The commitment by Cardinal George to being "never political" is, to put it kindly, unintelligible.
All lobbying is political.
The USCCB goes beyond political. It is a partisan, left-wing organization.
Any time the USCCB takes a position that a Catholic can disagree with without sinning, the USCCB: 1) is taking a partisan political position; 2) is abusing (and progressively eroding) the authority of the bishops who are its members.
It goes without saying that this is true
a fortiori when the USCCB takes a position that a Catholic cannot
agree with without sinning.
A perfect example is this latest, year-long scandal of the USCCB's promoting a totalitarian, collectivist, murderous, financially ruinous, unConstitutional healthcare "reform."
Obamacare is counter to the teaching of the Catholic Church
IN TOTO, yet it had the support of the USCCB until the last moments, when it became clear that abortion funding could not be excised.
No matter what meaningless abortion verbiage the Obamacare legislation MIGHT have contained, Cardinal George and the entire USCCB have known since November of 2008 that ANY "reform" legislation was going to be designed and administered by the most pro-abortion administration in history--with principal regulatory authority being vested in Kathleen Sebelius, the second-most blood-thirsty woman Archbishop Donald Wuerl has ever certified as worthy to receive Holy Communion.
If Cardinal George and the USCCB could swallow the bill itself (just without explicit abortion funding), and the certainty that, even without explicit abortion funding, it would be administered and embellished by Kathleen Sebelius and an army of other infanticide enthusiasts, there is no rational basis for their rejection of the Executive Order that Bart Stupak so pathetically wears to cover his shame.
And yet we have seen, in the space of less than a week, multiple bishops lashing out at Stupak, NETWORK, the LCWR, and the CHA. Shame on them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001219.htm
Cardinal praises expanded health care but fears remain on abortion
Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, talks with Catholic News Service in Washington March 23, shortly after President Barack Obama signed the new health reform package into law. (CNS/Bob Roller)
|
By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops praised new health reform legislation for expanding health care to more Americans but said the bishops and the Catholic community will be watching closely to ensure that the new law does not expand federal funding of abortion.
"We are apprehensive as we look to the future, even as we applaud much of the increased care that will be available," Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago told
Catholic News Service March 23, shortly after U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
"So we will watch basically and try to continue to enter into conversations as a moral voice -- never as a political voice; we've been very careful to insist upon the moral principles that everybody should be cared for and no one should be deliberately killed," he added.
Cardinal George acknowledged in the interview that "the unity of the church has been wounded" in various political actions and conversations surrounding the health reform debate. The USCCB opposed the Senate bill that passed the House March 21, while some Catholic groups and members of Congress supported it.
"We are certainly concerned about division in the church, because bishops have to be the people who are concerned about its unity, about keeping people together around Christ," he said.
"The bishops know that they don't speak for every one of the 61 million Catholics in the country, but what we do is we speak for the Catholic faith itself," he said. "And those who share the faith will gather around."
The cardinal said it remained to be seen whether the executive order promised by Obama would be adequate to keep the status quo on federal funding of abortion.
"The president's executive order puts in some administrative protections that we are very grateful for, but an administrative order doesn't substitute for a statute," he said.
Asked whether he expected church agencies to face difficulties related to abortion in the health reform law, the cardinal said, "We'll see how that plays out in the courts."
"I suspect that there will be court challenges to Catholic medical practice," he added.
Cardinal George also rejected claims by some that the USCCB had allied itself in the health reform debate with groups that were primarily interested in advancing the Republican agenda.
"I really don't think that's true," he said. "The principles are twofold -- everybody taken care of, nobody killed. And I think that moral voice, while it doesn't correspond politically to either party, has been consistent."
Also March 23, the USCCB released a statement by Cardinal George on health reform that was endorsed by the bishops' 32-member Administrative Committee.
The statement noted that the bishops' conference has worked for nearly a century to achieve "reform of our health care system so that all may have access to the care that recognizes and affirms their human dignity."
