entire statement. If you wish, we can quote the entire passage in every single post either of us writes, but that seems a bit unnecessary when it’s there in the thread and we can link to it.

It is your job to show how the passage supports your position, rather than exhorting me to read something I have in fact read several times with great attention.

It is the government that had the responsibility of making the decision.

Nothing in CC2241 indicates that the government has the right, morally speaking, of deciding not to admit immigrants whom the country is able to admit. Here is the passage in question:

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.

You seem to be interpreting “may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions” as equivalent to “may decide whether the country is able to admit more immigrants.” But that doesn’t seem to me to be what the Catechism is talking about at all. Obviously the government does have the responsibility of making the decision–but it has the responsibility of making it according to truth. If the government falsely claims that it can’t admit more people when it can, or if (as seems to me to be the case in fact) it doesn’t recognize the obligation taught by the Catechism in the first place, then its actions are unjust and morally invalid. And, again, that’s what Christians need pastoral guidance to help determine.

The conditions mentioned by the Catechism, on the other hand, have a lot more leeway. The government could, for instance, demand that all immigrants learn English, or that they live in the country for a certain amount of time, or that they show good moral character. One could argue whether the United States ought to make immigrants learn English, but that would fall into the category of an issue on which the Church has nothing to say, because it would pertain to the particular character of a particular nation (some nations want to be monolingual; others don’t–it’s their call).

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.

But I don’t think anything I say implies this. All I’m saying is that if the limits fall well short of the country’s ability, then the obligation mentioned in the Catechism is not being met.

‘Necessity’ is a term that gives ‘vague’ a whole new meaning.

Well, the discussion in the Catechism is rather vague. Again, I think that’s why there’s a need for pastoral application, to prevent wealthy nations from just letting themselves off the hook.

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.

Of course, which is why I didn’t say anything of the sort. I said that when there is a vast gap between the number of immigrants who want to come (and do come one way or another in spite of the law) and the number who are allowed to come legally, that’s prima facie evidence (subject to potential refutation) that the criterion of “ability” has not been met.

 

[Contarini]

Tell me, just what other counties can you identify that meet this criteria as you have developed it?

That isn’t really the point. As I said above, I think it’s quite likely that Uganda may be at its limit. But even if no countries quite come up to the standard set by the Church, that’s no reason to stop trying, is it? Catholic teaching is rigorous. The fact that most people don’t live up to other aspects of Catholic morality is not a reason to change the Church’s teaching–same here.

What an incredible jumble.

Of course it is. You cut out the middle portion of the paragraph and gave no indication that you had done so. As I said above, I make no demand that you quote everything in the post to which you are replying or in a source you are citing–but when you do quote, please don’t cut bits out of the middle without acknowledging the fact!

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.

You said that it could probably be improved, but also that it “works.”

Here’s the situation we are all addressing: there are a lot of people who come to this country illegally because they have no hope of doing so legally. They are already here (not to mention many more who would do so if they could). In that sense the system is not working at all, and people on both sides of the issue widely recognize this. The question is: what is to blame for this huge gap between the legal standards and the reality, and what is the just response to this situation according to Catholic social teaching? The position I’m arguing is that according to the Catechism, there is a right to immigrate, which may be regulated by governments (in the sense that immigrants can be expected to meet certain obligations to the host country) but cannot be *denied *to any person of good will unless the host country is simply unable to receive more immigrants. The USCCB document that’s been already discussed applies the principles of the Catechism to the concrete situation of the United States, making specific proposals for bringing U.S. policy in line with social teaching and making it “work” again.

You are arguing, on the other hand, that the present policy does “work,” although you admit that it could probably be improved. The question between us then is: does the present policy clearly contradict the requirements of CCC 2241? I say yes, because it sets limits far below the ability of the United States to receive. If you agree that the present limits are clearly below the ability of the United States, perhaps you could clarify just on what we disagree and in what relevant sense the present policy “works.” (Your example was that some people are being admitted to citizenship and that they are happy and grateful for this opportunity. I have already given reasons for not accepting that this constitutes a “working” policy.)

The issue I also made was that President Reagan granted an amnesty to illegal immigrants - and this has yet to be addressed by anyone.

I addressed it briefly in the last post by pointing out that it didn’t address the root issues.

The USCCB document we are (I think) debating proposes a comprehensive approach, not simply “amnesty.” So I fail to see why you think this point is so important or relevant. Of course simply offering amnesty to those already present, while not addressing the basic problems with both immigration policy and border security, will only postpone the problem.

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.

