Yakima diocese discourages attendance at pro-life fundraiser addressed by Laura Ingraham

[Corki]

Really? Don’t you think that any event that is billed as a diocesan event SHOULD be expected to conform to the U.S. bishops’s platform? Shouldn’t Catholic events be, oh, I don’t know…*Catholic? *

Where are you getting that this is a diocesan event? I read the article twice and it says it is an Image Point event. I went to the Image Point website which is promoting the event and they do not mention any sponsorship or even affiliation with the diocese.

Are you insisting that all events in a diocese, whether Catholic or not, whether related to immigration or not, must conform to the Bishop’s platform? Should all charities, whether Catholic or not be, oh I don’t know … Catholic?

 

[Ender]

It isn’t a “one or the other” proposition.

Or do you support positions that are contrary to positions of the U.S. bishops as long as you are rabidly pro-life?

This is the point: why do the bishops believe that because someone else disagrees with their political opinions that person should be shunned? Where on Earth did they get the idea that they are justified not only in proclaiming their personal views on political issues, but of insisting that others adhere to them as if they were doctrinal pronouncements? It is not Ms. Ingraham who has gone off the reservation here. Nor is a question of whether her opinion on the matter is right or wrong. It is simply irrelevant.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Don’t you think that any event that is billed as a diocesan event SHOULD be expected to conform to the U.S. bishops’s platform? Shouldn’t Catholic events be, oh, I don’t know…*Catholic? *

Let’s be very clear about this: there is no Catholic position on how our immigration problem should be solved, if by “Catholic position” is meant the doctrine the church teaches as opposed to the personal choices people make about how those doctrines should be applied in particular instances.

Immigration is a lay problem. The opinions of the bishops on the matter may be interesting, but they impose no obligations on us to accept them. Our bishops are in fact a little too ready to proclaim their political views, and they certainly imply too much when they do so.

Ender

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

The Catholic Culture article cited in the initial post is quite limited in the information which it offers the reader. However, one of its sources offers a broader perspective on the situation.
this article: “Diocese of Yakima takes issue with its representation 
by talk radio host Laura Ingraham” which can be read at the following link:

yakimaherald.com/news/local/diocese-of-yakima-takes-issue-with-its-representation-by-talk/article_5c4d652a-db8b-11e5-b16c-f77b8d713d58.html

notes that "But her [Ms. Ingraham] first visit to Yakima isn’t without controversy after a website she co-founded and edits complained that the Catholic Diocese of Yakima has not promoted the event because of her stand on immigration, among other issues.

The website also suggests Bishop Joseph J. Tyson has obstructed other pro-life efforts — a charge a Diocese statement called “nonsense.”

The diocese is quoted by the Herald as follows: " Specifically, the church statement takes aim at what it calls Ingraham’s harsh comments “supporting the deportation of entire families, including children who are American citizens.”

The church also disputed LifeZette.com’s characterization of Tyson as an “open-borders bishop.” It notes that a 2003 joint pastoral letter by U.S. and Mexican bishops, while saying people have a right to migrate to support themselves, also says nations have a right to control and protect their borders."

It appears that Ms. Ingraham is upset because the diocese is not promoting her-which it has no obligation to do.
It would be helpful for Catholic Culture to offer more than the small blurb; there is a great deal to read beyond the small section I have added and I hope others will visit the Yakima Herald article.
Bishop Tyson served in our diocese for many years and was very strongly pro life and was a blessing to our community. May God bless him and all of our shepherds as they seek to lead their communities.
Amen.

