Posted on 09/11/2011 10:19:56 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, chairman of the Committee on Migration of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has issued a statement supporting efforts by Alabama’s bishops to overturn a recently enacted immigration law.
“The Catholic Church provides pastoral and social services to all persons, regardless of their immigration status,” Archbishop Gomez said in his statement. “Our mandate is to provide for the pastoral and social care of all of God’s children. Government should not infringe upon that duty, as America’s founding fathers made clear in the US Constitution.”
“This new Alabama law makes it illegal for a Catholic priest to baptize, hear the confession of, celebrate the anointing of the sick with, or preach the word of God to, an undocumented immigrant,” Archbishop Thomas Rodi of Mobile said in August. “Nor can we encourage them to attend Mass or give them a ride to Mass. It is illegal to allow them to attend adult scripture study groups, or attend CCD or Sunday school classes. It is illegal for the clergy to counsel them in times of difficulty or in preparation for marriage. It is illegal for them to come to Alcoholic Anonymous meetings or other recovery groups at our churches.”
Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
How convient...you can not comment unless you donate
No Catholic holds loyalty to Rome above G-d? Where do you get such ideas?
Perhaps the bishop is misinformed but I’d be skeptical of that given he chairs the counsel on migration. If he knows better, shame on him for pandering to his Reconquista Angelino congregants. Such political deception has no place in the Church.
Our mandate is to provide for the pastoral and social care of all of God’s children.. Well the Church never comes out and protest crimes by illegals driving drunk causing fatal accidents, ripping American families apart.I never see the Church give Americans the same time & attention and help it gives illegals. Any time any illegal has something happen.Churches drop everything and provide needed support, in forms of protests, rallies, human right’s .They speak of how illeagls are God’s children. The Church is fully aware that illegals are using fake or stolen documents.illegals are filling out I-9 tax forms with false information. The church never says anything about illegals who must use deception to remain working in this country.The Churches do not say anything about illeagls who are driving on our roads without drivers licenses and insurance and blame unjust laws as why illeagls must do what they must do. The Church has lost it’s way and have created their own bible and have made their own set of rules of why breaking the law can be justified.Churches are becoming like cults
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Does not God love all people? Does not Christ love all people, even the foreigners?
Two Gospels about that — The Good Samaritan and the other one is the story of the Syncho-Phoneican woman.
“Catholic social ministry begins and ends with Jesus Christ,” he said. “If it doesn’t, it isn’t Catholic.”
If you put loyalty to the Pope above the nation, which some Catholics who post on this site do, you are worse than a dual loyalist.
Yeah, they’re Christians.
Anti-Catholics get those ideas from their bigotted minds which are out of touch with reality.
I love America. America, however, has never, and will never save a single soul. It wasn’t sent by God the Father to die for our sins or to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. It’s an amazing country, and may last for centuries and centuries, but it will come and go as all nations do.
My Church was founded by God. My country wasn’t. My Church was commissioned by God. My country wasn’t. My Church preaches the gospel. My country doesn’t.
Archbishop Gomez became a U. S. citizen the right way, through study, taking a test, taking an oath, etc.
He is not in favor of illegal immigration since he did it the right way. I think he just wants people to be treated humanely WHILE they follow the rules.
Illegal immigrants are first 'mothers and fathers, sons and daughters,' says Archbishop Gomez
First Mass of the Most Reverend Archbishop Gomez LIVE on EWTN
Off to the Thunderdome (Gomez leaving SAT)
Cardinal Roger Mahony's Religious and Political Agenda
Suspended Gay Calif. Priest Laments: Abp. Gomez a 'Sharp Thrust to the Right' for LA Diocese
More Bogus Charges Against Archbishop Gomez
SEX ABUSE LAWSUIT NAMES SAN ANTONIO ARCHDIOCESE
Latino Immigrants Proud That L.A.'s Next Archbishop Is 'One of Us' [Can We Get Rid of Ethnic Pride?]
In Defense of Archbishop Gomez's Handling of Abuse Scandals
Archbishop Gomez: Who is He?
Why Archbishop Gomez is like other Bishops Appointed by Pope Benedict
An Interview with Archbishop José H. Gomez
Gomez vows to be an advocate for L.A.'s immigrants...(misleading title alert!)
San Antonio's Archbishop José Gomez named by Pope to be successor to Cardinal Roger Mahony. ...
