USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[Ender]

OK, it appears that you are objecting to the extreme positions of some posters here - objections I can understand and agree with.

This is precisely what precipitated my exchange with pnewton. These are his comments. In this one he conflates disagreeing with the bishops with disregarding the moral authority of the church.

Humanity mandates it should not have happened, unless you completely disregard the moral authority of the Church. (#414)

He draws the same conclusion here: agree with the bishops or be a cafeteria catholic.

What is happening is immoral. That point keeps getting swept under the rug. I refuse to become a cafeteria Catholic over this. (#456)

Here he implies that disagreement with the bishops constitutes dissent from the church.

If one is going to dissent, the burden of evidence is one the Catholic who dissents. (#533)

Unfortunately this is not an extreme position; it is a quite common one. Moreover it is a position that is fostered by the bishops themselves simply because of their involvement in political issues. If a bishop takes a position is it not assumed that this is the moral position, and does it not follow that those who oppose him must naturally be taking the immoral position? Why would we not expect Catholics to draw that perfectly natural (if completely erroneous) conclusion?

 

[Ender]

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

Well, that is the claim, but they make that claim about every foray into politics, and I have yet to find it persuasive.

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.

Actually the differences are not that great. It is surely true that the impact of the two types of decisions is very different, but it is not true that the considerations in coming to a conclusion about what to do are any different at all.

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.

Yes, some bishops gave their opinions, and I gave mine. I found the bishops’ assertions unconvincing because (it seems to me) they have focused solely on the solution to one problem with no consideration given to the possible negative consequences for the larger problem. It’s a bit like complaining that a doctor is a moral monster because he won’t give your wife more morphine to ease her pain without even considering the possibility that an increased dosage might kill her or at the very least lead to addiction. It is trading a short term gain for a long term loss.

So, no, I do not consider this a moral choice. It is a very difficult one, one where there is no easy solution, but the bishops’ objections seem shortsighted. Now, having said that I think their solution will lead to even greater hardship in the future, does this make my position immoral? Is it a sin to believe that, hard as it is to watch, your wife shouldn’t receive more morphine, and children may have to be separated because to do otherwise will lead to even more hardship? Where is the immorality in that belief?

How is it a sin to believe that we should do A instead of B, even though A is really bad, because B is even worse? As I said, choosing the best solution is not a moral question. The only moral choice is whether I am actually willing to make the best overall choice. I think the bishops have chosen incorrectly.

 

[blackforest]

Well, that is the claim, but they make that claim about every foray into politics, and I have yet to find it persuasive.

When and whether it is appropriate to separate children from their flesh-and-blood parents is most certainly a moral question; it would be sociopathic to say otherwise.

I found the bishops’ assertions unconvincing because (it seems to me) they have focused solely on the solution to one problem with no consideration given to the possible negative consequences for the larger problem.

Whether or not somebody proposes a solution you approve of to X is irrelevant to whether or not X is morally acceptable.

Your position on this is solely a utilitarian one and thus not in line with our faith.

 

[Ender]

When and whether it is appropriate to separate children from their flesh-and-blood parents is most certainly a moral question; it would be sociopathic to say otherwise.

Yes, but only to a degree. Is it ever appropriate to separate children from (even) their parents? Yes, of course. Is it ever inappropriate to separate children? Yes, of course. Is there a bright line distinguishing when it is right and when it is wrong? No, of course not. That is, within a range it is a gray area, and within that range it is not a moral question. We may passionately argue over whether it is right or wrong in a particular situation, but as long as it is a judgement, there is little justification for calling another person’s judgment immoral. Incorrect yes, immoral no. Given that the proper judgment of the right action is determined by a correct understanding of all aspects of the situation, if a person’s position is based on a misunderstanding how can we say he has sinned? Erred, yes, but not sinned.

Whether or not somebody proposes a solution you approve of to X is irrelevant to whether or not X is morally acceptable.

If you assume I am indifferent to morality you can easily conclude that my choices are immoral. If, however, you assumed that, like you, I am truly trying to find the right solution to a complicated problem you would be more inclined to conclude simply that I was mistaken, not that I was evil. Since you have a moral obligation to assume the latter it isn’t all that clear why you have chosen the former.

Your position on this is solely a utilitarian one and thus not in line with our faith.

@LeafByNiggle: this is another example of what I have been objecting to, and I have to add: the bishops’ comments support just this conclusion. They are moral (obviously). I oppose their position (obviously). The obvious conclusion is that I am therefore immoral. This is exactly the conclusion I said was commonly made just three posts ago.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

@LeafByNiggle: this is another example of what I have been objecting to, and I have to add: the bishops’ comments support just this conclusion. They are moral (obviously). I oppose their position (obviously). The obvious conclusion is that I am therefore immoral. This is exactly the conclusion I said was commonly made just three posts ago.

I read the words of blackforest that you quoted several times, and I don’t see those words claiming that the bishops’ statement is doctrinal. You were a lot closer with your example of pnewton’s post #414. This one here just doesn’t say what you claim.

