S
Stylites
Guest
Darn it! They need to learn to serve two masters!! It can be done!!
What will it take for bishops to condemn illegal immigration?
- Status
S
Stylites
Guest
Unless the boarder also teaches English . . .
J
JReducation
Guest
Pope John Paul II was very clear in his statements regarding the treatment of all immigrants and his position in Evangelium Vitae, which is from where the bishops take their guidance on this issue, is that the moral law is never subordinate to civil law. In addition, the Holy Father went on to define certain treatments of immigrants as always immoral, regardless of the civil law.
It is these specific conditions that the bishops condemn, guided by a statement from the Holy Father in which he invokes the authority of Peter. Itâs not really up to us (you, the bishops or me). Itâs out of our hands. Peter has spoken on what is reasonable and what is within the dignity of human beings and what is not.
He has a very interesting list of sins against human dignity and on his list is deportation. We have not choice in this matter. We cannot support deportation. The way that the Holy Father played this card, if youâll pardon the worldly expression, was to enclose deportation in the middle of a list along with euthanasia, abortion, infanticide, and other crimes against humanity. When a pope includes deportation on the same list with abortion and euthanasia and says that these are morally evil acts against human dignity, what can you say? You canât disagree with the pope on matters of morals, especially when he invokes the ordinary magisterium. Itâs a hairline short of ex-cathedra.
Here is the other point. From a moral ground, one cannot say, âWell, he did not make it a dogma.â That will not fly with popes. The argument is that popes do not have to speak ex-cathedra to have authority. In fact, âex-cathedraâ has only been invoked twice in Church history. We have a precedence for papal authority without it.
This raises a greater moral concern than illegal immigration. If the Church allows Catholics to disobey a papal decree, on the grounds that itâs not ex-cathedra or not in canon law, where does the Church draw the line in the sand? If weâre trying to regroup, after many centuries of disobedience, we have to begin somewhere.
When the Church says that its authority supsedes that of the USA or any other country, then we have a problem. We have to back-peddle and rethink how we Catholics conduct business in the secular world, because we cannot place the state over the Church. John Paul was very clear about the limits of democracy and the role of democracy. He stated that democracy can never become a goal for Catholics. It is a means. I like to call it a tool, to drive forward the teachings and moral laws of the faith.
We have to push our government to change certain details in the implementation of these laws. Remember, the bishops have never said that the laws are completely wrong. They have pointed to specific details that are wrong.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
LOLUnless the boarder also teaches English . . .
Believe me, multi-ligualism is the least of our problems. Having grown up in the State Department (my father was a career diplomat), I knew that it was a matter of time before multi-lingualism reached the USA. I grew up all over the place and in most developed nations, people speak several languages, not just two. I was in Switzerland where they speak four.
Canada, Mexico and the USA have been sheltered because of the two oceans on either side . . . until travel became easier.
We have to fix was is broken in our legal system and extract what is immoral in our laws. Weâre not being asked to throw out the rule of law. Weâre being asked to take out of law whatever is not Catholic and replace it with legistlation that is consistent with Catholic moral teaching.
In part, this is the fault of the voters, including me. The old saying, âYou get what you pay for?â You get what you vote for. As long as Catholics go to the polls and vote in elected officials who donât care what the moral law says, weâre going to trap ourselves in the middle of a tension between patriotism and faith. It need not be that way in a nation that has democracy. We chose the people we put in office. If they are morally careless, we put them there.
Now we have to rethink this whole thing.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, JReducation,
Thank you for your thoughful response
I still would appreciate your prayers.
God bless
Thank you for your thoughful response
I still would appreciate your prayers.God bless
I certainly hear what youâre 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 ânegativeâ moral guidance. By negative Iâm refering to the use of the âthoug shall notâ 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 âThou shall notsâ 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, âWe may never think of any human being as a problem.â 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. Thatâs 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
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Criminal charges for illegal immigration offenses can be a misdemeanor or a felony.
Itâs not accurate to claim that itâs a civil matter. Nobody who loses a civil law case is referred to as a felon.
Criminal Law By Thomas J. Gardner, Terry M. Anderson (Criminal charges for illegal immigration offenses.).
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Arizona needs to exploit illegal immigrants to prop up their economy?
G
GEddie
Guest
âCivil Authorityâ simply means the civil governemnt, i.e., the power that binds and looses in matters of temporal governance. It does not imply that cases it prosecutes are necessarily civil law.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesarâs works both ways. Immigration is a matter for the powers of civil governance. The Church is no more required to fight illegal immigration than it is to oppose traffic violators. Both are violations of the law. (And reckless driving by citizens causes a lot more human death than drivers who shouldnât be in the country.)
ICXC NIKA.
ICXC NIKA.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
The specific claim was: âit is a violation of civil lawâ, but it is clearly a matter of criminal law.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
It says a civil penalty of $50 for the first offense and $100 for additional offenses, wow that is less than a speeding ticket. Btw I crossed the border twice last week.
R
Roy5
Guest
A priest in one of this area churches wrote a letter to the newspaper in which i believe he revealed an important factor in the position of the Catholic bishops. He said essentially this: âAll these Mexicans are going to fill our empty innercity churches and will help buoy the number of Catholics in the USA.â
Code:
Catholic numbers in the USA would have slipped enormously save for illegal immigrants. Roughly 30,000,000 have left the church, and probably about the same number remain Catholics but rarely attend mass and/or disbelieve key doctrines or disagree with the church on major policies (e. g., clergy celibacy).
The main competitor for Latinos are the anti-clericalism that still survives among many Mexicans and Protestant evangelism, especially by Pentecostals.Their storefront churches seem to spring up all over the place as soon as Latinos move in.
