What will it take for bishops to condemn illegal immigration?

[foolishmortal]

“our mother may never be allowed to go hungry, as long as we have something to offer”
If only America has something to offer the illegals without taking from poor people here. See, we have families here struggling to put their kids through school. My mom is not a right-winger and she, as a kindergarten teacher, says they can’t teach these Spanish speaking kids right and yet, they have to, thus taking from the other kids’ education. The bishops are not seeing the forest for the trees. This is not nationalism vs. the Church, but a story of lives hurt by false charity that condones injustice in the name of scripted justice. It’s like the vice versa of the principle before the people it seemed they tried to address at Vatican 2. I’m all for principle, but I’m for theological principle over fleshy desires of people; not false charity made principle used against charity. Who’ll care for America’s destitute when it falls apart and cannot care for its citizens’ or the Mexicans’?
Thus, this is not a borders issue, but a robbing of Peter to pay Paul orchestrated by pannationalist elites. I think that’s what Elizabeth is saying she thinks I’m saying and I bet there’s higher authority on paper, if not the Vatican, than any local bishop that would condemn open borders when exploitation of the poor of two nations and the intention to crash a society is intended by it.

The faithful have the right to dictate to the bishops that which the bishops’ duty is or where they’re out of line. Would you, for example, just walk lock-in-step with the teachings of a bishop teaching liberation theology? If a bishop jokes around at Mass, should we figure it must be OK because one did that? Sadly, we have to see if our bishops are doing their jobs or overstepping their authority. I believe Cardinal George even talked about the laity helping out their bishops, who’re weak. It seems, sadly, we must.

 

[JReducation]

“our mother may never be allowed to go hungry, as long as we have something to offer”
If only America has something to offer the illegals without taking from poor people here. See, we have families here struggling to put their kids through school. My mom is not a right-winger and she, as a kindergarten teacher, says they can’t teach these Spanish speaking kids right and yet, they have to, thus taking from the other kids’ education. The bishops are not seeing the forest for the trees. This is not nationalism vs. the Church, but a story of lives hurt by false charity that condones injustice in the name of scripted justice. It’s like the vice versa of the principle before the people it seemed they tried to address at Vatican 2. I’m all for principle, but I’m for theological principle over fleshy desires of people; not false charity made principle used against charity. Who’ll care for America’s destitute when it falls apart and cannot care for its citizens’ or the Mexicans’?
Thus, this is not a borders issue, but a robbing of Peter to pay Paul orchestrated by pannationalist elites. I think that’s what Elizabeth is saying she thinks I’m saying and I bet there’s higher authority on paper, if not the Vatican, than any local bishop that would condemn open borders when exploitation of the poor of two nations and the intention to crash a society is intended by it.

The faithful have the right to dictate to the bishops that which the bishops’ duty is or where they’re out of line. Would you, for example, just walk lock-in-step with the teachings of a bishop teaching liberation theology? If a bishop jokes around at Mass, should we figure it must be OK because one did that? Sadly, we have to see if our bishops are doing their jobs or overstepping their authority. I believe Cardinal George even talked about the laity helping out their bishops, who’re weak. It seems, sadly, we must.

You’re missing some very important teachings that Elizabeth and Francis were trying to drive home.

1. God is waiting for us to place our trust in his Divine Providence. That’s why Elizabeth was able to sacrifice her children and herself without a second thought. That’s why Francis was able to demand of the Seculars who joined his order that they do the same, even though they had spouses and children. They were to give until it hut and then continue giving, because God who is Father of all sees what we need and will not let us go without.
2. Would I walk in step with a bishop who teaches Liberation Theology? The Rule of St. Francis is very clear. If he is not asking you to sin, do it. It does not matter if it is foolish or imprudent. What matters is that you obey. The issue is not whether it’s Liberation Theology or not. The issue is whether the bishop asks me to sin or not. Who defines sin? St. Francis de Sales was clear that sin is only defined by the Church, not the faithful.
3. Cardinal George did say that we help the bishops. He did not say that we tell them what to do. We work with them. But they do not work for us. It’s not that kind of relationship. There is still a hierarchical relationship that must be observed…
4. No we do not dictate to bishops. In fact, the law of the Church is that we treat them with reverence and respect. The tone of many posts on this thread lacks both reverence and respect. That law has not changed.

Do you remember many years ago Mother Angelica made a comment about a pastoral letter tha Cardinal Mahoney wrote? Her concern was well founded. However, the General Superiors of the Franciscan Orde commanded her to retract her comment and offer an apology in writing and on paper under holy obedience. The Generals were not agreeing or disagreeing. But there was a principal that can never be violated. You cannot defy authority. You may write a letter, make a telephone call, ask for an interview or use any other polite form of contact. But you must show reverence and respect at all time. Mother set a very good example for everyone. She admitted that she had disobeyed Francis and she apologized to the Cardinal. Her humility earned her a great deal of respect and admiration. It set a beautiful example for others, especially those connected to EWTN’s ministry. Observe that they teach and preach on that network, without ever being irreverent, condescending or challenging of authority. That’s what I’m talking about here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

Folks on this thread need to stop posting and go back and read Br. Jr.'s posts. He is the one giving us wisdom on this subject. I notice Foolishmortal, for instance, doesn’t seem to be responding to his posts.