 

[pnewton]

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

No. I do not think you can clarify anything for me. Your attempts to clarify have resulted in a straw man almost every time. I have seen too much misdirection to think you can teach me anything. The part you quoted about the bishops? Well that is another straw man and something no one is questioning. I am saying that it does not apply here. What you call a “gray area” is beyond my comprehension.

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

You are correct that what I call it does not make it so. It is my opinion. I think if the baby was not Hispanic and labeled “illegal” in an xenophobic atmosphere that has become American nationalism today, everyone with a conscience would understand this the same. We have lost our national conscience when this becomes a “gray area.” To quote Cardinal Dolan:

'If they want to take a baby from the arms of his mother and separate the two, that’s wrong. I don’t care where you’re at, what time and what condition, that just goes against … you don’t have to read the Bible for that. That goes against human decency."

 

[Augustinian]

Where did you get the idea that President Trump is an evangelical?

President Trump’s secret with that group isn’t that he is one of them, but the fact that even though he isn’t, he respects other people’s religious beliefs.

I can’t see him taking a religious group like the Little Sisters of the Poor or Hobby Lobby into court to force them to buy contraception against their religious beliefs.

 

[pnewton]

You are correct that what I call it does not make it so. It is my opinion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-children-judge-rules/?utm_term=.416c98d894ea

Children testified in court filings that staff with the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement would sometimes not tell them what drugs they were being given or why. They recalled feeling side effects such as nausea, dizziness, depression and weight gain. Some reported being forcibly injected with drugs, and others said they felt that refusing medications would cause them to be detained longer.

“I witnessed staff members forcefully give medication four times,” one child held at Shiloh, identified as Isabella M., said. “. . . Two staff members pinned down the girl . . . and a doctor gave her one or two injections.”

One minor, identified as Julio Z., said Shiloh staff refused to let him and other children leave their living areas to get drinking water. When Julio tried to step out to get water on one occasion, a staff member allegedly threw him to the ground, injuring his elbow.

The judge ordered Shiloh to stop using any unessential security measures, such as denying children drinking water, and demanded officials allow children at Shiloh to speak privately over the phone.

 

[Ender]

I read the words of blackforest that you quoted several times, and I don’t see those words claiming that the bishops’ statement is doctrinal. You were a lot closer with your example of pnewton’s post #414. This one here just doesn’t say what you claim.

Don’t be quite so literal - it was this: “Your position is…not in line with our faith.” He’s the good Catholic, I’m the bad one. The fact that he doesn’t adequately understand my position does not excuse calumny. The problem is that such insults are so common they are no longer even perceived as insults.

 

[PetraG]

I’ve been gone for awhile. Are people still making excuses for breaking up families and traumatizing five year olds just for the terrorizing effect it will have on anyone considering immigrating with a child if they haven’t gotten their paperwork finished before getting here? Is the legitimate desire for sovereignty over our border still being used to justifying the real goal, which is making absolutely certain that even those seeking asylum on behalf of their minor children will be too scared to contemplate coming to our border instead of fleeing somewhere with a little human decency yet? Or are we pretending this is all necessary to stop sex trafficking, even though the Administration clearly said the whole intention behind zero tolerance was to secure the border against all immigration that wasn’t pre-authorized?

Not that I have an opinion about it, LOL.

 

[Ender]

No. I do not think you can clarify anything for me.

I think you’re probably right.

What you call a “gray area” is beyond my comprehension.

Clearly.

Cardinal Dolan: 'If they want to take a baby from the arms of his mother and separate the two, that’s wrong. I don’t care where you’re at, what time and what condition, that just goes against … you don’t have to read the Bible for that. That goes against human decency."

Except that anyone who actually thinks about that statement for even a moment knows it isn’t true. It doesn’t matter “what condition”? Is he really unaware that children are removed from mothers who have been deemed unfit, or who themselves are sent to prison? Of course the conditions matter. His comment may be emotionally satisfying, but it is also demonstrably false.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I read the words of blackforest that you quoted several times, and I don’t see those words claiming that the bishops’ statement is doctrinal. You were a lot closer with your example of pnewton’s post #414. This one here just doesn’t say what you claim.

Don’t be quite so literal - it was this: “Your position is…not in line with our faith.”

But I must be literal - that is, precise, because otherwise it is too easy for you to conflate terms. “Not in line with our faith” is considerably weaker than “contrary to Church doctrine.” The only point I have conceded is that people should not call the USCCB statement a statement of Church doctrine. I do not concede that the way in which someone responds to their statement should never be called “not in line with out faith.” (Sorry about the triple negative, but I couldn’t find a better way to say it.)

The fact that he doesn’t adequately understand my position does not excuse calumny.

Yes, it does. In fact it makes it not calumny. It makes the statement merely incorrect. Calumny requires knowingly making false statements about you.

 

[RealAmerican]

Then the government is idiotic for incarcerating people it can’t communicate with in a court of law.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then the government is idiotic for incarcerating people it can’t communicate with in a court of law.

Interpreters can always be found in unusual circumstances.

 

[pnewton]

Interpreters can always be found in unusual circumstances.

Never heard of a translator for baby babble.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Didn’t Homer’s half brother (played by Danny DiVito) make one once?