Immigration Restriction

[mamlukman]

I’m tempted to stay out of this one, but I’ll bite.

You might as well ask “Is supporting this trade treaty a sin?” or “Is being in favor of national health insurance a sin?”. I.e., it’s ridiculous since there are thousands of factors, most of which have no moral value. Those that do….well, you have to decide about those.

 

[PaulinVA]

Yes, because you are committing the sin of heresy by denying what the Church teaches as divine revelation. By doing so, one commits a mortal sin. Having lustful thoughts, for example, are a mortal sin even though you don’t actually do anything physically.

Sorry, but the lustful thoughts are not an analogous situation. Actually, it’s entertaining lustful thoughts, but whatever.

So, to believe that, in the United States, civil marriage should include people of the same sex, is heresy? Remember, I said civil marriage.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Sorry, but the lustful thoughts are not an analogous situation. Actually, it’s entertaining lustful thoughts, but whatever.

So, to believe that, in the United States, civil marriage should include people of the same sex, is heresy? Remember, I said civil marriage.

I spoke of lustful thoughts because I wanted to give an example that shows we can commit sin just in our thoughts.

As far as I know, yes, because the Church says that sodomite unions are a sin since homosexual acts are a sin. If someone believes differently and thinks it is not a sin, then that is a heresy since they are denying Church teaching. Denying Church teaching is a sin because it is denying the truth that God has given us and is therefore an offense to God. We can’t possibly believe we know better than Mother Church, even if we don’t do anything with our denial of her teaching.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I’m tempted to stay out of this one, but I’ll bite.

You might as well ask “Is supporting this trade treaty a sin?” or “Is being in favor of national health insurance a sin?”. I.e., it’s ridiculous since there are thousands of factors, most of which have no moral value. Those that do….well, you have to decide about those.

I was afraid of that when I asked this question. That’s why I was hoping that saying the US would get more specific answers. I am bad at making judgments in matters like this in which there are many factors that go into it. I suppose I will have to ask a priest to get a final answer.

 

[PaulinVA]

I spoke of lustful thoughts because I wanted to give an example that shows we can commit sin just in our thoughts.

As far as I know, yes, because the Church says that sodomite unions are a sin since homosexual acts are a sin. If someone believes differently and thinks it is not a sin, then that is a heresy since they are denying Church teaching. Denying Church teaching is a sin because it is denying the truth that God has given us and is therefore an offense to God. We can’t possibly believe we know better than Mother Church, even if we don’t do anything with our denial of her teaching.

So, if I believe the Church is wrong about artificial birth control, but practice NFP, I am a heretic?

It would be very helpful if you would cite a Church document that supports your position.

 

[E_7]

I doubt that people will fall in love with a foreigner while traveling; however, if something like that should happen, I would consider it to be an extraordinary circumstance in which the immigration of the spouse may be permitted.

Okay, because I met hubby in CAF and he is a foreigner working for the US government and we are doing his Permanent Residence thing.

What I want to know is what can we believe in regard to legal immigration in the US without committing sin. I am not currently concerned with what is fair but with what is moral.

I think I found a good source to help you out. Check it out here: Immigration is a moral issue, not merely a political one . Here I quote a piece

Immigration is one of the matters the Catholic Church is compelled to speak on, given its understanding of the right to migrate. Both the Old and New testaments are replete with reminders to treat the immigrant with compassion and care, “for you were aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt.” (Dt 10:19). These many lessons and reminders have been reiterated over time through several papal encyclicals.

For example, Pope Pius XII wrote in “Exsul Familia” that the right to human dignity includes a right to migrate to attain that life. The right is not absolute; a state also has a right to maintain its borders and protect the public health. But a nation may not, from a moral perspective, deny access to the needy from other nations without justifiable reason.

Pope John XXIII expanded on this concept in “Pacem in Terris.” He contended that, where people seek to emigrate for just reasons, a nation is obliged to allow immigration to promote the universal good when possible. In other words, where people living in abject poverty seek access to a wealthy nation, the nation is obligated to assist the immigrant, unless immigration presents a true threat to the nation. Pope John Paul II reminded America, in particular, that the solution to undocumented immigration concerns is to address the conditions in the home country that lead people to seek out opportunities far from home.

