"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[Ender]

The statement by the bishops is not something they just made up on their own. It is inspired from the Catechism (CCC 2241), which is official Church teaching.

The bishops’ statement is certainly something they made up on their own: there is nothing in church teaching about the advisability of border barriers.

You should not be offended if this teaching disagrees with your view. It is not meant to be offensive.

If by “teaching” you mean the opinions the bishops expressed then there is no reason for taking offense. There is good reason, however, to be less than pleased with the implication that disagreeing with those opinions is somehow immoral.

The bishops have nothing to apologize for if they are misinterpreted.

General McArthur used to say he didn’t write his battle plans so that they could be understood; he wrote them so that they could not be misunderstood. The bishops could learn from that approach. Ambiguity is not a virtue.

Their statements are not purely political.

That they are political at all is what I oppose.

Would you object to a homily against theft because theft is not an intrinsic evil?

Theft is condemned by the seventh commandment. It is an intrinsic evil and I would object to a homily that suggested otherwise.

No, it has nothing to do with the good or bad intention of others. It is about what is experienced by the immigrants. This can be discussed without any reference to the intentions of people in the US.

If immigration has nothing to do with intentions then it cannot possibly be a moral issue, nor face us with any moral decisions in determining how best to resolve the problems we face. Nor is it solely about the needs of the illegals. What most people (rightly) object to about the bishops’ statements on immigration is that they give no thought whatever to the impact on our country. It is as if the phrase “to the extent they are able” doesn’t exist.

 

[Ender]

The statement by the bishops is not something they just made up on their own. It is inspired from the Catechism (CCC 2241), which is official Church teaching.

The bishops’ statement is certainly something they made up on their own: there is nothing in church teaching about the advisability of border barriers.

You should not be offended if this teaching disagrees with your view. It is not meant to be offensive.

If by “teaching” you mean the opinions the bishops expressed then there is no reason for taking offense. There is good reason, however, to be less than pleased with the implication that disagreeing with those opinions is somehow immoral.

The bishops have nothing to apologize for if they are misinterpreted.

General McArthur used to say he didn’t write his battle plans so that they could be understood; he wrote them so that they could not be misunderstood. The bishops could learn from that approach. Ambiguity is not a virtue.

Their statements are not purely political.

That they are political at all is what I oppose.

Would you object to a homily against theft because theft is not an intrinsic evil?

Theft is condemned by the seventh commandment. It is an intrinsic evil and I would object to a homily that suggested otherwise.

No, it has nothing to do with the good or bad intention of others. It is about what is experienced by the immigrants. This can be discussed without any reference to the intentions of people in the US.

If immigration has nothing to do with intentions then it cannot possibly be a moral issue, nor face us with any moral decisions in determining how best to resolve the problems we face. Nor is it solely about the needs of the illegals. What most people (rightly) object to about the bishops’ statements on immigration is that they give no thought whatever to the impact on our country

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The bishops’ statement is certainly something they made up on their own: there is nothing in church teaching about the advisability of border barriers.

And again you are misrepresenting the bishops’ letter. It does not comment on the advisability of border barriers. They comment about a strategy that places blockage above everything else. And that does follow from 2241.

You should not be offended if this teaching disagrees with your view. It is not meant to be offensive.

If by “teaching” you mean the opinions the bishops expressed then there is no reason for taking offense. There is good reason, however, to be less than pleased with the implication that disagreeing with those opinions is somehow immoral.

…more mis-characterization. They said nothing about disagreement being immoral.

The bishops have nothing to apologize for if they are misinterpreted.

General McArthur used to say he didn’t write his battle plans so that they could be understood; he wrote them so that they could not be misunderstood. The bishops could learn from that approach. Ambiguity is not a virtue.

Willful misinterpretation is not the fault of the bishops.

Their statements are not purely political.

That they are political at all is what I oppose.

There is no basis for that opposition. There is no doctrine that says the Church cannot comment on political matters. In fact there are many paragraphs in the Catechism that do touch on political issues.

Would you object to a homily against theft because theft is not an intrinsic evil?

Theft is condemned by the seventh commandment. It is an intrinsic evil…

This is too much. Now theft is an intrinsic evil? Go check again. It is not.

