- Status
K
KSU
Guest
Per pnewton: “I will only say your assumptions about me are very mistaken. I will not play who has the most wordly experience with you, though you are way off track with your guesses.”
ad hominem
Every day, pnewton, I thank God for the group of truly courageous bishops in America and elsewhere, but especially for PBXVI. Trust me, some folks associated with the USCCB and its German counterpart do not.
QUOTE
BERLIN | Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:21pm IST (Reuters) - Pope Benedict’s visit to his German homeland was bound to provoke harsh words from his critics. The surprise of the event was how bluntly he took his own Church to task and disappointed Protestants ready to work with him…Despite his frail physique and soft-spoken style, the 84-year-old pontiff delivered a vigorous defense of his conservative views and brusquely rejected calls for reforms, some of which even had cautious support from some bishops.
At the end of his four-day visit on Sunday, Benedict predicted “small communities of believers” would spread Catholicism in future – and not, he seemed to say, the rich German Church, which he hinted had more bureaucracy than belief…“An ecumenical disaster,” wrote the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper, blasting Benedict’s treatment of Protestant leaders as “spectacularly half-hearted, patronizing and callous”.
The lay Catholic group We Are Church [see below]* said the faithful should stop hoping for help from Rome…“Let’s do what unites us,” it declared *.
Catholics weren’t spared either… Even Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, head of the German Bishops’ Conference, said before the visit he hoped to see some change in coming years to prevent the rising number of divorced Catholics feeling excluded from the Church. By contrast, Benedict was loud and clear in criticizing the German Church as too bureaucratic and focused on organizational changes rather than on the zeal of true faith, which he said was the key to confronting its problems.
Munich’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the most influential daily in the pope’s native Bavaria, summed up the trip with the headline: “He came, he spoke and he disappointed.” END QUOTE
In case you don’t know, pnewton, We are Church is an international petition group pushing for changes in church teaching through political pressure (“referendums,” lobbying and the like). One point from its four-point manifesto is this: “We need a Church committed to justice and peace, and which puts solidarity with the excluded of the world at the center of its action.” It is my opinion that there are some people associated with the USCCB who are of the same mind with certain aspects of the We are Church agenda.
ad hominem
Every day, pnewton, I thank God for the group of truly courageous bishops in America and elsewhere, but especially for PBXVI. Trust me, some folks associated with the USCCB and its German counterpart do not.
QUOTE
BERLIN | Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:21pm IST (Reuters) - Pope Benedict’s visit to his German homeland was bound to provoke harsh words from his critics. The surprise of the event was how bluntly he took his own Church to task and disappointed Protestants ready to work with him…Despite his frail physique and soft-spoken style, the 84-year-old pontiff delivered a vigorous defense of his conservative views and brusquely rejected calls for reforms, some of which even had cautious support from some bishops.
At the end of his four-day visit on Sunday, Benedict predicted “small communities of believers” would spread Catholicism in future – and not, he seemed to say, the rich German Church, which he hinted had more bureaucracy than belief…“An ecumenical disaster,” wrote the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper, blasting Benedict’s treatment of Protestant leaders as “spectacularly half-hearted, patronizing and callous”.
The lay Catholic group We Are Church [see below]* said the faithful should stop hoping for help from Rome…“Let’s do what unites us,” it declared *.
Catholics weren’t spared either… Even Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, head of the German Bishops’ Conference, said before the visit he hoped to see some change in coming years to prevent the rising number of divorced Catholics feeling excluded from the Church. By contrast, Benedict was loud and clear in criticizing the German Church as too bureaucratic and focused on organizational changes rather than on the zeal of true faith, which he said was the key to confronting its problems.
Munich’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the most influential daily in the pope’s native Bavaria, summed up the trip with the headline: “He came, he spoke and he disappointed.” END QUOTE
In case you don’t know, pnewton, We are Church is an international petition group pushing for changes in church teaching through political pressure (“referendums,” lobbying and the like). One point from its four-point manifesto is this: “We need a Church committed to justice and peace, and which puts solidarity with the excluded of the world at the center of its action.” It is my opinion that there are some people associated with the USCCB who are of the same mind with certain aspects of the We are Church agenda.
