Woo hoo!
Welcome HOME Miss Marple!
Posted on 03/28/2006 2:18:36 PM PST by razorbak
The Roman Catholic Church, dozens of grass-roots coalitions and Spanish-language radio disc jockeys have helped fuel protests nationwide against congressional efforts to tackle illegal immigration....
The Catholic Church has played a key role in opposing legislation to restrict immigration and rallying protesters....
"As we've been able to reach more and more people, they're waking up to the ills of the proposals made to date and seeing the need to be vocal about the kinds of reforms that would be more acceptable," said Mark D. Franken, executive director of migration and refugee services for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops....
The bishops conference in May began "Justice for Immigrants," a campaign focused on activating a network of grass-roots movements against punitive immigration-reform legislation....
Mr. Franken said all the nation's 197 Catholic dioceses are in some way backing the campaign, with more than 70 being particularly active. Disseminating pamphlets and networking, community-level groups tied to the campaign are operating "in churches and everywhere they can gain access," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
My point exactly. What idiocy.
LOL
OK, you turkeys. Line up and put your heads right on this chopping block comfy cushion here...
My two priests do not say anything about immigration. Their homilies are always based on the Gospel reading for that Sunday.
As you said, the Church is about more than individual priests, bishops, or even popes.
Wait a sec. Never?
So, ten of the twelve original Apostles were killed by the Romans because---- they obeyed all the Roman laws?
St. Thomas More was beheaded by Henry VIII because he did everything that Henry VIII, his lawful sovereign, told him to do?
St. Charles Lwanga and companions were burned to death by the king of Uganda because of their perfect obedience to the King's decrees?
St. Maximilian Kolbe was put in a concentration camp by the Nazis, because he followed all of the Nazi regulations?
Hmm...
Woo hoo!
Welcome HOME Miss Marple!
LOL -- Yes, I lasted two days. It's HIS fault.
I just knew, after I was done on Sunday, that I was going to be right back there next weekend...LOL!!
Good points. Still Christ never advocated law-breaking and submitted to both the sanhedrin and Pilate. He could've resisted but didn't.
With regard to the law, if any authority proposes a law that explicitly commands you to break one of God's laws, then we as Christians must disobey and take the consequences. However, there are other laws that are not compulsive such as Roe v. Wade which ought to be addressed by legislative and political means, no? We don't advocate bombing clinics, do we?
If a law commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands, our duty is to obey God rather than man.
It gets more complicated when a law permits what God forbids, and I think different cases yield different judgments.
I was just reading a short bio of St. Francis de Sales (early 17th century.) He is called the "Gentleman Saint" because, as Catholic Bishop of Geneva (Switzerland) with a Diocese composed of 60,000 Calvinists (!), he embarked on a vigorous but respectful campaign of teaching and pamphleteering against the errors of the Protestant Reformation. He was convinced that heresy is as grave a sin as murder or treason --- maybe even moreso --- but he did not think that in the case of Geneva it should be resisted by force. However, he did not rule that out in theory, in other circumstances; he just thought that in his circumstances, in his Diocese, persuasion must be used, however long it might take.
It is said that, thorugh his preaching and publishing, but even more through his limitless willingness to suffer for his people, he converted 40,000 of them back to Catholicism.
My point is that he thought the promulgation of heresy was as seriously wrong as the fomenting of mutiny and sedition, or the poisoning of wells, and he did not in theory rule out the use of force, or even the coercive power of the state, in suppressing heresy; but he himself did't choose that path.
It gives me a great deal to think about.
Here's an intresting hypothetical: How about if the law permitted (but did not require) the killing of the unemployed. This hypothetical law is (like Roe vs Wade) merely permissive.
Can the State legitimately authorize the killing of the unemployed? (No.)
Can the State legitimately discriminate against the unemployed by withdrawing from them the protection which is given to all other human beings? (No.)
Are Catholics in government obliged to try to use the power of the State to protect the the lives of the unemployed? (Yes.)
Are Catholics obliged to try to protect the lives of unemployed, by force if necessary? (You answer that.)
ping 'cause I'd like your opinion on the question in #191
Your point is well made. I'm not sure that force is necessarily the proper answer. Christ did not come as Caesar as expected or as a revolutionary as liberation theologians would have us believe. God is after all, a God of order, not of chaos. Joseph, (son of Jacob) submitted to injustice as did Daniel and Christ and Maximillian Kolbe. I grant you, there are no easy answers. I will point out that while Christ laid down his own life, He did not lay down another's.
That's a tough question. Offhand, I would say no, they're not obliged to take what essentially would be heroic measures, but such heroic measures (even conducted in secret) would be noble and righteous. It would be like the French Resistance.
But I am interested in reading the input of others on this.
And I'm sending letters to every Archbishop about that idiotic stance."
You can't reason with the holier-than-thou.
They hear from enough of us, and they will get the picture. Some of the Archbishops are pretty smart. Some are hopeless.
YES!!!! Heh, heh, heh!
Can the State legitimately authorize the killing of the unemployed?
Can the State legitimately discriminate against the unemployed by withdrawing from them the protection which is given to all other human beings?
Are Catholics in government obliged to try to use the power of the State to protect the the lives of the unemployed?
Are Catholics obliged to try to protect the lives of unemployed, by force if necessary? (You answer that.)
