Bishops, like old dogs, eschew new tricks.
The US Bishops, as a collective, had long been enablers of that wretched party. It seemed that no amount of policy minutiae was to be beyond their purview as long as it involved more government spending and less law enforcement under the pretense of social justice.
For their years of loyal service to the cause, these Shepherds and their sheep have been given the sharp end of the stick. As often is the case, the enablers eventually become the targets.
But these old dogs, it seemed, might be capable of some new tricks after all. When the Church and our God-given religious liberty became the target of that wretched party in general and of its general in particular, the Bishops spoke forcefully for things long ignored. Things like the Constitution, the law, limits on government power were overnight added to the episcopal lexicon. For this, many of us are profoundly grateful.
Yet still, when Congressman Paul Ryan proposed a budget that just begins to deal with the reality of our (immoral) debt crisis, some these very same Bishops were quick to criticize. Old dogs, old tricks it seemed. But maybe not?
Joan Desmond, reporting from the U.S. bishops’ meeting in Atlanta, gives us some hope that some Bishops realize the bigger picture and even criticized the reflexive leftward knee-jerk.
Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing, Mich., was the first to step to the podium during the discussion that preceded the vote.
“There have been some concerns raised by lay Catholics, especially some Catholic economists, about what was perceived as a partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed,” said Bishop Boyea. That statement “didn’t really further dialogue in our deeply divided country.”
In his view, statements that endorsed specific economic policies revealed a lack of “humility.” He told the assembly, “We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen more than we need to speak. We already have an excellent, fine Compendium [of the Social Doctrine of the Church].”
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., agreed that the committee was “at times perceived as partisan” and neglected the principle of subsidiarity, which calls for solutions that can be provided close to people in need.
Archbishop Naumann suggested that drafters of the statement needed to rethink a tendency to advocate for government assistance, and he said that the conference’s proposals should not ignore the ballooning national deficit.
“Sometimes we’re perceived as just encouraging the government to spend more money, with no realistic way of how we’re going to afford to do this,” he observed.
It will not surprise that I agree with Bishops Boyea and Naumann. Even in reaction to the unjust criticism of Rep. Ryan's budget, this is another hopeful sign.
The Bishops revolt against the unconstitutional HHS mandate and this type of realistic dialogue at the Bishop's conference are not things I imagined would happen even a year ago.
And so it is doubly frustrating to see the Bishop's Conference come out in favor of the Obama Administration's illegal amnesty program. While I, like the Bishops, think the policy a decent one, I can not ignore or endorse, like the Bishops, the means by which it has been achieved.
While the Bishops rightly deplore as unconstitutional the imposition of draconian rules defining qualifying religious organizations by executive fiat, they praise the same unconstitutional rule by executive fiat when they like the outcome.
The Bishops, better than most, should understand that the ends do not justify the means.
Moreover, by removing this policy from the proper legislative deliberations, it makes it much more difficult to accomplish some of the other important items surrounding the proper control of our borders. Some of these issues are also matters of justice for those people who are already taxpaying citizens or seeking to become one through legal means.
By approving and applauding this unconstitutional bypass of the separation of powers simply because they like the outcome, the Bishops undermine their credibility and resolve in the fight against the mandate.
Seems these old dogs are still having trouble learning the new tricks.
Comments
Post a Comment
I know I am just a lay person, but could someone explain how the Bishops could possibly support ANY government intervention in charity, or any other aspect of the pro social agenda?
What is amazing to me is that the Bishops were surprised, shocked, even, when this Administration knuckled us with the HHS mandate on abortion. How could they have NOT seen this coming?
Sister Carol Ann Keenan and her ilk are not friends to the Catholic community.I wouldn’t trust her comments about being against the “accommodation” if she read it aloud in front of me. As it is, Catholic health care systems are dropping out of the CHA anyway, so they will be irrelevant soon.
I do not like the means either; however, I think you may be too harsh. I can readily see how compassion for the immediacy of preventing productive families from being ripped away from their homes, livelihoods, friends and families can trump concern for the administrative legality by which a moral objective comes about.
I will readily admit that I cringe when I read anything critical of bishops. I cannot imagine how hard their road must be - and the ‘road to hell is paved with good intentions’ rings in my ears as it must theirs.
-
I’ve had the privilege of knowing two really amazing priests who then became bishops (they shall go unnamed). Both of these men cringed at the call of such a burden and the lost hope of spending their years in relative anonimity. Both of them mentioned the challenge of going from being a well-loved parish priest to being part of “The Bishops”.
-
While I appreciate your desire to make known what decisions are being made by them, I would ask all of us to tread carefully (and prayerfully) when publicly taking them to task. Theirs is a job none of us have or would ever want.
-
I am not sure what the proper recourse is. If they are not well-informed on an issue (in this case illegal immigration) then is this the best place to bring that up? How does one go about informing a bishop of one’s opinion on a matter?
Excellent article, Pat. You summarize very neatly a long-standing problem of too much politicking for the sake of government (taxpayer) largesse to aid good work instead of good pastoral leadership by example for the sake of a healthy Church, which in the final analysis, is all that can effectively transform the society in which it exists.
RMW
Are your suggesting that it is inappropriate to critique a public policy position of the Bishop’s conference in public?
