www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Orthodox Church in support of Putin: yes to crack down on immigra

You're an individual. You can do what you want. That is what Christ wants you to do. But, as St. Paul notes, because of the fall, governments are put over us, and governments must attempt to act justly within the confines of this world, employing their prudential judgment. That's why we pray for them at every liturgy.

Now, a person can rightly conclude that Christ's call for us to turn the other cheek requires him to renounce violence in all circumstances, and adopt a stance of radical pacifism. But a king, prime minister or president cannot do that, because he has responsibilities that extend beyond his own personal preferences and even beyond his own soul. One cannot impose pacifism on another person, let alone on a nation, and anyone who tries to do so is violating the integrity of another person. No one who is a radical pacifist should be allowed to hold a position of authority over others.

The matter of immigration is not so stark, but the same principle pertains: you may think the teachings of the Church demand open borders, but those elected or appointed to rule over us must consider the entire res publica as well as enforcing the laws which are on the books--laws which St. Paul says we must obey (or at least take the consequences of our disobedience).

As for the redistribution of wealth, again, you misread scripture and have decided that what is a personal mandate for radical metanoia is something the state should impose on all others. Again, it is a matter of prudential judgment, and here a degree of humility and retrospection on your part is needed: ask yourself just when, in all the history of mankind, has any sort of coerced redistribution of wealth ever brought anything other than misery, poverty and injustice upon mankind? Like all utopian attempts to create paradise by human means, they have failed, and the failure is marked by the graves of millions. Is that something for which you want personally to be responsible?

Please don't speak for anyone else. And please, don't ever put yourself in a position where you have the power to make decisions for other people.

a few issues.

1)Why the disjointed policy in the US? If someone comes over the border from Mexico, they are to be deported.. yet the same story from Cuba and they are to be embraced?

2)The issue of disrespecting the human dignity of the immigrant, whether illegal or not, is a Christian issue. When it comes to our Catholic brothers and sisters, their Catholic faith should trump any legal status as to how they are treated by fellow Catholics. This is not to say their illegal status shouldn't be questioned, or that one can disagree with what they are doing, but would you turn in your brother, sister, mom or dad to ICE? I wouldn't, why should an illegal immigrant - who's done nothing illegal but the obvious - fare worse?

3)Why should the individual illegal immigrant be treated worse than those exploiting their services for cheap illegal labor? Fr. Benedict Groeschel has a few choice words for you if you want to know what Christ thinks about that.

4)Take it for what you will, but if it wasn't for the illegal Catholics coming over the border, this country would have been vehemently neo-protestant and atheist a long time ago. Those old Christian protestant centers have already fallen away, including those integrated Irish, Italian, E. European, etc neighborhoods. Those unintegrated pockets, it seems, retains one's faith against the secular majority.

Actually, my fault for not making myself more clear. I was not referring to immigration policy, but rather to this post:



Much of what we were force fed in school was nothing more than the same nationalist crappola that the Chinese kids are fed about their country, the Russian kids are fed about their country, and etc.

In other words, jingoistic nonsense of a high caliber.

I have no problem with closing and banning our borders. Please don't misunderstand me here. I deviated from the path of discussion regarding our borders to address what I see as a mindset that, quite frankly, bothers me when I see it in Catholics. We are Catholic first and Americans second, and our behavior should line up as such.

Well said, Irish.

For my part I have given the better part of 60 years to living in a Secular Society. I can't say that I have found it any better or worse than had I lived in a Theocracy as say the Iranian or Saude government purports to be. The regret that I have is that many times I DID delegate my responsibilities to the government when I had a moral responsibility to become involved and make my voice heard.

In recent days---these last two years--- I have begun to awaken a bit and have begun to accept that I owe a level of intervention over and above just being "a good citizen". What I should have been doing with my life was to harden or toughen myself so that when an unpopular or minority view needed to be taken I could stand my ground and not be swayed. Can't say I've been very dilligent about this.....but maybe its "better late than never". At any rate, if the government comes to throw its power down, expect me to follow my Conscience first, and THEN observe the Law. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

What part of your conscience differs from those who choose to emmigrate legally?

Honestly, J, I don't think I draw a distinction. The people who emmigrate legally follow their conscience. The people who emmigrate illegally follow THEIR conscience and the people who support either group----or both---follow THEIR conscience. I think that I draw the line at delegating my responsibility to follow my conscience to a hired offical or bureaucrat.

As most educated folks know, the Nurenburg Defense (IE. "I was just following orders.") does not hold up in a court of law. I tend to hold that it does not hold up when one is called to account for their conduct in a Spirtual sense, either.

I hold that we are given Free Will and questions of this sort are exactly the furnace in which such Free Will is tried. Other questions such as "are Muslim Extremists my brothers?" and "What is the purpose of an individuals' dominion over their own body?" are similar anvils upon which our Spirits are forged. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

So, for you to be persuaded, you would have to be convinced that it is immoral (sinful) to sneak into another country illegally against that country's will. The morality thus determined, your conscience would, presuming it was a moral conscience, follow.

