USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

Status
Not open for further replies.
Going further north is about chasing gold
The United States is accusing these immigrants of love of mammon?
Oh, now that is pretty rich, if you don’t mind the pun. Remember Lazarus and the rich man. All we are ever told about Lazarus is that he was covered in sores and longing to eat. Whether he was personally at fault for his situation was not considered an important part of the parable. We are far too rich in this country to accuse any who come here looking for manual labor as being lovers of money!! Just the idea beggars belief!

Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect hospitality, for through it some have unknowingly entertained angels. Be mindful of prisoners as if sharing their imprisonment, and of the ill-treated as of yourselves, for you also are in the body. Heb. 13:1-3

I have to say, though, there are those here who do not discriminate based on religion. They are just as afraid of Catholics migrating from the south as they are of Muslims coming from the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
I couldn’t find it in the Catechism anywhere. Are you sure it’s there?
CCC 2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

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, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

CCC 2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50


The public policy positions of the USCCB have been in keeping with the Catechism and the encyclicals and official exhortations of the Popes. The positions held by rank-and-file Catholics don’t hold themselves to that standard.
 
Last edited:
That is exactly what the Catholics who are in favor of same sex marriage and lenient abortion laws say.
Look, it would have been much less controversial if the USCCB had taken a more educated and objective stance on immigration, and not succumb to ‘partisanship and overheated rhetoric’. Like it did with same sex marriage- http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm , and abortion laws- http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ion/on-the-prochoice-position-on-abortion.cfm
 
Look, it would have been much less controversial if the USCCB had taken a more educated and objective stance on immigration, and not succumb to ‘partisanship and overheated rhetoric’. Like it did with same sex marriage- http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm , and abortion laws- http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ion/on-the-prochoice-position-on-abortion.cfm
They took a stance in keeping with Catholic morality, and when they published their policy statements they gave plenty of footnotes, too. They didn’t try to “modernize” or get “more educated and objective” about abortion, same sex marriage or contraception, either. It just so happens that the partisanship against immigrants is coming from a different end of the political spectrum. (Yes, that does happen.)
 
The United States is accusing these immigrants of love of mammon ?
Oh, now that is pretty rich, if you don’t mind the pun.
Ah, cut the guy some slack.

I can’t think of a better get-rich-quick scheme than riding on top of a dangerous train across a thousands of miles and risking my life to cross a border in order to harvest lettuce for under minimum wage. Those greedy @#$#%'s.

Oh. Wait.
 
40.png
PetraG:
That is exactly what the Catholics who are in favor of same sex marriage and lenient abortion laws say.
Look, it would have been much less controversial if the USCCB had taken a more educated and objective stance on immigration,…
The purpose of the bishops is first and foremost to speak the truth. Whether some see this as “controversial” is not and should not be a guiding principle in what they say. Even Jesus had this problem. Shortly after he announced that “unless you eat of the Son of Man and drink of his blood, you have no life within you” some of his followers found that “too controversial” and left Jesus. But when he asked his loyal followers if they wanted to leave too, they said “Lord, to whom should we go? You have the words of eternal life.” So it is not a deal-breaker if the bishops say something “controversial.”
 
Last edited:
C_CCC 2414_ The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit.

CCC 2438 Various causes of a religious, political, economic, and financial nature today give “the social question a worldwide dimension.” There must be solidarity among nations which are already politically interdependent. It is even more essential when it is a question of dismantling the “perverse mechanisms” that impede the development of the less advanced countries. In place of abusive if not usurious financial systems, iniquitous commercial relations among nations, and the arms race, there must be substituted a common effort to mobilize resources toward objectives of moral, cultural, and economic development, “redefining the priorities and hierarchies of values.”