K
KSU
Guest
"We are Church as a reform movement within the Church represents the “voice of the people in the pews.”
Why you would post their propaganda, pnewton, is beyond me because you know that We are Church is NOT “within the Church”, and they do NOT represent " the voice of the people in the pews." The people in the pews do NOT want the We are Church agenda, which includes the right to choose their own pastors and bishops, and the acceptance of homosexuality:
QUOTE
Building a Church of brothers and sisters that recognizes the equality of all the baptized, including the inclusion of the People of God in the election of bishops in their local churches.
Equal rights for men and women, including the admission of women to all Church ministries.
Free choice of either a celibate or married life for all those who dedicate themselves to the service of the church.
A positive attitude toward sexuality, and a recognition of personal conscience in decision-making.
A message of joy and not condemnation, including dialogue, freedom of speech and thought. No anathemas and no exclusion as a means of solving problems, especially as this applies to theologians. END QUOTE
Why you would post their propaganda, pnewton, is beyond me because you know that We are Church is NOT “within the Church”, and they do NOT represent " the voice of the people in the pews." The people in the pews do NOT want the We are Church agenda, which includes the right to choose their own pastors and bishops, and the acceptance of homosexuality:
QUOTE
Building a Church of brothers and sisters that recognizes the equality of all the baptized, including the inclusion of the People of God in the election of bishops in their local churches.
Equal rights for men and women, including the admission of women to all Church ministries.
Free choice of either a celibate or married life for all those who dedicate themselves to the service of the church.
A positive attitude toward sexuality, and a recognition of personal conscience in decision-making.
A message of joy and not condemnation, including dialogue, freedom of speech and thought. No anathemas and no exclusion as a means of solving problems, especially as this applies to theologians. END QUOTE
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Pnewton,
FACT: The Vatican has specifically instructed that Catholic politicians who counsel, promote, endorse, vote for and/or implement abortion (‘Right to Choose’) or same sex ‘marriage’ be denied receipt of Holy Communion because they have excommunicated themselves from the Chruch.
APPLICATION: Here are the links where the fighting is taking place. Note Gov Coumo and his mistress have attended Mass and receiveced Communion from Bishop. While these essentially address the public scandal the governor of New York is giving - note what is being said by Bishop Hubbard:
"Edward Peters, who’s also a conservative Catholic blogger and seminary professor in Detroit, called the living arrangement “public concubinage” and said that Cuomo taking Communion would be sacrilegious.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, left, and his girlfriend Sandra Lee at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. But Catholic bishops don’t agree. Bishops and priests have allowed the Catholic Democrat to receive Communion for years, including at Christmas last year and at a Mass last month marking his inauguration. The practice appears to conform to church law.
“My religion is a private matter, and that is not something I discuss in the political arena,” Cuomo said Wednesday.
The bishop in Albany agreed, saying to pass judgment on others, even those in public life, is inappropriate.
“There are norms of the church governing the sacraments which Catholics are expected to observe,” said Albany Diocese Bishop Howard J. Hubbard. “However, it is unfair and imprudent to make a pastoral judgment about a particular situation without knowing all the facts. As a matter of pastoral practice, we should not comment publicly on anything which should be addressed privately, regardless if the person is a public figure or a private citizen.”"
This is a total distortion of the Vatican’s position - but, it certainly is poltically correct!
articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-03/local/28669572_1_cuomo-spokesman-josh-vlasto-andrew-cuomo-bishops
abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=12983484
lifesitenews.com/news/new-york-bishop-launches-protest-against-catholic-gov-cuomo-over-gay-marri/
Gov Cuomo is a gold mine of information concerning how the bishops have co-opted their positions or authority and leadership for political expedience. This group of links is the most recent which shows some are moving to counter-act the scandal this ‘Catholic’ governor is giving to the faithful. Do you own research. Things are not as they should be - and you should at least be aware of this. How you decide to respond, beyond praying for these fallen shepherds, is your choice.
