Suddenly the mainstream media is leaping to the defense of the Catholic Church to teach and preach and act in accord with her beliefs despite laws that would prevent her. Have there been massive conversions in newsrooms around country? Hardly. It’s not the Church’s teaching on adoption and homosexuality that they’re suddenly okay with. It’s a declaration by Cardinal Roger Mahony of LA and other bishops that the Church won’t obey a new immigration law. The way it’s been portrayed by the media and by those bishops, the law will supposedly require churches to report any illegal immigrants who come to them for aid and services or make it illegal to provide that help in the first place. But is that what the new law really says?
Deal Hudson’s new newsletter says the rhetoric on the new law is being misconstrued. The law is HR4437 and it was passed by the House in December. The co-authors of the bill are Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) and Rep. Peter King (R-New York). King tells Hudson flat out that the law will not criminalize assistance to illegal immigrants.
Rep. Peter King, a Catholic from New York, says, “Absolutely not.” King continues, “Not a single priest or bishop has contacted me to talk about this bill. They are questioning my good faith and that of Rep. Sensenbrenner. We want to target gangs and smugglers. This law has always been on the books, and no priest, nun, social worker, or volunteer has ever been arrested or will be arrested.”
What the law really says
Technorati Tags: bishops, Catholic, immigration, politics
Must be the spirit of HR4437.
Dom:
I really urge orthodox Catholics to choose their battles carefully. While there is a lot of truth to the views expressed here about Mahoney and the new immigration law, it is not a battle that we as Catholics should choose. I would rather err on the right of the poor and oppressed and some postings here are becoming a bit questionable. I think that some could take these comments out of context and could use them as a weapon against our chairty. I think that there are more important battles to win than this one.
My wife was an immigrant from Nicaragua and when she read some of these postings, her remarks weren’t kind, and she like I are committed Catholics.
They are our brothers and sisters. Fight the liturugical abuses in LA; not immigration especially from Latin America. I would rather have Catholics populating America than those who don’t profess Christianity. The Hispanic presence will only enhance the “Catholic moment” for our nation and solidify our dreams of a majority pro-life community. While they might not be citizens, their children will be; so let’s not give them the image that orthodox Catholics are not welcoming, despite any misgivings that you may have.
What postings? I haven’t said anything about the immigration law other than that I think the bishops misconstrued what the law says and that I think interesting that this is the battle they’re willing to fight over. I think you’re making assumptions.
However, I will add that regardless of the religion of the people who are entering our country, we are a nation of laws. I don’t take kindly to open flouting of those laws. Now if we as a nation decide to change our immigration laws, that’s one thing. But I don’t think that just ignoring them because the people who happen to be breaking them are of the same religion is a good enough reason.
Ask yourself whether you’d still be so sanguine about illegal immigration if the immigrants were coming from Iran or Egypt.
I’m very welcoming toward immigrants. I just ask that they go through the legal process of entering. Ignoring illegal immigration turns the people who come here illegally into an easily exploited underclass.
DJP –
“My wife was an immigrant from Nicaragua” was she legal? If she was offended…sounds like she wasn’t.
My wife is an immigrant from the Philippines, 100% legal, and we suffered horribly at the hands of Clintonista regime and their illegal alien amnesties. So, I don’t shine to criminal aliens.
I kinda share Gerald’s view, though, I laugh at the thought of La Reconquista de America to the extent that it is being done by Catholics.
The sad truth is that Mexico is barely Catholic, mostly unchurched and I suspect that people whose first act as an American is to violate our immigration laws will not join the Church militant.
More sad truth: illegal immigrants tend to run to the arms of their socialist overlords: the Demoncrats. Legal immigrants tend to be conservative and hold very traditional morals.
There’s definitely a role for the Church to be there for the immigrants, there is a spiritual thirst there and we need to open the Church to our Latino brothers before the they get bamboozled by the Protestants. As Catholics, we need to remember that our people came here on the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria not the Mayflower.
So, I kinda like the idea of the Catholic Church as a foil to the US Gov’t and especially as a threat to Protestants and athiest liberals.
Bottom line: we need to prep for a Latino USA .. let’s make it Roman Catholic while we are at it.
BTW, is this the same Cardinal Raj Mahony who expelled Third World priests from his diocese after all the hackles raised by the Lavender Mafia in L.A. ?
P.s. Jeb Bush (Catholico), por Presidente!
P.S.S. And remember, he’s the smart one!
