Mass Mass Dispensation

[Stella]

Even the Vatican has imposed stiff fines and penalties for anyone who enters illegally. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

If people enter with nefarious motives then rightly so but the Vatican has provided refuge such as for some Syrians in 2016. Francis also established shelters within the Vatican in unused buildings ie. Palace of the Poor and Gift of Mercy House, for homeless people who are supported there.

For a 'city' of 825 people the Vatican is very accommodating of strangers.

You need to learn the actual teaching of the Church rather than the clichéd liberal idea that nations are not allowed to have a border but are supposed to just allow anyone in with absolutely no vetting and never deport them under any circumstances no matter how many violent crimes they may commit or if we discover that they are here for malicious intent.

All 19 of the 9-11 hijackers were here on a student visa, and every single one of them raised eyebrows from people they met, many people were concerned that they had sinister intent, which they did, but nothing was done because of the frankly asinne assumption that it would be "racist" to raise the alarm about their suspicious behavior.

Your kind of thinking led directly to mass murder.

Read Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII confirms that a nation has the right to defend its borders, and that immigrants have to obey the laws of the countries they migrate to. The Church does not have the naive "Immigrants are always perfect little angels who are better than us" mentality of many modern liberal bishops.

A couple of points not disputed-

. nations have a right to defend borders
. dangerous criminals should be deported
. all immigrants aren’t angels

The Church’s contribution to the issue regards the methods used to deal with people already in the USA with families and established lives. It says indiscriminate mass deportations and breaking up families is cruel. It asks us to treat them with the dignity we expect to be treated with ourselves and consider mercy that we hope God will show us.

The Church sees things the way Christ sees them and we’ve got an important guarantee of that because of the promise that the Holy Spirit we be with her until the end of time.

I believe I’m making the same point as the Church. We can see people the way Christ sees them with all that that entails and not be ‘dishonest’ or ‘liberal’ but be wiser than what’s happening now.

[Highlander]

Sorta regret I started all this. HST, let me react.

I noted that the Bishop of San Bernadino issued a decree dispensing parishioners from their Sunday Mass obligation if they have a "genuine fear of immigration enforcement actions". I understand that the Diocese of Nashville issued a similar decree.

My interest was whether the Bishop's excusing some from the obligation to attend Mass was a personal political act or was it mandated by a position of the Church. It seems to me that the underlying logic was that illegals who might gather at a specific place at a specific time ... say a church for Mass ... and that those charged with enforcing the law might then arrive at that place at that time. The enforcers might, then, before, during, or after the Mass apprehend various alleged lawbreakers. Akin to hunters waiting at a water hole for the game to arrive.

However, ICE normally considers churches off-limits for enforcement actions, excepting circumstances such as national security concerns. That would lead me to conclude that the Bishop's decree is, in some fashion, creating an stoking an unreasonable fear. An is, in part, a political act.

One must also, it seems, consider that the Bishop, an immigrant himself, is generally considered an immigration activist.

Given all of that, I wonder where the bounds are drawn for dispensations from attending Mass are drawn. Are only those who fear ICE action excused? What about those who fear arrest from trafficking? Are they excused if they are illegal immigrants but not if they are citizens? Are they excused if they have committed domestic violence as an illegal, but are obliged to attend if they are US born?

I understand the charge to be charitable, but I wonder if crying "charity" becomes a Get Out of Jail Free card. Literally.

[Stella]

Sorta regret I started all this. HST, let me react.

I noted that the Bishop of San Bernadino issued a decree dispensing parishioners from their Sunday Mass obligation if they have a "genuine fear of immigration enforcement actions". I understand that the Diocese of Nashville issued a similar decree.

My interest was whether the Bishop's excusing some from the obligation to attend Mass was a personal political act or was it mandated by a position of the Church. It seems to me that the underlying logic was that illegals who might gather at a specific place at a specific time ... say a church for Mass ... and that those charged with enforcing the law might then arrive at that place at that time. The enforcers might, then, before, during, or after the Mass apprehend various alleged lawbreakers. Akin to hunters waiting at a water hole for the game to arrive.

However, ICE normally considers churches off-limits for enforcement actions, excepting circumstances such as national security concerns. That would lead me to conclude that the Bishop's decree is, in some fashion, creating an stoking an unreasonable fear. An is, in part, a political act.

One must also, it seems, consider that the Bishop, an immigrant himself, is generally considered an immigration activist.

Given all of that, I wonder where the bounds are drawn for dispensations from attending Mass are drawn. Are only those who fear ICE action excused? What about those who fear arrest from trafficking? Are they excused if they are illegal immigrants but not if they are citizens? Are they excused if they have committed domestic violence as an illegal, but are obliged to attend if they are US born?

