What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Guest Post: The Scandal No One in the American Church is Talking About

By Jeffrey T. Singer

[Our good friend Jeff Singer has just launched his own blog: "ImNotHerzog". In celebration, we're happy to host this guest post. Please RTWT, and then please pay him a visit! - SB]

Millions of Catholics living in America are liars and the Catholic Church, at all levels, from the U.S. Bishops to priests in local parishes, is not speaking out publically about these lies. Perhaps those who are lying have confessed their sins and the priests, through individual pastoral care, are urging repentance and a change of heart to live in truth and make amends to those who have been deceived – somehow, though, I doubt it as I think we would notice the change.

What the heck am I talking about?

Well, first let me note that I was inspired to write this post by this blog’s own Ed Feser, who wrote an excellent post on his own blog about the infamous Live Action sting against Planned Parenthood. I take it for granted that Professor Feser is correct in his analysis, that lying is intrinsically wrong, and that we have to take the Church’s own Catechism seriously when it says:

2482. "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving." [281] The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." [282]

2483. Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484. The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485. By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486. Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

*281: St. Augustine, De mendacio 4,5:PL 40:491.
*282: Jn 8:44.

I also take it for granted that even in a case in which we sympathize with the goals of Live Action (i.e. the desire to stop Planned Parenthood from performing abortions and/or receiving taxpayer money for the gruesome work), we all recognize that we still cannot condone the action of lying as it would be a case of consequentialist ethics – doing something intrinsically wrong in order to do good.

Which brings me to this post – why is the Catholic Church so supportive of the liars that they like to refer to as ‘undocumented workers’, or since I prefer to use clear and precise language in my respect for the truth, illegal immigrants? Go to the USCCB’s special website set up to deal with the issue of immigration and all you’ll get is the occasional reference to respecting our laws (e.g. “The USCCB believes that immigrants should come to the United States lawfully”). But let’s get real – the Mexican immigrant coming to America has to lie to get in the country (by paying a smuggler for forged documents, knowingly sneaking across the border, etc.), he has to lie once inside the country (for a fake Social Security card, for a fake Green Card, or whatever document he uses for a job), and probably has to lie on occasion when dealing with government officials and/or even his neighbors. But the church turns a blind eye to all of this lying and instead asks us American Catholics to focus on the “immoral system [our current immigration laws and their enforcement] that thrives upon the weakness and suffering of those without a voice."

Where is the concern that millions of lying illegal immigrants, through their lies, “contain[s] the seed of discord and all consequent evils”? Or that they are “destructive of society” and their lying “tears apart the fabric of social relationships”? Instead, we get a lot of rhetoric around the idea that illegal immigrants have inherent dignity, that they want a better life for themselves and their families and that enforcement of our laws can break up families (only because when we deport an illegal father and mother her kids can stay in this country because they are citizens – of course the parents could take the kids back with them if they choose but let’s ignore that for the moment). I agree with the Bishops and all the liberal Catholics about (relatively) poor Central Americans wanting a better life and having inherent dignity – but it is of course a matter of debate whether or not they have to come here to escape poverty and more importantly it is not a matter of debate that good ends (assuming for a minute that their coming to America is a good end) can be achieved through intrinsically immoral actions.

Here is a final thought – what does it say for the morals and ethical development of all those illegal immigrants when they are not called out on their lying? One could argue that their experience in the U.S. testifies to the idea that by not confronting the problem of their lies, the result hasn’t been good.

Comments (102)

Lying is but a minor transgression in the greater scheme of God's divine plan. I personally am unable to read God's mind, but Archbishop Gomez can. When one has a direct connection to the mind of God and God's mind says "flood the US with Mexicans," who cares about lying....


"As Catholics, we believe that the Lord Jesus is the Lord of history, and that for some reason He has desired that this massive wave of immigrants take place in the most powerful country on earth.”

“I believe that in God’s plan the new Hispanic presence is to advance our country’s spiritual renewal.”

-- Archbishop Jose Gomez


BTW, Jeff Singer, great rejoinder to the discussion on lying.

As far as I know, C.S. Patrick J. Bascio is the only major Catholic figure in the US to address the Catholic Church's immorality in supporting mass immigration into the US (not only in the complicit dishonesty but also in fact that mass immigration is driving down American wages, bankrupting states, increasing crime, creating ethnic tensions, etc.). All the others (whether liberals like Roger Mahony or neoconservatives like Timothy Dolan) have sided with illegal immigrants against Americans. In my area, Catholic priests far from criticizing illegal immigration actually attend La Raza-sponsored events.

Here's an interesting essay by Chilton Williamson, a Catholic, on the Catholic Church and immigration:

http://www.vdare.com/williamson/080422_immigration.htm

When it comes to lying, the strictest judges (Achilles, Aquinas, Kant, Ed Feser) will have none of it:

"Who dares think one thing, and another tell,
My heart detests him as the gates of hell.

(Iliad, IX, tr. Pope, 1720)

But there's another Western tradition, running from Odysseus, "the man of twists and turns," through Talleyrand - "speech was given to man to conceal his thoughts" - and beyond.

Though Feser believes lying is intrinsically wrong, he also believes lying is sometimes justified, as do most whether or not they think it intrinsically wrong or not. Using Catholic doctrine for nativist purposes I find unseemly. What you want to say might be more clear if you'd also included a less politically charged example. Should the church have condemned those who participated in the Underground Railroad?

Great Iliad quote, Steve.

Interestingly, the Romans distrusted and looked down upon actors because they saw dissimulation as dishonesty, not unlike the kind involved in prostitution. Still, I doubt many ancients would have taken Kant's (puritanical) views on lying very seriously. Had a madman asked Aristotle or Cicero whether the man he is seeking to kill was behind that curtain over there, either glibly would have lied, "No, he's across the street," and sweated not a drop of compunction.

What Steve's antithetical quotes above point to is the lost ancient art of casuistry - although lying is generally wrong, in some cases it might be justified (although I doubt the sustained and systematic support of mass illegal immigration would be one of them).

Mark, may we infer from your remarks that you regard opposition to illegal immigration as nativism?

Mark, may we infer from your remarks that you regard opposition to illegal immigration as nativism?

No. My problem has to do with using Church doctrine to point out one particular case of law-breaking over others, and possible reasons for it. Nativism would be one possible reason for this. In any case, we need to hear why it is that Church doctrine applies to this case of law-breaking especially.

So unless all instances of law-breaking are considered, none can examined with especial emphasis?

Mr. Singer has given us a clear statement on the broader principle at stake.

I also take it for granted that even in a case in which we sympathize with the goals of Live Action (i.e. the desire to stop Planned Parenthood from performing abortions and/or receiving taxpayer money for the gruesome work), we all recognize that we still cannot condone the action of lying as it would be a case of consequentialist ethics – doing something intrinsically wrong in order to do good.

Though, as has been argued, the ancients, by and large, kept the aesthetic and moral conjoined. The moral man, the bonus, was a warrior, aristocrat, related by blood to the gods, good looking, and, when necessary, deceitful -- and everyone wanted to be like him.

It's interesting that veritas is NOT one of the cardinal virtues for the ancients (Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance). Although Aristotle or Cicero may say, "yea, in general, be honest," lying or truth telling do not figure predominantly in ancient ethics. Plato even goes the extra mile and condones lying for political ends. And even the gods lie. Venus "lies" to her son Aeneas by dissimulating her identity. Zeus often lies to Hera.

It is in the Middle Eastern religious traditions -- based in law, not virtue - that lying is more serious ---- which makes the Catholic Church's support of illegal immigration even more immoral.

So unless all instances of law-breaking are considered, none can examined with especial emphasis?

That would be true if Jeff had not dragged in Catholic doctrine into it and said priests had a moral responsibility to condemn it. Since he did that changes things a bit. If he were talking about a town hall meeting or a sheriff convention it would be different.

Mr. Singer has given us a clear statement on the broader principle at stake.

Yes, and Jesus told us that the broader principle isn't enough in matters pertaining to the church John 8:1-11. It is a civil matter. We shouldn't confuse the two. That is a very important point.

Generally, though I am not a Catholic, I agree that lying is wrong. The exception I make for myself, in determining if lying can be excused, is based on a hierarchy of evils. Is lying worse than murder? NO. If the Gestapo (an agent of the government we are enjoined to obey) came to my door and asked if I were hiding Jews (and I am), and if I said yes -- in which case we'd all be packed off to the camps -- I would know in my heart that I was an instrument of evil if I confessed the truth of the matter.

Lying to murderers is not evil or wrong. "Is there anyone else in the house," asks the man in your bedroom as he's about to blow your brains out. No is the only acceptable answer; otherwise you make yourself complicit in the murder of your sleeping relative.

On the illegal immigration end of things, lying to undermine the sovereignty of one's nation is merely the lie that we can see. Something much more damning is going on in the mind of such so-called priests who employ the language of compassion and caring to undermine the legitimate governing authorities. I suggest that if these priests and other Catholics have a beef with Federal policy on the issue that they should address it in the manner that is available to all citizens: at the ballot box and through peaceful and honest debate.

Since I'm signing off for the night and may not be back for a day or so here is my probable response to rejoinders. The whole point of the "what about the word 'illegal' don't you understand?" argument is that illegality is sufficient to condemn it, and this this is is an intrinsically legalist position. Many laws on the books at a given time are not enforced and no one cares. A priest could rightly condemn a lawless attitude generally, but breaking one particular law? For a priest to do so implies that there is some special moral gravity to it, and that is where the whiff of nativism comes in.

Taking a legalist position, there is no need to say anything else about the matter to condemn it. That is the whole point. But for the church to explicitly condemn the breaking of any particular law, is that enough? Of course not. If a priest is going to condemn something on behalf of the church, by gum he'd better be able to say what is inherently morally wrong about the act itself. It doesn't work at all to say "breaking the law leads to lying" because if that is true it would be common to all law-breaking, and hence again raises the question of what is inherently wrong about the act itself.

No, the things the church narmally condemns are wrong regardless of legality, and there is a reason for this.

Mark -- Mr. Singer's criticism pretty clearly focused on the American Catholic leadership -- the bishops. As the bishops are regular participants in the American public square, opining and urging action on most major issues, it would seem that they open themselves to criticism.

