USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[blackforest]

Just to be crystal clear, statements from the bishops are also magisterial. https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm

Now of course the promise of Christ cannot fail: hence when the Church presents some doctrine as definitive or final, it comes under this protection, it cannot be in error; in other words, it is infallible. This is true even if the Church does not use the solemn ceremony of definition. The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when the Bishops are in union with each other and with the Pope, and present something as definitive, this is infallible. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium # 25)

.

 

[Ender]

So if all publications from the CDF are demanding of moral assent…

Since I never made such an assertion it is not appropriate to conclude that this is my position.

You are attempting to establish a distinction between some Church statements and other Church statements, saying that some are binding requiring our assent, while others are just inappropriate attempts at pushing personal opinions held by certain bishops.

Again, your characterization is deliberately askew (is this that straw man argument again?) I absolutely do distinguish between one church statement and another: some do require our assent, and others do not. Those that do:

CCC 891: When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”
(These are the infallible teachings)

CCC892: To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”.
(These are not infallible teachings; they belong to the ordinary Magisterium)

Those that do not require assent:
…prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)

It seems to me that the only real distinction between these two categories of statements is that you are agree with the former and not with the later.

Give it some more thought. These distinctions are ones the church makes, and are not all that hard to comprehend.

 

[pnewton]

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It was an accurate term as you gave a completely false restatement of what I said. And for the record, abusing children is acceptable to people here in some cases, if the president is doing it through ICE.

Of course you are going to say it is not the same, despite what every bishop has said, unless, for the umpteenth time, someone can show an opposing position. However, even the most conservative of bishops understand that nationalism is not acceptable for a Catholic.

 

[pnewton]

Those that do not require assent:
…prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)

It can be a matter of prudential judgement that while abortion is evil, it should not, at this time, be made illegal, especially if one use “prudence” the way you do, which is, what each man thinks for himself.

 

[pnewton]

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.

I know that I have never dared say what one is morally bound to do. That would presume to judge. I call what is being taught “teaching.” I might even call dismissing that teaching “dissent” at least in a case where there is a universal consensus, like this. This crazy idea that I have to find a quote from everyone of the thousands of bishops is a burden of proof I reject (hence why I called it crazy). Rather, at this time, I see the burden on the one who wants to dismiss what has been said as prudence. It is not a big burden. With hundreds of bishops in America, to find one supportive of Trump’s policy on ICE, or at least saying this latest fiasco was a matter of moral prudence.

 

[Ender]

It was an accurate term as you gave a completely false restatement of what I said.

I’m not trying to restate what you said, I’m trying to clarify the implications of your statements.

And for the record, abusing children is acceptable to people here in some cases, if the president is doing it through ICE.

Piffle. No one justifies abusing children. That you call certain actions abuse doesn’t make it so.

Of course you are going to say it is not the same, despite what every bishop has said, unless, for the umpteenth time, someone can show an opposing position.

Let me try once again to clarify this for you. No bishop speaks for another. If Bishop A says something about which Bishop B is silent, that statement has absolutely no force in Bishop B’s diocese. Silence assuredly does not imply assent. Here is a comment from Bishop Martino of Scranton in 2008.

“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese…The USCCB doesn’t speak for me…There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable."

His comment does nothing more than echo the comments of Cardinal Ratzinger:

“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.”

That is, unless a document is explicitly endorsed, it carries no weight whatever.

However, even the most conservative of bishops understand that nationalism is not acceptable for a Catholic.

How do you think bishops understand rash judgments and calumny? Have you nothing more than insults?

 

[Ender]

It can be a matter of prudential judgement that while abortion is evil, it should not, at this time, be made illegal, especially if one use “prudence” the way you do, which is, what each man thinks for himself.

I have been extremely consistent and as precise as I can be in my use of that term, and there is nothing in anything I have said that justifies your conclusion. It is incorrect, a point I thought I was fairly clear on in discussing the question of prudential judgment with regard to homosexual “marriage” with Leaf.

Come on, I’ve said this numerous times before: the (prudential) judgment involved in determining the best solution to a social problem does not involve moral choices (within the broad guidelines laid out by the church for what is acceptable). The only exception to this is when the choices involve intrinsic evils…such as abortion. Therefore, as I’ve said before, one may not choose to legalize abortion even if one believes it is a better solution than banning it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So if all publications from the CDF are demanding of moral assent…

Since I never made such an assertion it is not appropriate to conclude that this is my position.

