P
pnewton
Guest
The blogger lost me at “invasion”. If I wanted propaganda, I would turn on CNN or FOX.
SoCal Churches Provide Temporary Shelter, "Spiritual Food" for Immigrants
- Status
C
CaliLobo
Guest
Finally, a Catholic on CAF admits it!
Because most of the unauthorized immigrants are nonwhite and poor. Therefore, like with any social science issue, no discussion of immigration is complete without considering the race, class, and gender issues that are related to it.
If you want links, look at the news or check out some events at your local university.
M
markomalley
Guest
Paul VI is talking about the obligation of the wealthy to the poor. The wealthy do not have an absolute right to hold on to all of their property…they have an obligation to give what is not productively used and share that with those that are in need.
Paul VI is not addressing State redistribution of wealth. (i.e., the “Social Assistance State”, as JPII called it).
If you want to go protest Warren Buffett’s estate, in order to get him to be more liberal with his wealth, by all means, do so.
M
markomalley
Guest
Caring for the stranger is the appropriate role for the people of the Church, organized into various apostolates as needed. It is also the function of various religious orders with that particular charism.
Having said that, it is NOT appropriate to use this as an excuse for political rallying, particularly when that rallying is counter to the teachings of the Church (i.e., open borders advocacy). It is not something that has ever been advocated by the Holy Father nor have any pope in the past ever advocated for it.
Consider his recent release regarding the situation:
I would also like to draw attention to the tens of thousands of children who migrate alone, unaccompanied, to escape poverty and violence: This is a category of migrants from Central America and Mexico itself who cross the border with the United States under extreme conditions and in pursuit of a hope that in most cases turns out to be vain. They are increasing day by day. This humanitarian emergency requires, as a first urgent measure, these children be welcomed and protected. These measures, however, will not be sufficient, unless they are accompanied by policies that inform people about the dangers of such a journey and, above all, that promote development in their countries of origin. Finally, this challenge demands the attention of the entire international community so that new forms of legal and secure migration may be adopted.
Note:
- He says as a FIRST urgent measure, these children need to be welcomed and protected. I would think that this would be a really good thing and our Christian Duty.
So you will pardon me if I am just a wee bit suspicious of what’s going on beneath the surface. Not to take away from the generosity of individual Catholics who voluntarily open their homes and their wallets and I am certainly not suggesting that any other action be taken…but I’ve seen far too much corruption to take much of anything at face value any more.
NEXT, you see that the Holy Father says that we need to warn people to not do it. Does sending messages like this accomplish that?
THEN the Holy Father says we should work on development in their countries of origin so that people don’t feel compelled to emigrate. Far too little of that being done, isn’t there?
Compare this with his message for the 2014 World Day of Migrants and Refugees:
It must also be emphasized that such cooperation begins with the efforts of each country to create better economic and social conditions at home, so that emigration will not be the only option left for those who seek peace, justice, security and full respect of their human dignity. The creation of opportunities for employment in the local economies will also avoid the separation of families and ensure that individuals and groups enjoy conditions of stability and serenity.
And…just to show continuity, consider JPII’s message for the 1996 World Day of Migrants and Refugees
Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants.** The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international co-operation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment. **The present economic and social imbalance, which to a large extent encourages the migratory flow, should not be seen as something inevitable, but as a challenge to the human race’s sense of responsibility.
So while I think that housing these people is entirely appropriate, the Christian thing to do, I am very, very suspicious of the underlying motives of those leading this action.
C
christofirst
Guest
No, he was addressing nations too - primarily so in many instances.
**"The same duty of solidarity that rests on individuals exists also for nations: “Advanced nations have a very heavy obligation to help the developing peoples.”
“If today’s flourishing civilizations remain selfishly wrapped up in themselves, they could easily place their highest values in jeopardy, sacrificing their will to be great to the desire to possess more.”
“Government officials: it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace.”**
"Nationalism isolates people from their true good."
Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio.
Now the people in need are at our doorstep, and we are the rich nation that can and must help. Of course I’m not suggesting that Pope Paul or any pope advocated socialism - in fact, all this talk about socialism seems like a smoke screen to turn attention away from the immigrants. The immigrants are here, and we must as a nation at the very least meet their basic needs.
P
pnewton
Guest
What in the name of Mike are you talking about. How did you get politics from what I said. I am referring to food, and spending time with them. One thing that just came up was that the kids can go and spend time playing with them just for the sake of kids being kids.No rally.
Oh, and Matthew 25 addresses judgment and the duty of* all*, not just those with some charism or in a religious order.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not understand why anyone would object to me, this Church or anyone showing charity to someone in need. There is no implication that any Christian has any particular duty in any specific situation. So why all the controversy of just helping people? Is God stirring some consciences? If so, then I refer to the words of Jesus to Paul. It is not good to kick against the goads. If God does not prompt you to help these people, then at least have the decency not to criticize those that do. I really can see no sense in that.
M
markomalley
Guest
I am not addressing anything you said was political. I am saying that others who are leading this effort may have political purposes underlying their actions, if the past holds true. What you and other ordinary Catholics (as well as those in religious orders with that charism) are doing is very, very commendable.
