What Does the Catachism Mean in Section 2241 on Illegal Immigration?

[d97c]

2241 says: 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.

Three important qualifiers that are often dropped out in this discussion.

The first recognizes that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a nation can absorb. Common sense tells you this: No nation can absorb an unlimited number of immigrants.

Precisely how many a particular country can reasonably absorb is a determination that must ultimately be made by the laity, who are charged with ordering the temporal affairs of society and suffusing them with the Christian spirit.

The laity are not served in this task by individuals who speak as if Catholic teaching requires an open border policy that does not recognize that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a country can reasonably absorb or the responsibility of the laity in making the practical determination of what this number is.

The second qualifier that I have highlighted recognizes the state’s right to set legal requirements that must be met for immigration.
Again, this is something that common sense would tell you needs to be there. A state cannot reasonably be expected to absorb immigrants of any and all types. For example, a state may reasonably refuse immigration to murderers or terrorists–to name two very obvious examples.

Ultimately, it is the laity via their role in ordering the temporal affairs of society to determine, in the case of a particular country, what the reasonable conditions are to which immigration to their nation should be subject.

As before, the laity are not served in this task by those who would advocate an open borders policy that fails to recognize the state’s right to set conditions on immigration and the laity’s responsibility to determine in practice what those requirements are to be.

The third qualifier that I have highlighted reflects the duty of immigrants to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating.

This includes respecting the laws of the nation regarding whether or not the person is able legally to be in the country.

Immigrants are morally bound to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating, including its laws regarding whether they may legally be there.

 

[puzzleannie]

you have presented the entire post as if it were a citation from the CCC which it is not. The actual section cited clearly states the civil authority has the right to establish just laws to regulate immigration, and that covers all the objections brought up in the rest of the post, so what is the problem?

 

[d97c]

Yeah, I might have put the quotes wrong or whatever. The point is that these Bishops are all coming like we, as Catholics, must be for unlimited illegal immigrant support and open borders and unlimited numbers of illegals, but the Catechism states that there are plenty of limitations that the people, through its government, can enact to limit the numbers (as stated in my post)and require compliance with the laws of the host country. My question is: Why dont we hear more from Catholics who disagree with the conventional wisdom coming out of the NCCB, since the Catechism says that there can be limitations?

 

[Ender]

The point is that these Bishops are all coming like we, as Catholics, must be for unlimited illegal immigrant support and open borders and unlimited numbers of illegals

Agreed, the bishops have not served us well on this topic. They have behaved like just another political advocacy group.

Ender

 

[Benadam]

Agreed, the bishops have not served us well on this topic. They have behaved like just another political advocacy group.

Ender

I’ve thought about this too. As it pertains to the influx of immigrants from Mexico and South America, the Bishops see first, families fleeing a bad life and seeking a better one. They aren’t as culpable as citizens who have taken advantage of their situation. People who were doing well but broke the law to do better. People who broke the same law to have a better life for their families.

We have done what the Catechism say’s whether we like itor not.

2241 says: 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.

 

[FK04US]

Aren’t we forgetting Jesus’ words? Since when Catholics are only bound by the Catechism and forget Sacred Scriptures?

Matthew 25: 35 I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

And please DO NOT tell me that Jesus would not help the undocumented immigrants, unless you believe that he would request a visa or a green card to the strangers. The good Samaritan story comes to my mind too, with all those “righteous” people passing by. Let´s try to put our faith before our politics. Illegal or not, we are all human beings with equal dignity, each of us created under God’s image and likeness.

These ARE PEOPLE, not second class beings. Some people in this country show more love to their dogs than to our fellow immigrant brothers and sisters. Let´s start practicing what we preach when we talk about dignity and justice.

 

[d97c]

Here’s the problem with “I was hungry” quote: Under that theory, ANY hungry person, sneaking into this nation can come, from anywhere, can stay here, jumping ahead of OTHER hungry people who have followed the law and are waiting to get here. Are you saying that ALL hungry people in the world, IF they could get here, can and should be admitted? Are you for real? Do you know what has happened since all these illegals have come here? What about the jobs the illegals take from AMERICANS who need a job in the rough economy, or the low wage rate, caused by suppressed wages because illegals can be paid under the table at a lower rate. What about Mexico FIXING Mexico??
You ever read Romans 3:8 …“And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of it”? – as some who slander us allege that we say. (Their condemnation is deserved!)”

You cant say that the illegals have the right to do an evil and voilate the laws of this country, sneak in here, steal Socail Security numbers of people, DEMAND free health care, schooling, and beat Americans out of jobs! Are you saying that if I alone feel I have a right to have something someone else has, JUST BECAUSE I SAY I NEED IT, I have the right to demand it? You are wrong !
And Catholics have the duty to help them return home.

