It strikes me that on the one hand what Cardinal Mahoney is doing is
the opposite of what Catholic Charities did in Massachusetts--they are
resisting a law that prevents Catholics from honoring their faith
commitment, whereas in Massachusetts Catholic Charities in effect
capitulated to the law that prevents their facilitating adoptions
without a license (on terms they cannot accept). On the other hand,
what Cardinal Mahoney is urging is consistent with what Catholic
Charities did--urging Catholics not to cooperate with a law that would
require Catholics to act contrary to their faith. I think the latter
consideration is more relevant, since it goes to substance and not to
form.

What a lot of list members seem to be doing with CC is beating up on
them for thinking that homosexual conduct is sinful; this is OK as a
theological and policy point, but analytically in terms of the roles
of government and relligion, shouldn't we be treating a church's
theological position as a "black box" that should not be deconstructed
or peered into in accordance with non-believers' ideologies?

Vance

On 3/22/06, Marty Lederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Interesting Op-Ed in today's Times by the Cardinal Arhcbishop of Los
> Angeles, who apparently plans to instruct the priests of his archdiocese to
> disobey a proposed law that would subject them, as well as other church and
> humanitarian workers, to criminal penalties for "assisting" undocumented
> immigrants "to remain in the United States."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/opinion/22mahony.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>
> A couple of things to note:
>
> 1.  Cardinal Mahoney argues that providing social services to illegal
> immigrants "does not mean that the Catholic Church encourages or supports
> illegal immigration."  This is, I submit, in at least a bit of tension with
> the commonly heard notions that failing to discriminate against gays (e.g.,
> in facilitating adoptions) is an endorsement of same-sex marriage, or that
> renting apartments to unmarried couples is aiding and abetting sinful
> behavior.  (I acknowledge, of course, that Mahoney does not speak for all
> Catholics.)
>
> 2.  More importantly for purposes of this list, does anyone think that
> Congress (i) can, (ii) should, and/or (iii) must include a religious
> exemption?  Does RFRA already establish such an exemption?
>
> Called by God to Help
> By ROGER MAHONY
>
>
> Los Angeles
>
> I'VE received a lot of criticism for stating last month that I would
> instruct the priests of my archdiocese to disobey a proposed law that would
> subject them, as well as other church and humanitarian workers, to criminal
> penalties. The proposed Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal
> Immigration Control bill, which was approved by the House of Representatives
> in December and is expected to be taken up by the Senate next week, would
> among other things subject to five years in prison anyone who "assists" an
> undocumented immigrant "to remain in the United States."
>
> Some supporters of the bill have even accused the church of encouraging
> illegal immigration and meddling in politics. But I stand by my statement.
> Part of the mission of the Roman Catholic Church is to help people in need.
> It is our Gospel mandate, in which Christ instructs us to clothe the naked,
> feed the poor and welcome the stranger. Indeed, the Catholic Church, through
> Catholic Charities agencies around the country, is one of the largest
> nonprofit providers of social services in the nation, serving both citizens
> and immigrants.
>
> Providing humanitarian assistance to those in need should not be made a
> crime, as the House bill decrees. As written, the proposed law is so broad
> that it would criminalize even minor acts of mercy like offering a meal or
> administering first aid.
>
> Current law does not require social service agencies to obtain evidence of
> legal status before rendering aid, nor should it. Denying aid to a fellow
> human being violates a law with a higher authority than Congress — the law
> of God.
>
> That does not mean that the Catholic Church encourages or supports illegal
> immigration. Every day in our parishes, social service programs, hospitals
> and schools, we witness the baleful consequences of illegal immigration.
> Families are separated, workers are exploited and migrants are left by
> smugglers to die in the desert. Illegal immigration serves neither the
> migrant nor the common good.
>
> What the church supports is an overhaul of the immigration system so that
> legal status and legal channels for migration replace illegal status and
> illegal immigration. Creating legal structures for migration protects not
> only those who migrate but also our nation, by giving the government the
> ability to better identify who is in the country as well as to control who
> enters it.
>
> Only comprehensive reform of the immigration system, embodied in the
> principles of another proposal in Congress, the Secure America and Orderly
> Immigration bill, will help solve our current immigration crisis.
>
> Enforcement-only proposals like the Border Protection act take the country
> in the opposite direction. Increasing penalties, building more detention
> centers and erecting walls along our border with Mexico, as the act
> provides, will not solve the problem.
>
> The legislation will not deter migrants who are desperate to survive and
> support their families from seeking jobs in the United States. It will only
> drive them further into the shadows, encourage the creation of more
> elaborate smuggling networks and cause hardship and suffering. I hope that
> the Senate will not take the same enforcement-only road as the House.
>
> The unspoken truth of the immigration debate is that at the same time our
> nation benefits economically from the presence of undocumented workers, we
> turn a blind eye when they are exploited by employers. They work in
> industries that are vital to our economy yet they have little legal
> protection and no opportunity to contribute fully to our nation.
>
> While we gladly accept their taxes and sweat, we do not acknowledge or
> uphold their basic labor rights. At the same time, we scapegoat them for our
> social ills and label them as security threats and criminals to justify the
> passage of anti-immigrant bills.
>
> This situation affects the dignity of millions of our fellow human beings
> and makes immigration, ultimately, a moral and ethical issue. That is why
> the church is compelled to take a stand against harmful legislation and to
> work toward positive change.
>
> It is my hope that our elected officials will understand this and enact
> immigration reform that respects our common humanity and reflects the values
> — fairness, compassion and opportunity — upon which our nation, a nation of
> immigrants, was built.
>
> Roger Mahony is the cardinal archbishop of Los Angeles.
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>


--
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to