Then show, in the daylight, how the U.S. policy conforms to CCC 2241. CCC 2241 says that countries should receive immigrants as far as they are able. You seemed to admit above that the U.S. could admit more immigrants.

Therefore, I can’t see that my argument “withers” at all. (Of course, I think your characterization of my position is ludicrously unfair. But you could no doubt say this about my characterization of your position, and we could go on like that endlessly. Better to stick to the concrete issues at stake between us.)

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.

That is a fair request. I apologize. I see a general pattern that bothers me, but I know that others see this in what they call “liberalism” and I object when people vent their general issues with “liberalism” on me. I should not have done this.

God bless

You too–I am spending too much time on this forum and may not be able to respond more for a while.

Edwin

 

[KSU]

Your post #343, tqualey, is a nice summary of the confusion relating to bishops in this thread. Your and Ender’s points, as well as others’ and I hope mine, have been clear enough; no such confusion needs to have been created. Nevertheless it has, and, after being directly challenged to do so, efforts to clear it away become irresistible. The best way to do so is black and white firmness, so long as it’s done with accuracy and as much charity as possible. One of my minor crosses is being born a son of thunder, which is why I enjoy a good debate, up to the point where further debate would be unproductive or threatens to become uncharitable.​

---

QUOTES PER KSU AND PNEWTON
KSU: 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?

pnewton: Huh? What does this have to do with anything. I would like to point out…that [unlike both Voris’ website and CNA] Catholic Answers is approved through their local diocese. While this is not exactly an imprimatur, it does provide some accountability and dependability. END QUOTES

You are correct, pnewton, I see now we were talking past each other. It has to do with your correct statement that Voris’ Catholic news website was an unapproved ministry. Because first, I saw no relevancy in your statement as to Voris’ “unapproved” veracity or knowledge of the Faith; second, his type of corporate existence and operation does not require and, as a news website, may not even be eligible for any sort of ecclesiastical approval; and third, the only recent approval issue involving his operation (a 501(c) 3 entity) was not ecclesiastical but rather an uncharitable and probably hypocritical hit piece by CNA, I did not think of the possibility that you meant ecclesiastical approval.
Nevertheless, your point is well taken and it’s an interesting point, pnewton. Perhaps Catholic Answers needs and/or wants such approval because of its Catholic apologetics and evangelization apostolate? I automatically pass everything Voris and any other orthodox Catholic personality says through my common sense and knowledge of my Faith filters, but give almost complete and automatic deference to what the CA’s apologetics staff says.

 

[Contarini]

Ender,

The thread seems to have died, and perhaps I shouldn’t revive it, but I didn’t want to let your post go without an answer, since I’ve responded to others.

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

That may be true. But I don’t think one can reasonably argue that the U.S. is presently at any kind of limit in terms of its capacity. Certainly your bishops do not think so. And the major debate at present concerns people who are already here and their legal status. So this is a rather odd argument to make.

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

Yes. But sinful human beings have a long record of claiming to have “reasonable” beliefs that are actually anything of the sort. And, again, that is surely why the pastoral guidance of the bishops (either directly or through their representatives) is needed. Once again: I have never claimed that the USCCB is infallible or that Catholics are obliged by their faith to agree with it. I have claimed only that a heavy burden of proof rests on those who disagree with the pastoral judgment of the bishops to show that their divergent opinion is equally justified by Catholic teaching.

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

Can you defend this extreme individualism from Catholic teaching?

You simply disregard the pastoral guidance of your bishops, and you claim that this is somehow orthodox Catholicism?

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

No, it doesn’t mean that. But of course it’s a relative term.

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.

There are principles found in Church teaching which have been applied by the USCCB. Pope John Paul II spoke of regional conferences having “binding authority.” You seem to think that their statements are just personal opinion. You have not defended this claim on the basis of Catholic teaching. Just as Sola Scriptura advocates maintain a position about Scripture that isn’t in Scripture, so you maintain a view of Catholic teaching that you have so far not supported from Catholic teaching.

To respond in general to some of your other statements (if there’s something I’m ignoring, please point me to it):

I deny that there is any issue whatsoever that does not have moral implications, and thus I deny categorically that there is any issue that could not in principle be a subject for the Church’s pastoral guidance. To use pnewton’s example: what if a certain baseball team was clearly committed to supporting immoral positions? What if the owners of the team hung pro-abortion posters all over the ballpark and donated a generous portion of the proceeds to Planned Parenthood? Wouldn’t the bishops have something legitimate to say then?

