USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Pnewton was careful to say “the legalization of…”. While it is true that gay marriage is a moral evil and not up for debate, the legalization of gay marriage is up for debate, just like the legalization of prostitution and the legalization of homosexual acts.

While it is true that the legalization of gay marriage is being debated by society, it is not debated within the church. Because it is a grave, intrinsic evil its legalization is immoral. None of this is true regarding the discussions surrounding illegal immigration. On that topic, unlike gay marriage, opposing positions can be legitimately held. Gay marriage is inherently immoral. A “zero tolerance” policy is not, and the opinions of various bishops does not make it so.

Again, I am not claiming that opposing positions may be held on the morality of gay marriage. I am claiming that opposing positions may be held on the legalization of gay marriage. Homosexual acts are also grave intrinsically evil. But they are legal. And no Catholic would be faulted for wanting to keep it that way. Perhaps at the time when homosexuality was a criminal offense, there were those in the Church that claimed that a Catholic could not support legalization. No one claims that now. In time, if gay marriage persists for another 100 years, we might come to a similar point where Catholics recognize that gay marriage is evil, but would not think of insisting that it become criminalized.

So if you don’t want Catholics to ignore their bishops’ admonitions on gay marriage, you should not ignore their admonitions on the shameful treatment of families at the border.

 

[AStableGenius]

So Pope Francis and the USCCB Folks, United States, Pope Francis and the Bishops, famous people, they complain about it. Pope Frank is a great guy, he and I go way back. Always got more women than him. It was my personal Vietnam. And I’m winning bigly in number of marriages. These are strange people folks these are strange people. But the Pope and the Bishops want this country to be Mexican so they can make more money. Steve Bannon himself said it, great Catholic writer Steve Bannon, not a lot of people know about him. But we’re winning folks, we are gonna separate so many children you’ll get tired of hearing me blame it on Obama. SAD! SAD that these kids are separated. But we gotta be tough folks, we gotta be toughs. We’re doing great folks, I’m winning Catholic Bishops, and Pope Francis says I’m doing great, he and I go way back, taught everything he knows. He lives in a yuge house, Frank and he goes to this yuge church. Not as yuge as mine. No problem there, BELIEVE ME.

 

[Ender]

Again, I am not claiming that opposing positions may be held on the morality of gay marriage. I am claiming that opposing positions may be held on the legalization of gay marriage.

If a Catholic may legitimately support the legalization of gay marriage, which is a grave, intrinsic evil, then there is no argument whatsoever that he cannot support the separation of children, which is not.

So if you don’t want Catholics to ignore their bishops’ admonitions on gay marriage, you should not ignore their admonitions on the shameful treatment of families at the border.

You argued above that one may ignore the church’s teaching on the immorality of gay “marriage”, but now you try to argue that we may not ignore some bishops opinions on the handling of illegal immigrants. If I may oppose church doctrine on one issue, surely I am free to oppose clerical judgments on another.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Again, I am not claiming that opposing positions may be held on the morality of gay marriage. I am claiming that opposing positions may be held on the legalization of gay marriage.

If a Catholic may legitimately support the legalization of gay marriage, which is a grave, intrinsic evil, then there is no argument whatsoever that he cannot support the separation of children, which is not.

It is incorrect to use “intrinsic” as a proxy for “worst.” I would say that taking children away from their parents is a worse evil that pretending that two men are married.

So if you don’t want Catholics to ignore their bishops’ admonitions on gay marriage, you should not ignore their admonitions on the shameful treatment of families at the border.

You argued above that one may ignore the church’s teaching on the immorality of gay “marriage”, but now you try to argue that we may not ignore some bishops opinions on the handling of illegal immigrants. If I may oppose church doctrine on one issue, surely I am free to oppose clerical judgments on another.

This whole discussion about gay marriage was brought up as more of a reductio ad absurdum - or a bargain, if you will. We agree that we should oppose gay marriage if you agree we should oppose taking children away from trespassers.