"As Catholic bishops, we have expressed our support for efforts to address this national and societal shortcoming," it added. "Many elements of the health care reform measure signed into law by the president address these concerns and so help to fulfill the duty that we have to each other for the common good.
"Nevertheless, for whatever good this law achieves or intends, we as Catholic bishops have opposed its passage because there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans to cover abortion," it said.
The statement also said the new law "failed to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protections" and could leave many immigrant workers and families "worse off since they will not be allowed to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges to be created, even if they use their own money."
The statement expressed the belief that "new legislation to address its deficiencies will almost certainly be required."
Without naming any of them, the statement also praised "the principled actions of the pro-life members of Congress from both parties, in the House and the Senate, who have worked courageously to create legislation that respects the principles" outlined by the bishops.
"They have often been vilified and have worked against great odds," it added.
On the other hand, I’m not sure that I would necessarily consider this bill in Arizona to be “mean spirited.” There are the residents of Arizona whose safety we certainly need to be concerned about; I don’t hear that mentioned often in the discussion. It is their safety the state (and federal) government needs to be concerned with, along with their property, crops, livestock, etc. Additionally, 60%of the drugs that enter the US come in through Arizona which is huge national problem. So perhaps it is with good cause that the people of Arizona are “scared” and believe this is a priority.
I’m not sure why the focus is almost exclusively directed at protecting the “rights” of those who have entered the country illegally. Stemming the violence, the crime, the drug trafficking is the responsibility of elected officials and law enforcement. Additionally, the state bill states that it is “to be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens.” It is not as if Arizona’s governor is just acting on a whim. All this legislation did was make it a state crime to be in the country illegally; it is already a federal crime (8 U.S.C. § 1325). Why isn’t anyone calling that a racist? I think it is because the federal government has been so impotent in dealing with the issue that no one views the federal government as doing anything serious about it; therefore, they get a pass. Additionally, the state bill “requires the person’s immigration status to be verified with the federal government pursuant to federal law.” So it is not as if some backwater sheriff is the sole authority on someone’s immigration status; it is still the federal government that determines a person’s eligibility.
I just really don’t feel either side of the argument is doing a good job of presenting an accurate justification for their position; however, my initial feeling is that if the governor of Arizona did a better job of stating her state’s position (i.e. crime statistics, financial data related to immigration, etc) then I would be more inclined to their position.
Before you condemn any political entity for wanting to get the illegal alien problem under control, maybe you should take a look at what illegal aliens are doing to this country.
I’m all for immigration as long as they enter the country legally. We have to know who is entering the country. We need to make sure they are healthy and have no criminal record.
I work in a parish which has a large number of legal and illegal Mexican immigrants. I’ve talked about this issue with some of those who are here legally. They want tighter controls on illegals also. They would like to get their relatives into the country, but the illegals are making that more difficult.
If we start disreguarding the laws which we find inconvenient, how then do we teach our children to obey the laws of our Catholic faith which we find inconvenient or may not fully support or understand?
I am deeply saddened that the leaders of my faith seem to be aligning themselves with human smugglers, drug dealers, and vile criminals …all in the name of \social justice\
All support for the illegal aliens will accomplish is MORE illegal aliens, and every illegal person who comes to this country via Mexico comes through a coyote—to pretend otherwise is foolish.
Karen Williams
Phoenix, AZ
I live 35 miles from the California/Mexico border. EVERY WEEK you can see in the media that the federal authorities (used to be INS, now ICE) conduct sweeps of areas known to harbor illegal immigrants, put them on buses, and process them for deportation. Dept of Homeland Security – Customs and Border Protection does the same thing near my SoCal neighborhood, with its network of ships, airplanes, jeeps, cameras, microphones, etc. The same thing happens in Arizona.
These people are put on buses to Mexico or airplanes to Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, or wherever. This has been going on every day for DECADES. So there’s #1–nothing new.
#2: I have not heard any of the critics mention any country in the world where immigrants are not required to carry papers. Wanna go Mexico? Be sure to bring papers. How about the UK, or Ireland, Australia, or New Zealand? Bring those papers, you’ll need ‘em if you don’t want to be deported.
