"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[13pollitos]

Even then. Bishops do not need to give their own spin to anything. Personal interpretations are unnecessary when dealing with Catholic truths and cause confusion among the faithful. When people interpret things as they personally “read” or “understand” we begin seeing what happens in Baptist Churches. Each baptist preacher has their own way of interpreting things and you won’t ever go to two baptist churches that are alike. It is happening more and more often in Catholicism. We are seeing bishop against bishop, cardinal against cardinal, priest against priest every day now. It’s sad. That is why we should have clear and precise language that is not open to interpretations.

 

[blackforest]

How? Where do they say they favor open borders?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

@Ender, if you think the US bishops are overstepping their realm by issuing “Justice for Immigrants”, what do you think of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s recent remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast where he said:
Cardinal Robert Sarah:

“Do we not see signs of this insidious war in this great nation of the United States? […] and even ‘bathroom bills’ that allow men to use the women’s restrooms and locker rooms.”
“Should not a biological man use the men’s restroom? How simpler can that concept be?”

Now I can understand comments about same-sex marriage and abortion and the like. But government policy regarding which room a person should pee in? You can’t tell me that peeing the wrong room is an intrinsic evil.

 

[13pollitos]

But government policy regarding which room a person should pee in? You can’t tell me the peeing the wrong room is an intrinsic evil.

I actually agree with you here. Of course I don’t think the bishops should be voicing political opinions at all. They should be focusing on guiding the Catholic faithful by including ALL parts of relevant Church documents, catechism and bible passages instead of interpreting selective passages to suit a desired agenda.

 

[Victoria33]

If we are quoting others, I believe some Cardinals in Europe have spoken about the immigration crisis in ways, not always favorable to the pro-immigration position. In their eyes, they have seen a problem arise.

The USCCB also, appears to have revised one of their statements. I read one from years ago. Why would that one not be valid but a more current one is?

 

[blackforest]

I actually agree with you here. Of course I don’t think the bishops should be voicing political opinions at all.

The trouble is that politics are ethics. Do you think that Catholic Social Teaching shouldn’t exist?

They should be focusing on guiding the Catholic faithful by including ALL parts of relevant Church documents, catechism and bible passages instead of interpreting selective passages to suit a desired agenda.

Again, this is an uncharitable - and, frankly, evidence-free - accusation. Have you actually been digging into their theological rationale?

If we are quoting others, I believe some Cardinals in Europe have spoken about the immigration crisis in ways, not always favorable to the pro-immigration position.

That’s too bad. The Catechism is pro-border protection and pro-immigration.

The USCCB also, appears to have revised one of their statements. I read one from years ago. Why would that one not be valid but a more current one is?

Could you link to the two statements that contradict each other?

 

[Ender]

Where do they say they favor open borders?

Ignoring one half of the issue “says” nothing.

Now I can understand comments about same-sex marriage and abortion and the like. But government policy regarding which room a person should pee in? You can’t tell me that peeing the wrong room is an intrinsic evil.

Again you are trying to justify the bishops comments on immigration by improperly equating them to another bishop’s statement on an entirely different topic. The comment in this case addresses the intrinsically different nature of men and women and (as he said) of the insidious war to conflate the two. It will only be a matter of a few years before the church is condemned for maintaining a truth of nature. The church has a teaching here that the law is denying: “male and female he created them”. In this case Cardinal Sarah was doing nothing more than applying that teaching to current laws. The point is: the church has no teaching on any of the particulars of immigration laws.

 

[13pollitos]

The trouble is that politics are ethics. Do you think that Catholic Social Teaching shouldn’t exist?

Politics: the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power;

the activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries;

the academic study of government and the state.

Ethics: moral principles that govern a person’s behavior or the conducting of an activity;

the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

For me, the bolded especially highlights the differences of politics and ethics.

Again, this is an uncharitable - and, frankly, evidence-free - accusation. Have you actually been digging into their theological rationale?

Links have been provided.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You can’t tell me that peeing the wrong room is an intrinsic evil.

Again you are trying to justify the bishops comments on immigration by improperly equating them to another bishop’s statement on an entirely different topic. The comment in this case addresses the intrinsically different nature of men and women and (as he said) of the insidious war to conflate the two. It will only be a matter of a few years before the church is condemned for maintaining a truth of nature. The church has a teaching here that the law is denying: “male and female he created them”. In this case Cardinal Sarah was doing nothing more than applying that teaching to current laws. The point is: the church has no teaching on any of the particulars of immigration laws.

Nice try, but you are inconsistent in your treatment of Cardinal Sarah and the US bishops. The inconsistency is in the area of recognizing a distinction between Catholic teaching and specific application of that teaching.

In the area of immigration policy, we have a Catholic teaching that is stated in:
CCC 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.

While this teaching does not say anything about specific immigration policies, the bishops have interpreted this teaching and applied it to our current immigration practices. You say they are not justified in doing so. I say they are. Regardless, let’s look now at Cardinal Sarah:

We have a Catholic teaching that says that male and female are intrinsically different. That teaching says nothing about specific rules of where males and females should pee. But Cardinal Sarah has interpreted this teaching and applied to our current practices on providing public places for people to pee. You say he is justified in doing so. I say he is not.

So please tell me why you think Cardinal Sarah’s prudential judgement about where people should pee is justified while the US bishops prudential judgement about justice for immigrants is not.