I firmly believe that this recent public policy statement undermines their own arguments in other critical areas and I think it is perfectly appropriate (and quite correct) for me to say so.
Please remember, one bishop, one vote.
The document criticizing Paul Ryan and the proposal for a new document which spurred this vote are both products of Bishop Blair of Stockton, CA, who is extremely left wing and the leader of the “old dogs, old tricks” wing of the Church.
I went to college in Stockton and I can attest that the Church there is a spirritual wasteland punctuated by only a few oases of faithful immigrants and a few food priests.
The last time I saw the dear bishop was at a screening of a film about gay episcopalian “bishop” Gene Robinson hosted by the female episcopalian “multifaith” chaplain at my extremely progressive school.
Of course, I wish him all the best as he approaches the mandatory retirement age.
I’m with RMW. Overall (as always!), the laity would do better to check itself as to whether it is of mice or men.
I definitely agree. I think there should be less statements (read zero) statements from the USCCB on matters of public policy/prudential judgement because with all these ridiculous statements, as you’ve mentioned undermines the Bishops’ authority. Even though these statements have zero authority as far as actual Church teaching goes, it places the laity in a catch 22, because these documents are de facto official, and to disagree with the USCCB means problems (For example, when Santorum disagreed with the USCCB on the DREAM act). I think it’s absolutely right to speak of these things, on a public forum. This is not dogma of the Church so it is okay to criticize them.
I have to completely agree with this article. The means to the end do matter. When it is only the end result that matters you have no recourse when “your result” gets shafted if there is no reliable track to follow to arrive at the means. We need a defined immigration policy and at this time in our economy I find it hard to believe we need an additional 800,000 unemployed. And what of the unemployed legal citizens who now have 800,000 more people to added to hamper further their efforts to locate a job? One group is not more worthy than the other. And since the job-market is not forth-coming who but the tax-payers will end up supporting these 800,000 people for 2 years?
I don’t think anyone here is taking into consideration the poverty and possible violence these people would experience in being removed from the US. It is not the same poverty our citizens experience here.
Do we even know if these people will be able to apply for jobless benefits if they don’t find work?
Aren’t all Catholics called to serve those in need? Isn’t this a perfect example of those in need? Or would you prefer the Missionaries of the Poor do this “dirty” work for you in impoverished countries away from the US? There is no Catholic teaching that says “close yourself off to those in need—hold onto everything you have and keep it for yourself.”
Where is your evidence that circumventing Congress in this instance is “illegal”?
Since they will have work permits, they will be paying taxes.
No one has explained how Obama’s move is unconstitutional. Maybe it is not the preferred method of implementing policy, but is it really unconstitutional?
Besides, the alleged unconstitutionality is not Archibold’s problem, as is made clear by the fact he labeled it “amnesty.” He just doesn’t like the policy, no matter what the means.
ctd
You are great at mind-reading but unfortunately not great at actual reading. Did you miss the part in which I called the policy “a decent one?”
Patrick, I agree. Abp Lori, I think, said it is time to let the laity with expertise lead on these issues. I have a great sympathy for undocumented people living here, whether having expired visas or having entered illegally. We need to reform our screwed up immigration system. But, for those who did not listen in civics or government classes, that is the responsibility and prerogative of the legislative branch, Congress, not the executive, the President or his cabinet offices. This administration is deciding which laws to enforce, how to enforce them and against whom. That is why HHS has mandates enforced against the Catholic Church and our various ministries. That is the constitutional issue.
Now, just FYI, no illegal alien is picked randomly off the street and deported. They get picked up for underaged drinking, driving, speeding in a residential area, drug use, theft, end up in the justice system and then get deported. These are not unusual but rather common occurrences. I know some of those involved. Part of our faith requires being responsible, finding out about the real situation.
I agree with Mr. Archbold. And I am also encouraged by the recent comments by Bishop Boyea and the like.
Some thoughts:
First, “We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area.” The Bishops were trained in theology, not economics. Stick to what you know.
Second, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesars…etc. Nowhere in my Bible does it say, “I was hungry and you voted for a Bill that…, or “I was naked and you proposed a program that…” When will they realize the Government is not the solution; it is the problem.
The devil has to be laughing at those Catholics who put Obama in office and now are now having buyer’s remorse. He made it clear what he intended to do and they were too stupid to envision the consequences.
Well, the USCCB only dates to 1966 so it is a recent innovation in a 2000 year old church. Time to strangle it in its cradle?
I think the bishops would do well to read Eamon Duffy’s THE STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS, Jonah Goldberg’s LIBERAL FASCISM, and Ronald Rylchak’s HITLER, THE WAR, AND THE POPE. Ya just can’t cut deals with evil.
“The Bishops, better than most, should understand that the ends do not justify the means.”
Thanks Pat, you hit the nail right on the head. Many in the USCCB must be it desperate to show the media they’re not partisan; Of course the Church is not partisan!!
The USCCB has been a disgraceful blot on the Catholic episcopacy since its inception.
When it is suppressed then it will be morning.
Better that the bishops joined the party late rather than not at all. What’s that old maxim: lie down with dogs and wake up with fleas? Many of us who are liberty-minded Christians, who recognize the power of government not only for good but also for evil, have long complained that the Church must not be in bed with powerful politicians. I’m a theologian and am very active in politics (TheLibertyProfessor.com) and am glad to see the bishops realizing the need to change their course.