In another thread, you have expressed the desire for the bishops to give precisely this kind of specific pastoral guidance (applying the teaching of the Church concerning remote material cooperation) to the question of voting for pro-choice politicians. On that issue I hear nothing from you about the inability of the U.S. bishops to teach authoritatively. Quite the contrary. Yet both immigration and voting for “pro-choice” politicians are issues on which the Church has a teaching. In both cases, pastoral guidance is needed for people who may be tempted to allow secular political considerations to cause them to dodge Church teaching by using loopholes such as “proportionate causes” (in the case of abortion) or “ability to receive more immigrants” (in the case of immigration).

Finally, I use the word “pastoral” because Pope JPII used it. I understand it to refer to the guidance offered by the bishops and/or their representatives to help people apply the general teaching of the Church to particular circumstances. I recognize that such pastoral guidance is not infallible. But I fail to see any justification in Catholic teaching for the idea that it is simply private opinion and has no binding force whatsoever.

Edwin

 

[Ender]

I don’t think one can reasonably argue that the U.S. is presently at any kind of limit in terms of its capacity. Certainly your bishops do not think so. And the major debate at present concerns people who are already here and their legal status.

There are several distinct points here and it is best to address them separately. As far as capacity is concerned, this blurs the issue. It is not merely whether we can accept X number of people per year but of the impact new arrivals have on those already here. We have 10% unemployment and that number is surely higer among the unskilled so I would argue that we already have too many unskilled immigrants here competing for jobs against unskilled Americans.

And, again, that is surely why the pastoral guidance of the bishops (either directly or through their representatives) is needed.

It is not at all obvious why their opinions on how to solve prudential problems (of which immigration is but one example) is either needed or relevant.

I have claimed only that a heavy burden of proof rests on those who disagree with the pastoral judgment of the bishops to show that their divergent opinion is equally justified by Catholic teaching.

The whole point here is that my opinions are as soundly based on Catholic teaching as are theirs for the simple reason that Catholic teaching identifies the goals but not the means. So long as my goals (in the generic sense in which the Church identifies them) are the same, the ends we choose cannot be said to be either supported by nor opposed by the Church. She is silent on the means.

Can you defend this extreme individualism from Catholic teaching?

There is nothing in need of defense. It is left to the laity to implement the guidelines the Church presents in the solution of daily problems. The Church does not tell us how problems are to be solved.

You simply disregard the pastoral guidance of your bishops, and you claim that this is somehow orthodox Catholicism?

I reject personal political preferences - even when those preferences are expressed by bishops.

There are principles found in Church teaching which have been applied by the USCCB.

We disagree about the application, not the principles - and the Church does not teach applications.

Pope John Paul II spoke of regional conferences having “binding authority.” You seem to think that their statements are just personal opinion. You have not defended this claim on the basis of Catholic teaching.

I dispute your claim. The USCCB - per BXVI - has no authority. The binding authority of a regional conference comes only from a vote of a certain percentage of all the bishops on a specific document. I am unaware that such a document has been approved of in the case of immigration.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Cont…

Just as Sola Scriptura advocates maintain a position about Scripture that isn’t in Scripture, so you maintain a view of Catholic teaching that you have so far not supported from Catholic teaching.

*42. **Clerics and laity are not to usurp each others rights ***Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution. (Fourth Lateran Council)

I deny that there is any issue whatsoever that does not have moral implications, and thus I deny categorically that there is any issue that could not in principle be a subject for the Church’s pastoral guidance.

This misses the point. That we may behave immorally in any situation does not mean that the problem we face is a moral one. If you come out in the morning and your car won’t start, is that a moral problem? Of course it isn’t; it is a simple mechanical one. Even though you could solve your problem by stealing your neighbor’s battery, determining how to resolve the problem doesn’t involve any moral choices; in this case you just need to know enough about cars to be able to identify what the problem is and how to fix it. Immigration falls into the same prudential category, except that we differ wildly on identifying both the problem and the fix.

In another thread, you have expressed the desire for the bishops to give precisely this kind of specific pastoral guidance (applying the teaching of the Church concerning remote material cooperation) to the question of voting for pro-choice politicians. On that issue I hear nothing from you about the inability of the U.S. bishops to teach authoritatively. Quite the contrary. Yet both immigration and voting for “pro-choice” politicians are issues on which the Church has a teaching.

