L.A. Cardinal to Defy Illegal Immigration Bill

[BillyT92679]

rlg94086:

There is no need for rudeness…especially in an unrelated thread.

His post doesn’t seem that rude to me. He speaks bluntly, but he has a point.

 

[Brendan]

koda:

Excellent point! In fact, the only point that really matters. Following Jesus is suppossed to be our first priority, not trying to prevent a tax hike or limit immigration. Jesus is not ambiguous - the command is clear.

Actually, there is also a point in Matthew 25 and John 21 that you seem to miss.

In addition to not mentioing green cards, Matthew 25 also doesn’t mention governmental programs. The call is a personal one. We ourselves are supposed to do the work, not push it off to the government.

Secondly, John 21 gives the responsibility for care of the Poor to Peter, not to Cesear. So there is little point in giving God’s money to Cesear, in fact Jesus taught against that.

So following Jesus can certainly involve resisting tax increases, especially when the tax increases take money from others to pay for the work we ourselves should be doing.

It is a very big mistake to confuse Social Justice with government and taxes.

Civil Law should reflect the Natural Law, and in case mentioned, it is not doing so.

The Church should have no restrictions on who, when and how it serves the needs of the faithful. It recieved that mandate directly from God.

The same is not said for government.

 

[rlg94086]

When someone points to an undefined group “certain posters in the Secular News” and questions their ability to square Church teaching with politics…it’s rude. Making a coherent argument on the proper thread is a better way to handle it.

BillyT92679:

His post doesn’t seem that rude to me. He speaks bluntly, but he has a point.

 

[gelsbern]

rlg94086:

Following Jesus is my first priority, that’s why I want to have a fix to the immigration situation, so immigrants will have a better life here, rather than having to live with the worry they will be deported.

I personally think the situation in Mexico should be the priority so that the people don’t feel the need to move and leave their families.

rlg94086:

The fact that they fear they will be turned in by emergency room physicians is ignorance about what the physicians will do (I don’t know any emergency rooms that turn in illegals) and knowledge on their part that they are here illegally. If they were legal, they wouldn’t have this fear.

Do you hate white people? Why was that last sentence necessary or relevant? What about black people without insurance? Do they avoid emergency rooms?

If they broke the law, yes, black people, white people and whatever other color you can come up with avoid emergency rooms if they broke the law because they fear being turned into the authorities. Illegal immigrants have broken the law let them keep the fear they have. If they would have gone through the proper process in the first place, they wouldn’t have to live in fear.

 

[Lynn-D]

gelsbern:

I personally think the situation in Mexico should be the priority so that the people don’t feel the need to move and leave their families.
Illegal immigrants have broken the law let them keep the fear they have. If they would have gone through the proper process in the first place, they wouldn’t have to live in fear.

Guess I would have to agree with the first point made. I have been to Mexico and it is a culture of rich and dirt poor that one can see clearly. The border towns seems to be where President Fox of Mexico prefers the poor to congregate in a sub-standard invirorement in his hope they just meander over the border into the US so he is able to rid himself of any responsibility to them. How can he look into the mirror knowing that he has not only shunned his own people but actually uses the military to help them cross the border illegally and does not even try to stop his military from giving aid to the drug cartels. Please read the papers if you have doubts. I do not speak from the side of my mouth as does that hypocrite President of Mexico.

I do not like to deny medical aid to anyone. What I do dislike is that those who do not come into this country legally should be able to avail themselves of services they do not pay for and place the burden on the taxpayers to pick up.

I would gladly support helping the Mexicans and others to come into this country legally and would even, as I already have, give aid to those poor in Mexico and other countries so that they might learn to survive proudly on their own instead of having to beg on street corners for the rest of their lives.

If Cardinal Mahoney really wants to help perhaps he could use his offices to convince Fox to use some of that oil money his country has to aid the poor instead of lining the pockets of himself and his rich supporters.
Making Americans appear the villains instead of placing the blame on the source of the problem is misguided and counter productive.

 

[BillyT92679]

rlg94086:

When someone points to an undefined group “certain posters in the Secular News” and questions their ability to square Church teaching with politics…it’s rude. Making a coherent argument on the proper thread is a better way to handle it.

