Posted on 03/01/2006 8:03:52 AM PST by DumpsterDiver
In his most forceful comments to date, Mahony said he would instruct his priests to defy legislation — if approved by Congress — that would require churches and other social organizations to ask immigrants for legal documentation before providing assistance and penalize them if they refuse to do so. That provision was included in the immigration bill recently passed by the House of Representatives; a similar proposal is in the version that the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to begin debating this week.
[snip]
He [Mahony] said he also planned to step up his personal political advocacy, starting with a letter to California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Senate Judiciary Committee member and opponent of large-scale guest-worker programs outside agriculture.
[snip]
Mahony, a Los Angeles native of Italian and German descent, said his personal passion on the issue was sparked as a child, when he became close to the mostly Mexican immigrants who were hired to work at his father's poultry plant in the San Fernando Valley. As an elementary school student, Mahony said, he personally witnessed what he called a "terrifying" immigration raid on his father's plant, leaving him with an indelible impression about the abuse of immigrant workers.
[snip]
Go to bugmenot.com if you need a user name and password.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I hate to say it, but the Church should lose its tax-exempt status, if it's going to plunge into politics, and advise priests to break US law.
Didn't President Bush propose legislation that would allow Churches to administer public money for social services? I think it was called Faith Based Initiatives.
I now understand why the Democrats were against it and am in full agreement with them.
ping
"Pogh Mahoney"..
Liberation theology at its best. They've been practicing this for years. Only now are they coming out publicly in favor of it.
Abortion is legal in the US, but as a Catholic, I oppose it openly.
Christ said "whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me..."
He didn't say "But first, check their papers."
Cardinal or not, this is overt treason.
So, if the U.S. passed a law, like Canada did, making it illegal to say anything that is against homosexuals, or read passages from the Bible that offend homosexuals, they should lose their status for not following it?
There's a difference between opposing a law and violating one.
Mahoney should BUTT OUT!
If the law opposes the teachings of the church, then which should take priority...the laws of man or the laws of God?
" Christ said "whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me..."
He didn't say "But first, check their papers.""
Wow! Is THAT twisting the scriptures! Are you saying Jesus advocated breaking the law?
I think he did not. He said "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesars" and "My kingdom is not of this world".
Mahony is full of Baloney!
"If the law opposes the teachings of the church, then which should take priority...the laws of man or the laws of God?"
The laws of God, not those of the Catholic Church that have opposed God's word for 1500 years. ("Call no one on earth "father", "Thou shalt not make unto thyself graven images" - etc. etc. etc.)
On the basis of charity, I can appreciate and would agree with providing emergency assistance...a sandwich to the hungry, a bed to the homeless, emergency care to the injured, without regard to their immigration status. We do have an obligation to our brother, after all.
But Mahony takes it to a level that is ridiculous. There is a difference between helping a desperate and needy person and the open defiance of the law. There is a difference between not checking for ID at a soup kitchen and not checking for ID when enrolling a kid in a parochial school. There's a difference between providing a bed in a homeless shelter and providing a long-term subsidy for an apartment.
Mahony says, He said that both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures were consistent and clear about the moral imperative to care for strangers and aliens. The Jewish people were aliens in Egypt, he said, and Jesus was a refugee who was escaping from King Herod. God clearly instructed Moses to care for aliens, orphans and widows in his midst.
He's right. The scriptures said this. However, those who were helped were not illegal aliens. The Jewish people were aliens in Egypt, true. They were there at the invitation of the Egyptian Government. This country also has legal immigration rules. Jesus was a refugee who was escaping from King Herod. We also have asylum laws for those fleeing persecution. God clearly instructed Moses to care for aliens, orphans, and widows in his midst. Those aliens, orphans, and widows were there either as members of one of the twelve tribes or as lawful guests. God also instructed His people to utterly destroy cities, killing everybody and not leaving one stone on top of another.
Jos 6:21 Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword.
As long as Mahony is citing examples from scripture, he may wish to consider the following:
Num 33:50-56 And the LORD said to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, "Say to the people of Israel, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places; and you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it. You shall inherit the land by lot according to your families; to a large tribe you shall give a large inheritance, and to a small tribe you shall give a small inheritance; wherever the lot falls to any man, that shall be his; according to the tribes of your fathers you shall inherit. But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. And I will do to you as I thought to do to them."
Matthew Ch 22
[35] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
[36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Where do the laws of the Church say that illegal immigrants should be encouraged and comforted? There is no such Church law - this is a radical interpretation of the Church's teachings which are not true to the original.
I just pinged you to another Mo thread, NYer. He's been doing this for years. This time it's a little more aggressive. Probably trying to deflect attention from his other problems.
Good point.
Feed them, THEN check their papers. If they're illegal, call the authorities.
That way, the church can fulfill its obligations to God AND to Caesar. HOW could the good cardinal possibly object?
The church's job is not to patrol the border. Once an illegal alien makes it to the church, their job is to minister to him. Nothing wrong with us arresting that parishioner as he leaves, either.
It ain't Roger's fault that we can't keep his new parishioners out of the country. It's our fault. Roger is doing his job. We are not doing ours.
Of course, being a loudmouth and attempting to change immigration policy is not his job, either. Really none of his business. My point: if we had effective immigration controls, Roger wouldn't have a point.
Take the issue away from the church: Should a doctor refuse treatment for an individual because the doctor cannot determine the immigration status?