No, it has nothing to do with the good or bad intention of others. It is about what is experienced by the immigrants. This can be discussed without any reference to the intentions of people in the US.

If immigration has nothing to do with intentions then it cannot possibly be a moral issue…

That is not true. If I am unaware that an injustice is occurring to someone, it is still an injustice even though I do not will it. And so it is proper for the Church to point out this injustice so that I may no longer persist in my ignorance.

nor face us with any moral decisions in determining how best to resolve the problems we face.

Every time you attempt to cast this issue as the “best way to resolve the problems” I am going to continue to point out that we are talking about different problems. And so the moral decision is over which problem to solve first.

What most people (rightly) object to about the bishops’ statements on immigration is that they give no thought whatever to the impact on our country.

That is an unjustified assumption. Just because the letter from the bishops does not mention the impacts to our country does not mean they did not give any thought to those impacts.

 

[Ender]

It does not comment on the advisability of border barriers. They comment about a strategy that places blockage above everything else. And that does follow from 2241.

That they (or you) interpret the desire to build a wall as being “above everything else” is a personal judgment, and such judgments are not based on anything in the catechism.

They said nothing about disagreement being immoral.

True, but they did say immigration was a moral issue. Is it really a stretch to assume they mean their pronouncements are moral? And if their position is the moral one, what would you call the positions that are contrary to theirs?

There is no doctrine that says the Church cannot comment on political matters.

There is nothing in a bishop’s political statement that can be considered a comment from the church. Their political opinions are their own.

Now theft is an intrinsic evil? Go check again. It is not.

Is this sufficient?

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. “As for acts which are themselves sins ( cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt ), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives ( causis bonis ), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”. (JPII, Veritatis Splendor, #81)

Every time you attempt to cast this issue as the “best way to resolve the problems” I am going to continue to point out that we are talking about different problems . And so the moral decision is over which problem to solve first.

Inasmuch as I have stated that you may select whatever aspect of immigration you choose this really shouldn’t be an issue. Pick whatever you like as the most important part of the immigration “problem” and explain what moral choice is involved in deciding how best to resolve it.

Just because the letter from the bishops does not mention the impacts to our country does not mean they did not give any thought to those impacts.

Given that they didn’t address those problems it would seem they didn’t consider them important.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It does not comment on the advisability of border barriers. They comment about a strategy that places blockage above everything else. And that does follow from 2241.

That they (or you) interpret the desire to build a wall as being “above everything else”…

I am not talking about a wall. The bishops are not talking about a wall. But you insist on talking about a wall. Why?

They said nothing about disagreement being immoral.

True, but they did say immigration was a moral issue. Is it really a stretch to assume they mean their pronouncements are moral? And if their position is the moral one, what would you call the positions that are contrary to theirs?

If by “contrary” you mean a position that denies the truth of CCC 2241, then I would call that position immoral. But if you mean something else, then it may not be immoral.

There is no doctrine that says the Church cannot comment on political matters.

There is nothing in a bishop’s political statement that can be considered a comment from the church.

OK, then I will revise what I said. There is no doctrine that says a bishop cannot comment on political matters in the course of leading his flock.

Now theft is an intrinsic evil? Go check again. It is not.

Is this sufficient?
“…As for acts which are themselves sins”, Saint Augustine writes, like theft…"

It seems I was thinking of expropriation and not theft per se. I stand corrected. Regardless, I limiting the bishops to comments about intrinsic evils is unnecessarily restrictive, and in fact there is no such limitation placed on them by the Church.

Every time you attempt to cast this issue as the “best way to resolve the problems” I am going to continue to point out that we are talking about different problems . And so the moral decision is over which problem to solve first.

Inasmuch as I have stated that you may select whatever aspect of immigration you choose this really shouldn’t be an issue. Pick whatever you like as the most important part of the immigration “problem” and explain what moral choice is involved in deciding how best to resolve it.

The moral choice is not in how to solve the selected problem. The moral choice is in the selection itself.

Just because the letter from the bishops does not mention the impacts to our country does not mean they did not give any thought to those impacts.