Whew! I was worried there for a minute, Jeff -- I thought you were going to say something that would really tick people off, i.e. telling them not to lie about Santa Claus...

Feser ... also believes lying is sometimes justified,

No I don't, Mark. I think I've been pretty clear on that.

Mark -- Mr. Singer's criticism pretty clearly focused on the American Catholic leadership -- the bishops. As the bishops are regular participants in the American public square, opining and urging action on most major issues, it would seem that they open themselves to criticism.

Paul, if Jeff wants to deny that this statement:

Here is a final thought – what does it say for the morals and ethical development of all those illegal immigrants when they are not called out on their lying.

is a request for "Bishops to priests in local parishes" to condemn illegal immigrants as "liars," he may do so. Is it clear he has not done that? Seems to me he has, but we'll have to hear from him on that. If he does intend to say that, he is wrong to the extent that he holds this view for the reasons I've given. The lesson of John 8 is clear.

The question of whether the Bishops and priest are acting unwisely by their political views is a separate question. I took no position on that. I don't see anything wrong with objecting to the political views of pastors and priests, and I think Jeff is free to do so as he sees fit.

Feser ... also believes lying is sometimes justified,

No I don't, Mark. I think I've been pretty clear on that.

Ed, my apologies for the mistake. I just reread on of your articles on lying, and I see I recalled your position incorrectly. In any case, my argument here does not depend on this. I was aware that I am not in agreement with your take on it generally, but I thought there was that one common point. My view follows Gil Meilaender's lead as he explains it in The Way that Leads There. Honestly, I think this is the common sense view, which I know you think is wrong.

"As Catholics, we believe that the Lord Jesus is the Lord of history, and that for some reason He has desired that this massive wave of immigrants take place in the most powerful country on earth.”

In a saner America, Gomez would be charged with sedition for this.

This post raises a bunch of really interesting issues. (Seventeen comments just overnight? Wow!)

It seems to me that one strand (which as far as I can see in a quick skim of the comments no one has raised yet) is this: Is forging documents the same thing as lying verbally? My understanding of some of what has been written on this is that some people who condemn lying verbally as intrinsically wrong, hence wrong in all cases (like me), consider there to be other forms of misdirection that are not wrong in all cases, and that faked documents may fall into one of these other categories. It seems to me that this may be correct. I can see saying that it's always wrong to say to the Nazis, "No, there is no one else in the house" but by no means always wrong to forge a passport to allow a Jew to get out of Austria under a different name.

Since we've succeeded in getting Ed to come into this thread (hurray!!!), I would love to hear what he thinks about that distinction.

The second interesting point is this: Even supposing that distinction holds up, isn't it wrong, and in a sense doesn't it fall back into something related to lying, if we invoke such a distinction where there is _nothing like_ a "Nazis want to kill the Jews" scenario? Consider an analogy: Remaining silent and not telling what you know is not generally the same thing as lying and is by no means always wrong. But if you have important information for the police on catching a murderer, and you deliberately remain silent, this is wrong. Or for a Congressman to mislead the public in order to get them to approve of a bill wrong even if it doesn't fall into the category of outright lying. One can't just invoke these things willy-nilly. Even if it might in some extreme case be legitimate to fake documents in order to smuggle a person into or out of a country, there is nothing remotely justifying treating Americans as evildoers who want to kill Mexicans simply because we are trying to control our borders. There is therefore nothing that justifies their deceiving us by getting faked documents in order to live here against our laws. The greatest problem with the Bishops' attitude here is the implication that _we_ are the bad guys for making any attempt to control immigration and that therefore one can wink at deception of us "bad guys."

On that, I would think we should be able to agree, whatever our disagreements on lying and/or faking documents.

It seems to me that one strand (which as far as I can see in a quick skim of the comments no one has raised yet) is this: Is forging documents the same thing as lying verbally? My understanding of some of what has been written on this is that some people who condemn lying verbally as intrinsically wrong, hence wrong in all cases (like me), consider there to be other forms of misdirection that are not wrong in all cases, and that faked documents may fall into one of these other categories. It seems to me that this may be correct.

I think this view is naive. Forged documents present a variety of potential harms to the citizenry and state. For example, if an illegal uses your SSN to get a credit card, you can be sued for thousands of dollars if they fail to make their payments. In a worst case example, the police act on the paper trail and swear out a felony warrant for your arrest which will turn your life upside down. Depending on the nature of the warrant and policies of the local police department, you might even be targeted for a "dynamic entry" raid on your house. For the state, it makes upholding the law and accurately allocating resources even harder.

As to the rest of the moral angle here, Romans 13 obliges citizens and immigrants to obey the basic laws of the state. Mexicans coming here illegally have a moral duty to obey our immigration laws. If Mexicans are not morally obligated to obey our immigration laws, then Americans on vacation in Mexico are not morally obliged to obey Mexico's laws on carrying weapons for self-defense.

Mike, I totally agree with you about illegal immigrants. That's why I have two different parts to the comment. What I'm asking in the first point is simply whether there could be _any_ circumstances in which forging a passport or other similar document could be justified. I'm suggesting that perhaps there is an _absolute_ moral ban on lying outright but not an _absolute_ moral ban on making faked documents to mislead a truly monstrous government and, for example, save a person's life from that government. Moreover, I don't suppose that if someone forged an identity paper to allow a Jew to escape to Switzerland over the Alps this would result in some innocent person's getting sued for a bill as a result of "identity theft." Obviously, one would want to do it in a way that wouldn't have that result. One could use a completely fake name, for example.

Santa brings toys to our house on December 25th and when the family dog mauled my young son's cute-and-fuzzy bunny to death I told him that Leo-the-Lop-Ear died of natural causes.

The truth-puritans are almost enough to make me go antinomianist. Almost.

This post raises a bunch of really interesting issues . . . one strand . . . forging documents . . . The second . . . isn't it wrong . . . where there is _nothing like_ a "Nazis want to kill the Jews" scenario

These are interesting abstract questions, but they come up in the context of admonishing "Bishops to priests in local parishes" to condemn illegal immigrants as "liars." That was the point of the post, and I find it far more interesting.

The truth-puritans are almost enough to make me go antinomianist. Almost.

I hear you Bruce. Sometimes I think Mencken wasn't that far off in his quip about theologians being like a "blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat which isn’t there - and finding it."

99% of the public think it a crazy idea to think it impermissible to lie to keep Jews in the basement from being murdered, but they're wrong! Brought to you by the same folks that came up with the Doctrine of Total Depravity. A self-serving doctrine if there ever was. You don't get it? You're depraved!

99% of the public think it a crazy idea to think it impermissible to lie to keep Jews in the basement from being murdered, but they're wrong!

Well, it's a slippery slope. If we let them lie to save the Jews from being murdered, how can we tell people they can't have polygamous homosexual marriages with minors and farm animals if that's what it takes to keep the Nazi from killing the Jews in the basement?

So, Mark, is your point that it's _no big deal_ for illegal immigrants, aided and abetted by U.S. citizens, to use forged documents and stolen identities in order to stay in the country illegally? Even supposing that there is an exception such that forging documents to rescue people might be moral under some circumstances, does it not bother you that so influential a group as the U.S. Catholic Bishops treats the U.S. government and immigration laws as such monstrosities of injustice as to justify such goings on?

Or, to put it differently, can't you imagine circumstances where you would definitely believe that someone was being sophistical and wrongly deceptive by misleading _you_ in some roundabout way, speaking of you and treating you as some sort of evildoer or horribly unjust ruler when in fact your rules were reasonable?

Just finished Island at War, a fictional account of the Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands in which a local spy hides in plain sight. When he is found out the mother offers the commanding officer all the sex he wants if he will spare him. He spares him. (We never find out if he collects, which is one of a multitude of loose ends many complained about in this series, but I digress.) I suppose this is a roundabout way of saying that once you allow intrinsic wrongs into your system, it becomes a system that can't be taken seriously.

Lydia,

"I can see saying that it's always wrong to say to the Nazis, "No, there is no one else in the house" but by no means always wrong to forge a passport to allow a Jew to get out of Austria under a different name."

Or vice versa?

If I had to guess off the top of my head which of the true were "always wrong" I'd say forging the passport, but that may be because I have thought about the gestapo-at-the-door case and have never thought about the forging-passports case.

Anyway, no psychologically normal person actually believes that the correct thing to do is turn in the fugitives to avoid telling a lie, and in fact we all know that the moral thing to do, once agreeing to hide the fugitives, is to follow through on our commitment. Clearly no one brave and virtuous enough to hide fugitives at mortal risk to himself and family would would turn in the fugitives just because somebody asked him a question and he is only able to robotically answer questions in a literally factual way.

How is this normal conscientious intuition justified? (and the sociopathically literalistic saying-something-untrue-is-always-a-lie argument countered?) The Nazis at the door don't expect a factual answer from someone hiding Jews. They would expect the person harboring Jews to deny it but hope that he might do so in such a way (acting nervously, etc) that he reveals himself. The Nazi has no good reason to want to be told the truth, truth itself demands that he want to be convincingly told a lie so that in this case at least he will not do something wicked. The denial that there are Jews hidden in the house is no lie, the mental reservation is a necessary component of the virtuous act of hiding fugitives (assuming that we've decided that hiding the Jews is a virtuous act). Saying something not literally true to hide the Jews in the house is not comparable to the everyday dirty black lies that people tell to hide their own sins and failings. The former is the act of a saint, the latter will mundanely condemn ordinary people to hell.

Anyway, I think Mark's right that the question is not about lying it is about the morality of illegally entering the country or helping someone to do so. I think illegally immigrating is clearly wrong so doing so in a deceitful way (if it's even practically possible to do it without lying) is a lie and compounds the wrongness.

It would be unhelpful for the Bishops to condemn those who help people immigrate illegally as "liars" and it would miss the point. The point is, regardless of whether you like immigration law, the government has the legitimate power to regulate immigration and people who break that law are sinning and attacking the country they are invading by breaking those laws.

First of all, many thanks to my gracious hosts for allowing me to grace their blog with my thoughts.

I'm having a crazy day at work, so I have to make this brief, but a couple of quick points:

1) Thanks to MAR for the encouragement and link to Williamson. I have also found a couple of interesting articles about the Church and immigration at the Center for Immigration Studies.