I disagree. I think fm is responding, and it’s a meta-response rather than a rote response. And I am also responding. Jesus brought a gospel of both radical love and radical justice. It’s not an either/or situation, but when the temporary solution ends up jeopardizing the permanent solution (and a far, far more just solution for those very people to whom charity is owed), then it’s time to get honest and radical. This country should have done so years ago. I’m not going to blame any clergy for that; frankly, it was the responsibility of the secular politicians to take leadership, which they failed to do (shame on them), and to take it especially when we had the leverage to do so. But I think that religious leaders who are willing can now be prophetic voices and activists if, like the article I cited, they are knowledgeable enough and inspired enough to go beyond their minimal comfort zone. (And apparently some lay people can, too; I particulary liked this phrase of fm’s…)

This is not nationalism vs. the Church, but a story of lives hurt by false charity that condones injustice in the name of scripted justice.

There are several layers of justice, and Jesus asks us to look at all of them.

(1) justice for poor people, both immigrants and non-immigrants. Fm is 100% correct about the deeply impacted educational settings. I have taught in them, and recently. The rich are not affected by the domination of entire cities and districts by a non-English speaking population, as the rich are both mobile and have private options. Rather, poor English-speaking children are; and they have no recourse; being poor, they have no weight to throw around in legislatures & boards. English-only speakers are literally sitting in silence while the rest of the class is being taught in Spanish. I have had to rescue such poverty-stricken English speakers from such environments, and put them in public homeschools, where I taught them freshly the 5 months to 2 years which they had missed while sitting in Spanish-only classrooms against their choice. It’s a matter of numbers.

And what do these poor children look like? They are also people “of color.” They are African American; they are Southeast Asian; they are very struggling Chinese-Americans; they are Thai – all of whom obtained legal passage – or in the case of the first, inherited a country they were forcibly brought to. These children are absolutely being denied their civil rights.

(2) When illegal immigration enables people in power to exploit those same people, then a Pyrrhic victory has resulted. One evil has been traded for another. That is not a definition of justice to anyone who is being honest.

(3) But the thrust of my earlier post was on the more important and far more evil form of enabling that occurs between nations, which allows the nation of origin to engage in grave injustice because the host nation 's policies promote and support the very conditions which “require” those living in poverty to flee in the first place. That is not just cooperating with evil, it is affirming and uplifting it. When nations by their actions make pacts based on greed – greed that perpetuates poverty – it is up to those with eyes to see, to call a halt to such nefarious relationships.

It may surprise many Americans, and people on this thread, to learn that the vast majority of Mexicans do not want to leave their homeland. They want to live and prosper in their own land, but unless one is part of the oligarchy, that is generally not going to happen in Mexico. True justice would do some of the things the article I linked suggests – actions and policies not dissimilar to what countries & companies have done for indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, rural and urban, in other Third World areas: we have supported their prosperity in their native lands with all kinds of economic and physical aid. That is no less than what Jesus asks us to do.

I’m not suggesting some hate-campaign in the meantime, and I don’t know anyone who is sincere about immigration who would suggest that. That’s neither charity nor justice. But to ignore the big picture is to engage in self-deception and rationalization. Radical steps are called for to end Third World poverty, and unlimited illegal immigration to First World countires is not the solution that benefits even those seeking the refuge.

Justice is not romanticism. Justice faces truth, and faces it squarely. Justice, truth, and love are all united in the person of Jesus Christ. You cannot separate these and say you know Him.

 

[rodomonte]

It’s also about damaging a state’s already-struggling economy by scaring away tourists, conventions and business. It’s also about profiling anybody who “looks” like they’re here illegal (Canadians on an expired visa, eh?) Many of “they” were in the U.S. before “we” were, and before we moved the border on them, and according to the U.S. Constitution, many of “they” are U.S. citizens because they were born here. So, it’s not as sound-bitey simple as you think it is.

You must be referring to the left-wing organized boycott of Arizona as the cause of the so-called damage to Arizona’s economy. I haven’t seen any evidence of great damage to our economy. The boycott is offset by the “buycott,” with many people coming to Arizona in sympathy with SB1070. I live in a tourist area, and it has been a good summer.

I have already posted that this boycott is immoral, and I am still waiting for the Bishops to condemn it as such, but I am not holding my breath.

