Illegal Immigration and Morality

[cmforte]

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.

Actually the focus on the two terms is germaine to the issue because, I know you refute this, but for the reason I laid out: to get people to look at immigrants not as people moving from one nation to another to take up permament residence, but to look at them simply as “migrants,” people who are just moving from one area to another, to say nothing of borders, to look for work, to “feed their families.” And therefore gain people’s sympathy leading to attrition and to get people to start delegitimizing national borders. And it is not just the Catholic Church that is doing this.

And I tried to “give the most charitable interpretation to the actions of others”. But every time the Bishops make a statement on this issue, or take an action like suing over a law like that in Arizona or Alabama, or when Catholic groups, with the Bishop’s blessing, aid and abett illegal immigrants, just to site a few examples, my patience wears thin.

-Chris

 

[Hastrman]

And I tried to “give the most charitable interpretation to the actions of others”. But every time the Bishops make a statement on this issue, or take an action like suing over a law like that in Arizona or Alabama, or when Catholic groups, with the Bishop’s blessing, aid and abett illegal immigrants, just to site a few examples, my patience wears thin.

Hear hear! Then again, it needs to be remembered, bishops are frequently a source of scandal, even when well-meaning; the Church in Bohemia excommunicated my great-grandfather just for advocating his country’s independence from Austro-Hungary, because the Empire was seen as the defender of the Faith. Another example would be how Napoleon, trying to get the Church to support him, threatened to destroy the Church in France, and the papal nuncio laughed in his face. “If the French bishops couldn’t destroy it,” he said, “what chance have you got?”

But I think it is permitted for Catholic, and other church, groups to give humanitarian aid to illegals—if, that is, they then call INS to pick them up. I’m pretty sure “water and medical attention”, all on their own, aren’t considered aiding and abetting, in the legal sense.

 

[Ender]

And therefore gain people’s sympathy leading to attrition and to get people to start delegitimizing national borders. And it is not just the Catholic Church that is doing this.

Be careful with your choice of words. The argument I’ve been making throughout this entire debate is that it is not the Catholic Church who has been doing this, merely individual bishops and the USCCB. Don’t equate the personal opinions of some bishops with the formal teachings of the Church. Regarding immigration and all other political issues (with the exception of a mere handful) the Church gives us guidelines and objectives, what she does not do is tell us how to achieve those objectives. Anyone who says we ought to support or oppose any particular proposal speaks for himself, not the Church, for the simple reason that the Church is silent on the means best suited to obtain the ends.

Ender

 

[Nate13]

Be careful with your choice of words. The argument I’ve been making throughout this entire debate is that it is not the Catholic Church who has been doing this, merely individual bishops and the USCCB. Don’t equate the personal opinions of some bishops with the formal teachings of the Church. Regarding immigration and all other political issues (with the exception of a mere handful) the Church gives us guidelines and objectives, what she does not do is tell us how to achieve those objectives. Anyone who says we ought to support or oppose any particular proposal speaks for himself, not the Church, for the simple reason that the Church is silent on the means best suited to obtain the ends.

Ender

It’s not silent on the means that can be taken. It points out which means are unmoral and unjust and will speak out if such actions are taken. For instance if the state passed a law that stated illegal immigrants should be denied access to soup kitchens the Church would speak out.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, IrishSFV,

Let me commend you on getting personally involved in the works of charity.

Ultimately, we will all be held accountable for how we used our time, talent and treasure to further the Kingdom of God through His Chruch.

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.

 

[Ender]

It’s not silent on the means that can be taken. It points out which means are unmoral and unjust and will speak out if such actions are taken. For instance if the state passed a law that stated illegal immigrants should be denied access to soup kitchens the Church would speak out.

Clearly we cannot use immoral means even to gain a moral objective, but that’s not what the debate is about. On actual proposals - build/don’t build a fence, grant/don’t grant amnesty, deport/don’t deport, the Church is silent. That individual bishops give us their opinions on these issues is not to be mistaken for Church teaching on the matter.

Ender

 

[cmforte]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmforte

And therefore gain people’s sympathy leading to attrition and to get people to start delegitimizing national borders. And it is not just the Catholic Church that is doing this.

Be careful with your choice of words. The argument I’ve been making throughout this entire debate is that it is not the Catholic Church who has been doing this, merely individual bishops and the USCCB. Don’t equate the personal opinions of some bishops with the formal teachings of the Church. Regarding immigration and all other political issues (with the exception of a mere handful) the Church gives us guidelines and objectives, what she does not do is tell us how to achieve those objectives. Anyone who says we ought to support or oppose any particular proposal speaks for himself, not the Church, for the simple reason that the Church is silent on the means best suited to obtain the ends.