Well, you need to be more clear about what your argument is. This assumption of mine was the only one I could think of that fit with your argument wherein you presented a statement from the CDF as evidence that non-legalization of gay marriage requires our assent. You were presenting this statement as a contrast to the USCCB statement we have been discussing. The only different I could see was that this statement was in the CDF and the USCCB statement wasn’t.

You are attempting to establish a distinction between some Church statements and other Church statements, saying that some are binding requiring our assent, while others are just inappropriate attempts at pushing personal opinions held by certain bishops.

Again, your characterization is deliberately askew (is this that straw man argument again?) I absolutely do distinguish between one church statement and another: some do require our assent, and others do not. Those that do:

CCC 891: When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”
(These are the infallible teachings)

CCC892: To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”.
(These are not infallible teachings; they belong to the ordinary Magisterium)

Those that do not require assent:
…prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)

It seems to me that the only real distinction between these two categories of statements is that you are agree with the former and not with the later.

Give it some more thought. These distinctions are ones the church makes, and are not all that hard to comprehend.

No, if you are relying on this distinction to prove your point, it is your job, not mine, to explain the distinction. I understand the difference in theory. What I don’t understand is what the objective criteria is for deciding into which category a statement belongs. And don’t say “prudential judgement” because apparently your idea of prudential judgement and mine do not agree. It appears to me that if policies toward the separation of children from their parents is prudential, then so are policies toward two men filing a joint tax return.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let me try once again to clarify this for you. No bishop speaks for another. If Bishop A says something about which Bishop B is silent, that statement has absolutely no force in Bishop B’s diocese. Silence assuredly does not imply assent.

If the bishop of the dioceses in which you live happens to support the USCCB statement, would you feel bound to give it your assent?

 

[Ender]

…you presented a statement from the CDF as evidence that non-legalization of gay marriage requires our assent. You were presenting this statement as a contrast to the USCCB statement we have been discussing. The only different I could see was that this statement was in the CDF and the USCCB statement wasn’t.

The documents from the CDF and the USCCB could hardly be more different. The former represents the doctrinal position of the church on a moral matter, while the latter represents the judgment of several bishops about the best solution to a social concern. This CDF document commands our assent not because it is from the CDF, but because it is explicitly a statement of Catholic doctrine, something no one could assert regarding the USCCB document.

From the Introduction:

In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question…

The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.

… it is your job, not mine, to explain the distinction. I understand the difference in theory. What I don’t understand is what the objective criteria is for deciding into which category a statement belongs. And don’t say “prudential judgement” because apparently your idea of prudential judgement and mine do not agree. It appears to me that if policies toward the separation of children from their parents is prudential, then so are policies toward two men filing a joint tax return.

The difference is between a statement of doctrines, and decisions about the application of those doctrines. I’ve posted this explanation before:

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. (Cardinal Dulles)

Regarding the separation of children from their parents, there are any number of circumstances where this is done and it is unquestionably appropriate to do so, so separation itself is not an evil act per se. What we are debating is whether it is necessary and appropriate in these “concrete circumstances.” You and I may differ on that point, and one of us will be mistaken, but if we both make our decisions on what we feel is the best solution to the overall problem, there is no sin involved. It is precisely because we may legitimately hold opposing positions that the issue is prudential. An opposing position cannot be legitimately held on a moral question regardless of why one takes it.

 

[Ender]

If the bishop of the dioceses in which you live happens to support the USCCB statement, would you feel bound to give it your assent?

No, it would still be a prudential judgment. I would be bound to give it more careful consideration, but the nature of a statement doesn’t change because my bishop agrees with the conclusions it draws. If it is prudential I may (respectfully) reject it; if it is doctrinal I may not, but if it was prudential before my bishop supported it it is just as prudential afterwards.

 

[Inisfallen]

The worker (a US citizen) said that because of the number of people who do tile work, he receives about 1/3 what he used to be paid for the same job.

And that is why we’re never going to get serious, comprehensive immigration reform.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

…you presented a statement from the CDF as evidence that non-legalization of gay marriage requires our assent. You were presenting this statement as a contrast to the USCCB statement we have been discussing. The only different I could see was that this statement was in the CDF and the USCCB statement wasn’t.

The documents from the CDF and the USCCB could hardly be more different. The former represents the doctrinal position of the church on a moral matter.

