Posted on 04/29/2010 8:49:27 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
April 29, 2010 - The US Bishops have roundly condemned the recent Arizona immigration law. That’s not necessarily surprising, especially given the social activist tendencies of some of the more politically liberal bishops, Cardinal Mahoney being a good example. What is surprising is this condemnation has also come from much more conservative quarters. Bishop Finn of the diocese of Kansas City/St. Joseph and Archbishop Dolan of New York have also both issued statements opposing the AZ law. It seems clear that the bishops are of one mind when it comes to this issue.
There is a gigantic problem though. The bishops’ opposition lacks any detail or specificity – and it is the details that are important. It’s a lot like saying one is opposed to war and for peace. Almost everyone can agree on that point. The disagreement arises in the details—because there are circumstances where war is justified and necessary to achieve peace.
Archbishop Dolan of New York addressed the AZ immigration bill in his blog. In this column he laments and condemns the fact that immigrants often become scapecoats. He also, quite rightly, points to the Catholic ethos of welcoming everyone, and the important role that immigrants have played in the U.S. There is only one problem with his analysis: immigrants can be separated into legal and illegal categories. By an overwhelming majority, those that entered the U.S. in the latter part of the 19th and the first of half of the 20th century, were LEGAL immigrants. The immigrants that the AZ law is attempting to address are ILLEGAL ones.
Cardinal Mahoney was one of the first to comment on the new law, he compromised his credibility by comparing it to Nazism. His comments really served no purpose but to ratchet up the rhetoric. One wonders if he even read the law. It’s only seventeen pages and having read it, there is nothing in it that would justify such an over-the-top slam. I would call it a quite reasonable and commonsense law – and one that I support.
So you see, there is a huge disconnect between the bishops’ almost universal criticism of this bill and my understanding as a Catholic layman as to why. Frankly, the President has the same problem with the citizens of this country; an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens oppose illegal immigration – NOT immigration – illegal immigration.
Catholic bishops studied moral theology in the seminary; I have not. I admit that I may be ignorant on this topic and am very much willing to be educated about the moral imperatives of this subject. To that end I have a few questions to ask Your Excellencies. The answers may help me understand your moral opposition to this law.
1. Is it moral for a state or the federal government to impose controls on immigration?I look forward to seeing answers to these questions in print, in the near future. Cardinal Mahoney, Archbishop Dolan, Bishop Finn, please educate me and the majority of Americans who currently disagree with you on this issue.2. Is it moral for the government to enforce such laws?
3. Does the government have the moral right to deport people that have entered the US illegally?
4. Does the government have the moral obligation to give illegal immigrants amnesty?
5. Is it immoral to ask people to document or prove they are in the U.S. legally? If so, how is that different than a foreign government asking me to show my papers/passport and prove that I am in their country legally?
6. Is it immoral for a government to deny FREE medical coverage to illegal immigrants for non-life threatening conditions.
7. Is it immoral to deny illegal immigrants and/or their children access to our FREE public school system?
I do not oppose immigration; my grandparents were legal immigrants. What I oppose is illegal immigration. I favor immigration reform, as do the bishops. But like the topic of “peace” mentioned earlier, it’s easy to agree we need immigration reform, but the devil is in the details. Precise answers to the above questions will provide many of these details.
I have an open mind and am willing to be convinced that my opposition is misplaced. Answers to the above questions will go a long way to helping me, and many other Catholics in the United States understand the Church’s position on this issue—and therefore your opposition to this law. Your Excellencies, we the lay faithful whom you sheperd, ask you our spiritual leaders for moral clarity on this issue. While your position on this issue is quite clear, the morale underpinning for it is not.
Indefensible.
How DARE you question a Priest. Haven’t you heard, that anything a religous official says is beyond question, beyond reproach .... why to even ask a question is a sin.
< /sarcasm>
The only reason the church gives a hoot, is because they have a financial investment the status quo. A great many illegals are Catholic, and the priests don’t care about how their presence hurts Americans as much as they care about the money they are getting from these ‘victims’.
This “new” bill has already been federal law for 50 years.
Looks to be win-win so far as the bishops see.
There's a big media cognitive dissonance here. We are being trained to hear "Catholic bishops" and think "protected pedophile priests" Except that now we are expected to pause from that belief and accept the moral authority of the bishops on immigration. It's like one of those bits on the Simpsons where Homer gets push-polled on the phone. "Ohh, that's bad." "Oh, that's good." "Ooooh, that's bad." etc.
The ironic thing is that Cadinal Mahoney has been one of the prime culprits in the defending-pedophile priest scandal. But since he is a big socialist he gets a pass from the media.
I was shocked to see this was an Alex Murphy thread, absolutely SHOCKED!
Albeit a moronic one.
....just doing the job(s) that Catholics refuse to do....
There, I fixed it for you. You're Welcome.
Don't kid yourself Murphy, you post only those stories that fit your anti-Catholic agenda.
We'll all be patiently waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for your review of the following:
A myth perpetuated by the ignorant. Illegals don't contribute to the collection. Most of them don't even go to Church. If you want to see illegals opening up their wallets go spend some time at the local Western Union office.
Will the grads of the course be called ‘Homosetons’?
If this is true...I think the Bishops are the last ones to have anything to say about this. Seems it’s good to clean your own house first before butting into someone elses.
During Pope Benedict XVI’s 2008 visit to the United States, he gave many speeches and sermons. Among other things, the Pope admonished Americans to adopt a welcoming attitude toward those who break our laws by entering this country illegally. Benedict said: “I want to encourage you and your communities to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials and to help them flourish in their new home.
It was discovered that the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, a Vatican-based group which answers directly to the Pope has made a large donation to help build a shelter for Central Americans on their illegal journey to the United States. The money was given to the Brothers On The Path refuge, located in the Mexican city of Ixtepec.
...
In June 2005, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony wrote an op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times in which he defended and even encouraged illegal aliens to enter this country. Of course, Mexicans and other Latin Americans are overwhelmingly devout Catholics. Mahony along with the rest of the church’s hierarchy is undoubtedly anxious to tap this potential source of income.
Before you accuse me of being ignorant and spreading a myth ... please show me a source of your own.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
2241 (b) 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 burdens.
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, paragraph 298, says:
Regulating immigration according to criteria of equity and balance is one of the indispensable conditions for ensuring that immigrants are integrated into society with the guarantees required by recognition of their human dignity.
The moral and social view propounded in the Catechism is my guide, and it is excellent.
The U.S. Bishops who sponsor, excuse and enable the massive illegal network which is bringing people into this country unlawfully, are clearly in the wrong.
This is clericalism at its most obnoxious, because these Bishops are wrongly clothing themselves in episcopal authority while usurping the role and responsibility of the laity, which is action for righteousness in the political sphere.
If anybody here, Catholic or not, stands with the Catechism and against the USCCB clerical bureaucracy, they will find an ally in me.
Nice straw man.
Mighty wide brush ya got there, Murphy
Apologies, noticed the sarc tag too late.
Apologies, noticed the sarc tag too late.
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.