God bless
FACT: The Vatican has specifically instructed that Catholic politicians who counsel, promote, endorse, vote for and/or implement abortion (‘Right to Choose’) or same sex ‘marriage’ be denied receipt of Holy Communion because they have excommunicated themselves from the Chruch.
APPLICATION: Here are the links where the fighting is taking place. Note Gov Coumo and his mistress have attended Mass and receiveced Communion from Bishop. While these essentially address the public scandal the governor of New York is giving - note what is being said by Bishop Hubbard:
"Edward Peters, who’s also a conservative Catholic blogger and seminary professor in Detroit, called the living arrangement “public concubinage” and said that Cuomo taking Communion would be sacrilegious.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, left, and his girlfriend Sandra Lee at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. But Catholic bishops don’t agree. Bishops and priests have allowed the Catholic Democrat to receive Communion for years, including at Christmas last year and at a Mass last month marking his inauguration. The practice appears to conform to church law.
“My religion is a private matter, and that is not something I discuss in the political arena,” Cuomo said Wednesday.
The bishop in Albany agreed, saying to pass judgment on others, even those in public life, is inappropriate.
“There are norms of the church governing the sacraments which Catholics are expected to observe,” said Albany Diocese Bishop Howard J. Hubbard. “However, it is unfair and imprudent to make a pastoral judgment about a particular situation without knowing all the facts. As a matter of pastoral practice, we should not comment publicly on anything which should be addressed privately, regardless if the person is a public figure or a private citizen.”"
This is a total distortion of the Vatican’s position - but, it certainly is poltically correct!
articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-03/local/28669572_1_cuomo-spokesman-josh-vlasto-andrew-cuomo-bishops
abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=12983484
lifesitenews.com/news/new-york-bishop-launches-protest-against-catholic-gov-cuomo-over-gay-marri/
Gov Cuomo is a gold mine of information concerning how the bishops have co-opted their positions or authority and leadership for political expedience. This group of links is the most recent which shows some are moving to counter-act the scandal this ‘Catholic’ governor is giving to the faithful. Do you own research. Things are not as they should be - and you should at least be aware of this. How you decide to respond, beyond praying for these fallen shepherds, is your choice.
God bless
P
pnewton
Guest
How I respond will be to keep from mingling these two issues. Using a New York bishop’s response to Cuomo to address immigration is as illogical as using a sex-abusing priest to disprove Catholicism. I am well aware of that bishops are imperfect in their actions.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is not propaganda. It was their mission statement. I posted it because you stated, “In case you don’t know, pnewton, We are Church is an international petition group…” As you brought them into this discussion, I thought I take the one part of their position I found most troubling, as it applies to the topic of immigration. Namely, that of allowing their lay opinions to be of more importance than that of the clergy.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi,Pnewton,
I apologize.
I was under the impression that you were sincerely questioning the position taken by those criticizing bishops for making political statements yet failing to follow explicit Vatican directives. Since this isn’t the issue, consider it closed.
But just to make things easier, in the future, do not ask for information…
“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.”
… and then apparently crumble when it is given to you.
You know, KSU was right about a lot of things … shame your only response was the inaccurate and lame, “ad hominem”.
God bless
God bless
I apologize.
I was under the impression that you were sincerely questioning the position taken by those criticizing bishops for making political statements yet failing to follow explicit Vatican directives. Since this isn’t the issue, consider it closed.
But just to make things easier, in the future, do not ask for information…
“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.”
… and then apparently crumble when it is given to you.
You know, KSU was right about a lot of things … shame your only response was the inaccurate and lame, “ad hominem”.
