Um... is it too much to ask that bishops express more concern about their flock getting into heaven than about Mexicans getting into the United States?
Why is this an either or scenario? Bishops can be concerned with the salvation of souls and immigration reform at the same time. That's not even multi-tasking. Loving you neighbor is just part of Christianity.
Erased the last post...too many typos. My point is that you are creating a false dichotomy. It's not that I believe taking care of immigrants is MORE important that the salvation of souls. The point it that taking care of immigrants IS UNTO the salvation of souls. Immigrants have souls. Are you saying that civil laws pertaining to immigration do not have salvific implications? I think history would say otherwise.
I am not exactly sure what a "salvific implication" is.
I am glad that you recognize salvation of souls as important. I am sure you can recognize how something important should have a priority for a Shepherd.
This is not to say care of immigrants should be excluded.
Thanks for being gracious with your words:) By salvific implications I mean the laws of the land can either hinder or further the Church's mission to save souls. I do not believe this is an either or scenario. Taking care of souls is the priority of Bishop, domestic or alien. My point is really simple. This may not be a prioritization issue. It is just different aspects of the Church Militant's objective, to advance the kingdom of heaven on earth as it is in heaven. Liberals have distorted the Church's mission and made it a temporal needs only mission. I don't want do the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum.
I regret using the word liberal...it doesn't work in theology. I was trying to say that as Catholics we must not look at a natural work and dismiss it as non-spiritual. We do not subscribe to dualism. We believe that temporal needs are important, not just spiritual ones. Spiritual needs take precedent, but on the same note you can tend to your spiritual needs by tending to temporal ones (e.g. give a cup of cold water to someone who needs it and you give it to Jesus). We could err by saying we should not spend so much time on immigrants. That is not spiritual, nor does that line thinking lend itself to a greater chance for salvation. What soul is being neglected just because the Bishops see a need for reform in immigration laws? Again, you've created a false dichotomy. These are not opposing issues.
13 comments:
Why is this an either or scenario? Bishops can be concerned with the salvation of souls and immigration reform at the same time. That's not even multi-tasking. Loving you neighbor is just part of Christianity.
Alexander, while it is certainly possible to do both, I think most can agree on where the priorities should be.
My point is that the priority of protecting souls and reforming immigration laws are not necessarily different. Immigrants have souls.
Alexander,
Is your point that the salvation of souls is equivalent to helping illegal aliens become legal citizens?
Erased the last post...too many typos.
My point is that you are creating a false dichotomy. It's not that I believe taking care of immigrants is MORE important that the salvation of souls. The point it that taking care of immigrants IS UNTO the salvation of souls. Immigrants have souls. Are you saying that civil laws pertaining to immigration do not have salvific implications? I think history would say otherwise.
I am not exactly sure what a "salvific implication" is.
I am glad that you recognize salvation of souls as important. I am sure you can recognize how something important should have a priority for a Shepherd.
This is not to say care of immigrants should be excluded.
C.Anon's follow up post may explain this better: What doth it profit the Church?
Thanks for being gracious with your words:) By salvific implications I mean the laws of the land can either hinder or further the Church's mission to save souls. I do not believe this is an either or scenario. Taking care of souls is the priority of Bishop, domestic or alien. My point is really simple. This may not be a prioritization issue. It is just different aspects of the Church Militant's objective, to advance the kingdom of heaven on earth as it is in heaven. Liberals have distorted the Church's mission and made it a temporal needs only mission. I don't want do the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Wouldn't the opposite of a "liberal Catholic" be a "non-liberal Catholic"?
I regret using the word liberal...it doesn't work in theology. I was trying to say that as Catholics we must not look at a natural work and dismiss it as non-spiritual. We do not subscribe to dualism. We believe that temporal needs are important, not just spiritual ones. Spiritual needs take precedent, but on the same note you can tend to your spiritual needs by tending to temporal ones (e.g. give a cup of cold water to someone who needs it and you give it to Jesus). We could err by saying we should not spend so much time on immigrants. That is not spiritual, nor does that line thinking lend itself to a greater chance for salvation. What soul is being neglected just because the Bishops see a need for reform in immigration laws? Again, you've created a false dichotomy. These are not opposing issues.
Alexander,
You make the accusation of "false dichotomy".
I make the accusation of "straw man".
Why's that?
Thank you.
"it is certainly possible to do both [care for temporal and spiritual]"
"This is not to say care of immigrants should be excluded"
"Without concern for the needs of the soul, corporal works of mercy are little better than a waste of time."
This is not about ignoring the corporal works of mercy. There are people who pervert social justice in the name of secular humanism.
Post a Comment