2) Mark -- I do think I was implicitly combining two criticims of the American Bishops in my post. The first is the one Paul rightly identified -- given that the bishops are "opining and urging action on most major issues" of the day in America they can rightfully come under criticism for the positions they take; including positions they believe are informed by Catholic teaching and theology. But you were correct to note that I was offering up another criticism of the bishops and even of local parish priests who must deal with illegal immigrants on a day-to-day basis. I do in fact wonder to what extent are these bishops and priests giving moral instruction to the illegal immigrants under their care, and I'm not sure why John 8:1-11 absolves them of their duty to do so. Christ didn't tell the adulterous woman that she shouldn't worry about committing the sin of adultery. He told her to go and "leave your life of sin." Are our Catholic priests and bishops similarly encouraging illegal immigrants to stop their lies and live a life of honesty and openness, come what may? Do they even have a chance to provide this pastoral counseling, e.g. during confession? How many illegal immigrants confess their lies and think of what they do to avoid capture by the U.S. government as sinful? Shouldn't they be examining their consciences and confessing their lies? Or what sort of conscience to they have in the first place in Mexico or wherever they come from that suggests to them that it is O.K. to lie to come to this country as long as the lie serves the "cause" of making money for their family? Doesn't this consequentialist ethics open up another can of worms that the Catholic Church is usually quick to condemn in other situations (i.e. materialism is not good)?

O.K., back to work...

It would be unhelpful for the Bishops to condemn those who help people immigrate illegally as "liars" and it would miss the point. The point is, regardless of whether you like immigration law, the government has the legitimate power to regulate immigration and people who break that law are sinning and attacking the country they are invading by breaking those laws.

I can already see that one retort to this is economic necessity. However, it's clear that most of our illegal immigrants don't come here out of economic necessity so much as they do out of a desire for economic advancement. To my knowledge, Mexico doesn't have mass starvation, just mass poverty with most of the would-be illegal immigrants living at barely subsistence levels.

The Bible permits the poor to glean the extra wheat from the fields. Likewise, it's generally considered morally licit for a starving man to take just enough food to feed himself. If we apply those reasonable standards to illegal immigration, then only an insignificant percentage of the illegal immigration population would qualify for mercy.

Are our Catholic priests and bishops similarly encouraging illegal immigrants to stop their lies and live a life of honesty and openness, come what may?

Of course not. They don't think illegals are lying.

They think borders are arbitrary & meaningless and are erected to opress the poor & weak. The big lie to them is that anyone's "illegal."

Speaking of lying, this is an interesting study on the immorality with which many cops conduct themselves during interrogations:

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/03/21/this-week-in-innocence-17/

The Bible permits the poor to glean the extra wheat from the fields.

It's not a matter of the Bible permitting the poor to glean, but of commanding the rich to leave something to glean:

"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." - Leviticus 23:22

The difference is not unimportant. We have positive obligations to the poor and the aliens among us.

But this is only tangentially related to the question Jeff Singer is raising.

If illegal immigrants were starving or destitute or otherwise in dire need, and if they could only be helped by coming to the United States, then we would have a moral obligation to help them in this way. But it's not clear that all or most illegals are in dire need (though some are), and it's not clear that immigration is the best or only way to help them. What is clear is that little else is being done - or proposed - to address the pressures.

It is certainly a scandal that many Catholic priests and bishops are not, apparently, telling their Spanish-speaking flocks that breaking just American laws, apart from grave necessity, is sinful and wrong. Jeff S. is right to point this out. There ought to be homilies at every Spanish mass on the sinfulness of using forged identification documents in order to violate just laws, and on the necessity of amendment and restitution.

The difficulty today is that after so many years of neglect - first on the side of American policy and law enforcement which for decades deliberately looked the other way (and thereby put out the welcome mat), and second on the side of the Catholic hierarchy which failed to catechize properly - we are faced with a very messy human and legal crisis that does not admit of simplistic "law and order" solutions. It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. We've got to deal with the situation as it exists.

As for policy changes, I'm in favor of a limited amnesty for established families that meet some common sense requirements (stable employment, no criminal record, credible sponsorship). And there ought to be something in the way of an above-board program for guest workers that does not involve access to entitlements or the privileges of American citizenship. Beyond that, I think the president ought to announce that American immigration policy is henceforth going to be rigorously enforced, and that the U.S. Army will go house-to-house and begin deportations in 90 to 120 days. Those who have applied for the above exemptions would be allowed to stay until their applications are decided upon.

Why, Jeff Culbreath, I always knew you were a man of uncommon good sense on the subject of immigration. It seems that if we reduce the matter to the barest terms of political science, what we need is lawful will combined with charity. Right now we have precious little of either. We have lassitude, unlawful will, uncharity and misplaced charity.

In most cases, you probably don't even need deportations. Attrition would work. Just make it extremely difficult and unpleasant for illegals to work in the US and they will self-deport. Unfortunately, you have a makeshift alliance of anti-western ethnic lobbies (e.g. La Raza), cheap-labor corporations, the Catholic Church, etc., who want to make attrition very difficult. E-Verify would do much toward self-deportation:

http://vdare.com/morrison/110303_report.htm

But the usual suspects are blocking it. (E-Verify would also promote honesty in hiring -- imagine that!)

In other cases, you could pay illegals to leave. Buy them a plane ticket with a little cash -- as as been recently proposed in the UK and France. In the long term, this is much cheaper than allowing them to stay. It has been estimated that Hispanics use about $9 in gov. services for every $1 they pay in taxes.

JC: "if they could only be helped by coming to the United States, then we would have a moral obligation to help them in this way. "

I would disagree. Our first obligation is to ourselves. And the claims for "moral necessity" will only increase as time goes by. The UN has estimated that the current world population of more than 6 billion could reach 10 billion or higher by 1050. With limited resources, the world's poor will only increase, and more of the Third World will demand a "moral necessity" to come to the First World. As Jean Raspail predicted, it will require brute force to defend the borders (if they are to be defended).

JC: "I'm in favor of a limited amnesty for established families"

There's no such thing. Look at the DREAM Act. It was promoted as for "established children" but effectively would have amnestied anyone under the age of 35. The last thing we need is another amnesty, which is just another step toward transforming the US into Brazil. The "Latin populations" of the New World (the various Amerindian and mestizo populations) already possess all of Central America and most of South America. Why do they need the US too?

Exactly right, MAR.

The last thing we need is another amnesty, which is just another step toward transforming the US into Brazil. The "Latin populations" of the New World (the various Amerindian and mestizo populations) already possess all of Central America and most of South America. Why do they need the US too?

Yes. A thousand times, yes. Right on, MAR.

It should also be noted that while there's explicit dishonesty in illegal immigration (forged documents, breaking laws, etc.) there's also much dishonesty in legal immigration (e.g. faking labor shortages to hire lower-paid H1Bs, etc.). In fact, it can easily be argued that legal immigration is as much of a problem as, if not a bigger problem than, illegal immigration:

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/070731_nd.htm

Add to that the fact that legal immigration is used intentionally to drive down the wages of American workers, and it drastically increases the numbers of immigrants (through chain migration) and increases the numbers of illegals:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2011/02/20/h-1b-and-illegal-immigration/

It seems that if we reduce the matter to the barest terms of political science, what we need is lawful will combined with charity. Right now we have precious little of either. We have lassitude, unlawful will, uncharity and misplaced charity.

Paul, that sums it up nicely. It's a war of ideologies, really, with little patience for accepting obligations on either side.

JC: "if they could only be helped by coming to the United States, then we would have a moral obligation to help them in this way. "

I would disagree. Our first obligation is to ourselves.

Our first obligation is to God, who commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

And the claims for "moral necessity" will only increase as time goes by.

Then let them increase. If these claims are true, they will still impose obligations, even if they end up dashing some of our plans. If the claims are false, they will impose nothing. But let us do our duty, and the God of history and of all nations will do His.

JC: "I'm in favor of a limited amnesty for established families"

There's no such thing. Look at the DREAM Act. It was promoted as for "established children" but effectively would have amnestied anyone under the age of 35.

Oh, I'm against an amnesty for anyone under the age of 35. Just in case I wasn't clear the first time.

Why on earth would you claim that there can be no such thing as a limited amnesty for established families? Please explain. It seems obvious that there can be an amnesty for any group we choose, small or large, according to whatever criteria we want to impose.

Look at the DREAM Act. It was promoted as for "established children" ...

I've never heard the term "established children", which seems a contradiction: most children are too young to be "established" in a particular location.

By "established families" I mean those who have been here for a long period time - say ten years or more - and demonstrated an acceptable degree of stability and integration, such that breaking ties in their community would negatively impact the lives of their neighbors. There are various ways of showing this: employment, church membership, friendships, sponsorships, business and property ownership, and many more indicators besides. My proposal doesn't concern itself with the details but assumes we can arrive at something that makes sense.

Jeff C.,

I just want to echo Paul's comment and while I might quibble with this or that detail of your proposals, I think you are on the right track -- as you said, we "have positive obligations to the poor and the aliens among us." I would just add that one of the ways in which I think we can help the poor and the alien, not just among us, but around the world, is to help them live lives of dignity and worth in their own countries. To that end, even though I am generally skeptical of the efficacy of foreign aid directed by our government, I remain hopeful of the impact that the work of certain non-profits can have in foreign countries (not to mention Christian missions!) in promoting individual flourishing and indigenous economic development. My family supports this charity:

http://www.cfcausa.org/

and through the charity a young girl that my daughters correspond with and we hope someday to visit.

Jeff C., I think one problem in this area is the incredibly frustrating fact that nothing sensible will in fact ever be implemented. We're at a point of lawlessness here, particularly on the Democrat side but to some extent on the Republican side as well, that any slight sign of sympathy for anything remotely like amnesty, however limited the actual details of the concrete proposal, will just be taken and run with as yet further excuse to do what they are already doing--namely, flouting the law altogether and keeping open borders without any enforcement whatsoever. The incredible hostility directed at Arizona from the administration itself is evidence for that.

Lydia,

You are quite right, and although I am sympathetic to Jeff C.'s ideals, in point of fact, when it comes to implementation, as a conservative concerned about the problem of immigration I believe we must focus on enforcement, enforcement, and then some enforcement. Only then, once E-verify (again, excellent link MAR), a secure border, respect for what Arizona is trying to do instead of contempt from the feds, etc. can we think about reforming our current system. For those with short memories, Reagan and the Congress back in the 80s said that they would get serious about enforcement once they passed amnesty and it never happened -- that's why I wouldn't trust anyone who talks comprehensive reform today -- enforcement first and a recognition throughout society (and especially in the Catholic Church) that violating our current laws, especially by lying, is just morally bankrupt and unacceptable.

