Bringing you the
"Good News" of Jesus Christ
and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC
Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's
magisterium
I would like to know what the official Catholic
Church position is on illegals.
Do you feel we have a responsibility to
heal the sick and feed the hungry regardless
of the nation of origin? or
Do you feel
America cannot afford to feed and heal
those who come here illegally?
Gary
{
What is the official Catholic
Church position on illegals and what, if any, is America's obligation? }
Paul
replied:
Hi, Gary —
The Church has no official stance
on particular political issues, but
offers moral principles as to how
to love one's neighbor. As individuals,
we have an obligation to obey the
laws of the state unless they contradict
the natural law, which is the law
of God. Hence, unless there is a
serious humanitarian emergency, one
should not break into another country
illegally.
On the other hand, if a person is
in need of any of the corporal (or
spiritual) works of mercy,
we as Church must respond — regardless
of their nation of origin or criminal
record. That being said, the state
has a right to make and enforce policy,
including immigration policy, according
to the common good of its citizenry.
Paul
Gary
replied:
Hi, Paul —
I wasn't so much concerned about
what the law is; I wanted to know
what the moral responsibility is.
If I understand you correctly, if
a person is in need of any of the
corporal (or spiritual) works of
mercy, we, as the Church, must respond
— regardless of their nation
of origin or criminal record.
Gary
Paul
replied:
Gary,
I'm glad you find what I said made
sense. I would just add again, that
there's a difference between the
obligations of the Church and that
of the state.
That is why, in some potential situations,
it is at least hypothetically ethical,
to help a person in urgent need while
planning on turning them in to the
police.
We are called to be prudent in reflecting
God in both His Justice and His Mercy.
Peace,
Paul
Gary
replied:
Hi, Paul —
Here is my take. First I never ask
if a person is here legally or not. I don't
think I have a legal obligation to
tell the authorities if I know the
person is here illegally.
Jesus said, Heal the sick and
feed the hungry. He didn't
make any exceptions like
Well, of course, only if the
person has a right to be in your
country.
or with the exception of
those who refuse to get
off their duff and get a job.
Jesus made no exceptions. So I have
a Christian obligation to feed the
hungry and heal the sick
(in any way I can).
Anyone who is in the country
should have health care and food.
I have another question for you. I heard a story on the radio about
this nun, who was a nurse. She was helping a patient. I forgot what
the illness or injury was.
The bottom line was: either the health care professionals could save the
life of the mother or the unborn
child. The mother wanted to live.
The (nun|nurse) followed the wishes
of the mother and saved her life.
The unborn child died.
The (nun|nurse) was excommunicated
immediately.
On the other hand, priests can molest
children and they just get transferred
. . . maybe more,
but they certainly don't get excommunicated.
Is this just another example
of discrimination within the Catholic
Church against women?
Gary
Paul
replied:
Gary,
You said: So I have
a Christian obligation to feed the
hungry and heal the sick
(in any way I can). Anyone who is in the country
should have health care and food.
It seems to me in these two sentences
of yours you might equate an individual's
responsibility with the state's responsibility.
They're not always the same. The
first sentence is unarguably true.
I would agree with
the second sentence to a point. For
example, if a burglar breaks into
your house while you're sleeping
and has a heart attack in your kitchen
as he's removing your
wide-screen television, you would
have the moral duty to take him to
the emergency room or at least call
an ambulance. I see the same principle
applying to illegal immigrants when
it comes to emergency health care,
food, and shelter. The question is:
Should they get
equal care of citizens (and/or)
those who are able to afford more
than a dignified minimum care?
That is another question that can
be reasonably debated in the political
arena.
Regarding your second question, the
Church was correct in excommunicating
the nun. The reasons are as follows:
a. The Church officially teaches
that one can never intentionally
directly kill an innocent human
being. Doing so would be murder.
This nun in her official capacity
allowed the abortion to be performed,
which is objectively murder.
b. According to Canon Law (official
Church law) there are several
things that, if one does it with
knowledge of the law, they are
automatically ex-communicated.
One of these is having an abortion
or being at all responsible for
allowing it to occur. The nun apparently knew of this
law and allowed the abortion to
occur anyway.
Hence she is automatically excommunicated.
c. Acts of pedophilia and homosexuality
violate natural law and are gravely
evil.
If performed with full knowledge
and deliberate consent of the
will, they are mortal sin. However,
with these sins there is no canon
law that would incur automatic
excommunication on a person.
Perhaps one reason abortion has
an automatic excommunication attached (besides
being the matter of mortal sin) is
because civil law allows it and it
has become a genocide of great proportions (over
50 million infant victims and counting
since Roe v. Wade). Sex discrimination
has absolutely nothing to do with
this.
Remember, at least half of
all human beings who are killed by
abortion are female.
Paul
Mike
replied:
Hi, Gary —
I wanted to share this
address that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI
gave in late May 2010 on this
issue.
