WBUR reports.
Cardinal O'Malley's complete statement, which concludes:
These individuals and families are fleeing documented violence, chaos and murder in the neighborhoods of Central America. The United States is now openly before the world using children as pawns to enforce a hostile immigration policy. This strategy is morally unacceptable and denies the clear danger weighing upon those seeking our assistance.
As a Catholic bishop, I support political and legal authority. I have always taught respect for the civil law and will continue to do so. But, I cannot be silent when our country’s immigration policy destroys families, traumatizes parents, and terrorizes children. The harmful and unjust policy of separating children from their parents must be ended.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
O'Malley has been a big disappointment to most Catholics
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 11:10am
O'Malley's politics might please you and other non-Catholics, Adam, but he should have devoted himself to the faith not the politics. A trained investigator or committee could have easily identified the priest sexual crime problems, most knew it was originating at the seminary.
O'Malley should have left the "clean-up" to the professionals and prayed with the parishoners of those parishes that held vigil against closure, I believe East Boston and Scituate were some of the last two. Instead, the faithful had to bring in non-Catholic priests to celebrate the Eucharist while paying their own lawyers to fight the chancery, once a glorified reservation on Chestnut Hill, now a non-descript office building, with a crucifix, in Braintree, filled with six figure staff.
Most of the closed churches were on high value property with connected realtors. The next time envelopes are passed out for second collection, O'Malley should include a copy of the official U.S. immigration and asylum application. I know those few of us left at church would be happy to hand them out.
"Most Catholics"
By lbb
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 12:13pm
Got a cite for that? Other than you and the mouse in our pocket?
O'Malley should have left the
By Rob
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 12:16pm
In assorted order...
- if they were non-Catholic priests, it wasn't the Eucharist as Catholics understand it
- groups were helped on the QT by real priests who would celebrate Mass or provide consecrated hosts for lay-led services
- I'm not sure, but I think the archdiocese actually made some of the arrangements for certain services to go on during part of the appeals process
- the "glorified reservation" was sold and offices moved to the "non-descript" (mostly donated) building in order to be able to do things like pay judgments, fund needed services for the victims, put better prevention/investigative/enforcement procedures in place, and paying the professionals (who, yes, were brought in to help "clean up"). You're going to complain against both the horrible situation (which was made worse by the archdiocese) AND one of the straightforward actions that was part of starting to correct it?!
- closed churches/real estate: Accepting for the sake of argument the premise that at least some closings were necessary in the situation, I have no hesitation in saying that some were wrong, some I disagree with the particular choice made, they did a disservice to some people, and they bungled some of the business/execution.
The Church is all about
By anon
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 12:22pm
The Church is all about politics which is why it's high time they start paying their fair share. There is a supposed separation of church and state that the religious zealots seem to forget about when it suits them.
Separation of Church and State
By SalSal
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 12:50pm
Here is the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There is nothing in here that would prevent the clergy from speaking up on public issues. The purpose of the First Amendment was to keep government out of religion and to allow freedom of speech, not to restrict freedom of speech for the clergy. We would be poorer as a country if certain clergymen (MLK, for instance) did not speak out.
And, no, I'm not Catholic.
Freedom of speech
By SamWack
Fri, 06/15/2018 - 12:24pm
Does freedom of speech require immunity from taxation? As I read it, that's what the previous post was about. Would taxing churches restrict freedom of speech for the clergy? We tax newspapers, or the companies that own them. And we tax individuals. Is that a violation of free speech?
and...
By Rob
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 11:30am
...and that he hasn't hesitated to speak frankly of his own boss (Francis) when he's bungled things*, right?
* the Chilean sex abuse survivors and how Francis initially dismissed some of their concerns.
Cool. What did he say about Pride Month?
By anon
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 11:05am
That's the month long celebration of sin and degeneracy that almost every politician here participates in.
You homophobes lost. We have
By Kinopio
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 1:14pm
You homophobes lost. We have marriage equality in this country. Get over it. If you want to hate people for the way they are born then maybe move to the middle east and join the taliban. You right wingers have much in common with the taliban.
Ohhh count me in for sin and
By anon
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 1:31pm
Ohhh count me in for sin and degeneracy!!
I love how O'Malley
By Brian Riccio
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 11:05am
is so concerned about children that his subordinates haven't molested and don't have to be paid from the coffers of the collection plates.
Exactly! This is a PR move by
By anon
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 11:15am
Exactly! This is a PR move by the church to gloss over past sins. Also worth mentioning that the Catholic Church has a strong presence in South and Central America. Why aren't they providing safe haven and aid in the countries are fleeing from? The Church has the resources to do so and could also take steps to combat violence in those countries but hasn't.
How dare O’Malley
By Sock_Puppet
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 11:28am
Remind Catholics they’re supposed to be following the teachings and examples of Jesus Christ.
How will Evil-Americans feel welcome at worship anymore?
He should
By StillFromDorchester
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 11:58am
Refrain from commenting on anything to do with children as long as he is a member of the Catholic Church.
It's funny how his input on issues is only highlighted when they agree with whoever wants some brownie points with the religious people while his conservative views on other issues are swept under the rug .