Titus 3:1 "Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,"
The Church can be that sanctuary if it likes - in Mexico. If they really had the courage of their convictions then the top of their agenda would not be aiding and abetting lawbreaking here but rather agitating for reform there. What the Church may not rightly do is force everyone else to provide that sanctuary, which is what the actions encouraged by Mahony would do. Moreover, given the evils that come with illegal immigration, this narrow view of doctrine serves evil ends, not Godly ones.
God's admonishments. Anyone could fit this situation.
· To feed the hungry;
· To give drink to the thirsty;
· To clothe the naked;
· To harbor the harborless;
· To visit the sick;
· To ransom the captive;
· To bury the dead.
The spiritual works of mercy are:
· To instruct the ignorant;
· To counsel the doubtful;
· To admonish sinners;
· To bear wrongs patiently;
· To forgive offences willingly;
· To comfort the afflicted;
· To pray for the living and the dead
Besides this is proposed legislation is it not?
And that's where I find fault with Roger. "Rog, shut up and pass out the sandwiches."
At the same time, we must acknowledge that our laxity in enforcing the law hath placed our brother in Christ, Roger, in a rather awkward situation.
If we did our civic duty and enforced our laws, Roger would be passing out sandwiches in Tijuana, not Toluca Lake.
Do you believe that the USA should not enforce any immigration laws, and that if, for example, 50 million Chinese etc desire to get on ships and come over, we should permit this?
In your opinion, can a moral country enforce immigration laws?
And illegal is illegal.
On the other hand, it is wrong --- criminally wrong ---- for people to break our laws and cross our borders without authorization.
And it is even more wrong to reward lawbreaking by providing powerful incentives-- jobs, medical and educational benefits, in-state tuition at the State University, the whole goodie-bag!
One of the most heart-breaking things is that 300 - 400 human beings, vulnerable precious human beings of all ages and both sexes, will perish horribly in the Sonoran Desert this year and every year, because they have been LURED here by this dangling pinata of perverse incentives.
The "rewards" for illegal border-crossing are neither just nor charitable: they are part of a big picture of brutal systemic evil.
Let's not forget that all those who HIRE border-violators as domestic servants, nannies, cooks, dishwashers, landscapers, roofers, orchard workers, field hands and day-laborers, --- the EMPLOYERS -- ARE ILLEGALS, TOO.
So I suppose you have to say, "OK, Cardinal Mahoney, dig deep into your OWN pockets --- and get Catholics to dig deep in THEIR own pockets --- to provide the sandwiches, cots and clean water for the people who arrive here hungry, parched and exhausted. And then tell them that lawbreaking is a sin, and send them back across the border."
It's a lot more complicated than that, I know. But we do have to do both: extend decent Christian charity to the desperate, and enforce the law.
Yep
**************
Good post, Mrs. Don-o.
The Church has no place interfering in public policy. I used to think otherwise, but they have become increasingly demanding and unrealistic.
They're doing bad on the law enforcement, too. Probably because they've let things go so long by treating it as a political problem. It's almost a military problem. Many say it needs a military solution now.
Basically what they have in mexico is government in name only. GINO. I think most mexicans know that. Our govt. should be sanctioning the drug dealers in charge down there for everything they're worth.
Exactly. There is nothing in this law that requires Christians to violate their faith. It is eminently possible to be a good Christian and a law abiding citizen.
Churches that deliberately and willfully defy the law should be stripped of their tax exempt status.
I don't want to turn this into a hemispheric armed confrontation. It could turn into a catastrophic mega-corpse war pretty quick. The thought terrifies me. I honestly admit I'm boggled: what in the world DO you do?
"Render unto Caesar" now means the Church is drafted by the State into verifying immigration status - what happened to Separation of Church and State?!
(Which of the 5 threads on this should we be discussing the issue?)
I'm not sure what I'd do, but, we are the cash spigot, they are merely siphons.
We've been too kind for too long. We are supposed to look after our own first, (and then the world) and many can see the effects this is having on their school age children, not to mention all the other side effects. It's not kind or good to overlook the horrendous crimes we're fascillitating.
Being an enabler for destructive actions is an evil behavior. The destruction wrought by illegal immigration is well documented; I trust I need not recount it here.
I was going to write that.
Leave the Churches out of it, Travis.
Now, the lazy Congress, because it doesn't have the nerve to oppose illegal immigration, wants the Church to be its enforcer.
No to that. I agree with Mahoney here. The Church is in the business of ministering to souls, not "checking papers."
Except that ministering to souls is not a "destructive action."
If the cowards in Congress can't deal with the immigrant issue, they just as well give up.
Putting priests and ministers on the front line is the essence of gutlessness.
Mahoney is right to oppose this, as should any priest or bishop in the United States.
The Protestants will no doubt be in opposition as well, at least those who don't see themselves as state police.
Public policy has no business interfering in the Church.
That commie SOB should have been thrown in prison 40 years ago.
He's been harboring illegals ever since he took over that chruch in downtown L.A.
Blurring the lines between Church and State is a dangerous thing. It can lead to a very, very bad situation.
Yes, it can. The State should stay out of Church business, which includes ministering to the poor, to the needy, without regard to their status.
Can Congress not do its job without attempting to make churchmen their bag men?
So what? Only NOW does Congress decide that churchmen have to do THEIR job?
If your point is that Congress should just deal with this issue (hopefully by getting tough), then I agree. I don't necessarily fault the Church for helping these people when they come across them, I just dislike when they advocate for public policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.