When will this ever STOP!
These parents must be released immediately, to keep parenting.
Release them NOW, before their children are traumatized for life!.
USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families
In the video, I like the part where the priest says we must never forget the humanity of those on the margins.
It warms my heart to watch real Catholics in action. The kind who don’t use “Prudential judgement” as an excuse to ignore Catholic Social Teaching.
“Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned.” - Pope Francis
Separating the children from these parents is looking after those on the margins,
children being used as “get out of jail” pawns by their parents.
Did you watch the video? The Lord certainly is with those folks. God bless them for offering welcome & relief to those exhausted travelers.
You mean the Honduran couple who picked up some illegals and their coyote?
I would have done the same for my family members. It’s unfortunate that they got caught. Hopefully they will be OK.
How do you know they would live better here? Certainly, the currency exchange rate is favorable if you’re earning in the U.S. and sending money to Central America. You can eventually live better than your neighbors back home who did not break the law.
Earnings in Lichtenstein are significantly higher than they are here. Do I have a right to sneak into Lichtenstein, take a job some Lichtensteiner would have had, teach my children to be lawbreakers, and all for the sake of a favorable exchange rate?
The people they picked up were family members. I would have done the same if my sister or cousin called me asking for help.
Leave it to Breitbart to look for a case of terrible parents faking an asylum claim and doing terrible things and highlight that couple to cast aspersions on all the families seeking asylum in order to justify the inhuman treatment of children of all illegal immigrants. It is also a straw man to suggest that the other side in this argument is demanding that children of parents like these not be separated from their parents.
Oh no. Don’t pull that moral superiority thing on me. Exactly four bishops have said they want the adults and minors (some are parents, some are not) but they have not proposed anything at all as a way of dealing with this crisis.
Despicable. You know nothing at all about me. It is not for you to judge me.
Luke6_37 said to Ridgerunner:
" Obviously you disagree with what the Bishops say is the Church’s stand on immigration and economic justice. Lots of Catholics disagree with difficult teachings or expectations coming from the leaders of the Church. Some dissent when it comes to contraception, others with regard to sexuality or gender identity, others with respect to the all male clergy or the reform of the liturgy, etc.
_It’s not easy to follow difficult Church teachings that appear to be irrational, outdated, or imprudent. I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but we are all sinners in one way or another. I see your attempts to rationalize your views and opinions as no different than how a gay married person or woman who uses contraception would rationalize their views and opinions.
__That’s my perspective anyway. I am thrilled that Trump will get to appoint another Supreme Court Justice so early in his term. It means that we don’t have to wait for another election to start demanding a more expansive Pro-Life agenda, but I can see that this is going to be difficult for some folks on the right.".
Luke6:37, you have now posted the most judgmental, condescending and patronizing post I have EVER read here on CAF. I was offended by your words and ugly insinuations to Ridgerunner, here for everyone to read. And since I believe some of what Ridgerunner does, you are therefore laying much of your ugly words onto me also. Disgusting how you use Jesus’ own words in making a mockery of your name, Luke 6:37.
I am done reading anything posted by you again, you obviously have nothing to say.
Best not to get too incendiary.
I have the deepest sympathy for those who struggle with Church teaching with regard to all sorts of issues. I figure that if I sympathize with those on the left who struggle with Catholic teaching on sexuality or birth control, then I should do the same for those on the right who struggle with various aspects of Catholic Social Teaching, especially with regard to immigration, workers rights and environmental protection.
I have my own struggles when it comes to church doctrine. Try as I might, I cannot come to terms with eschatological doctrine that describes Hell as a state of eternal conscious torment. I much prefer to believe that eternal punishment is the utter annihilation of the person, body & soul. If challenged I will go to great lengths to justify my perspective. You may think it’s silly, but I really wish the Church would let go of that doctrine.
So you see, I am trying to be fair to right wing Catholics even though I find Catholic Social Teaching to be absolutely beautiful & true, and can’t imagine how anyone could have a problem with them.
Luke, you seem to have a poor grasp on the difference between prudential judgement and intrinsic evil.