Thank you for your post. Since you live in his diocese and support him perhaps you can explain some other things that the below link have said about Bishop Tyson

speroforum.com/a/EKCLWBZHXE6/77365-Bishop-discourages-Catholics-from-attending-Laura-Ingraham-event#.VtGwfeYXcsa

This is not the first time that Bishop Tyson has crossed swords with pro-life Catholics. He once called off an annual March for Life that had been a decades-long tradition. In another instance, the Hope Medical Group received financial assistance from the Knights of Columbus to acquire ultrasound equipment. Because the grant was to an organization within his diocese, a signature from Bishop Tyson was required on a one-page form and thus grant his consent, sources say. Bishop Tyson refused, and then piled on by barring the pro-life organization from advertising in parish bulletins or seeking Catholic volunteers. He has also barred yet another pro-life group, 40 Days for Life, from functioning in his parishes. Many other dioceses have embraced the group, however.

What concerns me about the above paragraph is where the Knights of Columbus made a donation to the Image Point Mobile Medical Services and it somehow requires diocesan approval. In Laura Ingraham’s website it states the following as well:

First, Image Point has yet to respond to my letter last fall asking them to clarify their willingness to collaborate in a meaningful way with the Diocese. The organization was cleared two years ago by the bishop to receive a large donation from the Knights of Columbus then withdrew their tentative agreement to collaborate after spending the money.

lifezette.com/faithzette/open-borders-bishop-says-no-to-pro-life-event/

I read also that Bishop Tyson cancelled March for Life because of liability reasons if someone was injured while doing the march.

Can you verify this?

 

[zab]

The Catholic Culture article cited in the initial post is quite limited in the information which it offers the reader. However, one of its sources offers a broader perspective on the situation.
this article: “Diocese of Yakima takes issue with its representation 
by talk radio host Laura Ingraham” which can be read at the following link:

yakimaherald.com/news/local/diocese-of-yakima-takes-issue-with-its-representation-by-talk/article_5c4d652a-db8b-11e5-b16c-f77b8d713d58.html

notes that "But her [Ms. Ingraham] first visit to Yakima isn’t without controversy after a website she co-founded and edits complained that the Catholic Diocese of Yakima has not promoted the event because of her stand on immigration, among other issues.

The website also suggests Bishop Joseph J. Tyson has obstructed other pro-life efforts — a charge a Diocese statement called “nonsense.”

The diocese is quoted by the Herald as follows: " Specifically, the church statement takes aim at what it calls Ingraham’s harsh comments “supporting the deportation of entire families, including children who are American citizens.”

The church also disputed LifeZette.com’s characterization of Tyson as an “open-borders bishop.” It notes that a 2003 joint pastoral letter by U.S. and Mexican bishops, while saying people have a right to migrate to support themselves, also says nations have a right to control and protect their borders."

It appears that Ms. Ingraham is upset because the diocese is not promoting her-which it has no obligation to do.
It would be helpful for Catholic Culture to offer more than the small blurb; there is a great deal to read beyond the small section I have added and I hope others will visit the Yakima Herald article.
Bishop Tyson served in our diocese for many years and was very strongly pro life and was a blessing to our community. May God bless him and all of our shepherds as they seek to lead their communities.
Amen.

Thank you, Jeannetherese, you have the same impression that I have of Bishop Tyson. He attended several March For Life events in our Archdiocese before being appointed Bishop of Yakima. People need to stop labeling Bishop Tyson as an “apostate bishop” and “liberal bishop” as many have done replying to news articles on this topic. Last night I went back to check on one of the news articles that I had replied to and my computer was suddenly attacked with repeated attempts to send a Trojan virus. Thank goodness my anti-virus program deleted them.

 

[Sarcelle]

Not at all. It’s just that using speech that denigrates undocumented immigrants is exactly why people claim that we pro-lifers only care about unborn babies, but not those who are already born.

Simply put, we are not to dehumanize anyone, whether the person is not-yet-born, is an immigrant (regardless of how that immigrant got here), is homeless, is receiving money from the government, is of another religion, has a disability of any severity, is incarcerated, is suffering from a life-threatening (even terminal) illness, has a mental illness, or is of advanced age. Dehumanization of any group - especially any marginalized group (regardless of how much one lifts up another marginalized group) feeds into the Culture of Death, and ultimately does more harm to the pro-life cause than good.

