#421: Would Jesus Send Them Back?

As tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors flood across our southern border, Americans face a growing moral challenge.  And this challenge touches on both our national character and on  Catholic identity itself. 

When Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick offered temporary shelter to 1000 immigrant youths, he unleashed a firestorm of protest in supposedly “liberal” Massachusetts.  Officials of the towns where Patrick proposed sending children for shelter said that their communities should not be burdened with the responsibility, explaining “we need to take care of our own.”

When Patrick compared the current crisis to the case in World War II, when a ship carrying Jewish families was refused entry to the United States (and those families mostly ended up in NAZI death camps), people howled that the comparison was inappropriate.  Letters to the editor argued that we should “send them back where they belong.” And on Saturday, July 26, thousands cheered a “Stop the Invasion” rally at the Massachusetts State House, chanting “Send them home!  Send them home!”

For many, it seems, these children are simply “illegals,” case closed.  As one rally speaker explained:

Our government sees no difference between law-abiding, freedom-loving, taxpaying citizens and lawbreaking aliens.

All this makes me fear that, as the ghost of nativism rears its ugly head, our national character might be recoiling from generations of social progress.

The fact is that hospitality to migrants in trouble is a longstanding tradition in this country.  I recall my third grade teacher announcing the arrival of Hungarian children in her hometown.  Refugees from the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary, they came to the U.S., often unaccompanied, because it was not safe to stay home.

To an 8 year old like me, this announcement contained three life lessons.  First, the world beyond our borders was sometimes dangerous.  Second, our nation is seen to be--and was--a place of safe haven for “refugees” (which was a new word to me!).  Third, Americans by nature sacrifice for those who need our help.

Four decades later, my church work repeated these lessons, when some of my client parishes sponsored summer programs (offering housing, host families, recreation, and health care) for “Chernobyl Children.” These minors were fleeing the unsafe milk, crops, and spaces contaminated by the Chernobyl nuclear explosion.  Despite presenting itself as a temporary relief program, “Chernobyl Children” naturally encouraged these young Russian guests to think of America as a desirable permanent home.

Catholic social teaching clearly calls for this kind of “open arms” embrace for refugees.  In fact, our tradition holds that people have a human right to migrate if their current location makes them threatened, endangered, oppressed, or destitute.

This certainly applies to at least some of the minors now flooding into the U.S..  And Catholic leaders are championing their cause. John Allen reports that Pope Francis himself sent a clear message to last week’s crisis summit in Mexico City:

Such a humanitarian emergency demands as the first urgent measure that these minors be protected and duly taken in. [They] cross the border under extreme conditions, in pursuit of a hope that in most cases turns out to be vain. (http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/08/02/immigration-takes-its-place-pro-life-issue-for-catholic-church-leaders/LwwqcL3WlOhyWqMdiWtgqL/story.html)

The pope’s message echoes the consistent position of U.S. bishops, especially those from the areas most affected by border crossings.

Bishop Eusebio L Elizondo of Seattle heads the U.S. Bishops Migration Committee.  In a July 17 letter to members of Congress, he spoke against Republican efforts to roll back the legal protections for migrating children, saying “this vulnerable group is fleeing violence from organized criminal networks.”

This claim was verified by Richard Jones of Catholic Relief Services, who said:

We have seen the homicide rates grow, forced displacement increase and Mexican and Colombian drug cartels battle over who controls the moves through Central America…In El Salvador and Honduras, there are more gang members than police.

David Fiske, president of Marygrove College (a Catholic school in Detroit), issued a statement calling the situation a “classic” refugee crisis typical of “war-torn regions in which unprotected civilians will take extreme measures to reach a safe haven.”

That safe haven is, of course, the United States--yet millions of Americans (including, I fear, American Catholics) reject this historical badge of humanitarian honor in favor of “you don’t belong here” and “send them back.”

How striking is the difference between this attitude and the way Los Angeles Archbishop Jose H. Gomez spoke of such migrants at a July 20 Mass held to focus attention on the crisis:

We celebrate the immigrant spirit that gives life to our great country and our great city.  As we all know, this land was built by the blood and sacrifice and the vision of missionaries and immigrants from every race of language and every nation.  Today we give thanks for all those men and women who left the places where they were born--to bring their faith and values, their talents and gifts--to create a new life and the new world here in America.  We thank God also for the spirit of our new immigrants--those  joining us every day to be our neighbors and friends and family members.