Precious words from the archbishop... [Jose Gomez]
New Coadjutor of Los Angeles One of 22 Opus Dei Bishops
Opus Dei Seeks to Make Everyday Life Holier
Archbishop Gomez 'deeply grateful' for Los Angeles appointment
Cardinal Mahony grateful LA will have Hispanic archbishop
Vatican: Archbishop Gomez appointed to Archdiocese of LA
Pope's 'Revenge' As LA Gets Opus Dei Bishop [Pope's "Revenge" on Hollywood Sodomites!]
Gomez Holds Both Conservative And Progressive Views [Denounced College for Pro-Abortion HRC Invite]
Pope Names Latino Leader For L.A. Archdiocese [Member of Conservative Opus Dei Movement]/a>
Historic Appointment to LA Archdiocese
Report: Gomez is going to L.A.
It's Official: New Archbishop [Gomez} for Los Angeles
El Tiempo Ha Venido -- Reports: (Archbishop) Gomez Up to LA (Catholic Caucus)
[To replace Cardinal Mahony] Vatican rumor: an American prelate in play?
Los Angeles Getting a New Archbishop (Part 1)
Los Angeles Getting a New Archbishop (Part 2)
I would never dare accuse the Bishop of that.
Bishops I met in the past seem to have a wall up against the secular world.
The Church is more their world than any other. Their concerns of the secular world only seem to be where it hampers the church in some way or in the case of human misery ... disasters and such.
Catholic Archbishop Jose Gomez, often heralded by Catholic FReepers as being a "conservative" Catholic, is a vocal supporter of illegal immigrants. Here are two examples, both hosted on the Archdiocese of Denver's website:
America is a nation built by immigrants, and illegal immigrants — Irish, Italian, German, Polish and others — have always been part of the mix. But throughout U.S. history, Catholics have carried the burden of anti-immigrant prejudice in a unique way, so we have a special duty to speak up when we see it happening again.Defeated driver's license bill deserved to be lawI remembered this last week as I thought about two separate but related events.
The first was the copy of Foreign Policy magazine I received in the mail. In its March/April issue, Samuel Huntington argues that Hispanic immigrants, because of their differences from the American mainstream in language and culture and their resistance to assimilation, pose a serious threat to the American way of life. Huntington is a world-class intellectual writing in a prestigious national journal. In effect, he gives a credible-sounding vocabulary to the worst kind of nativism.
The second event was last week's struggle in the Colorado Legislature over House Bill 1187, designed to deny in-state resident tuition to the children of undocumented immigrants.
In her comments on the bill, State Senator Paula Sandoval said it best when she observed that, "All of these children (of undocumented workers) want to achieve the American dream. In some ways, what we're really saying is it's OK for people to come to this country to clean the university, to plow the fields, to harvest the crops and to work in our restaurants. But when it comes to enjoying the fruits of those labors, what we're doing ... is saying you're not invited to sit at the table for dinner."
I saw Senator Sandoval's comments the same day I read this passage from Samuel Huntington's Foreign Policy article: "The education of people of Mexican origin in the United States lags well behind the U.S. norm. In 2000, 86.6 percent of native-born Americans had graduated from high school. The rates for foreign-born population in the United States varied from 94.9 percent for Africans, 83.8 percent for Asians, 49.6 percent for Latin Americans overall, and down to 33.8 percent for Mexicans, who ranked lowest."
Most Americans, native-born or not, know what the expression "Catch 22" means. We've got a great example of it here.
For Huntington, Mexican immigrants have an alarmingly low education rate. That depresses their earning power, which prevents their upward mobility, which reduces their assimilation into the American mainstream. So what are Coloradans urged to do? We're urged to make it more expensive — in other words, harder — for the children of undocumented workers to get a college education. As a result, they'll earn less, contribute less to the public square and assimilate even more slowly. The one thing they won't do is go away.
Good people can disagree strongly and legitimately about immigration and its related legal issues. But in making U.S. immigration policies more coherent and just, we need to at least avoid punishing the young.
In hurting them, we're only hurting ourselves. And we're making absolutely sure that Huntington's nightmare will come true.
Most Reverend José H. Gomez
Auxiliary Bishop of DenverColorado Senate Bill 67 died on Valentine's Day in the Senate's Government, Veterans and Military Relations Committee. Its defeat will hurt many good people in our state, and concerned citizens need to hope, pray and work earnestly to ensure that next year, the legislative result will be different.
SB 67 would have allowed undocumented immigrants to apply for driver's licenses. The main arguments in favor of such legislation are well known. They're worth restating one more time, though, so they remain fresh in people's minds. SB 67 may be dead for this year, but the underlying need for it is very much alive.
First, SB 67-style legislation would serve our public safety.