I belonged to a parish that had quite conservative views and were anti-illegal immigration. However they did not denigrate or dehumanize illegal immigrants. They actually helped several illegal immigrants they have met obtain legal status. So no, assuming that all people who are anti-illegal immigration are just to eager to dehumanize illegal immigrants is just that, an assumption. Quite an unfair one. There are more constructive ways to compassionately deal with illegal immigrants than just looking the other way and pretending it does not happen.

 

[exnihilo]

Not at all. It’s just that using speech that denigrates undocumented immigrants is exactly why people claim that we pro-lifers only care about unborn babies, but not those who are already born.

Simply put, we are not to dehumanize anyone, whether the person is not-yet-born, is an immigrant (regardless of how that immigrant got here), is homeless, is receiving money from the government, is of another religion, has a disability of any severity, is incarcerated, is suffering from a life-threatening (even terminal) illness, has a mental illness, or is of advanced age. Dehumanization of any group - especially any marginalized group (regardless of how much one lifts up another marginalized group) feeds into the Culture of Death, and ultimately does more harm to the pro-life cause than good.

I don’t see being against illegal immigration as dehumanizing. It is no more dehumanizing than are trespass laws. The church supports private property and a necessary aspect of private property is exclusive use. Most churches have locks on doors. Most churches and bishop’s houses don’t keep the doors open so anyone in need can come in anytime and help themselves. As individuals we have the right to manage our resources and as a country we do as well.

I have no problem encouraging people to be giving. I do have a problem with equating any law or restriction as being dehumanizing.

 

[zab]

Thank you for your post. Since you live in his diocese and support him perhaps you can explain some other things that the below link have said about Bishop Tyson

speroforum.com/a/EKCLWBZHXE6/77365-Bishop-discourages-Catholics-from-attending-Laura-Ingraham-event#.VtGwfeYXcsa

This is not the first time that Bishop Tyson has crossed swords with pro-life Catholics. He once called off an annual March for Life that had been a decades-long tradition. In another instance, the Hope Medical Group received financial assistance from the Knights of Columbus to acquire ultrasound equipment. Because the grant was to an organization within his diocese, a signature from Bishop Tyson was required on a one-page form and thus grant his consent, sources say. Bishop Tyson refused, and then piled on by barring the pro-life organization from advertising in parish bulletins or seeking Catholic volunteers. He has also barred yet another pro-life group, 40 Days for Life, from functioning in his parishes. Many other dioceses have embraced the group, however.

What concerns me about the above paragraph is where the Knights of Columbus made a donation to the Image Point Mobile Medical Services and it somehow requires diocesan approval. In Laura Ingraham’s website it states the following as well:

lifezette.com/faithzette/open-borders-bishop-says-no-to-pro-life-event/

I read also that Bishop Tyson cancelled March for Life because of liability reasons if someone was injured while doing the march.

Can you verify this?

Regarding your question about the Knights of Colombus, Msgr. Robert Siler, Vicar of the diocese of Yakima responded in the first link that you provided from Speroforum:
Thank you for your respectful comments and questions. I trust the Knights. I am a Fourth Degree Knight myself. When Bishop Tyson approved the Knights’ donation three years ago, it was with the understanding that Image Point would partner with us, in the development of a statewide, positive pro-life program called PREPARES. They withdrew their tentative agreement to partner after accepting and spending the money. It’s not the dollar amount that counts. It’s the ability to trust. Until that is healed, it is difficult to imagine a truly collaborative working relationship existing. And yes, Laura Ingraham can believe what she wishes about immigration. But she also is a very public person whose views and harsh rhetoric are divisive. We would prefer to bring speakers to our area who can unite. Thank you again for caring enough about these matters to respond.