God bless
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, KSU,
There are laws against beating a dead horse … and this one just isn’t moving when logical presentations are made with the expectation that a similar response will be forthcoming …
God bless
There are laws against beating a dead horse … and this one just isn’t moving when logical presentations are made with the expectation that a similar response will be forthcoming …
God bless
"We are Church as a reform movement within the Church represents the “voice of the people in the pews.”
Why you would post their propaganda, pnewton, is beyond me because you know that We are Church is NOT “within the Church”, and they do NOT represent " the voice of the people in the pews." The people in the pews do NOT want the We are Church agenda, which includes the right to choose their own pastors and bishops, and the acceptance of homosexuality:
QUOTE
Building a Church of brothers and sisters that recognizes the equality of all the baptized, including the inclusion of the People of God in the election of bishops in their local churches.
Equal rights for men and women, including the admission of women to all Church ministries.
Free choice of either a celibate or married life for all those who dedicate themselves to the service of the church.
A positive attitude toward sexuality, and a recognition of personal conscience in decision-making.
A message of joy and not condemnation, including dialogue, freedom of speech and thought. No anathemas and no exclusion as a means of solving problems, especially as this applies to theologians. END QUOTE
P
pnewton
Guest
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I had a real revelation last week, from my sister who married into a Mexican family – most of whom still live in Mexico, while my sister and her husband live in the States. I would describe all of them as part of the solidly minority middle class in Mexico, in that they are all at this point in the professions (architecture, priesthood, business management, medicine, social work) and obviously then well-educated, despite coming from blue-collar paternal roots (the railroad).
My sister favors immigration reform, but not for the sort of template reasons many people, both Catholic & non-, favor. I had explained to her recently, before her visit, some of the dynamics going on in my neighborhood – of Latino children being left alone up to 18 hours a day and how that was affecting these families, and the neighbors. She brought an insight to this that is crucial to consider, for all those sincerely concerned about the complexities of immigration – not just economic complexities, but the social consequences which occur with sudden cultural displacement. These realities directly affect the moral considerations of illegal immigration especially.
By definition, illegal immigration in most cases limits the number of family members who are resettling. For those of you who may have seen a recent investigative report on immigration & smuggling, the journey is fraught with risk and fatality, with about a 25% survival rate, and one so physically demanding that elderly relatives of those migrating generally do not come along. Yet the Mexican household, especially the rural one (from which the bulk of the undocumented migrants come), operates as an extended unit, with important family members supplementing the raising of children and the disciplining of them in the child’s home (grandparents, aunts, etc.).
When unskilled workers with low literacy rates head North, they are confronted by an economically brutal environment which even with the recent housing deflation, requires both parents to work full time in order to survive. But for the unskilled, it is worse: the minimum wages they earn, if they’re feeding more than their own mouths, are usually insufficient for U.S. cost of living, anywhere. That requires them to work much more than 40 hours/wk in order to pay rent & bare essentials with extreme frugality, and leaves them no money for child care. This results in unsupervised children, with the Head of Household (Dad) “abandoning” his leadership role, since he is generally working 60+ hrs/week, and Mom not much less than that. There are no grandparents or aunts/uncles who have made the trip with them.
The second major factor affecting these displaced families is the language problem. Although bilingual, the children born here of these undocumented migrants generally use English as their first language. The Spanish nuances, used by those native to the language to convey feelings and subtleties, vanish. The displaced parents do not have the facility with English (nor the time/leisure to study the language in depth) to communicate as effectively with their children as they would had they all stayed in Mexico, sharing a language. This is not a trivial matter, because the combination of language barriers and parental absence has a profound effect on the behavioral outcomes of children as they grow into adolescence. For example, Latina women in the States apparently have a much higher out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate than their counterparts in Mexico. (They also have an extremely high abortion rate in the States, second only to young black women.) And early pregnancy throws them further into poverty – an ironic result of the parents’ original intentions. Latino young men in the States, lacking male role models due to the relentless work schedules of their fathers, are very susceptible to gang involvement and even criminality, or associations with juvenile criminals.—associations which affect their goals and therefore their futures.
