L.A. Cardinal to Defy Illegal Immigration Bill

[Lynn-D]

pnewton:

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?

I did not make the distinction. It seems your argument does just that.

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.

The law states clearly that if one knowingly abets a criminal then he is breaking the law. If the good Cardinal gives aid and comfort and hides an illegal alien knowing the criminal is in this country illegally then the Cardinal is breaking the law. This is not an analogy but fact.

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.

I am not sure what your point might be in this latest paragraph but let me presume to understand.
I of course have no problem whatsoever with the Church giving charity to those in need. And feeding and housing the poor is not only not a crime but a dictate in the bible. That said, the church does not have to actually be present, as an example, when a thief commits a crime and robs a bank to be complacent and be guilty of committing a crime itself if the Church offers a hiding place for the thief. That is called aiding and abetting under our laws. That is exactly what Cardinal Mahoney is saying he would do.
It would be a good Christian act for the Cardinal to go to a poor mans home and bring food to stave off hunger. But, and please take careful note, the Cardinal has no right to use my home without my permission as a criminal haven and then feed and comfort them under my roof.
We all know that the main reason for illegal immigrants is because of the greed of those who hire them with lower wages than an American would work for. To prove that is the main reason may I point out that the illegal’s are not scattering from their homelands to save themselves from harm. If they were it would not only be north that they would be traveling.
I am not in any way making a ‘strawman’ of the Church. I am a Catholic and have stood in harms way when the Church has been attacked. I am clearly stating only one thing: If one knowingly gives aid and comfort to a criminal, which illegal’s are, then they are breaking the law of this country. Seems to me that the Cardinal is the one disregarding legal law and creating this as a problem for the Church. I cannot stand aside and say nothing when one of the Church’s leaders takes an unlawful position that ignores laws that were enacted legally.
Lynn-D

 

[pnewton]

The law states clearly that if one knowingly

abets a criminal then he is breaking the law. If the good Cardinal gives aid and comfort and hides an illegal alien knowing the criminal is in this country illegally then the Cardinal is breaking the law. This is not an analogy but fact.

Lynn, perhaps the law is vastly different where you live than where I live. Abetting is only an issue when it is the crime that is assisted with. The idea of “aid and comfort” sounds more like military law, though. In any case, the person must still "knowingly assist the criminal. What the cardinal objected to was having to inquire into the legal status to provide comfort, in the way of basic life needs.

What is the difference between what the cardinal wants and innner-city missions providing meals for the homeless, even though some may be in violation of vagrancy laws or even, drug-users. They do not check for warrants on the people who come in. They just serve the food.

 

[Mayo-man]

There you have it!

My Cardinal warns his intended audience, the World Press, he will advise his own to adopt a “cafeteria” approach to obeying federal law [if this actually becomes law]. How very “Catholic”.

Staking out the moral high ground by publicly endorsing “the cafeteria approach” [even if morally justified] certainly seems ill-advised for a Catholic Cardinal. Not that the “faithful” lack an adequate experience of this approach to the Magisterium and the “deposit of faith”.

This “teaching” is consistent in every way with the reality and experience of Catholic America…an unrivaled expression of the “cafeteria” approach to obedience. Why do you suppose that is?

Jim B

 

[sneakers]

oldfogey:

I agree that no one should be forced under penalty of law to ask for proof of immigration status before giving aid to someone in need.

But if the Church acts to promote illegal immigration by acting as a conduit for illegals and aiding them in breaking the immigration laws, then I couldn’t support that. (And I suspect this may go on.) The government does have the duty, and moral obligation to its citizens, to regulate immigration for our protection and preservation of order. To oppose the just use of this government authority is immoral in itself.

Exactly. We are a wonderful, generous country, but we have a duty to protect and defend our own citizens and those who are here legally. All are welcome - legally. Many of those who come here illegally do not respect our laws. Some are actually coming in to do us harm. To naively welcome in all illegals because it is “helping the poor and needy” is madness. I, for one, am furious at protestors who have the gall to carry Mexican flags and denigrate the US Flag. They don’t want to be Americans - they want to be Mexicans living in America! As Catholics, we do have a duty to take care of the poor, but we also have a duty to the country in which we live.

 

[H_Opey]

This was on another Q&A Forum (EWTN/Cannon Lawa) but it relates to this topic.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum9&recnu=19&number=465132

ILLEGAL Immigration
Question from Anon on 3/28/2006:

Father Mark, your answer to Diana on immigration was confusing. The problem is with ILLEGAL Immigrants and you seem to agree with this priest that the USA should not enforce it’s immigration laws. If they come illegally and we condone it, do we really love them? Or do we want to appear magnanimous and big hearted while our country’s unique culture is watered down and threatened by people who have no respect for our laws? Don’t get soft on us, Father. God Bless.

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 4/1/2006:
When divine law contradicts civil law, we must obey divine law. This is true whetherh the question is on abortion or immigration.

The right to migrate is a human right given by God. Civil laws restricting this right, when exercised for a just reason (e.g., in search of work), are unjust laws. Unjust laws are not morally binding.

 

[TarAshly]

haha! I love it! I absolutely agree with you! we have a duty and Catholic law always trumps civil law.

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”?

 

[dhgray]

Cardinal Mahony is thumbing his nose at the **CATECHISM **

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.

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. **

I believe the Cardinal has overstepped his authority.