In addition to praising the migrant spirit itself, Gomez used the occasion to spell out the link between immigration policy--especially the treatment of refugees--and Catholic identity itself:

Pope Francis is right, and in the face of this emergency, our first duty must be to protect these children.  My brothers and sisters, what we are doing for these children as a church--it’s not about politics.  We all know that.  It’s about who we are as Catholics… We don’t do it because we are “social workers” or “nice people.” We do it because we are being faithful to our identity and duty as Catholics.  We do it because Jesus calls us to do it.

As a Catholic, I’m proud of my tradition’s strong and clear message that protecting migrants’ human rights reflects true gospel values.  As an American, I am troubled and even ashamed that so many citizens cannot see beyond the red tape of customs regulations and our newfangled and arbitrary immigration quotas.

Once we acknowledge that migrants in need are exercising their human rights, any talk of them as “illegals” becomes nit-picking.  It is like jailing a poor man for fishing to feed his family, just because he could not afford a fishing license.  The law is there to serve people, and for our common good.  Laws that violate a human right are unjust.  And, as Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote, unjust laws are not really laws at all--they are a form of violence.

For me, this begs two questions.

First, why are so many Americans afraid to embrace our longstanding tradition of humanitarian hospitality?  After all, any talk of who “belongs here” is just ignorant.  If “belongs here” means “was always here,” then nobody belongs here.  Even Native Americans migrated here from Asia, and that was long before Europeans and Africans migrated here, and that was long before Asians and South Americans migrated here.  Originally, all our ancestors “belonged” somewhere else--not here.

But millions of Americans continue to ignore this, or deny this, or just shut their eyes.  They prefer to believe that they have a “right” to be here while others do not--and they hide behind the law to avoid the truth.  What are they afraid of?

Second, I wonder about American Catholics.  Does ours faith impact our attitude?  Do U.S. Catholics know the Church’s position on migration and refugees?  Do we know what our traditional beliefs mean?  Do we know our own Catholic identity? 

Or are there millions of Catholics who, if they were asked “What would Jesus do?” would answer: “Jesus would send them home!”?

Pope Francis has called this response the “globalization of indifference,” and my worry is that too many Catholics believe such indifference is compatible with our faith.  I hope I am wrong.

  © Bernard   F. Swain PhD 2013

#416: The Pope Leads—Will the Bishops Follow?

The U.S. Bishops are at a fork in the road—is it splitting them up?

A little more than one year since the election of Pope Francis, many things have changed--but perhaps too many things have stayed the same.

Two weekends ago I completed four sessions of a parish retreat on “The Francis Effect.” Many participants expressed the feeling that the experience filled them with hope, which made me appreciate just how powerful the new pope’s impact has been.  After a decade-long decline in the public image and reputation of the Catholic Church, Francis has accomplished a dramatic turnaround.  Little more than a year ago the Church’s public standing was the lowest it had been since before Vatican Council II (1962-1965).  Now its standing is at its highest point in nearly 50 years--that is, since the time of the Council itself.

Francis has accomplished this by calling for and initiating a change in church culture, but others must follow suit and lead at the national and local levels.  A change of the top will mean nothing if it does not “trickle down.”

Francis himself has been very clear about what this change requires if we are to create a truly missionary spirit in the Church (see CrossCurrents #408 and #409 in the archives).

But events of the last few weeks suggest that if Francis has brought us to a fork in the road, only some of the U.S. Bishops are going his way.  Three recent events suggest that while some bishops take Francis’ mandate to heart, others are struggling to grasp it or are even continuing on their own course.

Following Francis: John L. Allen Jr.’s recent Boston Globe piece detailed how Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley and 8 other bishops staged a three day visit to the U.S.-Mexican border to urge reform of the “broken” U.S. immigration system.

In this they are, of course, following the footsteps and priorities of Francis, by putting their focus on the poor and the social injustices of current public policy.

