USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[Augustinian]

As for his deal-making ability, so far he has given away a concession to cease military exercises with South Korea without notifying South Korea and has gotten vague weak goals in return

A very minor concession. And you’ll remember, President Trump achieved the release of several hostages without spending a dime’s worth of money on ransom.

Needless to say, I don’t know whether we will have peace with Korea or not. A lot of that has to do with how stable the North Koreans think the US Government is. If the don’t think that President Trump will have the authority to deliver, it makes it less possible.

But I can personally see North Korea renouncing evil and embracing freedom, top developers building resorts and other development in Pyongyang, maybe the capital will get its own Trump International property.

And I can’t see the negativity to that.

 

[Ender]

2241 Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions

The public policy positions of the USCCB have been in keeping with the Catechism and the encyclicals and official exhortations of the Popes.

Let’s be clear about this: the church has no public policy positions. Despite the fact that the USCCB and various individual bishops have expressed a policy preference, what we are dealing with is the implementation of policies that have to address both the needs of the immigrant and the needs of the country, something the catechism doesn’t ignore even though the bishops have given it scant consideration.

The positions held by rank-and-file Catholics don’t hold themselves to that standard.

Everyone whose position is based on a real desire to do what is best within the guidelines set out by the church acts morally. There is no moral distinction to be made.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The purpose of the bishops is first and foremost to speak the truth.

Key word here is Truth.

Separating children from their parents is not always immoral. Human trafficking is always immoral. Terrorism is always immoral.

The Bishops have spoken out on all three.

 

[PetraG]

The Bishops have spoken out on all three.

They don’t get a lot of attention, though. They’re too conservative on some issues, too liberal on others, and all the news outlets find them–eewww!–too “religious” on just everything! Plus, they don’t go for the idea that everyone has the right to a different truth, which makes them very rude, indeed. They have corrections to make for every political party, which really hurts their popularity. If they would just take a side and quit writing these long nuanced statements with footnotes and something in every one of them to make everyone unhappy instead of turning out accusatory shoot-from-the-hip sound bites meant to make their “opponents” look bad, like every who is popular does, they’d get far more attention.

Part of the problem with our political system is that (a) candidates who talk like the bishops have so much trouble getting past their primaries and (b) let us face it, the reporters for every outlet like to get quotes from elected officials who will get them a click-bait headline. Elected officials who are only offering nuanced views that are respectful of those they disagree with do not sell.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let’s be clear about this: the church has no public policy positions.

You must be defining “public policy” very narrowly, because the Church certainly does have a lot to say about public policies, in the Cathechism and in various other official documents.

 

[Ender]

You must be defining “public policy” very narrowly, because the Church certainly does have a lot to say about public policies, in the Cathechism and in various other official documents.

I have a careful definition: the church presents us with guidelines, objectives toward which we are to strive. She identifies the ends, but she does not discuss the means. She does not give us policies or suggest specific approaches for the implementation of those objectives. As I’ve said before, she tells us to “heal the sick”, she does not tell us to support a specific form of healthcare. We are to “help the poor”, but this doesn’t mean we have to support raising the minimum wage.

Politics is about implementing policies for the resolution of public problems, and the church has spoken of our obligations, but it is individual bishops - not the church - who have spoken out on public policies. Nor will you find anything whatever in the catechism that goes to the application of this or that policy as the moral solution to these issues.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You must be defining “public policy” very narrowly, because the Church certainly does have a lot to say about public policies, in the Cathechism and in various other official documents.

I have a careful definition: the church presents us with guidelines, objectives toward which we are to strive. She identifies the ends, but she does not discuss the means. She does not give us policies or suggest specific approaches for the implementation of those objectives. As I’ve said before, she tells us to “heal the sick”, she does not tell us to support a specific form of healthcare. We are to “help the poor”, but this doesn’t mean we have to support raising the minimum wage.

