Yakima diocese discourages attendance at pro-life fundraiser addressed by Laura Ingraham
- Status
Z
zab
Guest
Sometimes OP refers to the original poster. I misunderstood what you meant by OP. However, the quote in the original post is still someone else’s opinion, and there was not a complete copy of the letter to priests that was given.OP=original post. Every thread has an OP.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Greetings saintjohnxxxiii,
One way to think about the contentions expressed in a few of the posts on our thread would be to look at well respected Catholic sources of information.
Perhaps we might begin with this endorsement of Bishop Tyson by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI:
wwwmigrate.usccb.org/news/2011/11-070e.cfm
"Pope Names Auxiliary Bishop Tyson Of Seattle To Succeed Bishop Carlos Sevilla Of Yakima, Washington
April 12, 2011
WASHINGTON—Pope Benedict XVI has named Auxiliary Bishop Joseph J. Tyson of Seattle,53, to succeed Bishop Carlos Sevilla of Yakima, Washington, 75…
The appointment and resignation acceptance were publicized in Washington, April 12, by Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States.
Joseph J. Tyson was born October 16, 1957, at Moses Lake, Washington. He attended Shoreline Community College in Seattle and the University of Washington, where he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism and Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in international studies. He earned a Master of Divinity degree from The Catholic University of America and was ordained a priest for the Seattle Archdiocese in 1989. Following ordination he served in St. Louise Parish, Bellevue, Washington, 1989-1991; St. James Cathedral, Seattle, 1991-1992; St. Mary of the Valley Parish, Monroe, Washington, 1992-1996; and as pastor of St. Edward Parish in Seattle with responsibility of two other Seattle parishes, St. George and St. Paul, 1996-2005. In 2005, Pope Benedict named him an auxiliary bishop of Seattle. "
I would respectfully suggest that being chosen by our beloved Pope to lead a diocese constitutes a solid endorsement
I would also submit that the Knights of Columbus, with its history of being prolife for many years, sponsoring pro life educational opportunities in our schools, supporting pregnancy aid organizations, and supporting priestly formation which in turn supports Catholic catechesis might be considered a credible source of information.
This organizations lauded Bishope Tyson’s efforts on the pro-life front and provided solid examples of these efforts. In the newsletter linked below (page 2), then Washington State Deputy Don McBride applauds Bishop Tyson’s efforts and achievements:
kofc-wa.org/Bulletins/2013/june.pdf
“The other great news we heard during our convention is one of the most important legacies I can imagine coming from my time as your leader. I’m speaking of the news shared by Bishop Joseph Tyson, Bishop of Yakima, regarding a new initiative by all three dioceses,led by Bishop Tyson, to establish a truly Catholic pro-life program, coordinated through Catholic Charities and working in concert with the Washington State Council, with a goal of supporting women in crisis pregnancies through the first five years of the life of their child in every parish in all three dioceses. This program should work in concert with our existing Ultrasound for Life program, recognizing that a truly effective pro-life program needs more than just an ultrasound machine – but also recognizing that the image of the unborn child can be a conversion moment in the life of the expectant mother in a crisis pregnancy, and can bring women into the broader umbrella of service that we as Catholics are called to provide.”
As I am left to choose between Mr. Barillas’ assertions and my own experience with bishop Tyson, a priest at my church, supporter of our parish pro-life activities, promoter of a Novena for life, supporter of strengthening Catholic identity in Catholic Schools, and chosen by our beloved pope to lead us, it seems prudent to trust in the judgement of Pope Benedict and my personal experience over a poorly sourced website belonging to an unknown web author and another one belonging to an aggrieved talk show host.
For the Knight’s directive concerning diocesan approval see here:
kofc.org/un/en/prolife/ultrasound/guidelines.html
Perhaps you will find this information from the Yakima diocese, under the leadership of Bishop Tyson, reassuring as to support for life:
yakimadiocese.org/attachments/article/717/CWC_September_2013_Eng.pdf
May God bless all who visit our thread and may HE guide our Shepherds in accordance with His most holy will.
Amen.
One way to think about the contentions expressed in a few of the posts on our thread would be to look at well respected Catholic sources of information.
