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

[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.”

Given your citation it appears that the bishop is miffed at the Image Point, the people hosting the event. Apparently he hasn’t gotten over his beef with them regarding an earlier issue with the Knights of Columbus. Here is more of Msgr Siler’s comments:*Second, the speaker they have invited, Laura Ingraham…a strident opponent of many of the immigration positions held by the US bishops.
*That would seem to be the money quote: Ingraham opposes the bishop’s immigration policies so her appearance at a pro-life event is “problematic”. He appears to be willing to damage the effectiveness of a pro-life event unless the speaker adheres to his immigration policies.
Given these two points, it is not appropriate to advertise Image Point’s event in any way.
Ender

 

[unafraid]

JPUSC:
Ingraham is a polarizing extremist, and frankly, her melding of right wing fanaticism with her conversion to Roman Catholicism has always left me a bit incredulous. I simply am not a fan of the type of rhetorical hysterics employed by these media mavens, right and left.

Ingraham has her own pulpit in which to promote her views ( and her brand). Why should the Bishop of Yakima be forced to offer her what might be construed as an official Roman Catholic endorsement of her views and positions.

Laura Ingraham seems the type of Catholic whose sense of “Love of Neighbor” extends only to those who speak good English and vote straight Republican. She annoys me. Maybe someone should remind her that these annoying aliens from south of the border are our brothers and sisters in the Faith.

 

[OriginalJS]

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

There is a moral issue regarding immigration; there is always a moral issue when the treatment of humans is involved.

 

[jeannetherese]

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.
That link didn’t work.

Ender

If she advocates shooting people who cross the border is she advocating illegal acts? Is this sort of language concerning immigration, language which you would consider as having no moral value?
I am sorry about the link. It works on the first post but not on the second.
I’ve re-pulled it from the web and let’s try it one more time.
mediamatters.org/video/2015/12/07/laura-ingraham-suggests-the-us-should-shoot-dep/207282
Ms. Ingraham’s "“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?” will be available for your vieing and listening a bir after 2. 20 (if my link is behaving this time ). Her imitating the racking of a shotgun comes a bit later…

 

[jeannetherese]

Or, perhaps, the bishops are aware that Ms. Ingraham is endorsing an anti-immigration group, Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has board members with ties to Planned Parenthood and The Population Institute. After all, her endorsement is available on the net with video track accompanying transcript.

mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/20/laura-ingraham-endorses-anti-immigrant-hate-gro/194536

To check on the board of directors, see here:
fairus.org/about/board-of-directors

And, while not all readers on CAF will be comfortable with the SPLC, their research into FAIR and its links to eugenics and anti-Catholicism, as noted in this link, may be of interest to some.

splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2007/federation-american-immigration-reform’s-hate-filled-track-record

 

[Ender]

There is a moral issue regarding immigration; there is always a moral issue when the treatment of humans is involved.

Name one that does not involve the judgment of someone else’s intentions.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If she advocates shooting people who cross the border is she advocating illegal acts?

At least acknowledge this distinction: she did not advocate shooting everyone who crossed the border illegally, she was explicitly talking about illegals who were also criminals. She said that illegals who were also convicted criminals should be shot if they illegally entered a second time. That said, her comment was pushing the limits of hyperbole.

Is this sort of language concerning immigration, language which you would consider as having no moral value?

No. I already said there is no moral component in an issue unless it advocates something that is intrinsically evil. Her intemperate suggestion falls in that category. This, however, doesn’t make immigration a moral issue any more than suggesting one should steal a battery makes car repair a moral issue.

Her imitating the racking of a shotgun comes a bit later…

When she made that sound it was in reference to the caller’s concern about trying to protect herself against someone trying to break into her home; it had nothing whatever to do with illegal immigrants. Her specific comment was “That’s not a sound you want to hear if you’re a criminal.” The caller was discussing her fear about protecting herself in light of the shootout in San Bernardino when people were put on lockdown. Ingraham then brought up the point that Governor Brown had been turning people out of prisons because of the cost of maintaining them, at which point she made the comment you cited:* 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?
*Don’t ignore the context of her comment.

Ender

 

[zz912]

Laura Ingraham seems the type of Catholic whose sense of “Love of Neighbor” extends only to those who speak good English and vote straight Republican. She annoys me. Maybe someone should remind her that these annoying aliens from south of the border are our brothers and sisters in the Faith.

It’s so much easier to claim your political opponent is “hateful” than it is to actually argue against their views.

 

[Maxirad]

I wonder what Raymond Arroyo has to say about the situation. He and Ms. Ingraham have been friends.

 

[Joe_5859]

Don’t we get upset when Catholic colleges invite pro-choice commencement speakers? We wouldn’t shrug it off so long as they avoid actually talking about abortion but instead stick to a topic that is consistent with a Catholic worldview.