Politics is about implementing policies for the resolution of public problems, and the church has spoken of our obligations, but it is individual bishops - not the church - who have spoken out on public policies. Nor will you find anything whatever in the catechism that goes to the application of this or that policy as the moral solution to these issues.

Your definition is indeed careful - and more narrow than most people assume. What you really should say is that the Church does not (or should not) have implementation policies. But public policies? Yes, definitely.

Most people would say that the Church had a policy of opposing Hitler and the Nazis. That is certainly a public policy. But it is not an implementation policy. The Church did not say “there should be a declaration of war by the US” or “you should launch the D-day invasion on June 6, 1944.” Also the Church has a policy in Canada of opposing the recreational use of marijuana. This is certainly a public policy as it strongly influences legislation relating to marijuana. However the Church does not author proposed legislation, or propose specific penalties for infractions. Their policy is not an implementation policy, but it is a policy. Also the Church has a policy of openness to welcoming the stranger. It is a public policy because it strongly affects public actions in this regard. But it is not an implementation policy. It does not specify quotas or other implementation details.

So now, going back to the post by @PetraG where you first made the statement that the Church does not have public policy positions, it is clear that the public policy statements PetraG was referring to are the more general kind of “policies” that are not covered by your narrow definition, which refutes your objection to PetraG.

 

[Ender]

Your definition is indeed careful - and more narrow than most people assume. What you really should say is that the Church does not (or should not) have implementation policies. But public policies? Yes, definitely.

I dislike your definition because it is ambiguous; your use of the term “public policy” could mean almost anything. I have been very careful to distinguish between means and ends. I will argue again: the church has moral doctrines; she does not have public policies.

Also the Church has a policy in Canada of opposing the recreational use of marijuana.

This is precisely why your term is inappropriate. To begin with, there is no church doctrine directed at marijuana use in Canada. It is not the church that opposes it, it is individual Canadian bishops expressing their own judgments on the matter, and this is exactly the distinction I find so important to make. The bishops have suggested the means (opposing a policy to legalize marijuana use), and involvement with specific policies is almost always simply their own personal opinion. Their positions may be well informed or not, but they are not “church” positions.

However the Church does not author proposed legislation, or propose specific penalties for infractions. Their policy is not an implementation policy, but it is a policy.

Do you really want to equate moral doctrines with “policies”? I think even the bishops who are making policy proposals would shrink from that comparison.

So now, going back to the post by PetraG where you first made the statement that the Church does not have public policy positions, it is clear that the public policy statements PetraG was referring to are the more general kind of “policies” that are not covered by your narrow definition, which refutes your objection to PetraG.

If PetraG believes the church’s doctrines are simply policies, she can say so, but I’m guessing there won’t be many people who are comfortable equating them. All you have done is blur an important distinction between what is church teaching and what is not, and have done so at the cost of defining moral truth as a “policy”…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Your definition is indeed careful - and more narrow than most people assume. What you really should say is that the Church does not (or should not) have implementation policies. But public policies? Yes, definitely.

I dislike your definition because it is ambiguous; your use of the term “public policy” could mean almost anything.

I did not give any definition at all. I just gave some examples of policies. You do disagree with any of them? If not, then just move on.

I have been very careful to distinguish between means and ends.

Is there any evidence that others have not made that distinction adequate enough? If not, then let it go.

I will argue again: the church has moral doctrines; she does not have public policies.

Also the Church has a policy in Canada of opposing the recreational use of marijuana.

This is precisely why your term is inappropriate. To begin with, there is no church doctrine directed at marijuana use in Canada.

Don’t change to a different word! The word was “policy”, not “doctrine.” The Church in Canada does have a policy toward marijuana use.

But why did you skip the example of the Church’s policy toward Hitler during WWII? Was that or was that not a public policy?

However the Church does not author proposed legislation, or propose specific penalties for infractions. Their policy is not an implementation policy, but it is a policy.

Do you really want to equate moral doctrines with “policies”?

Straw man.