NO. Understand what I’m saying - and it isn’t that no political issue can be a moral issue. There is a small set of moral issues about which it is appropriate for the bishops to condemn specific proposals, but those issues ALL pertain to actions that are intrinsically evil. Abortion is such an issue and since there is only one position that is morally acceptable it is appropriate for the bishops to say so. This is in stark contrast with all other issues - like immigration - where no position is intrinsically evil and it is therefore inappropriate for the bishops to imply that supporting Position X or opposing Position Y is immoral.

In both cases, pastoral guidance is needed for people who may be tempted to allow secular political considerations to cause them to dodge Church teaching …

THERE IS NO CHURCH TEACHING ON SPECIFIC IMMIGRATION PROPOSALS. I have challenged you before on this. You can demolish my entire position by finding even a single example where the Church (as opposed to an individual bishop) states that we are morally obligated to take a particular position on Proposal X.

Finally, I use the word “pastoral” because Pope JPII used it. I understand it to refer to the guidance offered by the bishops and/or their representatives to help people apply the general teaching of the Church to particular circumstances.

Thank you for this explanation … now where does JPII explain its use?

I recognize that such pastoral guidance is not infallible. But I fail to see any justification in Catholic teaching for the idea that it is simply private opinion and has no binding force whatsoever.

Only teachings that are either infallible or ordinary require our assent; prudential judgments do not. As Karl Keating wrote in regard to captial punishment:

Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience.

Ender

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Edwin,

Maybe just one more… So, how about some clarification on one issue?

That may be true. But I don’t think one can reasonably argue that the U.S. is presently at any kind of limit in terms of its capacity. Certainly your bishops do not think so. And the major debate at present concerns people who are already here and their legal status. So this is a rather odd argument to make.

Not to put words in your mouth (or words in your text may be a better cliche, eh?) if you do not believe the US has set a limit for yearly immigration that is appropriate - because of some concept of ‘capacity’ you have in mind, please what is that numbrer that the US is failing to address?

Let me use an example. A lifeboat or a cruise ship has a stated capacity, e.g., there is food and water for 100 persons for 24 hours - by then they should be rescued). The addition of 1 more person above the stated capacity will not sink the boat - and, we just go a bit lighter on rations. But, here comes another 100 … so now we are at 201. We can probably still stay afloat - but the water line is now much higher, the seas that were once just a bit ‘choppy’ have now gotten worse. More survivors are seen bobbing up and down in the water and someone yells, “You can take more, you’re still afloat!”

Maybe that was a good example and maybe it is ‘adrift’… But, the argument can always be made that there is room for one more - and the limits that were set when rational minds were at work look different when people are afraid.

There are areas of the US that are on top of mountains, on mountains and in deserts and in swamps. While the US has 3,537,441 square miles (including water) where is it you want to put all of these people? Honest. Saying everyone squeeze into the urban area closes where you crossed into the US is not reasonable.

Endar brought up the unemployment in the country. And, while someone can be unemployed in their own country, why come here to be unemployed except to seek some type of governmental aid?

I guess what I am understanding you to be saying is that whatever you are doing is not good enough. While you have done things in the past concerning immigration - that was then and this is now. I have a problem with that. Now, maybe that is just me… but, I think we have done a good job in the past and continue to do a good job today. The Statue of Liberty has not been dismanteled - and, while immigration laws have changed since 1886 when the Lady was dedicated - it still stands for hope that things can be better. But follow the laws of this land you want to live in and show good faith in your immigration activities.

God bless

 

[KSU]

From my Catholic Dictionary:

Pastoral Theology—The practical application of scientific THEOLOGY to the care of souls in the sacred ministry. It’s purpose is to render this ministry more effective by the use of PROVEN METHODS of dealing with the SPI RITUAL NEEDS of individuals or groups OF THE FAITHFUL…

[Not to be, but often confused with:]

Dogmatic Theology—The science of Christian DOCTRINE. It treats theTEACHINGS of the Church…It proves the doctrines of the Church…

Doctrine—Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful.​

So, what is the correct characterization of the bishops’ utterances on illegal immigration. It is what the USCCB’s current website says it is: “policy”, viz:

MIGRATION POLICY
MRS* is charged with assisting the bishops in the development and promotion of migration policy positions within the context of the Church’s social and moral teaching. We believe that the best interests of our nation are served by a culturally and ethnically diverse society, which strengthens us and upholds the traditional identity of the United States as an immigrant land.

To this end MRS works with grassroots Catholic networks across the US to promote fair immigration and refugee policies, advocates for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform, engages in the struggle against human trafficking, assists the U.S. Catholic bishops in carrying the voice of the Church to Congress and the Administration, and develops initiatives aimed at educating Catholics on the Church’s teaching on migration.