Calling O’Malley “the American Francis,” Allen asserts: “the Catholic push for immigrant rights already had its global ambassador in Francis, and now it has found a domestic face in O’Malley.”

O’Malley and his fellow bishops celebrated Mass (distributing Communion “to outstretched hands from the Mexican side of the border through slats in eight 20-foot-high security fence”), held a news conference on immigration reform, and visited and interviewed people on both sides of the border.

Allen sees in all this “the emergence of immigration reform as a top shelf Catholic concern”--but he also hints that O’Malley &Company are not typical of the U.S. hierarchy is a whole:

In terms of church politics, one could perhaps style the other prelates who made up the delegation as well-meaning social justice types who don’t really flex much muscle in the Church.  That’s why O’Malley’s presence was vital, because nobody would say that about him.

This invites the inference that, among other bishops who do “flex much muscle” in the Church, immigration reform may not have the same priority, and that this was reflected by their absence.  This echoes a quiet theme running beneath the surface ever since Francis was elected: while Francis immediately became admired and beloved by people everywhere, he may not have enjoyed the same kind of enthusiastic support from all his bishops

That surely seemed possible in the case of Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta, who finally succumbed to popular pressure and announced he would leave his brand spanking new $2.2 million mansion after just three months, sell it, and donate the proceeds to charity.  He publicly apologized for the decision to move in but declined to take questions.

This case offers clear evidence that the people “get” Francis more easily than many of his bishops.  Gregory’s apology followed strong public pressure to give up the mansion from parishioners were well aware of the pope’s call to reject the “idolatry of money” and avoid “insidious worldliness” within the Church.  One such parishioner put the pope’s cause bluntly:

He [Gregory] is the person we follow locally, he sets the mood.  He sets the example for all of us to follow.  If he is choosing to use a gift so personally, what does that tell the people sitting in the pews?

Gregory himself acknowledged the impact of Francis by saying:

He’s called us to live more simply.  He also has encouraged Bishops to grow closer to their people, to listen to their people.

The key difference, of course, is that while laypeople got the message in the first week of Francis’ papacy, it took Gregory more than a year.

But even that is too quick for some bishops, it appears, for that same week in early April also included a story out of Ohio that sounded so 2012, so pre-Francis.

The Archdiocese of Cincinnati, it seems, has added new contract language that spells out specific ways teachers in Archdiocesan schools could lose their jobs.  The list includes public support for positions contrary to the church teaching on issues like abortion, artificial insemination, and “homosexual lifestyles.” It also includes forbidden behaviors--such as unwed pregnancies.

It appears the new language is designed to protect the Diocese from wrongful termination lawsuits, and a diocesan spokesperson attempted to minimize its significance by saying that it merely “clarifies what is expected of all of our teachers.” This comes in the wake of several lawsuits that the Diocese lost in recent years.

On the one hand, it is understandable that the Church, functioning as an employer, would want to protect itself from liability.  On the other hand, it appears that no other U.S. diocese uses such language. 

Of course, the problem of exposure to wrongful termination only arises when employees are terminated.  So this begs the question: must someone who voices an opinion contrary to official teaching be terminated?  Must someone who becomes pregnant while unmarried be terminated?

My own impression is that the instinct to terminate in such instances represents the kind of judgmentalism that Francis has been preaching against.  Underlying such judgmentalism is the notion that church workers ought to be perfect in both their opinions and their behavior.  There are several problems of this outlook.

First, it is contrary to church teaching to require that anyone be, in practice, perfect.  Our common expectation, rather, is that we are all sinners, and therefore we must be prepared to forgive and accept one another.  Since the beginning of Christianity, the real standard it has been: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Second, some would argue that this is not about sin but about scandal: that teachers taking a controversial positions or caught in compromise behavior create a scandal that undermines church teaching and credibility.

Two points here: contemporary American culture is not so easily scandalized (e.g., unwed pregnancy has long since lost its stigma), and the institutional church risks inviting the label “hypocrisy” if it sets itself as the arbiter of scandal in the wake of the sex abuse crisis.  Simply put, the American hierarchy abdicated the moral high ground long ago.

