Cardinal Roger Mahony

[Shawn]

A disturbing look at the liberal double standards and hypocrisy of the man leading the anti-American campaign for continued illegal "immigration".


[url="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/neumayr200604120719.asp"]http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/neum...00604120719.asp[/url]

[Snarf]

-"liberal" and "anti-American" in the same sentence.
-an article that doesn't say a word on moral concerns of the bill in question

What more could I ask for?

[Aloysius]

wow... amazing ad hominem attack on a prince of the Church.

I don't often agree with the good cardinal; especially on liturgical and theological matters but also on political matters, but this artical is nothing but an ad hominem argument against the man laced with a couple references to Church teaching.

Cardinal Mahoney has ordered his priests that they are to, regardless of the law, offer aid to anyone who comes to the Church asking for it. It doesn't matter what issues he has been wrong on before, what matters is this issue alone. And this is not about having an open border, it's about the Church refusing to ask for proof of citizenship before offering aid--something the state has absolutely no jurisdiction over the Church to ask her to do.

The good cardinal's statements do not advocate disobeying legitimate border laws, they advocate disobeying laws that would be unjust.

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='953569' date='Apr 18 2006, 09:32 PM']
wow... amazing ad hominem attack on a prince of the Church.

I don't often agree with the good cardinal; especially on liturgical and theological matters but also on political matters, but this artical is nothing but an ad hominem argument against the man laced with a couple references to Church teaching.

Cardinal Mahoney has ordered his priests that they are to, regardless of the law, offer aid to anyone who comes to the Church asking for it. It doesn't matter what issues he has been wrong on before, what matters is this issue alone. And this is not about having an open border, it's about the Church refusing to ask for proof of citizenship before offering aid--something the state has absolutely no jurisdiction over the Church to ask her to do.

The good cardinal's statements do not advocate disobeying legitimate border laws, they advocate disobeying laws that would be unjust.
[/quote]

I agree.

[Snarf]

So what you're saying is, Aloysius, you hate America. </sarcasm>

[Shawn]

Ad Hominem is a personal attack on the individual. The article does not do that, it attacks the Bishops stated views and policies. Therefore its not Ad Hominem.

The "good" Bishops orders to disobey the law were and are not about disobeying an "unjust" law but a perfectly just one that would protect US citizens from Hispanic drug runners and gangs.

And of the "good" Bishop was remotely concerned about "justice" then why did he petition Clinton to pardon a known and convicted drug trafficker Carlos Vignali?

I notice that none of the posts above deal with this inconveniant fact.

Bishops are human beings. They sometimes do and say bad and even evil things. In this case getting Vignali pardoned, a man responsible for the deaths and suffering of thousands, for no better reason than pressure from local Hispanics, is simply evil and a caricature of justice.

Therefore it is reasonable to question his moral judgemnent on other issues when he is so cleally only concerned with appeasing Hispanic activists, and not particularly concerned with supporting pro-life activists.

What all this seems to prove is that the "good" Bishop is concerned more with racial politics, not justice.

"Good"?

I dont think so.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Shawn

[Aloysius]

I'm making no attempt to defend his previous actions.

the ad hominem nature of the artical is to not address the issue but to smear the cardinal's name saying he's just an ignoramous pushing some liberal agenda so we should automatically oppose this effort as unamerican.

the issue is this: the state has no authority to control who the Church gives aid to.

if Cardinal Mahoney commanded his priests to help illegal immigrants get accross the border, that would be wrong.

and clearly you're focusing ad hominem in your last post. I use "good" as a term of respect for an office of the Church, and you argue how he's not "good" making only one reference to the actual immigration law in question. a past decision Cardinal Mahoney made has no bearing on this.

the fact is that a priest of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is absolutely under no obligation to become an enforcer of the border and immigration laws of this infant nation. a priest has the sacred duty to offer aid to those who request it and CANNOT be bound by any state to validate their legal citizenship.

more border secuirity... fine. more enforcements of immigration laws... alright. deport all illegal immigrants... perfectly within the state's authority. require priests to enforce those laws by not offering food, drink, shelter, and the sacraments unless citizenship can be validated-- outside of the state's authority and unjust.

All Cardinal Mahoney said, and I have read his statement so correct me if I don't remember correctly, is that his priests should indiscriminantly offer aid even if the law says they shouldnt. That is the right and duty of the Holy Catholic Church, the American Government cannot forbid it and the Church should not subject herself to any law which does.

[jasJis]

It's not an 'as-hominem' attack. You just can't handle the Truth.
[quote]
The Catholic Church has never taught that a nation can't pass immigration laws or protect its border. If anything, Mahony's encouragement of border lawbreaking is alien to the Church's tradition of respecting the state's legitimate concerns; it represents a modernist outgrowth of an individualistic morality that places extreme emphasis on "rights" and no emphasis at all on duties. To the liberal bishops, breaking a country's immigration laws is not a sin but an entitlement — a position that would come as a surprise to their forebears, who considered Caesar worthy of respect.