By the way, if you are going to cite some of the other remarks Cardinal Sarah made at that same event and say those remarks are a direct consequence of Church teaching, don’t bother. In Justice for Immigrants, the bishops also made some remarks that are clearly a direct consequence of Church teaching. However you chose to cherry pick the remark on “abandoning a blockade strategy” as evidence of bishops stepping outside their realm, while I chose to cherry pick the remarks on bathroom bills as my evidence of Cardinal Sarah stepping outside his realm. So either we are both allowed to cherry-pick or neither of us are. I don’t care which rules you want to play by, but let’s apply those rules consistently.

 

[blackforest]

Links have been provided.

By whom? Where? I scrolled upthread and didn’t see them. But I’m not going to scroll through 707 posts . . .

Politics, including the international politics of how one set of people treat another, are simply morals and ethics in the aggregate.

 

[graciew]

Uh well… our Aristothelian- Thomistic formation would have a lot to say about that.
While ethics, Aristotle would say has to do with individual quest for happiness, Politics would deal with the happiness of the social group( conjunto).
And since we are zoon politikon the former is inexorably linked to the latter.
Super interesting reads : La Politica y la Etica a Nicómaco ( Politics and Ethics ).
You would have a hard time separating both if you were to dispute this to a Political Scientist with a Catholic formation, Pollitos… and Inwould be glad they may go hand in hand…

 

[Ender]

The inconsistency is in the area of recognizing a distinction between Catholic teaching and specific application of that teaching.

The distinction I’m trying to make is that for the application of some teachings opposing positions may legitimately be held, while for others only one position is justified. The former is true of immigration and economic policy, the latter is true of abortion and euthanasia, thus it is usually appropriate for bishops to address specific laws relating to the latter but almost never appropriate for them to champion specific proposals applying to the former.

While this teaching does not say anything about specific immigration policies, the bishops have interpreted this teaching and applied it to our current immigration practices. You say they are not justified in doing so. I say they are.

Yes, for the reason I stated above.

 

[Ender]

Cont…

We have a Catholic teaching that says that male and female are intrinsically different. That teaching says nothing about specific rules of where males and females should pee. But Cardinal Sarah has interpreted this teaching and applied to our current practices on providing public places for people to pee. You say he is justified in doing so. I say he is not.

Our difference here is over how you frame his comments. I think you significantly misrepresent his statement.

“Do we not see signs of this insidious war in this great nation of the United States? […] and even ‘bathroom bills’ that allow men to use the women’s restrooms and locker rooms.”

The “war” he references is clearly not over “which room a person should pee in”; the references to restrooms and locker rooms were clearly examples of the battles being fought within the war.

However you chose to cherry pick the remark on “abandoning a blockade strategy” as evidence of bishops stepping outside their realm, while I chose to cherry pick the remarks on bathroom bills as my evidence of Cardinal Sarah stepping outside his realm…

Cherry-picking refers to taking a comment out of context, or taking only that part of a comment that confirms a bias while ignoring statements that refute it, so that the actual meaning of a person’s words is misunderstood. This is in fact what you have attempted to do with Sarah’s comments, although not successfully because even with the truncated statement you supplied his meaning is still obvious.

So all manner of immorality is not only accepted and tolerated today in advanced societies, but even promoted as a social good.The result is hostility to Christians, and,increasingly,religious persecution. Nowhere is this clearer than in the threat that societies are visiting on the family through a demonic “gender ideology,” a deadly impulse that is being experienced in a world increasingly cut off from God through ideological colonialism

Regarding my comments about the USCCB, yes, I focused on one specific statement. The reason this is not cherry-picking is that there is nothing in the rest of their document that changes its meaning. If they provide a list of things they intend to focus on it is legitimate to take one item from that list and examine it. Calling my action cherry-picking doesn’t make it so. Nothing in the rest of the USCCB document alters in any way the meaning of the sentence I extracted, while the passage from Sarah’s talk - along with your strained interpretation - bear no real relation to the point he was actually making.

So either we are both allowed to cherry-pick or neither of us are.

We are not allowed to cherry-pick. You did, I didn’t.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Cont…

LeafByNiggle:

We have a Catholic teaching that says that male and female are intrinsically different. That teaching says nothing about specific rules of where males and females should pee. But Cardinal Sarah has interpreted this teaching and applied to our current practices on providing public places for people to pee. You say he is justified in doing so. I say he is not.

Our difference here is over how you frame his comments. I think you significantly misrepresent his statement.

“Do we not see signs of this insidious war in this great nation of the United States? […] and even ‘bathroom bills’ that allow men to use the women’s restrooms and locker rooms.”

The “war” he references is clearly not over “which room a person should pee in”; the references to restrooms and locker rooms were clearly examples of the battles being fought within the war.

Just as “Justice for Immigrants” is clearly not over a “blockade strategy”; the reference to the “blockade strategy” is just an example of poor following of CCC 2241 (in the bishops’ opinion.) Now you may say that one can legitimately hold a position that says a blockade strategy is OK, and I would agree with you. Just as one may hold a position that bathroom bills should not be cited as an example of the “war” Cardinal Sarah speaks of. You see, to the extent you diminish the importance of bathroom bills in Cardinal Sarah’s remarks, I can diminish the importance of the mention of a “blockade strategy” in “Justice for Immigrants.”

Regarding my comments about the USCCB, yes, I focused on one specific statement. The reason this is not cherry-picking is that there is nothing in the rest of their document that changes its meaning.

If you do not like my use of the term “cherry-picking” because of your strict definition of it, then fine. I won’t use it. But I still claim an exact parallel between Cardinal Sarah’s one remark about bathroom bills and the US bishops one remark about a “blockade strategy.” One can legitimately hold a view contrary to both of these positions and still not be violating Catholic teaching.