Difficult situations make bad law. You would have thought that abortion/Roe v Wade would have taught the bishops that lesson.
They rightfully didn’t like it when Obama and HHS eventually targeted them, but supported that same legislation’s enactment when it targeted us, the 85% happy with our healthcare.
Such religious leaders make it very difficult to still believe.
Our bishops are learning a valuable lesson, though much slower, as the bishops in Canada: when you make your bed with the devil, you’ll have to eventually sleep with him too.
Blair’s attack on Paul Ryan, an authentic Catholic who was aligning his budget proposal with true Catholic thinking going back to Leo X111, was despicable. Just when I was getting some optimism about the USCCB with the leadersip of Dolan, Lori etc. and the Bishops who spoke out in Atlanta, they endorse another power grab by Obama. True immigration reform has to be done comprehensively by Congress. That includes something which is rarely spoken of, namely making it easier, less costly and less time-consuming for those who are pursuing citizenship legally. I agree with you Pat and the others who counsel “Humility”, by the Bishops and their not pontificating on areas beyond their competence. Unfortunately, the USCCB won’t be credible until it cleans house of the ex-Democratic Party legislative aides who populate the staff. It’s these “progessive” aides who usually prepare the documents and the agenda. Still, one doesn’t turn an ocean liner around quickly.
I’m confused about the constitutionality of the order as well. Could someone with better knowledge please show (precisely) how this executive order is unconstitutional? Where is it expressed that the requirements of residency (not citizenship) in this country are the exclusive domain of the legislature? Or are all Executive Orders Un-constitutional?
I do think it would be better long-term to have a legislative fix but given the immediacy of the problem it seems that the executive was in the best position to address the issue (particularly since all of the alphabet agencies that are connected to enforcing immigration policy fall under the Executive Branch of government).
“No one has explained how this is unconstitutional…”
Obama, himself, less than a year ago, is on record confirming that he cannot go around congress and the law to do exactly what he just did.
Marc Rubio, along with others, has been working on a revised form of the Dream Act that would accomplish what Obama’s end-run did, but within the law, without the many far-reaching negative economic and social consequences. Obama is simply telling government agents to ignore the law - just as he’s done with DOMA. Obama’s move is clearly an election ploy. (If he really CARED he would have pulled this stunt earlier - or put energy in to getting the law changed when he had Democratic majorities in both houses.)
The Bishops statement is short-sighted at best, partisan at worst.
Reminds me of the defacto head of the US Catholic Church, Cardinal Bernardin, in 1983 and his “Seamless Garment” crapola on unilateral nuclear disarmament and other US social ills. Unfortunately, he also put social justice issues on the same level with abortion. In other words abortion was not an intrinsic evil that trumped everything. By doing so he gave “Catholic” politicians cover to be against abortion personally but still vote for it politically. After all you can’t get everything. The after effects of the Bernardin era still continue but are somewhat abated recently. You combine this liberal/left approach with a favorable US tax code and the accumulation of billions of dollars in government grants to various Catholic entities for the delivery of well intentioned charitable services and the Church finds itself in a spiritual, temporal, and creditability trap of it’s own making.
To quote Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J Sheen…“Who is going to save our Church? Do not look to the priests. Do not look to the Bishops. It’s up to you, the laity, to remind our priests to be priests and our Bishops to be Bishops”
We need to pray and fast for our priests and Bishops. The solution is TRUTH combined with the moral courage to proclaim it and teach it loudly, clearly and unequivocally! In short, More shepherds and less politicians.
The president has authority over executive agencies.He can decide how thustese agencies function.He tells them not to arrest the kids of illegals;they don’t arrest children of illegals.Perfectly legal.The dream act was passed by the house and had the votes to pass the senate until the extreme elements of the new dogs filibustered and ruined it for the innocents.
Ryan’s plans are not absolutely necessary.Big government is not a malum in se.It’s just a way for commonality of the US to do what individual states can’t do.0bama’s actions are not malicious.He’ll learn his limitations.
@Therese,
That’s not really an answer to the question, “How is this unconstitutional?” We already know that Obama will contradict himself for political expediency and doesn’t the Executive Order create new law? So he’s not telling agents to ignore the law but rather creating new law that supercedes the old law. Or am I misunderstanding something about this process?
Good article, Over the years I have come to learn that there were many men who entered the priesthood for bad reasons. They hate church laws and culture and want to change it to what they believe it should be. These are radical liberals. They have been successful over the years. The churches I attend have a lot of empty pews. I’m a Baby-Boomer. I remember when I was a kid there was standing room only in the churches. Now, you can walk in and find a seat anywhere.
joseph vellone :
“0bama’s actions are not malicious.”
*********************
Concerning religious liberty or illegal aliens? For the first I’d say the actions are malicious, for the second I’d say for political gain.
Jen asks: “Aren’t all Catholics called to serve those in need?”.
The answer is yes: out of their own pockets.
The poor are there for us to exercise the virtue of charity; not for us to vote federal programs to relieve us of the duty.
