Why I'm grateful to be Catholic

That from a Facebook friend provides a perfect lead in I think to what I want to write about today.

A number of recent events have occurred where my thinking on and about them has parted significantly from those I've in the past considered philosophical allies.

And yes, I'm the one that's changing.

Whether it be Rush Limbaugh's branding of Pope Francis as a Marxist, Michelle Bachmann's labeling of illegal immigrants coming across the border as invaders, or most recently, the refusal by a Facebook friend to see tragedy in yesterday's killing of four Palestinian boys on a beach in Gaza, I am increasingly aware of how my decision to become Catholic and my choosing to, as best I can, follow the Church's teaching, is increasingly putting me at odds with certain elements of the conservative movement.

I continue to believe I'm still a conservative.  My abhorrence for nearly all things liberal stands yet I find myself wincing more and more at things being said by people with whom I've usually agreed.

So what's changed and why?

I believe there's one particular teaching, one particular component of my re-embraced Catholic faith, that can be blamed.  Or more accurately, can be given credit.

The Catholic Church  proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is  the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of  all the principles of our social teaching. In our society, human life is under  direct attack from abortion and euthanasia. The value of human life is being  threatened by cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and the use of the death  penalty. The intentional targeting of civilians in war or terrorist attacks is always wrong. Catholic teaching also calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding increasingly effective ways to prevent conflicts and resolve them by peaceful means. We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.

I've come to believe firmly that the Pope's views on economic inequality are sourced in this teaching.  I believe with certainty and firmness in the dignity of every unaccompanied child coming across our southern borders.  I see the loss of potential and cannot imagine what the parents are feeling about the deaths of the boys killed on that beach in Gaza yesterday.

Do I still believe in conservative values and principles and how the application of both are key to society's success?  Yes.  Hell yes.

But I also believe that they must be under-girded by this concept, so beautifully emphasized by Catholic teaching, of human dignity and its sanctity.

We have a responsibility to care for the poor.  Children cannot ever be dismissed as mere invaders.  And the deaths of innocent children must always be grieved.

To ignore this teaching is to begin to lose our humanity.  To dismiss this teaching is to cross a threshold that will not be easily stepped back over.  To ridicule this teaching is to admit to and confess a dangerous soullessness.

My embrace of Catholic teaching on the dignity of every person is making me more human. 

Trust me, and those who live or interact with me, when we all say I need to be more human.  

Comments

[Lands’nGrooves]

Rick,

I don’t think any rational person could argue your point regarding dignity and sanctity in a certain context. However, surely you can likewise see with open eyes the trouble with forsaking all reasonableness while holding on to those principles at ALL costs.

These kids and their families no doubt deserved dignity and had sanctity before they crossed our border, correct? Now, after having came here they deserve more? And only by allowing them to stay do we honor those principles? I’m sorry but I don’t get that.

Do you not believe in the sovereignty of this nation? That we have not only the right, but the duty to protect our borders? Which includes keep any and all people, yes including children, who want to illegally enter it? If not, than what is the number that is too many? 400,000...9000,000...4 million?…what?…Should we just let them all in? What would you tell the people who have been patiently waiting to enter LEGALLY?

Are you not worried at all that by helping these folks, especially above and beyond merely feeding and housing them before sending them back (which we all know won’t happen) that that sends a message, encourages more people to come here illegally?

Would that not be, at some point, which I and many others think is already happened, a burden, a hardship, putting the wellbeing of non citizens ahead of Americans?

No doubt you would not put the welfare of an illegal alien child’s wellbeing ahead of your own grandchild? But you are, unknowingly, asking other people to do that. People are struggling to get by, Rick. And now this president and his administration along with his party, and you and your fellow thinkers, are literally asking Americans to pay for illegal aliens and their children. All the while they have little for themselves. To say nothing about the superior care, food, housing, etc. the illegal’s end up getting versus some of the American citizens who are paying for it have.