IMO, the answer to the above would depend upon the verbiage of the law. As Catholics, we are obligated to support the social teachings of the Church and the fundamental principles of the dignity of the human person, the common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. The Catechism gives some good guidance on our role in regards to support/dissent from the state:
PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL LIFE
I. Authority
1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."
By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.
1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.
1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.
Pope St. Clement of Rome provides the Church's most ancient prayer for political authorities:18 "Grant to them, Lord, health, peace, concord, and stability, so that they may exercise without offense the sovereignty that you have given them. Master, heavenly King of the ages, you give glory, honor, and power over the things of earth to the sons of men. Direct, Lord, their counsel, following what is pleasing and acceptable in your sight, so that by exercising with devotion and in peace and gentleness the power that you have given to them, they may find favor with you."
1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens." The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.
1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."
1904 "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the 'rule of law,' in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."
Such a law that you propose would clearly be a violation of all four social principles. We, as Catholics, could not support such a law. I think we would be obliged to not support that law and to work to have it changed. In the event of needing to protect human life, I think we would be obliged to do what was necessary to prevent enforcement of such a law...including placing our own selves at personal risk.
Having said that, the law you mention hypothetically and the illegal alien law are two different issues completely. While it would be entirely appropriate and necessary to control our borders and immigration requirements (as long as those immigration requirements don't violate the social teaching), it would be inappropriate, for example, to kill illegal aliens found in our territory.
He needs to be indicted, etc., for his role in the pederasty and chicken hawk and seminarian abuse scandals and the cover-up of same.
2. The catechism language presumes as a precondition that the immigrant has been accepted by the receiving country. If not, the receiving country has not pulled the trigger on the immigrant's obligation to obey the laws of the receiving country (he may be obligated by any number of other strictures, however). In any event, obeying the law on "illegal" immigration is inherently contradictory to the catechism provision because it would cancel the trigger of our country receiving the immigrant (an ongoing trigger).
The argument (which is designed by others to divide conservatives) is going to be irrelevant in any event in most cases since, given Speaker Hastert's announcement that "guest worker" is acceptable to House leadership and the Senate's attitude on the subject, "guest worker" is going to become law. At that point, when folks complain about the immigration, pro-immigrant folks will be saying: What part of "legal" don't you understand? Morality is not determined by legislative action. Enacted laws prohibit (allegedly) two kinds of evils: malum in se (evil by its very nature such as murder, rape, robbery) and malum prohibitum ("evil" only because prohibited: parking regulations, environmental regulation of matters not adversely affecting your neighbors, crossing borders without "papers.")
These theories are Natural Law and were developed by the Church under God's guidance. Malum Prohibitum "crimes" ought to be avoided but are not as serious as crimes of Malum in Se. Think venial sin vs. mortal sin. Think traditional misdemeanor vs. traditional felony. Think: We need a better solution than slamming the door shut on people who only seek a better life by trivial violations like border crossings.
BTW, Pope John Paul II was very clear in justifying the very sort of immigration complained about here. We are the United States of America, a big populous country. We are NOT Liechtenstein or Luxembourg or Monaco. Courtesy of abortion, we are short 50 million people and their never conceived offspring.
If 50 million of the US population of 300 million were to die in a bird flu pandemic, do you doubt the adverse economic impact (never minding the intense human tragedies)?
3. The Rule of Law died here in the 1930s at the level of SCOTUS in any event. Roe vs. Wade and its progeny and Lawrence vs. Texas and its progeny (lavender rights) are proof that the Rule of Law is dead as a doornail in the USA.
4. The opposition to Mexican and Latin American immigration as we know it is not pretty and has not been pretty and does not promise to look any better. If it had succeeded, we would have forfeited the substantial Hispanic vote that we have been getting. We already have sustained losses. If we do not compete successfully for that Hispanic vote and/or black vote, conservatism itself will be as dead as the Rule of Law and as 50 million innocent babies slaughtered in its name. In the long run, I hope that conservative leaders such as Rush, Sean and others will concede that they were wrong on this issue politically.
There are ways to spread the impact of the immigration both economic and social. We can deal with all of the peripheral issues (many of which like WTO, GATT, NAFTA, export of jobs, refusal of other adjacent nations to build economies with laws that keep their folks home as cherished assets rather than send them abroad as rejected refuse (in spite of the fact that the rejectees are the ones with the gumption to leave these hellholes for a better life).
There are massive implications to this immigration business that far transcend: "What part of illegal, don't they understand????" This about who we are and what we are. Act in haste and we will be condemned to contemplate our folly and to repent at leisure and irretrievably.
I remember the part in the Apocalypse where, at the final judgment, Jesus Christ told those heaven-bound that they were His children in whom He was well-pleased because when He was naked they clothed Him, and when He was hungry they fed Him and when He was thirsty they gave Him to drink and when He was jailed they visited Him and so forth. AND, at the moment of their salvation, they asked when they had done these things and He told them that when they did these things for the LEAST of His brethren they had done them for Him.
At the moment, the least of His brethren available to us are likely Juan and Rosa. In other eras, it may have been Brendan and Colleen, Giovanni and Maria, Klaus and Katrina, Boris and Natasha, Schmuel and Aviva, Willie and Sojourner, Silas and Prudence or Squanto and Sacajawea and their children. They are/were all His children and, in various eras, among the LEAST of His brethren. Socialism is certainly not required by Scripture. Hospitality and personal charity (consistent with one's means) certainly are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.