Conservative and patriotic American Catholics need not feel ashamed of loving their country and wanting to protect and preserve her institutions and culture. A response to Lisa Fabrizio.
While I agree with much of what Lisa Fabrizio wrote in her article (The Catholic Case for Immigration Reform), I felt the need to clarify a few points about Catholics and immigration policy (with which I'm inclined to feel she would generally agree) lest non-Catholic readers get the wrong impression about the Church and Her teaching and thus join the ranks of Bishop Sheen's misinformed Catholic -haters (those who profess to hate the Catholic Church, while actually opposing a straw-man caricature of Her painted by critics).
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has, while recognizing the need to strengthen the border to reduce further illegal immigration, endorsed what it calls "broad-based legalization" for those undocumented immigrants who can "demonstrate good moral character and have built up equities in this country." Ms. Fabrizio agrees with this stance which runs counter to those of many conservative American Catholics, including me.
Conservative and patriotic American Catholics need not feel ashamed of loving their country and wanting to protect and preserve her institutions and culture. This is neither racist nor nationalistic. It is entirely proper. In his book Memory and Identity, the late Holy Father Pope John Paul II referred to patriotism as "a love for everything to do with our native land: its history, its traditions, its language, and its natural features." Concomitant with that love of country goes a desire to protect and preserve it as the Church Herself protects, preserves, and hands on the Deposit of Faith. Theologically speaking, he described a healthy patriotism as an example of fidelity to the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue "which obliges us to honor our father and mother." Clearly American Catholics can express their patriotism by opposing amnesty consistent with magisterial teaching.
The Church's Magisterium is a very specific thing: it is the Holy Father, St. Peter's successor, speaking under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in conjunction with the Bishops, the Apostles successors, only on matters of faith and morals. There is a specific process under which these statements are made. These pronouncements are ever unchanging and enjoy the stamp, by the Grace of God, of papal infallibility. On the other hand a press release issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on a political matter such as immigration policy is, while given great weight by the faithful, in the end a mere matter of personal opinion, not a pronouncement of the Magisterium, and thus it is not incumbent upon lay Catholics to agree.
An example of this difference can be seen in the Church's teaching on the life issue: the intentional killing of innocent human life (such as abortion) has always been condemned by the Church as a grave, intrinsic evil and must be seen as such by the Catholic faithful. The death penalty, on the other hand, is seen by the Church's Magesterium as a legitimate tool of the state to dispense justice, even though the last two Popes have been personally opposed to it on practical grounds. Neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI have ever attempted to (nor could they) change Church teaching on the death penalty despite their personal preference because it is a moral question not subject to change or personal opinion. National immigration policy, on the other hand, is not subject to the Teaching Office of the Church, thus conservative catholicss can disagree with the USCCB stance on amnesty without running afoul of Church teaching.
In her article, Ms. Fabrizio appeals to Christian charity to justify her and the bishops' stance on amnesty. This is unfair. As far as caring for the poor is concerned, it is incumbent on each individual Christian to do their part. Collectively it is the responsibility of the Church to turn away no one seeking her help. The Catholic Church is the greatest charitable organization in the world with its vast network of hospitals, schools, nursing homes, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens. This is right and proper. It is the duty of every Christian person and organization to provide for the poor. It is not, however, the duty of government.
The truth of our obligation to care for the poor and sick is undeniable but does not require or even allow us to transfer this duty to Christian charity to the state. In fact one may argue that to do so is a sin of omission. Just as Pilate symbolically washing his hands of the precious Blood of our Lord did not relieve him of responsibility for his part in the Crucifixion, our agitating for government largesse to be showered on illegal immigrants does not relieve us of our own obligation to charity and almsgiving.
As a practical matter liberal immigration policies have had a devastating effect on this country as hundreds of hospitals have been forced to shut their doors, depriving millions of American citizens of convenient access to care and further burdening those hospitals still in operation, because of the flood of illegal immigrants receiving free care at these facilities. A blanket amnesty program would further burden the system and lead to a new wave of illegal migrants while being grossly unfair to the millions of law-abiding folks waiting patiently for legal entry into this country.