At the risk of sounding insincere or even snaky, which I’m honestly not trying to be, if you disagree with the above, then by all means, Rick, open up your home to any and all illegal aliens. You and those that agree with you, feed cloth and otherwise look after these people, all of them. But please don’t ask the rest of us to do the same, figuratively. Some of us are just getting by.

tim aka The Godless Heathen

[mathman]

Rick:
Are we created ab initio as individuals, or is our creation in the context of a family? Do these children coming across our borders exist in isolation, or do their parents have an obligation of care and protection for them?
In the US to abandon one's child is a crime. Does abandoning one's child cease to be a crime if done in a foreign country?
I can see the refugee point if the parents or caregivers are dead; however, if the parents are still living, do they not have an obligation of care? Our Creator established the family as the fundamental unit: one man, one woman, and their children. Jesus, Paul, and others certainly had this viewpoint.
What conceivable ethical standard legitimizes the parental surrender of responsibility to the citizens of a foreign nation?
You have jumped past the origin of these children, it seems to me, and completely skipped the parent part of the equation. God is to be known to us as our Father, after all. I seriously question the advocacy of abandonment of parental responsibility in this way. If things are that bad in the home country, should they not rather take steps to make things better?

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

Tim, you lost me when you asked:

And only by allowing them to stay do we honor those principles?

I'm not advocating amnesty. And I'm not advocating taxpayer sponsored solutions. I am, as a Catholic, suggesting that Christians who demand these needy people simply be trucked back to their respective countries are advocating policies upon which Christ would be frowning.

I'd like to think, using the brains God's granted us, that we can figure out how to do this effectively, compassionately and orderly. I'd also like to think that we can determine how best to help while adhering to existing law, respecting our borders and maintaining our sovereignty.

The notion that we turn these people away, particularly women and children who are desperate and in need, no questions asked, is what I find abhorrent and contrary to sound Christian teaching.

There should be a way, however difficult and challenging it might be, to render assistance rather than callously treat these people inhumanely.

I confess that I'm not smart enough to know how to do this on the scale necessary to help every single person. And I recognize the burdens being placed on local communities currently.

I'm simply communicating that I'm appalled at what I'm hearing Christians say we need to be doing.

Period.

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

Mathman, great questions. I don't know that I have satisfactory answers.

Are we or are we not our brother's keeper seems to me to be a jumping off point.

And who was Christ talking about in the "least of these" passages? Just family? I think not.

Yes, beyond doubt, the parents of the unaccompanied children bear much responsibility. So assessments need to take place which adds to the complexity in solving these problems.

But we can't simply give up in finding a solution nor can we simply say to them, get the hell out of here.

We just can't.

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

By the way Tim... for what it's worth and that likely not much.

I can't, based on a number of logistical factors, take a family in at this time but you can bet that I've stroked a check, to a Catholic Charities organization on the front lines, with the hope that it helps some.

My hope is that many would do the same.

[Lands’nGrooves]

OK, you’re not in favor of amnesty but yet you don’t want to simply turn them away. On a certain level I can understand helping the kids and by extension their families. But the problem then becomes - then what? After we assist them and then, presumably, send them back…are they not right back to where they began? Fugitively and literally.

What have we accomplished then? We feel good about ourselves?

What I meant by “And only by allowing them to stay do we honor those principles?” was that these people’s misery existed where they lived before. But only because they made it here they are now worthy of receiving the helping hand of Christians? Don’t get me wrong, I admire the work of Christian charities, but confused about when the obligation is warranted. Maybe helping these folks before it gets to the point would be better.

That should be how it works, but it’s not. And I think that’s where maybe the communication breakdown is occurring. At least it did with you and me, and I bet it may also be with your fellow Christians.

Lastly, the “dangerous soullessness” belongs to Obama for these whole rotten mess.

tim aka The Godless Heathen

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

Tim,

I'm definitely not in favor of some sort of blanket amnesty policy and yes, you're correct, neither do I want to simply turn the unaccompanied children or those fleeing from tangibly verified dangerous circumstances.

What do we do after sending folks back who were initially cared for? Great question. Private citizens can't do much. This is where American leadership is needed terribly, leadership we're not getting or are going to get with this current administration. I don't have good answers other than this provides Americans with a lesson as to the importance of electing competent leaders who can work with other governments to promote economic policies that assist rather than hinder, that promote growth rather than poverty.

You ask what have we accomplished in helping and then sending people back. Tim, what do we accomplish when we engage in any charitable endeavor? I'm finding it hard to believe that you're suggesting we give assistance to people only when it's clear that we'll no longer have to assist again. Under what circumstances would we ever give?

There used to be this thing called compassionate conservativism, I can't help but wonder if it still exists. I'm still, as an aside, lokking forward to hearing from my fellow Christians who think we should straight up simply send these people back to where they came from, on what part of the "least of these" passages from Christ should we be ignoring... and why?

[Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest]

Tim, I've put up a post linking to Mark Shea's wise words, check it out and let us know what you think. I believe he answers the mail on some if not all of your questions.