DOES JESUS AND HIS CHURCH GUIDE OUR CONSCIENCE OR YOUR POLITICAL, PAGAN PREJUDICES? JUST ASKING…
THIS WAS RECOMMENDED READING BY MY BISHOP OF SAVANNAH:
“SPEAKING OUR AGAINST UNJUST LAWS AMID MASS DEPORTATIONS”
The mass deportation of irregular migrants continues to grow in momentum. Richly funded by the recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” it is increasingly apparent that the targets for these enforcement actions are not only “bad actors,” criminals that no one wants loose on our streets, but also hard working, honest people — many of whom have been in this country for decades — paying taxes, raising families and contributing to the common good of our nation.
In Victor Hugo’s famous 19th-century novel, “Les Miserables” (perhaps more familiar to many in a modern musical version, Les Mis), motivated by bitterly zealous legalism, Inspector Javert relentlessly pursues Jean Valjean, who had spent years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread.
Today, modern day Javerts bent on enforcing a broken and thus unjust immigration regime are deporting agricultural, construction, service and hospitality workers who have an irregular immigration status. As a result, various personalities in the government and the news media fan flames of resentment against these supposed law breakers, equating them with terrorists intent on hurting us.
I deliberately describe these migrants as “irregular” migrants, and not as undocumented or illegal, because the majority of them have some type of documentation or even legal status — albeit a temporary legal status — and most are not guilty of any serious crime.
Justice must be more than a cold and impersonal calculation of the narrow legalism of an Inspector Javert.
The virtue of justice
Justice is first and foremost a virtue. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the virtue of justice as “the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor.” In other words, justice is the virtue by which we turn outward toward God and to other people, to affirm their fundamental dignity and strive to act in accord with their true good.
To be a just man or woman is to be a person who turns outward to other people seeing them as God sees them, which is of course with perfect and unwavering charity.
Today, many take umbrage at the Catholic bishops’ advocacy on behalf of the irregular migrant, but in doing so, we stand in a proud moral tradition that holds positive laws that promote both the common good and the good of the individual in society.
This is what Jesus meant when he said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. As St. Augustine is attributed to have said, “an unjust law is no law at all,” which is why we, a nation of laws, can honor law breakers like the patriots of the Boston Tea Party and allow the dignified defiance of Rosa Parks in her act of law breaking to touch its conscience.
We can be a nation of laws, without becoming a nation of Javerts. As Jesus reminded the embittered zealots of his day, positive laws, even divine positive law like the Sabbath observance, are designed for the benefit of man, not to harm humankind.
Polarization and harm
The present enforcement-only approach aggravates the polarization of our body politics, and it causes irreparable harm to many families whose loved ones are rounded up, detained and ultimately deported to countries that they have not known in many cases for decades.
Ultimately, this will not work for the benefit of America. Rather than just busying itself with enforcing flawed immigration laws, the administration should work with Congress to change the laws.
This is why the bishops have long advocated for a comprehensive immigration reform, one that would address the need for a legal labor force, aid in family reunification and provide a path to citizenship for those who have resided and worked here in the U.S.
Also, border “walls” should also have “doors” that would permit the flow of legal immigrants. Catholic teaching does recognize that nations have a right to control their borders, but these same teachings urge richer nations to be generous in admitting those fleeing persecution or seeking conditions worthy of human life.
America has shown such generosity in the past and is certainly capable of continuing to do so today.
Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski leads the Archdiocese of Miami.
49 comments:
Nice turn of phrase "Irregular Immigrants"....Irregular = ILLEGAL, Immigrants = Immigrants. I am so sick of the Pope and his Bishops here in the USA NOT recognizing that this is a sovereign nation that MUST have laws upheld OR we get what we got: 15+ million ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS flooding into this country in the last 4+ years. The conundrum is this: IF ICE is going after the worst of the worst AND in the process, which often happens, a not so bad But nonetheless ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT is caught, does the law apply to one and not the other. Answer that one Your Holiness!
It is unjust for one to presume to enter and reside in another country illegally and to suppose that one may do so indefinitely without consequence. It is inherent in a nation's sovereignty to dictate who may or may not enter and reside within its borders.
At the same time, since the US has a long history of allowing, implicitly or explicitly, for mass undocumented immigration into our country, we have some responsibility for remedying the existing problem. That remedy should include forced deportation of some people and integration of others based on objective, verifiable information and processes that comport with our conception of due process.