Mahony's de facto calls for civil disobedience on immigration would be more persuasive if it could be demonstrated that he understood the natural-law basis for the distinction between a just and an unjust law. Unfortunately, there's little evidence of this; indeed, it is ironic that a famously modernist bishop like Mahony, who normally treats the concept of natural law as a pre-Vatican II relic, suddenly cites it when justifying illegal immigration.[/quote]The fact is, Cardinal Mahoney has encouraged civil disobedience without the proper balance of respecting the legitimate authority of the United States. Furthermore, the article does provide evidence to support the duplicity of Mahoney. If you want to claim an ad-hominem attack, then provide something that counters the comments of the juror, the comments of the ex-priest, and the drug-king fiasco.

[Aloysius]

He has ordered priests not to follow any law that would stop them from offering aid to anyone. He has not ordered priests to smuggle illegal immigrants over the border. The United States Government has no authority to forbid the Church from offering aid to anyone she sees fit and as such any law to the contrary would not be an exercise of the legitimate authority of the United States.

The artical focuses on Cardinal Mahoney, not on the position that priests should offer aid to illegal immigrants regardless of the law. It misrepresents his position in the first place, he has not denied the right of the US to protect its border he has denied the right of the US to order his priests to verify citizenship before offering aid. I call that government tyranny against Christ's Church and the good cardinal is perfectly courageous and right about refusing to obey it. It doesn't mean he hates america.

His status as a famous modernist bishop is irrelevent. His previous political misdeeds erroneous. His position on this issue is the position of Christ's Church: no government, especially not some infant democracy of infanticide, has the authority to prevent the priests of the Holy Roman Catholic Church from administering aid to any person, legal or illegal, citizen of the US, Mexico, or Ethiopia.

Again, to be clear, the good cardinal has only ordered his priests to disobey any law which would require them to become agents of the United States Government verifying citizenship before offering aid. If the FBI wants to discover whether a person is a citizen or not, let them investigate. But our priests will not be their informants.

teeheehee it feels good to actually be able to defend the good cardinal for a change...

[jasJis]

If that's the way you want to look at it or spin it, who am I to change your mind. The article illuminates the core duplicity of Cardinal Mahoney. It's only YOU who is qualifying his 'directions' with temperance. I didn't want to believe the Easter Bunny wasn't real either.

[Aloysius]

Read the Cardinal's statement about his priests disobeying the law. I'm defending what the cardinal actually said; this artical is distorting it.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

The irony here is this.

People accuse liberals and progressives of being solely concerning uniquely and exclusively with temporal and not spiritual things.

Therefore, assuming this to be true, it is impossible that the Cardinal may in fact ever be considered with the spiritual well being of an immigrant, and therefore must necessarily have some sort of overarching maniacal sub-plot to his opinion over this bill.

SHALOM

[jasJis]

[quote name='MC IMaGiNaZUN' post='953841' date='Apr 19 2006, 08:49 AM']
The irony here is this.

People accuse liberals and progressives of being solely concerning uniquely and exclusively with temporal and not spiritual things.

Therefore, assuming this to be true, it is impossible that the Cardinal may in fact ever be considered with the spiritual well being of an immigrant, and therefore must necessarily have some sort of overarching maniacal sub-plot to his opinion over this bill.

SHALOM
[/quote]The 'Cardinal' has repeatedly failed to consider the spiritual well being of his 'flock'. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it probably isn't a dog.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

[quote name='jasJis' post='953913' date='Apr 19 2006, 11:08 AM']
The 'Cardinal' has repeatedly failed to consider the spiritual well being of his 'flock'. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it probably isn't a dog.
[/quote]

Perhaps the Cardinal doesnt seem very credible.

My point being, that it seems impossible to reconcile this idea that the Cardinal, in this particular instance is actually insisting on the spiritual well-being of immigrants. Now, as far as i have understood the Cardinals point to be, is that this law he is questioning is unjust, because (reductio ad absurdum) it would require the church to ask for documents on all people who step forward for communion. The church cannot come, if in good conscience an immigrant comes for the sacraments, and would then be punished for it.

Perhaps i will just be dismissed as outright naive for even considering an ideal situation as that as plausible, and making the law questionable. I am not here to debate the merits of the law.

What has gone on here, is an ad hominem attack on Cardinal Mahony. An ad hominem is a personal attack on an arguer in order to avoid and dismiss their arguement. Little has been done to acknowledge the arguement. I am just here, trying to make sure this doesnt turn into some awkward smear campaign. Not to say i am behind the Cardinal in all this, and would not prefer to even attempt to defend his mistake in regards to the drug trafficker. However, such arguements only discredit the Cardinal, and not his point.

SHALOM

(Just another thing in his defense, the Cardinal has been displayed in the local media as a conspiring arch-conservative child abuser. The simple fact is that the Cardinal is pretty progressive in political matters, but the local media does not recognize it at all. His controversial assertions and challenges over immigration, i think may in fact just be his attempts to show that he is notso politically conservative, but i could be wrong)

[Aloysius]

He doesn't just need to be concerned with the spiritual well-being of the immigrants. The state also does not have the right to regulate who the Catholic Church offers food, water, clothing, or shelter to.