Perhaps we might begin with this endorsement of Bishop Tyson by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI:
wwwmigrate.usccb.org/news/2011/11-070e.cfm
"Pope Names Auxiliary Bishop Tyson Of Seattle To Succeed Bishop Carlos Sevilla Of Yakima, Washington
April 12, 2011
WASHINGTON—Pope Benedict XVI has named Auxiliary Bishop Joseph J. Tyson of Seattle,53, to succeed Bishop Carlos Sevilla of Yakima, Washington, 75…
The appointment and resignation acceptance were publicized in Washington, April 12, by Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States.
Joseph J. Tyson was born October 16, 1957, at Moses Lake, Washington. He attended Shoreline Community College in Seattle and the University of Washington, where he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism and Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in international studies. He earned a Master of Divinity degree from The Catholic University of America and was ordained a priest for the Seattle Archdiocese in 1989. Following ordination he served in St. Louise Parish, Bellevue, Washington, 1989-1991; St. James Cathedral, Seattle, 1991-1992; St. Mary of the Valley Parish, Monroe, Washington, 1992-1996; and as pastor of St. Edward Parish in Seattle with responsibility of two other Seattle parishes, St. George and St. Paul, 1996-2005. In 2005, Pope Benedict named him an auxiliary bishop of Seattle. "
I would respectfully suggest that being chosen by our beloved Pope to lead a diocese constitutes a solid endorsement
I would also submit that the Knights of Columbus, with its history of being prolife for many years, sponsoring pro life educational opportunities in our schools, supporting pregnancy aid organizations, and supporting priestly formation which in turn supports Catholic catechesis might be considered a credible source of information.
This organizations lauded Bishope Tyson’s efforts on the pro-life front and provided solid examples of these efforts. In the newsletter linked below (page 2), then Washington State Deputy Don McBride applauds Bishop Tyson’s efforts and achievements:
kofc-wa.org/Bulletins/2013/june.pdf
“The other great news we heard during our convention is one of the most important legacies I can imagine coming from my time as your leader. I’m speaking of the news shared by Bishop Joseph Tyson, Bishop of Yakima, regarding a new initiative by all three dioceses,led by Bishop Tyson, to establish a truly Catholic pro-life program, coordinated through Catholic Charities and working in concert with the Washington State Council, with a goal of supporting women in crisis pregnancies through the first five years of the life of their child in every parish in all three dioceses. This program should work in concert with our existing Ultrasound for Life program, recognizing that a truly effective pro-life program needs more than just an ultrasound machine – but also recognizing that the image of the unborn child can be a conversion moment in the life of the expectant mother in a crisis pregnancy, and can bring women into the broader umbrella of service that we as Catholics are called to provide.”
I live in the Seattle Archdioces, where bishop Tyson served and led his flock as Auxillary Bishop. You seem to be getting your information from two sources: Ms. Ingraham and spero. I attempted to look up spero to ascertain its credibility and its site does not provide any information about its funding, or any committment to the magisterium. The article which is quoted in Catholic Culture seems to be authored by a gentleman named Martin Barillas and shows no formal ties to our Church.
As I am left to choose between Mr. Barillas’ assertions and my own experience with bishop Tyson, a priest at my church, supporter of our parish pro-life activities, promoter of a Novena for life, supporter of strengthening Catholic identity in Catholic Schools, and chosen by our beloved pope to lead us, it seems prudent to trust in the judgement of Pope Benedict and my personal experience over a poorly sourced website belonging to an unknown web author and another one belonging to an aggrieved talk show host.
Membership in the Knights of Columbus is open to men 18 years of age or older who are practical (that is, practicing) Catholics in union with the Holy See. This means that an applicant or member accepts the teaching authority of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals, aspires to live in accord with the precepts of the Catholic Church, and is in good standing in the Catholic Church. It is the policy of the Knights to ensure that their work supports the church. Thus they choose to submit their initiative to the church. If you do not like their policy, it might be best to critique the Knights, rather than the Bishop.
For the Knight’s directive concerning diocesan approval see here:
kofc.org/un/en/prolife/ultrasound/guidelines.html
Perhaps you will find this information from the Yakima diocese, under the leadership of Bishop Tyson, reassuring as to support for life:
yakimadiocese.org/attachments/article/717/CWC_September_2013_Eng.pdf
May God bless all who visit our thread and may HE guide our Shepherds in accordance with His most holy will.
