Endorsing Sin, Even Venial Is Going Against Church Teachings

[Azriel]

This thread is fast going to become a personal snipping match. Take care that it doesn't become that, please.

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='jasJis' post='970551' date='May 4 2006, 03:17 AM']
I don't buy it. He said it wasn't wrong and not a sin already. Why'd ya ask again? Did your litmus paper get wet?
[/quote]

Because in a previous thread he stated that the only way [b]not [/b] to sin when we feed the hungry is to send them back to their country. I asked again so that he can clarify this qoute of his.

[quote]No one is talking about not feeding the hungry... We are talking about what is a sin and what is not. To break a just law is a sin, does not matter what kind of law it is. It is a federal offense to help illegal immigrants stay in America... this means we cannot give them a job, encourage them to stay in America, and give them a home to live in... this does not mean we can't give them a place to sleep on their way back to where they came from, this does not mean that we cannot give them food when they are hungry during their journey home... Otherwise we break the law and therefore we sin.[/quote]

and then ask him to reconcile it with this

[quote]'I was a stranger and you welcomed me.' Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that 'stranger' in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself.

-Pope John Paul II, Annual message for World Migration Day, 1996[/quote]

I, respectfully take your point of "not buying it" and will make a note of it to clarify myself next time. I have a habit of always asking leading questions and have the person find his errors in his own answers. Sometimes, it doesn't work.

[jasJis]

AoJ,
Have you gone to maybe your Diocese's website or the USCCB's and read their statements? Despite what Mahoney says, the USCCB flatly and clearly states "They do not promote or encourage illegal immigration." Reconcile that with i-monk's statements and you can see where he's coming from.

[Jaime]

[quote name='jasJis' post='970796' date='May 4 2006, 09:57 AM']
AoJ,
Have you gone to maybe your Diocese's website or the USCCB's and read their statements? Despite what Mahoney says, the USCCB flatly and clearly states "They do not promote or encourage illegal immigration." Reconcile that with i-monk's statements and you can see where he's coming from.
[/quote]

Mahoney has never said anything to the contrary of the USCCB (well in regards to immigration anyway, liturgical dance is a different subject altogether)

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='jasJis' post='970796' date='May 4 2006, 07:57 AM']
AoJ,
Have you gone to maybe your Diocese's website or the USCCB's and read their statements? Despite what Mahoney says, the USCCB flatly and clearly states "They do not promote or encourage illegal immigration." Reconcile that with i-monk's statements and you can see where he's coming from.
[/quote]


I never said that I promote illegal immigration. Neither did the Pope. The fact that there are illegal immigrants and nothing short of physically harming them is going to stop them from coming in makes it irrelevant whether you support it or not. They are here. What do you do with them? They will not go back. Call immigration and have them deported? Try it, the INS does not respond. They're hungry and thirsty. What do you do? I try not to sin but I fail miserably everyday. Am I sinning when I know I can't do anything to send them back but feed the anyway? I am asking.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='969433' date='May 3 2006, 06:08 AM']
just because it is against the law, does not make something sinful. Breaking an administrative law is rarely considered sinful, only when one breaks a law that is also a moral law is it a sin.

Also, according to Rodger Cardinal Mahoney of Las Angeles, the exact opposite on what you say above is true. He would argue that it is sinful not to help illegal immigrants. I'd say, its usually best to heed the advice of a cardinal. [/quote]



If a law is considered a just law then it must be followed or otherwise it is an evil action. I love to use speeding as an example here.



If the law is unjust and it calls for evil action (such as the Chinese law to abortion) it must be rejected and the opposite followed. In this case the person must do everything in his power to counter the law and act otherwise.



If the law is unjust and just limiting, then it doesn't have to be necessarily rejected, but it doesn't have to be followed.