 

[phil19034]

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.

This isn’t the Bishops. This is the Yakima Diocese.

I can understand the Diocese not wanting to officially be part of an event with a specific speaker and asking parishes not to officially attend. But asking individual Catholics is a step too far.

If anything, a simple endorsement of the pro-Life stance and condemning the mass deportation idea would be a good, middle of road approach.

I know that some people fear the protestants targeting Hispanics and the pulling them away from the Church. I don’t know what the numbers are in the Yakima Diocese, but the conversion of Hispanics away from the Church to protestantism could be PART (even if a small part) of the concern.

God Bless!

 

[phil19034]

The thing that bothers me the most about all is is that Laura Ingraham is a Catholic and she is publicly fighting with a Bishop.

She should have asked to speak with the Bishop one and one to discuss the situation and understand where he is coming from.

Then, regardless of his stance, she should have left it there.

But she ***appears ***to be one of those Catholics who have a disdain for all Bishops and distrust for all Bishops.

Frankly, she should be showing more respect for Bishop.

God Bless

 

[KSU]

The thing that bothers me the most about all is is that Laura Ingraham is a Catholic and she is publicly fighting with a Bishop.

If that were true, it would be an example of an orthodox Catholic following Pope Francis’ advice to make a mess when necessary.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Good decision by the diocese.
Perhaps it will wake up other “Fox ‘News’ Catholics”

 

[grotto]

Well, this is adding harm onto harm. No support at this end for such efforts to bring free access to anyone wishing to enter the United States. This does not equate to being against the God given right that His created child should be born to this life. Even when clergy is in the wrong nobody has to pretend they are right. It’s not the first time and it won’t be the last.

 

[CaptFun]

Good decision by the diocese. < :newidea: And so novel! Normally Dioceses are too busy fighting more obvious sins than “attendance at pro-life fundraisers” – so we must guess that there are no dirty movies in town, no drug problems, or anything else that would favor a reiteration of things Jesus warned the faithful against.

Perhaps it will wake up other “Fox ‘News’ Catholics”*

• There’s no known definition for what that really is except that it seems to be an antonym for

Fox hues Catholics. In some dialects spelled youse.

 

[J_Peterson]

The thing that bothers me the most about all is is that Laura Ingraham is a Catholic and she is publicly fighting with a Bishop.

She should have asked to speak with the Bishop one and one to discuss the situation and understand where he is coming from.

Then, regardless of his stance, she should have left it there.

But she ***appears ***to be one of those Catholics who have a disdain for all Bishops and distrust for all Bishops.

Frankly, she should be showing more respect for Bishop.

God Bless

She sounds like one of the Church Militant to me, one of those super Catholics that are so Catholic they can’t stand to be around other Catholics, especially the Bishops.

 

[CaptFun]

Maybe the fact that Laura is a relatively new Catholic is the problem.

She may not see how immigration has much to do with abortion. She is doing some lay person’s work supporting pro-life activities.

Perhaps instead of going as far as publishing a Diocese-wide directive to the faithful not to support this local effort - the Bishop and Monsignor in question might hold forth on the meaning of certain well-known scriptures as

John 10:1 Chapter 10:1

"Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber.

True, this is about immigration from this life unto the next one … but apparently immigration CAN be done wrong (even if we don’t use the term “illegally”). A neophyte like Laura might just take Jesus’ words at face value and conclude that immigrants to America should also “enter through the gate” (i.e. legally).

If the Diocese suspects that the group is really going to re-direct the pro-life funds unto doing bad things to immigrants, they should be sure about it. Personally I don’t think that possibility is likely.

Jesus and his family immigrated to Egypt and back … presumably obeying any attendant laws I should think. And it’s good for the faithful to be instructed on that matter, beyond loving one’s neighbors, caring for the poor, sharing with those in need, etc.

I do find it odd that THIS event is being used to present that counsel. I don’t get it.
Is Laura Ingraham supposed to be like the gangsters of old who opened soup kitchens
for the poor to mask their other (selfish, illegal, etc.) activities? Sometimes the clergy at the time didn’t condemn the gangsters’ “do-gooding” – even if later they were denied a big public funeral and burial in holy ground.

If I MUST choose a side here. So far it would be Ingraham’s do-gooding over the clerical carping and opposition to what seems to be something they should be promoting … not discouraging.

 

[Cider]

She sounds like one of the Church Militant to me, one of those super Catholics that are so Catholic they can’t stand to be around other Catholics, especially the Bishops.

We are all the Church militant, you might want to go look up what it actually means, it does not mean what you implied in your post.

 

[KSU]

We are all the Church militant, you might want to go look up what it actually means, it does not mean what you implied in your post.