Amen.
E
Ender
Guest
Given that it is quite public it is more accurate to say the matter is between the bishop and the members of his diocese. Beyond that, inasmuch as it was her position on immigration that was given as the reason for his objection, the concern about his opposition is still valid. What does her position on immigration have to do with her prospective talk on abortion?
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
What should be kept in mind, and kept very separate, are issues of church doctrine and ones political preferences. Opposition to abortion is church teaching. There is no church teaching on various immigration proposals. It is valid for a homily to take a position on the former; it is assuredly not valid to proclaim a position on the latter.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
CPUSA said:
And this is the problem in a nutshell. The bishop has personally elevated his opinion on immigration to the level of church teaching on abortion. Not only is immigration not a “life” issue, it is not even a moral issue, except to those who believe people oppose their personal opinions not because they believe they are bad solutions but simply because they are selfish, uncaring, xenophobic, racist, or greedy (pick all that apply). That is, this can only be made a moral issue if one judges the motivations of ones opponents rather than the positions they support.
Ender
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Here’s the Catholic Diocese’s response to the LifeZette.com article. You will find the reponse posted in the lefthand sidebar at:
yakimaherald.com/news/local/diocese-of-yakima-takes-issue-with-its-representation-by-talk/article_5c4d652a-db8b-11e5-b16c-f77b8d713d58.html
(My bolding and italics)
"The suggestion of the article that Bishop Tyson favors comprehensive immigration reform over the Roman Catholic Church’s pro-life teachings is nonsense. Bishop Tyson was asked, in fact, by his brother bishops in Washington State to lead the development of PREPARES, a positive initiative to help women, their children and their families from the moment of conception to the fifth year of a child’s life.
The Diocese of Yakima stands by its belief that Ms. Ingraham would not be a suitable speaker for pro-life events sponsored or promoted by the Diocese. In what was presumed to be a private conversation, Mr. Conradi asked for specific criticisms, but in his article failed to mention two that were shared.
First, Ms. Ingraham has made comments supporting the deportation of entire families, including children who are American citizens. Second, she often employs harsh rhetoric, such as on her radio show in December when she is reported to have advocated that criminals who have “done their time” and have then been deported should be “shot on sight” should they attempt to cross the border again.
Ms. Ingraham has a First Amendment right to hold such views and make such comments. The Diocese of Yakima has a First Amendment right to promote those speakers it judges are best able to reflect the Church’s teachings in their entirety.
In that regard, the Diocese has also turned down several requests from outside groups – some of them also Catholic – who might be considered to be more aligned with the Democratic Party. The goal of the United States Bishops in their teaching on political matters is to help Republicans become better Republicans and Democrats become better Democrats.
Mr. Conradi’s description of Bishop Tyson as an “open-borders bishop” is false. Bishop Tyson does uphold the teaching of the U.S. and Mexican Bishops in their 2003 joint Pastoral Letter, “Strangers No Longer”:
• First Principle: Persons have a right to find economic opportunities in their homeland.
• Second Principle: Persons have a right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
• Third Principle: Sovereign nations have a right to control and protect their borders.
• Fourth Principle: Refugees and asylum seekers should be afforded protection.
• Fifth Principle: Undocumented migrants should have their human dignity respected and their human rights upheld.
The priest quoted in the article believes he was both misquoted and quoted out of context. Specifically, he recalls being asked by Ms. Lindemann if the “Bishop leans left,” and telling her that the Bishop “teaches what the Church teaches.”
Finally, in regard to the three pro-life events allegedly “targeted” by Bishop Tyson:
Walk for Life –Mr. Conradi’s retelling of events is false. Bishop Tyson, who arrived in the Diocese in May 2011, participated in the January Walk for Life in 2012, and then permitted Image Point to take over its sponsorship as the Diocese moved to highlight the importance of activities during the Roman Catholic Church’s Respect Life Month in October.
Hope Medical – The request for Bishop Tyson’s approval of funding for ultrasound equipment never reached his desk because the request had not yet met the Knights of Columbus’ own standards. The Diocese continues to be optimistic that a good working relationship with Hope Medical can be developed.
40 Days for Life – Bishop Tyson has never barred this ecumenical initiative from parishes. Most recently, he has reminded organizers of the need for a balanced number of pro-life programs in parishes, consistent with the teachings of the Church.