???
I didn’t say anything otherwise.
What I did say was: Caring for the stranger is the appropriate role for the people of the Church, organized into various apostolates as needed. It is also the function of various religious orders with that particular charism.
Hopefully that, with the emphasis added, clears it up for you.
M
markomalley
Guest
Learn to look at footnotes and refer back to the citations they give. Just a hint.
M
markomalley
Guest
I think the concern is that these poor children who have been sent over here are being used as pawns.
ON EDIT:
I am not saying that you are using them as pawns. I am not suggesting that your parish priest is using them as pawns. Caring for their physical needs is an absolute requirement for Christians.
C
christofirst
Guest
The footnotes and citations support the text, and the meaning of the text is already clear to see for all but those blinded by their own desires. We are called to help those in need, like these immigrant people, both as individuals and collectively as a civilized society.
L
lutheran_farmer
Guest
The Church should do the Church’s mission and part of that is to care for those in need.
Let the government do what the government should. If the laws of the government are inadequate, insufficient or do not address a situation properly, that is up to the government to fix.
Separate entities. Politics have no place in the Church’s business of caring for the poor.
I get frustrated seeing so many posts criticizing what the Church is doing through the eyes of politics. She is caring for the poor.
Let the government do what the government should. If the laws of the government are inadequate, insufficient or do not address a situation properly, that is up to the government to fix.
Separate entities. Politics have no place in the Church’s business of caring for the poor.
I get frustrated seeing so many posts criticizing what the Church is doing through the eyes of politics. She is caring for the poor.
L
lutheran_farmer
Guest
The single largest period of growth in our nation’s history from immigration was between the 1840 and 1914. An estimated 30-40 million people immigrated during that time. The US population was only 17 million in 1840. By 1914 (just before WWI) our population had grown to almost 100 million. Our country went from 2% Catholic to 20% Catholic because of the non-stop immigration from Ireland, Germany and Italy. The Nativists (born in the US) complained bitterly about these foreigners bringing their papist religion to the US. They complained that they drank too much, lived in horrible conditions, and were lazy. Some of the backlash towards foreigners led to the politics behind Prohibition in the 1920s.
The feelings many people have towards immigrants are pretty natural, but please remember that we were all immigrants once (unless you’re Native American).
If it were your family, would you not try to escape this, too?
cfr.org/latin-america-and-the-caribbean/countering-criminal-violence-central-america/p27740
cnn.com/2014/07/16/world/americas/mexico-shelter-children-rescued/index.html
The feelings many people have towards immigrants are pretty natural, but please remember that we were all immigrants once (unless you’re Native American).
If it were your family, would you not try to escape this, too?
cfr.org/latin-america-and-the-caribbean/countering-criminal-violence-central-america/p27740
cnn.com/2014/07/16/world/americas/mexico-shelter-children-rescued/index.html
M
markomalley
Guest
Actually, “native Americans” are immigrants too (Siberian land bridge) if you think about it. There is no significant opposition to immigration in this country. Sure, there are some (I fully admit that), but those are in a tiny minority.
If you actually look at the data, you will see that the US has issued 23 million green cards to immigrants between 1990 and 2012. That is no small amount. In addition, the US provides plenty of opportunity for people to legally enter the country with no intention to permanently relocate here on temporary work visas. 3 million of those visas were issued in 2012 alone.
No reasonable person who looks at those numbers can say that the US is unwelcoming to immigrants. Those who make that kind of allegation are creating a distortion that has no basis in reality.
It is not at all inconsistent to feel complete sympathy for the children who are being used as pawns and whose lives are being placed at risk here and to feel outrage at those who are using those children as pawns.
Certainly, by all means, take care of these children whose lives have been placed at risk by their own parents, until they can be returned. The practical steps taken by the Church are good and commendable.
But actions by politicians like this:
After criticizing White House over unaccompanied minors, Martin O’Malley said don’t send them to Maryland site
And, sorry to say, political theater like this tend to give me a grave amount of suspicion. Particularly when this type of thing is simultaneously happening: Federal funds account for nearly 93% of USCCB’s migration/refugee budget (Catholic Culture).
I can’t help but to think somebody’s being played here.
T
Tigg
Guest
Mark: We are grateful to you for taking the time to p(name removed by moderator)oint and post these clarifications in these long documents that do not always make for easy reading.
What we’ve been asking all along is WHY the bishops of these countries are not doing more to help their own people?? Are they giving spiritual guidance to them before they trek across 1,800 miles of dangerous territory? How are ***they ***addressing this issue of unaccompanied and ill children?
M
markomalley
Guest
I am not trying to attribute nefarious motives to the bishops. I am certainly not in a position to even comment about the actions of any episcopal conference in another country. I am gravely concerned, though.
When 93% of USCCB migrant and refugee money comes from the government, though, it should give pause to each and every one of us.
