No it doesn’t. The goal isn’t thousands of new, highly paid judges and staff, but instead to change the rules in the government’s favor to process the cases through quickly.
Is that the goal you propose? I would be in favor if it if the rule changes proposed did not result in too many more unfair determinations.LeafByNiggle:
No it doesn’t. The goal isn’t thousands of new, highly paid judges and staff, but instead to change the rules in the government’s favor to process the cases through quickly.
Well, yes, once the backlog is taken care of we would no longer need so many judges, perhaps.
That depends whose bleeding is being addressed. The refugees are bleeding right now.
What “unfair” determinations? You don’t think the judges we have now are applying the law correctly?
You were suggesting changing the rules. It is those unknown rule changes that I was referring to. I was not referring to decisions made now.LeafByNiggle:
What “unfair” determinations? You don’t think the judges we have now are applying the law correctly?
The current rules are rejected more than 90% of the asylum claims, I thought you might have a problem with that. I would just suggest procedural rule changes , not changes in the qualifications.
I would have to see the specific rule changes you have in mind before I could say for sure that those changes would not be unfair to the applicants.LeafByNiggle:
The current rules are rejected more than 90% of the asylum claims, I thought you might have a problem with that. I would just suggest procedural rule changes , not changes in the qualifications.
Missing Mass is not illegal, and is a moral evil. We do not regulate all moral evils. Abortion and gay marriage are different, but their legal status could be as much a point of debate as any other moral evil we allow, like missing Mass, or child abuse. Of course it is not up for debate for me. I am following what the Church has taught in matters of prudence.
There are people who want to come here for reasons that are insufficient to warrant waiving them to the front of the line and people whose reasons are sufficient. How can we know whether asylum rules are too strict or too lax by looking at the percentage of claims that are accepted or rejected? Maybe the acceptance rate should be 90% or maybe it should be 5% or even 99% or 0.1%–there isn’t some theoretical correct number.
Your argument here is that since not all moral evils are banned we cannot say that any evil ought to be banned. Really? You don’t think we can assert that child abuse or murder ought to be banned without exception? Is there any legitimate debate on these sins? A Catholic can argue about whether he thinks it a good idea or not that missing mass should be legal, but no Catholic can validly argue that abortion should be legal.
No you’re not. The church has no teachings on prudential matters. She has guidelines, and principles, but the best application of those principles in specific instances is in fact our obligation to determine. Accepting a particular bishop’s judgment on the matter is not “following what the Church has taught” for the simple reason that it is not the Church who has spoken out.
And this is why I so strongly oppose the bishops’ involvement in political issues: they immediately change the debate from a discussion of whether your proposal is better than my proposal to a claim that you are a better Catholic than me. Nice.
Straw man. All we are saying is that you have make a case for banning a moral evil. It isn’t automatic.pnewton:
Your argument here is that since not all moral evils are banned we cannot say that any evil ought to be banned.
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
And the church has made that case for certain evils - like abortion - yet your position is that we may legitimately disagree. This is in contrast with your position that we may not disagree with the opinions of various bishops when they speak out on prudential issues. As I said before, you have this exactly backwards.
It means you are falsely re-casting pnewton’s case to a position that you can easily defeat.LeafByNiggle:
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Another straw man. And I do know what that means. You are telling me what my position is so that it is easier to argue against.
Another straw man. I didn’t say we may not disagree with opinions of bishops on things will policies of separating children.
Actually what I have done is draw out the implications of his position. That it is easily defeated demonstrates its deficiencies.
Here is the position you took in post 1195:
Say what?
You have not proven that what you say is an implication really is an implication.LeafByNiggle:
Actually what I have done is draw out the implications of his position. That it is easily defeated demonstrates its deficiencies.
I was talking about gay marriage. You were citing abortion.
No, that is not what is being debated. Where is pnewton or I say you have a moral obligation to assent to a bishop’s judgement? Are you trying for some kind of record for the most number of straw man arguments you can make in one thread?
Just what I wrote. I maintain that these are proper topics on which the bishops can comment, and they we should listen to them with great respect. That is not exactly the same thing as requiring moral assent to every word they write.
That was your post in 1195. Here was (part of) my response in 1197.
Again, I am drawing out the implications of the comments being made. Let’s review:
Yes, even as you recognize that we have no moral obligation to assent to bishop’s opinions on political issues (in general, and specifically on this one) you have been defending pnewton’s implication that we do, for that is surely what is implied in comments like “I follow the church” and “I won’t be a cafeteria Catholic”.
Is that document doctrinally binding? Or is it at the same level as the document from the US Bishops? I think the USCCB statement has more bishops behind it. But it appears to be on an equal footing.LeafByNiggle:
That was your post in 1195. Here was (part of) my response in 1197.
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.
That seems pretty much on point to me.
There is the difference. Right there. “morally bound” vs “teaching of the Church.” You are treating them as synonymous, but I see a difference. I recognize that there can be such a thing as a teaching of the Church to which one is not morally bound to assent. As to whether others in this thread recognize that difference, I don’t know. You will have to ask them individually.
See the subtle but important distinction above.
The document was written by Cardinal Ratzinger in his position as head of the CDF. It was reviewed and approved by JPII. It is a statement of the church’s teaching on the matter; it was not simply his personal opinion. There is no comparison whatever with the comments from some US bishops.
We have a moral obligation to assent to the teachings of the ordinary Magisterium, in addition to of course infallible teachings. We are not obliged to assent to prudential opinions. Ratzinger’s comment was the former; the bishops’ statement is the latter. See CCC 891-2.
Was JPII speaked ex cathedra when he gave that approval? Here is another CDF publication. It is also morally binding that we give our assent to every word of that document too?LeafByNiggle:
The document was written by Cardinal Ratzinger in his position as head of the CDF. It was reviewed and approved by JPII. It is a statement of the church’s teaching on the matter; it was not simply his personal opinion.
And into which category do you place the CDF document referred to above?
JPII approved the document written by Ratzinger, and of course he wasn’t speaking ex cathedra, which is irrelevant to the question of assent. That document was no more defining doctrine than does the catechism: they both simply explain what the doctrines are.
It is the explanation of a teaching from the ordinary Magisterium.
From the CDF document I cited, let me quote for you some excepts of what you call “the explanation of teachings from the ordinary Magisterium” and therefore requiring moral assent:LeafByNiggle:
JPII approved the document written by Ratzinger,… That document was no more defining doctrine than does the catechism: they both simply explain what the doctrines are.
It is the explanation of a teaching from the ordinary Magisterium.