Vatican criticizes fence?

[rpp]

…The US is indeed the greatest country in the world and we have helped millions of people over time. We are the first to arrive in countries in times of natural disasters. All of Europe would be speaking German had the US not intervened in WWII.

Except for the ones who would be speaking Japanese!

Later, the whole world would be speaking Russian had the US not stood up to the former Soviet Union.

So many languages were spoken in the former Soviet Union. They probably would have chosen French!

I know that the world and certainly the good citizens of this country do not want to kill the goose that laid the golden aid by hamstringing our own country. People like you who want to see this country fall so you can use the resources for your own means are legion, but most citizens are wise to you.

Well… :tsktsk:

You are surrounded by posters who are refuting your comments. These people are the good common sense Americans who will always stand up to people that would betray and terrorize this country.

And some of us are pretty orthodox and/pr traditional Catholics. You know, the ones who say, “The Pope said it so that’s it!”

Europe and other countries are fast becoming more secular and turning their backs on God. I understand why people like you covet our great country, but know that you will never succeed in bringing it down as long as people like me and the others on this board stand firm. And so we shall.

Strong words, but, like most people who fall into the same thinking of the autohor you were responding to, well here is the effect: :banghead:

This is the era of the “me” society (it is not a “me” generation, it is now well established as the “me” American society. One of it’s fundamental princcipals is this:
[sign]“Justice” means getting what I want.[/sign]
Hard to argue with that. Hard to even sense it in ourselves!

 

[rpp]

I honestly I am not trying to be disrespectful. I know I get very upset about this issue, but I am really working on it this time so bear with. I don’t think you addressed my question. Saying it saddens you doesn’t answer my questions. Perhaps, you would rather not at this time, but I do hope you will at least reflect on him.

Secondly, could it be that there are so many in our clergy who support illegal immigratants despite their having broken the law because they believe that the law is more problematic than the crime? Could it be that these cardinals and bishops think that as a wealthy nation we have a responsibility to assist those who are less fortunate no matter how they came to that misfortune?

Kendy

I think there is a disease of rebellion that sweeps the ranks of clergy, particularly very liberal clergy.

Liberal clergy, have a couple things in common. First they are very loud and know what to say to get the media admiring attention. Second, they need a cause because they would never dream of dying for their faith. Many being “children of the 60’s” have this rebel-against-authority attitude. Bishops are not excluded here.

Put these together, and you have clergy that will organize a protest of thousands of people demanding anarchy at the border and deny a country’s soverign right to exist (which is part of Catholic social teaching, interestingy enough.) At the same time, these same clergy cannot seem to be able to tear themselves away from their self edit here]-friends long enough to give the time of day to a pro-lifer trying to get some literature together for an RCIA class.

There are, of course, a few who genuinly believe that the laws here are so unjust that they deserve to be violated. But these people are very few and far between. The vast majority are just wanabe martyrs.

I, for one, believe the Church looses tremendous credibility when it whole-heartedly supports a group that is defined by the word “illegal”. It would do better to spend the same time fighting unjust laws rather than earning the reputation for harboring a yet another group of criminals (in addition to pedophiles): human trafficers and their “produce”. (Isn’t human trafficing against Church teaching?) That is the reputation is it beginning to earn in my neck of the woods.

P.S. On sending illegal immigrant back home, if what this would do immigrant families does not effect you, consider the fact that it would simply damage our economy. You cannot suddenly move 11 million workers out of the economy without causing serious havoc. In fact, no one is seriously considering, even people who are for the fence, because they realize that.

P.S. 2 Please, take the time to read the JPII speech and articles on the USCCB website.

What to do about illegals already present is a legitimate issue for debate. I personally feel that some type of screening mechanism must be put in place. Surley not all of those millions of people are good hard-working honest people. I am sure that there are more than few serious and even violent criminals among them.

Beyond this, I have no wisdom to offer as to what to do.

 

[rpp]

…The US is indeed the greatest country in the world and we have helped millions of people over time. We are the first to arrive in countries in times of natural disasters. All of Europe would be speaking German had the US not intervened in WWII.

Except for the ones who would be speaking Japanese!