People like citing Pope Francis. Fine. Consider these words of Pope Francis:
Our Lady also wants to bring the great gift of Jesus to us, to us all; and with him she brings us his love, his peace, and his joy. In this, the Church is like Mary:** the Church is not a shop, she is not a humanitarian agency, the Church is not an NGO. The Church is sent to bring Christ and his Gospel to all**.
Contrast that with this little chart from “Charity Navigator”:
L
lutheran_farmer
Guest
Didn’t the Holy Father just recently speak specifically to Mexico and urge them to care for the children? I’m sure he knows what the bishops in that country are doing. If we read the Mexican media, we would know, too. Perhaps they are doing everything they can. I don’t think it’s fair presume a bishop isn’t doing their job.
Are the priests and bishops in the most dangerous areas under threat from the drug cartels? History would certainly suggest that. The worst Central American countries are extremely violent right now. I wish I knew more about the situation down there, but my Spanish is weak after too many years without practice.
Does anyone know anyone who has been on a mission trip down there or is from that region and can speak to what’s really happening? I really think spending money at the source of the problem is much better than trying to return people who have made an arduous journey to escape. It’s like if a major dam breaks and we spend money trying to build new dams instead of repairing what’s broken. We have to accept that we are now involved. This is our neighbor and we need to do something. Which is the best course of action? (I am speaking from the political standpoint rather than the spiritual, which is, of course, to help those in need).
Are the priests and bishops in the most dangerous areas under threat from the drug cartels? History would certainly suggest that. The worst Central American countries are extremely violent right now. I wish I knew more about the situation down there, but my Spanish is weak after too many years without practice.
Does anyone know anyone who has been on a mission trip down there or is from that region and can speak to what’s really happening? I really think spending money at the source of the problem is much better than trying to return people who have made an arduous journey to escape. It’s like if a major dam breaks and we spend money trying to build new dams instead of repairing what’s broken. We have to accept that we are now involved. This is our neighbor and we need to do something. Which is the best course of action? (I am speaking from the political standpoint rather than the spiritual, which is, of course, to help those in need).
T
Tigg
Guest
And why is it so hard to understand that this issue goes far beyond temporary shelter? No one has said we should not meet the immediate needs. We are saying that there are dangerous and underlying issues to consider here - ones that could bring even *greater *harm to this country and many more people(s.) plural!
L
lutheran_farmer
Guest
Wasn’t there a Clinton era law passed regarding government grants to religious organizations doing the job the government would otherwise have to do? If you would rather the government take over the job that the Church is currently doing, I suppose they could build facilities and hire people… I believe it would cost a lot more money, however, because the Church has been there and has the infrastructure in place already. The Catholic Church is the world’s largest charity.
Near us, there were Burmese refugees that were brought in as humanitarian refugees through the Church at the urging of the government. Please keep in mind the distinction between political refugees, legal immigration and illegal immigration. Many times, it’s the Church that will raise their hands and offer to take in and provide for political refugees that our government needs to place. Why shouldn’t they? Should we have big camps built at tax payer expense instead?
M
markomalley
Guest
The issue is the government doing what it is supposed to do (enforce the border) and Christians doing what they are supposed to do (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc).
Trouble is that when government acts as the primary patron for a particular Church, there is, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest. It also ties the hands of the organization. Take a look at the guidance provided by the Bush White House:
The United States Supreme Court has said that faith-based organizations may not use direct government support to support “inherently religious” activities. Don’t be put off by the term “inherently religious” – it’s simply a phrase that has been used by the courts in church-state cases. Basically, it means you can not use any part of a direct Federal grant to fund religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. Instead, organizations may use government money only to support the non-religious social services that they provide. Therefore, faith-based organizations that receive direct governmental funds should take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently religious activities from the government-funded services that they offer.
The bolded text sort of sounds like the Spiritual Works of Mercy, right?
Look at what the Obama White House says about it:
Some of the legal obligations that come along with a Federal government grant include the responsibility to separate any explicitly religious activities from programs funded by direct government grants. Explicitly religious activities (activities that involve overt religious content, such as religious instruction, devotional exercises, worship, proselytizing or evangelism) must be clearly separated in either time or location from the federally funded program. These religious activities also must be privately funded and purely voluntary for program beneficiaries. Organizations receiving Federal funds may not discriminate against beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries on the basis of religion or religious belief. **Further, if a beneficiary or prospective beneficiary objects to the religious character of an organization providing federally funded services, the beneficiary must be referred to an alternative provider. **For more information about these issues, click here.
The point I’m getting at is that my objection is not partisan.
As an example of where this could be a problem would be if providing services to homeless unmarried mothers, providing food, shelter, medical care would be welcome with federal funds given to the Church. However, a complaint could be made if, at the same time as these corporal works were provided, the person ministering those services was to talk about the Church’s teaching on chastity as a spiritual work. There would, by regulation, need to be a separation in time or place, between providing the federally subsidized corporal work of mercy and the non federally funded spiritual work of mercy.
Same thing with providing services to the refugee. You aren’t allowed to provide the spiritual work simultaneously with the corporal work. Mesh that with the Pope Francis quote above.
The government should do what the government should do. The Church should do what the Church should do.
- Status