I do hope for some kind of immigration reform, but those who entered this country illegally have made it unfair for those who follow the procedures necessary to enter the country. To support this illegal activity is kind of like applauding someone for cutting in line when the people who got in line first have been waiting for hours.
On top of it all, after entering illegally, these people who came seeking for a better life often get the worst working conditions, unfair pay, etc. And from my understanding, they do pay certain taxes (deducted before it gets into their paychecks), but are too scared to redeem many benefits for fear of being deported.
This law, however, has way too much potential for abuse by authority figures and I do not see it lasting. Some reform is needed.
A few points about the draconian nature of the bill…
One is that there are numerous Arizonans who are “brown skinned” (the use of that language causes me to shudder) and are of Mexican heritage. Their families have been in Arizona long before it was Arizona. Now they have to produce “proof” of who they are? I personally find that, as an American and as a Catholic, appalling. And I say this as a Catholic who had a Jewish father. I do not have to scratch the surface very far to think of my own relatives who had to carry and produce identification that ultimately lead to their own suffering and untimely deaths.
To those who wish to say it is different, it is not. The good people of that time had many of the same “justifications” that I see here and elsewhere.
Another point is that this burdens numerous already over-burdened law enforcement agencies in Arizona. Imagine that the NYC police would have to take this on… Think on that for a moment and imagine its implications.
Who is speaking of the “rights” of those who have entered illegally? I don’t know about anyone else, but I think that this issue and Archbishop Dolan’s post are an invitation into a greater understanding of basic human dignity. We live in such perilous and punitive times; God have mercy on us all.
My final point would be that we must all approach the topics that are most visceral for us and the things that make us uncomfortable with great curiosity and not just steadfastness. If we do so with our faith and the enormity of our great Catholic tradition, we might all be astounded as to where we are led. I remind myself of this as well as there are numerous issues that my faith challenges me to see with new eyes. Such is the process of our faith.
Additionally, arguing this bill is of “questionable constitutionality,” also without any additional citation is a bit much for me. I and others have read the bill a few times looking for sound constitutional arguments against it, and I’m hard pressed to find any winners at this point.
Finally, I think the Archbishop’s comments, probably unintentionally, runs afoul of Rerum Nevarum and the dignity of the human person in a sense. Here he says “[f]rom even a purely business point of view, a warm welcome to immigrants is known to be good for the economy and beneficial for a society.” He’s right, “from…a purely business point of view,” it most certainly is – because illegal aliens (a distinction the Archbishop does not make in his post, to the point of conflation with legal immigrant) are seen as purely cheap labor by big business – an “economic unit” as Teddy Roosevelt warned against. This kind of mentality is not what the Catholic Church’s teachings should be condoning by using it as a secondary argument for amnesty, and the further erosion of national citizenship.
I hope that the Archbishop may revisit this issue with this in mind.
Recall the concept of “Newspeak” in 1984 — if you control the language, you control the way people express things, and therefore, ultimately, how they look at things.
The Catholic Church is already characterized as anti-science. Our political culture got hold of the language during the stem cell wars and cleverly moved the language away (with considerable help from the like-minded media) from distinguishing between embryo and adult stem cells. Consequently, though we are only opposed to anti-life embryo destruction, we are portrayed as opposed to “stem cell research” in the public square.
Pro-choice. Anti-choice. Not abortion. Not life. Get the language and control the argument.
The Church is on course to do the same with immigration unless we carefully distinguish between illegal and legal immigration. The Arizona bill is about illegal immigration and the problems of border enforcement, crime, public safety and God knows what else in that state. Illegal immigrants. Not all immigrants. It is not about whether we are for immigrants or against them.
Those of us not in conformity with the bishops on this issue should not be characterized as anti-immigrant, even in a subtle way. This is not the America that my immigrant grandmother and father raised their families in. It is a left-leaning, progressive, pro-death America getting worse by the day. It does not reflect Catholic values. It does not have God anywhere is the narrative. How long will it be before the immigrant unborn will be tossed on the altar of Planned Parenthood abortuaries in the name of progress towards the American dream? I will never agree to cooperate with the present political culture.
