Illegal Immigration and Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter MOTHBALL83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Per pnewton: “I do not get this. Are you saying that priests and religious are just out to make money? Are you saying that trying to help the poor and needy is Protestant? I do not understand.”

To the contrary, you do understand every thing I said, but just don’t like it. I don’t for a second believe that you actually misinterpreted my comments in such a silly manner.
 
To the contrary, you do understand every thing I said, but just don’t like it. I don’t for a second believe that you actually misinterpreted my comments in such a silly manner.
If you think my interpretation was silly, then I guess I misunderstood this:

Our Lord one day will ask many of the clergy and religious why they spent their efforts pursuing material benefits at the expense of the Faith–half or more of the American Catholics in their charge hypocritically retain the name “Catholic” but are more closely allied to Henry the Eighth, Calvin, Luther, Marx and Sanger.
 
If as a Catholic you attend Mass, someone has to pay for the electricity, the building, the priests’ salary, the hosts used for the Eucharist and a myriad of other little expenses that go into running the Church. Someone has to donate to the collection for a parish to operate. Those that do not, receive the Sacrament as a charity from those that do give.
Yes, I can live with myself. The Church leaves me no choice but to withhold money from the collection plate. There have been specific collections for the church I attend, for improvements and such, and I have contributed generously. I will not fork my dough over to a general collection where my money will be used in part to undermine my job stability and promote such utter feces as the DREAM Act. I’m in the trenches. Illegal immigration isn’t some abstract problem to be mulled over for me. I am directly impacted. Enough of my money goes toward them through government taxes, the Church can step off.
 

Per pnewton: "If you think my interpretation was silly, then I guess I misunderstood this:
“Our Lord one day will ask many of the clergy and religious why they spent their efforts pursuing material benefits at the expense of the Faith–half or more of the American Catholics in their charge hypocritically retain the name ‘Catholic’ but are more closely allied to Henry the Eighth, Calvin, Luther, Marx and Sanger.”​

What it means is that for forty years and counting many of our shepherds concerned themselves with worldly political activities and political correctness while the enemy led astray over half the souls in their charge. Our Lord will demand an accounting from the bishops as to why those souls, while still on earth, looked to Henry the Eighth, Calvin, Luther, Marx and Sanger rather than the Christ of their fathers, but still believed they were Catholic. Those same shepherds watched and often assisted in the virtual and sometimes material destruction of our church interiors, liturgy, Catholic education, seminaries and, finally, even faith and confidence in the Church herself. They embarrassed themselves before the entire world and greatly weakened the Church so that now her enemies in the government and elsewhere are openly attempting to weaken her even more.

Related to our discussion, this month in Germany, PBXVI told us that the Church must rededicate herself to her mission, and it’s not mainly worldly work; it’s preaching her message, the Gospel. Through worldly demands and constraints, however, her message becomes “relativized.” Therefore, to model itself on Christ’s ideal, the Church cannot act and think like the world does (e.g., weighing the relativity of options such as voting for politicians who facilitate abortions and other horrors so long as those politicians are concerned with “social justice”–which reminds me of “adult” entertainment-- and are opposed to the death penalty, strict boarder enforcement, and guns. A “seamless garment” type of relativism.)

He said that history shows that sometimes the Church…"adapts herself to the standards of the world. Not infrequently, she gives greater weight to organization and institutionalization than to her vocation… In order to accomplish her true task adequately, the Church must constantly renew the effort to detach herself from her tendency towards worldliness…In this she follows the words of Jesus: ‘They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.’”

“History has shown that, when the Church becomes less worldly, her missionary witness shines more brightly. Once liberated from material and political burdens and privileges, the Church can reach out more effectively… She can live more freely her vocation to the ministry of divine worship and service of neighbour… seeking total transparency…and stripping away from it anything that only SEEMS [my caps] to belong to faith, but in truth is mere convention or habit… This does not, of course, mean withdrawing from [her innate charitable activity]: quite the contrary… At the same time, though, the Church’s charitable activity also needs to be constantly exposed to the demands of due detachment from worldliness, if it is not to wither away at the roots in the face of increasing erosion of its ecclesial character. Only a profound relationship with God makes it possible to reach out fully towards others,” he said.

pnewton, I interpret the pope’s message to mean that, ironically, by detaching herself from the world and focusing on her spiritual mission, she accomplishes through Christ working within us what she could not accomplish directly by becoming immersed in “material and political burdens.” As you know from my debate with Contarini, there is among very well intentioned people a “heresy of good works.”
 
