If someone is going to claim to stand with the church he ought to be able to show where the church has actually taken that position. If one cannot document the claim there is good reason to suspect the claimant is standing alone.
No, I’m not going to get sidetracked into an unnecessary discourse on definitions. It is unnecessary unless there is an instance of a policy on which we disagree. Since you have cited none, it is unnecessary to go further into that. As I said before, under any reasonable definition of “policy”, was it or was it not the policy of the Church to oppose Hitler during WWII? If yes, my point is proved. If no, then,…wow! You don’t think the Church had a policy to oppose Hitler.
First of all, PetraG used the word policy. If you want to know what she meant by it, ask her. Secondly, the use of the word “policy” does not distinguish between the two things you mention because it does not confuse those two things. There is no need to distinguish what is not being confused.
It isn’t. It also isn’t a raven or a writing desk.
I couldn’t say for sure, but I would say the likelihood is that the causes are the same everywhere at bottom. A Hispanic priest told me (and a Catholic lawyer confirmed) that the lives of many Hispanics are chaotic. Teen pregnancy is very high. Divorce and remarriage is high. Even remarriage without bothering to divorce is high.
Protestantism comes along and offers an easy way out. “Accept Jesus and everything is fine”.
It’s really the same thing in the U.S. with fallen-away Catholics. It’s the easy way to reconcile with a chaotic moral life. In the U.S. the tendency is toward Protestantism. In Europe, it’s agnosticism or atheism.
But the chaotic moral life is the central cause, combined with far too few good priests and sisters to draw them away from that life.
I know a young sister from a very traditional order. Their chrism is caring for women in danger of abortion, particularly in the South Bronx. She was telling me once about a flight she took. Keep in mind, she’s with a traditional order and wears a full habit. On the plane, a couple of “former Catholics” approached her and seemed interest in returning to the Church but didn’t know how. Of all things, the co-pilot sustained a mild heart attack. I guess he saw her get on the plane and asked for her. He began his “confession” to her, telling her he “used to be” Catholic. She told him she couldn’t hear his confession, but could pray with him, which she did.
How does that go in the bible, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few”?
Anyway, this is the order that sister is from. I contribute to them every year. Look how young they are! The one who told me the story is briefly shown toward the end of their documentary at the bottom of the home page.
Awesome…what a blessing!
Right, because why would we need to know exactly what we’re talking about?
This one comes down to how you define “the church”. If you mean what is taught - the moral doctrines - the church of the Fathers and Doctors, then no, that church had no policy opposing Hitler. If, however, you mean the clergy then yes, those people opposed Hitler. Once again, your comment depends on ambiguity, and your dependence on undefined and ambiguous terms is disappointing.
By my understanding of the terms, “the church” has no “policies”, either in support of illegal immigrants, or in opposition to Hitler.
We already meet those expectations via our legal immigration and refugee programs.
The Popes and the Church have repeatedly said that our treatment of even illegal immigrants must meet the standard of welcoming all as Christ. Even those who must be turned away for legitimate reasons must be treated with humanity and compassion. Period.
The United States is not forced to treat migrant families as it does. There is no excuse for it, not in the sense of Christian morality. The bishops have come together to say this. They are correct and not only within their teaching authority but must according to their duty say what they are saying by virtue of their teaching authority.
Laypersons have the duty to make and enforce civil laws, but the bishops have the duty and authority to tell us when a law is either intrinsically immoral or being enforced by immoral means. That is what the USCCB is doing. Laypeople are not free to just do what they want with that information. We have a duty to inform and conform our consciences to the truth.
You should then be specific, NO INNUENDOS!
We provide all ICE detained illegals with food and shelter, even medical care. This is what the church instructs.
Free visas for all is not what the Church asks us to provide.
Are you serious? They tried to kill them! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcVtQZJ1wxs
You mean that video from 2010?
Wasn’t Obama in charge way back then
The thread is about the USCCB, and in the cited link the message was very specific
A) Changing policy to deny asylum for domestic violence is deeply concerning:
"At its core, asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life. The Attorney General’s recent decision elicits deep concern because it potentially strips asylum from many women who lack adequate protection. These vulnerable women will now face return to the extreme dangers of domestic violence in their home country. This decision negates decades of precedents that have provided protection to women fleeing domestic violence. Unless overturned, the decision will erode the capacity of asylum to save lives, particularly in cases that involve asylum seekers who are persecuted by private actors. We urge courts and policy makers to respect and enhance, not erode, the potential of our asylum system to preserve and protect the right to life."