So the reality of “a better life,” falls far behind the ideal – for those who do not come with a basic education which they then might improve upon after arrival. (My brother-in-law had acquired, I believe, a Masters’ Degree before he immigrated; further, his marriage to my sister allowed him to be a legal resident. Eventually he earned his doctoral degree here as well, but was already successful before that.) And the more important point is that the conditions which are the natural consequence of illegal immigration are morally problematic for these migrants, apart from effects upon the broader community.
My sister favors a guest worker program, so that the household unit in Mexico, which is essential to the stability and moral health of the Mexican family, will remain intact. I favor a combination of two things:
~a NAFTA redux, IOW not based on the previous NAFTA which displaced rural families, but one which would allow Mexican famliies to stay put while earning a better living than they do now, from U.S. companies with branches in Mexico; that would also have to be overseen by either a U.S. or a U.N. joint team, so that the wages Mexicans earn would not be siphoned off in some corrupt manner by the usual thieves in the Mexican gov’t.
~a restructuring of legal immigration to include extended families, so that social/cultural continuity can be maintained.
I’m open to many other ideas as well, but it is simply not true that the current illegal “system” can be defined, let alone encouraged, as one which is morally optimal. A haphazard, accidental immigration (what we have now) is morally and practically irresponsible.
My sister favors immigration reform, but not for the sort of template reasons many people, both Catholic & non-, favor. I had explained to her recently, before her visit, some of the dynamics going on in my neighborhood – of Latino children being left alone up to 18 hours a day and how that was affecting these families, and the neighbors. She brought an insight to this that is crucial to consider, for all those sincerely concerned about the complexities of immigration – not just economic complexities, but the social consequences which occur with sudden cultural displacement. These realities directly affect the moral considerations of illegal immigration especially.
By definition, illegal immigration in most cases limits the number of family members who are resettling. For those of you who may have seen a recent investigative report on immigration & smuggling, the journey is fraught with risk and fatality, with about a 25% survival rate, and one so physically demanding that elderly relatives of those migrating generally do not come along. Yet the Mexican household, especially the rural one (from which the bulk of the undocumented migrants come), operates as an extended unit, with important family members supplementing the raising of children and the disciplining of them in the child’s home (grandparents, aunts, etc.).
When unskilled workers with low literacy rates head North, they are confronted by an economically brutal environment which even with the recent housing deflation, requires both parents to work full time in order to survive. But for the unskilled, it is worse: the minimum wages they earn, if they’re feeding more than their own mouths, are usually insufficient for U.S. cost of living, anywhere. That requires them to work much more than 40 hours/wk in order to pay rent & bare essentials with extreme frugality, and leaves them no money for child care. This results in unsupervised children, with the Head of Household (Dad) “abandoning” his leadership role, since he is generally working 60+ hrs/week, and Mom not much less than that. There are no grandparents or aunts/uncles who have made the trip with them.
The second major factor affecting these displaced families is the language problem. Although bilingual, the children born here of these undocumented migrants generally use English as their first language. The Spanish nuances, used by those native to the language to convey feelings and subtleties, vanish. The displaced parents do not have the facility with English (nor the time/leisure to study the language in depth) to communicate as effectively with their children as they would had they all stayed in Mexico, sharing a language. This is not a trivial matter, because the combination of language barriers and parental absence has a profound effect on the behavioral outcomes of children as they grow into adolescence. For example, Latina women in the States apparently have a much higher out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate than their counterparts in Mexico. (They also have an extremely high abortion rate in the States, second only to young black women.) And early pregnancy throws them further into poverty – an ironic result of the parents’ original intentions. Latino young men in the States, lacking male role models due to the relentless work schedules of their fathers, are very susceptible to gang involvement and even criminality, or associations with juvenile criminals.—associations which affect their goals and therefore their futures.