I understand the charge to be charitable, but I wonder if crying "charity" becomes a Get Out of Jail Free card. Literally.

Mass attendance in the San Bernadino diocese had dropped by half since Trump authorised ICE agents to target Churches in January.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-a ... =117954409

Baptisms and other important Church events had been cancelled. The Bishops decree is pretty much retroactive since people were already staying away from Mass. Bishop Rojas told another publication...

“With all the worry and anxiety that they are feeling, I wanted to take away, for a time, the burden they may be feeling from not being able to fulfill this commitment to which our Catholic faithful are called,” the bishop said.


That indicates more a concern for the souls of the faithful rather than being an activist.

[Highlander]

I continue to hold my opinion that ICE is not targeting churches, and that making such a claim is a red herring. A diversion to reinforce the canard that ICE is a threat to other than illegals doing illegal things, some more illegal than others.

It is also my observation that, when the Church and/or its visible spokesmen wade into politics, the Church and its members suffer.

[Jack3]

My understanding is that fear of arrest and deportation would qualify as a grave reason, and hence the person does not have an obligation to risk himself by attending Mass, even without the Bishop declaring so.

Am I correct in thinking so?

[Highlander]

Which leads back to my OP. Though your response seems to expand the case a bit...

If a criminal is concerned that he is exposed to arrest by attending Mass, can that criminal then excuse himself from attending? Note that I did not ask if the criminal might be arrested on the Church grounds. The criterion of fear could extend to traveling to and from Mass ... and to any action associated with a religious obligation -- confession, the Eucharist, etc.

It just seems to me that the excusal expands and perpetuates the idea that a criminal is a victim.

I still don't understand the position of the Church.

[Stella]

My understanding is that fear of arrest and deportation would qualify as a grave reason, and hence the person does not have an obligation to risk himself by attending Mass, even without the Bishop declaring so.

Am I correct in thinking so?

If a person is unwell or finds themself unable to attend Mass for some unforeseen serious reason, there's no need for the Bishops dispensation, but for lots of Catholics, an extended absence weighs on their conscience regardless and that's where the dispensation can give them relief.

[zeno]

ISTM true relief would come from regularizing residency by either leaving or becoming a legal resident, not from being given permission to cut oneself off from the Church.

[Jack3]

The Bishop does not control immigration policy, naturalization, or deportation; it is not within his power to give 'true relief" to the entire situation. He does have the powers vested by canon law and is the moderator of the Liturgy. Given that the Church recognizes at least some grave situations where it is not required to attend Mass, the phrase "cut oneself off from the Church" is not the way I'd phrase it myself.

[zeno]

I think you misunderstood. I was not suggesting the Bishop had the authority to regularize the status of people who are not here legally. I said if those who are in danger of being arrested and deported wanted to find relief from their fears they would be better off dealing with the reality of the situation they are in by either leaving or becoming legal residents. The Bishop telling them to skip Mass isn't helping. And I know of no other way to describe the act of ceasing participation in the life of the Church than cutting oneself off.

[Highlander]

I continue to struggle with this issue.

So -- if a fear is generated if I go to Mass, then I may excuse myself. If I am afraid that driving exposes me to danger, that rain or snow might cause me to slip and fall, that a getting up on Sunday morning might result in an unhealthy result due to a lack of sleep -- then I'm excused. I'm especially excused it I have committed a crime and fear that I might be arrested if I do something associated with Mass.

If I can't excuse myself, then the Bishop already has.

It seems to boil down to crime. There is a delusion and fraud that an illegal immigrant is not a criminal, that the criminal is somehow not a criminal due to the illegality of the laws on immigration and entry into the US ... and the good intentions of the criminals who have committed the crime. Would the Bishop excuse a murderer from attending Mass? Probably not, because he hasn't. But the Bishop is excusing illegal immigrants from attending Mass. Because the Bishop has decided that illegal immigration is not illegal?

Would the Bishop give a pass to someone who sleeps in on Sunday? I doubt it. But he is giving a pass to a criminal who entered the US illegally and who also killed someone in a drug deal in the US ... because the criminal fears the results associated with attending Mass.

I don't get it.

[Stella]

I continue to struggle with this issue.

So -- if a fear is generated if I go to Mass, then I may excuse myself. If I am afraid that driving exposes me to danger, that rain or snow might cause me to slip and fall, that a getting up on Sunday morning might result in an unhealthy result due to a lack of sleep -- then I'm excused. I'm especially excused it I have committed a crime and fear that I might be arrested if I do something associated with Mass.