Given that they didn’t address those problems it would seem they didn’t consider them important.

“Didn’t seem that important” is not the same thing as “didn’t give any thought to it.” It is quite likely they did think about it and decided that it was not a problem that needed to be solved as much as the problems of those in need.

 

[Ender]

I am not talking about a wall. The bishops are not talking about a wall. But you insist on talking about a wall. Why?

I’m responding to your comments. Here is what you said: the bishops were commenting “about a strategy that places blockage above everything else.” By “blockage” did you mean something other than a wall?

If by “contrary” you mean a position that denies the truth of CCC 2241, then I would call that position immoral. But if you mean something else, then it may not be immoral.

It is not actually possible to make any reasonable proposal that is contrary to 2241. It is very possible to take a position that is contrary to someone else’s proposal, but that doesn’t make it immoral even if it is contrary to what the bishops propose.

I limiting the bishops to comments about intrinsic evils is unnecessarily restrictive, and in fact there is no such limitation placed on them by the Church.

This statement is imprecise. What I have said is that bishops should not (generally) involve themselves in political issues if it involves making specific proposals. It is well within their responsibility to call out injustices and urge that social problems be fairly addressed, but it one thing to identify social problems, and quite another to propose solutions to them.

The moral choice is not in how to solve the selected problem. The moral choice is in the selection itself.

Then you make the selection and explain what moral choice is involved. If you are suggesting that we should not address problem B before we have resolved problem A then I would disagree. If B is independent of A then even if A is more important there is nothing inherently immoral about doing B first or without regard to A.

It is quite likely they did think about [the nation’s interest] and decided that it was not a problem that needed to be solved as much as the problems of those in need.

I strongly disagree with this. These issues need to be resolved together because they involve competing interests. That’s the whole meaning of the phrase “to the extent they are able.” At what point do the interests of one group take precedence over the interests of the others?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The bishops are not talking about a wall. But you insist on talking about a wall. Why?

I’m responding to your comments. Here is what you said: the bishops were commenting “about a strategy that places blockage above everything else.” By “blockage” did you mean something other than a wall?

Yes. I mean what I assume the bishops meant when they wrote it.

If by “contrary” you mean a position that denies the truth of CCC 2241, then I would call that position immoral. But if you mean something else, then it may not be immoral.

It is not actually possible to make any reasonable proposal that is contrary to 2241.

Is that a challenge? Because I am quite certain I can invent one. But you might call it unreasonable. If by “unreasonable” you mean unreasonably unjust toward the immigrants, then I guess you are right.

I limiting the bishops to comments about intrinsic evils is unnecessarily restrictive, and in fact there is no such limitation placed on them by the Church.

This statement is imprecise. What I have said is that bishops should not (generally) involve themselves in political issues if it involves making specific proposals. It is well within their responsibility to call out injustices and urge that social problems be fairly addressed, but it one thing to identify social problems, and quite another to propose solutions to them.

I’m not sure it is “quite another thing” because what to me looks like identifying a social problem (that attitude of exclusion of those needing welcome) to you looks like proposing a solution to that problem (“stop doing that.”).

The moral choice is not in how to solve the selected problem. The moral choice is in the selection itself.

Then you make the selection and explain what moral choice is involved. If you are suggesting that we should not address problem B before we have resolved problem A then I would disagree. If B is independent of A then even if A is more important there is nothing inherently immoral about doing B first or without regard to A.

A = The problem of protecting US citizens from harm from criminals and a job shortage.
B= The problem of asylum seekers and other immigrants needing welcome.

A and B are not independent. An obsession with problem A necessarily lessens the ability to solve B.

It is quite likely they did think about [the nation’s interest] and decided that it was not a problem that needed to be solved as much as the problems of those in need.

I strongly disagree with this. These issues need to be resolved together because they involve competing interests. That’s the whole meaning of the phrase “to the extent they are able.” At what point do the interests of one group take precedence over the interests of the others?

My point was the bishops thought about this and based on the information they provided concluded that at this point in time, we are “able” to do much more without unduly compromising the nation’s interests.

 

[Ender]

Ender: It is not actually possible to make any reasonable proposal that is contrary to 2241.