Isn't the sinfulness of this action self-evident?

In other words, why not just emigrate through legal channels?

A friend of mine is from Mexico. He was born there and lived there as a child, and moved with his family while still relatively young to the US. He's in his early 20s now and is still in the process of acquiring citizenship. He is even married to an American citizen. But he's here legally.

Why do you say that this is like sending somebody to a Nazi death camp?

<div style="display:none">
</div>

I can only conclude that you are being willfully obtuse on this subject.... or at least in reading my posts. Actually I think I am being particularly clear.

a.) I am making a case for a moral decision and believe that decision surpasses legalities. I believe it is immoral to flaunt American conspicuous consumption around the World and then to attempt to control who will have access to opportunties to enjoy that abundance. I believe that Americans themselves understand and appreciate this moral issue as even Americans have taken exception to the artificial strictures placed on control of wealth and power in the US.

b.) I am not judging anyone else for THEIR decisions.

I'm afraid that is just about as clear and concise as I can be on the subject.

That said, may I now take issue with the manner in which you have expressed yourself.

a.) Whether or not what I have done----or advocated--- is a "sin" is a determination made by God. We are given guidelines and mandates to follow during this life. Whether our actions are a "sin" or not is something that is determined by God as He examines the motives of our heart. Some people know already that they have "sinned" because they already know the rules and what the nature of their motives were at the time.

b.) Having said that it is very apparent, at least to me, that you are unable or unwilling, to discriminate between what is an "immoral" act and what is an "illegal" act. Not all illegal acts are immoral, and not all immoral acts are illegal.

Again, I think I have been prety clear about all of this. What part of what I have just written do you not understand?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Now we're getting somewhere. You believe that the very notion of citizenship or borders at all are immoral (those being the methods of control).

I believe that taxation is immoral. Would you advise me to not pay taxes? Or am I still morally obligated to pay them? Don't tell me that it's up to me, I want to gain insight into your conscience by seeing what you would advise.


Nobody said otherwise.


You are appealing to conscience as a reason to morally break a secular law. But as we know, our consciences must be fully formed and informed for them to guide us in such a path that, on the face of it, is indeed immoral (breaking the law).

What I think that means is that you need to explain to us why your conscience tells you that every human has an innate right to be a citizen of the United States. You've asserted it, but I don't think you've attempted to explain why exactly that is, other than something about "flaunting consumption." Can you elaborate?


An illegal act is immoral until it can be proved otherwise. I'm all for proving otherwise, and believe in such instances myself. I just need to go on more than taking your word for it if I am to agree with you.

So let's hear it.

Regardless of the morality or immorality of a particular law, there is nothing about acting in accordance with an informed conscience that says Christians are not required to face the consequences of their actions. You break the law, you go to jail, conscience or no.

I'm sorry, J, but I think we will just need to agree to disagree.

The Nurenburg Laws were passed during the 3rd Reich and many up-held them. The Laws were still immoral. Segregation in America and South Africa was the Law, but it was immoral as well. Flipping the coin over it is not illegal to be selfish, lazy, lie or fail to assist those in need or distress. I believe it IS immoral. Most of us grew-up on stories of people who defied Laws and were martyred for their Faith and those conditions have not gone away even if we ARE in the 21st Century.

If you ever want a fine example of what happens to a country that confuses what the populace owe their country with what they own their Faith you may want to reflect on the years 1965 to 1975 here in the US. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I think that goes without saying, don't you? Gandhi went to prison numerous times in his life and was ultimately murdered by an extremist. Sir Thomas More was beheaded for following his conscience. Nobody said doing the right thing was easy
.....at least nobody said it to me.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

If that's what you want, I was just asking you to explain how your conscience was formed in this. I'll be checking to see if you decide to explain it either way.


You can make that analogy all you want, the problem is that you are using this example to pre-suppose that the enforcement of borders or citizenship is de facto immoral, without first demonstrating WHY. The analogy will only apply if you can (at least attempt to) demonstrate HOW the two are similar, rather than just repeatedly asserting it.


If you're talking about Vietnam, that is more of the same type of argument. Just making the comparison without explaining how they are analogous doesn't mean anything. You have to back up what you are saying, otherwise there's no reason for anybody to take it seriously.

And as Stuart points out, as far as the Vietnam analogy goes in this sense, there is a very big moral difference between going to prison for following your conscience and refusing to be conscripted, and running to Canada.

There are plenty of Vietnamese Americans living in my neighborhood who see the Vietnam war as a just--indeed, noble and selfless conflict by the United States in support of the people of South Vietnam, who, whatever their feelings about the government in Saigon, had no desire whatsoever to be governed by the communist regime in Hanoi. More than a million of them died, either in "reeducation camps" or at sea in rickety boats fleeing to freedom after the United States shamefully abandoned an ally whose security it had sworn to guarantee when the Paris Peace Agreement was signed.