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

[Redratfish]

Where? Here’s a copy of the Bill: azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

I only read there where “lawful contact” is the criterion, not suspicion of a crime. Please clarify. thanks.

What part of our lives do not involve Catholic faith and morals? The Catechism is full of references to obey the teaching of Bishops.

What part of our lives don’t include Catholic faith and morals? How about for immigration? Jesus himself says give to God what is God’s, and to Ceaser what is Ceaser’s

A Bishop telling me to help someone who breaks the law seems to go against this IMO. If someone breaks the law, they broke the law, and therefore should be punished. No I don’t care a bit if you had a child in America. Sure its heartbreaking, but if a legal citizen breaks the law, don’t they get taken away from their children?

The Bishops give us guidance on moral, and Catholic teachings. They do not overrule a law just because they don’t like it.

 

[GratefulFred]

MPB74:

Your thoughtful, reasoned comments seem very honest and sincere. I neither applaud nor defend the lack of effective action a number of Bishops failed to take when abuse was brought to their attention. A leader has to have the courage to do the right thing when things go wrong. A number of Bishops failed their duty. Why, I still do not know.

While no one can defend their prior failures, it is, I think, important to recognize that meaningful eforts to make amends have been made. The $500 million paid out is not complete amends, but it is meaningful.The Church has reviewed the formation of priests to better ensure they cull out those men that may have tendencies toward that behavior before they are ordained. The US Bishops Conference has set clearer standards for on the job behavior that should also reduce the opportunity to abuse. And they have issued strong requirements that must be followed when they receive future reports.

Yes, the Church was slow to deal with the problem. But I see that they are dealing with it in positive and meaningful ways these past several years. I hope others can see this turn toward right behavior and find it in their hearts to forgive the errant Bishops and look forward, not backward. Christ said to the effect, “Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more.” Christ will forgive us as we forgive others.

As to immigration, perhaps the Bishops may be too concerned with one’s need to find work or help where ever one can and less concern with the rule of law. But if you or I were unable to find work at a wage needed to support our families, what woud we do? I cried when I read the Grapes of Wrath. It is, IMO, the Church’s role to speak up for the down trodden. There has got to be better way than blame the illegal immigrant and force him to suffer all the negative consequences. If I were in his shoes, I’d want help.

I’d like to see much more about how to prevent the need to cross the boarder rather than just we have to provide as much service as we can. There is more than one way to meet a need.

 

[diggerdomer]

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

Not only the laity of each country, but as far as Catholics are concerned, the clergy too, as members of the country. So we agree, immigration is for Catholics a moral issue?

 

[diggerdomer]

What part of our lives don’t include Catholic faith and morals? How about for immigration? Jesus himself says give to God what is God’s, and to Ceaser what is Ceaser’s

A Bishop telling me to help someone who breaks the law seems to go against this IMO. If someone breaks the law, they broke the law, and therefore should be punished. No I don’t care a bit if you had a child in America. Sure its heartbreaking, but if a legal citizen breaks the law, don’t they get taken away from their children?

The Bishops give us guidance on moral, and Catholic teachings. They do not overrule a law just because they don’t like it.

If you give to God what is God’s…

What is left? What do you have that is not, ultimately, from God?

 

[Ender]

Not only the laity of each country, but as far as Catholics are concerned, the clergy too, as members of the country. So we agree, immigration is for Catholics a moral issue?

As citizens the clergy have all the rights you, I, and everyone else have. As clergy, however, they have different responsibilities and when they involve themselves in politics they do all of us an injustice as their involvement implies something that isn’t true: that their preferences carry with them moral implications for the rest of us.

We do not agree. Immigration is not a moral issue. The only moral aspect of any problem (that doesn’t deal with something that is objectively evil) is the decision to resolve it as best one can. Once that choice is made none of the other choices involved in implementing a solution are moral issues; they are strictly prudential.

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

As citizens the clergy have all the rights you, I, and everyone else have. As clergy, however, they have different responsibilities and when they involve themselves in politics they do all of us an injustice as their involvement implies something that isn’t true: that their preferences carry with them moral implications for the rest of us.

We do not agree. Immigration is not a moral issue. The only moral aspect of any problem (that doesn’t deal with something that is objectively evil) is the decision to resolve it as best one can. Once that choice is made none of the other choices involved in implementing a solution are moral issues; they are strictly prudential.