So now, going back to the post by PetraG where you first made the statement that the Church does not have public policy positions, it is clear that the public policy statements PetraG was referring to are the more general kind of “policies” that are not covered by your narrow definition, which refutes your objection to PetraG.

If PetraG believes the church’s doctrines are simply policies, she can say so…

Dodging the issue with another straw man.

 

[pnewton]

I couldn’t find it in the Catechism anywhere. Are you sure it’s there?

The Catechism is no more the Catholic Church than the Bible is. We are not a people of any book, but followers of the Word of God in flesh, and in His body, the Church.

Look, it would have been much less controversial if the USCCB had taken a more educated and objective stance on immigration,

They have. If you read anything written you will find that it is balanced. That does not mean absolutely anything someone does is moral just because he is the President. This action was immoral.

Separating children from their parents is not always immoral.

This is so true, and why we have more than just a book. We are not like the Pharisees and just a people of the law. I won’t comment on whether the other two are always immoral as they would need a better definition. We had, for example, the case of Rahab smuggling spies out. We have the Boston Tea Party.

In any case, separating children from parents is immoral in that it harms them. It is not always immoral because there are times it could be the lesser harm. Is it in this case? That is why God left use the grace of apostolic succession to provide shepherds for the faithful to learn more than just a set of rules.

 

[Ender]

I did not give any definition at all. I just gave some examples of policies. You do disagree with any of them? If not, then just move on.

Explain what you mean by “policy”. If I understand how you use the term I can better comment on your position. Here’s how Merriam-Webster defines it:

a : a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions
b : a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body

The church assuredly does not have policies under definition (a).

Don’t change to a different word! The word was “policy”, not “doctrine.” The Church in Canada does have a policy toward marijuana use.

The church in Canada??? Is there a different church in Canada than in the US, or is there one church that is the same world wide, because if there is only one church, that one doesn’t have a policy toward marijuana use in Canada. But your objection to the word doctrine highlights my point: you use “policy” precisely because it is ambiguous, because it obscures the distinction between what the church actually teaches - her doctrines - and what random bishops occasionally allege.

Ender: Do you really want to equate moral doctrines with “policies”?

Straw man.

Either a “policy” is a doctrine or it isn’t. Or perhaps you think that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t…which would explain your preference for a term that can imply something that could not be sustained if expressly stated.

 

[Ender]

Sid: I couldn’t find it in the Catechism anywhere. Are you sure it’s there?

If someone is going to claim to stand with the church he ought to be able to show where the church has actually taken that position. If one cannot document the claim there is good reason to suspect the claimant is standing alone.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I did not give any definition at all. I just gave some examples of policies. You do disagree with any of them? If not, then just move on.

Explain what you mean by “policy”. If I understand how you use the term I can better comment on your position. Here’s how Merriam-Webster defines it:

No, I’m not going to get sidetracked into an unnecessary discourse on definitions. It is unnecessary unless there is an instance of a policy on which we disagree. Since you have cited none, it is unnecessary to go further into that. As I said before, under any reasonable definition of “policy”, was it or was it not the policy of the Church to oppose Hitler during WWII? If yes, my point is proved. If no, then,…wow! You don’t think the Church had a policy to oppose Hitler.

But your objection to the word doctrine highlights my point: you use “policy” precisely because it is ambiguous, because it obscures the distinction between what the church actually teaches - her doctrines - and what random bishops occasionally allege.

First of all, PetraG used the word policy. If you want to know what she meant by it, ask her. Secondly, the use of the word “policy” does not distinguish between the two things you mention because it does not confuse those two things. There is no need to distinguish what is not being confused.

Either a “policy” is a doctrine or it isn’t.

It isn’t. It also isn’t a raven or a writing desk.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Are the Americas south of the Rio Grande generating ex-Catholics at the rate that the US and Canada are? I don’t just mean converts to Protestant churches. I don’t even mean nominal Catholics of the hatch-match-dispatch persuasion. I mean will-never-darken-the-door-of-a-Catholic-church former.

