“Texas Bishop Taking on Greg Abbott Gets Pope Francis’ Protection” is the curious title of an April 30th article in Newsweek. Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso needs “protection” from Greg Abbott? Are there Texas state troopers surrounding his house? Is he in imminent danger of arrest?
There are bishops in the world in imminent danger of those things and worse. A retired bishop in Mexico was just released by his kidnappers. Bishops in Africa face the constant threat of martyrdom. And Bishop Mark Seitz? He lives in a comfortable residence in El Paso, travels freely, and shows up regularly on podcasts and in the mainstream media.
Does he need “protection,” or is this just another example of progressives pretending they are being oppressed when they enjoy the favor of the mainstream media?
Bishop Seitz has been “taking on” Greg Abbott in the sense that he has been sharply critical of the governor and his efforts to stem the tide of illegal border crossings. I don’t recall the governor “taking on” Bishop Seitz or saying much of anything about him. Has he told people not to go to church? Has he demanded that the Vatican remove him as bishop? Of course not. This isn’t China. We don’t have that sort of cozy relationship with the Vatican. It’s easy to “stand up” to someone when there are no consequences for doing so.
Bishop Seitz claims that Texas officials’ efforts at the U.S.-Mexico border are “transparently political” and part of a “broader, brutal, historical project in Texas to criminalize and police people who migrate.” That’s an interesting claim. I’d like to see the historical evidence to back it up. It’s also an odd claim given that 40.2% of Texas’s population is Hispanic, while only 39.4% are non-Hispanic whites. The only state that comes close to that is California, whose population is 40% Hispanic. Houston, in fact, is demographically the most international city in the country, surpassing even Los Angeles and New York.
I teach at a small Catholic university in Houston, and our student population is filled with students from Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East. I always have to laugh when “top” schools brag about having successfully achieved 15% minority student population. To us, that’s like bragging about your rowboat next to someone’s naval destroyer. We haven’t seen minority numbers that low for decades—although we may need to redefine the category. As the population figures indicate, non-Hispanic whites are now the minority. If Texas has been engaged in a long, brutal project to keep out immigrants, they have failed spectacularly.
I have several objections to the bishop’s claim that Texas officials’ efforts to secure the border are “transparently political”. The first is the basic wish that people would not use the term “political” to mean something dubious and cynical. The philosopher Aristotle said that human beings are by nature “political animals” (politikon zoon), that is, they live in a polis, in cities, and they engage in acts of collective deliberation about the common good. We need to be more authentically political, which means developing the skills of public deliberation and dialogue rather than public posing and virtue signaling.
Second, on the proper understanding of the term “political,” of course the governor is, and should be, “transparently political.” Would the bishop prefer that the governor was “secretly political”? Someone needs to tell the bishop that the Texas governor’s office is not the Vatican: we actually like transparency here.
Greg Abbott is an elected official—elected, by the way, by double-digit margins, whereas the bishop was appointed by a distant, autocratic pope. If the bishop proposed legislation to leave the border open and let whoever desires it to come into the country, does anyone imagine it would pass? Would it gain even 35% approval in a state with a Hispanic majority that has elected and re-elected Greg Abbott three times by wide margins?
But the third problem with Bishop Seitz’s whole approach is the way he looks down at those who disagree with him, as though someone couldn’t possibly have good, legitimate reasons to oppose the current mess at the Texas border and that the only reason anyone could have a view different from his is because they are cynically using the issue for political gains. Some politicians probably are. It’s not as though politicians on the other side aren’t using the issue for political gains. For those of us who care about the immigrants at our southern border, it was disappointing to see the constant drumbeat about their treatment disappear the moment Joe Biden was elected. It makes one think that it was never about the treatment of immigrants per se, but always and only about “getting Trump.”
There used to be daily reports about the horrors at the border. Now, almost nothing. Things aren’t any better; they’re much worse. Why the silence?
