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

[powerofk]

Following up on my own question, I’ve tried to find what Ingraham actually said about

1. deporting Americans, and
2. shooting people on sight.

So far I’ve found this from a discussion she (allegedly) had on The O’Reilly Factor in 2014:
*First thing you do is start deporting people not by the hundreds, not by the dozens — by the thousands. And that means entire families. Not just a father, a mother. But we keep families unified by deporting all people who are here illegally number one.
*This seems to go to the first allegation, the deportation of American citizens. It should be fairly clear that when she said we should deport “all people who are here illegally”, this does not include US citizens. Now, if someone else can come up with a different citation showing that she said what the diocese of Yakima alleges she said, I’ll believe it. Until then, it seems more likely that her actual statement has been…distorted.

Ender

Except for the fact that we have birthright citizenship in the US. As such, deporting entire families necessarily means deporting children who are American citizens along with their parents who are undocumented. Also, the only way to round up thousands upon thousands of people without documents at once is to do constant door to door raids. And then, we’d have thousands of children pretty much staying at school day and night, refusing to go home because the migra might have come to their houses. And why the schools? Because ICE is prohibited, per SCOTUS ruling, to go on school property. Schools aren’t even allowed to ask for proof of legal residency, only proof that the family lives within the boundaries of the school district. It’s even considered a violation of FERPA for schools to give information to ICE without the parent’s consent.

 

[jeannetherese]

Given that American citizens cannot be deported and no one has the authority to shoot anyone on sight, I’m having trouble believing that these comments accurately depict Ingraham’s statements, whatever they were. Do you have a link to what she actually said, or are you citing what someone else claims she said?

Ender

Hi Ender,

The segment that may address your concerns is as follows: “By the way, the jails are what, 27 percent illegal immigrants? Why don’t we ship them back home and say you come again, and you’ll be shot crossing the border?”

You may read a transcript while listening to Ms. Ingraham at the link below. The portion of her talk which pertains to shooting on sight will begin at about 2 22.

mediamatters.org/video/2015/12/07/laura-ingraham-suggests-the-us-should-shoot-dep/207282

 

[Ender]

Except for the fact that we have birthright citizenship in the US. As such, deporting entire families necessarily means deporting children who are American citizens along with their parents who are undocumented.

It is not possible to deport an American citizen. I think yours is precisely the mindset shown by the diocese of Yakima. Strong disagreement with what a person did say draws a denouncement of what she didn’t say. The statement I cited explicitly said that people here *illegally *should be deported. You have altered that sentence to mean the legal children of illegal immigrants should be deported. The problem with that is it is a distortion of her position.

Also, the only way to round up thousands upon thousands of people without documents at once is to do constant door to door raids. And then, we’d have thousands of children pretty much staying at school day and night, refusing to go home because the migra might have come to their houses. And why the schools? Because ICE is prohibited, per SCOTUS ruling, to go on school property. Schools aren’t even allowed to ask for proof of legal residency, only proof that the family lives within the boundaries of the school district. It’s even considered a violation of FERPA for schools to give information to ICE without the parent’s consent.

Again, this is all your interpretation; it has virtually nothing to do with what Ingraham actually said. I imagine, however, that the diocese of Yakima takes an equally dim view of her position, that it is sufficient to explain why the bishop opposed her presence, and why he was willing to damage the effectiveness of her anti-abortion effort to indicate that displeasure.

Ender

 

[zz912]

So the measuring stick that is being used is that even if someone or some group is doing a good act, but their actions and beliefs in other areas are problematic or contradict Church teaching, Catholics and Catholic organizations should not partner with them for fear of causing scandal or confusion. Is this the principle being used in this instance?

If so, how does it square with some Catholic charities who donate money or contract services to organizations who support grave and intrinsic evils, even if they are being paid/donated for objectively good things?