If I can't excuse myself, then the Bishop already has.

It seems to boil down to crime. There is a delusion and fraud that an illegal immigrant is not a criminal, that the criminal is somehow not a criminal due to the illegality of the laws on immigration and entry into the US ... and the good intentions of the criminals who have committed the crime. Would the Bishop excuse a murderer from attending Mass? Probably not, because he hasn't. But the Bishop is excusing illegal immigrants from attending Mass. Because the Bishop has decided that illegal immigration is not illegal?

Would the Bishop give a pass to someone who sleeps in on Sunday? I doubt it. But he is giving a pass to a criminal who entered the US illegally and who also killed someone in a drug deal in the US ... because the criminal fears the results associated with attending Mass.

I don't get it.

Being realistic about your last statement… a person who is into drug deals and murder is highly unlikely to be sensitive to the Mass obligation and consequent impact on his soul. That would qualify as a severe dissociative disorder.

Both Francis and Leo ask us not to regard illegal immigrants in general as criminals. The challenge is to try and walk in anothers shoes and regard all the circumstances of a persons situation. Perhaps think of ‘self defense’ as a reason for trying to escape one country for a safer country. It’s like the case of a women killing an abusive husband that she fears greatly. The judicial system takes the situation into account when viewing criminality.

In a CNA article in 2017 Pope Francis encouraged this approach to the immigration/refugee issue…

In an interview published Tuesday, Pope Francis spoke about what it means to care for and be present to the people in our communities – whether they are widows, orphans, migrants, or the homeless – and why this is important.

"It is very tiring to wear the shoes of others," he said, "because often we are slaves of our selfishness. On one level we can say that people prefer to mind their own problems without wanting to see the suffering or the difficulty of another."

"There is another level, however. To wear the shoes of others means to have a great capacity to comprehend, to understand the circumstance and difficult situations."

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... -interview

Putting ourselves in others shoes is a part of the Golden Rule of life. It helps us be compassionate and merciful as we would want for ourselves.

[zeno]

You're making rough assumptions about the fictional drug dealer. Perhaps he feels the government is unjust in disallowing the sale of his product, and views himself as a humble businessman. He perhaps sees it as an unfortunate fact of doing business that he has to eliminate rivals from time to time. Isn't he really just a victim of unjust laws?

[Highlander]

...
Both Francis and Leo ask us not to regard illegal immigrants in general as criminals. The challenge is to try and walk in anothers shoes and regard all the circumstances of a persons situation. Perhaps think of ‘self defense’ as a reason for trying to escape one country for a safer country.
...

Perhaps things are clearer.

The crux of the issue seems to be whether illegally entering and illegally staying the US, with the attendant behaviors .... failure to appear for hearings, failure to leave when directed, overstaying visas, not adhering to the conditions of a visa ... is a crime. There is clearly a movement, which has reached deeply into our law enforcement, political, and judicial systems, that holds that such behavior is not a crime. And, if it is not a crime, then the criminal cannot be treated as a criminal. A telling example is the debate whether an illegal immigrant is actually an undocumented migrant.

You point out that two Popes have asked us not to regard criminals as criminals. With an appeal to compassion and charity. Due to circumstances.

That position, I feel, opens the door to completely subjective criteria for rationalizing criminal behavior. Wanting to be safer is not, IMO, a valid reason for entering the US illegally. I have heard arguments that wanting a better economic opportunity, wanting to be with family members, wanting better educational opportunities, wanting to start a business, and reclaiming land held by one's ancestors are all valid reasons to illegally enter the US. And to stay here. Permanently.

One could similarly argue that robbers should not be subject to criminal law if they have a subjective reason for robbing. Like they needed money, but had none. Which reminds me of the supposed quote by Dillinger that he robbed banks because that was where the money was.

I don't feel that addressing illegal immigrants as criminals excludes compassion or walking in their shoes. They are not being lined up and shot, or being thrown into damp dungeons, or being robbed and trafficked. Well, they are being robbed and trafficked by the compassionate parties who are ensuring that they will not be identified, detained, and deported. In fact, are not those who self deport being given transportation and $1,000? If the argument is that compassion equals giving the illegal immigrant whatever they want, like permanent residence and complete access to the welfare system and voting rights, then I don't agree that is compassion.

Back to the Bishop. I don't know much about him, so I can't conclude if the dispensation from Mass is motivated by political virtue signaling, at one extreme, or by an exclusive desire to assuage the conscience of those not attending Mass, at the other -- or both. I am concerned with the idea that crime can be excused because the consequences are uncomfortable for the criminal and that a compassionate person is compelled to excuse both the crime and the criminal