Cardinal Dolan comes down hard on GOP Immigration stance

[_Abyssinia]

Who we must vote for

Father Davis:

It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty, except to exclude a worse candidate, or unless compelled by fear of great personal harm, relatively greater than the public harm at stake. [Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, p. 90 ]

Pope John Paul ll:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. ... In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. [Gospel of Life 73]

http://www.ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

[Ender]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

As near as I can tell from viewing this little snippet of film, Cdl Dolan is warning Repubs about the PERCEPTION that has been created about their views on immigration.

A perception, as he points out, that may not accurately reflect reality.

He mentions certain things as objectionable that are NOT held by all Repubs (certainly not John McCain in the last election) like requiring ID at soup kitchens, ...

He claims this is part of the Arizona law and that appears to be untrue. At least I have not been able to find anything in the law to support that allegation. Having just acknowledged that "fairly or not" Republicans are seen as hard on immigrants, his own comments contribute to what is in fact an unfair and inaccurate depiction of the Republican position.

Unfortunately he does not detail his own views on immigration.

What are we to make of what he did say which is clearly a political opinion and one that is apparently misinformed? Are Catholics better off when bishops make comments like this?

Ender

[ishii]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

Our fellow poster, Ishii, is one such person. And, I wouldn't think of denying him his opinion.

Just to clarify, I don't say you must vote for the Republican, I say you must vote for the most pro-life candidate who has the best chance of winning. I find that the GOP candidate most often fits that description. That is different from what you claim I am saying which is "vote for the Republican at all times, because they're Republicans".

Ishii

[rlg94086]

Cardinal Dolan is 100% correct on this issue...as is one of my favorite Bishops - Archbishop Chaput, whom we had the pleasure of having as our Bishop when we lived in Colorado. In Cardinal Dolan's call for reform, he did not call for open borders, blanket amnesty, etc.

That said, it's also not as if he is shifting focus from the HHS controversy and deciding to "come down hard on the GOP." He was asked a question, and he answered it. He has been consistent. As Catholics, we need to consider all Church teaching when voting, but we are allowed to prioritize. IMO we should, since some issues are not up for debate.

How we handle immigration is not one of those non-negotiable issues, although I believe the GOP is too heavy handed in its approach lately. I prefer the approach that GW Bush and McCain took, and that approach is in line with what the Bishops call for - reform.

[Ridgerunner]

I very much doubt that most Repubs oppose immigration per se. I think it's the way politicians tend to handle it that many have problems with. So, I suspect, do most Democrats. It's just chaotic and a political football, and has been for a long time, with no serious prospect of it getting better.

I personally would support a lot more immigration, but in a reasonable manner and in a manner that does not encourage entry by terrorists, criminals and those who have come just to live off the rest of us. But the whole thing is so politicized that I doubt we'll come up with a reasonable solution in my lifetime.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

I very much doubt that most Repubs oppose immigration per se. I think it's the way politicians tend to handle it that many have problems with. So, I suspect, do most Democrats. It's just chaotic and a political football, and has been for a long time, with no serious prospect of it getting better.

I personally would support a lot more immigration, but in a reasonable manner and in a manner that does not encourage entry by terrorists, criminals and those who have come just to live off the rest of us. But the whole thing is so politicized that I doubt we'll come up with a reasonable solution in my lifetime.

The Democrats have an upper hand due to perception, but they have no credibility when it comes to actions. As pointed out, Obama is now telling the Hispanic community that he is ready to do something. He promised he would do something in 2008 and had both houses of Congress for his first two years in office. The Hispanic community only became important to him again this year...I'm sure it has nothing to do with the election cycle.

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

The Democrats have an upper hand due to perception, but they have no credibility when it comes to actions. As pointed out, Obama is now telling the Hispanic community that he is ready to do something. He promised he would do something in 2008 and had both houses of Congress for his first two years in office. The Hispanic community only became important to him again this year...I'm sure it has nothing to do with the election cycle.

A politician pandering for votes? NO!!!

[_Abyssinia]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

I very much doubt that most Repubs oppose immigration per se. I think it's the way politicians tend to handle it that many have problems with. So, I suspect, do most Democrats. It's just chaotic and a political football, and has been for a long time, with no serious prospect of it getting better.

I personally would support a lot more immigration, but in a reasonable manner and in a manner that does not encourage entry by terrorists, criminals and those who have come just to live off the rest of us. But the whole thing is so politicized that I doubt we'll come up with a reasonable solution in my lifetime.

Exactly. Republicans have no problem with legal immigration, they have a problem with illegal immigration which is not a Republican stance.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

A politician pandering for votes? NO!!!

I know. Crazy.

FWIW...I'm sure Romney's hard stance on immigration is also for votes. If the majority of Republican voters were for the Bush/McCain approach, then he would be pushing for that. At least, Bush actually did take action and try to get immigration reform passed when he was in office. It is unfortunate that he wasn't successful.

[Tbrightson]

I noticed how the Cardinal fails to distiguish between immigrants who come here illegally and the legal kind...Purposefully blurring an important distinction. Perhaps he ought to instead bark at the Federal Govt to enforce its laws so the States dont feel compelled to have to put into law such harsh measures. Does not the Church teach the immigrant is to obey the laws of the country it enters?

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by Tbrightson

I noticed how the Cardinal fails to distiguish between immigrants who come here illegally and the legal kind...Purposefully blurring an important distinction. Perhaps he ought to instead bark at the Federal Govt to enforce its laws so the States dont feel compelled to have to put into law such harsh measures. Does not the Church teach the immigrant is to obey the laws of the country it enters?

So, the Cardinal did that "pusposefully?"

[Bklynguy]

Originally Posted by ishii

Just to clarify, I don't say you must vote for the Republican, I say you must vote for the most pro-life candidate who has the best chance of winning. I find that the GOP candidate most often fits that description. That is different from what you claim I am saying which is "vote for the Republican at all times, because they're Republicans".

Ishii

Exactly, and it is the Democrats own fault that they are in this predicament. JFK won the Catholic vote 82-18% in 1960 and LBJ won it in 1964 78-22%. Indeed, Hubert Humphrey won the Catholic vote 55-37% in 1968. The numbers from 1960 and 1968 are particularly staggering considering the closeness of those elections nationwide.

As Democrats started taking sides in the culture war during the 70s and 80s, their support among Catholics, and indeed evangelicals, started to slip. They have nobody to blame but themselves. The cultural revolution started in the 60s; however, mainstream Democrats wisely stayed on the sidelines at the beginning (think Johnson, Humphrey, RFK). As time went on, though, they got their feet wet in the cultural battles--this has hurt them not just with the religious, but with married whites overall, a crucial voting bloc.

[Jerry Miah]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

So, the Cardinal did that "pusposefully?"

we mock typos now?

[He Man]

I see no issue with what Cardinal Dolan said.

The problem lies with those who will use this sort of speech to justify a vote for a pro-choice politician.

He is correct on this. And he is correct on abortion. He needs to follow up with "and the two issues do not bear equal weight."

When the GOP has a platform that involves gassing illegal immigrants to death, we can talk about equal weight.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by Jerry Miah

we mock typos now?

No, not at all. I was questioning the ability to know whether the Cardinal didn't specify illegal purposefully. I don't know what typo you are referring to.