But the House bill does no posturing. It isn’t about church aid to immigrants. It’s certainly not about rounding up the immigrants. It’s about going after smugglers, the coyotes who brutally exploit the aliens.
I should go on record as saying that I have no problem with churches providing aid to the needy, whoever they are, as long as those churches also encourage people to abide by just laws.
It is opposed by the bureaucracy of the US Bishops’ Conference and certain US bishops, not the “Catholic Church.” There’s a vast difference.
DJP,
“I really urge orthodox Catholics to choose their battles carefully.”
I agree, but I would urge the UCCSB to do likewise. To be compassionate is one thing. To completely ingnore and break the laws of a nation is another. To assume that “moral authority”, and immigration policies will fall in line is simplistic. The political considerations are not the same thing as a Christian’s considerations. The Church is mixing the two up, which has been disasterous for the Church, historically.
Right now, it is the Bishops that are treading dangerous ground.
I would suggest doing the right thing, with regards to helping the poor, etc. But keep our mouth shut on the political front. This is far, far more complex than how it is being presented.
If one doesn’t want to be lumped in with the liberals on this issue, stop calling illegal immigration, “immigration”.
It is eerily reminiscent of those that will call a baby, “tissue”.
If the Church begins to lie on this issue, they will have lost ALL credibility. Mahoney’s hypocracy already makes his stance on this issue abusurd.
I am for a sane immigration policy, but no policy will work if the law means nothing. Sound familiar to anyone? As in “discontinuity and rupture”?
And there are many in this country, Catholics and non-Cathoilics, that believe many of the Bishops should be in jail anyway, so Mahoney’s posing may simply result in “justice by other means”.
Gerald,
I am a big supporter of Bp. Chaput, but he CAN be wrong.
I think this is a no win situation. The Church is a global Church. That means they are in Mexico and Central and South America. While they support(or remain silent) about corrupt socialist regimes in that part of the world, they acutally facilitate the breaking of this countries laws. Why? To help these people gain access to the country that actually HAS an economy. Absurd.
The Church’s history with picking political winners is checkered, to say the least. I think they’ve picked a no-winner on this one.
Feed people? Yes!
Give them drink? Yes!
Clothe them? Yes!
Give them shelter when they are homeless? Yes!
Visit them in prison? Yes!
Care for them when they are sick? Yes!
Bury them when they die? Yes!
Actively promote the breaking this or any nation’s laws? Do evil to accomplish good? Hmmm…
The USCCB is not the Catholic Church. Even if 190 of the 197 bishops agreed to oppose the bill, it’s still not the Catholic Church. It’s important to realize that distinction.
Also keep in mind that this is a matter of prudential judgment. It’s not like abortion or euthanasia, where the Church’s teaching clear and we must give our assent to it.
Good Catholics can and do disagree whether this bill is valid. Surprise, but I think Archbishop Chaput can be wrong in some things. He’s not infallible. Even if Pope Benedict were to weigh in on this issue, he could be wrong too. This debate wouldn’t rise to the level of infallibility of teaching on matters of faith and morals.
Like DDR says, corporal works of mercy? Yes. Breaking laws? No.
From what I’ve seen the bill only adds the language about assisting illegal immigration. What does it say about deporting 12 million people? Are we talking about the same bill?
Gerald,
This bill in fact does offer illegals a way to stay in the country—they take a free ride home and then they stand in line and wait like everyone else who wants to get into the country. They follow the laws of the country they want to live in, the way my mother did 40 years ago, and the way my relatives do to this day!!
Unless you are saying that the law is immoral then according to the Catechism it must be followed—CCC 2238 – 2242—and no one is saying that countries don’t have the right to regulate their own boarders. In fact CCC 2241 says expressly that while there is a right to immigrate, it can be regulated by countries, and those who wish to immigrant MUST respect the laws of their host country.
The problem is that the bishops are ignoring the law, they are ignoring the fact that it is immoral for these people to break our laws and be here, and it is immoral to help them be here (AND this doesn’t mean fulfilling their basic human and spiritual needs). Thus this bill simply promotes what the Church teaches in the Catechism, and no USCCB dictate can override this.
They may have a prudential case for granting some sort of amnesty, and they certainly do have a case for revamping our nations immigration quotas, but they are on shaky moral ground by advocating the disregarding of a just law.
2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:[43] “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution…. Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God.”
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are ABLE, to welcome the foreigner… Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions… Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.