U.S. Catholic bishops are considering punishing Catholics who enforce Trump's immigration policy

[Arkansan]

No. They are not always separated on the spot for minor offenses.

Any time a person with a child is arrested, the kid is taken by the authorities. That is always the case because we can’t put kids in jail for their parents’ crimes. What happens from there depends, as you say, on the availability of other relatives.

If the argument is that illegal entry should not result in a criminal arrest, then that is the argument that should be made. Making it about the kids is a way of getting people emotional and clouding their rational judgment.

 

[Luke6_37]

That issue is not this issue. I don’t think anyone would have thought a country would be doing what we are doing in this day and time. My priest today spoke on this and said that it was not a matter of opinion. Any support of this action is immoral. Period.

Our leadership has perpetrated an grave evil.

I am going to ask my priest if he got any backlash from it, not that it matters. He has never, ever spoken up or taken a position on what a politician does or does not do, until this. This week may well go down in history as one of the lowest points our nation hit since the Japanese internment camps, which most said we learned from and would never do again.

So in the next few years, at the midterm, and the next presidential election, I will see if Americans, and American Catholics, really are different than people from history that gave evil a chance to spread.

I feel the same way. These are dark days.

 

[Luke6_37]

Making it about the kids is a way of getting people emotional and clouding their rational judgment.

It wasn’t about the kids until Trump began arresting the parents. Now it’s about the kids.

 

[abucs]

Thus, it is my belief, that for the sake…………

of justice.

 

[abucs]

So in the next few years, at the midterm, and the next presidential election, I will see if Americans, and American Catholics, really are different than people from history that gave evil a chance to spread.

It is the insane hysteria of seeing Trump as evil which is a real concern.

It is the induced hysteria of emotionalised fake new media campaigns which is a real concern.

I pray Catholics vote accordingly.

 

[abucs]

Any time a person with a child is arrested , the kid is taken by the authorities. That is always the case because we can’t put kids in jail for their parents’ crimes. What happens from there depends, as you say, on the availability of other relatives.

If the argument is that illegal entry should not result in a criminal arrest, then that is the argument that should be made. Making it about the kids is a way of getting people emotional and clouding their rational judgment.

Yes absolutely. The parents are putting the kids at risk of temporary trauma by disrespecting American law and breaking it.

The American authorities are housing, feeding and I presume in some cases clothing children who have been lured across the border to break American law for whatever reason.

The American authorities have the very real problem of child trafficking to deal with and to their credit they have put in place processes to protect such children.

People are reacting here as if the Trump administration are wringing their hands in glee saying “Goodie we can get to separate children from their parents”.

That is insane.

 

[pnewton]

Any time a person with a child is arrested , the kid is taken by the authorities.

I can tell you aren’t in law enforcement, nor an English teacher. I said they aren’t separated for minor offenses. They are not always arrested, as the law does not mandate an arrest in ever situation, as in this case of borders stops. It is the part of the law, which allows for discretion for this very reason. Not arresting is also complying with the law in all cases, except where a request is required. The difference between “Can” and “must” are have caused no end of confusion. Never try police work if the difference is not understood.

 

[pnewton]

fake new media campaigns

My concern is that people have heard this term so much they have lost the ability to discern truth. Discernment of truth based on whether a story or supposed fact is supportive of Trump, that is, everything negative is “fake news”, is just as ignorant as swallowing every negative story about him. In this case, the basic elements in the story are not in question or denied.

I guess some view all the bishops, most with more education than they have, as ignorant buffoons.

 

[abucs]

My concern is that people have heard this term so much they have lost the ability to discern truth. Discernment of truth based on whether a story or supposed fact is supportive of Trump, that is, everything negative is “fake news”, is just as ignorant as swallowing every negative story about him. In this case, the basic elements in the story are not in question or denied.

You have introduced something new here. Nobody would argue that fake news is simply based on whether you support someone or not. That being said, the hysteria that propels fake news is overwhelmingly coming from the side out of power who are shocked they lost the election and realising their credibility is being lost, probably irreversibly so.

