You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
Pattylt
Guest
My biggest objection to a wall is the devastation it will wreck with the migration of animals in those areas. I think 5+ billion dollars could be better spent on technology to monitor the area and process the migrants to determine their eligibility. JMHO!
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
That article lists policies preferences and positions for some Catholic groups. Not the church.
C
catholicray
Guest
Very well what is the official position of the Catholic Church on the southern border of the United States right now?
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Since you are the one who made the accusation, the duty is yours to prove your assertion.
T
thistle
Guest
All countries have immigration laws so this is not just a Mexico/US issue.
Genuine refugees should be allowed in after full vetting.
Economic migrants should not be allowed in.
Genuine refugees should be allowed in after full vetting.
Economic migrants should not be allowed in.
C
catholicray
Guest
The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”
This is from the Catechism but this is not so straight forward. First where do the fundamental rights of an immigrant imply that the United States should not be opposed to people crossing our border illegally? There is also the distinction of serving an upright conscience and here in lies the debate. Why should my conscience be disturbed by my government attempting to secure the border? If a man breaks into my home in an attempt to harm my family I will act to protect my family even to the death of the intruder if it must be so which is to some degree illegal and breaks a commandment.
My country is like my home. Why should I be compelled against my government when they suggest protecting my home? There is no attempt to stop immigration and close out the world rather the goal is to promote healthy immigration. Where in my conscience should I find guilt in this attempt?
This is from the Catechism but this is not so straight forward. First where do the fundamental rights of an immigrant imply that the United States should not be opposed to people crossing our border illegally? There is also the distinction of serving an upright conscience and here in lies the debate. Why should my conscience be disturbed by my government attempting to secure the border? If a man breaks into my home in an attempt to harm my family I will act to protect my family even to the death of the intruder if it must be so which is to some degree illegal and breaks a commandment.
My country is like my home. Why should I be compelled against my government when they suggest protecting my home? There is no attempt to stop immigration and close out the world rather the goal is to promote healthy immigration. Where in my conscience should I find guilt in this attempt?
C
catholicray
Guest
So I provided you with my source and you rejected it the duty is in fact yours to show facts that support your statement. You said that what I shared is not the view of the Church so prove it. I have given my source.
blackforest
Well-known member
Any incomer who is not a refugee or asylee, (or a temporary visa recipient), is by definition an immigrant. Immigrants are usually those who do not have a life-threatening, human rights-related emergency but are seeking better opportunity, or what you call “economic migrants.”
This would mean that you support refugees and asylees but are anti-immigration. Or perhaps you support only the rare and few wealthy and privileged immigrants?
Is there any Church teaching to back your position? Or are these just personal feelings?
This would mean that you support refugees and asylees but are anti-immigration. Or perhaps you support only the rare and few wealthy and privileged immigrants?
Is there any Church teaching to back your position? Or are these just personal feelings?
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
I pointed out that your article did not address my question. My question still stands. You have yet to prove your claims that the church is against securing the southern border.
blackforest
Well-known member
You’ll need to read my links on Church teaching and civil disobedience before this discussion can advance any further.
I will repeat that a Catholic who uses prudential judgment to break an immigration law, particularly when in careful consultation with a clergy member, may well be justified and therefore NOT in a state of sin.
I will repeat that a Catholic who uses prudential judgment to break an immigration law, particularly when in careful consultation with a clergy member, may well be justified and therefore NOT in a state of sin.
T
thistle
Guest
I am talking about illegal immigrants.Anybody who is not a refugee or asylee is by definition an immigrant. Immigrants are usually those who do not have a life-threatening, human rights-related emergency but are seeking better opportunity, or what you call “economic migrants.”
This would mean that you support refugees and asylees but are anti-immigration. Or perhaps you support only the rare and few wealthy and privileged immigrants?
Is there any Church teaching to back your position? Or are these just personal feelings?
Anyone who wants to go to the US or Canada or UK or wherever legally is welcome.
Anyone trying to get into a country illegally solely for the purpose of economic betterment should not be allowed in.
blackforest
Well-known member
You were talking about “economic migrants” and saying that we should not let them in. That would be immigrants.
T
thistle
Guest
I am talking about ILLEGAL immigrants.You were talking about “economic migrants” and saying that we should not let them in. That would be immigrants.
blackforest
Well-known member
These are your exact words. No mention of whether they are documented or undocumented.Economic migrants should not be allowed in.
C
catholicray
Guest
I think he just clarified himself twice for you.
M
MarlboroMan
Guest
Interesting choice, picking the wall in Israel.
T
thistle
Guest
Because I thought any normal debater would realise what I was talking about. I guess I was wrong to make such an assumption.These are your exact words. No mention of whether they are documented or undocumented.
Well now you know!! I was talking about ILLEGAL immigrants!!
C
catholicray
Guest
I would agree that a member would not be in sin if he were compelled to do so by a shepherd and his conscience was clean while he broke the law. My question is merely why I myself ought to be compelled to obstruct such laws. I will read your article before I continue, perhaps the answer is in there.I will repeat that a Catholic who uses prudential judgment to break an immigration law, particularly when in careful consultation with a clergy member, may well be justified and therefore NOT in a state of sin.
T
thistle
Guest
This is from a statement put out by USCCB on Catholic Social Teaching on Immigration and the Movement of Peoples
Second Principle: A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration.
The overriding principle of all Catholic social teaching is that individuals must make economic, political, and social decisions not out of shortsighted self-interest, but with regard for the common good. That means that a moral person cannot consider only what is good for his or her own self and family, but must act with the good of all people as his or her guiding principle.
While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there. By this principle the Church recognizes that most immigration is ultimately not something to celebrate. Ordinarily, people do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living. Instead, they migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land. Immigrants and refugees endure many hardships and often long for the homes they left behind. As Americans we should cherish and celebrate the contributions of immigrants and their cultures; however, we should work to make it unnecessary for people to leave their own land.
Because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle in their lands. Catholic social teaching is realistic: While people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized.
For this reason, Catholics should not view the work of the federal government and its immigration control as negative or evil. Those who work to enforce our nation’s immigration laws often do so out of a sense of loyalty to the common good and compassion for poor people seeking a better life. In an ideal world, there would be no need for immigration control. The Church recognizes that this ideal world has not yet been achieved.
Second Principle: A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration.
The overriding principle of all Catholic social teaching is that individuals must make economic, political, and social decisions not out of shortsighted self-interest, but with regard for the common good. That means that a moral person cannot consider only what is good for his or her own self and family, but must act with the good of all people as his or her guiding principle.
While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there. By this principle the Church recognizes that most immigration is ultimately not something to celebrate. Ordinarily, people do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living. Instead, they migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land. Immigrants and refugees endure many hardships and often long for the homes they left behind. As Americans we should cherish and celebrate the contributions of immigrants and their cultures; however, we should work to make it unnecessary for people to leave their own land.
Because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle in their lands. Catholic social teaching is realistic: While people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized.
For this reason, Catholics should not view the work of the federal government and its immigration control as negative or evil. Those who work to enforce our nation’s immigration laws often do so out of a sense of loyalty to the common good and compassion for poor people seeking a better life. In an ideal world, there would be no need for immigration control. The Church recognizes that this ideal world has not yet been achieved.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.