To ctd and others asking what is it that the president did that was unconstitutional, the answer is that the president is not all powerful. His powers are enumerated in the constitution. The power to ignore or modify duly enacted laws of our country is not one of the president’s enumerated powers-neither our immigration laws nor the defense of marriage law can he ignore or change to suit himself or his supporters. We should support charities and charitable organizations that function in accord with the teachings of our Catholic faith, and leave government to do those things it has enumerated powers in the constitution to do-charity is not an enumerated power of any of the branches of government. We should elect honorable men. We as individuals should be active to address social justice directly, not bending a pluralistic government to our ways, lest when given the powers, they support other ideas that may be detrimental to the practice of our faith. We should speak out when the government exceeds its enumerated powers or when it passes unjust laws or regulations. To encourage the government otherwise destroys the foundation of the rule of law.
Great article, Mr. Archbold. You addressed many of my concerns with the USCCB. It is disheartening that so many Bishops still ignore that the Democratic Party agenda is a Culture of Death. It’s disheartening that they, for the most part (there are some great Bishops who have spoken up), don’t do anything about the so called “Catholic” politicians like Pelosi, Sebelius, Kerry, Biden, etc who vote for and promote abortion, contraception and same sex “marriage”. Along with what you stated, there is also the problem with the CCHD which has and still does support many anti-Catholic teachings and supported the Democratic party all under the guise of “social justice”. Here’s another case of the ends do not justify the means.
USCCB’s betters, do you kiss God with those clever mouths full of the deadly sin of pride? Where is there a difference between you and Obama?
Many millions of Mexicans and other foreigners chose to ignore the immigration laws of the United States, as did many American employers. Often the border-jumpers were in a bad state. As often as not, they were no more so than other foreigners who sought by legal means to enter the United States but were forced to wait. What they did was something like stealing. A hungry man may have good cause to steal. That depends on how hungry he is. A starving man is one thing, but many fat men crossed the border.
@John Schuh
And one more thing - the “border-jumpers” all paid good money to their coyotes to get them in.
Is this a Republican blog or a Catholic one?
JD
Is there a difference?
stilbelieve:
Only if you want to ignore the sins of the Republican Party.
@JD
And what are “the sins of the Republican Party?”
@stilbelieve: Please be careful there. The Catholic Church is eternal, given us by God; the Republican Party is temporal, created by human beings. And the Republican Party is guilty (along with the Democratic Party) of a foreign policy of interventionism. The George W. Bush administration should be proof positive of that. Interventionism is contrary to national sovereignty, which is a form of private property. Consequently interventionism violates the Commandment “Thou shalt not steal”. I admit that earlier this year I left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party, but now I’m leaving the Republican Party to be an Independent. I think it would be good for all Catholics to do likewise.
@stilbelieve
you can start with pre-emptive strikes, add in torture, mix in some good old fashioned corporatist greed and disregard for the poor and needy. Once baked, cover it in lip service about abortion (tastes real good but doesn’t accomplish anything) and way too many ‘conservative’ Catholics eat the whole thing and try to call it good.
Very good points by Michael. Ryan is a self admitted acolyte of Ayn rand and his budget not only leaves massive deficits for decades into the future but continues to expand a national government behemoth in areas like defense. So much for future generations and subsidiarity. The candidate most congruent with Catholic values, and indeed the only pro life candidate who will respect the autonomy of Christian churches is Virgil Goode in 2012. Don’t blame the bishops for criticizing Ryan, and instead think what small potatoes we get when we wrongly vote for what is the lesser of two evils(which btw is not allowed with regard to intrinsic evil. The bishops are rightly exposing Te evils of both political parties. Yes, Obama is bad, but what was good about Bush allocating two billion dollars to planned parenthood. I, for oe, appreciate the bishop making moal judgements, not political calculations. God bless.
Meh, I don’t know. Even I think they’re not being political, they’re being Catholic. I can hardly blame them for it. The way I see it, it’s the bishops’ place to talk about the “what” and the “why.” The government’s job is to figure out “how.” (And it’s my job to tell them that I don’t like their “how.”)
In other words, I’m not saying you’re wrong to prod them a bit, but I didn’t interpret it as a completely unqualified endorsement.
@Michael
“And the Republican Party is guilty (along with the Democratic Party) of a foreign policy of interventionism. The George W. Bush administration should be proof positive of that. Interventionism is contrary to national sovereignty, which is a form of private property. Consequently interventionism violates the Commandment ‘Thou shalt not steal’”.
And what country did George W. Bush “steal?”
@Dan F.
“you can start with pre-emptive strikes, add in torture, mix in some good old fashioned corporatist greed and disregard for the poor and needy.”
Avoiding war - CCC 2309
“The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” Prudential judgment is not a sin
Define “torture” and who performed it.
Give examples where the Republican Party supported “corporatist greed.” And define that as well.
Ditto for “disregard for the poor and needy.”
I’m really looking for evidence not slander.
@J. Charles
“Ryan is a self admitted acolyte of Ayn rand and his budget not only leaves massive deficits for decades into the future but continues to expand a national government behemoth in areas like defense.”
Congressman Paul Ryan is a faithful, practicing, true-prolife Catholic that has authored a budget bill that passed the House of Representatives that the Senate Democrats are afraid to even bring up on the floor of the Senate for a vote. His budget legislation would save Social Security and Medicare for all those 55 and older, and would introduce programs that will enable future retires under 55 to have Social Security and Medicare there for them. Furthermore, his legislation will defend America and protect us from attacks by enemies who are getting stronger while at the same time reduce the deficits over time, protecting our children and grand-children’s financial prosperity.
