Posted on 06/21/2018 6:41:20 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
(Newsmax) – Last week, Bishop Edward Weisenburger of Tucson called upon his fellow bishops to issue a "prophetic statement" on immigration that would support "canonical penalties for Catholics who are involved" in implementing President Trump's immigration policy.
Why would the thought of excommunication even enter the mind of Bishop Weisenburger? Does he mean to say that any Catholic Border Patrol Agent or ICE Officers enforcing the law are "obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin"?
If so, what is the "grave sin" that meets the criterion of excommunication according to Canon 915?
The 19,500 employees of the U. S. Border Control and the 20,000 of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have the job of enforcing the law of securing our national borders. (There are approximately 20,000 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements Officers. Of the 19,437 Border Agents, 16,605 are assigned to the Southwest Border.) None of these are responsible for our nation's immigration laws or for the administrative policies of implementing them.
These are the same agents and officers who, under President Obama, deported a record 2.4 million immigrants between 2009 and 2016. Janet Murguia, the president of the National Council of La Raza called Obama the "Deporter-In-Chief."
Where was the bishop's outrage then, towards President Obama or the ICE and the Border Patrol employees enforcing his policies?
Bishop Weisenburger believes that these same employees, working under President Trump, are now in spiritual danger; canonical penalties are needed "for the salvation of those people's souls." It should be noted that Bishop Weisenburger mentioned other "border bishops" who shared his pastoral concern.
Imagine being a Border Patrol officer reading the paper at breakfast and learning you are targeted for "canonical penalties" just for doing your job. He asks himself, "Do I have to confess my occupation to my priest in confession?"
So much for the "who am I to judge" spirit expressed by Pope Francis.
The Bishops have already started preparation to deny President Trump a second term in office. I'm sure I'm not the only Catholic to think it unnecessary, even cruel, to threaten all the Catholics among the 39,500 federal employees of ICE and the Border Patrol with excommunication.
Some bishops justify their high dudgeon by arguing that asylum is a life issue, "an instrument to preserve the right life." By using the term "asylum," the bishops are trying to link immigration directly with escape from torture or persecution.
That argument digs the Bishop's hole deeper. Let's assume immigration actually has the status of a life issue. If so, where are the bishop's public threats of excommunication toward all the Catholics in Congress who support abortion-on-demand and the funding of Planned Parenthood? (Only two of the 89 Catholic Democrats in Congress are pro-life.)
Let's face it, the bishops have lost all credibility when it comes to abortion. Any attempt to connect the moral seriousness of abortion to immigration is a non-starter. The laity won't buy it any more than they did in the 2016 election.
Bishop Weisenburger himself resides in a state where three of its Catholic members of Congress are rated 100 percent pro-abortion by Planned Parenthood (Tom O'Halleran, Raul Grijalva, and Ruben Gallego, all Democrats). Has he publicly stated any concern for the salvation of their souls?
What makes the situation all the more absurd is the fact that immigration is not a life issue the way abortion is a life issue. There is no single solution to the immigration problem — it's a prudential matter allowing disagreement among Catholics regarding law and policy, including disagreements with the Bishops.
Many bishops have become dismissive of this point when it is raised. Newark's Cardinal Tobin thinks those who call immigration a prudential matter are seeking to reduce its importance, concluding, "I don't have a whole lot of time for people who reduce things to prudential judgment."
What does the Cardinal think about the Catechism's teaching on just war?
"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good" (2309). Immigration policy is precisely that kind of issue. Abortion, however, is wrong "under any circumstance" (2258).
Cardinal Tobin has no time for such distinctions.
However, the crucial distinction is alive and well in the 2015 "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" — "Decisions about candidates and choices about public policies require clear commitment to moral principles, careful discernment and prudential judgments based on the values of our faith."
The intention of using excommunication to force Catholics into line about immigration policy is demeaning. It won't be viewed as an opportunity for spiritual healing but as punishment for being part of the Trump administration.
For decades, pro-life Catholics have begged the bishops to get tough with pro-abortion politicians. A few stepped up to the plate only to be scorned and isolated by their brother bishops (Bishop Gracida, Bishop Bruskewitz, and Cardinal Burke).
This level of hostility towards Trump, his staff, employees, and supporters is dividing even further an already divided Church. I've yet to hear a single bishop object to threats of excommunication over disagreements on immigration policy.
None of them, evidently, wants to disrupt the episcopal momentum towards the defeat of President Trump in 2020.
Lighten up missy.... it was a joke. You don’t hear the Lutherans blubbering about .... well, being called Lutherans.
"Blubbering" ? Heh.
The hatred some here have for the Catholic church is chilling. It closes their minds to any charity. I know it is hard to be charitable towards sinners especially those who were held up as examples of virtue. But we owe it to be servants of the truth and that includes not lying about those we find reproachable. Even if it means a pause in church bashing.
Thank you.
LOL, I hear what you’re saying but in real life that’s not always the case.
Years ago when Eisenhower was president of Columbia University, he began a speech to the faculty and referred to them as employees of the university. Isidore Rabi interrupted him and said, “Mr. President, we are the university.”
Faculty may feel that they are the university and Catholics may feel that they are the church but how true is that today?
I have always taught my RCIA students that the most important -- and by far the most interesting ---people in the Catholic Church, are not the Popes, and not the priests, but the saints.
Thanks for the information.
Oh, ballistic missiles. Would everyone please stop being such drama queens?
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
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.
So, Bishop, what's the problem?
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.