 

[Ender]

And yes, Laura Ingraham can believe what she wishes about immigration. But she also is a very public person whose views and harsh rhetoric are divisive. We would prefer to bring speakers to our area who can unite.

I understand it is difficult to unite people who have different views. That really doesn’t seem an adequate reason to exclude (and berate) those who reach different conclusions on political issues, and especially doing so in the name of unity. It is even less appropriate to imply that this is a morally justifiable (let alone a morally superior) position. It is political hardball.

Ender

 

[zab]

They think it is one or the other, not me. Otherwise they wouldn’t be telling people not to go to a pro-life event/talk because of her feelings about illegal immigration. They are the ones that chose their stance on illegal immigration over the Church’s teaching on abortion.

You are wrong about Bishop Tyson. He himself has attended the March For Life on several occasions. He is a good faithful bishop.

 

[zab]

I understand it is difficult to unite people who have different views. That really doesn’t seem an adequate reason to exclude (and berate) those who reach different conclusions on political issues, and especially doing so in the name of unity. It is even less appropriate to imply that this is a morally justifiable (let alone a morally superior) position. It is political hardball.

Ender

Let me give you this example. Many years ago, I attended a gathering of the “Young Ladies Institute” put on in our parish. They invited a certain older doctor who engaged in some type of practice that supposedly healed people, involving magnets and I don’t know what all. The only reason that I attended was because a friend of mine swore by his gifts but mostly because they had the permission of the pastor to invite him to their meeting. After my experience being on the table with him doing his thing, which I won’t go into, I was convinced that he should never have been allowed to be invited to our parish. By the pastor allowing someone like his is giving his endorsement to whomever is invited to speak etc.

It is the same with the Bishop. Bishop Tyson did not want to give his endorsement to Laura Ingraham for whatever reason. That is between him and his priests. It was not a public letter to his parishioners telling then not to listen to or support Laura Ingraham. It was to his priests.

 

[Ender]

Let me give you this example. Many years ago, I attended a gathering of the “Young Ladies Institute” put on in our parish. They invited a certain older doctor who engaged in some type of practice that supposedly healed people, involving magnets and I don’t know what all. The only reason that I attended was because a friend of mine swore by his gifts but mostly because they had the permission of the pastor to invite him to their meeting. After my experience being on the table with him doing his thing, which I won’t go into, I was convinced that he should never have been allowed to be invited to our parish. By the pastor allowing someone like his is giving his endorsement to whomever is invited to speak etc.

It is the same with the Bishop. Bishop Tyson did not want to give his endorsement to Laura Ingraham for whatever reason. That is between him and his priests. It was not a public letter to his parishioners telling then not to listen to or support Laura Ingraham. It was to his priests.

There are (at least) two significant differences between your example and the one under discussion. First, there is no question of asking permission from the diocese for Ingraham to be either invited or to speak. Her mere presence at an event somewhere in the geographical boundaries of the diocese could hardly be construed as being supported by the bishop. The diocese interjected itself into the issue by directly opposing her presence. Second, Ingraham was there to talk about pro-life issues, not immigration. If there was something about her position on abortion that the bishop took issue with that would be a different question, but her position on immigration is utterly irrelevant to the event.

To the extent that the bishop’s objection to her speaking there has harmed attendance, and the fund raising that comes with it, he has damaged the pro-life cause. That he did so because of his opposition to Ingraham’s immigration policy, or because of an old feud with the organization hosting it is immaterial.

Ender

 

[zab]

There are (at least) two significant differences between your example and the one under discussion. First, there is no question of asking permission from the diocese for Ingraham to be either invited or to speak. Her mere presence at an event somewhere in the geographical boundaries of the diocese could hardly be construed as being supported by the bishop. The diocese interjected itself into the issue by directly opposing her presence. Second, Ingraham was there to talk about pro-life issues, not immigration. If there was something about her position on abortion that the bishop took issue with that would be a different question, but her position on immigration is utterly irrelevant to the event.