Ender

Immigration is a moral issue, at least for Catholics in the U.S. who follow the teaching of the U.S. Bishops. The clergy’s involvement in politics is limited, yes, but not in a way that limits their teaching about moral issues that are also presently political concerns.

 

[Ender]

Immigration is a moral issue, at least for Catholics in the U.S. who follow the teaching of the U.S. Bishops. The clergy’s involvement in politics is limited, yes, but not in a way that limits their teaching about moral issues that are also presently political concerns.

It is quite likely that you and I will disagree over most of the proposals to resolve the immigration problem. If immigration is a moral issue then those positions must represent moral choices and one of us must be acting immorally if we take opposing sides. Which of us is committing a sin and how do you know?

Ender

 

[mpb74]

MPB74:

Your thoughtful, reasoned comments seem very honest and sincere. I neither applaud nor defend the lack of effective action a number of Bishops failed to take when abuse was brought to their attention. A leader has to have the courage to do the right thing when things go wrong. A number of Bishops failed their duty. Why, I still do not know.

While no one can defend their prior failures, it is, I think, important to recognize that meaningful eforts to make amends have been made. The $500 million paid out is not complete amends, but it is meaningful.The Church has reviewed the formation of priests to better ensure they cull out those men that may have tendencies toward that behavior before they are ordained. The US Bishops Conference has set clearer standards for on the job behavior that should also reduce the opportunity to abuse. And they have issued strong requirements that must be followed when they receive future reports.

Yes, the Church was slow to deal with the problem. But I see that they are dealing with it in positive and meaningful ways these past several years. I hope others can see this turn toward right behavior and find it in their hearts to forgive the errant Bishops and look forward, not backward. Christ said to the effect, “Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more.” Christ will forgive us as we forgive others.

As to immigration, perhaps the Bishops may be too concerned with one’s need to find work or help where ever one can and less concern with the rule of law. But if you or I were unable to find work at a wage needed to support our families, what woud we do? I cried when I read the Grapes of Wrath. It is, IMO, the Church’s role to speak up for the down trodden. There has got to be better way than blame the illegal immigrant and force him to suffer all the negative consequences. If I were in his shoes, I’d want help.

I’d like to see much more about how to prevent the need to cross the boarder rather than just we have to provide as much service as we can. There is more than one way to meet a need.

My statements are sincere and honest, however disjointed my post was. I know the Church has moved to protect children in a direct forward thinking manner. They are doing everything they can to minimize the risks to children from now and into the future. They are taken the bull by the horns and I believe they will move forcefully and with integrity to any further criminal acts by men who abuse their office and positions as representatives of Christ. Given the nature of pedophilia there will be abuse in the future as predators gravitate to careers that put them into proximity of children. I do trust that from here on out, our Bishop’s will do what has to be done, rather than try to avoid scandal.
While what those Bishop’s did had no effect on me personally, (My guardian angel has incredible skill) I hold a deep anymosity toward them. I had a partner who when discussing our career choice said" I just hate injustice". I realized he put my own feelings into a nutshell. I hope that never changes. As i am in great need of God’s mercy and don’t begrudge Him showing them mercy on those criminals. But, on a purely human level I loathe those men, and feel no sorrow for human pain they suffer. I doubt it can ever equal what they inflicted.

I expect our clergy and religous to help the illegal immigrant as all people of good will must do asto protecting their human, God given rights. To provide spiritual guidance and sustenance. To point them to help in medical emergencies, from abusive employers, and provide that which we have always provided the needy thru poor box donations. I would hold a priest in low esteem if he turned them in for their illegal status. I don’t want priest’s to act as government informants. I think the Church fails these people when it doesn’t instruct them of their responsibiltie as immigrants as per Catholic teaching.
Last but not least, certain Bishop’s have spoken on the issue in terms lacking the dignity of their office. They have a perfect right to speak their mind on any issue, but they are Catholic clergy and need to speak with charity and love and compassion to, and about, those they disagree with, Bishops making statements calling opponents narrow minded and mean spirited says things about them that is unfortunately attached to their office.

I’ve always been glad I didn’t get a vote for Bishop. Then I never had to hear them speak like a politician. Sadly those days are gone.

 

[diggerdomer]

It is quite likely that you and I will disagree over most of the proposals to resolve the immigration problem. If immigration is a moral issue then those positions must represent moral choices and one of us must be acting immorally if we take opposing sides. Which of us is committing a sin and how do you know?