First, it is worth pointing out to many of the people who are justifying themselves as a child/grandchild/great-grandchild of immigrants: if you shake your family tree, something uncomfortable may fall out. My father immigrated to the U.S. in 1939; it was only after he died and we went through his papers that we discovered he was an illegal immigrant who got his status regularized some years after the fact. My wife discovered that her grandfather was an illegal immigrant who never got things sorted out.
Third, in practice the Arizona law will be used to target Hispanics, and many of them will be US Citizens. I really doubt that an illegal immigrant from Ireland or Poland (among the largest groups of illegal immigrants here in CT) will be stopped or questioned about their citizenship if they are stopped. However, when this was tried back in the past, Mexican-Americans in LA were routinely stopped and asked for their papers. Cheech Marin ridicules this in his movie “Born in East LA”: the hero, who can barely speak Spanish, is deported because he can’t prove he is an American.
Second, disabuse yourselves of the notion that illegal immigrants are here to rob, steal and murder. Most of them want jobs. As Barbara Ehrenreich said, you can only compare illegal immigrants to people breaking into your house if the people breaking in clean your bathroom and wash your dishes.
“mean-spirited”
similar to the “KKK”
“To blame them,
stalk them,
outlaw them,
harass them,
and consider them outsiders”
Also, in New York there are not 500,000 ILLIEGAL Latino, Haitian, Asian and mid-eastern neighbors, they mostly came according to the law..I am sure there are a few illegals.
The bill wants to enforce legislation against ILLEGAL immigrants. We are all for LEGAL immigration.
“Do you imagine that a State can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power”~ Plato
I believe that you say what you do out of belief that it is the right thing.
However, so do I. I live on the border. My great-grandparents were in Mexico in the 1800s and came to the United States in 1910, during the Mexican revolution. I look white though and because of that have an understanding of both sides of the issue.
These facts have forced me to study the Church’s teachings on immigration. I know for a fact that I can, with the full authority of the Magisterial Church, disagree with you on this issue. And I do in spades.
You need to be here to be able to fit the facts of the situation to the template of Church teaching.
I will not go into it all. I would have to write a thesis. But if you give amnesty or if you allow these people to stay in the United States you will be doing the following:
Imbedding the drug lords and the smugglers into this society permanently because every illegal and legal Mexican is related to them by blood, marriage or transaction and live in fear of them. That fear makes it impossible to turn them in, to fail to cooperate with them and to fail to pay them protection money for the family left in Mexico.
Go beyond decimating Mexico. There are 12 to 20 or more million illegals in the U. S.
If they get amnesty and each bring in two people pursuant to family reunification, that means 36 to 60 million people here from Mexico out of a population of 100 million. My Mexican relatives down there speak about the need for Mexico to wake up and quit sending their children out of the country thereby destroying the Mexican family.
Failing to distinguish between refugees, asylum seekers and just plain illegal immigrants. The former deserve our hospitality to the extent we are able. The oridindary illegal alien does not.
Failing as a Shepherd of all the people, including legal American residents, to support justice for all, such as the legal who has lost their identity or their job.
Failing to speak out against the exploitive corporations who use these poor people for slaves and the pandering politicians who want them for votes.
Failing to speak out on the whole of the Church’s teaching which says the first solution is to help the sending countries fix their own social problems (JPII and B16)
We cannot afford this. Neither can the sending countries.
Please rethink this issue and encourage your brother bishops to do the same. And please quit spending Catholic money on a negotiable social issue. Save it for the non-negotiables like abortion etc.
Thank you.
It is so dishonest to speak of injustices against immigrants of the past who came legally and those illegally entering the country today, as though they were comparable situations.
What about the civil rights of U.S. citizens being harmed and even murdered on their own property by illegals?
The Archbishop makes it hard to have respect for him with such a dishonest statement.