To the extent that the bishop’s objection to her speaking there has harmed attendance, and the fund raising that comes with it, he has damaged the pro-life cause. That he did so because of his opposition to Ingraham’s immigration policy, or because of an old feud with the organization hosting it is immaterial.

Ender

It is my understanding that Bishop Tyson did not object to Ingraham’s presence. But he did not want his priests to give endorsement to her presence. The matter is between The bishop and his priests not between Bishop Tyson and Laura Ingraham.

 

[Tim_D]

This is the point: why do the bishops believe that because someone else disagrees with their political opinions that person should be shunned?

We’ll keep that in mind for the next thread about a homily that angers the congregation.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Regarding your question about the Knights of Colombus, Msgr. Robert Siler, Vicar of the diocese of Yakima responded in the first link that you provided from Speroforum:
Thank you for your respectful comments and questions. I trust the Knights. I am a Fourth Degree Knight myself. When Bishop Tyson approved the Knights’ donation three years ago, it was with the understanding that Image Point would partner with us, in the development of a statewide, positive pro-life program called PREPARES. They withdrew their tentative agreement to partner after accepting and spending the money. It’s not the dollar amount that counts. It’s the ability to trust. Until that is healed, it is difficult to imagine a truly collaborative working relationship existing. And yes, Laura Ingraham can believe what she wishes about immigration. But she also is a very public person whose views and harsh rhetoric are divisive. We would prefer to bring speakers to our area who can unite. Thank you again for caring enough about these matters to respond.

Was this donation by an individual Knights of Columbus Council, Assembly, Zone or the State for Washington? Do you know when this donation took place?

 

[zab]

Was this donation by an individual Knights of Columbus Council, Assembly, Zone or the State for Washington? Do you know when this donation took place?

I don’t know. I just quoted what the vicar of the diocese of Yakima posted in reply to the question about the Knights of Columbus. Reed the comments to theSperoforum article that you posted: speroforum.com/a/EKCLWBZHXE6/77365-Bishop-discourages-Catholics-from-attending-Laura-Ingraham-event#.VtIrqjbSlPb

 

[zab]

… It is also wrong to say that one cannot support life unless one is willing to sign onto the Bishops’ immigration plan.

It’s also wrong to make false implications regarding what the bishop said and what he did not say

 

[JPUSC]

In his address, Yakima Bishop Joseph Tyson broadened what has been the common understanding of “pro-life.” Tyson, whose diocese is overwhelmingly Hispanic, argued that immigration reform is a life issue.

“Human dignity needs no documents,” he said.

seattletimes.com/opinion/pope-francis-and-us-catholic-leadership-are-speaking-different-languages/

“The bishop leans left on a lot of things,” local Jesuit priest Fr. Bill Vogel pointed out to LifeZette. “Not all Catholics in this diocese agree with the bishop’s stand on open borders.”

Bishop Tyson’s activism on behalf of illegal immigrants is no recent development. In a 2011 post on the Yakima Diocese website, he praised President Obama’s executive amnesty. “One of my happy memories is the time I spent serving on the board of directors for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project,” Tyson reminisced.

In a 2014 homily, Tyson blamed federal immigration law for a state economy “built on fraud.” Tyson went on to call the congregation, composed primarily of illegal immigrants, “God’s chosen ones.”

Sources indicated Tyson’s top priorities are food banks for illegal immigrants and a program to offer health care coverage to migrants. One pro-life activist called these efforts duplicative, explaining longstanding organizations already exist in the region for those purposes. “[Bishop Tyson] is a one-trick pony on the immigration issue,” the source added.

Others see efforts to intimidate Catholics from speaking against some of the left-leaning policy pronouncements of church leaders. “I’ve been pro-life since I was a teenager,” Lindemann said. “To see the suppression is just amazing to me … It’s like Joe McCarthy trying to intimidate Laura.”