Hi, IrishSFV,

I’d say Pnewton has a way with words… 😃

But, if you don’t mind me asking… and,if you do not mind sharing… since you say you do not put money in the Sunday offering plate, how do you meet the obligation to support the Church?

God bless
That website sums up why I have never put a dime into the collection plate at Mass. And never will until they realize that, as a Catholic working class American, I would prefer that my hard earned money not go to aid those that illegally hinder my pursuit of a better life for myself and my family.
 
FYI - In searching for that last document I found an excellent resource for church statements on the subject of immigration, if anyone is interested.

justiceforimmigrants.org/statements.shtml
That’s an interesting web site but we should be very clear on this: it is no resource at all for **Church *statements on immigration. What it contains are comments from the USCCB and individual bishops expressing their personal opinions. The very first statement captures everything that is wrong with what the bishops are doing - on immigration and every other political issue with which they involve themselves.
*
USCCB Chairman Calls Senate Vote on Dream Act A Setback, Not a Defeat
December 21, 2010
On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I express my gratitude to those elected officials who did the right thing and voted for this important bill.


Did the right thing?” I can’t adequately express how offensive this statement is without getting myself banned but about one thing we should be absolutely clear: it is not the Church who is saying this.

Ender
 
if you don’t mind me asking… and,if you do not mind sharing… since you say you do not put money in the Sunday offering plate, how do you meet the obligation to support the Church?

God bless
I give direct donations to the local pro life clinics, I buy food for the homeless, which I give directly to them, and I donate my time at the church’s soup kitchen.

If the Church needs money, then it needs to change the way it does business. Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities, M.E.N.D., etc. all support illegal immigrants. They shouldn’t expect a dime from me, and no, I don’t feel bad about it one bit.
 
What it means is that for forty years and counting many of our shepherds concerned themselves with worldly political activities and political correctness while the enemy led astray over half the souls in their charge. Our Lord will demand an accounting from the bishops as to why those souls, while still on earth, looked to Henry the Eighth, Calvin, Luther, Marx and Sanger rather than the Christ of their fathers, but still believed they were Catholic.
I see. You see a sin of ommission. Consider this though, that as neither of us are God, or privy to His judgement, this is something outside our knowledge. If you read the documents that the different bishops have produced, I think you will find that the deal immigration as a moral issue. While we may not agree on what to do with immigration in America, it can not be argued that how we deal with others, including strangers, is a moral issue addressed often in the Bible. Therefore, to it is a false dichotomy to say that a shepherd who addresses a moral issue, is neglecting salvatory preaching. One can do both, or neither.
 
Originally Posted by pnewton :
FYI - In searching for that last document I found an excellent resource for church statements on the subject of immigration, if anyone is interested.
I was going to donate my time and money to Justice for Immigrants because, as the decendant of immigrants myself, I definitley believed they deserve to be treated justly. But then I discovered that that group does not make the real and technical distinction between LEGAL immigrants and ILLEGAL immigrants. And why does it always use the terms, “migrants,” and “migration”? I’ll tell you why, because it denotes the images of humans moving in ancient pre-history before nations and other societies and their borders existed. But they are not migrants simply moving or migrating across an open globe. They are IMMIGRANTS immigrating from one established nation or society that has a border to another. It are animals who don’t have the cognitive ability to recognize separate and distinct nations/societies and their borders. It are animals that “migrate”. Everytime I hear someone call illegal immigration “undocumented migration,” I think to myself, “we need to get a scientist to start documenting that migration!!”

As to its motto that “we are all one family under God,” yes, we are one spiritual family as Catholics, we are all members of the same Church, but we are also members of separate and distinct human societies and nations that have borders that should be respected. God divided us humans into separate and distinct groups because of the Tower of Babel and it was God who, in detail and with specificity, dicated the borders to the founders of Biblical Israel. So even God supports the notion of separate and distinct human societies with real and established borders. All of which are neccesasary and important until Jesus returns because, as a fallen, sinful race now as we are, we can not unite as one human family under God on our own.

