LA prelate ‘deeply concerned’ about Trump on immigration

[Convert_in_99]

If our only concern was to be about immigrants why does the church teach that countries may control their borders? Why does she teach that “nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner”? You should at least recognize that there can be competing interests here, those of the nation and those of people wishing to immigrate to it. We are not obliged to ignore the former to accommodate the latter.

Ender

“Extent they are able.”

We are VERY able still. Americans live WELL (some unbelievably so) and those of our country who are not well off are able to receive enough (sometimes more than enough) aid through the government and our numerous charities. These people do not have that luxury in their countries. If you don’t have enough, then you will go hungry. If you do not have a place to stay, then you will be homeless. Etc.

BIG difference, not even on the same level.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It doesn’t matter *why *they support permissive abortion laws. You may not commit an evil act to achieve a good end. No one is permitted to support a law allowing abortion unless it is in preference to an even more permissive law. As I said before, intent with regard to abortion is irrelevant while intent with regard to political issues such as immigration is (pretty much) all that matters.

Ender

Intent does not matter with respect to the decision to procure and abortion itself. But intent does matter with respect to decisions regarding laws about abortion. If I truly believe (hypothetically) that a specific law is going to discourage abortion more than some other law, and you believe otherwise, is it a moral matter or just a matter of who is mistaken? Or is the support of one law over the other really a moral choice?

Similarly, someone can say their intent is to help the poor, while at the same time opposing every measure that does so. If you insist that such a person is absolved from all culpability because he says his intent was good, how can you not also admit that a person who says he is against abortion, while at the same time opposing every measure that restricts abortion, is similarly absolved?

 

[pnewton]

Illegal is short for illegal immigrant. Illegal is used as a noun just to be short with our words. The best solution to those who are offended by the word is to deport all the illegals so we have no more use for the word.

Speeding does also break the law. But this isn’t hypocrisy for those who speed to complain about illegals. Speeding laws fall into the category of infraction whereas illegals are committing at least a misdemeanor.

Interestingly enough, while illegal immigration is a crime, something the border patrol enforces, being here illegally is not a crime. It is less than speeding.

You have your* opinion *on the use of the word “illegal” as a label, as do others. That is why I provided a reference that it is derogatory. There were others. I just quoted one. I guess laziness can justify rudeness.

 

[pnewton]

Yet again the moral club is brought out to beat on ones opponents. It’s always “you’re immoral”, never “you’re mistaken”, probably because it is so much more difficult to rationally debate a position than it is to simply dismiss ones opponents as morally deficient. There is nothing in Catholic social doctrine that specifies the range of immigrants this or any other country should admit.

What??? This is an absolute perfect case of a straw man. I did not say it was the* range* that was immoral. I said it was the perversion and disregard of the option for the poor that was immoral. I quoted and provided the reference for that. Yet you mention numbers.

 

[pnewton]

. If it’s the latter I’m sorry, but you violated our laws and should be returned to your place of origin. The fact that you are a net contributor to our society is besides the point.

Funny, you don’t sound sorry.

 

[pnewton]

I find this very sad. Jesus indeed taught our first concern should be for the poor, the immigrants, the widows and orphans. This is basic Catholic Teaching 101. Why is it hard to understand?

I can answer that; because it costs. Christianity costs us. It should cost us everything, yet it is in our nature to grasp at that which we have and hold on. We have lost the sense of emptying ourselves for the sake of our neighbor. I know not all can be like St Francis, but we should remember that he was closer to what Jesus demanded than the average Catholic American. Our bishops are trying to help us embrace that which is hard for us, helping those who it is so easy to marginalize.

This post started with a wonderful and balanced statement by the man who will likely be the next USCCB president. All bishops in the US have been teaching the same thing. If I am so wrong, then where is that bishop that teaches it is acceptable just to send them all back and build the Great Wall of Mexico? Everyone is spouting opinions and political talking points. Where is the bishop that backs these points?

 

[Peter_J]

People aren’t “illegal.”