 

[jeannetherese]

Given that American citizens cannot be deported and no one has the authority to shoot anyone on sight, I’m having trouble believing that these comments accurately depict Ingraham’s statements, whatever they were. Ender

Hi Ender,
While it is illegal to commit certain acts, this does not, unfortunately, render such act impossible, nor does it prevent people from advocating for performing illegal acts.
The United States. has deported U.S. Citizens to Mexico on numerous occasions.

Here is but one such instance, material taken from the library of congress at the link posted below:

“The Great Depression of the 1930s hit Mexican immigrants especially hard. Along with the job crisis and food shortages that affected all U.S. workers, Mexicans and Mexican Americans had to face an additional threat: deportation. As unemployment swept the U.S., hostility to immigrant workers grew, and the government began a program of repatriating immigrants to Mexico. Immigrants were offered free train rides to Mexico, and some went voluntarily, but many were either tricked or coerced into repatriation, and some U.S. citizens were deported simply on suspicion of being Mexican. All in all, hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants, especially farmworkers, were sent out of the country during the 1930s–many of them the same workers who had been eagerly recruited a decade before.”

loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/immigration/mexican6.html

Ms. Ingraham’s words in regard to shooting on sight are as follows:

“By the way, the jails are what, 27 percent illegal immigrants? Why don’t we ship them back home and say you come again, and you’ll be shot crossing the border?”

You may read a transcript while listening to Ms. Ingraham at the link below. The portion of her talk which pertains to shooting on sight will begin at about 2 22.

mediamatters.org/video/2015/1…oot-dep/207282

May God bless us all.
jt

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Fact check.

(1) It is a fundraiser. A private fundraiser, for an organization providing “non-profit” services. There is a charge to attend the lecture (which, I believe, is still going on as I write this). There may be in the future be a nominal fee for the so-called services, depending on ability to pay.

(2) Ms Ingraham’s web site (managed by her, if not actually posted by her) placed the bishop of Yakima in a straw man argument, then shot down the straw man. She (through the web site, and otherwise) has been disingenuous in her “negotiations” with the diocese. More like leveraging.

(3) The diocese is no more obligated to endorse the “non-profit” of Ms Ingraham than it would be to endorse the manufacturer of whatever brand of automobile Bishop Tyson drives. That is to say, not at all.

(4) Valid moral objections to promotion and attendance were raised. They should be heard by the faithful, and weighed in conscience.

(5) Ms Ingraham’s celebrity hand-waving at the expense of the integrity of Bishop Tyson, a man I am honored to know personally, and who confirmed my daughter, raises an element of scandal making it improper for a kind and respectful Catholic to attend.

Please, forum members, do not tar and feather those of us in the Pacific Northwest with the accusation of being either “pro-life waffling” or “immigration insensitive.” The two issues are compatible. Yakima is one of the most bilingual cities in the nation. I am proud to have been baptized in the diocese of Yakima.

Thanks for the personal insight. I am always amazed at how random people on the internet do such a much better job with explaining things than staff’s of professionals working for the Church. Why is it that hard for the Diocese to explain it that wau, unless I missed it?

My initial objection was simply to question that if this was true, I would hope they’d discourage pro-choice folks from not attending Catholic immigration rallies or forums. I somehow doubt they ever bother to mention the abortion stance of Catholic immigration speakers.

 

[zz912]

My initial objection was simply to question that if this was true, I would hope they’d discourage pro-choice folks from not attending Catholic immigration rallies or forums. I somehow doubt they ever bother to mention the abortion stance of Catholic immigration speakers.

I seem to recall some speakers at the Pope’s recent visit to Philadelphia and NY who hold views quite contrary to Church teaching. There was even a sexually active homosexual (who’s a minor celebrity) who gave one of the readings at the Papal Mass.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I seem to recall some speakers at the Pope’s recent visit to Philadelphia and NY who hold views quite contrary to Church teaching. There was even a sexually active homosexual (who’s a minor celebrity) who gave one of the readings at the Papal Mass.