JC: "love our neighbors as ourselves"

Your use of this concept to justify amnesty only gives credence to the European New Right's arguments that "Christian brotherhood" is the basis of all left-wing thought. You should read Thomas Fleming's Morality of Everyday Life where he shows, historically, the scope of this charity has been greatly limited (such as by blood and soil) and for good reason.

JC: "Then let [claims of morality necessity to immigrate to the US] increase. If these claims are true, they will still impose obligations, even if they end up dashing some of our plans. If the claims are false, they will impose nothing. But let us do our duty, and the God of history and of all nations will do His."

I disagree. They would impose no obligations upon the realist but only upon the left-wing do-gooders of the world (including their millenarian  brethren).

Lydia: "We're at a point of lawlessness here, particularly on the Democrat side but to some extent on the Republican side as well, that any slight sign of sympathy for anything remotely like amnesty, however limited the actual details of the concrete proposal, will just be taken and run with as yet further excuse to do what they are already doing--namely, flouting the law altogether and keeping open borders without any enforcement whatsoever. The incredible hostility directed at Arizona from the administration itself is evidence for that."

I completely agree. Lydia, for once, we're in complete agreement!

Re: DREAM Act

I noted "established children" as a point of sarcasm. The bill allegedly outlined certain qualifications - not unlike those outlined by JC above - but in reality would amnesty anyone under the age of 35.

JC: "By "established families" I mean those who have been here for a long period time "

I don't care if they've been here for 50 years and are exemplary in every way -- they still shouldn't be here. If attrition doesn't work, they should be deported.

JC: "and demonstrated an acceptable degree of stability and integration, such that breaking ties in their community would negatively impact the lives of their neighbors."

This reads like some bleeding-heart La Raza commercial.

Jeff S: "Reagan and the Congress back in the 80s said that they would get serious about enforcement once they passed amnesty and it never happened"

Exactly, and here we are a few decades out. And the same problem again.

Jeff S: "I am generally skeptical of the efficacy of foreign aid directed by our government"

And for good reason. As many have argued, the total fertility rate of Haiti (4.86 in 2003) is largely so high because of foreign aid. And the more crowded a country becomes, the more uncomfortable people become and want to leave. If Haiti were left on its own, in a "state of nature" left to its own devices, the fertility rate would probably be much lower. Foreign aid arguably only exacerbates the immigration problem.

... historically, the scope of this charity has been greatly limited (such as by blood and soil)...

"Blood and soil" indeed: it was only a matter of time.

This reads like some bleeding-heart La Raza commercial.

Very rich, MAR. That your own beliefs have much more in common with LaRaza - a fanatical worship of "the race" - than with western civilization is utterly transparent. In a sense I'm glad you put up the stuff you do, so that all can see your total disregard for God and your sneering contempt for Christian morality. It further serves as a reminder to western traditionalists that our enemy's enemy is not always our friend.

On the other hand, you make our job much more difficult. When we argue for controlling our borders, enforcing immigration law, and deporting illegals, with varying degrees of nuance, we are falsely and maliciously accused of being you by our enemies. That's partly our fault, I suppose. We don't always choose our friends well. We pal around with people who want your nutty, neo-pagan ideas and thinly-veiled blasphemies to have a platform. There's a lesson in there somewhere, and I think I'm beginning to get it.

Jeff S., you wrote:

I just want to echo Paul's comment and while I might quibble with this or that detail of your proposals, I think you are on the right track ...

I thank both you and Paul for the kind words, and really must apologize for not knowing how to properly take a compliment. I don't have much in the way of original ideas, however. :-)

I would just add that one of the ways in which I think we can help the poor and the alien, not just among us, but around the world, is to help them live lives of dignity and worth in their own countries.

I agree with this, and with the rest of your comment too. It's a multi-faceted problem. Obviously it's best to minimize these mass dislocations and the hardships that motivate them. That you have your children participating in part of the solution shows that you are "walking the walk", as they say.

Lydia, you wrote:

We're at a point of lawlessness here, particularly on the Democrat side but to some extent on the Republican side as well, that any slight sign of sympathy for anything remotely like amnesty, however limited the actual details of the concrete proposal, will just be taken and run with as yet further excuse to do what they are already doing--namely, flouting the law altogether and keeping open borders without any enforcement whatsoever.

But if sensible measures are that hopeless, then aren't more draconian measures even more hopeless?

I'm not much of a policy wonk, but it seems to me that a big part of the political battle is just getting ideas out there and getting people used to thinking about them. For example, look at the sensible pro-life and anti-sharia proposals that have gained traction around the country in recent months, proposals that were unthinkable just a couple of years ago. Not much has happened yet, but it seems to me that there's a new momentum on these issues. Couldn't the same thing happen with immigration?

JC:

I'm not a white nationalist, so I don't know why you try to smear me with this label. Your seem to play from the SPLC manual. When losing an argument, smear your opponent as a racist. Or, as Peter Brimelow said, a racist is "someone who is winning an argument with a liberal." As I said before, I'm simply pro-Western (cf. Samuel Huntington). But I am beginning to get the sense that anyone who is not a diehard religious fundamentalist you consider an enemy. I suppose that's my real crime in your book.

Nor am I a neopagan, although the European New Right's critiques of modernity and egalitarianism are much more interesting and learned than anything coming from the invade-the-world/invite-the-world First Things. Your tirades only give credence to the European New Right's argument that "Christian brotherhood" is the basis of left-wing thought; that Marxism is but a secular version of Christian brotherhood. Luckily, more learned Christians than yourself, like Thomas Fleming, have shown that the concept of Christian charity has historically been limited. You may sneer at such inconvenient facts -- since they seem to go against your natural globalist millenarian tendencies -- but even Thomas Aquinas wrote that one has greater obligations to those to whom is he is related by blood and proximity.

Luckily, in European, not all those on the Christian right dwell in the fever swams of fundamentalism, as we've seen in recent years productive cooperations among neopgans and Christian trads in the UK and France. After all, both groups have the same enemies.

But if sensible measures are that hopeless, then aren't more draconian measures even more hopeless?

JC, I'm thinking that perhaps we should go the indirect route. Instead of recommending _either_ some sort of full-orbed set of ideas that include any type of amnesty at all (anything like "comprehensive reform") _or_ draconian "throw them all out effective immediately" measures (for which we probably lack the manpower anyway), we should recommend indirect discouragement a la Arizona. In other words, I would recommend measures right now that are _all negative_ (instead of recommending any official amnesty at all) but are small-step negative--state-by-state enforcement, crackdowns on big employers, voter verification. I'm sure other people can come up with even more ideas for making America illegal-alien-unfriendly without either amnesty or large-scale roundups. You know I and MAR are more or less like oil and water on a lot of issues, but he might have some do-able practical suggestions along these lines that I wouldn't have thought of.

I'm not a white nationalist ... Nor am I a neopgan ...

Nor are you even remotely a friend of the West. What you are is an imposter and a poseur, though not a very good one.

The bishops' public policy approach can be much different in emphasis than how these things are handled in a pastoral setting. I have no idea what goes on in most Hispanic churches.

It's pretty hard to tell people to repent of a common lie when it could mean deportation and severe hardship for their families. So it's possible all preachers and confessors avoid it. But I don't know, and I doubt people here do either.

How many illegal Mexicans actually read these immigration debate stories, anyway? It's useless to complain about the "scandal" of bishops not rebuking Spanish-speakers in the Anglophone press.

FWIW, Archbishop Gomez has condemned illegals' lawbreaking and supported punishments (he prefers community service to deportation). He's also said "The fact is that millions of immigrants are here in blatant violation of U.S. law. This makes law-abiding Americans angry. And it should."

He's not a total amnesty advocate, and I'd bet his ethnic background allows him more freedom to speak than an "Anglo" bishop.

As for the ethics of document forging: if you're from Mexico where the government is notoriously corrupt, do you have any reason to believe U.S. government officials constitute "legitimate authority"? It's hard to convince immigrants from corrupt countries to respect the laws of functioning countries (assuming the US isn't as corrupt as we fear). So telling immigrants to "stop lying" is harder than it sounds, especially when you'd have to tell their employers "stop accepting forgeries" too.

I would recommend measures right now that are _all negative_ (instead of recommending any official amnesty at all) but are small-step negative--state-by-state enforcement, crackdowns on big employers, voter verification.

That's fine with me, Lydia. I applaud Arizona and hope to see more initiatives like theirs. Having said that, I do think it would be better if something could be done for those who were essentially duped by decades of American non-enforcement and have since started families and made genuine homes in this country. They are otherwise law abiding and good citizens, some having obtained educations and even served in the armed forces. There are quite a few folks like this in my area of the country. They deserve better, and so do their American neighbors.

JC: "Nor are you even remotely a friend of the West"

That's grand, considering I've spent a good chunk of my life living in Europe and studying its languages and history -- and it's even comical since by "West" you mean not the historic West and its peoples but some ideological construct -- some Disneyland form of California Catholicism. Millenarian ideologues like you want to convert the West into something it never has been nor will it ever be.

You know, I hardly ever post anything like I did above; I've tried being civil with you, engaging in academic debate, but you seem incapable of cool, reasoned discussion. Instead of addressing any points I made in a logical fashion, you high-gear into condemnation and name-calling mode.

You know, I'm not the most religious person in the world, but I do from time to time attend church -- however, when I come across ideologues like you it gives me second thoughts about attending at all. So much for leading to the light when you can just damn them all to hell, eh?

Lydia,

I agree completely with your suggestions above. Your ideas are not unlike Roy Beck's policy of attrition -- finding more and more small ways to make it difficult for illegals to function in the US so they will self-deport.

In general, unlike JC, I don't think we should alienate people in the immigration restrictionist camp. In fact, we should encourage people on the left to oppose mass immigration since they have a vested interest too (immigration driving down wages, environmental concerns, population growth concerns, etc.). A big-tent approach is the best approach, I think.

I've tried being civil with you, engaging in academic debate, but you seem incapable of cool, reasoned discussion.