I see it as blunt, and perhaps over the top, but not rude.

 

[Jeffrey]

:clapping: :bounce: :clapping:

Lynn-D:

Guess I would have to agree with the first point made. I have been to Mexico and it is a culture of rich and dirt poor that one can see clearly. The border towns seems to be where President Fox of Mexico prefers the poor to congregate in a sub-standard invirorement in his hope they just meander over the border into the US so he is able to rid himself of any responsibility to them. How can he look into the mirror knowing that he has not only shunned his own people but actually uses the military to help them cross the border illegally and does not even try to stop his military from giving aid to the drug cartels. Please read the papers if you have doubts. I do not speak from the side of my mouth as does that hypocrite President of Mexico.

I do not like to deny medical aid to anyone. What I do dislike is that those who do not come into this country legally should be able to avail themselves of services they do not pay for and place the burden on the taxpayers to pick up.

I would gladly support helping the Mexicans and others to come into this country legally and would even, as I already have, give aid to those poor in Mexico and other countries so that they might learn to survive proudly on their own instead of having to beg on street corners for the rest of their lives.

If Cardinal Mahoney really wants to help perhaps he could use his offices to convince Fox to use some of that oil money his country has to aid the poor instead of lining the pockets of himself and his rich supporters.
Making Americans appear the villains instead of placing the blame on the source of the problem is misguided and counter productive.

 

[Jeffrey]

Your post is rubbush… sorry but Cardinal Mahoney is WRONG! He is sending a msg to the illegal aliens thats its ok to break the law and that if they do the Catholic Church supports them. WORNG WRONG WRONG. -->IMO<–

cathologos:

This is complete and utter rubbish.

What Cardinal Mahoney is talking about has nothing to do with national security. He’s not talking about helping illegals cross the border – he’s talking about meeting basic human needs. Your argument is bogus; you are either very confused, or you are attempting to use fear where logic fails.

You have separately raised the point of “How dare a Cardinal direct his priests to violate federal law!?” Where would you stand if Congress passed a law (see China) that limited couples to two children, and required them to abort all subsequent pregnancies? If that law required social service agencies, including Church agencies, to report such couples to the authorities – would you expect your priest to turn people in so they could be forced to have abortions?

Civil law – federal or otherwise – does not trump the moral law, nor excuse good Catholics from following the moral law. Cardinal Mahoney was noting that denying people in need basic services violates the moral law – and reminding his priests that the moral law takes precedence even over federal law. And I might add that, while this case really is not a national security matter, even if it were, the requirements of moral law still take precedence. That’s why certain Catholics (see the “Secular News” forum) go to such lengths to try to find a moral basis for American policies that seem to fly in the face of the moral law – because they know that unless they can provide a moral basis for these policies, they have no argument in a Catholic forum.

Cardinal Mahoney is right on this. America needs to come to grips with the concept of social justice – and we have a very long way to go.

logos

 

[koda]

cathologos:

This is complete and utter rubbish.

What Cardinal Mahoney is talking about has nothing to do with national security. He’s not talking about helping illegals cross the border – he’s talking about meeting basic human needs. Your argument is bogus; you are either very confused, or you are attempting to use fear where logic fails.

You have separately raised the point of “How dare a Cardinal direct his priests to violate federal law!?” Where would you stand if Congress passed a law (see China) that limited couples to two children, and required them to abort all subsequent pregnancies? If that law required social service agencies, including Church agencies, to report such couples to the authorities – would you expect your priest to turn people in so they could be forced to have abortions?

Civil law – federal or otherwise – does not trump the moral law, nor excuse good Catholics from following the moral law. Cardinal Mahoney was noting that denying people in need basic services violates the moral law – and reminding his priests that the moral law takes precedence even over federal law. And I might add that, while this case really is not a national security matter, even if it were, the requirements of moral law still take precedence. That’s why certain Catholics (see the “Secular News” forum) go to such lengths to try to find a moral basis for American policies that seem to fly in the face of the moral law – because they know that unless they can provide a moral basis for these policies, they have no argument in a Catholic forum.