Ender

I’m not arguing that one solution to immigration is preferable or more moral than another. I’m simply maintaining that the U.S. Bishops consider immigration a moral issue, and so, from my understanding, Catholics in the U.S. should also consider immigration a moral issue.

 

[Ender]

I’m not arguing that one solution to immigration is preferable or more moral than another. I’m simply maintaining that the U.S. Bishops consider immigration a moral issue, and so, from my understanding, Catholics in the U.S. should also consider immigration a moral issue.

You have so far offered no explanation for what makes immigration a moral issue. You say that it is one but you don’t say why, other than “the bishops say so” but if it really is a moral issue then explain how one can sin in regard to immigration.

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

You have so far offered no explanation for what makes immigration a moral issue. You say that it is one but you don’t say why, other than “the bishops say so” but if it really is a moral issue then explain how one can sin in regard to immigration.

Ender

First, if Catholic Bishops say it’s a moral issue, why is that not sufficient for Catholics to consider it a moral issue?

If Catholics do not rely on the teaching authority of the Church to identify what issues are moral issues, can you please share what source Catholics should rely on?

Second, one can sin regarding any issue, whether immigration or not. So if your criterion for what is a moral issue is that it means there’s a potential for sin, then please share ONE “issue” that sin cannot be involved in?

 

[djeter]

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?

Thomas More felt that way in his day:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/06/02/thomas-more%e2%80%99s-sorrow/

dj

 

[Ender]

First, if Catholic Bishops say it’s a moral issue, why is that not sufficient for Catholics to consider it a moral issue?

If Catholics do not rely on the teaching authority of the Church to identify what issues are moral issues, can you please share what source Catholics should rely on?

Second, one can sin regarding any issue, whether immigration or not. So if your criterion for what is a moral issue is that it means there’s a potential for sin, then please share ONE “issue” that sin cannot be involved in?

If one can sin with regard to any issue then all issues are moral issues and deciding what to do about immigration is neither more nor less a moral concern than zoning laws or even determining what color to paint my house.

The only way an “issue” has a moral component is if it is inherently evil, like abortion, otherwise the morality of an act is determined by ones intention, not the act itself. If immigration is a moral issue then tell me how I can sin in my response to it. If I don’t know the difference between what is and what is not a sin how can I possibly do the right thing? In fact the bishops have not specified what positions we must take because that determination is not a moral problem. We are morally obligated to try to resolve the problem fairly but beyond that we may take pretty much whatever positions we choose. As I have said before, if we may take opposite positions on a particular option and have them both be moral choices, where is the moral question?

Ender

 

[portarica]

If one can sin with regard to any issue then all issues are moral issues and deciding what to do about immigration is neither more nor less a moral concern than zoning laws or even determining what color to paint my house.

The only way an “issue” has a moral component is if it is inherently evil, like abortion, otherwise the morality of an act is determined by ones intention, not the act itself. If immigration is a moral issue then tell me how I can sin in my response to it. If I don’t know the difference between what is and what is not a sin how can I possibly do the right thing? In fact the bishops have not specified what positions we must take because that determination is not a moral problem. We are morally obligated to try to resolve the problem fairly but beyond that we may take pretty much whatever positions we choose. As I have said before, if we may take opposite positions on a particular option and have them both be moral choices, where is the moral question?

Ender

Whoa, whoa, whoa, morals don’t only concern the not doing of inherently evil things.

The bulk of Jesus’ teachings regarding living a moral life were about the doing of the positive things that make the plight of mankind better.

Talk about a cafeteria approach to what Jesus taught, His teachings may be impossible to follow with perfection, but that is no excuse to say :"We are morally obligated to try to resolve the problem fairly but beyond that we may take pretty much whatever positions we choose. ".

Right as long as we make sure that we don’t treat Jesus in the guise of the least as if we don’t love Him.

Peace

 

[Ender]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, morals don’t only concern the not doing of inherently evil things.

What I said was that unless an act is inherently evil then the morality of an action is determined by ones intent. I never claimed morality was concerned solely with avoiding intrinsic evils.

The bulk of Jesus’ teachings regarding living a moral life were about the doing of the positive things that make the plight of mankind better.

He left us goals, he did not specify means. This has been my whole point: we have a moral obligation to help those in trouble but that fact gives us no guidance on how best to achieve our goals. If you and I share the same goals there can be no moral difference between the particular solutions we may choose. It is only by questioning my intentions that you can claim that my choices are immoral. And, please: I recognize that we cannot commit an evil act to achieve a good end.