B) The blanket policy of separating young children from their parents is worthy of condemnation, particularly separating mothers from their babies:
Additionally, I join Bishop Joe Vásquez, Chairman of USCCB’s Committee on Migration, in condemning the continued use of family separation at the U.S./Mexico border as an implementation of the Administration’s zero tolerance policy. Our government has the discretion in our laws to ensure that young children are not separated from their parents and exposed to irreparable harm and trauma. Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together. While protecting our borders is important, we can and must do better as a government, and as a society, to find other ways to ensure that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral."
That is what the thread is about: that is, the particular statement of the USCCB in the link provided in the original post. The policy is inhumane and inexcusable. It does not deserve a defense. If the President’s most loyal supporters were to object to it, it would not be happening. I am afraid, however, that they are so afraid of allowing him to be criticized unfairly that they won’t allow him to be criticized at all.
Yes–if Trump’s voters were to object strenuously to separating children from their parents, then starting immediately there would be no new cases of it excepting those cases where children in the same situation would have been removed from citizen parents because of concrete evidence that the children were in immediate danger.
I personally hold–and I mean “you” in the general sense, not you personally!!–that it is always an extremely bad sign when you can look at your last year of political thinking and cannot think of any times when your party was incorrect or any instances when the other party was at least basing their goals on a praiseworthy end. If you can’t do that, you really need to give your positions a second look and ask whether or not political loyalty hasn’t become your first priority.
I urge you to get familiar with the UN Agreement on Refugees.
Domestic violence doesn’t qualify one for refugee status, though it should result in increased pressure on the local Govt to improve their governance.
Similarly, someone from Chicago doesn’t qualify for asylum in Canada, because of the high domestic violence in their neighborhood.
Comparing trump admin enforcing the law with Obama admin not doing so,
isn’t evidence of anything but Obama’s feckless leadership.
It’s from 2018 and documents cases after 2010.
The guy pouring out the water video is dated 2010, it’s very dishonest to throw this at Trump.
Integrity - look it up.
Watch beyond timestamp 0:05 please. And listen to what the reporters are saying. Don’t just look at the pretty pictures.
Isn’t it intriguing that they complied evidence for what 6 yrs under obaba, but didn’t get around to publishing their report until much later when it was good to use against Trump. that’s low intergrity, fake news if you will.
Now to the issue. Border agents pour out the water in direct conflict with their policy on the matter.
The sooner such actions are publicized, the sooner corrective actions can be taken. No excuse for waiting up to 7 yrs, if saving lives was really the concern.
Here is a more balanced look at the issue, at least they spoke with Border Patrol to write their story.
I have never set up the Obama Administration as a paragon. You have me mistaken for someone else.
Mr. Trump said “no one cared” and his followers who took what he said at face value apparently believe that no one cared, but he didn’t bother to learn that things were going on in Washington during the time that apparently he did not care, because if he had cared he would know that this is by no means a new issue. This premise that the issue of the treatment of migrants is a fake or opportunistic narrative set up the moment Mr. Trump took office is false and needs to be corrected.
Note the date: June 1, 2015. Who was President at that time? Not Donald Trump.
Count how many Democratic law makers signed the letter.
So…where is the letter from Republican lawmakers to Mr. Trump?
I think you understate the significance of the policy toward Hitler. Since you are complaining now about the bishops getting into politics, I wonder if you have similar complaints about the clergy during WWII that opposed Hitler. Were they stepping outside the bounds of what the clergy should do? Should they have kept silent about Hitler? You see, what you call something does not matter as much as what implications you draw from it. If you are complaining that the Bishops should not have issued a statement to the faithful about separating immigrant children from their families on the grounds that their personal views on the subject are not the same thing as doctrine, then what would you say about the Pope Pius XII and the various other clergy that made public their opposition to Hitler? Were they wrong to do so? That’s the crux of the matter.
It was happening before Trump and it was decried before Trump took office.
It is still happening and it still needs to be stopped. That water could be the difference between life and death.