In Gomez, US bishops make clear pro-immigrant statement

[fnr]

cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/11/15/gomez-us-bishops-make-clear-pro-immigrant-statement/

Here’s a challenge: can someone formally frame a policy of reducing the flow of undocumented immigrants into the United States, and deportation of undocumented immigrants already in the United States, from the perspective of Catholic social teaching since Rerum Novarum?

 

[commenter]

It’s always questionable to questionable to project that a group of people is making a statement, based on electing someone. Aside from the fact there are several possible “statements” that could be inferred, consider the possibility this was the best available candidate for this particular job.

 

[pnewton]

. Aside from the fact there are several possible “statements” that could be inferred…

Agreed. It is best not to infer anything, whenever possible.

 

[kingston1]

The Church’s position on immigration as described in “Catholic Church’s Position on Immigration Reform” stresses the CCC 2241:

The more prosporous 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.

While most things in the CCC include references to support lest it be just opinion this paragraph does not, it is unsubstantiated it seems. Not one reference to support it.

However the bible calls upon us to observe laws and leaders appointed over us unless that law undermines natural law. Immigration control does not undermine natural law. It supports it as it provides control over who enters and provides protection for those living within a nation.

Further in CCC 2241:

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.

CCC 2245

The Church because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community.

Are the Bishops being political?

USCCB Position

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposes “enforcement only” immigration policies and supports comprehensive immigration reform. In Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the U.S. Catholic Bishops outlined the elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. These include:

Earned Legalization: An earned legalization program would allow foreign nationals of good moral character who are living in the United States to apply to adjust their status to obtain lawful permanent residence. Such a program would create an eventual path to citizenship, requiring applicants to complete and pass background checks, pay a fine, and establish eligibility for resident status to participate in the program. Such a program would help stabilize the workforce, promote family unity, and bring a large population “out of the shadows,” as members of their communities.

Future Worker Program: A worker program to permit foreign‐born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.

Family‐based Immigration Reform: It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the family‐based legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in family‐based immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.

Restoration of Due Process Rights: Due process rights taken away by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) should be restored. For example, the three and ten year bars to reentry should be eliminated.

Addressing Root Causes: Congress should examine the root causes of migration, such as under‐development and poverty in sending countries, and seek long‐term solutions. The antidote to the problem of illegal immigration is sustainable economic development in sending countries. In an ideal world, migration should be driven by choice, not necessity.

Enforcement: The U.S. Catholic Bishops accept the legitimate role of the U.S. government in intercepting unauthorized migrants who attempt to travel to the United States. The Bishops also believe that by increasing lawful means for migrants to enter, live, and work in the United States, law enforcement will be better able to focus upon those who truly threaten public safety: drug and human traffickers, smugglers, and would‐be terrorists. Any enforcement measures must be targeted, proportional, and humane.

Answer: Yes.

 

[pnewton]

Are the Bishops being political?

Answer: Yes.

You lack the moral authority to judge the Church just because you dissent from the teaching. The teaching of the Church judges us. The Holy Spirit works through the Magisterium, these bishops you accuse of being political. This is one issue on which all the bishops agree to a large degree, though some differ on emphasis.

 

[Contarini]

However the bible calls upon us to observe laws and leaders appointed over us unless that law undermines natural law. Immigration control does not undermine natural law.

The concept does not. But immigration controls that make it impossible for people to meet their basic human needs, when the wealthier country is well able to assist them, do undermine natural law.

Are the Bishops being political?

Answer: Yes.

And similarly when they speak out against abortion or gay marriage.

Speaking “politically” about moral issues does not constitute confusing the Church with the political community.

Edwin

 

[Robert_Sock]

cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/11/15/gomez-us-bishops-make-clear-pro-immigrant-statement/

Here’s a challenge: can someone formally frame a policy of reducing the flow of undocumented immigrants into the United States, and deportation of undocumented immigrants already in the United States, from the perspective of Catholic social teaching since Rerum Novarum?

A quick point: I believe that the deportation of illegal immigrants applies only to those with a criminal record. I may be wrong, but that’s what I read from an outline provided by Trump. If true, do the Bishops oppose this?

 

[kingston1]

There’s a lot here to respond to so I can only go one at a time. Your comments in red embodied in my post:

Seriously you need a reference for probably one of the most stated positions in the bible? Some things are pretty self evident, but nonetheless try these: Lev. 19:34, Ruth 2:10, Job 31:33, Matt. 25:38, 3 John 1:5, and Duet. 10:10

The CCC 2241 start off with “the more prosperous nations are obliged…to help the foreigner is search of security and means he can’t find in his own country. (paraphrased)” That is statement that should have a reference given. We have to assume from this that an immigrant emigrates because he can’t find work in his own country. We had such legal immigration such as Italian and Irish immigration. But it was done with control and legally.