 

[d97c]

I’ve thought about this too. As it pertains to the influx of immigrants from Mexico and South America, the Bishops see first, families fleeing a bad life and seeking a better one. They aren’t as culpable as citizens who have taken advantage of their situation. People who were doing well but broke the law to do better. People who broke the same law to have a better life for their families.

We have done what the Catechism say’s whether we like itor not.

2241 says: 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.

BUT…we are not “able” to welcome an unlimited number, klike the 13 million that have illegally come here. That’s why we have laws to regulate immigration. If they are legal…then that quote applys. You cant allow 13 million to be given amnesty and then become citizens !..thereby cutting out those whom have followed our laws and want to be AMERICANS !

 

[puzzleannie]

Yeah, . My question is: Why dont we hear more from Catholics who disagree with the conventional wisdom coming out of the NCCB, since the Catechism says that there can be limitations?

we can hear plenty of commentary from CAtholics, unfortunately, who disagree with the US Bishops’ interpretation of the CCC as it applies in this country, just browse this forum for a start. (adjectives deleted). The bishops call for supporting the law but noting the law must be rooted in justice, and in the Constitution, or it is bad law. Disagreeing with the USCCB does not necessarily make one right in one’s opinion. Immigration law in this country has been built from its inception on racism and bigotry and is inherently unjust. All sides one this issue are calling for reform of these laws, as are the Bishops, who are reminding us that this reform must be just.

 

[FK04US]

Here’s the problem with “I was hungry” quote: Under that theory, ANY hungry person, sneaking into this nation can come, from anywhere, can stay here, jumping ahead of OTHER hungry people who have followed the law and are waiting to get here. … Do you know what has happened since all these illegals have come here? …
You cant say that the illegals have the right to do an evil and voilate the laws of this country, sneak in here, steal Socail Security numbers of people, DEMAND free health care, schooling, … You are wrong !
And Catholics have the duty to help them return home.

There is “no problem” with the Biblical quote. At Mass, the Priest say: “The Word of the Lord” and what do we say?: “Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ”. The problem is that you don´t want to follow the Word of the Lord. You would rather follow your politics than Our Faith. Your choice, but we are called to do better than that.

Regarding the fact that they do not follow the MAN law. Remember what Our Lord says:

Matthew 5:46-47
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

Am I wrong? Hmm, because I don´t follow your politics? or maybe because I put my Catholic faith first? Our duty is to send them home? NO! Our duty is to welcome the stranger. It is our duty to “LOVE our neighbor as He has loved us”. Jesus did not say to love our American or taxpaying neighbor and EXCLUDE all “those illegals” as you call them. I call them people, our brothers and sisters in faith. I call them my neighbors. As I said, there are people in this country that show more love to their dogs than to our immigrant fellows. I am not advocating that they should have a free ride, I am just saying that we should treat them with love and compassion, not with bigotry, not as second class beings. As I said, we are called to do better.

Jesus heard the words, and He said, “It is not the healthy who require a doctor, but the sick: I did not come to appeal to the righteous, but to sinners.”

And what do we say? Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[Ender]

Am I wrong? Hmm, because I don´t follow your politics? or maybe because I put my Catholic faith first?

This is the mindset the bishops have unleashed by presenting their opinions on the problems of immigration as if they were Church teachings. While there are certain guidelines to be adhered to in resolving immigration problems, immigration itself is not a moral issue; it is not a battle between those who represent purity and light on one side against the selfish and depraved on the other.

The problem is that you don´t want to follow the Word of the Lord. You would rather follow your politics than Our Faith.

While you make breathless claims about your goodness and question the depth of our faith, you should note that the bishops do not. You should also note that, even though the bishops imply it, they do not claim that we are morally bound to accept their position on this issue and the reason for that is simple: we aren’t. If you had a strong argument to support your opinion I suspect you would have used it; that you offer nothing but gratuitous insult demonstrates the weakness of your position.

You might, for example, want to deal with these:

2241 says countries are required " to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin." Most of the illegal immigrants here are Mexicans, but Mexico has the second highest per capita income of any country in Central and South America. The have the 12th largest economy in the world and are “firmly established as a upper-middle income country” (Wikipedia). Perhaps Guatemalans and Haitians fit the requirements of 2241 but Mexicans do not.

Here’s a fun quote from* Undocumented Migrants – Message for World Migration Day 1996* (JPII ): "Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants." So, does your charge against those of us who want to prevent illegal immigration apply to JPII as well? Is he too unwilling to follow the word of the Lord?