Colorado has a legitimate health and safety interest in licensing those who use its roads. More than 50,000 undocumented immigrants now drive on state roads unlicensed. If a job is at stake — a job that requires driving — a worker who cannot apply for a license will almost certainly drive anyway. And of course, unlicensed drivers are uninsured drivers, which makes them far more likely to flee the scene of an accident.
Second, SB 67-style legislation would aid law enforcement. A driver's license makes it easier to track outstanding warrants, repeat offenders and child support delinquents. It expands the database of fingerprints for crime investigation. It increases the willingness of immigrant witnesses and victims to aid crime investigations. It allows police to deal with traffic violators without becoming embroiled in policy issues. It also relieves police from issuing tickets for which there is no possible resolution. (Immigrants are rarely deported for driving and usually return — unlicensed — to Colorado roads.)
Third, it would not violate federal immigration law. Immigration law places no requirement on states regarding the licensing of drivers. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is not significantly interested in unlicensed drivers; rather, INS priorities focus on serious foreign criminals, terrorists and immigrant smugglers.
Moreover, state driver's licenses are irrelevant to work eligibility, government programs and benefits.
Fourth, it would arguably assist the fight against terrorism. Colorado licenses provide a database of identities including photographs and fingerprints. Excluding large numbers of people from this database could actually work against police efforts
Fifth and finally, it's the right thing to do. No one is a "criminal" for merely being an undocumented immigrant; it's a status with no criminal penalty. In fact, Colorado is host to thousands of working undocumented immigrants — and depends economically on their labor. A driver's license simply allows these people to drive safely and with insurance in Colorado while the U.S. Congress debates future policy on immigration.
Shortly before the recent debate on SB 67, Archbishop Charles Chaput wrote to key members of the State Senate noting that, "SB 67 acknowledges the reality that thousands of good but undocumented immigrant workers live in our state, contribute productively to our economy and deserve the ability to travel safely and with insurance while here. I'm convinced that SB 67 will help improve security on our roads for the whole community, and it will add a very worthwhile element of stability to the lives of immigrant workers and their families."
SB 67 was a bill that urgently deserved to be a law. Both justice and common sense support it. We need to remember that for next year. This is an issue Coloradans can't afford to forget.
You don't know much about Gomez.
You mistakenly confuse prudential statements made by bishops with the actual teaching of the Church.
I bet, if you're consistent, that you think Barry Soetoro accurately describes what the Constitution states as well.
I have seen firsthand that it is diocesan lawyers who call the shots in the chancery offices these days. Because bishops are more fearful of being sued than proclaiming truth, they side with the lawyers. This case in Alabama is a good example of an over-reaction. If anyone thinks that the diocese’s giving a sandwich to an illegal alien is going to make them subject to civil penalty, they’re nuts. But this is what runs our Church today.
You mistakenly confuse prudential statements made by bishops with the actual teaching of the Church.
I bet, if you’re consistent, that you think Barry Soetoro accurately describes what the Constitution states as well.
And you would be DEAD wrong.
If I mistated myself, or the position of the Catholic Church as a whole, my apologies. Perhaps I should have been more specific in saying that the US Catholic Bishops have aright to voice their support of illegals if they like....
I would note, however, that the Catholic Church as a whole has made statements in the past indicating they favored a “humanitarian” and “open” policy toward “immigrants” who came to “wealthy nations” looking for a “better life.” All well and good — as long as they do so legally.
And no — your analogy regarding how Obama reads and interprets the Constitution is a poor one. It relates in NO WAY to my meaning — either about the Catholic Church OR the Teleprompter-in-Chief.
You mistakenly confuse prudential statements made by bishops with the actual teaching of the Church.
I bet, if you’re consistent, that you think Barry Soetoro accurately describes what the Constitution states as well.
And you would be DEAD wrong.
If I mistated myself, or the position of the Catholic Church as a whole, my apologies. Perhaps I should have been more specific in saying that the US Catholic Bishops have aright to voice their support of illegals if they like....
I would note, however, that the Catholic Church as a whole has made statements in the past indicating they favored a “humanitarian” and “open” policy toward “immigrants” who came to “wealthy nations” looking for a “better life.” All well and good — as long as they do so legally.
And no — your analogy regarding how Obama reads and interprets the Constitution is a poor one. It relates in NO WAY to my meaning — either about the Catholic Church OR the Teleprompter-in-Chief.
That is an interesting message, since under the 1917 constitution of Mexico priests were outlawed. Anticlericalism is very Mexican in the past century.
Well, the 80% of Mexicans who are Catholic do pretty well for a nation with no priests!
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.