O’Malley leads bishops on border visit

[oldcatholicguy]

I did not bring up the speeding versus illegal immigration comparison. I responded to someone else who brought that comparison to the conversation. So, I see that it is a talking point for pro-illegal immigration people.

As I stated in my last post, it is unwise to judge the seriousness of some crimes by their punishment because our justice system is not perfect, and, in some cases, the punishment does not fit the crime.

It is also dangerous and foolish to ignore the consequences that some crimes bring with them, especially if you view the crime as not serious. A little insight would be prudent.

Since the subject is illegal immigration, whether or not citizens commit serious crimes and the “bad stuff” is meaningless to the conversation.

With regard to our government prioritizng the illegals who do the “bad stuff,” I guess they have changed their minds on that, since they just released into the USA upwards of 60,000 illegal aliens with “bad” criminal histories.

The rest of your post is just more obfuscation and the wrong-headed idea that speeding is more serious than illegal immigration. Again, just because you try to use technical jargon and semantics to make speeding more serious a crime than illegal immigration does not make it so when you take the time to think about the consequences of each crime.

I would rather there be more people driving 10 MPH over the speed limit, than millions of illegal aliens whose presence here can have dire consequences to the economy, employment, safety, etc.

Yeah, shame on me for using our legal system as a basis for determining what society views to be a more serious crime. We should instead use vague generalized opinions presented without support to determine what is a more serious crime.

 

[Ender]

Please cite where I claimed illegal immigration wasn’t a crime and/or entering the country illegally wasn’t a crime.

This was the comment I was responding to:Patently absurd would be arguing that being here illegally is a greater crime than speeding …
Since speeding is not a crime it appeared you were asserting that neither is illegal immigration. As you recognize that illegal immigration is in fact a crime, then while it may be true that you never said otherwise it is equally true that your assertion that being in this country illegally is no greater a crime than speeding is manifestly false.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime. It is a regulatory violation. A better analogy than speeding is failing to get your car inspected on time.

According to the source I cited, illegal entry into the US is a Class B misdemeanor. Misdemeanor’s are crimes, not civil violations. This is nothing like speeding or failing to get one’s car inspected.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Please cite where I claimed illegal immigration wasn’t a crime and/or entering the country illegally wasn’t a crime.

Ah, you got me. A very clever misdirection. We’re all discussing people illegally trying to enter the country and you assert something that appears to say it’s no big deal, why, it’s no worse than speeding, something we’ve all done, when all the time you’ve actually said something quite different.

Whatever. At least we are now all agreed that people who sneak across the borders have committed (at least one) crime. And is it not therefore accurate to call them criminals?

Ender

 

[Jersey_Jeepster]

Yeah, shame on me for using our legal system as a basis for determining what society views to be a more serious crime. We should instead use vague generalized opinions presented without support to determine what is a more serious crime.

No shame. I provide plenty of facts about the consequences of illegal immigration versus the benign act of driving 10 MPH over the speed limit.

I understand that you want to think our justice system gets it right all the time. But, the punishment vs crime issue doesn’t matter, as far as I am concerned.

Putting aside all the detrimental effects that massive illegal immigration brings, it only takes one terrorist to come and live here illegally to be able to plan and enact a terrorist attack here in the US.

This fact, alone, should wake up people and make them realize how serious illegal immigration can be, which is more serious than a traffic violation. It’s not a punishment issue. It’s a consequence issue.

And that really is all I have to say, seeing my initial post speaks of the fact that we don’t need immigration reform, we need enforcement of the immigration laws we already have on the books.

 

[Ender]

Please cite where I claimed illegal immigration wasn’t a crime and/or entering the country illegally wasn’t a crime.

Very clever, you successfully mislead me. Since the discussion was about illegal entry, what with the mass at the fence and people dying trying to sneak over the border, I assumed when you wrote “being in the country illegally” you actually meant “entering the country illegally”. Your statement about being in the country illegally might be true, but inasmuch as the discussion is about entering the country illegally it is irrelevant.

People entering the country illegally have committed a criminal offense. That fact alone makes it more serious than merely speeding. Speeders are not criminals; illegal aliens are.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

Of course, none of this speaks to the morality of immigration. The State can declare certain types of immigration unlawful, but that does not determine the morality of those acts.

