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

  • Thread starter Thread starter anikins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here are Dolan’s comments, and these don’t strike me as evidence of deep moral thinking.

“If they want to take a baby from the arms of his mother and separate the two, that’s wrong. I don’t care where you’re at, what time and what condition, that just goes against … you don’t have to read the Bible for that. That goes against human decency."

This is simply false and everyone knows it. No matter the condition? Is he suggesting that a mother with a baby is immune to prosecution for criminal activity? Either that or he wants the baby put in the system with all the other inmates.

"You don’t have to be a believer to know this is not right to take a baby from its mother and say, `Get lost and I don’t know when you’ll see your baby again.’ Not good. Not American. Not human. Not biblical.”

Again, this description in no way reflects the reality of the situation. It is preposterous on its face. First, if the “parent” accepts deportation, the family is immediately deported…together. So if the adult is in fact told to “get lost” the baby is not removed; they all go back together. Only if the adult claims the right of asylum is the child removed from the “parent”, and then only after the 20 day period of common incarceration is exceeded. That is, it is federal law that children cannot be held for more than 20 days.

Cardinal Dolan’s comments are…well, I can’t accurately describe them without getting into serious trouble with the administrators. Suffice it to say they bear little resemblance to the actual situation.
 
pnewton said:
Again, this thread is about what the Catholic Church is saying, not “the media.”
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has said nothing, and in fact has nothing to say on the specifics of US immigration law. The comments of various individual bishops cannot be taken to be expressions of “The Church”. They are political observations, not moral conclusions, despite the fact that bishops are making them.
 
Ender said:
"You don’t have to be a believer to know this is not right to take a baby from its mother and say, `Get lost and I don’t know when you’ll see your baby again.’ Not good. Not American. Not human. Not biblical.”
………
Cardinal Dolan’s comments are…well, I can’t accurately describe them without getting into serious trouble with the administrators. Suffice it to say they bear little resemblance to the actual situation.
Click to expand...
omg, perhaps it is just as well people are not listening.

I know the bishop has lots on his plate and is a quality individual doing much more for the church than many of us combined.

But in such a media led politically polarised time may I humbly suggest, if this is accurate, this response needs to have more honesty and much more thought.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
The Catholic Church has said nothing,
Click to expand...
Only if one defines the Catholic Church as including nothing contemporary and current, and excludes the Pope as head of the Catholic Church. Your Church definition is not mine, the one founded and lead by the successor to Peter and the other apostles.

I will also not dismiss her founder who said that what we do to these families, the children, the parents, the least of His children, we do to Him. How in the world is this rationalized?
Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father… I was a stranger and you invited me in,… “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we… see you a stranger and invite you in, … “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was a stranger and you did not invite me in,… “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see a stranger … and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
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.
Click to expand...
The argument for criminal prosecution is that it deters illegal entry. Any counterargument to that?

The argument that criminal law enforcement is inhumane is not valid because it could be used for any crime.
 
Arkansan said:
The argument that criminal law enforcement is inhumane is not valid because it could be used for any crime
Click to expand...
Traffic tickets?

This very question is not how morality works. Inhumanity is inhumanity in all cases. It takes something more grave to justify it any action that is inhumane.
Arkansan said:
The argument for criminal prosecution is that it deters illegal entry.
Click to expand...
No, other than it is speculative. After all, we still have drugs, people who drive drunk, etc. Remember the scenes from 9/11 as the towers burned before they jumped? Falling to one’s death deters people from jumping out a window. But if the fire gets hot enough, then the deterrence is not that great. Getting a quick trip back under the current law within 100 miles of the border, would have to be weighed against the motivation for coming to determine if their is a deterrence.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Getting a quick trip back under the current law within 100 miles of the border, would have to be weighed against the motivation for coming to determine if their is a deterrence.
Click to expand...
Precisely. And if that doesn’t provide sufficient deterrence then criminal penalties are needed. I don’t have a definite opinion on the matter, though it’s telling that only one side wants to address this.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Only if one defines the Catholic Church as including nothing contemporary and current, and excludes the Pope as head of the Catholic Church. Your Church definition is not mine, the one founded and lead by the successor to Peter and the other apostles.
Click to expand...
If your definition of “The Church” includes every word out of a bishop’s mouth then you have to include the comments of those bishops who colluded in molesting children. The only way to exclude their comments from being considered “the church” is to acknowledge the fairly obvious point that in fact their opinions, just like those of the bishops you support, are their own and in no way should be mistaken for church doctrines.
I will also not dismiss her founder who said that what we do to these families, the children, the parents, the least of His children, we do to Him. How in the world is this rationalized?
Click to expand...
Again and again you conflate guidelines with policies and inaccurately insist that a disagreement over policies represents a rejection of the guidelines, and you keep presenting guidelines as if that alone justified particular policies. Nothing you have presented necessitates a moral condemnation of the current law. “Catch and release” is not mandated by the church (the real one, not the one you think is represented by the political opinions of several of her bishops).
 
pnewton said:
Traffic tickets?

This very question is not how morality works. Inhumanity is inhumanity in all cases. It takes something more grave to justify it any action that is inhumane.
Click to expand...
I just got back from a lengthy road trip, and passing through a work zone on an interstate I was struck by a sign that said the penalty for reckless driving was up to six years in jail. Perhaps you should recognize that “traffic tickets” come in all different levels of severity, and that the “it’s only a traffic ticket” argument is not as compelling as you think.
 
Look I can’t comment much on the Cardinals performance without risking the same reaction from CAF that you mentioned.

I wrote out a long list of complaints regarding his performance but I am not going to post it because it is very critical on several levels.

Welcoming the stranger is not facilitating the ongoing and never ending movement of millions of people crossing international boundaries. Trumps efforts to stop a clear breaking of law to protect America is erroneously summarised as ripping babies from mothers arms and telling them to get lost. So angry with that performance. I’ll know not to look to him for intelligent and honest analysis in the future.

Thanks for posting.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top