Arizona Catholic Bishops support open borders

COVID-19 Response

Like everyone else, we urge you to wash your hands and engage in social distancing.

Unlike everyone else, we urge you to also help with this smart plan to get more tests, ventilators, and PPE. Everyone can do that plan right now, at home, in just 15 minutes.

If enough people help with the plan we can save lives. Take time out now and help get more desperately-needed supplies.

From this:
The bishops of Arizona are calling on Catholics to welcome immigrants into their parishes, whether documented or undocumented, and to work to reform the U.S. immigration laws in an effort to facilitate immigration and stem the growing number of migrant deaths at the U.S.-Mexico border...
How about working to reform Mexico's corrupt system? Isn't that the real way to solve this problem? (Along with not encouraging corruption here by making illegal immigration even worse.)
...They acknowledged "the legitimate strain of this crisis" on different aspects of society, but they reminded Catholics of their call "to live out the principles of global solidarity" and to defend the human dignity of the other...

...Catholic social teaching has consistently maintained that the goods of the earth belong to all people and that it is the right of the worker to migrate to sustain their family when they are unable to achieve a life of dignity in their own land, the bishops underlined...
Say what now? Private and state property has now been abolished? Perhaps we should tell that to Vatican City and start discussing how best to share all the real estate holdings of the Catholic Church.
...And while Catholic teaching recognizes that nations have the right to control their own borders and to regulate immigration, "this right is not absolute," said the bishops. Instead, they explained: "the needs of immigrants must be measured against the needs of the receiving countries, and that the rights of these nations must not be exaggerated to the point of denying access to needy people from other countries."
I wonder if these Bishops would write garbage like this if most of our "immigrants" were from Muslim countries and had no intention of ever converting.

And, if 10 million Muslims from Bangladesh showed up on our doorstep tomorrow, we couldn't deny them entry. According to their logic, we would have to admit anyone who comes here just as long as they're needy. Even if it's in the overall best interests of our country and their country that they stay at home, we have to let them in.

Perhaps all those African immigrants who are trying to storm Melilla could be sent to Vatican City.


Gary, quite frankly your ignorance and obvious bias disgusts me. For one thing, the entire Catholic Church's position is not summed up in the actions of a handful of Catholic Bishops in Arizona. In fact, only 6% of the global Catholic Church is located in the United States to begin with. Last time I checked, bishops do not have infallible authority, only the Pope does-I don't recall the Pope condoning illegal immigration across the Mexican border. I am a practicing, devout Catholic and I certainly do not condone it. Maybe you did end up receiving a Jesuit education, and I do applaud your criticism of the bishops who are in favor of condoning illegal immigration. But shame on you for also acting as if all of the other bishops are responsible for covering up the pedophilia scandal, for example. The "gang" you speak of cannot be the bishops of the border states such as Arizona, where practically no abuse has been going on. The priest abuse is a separate issue, affecting (primarily, I will grant you) a separate area of the country. The Vatican's response to both of these groups of bishops (American bishops typically are not among the pick of the litter) has not been as fast as we would want it to be, but it is silly to think that the Church, which has only about 6% of its members in the US, and which is primarily focused on the Third World in which it is growing fastest, will spend most of its time worried about the 2% of all priests in the U.S. who have even been accused of molestation of youths.

In addition, dchamil also seems to be committing this flaw of acting as if all Catholics can be represented by either the bishops in the northeast or the ones in the southwest. I would even venture to say that this stems from an inherent misperception, especially found in Protestant historical bias, that treats one group of Catholics as completely respresenting all others (remember, at the time of the Reformation the Protestants knew only the Catholics of Western Europe, since all the historical evidence shows that there were no Protestants in the other areas of the globe where the Catholic Church had resided for centuries).

And, in case you didn't know, "pedophilia" is not the correct term for all the cases of molestation, for the word itself pertains only to those children who are pre-pubescent and not teenagers. Perhaps you regard that point as insignificant? I don't. Much of the horror concerning the priest abuse scandal has centered on the idea that young children are being abused. Our permissive society passes out condoms to teenagers in public schools and expects them to "experiment" (pathetic, really) and thinks we should treat them as adults in the sexual arena, that is, of course, until tragedy DOES befall them and we awaken from the haze of liberal idiocy. Yes, I still think it is a tragedy when teenagers are abused by priests who are supposed to be their spiritual advisors, but there is certainly much more 'consent' involved than with younger children. And it is not surprising to me that this historically antiCatholic country (if you dispute that designation, I'll be glad to prove it to you)accepts priests as being abusers and putting that in headlines while when Protestant pastors abuse young children as well (and the numbers for abuse in some Protestant churches are GREATER than in the Catholic Church), they are not reported in the news as being pastors. In any event, the problem in the priest scandal has obviously been homosexuals who cannot control themselves. Since the Church opposes all homosexual acts and urges homosexuals to live in chastity, no church teaching or anything like it is to blame.