On an individual basis, we simply do not know since there are so many differing factors and we cannot read their hearts. If I were to enter a country illegally, put my family at risk and receive benefits that could possibly deprive others more in need, if I purposefully broke the laws of another country without a severe reason to do so, I would be guilty of a myriad of very serious sins. Especially if my family was able to live safely in their homeland and I was only doing it for economic advantage. Regardless the level of the infraction the state might impose, I would not be relieved of personal culpability.

Similarly, people can brand others as “illegal” but that does not make the supposed “illegals” any less moral, or any less deserving of our acceptance and assistance.

The gospel mandate says we must come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. If I see an illegal alien hungry on the street, I must feed him, clothe him and provide shelter for him. I must charitably meet his immediate need. Is he deserving of my acceptance if he is here to take long-term advantage of all this country has to offer while causing injustice to others? Must I really affirm his questionable actions and/or possible crimes? (I’m thinking of stolen identities and stolen jobs. I’m thinking of medical facilities which have gone bankrupt from the overload and are therefore unable to care for all of the poor.) In welcoming the stranger is this what it really means? Does the preferential option for the poor mean we help only a certain ethnic group while others are truly wanting? I’m not being sarcastic and would like to hear your answer.

For years we have come to believe the Mexicans only come here in desperation with conditions so unbearable in their own country, they must leave. All indicators say this is no longer true. I would like to hear from the bishops why they are so intent on amnesty (considering all the factors) and why they advocate a political stand which either might or might not address the real issues. I see in another thread they are even asking us to fast and pray for [this] political action.

 

[system]

O’Malley was utterly wrong to use the victims, a political border, and the Eucharist in a shameful and blatantly political act to serve his own political views. I was ashamed to be Catholic when he used the Mass in that way. I am relieving that shame by speaking out to the abuse.

The Federal administration is hostile to catholics and involved in several lawsuits wherein we Catholics are being prevented to practicing our faith, and OMalley, in service to a coordinated political act by the Democratic party, the anti-catholic party, jumps on the band wagon. He is hurting the independence of the Church in the long run, hurting the Holy Mass, and stepping into liberation theology, a serious heresy.

That was an inexcusably shameful, publicity stunt.

 

[GraceSofia]

Ed Peters, a canon lawyer, has written about this.

Mass at the border raises liturgical and canonical issues

Canon 932 § 1 (one among the 1,752 canons that Roman Catholic bishops must observe and enforce per c. 392) states that “The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a*** sacred place*** unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise; in such a case the celebration must be done in a decent place” (my emphasis). Obviously, no one suggests that the border is a “sacred place” in the canonical meaning of that term, so the question becomes whether necessity required holy Mass to be celebrated at the border.

I think not.

The intentions for which this Mass was offered (immigration reform and in memory of those who died crossing the border, both legitimate intentions of course) could have been amply asserted at a Mass celebrated in a sacred place as envisioned by c. 932, and there is no evidence that those attending Mass at the border were otherwise deprived of Mass in their own locales (indeed, many attending the border Mass had to make special arrangements to get there). Thus, the kinds of factors commonly invoked to justify Mass outside of a sacred space do not support this Mass at the border.

But I would suggest as well a prudential objection to using holy Mass this way: it encourages others to hold Mass in unworthy venues to suit their purposes.

 

[Ender]

Ed Peters, a canon lawyer, has written about this.

Mass at the border raises liturgical and canonical issues

Mr. Peters makes some very strong points which have no apparent rebuttal.…my concern is liturgical and canonical, specifically, treating the venue of holy Mass as an opportunity to make political statements and regarding canon law on liturgy as little more than suggestions.
These issues should concern all of us.

Ender

 

[MtnDwellar]

O’Malley was utterly wrong to use the victims, a political border, and the Eucharist in a shameful and blatantly political act to serve his own political views. I was ashamed to be Catholic when he used the Mass in that way. I am relieving that shame by speaking out to the abuse.

The Federal administration is hostile to catholics and involved in several lawsuits wherein we Catholics are being prevented to practicing our faith, and OMalley, in service to a coordinated political act by the Democratic party, the anti-catholic party, jumps on the band wagon. He is hurting the independence of the Church in the long run, hurting the Holy Mass, and stepping into liberation theology, a serious heresy.

That was an inexcusably shameful, publicity stunt.

Exactly what I think.

