Posted on 04/01/2006 1:05:20 PM PST by petkus
LETTER To the Editor. A s a Catholic who struggles to reconcile the U.S./Mexican illegal immigration crisis with Christian principles, I was grateful to see and eager to read Bishops Gregory and Boland's pastoral letter on immigration reform. However, after studying the document I was disappointed and dismayed—not by what was said but by what was left unsaid.
Expecting a comprehensive exploration of the moral responsibilities of all parties involved, I found the overwhelming focus of the letter to be, in essence, the failure of U.S. taxpayers to be sufficiently generous to those who reside here illegally. While I appreciated our bishops' insistence on the protection of the human rights of all immigrants, legal status or no, it is only one part of the moral equation.
Entirely ignored was the question of the extent to which immigrants are morally obligated to observe a country's laws governing entrance and residence. And if one's moral obligation to abide by the law is mitigated by one's difficult financial circumstances, how are we to discern to which situations this moral leniency does and does not apply? If 1 am in dire financial straits through no fault of my own, may I, with moral impunity, choose to cheat on my taxes (say, by forging Social Security numbers to obtain tax credits for nonexistent offspring) rather than attempt the lengthy process of going through the proper IRS channels for possible relief? Consistent pastoral guidance for individuals in such situations is essential.
Moreover, unlawful activity begets more of the same. Because they have chosen to enter the U.S. by other than legitimate means, illegal immigrants must choose between having their illegal status discovered or the breaking of additional laws—e.g., driving without a license or driving with a forged license. Paradoxically, the thing that gives the U.S. its stability—its rule of law—is the very thing being undermined by those who seek the stability offered by this country. To what degree can the escalating unlawfulness be morally justified? At what point does Jesus' injunction to "render unto Caesar" become applicable?
Referenced only in passing within the pastoral letter is the moral obligation of Mexico (a developed country with natural resources) to rise to its potential and provide adequate opportunities for its own citizens. As jointly stated by U.S. and Mexican bishops, its failure to do so is the root problem of illegal immigration. What pressure are Mexican bishops exerting to make their government more accountable to its people? Do not measures (by both the U.S. and Mexico) that embolden and encourage illegal immigrants ultimately serve to enable Mexico to persist in its dysfunctional state? If so, are our good intentions perhaps misguided compassion? If a person is not seeking asylum due to starvation, persecution, etc., is he ever morally bound not to simply abandon his troubled country but to work toward, fight for its improvement?
The purpose of my letter is not to argue but to beseech our bishops to shepherd us to a comprehensive understanding of the morality involved in all the various components of this dilemma.
Lisa Olwine Lawrenceville
Go back and read some of my posts. Hung the rebels from the telephone poles, they did. The catholic priests instigated the revolution and then made peace with the government. After that, they betrayed the Cristeros to government troops looking for them so the government soldiers could kill them. Funny how few people know what happened or care.
Yes, it was Benito Juarez. The catholic church owned nearly half of the land in Mexico on which they did NOT pay taxes. Juarez told them they could only have the land on which the church building sat. So, they built a lot of little cathedrals in cities and retained ownership of SOME valuable property. However, they lost a lot of the rural property. No, he did not persecute the catholic church, he did what needed to be done to help Mexico.
Man, you're losing it. Instead of debate and refutation of facts, you name call. Seek help. Soon.
Yes I do.
Ain't gonna happen.
Yea, it seems the Catholic Church hierarchy who aided and abetted the pederasts and pedophiles in its midst are going to get away with it. That doesn't mean I have to like it and it sure as hell doesn't mean I have to keep quiet about it.
It might however be easier to take if folks weren't quit so smug about it.
L
Pedophile: an adult whose primary sexual interest is in children.
It's a distinction without a difference in my view.
Both pederasts and pedophiles like to have sex with children. Both behaviors are illegal. Covering up such behavior is illegal. Not reporting such behavior to authorities is illegal.
Do you have a point with your question or were you just trying to toss some dirt in the air?
You may not like the facts, but they are the facts just the same. For decades the American Catholic Church had many practicing pederasts and pedophiles in its employ. The church hierarchy was aware of it. Several members of that hierarchy actively engaged in covering the behavior up and shuffling the offenders from parish to parish thereby allowing them to attack dozens, possibly hundreds more children.