[jasJis]

[quote name='AngelofJesus' post='970852' date='May 4 2006, 09:27 AM']
I never said that I promote illegal immigration. Neither did the Pope. The fact that there are illegal immigrants and nothing short of physically harming them is going to stop them from coming in makes it irrelevant whether you support it or not. They are here. What do you do with them? They will not go back. Call immigration and have them deported? Try it, the INS does not respond. They're hungry and thirsty. What do you do? I try not to sin but I fail miserably everyday. Am I sinning when I know I can't do anything to send them back but feed the anyway? I am asking.[/quote]Go to the ArchDiocese of LA's site and do a search on Mahoney's statements on other sites. Compare the two.

Go the the JusticeForImmigrants site and read FAQ. (It's a Catholic site.)

You will find, Mahoney himself states that he is using an "extreme and unlikely" extension of the law to say that their would be a problem with giving charitable aid to illegal immigrants. NOWHERE on the LA Diocese site will you see anything mentioned about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, either condoning or condemming it. Mahoney created the Classic Straw Man argument that caused defeat of real immigration reform.


On the JusticeForImmigrant site and the USCCB site you will see that one of the primary concerns is to stop illegal immigration because it is immoral on many levels and the primary victims are the illegal immigrants. The McCain/Kennedy proposal was a great proposal, but where was the support for it? Quick legal status with a 5 year temporary visa and a clear avenue for Citizenship was sacrificed to to the pyre of emotional reactions that immigrants can't be helped by charity with Mahoney fanning the flames. The fuel of that bonfire was the lives and suffering of the millions of illegal immigrants that are here. The only people warmed by the fire were the power hungry media stars and dishonest politicians. (I won't name names)

The Church is very clear. Moral decisions are simple. A balance of a number of moral principles must be the goal. Misguided postering in this matter serves nobody in need.

You are right, the Church not only does not support illegal immigration, it also condemns it.

-You stop it by removing the motivation. It won't happen in 2 days and there are many aspects.

-They may be here and we need to deal with it. There is not point in encouraging more without a resolution.

-How to deal with the ones here: Provide the ones here with legal status so they can work legally. Penalize the employers who break the laws.

If somebody is dancing on the edge of the cliff, giving them comfortable shoes is not really helping them. Sometimes you have to tackle them and drag them from the edge before you make their feet comfy.

Edited May 4, 2006 by jasJis

[ironmonk]

[quote name='AngelofJesus' post='970785' date='May 4 2006, 10:47 AM']
Because in a previous thread he stated that the only way not to sin when we feed the hungry is to send them back to their country.
[/quote]


No I didn't.

I never wrote that it was our place to send them back in this thread. I wrote that it would be a sin to feed them and encourage them to stay in America...

The only way not to sin is to feed them when they are on their way back to where they came from... Otherwise we sin by breaking the law.

Now, we could be sinning by not reporting them if the law requires us to do so. This is not my opinion, it is Church teachings... only only has to read the Catechism.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Jaime]

[quote]Because in a previous thread he stated that the only way not to sin when we feed the hungry is to send them back to their country.
[/quote]

[quote]No I didn't.
[/quote]



[quote name='ironmonk' post='935232' date='Apr 4 2006, 11:08 AM']



No one is saying do not give food, water, or medical treatment to illegals, nor does the bill even imply this. To assume that Mahony is competant in the matter is foolish. Encouraging someone to stay in America is providing a job and a place to stay... [b]Give illegals food, water, and medical treatment and help them get back to their country of origin if you do not want to sin.
[/b]
It is time people learn to think, and to know how to think one's priorities must be in order... Spirit comes first, everything else is after that. When spiritual needs are first, "NOT sinning" is the first priority.


[/quote]

Yeah you did in another thread.

As was stated.


And I was hoping for a response on my comment about intent.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='971060' date='May 4 2006, 01:09 PM']
No I didn't.

I never wrote that it was our place to send them back in this thread. I wrote that it would be a sin to feed them and encourage them to stay in America...

The only way not to sin is to feed them when they are on their way back to where they came from... Otherwise we sin by breaking the law.

