The abuse scandal has eroded my confidence in our Bishops on immigration

[diggerdomer]

As usual, you and I are on entirely different wave lengths. Amazing how people can read the same post and come up with entirely different logic. Get a grip.

Maybe. I’m trying to form my conscience from the teaching of the Church, as a primary source. What’s your source?

 

[diggerdomer]

That my confidence has been eroded is not an opinion. It is a fact.

The abuse scandal was very widespread in nearly every diocese. Can anyone name the dioceses where there were no claims paid, or no claims made?

You could say the practice of covering up the abuse and transferring priests was a political act to protect the Church. That is how I look at the Bishop’s position on illegal immigration. It is a political act to mollify the Church’s many Hispanic members and many Hispanic priests, and is not hard to understand in the context of the abuse scandal.

While I agree with you regarding many Bishops’ actions regarding the abuse scandal, do these actions change your perspective for instance on the Church’s teaching of abortion? Or only immigration? If there’s a difference, why?

 

[rodomonte]

While I agree with you regarding many Bishops’ actions regarding the abuse scandal, do these actions change your perspective for instance on the Church’s teaching of abortion? Or only immigration? If there’s a difference, why?

I though I made that clear in my post. There is a political dimension to the Bishop’s position on immigration that is not present in their position on abortion, a position that has been consistent over a very long time.

 

[St_Francis]

I though I made that clear in my post. There is a political dimension to the Bishop’s position on immigration that is not present in their position on abortion, a position that has been consistent over a very long time.

The bishops have applied their understanding of moral theology to the issue and stated what they believe, which is that those illegal immigrants who are planning to stay here should have some way of becoming legally here.

IMHO, I do not think that the bishops have provided their reasoning, nor do I believe that they have provided a full explication of what they believe can morally happen, ie, they do not take into account the however many “bad” illegal immigrants there are, nor do they seem to address the issue of those who are planning to be here only temporarily.

But it is very hard to get all these subtleties across in the type of sound-bite dialogue that passes for reasoned discussion these days.

 

[GratefulFred]

Rodomonte:

Thank you very much for the referal to the deportation of illegals in 1954. I did not know that history. I googled and found a 2006 Christain Science Monitor article which was the basis for the Wikipedia article you provided.

I found it most telling that Eisenhower quoted a 1951 New York Times article that said in part,

"The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'w**s’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

A curious relaxation of ethical standards from bottom to top seems to be at the very CORE of most of our problems. Ethics relates directly to MORAL standards. Moral conduct is right versus wrong. A moral standard should be objective, not given to twisted intepretation to allow certain behavior in certain situations. LEGAL conduct is not always moral conduct. See laws passed by Hitler or the rush to change the definition of marriage.

I know you, and all who read here, know this.

My point, I think, is the need to discover and support the objective “right” behavior in regards to illegal immigrants, as well as any other issue of the day.

We know, or at least fear, the cost to us citizens of America. But can we express empathy for the cost to the illegal immigrants? Can we imagine what we would do if we were in their position? There, but for the Grace of God, go you and me. If you were hurting, what would you expect of me?

I think we have enough laws already. They just need to be enforced. Eisenhower understood that 55 years ago. But, in enforcing our laws, we need also to be compassionate. We need to discover a way and help for Mexico provide a better life for its citizens so that they do not feel the desperate need to enter America illegally.

We should not be too liberal, nor should we be too conservative in this and other matters. We should however, demand that our government enforce existing laws. The Feds are not. Arizona acted. Perhaps we need a new Congress this November.

“Least” is singular, but it can also apply to a single group. Morally, we help THE poor, not A poor.

Roseville has grown considerably since the mid 90s. Still we are just 100 miles from Lake Tahoe and 75 from Napa Valley.

 

[E.E.N.S]

There have been a number of posters on the immigration issue who say we must listen to the teaching authority of the Bishops on this topic, because they are wiser, smarter, holier, etc. But the abuse scandal has shown me that the hierarchy has no more wisdom than I do. That’s how I can reject the position of the Bishops on immigration, besides my own moral analysis.

Anyone else feel the same?

No.

Let’s give a similar example in Scripture used by Our Lord:

Matt 23:1-12: “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, ** saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.* “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.*”

Even though the scribes and Pharisees were largely corrupt, Christ said that they must be obeyed, as they sat in a seat of authority established by God. How much more so is this true with the fulfilled version of this seat of authority (“the Seat of Peter”), as Christ established His church, gave it His authority, and set it as the pillar and foundation of truth, (c.f., Matt 18: 16-18).