What I meant was…unreasonable… like shooting illegals when they cross the border.

My point was the bishops thought about this and based on the information they provided concluded that at this point in time, we are “able” to do much more without unduly compromising the nation’s interests.

And there it is: the perfect description of a political position. They have made a judgment about current affairs and have suggested what the government should do about it. That they also claim this is a moral issue strongly implies it is sinful to oppose their political judgment. I reject both.

 

[13pollitos]

My point was the bishops thought about this and based on the information they provided concluded that at this point in time, we are “able” to do much more without unduly compromising the nation’s interests.

Unless the bishops have access to all national security information (that very few even within the government have) I don’t think they are able to honestly make that conclusion.

 

[Ender]

Unless the bishops have access to all national security information (that very few even within the government have) I don’t think they are able to honestly make that conclusion.

This is what politics is all about: deciding which course of action government should implement, and while I’m sure the bishops came to their conclusions honestly that ought to be the presumption accorded to everyone.

 

[Theo520]

It is a pastoral statement made in light of Catholic teaching.

No, it’s a specific proposal.

How you justify it is completely seperate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

@Theo520, @Ender, please comment on Saint Oscar Romero and whether his commenting on the politics of El Salvador also crossed the line.

 

[Ender]

@Theo520, @Ender, please comment on Saint Oscar Romero and whether his commenting on the politics of El Salvador also crossed the line.

I don’t know what comments he made, but I’m pretty sure they had nothing to do with immigration in America.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

@Theo520, @Ender, please comment on Saint Oscar Romero and whether his commenting on the politics of El Salvador also crossed the line.

I don’t know what comments he made, but I’m pretty sure they had nothing to do with immigration in America.

Here is a pastoral letter from St. Oscar Romero from 1978 where he touches on the issue of Church and politics. From what you have said about the US bishops today, it seems the same criticism could be made of this saint. Like the US Bishops, Archbishop Romero did not hesitate to say when the government of his country was acting unjustly toward the poor and oppressed. Eventually he was martyred for his commentary. Thank God for men like Oscar Romero and our bishops who speak up for Gospel values.

 

[Ender]

Here is a pastoral letter from St. Oscar Romero from 1978 where he touches on the issue of Church and politics. From what you have said about the US bishops today, it seems the same criticism could be made of this saint. Like the US Bishops, Archbishop Romero did not hesitate to say when the government of his country was acting unjustly toward the poor and oppressed. Eventually he was martyred for his commentary. Thank God for men like Oscar Romero and our bishops who speak up for Gospel values.

I haven’t read the entire document yet, however these comments, which appear on page 4 echo exactly what I have been saying. If there is something else in there you think is contrary to this you should probably cite it.

We are, however, also aware of our limitations. Vatican If recognized them when it warned the laity not to think that pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give a concrete solution (Gaudium et Spes, #43).

… our pastoral letter quite deliberately offers no more than the Christian principles on which a solution must be based

This seems to me to be exactly right: while the bishops can identify problems and failures in government they should proclaim only the principles which should guide the laity is solving them.

. We are following the spirit of the Church’s magisterium, which Paul VI in his letter Octogesima Adveniens, defined as follows: It is up to the Christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation proper to their own country, to shed on it the light of the Gospel’s unalterable words, and to draw principles of reflection, norms of judgment, and directives for action from the social teaching of the Church. … It is up to these Christian communities, with the help of the Holy Spirit, in communion with the bishops who hold responsibility and in dialogue with other Christians and all men and women of good will, to discern the options and commitments that are called for in order to bring about the social, political, and economic changes seen in many cases to be urgently needed (Octogesima Adveniens, #4).

All of this is what I believe. Unfortunately, the American bishops have strayed a long way from this in making their political proposals.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The quotes you cite are critical of the US bishops only if you presume that our bishops have strayed from these principles. Evidences that Romero would say “no” to that can be found in this from the same document:

The Church is well aware of the complexity of political activity. However, and we repeat it,
it is not, nor ought it to be, an expert in this sort of activity. Nevertheless it can and must pass
judgment on the general intention and the particular methods of political parties and organizations,
precisely because of its interest in a more just society.