Of course, if the boycott were truely effectve, it would result it the layoffs of many illegals who work in the hospitality industry. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[foolishmortal]

Br. JR Education: I think we are talking of two different kinds of deference. If the bishop uses his authority and it’s not misused, like your Mother Angelica example, I agree. You think I’m talking schismatically, but I’m not joining the SSPX anytime soon. I would no more join them than the liberation theologians, as the defiance against Church laws are deplorable, whatever the conditions. The FSSP are loyal, but don’t stamp their approval on all non-binding feelings of their respective bishop or they can say they don’t like it, but we all must adhere to it. We can know something is wrong, if not dogma, and pray it be revoked, while having to go by it. St. Paul was a newbie to the faith when he corrected the first pope, but would’ve obeyed an order, if he knew it weren’t wrong. St. Thomas Aquinas and his close friend, another saint, questioned the evidence for a dogma-to-be (I think the Immaculate Conception), but accepted it when declared.

I was reacting to some bishops’ being for crippling restrictions to the Arizona law (the rest being silent or too general about charity, while all this has gone on), which was softer than the US and Mexican immigration laws, which no bishops seem to complain about. I think Brewer’s law was no different than a bad driver being tested for drugs or drunkenness. Is it ageism if youth get checked much more often? What if they asked for their driver’s license? Nope. They tend to get into trouble and sometimes in a parent’s car. It’s the same with checking trouble-looking Hispanics’ papers. Yeah, it could be abused. Any law can be by an officer with an attitude.

As for helping those in need, some reason and proportionality is required . Should we bus some gang members to the bishop’s home in one bus and decent Hispanics in another if the former might bully the other and terrorize the home? Maybe some real creeps in Europe should be invited to not leave the Vatican, but live amongst decent people seeking refuge (some of whom work and the rest of whom remain n the take), and see if they are allowed to remain there for good and receive handouts or send what money they receive outside the nation. That’s the situation in Arizona and other states.

I volunteered for Reach Out and Read. I was happy to help Spanish-only speaking kids, kids of women with headscarves and would be happy to help a kid brought by an obvious lesbian or homosexual and to help children of a parent wearing a pentagram pendant with reading English, though their parent(s) may be up to no good, but I’ll still say on forums that it’s wrong. You can give to those you think are wrong and whose ways needs correcting, if it means deportation. They do not need to be mutually exclusive.

I think most foreigners who work in hospitals are African, though it’s just factual that laundry services would suffer in hospitality industries without illegals. If we keep them, it should be considered a right that they sign the same employee papers others do and that 90% of their money stay in America. I may agree with Gingrich, if I got him right, that ones who came illegally as children with their family, not trying to take advantage of us, cannot be an anchor baby and that, if they are working towards being productive citizens and will be paying their bills like any other citizen. In bad neighborhoods, I fear, they’ll be bullied into joining a gang. Thanks to Obama, they probably won’t be getting into a promising poor kid school, if they wish to thrive, so they’ll be taught to be a victim by the Left.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR Education: I think we are talking of two different kinds of deference. If the bishop uses his authority and it’s not misused, like your Mother Angelica example, I agree. You think I’m talking schismatically, but I’m not joining the SSPX anytime soon. I would no more join them than the liberation theologians, as the defiance against Church laws are deplorable, whatever the conditions. The FSSP are loyal, but don’t stamp their approval on all non-binding feelings of their respective bishop or they can say they don’t like it, but we all must adhere to it. We can know something is wrong, if not dogma, and pray it be revoked, while having to go by it. St. Paul was a newbie to the faith when he corrected the first pope, but would’ve obeyed an order, if he knew it weren’t wrong. St. Thomas Aquinas and his close friend, another saint, questioned the evidence for a dogma-to-be (I think the Immaculate Conception), but accepted it when declared.

I was reacting to some bishops’ being for crippling restrictions to the Arizona law (the rest being silent or too general about charity, while all this has gone on), which was softer than the US and Mexican immigration laws, which no bishops seem to complain about. I think Brewer’s law was no different than a bad driver being tested for drugs or drunkenness. Is it ageism if youth get checked much more often? What if they asked for their driver’s license? Nope. They tend to get into trouble and sometimes in a parent’s car. It’s the same with checking trouble-looking Hispanics’ papers. Yeah, it could be abused. Any law can be by an officer with an attitude.

As for helping those in need, some reason and proportionality is required . Should we bus some gang members to the bishop’s home in one bus and decent Hispanics in another if the former might bully the other and terrorize the home? Maybe some real creeps in Europe should be invited to not leave the Vatican, but live amongst decent people seeking refuge (some of whom work and the rest of whom remain n the take), and see if they are allowed to remain there for good and receive handouts or send what money they receive outside the nation. That’s the situation in Arizona and other states.

I volunteered for Reach Out and Read. I was happy to help Spanish-only speaking kids, kids of women with headscarves and would be happy to help a kid brought by an obvious lesbian or homosexual and to help children of a parent wearing a pentagram pendant with reading English, though their parent(s) may be up to no good, but I’ll still say on forums that it’s wrong. You can give to those you think are wrong and whose ways needs correcting, if it means deportation. They do not need to be mutually exclusive.