Later, the whole world would be speaking Russian had the US not stood up to the former Soviet Union.

So many languages were spoken in the former Soviet Union. They probably would have chosen French!

I know that the world and certainly the good citizens of this country do not want to kill the goose that laid the golden aid by hamstringing our own country. People like you who want to see this country fall so you can use the resources for your own means are legion, but most citizens are wise to you.

Well… :tsktsk:

You are surrounded by posters who are refuting your comments. These people are the good common sense Americans who will always stand up to people that would betray and terrorize this country.

And some of us are pretty orthodox and/pr traditional Catholics. You know, the ones who say, “The Pope said it so that’s it!”

Europe and other countries are fast becoming more secular and turning their backs on God. I understand why people like you covet our great country, but know that you will never succeed in bringing it down as long as people like me and the others on this board stand firm. And so we shall.

Strong words, but, like most people who fall into the same thinking of the autohor you were responding to, well here is the effect: :banghead:

This is the era of the “me” society (it is not a “me” generation, it is now well established as the “me” American society. One of it’s fundamental princcipals is this:
[sign]“Justice” means getting what I want.[/sign]
Hard to argue with that. Hard to even sense it in ourselves!

 

[Cossack1]

rpp:

I am interested in what you have to say, but I find that many in this forum over use icons and non-specific quotations. These things do not communicate the writer’s point very well. I am not entirely sure what your above post means, but thank you for your interest.

When I started this thread I thought that all would agree that this country does have the inaliable right to protect and preserve its borders. I think that those who disagree with this are so far to the left that there is no way to make logic with them. However, I do challenge those who disagree with the fence but believe the US can and should protect and preserve its borders to offer a better solution.

 

[rpp]

rpp:

I am interested in what you have to say, but I find that many in this forum over use icons and non-specific quotations. These things do not communicate the writer’s point very well. I am not entirely sure what your above post means, but thank you for your interest.

When I started this thread I thought that all would agree that this country does have the inaliable right to protect and preserve its borders. I think that those who disagree with this are so far to the left that there is no way to make logic with them. However, I do challenge those who disagree with the fence but believe the US can and should protect and preserve its borders to offer a better solution.

Sorry about the icons. I was in a pretty good mood yesterday and tried to do things little differently. There were a couple of things that I did not just quite know how to respond to but did not wish to ignore them.

It is my inderstand, though of course I could be wrong, that Catholic teaching recognizes the soverignty of nations. That Nations have a identity and that it is reasonable, as long as just means are use, to promote and protect that identity.

I like the idea of a fence. I think it actually protects the very people it is trying to keep out. How many more dessicated bodies do we have to find in the dessert beore people understand this. It is like putting a fence around a baseball park. The fence is not meant to keep people out. It is menat to ensure that people enter in the right place and that people who do not belong, like criminals and pickpockets, don’t just wander around. No one would accuse a baseball team of trying to keep fans out. No. They want the fans to come. They just want them to come in the right way and pay their fair share. It also, of course, helps to manage the limited seating. (Hmm, the more I think about it, the more I like this baseball park analogy. It is not perfect, but I think it communicates well.)

Anyway, when it comes to social justice, we cannot ignore the great harm that illegal boarder crossing causes. Earlier in this thred, a poster Marci, who lives on the border told some real horror storeies about what people who live in rural border areas go through, dogs shot, drugs stashed, human feces everywhere. It is awful. Where is her social justice?

Anything that promotes a subculture where people are afraid to contact the police or other authorites is unjust. That does not mean that we shuld open our borders. That is meant as an admonition to those Clergy and Bishops who promote criminal activity by supporting, not helping individuals mind you, but supporting illegal immigration. No, they should support immigration reform.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

rpp:

I am interested in what you have to say, but I find that many in this forum over use icons and non-specific quotations. These things do not communicate the writer’s point very well. I am not entirely sure what your above post means, but thank you for your interest.

That is a big problem, I think you made some awful big assumptions about other peoples thoughts, thus the icons

When I started this thread I thought that all would agree that this country does have the inaliable right to protect and preserve its borders. I think that those who disagree with this are so far to the left that there is no way to make logic with them.