It should be possible to enforce our borders to stop further illegal entries and to undergo a process of review for those who have already come into our country without going through the legal process.
These are policy-level decisions that should be made by the people through their elected representatives in Congress. It should not be the case that any Presidential administration has the prerogative to choose whether to enforce the laws passed by the people's elected representatives since that is not the purview of the Executive branch of government. That we the people have ceded so much power to the Executive branch is problematic from a constitutional perspective regardless which party or person happens to be occupying the office of President at any particular time.
How long has our immigration system been broken or dysfunctional and highly politicized. I am all in favor of laws to govern who comes in and laws to govern refugees trying to escape horrors in their own country. Marc, you are correct that undocumented immigrants were allowed to enter the country, they weren’t turned back. There are some, though, who did sneak into the country, but the majority were allowed into the country illegally. Those who have taken the ball and run with it and have made something of themselves, are productive and contribute to the common good of their communities should be give a break and allowed to become documented with a path to citizenship. As a priest, I have been allowed to breaking traffic laws simply becuse of my collar and that I have a priest. Sometimes I am let go without even a warning ticket and at other times, I have only be given a warning ticket because of my collar. Should I be tracked down by masked agents and made to pay all the fines I should have been given and maybe jail time? No! I follow the traffic laws and an an exemplary driver who drives defensively.
Illegal immigrants who have broken the law, apart from being allowed by the authorities to enter, who are truly criminal should be deported. No problem with that. BTW, before my mother became a citizen, we children use to threaten her that we would have her deported if we children didn’t get out way—just kidding.
The Archbishop does acknowledge that a country may have walls, while reminding that there must also be doors. I don't contest this.
But the Archbishop does not acknowledge is that, for quite some time, the US has had little in the way of walls (literal or metaphorical), with tens of millions of people here by way of illegal border crossings, visa overstays, etc. over the last couple of decades. That on top of millions of immigrants who do reside here, temporarily or permanently, by some legal means.
The electorate has also had a majority or plurality in support of increased immigration restrictions for most of the last half century, but neither party really worked through that in an effective way, pre- or post-Trump. It's unfortunate, yes, while not all that surprising to see a man elected who takes a harsher approach than has been taken for decades regarding immigration.
Nick
I am so old I remember when Dems were strong on immigration enforcement but they need replacement voters now - the “abortion effect!”
If the bishops wish to die on this hill, so be it. Instead of hectoring US citizens they should be demanding foreign countries take care of their own better. And of course our bishops could send support their too!
Democrats and their fellow travelers of the more socialist bent (e.g., Bernie Sanders) were once much more opposed to immigration, due in part to the fact that mass immigration generally has the worst sequelae for the working class and existing ethnic minorities. But as their direction has shifted more to the technocratic, wealthy urbanites, this emphasis has noticeably faded.
Nick
I think it's a complex problem where nuance can easily be lost in talking points. While it is true that there are illegal immigrants who commit additional crimes of varying seriousness, it is also true that there are many folks who were brought to this country from another at a young age and have lived here their entire lives, knowing nothing of their parents' homeland. I see both of these sorts of people being prosecuted in federal court here.
It is because of that nuance that a policy determination must be made -- and Congress are the ones charged with that part. They have utterly failed for a long time.
The southern-border-specific immigration problem has been going on since the 1930's. Unfortunately, at that time, overtly and unquestionably racist laws were enacted to combat the issue. That history has probably crippled all subsequent attempts to enact reasonable policies.
Illegal immigration doesn’t give you the right to treat people inhumanly. Also there’s an internationally recognised human fight to asylum regardless of your nation’s laws!
*human right
Marc and Father McDonald,
Thank you for your very sensible comments and for the all-important recognition of nuance, specifically the need to make distinctions among different categories of irregular/undocumented migrants.
As you know, I agree with the Bishops and Pope Leo on this issue—the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Unfortunately, given our very corrupt politics, I am not holding my breath about Congress enacting the necessary reforms instead of opportunistically continuing to use the issue for political advantage.
Mark J.
Quite so, Big Benny.
There is a similar distinction to be made as in just war doctrine—ius ad bellum and ius in bello.
Even if one thinks the war/deportation is justified, there are rules of conduct to be followed in prosecuting the action.
Mark J.
People have a human right to be treated humanely (obviously).
I'm not sure what grounding there would be for a purported right to asylum. What do you think is the foundation for asylum as a human right?