I agree. I don’t call them “illegals” and I wish others would not do so either.

 

[Peter_J]

If these children were born here, they’re US citizens.

Agreed.

I personally belief that law ought to be changed, but that doesn’t negate your point.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It’s amazing how CAF posters understand the Gospel so much better than their own bishops…

Cardinal Wuerl: “I think he probably recognizes, as popes have always had to recognize, certainly as we bishops have to recognize, there are those who take part of what we say and there are others that take another part of what we say. But we have to keep saying the whole package. We have to keep delivering the entire package. I think that’s what the pope does. And he takes joy in it when you see him delivering a talk, a homily, you see him in the midst of people, he takes great joy in representing the whole faith, the whole package. But there will always be some discussion among people what part they like best and for some, what part they’re going to accept.”

foxnews.com/transcript/2015/06/21/cardinal-donald-wuerl-on-pope-climate-change-message-can-rick-perry-escape/

 

[Peter_J]

Cardinal Wuerl: “I think he probably recognizes, as popes have always had to recognize, certainly as we bishops have to recognize, there are those who take part of what we say and there are others that take another part of what we say. But we have to keep saying the whole package. We have to keep delivering the entire package. I think that’s what the pope does. And he takes joy in it when you see him delivering a talk, a homily, you see him in the midst of people, he takes great joy in representing the whole faith, the whole package. But there will always be some discussion among people what part they like best and for some, what part they’re going to accept.”

foxnews.com/transcript/2015/06/21/cardinal-donald-wuerl-on-pope-climate-change-message-can-rick-perry-escape/

No argument.

 

[Ender]

“Extent they are able.”

We are VERY able still.

The determination of what we are able to do as a country is a judgment each of us is free to make. The point to keep in mind is that there are no moral distinctions between those judgments, just as there are no moral distinctions between the proposals each of us supports based on those judgments.

Ender

 

[Convert_in_99]

I can answer that; because it costs. Christianity costs us. It should cost us everything, yet it is in our nature to grasp at that which we have and hold on. We have lost the sense of emptying ourselves for the sake of our neighbor. I know not all can be like St Francis, but we should remember that he was closer to what Jesus demanded than the average Catholic American. Our bishops are trying to help us embrace that which is hard for us, helping those who it is so easy to marginalize.

This post started with a wonderful and balanced statement by the man who will likely be the next USCCB president. All bishops in the US have been teaching the same thing. If I am so wrong, then where is that bishop that teaches it is acceptable just to send them all back and build the Great Wall of Mexico? Everyone is spouting opinions and political talking points. Where is the bishop that backs these points?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Pope Francis is an excellent pope for our times. Americans (and other first world dwellers) need to “wake up from their slumber” and “strengthen their weak arms and droopy legs” as St Paul tells us. The hour has come, the time is now. We are being given a second chance. In the past we have been hostile to the foreigners and immigrants numerous times as a country and as individuals. We can choose to continue down that road or we can change our hearts and start anew with this new wave of immigrants. I know what I choose.

 

[Convert_in_99]

The determination of what we are able to do as a country is a judgment each of us is free to make. The point to keep in mind is that there are no moral distinctions between those judgments, just as there are no moral distinctions between the proposals each of us supports based on those judgments.

Ender

There are moral distinctions. I know you won’t agree with me, but there is definitely a right and wrong choice here. Pope Francis has made that abundantly clear during his papacy.

 

[Ender]

Intent does not matter with respect to the decision to procure and abortion itself. But intent does matter with respect to decisions regarding laws about abortion. If I truly believe (hypothetically) that a specific law is going to discourage abortion more than some other law, and you believe otherwise, is it a moral matter or just a matter of who is mistaken? Or is the support of one law over the other really a moral choice?

I think you’re now relying on vagueness to support your position. Supporting this or that law we believe will discourage abortions is not the same as supporting a law that legalizes abortion. The latter is immoral irrespective of our reasons.