I have not seen a single post which proposes this. I have seen one side accuse the other, why they have use accusation instead of truth is a another big problem

However, I do challenge those who disagree with the fence but believe the US can and should protect and preserve its borders to offer a better solution.

Like a guest worker program or are you dismissing that? If you read Marci’s post and say why, the answer is because these people can not achieve reasonable goals through legal means. Any one who understands Nature Moral Law understands making laws which violate Nature Moral Law are worthless and typically wrong. The fence has nothing to do with that. Most realize the fence is a marketing ploy with no real value, so why should I pay for it?

 

[Fremont]

I like the idea of a fence. I think it actually protects the very people it is trying to keep out. How many more dessicated bodies do we have to find in the dessert beore people understand this. It is like putting a fence around a baseball park. The fence is not meant to keep people out. It is menat to ensure that people enter in the right place and that people who do not belong, like criminals and pickpockets, don’t just wander around. No one would accuse a baseball team of trying to keep fans out. No. They want the fans to come. They just want them to come in the right way and pay their fair share. It also, of course, helps to manage the limited seating. (Hmm, the more I think about it, the more I like this baseball park analogy. It is not perfect, but I think it communicates well.)

• • – those Clergy and Bishops who promote criminal activity by supporting, not helping individuals mind you, but supporting illegal immigration. No, they should support immigration reform.

Thanks for your post. I too think your analogy of the baseball park is a good one and conveys your points quite well.

We have seen many claims that it is impossible for many to legally immigrate to the US – particularly from Mexico. I do not believe that is true. There are reasonable legal alternatives.

There is a huge quota for immigrants from Mexico, by far the largest of any other country. Is it big enough? Some say no and getting a high enough priority in the quota pool is very difficult. Whether the quota is proper when considering the well-being and needs of the US at large is a matter for deliberation by congress.

A current legal alternative is a person who really wants to immigrate to the US can get a visitors visa quite easily and legally enter the US. He or she can then visit virtually anywhere in the country they wish. While visiting they can seek a job of their choice and negotiate employment terms with the potential employer.

If the demand for their labor services, and the limited labor pool in the US, are both as great as has been claimed by some in this forum the employer will be happy to work with them.

The employer can then compete the paperwork to sponsor the immigration of that potential immigrant listing why his or her labor services are important and explain that there is no local source of labor to fill this need of our economy. This is actually pretty simple and easy to do.

The potential immigrant can then return to his or her country of origin and make formal application to immigrate to the US. Their application will be coupled with the sponsorship of the potential employer and the potential immigrant will gain a much higher priority for approval of his or her immigration. It may still take a little time but they will get permission and will be able to enter the US legally.

If the US immigration service becomes inundated with sponsored applications that will be a very strong impetus for immigration reform. That would be good in my opinion.

Everything would be above board, out in the open and in writing for everyone, including congress, to see and analyze.

Plus the cost to the potential immigrant of such a legal approach would likely be no more than paying a Coyote and certainly a great deal safer – as well as more honest.

 

[Kendy]

I think there is a disease of rebellion that sweeps the ranks of clergy, particularly very liberal clergy.

Liberal clergy, have a couple things in common. First they are very loud and know what to say to get the media admiring attention. Second, they need a cause because they would never dream of dying for their faith. Many being “children of the 60’s” have this rebel-against-authority attitude. Bishops are not excluded here.

Put these together, and you have clergy that will organize a protest of thousands of people demanding anarchy at the border and deny a country’s soverign right to exist (which is part of Catholic social teaching, interestingy enough.) At the same time, these same clergy cannot seem to be able to tear themselves away from their self edit here]-friends long enough to give the time of day to a pro-lifer trying to get some literature together for an RCIA class.

There are, of course, a few who genuinly believe that the laws here are so unjust that they deserve to be violated. But these people are very few and far between. The vast majority are just wanabe martyrs.

