USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[LeafByNiggle]

pnewton:

Yet again, you did not post any bishop that has said this action , this removal by force of children from their parents for being in our country, is anything but immoral, or that it is is a matter of opinion that Catholics may disagree on. I asked for this from the first release of Cardinal Dinardo’s statement. I will not answer while I remain unanswered, and feed into that sort of misdirection.

I have pointed out before that you have the significance of these statements backwards: they don’t have meaning unless they are contradicted by another bishop, they have meaning solely if they are expressly approved of by another bishop, and then only in his diocese.

“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” (Cardinal Ratzinger)

If this is true of comments coming from the USCCB, it is equally true of political comments from random bishops. One bishop does not speak for another.

Yet doesn’t it give you the least bit pause to consider that all the bishops that have spoken on the issue have spoken against you and none of them have spoken in defense of your position?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

pnewton:

This in response to the Good Samaritan? I guess if one can blow off Jesus, blowing off the bishops is not such a big deal.

Actually this was in response to a comment that, like yours, is completely irrelevant to the problem. Yet again there is absolutely no recognition of the nature of the actual problem we face.

Your focus exclusively on problems “we” face to the exclusion of problems the “others” face is disturbing.

 

[Ender]

We cannot simply open our borders to the point we have no border. That is one thing we cannot morally do for the safety of citizens. We cannot separate children from the parents like we are doing, which is something we cannot morally do.

Finally we see both sides of the issue. The bishops have focused on the second issue without acknowledging that resolving it on their terms essentially means accepting the first (unacceptable) situation. This is why I reject their opinions on the matter; they speak as if there was only one concern when in fact there are two and one can only be solved at the expense of the other.

 

[Ender]

Yet doesn’t it give you the least bit pause to consider that all the bishops that have spoken on the issue have spoken against you and none of them have spoken in defense of your position?

Either their position is defensible or it isn’t, and even you haven’t tried to defend it. Why should I?

 

[pnewton]

Criticizing the parable of the Good Samaritan as heart-tugging is an action that needed to be pointed out. Here is how this contributes.

Posters here are anonymous. There is no way to know who is basing their arguments in Christianity, who is the utilitarian, who is the moral relativist, or who is the troll. When Jesus is quoted, and his teaching presented, a Christian can argue that the parable does not apply. Maybe he is right, or maybe he is not. However, to argue that the teaching is just an emotional appeal that Jesus used can reveal that even that which Jesus taught must give way to something, either politics, expediency, prosperity, etc.

I have the same concern when virtue is dismissed as inconvenient. Belittling compassion and charity is a tactic that contributes nothing to the discussion, but much to my understanding of the one making the comments. I am not talking about prudence being used in how we are compassionate, but of actually dismissing compassion.

Think of how Jesus worked. There were times when he had things to do, (my time has not come, I came for the sheep of Israel, etc.) and yet he was moved by his compassion to act. This is a model for all of us, especially when it moves us out of where we are headed, politically or physically.

We do our best to discern what God wants in everything. One tool I use is the spiritual test of Galatians 5:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

When I see a position, or action that runs counter to this, it is not one I can support. Enforcement of the law, must be done within this context to remain moral.

 

[o_mlly]

The Samaritan on the road to Jericho had concerns too. He ended up much poorer having spent all he did on the man beaten by robbers. But the victim on the road was clearly worse off then him.

Remember that the Samaritan took the man to a hotel; not to his home. This gospel parable addresses the obligation to provide foreign aid, not immigration.

 

[pnewton]

People will complain if children are incarcerated with their parents.

I don’t. Having posted on this quite a bit, I would have no problem holding them together for a short time, to either deport them, if that is what the law permits, which it does, of release them for appearance later, doing the best to assure their re-appearance. Lest the latter seem ridiculously unrealistic, I submit that for $600 a day, per child, I am sure a better alternative can be found. Let us say there is an average of 2 children per family, kept for six months awaiting deportation hearing. That is $216,000. Are you saying they cannot either be tracked for that much?

 

[Sarcelle]

Fair enough.