Legally speaking, does Ms. Fabrizio contend that the U.S. government has a moral obligation to legalize, subsidize, and care for all the millions of immigrants in this country illegally? If so, I ask what is the Vatican – a sovereign nation-state in its own right – policy on such matters. Does every indigent immigrant who enters St. Peter's Square and pitches a tent thereon automatically become a citizen with all the rights to housing, health care, and welfare afforded to Church officials? I think not. The Church cannot and does not require more of secular governments than it itself provides.
Every nation has a right and duty to its citizens to protect and defend its people, culture, language, and borders. This is a fact which is consistent with Sacred Scripture (the nation of Israel's place in salvation history is an example), Holy Tradition, and Magisterial Teaching, all of which affirm these basic rights. The attempt by any Catholic to appeal to Christian Charity to justify redistributionist government policies is simply misguided.
IS THIS AN OMEN OF THINGS TO COME?
There is no doubt in my mind that the reason Democrat Martha Coakleyn is in a strong race with Republican Scott Brown is owing to her partisan approval of Comprehensive Immigration Reform or AMNESTY. The majority of Americans remember the last travesty of the 1986 immigration reform, that not only legalized around 3.5 million agricultural worker, but even more desperate, poor people slipped into America before the final bill was signed. The same scenario is sure to happen again, because millions of more people are aware they can get instant recognition as legitimate. Senator Edward Kennedy now vacated seat, is what Coakleyn and Scott are competing over and could jeopardize the Health Care Reform package. A Republican Senate victory in the blue state of Massachusetts would have massive repercussions and could even echo in the Oval office. Even Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank stated to reporters, ” if Brown wins, the president’s overhaul of health care is dead.” President Obama is stumping himself in trying to preserve the crucial 60th Democratic Senate vote needed to pass the health care overhaul.
The deciding factor is what is more important to the voters in this special election? Opening the door even wider for millions of illegal people to siphon of –BILLIONS–in taxpayers money for health care, education and other unrevealed entitlements. As Brown debated stopping the issuance of driving drivers licenses and in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. But then crush any chance of the Democrats passing health care reform? Or by voting for Scott Brown wrecking any chance of another Amnesty, that as the US Census assumes could lead to unsustainable OVERPOPULATION. Shortly we will learn the answer to this unnerving question, that will decide future generations quality of life. If this Republican wins it will send a traumatic message, to Democrats that includes Sen. Harry Reid, Speaker Pelosi and the rest who are pandering to illegal immigrants, that Americans are tired of being taxed to support foreign nationals. It will mean E-Verify could become permanent and zero in on the millions of illegal labor, fraudulently taking jobs from legitimate workers.
It will mean stepped up audits, by ICE in all working locations. It could strengthen the 287 (G) federal training program to arrest illegal foreigners, that has been weakened by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. E-Verify upgrades could reduce overtime a very sufficient way to force illegal workers into self-deportation, because they can no longer steal American jobs.
Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to be connected to your Senator and Congressman and use the voting power of THE PEOPLE. NUMBERSUSA AND JUDICIAL WATCH for more frightening information and which lawmaker are signers to the potential AMNESTY and the immigration grades of these proponents.
This isn’t the first time the Catholic Church in America has spoken out in favor of immigration reform (and probably won’t be the last), but it is helpful to look at what the Church is actually saying and why. For example, in 2003, Mexican and American Catholic bishops issued a joint pastoral letter titled “Strangers No Longer” which contained 5 specific points regarding their view of immigration and the rights of migrants, legal or otherwise. Looking at the actual wording, rather than interpretations by loyal Catholics, provides an interesting analysis of how these bishops perceive the problem.
Point #1 “Persons have the right to find opportunities in their homeland”. Explanatory comments by the bishops were: “In this context, work that provides a just, living wage is a basic human need”. But what Americans overlook are the actual economic conditions within Mexico and other Latin American countries. For example, the Mexican unemployment rate is no greater than America and, in the case of Detroit, significantly less. Which begs the question of “who” defines what “a just living wage” is. Americans desperately need but aren’t receiving much information on just how dire the economic conditions in Mexico really are – the reality of Mexican wages, employment opportunities and government support services is much more optimistic than the grim picture painted by the Democrats and their media water boys.