So now the gloves are coming off, eh? Guess I'd better run and hide.

Gimme a break. You wouldn't know a cool, reasoned discussion if it bit you on the arse. You do nothing but hijack every topic into a platform for extolling the glories of blood-and-soil-paganism, lecturing Christians about what you think their faith really teaches or ought to teach, and even more despicably and cynically, exploiting the temporal flaws (real or perceived) of the Catholic Church.

I can sometimes abide Winston Churchill's Johnny-one-note "who can't change his mind and won't change the subject", but only if he's in the grip of a passion for truth - which clearly isn't the case for you. As you said upthread, the ancient pagans and their gods, whom you take as ideal models and teachers for western man, did not have any scruples about telling lies and even condoned lying for political ends. Why shouldn't you do the same?

Jeff C - please take a time-out.

Where to start, where to start...

Jeff C: "if they could only be helped by coming to the United States, then we would have a moral obligation to help them in this way. "

MAR: I would disagree. Our first obligation is to ourselves.

Jeff C: Our first obligation is to God, who commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Not right. Almost right. And right. Let me explain: our obligation to the poor is a derivative obligation: charity consists ESSENTIALLY in the love of God that is supernatural - loving Him as He is in Himself, (not merely as we reflect on him as Creator), and a derivative aspect of that very love is the love of all those whom He loves. So love of neighbor is a necessary aspect of love of God, which wraps up the two great commandments.

But love of neighbor in this caritas is essentially found in desiring the "one thing necessary" for him, God, not in desiring worldly goods for him. To the extent that worldly goods are needful, LAWFUL, and available, we would ALSO wish for our neighbor to have such goods if they lead him to God, and not simply on a wholesale basis. St. Thomas teaches that we have a greater obligation toward the needs of our neighbor based on the degree of nearness that neighbor has to us: on this basis, I am, myself, my first "neighbor", and after that comes my wife and family, my extended family, my neighbors in the neighborhood and my parishioners, my townsmen, my state and my country. AFTER ALL OF THOSE NEIGHBORS, I also owe consideration of my neighbors who are aliens in a foreign land. In principle, then, we should consider aid to foreign lands. When done through the Church and other private organizations, it usually is good and often does phenomenal good. When done through nation-states it sometimes does good and sometimes does not.

It cannot be said that we OWE, as a matter of obligation, to dole out our worldly goods to the extent that we beggar our own selves to make them "equal" in wealth to us. Yet that is exactly what we would end up having to do if we owed an equal obligation to every single poor person in the world a comparable consideration to the neighbor down the street from us. That is, we cannot owe it to all possible neighbors that degree of solicitude for worldly goods, because that abundance of goods simply is not available to us. See above: needful, lawful, and available are conditions on the charity. Therefore, even if it is the case that some neighbor who is in Peru is destitute and can be helped in the US, it is not the case that we owe it to him to bring him here: such a result would imply an obligation to so many, and fulfilling that so beggars us, that the poor Peruvian wouldn't benefit from coming here after all. Our obligation to other (closer) neighbors who have a greater claim on our attention precludes bringing excessive numbers of new aliens in at one time. Laws setting immigration quotas are not only reasonable in principle, they are exactly and intrinsically necessary to setting the kind of structure to our society that enables effective concern for our alien neighbors that we can actually deal with their needs on a rational basis. Aid to aliens in their own country may not be subject to such a definitive legal limitation, but limits on resources mandates limits on receiving aliens into our midst (as does natural limits on the flexibility of culture itself to assimilate new and alien parties). Our moral obligation to accept aliens does not supercede such rational limits reasonably expressed in law.

FWIW, Archbishop Gomez has condemned illegals' lawbreaking and supported punishments (he prefers community service to deportation).

The bishops appear to be making an absolutely disgraceful, sickening error of politics, law, and morals in supporting illegal immigration. Kevin, how in the world can a bishop prefer "community service" to deportation when nothing short of deportation puts a STOP to that criminal's ongoing crime? I think that Archbishop Gomez has indicated he really doesn't care about the law if this is his position. The error in morals is clear enough: the bishops are supporting people in doing immoral acts. The politics error is clear: they are imputing as a matter of religious teaching what is really their own political leaning, pretending that their political preference is really Catholic doctrine. The error in law is so blatant as to not need stating. Any one of these alone is a disgrace to their offices, but altogether these evils ought to bring down upon them the wrath of Peter. Oh, yeah, I forgot: the Vatican doesn't believe law (including Church law) ought to be enforced either, except against conservatives trying to maintain traditions.

Lydia, I agree: if you cannot do comprehensive correction, do piecemeal correction. DO SOMETHING in the right direction - the longest journey starts with the first step. So take that first step. I would love it if Texas joined AZ. And if the US government went into CA with the army and started doing range testing in suitable "deserted" areas, along with training Recon to sniff out coyotes in other areas.

I am not absolutely against some very limited form of amnesty, but the background for it has been vitiated so badly by past political behavior that it is difficult to see when such a move would become prudent. Probably not at first. Maybe after a couple of years of broad, general enforcement of the actual laws that are on the books, and effective use of borders as restraints. After that, I could see allowing illegal aliens that have been here, say 8 years, have committed no crimes, have NOT been on any form of public assistance, and have learned our language, to get in at the end of the line for legal status, and make them go through the process just like the other people who tried to do it legally. In the process, they should cough up information about who employed them, and we should go after employers who knowingly failed to report, and failed to pay proper taxes on the illegals. That way our amnesty does not give positive rewards for illegal behavior.

So, Mark, is your point that it's _no big deal_ for illegal immigrants, aided and abetted by U.S. citizens, to use forged documents and stolen identities in order to stay in the country illegally?

No. I don't know why you'd think that.

Tony, great comment on the obligations of charity. I can't find a thing with which to disagree. That much was assumed when I wrote "if they could only be helped by coming to the United States, then we would have a moral obligation to help them in this way".

My interlocutor, however, has a problem with the flip side - that charity does at least suggest, if our closest neighbors (say, those in Mexico or Canada) are in dire need, and if we can help them without doing serious harm to our own country (e.g., driving ourselves into destitution, or subjecting ourselves to the threat of jihad), that we are obliged to do so insofar as it can be reasonably managed - yes, even if it adversely affects our prosperity, lowers our national IQ, changes the ethnic makeup of the country, etc.

I do in fact wonder to what extent are these bishops and priests giving moral instruction to the illegal immigrants under their care, and I'm not sure why John 8:1-11 absolves them of their duty to do so

Jeff S: Well the politics of priests matters. Just ask Obama. The priests may well be poisoning the minds of parishioners in some ways. That is a fair point and one I've acknowedged. You have every right to be concerned.

Christ didn't tell the adulterous woman that she shouldn't worry about committing the sin of adultery. He told her to go and "leave your life of sin."

I think it is pretty clear from the passage that the meaning was "leave your life of adultery." And I think it is highly problematic to say Christ is commanding her to stop sinning generally. If you've figured out how to do that then let me know. :) Look, obeying the law generally is good, but finding a legalist in Christ is quite a stretch. What did he tell the soldier? Obey the law! No, it was don't cheat, don't steal (no matter what the law says.) These are immoral no matter what the law says. I think your use of Feser's (natural law theologian position) quite unconvincing. It is not widely accepted in any case. I highly recommend you read Meilaender on the topic as he discusses Augustine's view. He is one of the best Christian ethicists on the planet. He's a Lutheran if you care.

Jeff,

and even more despicably and cynically, exploiting the temporal flaws (real or perceived) of the Catholic Church.

Consider the perspective from an outsider. The Catholic hierarchy threw aside law and order for decades on the rape of children. The Catholic hierarchy is encouraging illegal immigrants to come to the US. Conservative Catholics would do well to recognize to the conservative outsider the Catholic hierarchy appears, frankly, to consider itself to be above the law.

In any sane system, if Archbishop Gomez were to be proved to have combined his exhortations to swamp the US with illegal immigrants with action to aid that effort, he'd have a heap of felonies slapped on his head. One of those being sedition.

Jeff,

That your own beliefs have much more in common with LaRaza - a fanatical worship of "the race" - than with western civilization is utterly transparent.

La Raza, "the race" isn't being dispossed from it's homelands. La Raza will still exist a century from now. I don't agree that racial nationalists worship race. Is trying to preserve a bedrock aspect of who we are, something basic that's being annihilated, "worship?"

I like to quote, the blood-and-soil, neopagan, race-worshipper Russell Kirk on this:

It seems to be a law governing all life, from the unicellular inanimate forms to the highest human cultures, that every living organism of every genus and species endeavors, above all else, to preserve its identity. Whatever lives...resists with the whole of its power the endeavors of competing forms of life to assimilate it to their substance and mode. Every living thing, as part of a species, prefers even death as an individual, to extinction as a distinct species.... We ought not to be surprised that men and nations resist desperately—perhaps unreasoningly—any attempt to assimilate their character to some other body social. This resistance is the first law of their being, extending below the level of consciousness.
even if it adversely affects our prosperity, lowers our national IQ, changes the ethnic makeup of the country, etc.

Jeff, I'd say the things you list here suggest doing serious harm to our country.

If illegal immigrants were starving or destitute or otherwise in dire need, and if they could only be helped by coming to the United States, then we would have a moral obligation to help them in this way.

Generally speaking, we can only help refugees that are being subjected to violent persecution (i.e. the many genocides in Africa) in their home countries by bringing them here (or, I suppose, by invading and then forever occupying their countries with our military). Do we have a moral obligation to bring every person on earth who is subject to violent persecution to the U.S. ?

My obligations to my children and, ultimately, to my posterity are greater than my obligations to La Raza and La Raza's posterity.

BTW, I don't think MAR threadjacked anything here. These topics aren't too much of a tangent from the post's subject.

Mexico is the 2nd fattest nation in the world (after the U.S.). They can feed their people. Their oligarchs would rather export them, though.

that charity does at least suggest, if our closest neighbors (say, those in Mexico or Canada) are in dire need, and if we can help them without doing serious harm to our own country (e.g., driving ourselves into destitution, or subjecting ourselves to the threat of jihad), that we are obliged to do so insofar as it can be reasonably managed - yes, even if it adversely affects our prosperity, lowers our national IQ, changes the ethnic makeup of the country, etc.