Here is the narrative created by the DHS regarding the operation in Charlotte North Carolina:
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/11/17/operation-charlottes-web-dhs-arrests-worst-worst-weekend-enforcement-operations
Clearly, the DHS wants to create the impression that they are only targeting “the worst of the worst.” But even if that is true, whom they target and whom they end up arresting and detaining and then deporting are not necessarily the same. Instead, although including the former group, the latter group appears to be much larger. Indeed, the DHS website linked above states that 130 have been arrested and 44 have criminal records. Well, what about the remaining 86? If they have no criminal record, then only one third of those arrested and detained are criminals or “the worst of the worst.”
It is difficult to get to the truth of the matter because of the lack of transparency and muddying of the waters by those sounding off in the media and on social media. The second video in the following link has a good discussion about this:
https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/politics/immigration-news/dhs-44-arrested-border-patrol-criminal-records/275-73787c97-5134-455a-b85a-38d50346269b
Mark J.
European court of human rights and UN etc
Rights don’t come from a government, an NGO, or a court since, by their nature, rights precede such institutions, which merely recognize their pre-existence.
Mark,
What then is to be made of recent comments that no war can be just? Does the syllogism follow to immigration, where essentially no deportation is justified?
Nick
Nick - As the manner of warfare has changed over the centuries, what was true regarding war in the past may no longer obtain. When non-combatants were not necessarily targeted, for instance, those engaged in battle could easily be identified.
Now, when we specifically identify as targets for our nuclear weapons large population centers, the "Just War" theory has to be - and is being - re-evaluated.
What exactly about the principles of just war needs to be re-evaluated because of the availability of new weapons systems? It's fairly plain that essentially no circumstances exist where "ius in bello" would allow use of nuclear weapons. It's a bit of a stretch to go from that to "just wars do not exist."
And with just war principles having been articulated as early as St. Augustine, why now do we have to re-evaluate (and signal the discarding of) the entire set of those principles now, in the 21st century--when things like gunpowder and all of its offspring of infantry firearms, massive cannons, mines, etc. did not?
Nick
"What exactly about the principles of just war needs to be re-evaluated because of the availability of new weapons systems?"
This: "The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated." (CCC 2309) in light of this: "“Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons – to commit such crimes." (CCC2314)
A similar evolution in doctrine relates to those of us who are conscientious objectors to all wars. There was a time when the Catholic Church did not support CO's. Now the CCC teaches in 2311 "Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way."
There's no such thing as a just war because all war is a great evil.
I am inclined to agree.
Sophia here: Back to mass illegal immigration - which is obviously what “ mass deportation” is intended to remedy, no matter how cleverly that is being obfuscated by implying that law abiding Legal Residents and even Naturalized Citizens are also in any way included in this government action! Were it not for the unconscionable “ open border “ policy of the previous Administration which has had a disastrous effect- economic- billions of dollars spent house, feed, clothe, educate, provide healthcare and even incarcerate those who commit other crimes here! Were there no “ mass illegal immigration”, there would be no need for mass deportation! And by the way, illegals have the honorable option of self- deporting, even with financial help from the government and the added bonus of being allowed to return through legal channels! Notice how that is not mentioned?
Actually this document coming out of the USCCB smacks of “ Liberation Theology”/ Social Justice ( which replaced the Church’s Social Teaching) ideology which was rampant in South America but condemned by Holy Mother Church while Modernism was still “ in check”! It seems that with the election of Pope Francis (RIP) and now Pope Leo XlV this heretical movement is now being forcefully imposed on Europe and the U.S. because these nations are so successful! It seems that the Gospel of Jesus is now being replaced with the “gospel of redistribution” which presupposes no sovereign nations, no private property, no law and order….!
And just so you know, while imposing all this on us and European nations, the Vatican State not only enforces its own borders but in December 2024 even increased the penalties for violating their borders! For which I congratulated them! They not only have a right to secure their border but an obligation to their citizens to do just that- and so does every nation, including our own!!!
And as to the human dignity argument, it is precisely that very fact why humans are held accountable for their actions- they know the difference between right and wrong! In this case that they are violating another
nation’s borders- the dignity of its citizens -when they do so! Ditto for why the death penalty is not only “ admissible” ( whatever that means) but actually just- the human dignity of the lives the guilty murderers destroyed!
Oh, this is another one of those developments (or more: “evolution”!) in which the Church says the opposite of what it once said. I see. Right. Onay.