Third, there is a long history of those taking issue with church officials being vindicated in the long run.

In the 13^th century, Etienne Tempier, the Bishop of Paris, issued condemnations of more than a dozen teachings by one of his professors at the University of Paris, which at that time was a church-owned school (thus the professor was a church employee). 

The professor in question?  Saint Thomas Aquinas, who in 1879 was declared the Church’s “official” theologian.  Bishop Tempier disappeared into the obscurity of history, while Aquinas achieved greatness. 

The lesson: conformity to official church positions does not guarantee of either greatness or sanctity, and opposition does not prove the opposite.  Imagine if the Diocese of Paris had acted to fire Thomas Aquinas for his positions!

The spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati tried to defend the new contract by saying:

The contract requires that if you’re going to represent the Catholic Church as a teacher, you’re not going to publicly oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 Sounds perfectly logical. But that logic has not governed our history. Someone should get the man a good history of Catholicism--one that includes the 13^th century.

It remains to be seen if the U.S. hierarchy will wholeheartedly join Pope Francis as he sets a new course for the Church as a missionary presence in the world.  But those who choose their own path, and continue to present the institutional church as authoritarian, judgmental, and hypocritical, will end up being neither followers nor leaders.

  © Bernard  F. Swain PhD 2014

#371 Manipulating the Catholic Vote

Now that Catholics represent a critical swing-voting group, some Catholics cannot resist exploiting faith to push their political agenda.

We hear a lot of complaints about “cafeteria Catholics.” But every election cycle brings another kind of Catholic into public view: the kind ready to exploit our faith for political gain.  I call them “Self-serve Catholics”.

In our time, this has mainly happened on the conservative side of the political spectrum.  The original Self-serve Catholics were Goldwater Republicans, chronically irked by the steadfast support of Catholics (80%) for John F. Kennedy.  Such Catholics were delighted when Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights leadership (1964, 1965) undermined the “Dixiecrats” (conservative southern Democrats) and turned the south over to the Republicans.  They were equally delighted when Roe v. Wade (1973) polarized the Catholic vote.  Catholics had been block Democratic voters since the days of Al Smith (1928), but by 1980 many were “Reagan Democrats” and over the last 30 years Catholics have become the largest swing vote in the nation.

The results delighted Self-servers: from 1968 to 2004, every President elected came from the south or California, far from the traditional Catholic liberal bedrocks of northeast urban centers.  And in 2004, even Catholic candidate John Kerry managed to get only 47% of the Catholic vote, largely because a caucus of conservative American bishops labeled him a bad Catholic.

But then, in 2008, Barack Obama regained the Catholic majority, and became the first northern liberal elected since John Kennedy.  This has left Self-servers doubling their efforts to regain conservative control of the Catholic vote.

I have repeatedly demonstrated that neither major party platform conforms to Catholic Social Teaching (CST), so neither party can lay claim to the Catholic vote as a right.  But Self-serve Catholics, undaunted by facts, continue trying to manipulate the Catholic vote using two main tactics.  First, they argue that only one issue should determine Catholic votes.  Second, they demonize one party (the Democrats) as immoral, anti-Catholic, even godless.

1. Single Issue Crusades.  In the 1960s, Self-serve Catholics struggled to find a Catholic litmus test for Democrats to fail: prayer in schools, sex education, birth control.  But after Roe v. Wade, the struggle shifted to attacking anyone who did not agree that legal prohibition of abortion was the best way to stop abortions.  In the last 10 years, gay rights and especially same-sex marriage have become new “single issue” options, but this year Self-serve Catholics have gone back to birth control, like this argument by columnist George Weigel:

Over the past four years, the Federal government has made unprecedented efforts to erode religious freedom.  The gravest assault was the “contraceptive mandate” issued earlier this year by the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services: an offense to conscientious Catholic employers who believe what the church believes about the morality of human love and the ethics of the right to life, and a frontal attack on the institutional integrity of the Church.  For with the HHS mandate, the Federal government seeks nothing less than to turn the Catholic Church’s charitable and medical facilities into state agencies that facilitate practices the Catholic Church believes are gravely evil.

