Re S. 1348 Immigration Bill, from the USCCB

[Ender]

Thus proving that there are two doors to the cafeteria. Some people tend to the door to the left, others to the door to the right.

Show me where the bishops state that it is immoral to oppose S.1348. If they have not made that claim how is it that you claim it in their name? I understand that you are unhappy with my argument but I was really hoping for a more reasoned rebuttal than “you’re just a cafeteria Catholic.” Did you consider for a moment that I may just be … mistaken? Is my mistake now a sin? Of course, if you take the position that I am merely wrong (as opposed to a - sniff - arrogant sinner) you have to explain my mistake. Actually, given that you think I sin by opposing the bishops, you have an obligation to rescue me from my sin and enlighten me about my errors. How do you propose to do that?

Ender

 

[meeshy]

I don’t think you’ve understood my argument. The obligation to arrive at a just immigration policy may be a moral concern but determining which policies will work best is not. The bishops may demand the former (the ends) but may not design the latter (the means).

Who says the bishops cannot design it? Canon Law? Show me the canon.

Besides, they didn’t try to design it. They only opposed the ammendments which would keep families apart, which would give visa applicants no recourse if they were rejected, which would allow local law enforcement officials the choice of offering protection to immigrants or not, and which would delay the process of implimenting the laws.

That’s not designing anything, that’s responding to what has already been designed by the bill makers.

The bishops said that those parts of the bill or its ammendments were not just and needed to be changed. Nothing designing about that.

Yup, seems like the doors to the cafeteria are wide open in this country. I agree with LCMS.

Peace,

 

[meeshy]

Much of the discussion on this topic has been about the immigration bill but I would like to focus more on the actions of the USCCB. I think their involvement in this issue to the point of supporting a particular bill is inappropriate; it is confusing to Catholics who are unable to distinguish when the bishops speak for the Church and when they speak for themselves and it shows confusion on their part when they don’t properly distinguish moral choices from political preferences.

Ender

This was your original post. Your error is saying that the Bishops supported S.1348. They did not “support” the bill; they never said it was a good bill; they never encouraged Catholics to support the bill; they never encouraged Senators to vote for the bill.

They only thing they did was to point out the injustices in the bill.

If you construe that as being “support,” you are wrong.

By the way, the Bishops always speak for the Church. They never speak for themselves. What an odd thing to say.

Peace

 

[meeshy]

If you prefer to only listen to what the Pope says on the issue, please read his public address on the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, here.

He says,
“…It is therefore important to protect migrants and their families, with the help of specific legislative, juridical, and administrative protection…”

and,
“I hope that a balanced management of migratory flows and of human mobility in general will soon be achieved so as to benefit the entire human family, starting with practical measures that encourage legal emigration and the reunion of families…”

This is why our Bishops are involved in the issue. It’s not just a political matter but a matter of human justice, in which the Church has every right and authority to be involved.

Peace,

 

[Ender]

It is neither illegal nor immoral for bishops to get involved in the details of legislation, it is a mistake on their part to do so and a mistake on your part to believe that when they proclaim on legislation they speak with the same authority as when they proclaim on faith or morals.

meeshy:

Besides, they didn’t try to design it.

You’re right, “they” didn’t. One bishop, the chairman of the USCCB committee on immigration, after the first senate failure to invoke cloture, issued a statement that the senate not give up on comprehensive immigration reform. Can you seriously believe that this constitutes a moral mandate to support S. 1348?

Yup, seems like the doors to the cafeteria are wide open in this country. I agree with LCMS.

Can you be less insulting and more specific: what moral proclamation do you believe the bishops have made that I have rejected?

Ender

 

[Ender]

By the way, the Bishops always speak for the Church. They never speak for themselves. What an odd thing to say.

You really need to think about this. First, individual bishops do not speak for the Church, even the pope himself does not speak for the Church with every utterance he makes. The magisterium, not an individual, is the voice of the Church.

Lumen Gentium 25) "*In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious *assent." This requirement applies only matters of faith and morals and only to the diocese of the bishop who makes the statement. When a bishop (including the pope) makes a prudential statement there is no requirement even on the Catholics in his diocese to accept his comments as valid.

Ender

 

[meeshy]

What have you got to lose by trusting our shepherds? Nothing. It’s only a matter of surrendering. Just breathe a big sigh, close your eyes, and surrender yourself totally to supporting and obeying our Bishops. You won’t be sorry.

Peace,

 

[Ender]

What have you got to lose by trusting our shepherds? Nothing.

When bishops speak on faith and morals we are obliged to accept their pronouncements but when they stray into political arenas it makes no sense to accord to their views special consideration. I would no more take economic suggestions from them than from actors or athletes. In general the bishops understand this and keep their comments within their proper bounds, but when they go off the reservation they go without me.

Ender

 

[Amolibri]

This is not a moral issue??? What else do you classify your own way?

 

[Melvin]

Justice for Immigrants ACTION ALERT

On Thursday, June 7, the U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture (close off debate) on S. 1348, the Senate compromise immigration reform bill, 45-50 (with 60 votes needed to achieve cloture). The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) asked Senators to vote NO on cloture. The Committee on Migration of the USCCB decided to take this position because on the night previous, Senators adopted an amendment to weaken the legalization program by removing confidentiality provisions and defeated an amendment which improved family reunification in the bill.

The removal of the confidentiality protection in the Z-visa legalization program means that applicants for the program are at risk of deportation if their application is denied, for whatever reason. The confidentiality protection ensures that an applicant to the program cannot be deported because of information given in their application regarding their immigration status. The Committee on Migration views this protection as essential to a workable program, because otherwise eligible participants will not come forward.

Another amendment, offered by Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), would have moved the backlog reduction date on family reunification up to January 1. 2007. This amendment was blocked by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on a budget point of order and Senator Kyl offered another amendment which, in the view of the USCCB, harms certain families.

For those Senators who opposed cloture, consistent with the USCCB position, it is important to note that USCCB still supports the bill moving forward, provided that the confidentiality provisions and family reunification areas are improved.

It is our view that the bill will come back to the Senate floor before July 4th and that we will have the opportunity to fix these two amendments.

Please contact your Senators today and even everyday now with the following message: Dear Senator, I ask you to return to consideration of S. 1348, the Senate immigration reform bill, and restore confidentiality in the legalization program as well as family reunification.

You may call your Senators local or national office, or call the general number and ask for your senators office 202-224-3121.

Or you may send a message through our website at: www.justiceforimmigrants.org/action.html

Thank you,
The Justice for Immigrants Campaign

Be assured that I will contact my Senators and ask them to oppose this bill. Neither they nor anyone else has the right to give away my country.

 

[Ender]

This is not a moral issue???

This is an issue that affects people and requires a just solution - that much is a moral obligation. There are a number of moral solutions however, and the determination of which is most effective is not a moral question but a practical one, and the question of which is preferable is well beyond the scope of a bishop’s expertise.

One way you can tell that this is not a moral question is that you won’t find all the bishops speaking out in unanimous agreement over any particular solution. If the bishops don’t all agree it certainly shouldn’t be necessary for me to.

Ender