@ J. Charles
“The bishops are rightly exposing Te evils of both political parties.”
I am still waiting for someone to give examples of “evil” the “bishops are rightly exposing” of the Republican Party. Since you believe the bishops, maybe you can present some factual evidence to their slanderous accusations against the GOP - the party that fought to end slavery and save the Union; the party that gave a higher percentage of votes in Congress to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 than the Democrat Party; the party that went against political and media support for abortion and added a Right to Life plank to their party Platform in 1978 and fought to put constitutionalists prolife Justices on the Supreme Court only to challenged and prevented from getting all the judges they wanted by the pro-abortion and gay rights supporting Democrat Party.
A major difficulty under which the Bishops labor is dependence on their bueaucracy, which for many years was dominated by people intent on undermining Catholic doctrine, or at least ready to ignore doctrine for liberal political ends. The Bishops are primarily involved in running their dioceses and the bureaucrats in running the USCCB. A bishop once told me the liberal bureaucrats at the then NCCB/USCC and in bishops’ offices were highly organized, while those supporting faithful bishops were not. He said he could not get accurate information about the agenda for the bishops’ meetings in advance of the meetings. But is seems odd that so few bishops seem to be able to see what is obvious to ordinary laymen, like the need to pay for charitible programs, the need to keep that wretched party with its anti-life and anit-Christian agenda out of power, the insanity of adding illegal aliens to the workforce when millions of American minority citizens are out of work and the need to uphold the Constitution not only when it seems convenient to do so.
Here are a few differences between the Catholic Church and the Republican Party.
http://catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/f/popes_on_iraq.htm
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/229313-vatican-catholic-church-committed-to-universal-healthcare-coverage-
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/16/20080416pope-migrants0416.html
Is it saddening or glorious that observations of the clerical class in God’s Church deepens my faith that God alone is keeping His Church from death, despite the bishops.
@JD “Is this a Republican blog or a Catholic one?”
I asked in response to your question, “Is there a difference?”
@JD “Only if you want to ignore the sins of the Republican Party.”
I asked, “And what are ‘the sins of the Republican Party?’”
@JD “Here are a few differences between the Catholic Church and the Republican Party.”
You presented links to articles about the Vatican on the Iraq War, universal healthcare, and illegal immigration. JD, these are not “sins,” they are prudential judgment issues and in no way can the Republican Party positions be considered sinful. In all three issues, I find the Republican Party’s position not to be evil, as you imply that they are, but seeking to employee real, charitable and workable solutions to the problems.
There is a big difference between supporting charitable solutions that are not evil verses solutions that seem “charitable” that are evil. Legalizing all kinds of abortions and making others pay for them to help a woman out of a predicament she’s in. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” so homosexuals can “feel” respected and equal to heterosexuals. Coveting more prosperous people’s money and property to redistribute to less prosperous people to win political supporters. Abortion is evil. Practicing homosexuality is sinful. Coveting other people’s money is a sin.
opps, I had the economy on mind when I typed “but seeking to employee real, charitable and workable solutions to the problems.
It should be “employ” not employee.
@still believe: here is one glaring item for you. Under President Bush, the GOP gave two billion dollars to Planned parenthood and kept the abortion mills running. Also included in the Women’s rights provisions during our occupation of Iraq is making abortion available. Romney, of course, has a long history of pro abortion policies as governor.I think you will agree none of this is prudential. God bless.
@ Gabriel Austin - I guess you better stop paying your taxes because a portion of them go to programs helping impoverished people that you didn’t personally decide to support.
This move cannot even be compared to the HHS mandate that requires people to go against their consciences. Who, wanting only good for all people, can honestly conscientiously object to letting law-abiding people who have been living here stay here?
It is selfish to be called to serve others (also known as being Christian) and then proclaim, “but that’s not how I want to serve them - I want to do it my way!” Get over it and take up your cross. Quit whining and go create jobs. Realize that some of these immigrants may employ you or your loved ones at some point. They aren’t here to suck the US dry - they want to work and support themselves.
People in this comment thread, just like on Fox News, keep saying this is unconstitutional, but no one has pointed out how exactly. That’s because there’s no evidence that it is unconstitutional. Homeland Security will practice prosecutorial discretion. Congress doesn’t make laws having to do with every nuance of immigration policy, and this is one (albeit BIG) example of that.
Obama’s amnesty/jobs decision for illegal aliens is symbolism without substance for political advantage. The Federal government can’t possibly give jobs to thousands of illegal immigrants. It’s crazy to add thousands of illegal young aliens to the US work force when millions of minority US citizens are struggling to find work to support their families.
Christians are obliged to give help to all in need without distinction, but first to their own families. The government is obliged to give help to all of the country’s citizens first, and then as far as possible to others in need. It’s not a question of doing something for illegal aliens, but of doing something fitting, legal and useful—not just making symbolic political statements.
@Jen
“People in this comment thread, just like on Fox News, keep saying this is unconstitutional, but no one has pointed out how exactly.”
When Congress passes a bill and a president signs it into law and another president comes along and decides to not enforce the law, what do you call it?
J. Charles
“I think you will agree none of this is prudential.”