I have already explained why “offense to conscience” is a bogus argument against the HHS mandate (see CrossCurrents #350).  In America, the issue of religious freedom is already guaranteed by the First Amendment—and enforcing it is the responsibility of our courts, not our elected officials.  In fact, the matter is already in court.  If the courts decide this mandate does infringe on the Church’s religious freedom, then the mandate will go.  If not, the mandate will remain and Self-serve Catholics will continue to fight it, but they will lose any legitimate claim that it violates our rights.  Either way, the outcome has nothing to do with elections.

But facts are no deterrent to Self-serve Catholics.

2. Demonizing Democrats. George Weigel leads the crusade with relatively moderate rhetoric that nonetheless crosses the line.  He says “The Catholic Church is under assault of the United States today.” He argues that this assault violates the principle that “the state respect the sanctuary of conscience, so that the Church’s people are not required by law to do things the Church teaches are immoral.”

I confessed this dangerous-sounding language baffles me.  I picture federal police force-feeding birth control pills to Catholics citizens.  I wonder: precisely what immoral action will the government require people to do?  Will it require anyone to use contraceptives?  No.  Will it require anyone to buy them?  No.  Will it require Catholics to prescribe them?  No.  Will it require Catholics to pay for them?  Possibly, indirectly, by subsidizing the coverage of contraceptives by insurance companies--but then, we Catholics already subsidize the pharmaceutical companies that sell contraceptives all the time.  I have already explained why participating in the marketing of contraceptives cannot reasonably be called immoral (see CrossCurrents #350).  Yet Self-servers like Weigel persist in charging their political adversaries with immoral assault.

Such talk inspires others Self-servers to more inflammatory rhetoric.  Consider these examples, taken from the “Letters to the Editor” section of the very same issue of the Catholic newspaper in which Weigel’s column appeared.

One reader wrote:

We are already witnessing an attack on our freedom of religion by government edict…As Catholics it is our responsibility to fight against this evil…We should gather…in our churches for prayers to end the assault on our morality by the present administration in Washington and replace it with people with values like our own.

The writer is perfectly justified, of course, in wanting leaders with values like his own.  But he is not justified in invoking his Catholic faith to demonize political opponents as “evil.” Once again, there was no recognition that freedom of religion is already a constitutional right, to be protected by the courts, not politicians.

Another self serving reader made his demonizing even more personal:

The Obama administration’s war on religious freedom launched another attack with help from inside the Church.  Aided by every Catholic heretic in the Massachusetts congressional delegation, the Democrats are attempting to force religious institutions, especially the Catholic Church, to provide immoral medical procedures in violation of God’s law… They’re trying to limit our practice of our faith and to exclude us from the public arena. Our love for Jesus Christ tells us that we cannot allow this. We must resist and disobey these immoral laws and regulations.

Notice two things here.  First, the reference to “Catholic heretics” is an explicit claim that Catholics with contrary opinions on policy somehow violate their faith.  Second, these heretics are “attempting to force” the Church to participate in immorality.  In other words, these are not only bad Catholics, but they commit deliberate, premeditated evil on others.  And finally, in that writer’s view, not only do they “support immoral actions” but they even “refuse to recant publicly”!

There is no attempt by any of these writers to debate the issues at stake.  To them, the moral questions are black and white, the policy implications are self evident and beyond dispute, and the deliberate malice of their opponents renders all dialogue futile.  These assumptions trump both the facts and our faith.

And there is more.  Amid these demonizing attacks there is no corresponding description of “people with values like our own.” Since the context of these attacks is the election, we can presume the writers mean Republicans.  In other words, these electoral appeals presume that Republican policies are Catholic-friendly.  This begs the question: do Republicans have “values like our own“?

To me, this means asking whether Republican values conform to Catholic Social Teaching (CST).  Posing this question exposes the hypocrisy of Self-serve Catholics. The truth is that CST teaching clashes with Republican values and policies on many issues.  Let me cite two examples: “big government” and “human rights.”

Big Government.  Clearly a major policy priority for Republicans is the promotion of smaller government, less regulation, less taxation, less public spending.  This is built on the classic belief “that which governs least governs best,” and is rooted in a narrow concept of “freedom” as personal economy.  That is, we are free to the extent the government does not intrude in our lives.

