OK - position 2 was to incarcerate the children along with their parents. I think to an extent we do that; the problem is that the “extent” is limited by law.Obviously # 2. And it seems like this is the new plan moving forward in response to the deserved outage.
This is where we disagree: I don’t see this as a moral issue any more than a doctor’s decision on how best to treat a serious illness is a moral issue. I see the concern as deciding what the best solution is for this problem. Where is the moral choice in that? You may see the solution as obvious, but it is far from obvious to me. You and I may have diametrically opposed solutions, and surely at least one of those solutions will be wrong, but when did it become immoral to make a mistake?You do understand this is not a political issue for these bishops, right? You do understand that this is not about politics but about morality? You do understand that your bishops jobs are to save your soul?
It is if a statement is to be considered doctrinal. That is exactly how the church works. There are no doctrines unique to the US that are inapplicable elsewhere, and the opinions of some US bishops do not suffice to determine what is or is not doctrine.The world? That is not how the Church works.
What is the moral period of time that children should be incarcerated with their parents? One month? Six months? Two years? Where is the church doctrine that sets that time span? If there is no doctrine specifying this then the length of time is a prudential choice, not a moral one.In case you have missed it the entire point of this discussion is talking about how the law is wrong in the law needs to be changed.
We disagree on what is “necessary”, which, again, is a prudential judgment, not a moral absolute.If you cannot comprehend that separating children from their parents unnecessarily is a moral issue then I don’t really know how to help you. I don’t know how to explain to you that you should have empathy for other people.
I take it you are not a bishop. Well, you have your opinion. I also take it you cannot find a single bishop to support your opinion. No one else has either.It is if a statement is to be considered doctrinal. That is exactly how the church works. There are no doctrines unique to the US that are inapplicable elsewhere, and the opinions of some US bishops do not suffice to determine what is or is not doctrine.
Why don’t you explain the relationship between a bishop’s comments and doctrine. Is everything an individual bishop proclaims doctrinal? How many bishops must take the same position on a matter for it to be considered a doctrine? One? Ten? Three hundred? How do we know which of their comments represent doctrines and which are prudential judgments? I’m willing to bet that their political opinions are not in fact doctrinal obligations, but are prudential judgments, with which we may in fact disagree.I take it you are not a bishop. Well, you have your opinion. I also take it you cannot find a single bishop to support your opinion. No one else has either.
2207 The family is the original cell of social life.Why don’t you explain the relationship between a bishop’s comments and doctrine.
All is a good number. I noticed you did not tell me which bishop has said otherwise.How many bishops must take the same position on a matter for it to be considered a doctrine?
I do not think that means what you think it means. There may be more than one moral position, but taking an immoral position, as is this policy of Trump’s, is not an exercise of prudence (a virtue), but of sin.but are prudential judgments
There is nothing here that explains how immigration laws should be implemented. Either children can never be separated from their parents or, depending on circumstances, such separation is allowed, and that judgment is prudential. There is no doctrine that specifies this, the comments of various bishops notwithstanding, which means - as I have been insisting - that these judgments are proper for the laity to make.2207 …
2209 …
2221 …
You have this exactly backwards. One bishop’s comments do not become universal if no other bishop objects to them; they have weight solely in his own diocese except where they are explicitly accepted by another bishop. Nothing said by bishop A places any obligation on the members of Bishop B’s diocese. Silence assuredly does not mean assent.All is a good number. I noticed you did not tell me which bishop has said otherwise.
Prudence is not the same as opinion, yet that is how it is present in modern American Catholicism. It is a virtue that presupposes the other virtues. It is choosing between moral options using what is right, that is, moral doctrine. Therefore, prudence cannot exist outside of morality.1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going. Keep sane and sober for your prayers.” Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure.
If Trump wanted to change the law, he should, to use his own logic against him. What he is doing is not mandated under law.The executive is obliged to enforce just laws.
First, this is not a “policy of Trump’s”. It is federal law. Second, you assert that incarcerating children with parents for only 20 days is immoral (which is what the law requires), but you haven’t told us what the moral length of time is. What number of days does doctrine require children be locked up before they can be separated, and which doctrine specifies that number?I do not think that means what you think it means. There may be more than one moral position, but taking an immoral position, as is this policy of Trump’s, is not an exercise of prudence (a virtue), but of sin.
Since just laws were mentioned, another example of prudence would be the exercise of Catholic Social Doctrine. There are a myriad ways of implementing a preferential option for the poor. There are no moral options for a preferential option against the poor, or for the wealthy, hence the current immoral position of our immigration policy.So in politics, just because a broad spectrum of moral options might be available, and remains as prudence, there is an even broader spectrum of immoral, options, that will never be moral or prudent. Closing our minds to those who are the teachers of morality is a sure way to sear the conscience with the brand of partisanship, developing the anti-virtue of imprudence in place of the virtue of prudence.
“When,” “and,” are operative words. No, when Americans violate the law at this same level they are not taken away to jail and their kids incarcerated, or sent to CPS. I keep saying this over and over. The law allows for discretion and real police do not arrest people on such minor violations if it involves something so extreme. Remember this next time you are pulled over for a violation and you kids aren’t removed screaming from your car. This, like every other argument, eventually ends with the difference being, “I’m American, their not,” like the tax thing. Justice is when humans are treated with equal humanity, even though different laws apply.When Americans commit a crime and go to jail, their kids don’t stay with them.