On the day after Cinco De Mayo, I’d like to take a deep breath and talk about the Catholic position on Latino immigration, an issue which promises to become ever more important and controversial in our national debate. During the health care debate, critics of my position on the Democrat bill would say that it was more Republican than Catholic. Of course, I would describe it as (in order) Catholic, prudent and conservative. (As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not registered with any political party.) These same critics I hope will be relieved to find out that I don’t, in fact, have much patience with the Republican party-line on the issue of immigration, and that I am critical about what many “conservative” politicians are saying about the issue.

A few points for background: I grew up in southern California, where Latino issues, culture and the reality of illegal immigration was far more pressing that it is in much of the country (or at least was when I was growing up). I have visited Mexico several times and while I obviously am no expert about Latinos, I’m not the greenest of gringos either (I hope). My experience is in part formed by knowing individuals who work for the Church on both sides of the border. Also, much of my thinking about the political and cultural debate has been formed by working with and talking to individuals associated with APP’s Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles - this article published in Politico gives a good snapshot of their views. Finally, when I cite various sources in this post, I am not endorsing everything this individual or organization has said, just the points I’ve highlighted.

If the issue of the Catholic position on Latino immigration in our politics doesn’t interest you, feel free to cease..

Ecumenic

threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.

Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.

Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

-Religion Moderator

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.