Including calling the recent Arizona legislation 'Nazi-esque,' which is a pretty big step-up in language, no?
There may be a reason for that.
Maybe he’s just really exercised about the issue. But even so, he can’t think that his flaming rhetoric is persuasive. Now, after reading the law, I suspect the Cardinal’s interest is a little closer to home.
A part of the law that hasn’t been emphasized by the media deals with the fact that Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of the country as coyotes transport and hold captive large numbers of illegal migrants. The law makes it illegal to “transport .. . conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in this state, including any building or any means of transportation, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.” Similarly, the law makes it illegal to “encourage or induce” people to come to Arizona illegally.
That’s a pretty reasonable response to the crisis, you might think, which probably explains why it isn’t featured in media reports. But imagine that you’re the head of the Catholic church in Arizona. Sooner or later, a lot of your parishioners are going to tell their local priest that they’re here illegally. The church has been pretty clear about what it will do about that. Nothing.Hmmmmm.
...Cardinal Mahony has to ask himself whether his priests are courting liability under the new law if they continue to give shelter and transport to parishioners whom they know or suspect are illegal immigrants.
Well, not yet in California.
But if Arizona is being burdened by the costs of illegals, California is being crushed. And California is notorious for referendums which reflect the will of the people--such as Prop. 187, later declared un-Constitutional by a Federal judge.
Hmmmmmm.
HT: Fr. Phil
1 comment:
I would suggest that Nahony read what the Catholic Church actually teaches about immigration, not the USCCB documents that at time contradict that teaching.
"The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. . . . Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens. " Par 2241
If Mahony had his way he would do away will all laws & allow absolute chaos, something that the Church's teaching clearly forbids.
But since when has Mahony actually cared about what the Church actually teaches?
Post a Comment