The first step to refusing to listen to someone is to mischaracterize them. I am not a liberal; I am very pro-life and a proud orthodox catholic. I would absolutely die for my faith. My spiritual director who gave a homily on immigrant rights on May Day is a very orthodox, faithful to Rome, loves Jesus Carmilte priest. My cardinal Francis George has boldly proclaimed the catholic faith in front of a group of hostile university intellectuals; he’s no liberal, but he’s pro-immigrant. Throughout the country, there are orthodox catholic bishops who are pro-immigrant. JPII who gave that very pro-immigrant speech that I posted was no liberal. It is unlikely the Pope Benedict elected a liberal to head the Peace and Justice office at the Vatican.

I think if you take the time to search and read the writings of the many catholics involved in this issue, you will find that many of them are not only quite orthodox but rely heavily on scripture and church tradition to defend their positions.

 

[Fremont]

The first step to refusing to listen to someone is to mischaracterize them. I am not a liberal; I am very pro-life and a proud orthodox catholic. I would absolutely die for my faith. My spiritual director who gave a homily on immigrant rights on May Day is a very orthodox, faithful to Rome, loves Jesus Carmilte priest. My cardinal Francis George has boldly proclaimed the catholic faith in front of a group of hostile university intellectuals; he’s no liberal, but he’s pro-immigrant. Throughout the country, there are orthodox catholic bishops who are pro-immigrant. JPII who gave that very pro-immigrant speech that I posted was no liberal. It is unlikely the Pope Benedict elected a liberal to head the Peace and Justice office at the Vatican.

I think if you take the time to search and read the writings of the many catholics involved in this issue, you will find that many of them are not only quite orthodox but rely heavily on scripture and church tradition to defend their positions.

Let’s take another look at mischaracterization.

There has been virtually no comments in this forum that I am aware of that criticize or take any sort of negative view about immigration. Actually there have been many comments that praise immigration and the many contributions of immigrants to this great country.

There are strong negative feelings about illegal immigration by many posters. Those apposed to illegal immigration generally see it as wrong.

When various Catholic clergy make comments in support of immigration they are trying to lump legal, just and proper immigration together with unlawful illegal immigration. This is deliberate mischaracterization.

There is a clear, distinct and significant difference between legal and illegal immigration just as there is a clear, distinct and significant difference between legitimate therapeutic use of drugs – including opiates, methemphetamine, etc. – and the illegal use, abuse and trafficking of the same drugs.

Mischaracterization by lumping all immigration as one concept is no different than mischaracterization by lumping all consumption of drugs as one concept.

Catholic clergy that fail to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration are deliberately deluding the public and are doing a miss service to the community.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Let’s take another look at mischaracterization.

Yes lets

There has been virtually no comments in this forum that I am aware of that criticize or take any sort of negative view about immigration. Actually there have been many comments that praise immigration and the many contributions of immigrants to this great country.

Would this not be an example of a mischaracterization? Several posts on this forum are viewed by many as being anti immigration. Many have pointed out repeatedly if this was true a simple pin stroke switching legal status would eliminate the entire problem?

There are strong negative feelings about illegal immigration by many posters. Those apposed to illegal immigration generally see it as wrong

Same issue as above simply stated in reverse

When various Catholic clergy make comments in support of immigration they are trying to lump legal, just and proper immigration together with unlawful illegal immigration. This is deliberate mischaracterization.

Actually this is an accusation about the “clergy” which may well be false and thus a mischaracterization

There is a clear, distinct and significant difference between legal and illegal immigration just as there is a clear, distinct and significant difference between legitimate therapeutic use of drugs – including opiates, methemphetamine, etc. – and the illegal use, abuse and trafficking of the same drugs.

Actually this is a consistent theme to use inappropriate analogy to mischaracterize a specific group of people. The objective is to get “opiates,** methemphetamine**, etc. – and the illegal use, abuse and trafficking” in a sentences with “immigration” could you get a better example of mischaracterization?

Mischaracterization by lumping all immigration as one concept is no different than mischaracterization by lumping all consumption of drugs as one concept.

Actually it is- in one case it involves the actions of individuals in regard to providing for wives and children as equal to actions by others to profit from addictions. The moral issues are completely different

Catholic clergy that *fail to differentiate *between legal and illegal immigration are deliberately deluding the public and are doing a miss service to the community.