Perhaps people like Greg Abbott and others are worried about immigrants. Perhaps they’re worried about the trafficking, worried about the war going on across our border that is empowering the cartels, worried about the miserable situation of poor people in Latin American dictatorships, like Venezuela, or in a failed state like Haiti. Does the bishop wish to speak “truth to power” to those groups? If so, let him cross the border and “take on” the cartels in Mexico, Maduro in Venezuela, and Ortega in Nicaragua. Good luck with that. We’ll see how far Pope Francis’s “protection” gets him there. The bishops in those countries would be able to enlighten him.
I tend to be a person who favors more immigration. There would likely be more agreement between Bishop Seitz and me than he might imagine. But on this matter, we might say something similar to what C. S. Lewis once said about marriage. Societies have disagreed over how many wives a man may have, but no society has said that a man should have any woman he wants. So, too, I would likely disagree with many people over how many immigrants should be licensed to enter the country yearly (I prefer more), but I think it unreasonable to claim that the border should be open to anyone who wants to enter. What number would be best and what kind of “permitting” should be required are matters of prudential judgment on which people of goodwill can disagree.
In such dialogues about matters requiring judgments of prudence, it is rarely a good idea to claim that your interlocutor is not only wrong but arguing with bad intentions. It is no better—usually worse—to argue not only that one’s interlocutors are arguing with bad intentions, but that they are also bad Catholics. “There still might be a lot of people who end up being angry” at this position on immigration, says Bishop Seitz, “but they better be ready to take on the Holy Father as well.” Really? Am I a bad Catholic if I’m not sure that what the pope says about this issue applies perfectly to the specific problem we face on the Texas-Mexico? So are all those Catholics who disagree with the pope on homosexuality bad Catholics? Or just those who disagree with Bishop Seitz? There’s a word for that sort of special pleading by bishops: it’s called clericalism. Pope Francis has had harsh words to say about the problems it has caused.
What can we say about bishops who insist on condemning Greg Abbott for his efforts to staunch the flow of illegally trafficked immigrants at the border but refuse to condemn Joe Biden publicly? Even though he supports killing unborn children, something categorically condemned in the strongest terms from the early Church until now, a condemnation repeated in the strongest terms in the Second Vatican Council and by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis? This is a man who literally made the sign of the cross at the mention of “abortion rights.”
Perhaps we can repeat something Bishop Seitz is quoted as saying: “Frankly, in this secularizing age, even people who consider themselves Christians are more formed it seems in their thoughts, in their behaviors, by the political sort of thinking than by church teaching. They want to make their Christianity fit their political outlook rather than the other way around.” Thank you, Bishop Seitz, for that clear statement of the problem.
I pray that we will treat immigrants better. But beating up on Greg Abbott isn’t helping them; it’s just alienating people from the Church who have a different view of how to help them. Stick with the basic principles—state them forcefully and with passion, if you wish—but leave the prudential politics to the politicians. And for heaven’s sake, you might consider actually talking with these people instead of merely heckling them from atop the ecclesiastical white tower.
(Note: The views expressed here are the author’s own, as a private individual, and in no way are meant to represent the views of the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas, where he is Professor of Moral Theology.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I say that homosexual bishops ought to be removed from the episcopacy.
Brilliant piece. Facts, logic, and persistence are the way to overcome wokeism and its ecclesial equivalent: Bergoglianism
Thank you, Dr Smith. Well put and balanced.
If Seitz didn’t say anything about the border, nobody would notice him inasmuch as he otherwise has nothing much to say at all.
Thank you for a thought-provoking article. I agree–we need more immigrants! I worked for 41 years as a medical technologist in a hospital lab. At this time in American history, there is dangerous short-staffing in hospitals in nursing, lab, X-ray, respiratory, MRI, physical therapy, aides, etc.–all the “ancillary” health professions, as well as cafeteria, maintenance and housecleaning, and also in the skilled labor–mechanics, electricians, HVAC, etc. This short-staffing increases expenses for patients, as the short-staffed workers rightfully ask for higher wages!