From the Gospels and the encyclicals, the Church has developed five principles to guide its work on immigration issues: 1) people have the right to live in dignity in their own countries. Thus, the Church promotes humanitarian aid in underdeveloped nations; 2) people have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families. Thus, the Church supports immigration reform at the national level to allow individuals and families to achieve full lives of dignity; 3) sovereign nations have the right to control their borders. The Church, therefore, supports efforts to ensure that immigrants have adequate legal options for emigrating; 4) refugees and asylum seekers should be protected; and 5) all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of immigration status.

I think you need to work on the virtue of justice like we all need to.

 

[mamlukman]

I read the short article. Absurd.

“where people living in abject poverty seek access to a wealthy nation, the nation is obligated to assist the immigrant, unless immigration presents a true threat to the nation.”

So if 500 million poor Indians / Bangladeshis / Pakistanis / whatever decide they want to move to the land of milk and honey, the US, the US is “obligated to assist” them? Seriously?

But of course there is “on the other hand” — “unless immigration presents a true threat to the nation.” And of course unrestricted unlimited immigration is just that. It would destroy whatever nation the immigrants are going to.

Anybody out there read “Camp of the Saints” by Jean Raspail? c. 1972 or so. In one sentence: a massive fleet of poor people from India set out in an armada of ships, land in S. France, join with the immigrant underclass already in France, and take over and destroy the country. Fifty years later, his prediction has almost come true. Another decade should do it. “The Islamic Republic of France”; it has a nice ring to it…

 

[mamlukman]

So, if I believe the Church is wrong about artificial birth control, but practice NFP, I am a heretic?

It would be very helpful if you would cite a Church document that supports your position.

No. Individual conscience is always supreme. See St. Augustine, for example. (Yes, yes, there’s footnotes to that, but that’s the basic principal that has always been in place since the beginning of the church.)

 

[JoeFreedom]

A guest is not someone who breaks into your house. As a Catholic is not a sin to believe your country has a right to sovereignty. And, that all citizens should abide by the law.

I wish I could give thumbs up to your post because I would give you one!

 

[JoeFreedom]

The fourth commandment:

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

I think that both the open borders side and the closed borders side have it wrong. Clearly there is wisdom in the words of God.

We should allow immigration, especially when our land can welcome foreigners as a free nation (well sort of anyways) and a prosperous one (kind of now…), but welcoming foreigners doesn’t mean we can’t expect to have certain laws to protect ourselves and our sovereignty. It says so right there above. We should expect those who come here to respect our laws, our culture, and our freedom.

 

[JoeFreedom]

The US and most of Europe do have legal immigration. I am only talking about illegal immigration. The CCC 2241 relates to legal immigration and is often used to justify criminal behavior and glossing over or not taking seriously the eighth commandment of “I shall not steal”. Of course if people believed God commandments had weight in their life the 8th commandment alone forbids socialism and communism along with others.

I wish more liberal Catholics would realize this. Socialism and communism are antithetical to God. But I also believe that many Catholics and other Christians don’t even realize, or essentially self-delude (lie to themselves), that the type of forced charity and wealth-spreading are the basis for socialism, and equality of things is the basis of communism, and that the only way to achieve those types of governments is through removals of freedoms such as self charity. They do so because they see sin, greed, pride and want to force others to not be sinful. Unfortunately, that always turns out badly.

 

[andrewstx]

Ejecting Latinos would be fatal to my town. This place is already minority majority. The parish would be closed as well. Since it is over %80 latino.

 

[mamlukman]

We should expect those who come here to respect our laws, our culture, and our freedom.

And when certain foreigners are in the majority and vote in school boards, town councils, governors, etc. then what? In the UK certain school boards were making the study of Islam compulsory in public schools. Cameron put a (temporary) stop to that. But….

 

[Stuckinavortex]

I would say no, it’s not a sin to believe in immigration restriction. But at the same time, the reasons behind that decision may be sinful.
Alot of the reasoning behind reasons based on the restricting of immigration, even legal immigration, is based of racial and other intolerances. It is a sin to hold bias based on race or other religions, as Catholics we have the obligation to love our neighbour. A lot of reasoning I have seen is based on ideas such as “all Mexicans are rapists”, or “all Muslims are murders.” None of these beliefs are acceptable for a Catholic to hold.