One of my friends who is especially well-informed on this issue has stated that the two main advocates of 'open borders' and 'amnesty for Latinos" are the Democratic Party and the Catholic Church. Interesting.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
It also says imprisonment from two to ten years depending on the offense. A second illegal entry carries a penalty of two years imprisonment.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
The 2 & 5 years punishments would seem to require more than an illegal enter. For example if cought and deported and rearrest for a second entry the same day as the deportation the penalty seems to be up to 6 months.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Itâs like Ginsu knives:
But wait thereâs more! In addition to the fines, you can also get:
- First illegal entry (six months)
misdemeanor - Illegal entry, second offense (two years)
felony
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Yes, Ginsu knives: ! (LOL) Closing the border is the same as believing buying Ginsu knives will change your life. Love that humor
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, JReducation,
This is not intended as a âtrick questionâ but just to get a clarification on you commentâŚ
JReducation;6975355:
)
Anyway, I am only familiar with ex-cathedra - nothing about âhairlinesâ or âalmostsâ Besides, if armed guards were given orders to shoot to kill all who try to enter illegally - our current system would suddenly look pretty humane - and deportation not all that bad! At least you are alive!
Sorry ⌠got carried away⌠
God bless
This is not intended as a âtrick questionâ but just to get a clarification on you commentâŚ
JReducation;6975355:
Just what do you mean about, ââŚa hairline short of ex-cathedraâ? While I know you can not answer for the Pope - why the âwiggle roomâ if he is so serious? Could a future Pope re-write that list and delete âdeportationâ (no one usually dies with deportation - the same can not be said with abortion and euthanasiaâŚso, it really does seem out of its leaguePope John Paul II was very clear in his statements regarding the treatment of all immigrants and his position in Evangelium Vitae, which is from where the bishops take their guidance on this issue, is that the moral law is never subordinate to civil law. In addition, the Holy Father went on to define certain treatments of immigrants as always immoral, regardless of the civil law. EDITED FOR BREVITY
He has a very interesting list of sins against human dignity and on his list is deportation. We have not choice in this matter. We cannot support deportation. The way that the Holy Father played this card, if youâll pardon the worldly expression, was to enclose deportation in the middle of a list along with euthanasia, abortion, infanticide, and other crimes against humanity. When a pope includes deportation on the same list with abortion and euthanasia and says that these are morally evil acts against human dignity, what can you say? You canât disagree with the pope on matters of morals, especially when he invokes the ordinary magisterium. Itâs a hairline short of ex-cathedra.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
)Anyway, I am only familiar with ex-cathedra - nothing about âhairlinesâ or âalmostsâ Besides, if armed guards were given orders to shoot to kill all who try to enter illegally - our current system would suddenly look pretty humane - and deportation not all that bad! At least you are alive!
Sorry ⌠got carried away⌠God bless
J
JReducation
Guest
Your question is a legitimate one. Most non-theologians and non-canon lawyers are usually unaware of the fact that the Catholic Church has invoked âex-cathedraâ only twice in its 2000-year history: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
There are two situations here.
- Popes and bishops when they rule on something as a body, do not need to invoke infallibility for the teaching to be infallible or at the very least, morally binding. The govern with Apostolic Authority on matters of faith and morals. The truth is protected by the gift of the Holy Spirit given to the College of the Apostles. Itâs not wiggle-room. Itâs just not necessary.
- The list of immoral actions that Pope John includes in Evangelium Vitae is anchored in an infallible law that comes to us through natural law. Natural law tells us that you cannot violate human dignity. What the pope does is to make a list of those actions that violate that law.
Anyway, I am only familiar with ex-cathedra - nothing about âhairlinesâ or âalmostsâ Besides, if armed guards were given orders to shoot to kill all who try to enter illegally - our current system would suddenly look pretty humane - and deportation not all that bad! At least you are alive!
Yes, I can see where you got a little carried away.
The two examples are interesting: 1) shoot to kill or 2) deport. Both are sins against human dignity, but one is proportionately a greater sin. This gets into a whole other area of moral theology, proportionality.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
bobby_booshay
Guest
Unless someone is escaping political oppression, illegal entry into a country is a sin against the 7th Commandment: Though shall not steal. A country has a right to protect its border, not only for the safety of its citizens but also those who seek to enter illegally. Encouraging this behavior would actually be the sin against his dignity: by your sin of commission you are encouraging his continued violation of the 7th Commandment which leads to corruption of his soul over time. Whether intended or not, he is committing harm against himself and others and is just as culpable. With all due respect Brother Jr, I donât know where you received your formation and Iâm sure you mean well, but many of your comments exhibit false charity.âŚThe Church does not hold the illegal 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 knowledge 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. Thatâs what we want to avoid. Regardless of our resources, we donât want to fall into this sin.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
bobby_booshay
Guest
Would you please provide documentation where JPII specifically stated that deporting an illegal entrant in violation of a just law, is equitable to the sin of abortion, euthanasia or infanticide? On its face this is absurd, and smacks of the seamless garment argument popular with liberals.He has a very interesting list of sins against human dignity and on his list is deportation. We have not choice in this matter. We cannot support deportation. The way that the Holy Father played this card, if youâll pardon the worldly expression, **was to enclose deportation in the middle of a list along with euthanasia, abortion, infanticide, and other crimes against humanity. ** When a pope includes deportation on the same list with abortion and euthanasia and says that these are morally evil acts against human dignity, what can you say? You canât disagree with the pope on matters of morals, especially when he invokes the ordinary magisterium. Itâs a hairline short of ex-cathedra.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: âWhatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creatorâ.
** Parr 3, Evenglium Vitae by Pope John Paul II**
Please retract your statement about my formation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status