 

[Ender]

It is incorrect to use “intrinsic” as a proxy for “worst.” I would say that taking children away from their parents is a worse evil that pretending that two men are married.

Except that removing children from adults happens all the time, and is done specifically because it is believed to be in the best interest of the child. Of itself the action is not evil at all. It is the circumstance in which it is done that justifies it, as opposed to gay “marriage” which is immoral in every circumstance.

Your position is that I may not oppose a bishop’s opinion about an action that is justifiable under certain conditions yet I am free to oppose church teaching about an action that is never justifiable. I think you have this exactly backwards.

This whole discussion about gay marriage was brought up as more of a reductio ad absurdum - or a bargain, if you will. We agree that we should oppose gay marriage if you agree we should oppose taking children away from trespassers.

Yes, I understand such an argument. I’m pointing out that it still doesn’t support your position; it only leaves you arguing that we may ignore the church, which hardly supports your claim that we may not ignore a bishop.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is incorrect to use “intrinsic” as a proxy for “worst.” I would say that taking children away from their parents is a worse evil that pretending that two men are married.

Except that removing children from adults happens all the time, and is done specifically because it is believed to be in the best interest of the child.

Irrelevant, since we are only disputing the case of taking children away from parents who have not proven themselves to be a danger to their children.

Of itself the action is not evil at all.

In the case of the Lindbergh baby it was definitely evil.

It is the circumstance in which it is done that justifies it, as opposed to gay “marriage” which is immoral in every circumstance.

You are only restating the definition of “intrinsic evil” which as I have already said is not a proxy for “worst evil ever.” In general, that characteristic has no correlation whatsoever on the degree of evil involved.

Your position is that I may not oppose a bishop’s opinion about an action that is justifiable under certain conditions yet I am free to oppose church teaching about an action that is never justifiable.

No, I never said we are free to oppose Church teaching. Church teaching is that gay marriage is wrong. Church teaching does not say our civil law must recognize that fact.

 

[Ender]

Irrelevant, since we are only disputing the case of taking children away from parents who have not proven themselves to be a danger to their children.

First, you made no qualification to your statement about the evil of removing children. Second, you keep using the word “parent” when in fact the adult in the company of the child often is not the parent, but most significantly you keep insisting that what is only a judgment on your part is not merely an opinion but a moral fact.

You are only restating the definition of “intrinsic evil” which as I have already said is not a proxy for “worst evil ever.” In general, that characteristic has no correlation whatsoever on the degree of evil involved.

Fine, I’m happy to use the terms the church uses: homosexual acts are “acts of grave depravity.”

Church teaching is that gay marriage is wrong. Church teaching does not say our civil law must recognize that fact.

So, on the one hand you are saying the church doesn’t require us to support laws outlawing “acts of grave depravity”, but on the other hand she does require us to agree with bishops who find certain acts to be inappropriate in specific circumstances? If I don’t have to agree with the church about the legality of acts that are gravely immoral in all circumstances, why on earth do I have to agree with those bishops who find the exercise of a specific law invalid in this particular instance?

 

[Ender]

Church teaching is that gay marriage is wrong. Church teaching does not say our civil law must recognize that fact.

Then again, that is just what she appears to say.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS (CDF 2003 (Joseph Ratzinger), prior approval given by JPII)

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians…To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Irrelevant, since we are only disputing the case of taking children away from parents who have not proven themselves to be a danger to their children.

First, you made no qualification to your statement about the evil of removing children.

When I said " I would say that taking children away from their parents is a worse evil that pretending that two men are married." I just didn’t want to be too verbose. In many other places I have clearly stated that qualification.

Second, you keep using the word “parent” when in fact the adult in the company of the child often is not the parent, but most significantly you keep insisting that what is only a judgment on your part is not merely an opinion but a moral fact.

No, I didn’t insist that it was a moral fact that apparent parents really are parents (or appropriate guardians). I only said that out of charity we should assume they are what they say unless information comes to light that says otherwise.