Is Romero contradicting himself here? Or is he, as I believe, affirming a view that would be totally compatible with our bishops?

I think part of the problem is that you seem to allow for no middle ground between the clergy proclaiming firm doctrine and the clergy pretending to be experts in fields in which they are not. You have said in the past that when a member of the clergy makes a statement that is not a simple statement of doctrine, many of the laity will be confused and think that because a priest said it, it would be immoral to disagree with it. In fact I think there are a very large middle ground - a continuum in fact, between the two extremes I mentioned. There are instances where the clergy can apply a doctrinal truth to a concrete situation, based on some factual information specific that that situation. Depending on how certain that additional information is, the application made by the clergy person is more or less worthy of serious consideration by the laity. While no practical application of a doctrinal principle that involves any prudential judgement can ever be said to be binding and demanding of assent from the laity, neither is such a situation grounds for censuring that clergy person for making such an application.

Many of the statements made by Oscar Romero in his homilies named names. He had a regular radio program where he read the names of the “disappeared” or killed by the government. He called out specific politicians. While his pronouncement may not have been demanding of our assent, it was entirely proper for him to proclaim his interpretation of the events of the day in the light of Christian teaching. I do not share your worry that laity will be confused if the clergy speak with prudential judgments of the type mentioned in the Romero quote above.

 

[Theo520]

@Theo520, @Ender, please comment on Saint Oscar Romero and whether his commenting on the politics of El Salvador also crossed the line.

I referred to what ‘you’ posted here as representing a specific proposal regarding the crisis today.

I don’t think you are making the point you wish. A Bishop in El Salvador is certainly practicing subsidiarity when he writes on how his govt is treating the citizens of his country (in the 70’s).

By all means, US Bishops should support their southern brethren in improving the governance of their citizens. But the US govt is not responsible for their situation, though we should offer aid as dictated by subsidiarity.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t see a great moral distinction between a bishop of El Salvador writing about his government’s treatment of some people and our bishops writing about our government’s treatment of some people. The fact that the people in the first case are citizens of the bishop’s own country and the the people in the second case are not citizens of our country is irrelevant to the moral case being made. It is a very poor understanding of subsidiarity to say this makes a difference. It does not apply in the least little bit. If our government were providing abortions for people in Kenya, would you say that subsidiarity implies that is best handled by the Kenyan bishops? Of course not! If it is our government that is providing the abortions, then it is entirely proper that our bishops write about it, for there is little the Kenyan bishops could do to stop it, but there is a lot we could do to stop it by demanding change through our representative government. Subsidiarity is a red herring. It has its place when we are talking about what level of government is best suited to handle a specific problem, the idea being that the level closest to the solution is the best one.

In the present case, our bishops have determined there is a problem with the way our government is treating immigrants. Who would subsidiarity say is the best one to stop this mistreatment? The Mexicans? How can they stop what we do? The Hondurans? Certainly not. But of course if you redefine the problem as the problem of refugees coming here in the first place, then you could say that these other nations are best suited to correct that. But that is a different problem. We cannot use the fact that someone else is not solving a problem we think they should solve to excuse our poor reaction to that problem. So redefining the problem does not discredit our bishops one bit.

 

[Theo520]

I’ve asked you repeatedly to read up on Subsidiarity, it’ll help you understand why there is a big difference between a bishop writing about his flock, his responsibility vs focusin on the issues with another bishop’s flock.

When they feel other bishops are not gettin er done, they should talk with the pope or offer direct help to said Bishops.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’ve asked you repeatedly to read up on Subsidiarity, it’ll help you understand why there is a big difference between a bishop writing about his flock, his responsibility vs focusin on the issues with another bishop’s flock.

“Read up on subsidiarity?” Really? Do you think our bishops do not know what subsidiarity means?

You are seriously mischaracterizing what our bishops have done by publishing their letter on “Justice for Immigrants”. They are not writing about the failings of another bishop’s flock. They are writing about the failings of their own flock. The mistreatment they call out is carried out by our government acting in our name. Subsidiarity would say that America should correct America’s errors. And that is exactly what the pastoral letter from our bishops is saying.