M
Monica83
Guest
Riiiight. So why do we have 10 million undocumented immigrants here in the U.S.? If Mexico is so wonderful why are so many coming here?
- Status
M
Monica83
Guest
Yes helping a person have an easier life should never outweigh the right to life itself.
P
PJH_74
Guest
I’m talking about right now, sending troops to the boarder will not take care of many that are in the US already. It also is a bit of political stunt because the majority now are legally entering the US and overstaying visas, but then walls are better political drama than vise control.
Undocumented Immigrants entry.
M
Monica83
Guest
If people are overstaying their visas then they have a greater risk of being caught by ICE as the U.S. Govt has documentation on such individuals. So while it may be easier initially to gain entry, they are taking on a greater risk of being deported. Also, human, drug and weapons trafficking by cartels, MS 13, and other gangs through our insecure border still needs to be addressed.
G
gcshapero
Guest
I definitely agree with you – though we may be getting off topic too.
C
Catholicwife32
Guest
The Church’s teaching on war can be found here: Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 5
War is a tricky subject, much like abortion when the life of the mother is at risk. Ideally, we want to save them both, but if she cannot survive the pregnancy to the point where her child can survive birth, it gets super complicated. In terms of law, it is best to allow for the exemption of the life of the mother because while this would allow for the immoral destruction of life, these situations are way too complicated for our justice system to handle in a responsible manner.
Like Just War Theory, some moral theologians speculate that in the case of an etopic pregnancy, the moral solution is to remove the fallopean tube rather than to use methotrexate which is injected and dissolves the developing child’s cells. This arguably falls under the principle of double effect because the removal of the fallopean tube is morally neutral. It has two evil consequences which is that it hinders fertility and kills the child. Whereas injecting methotrexate kills the child directly in order to avoid one of those evils (the reduced fertility).
That’s a really complicated analysis of moral theology though, and we need to be careful about condemning parents for following their consciences even if they error. Moreover, we should not simplify this to “Here’s the moral theologian giving you the answer.” The moral theologian should be more focused on helping us to understand the moral principles than they should be at giving their conclusion. We should understand that the conclusion is not Church teaching but an application of Church teaching. It doesn’t mean that in the years to come, between new insights and new technology that answer won’t change.
The same is true with Just War Theory. It is the best application of Christian moral principles that we have. But that doesn’t mean the principle may not have errors.
Social Justice is a Catholic term and while our social justice principles are different than those on the far left, that doesn’t make them not legitimate. This is still a part of Church teaching.
It’s not access to abortion that is immoral. If there were no laws on the books about abortion because no one ever had an abortion, it’d technically be legal. It just wouldn’t be done. Cutting access to abortion is ONE of many proposed ways of fighting abortion.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The priest is not responsible for every misinterpretation of his message.
The very way in which you state this question shows that you have already decided in your mind what the motives are for those who vote differently than you. I doubt if any of those Catholics would agree with you that they were “very much working for abortion.”
G
gcshapero
Guest
I understand what you are saying.
My understanding with matters like ectopic pregnancies, this is not an abortion since an abortion is the termination of the child intentionally by disembowelment and dismemberment. An ectopic pregnancy isn’t these things. Rather it targets the mother’s body by removing that part of the Fallopian tube to save her life. The unfortunate bi-product of this process is that the child does die – we don’t have the medical advances right now to save the child, but the child was never the target. It becomes direct vs. indirect.
I’m trying to use my words carefully, but I think we may be getting too technical. Abortion itself (and not just abortion of course, but this is the biggest threat to human life in our time) is in all cases a violation of divine law. When I say access, I mean 1) implementing it as the mother, proposing it as a second party (whether it be the father, a friend, a parent, etc), performing it as the abortionist, or voting for it as a voter. There are different levels to the severity of course, but these are all acts in favor of abortion, even if it is indirect, and from my understanding, the Church draws a hard line against it with no grey areas.
Ectopic pregnancies as one example is not a grey area since it’s not an abortion. Contraception, like abortion, has no grey areas and is always immoral no matter what 1) because human life is that precious, and 2) marriage is that important.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
It is never best to allow abortion loopholes. Never.
Direct abortion is intrinsically evil.
P
PJH_74
Guest
How high of a wall can you build? It takes eminent domain to acquire many plots of land to build a wall, a strip even say 100 ft wide is a lot of property. Along the Rio Gande this is even worse as the course ebbs and flows on a regular basis. These will be tied up in court. How are we to build a massive project like this in the middle of a desert?