I think most foreigners who work in hospitals are African, though it’s just factual that laundry services would suffer in hospitality industries without illegals. If we keep them, it should be considered a right that they sign the same employee papers others do and that 90% of their money stay in America. I may agree with Gingrich, if I got him right, that ones who came illegally as children with their family, not trying to take advantage of us, cannot be an anchor baby and that, if they are working towards being productive citizens and will be paying their bills like any other citizen. In bad neighborhoods, I fear, they’ll be bullied into joining a gang. Thanks to Obama, they probably won’t be getting into a promising poor kid school, if they wish to thrive, so they’ll be taught to be a victim by the Left.

All of these wrongs must be overcome. We have to work to find solutions, even if it’s one at a time. But we must never resort to disrespectful attitudes and language toward our bishops. We can agree and disagree with many people and still give them the reverence and the courtessy that is appropriate for their office and to them as human beings. That was my point.

We have developed a tendency in this country to shoot-off our mouths without concern for how we sound. That’s wrong. Even the greatest and wisest truth must be said respectfully. I’m not speaking abou you. I’m speaking about us. When we make comments using terms such as, “the bishops need to wake up” or “who gives them the right to. . .” or “they need to keep their noses out of politics” and other such expressions, those are rude and completely inappropriate for people who claim to want to achieve the perfection of holiness.

As to what the bishops can and cannot say. They must speak according to the way that the Church teaches and the way that she prays in liturgy. Yesterday, at Vespers, the universal Church prayed, “Do not dierct the world leaders to give attention only to the needs of their own nations, but give them, above all, a respect and a deep concern for all peoples.” This is in our liturgy. Therefore, this is the message that we have to proclaim. As we pray, so we believe. We can’t say one thing in liturgy and another outside of liturgy. Do you see what I’m saying?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Contarini]

This doesn’t say to give everyone amnesty. But that is what the USCCB is saying. A basic human right does not include breaking the host countries laws.

Actually, a basic human right takes precedence over any laws.

Finally, no nation has “the ability to protect and feed their residents”. Nations and governments produce exactly nothing to be able to feed their residents. Are they thinking we go to the city hall to get our meals? Nations have nothing except what they steal from the fruits of their citizen’s labors.

I think this is the root of your problem with the Catholic Church’s position. You hold to a radically individualistic, libertarian position which is, it seems to me, incompatible with Catholic social teaching–or orthodox Christianity generally.

A nation is a group of people–a community. If you don’t think communities exist, then you have a problem.

Edwin

 

[foolishmortal]

I don’t have time to respond now but, if the government takes illegals in and feeds them with our tax dollars, it’s really not us, individuals, showing charity, so I don’t think it is part of the give to the needy teaching of the Church (then there’s the part about nations’ leaders using them against each other). Imposing that idea of charity on others, especially the poor, who experience dangerous illegals’ violence the most, is just wrong.

 

[havana1]

You must be referring to the left-wing organized boycott of Arizona as the cause of the so-called damage to Arizona’s economy. I haven’t seen any evidence of great damage to our economy. The boycott is offset by the “buycott,” with many people coming to Arizona in sympathy with SB1070. I live in a tourist area, and it has been a good summer.

I have already posted that this boycott is immoral, and I am still waiting for the Bishops to condemn it as such, but I am not holding my breath.

Of course, if the boycott were truely effectve, it would result it the layoffs of many illegals who work in the hospitality industry. Be careful what you wish for.

Why do you presume I support boycotting Arizona? I don’t. I live here. I am always happy any time artists play here (like Lady Gaga who spoke out against the law) and think Rage Against The Machine are way out of line with their organized activities in LA and elsewhere. Incidentally, if you do live in Arizona, are most of your purchases at locally-owned businesses (the ones who really are hurting) or are you most of your purchases going to out-of-state corporations (like Wal-Mart, Lowe’s, etc.)? You may want to check out the Local First Arizona coalition, which has been supporting local commerce here long before this “buy-cott” gimmick came along. And to reiterate what I’ve said elsewhere: Yes, it’s safe to visit Arizona - there won’t be rolling gun battles between Mexican cartels when you’re driving down the street. Boycott SB1070, not our state. We need people visiting our Grand Canyon State.

(P.S. If you have proof that Arizona’s economy has improved since the bill was signed, please show the proof of it. Thanks.)

 

[sedonaman]

… His challenge to all of us to find solutions that will work for everyone on all side of the borders for all nations, not just the USA.
His challenge to all of us to find solutions that will work for everyone on all side of the borders for all nations, not just the USA.

The United States cannot resolve every border issue on the planet. Not only that, but what right does the U.S. have to inject itself into every dispute?

… The cause of our problem is our legal system. Our legal system has been broken for a long time.

