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

[DPMartin]

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.

you are absolutely correct

if I am out of turn here, I apologize but the truth is the truth in this matter.

I live in Arizona and I hear via the news every day on this, and the miss direction is overwhelming set out to deceive.

If the fed gov declares something illegal with in it’s borders then the states has a right to respond in like kind to that which is nationally illegal with in it’s own borders. But if you notice it’s always about the perception of unfairness of the state to do as the fed gov.

the reason is obvious:

If all the estimated 8 to 12 mil. Illegal’s were declared legal the employers would have to pay workman’s comp, the now legal’s would have the same right to negotiate for wadge, benefits, organize unions, which is what the employers fear. for the legal’s would have no fear of deportation or separation of families or any other such concerns they might have in their circumstances. Then it would be a work force at American wadges, and expected benefits and rights.

If you leave Yuma Az and go north on 95 there is a check point that the fed gov stops all vehicles headed north bond. And asks your status of citizenship. But yet the rhetoric of the deceivers media included say if the state and local law enforcement was to do the same, it is unfair, why because in this false sense of righteousness they hide the truth. A house of cards that will soon reap it’s reward.

California’s, or “Calafornicate’s” hypocrisy is so stupendous in this issue they are not only one of the largest hirer’s of illegal’s in the country, but even on the interstate I 10 and many other through way into Calafornicate they protect their right to reject anyone to come into their state openly. As if they are there own country or something. They are heavily in bed with the enslavement of illegal’s. which why they promote the responses they do, for they fear the legalization of their slave labor. Note they are responding also economically because they fear the ramifications economically but I get the impression that won’t work.

What this law the media keeps implying is unfair is going to do is bring the issue to a head and the feds are going to have to proved legalization of these people that have been brought here under false hopes and dreams that they might be able to walk freely like anyone else in this country. Which these people that scream unfair fear. 8 to 12 mil. People is a large voting block you know. And mostly Catholic and anything that the Church might do to prevent the legalization of these losses a large voting block. If the Az law is supported the fed will have to proved legalization. Deportation of 8 to 12 mil is near impossible and the fed gov would be perceived as wicked by those that are by dilution or deception are out there protesting in the streets. They would have to because they are now committed to their position for fairness as they preach it.

But if the Az law is not supported then the slavery of these hard working people will remain.

I believe that the Lord is using this circumstance to give that which I am sure these people pray for.

 

[DPMartin]

I apologize for the quantity of typeo’s in my posting, the computer just don’t understand what I am thinking (what a peace of junk)

 

[WatchingMedia]

Me too. We must have the same brand of computer.

The CCC 2nd Edition must be read from cover to cover. Nothing should be taken out of context.
Read the Political Community and the Church in the CCC, 2nd Edition. 2244 through 2246.

Getting back to the OP title, there are many good Bishops and Priests. You are in Church for Jesus and your relationship to God. This must be central to your attendance at Mass - not an individual or personality. (All the Apostles sinned too - because they were human.)

 

[DPMartin]

Me too. We must have the same brand of computer.

LOL: maybe it’s a computer virus or something.

The CCC 2nd Edition must be read from cover to cover. Nothing should be taken out of context.
Read the Political Community and the Church in the CCC, 2nd Edition. 2244 through 2246.

I do appreciate your ref. To CCC I will have to read it, the book is thicker then my bible and the Companion to the CCC is three times, (ok maybe only twice )as thick as the CCC. A lot of stuff over the years. Not to mention the libraries these come from.

But I would ref. You to Isaiah 58 and please consider the possibility that what the Lord means when He speaks of the Fatherless and the widow. Who is the Fatherless but those who do not have God the Father as their Father through the Son, son ship, child of God. and that the widow might be those who are not betrothed to Christ, for what they are betrothed to, other then Christ, is dead already.

Getting back to the OP title, there are many good Bishops and Priests. You are in Church for Jesus and your relationship to God. This must be central to your attendance at Mass - not an individual or personality. (All the Apostles sinned too - because they were human.)

No disagreement there, I can attest, that in the small mission here the Priest that serves it, is one of the (good guys). But as far as the rest, or anyone for that matter…

He who it is, that has been given voice, speaks according to the will of that which has given him voice. And those who respect the Voice of the Lord speak accordingly.

 

[diggerdomer]

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

The fact that intention plays in, as you note, makes it a moral issue.

 

[Ender]

The fact that intention plays in, as you note, makes it a moral issue.