Justice for Immigrants Campaign: In May 2005, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in cooperation with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) Board of Directors, resolved to make comprehensive immigration reform, with special emphasis on legalization, a major public policy priority within the Church…​

*Migration and Refugee Services carries out the commitment of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to serve and advocate for refugees, asylees, and other forced migrants, immigrants, and other people on the move.

 

[KSU]

Pastoral Theology—The practical application of scientific THEOLOGY to the care of souls in the sacred ministry. It’s purpose is to render this ministry more effective by the use of PROVEN METHODS of dealing with the SPI RITUAL NEEDS of individuals or groups OF THE FAITHFUL…

Here are relevant excerpts from an example of a PASTORAL statement on behalf of the U S bishops:

Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity

NCCB/USCC, November 15, 2000

Summary
…Previous immigrants had come predominantly from Europe or as slaves from Africa, but many of the new immigrants come from Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific Islands, the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia…

Undocumented Immigrants
One reality remains constant in the American experience of immigration: the demand of the U.S. economy for unskilled labor—and the corresponding entrance of immigrants seeking work—in labor-intensive industries such as agriculture, construction, food processing, and services. Undocumented immigrants face special hardships in such areas. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that three to four million undocumented workers hold jobs in this country…They face discrimination in the workplace and on the streets, the constant threat of arrest and deportation… Many have lived in the United States for years, establishing roots in their communities, building their families, paying taxes, and contributing to the economy. If arrested and deported, they leave behind children and sometimes spouses who are American citizens. While the changes in the law over the last several years have enabled many in this situation to adjust their status to that of permanent resident, the 1996 immigration legislation made this option more difficult for the vast majority. Without condoning undocumented migration, the Church supports the human rights of all people and offers them pastoral care, education, and social services, no matter what the circumstances of entry into this country, and it works for the respect of the human dignity of all…We recognize that nations have the right to control their borders. We also recognize and strongly assert that all human persons, created as they are in the image of God, possess a fundamental dignity that gives rise to a more compelling claim to the conditions worthy of human life. Accordingly, the Church * also advocates legalization opportunities for the maximum number of undocumented persons, particularly those who have built equities and otherwise contributed to their communities…

A Call to Conversion
Though we celebrate the diversity within our communities…We bishops must confess, as well, that recent immigrants have not always encountered welcome in the Church. Today immigrants of all sorts too often face prejudice within the Church. At times their legitimate desire to worship in their own language, according to their own traditions, has not been satisfied. Some have been turned away by pastors or find their petition for a Mass in their own language and a share in parish facilities opposed by members of the parish community…there is often no alternative but to struggle through the English Mass while the deepest expressions of their spirit cry out silently in another language…

Conclusion: A Call to a New Evangelization

In Ecclesia in America, Pope John Paul II calls for a “new evangelization” centered on the person of Jesus Christ: “‘The encounter with the living Jesus Christ’ is ‘the path to conversion, communion and solidarity’” (no. 7). This personal encounter with the risen Lord, so abundantly recounted in the Gospels, Epistles, and Acts of the Apostles, leads to a daily vision of the Lord present and active in the world, especially in the poor, in the stranger, and in the migrant and refugee. Those most in need draw the members of the Church out of their unawareness to a conversion of heart through which they are able to offer a genuine and suitable welcome, to share together as brothers and sisters at the same table, and to work side by side to improve the quality of life for society’s most vulnerable members. All of this is an expression of the Spirit of the risen Jesus being poured out again on his followers…​

My comment:The above pastoral guidance is focused on treating all immigrants with dignity and providing them with all their spiritual needs. It strikes me as a bit condescending, as though authentic Catholics wouldn’t do that, but then what would you expect from the old Migration Policy and Public Affairs Office (or the current MRS). I can live with that perceived condescension because the statement as a whole is based on actual teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The statement does not call for voting rights (amnesty) or open boarders or illegal sanctuary. It calls for the provision of full, welcoming, participating membership in the life of the Church. Who can deny such provisions, or treatment with dignity, to immigrants without regard to their legal status?*

 

[Ender]

Pastoral Theology—The practical application of scientific THEOLOGY to the care of souls in the sacred ministry. It’s purpose is to render this ministry more effective by the use of PROVEN METHODS of dealing with the SPI RITUAL NEEDS of individuals or groups OF THE FAITHFUL…

“To take care of souls” and deal with *“spiritual needs” *is quite different than determining policy solutions for practical problems. The application of theology for the good of our soul has nothing to do with the application of sociology for the good of our nation. One set of issues is moral and the other is practical … and never the twain shall meet.