Cardinal Mahoney is right on this. America needs to come to grips with the concept of social justice – and we have a very long way to go.

logos

Correct! And thanks for taking the time to post such an articulate message.

 

[Ender]

cathologos:

What Cardinal Mahoney is talking about has nothing to do with national security. He’s not talking about helping illegals cross the border – he’s talking about meeting basic human needs.

This is disingenuous; you cannot divide the issue of illegal immigration into separate components and claim your actions only foster its “good” aspects. National security is seriously affected by the ease with which aliens can cross our borders, enter this country illegally, and disappear into the underground economy. To the extent that Mahoney aids any part of that process, he contributes to the problem.

Civil law – federal or otherwise – does not trump the moral law, nor excuse good Catholics from following the moral law.

Ah, the “Jesus is on my side” assertion … (“and you, therefore, since you oppose me 'n Jesus, must be bigoted and selfish.”) This self-righteous claim ignores everything except the problems of a select group of people as if no other reality existed. Yes; we are required to help the poor but the question of how best to do so is political, not moral. It is not about whether we should help some people but rather how do we best balance the often competing needs of all people.

Ender

 

[snoopy]

cathologos:

This is complete and utter rubbish.

What Cardinal Mahoney is talking about has nothing to do with national security. He’s not talking about helping illegals cross the border – he’s talking about meeting basic human needs. Your argument is bogus; you are either very confused, or you are attempting to use fear where logic fails.

You have separately raised the point of “How dare a Cardinal direct his priests to violate federal law!?” Where would you stand if Congress passed a law (see China) that limited couples to two children, and required them to abort all subsequent pregnancies? If that law required social service agencies, including Church agencies, to report such couples to the authorities – would you expect your priest to turn people in so they could be forced to have abortions?

Civil law – federal or otherwise – does not trump the moral law, nor excuse good Catholics from following the moral law. Cardinal Mahoney was noting that denying people in need basic services violates the moral law – and reminding his priests that the moral law takes precedence even over federal law. And I might add that, while this case really is not a national security matter, even if it were, the requirements of moral law still take precedence. That’s why certain Catholics (see the “Secular News” forum) go to such lengths to try to find a moral basis for American policies that seem to fly in the face of the moral law – because they know that unless they can provide a moral basis for these policies, they have no argument in a Catholic forum.

Cardinal Mahoney is right on this. America needs to come to grips with the concept of social justice – and we have a very long way to go.

logos

Can you say 911? Terrorism is alive and well and while most illegals want to just have a better life, some want to harm us. Legal documentation is essential in this day and age.

 

[seabird3579]

Vincente Fox should be admonished by Cardinal Mahony and others, including government leaders like George Bush, for pawning his poverty off to other countries without coming up with a “program” internally that assists his country’s poor and jobless.

Turning his problem over to the United States is not a solution. So either he lacks the ability as a leader to help liberate his people with job starter programs, or it is his and George Bush’s intent to keep this no borders policy going to aid world globalization and thus, line their own pockets in the process.

Catholic leadership should take a good hard look at what really is happening here.

 

[anti_islam]

CATHOLOGOS!!!

This my be a difficult analogy for you to absorb. Aiding Illegal immigrants is tantamount to handing a “criminal(they are)” gun.

Reconsider your statements. MAGHONEY IS A HERITIC. Look at his GAY MARRIAGE STANCE. ASWER THAT!!! CONTRACEPTION IS NOT PERMITTED. Maghoney holds these as convictions which directly defy Catholic Church Dogma.
The question is what type of bullet should be used when we brain him! I prefer the 30/6. Inexpensive but deadly.

 

[muledog]

Brendan:

Illegal or not, the Church has a Mandate from God to care for the poor.

Civil Law cannot trump that.

Read Matthew 25, the part about the sheep and the goats.

When God asked you if you gave food to the hungry, or drink to the thirsty, do you really think you can say to God “Uh, no, he didn’t have a green card”?

Take a peek at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about immigration:

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.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate **subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. **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 2241)

It is estimated that over 20% of adult illegal immigrants commit/have committed criminal acts in the United States.

Another fact is that the current legislation on immigration doesn’t say anything at all about denying immigrants their basic religious rights. Nor does it even infer that those people who feed, cloth and shelter them will be charged with crimes.