There is also a shortage of the skilled trades–welding, HVAC, electricians, plumbing, carpenters, heavy equipment operators, etc.-these trades pay a good wage and benefits and require a trade school education or in some cases, a paid apprenticeship. And there are shortages in restaurants–I visited a McDonald’s a few weeks ago that had only 3 people working during the busy lunch hour! And we shortages of police, fire fighters, and EMTs/ambulance–very dangerous situation for Americans. There are plenty of jobs, but not enough people, so—let the immigrants come and welcome to them! We need them as much as they need to be in the U.S.A.! Not to mention that their presence in this country enriches all of us because they bring their culture with them!
not agreeing or disagreeing with you;
look at your circle of people and how many/percentage are not working, for any reason
where are the replacement children from our own population?
I’m all for correcting our immigration system so that more decent, hardworking people can keep our workforce afloat & fill healthcare positions but currently we’re using organized crime to bring us those workers. No one gets to the US border(s) without paying off the cartels. Or being in debt to them & forced to pay it off through smuggling.
That’s no way to recruit workers or run immigration.
This is a profoundly naive and childish perspective. What evidence do you have that the impoverished, minimally educated waves of illegals crossing the border have the knowledge and skills to do any of the jobs you mentioned? What world have you been living in for the past few years?
Thanks Doc, great article. I met Bishop Seitz when he was still a priest and he seemed a devout man, but your criticisms in this case seem just. I, like you, would support increasing legal immigration, and would in fact support taking in every single person who legitimately needs refuge from the persecution of unjust governments or from the reign of terror of drug gangs. I do not want to face Christ on judgement day and have to answer for turning away someone who then went back to their country of origin and was killed. (I would include any Christian in a Moslem country who would like to come here, which, I would note, was and is opposed by Trump and his merry band.) But we cannot welcome every poor person in the world whose motive for coming here is economic, and we must be extremely careful that that cohort does not clog up the system by making false claims or by seeking to get to the front of the line by showing up at the border. That is a terrible injustice to those who truly need asylum and to those who follow the rules of applying to immigrate.
I also knew Father Seitz. His rhetoric and border stunts these days completely befuddle me. I have also seen another Texas bishop change in just this way.
Other countries also have different opinions than Bishop Seitz. I lived, worked and travel in a number of Southeast Asian countries for over 12 years. They have a strong belief in borders and nationality for the simple reason that the chaos of loose emigration is damaging to the people and the countries that have loose immigration laws. None of them have the time consuming and ineffective appeals process of the US either. Offenders are escorted to the border and that ends the process. It is simply not possible to pour two litres of water into a one litre bottle and same goes with populations.
It sounds like Seitz is trying to establish his liberal credentials in attacking Abbott. Illegals are pouring into the country and Abbott is stepping into the gap created by the likes of Biden in order to protect AMERICANS from immigrant crimes. Bravo to Abbott. I live in NY but have sent his campaign money. I do not agree with those saying we need more immigrants. We do not. An influx of immigrants pushes down wages for America’s poor , a well known fact. And it puts immense pressure on schools, medicine, housing, and the justice system.Its a fact that if the wages are sufficient, Americans WILL do those jobs. They will not work for poverty wages so common in third world nations. Excessive illegals willing to work for a pittance insures the wages will not rise, a self perpetuating cycle of poverty.Illegals are coming in too fast to assimilate on any level.They know nothing about our country, its history, its customs or its cultural standards of behavior. More worrisome, our FBI indicates an influx of those presenting a danger of terrorism to US citizens. Its telling that many of the “student” protesters currently attacking Jewish students are NOT students themselves, but outside adult agitators who walked right through an open border. The gross stupidity and DANGER of the Biden open border policy cannot be over emphasized. The 9/11 attacks were conducted by foreigners whose visas had expired, but no one in our government was interested in discovering where they were, or why they had not yet left our country.Pray that you or someone you love is not a victim of the next attack. Seitz and others of his ilk would do well to stop speaking about a reality they know nothing about, living as they do in their safe little fantasy worlds. Someone please tell the Bishop that Christianity is NOT the same as Socialism. The Bishop should be defending those Americans who work hard on little money to raise their families. He should not be defending those who break the law and come here with hands extended for free stuff being paid for by our worker’s taxes. Disgusting.