E
Ender
Guest
No, it isn’t, and such blurring is inevitable whenever a cleric takes a position on a specific policy proposal. It is appropriate for a priest to call for our immigration policies to be fair and rational, but it is inappropriate for him to publicly favor or oppose building a wall, or to favor or oppose DACA, and the reason is precisely what you suggest: it blurs the lines between prudential judgments and doctrines.
Last edited:
G
gcshapero
Guest
I think you put it very well. One would hope for a priest to be clear on the Church’s official teachings.
When I say blurring the lines, I do mean in regards to things like the wall or DACA. For instance, the priest at the DC Cathedral worked with the social justice committee to put fort an effort in favor of DACA. They had a meeting with parishioners and suggested that opposing DACA is uncharitable and that as Catholics we must be in favor of it. I’m personally not in favor of it because it has allowed loopholes and protected some criminal activity (identity theft, forgery, etc). If people don’t agree with me, that’s fine, but it’s not a magisterial teaching that we must support DACA itself.
Cdl. Cupich in 2015 wrote an op-ed for the Chicago Tribune where he very directly blurred the lines between abortion and joblessness and immigration – it became infamous.
This seems erroneous. The Church doesn’t hold a specific position on how these specific policies are to be in place. That’s what I mean by magisterial vs. prudential and the lines being blurred.
When I say blurring the lines, I do mean in regards to things like the wall or DACA. For instance, the priest at the DC Cathedral worked with the social justice committee to put fort an effort in favor of DACA. They had a meeting with parishioners and suggested that opposing DACA is uncharitable and that as Catholics we must be in favor of it. I’m personally not in favor of it because it has allowed loopholes and protected some criminal activity (identity theft, forgery, etc). If people don’t agree with me, that’s fine, but it’s not a magisterial teaching that we must support DACA itself.
Cdl. Cupich in 2015 wrote an op-ed for the Chicago Tribune where he very directly blurred the lines between abortion and joblessness and immigration – it became infamous.
This seems erroneous. The Church doesn’t hold a specific position on how these specific policies are to be in place. That’s what I mean by magisterial vs. prudential and the lines being blurred.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
It is common for those on this or that side of a political issue to charge their opponents with being uncaring, racist, xenophobic, and just generally miserable human beings, and while it is unfortunate it is also not uncommon to hear similar assertions from clergy as well. The irony is clearly lost on those who make such allegations that these judgments are themselves rash, uncharitable, and expressly forbidden by the faith they profess.
G
gcshapero
Guest
I couldn’t agree more,
By no means do I think priests now need to keep quiet on their political position (though they have a responsibility to be know when and where and to whom those positions are expressed), but expressing those positions as Church teaching when they aren’t I find to be egregious, especially if those teachings could then mean violating actual Church teachings.
“You must vote in favor of the person who will promote DACA.”
“What if that same person promotes abortion?”
“To protect DACA is now being pro-life.”
This is a very common way of thinking unfortunately.
By no means do I think priests now need to keep quiet on their political position (though they have a responsibility to be know when and where and to whom those positions are expressed), but expressing those positions as Church teaching when they aren’t I find to be egregious, especially if those teachings could then mean violating actual Church teachings.
“You must vote in favor of the person who will promote DACA.”
“What if that same person promotes abortion?”
“To protect DACA is now being pro-life.”
This is a very common way of thinking unfortunately.
E
Ender
Guest
I think a priest ought to be exceptionally cautious about expressing a political opinion for precisely the reason that it might very well be interpreted as the “moral” position on that particular issue. Since, with the exception of a mere handful of issues, political proposals are neither moral nor immoral but only helpful or harmful, there is rarely justification for a priest to take a position on a specific proposal. “Help the poor” is acceptable; “Raise the minimum wage” is not.
G
gcshapero
Guest
This is such a great way of putting it. The analogy I once heard is how in one of Pope Benedict’s encyclicals, he mentions the necessity for church buildings to be built sturdily to last. It would be out of his place to start listing the exact materials needed and the blueprints.
Very very well put, Ender. I think that is the issue I have been coming across more and more.
A
Axsenex
Guest
Taco Bell lifestyle must be very exhausting but don’t worry it’s only for a $1.
H
Hereiam
Guest
Prolife encompasses more than just probirth.
R
redbetta
Guest
I think Catholics need different terminology to use in regards to our social teaching. It seems like it tends to get entangled with the secular social justice ideology in a lot of people’s minds. I mean, how many people think of opposing abortion when they hear the phrase, “social justice?”
G
gcshapero
Guest
No one is arguing that, but if one action is a direct threat of a life, like abortion or euthenasia, while another isn’t an intrinsic evil (though evil can come of it), then that thing does encompass. St. John Paul II was very direct about this.
- Status