 

[diggerdomer]

I though I made that clear in my post. There is a political dimension to the Bishop’s position on immigration that is not present in their position on abortion, a position that has been consistent over a very long time.

The bishops “weigh in” on specific political issues that affect abortion, with more specificity than just reiterating “abortion is wrong,” just as they do for issues like immigration. For instance the recent issue in Arizona, where the Catholic moral tradition offers views that are apparently interpreted differently by different well-meaning Catholics (catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1002085.htm)

So if you’re going to dismiss the Bishops’ teaching on immigration based on the sex abuse scandal, then it’s only logical and consistent to dismiss their views in cases involving abortion e.g. as in the excommunication etc. referred to in the article I noted.

 

[rodomonte]

So if you’re going to dismiss the Bishops’ teaching on immigration based on the sex abuse scandal, then it’s only logical and consistent to dismiss their views in cases involving abortion e.g. as in the excommunication etc. referred to in the article I noted.

You have lost sight of the title of my thread. Try re-reading it.

 

[rodomonte]

The bishops “weigh in” on specific political issues that affect abortion, with more specificity than just reiterating “abortion is wrong,” just as they do for issues like immigration. For instance the recent issue in Arizona, where the Catholic moral tradition offers views that are apparently interpreted differently by different well-meaning Catholics (catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1002085.htm)

So if you’re going to dismiss the Bishops’ teaching on immigration based on the sex abuse scandal, then it’s only logical and consistent to dismiss their views in cases involving abortion e.g. as in the excommunication etc. referred to in the article I noted.

That quote was about the Mosaic law convenant between God and the Jews. Can you give me a similar quote about the Apostles.

Besides, no one has said we must blindly conform to the Bishop’s position on immigration. It is not an infallible pronouncement. I don’t dismiss the Bishop’s position on immigration out-of-hand. I read their position, but I find insufficient supporting logic.

 

[rodomonte]

No.

Let’s give a similar example in Scripture used by Our Lord:

Matt 23:1-12: “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, ** saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.** “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.”

Even though the scribes and Pharisees were largely corrupt, Christ said that they must be obeyed, as they sat in a seat of authority established by God. How much more so is this true with the fulfilled version of this seat of authority (“the Seat of Peter”), as Christ established His church, gave it His authority, and set it as the pillar and foundation of truth, (c.f., Matt 18: 16-18).

That quote was about the Mosaic law covenant between God and the Jews.

Besides, no one has said we must blindly conform to the Bishop’s position on immigration. It is not an infallible pronouncement. It is not a doctrine. I don’t dismiss the Bishop’s position on immigration lightly. I read their position, but I find insufficient supporting logic.

 

[diggerdomer]

You have lost sight of the title of my thread. Try re-reading it.

Thanks I did. I still raise the question: why only immigration? Why not every issue they teach on? What is specific about the relationship between immigration and the sex abuse scandal?

 

[rodomonte]

Thanks I did. I still raise the question: why only immigration? Why not every issue they teach on? What is specific about the relationship between immigration and the sex abuse scandal?

Both issues have the politics of benefiting, or not harming, the Church in common.

 

[Ender]

There have been a number of posters on the immigration issue who say we must listen to the teaching authority of the Bishops on this topic, because they are wiser, smarter, holier, etc.

The bishops have no teaching authority on issues involving prudential solutions. Whether they are wiser, smarter, or holier than I doesn’t mean that their political opinions are therefore correct. There is no charism of infallibility attached to their prudential preferences.

But the abuse scandal has shown me that the hierarchy has no more wisdom than I do. That’s how I can reject the position of the Bishops on immigration, besides my own moral analysis.

I agree with your conclusion if not with the way you arrived at it. A bishop’s opinion is not valid simply because it is his. We expect them to be knowledgeable about what the Church teaches but because they know the goals we should set doesn’t mean that they have any idea about how best to achieve them. Their responsibility is to form our consciences; our responsibility is to apply those informed consciences to the solution of practical problems and they overstep their bounds when they offer their own solutions and infer that they are morally superior to ours.