Frankly I don't care what he thinks on any issue.
Fishy is still reeling from the beating he took last week
By Dave-from-Boston
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 12:31pm
Slapped around like a red-head step child following his comments, Fish has been laying in wait hoping something would come along that he could give a full throated rant about. Never one to disappoint, his opportunity arrived albeit his work product is chock full of falsehoods, misrepresentations, lies and other completely insane musings.
Fish, maybe there is Klan group meeting somewhere you can attend to commiserate with other right-wing nut-bags.
Slapped around like a red headed stepchild?
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 1:50pm
You mention redheads, victims of assault and stepchildren as something less than yourself. Your bigoted comments to diminish them speak volumes.
My comment on loving Anthony Bourdain's show but citing his recent dispute with Hillary Clinton (with Washington Post cite) also stands for itself. If having a truthful comment deleted here is being "slapped around like a redheaded stepchild," it's a high honor.
As for O'Malley "supporting" those who kept vigil, read the piece I've linked to from the NY Times. There was no O'Malley support for them or the other closed parishes, including those who were forced to worship in secret in neighboring Protestant churches. The Franciscan sandals and anti-Trump rhetoric aren't fooling anyone. As loan rates increase, it might be worthwhile taking a loan to buy a Catholic Church. Many more will be on the market soon.
Do your hands hurt...
By lbb
Fri, 06/15/2018 - 10:38am
Do your hands hurt from clutching those manufactured pearls?
Catholic Church caters to its big Latin American market
By anon
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 1:11pm
It will say what they want to hear. Telling consumers to go seek asylum or illegal entry/residence in a Spanish-speaking country isn't what these customers want to hear.
I've gotta laugh
By Waquiot
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 2:17pm
The same people who tell the leaders of the Catholic Church to keep their views to themselves on other issues (see social issues) are praising statements like this, while those who are very happy when leaders of the Catholic Church, often the exact same people, speak out on other issues (once again, we are talking "social issues") talk about things like this, the response is to tell them to stay out of matters like this.
In fact, the thing I like about the Catholic Church is that it is not easily pigeonholed into the political norms of America (and most likely most other political systems.) Politically, I am more in favor of the US being able to enforce its borders, but that don't mean that Cardinal O'Malley is wrong.
And...
By Brian Riccio
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 2:29pm
The Catholic Church is not easily pigeonholed into the moral norms of America either, are they?
Depends
By Waquiot
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 2:59pm
Between a love of guns, the death penalty, and, um, other things, it does seem like the US is not into the "culture of life" espoused by Rome.
You left out
By Brian Riccio
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 5:00pm
archaic and quite tortuous rules on abortion, the subjugation of women overall in both the faith and word and those stupid fucking hats in that "culture of life" Rome promotes.
No I didn't
By Waquiot
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 7:35pm
I was being polite, with "other things." But hey, we're America, with the most liberal laws involving abortion and guns, though we won't give people money to buy either (at least within the US.) The funny thing is that those on opposite sides of both issues don't see the common thread.
most liberal laws involving
By anon
Fri, 06/15/2018 - 8:29am
......gonna need a citation on that one, buddy.
Drawing the Line
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 3:05pm
The Church gets to make statements about things political. Sure.
They do not get to run the government like they were once allowed to (but never should have been allowed to).
They also do not get to use public money for secular contracts and then discriminate against people on the basis of their religion when using that money (see also: adoption, full obstetric services)
There is a difference. Learn the difference.
Say
By Waquiot
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 3:39pm
When did the Catholic Church run any government in the United States?
Really, Waquoit?
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 3:41pm
Really?
Ever hear of BANNED IN BOSTON? How about Cardinals dictating policy to Mayors of a certain city you well know of?
Really?
I find it amazing that you would make such a statement - perhaps, when you grew up, it was so entrenched that you didn't notice? The entire rest of the freaking country knew all about it.
I hate to break it to you
By Waquiot
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 3:53pm
But the concept of "banned in Boston" comes from a thread of Boston history that goes back to Puritan times. Is your claim that in fact the Congregational Church ran Boston as a theocracy? Perhaps in colonial times, but not since the rise of the Unitarians. As for "dictating," again, how about showing us an example. I mean, other than what Cardinal O'Malley released yesterday, which I am sure you don't view as such.
But hey, thanks for falling into my trap in that some people love it when Catholic politicians have to deal with the pronouncements of church leaders that support their own political leanings while they yell and scream (which, in the internet world, is writing things in all caps, and I do thank you for the visual on that) when the same church leaders pontificate on positions they don't agree on.
Imagine that
By Michael
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 4:34pm
People picking and choosing parts of religion that they like and ignoring the parts that they don't like; well now I've heard everything
Gee, kid...
By Brian Riccio
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 5:04pm
Maybe if you had been around during the days of Richard Cardinal Cushing, you know, like I was?... you'd have seen the influence of the Catholic Church on the politics of this town.
That said
By Waquiot
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 6:24pm
It was hardly the theocracy Our Lady from Medford makes it out to be. In fact, any political success Cushing had owed a lot to how politically savvy Cushing was. Unlike Medeiros (alienated the anti-busing crowd), Law (alienated the abortion rights crowd), and now O'Malley (alienating the anti-immigrant crowd), he knew what to say when.