Well, I’ll drink to that!

Part of the problem is the lack of subsidiarity that the Constitution was set up to create. Another is the failure to enforce, selective enforcement, or outright defiance [even by the government!]. Examples abound. There is a law passed by congress that prohibits the military from sending women into combat; women are in combat roles. Keeping voters from a polling place is a federal crime; a violent group of Black Panthers kept whites away; nothing was done. Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act which, in part, stripped the courts of its jurisdiction over combatants captured on the battlefield; the Supreme Court interpreted that part away to nothing.

I could go on, but you get the point.

All of this reminds me of the poem, “Net of Justice”:

O, net of justice with mesh so fine,
No minnow escapes thy seep of twine;

O, net with such a lengthy train,
No errant child escapes thy strain;

O, net with reach so long, so vast,
Ne’er tiniest soul escapes thy cast;

O, net with such a power pull,
Each haul of krill is over full;

O, wondrous net of mystery,
Why, only whales escape from thee!

A good treatise on this topic is a somewhat lengthy, but revealing article, “America’s Ruling Class” spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the

 

[Lapell]

washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/2/illegal-immigrant-killed-nun-released-by-feds/?clear_cache_true

It's not this, really, but that we can't take care of so many poor here as it is.  One party pretends to care for them while keeping them in victim mode on vote plantations.  Their kids will be practically drafted into gangs, who violate others in their chosen neighborhoods, even if the parent comes to work hard (there must be some place in Mexico they could find jobs, I'm sure).  Protestants try to bring them into their churches.

Is helping their coming here really social justice? It’s not to the victims of those who wouldn’t have been victimized if illegal immigrants (excluding refugees of political oppression and genocide) haven’t been coming here. Victims include legal Hispanics, as well. Remove visa overstayers, as well. It’s just that they haven’t brought crime to America.

I just read this OP.
I would tend to think the bishops would first examine what causes immigration to be illegal and are they reasonable and justifiable. Should it be considered illegal in all the cases presently seen by the local and State authorities as illegal? And then there must be other fine points to examine. If prejudice is the main one thing at the root of the ruling about illegal immigration, it may not be so in God’s eyes! But you have to examine each case one by one.

 

[sedonaman]

…But you have to examine each case one by one.

All 12 million of them?

How about we tell the Mexican government to shape up and eliminate their oligarchy and set up a capitalistic system so their people don’t have to leave to make enough just to live? There are all kinds of criticisms leveled at the U.S. for not being a perfect Utopia for all the world’s people, but precious little [if any] of Mexico [or any other country] for running an oppressive economy that drives its own people away. The fact is, the more America does to overcome its faults, the worse, not better, America appears.

As usual, perception is the direct opposite of reality.

 

[GEddie]

I just read this OP.
I would tend to think the bishops would first examine what causes immigration to be illegal and are they reasonable and justifiable. Should it be considered illegal in all the cases presently seen by the local and State authorities as illegal?/

Illegal immigration is simply the entry into a country without passing though a customs check and/or without the proper legal papers, with intention of remaining. There are no ‘nuances’ to it.

These persons are lawbreakers, but only in the sense of being trespassers into a country.

And then there must be other fine points to examine. If prejudice is the main one thing at the root of the ruling about illegal immigration, it may not be so in God’s eyes! But you have to examine each case one by one.

There is no doubt that racist scapegoating is fuelling the current anti-illegal-immigration hysteria, which has led to some of the new laws. No one is urging to search Irish neighborhoods to send visa-overstayers back to Dublin; no one wants to fence the northern border, which gets its share of illegal traffic; no one wants to stop Asians or Scandinavians to make sure everybody has the proper papers. The focus is all on Mexico, because Mexicans are easy to spot. The economy is in the toilet, and once again, a visible minority is being blamed for conditions not improving.

Immigration law like any other law should be upheld or amended. But let’s not kid ourselves; the “crisis” we keep hearing about is at least in part, racially driven.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Adsum_Domini]

Ask yourselves if in their shoes, you would do the the same to provide for a family you love? What if the circumstance is the opposite and there was no work here and Canada was the “Land of the Free”. We could be so proud of ourselves that we forget that there are other people in less fortunate circumstances. Remember you are Catholic first before anything. Tell me just because the government says it’s legal, does that mean you can/will do it. Abortion is still legal in many states… It’s not up to the Church to govern a country, it’s up to the government. The Church’s concern here is the care of the of all people, legal or not. It is against moral thought to turn a blind eye especially for people who need it. The government should come to terms that is benefiting for all. It shouldn’t look after itself but also it’s neighbors because that would be the right thing to do.