On the surface of it, I’d have to agree. But I need to know more about it. I’ll check it out and get back to you.
stilbelieve:
I see. When they disagree with the Catholic Church it is because they are evil, when you disagree with the Catholic Church, it is because you are seeking a “real, charitable solution”. At least the liberals are honest about being their differences with the Church.
There is nothing wrong with being a Republican. But you are making a religion out of your politics and that is dangerous. You are already choosing to side with your party over the Church. You aren’t the only one who has fallen to this temptation. This very blog earlier had a very dishonest political attack in a previous column and I said such behavior was unacceptable on a Catholic site.
And if the fallible, human, political party fails, then what does this do for the faith that you have so closely linked to your politics? What does this do to the Church when you play the dirty games of politics while claiming to be holy?
While the Church should have a voice in the political work, when Churches become overly partisan they turn people away. Jesus did not come to form a political party and he certainly didn’t come to form a political party half a world away and twenty centuries later. When the Church gets overly partisan it generally ends badly for the Church. Now is no exception.
@Bill Sockey
“It’s not a question of doing something for illegal aliens, but of doing something fitting, legal and useful—not just making symbolic political statements.”
This illegal decision of Obama is just going to further complicate the problem because of the age group he is exempting. They’re age group will produce off-spring who will be U.S. citizens. Now what? Democrats just make problems worse - and the bishops welcome it. Go figure.
@still believe - On the subject of the GOP appointing only constitutional pro life judges, how does he account for such pro abortion GOP Supreme Court justices as O’Connor, Souter, Kennedy, and probably “stare decisis” Roberts? Here a pediction: just like the last forty years of GOP dominance on the Supreme Court saw abortion remaining legal, so continued dominance in the future by the GOP, should it happen, will still see abortion remaining legal and gentlemen like stll believe reminding us every election to vote GOp because they are pro life. This voter for one will no longer be hoodwinked, no longer will have his conscience sullied by supporting a party lke the GOP that at least countenanced an instinsic evil like abortion. Instead, voting for Virgil Goode is a vote eyes25for true pro life principles, and if he gets enough votes, perhaps the GOP overlords will realize their hoodwinking and duplicity on pro lfe issues is no longer working. That is satisfaction enough for me, plus Virgil Goode, unlike his rivals has genuine principles and character on pro life issues - as a congressman he defied the GOP party bosses and whips to vote AGAINST bush’s funding ofPlanned Parenthood and it’s abortions. God bless.
@still believe- god bless you in your endeavors . We are different with regard to political means, but support the same ends. Your post came while I was writing. God bless.
One additional point- congressman Ryan not only voted for the bush administration billion dollar plus subsidies of Planned Parenthood, but helped to steer the bill through the House. Following this, I think it is not possible to call such a man pro life. Talk is cheap, the truth Is that Ryan was instrumental in giving the largest allocate of money to an abortion provider in world history. Perhaps some tag other than pro life is more appropriate for congressman Ryan. In a y case, actions speak louder than words and this action speaks volumes!
Somewhere during childhood catechism, Catholics got it drilled in that the Bishops are somehow intellectual and theological giants. Wrong. And the idea that going to seminary qualifies any Bishop as an expert in exercising fiduciary responsibility is also wrong. Example. The former Bishop of the Diocese of San Jose, CA spent over 100M on a cathedral which was budgeted at 20M. The 80M shortfall drained from the 53 parishes was nothing short of extortion. While the Bishops so often align themselves with tax and spend politicans, they fail to then also recognize the law of unintended consequences —Catholics will have less money to support the church, missions and various other charities. When have the Bishops advocated for average families and less taxes? They supported Obama and forgot what Jesus warned them about in the gospel—“You reap what you sow.”
@stilbelieve - based on the numbers of undocumented immigrants in the US, Bush’s immigration laws weren’t really being enforced. There simply aren’t enough people working for Homeland Security to make it happen. Is an unfunded law unconstitutional also?
Is prosecutorial discretion unconstitutional? I’m pretty sure it’s been practiced by presidents through the decades, regardless of party affiliation.
I realize many would shudder to think it, but maybe Obama just “reversed” an unjust law - just like Lincoln did with the EP. Yep, I said it. (Don’t worry, I don’t idolize Obama, and I won’t be voting for him come November.) It is possible for poor presidents to make good decisions once in awhile. And it can still a good decision even if done for the wrong reasons (ie: to get votes).
The whole end justifying the means argument doesn’t work with the laws in a given state/country - it was meant for moral/ethical law.
In the interest of Catholic “social justice,” have the Bishops thought of what is social justice for people who abide by the law? I know they rail against separating families. However, entire families can easily be kept “in tact” living with and in the country of their illegal parents
I believe in nations having the right to enforce their borders.That said,I hope the young people involved in this controversy can remain here & become citizens if that’s their wish.
The Holy Family did a bit of wandering in their day, seeking refuge.I hope all sides can look at this issue with compassion.
Kathleen, Joseph was directed by an angel take the child and His mother to Egypt. No angels are directing illegals to cross our borders in droves, obtain false Social Security No.‘s, obtain a false Driver’s License and give birth at taxpayer expense at costly ER’s. Why do you think a typical ER visit is typically $15,000.00? These people are stealing. 50% of the students in the Los Angeles School District are children of illegal aliens. (You can look it up). Perhaps the Bishops have forgotten the commandment “Thou Shalt not Steal?” Even Joseph returned his family (in tact) back to his hometown of Nazareth in Galilee.