First, are you speaking of just the one CDF document you cited, or do you mean that about CDF documents in general? Secondly, just looking at the content, it is not clear to me that the position on civil recognition of gay unions is a matter of a doctrinal position of the church on a moral matter. What is clear to me is that marriage between two people of the same sex is impossible within the Church. That is doctrine. But it takes an extra step to prove that permitting the civil society to pretend that two men are married is also forbidden to members of the Church. In the CDF document you quoted, Cardinal Ratzinger attempts to distinguish between tolerance of de facto homosexual unions and legally recognized homosexual unions. He tries to make the case that one level of tolerance is allowable, but another level is not. Allowing gays to marry appears to be quantitatively, not qualitatively, different from allowing them to do exactly the same things without the legal title of “married.” That distinction does not appear to be doctrinal. That distinction appears to be prudential, because it is over a matter of degree. So on what basis do you say that his statement is doctrinal while USCCB statement is not?

while the latter represents the judgment of several bishops about the best solution to a social concern.

I disagree. The latter represents the judgment of several bishops that a certain act is morally wrong.

 

[Ender]

So on what basis do you say that his statement is doctrinal while USCCB statement is not?

I don’t think there is much argument that the CDF document is not doctrinal, but there is no argument that the USCCB document is.

I disagree. The latter represents the judgment of several bishops that a certain act is morally wrong.

But it is a judgment. That means it is not doctrine. Those concepts are mutually exclusive.

There seems no question to me that what is said in the CDF document is not open to prudential judgment:

4 "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family…Under no circumstances can they be approved”.

5 “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.”

10 “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.”

Conclusion “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.”

What the church teaches is not open to judgment; it is not prudential.

 

[TooCorinthians]

Trump and his base are awfully worried about having too many people in this country, what is his stance exactly on contraception?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So on what basis do you say that his statement is doctrinal while USCCB statement is not?

I don’t think there is much argument that the CDF document is not doctrinal, but there is no argument that the USCCB document is.

That’s good enough for me. I was not trying to prove the USCCB statement was doctrinal. It is sufficient for my purposes to establish that it is on an equal footing with some other statements or documents that you would really not like to see ignored. And that I think was the basis of pnewton’s initial introduction of the topic of gay marriage into a discussion about the USCCB’s statement about immigrant children. It appeared to me (and probably to pnewton) that your dismissal of the USCCB’s statement was too casual. So while it may not be doctrinal, it is worthy of more respect than you were giving it, calling it “merely an opinion.”

I think the main difficulty I have with your position is that it seems statements from clergy fall into exactly two categories: things that are doctrinal - part of the deposit of faith that requires assent by any Catholic - and things that we easily ignore. I think it would be more accurate to consider the “non-doctrinal” statements as occupying an entire spectrum. At one end of the spectrum is my parish priest’s opinion on which kind of steak is best: rare, medium, or well-done. At the other end of the spectrum are statements like the one from Ratzinger or the USCCB. They are clearly more demanding of our serious consideration, if not our unconditional assent. pnewton used the word “teaching” in a way that you interpreted as “doctrinal,” but I don’t think that is what was intended. The bishops are indeed teaching us something. We should pay close attention to our teachers. And I repeat, it does not mean what they say is necessarily part of the Church’s deposit of faith. Can you see the continuum instead of just a plain dichotomy?

I disagree. The latter represents the judgment of several bishops that a certain act is morally wrong.

But it is a judgment. That means it is not doctrine. Those concepts are mutually exclusive.

Despite the fact that I know you have a different understanding of the word “morally,” I will continue to use it in the manner which most people understand it, and that means it does not necessarily mean “doctrinal.” It just means having to do with concepts of right and wrong. In that sense, judgments can be about morality. They are not mutually exclusive.

…continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…Continuing:

There seems no question to me that what is said in the CDF document is not open to prudential judgment:

4 "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family…Under no circumstances can they be approved”.

5 “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.”

10 “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.”

What could be called prudential is the judgement that points 4, 5, and 10 are in fact true. But let’s say for sake of argument that they are not prudential, just because they make these unequivocal statements that leave no wiggle room. Looking at the USCCB’s statement, we find:

Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral.

This sounds every bit as unequivocal and so it is hard to call this a prudential judgement using the same criterion that you use to call points 4, 5, and 10 not prudential.

Conclusion “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.”

What the church teaches is not open to judgment; it is not prudential.

For the record, I agree with that teaching - not because my assent is demanded, but because it is a very persuasive argument.

 

[Ender]

It appeared to me (and probably to pnewton) that your dismissal of the USCCB’s statement was too casual. So while it may not be doctrinal, it is worthy of more respect than you were giving it, calling it “merely an opinion.”