Now if any other organization in America from General Motors to the Boy Scouts had engaged in this sort of activity its management people would have gone to prison and the offending organization would have been quite rightly sued out of existence.
But because its the Catholic Church people will make lame ass excuses like "not every Bishop knew about it" and "it wasn't in every Parish". Well that's just great isn't it? They somehow managed to make sure that not every Bishop was a willing conspirator and that not every Parish got a visit from some sick bast*** who liked to f*** little boys.
You know what I say? I say thanks for nothing.
I don't hate the Catholic church, so spare me that crap. I do however, as I said before, hate perverts who prey on kids. I most especially hate people who know about perverts actively preying on kids and then don't just not stop them, but actively conceal their crimes.
I would think any decent human being would feel the same way.
L
I certainly hope you agree with those general principles.
But if you differ with them then by all means please share that with the rest of the class.
L
Sensenbrenner's statements are the belief of one of 435 Congressmen. Remember that the RICO statute--originally aimed at mob bosses--was used by Planned Parenthood to sue Joe Scheidler.
This illustrates the complexity of the problem. Soon it'll be biometric ID for all. You OK with that?
"Juridical" means "subject to the administration of laws." That means legal immigration.
Yup.
The separate Spanish ministries in our church costs more to operate than what the parishioners in the Spanish mass put in. There was recently a story about that very subject in our local liberal rag.
I don't understand why the bishops have to get involved with this in the first place.
Who are you thinking of?
sara, are you in my neck of the woods (Phx diocese)? Did you see the article in the AZ Repugnant about Christ The King parish?
Not all do. But as for those who do get involve, I believe it is because of a misguided sense of duty. And, I imagine human ego comes into play as well.
I think the "WWJD?" test applies here.
So, if in Jesus' day, there were people coming to the Holy Land in violation of the law of the land, how would he regard them?
I think he would say to give onto Caesar what is Caesar's and give onto God what is God's.
Therefore, I think he would have compassion for their circumstances. But, he would not condone their violation of the law. Especially, I think he would condemn the real perpetrators of this sham, the people who hire illegal aliens and the politicians who pander to them.
Your reading of the history of the Cristero War strikes me as being slapdash and simplistic. I am not accusing YOU of intellectual dishonesty, but it looks to me that your sources may be both partial (in the sense of incomplete) and partisan.
As you perhaps know, Canon Law held priests to a "higher standard of perfection" that included the rejection of any form of violence that would result in another person's death. The Code of Canon Law enacted in 1918, prohibited priests from carrying weapons.
In total, five priests took up arms in the Cristero War, in violation of their priestly vocation. A murkier question is whether they were supported by the Bishops of Mexico or the Pope. Officially, the Mexican episcopate never supported the rebellion, but by several accounts, the rebels had the episcopate's acknowledgement that their cause was legitimate.
Many more priests, and some bishops, like Bishop José Francisco Orozco y Jiménez of Guadalajara, firmly rejected armed rebellion, but remained with the rebels because they were unwilling to abandon their people. Some 25 of these were canonized as martyrs in 2000 by Pope John Paul II. (These were priests who did not take up arms, but refused to leave their flocks, and were executed by federal forces.)
Your picture of the Cristeros being first instigated and then betrayed by their priests is similar to many other posters' broad and inaccurate anti-Catholic statements which disfigure the discussion here at Free Republic.
A fuller discussion usually suffices to show these slanders as the distortions they are.
No,I canceled my subscription several years ago and get the Tribune. It's not much better but at least there is so much less of it!!
Please tell me what the Repugnant had to say about "Christ the King" church,I am sure the parishioners are much better off now that the goofy movie reviewer/part time pastor has taken a sabbatical to manage the Long Beach Little Theater,(or some such position) although many of them may not realize it.
Yes, but its his bill.
Outstanding post and one which I had made. The individual constantly defending such behavior is exactly like the perpetrator of the crime and should be equally punished.
Outstanding post and one which I wished I had made. The individual constantly defending such behavior is exactly like the perpetrator of the crime and should be equally punished.
Some of you who are die-hard catholics just can not accept the truth. How sad...to in one sentence acknowledge that I'm telling the truth and in another insinuate I'm lying. It is as it was and I wrote what it was.
I am a lifelong Catholic and I agree with your observation.
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.