I mean that as an honest question. I don’t know the answer. I just know it is very bad in the US, Canada and many parts of Europe.

I couldn’t say for sure, but I would say the likelihood is that the causes are the same everywhere at bottom. A Hispanic priest told me (and a Catholic lawyer confirmed) that the lives of many Hispanics are chaotic. Teen pregnancy is very high. Divorce and remarriage is high. Even remarriage without bothering to divorce is high.

Protestantism comes along and offers an easy way out. “Accept Jesus and everything is fine”.

It’s really the same thing in the U.S. with fallen-away Catholics. It’s the easy way to reconcile with a chaotic moral life. In the U.S. the tendency is toward Protestantism. In Europe, it’s agnosticism or atheism.

But the chaotic moral life is the central cause, combined with far too few good priests and sisters to draw them away from that life.

I know a young sister from a very traditional order. Their chrism is caring for women in danger of abortion, particularly in the South Bronx. She was telling me once about a flight she took. Keep in mind, she’s with a traditional order and wears a full habit. On the plane, a couple of “former Catholics” approached her and seemed interest in returning to the Church but didn’t know how. Of all things, the co-pilot sustained a mild heart attack. I guess he saw her get on the plane and asked for her. He began his “confession” to her, telling her he “used to be” Catholic. She told him she couldn’t hear his confession, but could pray with him, which she did.

How does that go in the bible, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few”?

Anyway, this is the order that sister is from. I contribute to them every year. Look how young they are! The one who told me the story is briefly shown toward the end of their documentary at the bottom of the home page.

Homepage - Sisters of Life

 

[PetraG]

www.sistersoflife.org

Awesome…what a blessing!

 

[Ender]

No, I’m not going to get sidetracked into an unnecessary discourse on definitions.

Right, because why would we need to know exactly what we’re talking about?

It is unnecessary unless there is an instance of a policy on which we disagree. Since you have cited none, it is unnecessary to go further into that. As I said before, under any reasonable definition of “policy”, was it or was it not the policy of the Church to oppose Hitler during WWII? If yes, my point is proved. If no, then,…wow! You don’t think the Church had a policy to oppose Hitler.

This one comes down to how you define “the church”. If you mean what is taught - the moral doctrines - the church of the Fathers and Doctors, then no, that church had no policy opposing Hitler. If, however, you mean the clergy then yes, those people opposed Hitler. Once again, your comment depends on ambiguity, and your dependence on undefined and ambiguous terms is disappointing.

By my understanding of the terms, “the church” has no “policies”, either in support of illegal immigrants, or in opposition to Hitler.

 

[Theo520]

We already meet those expectations via our legal immigration and refugee programs.

 

[PetraG]

We already meet those expectations via our legal immigration and refugee programs.

The Popes and the Church have repeatedly said that our treatment of even illegal immigrants must meet the standard of welcoming all as Christ. Even those who must be turned away for legitimate reasons must be treated with humanity and compassion. Period.

The United States is not forced to treat migrant families as it does. There is no excuse for it, not in the sense of Christian morality. The bishops have come together to say this. They are correct and not only within their teaching authority but must according to their duty say what they are saying by virtue of their teaching authority.

Laypersons have the duty to make and enforce civil laws, but the bishops have the duty and authority to tell us when a law is either intrinsically immoral or being enforced by immoral means. That is what the USCCB is doing. Laypeople are not free to just do what they want with that information. We have a duty to inform and conform our consciences to the truth.

 

[Theo520]

The Popes and the Church have repeatedly said that our treatment of even illegal immigrants must meet the standard of welcoming all as Christ. Even those who must be turned away for legitimate reasons must be treated with humanity and compassion. Period.

You should then be specific, NO INNUENDOS!

We provide all ICE detained illegals with food and shelter, even medical care. This is what the church instructs.

Free visas for all is not what the Church asks us to provide.

 

[blackforest]

We provide all ICE detained illegals with food and shelter, even medical care. This is what the church instructs.

Are you serious? They tried to kill them!