Doctrine—Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful.

It should be quite clear by now that nothing pertaining to particular solutions to immigration problems falls into this category. There is no doctrine on any specific proposal.

So, what is the correct characterization of the bishops’ utterances on illegal immigration. It is what the USCCB’s current website says it is: “policy”, viz:

Agreed - they have a policy but policy is not doctrine; it is their prudential opinion and I am no more constrained by the policies of the USCCB than those of the RNC or DNC. They are just another political action group.

To this end MRS … develops initiatives aimed at educating Catholics on the Church’s teaching on migration.

This is flatly untrue. What they are doing is implying that their political solutions require our assent. They are in fact not so much educating Catholics as they are misleading them.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Summary
…Previous immigrants had come predominantly from Europe or as slaves from Africa, but many of the new immigrants come from Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific Islands, the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia…

By your own definition of pastoral theology - which is directed to the care of souls and spiritual needs - nothing you cite regarding the solution to immigration problems falls into that category.

Undocumented Immigrants
We recognize that nations have the right to control their borders. We also recognize and strongly assert that all human persons, created as they are in the image of God, possess a fundamental dignity that gives rise to a more compelling claim to the conditions worthy of human life.

Nowhere does the Church teach that the immigrants claim is “more compelling” than the rights of nations to control their borders, which is what they imply here. The Church notes that there are competing rights; she does not categorize one against the other.

Accordingly, the Church * also advocates legalization opportunities for the maximum number of undocumented persons, particularly those who have built equities and otherwise contributed to their communities…*
This is where we fully part company. Regardless of what some bishops (and they can by no means be called the “US bishops” - implying all - say, the Church advocates no such thing.)

The above pastoral guidance is focused on treating all immigrants with dignity and providing them with all their spiritual needs.

To the extent that the passages you cited dealt with how the Church interacts with immigrants you could perhaps call this pastoral guidance. To call the statements dealing with the interaction between the State and immigrants “pastoral” however, is to misuse the term.

I can live with that perceived condescension because the statement as a whole is based on actual teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

This may be true of the statements dealing with the Church and immigrants. It is absolutely not true of the statements about immigrants and the State.

The statement does not call for voting rights (amnesty) or open boarders or illegal sanctuary. It calls for the provision of full, welcoming, participating membership in the life of the Church. Who can deny such provisions, or treatment with dignity, to immigrants without regard to their legal status?

I deny that this is an appropriate way to discuss the issue. You cannot talk about the Church’s responsibility toward immigrants in the same context in which you talk about the State’s responsibility. Those are two entirely different issues and it is misleading to speak of the requirements of the Church as if they applied to the State.

Ender

 

[KSU]

“This is where we fully part company”

Ender, we do not part company; the words to which you took exception were not mine–they were those of the bishops’ staff grinding a policy ax.

My purpose in #353 and #354 was, first, to define “pastoral” in the Catholic sense (as opposed to the way that word is sometimes misused). Second, I wanted to give an example of how even a basically pastoral statement, based on the Church teaching that people of all kinds should be treated with dignity and allowed to participate fully in the sacraments (Duh!), can contain non-pastoral policy matters.

I could have been more clear.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KSU,

I appreciate you providing this text.

And, while I know you neither wrote it or have been appointed as the document’s apologists, maybe you would hazard a guess in response to three questions of mine? Thanks for trying…

Any idea why the term, “undocumented immigrants” is used instead of “illegal immigrants”?

Any idea why the employers who have been arrested for hiring illegal immigrants are not mentioned as an example of efforts to keep the workplace free of the exploitation mentioned in the document?

Any idea why the reasons for the changes to the 1996 immigration law were not addressed in the document?

The issue, at least as I appreciate it, is not one of: should the bishops engage in political discourse about public policy matters. In reality, they have chosen to speak on some items and remained curiously quiet on Vatican mandated issues such as: abortion supporting politicans receiving Communion, embryonic stem cell research proponents who claim to be Catholic, homosexual promoting groups inside of Catholic parish ministries, and same sex marriages not being publicly condemned uniformly by bishops across the US. The issue is: if bishops do engage in public policy debates, why would you think they are on the appropriate side (especially when they have demonstrated in this country that they already are having problems following clear cut Vatican directives?

I for one would feel more cofident of the correctness of our U.S. bishop’s positions on items such as immigration if they were clearly shoulder to shoulder with the Holy Father on all of these other issues. Maybe I missed something here … but, I really do not think the preponderance of evidence is on the side of the bishops when it comes to social policy issues.