Whenever the USCCB involves itself in a political issue, I treat their pronouncements as I would any other political tract. That is, their arguments don’t get any special consideration because a bishop makes it.

… it is a mistake for bishops to squander their credibility as teachers of faith and morals by issuing pronouncements, especially politically partisan pronouncements, on matters beyond their competence as bishops. These are typically matters of prudential judgment on which Catholics (and others) of equal intelligence and good will can and do disagree. (Fr. Richard Neuhaus)

Their arguments are either valid or they are not, and error doesn’t become truth simply because a bishop believes it. The USCCB has become little more than a political action committee, and their never ending supply of political tracts holds little interest for me. That said, neither do I dismiss them simply because they come from the USCCB. I deal with the arguments they present; it’s just that I rarely ever find them convincing.

…the main difficulty I have with your position is that it seems statements from clergy fall into exactly two categories: things that are doctrinal - part of the deposit of faith that requires assent by any Catholic - and things that we easily ignore.

I think this distinction is valid, although I have been quite clear that we may not “easily ignore” something our own bishop has presented. When it comes to what requires our assent and what does not, this distinction is absolutely accurate. That we are not obliged to assent to a comment, however, does not also mean we may simply ignore it. I have also cited this before:

…they are morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders, who speak with authority even when they are not handing on the word of the Lord (Cardinal Dulles)

What I have steadfastly objected to is the presumption that unless we accept the pronouncements of our bishops, even on political issues, we are dissidents, we are cafeteria Catholics. That is false and I will not accept that description.

I know you have a different understanding of the word “morally,” I will continue to use it in the manner which most people understand it, and that means it does not necessarily mean “doctrinal.” It just means having to do with concepts of right and wrong. In that sense, judgments can be about morality. They are not mutually exclusive.

I have no special definition for “morality”. I use the term the way most people, yourself included, use it. I haven’t suggested it is synonymous with doctrinal. I do think that the term is used in many cases where it doesn’t apply, for example by calling immigration a “moral” issue. It is surely a serious social issue that affects peoples lives in a dramatic way, but the question of what we should do is a practical conundrum, not a moral choice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

OK, it appears that you are objecting to the extreme positions of some posters here - objections I can understand and agree with. In response, perhaps to strengthen your argument, you have presented what sometimes appears to be the opposite extreme. If you would make more of attempt at highlighting points of agreement, like you just did above with your Cardinal Dulles statement, you would get less argument from me, and probably from others too.

I have no special definition for “morality”. I use the term the way most people, yourself included, use it. I haven’t suggested it is synonymous with doctrinal. I do think that the term is used in many cases where it doesn’t apply, for example by calling immigration a “moral” issue. It is surely a serious social issue that affects peoples lives in a dramatic way, but the question of what we should do is a practical conundrum, not a moral choice.

The single word “immigration” covers a broad range of topics. Some of them are purely political policy. Some of them are moral, such as considering whether a teenage pregnant illegal immigrant should be allowed to have an abortion - a case which actually came up. It is too broad a statement to say that anything relating to immigration cannot possibly be a moral issue. There are plenty of possible moral issues relating to immigration. The treatment of families caught sneaking over the border is certainly one of them. The proper number of immigrants from Central America that we should accept as citizens is not a moral issue.

 

[blackforest]

Whenever the USCCB involves itself in a political issue, I treat their pronouncements as I would any other political tract. That is, their arguments don’t get any special consideration because a bishop makes it.

As I posted upthread, you may wish to rethink that.

… it is a mistake for bishops to squander their credibility as teachers of faith and morals by issuing pronouncements, especially politically partisan pronouncements, on matters beyond their competence as bishops. These are typically matters of prudential judgment on which Catholics (and others) of equal intelligence and good will can and do disagree. (Fr. Richard Neuhaus)
[/quote]

They are commenting on morality much more than politics. And moral pronouncements are most certainly within the magisterial scope.

I do think that the term is used in many cases where it doesn’t apply, for example by calling immigration a “moral” issue. It is surely a serious social issue that affects peoples lives in a dramatic way, but the question of what we should do is a practical conundrum, not a moral choice.

Come again? Practicality is about whether limited public funds should go to repairing potholes or repainting a crosswalk. Morality is about how other human beings are treated.

The bishops delivered an opinion about the morality of a situation. Most of this thread has been debating the morality of separating families under these circumstances and addressing whether or not this is a moral action.