Talk about a cafeteria approach to what Jesus taught, His teachings may be impossible to follow with perfection, but that is no excuse to say :"We are morally obligated to try to resolve the problem fairly but beyond that we may take pretty much whatever positions we choose. ".

Don’t go out of your way to misinterpret my comments and be more specific: what part of the statement you cited do you disagree with?

Ender

 

[portarica]

What I said was that unless an act is inherently evil then the morality of an action is determined by ones intent. I never claimed morality was concerned solely with avoiding intrinsic evils.

He left us goals, he did not specify means. This has been my whole point: we have a moral obligation to help those in trouble but that fact gives us no guidance on how best to achieve our goals. If you and I share the same goals there can be no moral difference between the particular solutions we may choose. It is only by questioning my intentions that you can claim that my choices are immoral. And, please: I recognize that we cannot commit an evil act to achieve a good end.

Don’t go out of your way to misinterpret my comments and be more specific: what part of the statement you cited do you disagree with?

Ender

Ender:" The only way an “issue” has a moral component is if it is inherently evil, like abortion, otherwise the morality of an act is determined by ones intention, not the act itself. "

Morals don’t only concern evils, that’s why there are sins of omission. In the context of this discussion, you are saying that good intentions override acts that may be morally required by Jesus’ teachings, but absent inherent evil, those particular acts of morality don’t apply because your intentions or mine may have been good.

Like say its OK to let an elderly person die because they can’t afford AC in St. Louis in the summer, but its not OK to pull the plug on Schiavo .

Peace

 

[Ender]

Morals don’t only concern evils, that’s why there are sins of omission.

There are three components that determine the morality of any act: the nature of the act itself, the intent, and the circumstances (which may mitigate responsibility but rarely if ever change the morality of the action.) Therefore, if the act is not intrinsically evil it is our intent that determines its morality. This also pertains to sins of omission.

In the context of this discussion, you are saying that good intentions override acts that may be morally required by Jesus’ teachings, but absent inherent evil, those particular acts of morality don’t apply because your intentions or mine may have been good.

I’m not sure I see how I can have a good intention and be doing something counter to what Jesus taught. Explain in what circumstance it can be a sin to attempt to do good?

Like say its OK to let an elderly person die because they can’t afford AC in St. Louis in the summer, but its not OK to pull the plug on Schiavo .

I’m not sure what this means. How does it relate to anything I’ve said?

Ender

 

[sidbrown]

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?

I don;t think that you have to obey the Catholic bishops in political matters such as immigration quotas. These are political prudential decisions and as such you are free to come to your own conclusion. I don;t see why people should not obey the laws of the state. In fact, I thought that we had a Scriptural obligation to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to obey the laws of the state such as paying our taxes, driving within the posted speed limits, and other laws such as doing the necessary paper work to enter a country. Now there are a whole bunch of people, hundreds of millions really, who are a whole lot poorer than people coming from Mexico. If the bishops are so concerned about poor people why do they focus in on Mexcans who are relatively rich compared to many other countries. Why not let the hundreds of millions of people who are poorer than the average Mexican come into the USA? And by the way, where were the American clergy during the slave holding era in the USA? Why did so many Catholic priests hold slaves? There are those who have an agenda to get cheap labor into the USA so that they can take advantage of the cheap labor provided by illiegal immigrants and exploit this to their economic advantage.

 

[diggerdomer]

If one can sin with regard to any issue then all issues are moral issues and deciding what to do about immigration is neither more nor less a moral concern than zoning laws or even determining what color to paint my house.

Yes! Exactly! Don’t underestimate the power of sin. Look at all the things St. Paul taught against, for instance. Most if not all were NOT “intrinsically evil.”

The only way an “issue” has a moral component is if it is inherently evil, like abortion, otherwise the morality of an act is determined by ones intention, not the act itself.

This does not cohere with Catholic moral teaching. See the Catechism 1750.

 

[Ender]

This does not cohere with Catholic moral teaching. See the Catechism 1750.

You don’t seem to understand what I’ve been saying - which is precisely what is said in 1750. Unless the act is itself intrinsically evil, the only way an action can be a sin is if ones intention is sinful. The significance of this is that immigration control, unlike abortion, is not an intrinsic evil therefore it is a persons intentions that make his actions immoral; there is nothing about immigration per se that makes it a moral issue.

Ender