I am concluding that it is a grossly unwarranted assumption that it is a decided benefit to non-Americans to join American society. I think far too many assume that we have a government that abides by a constitution that protects and respects citizens’ rights. We assume that the consumerist/materialistic values that dominate our economy are a decided benefit to newcomers. We assume that America is a safe place to live and raise a family. We assume that the moral climate here in the USA dominated as it is by narcissism, extreme individualism, and hedonism is superior to that found elsewhere in the world. I’ll be bold by putting it out there: America is not all it’s cracked up to be. Now, convince me that immigrants are better off by coming to the USA. Perhaps we should give them some compelling reasons why they’d be better off staying where they are.
Generally speaking Deacon Edward, it really is more dangerous to raise children in parts of Latin America than here. Our cities have their crime issues too but it’s on a whole different level in places like Haiti & Honduras.
But I agree with you. Crime aside, some things really are better south of the border. Families are closer together in Mexico. They support & help each other out. Grandparents aren’t warehoused out of sight in nursing homes. You see adults holding hands with their elderly parents strolling in the parks. Children are greatly loved & welcomed in restaurants & every sort of public place. They’re generally better behaved, too. I was in Mexico City last year with my son & his family. All kinds of people came up to talk to him & admire the baby. Nowhere was his baby unwelcome, even in pretty bougie restaurant.
I had this same conversation with an Hispanic lady who does cleaning in our area. Her elementary school-age daughter helps her with the cleaning after school. She said it’s just way safer to bring up her child here & I know she’s right but we agreed that she also is missing out on some important cultural traditions by moving to the States. Hopefully she’ll pass those values down to her little girl.
It’s debatable about the relative safety of the USA and countries of immigrant origin. I do know that I’ve been to Guatemala about 25 times and only once to Haiti. I’ve spent some time in Uganda as well. When it comes to the demeanor of children in all three countries what I distinctly was impressed with was how dirt poor these kids were but how remarkably happy they seemed to be – when compared to American children I’ve observed. In the USA, we have a superior standard of living but have managed to kill more than 60 million unborn babies in the past 50 years or so. I still wonder what America has to offer these people that doesn’t involve some lopsided trade-offs. Our attitude as Americans toward these immigrant countries is extremely chauvinistic.
Good morning Deacon Edward. I hope you are doing well today.
🙂
I had family who lived in Haiti and I spent time in the West Indies and Latin America growing up. We never worried about safety back then, even in Haiti, but obviously things have greatly changed for the worse.
There are in fact safer parts of Mexico and Central America today but that’s not where folks are trying to escape from.Some Mexican states are basically run by cartels. And to be honest, I think many more people come here simply to make a better living. Tragically, if they weren’t being extorted and threatened by gangs back home that’s guaranteed to happen on their way to the border. Virtually no one gets to the US border without the cartels today.
I think you’re right about children in the States vs elsewhere. In spite of gang related dangers, children seemed happier and less self absorbed and anxious. But their parents have to be anxious about their children being recruited by the gangs.
I didn’t encounter a single rude person last year in Mexico nor on a trip this past January. Everyone was polite, friendly, helpful, and welcoming. It was really a lovely experience.
I think we need to take some ownership for our part in the smuggling/trafficking industry. It takes both sides’ cooperation for it to continue on successfully.
You have a blessed day Deacon. Thank you for your comments.
Mr. Smith, I really enjoyed your article, but I do have one question. Several years ago, I looked up how many legal immigrants we had averaged in the past ten years. The number was about one million per year.
The report is that in the last three and a half years we have had about eight million illegal immigrants, so about 2.3 million per year. So, how many legal immigrants do you think we can absorb per year? Even if we have strong border security, we are still going to have a certain number of illegal immigrants each year.
Why do we import workers (and their children) instead of producing our own?