So, on the one hand you are saying the church doesn’t require us to support laws outlawing “acts of grave depravity”, but on the other hand she does require us to agree with bishops who find certain acts to be inappropriate in specific circumstances?

I don’t believe I said that either.

 

[Augustinian]

Irrelevant, since we are only disputing the case of taking children away from parents who have not proven themselves to be a danger to their children.

Its done all the time. Paul Manafort sits in solitary in a Virginia dungeon away from his children, because he is merely accused of financial improprieties. Nothing was proven. And the same with some of these Illegals.

They are being kept on ice, so they show up for their hearing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Irrelevant, since we are only disputing the case of taking children away from parents who have not proven themselves to be a danger to their children.

Its done all the time. Paul Manafort sits in solitary in a Virginia dungeon away from his children, because he is merely accused of financial improprieties. Nothing was proven.

He is in prison because he violated the terms of his bond.

 

[Augustinian]

He is in prison because he violated the terms of his bond.

I understand that was the ruling, but he isn’t a danger to his children, so why should his family be separated?

 

[graciew]

But while they claim asylum they can’t be sent back until they have a hearing

The lack of qualified interpreters delays the work of immigration courts in the United_ States

Much of the administrative delay of the approximately 715,000 pending cases in the federal immigration courts has to do with the lack of qualified interpreters
June 28, 2018

Source:

La falta de intérpretes calificados retrasa la labor de las cortes de inmigración en Estados Unidos - Infobae

 

[Ender]

…approximately 715,000 pending cases in the federal immigration courts…

And this is why new cases cannot possibly be resolved in 20 days. So, again, the options are to turn loose anyone who comes across the border with a child, or to keep the adults incarcerated until their cases can be adjudicated, however long that takes. Where is the argument that we should simply assume that it is in the child’s best interest to be turned loose with whatever adult he happens to come across the border with when we know that should we adopt such a policy we will have turned children into tickets to the US?

 

[blackforest]

Hearing a case for asylum and performing a federally designed human trafficking assessment tool are two entirely separate processes. The latter is routinely deployed in a variety of social service settings and doesn’t require the indefinite, long-term separation of people from their children or other family members.

 

[graciew]

I am adding info no one has mentioned until now and a reason of delay.
And an employment oppportunity to help out for interpreters.
An oppportunity to find out if there is a possibility Pro Bono also for interpreters.
Adding,not substracting nor being argumentative.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Interpreters are a particular problem when it comes to Central Americans. Many of them don’t speak Spanish, let alone English. Many speak various Mayan or other Indian dialects exclusively.

 

[graciew]

Yes,and the mayan interpreters there are are overworked. This is true and necessary as well.

But the need for Mayan interpreters ( as other dialects)and their formation was made possible and effective through the General Law of Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People ( Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los. Pueblos Indígenas.)in Mexico.
There is a source of interpreters if needed .
I read the person chosen to start and direct this formation is a person among their people who handles both languages very well. That is fantastic. Who better?
In proportion, Spanish ( bilingual)is highly demanded as well. And in some arenas,professionals are also overworked.
Translation and Interpretation is a 4/5 years University career.
Not the case of Mayan translators and interpreters though,and it is fine.
That is what we mean here by “qualified” when it comes to public translation .Four years studies graduate level minimum.
Need to work together to sort it out and make life better for everyone .
Hope there are interpreters here in CAF who can hear the need…who knows…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

graciew:

…approximately 715,000 pending cases in the federal immigration courts…

And this is why new cases cannot possibly be resolved in 20 days.

The only reason there are 715,000 pending cases is that there are not enough immigration judges. When presented with the proposal to hire more by Ted Cruz, Trump said he did not want to hire more judges. This makes Trump culpable for the delays.

 

[graciew]

Leaf…there will be times it will be on us to help each other. No matter who the administration is.
Been there.
Just do it…If that is the calling,go for it. And pray!
Nike " girl " here.