Ender

I pray you are right. I would rather believe your theory than mine.

-Chris

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cmforte,

If you just look around, there is an abundance of evidence of where individual bishops and groups of bishops went off the track and crashed with their own (and not the Church’s) teachings. Possibly the biggest crash of all the Great Schism of 1054 where the Eastern bishops decided they were going to go their own way… and they are still following that course today. Then there was the Western Schism of 1378 where multiple popes were elected by bishops with just a desire for political power.And, then there was the defiance of the Canadian bishops (Winniepeg Statement 1968) who challenged the Pope’s authority as expressed in Humanae Vitae. Then there were individual bishops who just went off the track as well.

The gut-wrenching reality here is that our bishops - our Shepherds - do wander themselves. The bottom line is to immediately address the question: what is the Catholic Church teaching on a particular matter (as opposed [sometimes] to what our local bishop or group from the USCCB teaching. Both the bishops and ourselves have vowed to be faithful to the Successor of Peter.

Ender provides not only a prudent approach but sound reasoning to what we all need to consider. Actually, I think you should have no problem in looking carefully at this theory and finding validity in it.

God bless

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmforte

I pray you are right. I would rather believe your theory than mine.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Hi, Cmforte,

If you just look around, there is an abundance of evidence of where individual bishops and groups of bishops went off the track and crashed with their own (and not the Church’s) teachings. Possibly the biggest crash of all the Great Schism of 1054 where the Eastern bishops decided they were going to go their own way… and they are still following that course today. Then there was the Western Schism of 1378 where multiple popes were elected by bishops with just a desire for political power.And, then there was the defiance of the Canadian bishops (Winniepeg Statement 1968) who challenged the Pope’s authority as expressed in Humanae Vitae. Then there were individual bishops who just went off the track as well.

The gut-wrenching reality here is that our bishops - our Shepherds - do wander themselves. The bottom line is to immediately address the question: what is the Catholic Church teaching on a particular matter (as opposed [sometimes] to what our local bishop or group from the USCCB teaching. Both the bishops and ourselves have vowed to be faithful to the Successor of Peter.

Ender provides not only a prudent approach but sound reasoning to what we all need to consider. Actually, I think you should have no problem in looking carefully at this theory and finding validity in it.

God bless

Thank you. And God bless you, too, of course.

-Chris

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cmforte,

Here is a cut 'n paste of an e-mail I just received. Basically, the Catholic Bishops have not been exercising due diligence when it comes to looking where they are spending our money. What is truly mortifying is that organizations that have been thwarting the Chruch’s teachings have been funded for years. Maybe now there will be a change - but, real damage and real lives have been lost as a result of this neglect. It really is an on-gong issue.

God bless--------------
**
CCHD 2010 - 2011 Grants Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background
For a number of years, there has been concern with the grants that Catholic Campaign for Human Development distributes. There have been specific complaints that a significant portion of the grants have been given to organizations working in direct contradiction to Church teaching.

In 2009, American Life League joined with several other concerned organizations to form the Reform CCHD Now Coalition. In March of 2010, the coalition sent a report on CCHD to each bishop, showing that, in 2009-2010, 51 out of 237 groups receiving CCHD funding either directly or through coalition membership promoted abortion, birth control, homosexuality, and/or Marxism. Thus, 21% of the groups funded by CCHD were involved in such work.

As a result of this activity, CCHD conducted an internal effort to revamp its grant process and ensure that all grantees adhered to strict guidelines. The results were published in a CCHD Renewal Document.

In January, 2011, CCHD published its list of 2010-2011 grantees. At that time, American Life League reviewed the list…

Full Report 2010-2011 Grantees **

Thank you. And God bless you, too, of course.

-Chris

 

[pnewton]

**, 51 out of 237 groups receiving CCHD funding either directly or through coalition membership promoted abortion, birth control, homosexuality, and/or Marxism. **

This has nothing to do with immigration. This issue is that some of the organizations supported by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development have been engaged in activities that go against Church teaching. The CCHD has been in the news of late because of the cuts they have made to funding some organizations. The new head of the CCHD is Bishop Soto, who is strongly pro-life and pro-family. Here is the link to the website your quote came from:

reformcchdnow.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=6

Note that they say that there are still 54 grantees that are questionable from a list they also say has not been released. I am thankful for groups like RCHD in that they will bring information to bear that the CCHD might miss. However, they must also understand that they can not be the ultimate judge of whether an organization is pro-abortion (for example). After all, a bad answer or action by one individual in the group does not justify the label of pro-abortion no more than one worker in a school who steers a pregnant teen to adoption means that school is anti-abortion.