Finally, Bishop Tyson hopes Ms. Ingraham enjoys her visit to our area."
May God bless us all and may His bishops be strengthened to lead us in accordance with His most holy will through our prayers and support.
Amen.
yakimaherald.com/news/local/diocese-of-yakima-takes-issue-with-its-representation-by-talk/article_5c4d652a-db8b-11e5-b16c-f77b8d713d58.html
(My bolding and italics)
"The suggestion of the article that Bishop Tyson favors comprehensive immigration reform over the Roman Catholic Church’s pro-life teachings is nonsense. Bishop Tyson was asked, in fact, by his brother bishops in Washington State to lead the development of PREPARES, a positive initiative to help women, their children and their families from the moment of conception to the fifth year of a child’s life.
The Diocese of Yakima stands by its belief that Ms. Ingraham would not be a suitable speaker for pro-life events sponsored or promoted by the Diocese. In what was presumed to be a private conversation, Mr. Conradi asked for specific criticisms, but in his article failed to mention two that were shared.
First, Ms. Ingraham has made comments supporting the deportation of entire families, including children who are American citizens. Second, she often employs harsh rhetoric, such as on her radio show in December when she is reported to have advocated that criminals who have “done their time” and have then been deported should be “shot on sight” should they attempt to cross the border again.
Ms. Ingraham has a First Amendment right to hold such views and make such comments. The Diocese of Yakima has a First Amendment right to promote those speakers it judges are best able to reflect the Church’s teachings in their entirety.
In that regard, the Diocese has also turned down several requests from outside groups – some of them also Catholic – who might be considered to be more aligned with the Democratic Party. The goal of the United States Bishops in their teaching on political matters is to help Republicans become better Republicans and Democrats become better Democrats.
Mr. Conradi’s description of Bishop Tyson as an “open-borders bishop” is false. Bishop Tyson does uphold the teaching of the U.S. and Mexican Bishops in their 2003 joint Pastoral Letter, “Strangers No Longer”:
• First Principle: Persons have a right to find economic opportunities in their homeland.
• Second Principle: Persons have a right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
• Third Principle: Sovereign nations have a right to control and protect their borders.
• Fourth Principle: Refugees and asylum seekers should be afforded protection.
• Fifth Principle: Undocumented migrants should have their human dignity respected and their human rights upheld.
The priest quoted in the article believes he was both misquoted and quoted out of context. Specifically, he recalls being asked by Ms. Lindemann if the “Bishop leans left,” and telling her that the Bishop “teaches what the Church teaches.”
Finally, in regard to the three pro-life events allegedly “targeted” by Bishop Tyson:
Walk for Life –Mr. Conradi’s retelling of events is false. Bishop Tyson, who arrived in the Diocese in May 2011, participated in the January Walk for Life in 2012, and then permitted Image Point to take over its sponsorship as the Diocese moved to highlight the importance of activities during the Roman Catholic Church’s Respect Life Month in October.
Hope Medical – The request for Bishop Tyson’s approval of funding for ultrasound equipment never reached his desk because the request had not yet met the Knights of Columbus’ own standards. The Diocese continues to be optimistic that a good working relationship with Hope Medical can be developed.
40 Days for Life – Bishop Tyson has never barred this ecumenical initiative from parishes. Most recently, he has reminded organizers of the need for a balanced number of pro-life programs in parishes, consistent with the teachings of the Church.
Finally, Bishop Tyson hopes Ms. Ingraham enjoys her visit to our area."
May God bless us all and may His bishops be strengthened to lead us in accordance with His most holy will through our prayers and support.
Amen.
E
Ender
Guest
Whether a bishop should or should not speak out has nothing to do with his first amendment rights; that’s a non-starter. When he speaks it is not presumed he is expressing his legal rights: it is assumed that he is expressing a moral judgment. That’s the problem here. He isn’t, any more than Ms. Ingraham is when she gives her opinion on immigration. The only difference is that no one assumes Ingraham’s opinions carry moral weight, while that assumption is (incorrectly) assumed to be true when political views are expressed by a bishop.
Ender
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Hi Ender,
I’m not sure that I am following your argument here and hope you will expand a bit. Are you suggesting that one’s words and opinions carry no moral weight?