Yep. Pope Francis often talks of welcoming those whose hearts are not aligned to the Church, but for some reason, this doesn’t seem to apply to the case of Ms. Ingraham (who doesn’t disagree with the Church per se, but the Church does not provide a clear “either or” when it comes to an issue like immigration or protecting the earth).

It is only when you publically dissent on a binary issue like gay marriage or abortion that you get made a lector for a Papal visit…

 

[zab]

Yep. Pope Francis often talks of welcoming those whose hearts are not aligned to the Church, but for some reason, this doesn’t seem to apply to the case of Ms. Ingraham (who doesn’t disagree with the Church per se, but the Church does not provide a clear “either or” when it comes to an issue like immigration or protecting the earth).

It is only when you publically dissent on a binary issue like gay marriage or abortion that you get made a lector for a Papal visit…

I doubt that Pope Francis had anything to do with selecting the people who participated in the liturgies when he visited the United States or other countries.

 

[zab]

Yep. Pope Francis often talks of welcoming those whose hearts are not aligned to the Church, but for some reason, this doesn’t seem to apply to the case of Ms. Ingraham (who doesn’t disagree with the Church per se, but the Church does not provide a clear “either or” when it comes to an issue like immigration or protecting the earth).

It is only when you publically dissent on a binary issue like gay marriage or abortion that you get made a lector for a Papal visit…

I think that the issue is not really about the disagreement with whether or not Ms. Ingraham should have been allowed to be endorsed by the priests of the diocese of Yakima. The issue is that some people disagree with how Bishop Tyson leads his diocese. The ugly and untruthful things being said about Bishop Tyson are unfounded.

 

[Ender]

While it is illegal to commit certain acts, this does not, unfortunately, render such act impossible, nor does it prevent people from advocating for performing illegal acts.

Since she did not advocate deporting American citizens she has not advocated committing illegal acts. If the citation I provided is accurate, it cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean the opposite of what it said. She explicitly said illegals should be deported. To claim she said American citizens should be deported is a grave distortion of her comment.

You may read a transcript while listening to Ms. Ingraham at the link below. The portion of her talk which pertains to shooting on sight will begin at about 2 22.

mediamatters.org/video/2015/1…oot-dep/207282

That link didn’t work.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I think that the issue is not really about the disagreement with whether or not Ms. Ingraham should have been allowed to be endorsed by the priests of the diocese of Yakima.

The question was never about whether the priests should have endorsed her presence. It was always about whether they should have been encouraged by the bishop to actively oppose her and to discourage people from attending her talk.

The issue is that some people disagree with how Bishop Tyson leads his diocese. The ugly and untruthful things being said about Bishop Tyson are unfounded.

Some of the objections may have overstepped proper bounds, but it seems clear that the bishop attempted to diminish the success of a pro-life event to make a point about his personal views on immigration. That hardly seems like an appropriate action on his part.

Ender

 

[OriginalJS]

In this case, the Bishops are setting up just such a dichotomy. This is a pro-life fundraiser, not a conference on Catholic social teaching. The only important criteria should be whether the organization is going to be using the funds raised in defense of life, especially innocent unborn life.

It is unfair of the diocese to expect that every event, even those completely unrelated to their cause, conform to their ideas about immigration reform. It is also wrong to say that one cannot support life unless one is willing to sign onto the Bishops’ immigration plan.

I don’t see a dichotomy. Both positions support vulnerable humans. Your avatars is interesting. God’s sign to Noah was the rainbow, not a flag.

 

[zab]

The question was never about whether the priests should have endorsed her presence. It was always about whether they should have been encouraged by the bishop to actively oppose her and to discourage people from attending her talk.
Some of the objections may have overstepped proper bounds, but it seems clear that the bishop attempted to diminish the success of a pro-life event to make a point about his personal views on immigration. That hardly seems like an appropriate action on his part.

Ender

Where are you getting your information? According to Msgr. Siler from the archdiocese, it was Ms. Ingraham who chose to make the matter public.