 

[foolishmortal]

The illegal alien support is coming from the nation; not the people. The government using our tax dollars isn’t charity and neither is their giving them stuff when most are against it. One thing is (and it’s a real biggie, as America crashing economically will help no one and is beyond what’s asked of anyone) we don’t have the money to feed those who’re established here and a second thing is charity comes from individual people or groups that use money donated for that purpose.
Instead of racism being the stimulus for anti-illegal immigration, I’d say it’s people getting raped, robbed and killed by illegals that’s the inspiration. Visa overstayers, on the other hand, largely are not. We Americans can only focus on so many things and being violated by people who shouldn’t be here and could care less about the nation they claim to love is a real attention-getter.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JReducation,

This is intended as a simple and straight-forward question: if Vatican City had the same proportional influx of illegal immigrants as the US, what kind of official behavior would we see from the governing authorities (or, even the Pope himself) on this matter?

Admittedly, there are many differences - Vatican City is quite small when measured in square miles, and things like housing, human trafficking and infrastructure and taxes (either being paid or evaded) etc., may not really be issues… I don’t know.

To my way of thinking, none of us are allowed to do evil to bring about a good. And, while no human law is perfectly just - we do tremendous violence to those who try to uphold the law and then ignore those who break it.

I see this as an issue that the Bishops have not addressed - at least that I am awere of.

This entire matter is very confusing to me - I know we can not support the world, and no one seems willing to say, the line is drawn here - period.

God bless

I see your concerns, but I don’t see what this has to do with the bishops. You titled your post, "What will it take for the bishops to . . . " Evangelium Vitae has already answered for the bishops. In the long list of sins against human dignity that the Holy Father identifies in Evangelium Vitae, one of them is deportation. His challenge to all of us to find solutions that will work for everyone on all side of the borders for all nations, not just the USA.

It is true that we have a very serious problem with crime in this country. But it is not true that the undocumented immirgrant is the cause of our problem. The cause of our problem is our legal system. Our legal system has been broken for a long time. This is an example of such. Here is a man who has been caught drinking under the influence before. He’s not the only one in the country. The question is what happened to the laws that regulate drinking and driving? What were his consequences the first time?

If he paid a penalty ro spent some time in jail or doing community work, anything, then it would make sense that he’s out and driving again. But the article does not mention any previous consequences other than reporting the arrest to ICE. ICE has nothing to do with DUI. What happened with the system? Like this, there are many situations that should not be happening, but happen because the legal system is not working.

I was a theology student in Rome when there was a crisis in Ecuador. Over 1 million ecuadorians arrived in Italy and remaind there undocumented. Long story short, they did not have these problems. The Italians also have some rather strict courts. There was no significant rise in crime in the major cities where the immigrants normally go to. That’s not to say that they don’t have crimes in Italy. They do. But theit system works and they don’t even have capital punishment.

The Holy Fathers are right. We need to take a look at how the legal systems work and repair those that fail to protect people, not just filter out the immigrant. Failure to do this is a moral concern.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Hi, JReducation,

This is intended as a simple and straight-forward question: if Vatican City had the same proportional influx of illegal immigrants as the US, what kind of official behavior would we see from the governing authorities (or, even the Pope himself) on this matter?

Admittedly, there are many differences - Vatican City is quite small when measured in square miles, and things like housing, human trafficking and infrastructure and taxes (either being paid or evaded) etc., may not really be issues… I don’t know.

To my way of thinking, none of us are allowed to do evil to bring about a good. And, while no human law is perfectly just - we do tremendous violence to those who try to uphold the law and then ignore those who break it.

I see this as an issue that the Bishops have not addressed - at least that I am awere of.

This entire matter is very confusing to me - I know we can not support the world, and no one seems willing to say, the line is drawn here - period.

God bless

First of all, you are correct, the hypothesis does not work with Vatican Ciity. It’s a totally different kind of state, because its “citizens” are the one billion Catholics around the world, only a few hundred actually live within its borders.

Second, as to what the Church has to say to this, the answer from Pope John Paul is binding and will not change. His defended his position on the respect owed to human dignity under the mantle of his Apostolic Authority. Catholics cannot morally decline here. What’s left?

We must work together to come up with solutions that work for all natioins. That meanst that we must work together within our respective nations and then across borders with our brothers and sisters from other nations. The key here is to fix legal and economic systems that trigger this problem. The Church does not hold the ilegal immigrant responsible for any sin, unless the person crosses a border with the intention of doing harm. If the harm is a secondary effect that was unforseen by the individual, there is not objective or subjective moral culpability. Moral law does not impose culpability where there is not knowlege or intention to do harm, even if harm does occur.

The first thing that we have to do is place distance between us and the idea that the illegal immigrant has sinned because he crossed a border. This is the example that was set by Pope John Paul and the command that he gives in Evangelium Vitae. Every attitude that is disrespectful toward human dignity is sinful. If we hold on to the attitude the illegal immigrants are sinners, it is very easy to slip into acts and words that violate human dignity. That’s what we want to avoid. Regardless of our resources, we don’t want to fall into this sin.