E
Ender
Guest
Normally when discussing a political issue there is no moral question involved, therefore ones comments have no moral dimension. Unfortunately that’s not how political issues are usually understood; all too often the debate descends to the “you oppose me because you’re evil” perspective.
Immigration is a perfect example of such a topic. If we assume that all sides of the debate are sincerely looking for the best solution, then where is the moral issue? Unfortunately that is not the common assumption, and pretty much every political issue is incorrectly seen through a moral lens by uncharitably judging the intentions of the opposition.
When the topic is an actual moral issue - like abortion - then it is a different story. Then it is correct to say that one side is immoral, but in this case it is because of the intrinsically immoral nature of the action, to which the intent is irrelevant.
Simply put, my comments and opinions about immigration (et al) carry no moral weight because there is no moral issue involved. My comments about abortion, however, since they deal with an actual moral question, do carry moral weight.
Ender
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Thank you for your efforts to clarify on my behalf.
Would it necessarily follow from your perspective that these suggestions, which the Yakima diocese cites and attributes to Ms. Ingraham, have no moral value?
“First, Ms. Ingraham has made comments supporting the deportation of entire families, including children who are American citizens. Second, she often employs harsh rhetoric, such as on her radio show in December when she is reported to have advocated that criminals who have “done their time” and have then been deported should be “shot on sight” should they attempt to cross the border again.”
From the Catholic Diocese’s response to the LifeZette.com article. You will find the reponse posted in the lefthand sidebar at:
yakimaherald.com/news/loc…b8d713d58.html
P
powerofk
Guest
Thank you. Several pages ago, I made the point of stating that degrading any marginalized group hurts the pro-life cause. Actually, degrading any group hurts the pro-life cause. Many posters thought I meant that being against immigrants coming across illegally was degrading. Not at all. Countries have every right to control their borders. But I would consider speech that favors the deportation of American citizens and advocating shooting people on sight (regardless of the fact that they’re deported ex-cons who are attempting to re-cross the border) to be degrading.
C
Cider
Guest
His first amendment rights? How are those applicable in this instance?
The operative words here are “Congress shall make no laws”. Since he isn’t being limited by the government the first amendment doesn’t apply.
Z
zab
Guest
Z
zab
Guest
The issue is that Bishop Tyson has been wrongfully judged, accused of being an “open-borders bishop” and being accused of targeting at least three other pro-life events in the past. The diocese has responded “Mr. Conradi’s (lifezette.com) description of Bishop Tyson as an “open-borders bishop” is false”. Also, regarding the three other pro-life events allegedly “targeted” by Bishop Tyson, "Mr. Conradi’s retelling of the events is false. Read here (left column for diocese full response) yakimaherald.com/news/local/diocese-of-yakima-takes-issue-with-its-representation-by-talk/article_5c4d652a-db8b-11e5-b16c-f77b8d713d58.html
Also in the story is a quote that was attributed to Jesuit Fr. Bill Vogel. According to the response from the diocese "The priest quoted in the article believes he was both misquoted and quoted out of context. Specifically, he recalls being asked by Ms. Lindemann [one of Image Point’s organizers] if the “Bishop leans left,” and telling her that the Bishop “teaches what the Church teaches.”.
S
saintjohnxxiii
Guest
Thanks Jeannetherese,
I believe that the Bishop is acting proper. Reasons for this:
- Based on the links that Jeannetherese has provided it does show that diocesan collaboration is required for this fundraiser. Any State association of the Knights would know this.
- The newsletter from the State Deputy of the Knights attest to how well Bishop Tyson works with the pro-life movement.
- When I first read this article I did a search of Bishop Tyson at Lifesite News and Life News and found nothing. If he truly was hostile to the pro-life groups there, there would have been numerous articles attesting to that. There was NONE.
- Laura Ingraham is a shill for Trump. Anybody who supports Trump needs to be very carefully scrutinized. Very scrutinized.
E
Ender
Guest
E
Ender
Guest
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
E
Ender
Guest
Following up on my own question, I’ve tried to find what Ingraham actually said about
*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
- deporting Americans, and
- shooting people on sight.
*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
Z
zab
Guest
Children of illegal aliens born in this country are U.S. citizens. So if their parents are deported that means these US citizens (babies and children) will be deported with their parents.
- Status