Similarly, someone can say their intent is to help the poor, while at the same time opposing every measure that does so. If you insist that such a person is absolved from all culpability because he says his intent was good, how can you not also admit that a person who says he is against abortion, while at the same time opposing every measure that restricts abortion, is similarly absolved?

What I said was that regarding our choices on immigration it is our intent (virtually) alone that determines the morality of our choice. If my intent is bad and I lie about it to boot, that hardly suffices to justify my act. You, however, cannot know if I am lying, uninformed, misinformed, too stupid to understand the issue, or, just possibly…right. You may validly argue that my position is wrong, but you cannot justly assert that my intent is evil.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

There are moral distinctions. I know you won’t agree with me, but there is definitely a right and wrong choice here. Pope Francis has made that abundantly clear during his papacy.

What one will not find is any bishop saying there are not moral decision. “Prudence” does not mean we chunk in our moral compass for our political or economic self-interest. Just the opposite. Implicit in prudence is the desire to make the moral choices, and according to Catholic doctrine, that mandates a preferential option for the poor.

 

[Ender]

There are moral distinctions. I know you won’t agree with me, but there is definitely a right and wrong choice here. Pope Francis has made that abundantly clear during his papacy.

As I have asked this several times before: name one. What moral choice are we faced with in determining what specific proposal we should support regarding immigration? If this is all so abundantly clear then someone should be able to provide at least one example to prove the point.

Ender

 

[Convert_in_99]

As I have asked this several times before: name one. What moral choice are we faced with in determining what specific proposal we should support regarding immigration? If this is all so abundantly clear then someone should be able to provide at least one example to prove the point.

Ender

Have you not paid attention? When has Pope Francis NOT mentioned the poor, the sick or the immigrants?

I already gave you quotes from the Bible. You know Pope Francis is on board with this. The Bishops too. What exactly more are you looking for?

 

[exnihilo]

Interestingly enough, while illegal immigration is a crime, something the border patrol enforces, being here illegally is not a crime. It is less than speeding.

I would think most illegals illegally entered. But even when it isn’t a crime with criminal penalties I don’t know that it is less serious then speeding. Certain tax law violations could be more serious, though not criminal, then speeding 5 miles over the limit. I think the same is true for illegals.

You have your* opinion *on the use of the word “illegal” as a label, as do others. That is why I provided a reference that it is derogatory. There were others. I just quoted one. I guess laziness can justify rudeness.

That’s not very charitable at all. I’m not lazy and I’m certainly not rude for calling an invader an illegal.

 

[Convert_in_99]

What one will not find is any bishop saying there are not moral decision. “Prudence” does not mean we chunk in our moral compass for our political or economic self-interest. Just the opposite. Implicit in prudence is the desire to make the moral choices, and according to Catholic doctrine, that mandates a preferential option for the poor.

Yes. It is not neither fun nor easy to do at times. We have all fallen short of this command of Jesus, myself many many times. But we must keep trying. We can’t give up. We must plod through somehow. Jesus will ask us these questions of us at the end of our lives, just as he has in His Holy Word. (Matthew 25: 43-45.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think you’re now relying on vagueness to support your position.

Are you sure you are not relying on vagueness to support your position on immigration? The most specific alternative you suggested was to “do the best for all involved.” Kinda hard to tell if this represents a just alternative for immigrants or not.

Supporting this or that law we believe will discourage abortions is not the same as supporting a law that legalizes abortion. The latter is immoral irrespective of our reasons.

You have reduced the abortion question to its simplest form: legalize or not legalize. That is like reducing the immigration question to its simplest form and saying we should either help those in need or not help them. Obviously you don’t want me to pretend that the immigration question boils down to good vs. bad, but at the same time you seem to want to hang on to boiling down the abortion question to just these terms.

How about we just agree that in both questions there are positions people can take that, while paying lip service to the good they pretend to do, are actually not doing good by it at all? This would allow you to maintain that those who support legalizing abortion are doing so immorally, and allow me to maintain that those who oppose all effective means of helping those in need are doing so immorally too.