Jen,
So, what do you call the actions of a President who suddenly decides to violate a duly enacted law passed by a previous Congress under a previous President which has been enforced for over three and a half years in this new administration, who stops enforcing the law all on his own without going back to the Congress to amend it?
J. Charles
“One additional point- congressman Ryan not only voted for the bush administration billion dollar plus subsidies of Planned Parenthood, but helped to steer the bill through the House. Following this, I think it is not possible to call such a man pro life.”
NARAL pro-abortion voting record - 0%
NRLC prolife voting record - 100%
J. Charles
That was Paul Ryan’s voting record.
Dear stll believe,
Best wishes and thanks for the scorecard, but there is some gimmickry involved in these, especially as both are political groups and lobbying groups with an eye on their lists of donors.Thus, one can get points for voting for a resolution praising a Women’s shelter while other real issues aren’t scored at all. And not all votes or issues are of equal weight. But no one can not say billion dollar funding of the country’s largest abortion provider was a minor vote. But here is a key:
The billion dollars in funding to Planned Parenthood was considered a budget bill and thus not scored as a vote concerning pro life issues by NRLC. Nevertheless, the issue remains. Unlike Virgil Goode who refused to vote for the budget because it contained the Planned Parenthood subsidy, Ryan did. Given this, how can one really say Congressman Ryan is pro life when he helped to deliver the largest subsidy and allocation to an abortion provider in world history? Unfortunately, there is no escaping thus question, my debating friend, stii believe. The vote is a crucial one in proofs history, and unlike courageous Virgil Goode, Paul Ryan was not found in the ranks of the pro lifers or the good guys. In any case, the question here on this vote stii remains which means, for me at least, Ryan cannot be called pro life.
J. Charles
My new and good prolife friend. Thank you for saving me the time to research the 2 billion dollar funding of PPH you have brought up about Congressman Ryan.
You wrote, “The billion dollars in funding to Planned Parenthood was considered a budget bill.”
That’s what I initially thought it would have to be in order for him to have voted “for it.” I had already found interviews indicating the amount quoted is an accumulation of dollars over numerous years of budget bills in which PPH is a minor line item compared to the total budget being voted on.
It is unfair, misleading and dishonest to indicate that Ryan voted for PPH funding in the amount stated as if it was a stand alone piece of legislation. Like it or not, budget bills are not a legitimate source to declare whether someone is prolife or not. That is why he gets a 0 rating by the pro-abortion groups. And the first and oldest prolife group, National Right to Life Committee, founded by the U.S. bishops, give him a 100% prolife voting record.
Now the Ryan budget, passed by the House and sitting idle in the Senate, is one that PPH is not happy with because they are cut out of it. I’m sure that is one reason why the Senate won’t bring it up for a vote. This is the 2nd year the Democrat controlled Senate has refused to pass a budget that the Republican majority House passed and sent over to them.
Dear still believe, best wishes and you have some good points here of which I was unaware. It would have perhaps been too much to ask Congressman Ryan to vote against an entire budget bill because PP funding was included. But in some ways it makes me respect. congressman Goode all the more, though your helpful comments have helped me to consider Congressman Ryan in a more benevolent light. Still, I think we -and all the NCR readers here, too can agree that the power of Planned Parenthood in the budgetary process should be diminished. Finally, I should lime o wish still believe well and god bless, it has been most enlightening and pleasnt I n having this comment conversation with him, though we perhaps habe some difference on means, these are dwarfed by our common hope in seeing the Kingom of the Lord realized. God bless, my friend
Recent, one of the bishops cautioned his brothers about taking a stand on budgetary matters they are ill-equipped to opine. Given the nature of the USCCB, I think that the report was actually prepared by the staff. My limited information about that staff has it that the majority are Democrats.
@Jen: I like the comparison of immigration law to the EP. Never thought of it that way.
I will not be voting for Obama either, but he got this one right.
FDR once removed almost the entire Japanese-American community from their homes. Most lost their property. The Supreme Court later upheld his action. But it was a raw exercise of power, and only a few of those people deserved such rough treatment. Obama’s actions seem by compared as act of mercy, but the two have this in common: they are arbitrary actions. If our lives are to be left subject to the whim of the political gods, then we are at risk. Tyrants may be good, they may be evil, but they are men outside the law. Rent “ A man for All Seasons,” for an object lesson about the dangers of tyranny.
@John Schuh
“Obama’s actions seem by compared as act of mercy, but the two have this in common: they are arbitrary actions.”
FDR’s action was in defense of the nation, to protect us. Obama’s action furthers the attack on our nation and to protect himself.
FDR did nothing to correct his action even after the danger had passed. But Earl Warren, the great liberal icon, was a worse offender. He sanctioned the plunder of the property of these folks. A dramatic representation of the events was Spencer Tracy’s “Bad Day at Black Rock.”—Tracy at his best, BTW.
@John Schuh
To your last post, I would agree. When I moved to CA I worked in an area that used to be mostly Japanese businesses prior to WWII, and they never got their property back.