In any case, none of this has to do with immigration. Helping immigrants in need, even those who are here illegally, is not contrary to Catholic teaching.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

You are 100% correct - this note that i posted had nothing directly to do with the question of illegal immigratin and morality. However … since there have been posts that indicate that since the USCCB have made a pronouncement about somelthing - like, illegal immigration - then it must be as they say it is - becasue, after all, they are our bishops and could not make a mistake on such a matter. All I was doing was pointing out the flaw(s) in that approach. It is just possible that you can single handedly raise myopia to a new art form …

The bishops have made several mistakes concerning illegal immigration and continue to embroil themselves in an area where continuing error seems to be the norm.

The US has established real boundaries - and those wishing to enter for either a short stay or to become US Citizens have specific requirements they must meet - and these are established in Law and not the vague musing of politicans or bureaucrates. While the argument is made that there is always room for more - a better approach would be that there is always room for more who are willing to follow the law. Claiming that this is ‘unfair’ or ‘unjust’ appears to be a smoke screen for denying the reality of boundaries.

For those interested in civil disobedience as a method of getting US laws that address illegal immigration changed - please lead by example. For those interested in simply encouraging others to break what they claim are ‘unjust’ laws by having others hide and become exploited by others - look to yourselves for providing both a bad example and very poor outcomes.

God bless

This has nothing to do with immigration. This issue is that some of the organizations supported by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development have been engaged in activities that go against Church teaching. The CCHD has been in the news of late because of the cuts they have made to funding some organizations. The new head of the CCHD is Bishop Soto, who is strongly pro-life and pro-family. Here is the link to the website your quote came from:

reformcchdnow.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=6

Note that they say that there are still 54 grantees that are questionable from a list they also say has not been released. I am thankful for groups like RCHD in that they will bring information to bear that the CCHD might miss. However, they must also understand that they can not be the ultimate judge of whether an organization is pro-abortion (for example). After all, a bad answer or action by one individual in the group does not justify the label of pro-abortion no more than one worker in a school who steers a pregnant teen to adoption means that school is anti-abortion.

In any case, none of this has to do with immigration. Helping immigrants in need, even those who are here illegally, is not contrary to Catholic teaching.

 

[pnewton]

For those interested in civil disobedience as a method of getting US laws that address illegal immigration changed - please lead by example. For those interested in simply encouraging others to break what they claim are ‘unjust’ laws by having others hide and become exploited by others - look to yourselves for providing both a bad example and very poor outcomes.

It is also permissible in America to fight against unjust laws, like the preferential tier system of immigration, if we believe it to be unjust.

I don’t think I have actually seen anyone encouraging the law to be broken, merely understanding those that do and encouraging them, as per Catholic teaching, giving these people the dignity due all.

 

[KSU]

The decades-long scandal of knowingly supporting anti-Catholic activity by the staff of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development is one thing. What has transformed the scandal into a social injustice against the faithful has been the decades-long failure of the majority of U S bishops to stop it.

When the bishops established the CCHD in 1970, they mandated that the Campaign fund voter registration, community organizations, capital for industrial development and similar projects, many dear to the heart of the Democrat Party and U S Socialists. ACORN, of course, was among them: humanevents.com/article.php?id=34070

pnewton says the CCHD has nothing to do with immigration, but that’s simply untrue; funding for political organizing by the CCHD includes grants for groups actively participating in protests and recruitment of new activists to oppose Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law, SB 1070. Examples are the Valley Interfaith Project and the Arizona Interfaith Alliance.

Here’s more:
vocalblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/cchd-funding-illegal-immigration-march.html

And this:
catholicmediacoalition.org/church_immigration_reform.htm

Now that’s social injustice!

 

[pnewton]

Here’s more:
vocalblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/cchd-funding-illegal-immigration-march.html

And this:
catholicmediacoalition.org/church_immigration_reform.htm

Now that’s social injustice!

It is only injustice if you are correct and all of the bishops and most of the clergy in the United States are wrong. By the way, the problem with the CCHD was terrible and it came under major fire which led to the appointment of Bishop Soto in 2010. These blogs from which you get your information are from 2007 and 2006.

Still, I totally understand those who wish to give to charities not directly associated with the CCHD because of the possibility that they will help something down the line that they do not agree with, be it immigration, the death penalty, or some other issue of lesser importance. I am just pleased that the CCHD is cleaning up their support of agencies which run counter to Catholic teaching.

 

[KSU]

Per pnewton: “It is only injustice if you are correct and all of the bishops and most of the clergy in the United States are wrong.”

pnewton, I’ve stopped replying to your signature strawman responses, and the above example isn’t comprehensible anyway.

Per pnewton: “By the way, the problem with the CCHD was terrible and it came under major fire which led to the appointment of Bishop Soto in 2010. These blogs from which you get your information are from 2007 and 2006.”