However, such a phrase as “blowing off Jesus”, to me implies a judgment of the poster’s spiritual state. However with anonymous posters as you said yourself there is no way to discern someone’s spiritual state from a post.

It also is hard to read tone into the written word so if you say you are judging the post instead of the poster, there still is a margin of error when part of the conversation, tone, is not available.

 

[pnewton]

However, such a phrase as “blowing off Jesus”, to me implies a judgment of the poster’s spiritual state.

That is an action, not a state, as a point of grammar.

 

[Sarcelle]

Okay.

We are in agreement.

 

[Sarcelle]

An action that is the fruit of a spiritual state.

 

[Augustinian]

submit that for $600 a day, per child, I am sure a better alternative can be found

You are right on this.

In Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Arpaio was very cost effective in running his tent city with thousands of inmates. The current high priced solutions that ICE inherited can and should be replaced.

 

[Ender]

Belittling compassion and charity is a tactic that contributes nothing to the discussion, but much to my understanding of the one making the comments. I am not talking about prudence being used in how we are compassionate, but of actually dismissing compassion.

I think you need to try just a little harder to understand what has been said. My comment was not belittling compassion, charity, or the parable. It was specifically about that story being irrelevant in the context of this situation. Yes, we all know that the situation of the illegals is difficult, but let’s stop debating the situation as if that was the only problem, and that ramping up compassion for half of the problem is no substitute for an honest examination of all aspects of the problem.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Yet doesn’t it give you the least bit pause to consider that all the bishops that have spoken on the issue have spoken against you and none of them have spoken in defense of your position?

Either their position is defensible or it isn’t, and even you haven’t tried to defend it. Why should I?

To defend the bishops’s position to you would assume we have a common set of values that is more fundamental than the bishops themselves. As far as I know, the only common set of values we have in common is allegiance to the God through the Catholic faith. So either the bishops represent this faith or they don’t. I don’t know what to say to someone who claims that the Catholic bishops do not represent the Catholic faith.

 

[Sarcelle]

I agree.
Compassion should not be disregarded but it should not stop there.

Compassion by itself does not solve problems. Before solving problems one should define what the problem is and identify probable root cause or causes. Doing so does not demean compassion in any way.

 

[o_mlly]

I asked for this from the first release of Cardinal Dinardo’s statement.

Did you read the link the good Cardinal’s referenced as the reason he takes umbrage?

“TVPRA and Exploited Loopholes Affecting Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC).”

As the link relates to the horrific problems of the present system of resettlement (UAC ending up in gangs and prostitution rings), I cannot see how speeding up a failed system will make the children safer. Some confusion at USCCB on this issue.

 

[Ender]

To defend the bishops’s position to you would assume we have a common set of values that is more fundamental than the bishops themselves.

Not at all: this isn’t about our values, but about our knowledge of the situation. It has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with determining the best overall solution to a difficult problem. We are faced with extremely difficult choices that affect peoples’ lives, but that does not make them moral choices. What will happen if we do X as opposed to Y? What can we expect will be the consequences of choosing this approach as opposed to that one?

The real problem is that we have two competing concerns, and solving one of them is going to come at the expense of the other. The actual debate ought to be about where to draw the line between them, but if one looked solely at the bishops’ statements one would never know a second concern even exists.

 

[pnewton]

(UAC ending up in gangs and prostitution rings)

Consider the number one reason why kids end up in gangs, that is seeking a sense of belonging that is lacking in families. So stripping them from their families will have a predictable effect of leaving them with this need to belong. Trump is going to make a bunch of future MS13 types with a deep hatred of America.

 

[Sarcelle]

The poster was talking about unaccompanied minors being victims of gangs and trafficking. No parents to separate them from.

 

[pnewton]

I knew that. I was just making a point about the topic.

@Ender pointed out that the bishops are only addressing one topic. I know immigration reform is a broad issue, which can be broken down into dozens of smaller issues, including unaccompanied minors. Most of these issues, while having moral components, also allow for much greater diversity of opinion within what is considered moral.