The woman who uses contraception for the purpose of having sex without the consequence of having children is committing an act which is an intrinsic evil.
Disagreeing with methods of dealing with various groups of poor people, as long as the method itself is not intrinsically evil and as long as one agrees with the obligation to help those in need, is a matter of prudential judgement.
To disagree with a teaching of the Church is indeed problematic; to disagree even with bishops or the Pope on a prudential matter is not.
Break the law for your family members,
just what this country needs.
I am pretty sure you are wrong about that. Using contraception is classified as intrinsically disordered, not evil. Women who use NFP have the same deliberate intention to have sex without getting pregnant, and the Church is fine with that - even encourages it. So the intention or desire itself is fine. The use of artificial contraception is seen as going against the natural order, hence disordered.
(Note: Anyone who disagrees with me about contraception may say so, but I’m not going to discuss it any further under this topic)
In any case, the category of “intrinsic” says something about the intention behind the act, but absolutely nothing about the severity or gravity of the consequences. For example, deliberately deceiving someone is always wrong, and therefore, intrinsically evil. But whether the deception is a mortal or venial sin depends upon the gravity of the consequences that result from it. A minor deception that gets you a second helping of pie is not a mortal sin, but it is still intrinsically evil. Ending the life of your buddy who has been mortally wounded on the battlefield may be intrinsically evil, but may not be a mortal sin because it is not gravely evil and is done out of compassion and a desire to end the suffering of a friend.
Finally, a mortal sin is always a grave evil, but does not necessarily have to be an intrinsic evil. Trumps zero tolerance immigration policy is a good example of this. It is not evil to arrest & detain people illegally crossing the border. Nor is it evil to remove children from their parents if the parents are criminals. However, as the Bishops clearly state, it is evil to treat asylum seekers as criminals, because that is an assault on the dignity of the human person. The right to seek safety is a fundamental human right.
Furthermore, taking children away from their parents is always a grave matter, because it causes intense emotional trauma to an innocent person. Implementing a policy of taking children away from their parents as means of deterrence to asylum seekers is gravely evil to an extreme. There is no justification for such a policy.
Breitbart is the modern version of the sort of media that featured yellow peril cartoons and their ilk. To the shame of Irish people many of the most prominent clowns running about shouting about the ‘Celestials’ back then were Tammany Hall Irish politicans which was ironic to say the least considering their own status in the USA.
The obligation to open one’s borders to asylum seekers in particular is the specific issue, so let’s stick with that.
To argue with the unanimous conclusion of the Catholic Bishops, especially those who went to the border to see for themselves, who state that the folks crossing the border are predominately asylum seekers fleeing danger in their homelands and should be welcomed is extremely problematic. Trying to convince people that the Bishops are in error regarding a moral obligation is worse.
Trying to rationalize shutting these people out for any reason once the Bishops have spoken about this being a moral issue of grave significance is not an example of exercising prudential judgement. The only judgement to be made at this point is how best to welcome them and what can be done to stem the tide by addressing the root cause in their homelands.
Welcoming the stranger is not optional for a follower of Christ. Jesus never said anything about contraception, but he made a point of saying that if you fail to welcome the stranger, you will go to hell.
In this situation, yes.
Apparently you do not understand the difference between intrinsic evil and grave evil.
There is a difference between a couple’s use of women’s cycles to avoid pregnancy and the use of contraception to avoid pregnancy. The CCC calls the latter intrinsically evil in paragraph 2370. Please don’t equivocate; it is a cheap way to “win.”
Your description of taking children from their parents shows it is not an intrisic evil, as it is not wrong always and everywhere.
I disagree with the policy of separating children from their parents, but our law requires that this be done when parents are taken into custody.
Considering that many believe that those who enter illegally and establish themselves, esp if there are children involved, should be granted some form of amnesty, and how many times this has occurred, I can understand the adminstration’s decision to prevent them from establishing themselves here while aawaiting the adjudication of their status.
Finally, surely it is wrong to think certain people are incapable of making their own decisions or even of deciding to do something wrong? If they have a reasonable case for asylum, why do they not enter legally?