"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[graciew]

I wasn’t t engaging in the “ wall” or not.
It was about dealing with your questions and the importance of what Bishops have to say and why. Basically your dichotomy between moral and practical…
Veritatis Splendor deals with this.
As for the wall… I like Pink Floyd’s.
Forget it, Ender. But I do recommend to read VS because you will see it adds to understand.
All good. Peace and love!

 

[Ender]

I wasn’t t engaging in the “ wall” or not.

It is by engaging with specifics that it becomes possible to clearly recognize the nature of the problem. “Immigration” is not an issue; it is a term that refers to a collection of specific issues, and none of those specific issues faces us with moral choices.

Yes, I go to great lengths to distinguish between moral issues and practical ones precisely because they have been so inappropriately intertwined that it seems few people make that distinction. Everything becomes a moral issue, as in: “You oppose my solutions not because you think they are ineffective or harmful but simply because you don’t want to solve the problem.” It all degenerates into “We’re good, you’re bad.” As soon as someone is forced to deal with the particulars of a proposal that position falls apart.

 

[graciew]

Ender, to begin with the info dealt with in this thread is from 2004. So hardly was there any wall discussion then as is it is today.
The actual web page is this one:

https://justiceforimmigrants.org/

Then, unless I am mistaken, after having read the web page, some of what the Bishops propose was Trump’s proposal at the beginning, rejected by dems.
But this isn’t t the point,nor it is to intensify divisions but overcome them, and has never been with our Church to get into politics but address the very fact of human dignity and in so far as well as we are zoon politikon which is basically an Aristotelian Thomistic perspective.
And third, it is what the Church teaches that we are to try and grasp. Our personal opinions, we already know . So shutting down a possibility of further understanding by saying bishops have no experience, and neither does the Church, is at best… an opinion.
And last, whatever practical, in other words, what is put into practice after thorough discernment is what we believe in conscience to be good in terms of what we have been created for.And here, Veritatis Splendor also kicks in with a beautiful explanation about who the Good one is.
So, it seems to me, that the Church and the Bishops and in fact, the children of God are often watching a political game where the Church bothers because it is profoundly misunderstood.
But honestly, it is what it is, and our Social Doctrine so beautifully displayed and explained in our Compendium that it is a pitty to spoil it instead of reading the source directly and in prayer, so as to be confirmed ultimately to what is pleasing to God.

 

[tafan2]

I am not for sure what you mean by “older versions of the catechism”. The Compendium of Social Doctrine was released in 2004, around 10 years after the catechism, both under the pontificate of St John Paul II, both were prepared at his request. I remember nothing in it that are contrary to the catechism. It is part of the teaching of the Church. It is not part of the infallible teaching of the church, but certainly we still owe it our respect, if not intellectual assent. Certainly we should try to understand it fully before dismissing it as leftist.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Given that this has been going on apparently since 2003 and here we are in 2019 still having the same problems if not worse, I don’t think whatever strategy the bishops envisioned is having much effect. I don’t see open borders happening any time soon.

It would be better if they would work to teach people not to exploit cheap illegal sources of foreign labor and also work with the bishops of Mexico and other countries to fix the problems in their countries so that people could stay in their country and be able to make a living without fearing for their life.

 

[Ender]

…some of what the Bishops propose was Trump’s proposal at the beginning, rejected by dems.
But this isn’t t the point,nor it is to intensify divisions but overcome them, and has never been with our Church to get into politics…

I agree with you that the church (viz the bishops) should stay out of politics. This is why I object so strenuously when the bishops involve themselves in political issues - like immigration, and one reason I do so is because it is so appallingly divisive.

Suppose in their proposals the bishops support something you strongly oppose, that you think is just a really bad idea. Having called this a moral issue aren’t we to assume that your opposition is now immoral and not just a difference of opinion? By taking a political position and calling it moral the bishops separate the people into sheep and goats and there is no possibility of even discussing the merits of the proposal: one side is good, and the other is sinful. What’s to discuss?

So shutting down a possibility of further understanding by saying bishops have no experience, and neither does the Church, is at best… an opinion.

Again, by calling it a moral issue and then making specific proposals they remove the discussion from one of practical consequences to one of good versus evil. In fact, their positions, like mine and yours, are merely opinions.

And last, whatever practical, in other words, what is put into practice after thorough discernment is what we believe in conscience to be good in terms of what we have been created for.

I believe some of the specific proposals the bishops have made will have harmful effects. This puts me in the position of acting against my beliefs by accepting their position - and acting against ones conscience is a sin, or rejecting their proposals, which must also be a sin if in fact this is a moral issue.

Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his own distinctive role. (Gaudium et spes)

But honestly, it is what it is, and our Social Doctrine so beautifully displayed and explained in our Compendium…

There is quite literally nothing whatever in any church document that takes a position on any specific proposal. That’s the point. The bishops have taken their positions, but the church takes none. I used the wall only as an example of a specific issue, but any other specific proposal would serve just as well. Regardless of what the bishops propose, the church has no position.

 

[ioannes_pius]

No person of European descent living in America today is an ‘illegal immigrant’ on account of their European ancestors conquering it centuries ago.

 

[YourNameHere]

When a person is trying to escape a country where violence threatens your life or the life of a family member, I don’t think people fleeing to this country are concerned with whether U.S. immigration laws are broken.
This country should try to find ways to help stop the violence is these central American countries to end the exodus. We have sent billions of aid to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and other countries on the other side of the world. Yet we do little for countries within our own part of the world.
As for immigration, what I find most interesting is that the majority of people who enter this country illegally today come in from Canada.
Yet there is no outcry for the United States to come down on Canadians who enter illegally.
It could be that these Canadian illegals are caucasian, while those coming from the south have darker-colored skin?
Back to the point of this thread, immigration policy at the US-Mexico border currently is to detain and place people in concentration camps for an unlimited amount of time. That needs to stop.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

No person of European descent living in America today is an ‘illegal immigrant’ on account of their European ancestors conquering it centuries ago.

Theft of land is allowed if you can take it by force and keep it by force.

 

[Theo520]

Back to the point of this thread, immigration policy at the US-Mexico border currently is to detain and place people in concentration camps for an unlimited amount of time. That needs to stop.

No it’s not, unless they are breaking the law. People can apply for asylum and wait on the Mexico side of the border.

People who break the law are rightly in some form of detention.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

within our own part of the world.
As for immigration, what I find most interesting is that the majority of people who enter this country illegally today come in from Canada.

This is not true, at all. Thousands of people per day cross our southern border illegally, many times more than come in from Canada illegally.

 

[SeekSalvation]

“The sad experience of these brothers and sisters recalls that of baby Jesus, who at the time of his birth could not find a place to stay when he was born in Bethlehem,” the pope said Friday (Dec. 9, 2016) during a brief address in the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall. “He was then taken to Egypt to escape threats from Herod.” ~Pope Francis

Christ Jesus himself was an immigrant.

 

[Theo520]

Christ Jesus himself was an immigrant.

Are you sure about your facts?
Joseph and Mary were considered Roman nationals, effectively moving from one roman state to another. They were legal.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This is why I object so strenuously when the bishops involve themselves in political issues - like immigration, and one reason I do so is because it is so appallingly divisive.

Yet, Jesus himself made this a moral issue “when were you a stranger and we did not welcome you?”

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I don’t think He was talking about people who weren’t obeying the laws of the land.

 

[tafan2]

I disagree. Regardless on our opinion of various immigration policies, we should be able to agree it is a moral issue. It is perfectly fine for the Bishops to express their opinion on political issues that have such moral implications for our society. I agree that the details of individual positions are not part of Church teaching, but a Bishop’s job as our primary teacher is more than just repeating the dogmas of the Church. It is to help us apply them. As long as your positions are inline with the broad teachings on the Church, then you are not sinning by disagreeing with them on a matter that is ultimately left to our prudential judgement.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I think that Jesus knew everything. He said exactly what he meant, and would have added a footnote if he’d intended it. He also left us a Church with Bishops to help us understand the teachings.

 

[JSAD]

I’m a resident alien who has applied for permanent residency. I would assume that such a command would extent to the alien to uphold the law and not break it.

The context here is foreigner and not someone who willfully breaks the law and expects to be treated justly.

 

[skyglass]

As for immigration, what I find most interesting is that the majority of people who enter this country illegally today come in from Canada.

You are wildly misinformed. It seems like every political topic, you add loads of misinformation.

 

[graciew]

Let us go through this one together.
It will dispel some misconceptions and clarify what the Church teaches.

It is your Bishops, sorry that I insist but it is important that we understand what bishops are saying. It is short , no worries
I would skip the questionnaire, but the explanation is worth reading. And simple.
I get what you are saying, and it isn t about throwing each other tomatoes…the good ones and the bad ones, but let us overcome divisions and misconceptions through careful reading. And learn what the Church teaches and why.
It is helping me also on issues where I live btw…).

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...n-immigration-and-the-movement-of-peoples.cfm