*“Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution.” *(Fourth Lateran Council #42)

Ender

 

[rodomonte]

The bishops have no teaching authority on issues involving prudential solutions. Whether they are wiser, smarter, or holier than I doesn’t mean that their political opinions are therefore correct. There is no charism of infallibility attached to their prudential preferences.
I agree with your conclusion if not with the way you arrived at it. A bishop’s opinion is not valid simply because it is his. We expect them to be knowledgeable about what the Church teaches but because they know the goals we should set doesn’t mean that they have any idea about how best to achieve them. Their responsibility is to form our consciences; our responsibility is to apply those informed consciences to the solution of practical problems and they overstep their bounds when they offer their own solutions and infer that they are morally superior to ours.

*“Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution.” *(Fourth Lateran Council #42)

Ender

Very well put, Ender. You are clearly smarter, wiser, and holier than I.

 

[diggerdomer]

Both issues have the politics of benefiting, or not harming, the Church in common.

What issue that the Church teaches on does NOT have the politics of benefiting, or not harming, the Church in common?

Sorry if I’m missing your point, I still just don’t see why the sex abuse scandal would erode your confidence in the Bishops’ teaching on one specific area, vs. either all areas or no areas.

Thanks for any help.

 

[diggerdomer]

The bishops have no teaching authority on issues involving prudential solutions.

Where does the Catholic Church teach this? That the Bishops have NO authority?

 

[Ender]

Where does the Catholic Church teach this? That the Bishops have NO authority?

You should recognize that if you cannot respond to my comments without significantly altering them that perhaps your position is unsustainable. I didn’t say that the bishops have no authority. I said they have no teaching authority on issues involving prudential solutions. Very different things.

The Catechism teaches (891-892) that we are to give the “obedience of faith” to infallible proclamations and “religious assent” to doctrines not proclaimed infallible. There is nothing proclaiming an obligation to assent to the prudential opinions of individual bishops.

There is also this from the *Bulletin *of the Commission for information of the Special Assembly for America of the Synod of Bishops (1997):

• I ask for a strict call to the lay faithful so that through the grace of the living Jesus Christ, we can sanctify political life, understood in its most noble and profound meaning.: a management of common good. Inside this lay vocation which is a prudential virtue and with its relative autonomy, we take into account the two elements which make it possible.The principles and values of the Social Doctrine of the Church and the dramatic realities of our nations.*

The point here is that politics is a lay vocation and as I pointed out earlier with the comment from the Fourth Lateran Council, both clergy and laity have their own areas of responsibility and the clergy may no more properly encroach on ours than we on theirs.

Ender

 

[mpb74]

I can equate a lack of confidence in the Bishop’s statements on immigration to the sex scandal. The willful neglect of sexual abuse by underlings by the Bishops has nothing to do with Church teaching. It had to do with embarrasment and scandal and personal decisions by these Bishop’s. They made personal decisions to ignore just criminal law, abandon morality and offer innocent children on the altar of Baal.

If our Bishop’s had handled the sex abuse scandal in a moral, socially responsible, and Christian way the Church would have suffered scandal and some of the flock would have scattered. It would have been a tradegy. But as usual lies and coverups create greater scandal and in this case even greater tradegy. It has caused economic distress on many Diocese. Money that would have gone to help the downtrodden was plundered. Much of this went to lawyers who feed on others sorrows to live a priveleged life. Church lawyers, many maybe good people, were compensated for their defense work. Properly, some went to the victims to help solve some of the problems the CRIMES against them caused. Many more have fled because they don’t trust the Bishop’s than would have left if they felt the problem had dealt with properly and honestly.

And the seamy truth is their decisions probably had a lot to do with money. It also had to do with the fact they felt compassion for the abusers. Most of those so called men, the abusers, were mentally ill and truly sorrowful for the acts. The Bishops personal feelings and compassion contributed to the abandonment of common sense and justice.

The illegal immigration issue relates in these ways. Many statements by the Bishop’s are based on their individual feelings, and beyond Church law ( Not neccessarily opposed to it) Also, to their credit, these Bishop’s feel a tremendous compassion for these illegal immigrants. (We all should,IMHO) This compassion clouds their judgement to common sense, just law, and the problems caused to other’s. (No, I do not compare in any shape many or form, the pain to the sex crime victims ignored by the Church to the average American citizen inre to illegal immigration.)

Also, Bishop’s want to grow their flocks. It should be a mandate of their office if it isn’t already. The recent illegal immigrant arrivals are by large Mexican and form South America. They are mostly Catholic to some degree. They often have suffered much, and suffer in some ways here also. Human nature draws them to those who champion their causes and issues. They are easy prey for some denominations who preach the gospel of prosperity.( and huge parishoner donations percentage wise) The Bishop’s want to draw them to the True Church. I believe the Churches proper role is to tend to these peoples spiritual needs, and to help supply family support services, and basic poor box donation type of help. The illegal immigrants, though mostly poor, do financially support the Church. Remember most Catholic Churches in the US were built on the pennies of the poor. So yes there is an economic angle involved.