God bless

Pastoral Theology—The practical application of scientific THEOLOGY to the care of souls in the sacred ministry. It’s purpose is to render this ministry more effective by the use of PROVEN METHODS of dealing with the SPI RITUAL NEEDS of individuals or groups OF THE FAITHFUL…

Here are relevant excerpts from an example of a PASTORAL statement on behalf of the U S bishops:

Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity

NCCB/USCC, November 15, 2000

Summary
…Previous immigrants had come predominantly from Europe or as slaves from Africa, but many of the new immigrants come from Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific Islands, the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia…

Undocumented Immigrants
One reality remains constant in the American experience of immigration: the demand of the U.S. economy for unskilled labor—and the corresponding entrance of immigrants seeking work—in labor-intensive industries such as agriculture, construction, food processing, and services. Undocumented immigrants face special hardships in such areas. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that three to four million undocumented workers hold jobs in this country…They face discrimination in the workplace and on the streets, the constant threat of arrest and deportation… While the changes in the law over the last several years have enabled many in this situation to adjust their status to that of permanent resident, the 1996 immigration legislation made this option more difficult for the vast majority. Without condoning undocumented migration, the Church supports the human rights of all people and offers them pastoral care, education, and social services, no matter what the circumstances of entry into this country, and it works for the respect of the human dignity of all…Conclusion: A Call to a New Evangelization

In Ecclesia in America, Pope John Paul II calls for a “new evangelization” centered on the person of Jesus Christ: “‘The encounter with the living Jesus Christ’ is ‘the path to conversion, communion and solidarity’” (no. 7). This personal encounter with the risen Lord, so abundantly recounted in the Gospels, Epistles, and Acts of the Apostles, leads to a daily vision of the Lord present and active in the world, especially in the poor, in the stranger, and in the migrant and refugee. Those most in need draw the members of the Church out of their unawareness to a conversion of heart through which they are able to offer a genuine and suitable welcome, to share together as brothers and sisters at the same table, and to work side by side to improve the quality of life for society’s most vulnerable members. All of this is an expression of the Spirit of the risen Jesus being poured out again on his followers…​

My comment:The above pastoral guidance is focused on treating all immigrants with dignity and providing them with all their spiritual needs. It strikes me as a bit condescending, as though authentic Catholics wouldn’t do that, but then what would you expect from the old Migration Policy and Public Affairs Office (or the current MRS). I can live with that perceived condescension because the statement as a whole is based on actual teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The statement does not call for voting rights (amnesty) or open boarders or illegal sanctuary. It calls for the provision of full, welcoming, participating membership in the life of the Church. Who can deny such provisions, or treatment with dignity, to immigrants without regard to their legal status?

 

[KSU]

"Any idea why the term, ‘undocumented immigrants’ is used instead of ‘illegal immigrants’?

"Any idea why the employers who have been arrested for hiring illegal immigrants are not mentioned as an example of efforts to keep the workplace free of the exploitation mentioned in the document?

“Any idea why the reasons for the changes to the 1996 immigration law were not addressed in the document?”

Yes, tqualey, I think I do. Those are three examples of some bishops and/or their staffers grinding a non-pastoral policy ax. They have little or nothing to do with the precious little pastoral guidance in the statement. As I said above, I think it’s a bit condescending for the bishops who approved the statement to “teach” me that I have to treat people with dignity and not deny them the sacraments; that’s why I termed it a Duh! type of teaching.

Of course the bishops should be speaking about “Vatican mandated” moral issues rather than gun control, etc. Go back, please, and read my posts at #262, #327 and #335. Then read the rest of this post.

tqualey, you ask me: “…if bishops do engage in public policy debates, why would you think they are on the appropriate side (especially when they have demonstrated in this country that they already are having problems following clear cut Vatican directives?)…Maybe I missed something here … but, I really do not think the preponderance of evidence is on the side of the bishops when it comes to social policy issues.”

I don’t “think they are on the appropriate side” of the illegal immigration issue; nor do I “think the preponderance of evidence is on the side of the bishops.”

Both you and Ender seemed to have missed my entire purpose, which was to define the word " pastoral" in the Catholic sense, and to show that even the rare pastoral statements are used as platforms to make policy points. I’ve got to write more clearly, I guess.

About four years ago I wrote to the then head of the USCCB about this matter and asked for a reply. I’m still waiting. I suspect that one of the staffers simply placed my letter in the round file. I complained to my bishop. We had a nice lunch, some serious talk and settled nothing. I did confirm my suspicion, however, that my bishop is somewhat sympathetic to my complaints, and is a decent man who feels the weight of a heavy burden.