CCC 2442 It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens. Social action can assume various concrete forms. It should always have the common good in view and be in conformity with the message of the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. It is the role of the laity “to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice.”
The public policy positions of the USCCB have been in keeping with the Catechism and the encyclicals and official exhortations of the Popes. The positions held by rank-and-file Catholics don’t hold themselves to that standard.
Since you’re as rank-and-file as I, you aren’t qualified to make such a statement.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I can’t make the observation that rank and file Catholics don’t write policy statements with footnotes citing the origin of their policies in papal encyclicals, exhortations, and the Catechism? What evidence do you have that this is incorrect? If it isn’t incorrect, why would anyone be “unqualified” to say it? Bishops have teaching authority in the Church, including the authority to teach how moral law applies to social issues. That is not “direct” intervention in politics. In their care as teachers, they bend over backwards to explain why they teach what they teach and why it is in keeping with our faith. They are doing the duties of their office–and yes, the Popes have reminded them that they have the duty to teach the faithful about these issues. You can look it up.

Qualified? A Muslim or an atheist could make that observation and it would still be true. What other “qualification” do you want?
 
Separating children from their parents is not always immoral.
Separating children from their parents is not “moral until proven otherwise,” either. It is instead something that must be shown to be done only when necessary and only for the amount of time necessary. This Administration has not demonstrated that necessity. He can’t have his attorney general saying one day that their going to detain every last person they can in order to send a message to stop immigration and then talk out of the other side of his mouth the next day about how it is all about stopping trafficking. Do you think those children all have Stockholm syndrome–that’s why they’re crying when they’re taken away from their “fake” parents?
 
Last edited:
How this is handled is a matter of discretion, but any President of the United States would be wise to avoid using terms like “summon” and “despots” and “failed nations
President Trump is a professional Deal Maker, that’s how he made his fortune.

He knows how to talk to people, and it certainly seems as if he got through to Rocket Man in Korea. For his actions in Korea, everyone thinks that the President deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, although he is not one to say it himself. That really distinguishes him from President Obama who lobbied for the prize
 
You mean the right to defend our borders against human traffickers and terrorists?
A) We have the right to defend our borders provided we use moral means
B) The means being used are unnecessarily cruel
C) I do not personally believe that the Administration is making an effort to do the least damage to real families that is possible. I believe that the Administration is doing what it said it intended to do, which is to make the US border as forbidding as possible and to get the word out. The idea that they are doing the minimum necessary to do their duty with regards to terrorism and trafficking is not a believable claim.

Well, that is being done “hospitality and morality be d#%ned.” That is not tolerable. When someone says “build a wall” and it’s going to cost 25 billion not including upkeep, an eyelash is not batted. (Please do not tell me that anyone ever believed that Mexico was going to foot the entire bill for a wall it did not propose to build. No one but no one really believed that fairy tale, did they? No one is that gullible.) When there is a price tag on treating human beings like brothers and sisters in Christ instead of stray dogs, then it is oh, my, we have so much HUMANITARIAN WORK to do! How can we afford it!?! Yeah. Right.

No, this time the bishops are teaching something the right wing does not like, the shoe is on the other foot, and here come all the excuses for why the bishops are the ones living in Fantasy Land rather than some political partisans choosing to float on the river Denial.
 
No, the Bishops didn’t address human trafficking (which is always immoral) and terrorism (which is always immoral) and chose to only address child/parent separation ( which is not always immoral).
 
President Trump is a professional Deal Maker, that’s how he made his fortune.

He knows how to talk to people, and it certainly seems as if he got through to Rocket Man in Korea. For his actions in Korea, everyone thinks that the President deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, although he is not one to say it himself. That really distinguishes him from President Obama who lobbied for the prize
Not the tweet of a Peace Prize candidate who “knows how to talk to people”:

Donald J. Trump
✔️
@realDonaldTrump
North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

5:49 PM - Jan 2, 2018
489K
337K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

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. I know what he’d be tweeting about that “deal” if Obama had made a “deal” like that. He’d say just what his supporters would be saying before he trained them to sit on his lap and look at him adoringly.

By the way, when someone is too humble to think he should have a prize, he doesn’t answer the question about whether he should have it with “everyone thinks so.” No, after they made the mistake with Obama, they’re not going to repeat it by handing one to Mr. Trump.
 
Its a shame that such things happen. We should pray that humans treat their fellow man with respect and dignity. Justice demands it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top