Nick
So, if you are attacked, you cannot repel the aggressor and protect the innocent? By your standards, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Russia and Red China would have prevailed. You and your leftist shills (you, K and Mark) are braindead and espousing nonsense which is contrary to Catholic teaching. Father McDonald should be embarrassed to publish your tripe.
If a country is attacked, it could defend itself. But that does not make the war just. War is always evil. That is why the Canons of the Church have historically prescribed excommunication for a period of time (3 years) for those who kill even during such wars. The exclusion from communion aids in the repentance that one must undergo for having participated in something inherently evil.
The just war idea glosses over the inherent evil of war by proposing that some wars are right. All war is sinful. Yet, sometimes one is compelled to the action regardless of its sinfulness.
Marc
Rights don’t come from a government, an NGO, or a court since, by their nature, rights precede such institutions, which merely recognize their pre-existence.
No which is what they institutions recognise.
Sophia,
Your country is at war / so corrupt it’s unable to function / drug cartels and economic collapse. You have to provide for your family -,what you going to do?
Christian teachings is if I have 2 potatoes but you are starving then I am stealing from you. You have the god given right to the essentials in life including moving if it’s not safe where you live!
Have you been to the pub today, Benny?
TJM:
Please read more carefully. I never suggested that no war is justified. I just used the just war distinction between ius ad bellum and ius in bello as an analogy. Moreover, I had the same concern that you express: What should one do when unjustly attacked? This said, I am chastened by Marc’s response.
Mark J.
Sophia,
I would like to offer both a friendly amendment and a friendly correction.
First, the friendly amendment: I agree that the Biden Administration dropped the ball on immigration enforcement at the southern border, except toward the end, although I did suggest in a comment on an earlier thread that this might have been due to an over-correction following the draconian anti-immigration policies of Trump 1.0. However, your statement “Were it not for the unconscionable ‘open border’ policy of the previous Administration . . . there would be no need for mass deportation” should be amended to add an ‘s’ to the word “Administration” to encompass the Clinton and Bush II Administrations. Whether the “Deporter-in-Chief” Obama’s Administration should be included is a much closer question. See:
https://cmsny.org/publications/warren-undocumented-2016/
Table 1 gives estimates of the undocumented population (and source countries) from 1990 to 2016 as follows:
1990 – 3,500,000
2000 – 8,600,000
2010 – 11,725,000
2016 – 10,790,000
Second, the friendly correction: Your statement “And by the way, illegals have the honorable option of self-deporting, even with financial help from the government and the added bonus of being allowed to return through legal channels! Notice how that is not mentioned?” The first part of your statement is correct, although I am unsure how much financial help is available. The second part of your statement reflects a common misconception, propagated by mendacious politicians and media/social media influencers on the right who should know better. To quote the USCCB (I cannot find a date for issuance of this document although the footnotes suggest it was issued after 2010 and the date at the bottom of the page is 2025 so presumably the USCCB still stands by the document’s claims):
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-anddignity/immigration/whydonttheycome herelegally
“Moreover, according to two well-regarded opinion surveys of unauthorized immigrants in the United States, the large majority of those unauthorized in the country today would have preferred to enter lawfully if they could have. In fact, some 98 percent of those surveyed indicated that they would prefer to live and work lawfully, rather than in unauthorized status.(xvi) . . . So, why didn't they just ‘stand in line’ to do so? For the large majority of unauthorized immigrants, no such ‘line’ exists.”
Consequently, in practice, for most unauthorized immigrants the only “legally envisaged” pathway is an application for asylum or some other form of humanitarian relief. Also, keep in mind that about 40% of undocumented immigrants are “overstays” who entered on a valid nonimmigrant visa as opposed to unlawful entrants.
I hope you find this information helpful.
Mark J.
If a country is attacked, it could defend itself, but its people would sin by waging an evil war? Thank God that revelation and those who have elaborated on it over the centuries that such self-defense isn’t inherently evil. Otherwise, one might have conclude God would put us in situations where we’re “compelled to” sin.
This also treads awfully close to proscribing self-defense altogether—the “all violence is contrary to the Gospel” thesis. Some people in the Church think this should be the case, following this reasoning. Fortunately, the Church and Her esteemed Doctors clarify that this is not Catholic doctrine, though there are obviously some who would have the Church to say the opposite of what She previously did.
Nick
They… don’t, though. Unless you have unique copies of things like the Constitution of the United States, the UNHR Declaration, or recent court decisions, say from the UK, recognizing the divine origin of human rights.