But surely the key point is this: claiming that issues such as immigration (or health care, welfare, etc) are moral problems implies that one set of solutions is moral and the opposing set is immoral and this is not true. This is the whole point of arguing that we must follow the bishops recommendations - because they obviously represent the moral set of solutions which we are obligated to follow. Since, however, it is only our intentions (in devising political solutions) that can make our actions immoral it is misleading to imply that a bishop’s opinion on these matters … matters. Choosing the proper solutions for the immigration problem is no more a moral issue than choosing which mutual funds to invest in.

Deciding whether or not we want a fair resolution to our immigration problems is a moral choice. Deciding what steps to take to achieve that resolution is not - despite what the bishops comments imply.

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

But surely the key point is this: claiming that issues such as immigration (or health care, welfare, etc) are moral problems implies that one set of solutions is moral and the opposing set is immoral and this is not true. This is the whole point of arguing that we must follow the bishops recommendations - because they obviously represent the moral set of solutions which we are obligated to follow. Since, however, it is only our intentions (in devising political solutions) that can make our actions immoral it is misleading to imply that a bishop’s opinion on these matters … matters. Choosing the proper solutions for the immigration problem is no more a moral issue than choosing which mutual funds to invest in.

Deciding whether or not we want a fair resolution to our immigration problems is a moral choice. Deciding what steps to take to achieve that resolution is not - despite what the bishops comments imply.

Ender

No, an issue being a moral issue does not imply that one resolution to the issue is either moral or immoral. The point is that the issue itself is a moral one.

 

[Ender]

No, an issue being a moral issue does not imply that one resolution to the issue is either moral or immoral. The point is that the issue itself is a moral one.

So now banking regulations are on the same moral plane as abortion. Defining everything as a moral issue simply allows people to follow their political inclinations without having to deal with those few issues that actually do present moral choices. It’s the argument that provides moral cover for choosing someone who is wrong on abortion because he’s “right” on immigration, despite the fact that there is no morally right or wrong position on immigration.

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

So now banking regulations are on the same moral plane as abortion. Defining everything as a moral issue simply allows people to follow their political inclinations without having to deal with those few issues that actually do present moral choices. It’s the argument that provides moral cover for choosing someone who is wrong on abortion because he’s “right” on immigration, despite the fact that there is no morally right or wrong position on immigration.

Ender

No, defining everything as a moral issue means, in my mind, everything we choose to do should be influenced by our Christian faith. While banking and abortion may have different moral considerations (one is an intrinsic evil, one is not) that does not mean that only one is a moral issue. Moral issues, according to Catholic teaching, are not reduced to only those acts the Church teaches are intrinsically evil.

 

[Ender]

Moral issues, according to Catholic teaching, are not reduced to only those acts the Church teaches are intrinsically evil.

Yes, I think they are. Unless the act is itself intrinsically evil then the only thing that can make an action immoral is ones intent and intent is not in any way related specifically to issues. Abortion is always wrong regardless of intent. Anything can be sinful if ones intent is immoral, the nature of the act is irrelevant.

Having said that let me add that we cannot take heedless risks simply because we hope for the best and we cannot ignore possible harmful side effects … but, if we make reasonable choices and act out of a good intent, then no matter how badly things turn out we have not committed a sin. If immigration is as you claim a moral issue, then under what conditions can my actions be determined to be immoral?

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, I think they are. Unless the act is itself intrinsically evil then the only thing that can make an action immoral is ones intent and intent is not in any way related specifically to issues. Abortion is always wrong regardless of intent. Anything can be sinful if ones intent is immoral, the nature of the act is irrelevant.

Having said that let me add that we cannot take heedless risks simply because we hope for the best and we cannot ignore possible harmful side effects … but, if we make reasonable choices and act out of a good intent, then no matter how badly things turn out we have not committed a sin. If immigration is as you claim a moral issue, then under what conditions can my actions be determined to be immoral?

Ender

Can you give me one (or more) explicit example of where the Catholic Church teaches that moral issues are only those that involve intrinsic evils? Thanks.

 

[Ender]

Can you give me one (or more) explicit example of where the Catholic Church teaches that moral issues are only those that involve intrinsic evils? Thanks.

No. I am basing my position on what she teaches about morality itself and what is involved in determining whether an action is moral or immoral. There are three aspects that determine morality: the object chosen, the intent, and the circumstances. Circumstances, however, “of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves”, leaving only the object chosen and the intent. The only way an issue can be a moral question is when it deals with intrinsic evil, otherwise the morality of ones action is determined exclusively by ones intent; the nature of the object chosen - the issue - contributes nothing and if the nature of the issue contributes nothing to the morality of the act it can hardly be said to be a moral issue.