There are over 500 million people in the world in dire need. Most of these from danger of severe malnutrition / starving. We know that we could, if necessary, feed many of these people, but we cannot succeed long term doing so in situ mostly because of political corruption: governments cannot get out of the way, and some of the governments over the starving people think they have vested interests that interfere with our feeding them. Bringing them all here would "break the bank."

There are over 500 million people who suffer under regimes that endanger them with all sorts of severe problems. We cannot solve their problems in situ without taking over their country. We cannot bring all 500 million HERE because that would "break the bank", doing neither them nor us any good.

We already HAVE a system of bringing in and helping the worst off refugees who are most at risk of such things as political persecution. Such a policy inherently must set limits: we can help X number per year, and more than that begins to significantly damage our own culture. To turn a blind eye to people who flout that system and decide on their own that THEIR worthiness to gain access to our benefits is more important than the next family on the official list, i.e. a form of grave selfishness, is not a form of real charity.

My family with number of others, about 5 years ago, sort of "adopted" a political refugee family from Liberia, brought over by the State Dept. This family rose to the top of the list because the dad had some English, but the rest of the family (Mom and 5 kids) did not. We helped with food, clothing, we scrounged up a van for them (had to be big enough for all 7), we gave the Dad driving lessons enough to get him a license, helped him find a job he could manage. But in all this, the wife and kids were nearly unhelpable by us, because of their lack of the language combined with the vast cultural gulf. Fortunately (due to State Dept) they had social services available to them. Even so, they had immense problems, and the older kids were at serious risk for moral / psychological / social problems. All in all, the total drain on the government and on the community was quite significant. Repeating this 10 times in 5 years for our local community would have damaged our community in a severe manner. Such a load is NOT called for by charity. Given that the government ought to have an eye to seeing that kind of broad vision of how much investment of resources can be borne, it is reasonable and appropriate to respect the quotas set by law, and thereby to practice charity along side of prudence, for the 2 virtues cannot be truly in conflict.

Therefore, the fact that there is some alien whose only hope of improvement is to come to the US does not, of itself mean we have an obligation to allow him to do so. It means that we have an obligation to put him on the list and consider his needs along with many others, and when he comes to the top of the list then we bring him in with all our good will. And we already do this, this has been our national policy for ages. If the quotas need to be increased, that's an argument that can be hashed out, but only in a context that recognizes the need in charity for those quotas to begin with.

Jeff , I agree that charity obliges us to consider becoming less affluent. But it does not oblige us to accept so many aliens that we cannot maintain our culture: love of freedom, vibrant Christianity (well, one can hope), industriousness, applied ingenuity to solving problems instead of sitting back and saying (shrug) "oh well", English-speaking love of Shakespeare and respect for rule of law, and so on. It is a fundamentally governmental sort of prudence (i.e. the prudence of those responsible for the common good) to make the determination of how many aliens per year we can absorb not just in terms of wealth but also in terms of culture and psychological adjustment. And the influx of Hispanics (especially from Mexico) has already damaged our culture in the southwestern states, and it goes on. The fact that the bishops, who ought to be able to see all of the above without effort, speak hardly a word about the proper role of legal authority in assessing the appropriate limits to immigration for the good of the community, is terribly depressing and offensive. That some of them do so in terms that clearly set aside both law and the rational ordering required of charity with prudence is just appalling.

I think every word that Tony is saying here is extremely sensible. And I'm not at all sure, Jeff C., that he and you actually agree. (Naturally, I'd love it if you did.) But let's put it this way: I'm not sure what sense it makes to talk about allowing enough "neighbors" in Mexico to come to America to appreciably lower the entire country's standard of living while at the same time saying that this wouldn't be doing serious harm to the country. To me that's just confusing. If you bring enough destitute citizens of another country to the U.S. to make an appreciable dent in across-the-board American prosperity, that's a _lot_ of destitute people and sounds like a pretty problematic situation. Nor is it clear to me that the American government has the right to make that decision for everybody in the nation: "Hey, if most of the people in America now have to crowd into small houses or apartments in order to accommodate all the destitute Mexicans we're bringing in, they should be willing to do that as a matter of charity."

I agree that it's a tautology that _if_ we have a duty to do something, then we just have to do it and let the chips fall where they may. But why bring that up in this context? Why even think that our government ever would have a _duty_ to open our border to that many people from another country? The Bible verses cited are by no means clearly enjoining that. In fact, any verses from the Old Testament must take into account the context: The ancient Hebrews were, by Divine injunction, some of the most cautious about assimilation, indeed, some of the most "xenophobic" people (as it would be thought now) that could be imagined! If any alien immigrant were found worshiping idols he stood a good chance of being stoned. This suggests an _extremely_ strong view of assimilation and great care in making sure it was carried out--on an individual basis. It's ludicrous to imagine anyone in ancient Israel ever believing that injunctions to help the poor supported anything remotely like mass immigration from a neighboring country.

Lydia,

We're at a point where most men cannot support a wife and children on just their own labor. Unemployment, especially among men, is very high. In spite of all of this, Jeff cheerfully advocates a position which is demonstrably harmful to working class and poor American families. His position is not only not defensible, it is reprehensible.

If that plan were to come to fruition, it would cause grave and foreseeable harm to family life in ways that would likely shatter what remains of it outside of the upper-middle and upper classes. What Jeff needs is a reality check; it is not possible to call an act "charitable" if the act of giving it causes harm to another.

Mark,

You say,

I think it is pretty clear from the passage that the meaning was "leave your life of adultery." And I think it is highly problematic to say Christ is commanding her to stop sinning generally. If you've figured out how to do that then let me know. :) Look, obeying the law generally is good, but finding a legalist in Christ is quite a stretch. What did he tell the soldier? Obey the law! No, it was don't cheat, don't steal (no matter what the law says.) These are immoral no matter what the law says.

I agree, but the question I want you (and the Catholic faithful) to confront is whether or not lying to come to America and to stay in America is a sin. Given Ed's previous discussion of the natural law and lying, I think a strong case can be made that illegal immigrants who must lie to get into this country and to stay here are in fact sinning by lying.

Now there are some interesting possible exceptions that are perhaps worth exploring:

1) way up thread Lydia raised the issue of whether or not forging documents is the same thing as lying verbally? here I do think invoking Christ might be appropriate -- even though the individual doesn't have to speak a lie, with a forged document the intent of the document is to deceive and isn't the point of Jesus' moral lessons is that we need to examine our hearts and ask ourselves if we are doing God's will and obeying His commandments. If God's will is to tell the truth, then no matter the details (i.e. whether we speak the lie or use a deceitful document) we shouldn't conceal the truth on purpose;

2) but what about an illegal immigrant who is lucky enough to simply sneak across the border and get work perhaps as a day laborer in which he is paid in cash and never has to use a false ID and tell anyone any lies about his identity -- in other words he is lucky enough to enter this country and live here illegally without telling any lies. I wonder in these cases if the individual is committing any sin?

P.S. Tony, thanks so much for your wonderful comments -- I'm glad you stopped by! Your reminder about what caritas means echoes some of the thoughts in the recent encyclical from the Holy Father, which can be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

even though the individual doesn't have to speak a lie, with a forged document the intent of the document is to deceive

Jeff S, if I recall St. Thomas, the spoken word is a symbol of the thought in the mind, and the written word is a symbol of the spoken word. Lying in writing is just as wrong as lying in speech. And yes, using a forged document is lying.

2) but what about an illegal immigrant who is lucky enough to simply sneak across the border and get work perhaps as a day laborer in which he is paid in cash and never has to use a false ID and tell anyone any lies about his identity -- in other words he is lucky enough to enter this country and live here illegally without telling any lies. I wonder in these cases if the individual is committing any sin?

Two points: first, if he earns money, by law he is obligated to pay tax on it. That obligation is just and reasonable. Same with the illegal status of just plain being here: he is in violation of a just and reasonable law. All moral teachers I know of other than strict anarcho-libertarians say that we are morally obliged to obey just and reasonable laws. The illegal immigrant is breaking 2 laws that are just and reasonable, and so yes, he is sinning. Steve P made that point way up above, and he was right. Any priest who wants to give him absolution in confession should be telling him that no absolution is possible without contrition and an intention to STOP doing the sin. If the illegal immigrant doesn't intend to go back home, he cannot be absolved of these sins.

"but what about an illegal immigrant who is lucky enough to simply sneak across the border and get work perhaps as a day laborer in which he is paid in cash and never has to use a false ID and tell anyone any lies about his identity -- in other words he is lucky enough to enter this country and live here illegally without telling any lies. I wonder in these cases if the individual is committing any sin?"

I say yes he is committing sin and is carrying out the essence of what is wrong with entering the country illegally. I think you are missing the point by focusing on lying. That you have to ask the question reveals that you are missing the point, I think.

There are over 500 million people in the world in dire need.

Yes, Tony, but please note, again, that I was referring specifically to neighbors just across the border, not the entire world.

Do you disagree with anything I actually wrote? :-)

Jeff , I agree that charity obliges us to consider becoming less affluent. But it does not oblige us to accept so many aliens that we cannot maintain our culture: love of freedom, vibrant Christianity (well, one can hope), industriousness, applied ingenuity to solving problems instead of sitting back and saying (shrug) "oh well", English-speaking love of Shakespeare and respect for rule of law, and so on.

I think perhaps we do part company on this. We may, in fact, be obliged to accept so many aliens that it changes our culture. Not that such is the case today - clearly we were not morally obliged to accept the number of Mexicans or other foreigners who have immigrated illegally or even legally - but such an obligation is possible under the conditions I have already outlined.

There is room for disagreement about the meaning of "dire need", "reasonably managed", and other qualifying terms - all of which admit of degrees - but at some point one nation may be morally obligated to accept migrants from another even at the price of cultural disruption. No, we are not obliged to permanently import twenty million communists, jihadists, or criminals - that's what "reasonably managed" is all about - but we might someday be obliged to permanently import twenty million people who are poor, who don't read Shakespeare, who haven't been taught the Protestant Work Ethic, who need some education on the rule of law in a free country, and who will change our culture somewhat (but not more than we change theirs).