Ender

 

[Tigg]

Anytime a debate comes up regarding immigrants, those who are opposed to the influx of millions of illegal aliens and can discern the larger picture, are accused of reneging on their Christian obligation to feed the hungry and help the oppressed. It is getting to be a tired argument, and quite frankly, the “guilt trip” is a tactic of the far left-leaning agenda. How simplistic to say, wouldn’t Jesus feed the “undocumented immigrants.”

This very complex issue covers a multitude of sins on the part of government, who, **NOT **for humanitarian reasons has cajoled and enticed them here with all manner of rights and privileges to the detriment of a sovereign nation and the furthering of an agenda contrary to the principles upon which this country was founded. Political ideologies have caused this huge problem for a variety of reasons; none of them would include love of neighbor.

I just found this most excellent article, written by a Catholic priest who expounds on the most often forgotten aspect of social justice – the common good. This is the best explanation I have found so far which takes into account theology, philosophy and the law.

If there is such a thing as a national community, open borders are the negation of the common good, and blurring the lines of legality of status in a country is a lack of healthy and respectful realism regarding the common good. If the common good of the national family is to be protected and promoted by all members of the community, including Catholics, then the distinction between legal immigrant and <>il-legal immigrant is not morally irrelevant. It is, in fact, a fundamental distinction that cannot be ignored, a distinction between persons who respect the common good and persons who do not respect the common good. “The Church is (indeed) the place where illegal immigrants are recognized and accepted as brothers and sisters,” for the Church is the place where all are recognized and accepted as brothers and sisters. But the illegality of such brothers and sisters — as harsh as this may sound to certain ears — cannot be promoted if Catholics are to respect the common good of the national family. Open borders advocacy is civilly and socially disrespectful. Immediate, temporary, transitional assistance for a person in distress who is here illegally is a mandate from Christ, but it is not on the same level as public policy.

cis.org/catholics-and-immigration

 

[FK04US]

Guatemalans and Haitians fit the requirements of 2241 but Mexicans do not.

Here’s a fun quote from* Undocumented Migrants – Message for World Migration Day 1996* (JPII ): "Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants." So, does your charge against those of us who want to prevent illegal immigration apply to JPII as well? Is he too unwilling to follow the word of the Lord?

Ender

Why don`t you show the whole JPII document Ender? Because you know it goes against your politics. Here it is the conclusion of that JPII document:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/migration/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_25071995_undocumented_migrants_en.html

“I was a stranger and you welcomed me” (Mt 25:35). It is the Church’s task not only to present constantly the Lord’s teaching of faith but also to indicate its appropriate application to the various situations which the changing times continue to create. **Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that “stranger” in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty **of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself.

With these wishes, I impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of abundant heavenly rewards to all those who are involved in the field of migration.

Clear now? Let´s put our God inspired Faith before our fallible men “inspired” politics for a while or ever. And let´´s start practicing what we preach: Love each other as He has loved us, and US is not “USA us”. Maybe we should start with a basic question: Who is our neighbor? I am sure you and several of your fellow minded political party friends will not like the answer.

 

[Tigg]

BUT…we are not “able” to welcome an unlimited number, klike the 13 million that have illegally come here. That’s why we have laws to regulate immigration. If they are legal…then that quote applys. You cant allow 13 million to be given amnesty and then become citizens !..thereby cutting out those whom have followed our laws and want to be AMERICANS !

Actually, conservative estimates show the figure to be much higher - I used to have a link from the Center on Immigration Studies, but am unable to put my fingers on it at the moment. The figures have never been revised - they’ve been saying 12-13 million for years without accounting for all the factors. The lower estimate sounds better for the pro-illegal camp who want amnesty passed. Here’s another link:

ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2008/04/10/number-of-illigral-immigrants-in-u-s-may-be-closer-to-20-million.aspx

12 million - 13 million - 20 million? What’s in a number, but the numbers alone speak of an unconstitutional invasion by a foreign entity (See Art. 4, Sec. 4 of the U. S. Constitution.)

 

[St_Francis]

Is it Catholic to ignore the already-existing needs of Americans? Is it Catholic to ignore the dangers of illegal immigration? Is it Catholic for the government to ignore the law? Is it Catholic to over-extend ourselves to the point that no one is helped? Is it Catholic to talk about the “need” of some to come here but ignore the much more desperate situations of people who simply cannot physically get here?

The above is to me issues that seem to get ignored in the debate about illegal immigration. I help immigrants without considering whether they are here legally or not. But I do not think that *our government *should be ignoring the situation. I think that we should enforce the laws; I think that we should incentivise then discipline those here illegally to leave; and I think that we should change our laws to reflect our needs and desires to help others.