Lev 19:34

But let him be among you as one of the same country: and you shall love him as yourselves: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

This doesn’t have anything to do with the obligation of a rich nation as any nation could house immigrants and we should love as our brother. A poor nation could have immigrants and we should love them like a brother. Where is reference for a rich nation having an obligation to support illegal immigrants who have left because they can’t find work in their own nation?

Ruth 2:10, N/A
Job 31:33 N/A
Matthew 25:38 N/A
3 John 1:5 N/A
Deut 10:10 N/A

I’m not purporting we don’t love immigrants or not by the way. We should. The lack of a reference in CCC 2241 is used to support their claims while 2245 which has a reference doesn’t seem weigh in on their opinion. Could it be some of them are too close to the issue and their minds are clouded by sentimentalism? I don’t know. But it seems a bit too politically focused and I will read your link.

Finally, I didn’t know the USCCB report was binding in the way you interpret it to be binding. I believe in the Church, the Bible, the CCC and profess my faith at Mass. I am going to suspend my opinion until I read your link but getting way into the weeds on which government program should or should not be supported goes against CCC 2245.

 

[kingston1]

And similarly when they speak out against abortion or gay marriage.

Speaking “politically” about moral issues does not constitute confusing the Church with the political community.

Edwin

I was kinda hoping someone would go here. Abortion clearly undermines natural law. All Catholics should condemn this. No need to get in the weeds politically, it’s just wrong as slavery was just wrong. Illegal immigration enforcement is the right of a sovereign nation and one’s opinion about whether or not they can make a living is only one’s opinion not an absolute truth. Wealthy nations have no obligation to allow criminals or other elements which purposely undermine their sovereignty, laws or citizens’ safety.

 

[kingston1]

You lack the moral authority to judge the Church just because you dissent from the teaching. The teaching of the Church judges us. The Holy Spirit works through the Magisterium, these bishops you accuse of being political. This is one issue on which all the bishops agree to a large degree, though some differ on emphasis.

So if the bishops have point by point paragraphs discussing the “earned legalization” or “future worker programs” isn’t political? CCC 2245 says we should become confused with a political organization. It seems political to me.

Not sure how my post says I think I have moral authority over anyone. I was asking a question, does their wording and writing seem political? Please show me how I am wrong. I want to be wrong.

 

[pnewton]

Not sure how my post says I think I have moral authority over anyone. I was asking a question, does their wording and writing seem political? Please show me how I am wrong. I want to be wrong.

Okay, then perhaps we are not using the term the same. They are political in the sense that we are all political beings. Yet what they are doing is not the same as what politicians do. They are applying moral principals to current needs. It is different only in magnitude as the *political *position that abortion should be illegal. Yet I am sure you see that is primarily a moral position.

 

[kingston1]

Okay, then perhaps we are not using the term the same. They are political in the sense that we are all political beings. Yet what they are doing is not the same as what politicians do. They are applying moral principals to current needs. It is different only in magnitude as the *political *position that abortion should be illegal. Yet I am sure you see that is primarily a moral position.

Agreed it is moral in that it supports human rights for immigrants but I think by political I also mean there is a lopsided agenda against the sovereignty of nations, specifically our nation (the USA for those not from here). Coercing nations and governments to become obliged to do anything especially specific government programs under threat of damnation because we don’t agree seems heavy handed. All love is a gift.

Charity is a gift of free will and no one is OBLIGATED to do anything for anyone. If there were a rich man is he obligated to help the poor man? From God’s perspective, yes, e.g. the rich man and the poor beggar outside his home. But from our government’s perspective that each man can own property and no one is forced to house an immigrant (or quarter a soldier for that matter) we are not. I don’t see anyone telling anyone that they are obligated to donate to a charity and then get in the weeds on which particular charity or social programs should be supported and which not or that we should welcome anyone into our homes because we have more than they do. How many of us welcome immigrants into our house? This seems to be a Los Angeles driven agenda and I do most humbly believe that sovereign nations should conduct their business at the federal, state and local level. In a nation where immigrants were treated poorly or there was lack of healthcare, food, clothing, etc shouldn’t the church simply attend to the needs through work and avoid policy making?

I am going to contemplate and pray on this issue and try to find the humility to understand what is being said because I clearly don’t understand it.

 

[kingston1]

I found this by searching for opposition to this Pastoral Letter:

He brings up some good points although some I don’t agree with:

gerrysanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/response-to-usccbs-strangers-no-longer_9.html

Another:

vdare.com/articles/a-catholic-reader-meditates-on-migration-week

“Jesus came to save people from their sins, not from economic insecurity.”