I am not arguing that we have that specific obligation today. I am arguing that prosperity, culture - or in the case of MAR and his pals, race and tribe and clan - do not always trump the obligations of charity. It's an extremely modest, theoretical point but one that sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Whose position are you attacking, Jeff? Who said (or implied) that culture, race, tribe, etc. ALWAYS trumps charity?

I'm not sure what sense it makes to talk about allowing enough "neighbors" in Mexico to come to America to appreciably lower the entire country's standard of living while at the same time saying that this wouldn't be doing serious harm to the country. To me that's just confusing.

Lydia, I only partly disagreeing with Jeff C: It makes little sense, for example, to lower our standard of living to such an extent that we can no longer afford the kinds of amazing medical miracles that save little kids with some frequency, including foreign ones sometimes - at least, charity does not require this kind of response. Or to lower wealth to the point that hygiene is worsened. That's what I mean by saying that if we accept way too many immigrants, we will do away with the very difference that makes them want to come here, and that does neither them or us any good.

But on the other hand, we CAN lower our "standard of living" with respect to superficial and inconsequential things, doing so won't harm our culture in the least. For example, I know that there are families that spend a week at Disney World every year. This is a pretty vast expense for a return on the money that is, when all is said and done, pretty short-lived. (After the 3rd year, just how much more are you going to get out of it?) Or what about people who ditch the 42 inch TV for the 72 inch TV - I don't think that this causes any kind of improvement in our culture, and so doing away with such an expense would not damage our culture. There is a significant amount of flex between the amount spent in our culture and the amount spent to maintain our culture.

Yet even there, I would still say that prudence would not propose to eliminate the excess and wastage overnight. That would be unreasonable - as well as causing all sorts of damage to the lives of people who now work in those excess capacities. That's not charity either. So, even from the standpoint of KNOWN resources that could be available for making the lives of our neighbors better, an immediate total reverse in course would be a bad idea.

But that's not all: if we start noticing that we can tighten up our spending and care for our neighbor better, we will notice our neighbors here in our own communities more as well. Finally, as my own experience with a refugee family indicated, the emotional, psychological, and cultural turmoil caused by immigration cannot be ignored, even when the material resources are available. The impact of bringing in new people whose value systems don't include respect for the rule of law, for example, cannot be ignored (not to mention people who don't really think working for a living makes a heck of a lot of sense). We have a right to maintain good aspects of our culture, and to attempt (so far as possible) to pass that on to our kids. Vast immigration that soaks up every spare dollar of excess wealth would damage our ability to maintain that culture.

I don't give a darn about someone's skin color. But I do care a lot about his morals, his principles, and his attitudes about the important things in life. That goes double for immigrants, whom we have a right to check out before we invite them to live in our midst.

Jeff, I was composing my last when you posted first. I think that we have a definitive right to maintain all the important parts of our culture, even if that leaves many Mexicans destitute. I also think that we do not have a definitive right to maintain less important aspects of our culture in the face of need. But, when it comes to questions on the borderline, determining which is which, I think that individuals should be able to express their own moral sense of rightness with respect to their own desire to give to a neighbor, rather than having more thrust upon them by law, for then it ceases to be charity and is instead mere officious burden. Ideally, as a person grows accustomed to think first of his neighbor instead of his own ease and plenty, he will often make a choice that is more generous than that outlined in the legal framework of quotas. But the law ought not push the entire body of the community up against the very edge and limit of toleration, as if charity requires that as a definite obligation.

but please note, again, that I was referring specifically to neighbors just across the border, not the entire world.

I live on the east coast. Mexico isn't my neighbor. If I live in Maine and Mexicans are my obligation, then I don't see why the rest of the world isn't as well.

we might someday be obliged to permanently import twenty million people who are poor, who don't read Shakespeare, who haven't been taught the Protestant Work Ethic, who need some education on the rule of law in a free country

Jeff C., I have a real problem with that. That's a big deal. If you think that it can be taken care of with a little good will on both sides, I think you are naive. I tremble at the thought of importing twenty million people who "need a little education on the rule of law in a free country." Are you kidding?! Maybe I just have a really, really vivid imagination, but that sounds like a nightmare. The funny thing is that you have a pretty vivid sense of this when it comes to people who "need a little education" about things like honor killings--namely, Muslims. I think you ought to acknowledge that, say, taking it for granted that you can always bribe a policeman is a similar kind of cultural problem--it's something we should be really negative about importing. It would be a big deal for our culture to change in the direction of being, say, more tolerant of public corruption. I don't believe in dragging our culture down somewhat in that type of area so long as we drag other people's culture up somewhat to meet in the middle. Wonderful: So now our country has as a whole _less_ respect for the rule of law but is still _better_ than Mexico, and the immigrants have _more_ respect for it than they did before. That is not acceptable. I don't take some kind of socialist approach (I trust you'll forgive the phrase) to important cultural goods like respect for the rule of law, as though it's okay for the "rich" in these goods to give them up to some extent in order to "raise" others in their possession of these goods. Some things you shouldn't treat that way _at all_.

Really, Jeff it sounds to me like you’re muc h closer to saying charity always trumps everything else than MAR and his pals are to saying their (our?? Am I a pal?) concerns always trump charity.

I agree that it's a tautology that _if_ we have a duty to do something, then we just have to do it and let the chips fall where they may. But why bring that up in this context? Why even think that our government ever would have a _duty_ to open our border to that many people from another country?

Lydia, if the history of the 20th century provides any lessons for us, one lesson is that the duty to receive a huge number of migrants might easily fall in our laps. If a bordering nation, with whom we share a continent, were overtaken by communism or some other brand of totalitarian misery, creating 20 million desperate refugees pounding on the door, then we would have some real-world decisions to make. So it's not purely a theoretical exercise.

Jeff C., I have a real problem with that. That's a big deal.

It is a problem, and it is a big deal. But a human catastrophe of 20 million starving or dead refugees might be a bigger problem and a bigger deal.

we might someday be obliged to permanently import twenty million people who are poor, ,

Well, it is difficult to speak in generalities about this, but it is hard to see how a large, defined block of the gravely destitute could NEED the specific assistance of being moved in with us. I mean, isn't just as likely that when a need as great and as defined as that comes up, we could have an alternative option of taking care of the problem where they already are. If it is a matter of starvation, it is a heck of a lot easier to move food to them than move them to food. If it is a matter of politics, if the politics of a country gets so bad that 20 million need to move out, we have just as much of a political right to intervene (via UN, NATO, and other mechanisms) to put a stop to the problems.

The movement in of a block of 20 million people in a modest time (say 3 years) would create enormous burdens even if they already shared our culture. If instead they hold a different language and cultural values that are actually antithetical to American ideals, then yes, that would pose a situation that could overturn an otherwise possible obligation and response of moving them into our country. A disruption of that nature leads to corruption of morals, defection from sound and needed traditions that bolster religion and morality, damage to the fabric of society, and in general is not what is meant by an obligation in charity. For example, let us suppose that the potential receiving nation is 99% Catholic, and the potential immigrants are 99% Fundamentalist Mormons, or something like that. Prudence tells us that receiving such a block of people and accommodating so many changes in customs, laws, and standards would so damaging to the capacity of the receiving to retain its Catholic culture intact. It cannot be said that charity requires such a thing. And, likely, charity would find a way of helping them where they are already.

Tony, it has happened in the past, and will certainly happen again, that huge numbers of people will literally be forced out their country due to wars, famine, persecution, and so forth, and neighboring countries will be helpless to prevent it. Who knows what that scenario might look like? It's a recurring theme historically.

20 million was just a random number. I was looking for a number that would obviously "change the culture" of the receiving nation in some degree - change its customs, change its ethnic makeup, render it poorer, make it less whatever it is that you and I really like about it. In other words, large enough to require a general sacrifice on the part of the population, but small enough to not drive the nation to complete ruin. If 20 million would be overwhelming, then make it 10 million or 5 million, but you get the point. A nation is not required to sacrifice its own existence, but it may certainly be obligated to sacrifice something.

Again, unless I'm missing something, it really doesn't look like we disagree in principle. We may disagree in the details of application, but that's fine with me. My argument here is meant to oppose false principles.

In fact, we should encourage people on the left to oppose mass immigration since they have a vested interest too (immigration driving down wages, environmental concerns, population growth concerns, etc.).

As I've written many times before, the best way of keeping population growth under control is increasing female literacy. It is by far the most important difference between high and low population growth nations. Although I am okay with tightening restrictions on illegal immigration, especially when targeted at their employers, I'm generally opposed to deportation unless they've committed another crime. The hermetically sealed border fantasy of reactionaries is never going to happen under our corporate owned republic, even assuming you could find liberals idiotic enough to support it, so don't imagine that you will be stopping legal immigration anytime soon.

"All of life is a foreign country." - Jack Kerouac

Let's see, Jeff Culbreath recommends that the US Army go house-to-house to enforce immigration policy and MAR calls him a La Raza bleeding heart. There's something wrong with this picture.

"MAR calls him a La Raza bleeding heart."

I didn't. I said that the comment he made read like a La Raza commercial -- because it did. La Raza and other groups have made it a regular talking point to discuss how communities will be disrupted if laws are enforced. It was a flippant remark -- but factually true.

And regarding the army going door to door, Culbreath recommended enforcement after amnesty (read his comment). Now, where have I heard that before?

But back to the main point -- this article is about the Catholic Church's complicity in illegal immigration. With the exception of Patrick J. Bascio, nearly all the Catholic Church hierarchy has sided with the Third World and against the West on the issue of immigration. Priests in my area attend La Raza-sponsored events. It's a reversed telling of the Song of Roland. Sad indeed. French conservative Jean Rapsail predicted in the 1970s that the Catholic Church would become the world's major institution in the anti-Western, pro-Third World immigration crusade. It's now playing itself out.