The greatest idea of the American revolution was the concept of limited government. Thew powerful aim to control government and to increase its authority in order to eliminate the opposition of others. The “Japs” were resented in part because they were too good at business. Something like German resentment of the Jews.
@John Schuh: That’s why Obama is the most unAmerican person ever elected to the US Senate and the Presidency. His ideas and policies support a centralized (socialist)government. He and his people think you are too stupid to make your own decisions and thus they will make your decisions for you including what kind of car to drive, medical insurance plans and light bulbs to purchase. Each year more of your freedoms are being eroded by law or merely through increased taxation. The 1789 Continental Congress in no way envisioned someone elected President who did not experience the American way of life from birth. Obama never lived his childhood nor adolescene as an American. No wonder saluting the flag or wearing a lapel flag pin are meaningless to him along with playing golf more than 100x for enjoyment while our military servicemen & women are at war. He’s a socialist and the Catholic bishops cheered his election up until now when their ox is being gored. But then, this is the demarcation point, isn’t it? The United States was founded upon the “Protestant work ethic” while the Bishops Catholic “social gospel” is to take from those who do work and give to those who won’t work. Both agendas are in synch concerning helping those who cannot do for themselves, are incapacitated and are truly needy. No problem there. The social gospel, however, parts company and is highly, heavily slanted on increased taxes to achieve Catholic socialist desires for society.
@New Observer. The “social gospel,” is actually originally a liberal Protestant movement begun by Walter Rauchenbusch in the early 1900s, but it was in fact an anti-socialist idea aiming at saving the working classes from the radical movements of the late 1800s. A form of “progressivism.” Theologically, of course, it was modernist. Catholic social doctrine, which was explicated by Pope Leo XIII, also sought to combat atheistic socialism but also the anti-Catholic Liberalism of the time and the overwheening demands of the new National States. The German Empire launched a “Kulturkampf,” against the influence of the Catholic Church in the newly united Germany. Catholic constituted about a third of the population, especially strong in Bavaria and the Rhineland, and fought back by starting “the Center Party,” which took positions between the Liberals and the Socialists, with Bismarck joining with the Liberals against the Church. Alarmed by the growing strength of the Socialists, Bismarck ended the Kulturkampf and came to terms with the Center Party. The Welfare state was Bismarck’s ploy to win the workers vote, a compromise that attracted Catholic support. So successful was it that it was eventually adopted by the British Liberal Party and of course by the United States. Of course, it depends heavily on power concentrated in the government.
@New Observer
A little harsh on the bishops; but it’s not as if they don’t having it coming.
They brought this on themselves. They are even cheering Obama’s unconstitutional modification of existing law by granting illegals, brought here as children, temporary amnesty for a couple years and allowing them to work legally, as well. Just last year President Obama told the Hispanic lobbying group he wished he could just do this on his own but he doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to do it. Did he lie to them last year? Or did he lie to us, again, with his promise to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States when he was sworn in? In either case, the bishops applauded and support his current action.
The bishops intentionally made two major decisions that have lead to the constitutional crises the Church is in today in the U.S.A. One - they disregarded their teaching on the 5th Commandment printed in Life In Christ - Instructions in the Catholic Faith, published in 1958 before abortion was made legal. That instruction listed numerous actions that are sins against “Thou shalt not kill.” One of those actions that made it “particularly a sin” was “joining an organization which promotes segregation OR ANY OTHER DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS.” (My emphasis) The USCCB omitted that statement about “denying any other human rights” in a re-publication of Life In Christ in 1995. Every teaching on “thou shalt not kill” in the 1958 publication was present in the 1995 version except the one that would have made it a sin for Catholics to “join” an “organization” that “promotes” the killing of unborn human beings i.e., denying their human right - to life. A prince of the Church assured me that 1958 teaching is “still the teaching of the Church.” That means Catholics who are Democrats, are in the state of sin as long as they remain in the Democrat Party. That means most of the clergy, including the bishops are in the state of sin.
Two. The bishops adopted Cardinal Bernardin’s change in the definition of “prolife” in 1983/84 to include so-called “social justice” issues. The major reason Bernardin sought to make this change was to “keep the prolife movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.” (“Cardinal Bernardin - Easing Conflicts and Battling for the Soul of American Catholicism.” pgs 243,244; a biography authored by his long time friend, Eugene Kennedy) Cardinal Bernardin, who lived 4 or 5 years after its publication, never refuted this.) Social justice issues are prudential justice issues which the Catholic bishops come down on the side of the liberals, i.e., the Democrats.
@New Observer. A poster above correctly states that the USCCB, as well as many chancellories, are run by laymen who are firmly convinced of that the policies of the Democratic Party must prevail, that the Republican Party is the party of the plutocracy.
If they would open they eyes, they would see that this is true of both parties, Bill Clinton was strongly supported by Wall Street in 1992, because he advocated/advocates policies that make them rich. But going back to the Civil War, we see that the rich have always thrown money at each party in order to gain favors for their interests. The Republican Party is compromised by the fact that the power elites in this country are in favor of such causes as gay rights, and gay marriage, and indeed the whole agenda of the sexual revolution. The Republican Party. on the other hands, also speaks for the small businessman and the ordinary person, those whom the power elite seeks to keep from advancing, and who represent traditional morality. Social conservatives are now almost unrepresented in the Democratric Party.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.