So social injustice isn’t social injustice if it happened in the past? And are you saying it isn’t happening now because Bishop Soto is involved? Here is what Reform the CCHD says:

QUOTE 2010–2011 Grantees
In January, 2011, CCHD published its list of 2010-2011 grantees. At that time, American Life League reviewed the list and was disappointed to see that many of the offending organizations were still on the list and, in fact, others have been added.

The attached report documents that, of the 218 organizations funded by CCHD, 14 are directly involved in activities contrary to Church teaching and 40 are actively involved in coalitions with such activities. Thus, 54 groups (24%) funded by CCHD are involved in anti-Catholic work.

The number, and percentage, of offending organizations has actually INCREASED in the last year —from 51 to 54 groups and from 21% to 24%.

These 54 organizations received a total of $1,863,000 of the $7,608,000 distributed in CCHD grants in 2010-2011. END QUOTE

 

[KSU]

Is this current enough for you, pnewton?

energypublisher.com/a/61497/Catholic-Campaign-for-Human-Development-2011-Part-2

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

I really think you need to re-evaluate your criteria for determining prudence in endorsing USCCB programs that have been exploding into flames of anti-Catholicism. Numerous references have been provided identifying where our Shepherds have been careening off of one wall after another when it comes to actual doctrine from the Vatican. While I am sure you thought I was joking about developing myopia into an art form. With every post, or so it seems, you narrow your scope in an effort to hang onto something you think has a grain of merit.

But, honestly, your responses to KSU have been weak and uninspired… and, actually a bit confusing to me. Here we are addressing illegal immigration and the role that the Bishops have had in promoting it. And, while you do not dispute the facts provided, you simply dismiss their meaning. There really is a pattern here, Pnewton.

I have yet to see or hear any of the Bishops promote ‘just laws’ on immigration. As I have previously mentioned before, President Reagan provided amnesty to a large group of illegal immigrants - and the Bishops can only talk about how ‘unjust’ our laws are. People willing to obey the law come to this country legally by following a process - and it works. Once here many go the distance and become US Citizens. There is a working system - and the only criticism of this is: “It’s not enought!” Well, until someone comes up with something that spells out what criteria for ‘enough’ is - I think we should continue to follow existing law.

One last note. US Bishops (along with leaders from other religious groups) have been major supporters of the ‘Sanctuary Cities’. Now, this is where a city has decided that it will enforce some laws and not others because it has no desire to arrest individuals for being in this country illegally. Several states have taken a hard look at the cities within their boarders that are encouraging law breaking - and have determined that such under-the-table rewarding of law breaking won’t be tolerated. The Texas Bishops took exception to Texas putting a stop to ‘Sanctuary Cities’ - and, their resposne is worth reading: txcatholic.org/index.php/news/1255-tx-catholic-voice-qsanctuary-citiesq-bill-passes-senate-ban-on-tax-funded-abortion-action-alert

God bless

It is also permissible in America to fight against unjust laws, like the preferential tier system of immigration, if we believe it to be unjust.

I don’t think I have actually seen anyone encouraging the law to be broken, merely understanding those that do and encouraging them, as per Catholic teaching, giving these people the dignity due all.

 

[RICKY_RASPER]

Is it morally OK for a Catholic to be against Illegal Immigration?

Is it a sin for an immigrant to migrate to a country illegally? I ask this because I have heard of the concept of “law of the Land” and how it is a sin to break that.

This Topic is also intended for debating Illegal Immigration. I am personally against it, and if we get a charitable discussion going then I will reveal more about why I am against it.

When you oppose an illegal immigrant you oppose Jesus. Most illegal immigrants are escaping extreme poverty. When you deny someone who is poor or in need you deny Christ.When you give to the poor or some one in need. You give to Christ,you bear away a little of his suffering on the cross.

 

[Brother_Art]

Hello MOTHBALL83. I notice your opposition is directed primarily at Mexicans. Well, I am Mexican-American, as was my father, an Air Force veteran of WWII who became a first Lieutenant and flew cargo planes all over the world. I am an Air Force veteran myself, with an Honorable Discharge, like my father, but I wasn’t in any war, thanks be to God. Do you recall from your history books the gross injustice committed by the White man upon the Native American Indians, a name poorly applied by Christopher Columbus because of the Asian Indians? Nowadays, when you hear the name “Indian,” the only people that you think of are Asian Indians; the Native American Indian has pretty much gone by the wayside. What about THAT illegal immigration? It’s tantamount to abortion: most Native American Indians were peace-loving people who never had a natural enemy, unlike the European (immigrants). Put THAT in your peace pipe and smoke it!