 

[Tigg]

George Weigel: “To turn the Mass into an act of essentially political theater is something I thought the Church had gotten over with:”

youtube.com/watch?v=y4iyVZOL4kE

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR WARNING

I deleted some posts

No one at this site is in a position nor authorized to judge Catholic Clergy on moral or spiritual grounds and to do so is not only uncharitable, and rude, but it is also against the forum rules; and you will be cited for it.

You may disagree with a cleric’s politics, but you are not their spiritual director.

As far as the bishops are concerned, they report to the Holy Father, not you.

As Fr. Gorndon said in a recent post, “Sometimes we can think that we know more than we do and that leads us to make assumptions which could be incorrect. While having questions and seeking answers, we still need to trust that the Holy Spirit is who is guiding the Church. Put your mind at ease and trust in God to guide His Church.”

 

[TMC]

For my own education could you provide a citation? I assumed being here illegally was a criminal offense.

The clearest recent statement came from the Supreme Court in Arizona v. US (the case about the AZ SB1070). If you search the decision for the word “crime” you will find a very clear statement that “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.”

Beyond that, the best source is a negative one - Title VIII makes it illegal to enter the country without proper authorization, but does not make it a crime to simply be in the country without authorization. Half or perhaps more of the undocumented came legally and overstayed, so they did not break that law. There was a move a year or two ago to make it illegal to simply be in the country without authorization, but that attempt failed.

Here is a link to the case:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

 

[pnewton]

No shame. I provide plenty of facts about the consequences of illegal immigration versus the benign act of driving 10 MPH over the speed limit.

Such correlations are irrelevant. It is the same as saying most bank robbers speed so those who speed are serious criminals. I brought up speeding. If one is going to use “illegal” as a label, then it is important to know what that label actually means. It does not mean criminal. The best example I can think of, if you do not speeding, would be marijuana, in some states. Simple possession has been de-criminalized in many place, but possession remains illegal. If one is found in possession, they are not considered a criminal and not arrested. They are simply fined and sent on their way.

Speeding is more fun because those who can justify speeding use much flimsier excuses than those who come here illegally. Is one more serious than the other? That is a matter of personal opinion. Is one legally more serious than the other? Yes. Speeding.

So if this seems wrong, then you too are in favor of immigration reform, specifically, criminalizing the act of residing in America without legal entry. Likewise, someone could believe that those who are caught with a subsequent speeding ticket should receive jail time.

Jesus warned us about sitting in judgment over others that with the measure we judge, so we too shall be judged, the beam and mote thing.

 

[carpenter383]

I doubt poverty has much to do with it unless you insinuate theirs is the greater temptation. If their pastors and bishops are not giving them moral guidance I dare say they are much in the same boat as the rest of us.

They ignore what is in line with Catholic moral teaching and fall for their selfish desires.

 

[carpenter383]

Being poor makes you immoral or more likely to engage in immoral behavior?

Just like a liberal to cherry pick a statement, then miss represent it out of context

 

[carpenter383]

Being poor makes you immoral or more likely to engage in immoral behavior?

Apparently my response was too hurtfull and “they” removed it, someone must have :crying: about it

 

[anthony022071]

The problem with the immigration reform proposal is that involves having the government grant citizenship and welfare benefits to people for having trespassed into the country,and to their children. That is not social justice. It is not the Christian way of welcoming foreigners. We can welcome foreigners personally or as communities,with prudential judgement as well as charity. But we don’t welcome foreigners with either prudential judgement or charity by having the government legalize and pay them for breaking into the country.

 

[anthony022071]

MODERATOR WARNING

I deleted some posts

No one at this site is in a position nor authorized to judge Catholic Clergy on moral or spiritual grounds and to do so is not only uncharitable, and rude, but it is also against the forum rules; and you will be cited for it.

You may disagree with a cleric’s politics, but you are not their spiritual director.

As far as the bishops are concerned, they report to the Holy Father, not you.

Bishops and priests are called to serve those under their authority,so they are accountable to the laity is some ways. It does not require any special clerical authority to judge a bishop or priest on moral grounds,it only requires moral discernment.

As Fr. Gorndon said in a recent post, “Sometimes we can think that we know more than we do and that leads us to make assumptions which could be incorrect. While having questions and seeking answers, we still need to trust that the Holy Spirit is who is guiding the Church. Put your mind at ease and trust in God to guide His Church.”

That is not to the point. To criticize a particular bishop or group of bishops is not the same as doubting the Church.