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

No. I am basing my position on what she teaches about morality itself and what is involved in determining whether an action is moral or immoral. There are three aspects that determine morality: the object chosen, the intent, and the circumstances. Circumstances, however, “of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves”, leaving only the object chosen and the intent. The only way an issue can be a moral question is when it deals with intrinsic evil, otherwise the morality of ones action is determined exclusively by ones intent; the nature of the object chosen - the issue - contributes nothing and if the nature of the issue contributes nothing to the morality of the act it can hardly be said to be a moral issue.

Ender

You seem to misunderstand Catholic moral teaching.

The fact that circumstances “of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves” in no way is equivalent to saying that only “intrinsically evil” acts are “moral” acts according to Catholic teaching.

You are not in agreement with Catholic teaching if you hold that the only way an issue can be a moral question is when it deals with an intrinsic evil.

I’ve given you numerous examples of where Catholic teaching agrees with such.

Do you have any…even one…clear and definitive example of official, authentic, Magisterial teaching that supports your claim (as I understand it) that the only “moral” issues for Catholics are those defined (by the Magisterium…I presume?) as “intrinsically evil”?

Thanks.

 

[Ender]

The fact that circumstances “of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves” in no way is equivalent to saying that only “intrinsically evil” acts are “moral” acts according to Catholic teaching.

I have not said this; you need to read my comments more carefully. The morality of an act is determined by the nature of the act itself (if it is intrinsically immoral) and by the intent. That determines the morality of an ***act ***- the morality of an ***issue ***is determined solely by its nature since an issue has no intent associated with it. Individuals have intentions, issues do not.

You are not in agreement with Catholic teaching if you hold that the only way an issue can be a moral question is when it deals with an intrinsic evil.

You claim that immigration is a moral issue but you are unable to explain how it is possible to sin when addressing the problem. We know when someone sins with regard to a position on abortion but we do not know when someone sins with regard to a position on immigration. There is a position one can take on abortion that is sinful but there is no such sinful position on immigration; we are free to support whatever approach we believe will best resolve the problem.

Do you have any…even one…clear and definitive example of official, authentic, Magisterial teaching that supports your claim (as I understand it) that the only “moral” issues for Catholics are those defined (by the Magisterium…I presume?) as “intrinsically evil”?

I have already said no to this question. My position is based on what the Church teaches about the nature of morality and what constitutes a moral act. She is silent on what constitutes a moral issue.

Ender

 

[sidbrown]

You seem to misunderstand Catholic moral teaching.

The fact that circumstances “of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves” in no way is equivalent to saying that only “intrinsically evil” acts are “moral” acts according to Catholic teaching.

You are not in agreement with Catholic teaching if you hold that the only way an issue can be a moral question is when it deals with an intrinsic evil.

I’ve given you numerous examples of where Catholic teaching agrees with such.

Do you have any…even one…clear and definitive example of official, authentic, Magisterial teaching that supports your claim (as I understand it) that the only “moral” issues for Catholics are those defined (by the Magisterium…I presume?) as “intrinsically evil”?

Thanks.

How does this relate to the question of immigration. Some Catholics are in favor of illegal immigration, while others are opposed.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have not said this; you need to read my comments more carefully. The morality of an act is determined by the nature of the act itself (if it is intrinsically immoral) and by the intent. That determines the morality of an ***act ***- the morality of an ***issue ***is determined solely by its nature since an issue has no intent associated with it. Individuals have intentions, issues do not.

Sorry if I didn’t read carefully enough. Thank you for further explaining. The nature of an act can determine whether an act is objectively right or wrong, or neutral. That is related to but distinct from whether an individual committing said act is sinning or not.

You claim that immigration is a moral issue but you are unable to explain how it is possible to sin when addressing the problem.

I don’t claim it, I am merely sharing what the U.S. Bishops say. They say it’s a moral issue.

We know when someone sins with regard to a position on abortion but we do not know when someone sins with regard to a position on immigration. There is a position one can take on abortion that is sinful but there is no such sinful position on immigration; we are free to support whatever approach we believe will best resolve the problem.

No, we don’t know for sure, necessarily, when someone sins with regard to a position on abortion. Only God and the individual know that. We know that abortion is always wrong. Just because “immigration” is not an intrinsic evil does not mean Catholics are free to support whatever approach. A Catholic’s approach to the issue should be guided by Catholic teaching. Which may or may not cohere with an individual’s preferences or opinions. This is the point of the Catholic Church’s teaching on conscience. People are always bound to follow their conscience, but Catholics are also bound to properly form their conscience.

I have already said no to this question. My position is based on what the Church teaches about the nature of morality and what constitutes a moral act. She is silent on what constitutes a moral issue.

No, the Catholic Church is not silent on what constitutes a moral issue.

 

[diggerdomer]

How does this relate to the question of immigration. Some Catholics are in favor of illegal immigration, while others are opposed.

Read the posts I am responding to. That’s how it relates.