Please read H.R. 4437, sec. 202, which states the following:

Whoever–

14 (A) assists, encourages, directs, or in- 15 duces a person to come to or enter the United 16 States, or to attempt to come to or enter the 17 United States, knowing or in reckless disregard 18 of the fact that such person is an alien who 19 lacks lawful authority to come to or enter the 20 United States; 21 (B) assists, encourages, directs, or in-
22 duces a person to come to or enter the United
23 States at a place other than a designated port
24 of entry or place other than as designated by
25 the Secretary of Homeland Security, regardless
26 of whether such person has official permission

1 or lawful authority to be in the United States,
2 knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact
3 that such person is an alien;
4 (C) assists, encourages, directs, or in- 5 duces a person to reside in or remain in the 6 United States, or to attempt to reside in or re- 7 main in the United States, knowing or in reck- 8 less disregard of the fact that such person is an 9 alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or 10 remain in the United States; 11 (D) transports or moves a person in the
12 United States, knowing or in reckless disregard
13 of the fact that such person is an alien who
14 lacks lawful authority to enter or be in the
15 United States, where the transportation or
16 movement will aid or further in any manner the
17 person’s illegal entry into or illegal presence in
18 the United States;
19 (E) harbors, conceals, or shields from de- 20 tection a person in the United States knowing 21 or in reckless disregard of the fact that such 22 person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to 23 be in the United States; 24 (F) transports, moves, harbors, conceals,
25 or shields from detection a person outside of

1 the United States knowing or in reckless dis-
2 regard of the fact that such person is an alien
3 in unlawful transit from one country to another
4 or on the high seas, under circumstances in
5 which the person is in fact seeking to enter the
6 United States without official permission or
7 lawful authority; or
8 ``(G) conspires or attempts to commit any
9 of the preceding acts,
10 shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2)

Doesn’t sound like what Card. Mahony has been blathering about. Nothing wrong with helping them out, just as long as you don’t blatently attempt to hid them from the authorities or assist them in their illegal activities.

 

[pnewton]

As someone who favors secured borders (fenced and patrolled) and reasonable immigration laws which are enforced at all levels of government, I still agree with the good Cardinal on his stance. I think it is still much ado about nothing, though. Not only would I be shocked if any bill actually became law which required religious entities to “card” the poor and down-trodden, I am certain that it would not pass constitutional muster if it is passed.

Cardinal Mahoney is well within his rights as a citizen to voice his objection in order to prevent this intrusion of the federal government into the policies of how the Church administers charity. He might even be justified in breaking a law considered immoral and unjust.

For those who are criticizing him for encouraging civil disobedience, let me propose a hypothetical situation. Let us say ten years from not federal anti-discrimnation law prohibited the Church in America from denying priesthood to women or homosexuals. Would the bishops in authority not have the legal right to oppose such a law, even to the point of being imprisoned? In what way would my scenario differ in principle?

 

[lcalise]

pnewton:

He might even be justified in breaking a law considered immoral and unjust.

The problem is that what Cardinal Mahony and others are promoting is not charity. Charity can only be given of one’s own resources. In advocating amnesty for an estimated 10 million to 12 million immigration-law violators, as well as for a massive expansion of legal immigration to the United States, Cardinal Mahony is being charitable with other people’s jobs, educational opportunities, health care and other resources. (taken from someone’s blog)

And what’s wrong with a law that doesn’t want people and organizations to help conceal criminals?

I also can’t stand this call to “charity” when most of the people who hire illegals are a bunch of greedy white guys who don’t want to give them a just wage. Why else do illegals take jobs “no American wants”?

Unfortunately, many illegals come here for the work and social services, not to be Americans. Did you see any American flags during the protests? We don’t owe them jobs! Society should provide the means of livelihood, but that’s a call to MEXICAN society.

For those who are criticizing him for encouraging civil disobedience, let me propose a hypothetical situation. Let us say ten years from not federal anti-discrimnation law prohibited the Church in America from denying priesthood to women or homosexuals. Would the bishops in authority not have the legal right to oppose such a law, even to the point of being imprisoned? In what way would my scenario differ in principle?