Point #2 “Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families”. An ancillary comment by the bishops regarding Point #2 is “the Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people” – interesting viewpoint when you consider the “goods of the earth” more than likely refers to economic wealth, rather than just beautiful sunsets. Which is probably why immigrants aren’t clamoring to inhabit the vast northern regions of Canada, instead of Los Angeles. Moving to an unused or sparsely populated location of a foreign country and turning it into a livable, wealth producing area isn’t what the bishops are demanding for immigrants – what they actually want are Americans to share their cities and community resources with foreign nationals – it’s really ‘wealth” that “goods of the earth” refers to and reflects a very cavalier attitude toward our wealth on the part of these bishops.
Point #3 “Sovereign nations have the right to control their own borders”. Thanks for that dispensation, but the bishops then go on to say: “but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth”. So, America can control its borders against terrorists but we can’t selfishly withhold admittance to our country solely for the purpose of guarding the results of our personal efforts and the economic legacy of our ancestors. And, the bishops have dropped the vague illusion to “goods of the earth” – it’s really wealth, money, economic advantages found in the host countries they’re referring to.
Point #4 “Refugees and asylum seekers should be afforded protection”. And Point # 5 “The human dignity and human rights of undocumented migrants should be respected”. Possibly this point is directed at the Japanese or Russians, but the bishops collectively disregard our Constitution if they’re referring to America. Current legal thinking and specific enforcement practice within the United States does grant full and unrestricted protection of the Constitution to illegal immigrants. Legal rights to representation, fair treatment of those detained by legal authority, due process of law, legal status of children born within our borders aren’t denied to anyone dependent on their immigration status. An “undocumented worker” has just as many rights relative to our police and courts as any living descendent of a Boston Founding Father.
As a Californian, I readily submit that active enforcement of our immigration laws is spotty at best and applied only when a sound bite and 6:00 News clip is orchestrated by our political masters to punctuate their “tough” stand on “law and order” issues. Everyone here in California, with the apparent exception of government enforcement agencies, know who these illegals are and where they can be found – it’s no secret, simply drive through any suburban development noting the landscapers, the roofers, the restaurant workers and then look for active signs of enforcement by government employees paid to deal with such issues. The illegals aren’t cowering among the shadows or living within our West Coast sewers, they’re out there for all to see, free and unafraid.
It isn’t the Constitutional rights of anyone the bishops are alluding to, they want specific blanket amnesty, now and in the future, both for the illegals and for the priests who tend their flocks. And American bishops have a right to their opinions in a free country where the voters have their say regarding political issues. But under this representative democracy concept we’re not debating Christian duty, we’re referring to our political process – it’s important not to emotionally confuse the two issues.
And the author of this piece is well intentioned but wrong in certain rhetorical tactics employed to gain sympathy. The American Catholic Church hasn’t been consistently against abortion or as the author states: “the intentional killing of human life (such as abortion) has always been condemned by the Church”. While the Church has never proclaimed that abortion should be “allowed”, their “condemnation” of abortion has a spotty record. The recent and widely reported protests over Barack Obama giving a Church sanctioned address to Notre Dame university faculty and students is one case in point.
The religious journal ‘First Things’ also ran a long, analytical piece a while back on the Catholics and their political viewpoints regarding abortion in the 70’s and early 80’s when the Democrats were championing “abortion rights”. The Church and prominent Catholics such as Ted Kennedy (surprised?) had previously condemned any form of legalized abortion. But the Church softened its stance, or rather some prominent archbishops, bishops and priests did, to curry favor with the Democrats. The Democrats were offering much more at the time in the way of government welfare programs than the Republicans and many Catholic intellectuals felt that withholding public objections to legalized abortion was the price that must be paid to secure the “market basket” of social goods the Democrats were sponsoring through their proposed legislation. Subsequently, these same Catholic leaders would renounce their “pro-choice” stand when it became apparent that abortion on a massive scale was the inevitable result. Obviously men of faith aren’t necessarily blessed with superior intelligence.
No one denies the tremendous good the Catholic Church has, in the past, and will no doubt continue to bestow on humanity, but separating politics from Christian theology is one area where Catholics have a long history of mistakes.