Now, we could be sinning by not reporting them if the law requires us to do so. This is not my opinion, it is Church teachings... only only has to read the Catechism.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[/quote]
LOL

Ever considered going into politics? You're becoming quite the spin master. Next you'll be talking about the definition of "is".

[qfnol31]

Aren't sending someone back and helping them back different things?

It seems that sending them back is implying not working with their free will while helping them back works with it.

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='971888' date='May 4 2006, 11:10 PM']
Aren't sending someone back and helping them back different things?

It seems that sending them back is implying not working with their free will while helping them back works with it.
[/quote]

this is tangental.

[Resurrexi]

would it be a mortal sin to say sin x or sin y is are not sins?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='972358' date='May 5 2006, 11:20 AM']

this is tangental. [/quote]

So are ad hominems.

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='972602' date='May 5 2006, 01:34 PM']
would it be a mortal sin to say sin x or sin y is are not sins?
[/quote]

It would depend on how you see sin x or sin y. If for example you know that they are sins but nonetheless, declare them as not sins, but then it still depends on the gravity of the sins. If on the other hand, you don't know that they are sins, then you may not be culpable of any. Yet, still again depending on the the gravity.

[quote]Philosophical Sin

Those who would construct a moral system independent of God and His law distinguish between theological and philosophical sin. Philosophical sin is a morally bad act which violates the natural order of reason, not the Divine law. Theological sin is a transgression of the eternal law. Those who are of atheistic tendencies and contend for this distinction, either deny the existence of God or maintain that He exercises no providence in regard to human acts. This position is destructive of sin in the theological sense, as God and His law, reward and punishment, are done away with. Those who admit the existence of God, His law, human liberty and responsibility, and still contend for a distinction between philosophical and theological sin, maintain that in the present order of God's providence there are morally bad acts, which, while violating the order of reason, are not offensive to God, and they base their contention on this that the sinner can be ignorant of the existence of God, or not actually think of Him and His law when he acts. Without the knowledge of God and consideration of Him, it is impossible to offend Him. This doctrine was censured as scandalous, temerarious, and erroneous by Alexander VIII (24 Aug., 1690) in his condemnation of the following proposition: "Philosophical or moral sin is a human act not in agreement with rational nature and right reason, theological and mortal sin is a free transgession of the Divine law. However grievous it may be, philosophical sin in one who is either ignorant of God or does not actually think of God, is indeed a grievous sin, but not an offense to God, nor a mortal sin dissolving friendship with God, nor worthy of eternal punishment" (Denzinger-Bannwart, 1290).

This proposition is condemned because it does not distinguish between vincible and invincible ignorance, and further supposes invincible ignorance of God to be sufficiently common, instead of only metaphysically possible, and because in the present dispensation of God's providence we are clearly taught in Scripture that God will punish all evil coming from the free will of man (Romans 2:5-11). There is no morally bad act that does not include a transgression of Divine law. From the fact that an action is conceived of as morally evil it is conceived of as prohibited. A prohibition is unintelligible without the notion of some one prohibiting. The one prohibiting in this case and binding the conscience of man can be only God, Who alone has power over man's free will and actions, so that from the fact that any act is perceived to be morally bad and prohibited by conscience, God and His law are perceived at least confusedly, and a wilful transgression of the dictate of conscience is necessarily also a transgression of God's law. Cardinal de Lugo (De incarnat., disp. 5, lect. 3) admits the possibility of philosophical sin in those who are inculpably ignorant of God, but he holds that it does not actually occur, because in the present order of God's providence there cannot be invincible ignorance of God and His law. This teaching does not necessarily fall under the condemnation of Alexander VIII, but it is commonly rejected by theologians for the reason that a dictate of conscience necessarily involves a knowledge of the Divine law as a principle of morality. [i] Catholic Encyclopedia[/i][/quote]

Edited May 5, 2006 by AngelofJesus