“I personally oppose the idea of going after a woman like Laura Ingraham speaking at a pro-life event. She has adopted three children,” Fr. Vogel said. “That to me sounds like Scripture — providing a life for these kids.”

Others in the community say “follow the money.”

A financial statement of the Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Yakima for the fiscal year 2015 shows the diocese received over $18 million in federal government grants in just one year, up $3 million from fiscal year 2014.

According to Monsignor Siler, the diocese is over 70 percent Hispanic; many of these members are undocumented, illegal immigrants.

The rising migrant population is filling the pews in Yakima, and bringing big federal grant dollars to the coffers of the diocese. The resources available to illegal immigrants in the region are in turn likely to encourage more undocumented migrants to come — making illegal immigration big business for Tyson.

Bishop Tyson has a “jealous and proprietary view of how funds should be spent in his diocese,” said one longtime local pro-life activist. “It’s all about immigration.”

lifezette.com/faithzette/open-borders-bishop-says-no-to-pro-life-event/

According to a prominent, New York-based expert in Canon Law, the bishop is in violation of clear church precepts. Specifically, “No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses,” according to Code I, Can. 220 (“The Obligations and Rights of the Christian Faithful”).

Tyson’s singling out of Ingraham, a lay person, for her pro-immigration enforcement positions is a stunning development, especially considering the firestorm set off when Pope Francis maligned Donald Trump’s Christianity because of the GOP front-runner’s own immigration views.

“It is extremely disconcerting that church officials chose to impugn the actions of Image Point, along with my standing as a good Catholic, in an effort to suppress turnout for these beautiful events,” Ingraham, a former litigator, said. “By disseminating this warning to parishes, the diocese is in violation of Canon Law and hurting a pro-life group that it couldn’t control,” the radio and television commentator remarked.

When asked about his email, Msgr. Robert Siler told LifeZette, “It was an internal communication to our pastors, reminding them of our policies and procedures.”

Insisting there was no intent to disparage, he said, “We have not made any public criticisms of Ms. Ingraham … What we have told our pastors is we’re not promoting Image Point’s event.”

Siler insisted there was no intent to “embarrass, or pick a fight, with Ms. Ingraham.” He went on to say, “But we reserve the right to promote those speakers, and those events, that we believe best uplift our Catholic teachings in their entirety.”

Ingraham took umbrage at the notion that banning advertisements of her appearances would not “embarrass” her, noting her remarks will now be pre-judged to not “best uplift our Catholic teachings in their entirety.”

“So are we now saying that Catholics should ignore the rule of law and that only those who seek to dismantle our borders can speak credibly on pro-life issues? For some reason the diocese is intentionally undermining a pro-life organization and personally attacking me. I would have expected more in this Year of Mercy,” Ingraham responded.

When pressed on which of Ingraham’s views on immigration are in conflict with the church, Tyson’s representative Siler conceded church teaching acknowledges a nation’s sovereign right to maintain its borders. Canon Law further calls on migrants to obey the laws of their host nations.

lifezette.com/faithzette/open-borders-bishop-says-no-to-pro-life-event/

 

[Corki]

It is the same with the Bishop. Bishop Tyson did not want to give his endorsement to Laura Ingraham for whatever reason. That is between him and his priests. It was not a public letter to his parishioners telling then not to listen to or support Laura Ingraham. It was to his priests.

Not exactly. According to the OP, it was a letter to his priests instructing them to actively discourage parishioners from attending. That a bit more than just withholding an endorsement.

 

[zab]

Not exactly. According to the OP, it was a letter to his priests instructing them to actively discourage parishioners from attending. That a bit more than just withholding an endorsement.

Actually the OP has not stated anything. The OP is just posting quotes from someone else’s perspective. Have you read the letter addressed to the priests and know exactly what it says? As far as the OP’s quoted comments from the outspoken Jesuit Fr. Bill Vogel criticizing Bishop Tyson, well who is this Fr. Vogel?