So the reality of “a better life,” falls far behind the ideal – for those who do not come with a basic education which they then might improve upon after arrival. (My brother-in-law had acquired, I believe, a Masters’ Degree before he immigrated; further, his marriage to my sister allowed him to be a legal resident. Eventually he earned his doctoral degree here as well, but was already successful before that.) And the more important point is that the conditions which are the natural consequence of illegal immigration are morally problematic for these migrants, apart from effects upon the broader community.
My sister favors a guest worker program, so that the household unit in Mexico, which is essential to the stability and moral health of the Mexican family, will remain intact. I favor a combination of two things:
~a NAFTA redux, IOW not based on the previous NAFTA which displaced rural families, but one which would allow Mexican famliies to stay put while earning a better living than they do now, from U.S. companies with branches in Mexico; that would also have to be overseen by either a U.S. or a U.N. joint team, so that the wages Mexicans earn would not be siphoned off in some corrupt manner by the usual thieves in the Mexican gov’t.
~a restructuring of legal immigration to include extended families, so that social/cultural continuity can be maintained.
I’m open to many other ideas as well, but it is simply not true that the current illegal “system” can be defined, let alone encouraged, as one which is morally optimal. A haphazard, accidental immigration (what we have now) is morally and practically irresponsible.
P
pnewton
Guest
Thank you for your post and insight. I think though this must be a typo, or misunderstanding. If this was true, for every one million illegal immigrants, there would be 3 million corpses. Twenty million immigrants would produce sixty million dead. I think this must be a misunderstanding. Otherwise, thanks I appreciate your comments.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
^ a fair challenge.
As I understand it, there’s a 25% successful entry rate. Many are deported; many die. The recent program did stress, though, the high number of corpses, the rate of which has increased to overflowing recently. (In one case, a refrigerated truck had to be brought in to accommodate the overflow from the morgue of unidentified corpses.) This trend has persisted.
As I understand it, there’s a 25% successful entry rate. Many are deported; many die. The recent program did stress, though, the high number of corpses, the rate of which has increased to overflowing recently. (In one case, a refrigerated truck had to be brought in to accommodate the overflow from the morgue of unidentified corpses.) This trend has persisted.
K
KSU
Guest
Per pnewton: “The question I asked, and continue to ask, is what the bishops have said concerning illegal immigration, you know, the topic here.”
First, that is not the topic here; what the bishops say about it does not make it morally OK or not OK for a Catholic to be against illegal immigration per se. Second, nevertheless, your question was answered along the way early in this thread, viz:
No, Church teaching supports the right of sovereign nations to control their borders. Enforcement of our borders, however, should include the protection of the basic human rights and dignity of the migrant and not place lives at risk.
Does the Catholic Church support illegal immigration?
No. The Catholic Church does not support or encourage illegal immigration because 1) it is contrary to federal law and 2) it is not good either for society because of the presence of a large population living outside the legal structures or the migrant, who is subjected to abuse, exploitation, and death in the desert. Instead, the Church is advocating changing a broken law so that undocumented persons can obtain legal status in our country and enter the United States legally to work and support their families.END QUOTE
So, pnewton, you are now reminded of the “mind of the Church” and of what PJPII said and what the bishops say about supporting illegal immigration. I could further remind you by spelling out what the bishop-authored Catechism says ( see for example1879,1880,1897,1898,1899,1900) by which the bishops are bound, but why bother–you already know everything I’ve just said. And you also know that neither the Vatican nor the USCCB claims that the law is unjust.
While the bishops’ FAQ says that “…the Church is advocating changing a broken law so that undocumented persons can obtain legal status in our country and enter the United States legally to work…”, that skillful wording means only that the policy of many/most bishops in the U S (not the Roman Catholic Church) is that the law should be modified. It does not and can not specify how or to what extent or under what conditions the law should be modified. That is beyond the bishops’ competence; in fact the Church teaches that it is beyond the competence of the Church itself.
But you knew that, too. So, pnewton, why do you continue to ask, what the bishops have said concerning illegal immigration? We are up to 26 pages and the answer never changes.