I have already explained (CrossCurrents #83) that freedom means much more in our Catholic tradition, but the simpler objection is this: CST teaching places no value on the size of government.  It focuses instead on the role government plays in promoting “the common good” - - which is the prime value of CST.  If the common good is served by a larger government, CST supports that. CST even recommends using taxation to fight inequality by redistributing wealth. Do Republicans?

Human Rights.  Politics aside, most Americans agree that securing human rights for the citizenry is the job of government.  But many Americans, even American Catholics--and especially Self-servers--embrace a list of human rights that is much shorter than the human rights recognized by CST.  This allows them to assume--wrongly--that the Republican Party is Catholic-friendly.

How often do Republicans acknowledge that “illegals” are actually exercising the human right to migrate, as Catholicism does?

How often do Republicans acknowledge that healthcare is a human right, to be guaranteed by government, as Catholicism does?

How often do Republicans call housing, education, and employment human rights, as Catholicism does?

In my view, both parties, Democratic and Republican, fail to consistently support CST.  Yet I feel no need to demonize either party, or to claim they’re attacking me or my faith.  For me, it is enough to say that CST sets a standard they both fail to reach.

But that is not enough for Self-serve Catholics.  They insist on demonizing Democrats as deliberately imposing evil, while blithely giving Republicans a pass on their own failures.  What else can I think but this: these Self-serve Catholics begin with a particular political bias, filter their Catholic faith through that bias, and then invoke that distorted version of Catholicism to attack their political opponents and advance their own political agenda?  And how can I not think that such an exploitation of our faith is self-serving?

I am open to dialogue with those who want to explain how demonizing Democrats, while absolving Republicans, is a reasonable application of our faith.  But until that happens, I will stand by this: these Catholics offend me with their Self-serving political exploitation of our faith.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2012

#295: Scapegoating “Illegals”

EXCERPT:
For the people touting “respect for the law” as the key issue for immigration reform, the term “illegal” has become either a ploy or a fetish.

It’s a ploy if they hide behind “illegal” to camouflage opposition that really is rooted in racism, or paranoia, or delusion, or nativism. I’m sure this applies to some who cannot abide an America filling up with dark-skinned foreigners (who don’t speak English and may even worship a foreign God) and are convinced these people are causing all our troubles.

But let’s assume that most closed door people really are driven by their problem with the illegals’ (and their supporters’) supposed lack of respect for the rule of law. In that case, they risk idolizing the law as if it were some absolute value – as if merely being “illegal” is reason enough to be excluded.

If that is really what people think, they have made “illegal” their fetish: a small piece of the American anatomy that excites them all out of proportion to its importance…

…

Consider this lesson from history. During World War II Angelo Roncalli became Vatican ambassador to Turkey. Aware of thousands of Jews trapped in Eastern Europe under Nazi occupation, he took decisive – and decidedly irregular – action. He got Jewish authorities in Palestine to send bundles of travel papers, he got the Vatican to send bundles of transit letters, and he arranged to issue baptismal certificates to thousands of Jewish children – some reflecting actual “provisional Baptisms,” some simple forgeries. Thus equipped with smuggled, fraudulent, even forged papers, thousands of Jews (some say 25,000) escaped from Poland and Hungary into unoccupied territories. Roncalli also convinced the Turkish government not to deport even the undocumented Jews.

For all these efforts on the half of “illegals” immigrating to Turkey and Palestine, the worldwide Jewish community has declared Roncalli to be one of the 20th century’s "Righteous Among the Nations". Of course, fifteen years later Roncalli was elected Pope John XXIII.

Today’s US Bishops are similarly pro-immigrant, and are fighting to help “illegals” gain acceptance and the legal permission to stay. They know, like Roncalli, that in most cases “illegal” merely means “victims of circumstance” – and they’re committed to helping any way they can.

People trumpeting “the rule of law” as a sacred value must ask themselves: are they also committed to the higher law of human rights? What about God’s law of love for neighbor? Or would they condemn Roncalli for enabling “illegality,” and tell us someone should have sent those Jews – who were Hitler’s scapegoats – back to their fate?