I have no reason to believe this is true and I am Catholic, and read these threads.

 

[Fremont]

Yes letsWould this not be an example of a mischaracterization? Several posts on this forum are viewed by many as being anti immigration. Many have pointed out repeatedly if this was true a simple pin stroke switching legal status would eliminate the entire problem?
Same issue as above simply stated in reverse
Actually this is an accusation about the “clergy” which may well be false and thus a mischaracterization

Actually this is a consistent theme to use inappropriate analogy to mischaracterize a specific group of people. The objective is to get “opiates,** methemphetamine**, etc. – and the illegal use, abuse and trafficking” in a sentences with “immigration” could you get a better example of mischaracterization?
Actually it is- in one case it involves the actions of individuals in regard to providing for wives and children as equal to actions by others to profit from addictions. The moral issues are completely differentI have no reason to believe this is true and I am Catholic, and read these threads.

Thank you for your support.

 

[palmas85]

I have four questions for the people who have posted on this most interesting subject.

1 Are you or your families immigrants to the United States, either legal or illegal?

2 Do you work with either Immigration , Customs or the Border Patrol and thus have more than just a rudimentary knowledge of Immigration processes, policies and problems?

3 Are you speaking from first hand knowledge or just repeating what you have read, heard or been told?

4 Do you view the Church as being primarily concerned with spiritual matters or physical matters?

 

[rpp]

The first step to refusing to listen to someone is to mischaracterize them. I am not a liberal; I am very pro-life and a proud orthodox catholic. I would absolutely die for my faith. My spiritual director who gave a homily on immigrant rights on May Day is a very orthodox, faithful to Rome, loves Jesus Carmilte priest. My cardinal Francis George has boldly proclaimed the catholic faith in front of a group of hostile university intellectuals; he’s no liberal, but he’s pro-immigrant. Throughout the country, there are orthodox catholic bishops who are pro-immigrant. JPII who gave that very pro-immigrant speech that I posted was no liberal. It is unlikely the Pope Benedict elected a liberal to head the Peace and Justice office at the Vatican.

I think if you take the time to search and read the writings of the many catholics involved in this issue, you will find that many of them are not only quite orthodox but rely heavily on scripture and church tradition to defend their positions.

You mischaraterize my statements. I am not anti-immigration. Nor did I state that all clergy who support immigration are liberal. In fact, the very last paragraph of my post which you quoted made that statement.

Supportng illegal immigration is utterly different and only tangentally related to supporting legal immigration.

 

[palmas85]

I have four questions for the people who have posted on this most interesting subject.

1 Are you or your families immigrants to the United States, either legal or illegal?

2 Do you work with either Immigration , Customs or the Border Patrol and thus have more than just a rudimentary knowledge of Immigration processes, policies and problems?

3 Are you speaking from first hand knowledge or just repeating what you have read, heard or been told?

4 Do you view the Church as being primarily concerned with spiritual matters or physical matters?

I notice that no one has answered the questions that I have asked. They all have a bearing on this topic, I thought for sure someone who come to the plate and lay his expertise on the line by now…

 

[Kendy]

I have four questions for the people who have posted on this most interesting subject.

1 Are you or your families immigrants to the United States, either legal or illegal?

I have family members who were ilegal but have since garnered legal status. Ples, I am from Miami so many people are illegal.

2 Do you work with either Immigration , Customs or the Border Patrol and thus have more than just a rudimentary knowledge of Immigration processes, policies and problems?

No

3 Are you speaking from first hand knowledge or just repeating what you have read, heard or been told?

First hand.

4 Do you view the Church as being primarily concerned with spiritual matters or physical matters?

I think this is a false dichotomy. The church’s primary objective is the salvation of souls. A key component of our spiritual work is to love our neighbor. We cannot claim to love our neighbor without considering their material needs. When I feed a homeless person, I am doing spiritual work.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

You mischaraterize my statements. I am not anti-immigration. Nor did I state that all clergy who support immigration are liberal. In fact, the very last paragraph of my post which you quoted made that statement.