First, that is not the topic here; what the bishops say about it does not make it morally OK or not OK for a Catholic to be against illegal immigration per se. Second, nevertheless, your question was answered along the way early in this thread, viz:
- Pope JP II said, “Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants.”
- From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“[A bishop has] obligations regarding the Holy See. Throughout his entire administration he must conform to the general legislation of the Church and the directions of the pope.” [And of course no pope teaches us to support illegal immigration]. - From the USCCB’s website FAQ:
No, Church teaching supports the right of sovereign nations to control their borders. Enforcement of our borders, however, should include the protection of the basic human rights and dignity of the migrant and not place lives at risk.
Does the Catholic Church support illegal immigration?
No. The Catholic Church does not support or encourage illegal immigration because 1) it is contrary to federal law and 2) it is not good either for society because of the presence of a large population living outside the legal structures or the migrant, who is subjected to abuse, exploitation, and death in the desert. Instead, the Church is advocating changing a broken law so that undocumented persons can obtain legal status in our country and enter the United States legally to work and support their families.END QUOTE
So, pnewton, you are now reminded of the “mind of the Church” and of what PJPII said and what the bishops say about supporting illegal immigration. I could further remind you by spelling out what the bishop-authored Catechism says ( see for example1879,1880,1897,1898,1899,1900) by which the bishops are bound, but why bother–you already know everything I’ve just said. And you also know that neither the Vatican nor the USCCB claims that the law is unjust.
While the bishops’ FAQ says that “…the Church is advocating changing a broken law so that undocumented persons can obtain legal status in our country and enter the United States legally to work…”, that skillful wording means only that the policy of many/most bishops in the U S (not the Roman Catholic Church) is that the law should be modified. It does not and can not specify how or to what extent or under what conditions the law should be modified. That is beyond the bishops’ competence; in fact the Church teaches that it is beyond the competence of the Church itself.
But you knew that, too. So, pnewton, why do you continue to ask, what the bishops have said concerning illegal immigration? We are up to 26 pages and the answer never changes.
P
pnewton
Guest
That makes more sense. It was the “survival rate” that I found peculiar.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
My bad, pnewton.
Nevertheless, the program did give some unacceptably astronomical figure for deaths in the process (including the overflow of corpses which is picking up pace of late), bringing to the forefront (again) the morality of soft support for a process which ndirectly subsidizes a subculture of death: actual extinction, dehumanization by coyotes (fees and widespread rape of both women and men as described in the program), and the subsequent dehumanization of immigrants who live in the shadows and are exploited after entry.
Do the Bishops “support” such “side effects?” (I’ll call them) Of course not, because i.m.o. they are responding to a theoretical model of migration and a romanticized model, rather than the raw reality of illegal immigration, which from one perspective could even be viewed as glorified, co-dependent human trafficking. Not part of the culture of life.
Nevertheless, the program did give some unacceptably astronomical figure for deaths in the process (including the overflow of corpses which is picking up pace of late), bringing to the forefront (again) the morality of soft support for a process which ndirectly subsidizes a subculture of death: actual extinction, dehumanization by coyotes (fees and widespread rape of both women and men as described in the program), and the subsequent dehumanization of immigrants who live in the shadows and are exploited after entry.
Do the Bishops “support” such “side effects?” (I’ll call them) Of course not, because i.m.o. they are responding to a theoretical model of migration and a romanticized model, rather than the raw reality of illegal immigration, which from one perspective could even be viewed as glorified, co-dependent human trafficking. Not part of the culture of life.
C
Contarini
Guest
Because calling something “prudential” doesn’t put it outside the realm of Catholic teaching. The question of when it is legitimate to vote for a “pro-choice” politician is also “prudential,” as was recognized by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. That doesn’t mean that the guidance of the bishops is not needed.
To hear many “conservative” American Catholics, labeling something “prudential” gives government officials the right to do whatever the heck they please, and no one can say that they are going against Catholic teaching. That makes no sense. If their response to a “prudential” issue clearly violates the norms laid down by Catholic teaching, it is the responsibility of the bishops to point this out. And if the bishops say that this is the case, and you can’t see that it is, surely it would be a humble and pious act on your part to consider the possibility that you may be wrong.
