Posted on 11/07/2007 9:14:58 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Well, they are in my area (Chapel Hill, NC).
They will learn that the good ole USA is just one big pinata’.....
And would these so-called religious people acknowledge that if their compassion was not exceeded by their inability to reason, a total-border fence would vastly reduce the problems that concern them to a trickle? No.
The “Catholic Bishops Conference” is a political organization , not a religious organization.
I didn’t read most of it, but the easiest way to deal with this issue is to discredit those leaders by pointing out that they encourage illegal immigration and thereby play a role in those border deaths and other consequences. Tell them that if they really cared they’d push for strict enforcement of our laws in order to prevent people from trying to cross the desert.
If you’re in Houston, try this guy:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007094.html
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is an ethical theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature (God) and that therefore has validity everywhere. The phrase natural law is sometimes opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and can thus function as a standard by which to criticize that law.
Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law, and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence. Hardly Democrat operatives and positions.
The Roman Catholic Church continues to hold the view of natural law set forth by St. Thomas Aquinas, particularly in his Summa Theologica, which is also shared by many Protestant churches.
It holds human beings to consist of body and mind, the physical and the non-physical (or soul perhaps), and that the two are inextricably linked. Humans are capable of discerning the difference between good and evil because they have a conscience. There are many manifestations of the good that we can pursue. Some, like procreation, are common to other animals, while others, like the pursuit of truth, are inclinations peculiar to the capacities of human beings.
To know what is right, one must use one's reason and apply it to Aquinas' precepts. The most important is the primary precept, self preservation. There are also four subsidiary precepts: procreation, education of children, living in society, and worshipping God (veneration). In addition to these, there are secondary precepts, which Aquinas did not specify like the other five. Therefore, for a deontological ethical theory they are open to a surprisingly large amount of interpretation and flexibility. Any rule that helps man to live up to the primary or subsidiary precepts can be a secondary precept, for example:
Drunkenness is wrong because it injures one's health, and worse, destroys one's ability to reason, which is fundamental to man as a rational animal (i.e. does not support self preservation).
Theft, even under cover of law, is wrong because it destroys social relations, and man is by nature a social animal (i.e. does not support the subsidiary precept of living in society).
Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also know as action and motive. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral one's motive must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. Pointing the finger and damning another human being to assure one's place in Heaven is wrong. However, good intentions don’t always lead to good actions. The motive must coincide with Aquinas's cardinal or theological virtues. Cardinal virtues are acquired through reason applied to nature; they are:
- Prudence
- Justice
- Temperance
- Fortitude
His theological virtues are:
- Faith
- Hope
- Charity
According to Aquinas, to lack any of these virtues is to lack the ability to make a moral choice. For example, consider a man who possesses the virtues of justice, prudence, and fortitude, yet lacks temperance. Due to his lack of self control and desire for pleasure, despite his good intentions, he will find himself swaying from the moral path.
“They speak for no one. They need to fill the seats and try to recoup the billions they paid in the wake of the lawsuits”
We have a WINNER!!!!
“the easiest way to deal with this issue is to discredit those leaders by pointing out that they encourage illegal immigration and thereby play a role in those border deaths and other consequences. Tell them that if they really cared they’d push for strict enforcement of our laws in order to prevent people from trying to cross the desert.”
You got it.
Why are the American Bishops sticking their noses in here?
This should be the business of the Latin American Bishops.
Well, no, since my initial complain was specifically articulating the aggrandisement argument (i.e. it wasn't just that "the Bishops actually dared to participate in the political dialog"), my position is completely consistent. You have committed two fallacies: 1) you made a straw man argument and 2) you committed a category error. I think you seriously need to take a class in formal logic.
Lastly, if you are so blinded by your biases that you cannot see or appreciate the good that the Church has done and will continue to do then I pity you and will pray for you.
Which has zilch to do with what I actually said. Please confine your martyr complex to dealing with what's actually said, not what you wish had been said so that you could complain about it.
When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
Pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic do not apply to this discussion as it is one of political not of spiritual matters.
Justice is served by obedience to law, not by aiding and abetting international socialism. Man’s law, including the statutes that protect our border and procedures for lawful immigration, applies equally to all: that is justice. As for spiritual justice, that is clearly God’s province.
The law of hubris, perhaps, is served by the bishops’ defiance of U.S. law, and falsely so in the name of religion. In my view, they are abusing the faith this way to prop up a sense of personal virtue.
So, the bishops are exercising a “bad interior act” via a “good exterior act” to impress their liberal anti-U.S. followers. Additionally, they are taking advantage of a de facto religious immunity afforded by our great nation.
In addition to praying for Benedict to name bishops (and cardinals) who honor the separation of church and state, and who humbly recognize their non-exalted place in the church, I would not hesitate to express myself in writing to this Bishops Council to the effect they DO NOT represent me.
If they choose to act quietly as individuals, as private citizens, that is another matter.
What we do not hear about are life-saving actions, as performed by BP agents and Minutemen. As well, many may not know that as a lawyer, Duncan Hunter has helped sincere non-citizens to immigrate legally.
The cardinal virtues would be best served by educating and aiding those who are sincere immigrants in following U.S. laws and procedures.
