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

[JPUSC]

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

February 25, 2016

The Diocese of Yakima, Washington, has instructed pastors to discourage Catholics from attending a fundraising event for a pro-life effort, at which talk-show host Laura Ingraham will be the featured speaker.

Ingraham, an outspoken conservative who has taken a strong stand against illegal immigration, is scheduled to speak at a dinner to benefit Image Point Mobile Medical Services, a group that offers ultrasound exams and pro-life counseling to women considering abortion. In an email message to pastors of the Yakima diocese, Msgr. Robert Siler criticized Image Point for its inability to “collaborate in a meaningful way with the diocese.”

Msgr. Siler went on to say that Ingraham, while strongly pro-life, “is a strident opponent of many of the immigration positions held by the US bishops.” Her presence, he said, “sends a profoundly mixed message to our community.”

The diocese said that Ingraham has called for “the deportation of entire families, including children who are American citizens.” The statement added that she “often employs harsh rhetoric.”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=27605

 

[Cider]

I see, so they care less about the genocide of the unborn than they do people coming into our country illegally.

 

[Tim_D]

I see, so they care less about the genocide of the unborn than they do people coming into our country illegally.

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?

 

[Cider]

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?

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.

 

[powerofk]

I see, so they care less about the genocide of the unborn than they do people coming into our country illegally.

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.

 

[josh987654321]

I see, so they care less about the genocide of the unborn than they do people coming into our country illegally.

Yes, of the two, I believe abortion is the greater crime.

If the Yakima Diocese is also very much against and appalled at the genocide of the unborn in America and around the world than I think they have pure motives and it’s not as upsetting for me.

I would probably react as you have if I thought that they had leanings toward pro-choice and thus were simply looking for a way to sweep it under the rug or something, however, I don’t believe such is the case. It seems their motives are pure so I wonder what this speaker is doing and saying?

If one is vehemently pro-life and then includes other evils, then I don’t think it’s much different to those who are vehemently pro ‘health care’ or especially ‘affordable health care’ yet include ‘abortion’ as a part of health care.

It’s when people mix evil with good and then make it a package deal.

If it’s simply a talk about pro-life and things they can do to advance that cause, than I don’t see why the Bishops would advise against going, unless they think it will include and advocate the other which they counsel against.

I believe it would be better for them to counsel Catholics to support the pro-life stand and initiatives wherever they find them while at the same time discouraging their other initiatives with which they disagree. Rather than simply discouraging the faithful from attending a pro-life talk, as it’s the ‘package deal’ thing again, which ought to be rejected.

I would pray for the Yakima diocese, and if they oppose abortion and are very much pro-life, I see no reason why this could not be worked out to advance the pro-life cause, while at the same time, maintaining their immigration disagreements and counsel the faithful against those.

I hope this has helped

*“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.” *

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Cider]

All I know is that it’s a pro life fundraiser. So I don’t see how immigration would even come up.

 

[josh987654321]

All I know is that it’s a pro life fundraiser. So I don’t see how immigration would even come up.

x2

The problem I find, is that the devil can be very cunning and subtle, and it happens all the time in politics, they mix evil with good and then make it a package deal. Then when someone objects to it, they highlight the good and vilify those who oppose them.

I look at Obama care, and the idea of affordable health care is very noble and virtuous I think, then it is flooded with the most barbaric evil such as Planned Parenthood and their wave of genocide and yet, people are drawn to it and still support them, simply because they are very poor and if Obama care goes they will not be able to afford getting their wisdom teeth out or something like that.

Another poster had an excellent quote in this regard -

*“If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side.” *

• Orson Scott

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Corki]

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

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.

 

[philipl]

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?

I know that I am 100% the allowing of illegals into this country. Am I required to follow the Bishops blindly?

 

[philipl]

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.

So because someone is against illegal immigration they are dehumanize folks?

 

[SuperLuigi]

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?

God is “rabidly” pro-life as well.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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 agree, and I hope this isn’t an excuse to appease lukewarm Christians.

And I doubt many of those the other side of the issue would be so lenient were the roles reversed.

 

[Tim_D]

It is unfair of the diocese to expect that every event, even those completely unrelated to their cause, conform to their ideas about…

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? *

 

[Tim_D]

God is “rabidly” pro-life as well.

So God is on your side as long as you are rabidly pro-life, no matter your stance on other issues?

 

[Mongo]

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?

The difference is that restricting immigration isn’t intrinsically evil, but abortion is. The two issues are incomparable.

 

[HB11]

 

[jeannetherese]

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.

 

[Path_Finder]

I would say, trying to phrase this correctly, the issue could be that Laura Ingraham is a bit of an activist per border security and those not in this country legally. In a way, from shows I have heard of hers, she emphasizes this (call your congressional representative, details of crimes connected to those not in the country legally, etc.). Perhaps if she were quietly or nominally “secured borders”, there would be no issue. She seems to be a bit renowned on her views in this regard.

I am for secured borders, I also believe the Diocese has the right to make these decisions.

 

[venite_adoremus]

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.