 

[d97c]

To
FK04US…answer this question-----
Are you saying that if every poor person in the world wants to come to this country, the government should allow it? ( I mean you seem to say that our Faith says we should welcome everyone !!)
If you say ," No there must be SOME controls," then why cant we have legal limits on illeglas?
If you say there can be NO limits on the amount of “poor” and “hungry”—tell me

1. who is going to pay for it?
2. when are YOU going to write the check?..cause Im not

 

[Ender]

Why don`t you show the whole JPII document Ender? Because you know it goes against your politics.

No, I have no need to take things out of context but you must think JPII wasn’t paying attention to what he was writing if you assume that what he wrote in his last paragraph simply cancels out everything he wrote before it. You should also be able to understand that saying we should “welcome him {illegals} and show him solidarity” does not conflict with the claim that “Illegal immigration should be prevented.”

Clear now? Let´s put our God inspired Faith before our fallible men “inspired” politics for a while or ever. And let´´s start practicing what we preach: Love each other as He has loved us, and US is not “USA us”. Maybe we should start with a basic question: Who is our neighbor?

Maybe we can start with the question of whether your God inspired Faith says anything about rash judgment and charity? Something like this for example: “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.”

Let’s start practicing what we preach."

Yes, let’s.

Ender

 

[d97c]

Arizona bishops are on the record as promoting the legalization of the illegal in this country and of the reunification of families. They go down to the staging towns in Mexico and give their blessings to the illegals getting ready to cross. They meet the buses full of illegals to “welcome” them and encourage them. What they never do is say that the illegal has no absolute right to come here. That they have a duty to respect the laws of their host country. Diocesan newspapers are full of pictures and stories of pathetic illegals getting ready to cross or suffering here after they have crossed.

I do not hear them say that countries have a right to regulate immigration, which they do. Nor do I hear that the “natural right” to emigrate is balanced by JPII’s teaching that there is also a right not to have to immigrate. Nor do I hear that such a natural right is accompanied by natural repsonsibilities not to break the law EXCEPT under the most dire of circumstances. Those circumstances just rarely exist in the case of the Mexican illegal. The Pew institue reacently published a study of the motivation for illegal immigrantion. It indicated that the majority of the illegals have work in Mexico. It is not starvation, nor fear for their lives that drive the Mexican. It is a grass is greener mentality and a mindset fomented by the Mexican language talk shows and the “novelas”, that this part of America was stolen from them and that they have a right to it.

OUr Lady of Guadalupe is the patroness of all of North America, the United States too and the Church’s official social justice teachings envision justice for all persons.

Mexico is a rich country. Our efforts should be on helping the Mexican national to stay in his own culture, with his own extended family,the literal sacramental of the Mexican culture and one the American bishops would destroy if we re-unite the nucllear family of the resident illegal. We have enough isolated nuclear families in our country without fashioning more.In addition, such polices are pushing more and more people onto the poverty roles.
I believe we must have legal, regulated immigration fashioned to open the door wider, the greater the need of the immigrant, but with a mind to the legitimate laws and needs of the host country.We are not doing that and the Bishops do not seem to be promoting it either. IF they think they are, the need a different PR program.

 

[kooldood]

Ok, first off you guys need to cool down. I can virtually hear you people screaming at each other through this thread. I have experienced how nasty this can get. Second off, I’m with you FK04US my brother. Yeah, I guess I just blew my whole cool down thing. Whatever. Christ didn’t care about the whole social-economic thing. Yeah, I know Mexico “could” support its citizens. But remember, this is a hypothetical “could”. The fact is, it could but it doesn’t, because we have people like Carlos Slim taking all the @^*! money. But hey, its like saying that we don’t have to help the poor in the United States because Bill Gates could if he wanted too, and we have enough problems as it is. To restate FK04US… “I was a stranger and you welcomed me”

May you all have fun shooting down that post.

God bless

 

[kooldood]

Mexico is a rich country. Our efforts should be on helping the Mexican national to stay in his own culture, with his own extended family,the literal sacramental of the Mexican culture and one the American bishops would destroy if we re-unite the nucllear family of the resident illegal. We have enough isolated nuclear families in our country without fashioning more.In addition, such polices are pushing more and more people onto the poverty roles.
QUOTE]

Ok, just to add a little on to that last post of mines. The US is not “helping the Mexican national to stay in his own culture”. If the US was, that would be some justification for stopping the flow of immigration. The bishops know that for them that to “help the Mexican national to say in his own culture” is a complicated task. To do that they would have to clean out the whole Mexican govermantal system, which is unfortunately corrupt on many levels. They are doing what they can, and what they can is helping those who have been pushed out of Mexico because of economic necessity.

God Bless.