Unfortunately for your argument, Matthew 12:2-7 is dealing with salvation, and the associated demands for ritualism and sacramentalism which false religion (such as Phariseeism) demands but which Jesus rejected, not social issues.
“Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work”. (Titus 3:1)
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” (I Peter 2:13-14)
The Bible enjoins that we are to obey the laws of the land. One of the laws (ostensibly) of the United States is that you have to be a citizen, or have to have the permission of our government, to be here. If you don’t (i.e. are illegal), then you are breaking the law, and sinning against God.
Further, if we wish to talk about “love” in the illegal immigration issue, we need to understand that the restrictionist viewpoint is the loving viewpoint, for four reasons:
1) Allowing illegal immigration actually harms the illegals themselves. If a person is illegal, then they have basically no realistic protections before the law - they can be underpaid, denied even basic benefits, and regulations concerning safety and health basically don’t apply to them. I’ve heard too many horror stories about illegals being killed or maimed on the job, and nothing can or will be done about it (even by themselves) because they are here illegally. This situation would not happen if the people who are currently illegal would instead follow the law, apply for the various types of visas, and come here legally the same way everyone else has to.
2) This leads into the second point - illegal immigration is unfair to those law-abiding souls who DO or DID follow the law and do everything legally. Illegal immigration makes things harder for those who are trying to do the right thing and follow the law, and is basically the geopolitical equivalent of being the jerk who cuts in front of everyone else in line because he can’t be troubled to wait his turn like everyone else.
3) Illegal immigration also hurts blacks and Hispanics who are legal immigrants or who were born here. Both of these groups disproportionately compete for jobs with illegal immigrants, and suffer disproportionately from unfair competition and wage depression. This doesn’t affect YOU (assuming you are like most FReepers and are white and middle-to-upper-middle class), but it DOES affect THEM tremendously. So, what for YOU is just an abstract exercise in misplaced ideals of “social justice” is literally a matter of life and livelihood for blacks and legal Hispanics.
4) Illegal immigration, ultimately, makes conditions for NEARLY EVERYONE ELSE in Mexico worse than they are now. While Mexico is rolling in dough because of the money illegals wire back from working in the USA, this is only a Band-Aid on the gunshot wound of the social pressures and social dysfunctions that are endemic in Mexican society. Mexico is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Mexico is one of the most RACIST countries in the world. If you are not part of the rich, whitish upper crust (think Carlos Slim or any upper-level operative in the PRI), then you are considered as nothing. Illegal immigration provides the oppressors with a “safety valve”. Many of the most troublesome members of the underclass - specifically the vigourous young male members - go to the USA to work instead of staying home, stewing in unemployment, corruption, and racism and possibly fomenting revolution (as happened anywise in Chiapas and Oaxaca, two regions with relatively less access to the USA than more northerly states). The Mexican elite encourages illegal immigration because it gets potential revolutionaries and disgruntled soreheads off their backs and out of their countries. It also allows these elites to maintain a tighter grip on the rest of the Mexicans who stay behind - and who suffer from the lack of pressure for meaningful reforms in the Mexican government and society.
Hence, to SUPPORT illegal immigration is actually an unloving position which in the long run HURTS both illegals and their families and friends back in Mexico, as well as hurting vulnerable segments of American society.
Interesting how the blog does not readily identify who “the bishops” in this delegation are. After searching, as far as I could tell, there were only three. Of those three, two have Spanish surnames and one English. There is no reference as to what dioceses these “bishops” are responsible for. I am beginning to wonder...
Nevertheless, there is much of this same sentiment in parts of the archdiocese of Los Angeles, as personified in Cardinal Mahony and as can be seen in the weekly rag, THE TIDINGS.
As a faithful and orthodox Catholic, I understand that we are called upon to obey the just laws of our country. Immigration laws are just.
Illegal immigrants are lawbreakers, and while they shouldn’t be mistreated, they should be sent home.
Exactly. When I mentioned that the bishops' motives might not be wholly pure as the driven snow, I am not speaking from a pro- or anti-position on anything (other than, of course, illegal immigration). I am merely pointing out that, as leaders in the Catholic hierarchy, these bishops certainly ought to benefit from having millions of born Catholics filling up dioceses all over the country. If anything, these bishops would seem to have a conflict of interest in this matter.
Bingo! So much easier to protest in the United States, where they'll not be kicked out of than to really display some courage by going to Mexico and protesting a cruel, despotic and selfish government.
And as a Catholic, I really have a genuine right to criticize the cowardice and lack of integrity of our clergy.
There's no mercy in a bunch of silk-clad old men protesting against the legitimate concerns of the citizens of a free and just society and nation. If they had any real courage or faith in Christ, they'd take off their frocks, hie themselves down to "Mejico" and protest the despots who've been destroying those people for centuries.
Yep, I understand from reading your posts where you are coming from.
There are other issues promoted by a certain element in the Church that evidence a Leftist agenda: There is a heavy amount of ethnic identification and separatism, for example, as well as gay/lesbian validation. Apostasy abounds. I try to ignore it and go ahead with my spiritual studies.
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.