Posted on 04/14/2006 7:40:14 AM PDT by petkus
"Trouble is, the "governing class" doesn't give a rip."
Oh, they give a rip alright, they're just on the opposite side of the issue.
That's true - and they will crush us if we resist. Makes me sick.
The paper doesn't have a super-wide circulation. They don't get that many LTEs, because some issues contain none at all.
Probably they print what they get. There was a back and forth exchange over traditional church music awhile back, that went on for several issues, and they printed a bunch of letters. (IMNSHO, the traditionalists carried the day.)
This has always been a very orthodox diocese, and the few chickenhawk priests that dared to "act out" here were dealt with a long time ago, and very severely.
The John Jay report commended this diocese for its swift and comprehensive action.
As for the supposed bonanza of illegals . . . it's my understanding from talking to a number of priests that they don't donate - even by Catholic standards (which tend to be a whole lot stingier than the traditional tithe.)
I think the bishops see people in distress, want to help, and are too politically naive to realize that translating their desire to help into liberal political discourse will be counterproductive. You'd be surprised how un-political some of these prelates can be. (What a pleasant change from Episcopal bishops!)
I agree with you. I actually was able to speak with Archbishop Gregory (Atlanta Diocese) about this issue. He strongly believes that caring for all people, regardless of legal status or nationality, is Jesus' directive to Christians. His philosophy was to treat each person with a combination of forgiveness for sins they have committed and assistance in securing work and taking care of their families. He is VERY committed to this.
Some might disagree with him, but it is incorrect to say that the motivation behind supporting immigrants is money.
That's where the bishops' naivete gets them in trouble. They don't take the long view in looking at the effects of liberal amnesty/guest worker/public assistance laws -- just more poverty and more exploitation.
Archbishop Wilton Gregory serving his flock but he should stay out of politics.
Archbishop should follow the the Direction of Cardinal Mahony with regard to Abortion,i.e. Keep your hands of the politicians:
Abortion is a black-and-white issue, it's objectively and completely sinful and will get you excommunicated automatically. Politicians who support abortion but campaign as "Catholics" should be properly chastised (and voted against.)
The immigration question is a complicated multi-issue controversy and there is no clear answer. The Church itself has taken different stands (there was a letter issued by the bishops a number of years ago stating that the immigration laws should not be ignored or broken.)
It's not that Abp. Gregory should stay out of politics, he should stay out of politics when there is no clear "right" position under Catholic doctrine, and he's just supporting his personal political views. Big difference.
As an adherent Roman Catholic, I find it difficult to understand the position of my Church leaders on the subject of the illegal alien invasion of our country. It obviously does not occur to these men that if America was to be swamped into disintergration by a torrent of illegal aliens flooding into our midst, America could go under.
Without America there is no Roman Catholic Church, nor would there be any other Churches or any Jews for that matter. Forget about the financial support the Church gets from America ( it sure aint getting much from the euro-trash these days). If there was no America, there would be no genuine tough guys to protect the Pope. The Muslims would charge up the Italian boot, run into Rome and murder the Pope. Who would stop them? The European Union? The Swiss Guard?
Wake up bishops! This threat is real. These mexicans who are sneaking into our country are providing "protective covering" for the people who will cut your heads off.
Finally, whatever happened to rendering unto Ceasar what is Cearsar's and rendering unto God What is God's?
Whether or not you agree with the Archbishop, I think it is quite unfair for some to claim it is all for money, or as one post suggested "think of all those little illegals to molest". IMO it is fine to disagree with the message of the RCC, or specifically the Archbishop. I just get tired of people who must make everything about the church relate to the sins of a few priests.
Money and molestation are the two catch-phrases that Catholic-haters throw around. Usually they don't have the facts to back it up, they're just making noise.
"without America there is not a Catholic Church"
I think that might be a little extreme. The church existed long before America was established, and I have no doubt it would survive it's destruction.
Just so I make this clear. I am not hoping, suggesting or thinking in any way that America should be destroyed. Just pointing out that the RCC has survived through many terrible and tragic events.
Another scummy bigot rears his ugly head.
I think the Roman Catholic Bishops have turned a blind eye to this...they have forgotten that any secular government too, has a moral charge of its own, foremost of which is to provide for the safety and well -being of its citizens.
I think this is probably the most valid argument with the Archbishop's statement. There is a difference between the objectives of a government and the objectives of a church. The government does have an obligations to protect its citizens, which I believe is driving the immigration legislation. The Archbishop is focusing on the human dignity of each person and the protection of families without regards to citizenship, which is driving its opposition to this leglislation. There are plenty of economic and security reasons for the governments stand. There are also plenty of biblical reasons to support the Archbishop's point of view. Neither is wrong. This is how the system was designed to work.
Their emphasis on the US's guilt in trying to restrict the influx of these citizens turns a blind eye to the guilt of those driving them to privation in the first place. It's not quite hypocrisy, but it borders on the same 'right to life' activism that goes full bore against the death penalty, but gives short shrift to the atrocities of the abortion mills....
Actually, if you read the Archbishops' statements (Both Boland and Gregory) it says clearly that part of their objection to the current legislation is because it does not address the problems in Mexico that are creating the immigration problems. The statement calls for a comprehensive Federal Policy to address these issues, while protecting the human dignity of these immigrants and their families. I don't have the statement with me but I am pretty sure it did recognize the need for border security. I think the major point was that without a comprehensive policy to address immigration needs, the current GA legislation is ineffective and does not respect the human dignity of immigrants.
As for the pro-life part of your post, I wasn't clear on whether you were referring to the church being anti-death penalty but silent on abortion or just some pro-life organizations. I know that both of the Georgia Bishops have been outspoken on the abortion issue, calling for priests to consider withholding the Eucharist from politicians who do not support the pro-life teaching. I have not heard either take a stand on the death penalty. (they might have, but I am not familiar with it). I will try to find the Georgia Bulletin with the Archbishops' statements to post. Once you read them, you might not agree with the statement, but I don't think it will seem as hypocritical to you.
Likewise, I have nothing but the highest regard for the anti-infanticide stance of the RC Church and see it as probably the greatest force in this regard, so no, my comments were not directed at that...just some RC practitioners, and many non-church organizations who feel that 'pro-life' is simply an attitude opposed to capital punishment....I was comparing this apparent absence of logic to what I perceived as the incomplete logic of the Archbishop's stance....and as you've pointed out, it may be my understanding of his pronouncement which is that which is incomplete....
You are not mistaken there. Will this ever stop?
Could you be more obscure? What are you talking about?
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.