Posted on 04/14/2006 2:35:21 PM PDT by Racehorse
San Antonio Archbishop José Gomez says he'll adhere to his faith and break the law if a congressional proposal criminalizing humanitarian assistance to undocumented immigrants prevails, though he'd consult with fellow Texas bishops before asking subordinates to follow his lead.
[. . .]
The archbishop, himself an immigrant from Monterrey, Mexico, told the Express-News Tuesday that "if they push us to that point, we'll have to choose (between faith and the law). It's a non-negotiable principle of our faith that we must welcome the immigrant and practice charity."
Referring to a bill passed by the House in December, which includes a provision that would make felons of undocumented immigrants and criminals of people who assist them, Gomez said: "'Love thy neighbor' is the very essence of the Christian faith, and (the bill) asks us to violate it."
[. . .]
Gomez, the spiritual leader of nearly 1 million Catholics in San Antonio and South Texas, was emphatic about being forced into a corner.
"If they tell me I can't practice my religion, I'll break the law," he said.
[. . .]
Under current law, it is a felony for any person who "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter or reside in the United States."
The key difference is the "assist" clause, which has caused an uproar among religious leaders because it suggests humanitarian efforts would be criminalized.
(Excerpt) Read more at mysanantonio.com ...
I'll just assume your rudeness is due to spending most of your Friday night, so far, with Jack Daniels.
I don't talk to drunks when they're drunk. If you want to continue this discussion in the morning (or the afternoon, depending on when you aren't bleary-eyed), I'll be happy to. Until then, sweet dreams.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you're this rude all the time, then what's the point of trying to dialogue with you?
Your comments are those of a classical anti-Catholic bigot. As such, they're totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Here's another example of it. To someone who didn't even post to you. Well behaved my heiney.
VVA, know that sinkspur is always like this. There's no depth he won't sink to and it is usually aimed at making conservatives/Republicans look bad.
Adios, amigo.
It's your behavior that I deemed beyond reasoned dialogue thus the rudeness. The consistency of your reprehensible obfuscations of truth in the service of crapping on conservatives is too much for my current level of equanimity. Perhaps it's a few drinks that I need in order to be more tolerant of you.
Buh bye.
yah - as you'd know best. Don't start-up with a "your momma"-thing, Nosepick. You're not worth it.
The illegals are NOT starving and dying by the millions in the sand. THAT would call for compassionate, humanitarian aid and would be a different thing entirely.
Whatever their nationality, they're opportunists breaking/skirting the law and 'playing the odds' that the gov't will never catch them, or that it'll tire-out and finally give-in to amnesty for them. The gov't's asinine "catch & release" plan isn't helping matters either - they never show up for their court appearances.
Millions HAVE "done it by the numbers" and made it into the country LEGALLY. To feel sorry and compassionate for those intentionally, deliberately breaking the law isn't criminal; but to help them in those efforts makes someone deserving of getting stomped-on by Justice - if The Law won't do it.
Need to be a little more specific. We want to make sure to remove public social-benefit rewards for coming and staying here illegally. We also don't want to leave loopholes open for coyotes and smuggling-rings to wiggle through when they're taken to court.
I'll buy regular worship services, and privately-funded non-profit humanitarian organizations providing food, temporary shelter, or medical services. I believe providing access to emergency medical services is already covered under previous INSA legislation. That work for you?
Another Mahony?
And what do you mean "illegal aliens deserve the protection of the law"? Yes, they deserve to be protected from murderers, rapists, etc. But they also deserve to suffer the consequenses of their violation of the law: deportation.
Excellent point that gets to the true essence of this issue.
I'm surprised it took all of 45 posts before someone brings up the pedophile thing. If you want to bash the Catholic Church, invoking pedophilia is mandatory regardless of whether or not the issue has anything to do with pedophelia.
And what do you mean "illegal aliens deserve the protection of the law"? Yes, they deserve to be protected from murderers, rapists, etc. But they also deserve to suffer the consequenses of their violation of the law: deportation.
Considering the moral irrelevancies tossed your way, I'd say you responded quite well.
Site at #46: It was once illegal to knowingly assist a runaway slave. Who was obligated to obey that unjust law? Would bigotry be justified against those who refused to obey that law?
Scholar at #49: Obviously, if a law really is immoral, Christians should violate it regardless of the consequences.
Scholar at #76: Do you believe that illegal aliens are morally equivalent to runaway slaves?
Claw at #77: Now, should the underground railroad have only "given them food and turned them in"?
Claw at #78: Another question: are runaway slaves morally equivalent to unborn children?
I almost expected someone to leap out with a question like, "is homosexuality equivalent to race?"
IMHO EKrusling, just above at 113, does an excellent job of describing the problem, or at least the perception of the problem. Anyone who has had the weird experience of carrying large amounts of cash through an airport may have some notion of how well intentioned laws can be used for bad purposes. Or, how about a landlord who rents a house to drug dealers or someone who lends them an automobile without knowing anything about their illegal enterprise?
But the Archbishop is still wrong to declare his personal intentions while wrapped up in color of his office as he speaks to a crowd bent on defying our laws. IMHO, it goes beyond personal moral values and institutional religious tenets.
But, to Sitetest's question at 46, I would answer this way. Living at that time and in those circumstances, if charged to do so, without prejudice I would absolutely prosecute anyone who knowingly assisted runaway slaves, because they were obligated to act according to the law and they did not. A moral question concerns what a person ought to do or not do. They could very well be morally right and still deserve legal punishment.
I suggest you read the first article of magna carta, and by the way, the First Amendment. As for the archbishop, I suggest he read the history of the bill he is going "ape" about. The leadership has been trying to get the felony provision out of it since it was slipped in, but the Dims wouldn't let them. It is going to go in conference. But meanwhile the bishops get to sound high-minded.
Let them be willing to go to jail like Mohammed Ali.
That's right - and no one here suggested that Priests would not go to jail willingly if said law was passed and they violated it - luckily, for all involved, Sensenbrenner (sp?) has agreed to re-write those provisions to make clear they do not apply as such.
HR 4437 won't even "go to conference" if the Senate fails to pass their version ; )
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.