Arizona Immigration Bill

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='03 May 2010 - 11:04 AM' timestamp='1272895454' post='2104156']
Right!!!! Trust the opinions of the Bishops. That's always worked. How many here trust Cardinal Mahoney's opinion of church design and protocol at Mass? You can't trust the Bishops to properly use Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers or see that the faithful are properly catechized, things that are in the realm of their expertise. But these moral icons are going to pass judgement on applying the law. Follow the money. Of course they'll curry favor with the immigrants because while working here in the US, they can still tithe to the local parish.
[/quote]

This is exactly the same sort of stuff that liberals say when the Bishops step on THEIR political toes. The bishops are not speaking infalliably so we can ignore them. The bishops covered up for sexual abuse so we can ignore them when they talk about homosexuality. How dare these "moral icons" pass judgment on gay people! Maybe when they stop letting priests rape little boys we'll listen to them ([i]actual words people have said to me[/i]). The bishops are just after money so we can ignore what they say about healthcare. The bishops screwed up x so we can ignore what they teach about y. Cardinal Mahoney has an ugly church, so if he disagrees with us, we can ignore him.

Although of course if he says something that we DO agree with of course then he becomes THE Infalliable Authority On That Issue. I have seen "conservatives" discount the bishops left and right but then if Archbishop Burke, a curial official with a relatively obscure post, says something it is "the Vatican" speaking.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Maggie' date='03 May 2010 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1272891128' post='2104137']
There is probably not one bishop in the United States who would support this law. I am trying to think of one and coming up empty. Some of the most conservative bishops are the most fervent in supporting and defending the human rights of the undocumented.
[/quote]

I fail to see how this law flies in the face of human rights.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Maggie' date='03 May 2010 - 11:27 AM' timestamp='1272900435' post='2104173']
This is exactly the same sort of stuff that liberals say when the Bishops step on THEIR political toes. The bishops are not speaking infalliably so we can ignore them. The bishops covered up for sexual abuse so we can ignore them when they talk about homosexuality. How dare these "moral icons" pass judgment on gay people! Maybe when they stop letting priests rape little boys we'll listen to them ([i]actual words people have said to me[/i]). The bishops are just after money so we can ignore what they say about healthcare. The bishops screwed up x so we can ignore what they teach about y. Cardinal Mahoney has an ugly church, so if he disagrees with us, we can ignore him.

Although of course if he says something that we DO agree with of course then he becomes THE Infalliable Authority On That Issue. I have seen "conservatives" discount the bishops left and right but then if Archbishop Burke, a curial official with a relatively obscure post, says something it is "the Vatican" speaking.
[/quote]

Yes, I just said that "listening" to a Bishop is very selective and subjective, unless an individual "listens" to every single opinion and treats said opinions as infallible.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Maggie' date='03 May 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1272900435' post='2104173']
This is exactly the same sort of stuff that liberals say when the Bishops step on THEIR political toes. The bishops are not speaking infalliably so we can ignore them. The bishops covered up for sexual abuse so we can ignore them when they talk about homosexuality. How dare these "moral icons" pass judgment on gay people! Maybe when they stop letting priests rape little boys we'll listen to them ([i]actual words people have said to me[/i]). The bishops are just after money so we can ignore what they say about healthcare. The bishops screwed up x so we can ignore what they teach about y. Cardinal Mahoney has an ugly church, so if he disagrees with us, we can ignore him.

Although of course if he says something that we DO agree with of course then he becomes THE Infalliable Authority On That Issue. I have seen "conservatives" discount the bishops left and right but then if Archbishop Burke, a curial official with a relatively obscure post, says something it is "the Vatican" speaking.
[/quote]
So you're making my point. I'm neither a libral or conservative Catholic. However, during the decades I was a practicing and faithful Catholic, the above hair-splitting was(is)the status quo. You can find the Magisterium agreeing with almost whatever opinion you care to hold.

Immigration Reform came up a few years ago too, you know. What happened with that? Politically minded Catholic clergy like Mahoney encited the people into a rage that any reform was racist, so we got nothing. They stupidly became pawns to other politicians with other motives and agendas.

What's wrong with strenthening the borders and providing 6 month work visas requiring aliens to return to their country for 2 months before re-entering. Border patrols wouldn't be overwelmed by sheer numbers, and criminals would lose the advantage of just one of millions crossing the border illegally. If priests and bishops were morally honest, they'd be telling Mexicans to stay with their families instead of risking their lives for more material goods. Then legitimate political pressure could be made to allow legal aliens to come and work in the US. Maybe Catholics should be discussing how a country as rich in oil exports, hard working people, and natural resouces like Mexico can be such a cesspool of hopelessness for it's people for hundreds of years.

Funny how the hellish American Capitalist Society, rampant with racist haters and bigots, provides a standard of living that even our desperately poor illegal aliens live better that 80% of the rest of the world.