Your sharp distinction between means and ends is not, as far as I can see, justified in Catholic teaching. Certainly you have failed to provide one shred of such justification. Certain means are incompatible with the ends. Certain means are intrinsically immoral, no matter what the ends. Certain means are better adapted to the ends than others. On all of these things the guidance of the Christian community as a whole (and thus in particular of those who lead the Christian community by virtue of apostolic succession) is surely valuable.
Where did BXVI say this? Are you thinking of the statement referred to here, made by Cardinal Ratzinger (not Pope Benedict) at a press conference?
Looking more closely at Apostolos Suos, I think you are right as to the meaning of “binding authority.” However, the position I’ve been defending doesn’t rest on the concept of “binding authority.” I have never said that you are necessarily wrong for disagreeing with the bishops, only that the guidance offered in their name is part of their pastoral function and should not simply be disregarded. The bishops and/or their representatives are not teaching magisterially (any more than Bishops Burke or Chaput are teaching magisterially when they express the opinion that no “proportionate reasons” exist in our society for voting for a “pro-choice” candidate against a “pro-life” one–though I recognize that in Catholic polity as described by JPII individual bishops have more authority than conferences). But they are applying Catholic teaching to specific circumstances. You are denying that Catholic teaching affects the question of means at all. You are thus insulating your actual political opinions from being challenged by the teaching of your Church. That can’t be a good thing.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
This text does not support your means/ends dichotomy.
But if I come up with a solution for my problem, and my pastor says, “I think there are moral implications to this that you are overlooking,” I’m not going to thumb my nose and say “that’s just your opinion.” I’m going to give my proposed solution a very hard and critical second look, assuming that the person with pastoral responsibility for me is more likely than not to be saying something God wants me to hear. And that’s all I’m suggesting you should do.
You’re ignoring the fact that I wasn’t speaking about abortion itself but about remote material cooperation with abortion, which is a prudential issue just as much as immigration is. You and others who agree with you want to set apart any issue having to do with abortion because abortion is an intrinsic evil. That doesn’t make sense. By the time you get out to the level of remote material cooperation, you are dealing with the same kind of moral issues that you’re dealing with in immigration or capital punishment. It’s not the same kind of thing as performing an abortion or formally cooperating with abortion by supporting a “pro-choice” position.
Edwin
H
Hastrman
Guest
Virtually anything one can find fault with the bishops on is, basically, this: they look merely at the ideal, and not the actual realization. Apparently it is sufficient to have one’s heart in the right place? Someone must tell Aquinas, I’m pretty sure his view of the morality of an act was somewhat more complex.
E
Ender
Guest
It is outside of Church teaching to the extent that the Church has no position on practical solutions. It is part of Church teaching when it is directed to the objectives we are to pursue.
Regrettably, no such guidance was forthcoming.
Not exactly. We are obligated to do what we think will solve the problems, that’s not the same as being given a blank check. Understand the distinction between judging a person’s choices as ineffective or even harmful and judging them to be immoral. If they are contrary to Church teaching they are immoral, but believing them to be harmful only makes them mistakes, not sins. 1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it.
Give an example of this.
899 The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church:
2442 It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens. Social action can assume various concrete forms. It should always have the common good in view and be in conformity with the message of the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. It is the role of the laity "to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice.
Of course. There are things we may not do but choosing the best thing to do from among the valid choices does not involve any moral decisions, only practical ones.
That was not what I was referring to but it will certainly do.
I didn’t claim we could disregard it. I said we could in good faith reject it precisely because it was prudential and not doctrinal.
My political opinions are not challenged by the teaching of the Church since the Church has no position on the positions I have taken. You cannot admit that the bishops’ guidance is not binding and still claim it is Church teaching. If it is Church teaching it is binding; if it is not binding it is not Church teaching.
Ender
- Status