Bishop Seitz reveals himself continually as a protracted adolescent entirely ignorant of life as an average American citizen. The man is not cognizant of the price of a head of lettuce. Given that reality he should simply keep his fantasy perceptions to himself.
American Catholic bishops are selected, assigned, promoted and retired by one man and by one man alone, the Vatican Head of State.
So be it, as long as it is understood that bishops are agents of a foreign Head of State.
So Seitz would like to encourage these illegal immigrants to ignore some Ten Commandments for his own edification – Great. What commandments you may ask? One: why covet the materialism of the U.S. when these citizens of other nations can be working to improve the standard of living of their own nation for the good of all citizens? Two: Why encourage stealing from the American people? A would be liberal media darling like Seitz must be aware that we the people of Texas and the nation are being drained of state and municipal funds by being forced to do the work of the Federal government. It’s so bad that infrastructure projects that the Texas voters voted on 4 years ago are now stalled indefinately in order to fund the problems caused by the influx of illegal immigrants. Texas is the new Sutter’s Mill, eventually we will be ruined by greed – I am going to start praying for the good of all us Texans that Seitz be re-assigned to California where he belongs.
When was the violent invasion by foreigners across national borders considered a God given right called migration, similar to the migration of birds and antelope?
Milwaukeean Mark Seitz now bishop El Paso, TX Mex bordertown sudden champion of Hispanic rights across both borders dismissing the idea of borders altogether. Isn’t dismissal of borders a Francis the First dogma? Houston Prof Randall Smith’s well tempered, articulated outrage [at least indignation] is warranted. Perhaps at 70 Seitz may consider the cardinalate a happy prospect. Pounding against an enemy of liberalism TX governor Abbot may do more than gain His Holiness’ protection.
There’s a not too far fetched story [it’s a rather quiet afternoon] behind this story. It involves communism and payback [and imagination]. Columbia University’s Catholic chaplain adjures the strident pro Hamas national student rebellion is communist inspired. Indeed George Soros with his vast financial resources and army of cadres, as far Left as can be, is a major player. The scenario is a reminder of the efforts of the US to undermine Soviet Russian already weakened hegemony by wresting Ukraine away from its sphere of influence and vital political interest. In 1989, Zbigniew Brzezinski [who held a long career as national security advisor, foreign policy expert during several administrations] quit his job at Columbia University where he taught since 1960 to work on Ukraine’s independent status plan. This marks the beginning of his compromise to prevent the resurgence of Russia as a superpower (The Strategy to Destroy Russia Arthur Lepic in Voltairenet.org). In the 1990s Brzezinski formulated the strategic case for buttressing the independent statehood of Ukraine as a means to prevent a resurgence of the Russian Empire (Wikipedia). What Putin considers a former vital frontier of greater Russia Ukraine has been in a sense invaded by Western parties both for the debilitating of Russia and its dreams of former greatness, and for improving Nato’s, the US’ economic, monetary interests. I don’t believe Putin has any involvement in our border crisis [he would probably have Soros sent to the Gulag if he appears in Russia], although he might well have a sense of poetic justice with the disintegration of America’s southern frontier.
Differences of cultural mores, ethnicity and its historical legacy shape the meaning of a state with laws and boundaries, and significantly marks the capacity to preserve what’s best within its confines making what’s best available to other entities. John Paul II on these issues of legacy and national patriotism, rather than strident nationalism, is far distant from Pope Francis’ vision of a world absent of borders and rules except the rule that no national entity has rights. Indeed the preservation not only of national sovereignty rather the preservation of culture and religion are severely tested and in fact disintegrating in the West due to open border policy.
