blackforest
Well-known member
Not exactly. Please don’t refer to any of this as charity. It’s insulting to the people who have to live with it. I’ll take Pope Francis’ 500K over this any day.
- Status
T
Theo520
Guest
I said it was moral, not charity. You seem to be deflecting from my question which I will repeat since you jumped into the conversation.
How is our treatment of detainees not moral?
blackforest
Well-known member
You never asked me a question. So there’s nothing from which to deflect.
You stated to @LeafByNiggle that the U.S. treatment of migrants in detention centers was moral, so I corrected you.
Did you read my links? Treating people that way is neither moral nor charity.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Agree… would like to see the link? Typical straw man argument and quite frankly a very cheap way to attack … unfair and a bit dishonest
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
Yeah it’s a pretty ridiculous document:
Additionally, the Catholic bishops recognize that the conditions that compel people to leave their homes out of desperation and lack of opportunities to provide for themselves and their families, must be addressed if an effective and comprehensive response to migration is to be achieved. Therefore, the Justice for Immigrants campaign will work closely with the Catholic Campaign Against Global Poverty, initiated by the USCCB Office of International Justice and Peace and Catholic Relief Services. That Campaign aims to reduce poverty through trade, aid, and debt reforms. The Justice for Immigrants and Global Poverty campaigns are integrally related in that one addresses the rights and needs of migrants in the U.S., while the other addresses the rights and needs of persons living in their native countries.
Notice that America is expected to make Mexican migration as easy as possible and legalize illegal aliens as broadly as possible (the web page says of any nationality whatever, actually). But what blows me away is that not only are the American people and government expected to bend over backwards for migrants to accommodate them but the American Church - in confessing it’s a ‘two-way street’ - follows this up by saying Mexican poverty must be solved by financial aid from the U.S Church to Mexico. Apparently Mexico is such a broken country that only America and Americans can possibly do anything to fix Mexican problems, which obviously they are not able to do themselves! Nor apparently is the Mexican government or Church in any way responsible for the situation that results in mass emigration or, at least, capable of doing anything to solve it. It must be 100% an American effort and initiative.
This webpage tells me that the USCCB officially believes that Mexico is an orphan-state.
Last edited:
1
13pollitos
Guest
I found an article today that is beginning to give me some peace about this issue. It made me realize that there is a middle ground that is acceptable for Catholics.
ABOARD THE PAPAL FLIGHT FROM SWEDEN — While countries should be open to taking in refugees and migrants in need they also must be prudent about only accepting as many as they can integrate into their societies, Pope Francis said.
In a press conference aboard the papal flight back to Rome after a two-day visit to Sweden, the pontiff was asked about countries that have accepted large numbers of migrants but are now considering stricter border controls.
“I believe that … you cannot close your heart to a refugee,” said Francis, but added that governments must use prudence to “make a calculation for how [refugees] can be settled because you must not only receive refugees but proceed to integrate them.”
“If a country has a capacity of 20 for integration, let’s say, do it up to that,” the pope suggested. “If more, do more.”
“But always, an open heart,” Francis continued. “It is not human to close your hearts. And in the long run, you pay [for it].”
With all this in mind, I don’t see how the US can be criticized for having a process to determine criteria and a set amount of immigrants or for denying admission and deporting when those criteria are not met. We can debate the criteria and advocate for criteria to be changed but the US has the right and responsibility to accept only as many as can be fully integrated into society.
ABOARD THE PAPAL FLIGHT FROM SWEDEN — While countries should be open to taking in refugees and migrants in need they also must be prudent about only accepting as many as they can integrate into their societies, Pope Francis said.
In a press conference aboard the papal flight back to Rome after a two-day visit to Sweden, the pontiff was asked about countries that have accepted large numbers of migrants but are now considering stricter border controls.
“I believe that … you cannot close your heart to a refugee,” said Francis, but added that governments must use prudence to “make a calculation for how [refugees] can be settled because you must not only receive refugees but proceed to integrate them.”
“If a country has a capacity of 20 for integration, let’s say, do it up to that,” the pope suggested. “If more, do more.”
“But always, an open heart,” Francis continued. “It is not human to close your hearts. And in the long run, you pay [for it].”
With all this in mind, I don’t see how the US can be criticized for having a process to determine criteria and a set amount of immigrants or for denying admission and deporting when those criteria are not met. We can debate the criteria and advocate for criteria to be changed but the US has the right and responsibility to accept only as many as can be fully integrated into society.
E
Ender
Guest
The USCCB has become a public interest group, and is no less political in supporting its objectives than any other organization.
The objective of reducing poverty is unobjectionable. Making specific proposals about how trade, aid, and debt reform ought to be implemented is outside of both their scope and their expertise.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Correction: a Catholic interest group.
…which is not a bad thing.
Nor have the bishops done so.SeraficLeo:
The objective of reducing poverty is unobjectionable. Making specific proposals about how trade, aid, and debt reform ought to be implemented is outside of both their scope and their expertise.
E
Ender
Guest
Just as there could never be such a thing as a Catholic political party, neither is there such a thing as a Catholic interest group when it comes to dealing with political issues. This is because there is no Catholic (as in “the church”) position on 95% of public issues. I will grant that there is a “Catholic” (as in some individual clergy) position on such concerns.
Inasmuch as there is no Catholic position on most public issues, it is inappropriate for the clergy to express their political opinions, which incorrectly suggests that there is a Catholic position: theirs.
This assertion that they haven’t made specific, political proposals is somewhat incomprehensible in light of your previous comment that being political “is not a bad thing”. You suggest it is acceptable for them to be political in one breath and then deny that they have actually done so in the next. You can’t seem to pick the position you want to defend.