Supportng illegal immigration is utterly different and only tangentally related to supporting legal immigration.

I didn’t mean to mischaracterize your statement. But I am not in favor of illegal immigratation; illegal immigration is bad for immigrants. I am in favor of immigration reform to make safe and legal immigration feasible for the number of people for whom there is a demand for labor, or for people facing persecution.

Kendy

 

[Melvin]

Well done in bringing up this point. I certainly am disgusted at such statements by any cardinal or bishop or priest. They do not represent the Catholic Church I believe in.

Too many cardinals and bishops are way off track and they deserve to be criticized.

Again and again Catholic cardinals and bishops have clearly demonstrated they cannot be trusted in matters of social justice or protection of the innocent.

In the mid 1990’s the bishops in California fought to retain racial discrimination. They argued that the cruelty of granting or rejecting people based on skin color, race, ethnic background, etc. should continue indefinitely. Fortunately the citizens of California soundly rejected these disgusting priests and sided with elimination of much of the racial discrimination practices.

In the early 2000’s we were enlightened on how so many cardinals and bishops ignored the harm and suffering of children abused by priests. Rather the cardinals and bishops repeatedly protected those priests and conspired to hide them from the police and legal system. These cardinals and bishops then went on to bribe the victims and their families to keep the conspiracy secret. Even further these cardinals and bishops then lied about what they had done.

Now we see more behavior just as disgusting as has been made public over the past decade or so.

These cardinals and bishops do not deserve our respect or attention. Their views should be rejected.

Every day I fight to keep my faith in the Church and try to ignore the very poor quality of cardinals and bishops we must endure.

Sorry to be getting to this thread so late…

I somewhat understand your struggle. I am a convert from Protestantism, brought into the Church by God’s grace when I thought all hope was lost. I have a deep respect for the Tradition of the Church and the Apostolic authority of the Bishops, most especially, of course, the Holy Father.

It is sometimes difficult, as a Catholic, to distinguish between the official teaching of the Church and statements made by various Bishops. We speak of the infallibility of the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Pope on matters of faith and morals, but sometimes we have a hard time distinguishing whether a particular issue comes under that purview.

It is also difficult, of course, to accept the wanton disregard for justice shown by members of the American hierarchy re: the sexual abuse crisis and the wanton disregard for the welfare of the Church and morality, as taught by the Church, in the continued admission of practiciing homosexuals to the priesthood and the failure by the Church herself to weed out predators, whether homosexual or heterosexual, from the ministry. I am not talking here about showing God’s mercy to men who have sinned in this way who are repentant; I am talking about recognizing that allowing men with such serious character flaws to continue in ministry, which by nature is a position of power, poses a risk to other members of the Church, whether religious or lay.

I remember the Lord’s admonition that on his return, there would be woe to those leaders whom He found abusing His children…who would be punished and placed with the unfaithful (Luke 12:45-46). I also remember St. Paul’s statement to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:30) that “and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”

We all have to rely on the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the authentic voice of the Church regarding faith and morals. I see, however, a problem in this, which is akin to the problem of interpretation of scripture…it leaves to every individual to interpret the Catechism according to his or her own understanding. Granted, that may not be much of an issue in most things, but in those instances where the teaching is not so clearly applied to a present situation or circumstance (such as the immigration issue with its concurrent aspects of justice for the less fortunate and the right and duty to protect a state’s citizens) there appears to be a lot of wiggle room.

So, the question arises: to whom do we go for the authentic interpretation of the Church’s teaching in the Catechism? The only answer I can see is the same as applies to Scripture and Tradition: the Magisterium, expressed through the Bishops in communion with the Vicar of Christ.

Any thoughts?

 

[Fremont]

Sorry to be getting to this thread so late…

I somewhat understand your struggle. I am a convert from Protestantism, brought into the Church by God’s grace when I thought all hope was lost. I have a deep respect for the Tradition of the Church and the Apostolic authority of the Bishops, most especially, of course, the Holy Father.

It is sometimes difficult, as a Catholic, to distinguish between the official teaching of the Church and statements made by various Bishops. We speak of the infallibility of the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Pope on matters of faith and morals, but sometimes we have a hard time distinguishing whether a particular issue comes under that purview.

