There have been multiple links to multiple leaders in the Church that have denounced this action as immoral. There have been zero links to zero leaders saying it was a moral choice. I know which view is standing alone.
You know what else is not in the Catechism? Where is says every thing Catholic is in the Catechism.
Neither is an Empire a country, technically. “Country” is a closer analogy than two cities, especially considering that they did not have air or rail service. It should be of significance that Galilee was a closer region, one in which Herod was not targeting children, and one in which the Holy Family had roots.
CCC 24 By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms and, even more, of those who instruct the faithful:
Whoever teaches must become “all things to all men” (⇒ I Cor 9:22), to win everyone to Christ. . . Above all, teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them, and that consequently it is lawful to teach and form equally all the faithful in true piety with one and the same method! Let them realize that some are in Christ as newborn babes, others as adolescents, and still others as adults in full command of their powers… Those who are called to the ministry of preaching must suit their words to the maturity and understanding of their hearers, as they hand on the teaching of the mysteries of faith and the rules of moral conduct. (footnote cites Roman Catechism, Preface II; cf. ⇒ I Cor 9:22; ⇒ I Pt 2:2)
Hitler, everyone ends up with Hitler. Since I don’t know what you mean by “the policy toward Hitler”, and since you refuse to explain the meaning of your terms, perhaps you can cite what that policy was. Where did the church publish something about their policy toward Hitler? Surely if there was a policy we can read about it.
Do you recognize any distinction in significance between opposing Hitler and opposing, say, a low minimum wage? It really supports my contention that the bishops are overly involved politically if you have to go all the way to the absolute end of the scale to find some political issue which would in fact justify their involvement.
The statement was made that the person stood with the church, not that he stood with various bishops. That’s the distinction that needs to be understood. The comments of those bishops are their own; they do not speak for “the church.”
What I mean by policy is what was expressed by Pope Pius XII, as described here. He in his Encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge (1937; “With Deep Anxiety”) he accused the Nazi regime of sowing “fundamental hostility to Christ and His Church”. So what do you make of that? Was Pope Pius XII venturing too far into the political realm when he directly criticized the Nazi regime? Was he out of line? Or was he doing exactly what he was supposed to do as leader of the Catholic Church?
Since your main criticism of the Bishops’ statement on separating immigrant children is that they are taking sides in a political dispute, how can you not apply those same grounds to Pope Pius XII?
The encyclical “Mit brennender Sorge” as mentioned above.
That distinction is up to the leaders of the Church to decide - not me.
plus three people does not equal an ongoing process of millions and millions of people who are abusing refugee laws. It is a really bad example on multiple fronts.
(on a scriptural point, I actually am not altogether confident that the holy family did go to Egypt. I think Matthew may have been taking some poetic licence there in order to quote the old Testament line ‘I called my Son out of Egypt’ but that is another issue).
The video I posted also spoke with the border patrol, something you’d know if you watched it. I just don’t take the PR soundbites from the accused all that seriously. Thank you for posting that article. It confirms every thing that I’ve stated and verifies that this problem continues into the present.
That letter was written in 1937 by Pius XI, actually a bit before Hitler became…Hitler. It was also written as a response from the Holy See to Germany’s violation of the treaty the two countries had signed. Yes, it was indeed a political (as well as moral) document, which is unsurprising inasmuch as the Holy See exists as a sovereign State.
…in the course of these anxious and trying years following upon the conclusion of the concordat, every one of Our words, every one of Our acts, has been inspired by the binding law of treaties.
Germany was in violation of a signed treaty and was persecuting the Catholic Church, so, yes, the pope was doing just what he was supposed to do.
The implication here is that since popes are justified in some instances in involving themselves in political controversies bishops are justified in this instance. That’s an argument by weak analogy, and proves nothing.
The “distinction” between where involvement of the clergy in political affairs is justified or not is what this debate is all about. Your position appears to be “If a bishop does something it must be right.” That’s an assumption that is clearly unwarranted.
My most immediate goal was not to prove the bishops were justified in this instance, but to disprove your overly broad generalization that it is not ever proper for Church leaders to use their position to make political policy statements. That, at least, has now been done.
I apply a simple formula whereby the right of a bishop or the Pope to comment on a moral issue with political consequences is in direct proportion to how much those consequences correlates with one’s person politics.
It is amazing how accurately this is reflected in posters here.
Given that you refused to define what constituted either a “policy” or “the church”, you can claim whatever you like without the burden of having to defend your position. You are free to simply assert it. According to my understanding, the church has doctrines, not policies, and while the pope may well have policies as head of both the church and the Holy See, he represents the church. He is not the church itself.
It was Pius XI who wrote that encyclical, and while it surely expressed his policy, it should be obvious that it was his policy he was expressing.
As I said before, there is no reason to get into an endless argument about the exact meaning of the word policy in all its corner cases unless there is clear evidence that your understanding and my understanding of the word disagree in a specific instance we raise. At that time we can go into it.
OK, we now have the clear evidence I mentioned above. I think Mit brennender Sorge represents Church policy at the time, you think it does not. Since there is no way for us to define our way into agreement, I will focus on a different aspect of the problem, and in some ways more fundamental that the question of what is or what is not policy. And that is the whole question of appropriateness of the Bishops’ statement on separating immigrant children from their families. If I understand you correctly, you question the idea of policy of the Church as part of your more basic argument that the Bishops should not have issued this statement as they did. Is that a fair statement of your position? If so, then on what grounds do you say this?
What should be done when two Americans are incarcerated and unable to care for their children? Is it also “immoral” for those children to be placed in temporary care. Surely, no one proposes that the children also go to prison so that the family is not separated.