Papal
Address to Migrants and Travelers
Council
The Acquisition of Rights Goes
Hand in Hand With the Acceptance
of Duties
VATICAN CITY, MAY 28, 2010 (Zenit.org).-
Here is a translation of the address
Benedict XVI gave today upon receiving
in audience participants in the plenary
session of the Pontifical Council
for the Pastoral Care of Migrants
and Travelers.
Esteemed Cardinals,
Venerated Brothers in the Episcopate
and the Priesthood,
Dear Brothers and Sisters!
I welcome you with great joy on the
occasion of the Plenary Session of
the Pontifical Council for Migrants
and Travelers. I greet the president
of the dicastery, Archbishop Antonio
Maria Vegliò — whom I thank
for his words of happy cordiality
— the secretary, the members, the
consultors and the officials. I wish
all fruitful work.
You chose as the topic of this Session
the Pastoral Care of Human
Mobility Today, in the Context of
the Co-Responsibility of States and
of International Organizations.
The
movement of peoples has been for
some time the object of international
congresses, which seek to guarantee
the protection of fundamental human
rights and to combat discrimination,
xenophobia and intolerance. They
are documents that furnish principles
and techniques of supranational protection.
Appreciable
is the effort to build a system of
shared norms that contemplate the
rights and duties of the foreigner,
as well as those of the host community, taking
into account, in the first place,
the dignity of every human person,
created by God in his image and likeness
(cf. Genesis 1:26). Obviously, the
acquisition of rights goes hand in
hand with the acceptance of duties. All,
in fact, enjoy rights and duties
that are not arbitrary, because they
stem from human nature itself, as
Blessed Pope John XXIII's encyclical Pacem
in Terris affirms: "Every
human being is a person, that is
a nature gifted with intelligence
and free will; and hence subject
of rights and duties which are, because
of this, universal, inviolable, inalienable" (No.
5).
Therefore, the responsibility of
states and of international organizations
is specified in the commitment to
influence questions that, respecting
the competencies of the national
legislator, involve the whole family
of peoples, and exact an agreement
between governments and the organisms
most directly concerned. I am thinking
of problems such as the entry or
forced removal of the foreigner,
the enjoyment of the goods of nature,
of culture and of art, of science
and technology, which must be accessible
to all. Not to be forgotten is the
important role of mediation so that
national and international resolutions,
which promote the universal common
good, finds acceptance with local
entities and are reflected in daily
life.
National and international laws which
promote the common good and respect
for the person encourage the hopes
and efforts being made to achieve
a world social order founded on peace,
fraternity and universal co-operation,
despite the critical phase international
institutions are currently traversing as they concentrate on resolving
crucial questions of security and
development for everyone. It is true,
unfortunately, that we are witnessing
the re-emergence of particular instances
in some areas of the world, but it
is also true that some are reluctant
to assume responsibility that should
be shared.
Moreover, not yet extinguished is
the longing of many to pull down
the walls that divide and to establish
ample agreements, also through legislative
dispositions and administrative practices
that foster integration, mutual exchange
and reciprocal enrichment. In fact,
prospects of coexistence between
peoples can be offered through prudent
and concerted lines for reception
and integration, consenting to occasions
of entry in legality, favoring the
just right to the reuniting of families,
asylum and refuge, compensating the
necessary restrictive measures and
opposing the disgraceful traffic
of persons.
Precisely here the various
international organizations, in cooperation
among themselves and with the states,
can furnish their peculiar contribution
in reconciling, with various modalities,
the recognition of the rights of
the person and the principle of national
sovereignty, with specific reference to the exigencies of security, the public
order and control of borders.
The fundamental rights of the person
can be the focal point of the commitment
of
co-responsibility of the national
and international institutions. This,
then, is closely linked to "openness
to life, which is the center of true
development," as I confirmed
in the encyclical Caritas in
Veritate (cf. No. 28), where
I also appealed to states to promote
policies in favor of the centrality
and integrity of the family (cf.
ibid., No. 44).
On the other hand, it is evident
that openness to life and the rights
of the family must be confirmed in
the various contexts, because in
a society in the process of globalization,
the common good and the commitment
to it must assume the dimensions
of the whole human family, that is
to say of the community of peoples
and nations (ibid., No. 7).
The future of our societies rests
on the meeting between peoples, on
dialogue between cultures with respect
to their identities and legitimate
differences. In this scene the family
retains its fundamental role. Because
of this, the Church, with the proclamation
of the Gospel of Christ in every
sector of existence, carries forward "the
commitment . . . in favor not only
of the individual migrant,
but also of his family, place and
resource of culture and life and
factor of integration of values, as
I reaffirmed in the Message for the
World Day of the Migrant and the
Refugee of the year 2006.
Dear brothers and sisters, it is
also up to you to sensitize organizations
that are dedicated to the world of
migrants and itinerant people to
forms of co-responsibility. This
pastoral sector is linked to a phenomenon
in constant expansion and, therefore,
your role must translate into concrete
answers of closeness and pastoral
support of persons, taking into account
the different local situations.
On each one of you I invoke the light
of the Holy Spirit and the maternal
protection of Our Lady, renewing
my gratitude for the service that
you render the Church and society.