It is also difficult, of course, to accept the wanton disregard for justice shown by members of the American hierarchy re: the sexual abuse crisis and the wanton disregard for the welfare of the Church and morality, as taught by the Church, in the continued admission of practiciing homosexuals to the priesthood and the failure by the Church herself to weed out predators, whether homosexual or heterosexual, from the ministry. I am not talking here about showing God’s mercy to men who have sinned in this way who are repentant; I am talking about recognizing that allowing men with such serious character flaws to continue in ministry, which by nature is a position of power, poses a risk to other members of the Church, whether religious or lay.

I remember the Lord’s admonition that on his return, there would be woe to those leaders whom He found abusing His children…who would be punished and placed with the unfaithful (Luke 12:45-46). I also remember St. Paul’s statement to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:30) that “and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”

We all have to rely on the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the authentic voice of the Church regarding faith and morals. I see, however, a problem in this, which is akin to the problem of interpretation of scripture…it leaves to every individual to interpret the Catechism according to his or her own understanding. Granted, that may not be much of an issue in most things, but in those instances where the teaching is not so clearly applied to a present situation or circumstance (such as the immigration issue with its concurrent aspects of justice for the less fortunate and the right and duty to protect a state’s citizens) there appears to be a lot of wiggle room.

So, the question arises: to whom do we go for the authentic interpretation of the Church’s teaching in the Catechism? The only answer I can see is the same as applies to Scripture and Tradition: the Magisterium, expressed through the Bishops in communion with the Vicar of Christ.

Any thoughts?

Thank you for a very thoughtful and meaningful post. You included several good scriptural references.

It is difficult to grasp the absolute meaning of all aspects of our Catechism and much is left to personal interpretation. In some matters maybe too much is left to personal interpretation and maybe that is why we see considerable dialog, disagreement and controversy on some topics – including illegal immigration.

Only rarely does the Pope speak Ex Cathedra to make a definitive teaching on any topic. To my knowledge the Magesterium almost never declares definitions in concert with the Vicar of Christ on social topics. There have been a few such as abortion and euthanasia.

Individual clergy are a good source of teaching but not the ultimate source of teaching. They can be in error or just expressing their personal opinions. There is room for disagreement.

As so well put earlier in this thread by contributor rpp – “We are bound to respect and obey bishops, but not blindly. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said, ‘When the Faith and souls are at stake it may be necessary to correct bishops, even publicly.’"

Well that is some of my thoughts.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have four questions for the people who have posted on this most interesting subject.

I think the questions are poor, however I want to be reasonably open with you on even questions which maybe better not asked

1 Are you or your families immigrants to the United States, either legal or illegal?

By whose standards? I was born in a northern state of the US is that an answer to you? See as a Catholic all other people are my brothers and sisters, those are not just accidental words we use in mass

2 Do you work with either Immigration , Customs or the Border Patrol and thus have more than just a rudimentary knowledge of Immigration processes, policies and problems?

This is a loaded question and Catholics are forbidden to practice deception. I am not nor ever been a “government employee”. I suspect you will be allowed to move the definition of “rudimentary” as needed to achieve your objective, however all people must address morals whether they live in border states as Texas or non border states as Missouri. If you are implying that moral change when one moves near a border…(well)…

3 Are you speaking from first hand knowledge or just repeating what you have read, heard or been told?

Are some people born with knowledge on moral and immigrations or do they learn it some where? Personally I was not born with knowledge on immigration however I was born with knowledge of morals, that is Natural Moral Law theory.

4 Do you view the Church as being primarily concerned with spiritual matters or physical matters?

I will only attend if one condition is true. For the other matter I speak with bankers

 

[Cossack1]

reform[/I]

.

This is a very good analogy, and I agree. I would not have any problem with a mission being set up INSIDE MEXICO that would offer aid, food, and comfort to Mexicans. The staff that would man the mission could even help the Mexicans fill out forms to LEGALY attain citizenship in this country. However, I think the staff must emphasize that the good citizens of Mexico who want to come here must follow the law. Why would anyone be against that?