Archbishop may defy migrant rules (San Antonio/South Texas)

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.

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.

This is surely the fruit of a lack of faith in the One True God.

I agree with that. Humanism and secularism have grown all over Europe in different forms, and it's hard to say whether certain Catholic or Protestant religious traditions did more to foster this. In many ways Protestantism is certainly closer to the humanism that followed (but also to many of the most vibrant religous movements that remained). I know less about Catholocism, but it's record in Europe isn't much better. It's really pretty sad all around over there.

I can't help noticing that your own assessment of religion per se is preponderantly secular. You evaluate it according to how unswervingly faithful it is to capitalism and free markets, rather than how faithful it is to the Gospel. Was that your intention?

No. I was not evaluating the truth or falsehood of the different religious worldviews, but rather their ability to share a government. I believe a Protestant worldview that supports a limited government and personal freedom is both faithful to the Bible and the best model for government. Other Christian worldviews may also be compatible with the Bible, but hold a very different view of government, while other non-Christian ones may be strongly opposed to the Bible but hold similar views of government. Thus, I am not saying that these capitalist, non-Christian ones are better than socialist, Christian ones; I'm just saying that those that hold similar views of government will fit better together in the same society.

Since it is through government that a group imposes its will on others, similar views on government may be a more important determinant of two groups' ability to live together in the same country than similar theology (which, while important, is not something they force on others; they may try to persuade, but that's not the same as government).

I am NOT making that equivalence - I was simply answering the question by pointing out there is a wide spectrum of those classified under MAN's law as "illegal aliens" - we all know that we should obey the laws.

Good to know.

The question is WOULD you have were you running an underground railroad station in 1860?

That was not the question.

. . . the only question left is should those running the underground railroad have only "given them food and turned them in"?

But, I'll answer the revised question like this:

When I was young and rode broom stick ponies, my cousins and I loved to re-fight the Civil War. We were extraordinarily daring and dashing Mosby Raiders. Those damn Yankees never once did us in.

After a particularly bold hit and run attack against the blue bellies, resting up back in camp, I asked my favorite Uncle a similar question. If we were still fighting the Civil War, which side would he be on, North or South?

He cocked his head to one side, gave me one of his thoughtfully bemused looks, and said, "Well Race, if I knew then what I know now, I'd have to fight for the North."

Took me awhile to learn what he knew.

So, what equivalencies are you trying to make?

You tell me - is this anything "like the Potato Famine" or not:

http://www.christiansincrisis.net/news/06132005.htm

The women traveled to Chiapas to learn about persecution of Christians in that southern area of Mexico. They also went there to encourage and pray with those suffering for their faith.

The state of Chiapas is a hotbed of persecution of evangelical Christians. More than 35,000 Christians have been driven from their homes over the years. Some have also been beaten and killed. Churches have been burned down to the ground. Most of the persecution is orchestrated by caciques, who are local landowners who control the countryside with Mafia-like tactics. Despite the persecution, Chiapas has more evangelical Christians per capita than any state in Mexico.

For the many of the women, one of the highlights of the mission trip was entering a prison in Cintalapa, Chiapas to pray with 34 evangelical Christians who have been imprisoned for over seven years. They have been charged with killing 45 people in an attack in the small village of Acteal in Chiapas in 1997. Open Doors believes the Christians are not guilty of the charges and has been working for reversal of their sentences by providing legal assistance.

“I feel it was God’s blessing to allow our team of women into the full security prison to meet and pray with our brothers from Acteal,” says team member Lisa McPartland. “They greeted us with ‘mi hermana’ or ‘my sister’…many with tears in their eyes. We prayed with them and we prayed for their wives and families back home. We also gave them copies of The Purpose Driven Life (written by Rick Warren) in Spanish as well as toiletries and other items.”

Patti Peviani reveals her emotions during the prison visit.

“We presented a skit for the men, doing our best to offer our encouragement despite the language barrier. They thanked us, many with tears in their eyes but still the best of that experience was yet to come.

“Their pastor/lawyer offered his words of encouragement and an update on the legal aspects of their situation. You could tell by their eyes and body language it wasn’t good news. After his update he said, ‘Let’s pray.’

“All the men fell to their knees and many of them prostrated themselves in such a humble way. Their crying and pleading to the Lord was a moment I keep thinking about over and over.

“We, too, fell to our knees praying, crying and pleading along with them. Our voices were not in unison because three different languages were being offered up to the Lord. But, to me, it was not chaotic at all. It was like God was giving us a glimpse of heaven and what it will be like spending our days praising Him together. God was real and present to meet every need.

“Every emotion was deeply experienced during those praying moments. We felt sadness, grief, elation, excitement, love, admiration.....and supernaturally covered. I felt as if we were in a Bible story and we were part of the scene. Today I feel honored and so thankful that I was able to be part of such a significant moment.”

Team member Karen Spain adds:

“Visiting those men in prison was about the most humbling experience of my entire Christian walk. I couldn’t help be reminded that so easily that could be any one of our own husbands, brothers or fathers. We need to continue to pray for these men and their families.”

Later the women visited the wives and families of the prisoners in the mountain village of Acteal. They presented the children with toys and the wives with books, food and other supplies. The Tzotzil-speaking women showed their gratitude by cooking a large meal for the women. Open Doors is helping support the Acteal women by providing food, cooking essentials and transportation to visit their husbands in prison.

You didn't say what YOU would have done - I think you gave some insight as to what your "favorite Uncle" would have done - given you already stated you would have prosecuted such violations, I think there remains a reasonable doubt as to YOUR answer. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

And previously,

#122 . . the only question left is should those running the underground railroad have only "given them food and turned them in"?
#142. . . we all know that we should obey the laws. The question is WOULD you have were you running an underground railroad station in 1860?
#150 . . . knowing everything you know now, would you have turned in runaway slaves?

I think you know a simple "Yes" or "No" will not suffice. Your questions presume too much. And, my analogy was rather good and aptly responsive. Sorry you did not think so.

Maybe I would have done the same as some of my fellow Texans, such as the Germans, oppose slavery and continue plowing the fields and grazing the cattle. Or, maybe knowing what I know now, and what I learned from my favorite Uncle, maybe I would have taken up John Brown's mantle, only instead of heading for Harper's Ferry, maybe I would headed off to Santa Fe to start up an insurrection among the Indians in New Mexico who were still in slavery following the Civil War.

Knowing what I know now, I would hope I would know there was more than one people enslaved and do my part to end it all. Maybe I'd run for Congress.

If that leaves you with reasonable doubt, so be it.

But, I'll restate what I said I would do.

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 can safely say, had I harbored and fed a runaway slave and got caught, I'd have prosecuted myself, for the very reason I gave.

As for "equivalencies" I already said I am not making those - they are called "analogies" those exactly because no 2 situations are perfectly identical - in fact, there are SOME illegal aliens who "deserve" an underground railroad today more than SOME slaves, is that what your looking for?

Yes.

It means you're concerned with exceptions.

The Archbishop is concerned with the rule, apparently without exception.

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.