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
Here is a fuller discussion: The priests were with the rebels when they thought they were winning and with the government when they realized the rebellion was going to fail. You are having some severe problems. Seek help immediately.
I'm curious -- how much does a baptism cost?
Follow the money. 20 million illegal aliens, about 2/3 from supposedly Catholic countries, at say $2.00 a week in the collection plate, comes to about $13 million a week if only half of them show up in church.
Reverend Ike would like a haul like that too.
Just wait till the Mosques and other Arab centers of worship use the Catholic church's ( and other denomintations) rationale for taking in illegals to shelter terrorists that are in this country illegally. People who call themselves Christians should really think out their stance on this issue rather than taking emotional way out.
Thu Church is forbidden to charge money for any sacrament. This is defined as the sin of simony.
It's especially true for young male recent-arrivals who send half their income back to their families in Mexico. They mostly don't come to church; and when they do, they mostly don't put anything in the basket.
Thu Church is forbidden to charge money for any sacrament. This is defined as the sin of simony.
---
Exactly! Then why are people here attributing the Church's stance on immigration to greediness?
Why? Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
"These people have no coins to drop in the collection plate."
And it's just that simple. If the illegals were wealthy, or even middle class, they would not feel the need to sneak into our country illegally.
"After letting gays into Seminary, covering up pedophile priests, tolerating abortion supporting politicians and now supporting santuary for illegal immigrants, I think American Catholics should send a message to the Catholic bishops by leaving the church and attending conservative Protestant churches."
The Roman Catholic faith was the first Christian faith, started by Jesus. It is not the faith - it is SOME individuals who were at fault and they were wrong.
In 1961 the Vatican said they should not allow homosexuals in the seminaries, but SOME did not listen. This is the "enemy within" the Church - not the Church; not the FAITH.
Check out priestsforlife.org, and see how Catholic priests and other Catholics fight for LIFE!
LOL.
Riiiiight.
Care to name names?
But from the tone of your responses to me it seems you don't really have a problem with people who bugger little boys, at least not if they're wearing frocks.
L
That's another delightful little smear. You're just dripping with hate now.
That might have been to strong of a word to use.
The reason that many were not prosecuted was because in many cases the statute of limitations had run out, or there was just not enough evidence to take to a trial. At the point many of them were finally called to account, the kids they had molested were adults, there were no witnesses, and they were mostly hearsay cases.
Regardless of how folks FEEL about it, the legal system has to run its course. There were also cases in which a priest was accused, but there was NO evidence at ALL and it turned out that it was a false accusation. But in any case, these men will receive justice at the hands of God and need repent of their sins.
You have your hatred reserved for me, it seems.
What's the matter? Do you have a personal interest in pederasty or something? Is there some reason you approve of people who conspire to bugger boys? I haven't heard you say one word of opprobrium for the monsters who actually committed crimes here, just a resounding disapproval of me.
I wonder why that is. I wonder why you have a problem with people who can't stand pedophiles no matter where they are.
I mean you have to admit it's an interesting thing to ponder in a clinical sort of way. Why on earth would someone get so upset when an organization of any kind gets caught hiding pedophiles on a massive scale? What would prompt a person to be upset with the one who points out the fact that committing acts of sodomy on young boys is illegal and should be punished?
I'm kind of shaking my head over it. Can you help me out? Can you why you don't want to see a large group of pedophiles punished in the civil and criminal courts?
Thanks in advance for your kind assistance.
I look forward to your speedy response.
L
I'm sure that will give the victims great comfort.
L
Ummmmm...maybe not at first. But...with some/many parishes directing illegals to shelter, jobs, contacts...those same illegals then become members of "said" church?
Lot's of people don't think wild turkey's can fly, but they do.
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.