My nephew is a border guard in southern California. The stories he tells are gut wrenching. He will tell you that a good number of the people are desperately trying to make a new life in America – some die on their way across, and many are within an inch of death and would die were it not for border guards finding them and hydrating them and being good Samaritans. But he will also tell you that a substantial number of people are seasoned, hardened criminals, drug traffickers and human kidnappers who, among many other heinous things, have killed his partner.
If it is true that, \every society has the duty to protect its borders and thoughtfully monitor its population,\ then how can it also be true that those who seek to uphold the law are only doing so, \To blame them, stalk them, outlaw them, harass them, and consider them outsiders…\ After all, are illegal immigrants not \outsiders?\ Are they not \outlaws?\ No – blaming, stalking and harassing them is not the answer. But should they be allowed to stay? And what of the hardened illegal alien criminals conducting drug war operations in the streets of Phoenix? Allow them to stay as well? God is not only all merciful but He is all just as well, no?
What of the millions who are legal immigrants (like the ones you herald in your letter and from which I derive my lineage — Irish and Lebanese)? Is it justice for them that an illegal alien is doing a job they should be doing? Is it justice for all of the thousands of \outsiders\ who are patiently and legally waiting to come to America that illegals are allowed to willy-nilly \jump the line?\
I really am torn, and I really would love a world without borders. But then I remember that even Jesus wanted some things that he ultimately did not get: a repentant Judas, a converted bad thief, a merciful Pilate. In my heart, I really am torn between justice and mercy on this one your eminence, and your essay left me even more unsettled.
I deeply admire your defense of innocent human life from the womb to the tomb and I completely respect your authority as teacher of the faith.
Most Respectfully, in Christ,
Jim Simon
1897 “Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all.”
By “authority” one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.
1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.
1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
Now none of us oppose LEGAL immigration. But we DO oppose ILLEGAL immigration. If I went to Mexico without a passport or other appropriate documentation, then I would be arrested and thrown in jail and rightly so.
This liberal, progressive attitude that has infiltrated the Church has got to be extinguished. No one of us hates or disrespects Hispanics or Arabs or Indians or whatever. BUT each of us MUST follow the LAW. IF you do NOT, THEN you SHOULD get thrown into jail just as Romans 13:1-7 states.
Finally, I am most disturbed by what your statement naturally implies: that Catholics have an obligation to agree with it simply because a bishop has spoken. I wonder if you realize the position you bishops put us in. We have a moral obligation to assent to our bishop when he speaks on faith or morals but we have no such obligation when he offers his prudential political opinions. When you continually blur the distinction between the two situations you put us at risk of failing our moral obligation because we misjudge the character of your comments. I believe your statements here are your opinion, with which I respectfully disagree, but if I am wrong then you need to correct me. Am I morally bound to accept your comments? That is a yes or no question.
This is NOT a matter of faith and morals. This has to do with following the duly constituted laws of our country an enforcing them.
Certainly, the key principle is unavoidable. I just had a good friend from Colombia who completed all of the requirements of becoming a citizen legally–all of the costs and bureaucratic red tape.
But you think that people who do not follow our laws–whatever their ethnicity–should be given a pass on our laws–even when it threatens the security of the inhabitants of our country?
WHY do the U.S. bishops like you and Cardinal Mahony wade into areas of political and economic topics that are WAY outside of your competence? Repeatedly? For 40-plus years?
Stick to teaching the Faith. There is NOTHING in our Faith about allowing illegal immigrants into our country and allow them to threaten the well being of those who are here legally. That is about as simple as it gets.
It is not about racism or any other motivations you want to attribute to citizens of this country. It is about national security.
How can it be unconstitutional to ask for identification or proof of legal status from someone when they are pulled over?
Why can’t the Archbishop acknowledge that laws are being broken by illegal immigrants?
This statement will only add to the fractured nature of this country’s discourse that is increasingly becoming pointless. Can’t we have any conversations anymore without resorting to name calling, labeling, and finger pointing? The Church should be the source of the reasoned, balanced, thoughtful analysis and guidance that comes after several slow, deep breaths.