 

[mamlukman]

Ejecting Latinos would be fatal to my town. This place is already minority majority. The parish would be closed as well. Since it is over %80 latino.

Think about it: Latinos share religion; culture (art, music, literature, etc.); values; and even the same racial identity–if you want to go that far–as the majority of Americans.

The “refugees” flooding into Germany share none of that. As a matter of fact, they think most of Western culture is haram–forbidden. Free speech? No way–that’s just code for licentiousness. Individualism…well, you’re kidding, right?

Sept. 5, 2015 will go down in history all right. And not in a good way.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Okay, because I met hubby in CAF and he is a foreigner working for the US government and we are doing his Permanent Residence thing.

I think I found a good source to help you out. Check it out here: Immigration is a moral issue, not merely a political one . Here I quote a piece

I think you need to work on the virtue of justice like we all need to.

Thank you for the article and its quotes from Holy Fathers. From it I can tell that we should not believe that immigration should be completely closed since the US is not a third world country or in a depression.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

And when certain foreigners are in the majority and vote in school boards, town councils, governors, etc. then what? In the UK certain school boards were making the study of Islam compulsory in public schools. Cameron put a (temporary) stop to that. But….

I am not too keen of letting too many Mohammedans into our country for similar reasons. I don’t mean to demean them (after all, I have many Muslim friends) but they often take over countries simply by outnumbering the natives and then establishing their religious laws (like sharia law). I used to never see them around my area, and in just a few years they have suddenly popped up everywhere. Plus, they have tons of children (something Catholics need to do again) so they aren’t going to be leaving anytime soon.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I would say no, it’s not a sin to believe in immigration restriction. But at the same time, the reasons behind that decision may be sinful.
Alot of the reasoning behind reasons based on the restricting of immigration, even legal immigration, is based of racial and other intolerances. It is a sin to hold bias based on race or other religions, as Catholics we have the obligation to love our neighbour. A lot of reasoning I have seen is based on ideas such as “all Mexicans are rapists”, or “all Muslims are murders.” None of these beliefs are acceptable for a Catholic to hold.

I understand that not all Mexicans are rapists or Mohammedans terrorists, but I do try to face the facts. In my Catechism it says that Mohammedanism is spread by the sword, so even if many are not that way it is still a reality. I myself am Mexican, but I know that areas that are filled with many Mexicans tend to have more violence and drugs. I don’t use blanket judgments and say all are that way since I know many are not, but I do know that these things are more prevalent in certain groups of people.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

So, if I believe the Church is wrong about artificial birth control, but practice NFP, I am a heretic?

It would be very helpful if you would cite a Church document that supports your position.

From The Catechism Explained by Fr. Francis Spirago, Professor of Theology, based on the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent. Received Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat:

1. Heretics are those who reject some one or more of the truths revealed by God: Heretics are those who hold to some of the doctrines revealed by God, and reject others. Those who induce others to a false belief are called leaders of heresy, or arch-heretics… Heresy is one of the greatest of all sins, when it is not the result of invincible ignorance.

From the Modern Catholic Dictionary:

Heresy
In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

As far as I know, the Church’s teachings on contraception, sodomy, and so forth are infallible moral teachings that have been revealed by God and to deny them would make you a heretic. If you actually use contraception or commit sodomy, that is a separate sin from heresy and has nothing to do with it. It is what you believe, not what you do. If you spread your heresy, as is the case of arch-heretics, it is yet another sin.

 

[PaulinVA]

From The Catechism Explained by Fr. Francis Spirago, Professor of Theology, based on the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent. Received Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat:

From the Modern Catholic Dictionary:

As far as I know, the Church’s teachings on contraception, sodomy, and so forth are infallible moral teachings that have been revealed by God and to deny them would make you a heretic. If you actually use contraception or commit sodomy, that is a separate sin from heresy and has nothing to do with it. It is what you believe, not what you do. If you spread your heresy, as is the case of arch-heretics, it is yet another sin.

Well, if what you say is true, then I’m sure you can find a statement that actually connects the dots and says that believing in artificial birth control is heresy.