Interesting tidbit from CIS on new census numbers:

"Census Bureau data collected in 2010 show that the decade just completed may have been the highest for immigration in our nation’s history"

http://www.cis.org/node/2649

I am a practicing Catholic and this past Friday
March 18th 2011 I briefly had a chance to speak with Archbishop Gomez at the Los Angeles Relgious Educaton Congress in Anaheim California. I approached the Archbishop after he gave radio interview on the Catholic Sirus channel. I approached him, kissed his ring, introduced myself and my daughter to him. I told him I specifically came out to this conference to meet him to tell him what has been troubling my heart. I respectfully told him that I was very troubled by is 'joining forces" with a racist marxist militant organization called La Raza to push for the " Dream Act". Archbishop Gomez then said No! I said yes! you did 'join forces' with La Raza and La Raza is a racist organization. Then he said Yes! I want migrants to freely move accros borders. He then said he did speak with them and that the USCCB ( The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) works with these organizations on public policy issues. I told him that he and the USCCB need to renounce La Raza and stop working with them. I again said they were racist and militant and their desire is to reconquest the western part of the United States. Archbishop Gomez shook his head and said no they are not. I said that you are wrong your Excellency!I told him that he needs to research or have someone he trusts research for him the La Raza organization. I put my hands on my heart then told him that it is troubling to me and breaks my heart that my new Archbishop would join forces with this racist marxist militant organization. I told it would be like Cardinal George of Chicago joining forces with the KKK and neo nazi groups to push for some public policy issue. He said that he would ponder and take into consideration what I told him. I kissed his ring and bid him farewell.
I felt Archbishop Gomez was a bit stunned that a young woman with her daughter would question his involvement with La Raza. His eyes grew big when I brought up La Raza. His body language was a little defensive but not overtly. He stood by his involvement with La Raza. I don't have much high hopes for Archbishop Gomez or the USCCB renouncing La Raza. The Los Religious Education Congress is an annual "catholic" educators conference sadly it pushes a progresive radical religious and political agenda. Last years keynote speaker was Jim Wallis Obama's religion czar. This years keynote speaker was Jack Jezreel founder of " Just Faith " ministries a "social justice" organization with very close ties to progressive religious groups "Call to Action" "women priestess" movement and the political progressive organization IAF Idustrial Areas Foundation a Saul Alinsky group who is funded by George Sorros. Many of the speakers at this conference are religious and political progressives promoting all sorts of dissenting teachings. There are a few solid Catholic speakers at this conference that I could count one one hand. I sadly believe that Archbishop Gomez will turn a blind eye to the dissent of this and future "Congresses" because his primarly project is working on "immigration" and the majority of the speakers and the people who are incharge of putiing this "Congress" on are on board with his "immigration" agenda. I hope and pray that there would be many faithful Catholics who will stand up and voicefully and respectfully confront Archbishop Gomez and the USCCB on their working alliances with these dissenting ,radical, racist, militant and marxist organizations. Archbishop said at the closing liturgy on Sunday at this "Congress" that he will be in Rome because he is on a commitee for the Church for Latin America. He said he most likely will not be meeting with the Pope but if he did meet with him he would tell him that the church is alive here and tell him about what goes on here at the Religious Education Congress. He asked the thousands of people in the audience how would you like me to invite the Pope to the congress next year? The crowd laughed and many applauded.
I said to myself the Holy Father would be disgusted with the the many dissenting speakers and the liturgical abuse at the "masses", the Holy Father would have to perform the largest exorcism in history! I could go on and on about my experiences at this Religious Education Congress with the womens ordination promoting speakers, the Obama voting presenters and workers, etc... but I will leave it with that.

Bruce, thanks for the interesting quote from Russell Kirk. The context, however, is unclear. If we wish to know how Kirk would (or would not) have applied this concept of preservation to the immigration question, perhaps we should look to his work toward the end of his career, when he took an explicitly restrictionist position and labored for the presidential campaign of Pat Buchanan. Here's an excerpt from Kirk's very last book (1993):

"Of course it is true that into the culture, the British culture, of North America have entered large elements, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, of other major cultures, chiefly from Europe – but also, and increasingly, from China, Japan, the Levant, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and (quite recently) Korea and Indochina. But these and other cultures from abroad have been peacefully incorporated into the dominant British culture of North America. Even Mexican culture, which soon may be the biggest minority ethnic bloc in the United States, commonly is woven into the fabric of American society – after the passage of a single generation ...

The United States today is flooded with immigrants, lawful or unlawful, eager to enjoy the security, prosperity, freedom, and cultural opportunities of America. America’s successes, substantially, have been made possible by the vigor of the British culture that most Americans now take for granted. Who, then, are the people desiring to pull down this dominant culture and set up in its place some amorphous ‘multiculture’? One does not find the Vietnamese, or other Asiatics who have taken refuge in America, complaining about ‘cultural oppression’. Most of them swiftly and intelligently adopt themselves to American culture. Most Spanish-surname Americans do not deny the merits of European civilization. Of ‘Native Americans’, only a handful pretend to desire some sort of return to their ancestors folkways of the eighteenth century. One hears no cultural howls of rage from Eskimo or Aleut.

In truth, the adversaries of America’s dominant culture may be classified in three categories: certain militant blacks; white radicals, mostly ‘civil rights’ zealots of yesteryear; and a mob of bored, indolent students to whom any culture but pop culture is anathema. Near the close of the twentieth century, the hardest haters of inherited high culture are to be found within the Academy – embittered ideologues, their characters warped in the turbulent ‘sixties, whose ambition it is to pull down whatever has long been regarded as true and noble.”

Kirk did not live to see the phenomenal success, by means of the public schools and universities, of liberal academia in expanding the radicalization of minorities in this country. Thankfully, however, the radicalization project is far from complete. Kirk observed and understood that the groups he mentioned are capable of a high degree of assimilation to American culture, and also of enriching our culture with their own contributions (as he notes elsewhere in the book). He was indeed an immigration restrictionist, and he also respected the significance of kinship and ethnic ties, but he was manifestly not a racial ideologue or even a "race preservationist" in matters of public policy.

Jeff, sorry for the sarcasm when I brought up the Kirk quote. I'm not a huge Kirk fan (the only book of his I've read is a compilation of the works of other conservative thinkers) and I don't know the context of the quote. I thought it was an interesting quote because he's saying that preservation of identity is a normal, conservative tendency. But it wasn't even clear to me if his quote was an endorsement of this tendency.

"Susan" - I find myself fascinated by the unusual combination of sophistication & illiteracy in your remarks.

But I sympathize, of course, with your worries about Archbishop Gomez.

Steve Burton,
I am so glad you are fascinated with me. Archbishop Gomez was as well. Steve, I am just a simple Roman Catholic, wife and mother of 5. I promise never to post any future remarks on this site. I don't want to shock those of you who are highly educated, by polluting the comment section with my poor writing skills. I didn't realize this blog was only for those who write like William Shakespeare.

Susan, please ignore Steve Burton's bizarre insult. I understood your comment well enough, and thought the story of your meeting with Abp. Gomez was interesting and informative. I hope you will stick around.

Hurrah, Susan!!! That's a phenomenal posting. I applaud you BOTH for your willingness to tackle Archbishop Gomez directly to his face on such an issue, and for recounting it in detail here. Steve is probably just jealous of such courage, pay no attention to his silly remark. It is much more important to have people posting here who have common sense and who are intellectually honest, than people who can quote Shakespeare and play Bach.

It makes me sick at heart that bishops and archbishops have not the sense that God gives mere children about matters like this. It makes me even more saddened that after 40 years of poor choices for bishop by Popes John, Paul, and JPII, dear Pope Benedict has chosen so poorly for such an important diocese as LA. Isn't it a standard saying that insanity is 'doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results to follow'?

Jeff, Tony - haven't you guys ever been spoofed before?

"Susan" - grammar, spelling, usage, &c in your latest are quite perfect!

Jeff Culbreath and Tony,

Thank you, for you kind words. I prayed to God, that He would give me the opportunity to speak with Archbishop Gomez. God, made that opportunity happen. So I had to keep my end of the bargin. I wouldn't call it courage. I just thought, I better keep my promise I made to God. Pope BenedictXVI is human, and can be fooled even by men who cleverly hide in "conservative" groups, in order to further their careers in the Church. I am not saying this is the case with Archbishop Gomez, but it has happen through out Church history. Maybe a few people who post on this blog, could drop the dear archbishop a line or two. You never know, it may help him see the dangers and errors in working with Marxists,racist,millitant organizations, such as La Raza.
Jeff,
I found this blog and I thought the subject matter was relevant to my experience with Archbishop Gomez. It was a very late night for me when I made my post. I must admit I am a terrible writer, but I am heck of a good cook and I enjoy conversing with archbishops :) I probably will not stick around due to my duties as a wife and mother to five children. Perhaps from time to time, I will check in.
Steve,
Please excuse my grammar,spelling,usage,etc.... I am holding my fussy two year old right now.

God Bless,Susan

Jeff, Tony - do you take my point, yet?

This is the internet. Caveat emptor.

Susan: please do weigh in anytime you like.

Steve, I wonder if you remember the time a couple of years ago when my good friend Bryan Cross posted on one of your threads. You were convinced he was faking and was really someone else, and you were quite sharp with him based on that assumption. Given the way you have been treated by the person you suspected him to be, and given the coincidence of the name, it was perhaps somewhat excusable. But you were wrong, and I was able to show you that by telling you that I had known Bryan on-line for the better part of a decade and even knew his sig text (which you considered suspicious) from other blogs on which he comments. I think your spoof-o-meter should be recalibrated.

Steve, I didn't get your point at all until Lydia's comment. Forgive my thickheadedness. I've been "spoofed" before, but Susan's writing resembles the kind of writing I see from busy homeschooling moms all the time. And the story is entirely plausible: bishops and archbishops meet ordinary Catholics with greater frequency than you might think. I agree with Lydia about your spoof-o-meter.

Yes, Lydia - I do remember that.

Maybe I'm excessively cautious about unfamiliar commenters who seem to be sympathizing with me.

But look - you get nailed on something like that once, and you'll never hear the end of it.

If Susan is for real, I ask her to contact me privately:

stephanlburton@embarqmail.com

Steve Burton,
I emailed you with my contact phone #. If anyone else would like to know if I am for real, you can email me at actionem@yahoo.com and I will be happy to give you my contact #

GodBless,Susan

Mexico is the 2nd fattest nation in the world (after the U.S.). They can feed their people. Their oligarchs would rather export them, though.

It is a myth that the U. S. is the fattest nation. All those fat charts are the way they are because of the shift to using the Body Mass Index (BMI). That is known to be an extremely poor measure of obesity, but its a great tool for the political purposes of the nanny state and the self-loathers too. It's a win-win.

Lydia, Jeff, et. al.

Scott Richert has an article up about pro-lifers lying.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/04/01/fool-for-the-truth/

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.