We read: “Milwaukeean Mark Seitz now bishop El Paso, TX Mex bordertown sudden champion of Hispanic rights across both borders dismissing the idea of borders altogether.” But why not nation-states without borders; after all, we have Doctors-without-Borders, and even a “field hospital Church” without discernible contours! Likewise, unstable morality unhinged from the contours of moral theology…
But, about Brzezinski, a similar and better source than Wikipedia for understanding his strategy is his own “The Grand Chessboard” (1998), where he advocated a series of intended outcomes at multiple “pivot points” on the globe—all to the end of transitioning from a post-bipolar world to a multipolar world, while maintaining American preeminence as a superpower. Two necessities were to contain both Russia and China as respected “regional” powers, but as no more than that. Look at China and Russia today. And, unanticipated was 9/11.
And far distant from both “strident nationalism” (also Russia?) and Pope Francis’ “world absent of borders,” St. John Paul II gave us “Memory and Identity” (2005), where, based on the historical (multi-tribal, etc.) Polish experience, he proposed not only “identity” but a “non-exclusive” identity. Today at the borders, a matter for fully cognizant and principled prudential judgment. Not sycophant clerics.
In any event, from Chinese history and luminaries, these are “interesting times.”
America would not be what it is today if it were not for immigrants. I welcome all legal immigrants, but like the world, America’s land mass is finite. Lady Liberty: Give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free… didn’t say how many.
Immigrants are not only coming from Hispanic countries; (Venezuela, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador), they are coming from other oppressed nations like China Africa and Russia. Some issues…
Border control is mandated, but it is being politicized.
Arch conservative Republican Senator and pastor James Langford was a co-author of a reasonable bipartisan border control bill that was defeated by House Republicans before it was to be passed to the US Senate. He was admonished by his party radicals. It has been reported that Trump did not want Biden to get credit for it. Because of Trump’s MAGA grip on the GOP, they can no longer legislate for the people.
Lawful immigrant assimilation: Many Hispanic immigrants are unable to fend for themselves. The taxpayer must foot their bills, (housing, food, clothing, medical, transportation, etc.). My new neighbors do not hablo Ingles.
Crime: Illegal drugs, (fentanyl explosion), and criminals crossings: Must be primary. Suprisingly, the criminal Mexican Cartels are the most powerful source of illegal invasion. Wasn’t Mexico going to build a wall?
Cruel political approach to the issue: Governors in “red” states, like Texas, (Abbott), and Florida, (DeSantis), are shipping illegals to “blue sanctuary” states without notice nor a plan to help them.
The Bully Pulpit: All American and Mexican religious leaders with their “bully pulpits”, including Catholic Bishops, must combine and direct their efforts and actions to the conflict at the border. Humanitarian consideration must include the impact of illegal immigration on our society.
Mr. Morgan, America as we know it wouldn’t exist period were it not for immigrants. And explorers, settlers, colonizers, etc. Unless we have native tribal ancestors we all descend from folks who came here from other places. Willingly or otherwise.
If we allow organized crime to control who comes to our borders and worse, if we cooperate in the smuggling operation, we will end up with a similar situation that migrants are trying to escape from. Secure borders provide safety.
The cartels are operating on both sides of the border now. They send us migrants and drugs. We send back cash and firearms. The only way to shut it down is to stop doing business with them.
Your neighbors might not speak English but if their children attend US schools they are guaranteed to. They’ll also be paying taxes to keep Social Security afloat. The immigrants aren’t the problem, it’s how they were enabled to get here.
mrscracker. We seem to agree that immigration must be legal, (asylum). Also, a humanitarian approach should be mandatory. No more razor wire at the Texas border, no more sending illegals to other states, etc. I would add…
The Langford bipartisan bill rejected by the GOP congress would have presented a viable improvement in over two decades. Our democracy is challenged as never before. Our elected officials and judiciary must direct their efforts to the people’s business.
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as the founding fathers created a fledgling democracy, Ben Franklin said ‘You now have a republic, if you can keep it”.
Those words ring today. From the tallest mountings to the shining seas.
Pray for our sacred constitution. An autocracy is waiting in the darkness.
Seitz and all of his fellow agenda driven navel gazing buffoons masquerading as ordained Catholic clergy need to brush up on the Catechism of the Church that they claim to be members of.
“Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” Paragraph 2, Section 2241, Catechism of the Catholic Church(emphasis added)