In addition, this is not an issue that only one nation has to fix. The Church has placed this moral duty at the doorstep of every developed nation in the world. She does so in her liturgy. Once you incorporate this into the liturgical prayer of the Church, it becomes law for the Church. The law of pray and law of faith kicks in. The Vatican deliberately wrote into the Liturgy of the Hours a prayer that asks that the leades of nations will look after the needs of all peoples, even those beyond their borders. As she prays, so must she teach. As we pray so we believe. Therefore, we believe that it is the moral duty of our leaders to take care fo the welfare of all people.

This leads to the duty and rights of the citizen. We have a right and a duty to demand that elected leaders fix a broken legal system. We have a right and a duty to demand that our elected leaders work with the leaders of other nations to correct a horrible situation. Just as parenthesis, we are seeing a movement in this direction in Mexico. The chancery in Mexico City has called out the Mayor and told him that he is more dangerous to his people than the drug cartel. It’s rather interesting, many Mexican Catholics, most of them middle-class, are upset with the Archbishop. It seems that too often, Catholics are our own worse enemy. When the Church comes down and slams civil authority, Catholics get angry. When the Church backs off and gives them breathing room, then we get angry because the Church is not doing enough. At some point, we have to accept that we, the faithful, do not run the Church. If we did, nothing would ever happen. There are just too many of us with too many points of view. This is just one simple example where Catholics are becoming increasingly difficult to please.

Maybe, it’s time that we examine our consciences and ask ourselves, “Am I taking some moral responsibility for how I vote, what I tolerate from my government and what I challenge?” If 25 million Catholics in each country stood up to their goernment, respectively, things would change for the better. Instead, we challenge the Church. That’s not going to change a broken political machine.

You who live in the world may have better ideas than I have on how to fix this. I can tell you what is and is not moral. The intricacies of repairing a legal and poltiical system has to be done by you the lay faithful.

I don’t know if this helps. Work wiht me here, I’m tyring to explain this as well as I can. I’m a theologian, friar and preacher, not a political strategist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JReducation,

Please believe me when I tell you I really do want to work with you on this matter.

In no way am I attributing sin to any illegal immigrant. In no way am I disrespecting any illegal immigrant - those who take advantage of these people are the lowest of the low and, in addition to disrespect for their human trafficking activities, they should be thrown in jail!

As I appreciate the situation from a theological perspective is that no one is allowed to do evil to bring about a good. If I understood you correctly, crossing the boarder illegally is just that an illegal (but not an immoral act). The fact that these illegal immigrants have chosen which laws that they will break creates a climate of chaos - if they can break those laws, which ones can I break (and then claim to be a victim of the system).

If I understood you correctly, there is no real practical meaning to having a boarder - if those who wish to cross may do so because they simply want to (econmic hardship, political unreast, natural disaster, my uncle lives over here, etc - any reason is acceptable as long as I have one). Yes, (here I go again…) Vatican City has real boarders. I am not sure I really conveyed the idea of people trying to set up a residence in Vatican City because they are economic refugees (from any country including Italy). All I am asking is can we put the shoe on the other foot and then come up with a theologically sound approach that does not attribute sin and does not disrespect the immigrant, but does set limits on their behavior?

For someone to show up at your monestary and stake out a place to live, and eat your crops and make use of your services - you may make an allowance. And, then more people show up doing the same - and before long, your right to live in peace is compromised - and, there are civil laws that can be brought in like those against trespassing. Arresting those who trespass one’s property is not wrong, sinful or necessarily showing anyone disrespect.

I really am at a loss. Even from a theological position, accepting violence by those who violate the law is not a reasonable position. Those who are engaged in human trafficking are violent people - and its victims encourage this violence as part of the method of them getting over here. It really is a mess, and while I want to be charitable, I feel that basic justice is being denied.

God bless and please pary for me

First of all, you are correct, the hypothesis does not work with Vatican Ciity. It’s a totally different kind of state, because its “citizens” are the one billion Catholics around the world, only a few hundred actually live within its borders.

Second, as to what the Church has to say to this, the answer from Pope John Paul is binding and will not change. His defended his position on the respect owed to human dignity under the mantle of his Apostolic Authority. Catholics cannot morally decline here. What’s left?

We must work together to come up with solutions that work for all natioins. That meanst that we must work together within our respective nations and then across borders with our brothers and sisters from other nations. The key here is to fix legal and economic systems that trigger this problem. EDITED FOR BREVITY
Maybe, it’s time that we examine our consciences and ask ourselves, “Am I taking some moral responsibility for how I vote, what I tolerate from my government and what I challenge?” If 25 million Catholics in each country stood up to their goernment, respectively, things would change for the better. Instead, we challenge the Church. That’s not going to change a broken political machine.

You who live in the world may have better ideas than I have on how to fix this. I can tell you what is and is not moral. The intricacies of repairing a legal and poltiical system has to be done by you the lay faithful.