And here is another pro-illegal immigrant Catholic group that I believe is anti-American (yes I said that and I stand by that), because again, it doesn’t make the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, because it liberally designates illegals “refugees” though our government has not officially, and as a way to justify its aiding and abetting them; because it offers shelters and other services to illegals at the border, and, most of all, because it does not recognize our nation’s existence and borders, or any nation’s existence and borders for that matter, and is thus helping to erode our nation’s sovereignty, making it anti-American: : vocations4migrants.org/

If only these groups would realize there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration and that separate and distinct societies and their borders are neccessary in a fallen, sinful world and should be respected, then I would support them.

-Chris
 
And why does it always use the terms, “migrants,” and “migration”? I’ll tell you why, because it denotes the images of humans moving in ancient pre-history before nations and other societies and their borders existed. But they are not migrants simply moving or migrating across an open globe. They are IMMIGRANTS immigrating from one established nation or society that has a border to another. It are animals who don’t have the cognitive ability to recognize separate and distinct nations/societies and their borders. It are animals that “migrate”.
Migrants and immigrants have the same root. The term migration and migrate are used extensively in Church documents.

I find the use of the Tower of Babel to support any view on immigration suspect. The people were scattered because of their pride and arrogance toward God and it was their language that was confused. No borders were established. It’s application here is dubious.
 
Migrants and immigrants have the same root. The term migration and migrate are used extensively in Church documents.

I find the use of the Tower of Babel to support any view on immigration suspect. The people were scattered because of their pride and arrogance toward God and it was their language that was confused. No borders were established. It’s application here is dubious.
According to the dictionary, the two words actually have slightly different meanings:

mi·grant (mgrnt)
n.
  1. One that moves from **one region to another **by chance, instinct, or plan.
  2. An itinerant worker who travels from** one area to another **in search of work.
im·mi·grant (m-grnt)
n.
  1. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.
  2. A plant or animal that establishes itself in an area where it previously did not exist
The words "migrate’ and “migrants” are used “extinsively in Church douments” because of the reason I layed out. As to the Tower of Babel: and are we not doing the same thing? Trying to unite the human race, though it is impossible without God? Nowhere in the Bible does it state that it is a poitive thing for the unity of the human race before the Second Coming, except as an event to be exploited by the Antichrist. And yes, the borders of Biblical Israel were certainly established and even dictated by God.

-Chris
 
The ideaology behind all my opinions is simple: we are a fallen, sinful world, therefore having separate and distinct societies protected by borders are neccessary. Any attempt to abolish those borders and unite the human race (politically, that is) before the Second Coming, no matter how positive or noble the intention, is simply futile and, if not exploited by the Antichrist, is, at best, still a pointless endeavor.

-Chris
 
And yes, the borders of Biblical Israel were certainly established and even dictated by God.
This was millenia after the Tower of Bible and in no way associated with it.
The ideaology behind all my opinions is simple: we are a fallen, sinful world, therefore having separate and distinct societies protected by borders are neccessary.
I think everyone agrees with you. No one jas suggested that we have no borders. However, Caritas in Veritate does give Catholic teaching on international responsibility.
 
Originally Posted by cmforte
The ideaology behind all my opinions is simple: we are a fallen, sinful world, therefore having separate and distinct societies protected by borders are neccessary.
pnewton:

I think everyone agrees with you. No one jas suggested that we have no borders. However, Caritas in Veritate does give Catholic teaching on international responsibility
.

The words and actions of the UCCB and of groups like “Justice for Immigrants” and the Scalabrinians proves otherwise. As well as the words of some posting in this thread, though ironically, the most vocal is not Catholic.

-Chris
 
Anyone who says that the terms “migrant” and “immigrant” are basically the same are being disingenuous at best. In every dictionary I’ve looked at it states that a migrant is one who moves from one area or location, saying nothing of nations and borders, to another, mainly to look for work: from Merriam-Webster Dictionary at merriam-webster.com/dictionary/migrant?show=0&t=1317528173:

mi·grant noun \ˈmī-grənt\

Definition of MIGRANT:

one that migrates: as a : a person who **moves regularly in order to find work **especially in harvesting crops

b : an animal that shifts from one habitat to another
— migrant adjective

From The free Dictionary at thefreedictionary.com/migrant:

mi·grant (mgrnt)

n.
  1. One that moves** from one region to another **by chance, instinct, or plan.
  2. An itinerant worker who travels from one area to another in search of work.
In contrast, an immigrant is one who moves from a country (which presummably has a border) to another to take up permament residence: from Merriam-Webster Dictionary at merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immigrant?show=0&t=1317526910:

im·mi·grant noun \ˈi-mə-grənt\

Definition of IMMIGRANT:

one that immigrates: as a : a person who comes **to a country to take up permanent residence **

b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown
— immigrant adjective

From The Free Dictionary at thefreedictionary.com/immigrant:

im·mi·grant (m-grnt)
n.
  1. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.
  2. A plant or animal that establishes itself in an area where it previously did not exist.
    adj.
    Of or relating to immigrants or the act of immigrating.
(And these are just a few examples.)