The hysteria is not coming from basic elements of a story but emotionalising narratives. That is the fake news that must be stared down and thwarted.

No one wants to see kids separated from their parents. Everyone regrets it where it is necessary. The disagreement is on whether and for how long it is necessary.

There is no evil there in the basic elements but in the hysterical emotionalised narrative that would wish to see the other as evil. .

 

[pnewton]

There is no evil there in the basic elements

While my disagreement is nothing, I would think that one would have to consider the declaration that this is an immoral practice by those who know moral theology worth considering, unless one is going to disregard all moral authority of the Catholic Church.

Note in the above sentence, the “where it is necessary” is the sticking point. It is not legally necessary, nor is it morally necessary. If one opens a concentration camp, then it might be necessary for control to separate the children. Yet in the opening of the camp, the whole practice became immoral.

 

[abucs]

Yes but these are not concentration camps and that is part of the emotionalising narrative rather than the basic elements.

You have illegal tresspassers being caught (or presenting themselves) at the border with a variety of situations. There are child smugglers, there are children travelling alone, there are families and part families etc. If you are going to protect the borders then you need to take people who are breaking the law into custody. You then have a question of if and when you separate children.

There is no evil in that situation. There may be a moral problem in separating children from parents but you first have to process everyone to know who is who.

I have not read the bishop’s statement but what I would strongly suggest is that if they have problems with the process then they can donate their own resources to ensure the well being of children especially to those children who have no adults accompanying them. To do that they need to go down to the border and volunteer to look after these children. They should not be paid by the state to do this. That presents it own problems.

Further, they should seriously talk to their brother bishops in South America to castigate parents who send their children alone to the United States. That is immoral, no question about it. They should further criticise people for breaking the American law and seriously look at their role in the countries of origin to see what they could do better so there is reduced incentive to create this problem in the first place.

 

[Arkansan]

As I have said several times before, if you have an argument for why illegal entry should not result in a criminal arrest, please present it.

“The law doesn’t require it” isn’t a valid argument, since that is true of nearly any crime. Only a handful of crimes are subject to “must-arrest” rules.

 

[Ender]

However, at least women are now rightly seen as equal to men & created perfectly in the image of God. She is the helper not only in procreation but in works as well.

As you said, Aquinas’ knowledge of biology was deficient. As to woman’s equality with man in the image of God, not so much.

The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. Hence after the words, “To the image of God He created him,” it is added, “Male and female He created them” (Gn. 1:27). (ST I 93,4 ad 1)

Given that he believed women were created equally with men in the image of God it would seem his beliefs were not as heretical as you suggested.

Better, but still faulty as it continues to ignore that Jesus chose women to be his companions and apostles as well.

It was not Aquinas who ignored this point but only the sources that you cited.

But Christ appeared to the woman first, for this reason, that as a woman was the first to bring the source of death to man, so she might be the first to announce the dawn of Christ’s glorious Resurrection. Hence Cyril says on Jn. 20:17: “Woman who formerly was the minister of death, is the first to see and proclaim the adorable mystery of the Resurrection: thus womankind has procured absolution from ignominy, and removal of the curse.” Hereby, moreover, it is shown, so far as the state of glory is concerned, that the female sex shall suffer no hurt; but if women burn with greater charity, they shall also attain greater glory from the Divine vision: because the women whose love for our Lord was more persistent - so much so that “when even the disciples withdrew” from the sepulchre “they did not depart” (ST III 55, 1 ad 3)

 

[Ender]

My priest today spoke on this and said that it was not a matter of opinion. Any support of this action is immoral. Period.

Our leadership has perpetrated an grave evil.

I am going to ask my priest if he got any backlash from it, not that it matters. He has never, ever spoken up or taken a position on what a politician does or does not do, until this. This week may well go down in history as one of the lowest points our nation hit since the Japanese internment camps, which most said we learned from and would never do again.