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
I agree. What I really meant to take issue with though was this idea that all the issues could only be fixed if America changed her immigration and trade policies and American Churches provided aid and debt relief. Mexico, apparently, is either spotless or - as I suggested - supposed to be like some hapless child who can’t seriously be counted upon to do anything on their part. That’s what I found ridiculous.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Now you are calling the bishops not Catholic?LeafByNiggle:
Just as there could never be such a thing as a Catholic political party, neither is there such a thing as a Catholic interest group when it comes to dealing with political issues. This is because there is no Catholic (as in “the church”) position on 95% of public issues. I will grant that there is a “Catholic” (as in some individual clergy) position on such concerns.
So you have said, and so I have disagreed.
I deny that they have proposed specific political proposals. However they have commented on political issues through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching.
If the only thing a bishop is allowed to do, in your opinion, is to repeat verbatim doctrinal beliefs with no interpretation (that might involve the political realm), then we don’t need bishops. They can all be replaced with a really good website linking to Vatican documents.
1
13pollitos
Guest
Personal interpretations are what lead to the problems we see in various Protestant denominations. The bishops are supposed to be shepherds and guide us without their own personal interpretations determining the way church teachings, doctrines, traditions, etc. are relayed to the lay faithful.
We do need bishops. We don’t need them to cross the line from shepherd to political advisor
blackforest
Well-known member
Please read over the Justice for Immigrants website carefully before making comments like this.
The Bishops, in fact, do a very meticulous job of citing the Catechism, Catholic Social Teaching, and opinions of His Holiness in order to lay out a case for just immigration that balances controlling borders with the Gospel commandment to welcome the stranger. They are doing the very best they can and taking every appropriate step in a day in age that differs so drastically from the time of Christ.
By contrast, I’m not seeing a lot of solid theological citations coming from the people who are so critical of the Bishops.
The Bishops, in fact, do a very meticulous job of citing the Catechism, Catholic Social Teaching, and opinions of His Holiness in order to lay out a case for just immigration that balances controlling borders with the Gospel commandment to welcome the stranger. They are doing the very best they can and taking every appropriate step in a day in age that differs so drastically from the time of Christ.
By contrast, I’m not seeing a lot of solid theological citations coming from the people who are so critical of the Bishops.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
…except when we need them to comment on government contraception policies, right?LeafByNiggle:
Personal interpretations are what lead to the problems we see in various Protestant denominations. The bishops are supposed to be shepherds and guide us without their own personal interpretations determining the way church teachings, doctrines, traditions, etc. are relayed to the lay faithful.
We do need bishops. We don’t need them to cross the line from shepherd to political advisor
S
SeraficLeo
Guest
Is it Catholic to assume organizations like the USCCB have some sort of charism for which we ought to give them deference? Don’t get me wrong here: I do in fact give my local bishops conferences deference, unless I have some profound reason to find issue with what they are saying or advocating. I do give them the benefit of the doubt and take into serious consideration the things they say as regards just about any issue. My only point here is can you even provide Magisterial teaching for why I ought to even give them (bishops conferences) any kind of deference at all? My own reasoning is that insofar as the bishops are the proper shepherds of their flocks and have a charism for truth, that when they act and teach conjointly via a mechanism like a bishops conference, then for that reason we ought to grant some deference to that teaching and take it seriously, especially when it touches on faith or morals. But as far as I know the Church nowhere teaches I am obliged even to do that: it is, however, quite another thing should say the Holy See approve of some teaching or policy of a national bishops conference. But as far as I know there is no general instruction for the faithful to assume that whatever a bishops conference says or teaches ought to be assumed as being part of or an expression of the Church’s Magisterium.
To put it bluntly, bishops conferences have a magesterial and ecclesiological status rather like to limbo.
E
Ender
Guest
Please, you know I’m not suggesting that.
Are you arguing that it is OK for them to express their political opinions, but they have not done so, or that it is OK to engage in political discussions…which justifies what they have done?Ender:
So you have said, and so I have disagreed.
So when the USCCB states that their "campaign aims to reduce poverty through trade, aid, and debt reforms" you assume that they are not going to recommend specific changes but are just cheering everyone from the sidelines without ever suggesting what they would like done? It’s hard to imagine a less effective way to accomplish ones aims.
That you can suggest such a foolish position is what I believe then you haven’t been reading very carefully. Don’t put your spin on my words. Take them for what they say, neither more nor less.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Such citations are not difficult to find…
2. Today the phenomenon of illegal migrants has assumed considerable proportions, both because the supply of foreign labour is becoming excessive in comparison to the needs of the economy, which already has difficulty in absorbing its domestic workers, and because of the spread of forced migration…
Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. (JPII. World Migration Day 1996)
In the matter of controlling the influx of immigrants, the consideration which should rightly be given to the common good should not ignore this principle. The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life. (JPII, World Day For Peace 2001)
Certainly, States have the right to control their borders and make sure that it is not a porous entry for criminals, who may also take advantage of the misery and desperate conditions of would-be immigrants. However, justice and solidarity are not antonyms, they come hand in hand, just like public security and welcome. National common good, in any case, has to be considered in the context of the universal common good. (People on the Move 2009, Secretary Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itenerant People)
E
Ender
Guest
I think it is even less than that.
“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” Cardinal Ratzinger: The Ratzinger Report, p60
blackforest
Well-known member
The USCCB doesn’t disagree with any of this.
E
Ender
Guest
This is true. They simply ignore it.
- Status