Yes, it appears I am having a conversation with myself… oh well. Who cares, I have only been told I must OBEY this pastoral letter and that I have no right to an opinion.

Any thoughts?

When Pope John Paul II explained that Bishops` conferences “do not have the characteristics of a universal magisterium,” that means that the USCCB cannot create doctrine for the Roman Catholic Church.

The National Episcopal conferences of American Bishops carry very little if any weight at all. Their Open Borders lobbying efforts should carry none whatsoever.

 

[kingston1]

“Alms are to be given out of the donors own property. To use surplus of a rich neighbor to relieve the needy is to be guilty of theft. The goods of others are not ours to dispose of without their directions or permissions.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, IIa, IIae 32:7

I read the entire document “Strangers no longer together on the journey of Hope.”

When I hear Bishop Sheen, I say “yes, yes, yes.” When I hear JPII or Pope Benedict I find myself saying “yes, yes, yes” as there is such beauty in Truth. When I read this Pastoral Letter I thought “globalist, democrat, agenda driven, misleading, wrong, wrong, wrong.”

This goes against the precept that *Before Charity demands of Justice must be fulfilled. * There is a big difference between legal immigration and illegal. We can and must enforce the border because drugs, weapons and human traffickers take advantage of our sentimentality.

Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way.

• Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate, 3

 

[pnewton]

I found this by searching for opposition to this Pastoral Letter:
:

Just to be clear, there is opposition to almost everything that the Church teaches, as in “Catholics for a Free Choice.” What has not shown up is opposition within the Church on the need for immigration reform and charity toward the illegal immigrants. No bishop opposes this, though I know some Republican lay Catholics do.

 

[Ender]

What is church teaching are guidelines regarding the objectives toward which we should direct our efforts. What is personal judgment are the particular policies which could be implemented to achieve those goals.

As was said earlier, Catholics are free to disregard the methods chosen even as we are not free to disregard the guidelines. More specifically, we are free to reject the proposals put forth by the USCCB, while we are not free to ignore the objectives stated in the catechism.

 

[Ender]

You lack the moral authority to judge the Church just because you dissent from the teaching.

He wasn’t judging the church, nor was he dissenting from her doctrines. To disagree with the practical judgments of certain bishops is neither.

The Holy Spirit works through the Magisterium, these bishops you accuse of being political. This is one issue on which all the bishops agree to a large degree, though some differ on emphasis.

The Holy Spirit is not guaranteed to properly direct a bishop’s political opinions.

 

[Ender]

Just to be clear, there is opposition to almost everything that the Church teaches…

It is wrong to equate the prudential judgments of individual bishops with doctrines of the church. To oppose the specific proposals of certain bishops is not to oppose the church. Surely you recognize this.

What has not shown up is opposition within the Church on the need for immigration reform and charity toward the illegal immigrants. No bishop opposes this, though I know some Republican lay Catholics do.

This is inaccurate. First, pretty much everyone on every side of the issue agrees that there is a “need for immigration reform”. Literally no one disputes that point. That there is a disagreement over what to do about people entering the country illegally is hardly surprising, nor is it an offense against charity to believe it ought to be stopped. If you can’t post a comment without including an insult perhaps you ought to reconsider whether you should post it at all.

 

[po18guy]

A quick point: I believe that the deportation of illegal immigrants applies only to those with a criminal record. I may be wrong, but that’s what I read from an outline provided by Trump. If true, do the Bishops oppose this?

Being here in violation of all federal, state and local statutes IS their criminal record. And let us please remember that they are not political or religious refugees. They are here for the money, billions of dollars of which annually flow outside of the US are are not directly available for the recovery of the US economy. The problem is not the US - it is their corrupt home countries.

Now, fixing that would be true social justice, but no one seems to care.

 

[kingston1]

The distinction between border security and our love for our fellow human being is where I think I get tripped up in this Pastoral Letter. If you read it there are caveats placed upon nations regarding their national security/sovereignty which causes confusion because we place an undo burden to discern if one is in need of work or just fleeing the law. We can’t know that, we can only know legal or illegal.

We should control the amount of immigration into our country. Once here, if they are criminal they need to go to jail or deported. I believe the US is the most loving nation but without Law and Justice we lose stability. Instability leads to chaos and chaos is uncharitable.

There was one bishop who dissented when this pastoral letter was issued. Not sure who it was but I don’t think a majority vote equates to truth and it was written by a committee which we don’t know who comprised the committee.

This was written by a Catholic Priest for Center for Immigration Studies.

cis.org/catholics-and-immigration

From Fr. Richard John Neuhaus

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2007/06/who-speaks-for-the-church