Abortion is a straight out evil, recognized and taught by the Church since it’s foundations. Opposition to abortion is a responsibility of every Bishop, of every human being. Contraception is immoral and has always taught that way by the Church. Though throughout the world there have been Bishop’s and Priest’s who against Church law and teaching promote condom use. ( To prevent AIDS infections usually) These Bishop’s have forgotten the immutable fact that you can NEVER do evil to prevent greater evil or to bring about a greater good. Shouls we listen to their personal feelings? Probably based on compassion rather than in fidelity to the Truth.

IMHO, I think the constant use of the term"undocumented worker" by many Catholic leaders is deceptive and Orwellian. They don’t have documents because they entered the country illegally. And they don’t all work. The absence of understanding of those opposed to unfettered immigration. I have seen statements by Bishops impugning the integrity and motivation of those they oppose on this issue. I have always thought that when people demonize those they disagree with they lack fact and reason to back their argument.

All this said, I have tremendous respect for all of our Priest’s and Bishop’s and Sisters. They have made sacrifices I am unwilling to make. Just because I love them doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with them. I will continue to pray for them all.

I tell you though, I can’t not fathom the reasoning behind any man turning a blind eye to ongoing pedophilia. It is an abomination. I worked in law enforcement and suffered great professional harm by refusing to turn a blind eye to something much less egregious committed by someone who knew “Someone”. I was not living a very holy, wise, or particularly intelligent way back then, but I knew right from wrong.

I think those men may greatly test God’s mercy come judgement day. I would show them the mercy they gave to those children. Zero, zip, nada. Luckily for everyone I am not God.

Please forgive the sharp edge and tone, but try to understand I’ve have seen the results of pedophilia and rape and sodomy. I’ve been a first responder, I’ve seen the pain in their eyes. The profound sadness that trancended their souls. Innocence destroyed. I was a witness after the fact, and it was devastating for me, still is many years later. I can’t imagine the pain the victim’s feel. I can’t understand how a functioning human being can send a predator among children like that. It is not of Christ.

 

[diggerdomer]

You should recognize that if you cannot respond to my comments without significantly altering them that perhaps your position is unsustainable. I didn’t say that the bishops have no authority. I said they have no teaching authority on issues involving prudential solutions. Very different things.

The Catechism teaches (891-892) that we are to give the “obedience of faith” to infallible proclamations and “religious assent” to doctrines not proclaimed infallible. There is nothing proclaiming an obligation to assent to the prudential opinions of individual bishops.

There is also this from the *Bulletin *of the Commission for information of the Special Assembly for America of the Synod of Bishops (1997):

• I ask for a strict call to the lay faithful so that through the grace of the living Jesus Christ, we can sanctify political life*, understood in its most noble and profound meaning.: a management of common good. Inside this lay vocation which is a prudential virtue and with its relative autonomy, we take into account the two elements which make it possible.The principles and values of the Social Doctrine of the Church and the dramatic realities of our nations.

The point here is that politics is a lay vocation and as I pointed out earlier with the comment from the Fourth Lateran Council, both clergy and laity have their own areas of responsibility and the clergy may no more properly encroach on ours than we on theirs.

Ender

Well if politics is a lay vocation, regarding immigration, then why does the Vatican have a Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Travelers?

And why would Pope Benedict give the following address?

zenit.org/article-29411?l=english

 

[Ender]

Well if politics is a lay vocation, regarding immigration, then why does the Vatican have a Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Travelers?

And why would Pope Benedict give the following address?

zenit.org/article-29411?l=english

Illegal immigration is a serious and world wide problem that has not seriously been addressed - at least not in our country. The pope is correct in focusing attention on this problem and he is rightly concerned that countries, in attempting to resolve their own specific issues, may do so without a just concern for the immigrant. What he wants is for countries to attempt to resolve the issue in as just a manner as possible, which I think is captured in this comment:

"Dear brothers and sisters, it is also up to you to sensitize organizations that are dedicated to the world of migrants and itinerant people to forms of co-responsibility."

He wants the problem resolved fairly. What he doesn’t do is specify what that means, nor can he as the “fair” resolution is a judgment call that is the responsibility of the laity of each country to decide.

Ender