Oh, you don’t? I see…
Nick
The God-Man Jesus Christ told us, both before and after His Incarnation, not to kill, to turn the other cheek, and forgive enemies. Killing, then, always misses the mark (that is, it is sinful). However justified it might be under the circumstances, killing always wounds the soul and requires repentance and healing.
Perhaps the words, “Just-war” should be changed to “Justifiable war” for a nation’s justifiable defense. The same could be said about killing an intruder into one’s home as justifiable. But the killing is still an intrinsic evil. But given the circumstances, it remains a sin, but venial rather than mortal. No justifiable war can include the killing of innocent civilians in an intentional manner, like dropping an atomic bomb on civilians to bring about a surrender of a nation.
Yes, Father. I think you’re right about the words: there’s a distinction between “just” and “justifiable.”
Below is a link to an article that briefly touches on the distinction. I think this article, which is discussing a very good (albeit dense) book called The Ethics of Beauty, explains well how the topic of war can help us to more broadly approach healing souls:
https://gchristopherscruggs.com/?p=4029
I don't know if the Catechism could be more clear, contra the position that acting in self-defense resulting in someone's death is always a sin:
"Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow[.]"
and
"Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is
responsible for the lives of others."
Nick
Unless, as I alluded to above, we are to conclude that fulfilling God-given duties requires one to sin.
Nick
Thou shalt not kill means to kill is not acceptable, it is against God’s intention for holiness and a sinless world, all to be restored at the Second Coming of Christ. Murder, manslaughter, first degree, second degree, are human constructs for legal purposes and punishment. Thus, I personally think, that the use of the legal term “murder” for procuring an abortion is wrong-headed, for the Church to use. It is killing and killing is forbidden by “Thou shalt not kill.”
Yes, I think you are to conclude that fulfilling one's duty could involve sin. That is an unfortunate consequence of living in our fallen world.
As far as I know, the Church has never taught that the injunction of the Fifth Commandment is a prohibition always and everywhere against ever causing someone's death, i.e., killing. If there is some source out there I'm not aware of, I'm all ears.
Without getting into debates over proper translation of the Hebrew in Exodus, the sources I am aware of--the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Pars. 2258, along with countless other catechisms, popes, Fathers, Doctors, and venerable theologians--are consistently careful to elucidate that one can, and may even be obliged to, act to cause someone's death, so long as the intention is not to kill but to, e.g., "insist on respect for one's own right to life." This is not to say that the death caused is a good thing, but these sources hardly support calling the causative conduct "always sinful," besides often directly contradicting that statement.
Nick
I am grateful that your positions are not Church teaching. Otherwise what else would we have other than a capricious and trickster God.
Nick
Nick, I think you’re treating individual moral guilt and sin as if they are the same thing.
I don’t think that it follows from what I’ve said that God is capricious. Rather, it shows that you have an erroneous understanding of what sin is.
It is my understanding that one cannot do voluntarily something that is intrinsically evil without sinning. If killing is an intrinsic evil, one's good intention (i.e., to protect one's child from a violent attacker) does not sanate the act of causing the attacker's death, keeping in mind the three principles of a moral act (good intent, object, and circumstances).
Nick
How so?
Nick
I think this responds to both questions you asked:
All death is not part of God’s plan. It is the consequence of human action and has no existence in itself. Death is a great evil: that is why Christ came to destroy it.
When human action misses the mark that God has established for man, that is sin. Sin infects the soul. And from sin comes death. Sin, then, is an illness leading to death, not mere moral guilt.
The illness of sin is healed thru repentance. That illness exists even when moral guilt does not. If one kills another, even if there’s some justification, the person has missed the mark in causing the death of another. That person’s soul is wounded and needs healing.
So killing another person, however justifiable, is evil because death is evil. And it is sinful because killing is not part of God’s plan for mankind.
But we live in a fallen world where we have to make choices, sometimes among bad options. One might kill another in self-defense that is arguably necessary because another fallen human is offering violence against that person or another. So, one of two evils will happen: the assailant will do violence, or the defender will kill in self-defense. Sun and evil are happening regardless which eventuality comes to pass…
That doesn’t make God capricious. All of this is because of human sinfulness.
Marc,
I appreciate your comment, but it doesn't distinguish individual culpability and sin, as we've discussed those concepts here.
Nick
You are conceptualizing sin as a legal concept (“culpability”). But is an illness. One can be infected with an illness even where an intent element is lacking. Similarly, one can participate in sin and have the resulting illness from the sin even without being morally or legally culpable for it.
Post a Comment