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 ...
It's hard to judge them "morally equivalent," but both deserve the protection of the law. Illegal aliens, on the other hand, were not brought here involuntarily (like slaves), and were not conceived here involuntarily (like unborn babies); they chose to break the law and come here. There's a big difference. I support allowing more legal immigration, but those who come here illegally deserve to return.
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."
Isn't this a big red herring and urban legend anyway?
The law is to go after Coyotes, not shelters, etc.
"Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic bur"
thank you for that recitation of the Church's actual sensible position.
"HR 4437 does not criminalize humanitarian assistance, nor does it criminalize anyone who is unaware of a criminal alien's unlawful presence in our country, nor does it criminalize a priest ministering communion.
This is pure sensationalism designed to sway those without the ability or desire to educate themselves on its provisions. Only knowingly aiding and abetting someone who is here illegally to remain here in defiance of the law is illegal.
Full Text HR 4437
I suspect that most here making those types of claims are full aware of their basic falsehood. HR 4437 is an exceptionally well conceived and written piece of legislation that will have exactly the desired effect of greatly reducing illegal immigration (which is why its' detractors are so vehemently opposed to it)."
As a Catholic, I am ashamed to see such blatant misbehavior by my own church's hierarchy.
"No, they won't. I am a Catholic - irrespective of your qualifier 'true' - and if my local church decides that it is going to break the law, then I walk."
Dittos on this... It's easy to tell when the Bishops or any priest has gone beyond preaching gospel and waded into preaching personal preferences, and nothing compels the laity to follow when a priest is engaged in the latter.
Illegal aliens deserve the protection of the law too. You still haven't answered the question about the underground railroad.
Thank you for responding. I appreciate you taking the time to reply, but you verbalize one thing that defeats your whole argument. You assert that "a piece of legislation, as currently written, may make it a punishable offense for the Church to carry out its mission". So, you are admitting the Church's mission to be ENCOURAGING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. I agree that the Church and its members have no place encouraging people to enter our country illegally, yet THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING. The government certainly did not force me to give 5K in charitable contributions last year. I did so freely. There's a big difference between rendering emergency humanitarian aid and aiding and abetting ILLEGAL immigration. When a local church decides to hang banners (visible from I-10) chastising a House bill aimed at restoring some sanity to the immigration issue, you're doggone right I'm gonna be all over their ass for it. I reject hypocrisy/theft/arrogance done under the guise of "religion".
Slaves of the underground railroad came here AGAINST THEIR WILL. Illegal immigrants knowingly and willingy violated our law and sovereignty to come here. You're either an open borders troll, or you're breathtakingly STUPID. Which is it?
No apologies needed.
Myth-buster and red-herring net #999:
Tom Tancredo is, himself, a pro-life Catholic.
This section could be interpreted to include priests, ministers, and social workers, since they don't actively attempt to discourage illegals from remaining in the United States. It needs to be reworded to exclude those in the clergy and social services who are addressing immediate physical and spiritual needs and indemnify them against any criminal penalties.
There is either sufficient obscurity in the language to lead to the conclusion that criminal penalties could extend to clergy and social workers if they assist illegals, or the bishops who have spoken out have cleverly seized upon an impression of HR 4437 ...
The obscurations are created by people like you who flat out lie about it but never show any evidence to back it up. It's the same demagoguery the Dems are spewing.
You post the proof that you are a liar. Thanks. Only a Brier or a Ginsberg could interpret that provision the way you are.
You win the prize for being the first on this well-behaved thread to introduce name calling into the debate.
It is perfectly reasonable to question if the section I quoted in #91 might be stretched by some governmental entity to include priests and ministers and social workers in the normal performance of their duties.
The author of HR 4437, in order to make certain there is no confusion, has said he will introduce language that will exempt those in the service of the Church and social service from any criminal penalties in the normal performance of their duties when serving an illegal alien.
In other words, a priest is not going to be thrown in jail for not turning in an illegal alien who has just confessed his sins.
The language is clear, " to attempt to reside in or re- 7 main in the United States,..., and only an idiot or a liar would say otherwise. You're not an idiot.
In addition I wasn't name-calling I was making an observation. There's a fine line between the two and I can count on you to obfuscate it.
Is that in the latest Jack Chick comic book that you got your mother to read to you?
Your comments are those of a classical anti-Catholic bigot. As such, they're totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
It's not clear. Giving water or a sandwich to an illegal could be interpreted as aiding in "remaining in the United States."
James Sensenbrenner has said he will make sure that the language is clear, and I have no reason to doubt him.
I don't know what the bigger joke is; what you just said or you yourself.
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.