[God the Father]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='03 May 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1272858252' post='2103997']
Violent crime has been eradicated in Chicago??? I and about three million other people must not have gotten the memo....
[/quote]

Violent crime related to alcohol trafficking in Chicago has been eradicated, yes. Violent crime in Chicago is now mostly related to those substances which are still illegal.

It's really a remarkable phenomenon: when something is legal and accessible for market value, violent crime related thereto decreases dramatically. On the other hand, when the state interferes by making something illegal or cost-free, complications occur.

But politicians have to keep gas in their Acuras, and the best way to do that is to use our money to send some dark people welfare checks and send other dark people back to Tijuana.

Edited May 3, 2010 by God the Father

[LouisvilleFan]

MLB teams are worried about this... they're saying if someone is suspected of being an illegal and cannot produce the paperwork right there for the officer, they can be taken to jail. That's definitely unconstitutional.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='God the Father' date='03 May 2010 - 10:13 AM' timestamp='1272906835' post='2104208']
Violent crime related to alcohol trafficking in Chicago has been eradicated, yes. Violent crime in Chicago is now mostly related to those substances which are still illegal.

It's really a remarkable phenomenon: when something is legal and accessible for market value, violent crime related thereto decreases dramatically. On the other hand, when the state interferes by making something illegal or cost-free, complications occur.

But politicians have to keep gas in their Acuras, and the best way to do that is to use our money to send some dark people welfare checks and send other dark people back to Tijuana.
[/quote]


Acuras? oh please, any self respecting politician simply must roll in a 'Benz.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Because MIKolbe said so.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='03 May 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1272900380' post='2104172']
You are sticking with their opinion because it is your opinion. Do you agree with every opinion a Bishop has? No. Do you have to? No. I just get irritated when someone pulls the "Oh I am listening to the Bishop on this one" as if, since it is a Bishop, that opinion is morally right or morally superior. Listening to a Bishop's personal opinion is very selective and subjective. Unless you agree with every single opinion of every single Bishop, of course.
[/quote]

...the only thing that irritates me is generic toilet paper...

[Nihil Obstat]

As an aside...... all things being equal, I'm more inclined to trust a bishop on a moral issue than to distrust him.

Just like if I want financial advice, I'm going to be more inclined to trust a financial planner than to not.



There are, of course, poor, heterodox, and simply heretical bishops, just as there are incompetent lazy and stupid financial planners, but they're the exceptions that prove the rule. At the very least, by virtue of his office, the opinion of a bishop on a moral matter deserves careful attention by us, as Catholics, and should absolutely not be dismissed just because we initially disagree with it.





My two cents, anyway.
[img]http://theblackcordelias.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/archbishop-fulton-sheen.jpg[/img]

[HisChildForever]

I enjoy coming to my own conclusions and formulating my own opinions. The Bishops can have theirs, I am keeping mine. Using Bishops as a crutch for one's argument is just not my style.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='02 May 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1272844929' post='2103832']
To untwist your rather charged question... Why do people still believe in the rule of just law? Because we are not archaists, which is an heresy according to the Church. As is typical with debates with you, you twist and mix unjust law with just laws.
[/quote]

I believe in the rule of God, and I believe in the possibility of just laws. I think State politicians are not the ones to be legislating them. There is no such thing as an unjust law. An unjust law is a contradiction in terms. Justice is required in order for there to be a law to begin with.

Anarchism is called a heresy, as you always say, etc. Then you trot out a lot of peripheral documentation that really doesn't address the nature of voluntaryism. Do you charge that it is a heresy against the Catholic faith, or against morality?

~Sternhauser

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='03 May 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1272920149' post='2104336']
I believe in the rule of God, and I believe in the possibility of just laws. I think State politicians are not the ones to be legislating them. There is no such thing as an unjust law. An unjust law is a contradiction in terms. Justice is required in order for there to be a law to begin with.

Anarchism is called a heresy, as you always say, etc. Then you trot out a lot of peripheral documentation that really doesn't address the nature of voluntaryism. Do you charge that it is a heresy against the Catholic faith, or against morality?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Voluntaryism is just a daughter of Anarchism, and since it's pointless to have any debate with you dealing with the rights of States I shall not bother you further.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='03 May 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1272918811' post='2104300']
I enjoy coming to my own conclusions and formulating my own opinions. The Bishops can have theirs, I am keeping mine. Using Bishops as a crutch for one's argument is just not my style.
[/quote]


If you want to follow that logic, then that should apply to all prudential judgments (which political issues are)

Including when it comes to determining which politicians are "pro-life" and thus deserving of a Catholic person's vote.

[KnightofChrist]

During the most recent marches by the Pro-Illegal immigration advocates they attacked Anti-Illegal immigration advocates, and caused 100,000 dollars worth of damage. Oh boy I wonder what would have happened if that happened at one of the "racist" tea party marches! It's also funny that anything that goes against Liberal Doctrine is labeled racist today.

Edited May 3, 2010 by KnightofChrist