Gary, I would like to see some evidence as to why the Catholic Church would support illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico to the United States, on the basis of acquiring greater political influence. In case you were not aware, the Catholic Church already tops every other church in that area, both in the US and in many parts of the globe. If the Church's top members (and I'm assuming your attack on the hierarchy would include the Pope as well?) were so willing to, as you said, "lie, cheat, and stab others in the back", then why would it not exercise its political influence more effectively? How many Catholics are in the House of Representatives? A lot. How many Catholics are there in the United States? A lot. It is the unwillingness of the two political parties to take a hard stand against illegal immigration in the first place, in order to keep the Hispanic vote and for other reasons, and not the influence of the Catholic Church that is causing our immigration problem. If I was in the Church hierarchy and wanted to increase political influence (without regard for doctrine, discipline, etc) in the U.S., what I would do is simple; decree that it is unsafe to vote for Democratic candidates and threaten to bar Catholics from receiving communion if they voted for them at all (the current Church teaching allows people to vote for prochoice candidates for example in the face of proportionate reasons). Democrats, (False) Catholics for a Free Choice, etc have already complained about the Church's true stance in this area as being politically motivated. If the Church truly was as politically obsessed as you seem to think it is, why wouldn't they simple force the issue even further - if you vote for a prochoice candidate, you cannot go to communion. Imagine the "political" effect that would have on a nation that is 25% (at least in name) Catholic. As much as I like the sound of it, the Church's reasons for denying communion are NOT political, even though unscrupulous leaders could easily abuse this for the sake of political power (and there is nothing you could do about it, is there).

I'll get back to the main point, illegal immigration. I am 100% opposed to it. It harms this country, it harms those who practice it, and it threatens our security because any wacko terrorist in the middle east could acquire a briefcase-sized nuclear device, go to Mexico, and then cross into the U.S. where they could get to any major U.S. city. It is a drain on our economy as one can see simply by looking at California.

On the other side, our immigration system needs to be reformed, although I don't believe breaking the law is the proper way to promote that change. You are talking to a guy who had to watch a movie called "El Norte" in high school spanish class in which two people illegally immigrated into the United States, which prompted me, for the duration of the movie, to cross my fingers and hope they would be captured and deported. Yet, I do understand the perspective that says that these people don't give a damn about illegally entering if it will improve their lives and more importantly the lives of their families. Catholic social teaching is clearly against laissez-faire capitalism, as well as against socialism and communism (why don't you consider the anticommunist stance of the late Pope). Catholic social teaching does not eliminate private property. It also does not hold the right to all private property as being completely absolute. Should it? The question of the application of Catholic social teaching with regards to illegal immigration is not defined exclusively by the Arizona bishops. The Arizona bishops in question seem more partial to the "Liberation Theology" that John Paul and now Benedict XVI have spoken against. Catholic social teaching in this area has NOTHING to do with political power and attempting to get more Hispanics (and usually more Catholics) into the United States. In Italy, bishops "scream" to deport illegal immigrants and they don't in the southwestern United States. Ooops? Maybe they are just smarter in Italy. It has nothing to do with the immigrants' backgrounds.

Having experienced a rather decent education myself, I can safely say that I have also acquired the ability to "smell BS". And quite frankly, several of the postings in here are full of it.

EH - I might have agreed with you at one time about granting them their Christian motives. But thanks to my Jesuit education, I developed fair critical thinking skills and a keen ability to smell BS. I am willing to grant that the humble parish priest's motives are fairly pure, but as you move up the Church's heirarchy, it's as much a poltitical organization as any other. You don't rise to power in any political organization unless you're willing to lie, cheat, and stab others in the back, so of course I am going to be suspicious of the bishops' motives. The Church wants to increase its political influence, and sees large scale Hispanic immigration as a way to accomplish that. In Italy, where the problem is Muslim immigration, you've got bishops screaming to slam to borders shut and deport the illegals. They're not exactly welcoming "the stranger" there, are they?

I think it's better to grant them their Christian motives and leave it at that...almost.

It is fair to point out that most church-sponsored charities -- including Catholic Charities -- get money from the government (i.e. taxpayers) to take care of 'immigrants' (and refugees), and that most of the 'migrants' are Hispanic, and therefore mostly Catholic, so the Catholic Church stands to benefit in this way as well.

Regarding 'migrating' as some kind of right, this is a bit silly when considered practically, but again IMO you have to grant them their Christian motive. However, I'm sure the door to the rectory is kept locked.

Finally, regarding in general helping those who need it, this is also a Christian duty. But it's a false dichotomy to say that if we don't allow virtually anyone who decides there is a need to 'migrate' to the US then we are not helping them -- we are not being Christian. Giving the practical reality of this 'migration' -- the clear harm it does to the US as a national entity, not to mention the economic impact on American workers, especially the unskilled, many of whom are quite poor themselves -- there are other and preferred ways to help these people. For example, by increased and well-targeted foreign aid. Which we really should do more of -- it would be a much better investment in making the US secure than all the money being wasted in Iraq.

Righto, Gary. They are taking time out from "encounters" with little boys to sabotaging our immigration laws. What will they do for a trifecta?

Behind the highfalutin rhetoric one is struck at what the Catholic church is really up to: aiding and abetting illegal immigration, helping people break our laws. But what should we expect from the gang that covers up for pedophiles?