 

[Ender]

I don’t see a dichotomy. Both positions support vulnerable humans.

The difference being that support of abortion is contrary to church doctrine while there is no church doctrine about what we should or should not do to resolve our immigration problems. Nor is it accurate to say both positions “support vulnerable humans”. I’m sure it is valid to assert that the bishop’s immigration policy was crafted to support the vulnerable, but that doesn’t mean it will actually accomplish his goals. His policies are no more intended to provide the best solution than anyone else’s. In that regard they all all equal. You may claim it is intended to support the vulnerable, but you cannot justifiably claim that it will actually work as intended. We take moral positions on abortion. We take (prudential) political positions on immigration.

Ender

 

[zab]

The difference being that support of abortion is contrary to church doctrine while there is no church doctrine about what we should or should not do to resolve our immigration problems. Nor is it accurate to say both positions “support vulnerable humans”. I’m sure it is valid to assert that the bishop’s immigration policy was crafted to support the vulnerable, but that doesn’t mean it will actually accomplish his goals. His policies are no more intended to provide the best solution than anyone else’s. In that regard they all all equal. You may claim it is intended to support the vulnerable, but you cannot justifiably claim that it will actually work as intended. We take moral positions on abortion. We take (prudential) political positions on immigration.

Ender

“…It’s unfortunate that Ms. Ingraham chose to make this matter public. People may believe what they wish about immigration. But standards and policies are important. Since Image Point won’t speak to us, and their website is silent on these matters, we have no idea what their policies are on whom they will assist; whether there will be any proselytizing; whether volunteers will be able to respect their Catholic consciences in regard to making a statement of faith; and so on. We all agree that life is sacred from natural conception to natural death; but all efforts to uphold that belief are not necessarily equally good…” Msgr Siler

 

[Ender]

Where are you getting your information? According to Msgr. Siler from the archdiocese, it was Ms. Ingraham who chose to make the matter public.

You can find any number of references to this on the internet. Whether Ms. Ingraham made the matter public is immaterial. The point is that it was the bishop who initiated this fiasco when he asked the priests of his diocese to actively discourage members of their congregation from attending a pro-life event, apparently because of his opposition to Ingraham’s position on immigration.

Ender

 

[zab]

You can find any number of references to this on the internet. Whether Ms. Ingraham made the matter public is immaterial. The point is that it was the bishop who initiated this fiasco when he asked the priests of his diocese to actively discourage members of their congregation from attending a pro-life event, apparently because of his opposition to Ingraham’s position on immigration.

Ender

As far as your references, I know Try reading the responses from Msgr Siler and responses from the diocese. Oh, and do you have a direct quote where he asked his priests to actively discourage people from attending? Why hasn’t Image Point responded to the letter from the diocese asking them to clarify their willingness to collaborate in a meaningful way? Msgr Siler wrote, “…Since Image Point won’t speak to us, and their website is silent on these matters, we have no idea what their policies are on whom they will assist; whether there will be any proselytizing; whether volunteers will be able to respect their Catholic consciences in regard to making a statement of faith; and so on. We all agree that life is sacred from natural conception to natural death; but all efforts to uphold that belief are not necessarily equally good.”

 

[KSU]

It’s sad but true:The universal, never-changing teachings of the Roman Catholic Church often are blurred by practices and beliefs of those in local Churches. The later adjust the teachings of the former, especially relating to social welfare and democratic equality, to the culture of the people in local Churches.

This sad reality, now concerning immigration, was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in an apostolic letter, Testem Benevolentiae (January 22, 1899), addressed to Cardinal Gibbons.

catholic.com/encyclopedia/Testem-Benevolentiae

 

[ChristianDude]

I am both pro-life and anti-illegal immigration. I guess technically abortion is a bigger issue than immigration, but nonetheless both are important to me. It’s not either or for me, I want both an end to legalized infanticide and stronger borders.