Similar? Hardly.

The Church and other pro-illegal groups are using the terms “migant” and “migration” to try to confuse people and to try to slowly indoctrinate people into ignoring all borders and the separate and distinct (and sovereign) nation-states they encompass. This is painfully obvious. And as I theorized in other postings, in a fallen and sinful world, doing so is not feasible or in our best interest.

-Chris
 
Similar? Hardly.
Yes, they are similar, as in from the same root. The two words are related etymologically, from the Latin migratio. Also related is the word emigration, which uses the same root. The other claim I made is that the word is being used in the bishops’ statements not as some sinister rhetorical plot, but rather that is the English word the Catholic Church uses, as it is the best translation from the Latin.

Here is a quote from Caritas in Veritate.
Another aspect of integral human development that is worthy of attention is the phenomenon of* migration*. This is a striking phenomenon because of the sheer numbers of people involved, the social, economic, political, cultural and religious problems it raises, and the dramatic challenges it poses** to nations and the international community. We can say that we are facing a social phenomenon of epoch-making proportions that requires bold, forward-looking policies of international cooperation if it is to be handled effectively. Such policies should set out from close collaboration between the migrants’ countries of origin** and their countries of destination; it should be accompanied by adequate international norms able to coordinate different legislative systems with a view to safeguarding the needs and rights of individual migrants and their families, and at the same time, those of the host countries. No country can be expected to address today’s problems of migration by itself.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
Clearly, the Holy Father is speaking of immigration and emigration, using the word “migrant”.

FYI
Here is a link to a more detailed background on this root.

etymonline.com/index.php?term=migration
 
Yes, they are similar, as in from the same root. The two words are related etymologically, from the Latin migratio. Also related is the word emigration, which uses the same root. The other claim I made is that the word is being used in the bishops’ statements not as some sinister rhetorical plot, but rather that is the English word the Catholic Church uses, as it is the best translation from the Latin.

Here is a quote from Caritas in Veritate.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
Clearly, the Holy Father is speaking of immigration and emigration, using the word “migrant”.

FYI
Here is a link to a more detailed background on this root.

etymonline.com/index.php?term=migration
So, two words can share a common root but have two different meanings today? What a surprise. Besides that link just above you provided did not confirm that. And your argument that the Church uses the terms “migrant” and “migration” because it is closest to Latin doesn’t hold up either, because once in a while the Church does also use the terms “immigrants” and “immigration.”

-Chris
 
Per pnewton: “I see. You see a sin of omission. Consider this though, that as neither of us are God, or privy to His judgement, this is something outside our knowledge. If you read the documents that the different bishops have produced, I think you will find that the deal immigration as a moral issue. While we may not agree on what to do with immigration in America, it can not be argued that how we deal with others, including strangers, is a moral issue addressed often in the Bible. Therefore, to it is a false dichotomy to say that a shepherd who addresses a moral issue, is neglecting salvatory preaching. One can do both, or neither.”

Don’t you realize by now, pnewton, that when the facts are so against your position that you can’t craft a rational response, strawman arguments just prove it?
 
So, two words can share a common root but have two different meanings today? What a surprise. Besides that link just above you provided did not confirm that. And your argument that the Church uses the terms “migrant” and “migration” because it is closest to Latin doesn’t hold up either, because once in a while the Church does also use the terms “immigrants” and “immigration.”

-Chris
Of course they have different meanings. No one ever said they were synonyms. I said they were related and had the same root. That was all. I also** never** said that the Church uses migrant exclusively, only that it is used. The reason it is used is speculative as to what the translators may have been thinking. Just because a word is the closest translation may or may not have been the reason.

I really do not think this focus on the word migrant is germaine to the immigration issue. I see a simpler reason for the use of the word, and I have found the simpler reasons are usually true. At the very least, the Catechism commands us to give the most charitable interpretation to the actions of others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top