I don’t know if this helps. Work wiht me here, I’m tyring to explain this as well as I can. I’m a theologian, friar and preacher, not a political strategist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Hi, JReducation,

Please believe me when I tell you I really do want to work with you on this matter.

In no way am I attributing sin to any illegal immigrant. In no way am I disrespecting any illegal immigrant - those who take advantage of these people are the lowest of the low and, in addition to disrespect for their human trafficking activities, they should be thrown in jail!

As I appreciate the situation from a theological perspective is that no one is allowed to do evil to bring about a good. If I understood you correctly, crossing the boarder illegally is just that an illegal (but not an immoral act). The fact that these illegal immigrants have chosen which laws that they will break creates a climate of chaos - if they can break those laws, which ones can I break (and then claim to be a victim of the system).

If I understood you correctly, there is no real practical meaning to having a boarder - if those who wish to cross may do so because they simply want to (econmic hardship, political unreast, natural disaster, my uncle lives over here, etc - any reason is acceptable as long as I have one). Yes, (here I go again…) Vatican City has real boarders. I am not sure I really conveyed the idea of people trying to set up a residence in Vatican City because they are economic refugees (from any country including Italy). All I am asking is can we put the shoe on the other foot and then come up with a theologically sound approach that does not attribute sin and does not disrespect the immigrant, but does set limits on their behavior?

For someone to show up at your monestary and stake out a place to live, and eat your crops and make use of your services - you may make an allowance. And, then more people show up doing the same - and before long, your right to live in peace is compromised - and, there are civil laws that can be brought in like those against trespassing. Arresting those who trespass one’s property is not wrong, sinful or necessarily showing anyone disrespect.

I really am at a loss. Even from a theological position, accepting violence by those who violate the law is not a reasonable position. Those who are engaged in human trafficking are violent people - and its victims encourage this violence as part of the method of them getting over here. It really is a mess, and while I want to be charitable, I feel that basic justice is being denied.

God bless and please pary for me

I certainly hear what you’re saying and I do understand. I believe that we are trying, all of us, to do the right thing. Unfortunately, the situation is such that there are too many variables to come up with simple solutions.

From a purely theological or moral perspective, I believe that the best that the Church can offer is what I call “negative” moral guidance. By negative I’m refering to the use of the “thoug shall not” as in the Commandments. The moral law cannot change, even if the shoe were on the foot of Vatican City. Vatican City would have to grapple with the problem as much as anyone else.

There are many “Thou shall nots” involved here. Thou shall not:

Abuse the illegal immigrant
Violate his human rights
Deport him just to resolve a problem for yourself
Release a criminal on an unsusepcting society of innocent people
Ignore the cry of the poor
Deny your current residents the protection of the law
Deny the immigrant basic services: health, education, food, and shelter
Separate family members
Deny children who are natural born citizens their right to live in their country of birth
Violate the laws of any nation in a manner ther endangers the lives and property of the innocent
Speak to/about or deal with the immirgrant as if he were less of a person, regardless of his crime

And the list goes on.

Then there are the duties of the state. This is where the hierarchy cannot do this alone. While it is true that bishop are also citizens and have the right to demand tha the countries in which they live and work exercise justice and prudence in legislating and executing law, they cannot do this alone. Unofortunately, part of our human condition is to leave everything in the hands of government and go about our business until things begin to affect us directly. By that time, the problem is so huge that it feels overwhelming.

Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami, wisely said, “We may never think of any human being as a problem.” I believe that the Archbishop is very correct. When we begin to see people as a problem the end is usually very radical. We have a program in our heads that wants to eliminate problems. That’s why we condone abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. We view these people as a problem to be erradicated. The more often that we see people in other situations as problems instead of challenges to be resolved, the greater the danger that we will legislate against the dignity of life.

The problem is not the person, legal or illegal. The problem is the sin of indifference or exploitation. Sometimes our current society (not just in the USA), is guilty of both.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[zdon011]

I see your concerns, but I don’t see what this has to do with the bishops. You titled your post, "What will it take for the bishops to . . . " Evangelium Vitae has already answered for the bishops. In the long list of sins against human dignity that the Holy Father identifies in Evangelium Vitae, one of them is deportation. His challenge to all of us to find solutions that will work for everyone on all side of the borders for all nations, not just the USA.

It is true that we have a very serious problem with crime in this country. But it is not true that the undocumented immirgrant is the cause of our problem. The cause of our problem is our legal system. Our legal system has been broken for a long time.

With respect, Brother JR. St Paul teaches that Christians must, within the bounds of conscience, obey the laws of their country. As far as I know, the laws of United States, apart from those permitting abortion, are morally acceptable. As citizens of the United States, local Catholic Bishops cannot condone (implicitly or explicitly) violation of the current laws against illegal immigrants, ‘broken’ though they might be, until Congress sees fit to reform those laws. Of course, they have a right and duty to advocate a humane application of the laws as they stand.