[Yossarian]

So tcg, how do you square Conservatism with the Catholic church position, as enunciated by people like the Archbishop of Los Angeles who basically flaunts our country’s immigration laws vis a vis illegal Mexican Immigration? To my mind, you can’t have church hierarchy “deciding” that their ideas about compassion and all that trumping Federal law. What say you?

I'm Catholic, and I totally agree.

As a matter of fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church totally agrees with your standpoint as well. Here's the relevant text (CCC 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.

I sincerely hope that answers your question.

And, while I don't know all the stances of the new Los Angeles Bishop (José Gómez), he's generally known in conservative Catholic circles to be head-and-shoulders better than his detestable predecessor, Bishop Mahoney. Maybe it is Mahoney that you are referring to.

Dealing with boneheaded Bishops is a cross we in the US Church often need to carry. At least things appear to be getting better, slowly but surely.

[Mach9]

Good argument so far as it goes. But there are parts, and this is one of them, where the CCC is ridiculously underthought and overwritten..Are only “prosperous” nations “obliged” to accommodate immigrants? And how is persecution, never even mentioned as an excuse for exodus, superceded (much less replaced) by “security” and “means of livelihood? Where are security and means of livelihood defined? How is ANYone obliged to “respect” anything or anyone? Deference may be demanded, but respect is earned. Never mind that “respecting,” say, Islam’s “spiritual heritage” is hardly the aim of Catholicism.

But, even if the wording were less 60s-constructed, we’d still be left with the same unenforceable dicta as the beatitudes. Good advice it may be, but it’s nonbinding, only partially because Christ never preached social justice.