Cardinal Law
By Miaow
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 9:25pm
Did a lot more than alienate the abortion rights crowd. He knowingly moved predator priests around to other parishes where more children and teens could be abused and participated in a massive cover up.
I'm talking politics, here
By Waquiot
Fri, 06/15/2018 - 9:19am
And if you didn't notice, when all of that came to light, his tenure as Archbishop of Boston came to an end.
If only...
By Daan
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 9:15pm
Illegal immigration was really about those terrible law breakers, Mexican rapists, hordes of MS-13 gangbangers overrunning the borders. Or even about taking away jobs from US citizens.
But it isn't and never was. It's the Know Nothing Party anti-immigration all over again, lacking the anti-Catholic component. But that's because Trump etc. know they would loose many voters if they followed the traditional hatred of Catholics.
Immigration hysteria is about purity and impurity. It's about fear. It's about giving demagogues a reason to ply their snake oil of saving the culture, the society, saving whatever.
Immigration is the tinder that lights up the waiting mob's hatred and violence. It is the ladder by which creatures such as Trump, who can years away smell the stench of a growing mob, climb to the top so that they can crap on everyone.
This nation thrives on immigration. Legal and illegal.
On the other hand, and I'm sure Sessions, Trump, Ryan and McConnell would all gladly sign onto this idea, make a pact with every illegal immigrant. Indentured servitude for 7 years. If they behave they are allowed to stay. If they don't they go away, to wherever.
We can't have slavery anymore (although I'm sure quite a few folks regret that). But indentured servitude? Cheapest labor guarranteed.
Everybody wins. Demagogues win; people who buy groceries win because the labor cost of fruit and vegetables will be even cheaper. Corporate owners of farms win because they will rake in more profits than they could cry over.
For a lot of people
By Waquiot
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 10:13pm
The key part is the illegal part.
I love immigrants and immigration, but why is it that those who enter the country illegally, or stay in the country longer than they agreed to, are viewed as great people when they are breaking the nation’s laws by being here. And you better believe that even “progressive†nations like Canada and France don’t support people being in their country illegally.
George W. Bush almost settled all of this 10 years ago. Now people are just insane on the issue.
Most if not all of those folks don't actually care
By Daan
Thu, 06/14/2018 - 11:00pm
The only reason anyone has any concern, beyond people actually affected (who if any?) is because the issue of illegal immigration makes for a terrific group of scapegoats.
Has there ever been a time when illegal immigration did not exist? Yes, at the same time that there were not laws one way or another defining what was legal or illegal.
Immigration is today's boogeyman. It is the purity of the US being tainted and diluted by those wetback brown skin people.
This is the ugliness, meanness, viciousness and grotesque face of humanity showing its ugly mug. Call it by its other names, Know Nothing, Eugenics, Nazi. It's about purity; it's about declaring who is in who is out.
What was most telling? Trump's attack of a Federal judge who is a US citizen and with Mexican heritage. Trump saw brown skin. All he needed to start vomiting the verbal feces that he loves to spew.
Had nothing to do about legal or illegal. It's simply the ugly side of humanity rearing its monstrous head.
Many human beings need somebody to hate. The usual targets of hatred, the usual scapegoats are hard to hit nowadays because they hit back. Catholics, Gays, women, blacks. The haters who need to hate - the people who at their core are cowards - know that their usual targets hit back just as hard. So attack the folks who are the easiest targets: immigrants.
Proves that people who need to hate are cowards.
The hillarious part
By Waquiot
Fri, 06/15/2018 - 9:21am
Is that you offer the rationale for the side you distain.
But hey, somewhere on the internet there are websites were people claim that your side of the argument want to destroy America by throwing open the border for anyone to come in. I never visit such places, since my gut is that the other side of the equation is simply that the US should assist those in need. But that's just a rational person writing.
We made "Illegal" "Legal"
By Bob Leponge
Fri, 06/15/2018 - 9:42am
We have blurred the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, by doing two things:
We've pretty much said, 'yeah, that's the law, but you don't really need to comply with it.' Kind of like a lot of other laws that are on the books but not really enforced.
This has had the effect of creating a second-tier class of residents here in the USA; which is great for employers because it keeps wages down and because anyone who complains about workplace safety, harassment, working conditions can be deported. It's not a healthy situation at all, but everyone agrees that our economy depends upon immigrant workers, whom we have pushed into this limbo legal/illegal category.
We could solve the problem pretty quickly by creating a reasonable path to legal immigration, consistent with our best estimates of the number of immigrants our economy needs plus some sense of how many refugees we want to take on, and then just close out the semi-legal category with stricter enforcement. But in the current political environment, that's not going to happen.
It's also worth remembering that Congress did not choose to make it a crime to simply be here illegally: The person who arrives on a tourist visa, overstays, and starts working is in violation of the law but is not in violation of any criminal laws unless he or she makes false declarations to immigration officials, uses forged documents, etc. The majority of illegal immigrants have not committed any crime.
Pages
Add comment