May the inspiration of Blessed Giovanni
Battista Scalabrini, described as Father
of Migrants by the Venerable
John Paul II, and of whom we will
remember the 105th anniversary of
his birth in heaven next June 1,
illumine your actions in favor of
migrants and itinerant people and
spur you to an ever more attentive
charity, which will witness to them
the unfailing love of God.
For my part I assure you of my prayer,
while blessing you from my heart.
The key issue in his address to me
was when he said at the beginning
of his talk:
[I appreciate] the effort to build
a system of shared norms that
contemplate the rights and duties
of the foreigner, as well as those
of the host community.
Notice he mentions the duties
of the foreigner. Yes, each country
must do it's part to welcome the
immigrant to their country, but the United States has already been doing this for years! The immigrant must respect the laws of the country
for which it wants to call home. This includes respecting how much, if any, immigration any country can logically allow. For year, after year, after year, the United States has been extremely generous in this area.
For those who want open borders with no questions, are you prepared to allow 100 strangers to bust the front of your door down and stay in your home permanently?
I would suggest that the bishops
follow my humble advice without forsaking issues
of faith and morals within their
diocese. We can't put political issues
before faith issues even when our local parishioners push their local bishops to do so, sometimes by using false threats, like, I'll leave the Church. If any catholic, is willing to leave the Church over this issue, they don't value their faith and have probably been poorly catechized.
The Catholic Church is the Church of Faith, not, despite scandalous behavior among some members, the church of politics. The place where our prudential judgements can best be used is in the area of faith and morals. That said, no cardinal or bishop can be proficient in all vocations that the laity are involved and work in. While giving moral guidance, let them, the experts, make the best decisions. They know all the circumstances. As members of the Church hierarchy, let's stick to the faith — our knowledge area.
If we are to remain a Christian country
in the United States of America,
new immigrants to
our land have to learn and respect the civil laws and courtesies of our country as well as:
come here
legally
learn to speak the language of our country: English, and
obey the laws of our land
Any immigrant, whether they came her legally or not, who truly loves our country,
and wants to make it home, will
obey the laws of our land; for our
safety and theirs. They will also be willing to use their God-given (skills|merits) to advance our country through a good work ethic. This country is not intended to be a welfare-state country, where immigrants come just to use our country's benefits.
Scandalous Catholics who defend illegal immigration have not read or have totally ignored what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states on this:
2234 God's fourth commandment also enjoins us to honor all who for our good have received authority in society from God. It clarifies the duties of those who exercise authority as well as those who benefit from it.
Duties of civil authorities
2235 Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant." (Matthew 20:26) The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.
2236 The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community.
(cf. Encyclical Letter His Holiness Pope John Paul II Centesimus Annus 25)
2237 Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged.
The political rights attached to citizenship can and should be granted according to the requirements of the common good. They cannot be suspended by public authorities without legitimate and proportionate reasons. Political rights are meant to be exercised for the common good of the nation and the human community.
The duties of citizens
2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: (cf. Romans 13:1-2) "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God." (1 Peter 2:13-16) Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.
2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.
2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:
Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way." (1 Timothy 2:2)
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.
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21) "We must obey God rather than men": (Acts 5:29)
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.
2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met:
there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights
all other means of redress have been exhausted
such resistance will not provoke worse disorders
there is well-founded hope of success; and
it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.
The political community and the Church
2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man's origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:
Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.
(cf. Encyclical Letter His Holiness Pope John Paul II Centesimus Annus 45; 46)
2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.
"The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen." (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 76 § 3)
2246 It is a part of the Church's mission
"to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."
I just thought of another
question. My understanding of why women can't
be priests is that none of Jesus'
original disciples were women.
Since all of Jesus' original
disciples were circumcised, does
that mean all priests must be
circumcised?
How does the Church determined
which have been circumcised?
Would there have to be someone
who would check each priest to
make sure?
Gary
Paul
replied:
Gary,
With the sacraments that Christ left
His Church there are two ingredients
— form and matter.
The form is the formula that
Jesus used (or told His Apostles
to use) such as the words, like:
This is my body.
for the Eucharist, and,
[First Name],
I baptize you in the name of
the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.
for Baptism.
The matter is the actual
stuff that is necessary for it to
be valid:
bread
and wine for the Eucharist
water
for Baptism, etc.
With the priesthood, Christ chose
the matter to be baptized males.
He could have made any of His female
disciples a priest but chose not
to for good reasons. Maleness is
necessary to take the place of Christ
as priest and make the spiritual
fatherhood that priesthood is.
Just as a woman cannot be a
father in the order of nature, so
too she can not be a spiritual father
in the order of grace.
Circumcision was the mark of the Old Covenant.
When Christ established the New Covenant between God and man He replaced circumcision
with Baptism. Baptism, of course,
is much more powerful than circumcision
because it confers on the person
the gift of the Holy Spirit — the
gift that Christ won for us
on the Cross.
Paul
Please report any and all typos or grammatical errors.
Suggestions for this web page and the web site can be sent to Mike Humphrey