The difference is that any law like you propose is unconstitutional. Your scenario is more akin to the Boy Scouts being told they had to allow gays.

The Church is bound to something more like the hypocratic oath. We help people in need, no matter what. However, just like a doctor cannot conceal a person with a suspicious gunshot wound, likewise the Church cannot conceal a lawbreaker.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It might help if all the protesters would immigrate to Mexico and elect a proper government there; then the Mexicans wouldn’t have to immigrate here.

 

[Lynn-D]

pnewton:

For those who are criticizing him for encouraging civil disobedience, let me propose a hypothetical situation. Let us say ten years from not federal anti-discrimnation law prohibited the Church in America from denying priesthood to women or homosexuals. Would the bishops in authority not have the legal right to oppose such a law, even to the point of being imprisoned? In what way would my scenario differ in principle?

A hypothetical analogy that is totally ridiculous.
Where does Cardinal Mahoney get his chutzpah to violate laws of a nation by advocating the illegal and yes criminal activities of others?
I think perhaps Mahoney might do well in helping those in Mexico BEFORE they cross the border instead of him establishing his own concept of what is and what is not viable American law. His actions are a form of anarchy. If he can ignore laws then why not the right of others to impose your scenario and force the church to accept women and homosexuals on the altar? Seems to me if he can break laws then he can not claim protection for himself or the church if others impose their values upon him or the church.
Lynn-D

 

[pnewton]

lcalise:

The difference is that any law like you propose is unconstitutional. Your scenario is more akin to the Boy Scouts being told they had to allow gays.

The Church is bound to something more like the hypocratic oath. We help people in need, no matter what. However, just like a doctor cannot conceal a person with a suspicious gunshot wound, likewise the Church cannot conceal a lawbreaker.

Lynn-D:

A hypothetical analogy that is totally ridiculous.

I was hoping instead of rhetoric someone would actually point out the difference. To say one is unconstitutional and the other not is just begging the question. Why is it ridiculous? What makes one restriction on the Church constitutional and the other not?

Lynn, the Cardinal did not advocate the breaking of a law. This is not a law on the books. It might not be pased with the objectionable restriction on the Church, or it might be struck down as uncostitutional.

It is my understanding that the Cardinal’s objection that he would prompt drastic action would be if the church were unable to administer charity to those without legal status. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. If not, then do not continue to make a strawman that the Church is abetting a crime. Eating and housing the poor is not a crime. Unless the Church is involved in the actual border crossing or job placement, their is no abetting.

 

[JeffGuidry]

Political and moral intransigence are what causes this issue to be such a hot one. As this thread has demonstrated, there is no straight line to be drawn from where we are and where we need to go.

The Church certainly does have an obligation to help those less fortunate, but those less fortunate are not exempt from following secular laws, particular when their lives are not being threatened by obedience to American law. Let’s be honest; in Mexico, native Mexicans do not face political tyranny which would make their flight to the U.S. completely justified, nor do they face such severe economic deprivation that their lives are at risk if they stay in their native land. Though certainly very poor by American standards, they are not at risk of imminent death by mass starvation as are places, say, in sub-Saharan Africa.

I get the stench of economic opportunism when I hear people propose guest worker programs for jobs “Americans won’t do”, which I translate to mean jobs for which we aren’t willing to pay a fair wage driven by market realities. Indentured servitude by any other name… Similarly, I get the scent of self-righteous martyr-complex driven egotists when I hear Bible quotes about helping the poor being used as foils in debate parries rather than guides for proper behavior.

The capitalists have an obligation to obey market forces rather than game the system to artificially drive down costs. The religious have an obligation to obey Church teachings as a whole and in the proper spirit, rather than cherry picking those teachings that make them feel the best or helps them score victories.

We all have an obligation to follow our conscience and not our intellect. Pure reason will not work here, as there are too many competing interests and modifying arguments to make everyone feel satisfied.

To dovetail back to the original point, I think the cardinal is doing the only thing that he can in good conscience, regardless of whether this is tacit acceptance of law breaking. The cardinal must first attend to the needs of people, not to the needs of government.