I revere you as one who is an Apostle, one who is Jesus to us. What dismays me is that it seems there has been a slight shift in the discussion by the USCCB. The issue is NOT about racism or ethnocentrism, it is about legal vs Illegal status of immigrants. Yes, companies/corporations who use illegals in their work force need to be penalized for the abuse, but THEY promote the illegal immigration flow into this country and it must be stopped. But this is not an anti-immigration issue, it is as Brian says above, an issue of national security. And also, there needs to be enforcement of the current laws, and since our Federal government is not taking the bull by the horns, Arizona is.
It is very reminiscent of the Stem-Cell discussion where Embryonic and Adult are intertwined to create a perception that being against the intrinsically evil Embryonic Stem Cell research is somehow being against Morally acceptable Adult-Stem Cell research. The same confusion is being sown here.
We are speaking about illegal immigration not legal immigration. We would not be a country if not for legal immigrants. This is a fact that no intelligent person denies but it is scandalous to attribute this racist view to the supporters of the AZ and existing Federal Law. The people of AZ want their state back.
I greatly admire and appreciate you and the gift that you are to our Church is this present day. I’m also stunned at your words, for I find them grossly unfair and insulting. It is not immigration that people object to but ILLEGAL immigration. If the laws concerning immigration can be broken and ignored, why obey ANY law of the U.S.? You say in passing that our nation has a duty to protect its borders, but how exactly are we permitted to do that? The current laws are not enforced and every attempt to strengthen them is met with charges of racism and inhumanity and accusations of hate and fear.
The immigrants who came to Ellis Island seemed a very different sort. They came legally, they obeyed the laws, they built businesses, they learned the language, paid taxes and became citizens. They did not abuse and take advantage of the system. Now we have sanctuary cities that protect criminals who are here illegally. We seem to grant more protection under the law to illegal aliens than to our own citizens. When is it fair to say “enough is enough?”
The Church expects her own laws and traditions to be upheld; why not the laws of our nation?
How hurtful it is that you compare those who support this reasonable immigration law to the members of the KKK! No one wishes to harm any immigrant or persecute them because of their race or creed. We simply want our nation’s laws to be obeyed!
I am dismayed that you would say with a mocking tone that Arizona is “so scared” that they passed a “mean-spirited” bill that solely aims to expel the immigrant. Have we already forgotten Robert Krentz, the rancher who was shot to death on his own property by an ILLEGAL immigrant? Of course the state is alarmed! They should be! But it is not mean-spirited to seek greater law enforcement, and it is uncalled for to accuse them of wanting to expel every immigrant. I don’t believe that is their desire, or the desire of anyone else in America.
You seem to speak as though for the Church, and your words carry great weight and influence. If you oppose this legislation, be specific. Why? What exactly does it allow that is inhumane or mean-spirited? And tell us how exactly our nation is permitted to enforce its laws without violating the call to welcome the immigrant. Is there ANY obligation on the part of the immigrant?
Please do not be so quick to portray those who support this law as anti-immigration. That is not the case. It’s about ILLEGAL immigration!
God bless you and keep you.
You are not teaching what the Catholic Church teaches; you are parroting the line of the Democrat Party. Not only do you caricature the new law, you caricature the bare, concrete facts of the situation in Arizona, as many previous commenters have ably pointed out. The issue is not immigration, but ILLEGAL immigration. The issue is not “nativism,” “bigotry,” “racism,” or any of the other devil-words pushed by Democrat talking points and other politically partisan bishops.
The issue is drug trade, kidnapping and human trafficking, home invasions, decapitation and other forms of terror, and murder. Not to mention the overarching agenda of the Democrat Party–to build a permanent, socialist, pro-abortion voting bloc by importing vast numbers of dependent, ill-educated people with no understanding of the U.S. Constitution or American culture.
Like your recent jaw-dropping statement that the pro-abortion Governor of New York is “a Catholic who takes his Christian faith seriously,” this latest effusion leads me to believe that the magisterium of the Democrat Party needs to grow less, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church needs to grow greater.