What is astonishing is how easily reasonably intelligent people can be manipulated. What is going on at the border is federal law and has been (indifferently) enforced for decades. The only things different between what is happening now and what happened in the past is (a) the massive increase in numbers of children being brought across the border, and (b) Trump is president. Apparently this kind of action wasn’t immoral or a grave evil when it was performed under presidents Bush and Obama. Whatever the media proclaims the bulk of the public seems willing to accept.

 

[abucs]

What is astonishing is how easily reasonably intelligent people can be manipulated. What is going on at the border is federal law and has been (indifferently) enforced for decades. The only things different between what is happening now and what happened in the past is (a) the massive increase in numbers of children being brought across the border, and (b) Trump is president. Apparently this kind of action wasn’t immoral or a grave evil when it was performed under presidents Bush and Obama. Whatever the media proclaims the bulk of the public seems willing to accept.

You can further make the case that it was immoral of past administrations to have such lax detaining rules regarding children that it encouraged such an increase in unaccompanied minors. There is no reason why the bishops should not proclaim that as an immoral situation. Such policies led to murder and rape and exploitation before you even get to its impact on the U.S.

Murder, rape and exploitation is not a feature of the current administrations program. Therefore it is quite clear that the bishops have a moral duty based on honesty to criticise the mess that past administrations left this white house and to call the present administration’s policies an improvement.

To fail to do that makes the bishops look political

Murder, rape and exploitation of children are a far worse moral hazard than temporarily separating children from parents. That was the reality of past administration’s lax rules encouraging children to fall prey to such (real) horrors by luring them northwards.

 

[Ender]

You can further make the case that it was immoral of past administrations to have such lax detaining rules regarding children that it encouraged such an increase in unaccompanied minors.

I think there is good reason to believe the massive increase in the number of accompanied children crossing into the US was the expectation, based on previous practices, that this would mean an essentially risk free entry. “Parents” (or whoever showed up in possession of a child) were in the past given a “desk appearance” and told to show up later for the adjudication of their claim to asylum. A child, essentially, is a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card.

 

[abucs]

Yes this is the reality that the Trump administration is trying to fix. It is a clear improvement with what went before and it is not addressed on fake news.

As I said, I have not read the bishops report but we would hope they would rise above the fake news narrative.

 

[pnewton]

I have not read the bishop’s statement but…

At this point I have to bail on the reasoning. How can you comment on the bishop’s moral statements, Dinardo’s, Dolan’s, Francis’, etc., without having read any of them. Furthermore, as a Catholic website, any moral position that ignores the Church should not be even considered here. I would hope that others will see that this sort of thing is the result of an opinion apart from the Catholic Church, and not confuse it as some legitimate Catholic position.

why illegal entry should not result in a criminal arrest, please present it.

Sure. Because an immediate arrest costs more than it is worth. That would be one reason. A basic violation of human decency is another reason. On the border, then we could continue to hold people here immediately, together, and fly out of the country in a few days. For those caught out side of the 100 mile strip, then they could be held just long enough either get details on family, relatives, living, working, etc., or in the case of those totally alone, electronic monitoring can be used, as it is already in so many other situations. We currently have 7 million Americans already on some type of monitoring or probation.

 

[abucs]

At this point I have to bail on the reasoning. How can you comment on the bishop’s moral statements, Dinardo’s, Dolan’s, Francis’, etc., without having read any of them.

I am not commentating on their statements. I have said repeatedly that I have not read them. My comments are clearly addressing other points raised on this thread as well as my opinions on what they should be considering regarding this issue.

There is nowhere where I said the bishop said so and so and here is my reaction to those comments.

 

[pnewton]

Whatever the media proclaims the bulk of the public seems willing to accept.

Again, this thread is about what the Catholic Church is saying, not “the media.”

Of course Obama, and the Democrats as a whole, are to blame, at least for their own lack of action. They too had a majority and failed to act to bring about any sort of immigration reform. For that matter, the Tea Party movement shares a little blame for insisting on such un-American inflexibility that has blinded us to compromise and the ability to work together.