No, tqualey, that didn’t satisfy me, and if I still am not clear about this please let me know.

 

[pnewton]

"Any idea why the term, ‘undocumented immigrants’ is used instead of ‘illegal immigrants’?

"Any idea why the employers who have been arrested for hiring illegal immigrants are not mentioned as an example of efforts to keep the workplace free of the exploitation mentioned in the document?

“Any idea why the reasons for the changes to the 1996 immigration law were not addressed in the document?”

Yes, tqualey, I think I do. Those are three examples of some bishops and/or their staffers grinding a non-pastoral policy ax. .

As a Catholic, I would prefer any path other than cynicism in how I consider the shepherds of the Church. I was wondering if all the anti-USCCB rhetoric was going to keep going back and forth between you guys. I just though I would interject, once again, they are the ones giving the charism for guiding the Church, not us. We do not have to agree on matters of prudence, but when we disagree, we still have an obligation to understand the mind of the Church.

St. Paul thought he was perfectly right also when he was Saul and held the coats of those who stoned Stephen. If we find we are always in opposition to the Church on a subject, maybe we might want to question why.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

While you may consider this cyhnical, I disagree. Ultimately, making poliltical statements and taking political actions that are inconsistently applied causes needless confusion in the minds of the faithful.

There have been several posts identifying where our bishops are failing in their responsibilities to govern according the directives issued by the Vatican. While there are some bishops who uphold the Vatican - it appears that those who move in the opposite direction seem to do so with the press in mind.

I really do not feel very comfortable in seeing the our shepherds going in so many different and contradictory directions. Pointing this out is not malicious, disloyal or cynical. If you have a better idea on how this should be addressed, I would be very happy to listen.

God bless

As a Catholic, I would prefer any path other than cynicism in how I consider the shepherds of the Church. I was wondering if all the anti-USCCB rhetoric was going to keep going back and forth between you guys. I just though I would interject, once again, they are the ones giving the charism for guiding the Church, not us. We do not have to agree on matters of prudence, but when we disagree, we still have an obligation to understand the mind of the Church.

St. Paul thought he was perfectly right also when he was Saul and held the coats of those who stoned Stephen. If we find we are always in opposition to the Church on a subject, maybe we might want to question why.

 

[KSU]

“For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God. Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”​

Per pnewton: “As a Catholic, I would prefer any path other than cynicism in how I consider the shepherds of the Church. I was wondering if all the anti-USCCB rhetoric was going to keep going back and forth between you guys. I just though I would interject, once again, they are the ones given the charisma for guiding the Church, not us. We do not have to agree on matters of prudence, but when we disagree, we still have an obligation to understand the mind of the Church.”

It’s not cynicism, it’s reality and it’s a defense of the true teachings of the Church. And it’s not anti-USCCB, it’s anti-pseudo pastoral statements issued under the name of the USCCB. Why do you think even some bishops ignore the noise–are they being anti-USCCB? I really wish you would answer that.

Moreover, pnewton, of course we have an obligation to understand the mind of the Church. I got into this debate precisely because some on this board (not you) who do not understand the mind of the Church confuse the policies of the USCCB with the Church itself, and use its political policy statements to accuse me and others of not listening to the Church–a pretty astonishing thing to do.

pnewton, your faith in the clergy is, overall, a good thing. Fifty or so years ago, I was as trusting and naive as you seem to be today. Arguing with you about it is like arguing with innocence itself. But this is not the place for me to list the names of bishops “speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” I doubt it would convince you anyway.

Here’s hoping your eventual education about the human element in the Church doesn’t destroy your faith. Remember, God doesn’t demand blind faith in human nature, nor does He like it. Why do you think He gave you a mind with which to filter out the bad from the good? “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” Paul.

Surely you realize that a person’s faith without reason is not a good thing; remember when PBXVI warned about that at Regensburg?

Of course, you have to believe what is in your own heart. But you shouldn’t take offense at those of us who also use our knowledge and reason to separate actual Church teachings from all the noise going on today

 

[pnewton]

I really do not feel very comfortable in seeing the our shepherds going in so many different and contradictory directions.

What contradictory directions are you referring to? Is there one, even one, in this entire country that believes that the current law is just, that we need a massive border fence or greater deportation? I am not saying that these beliefs are not allowable. They are. But no bishop holds them. While the bishops are not in total unison in every way, there is none that espouses any of these points.