[BlackElk]

kstewskis: In defense of Sinkspur (a rare self-indulgence, you should pardon the expression), B-XVI most certainly would defend the immigration. John Paul II specifically defended such immigrations. The pope is the legislator of the Catechism. John Paul II was the individual pope who actually promulgated the catechism. That part of the Catechism which is being cited against immigration is written to make ACCEPTANCE of the immigrant by his/her new country the trigger that establishes the immigrant's (no mention of legal or "illegal") obligations to his/her new country. It is quite logical to note that the immigrant is not, by the Catechism at least, required to leave the recipient country in order to obey its laws.

God's law is infinitely more important than mere government law. The two often coincide but NOT always. Where they do not coincide, go with God's Law.

[TradicalRC]

It is quite logical to note that the immigrant is not, by the Catechism at least, required to leave the recipient country in order to obey its laws.

Not logical in the least seeing that they are DISOBEYING the law by not going through the proper channels. Christ never advocated breaking laws, nor should anyone who calls himself a Christian.

[kstewskis]

God's law is infinitely more important than mere government law. The two often coincide but NOT always. Where they do not coincide, go with God's Law.

I am in complete agreement. But what I don't understand here, is the part in the Catechism (#2241) that these bishops contradict what is said in this paragraph..

This is not an issue of immigration (I'm all for it), it's the illegal immigration as a whole, and what Church teachings say upon respecting the indivitual laws of the land. Not what I think they should say.

And let me say this, I will agree with what Sink brought up with the House bill, that it would cross the line of inhibiting religious freedom should a priest get jail time for helping someone undocumented.

But that wasn't my original beef.

My beef is with Mahony pushing the envelop too far, once again.

How is this in concordance with what is said in the Catechism?

It sounds like someone wants things both ways.