Pope Francis’s “Letter to the Bishops of the United States of America”, released yesterday, raises certain questions for me. I enumerate them here.
The Letter’s fourth section is, in many ways, the heart of the letter. It is also the one about which I have major questions. Pope Francis writes:
The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality. At the same time, one must recognize the right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes while in the country or prior to arrival. That said, the act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families… (§ 4)
First, while there is the obligatory acknowledgement of national sovereignty to regulate a country’s borders by immigration laws, that acknowledgement is sandwiched between preceding and following language that renders the theoretical concession nugatory. Is the Pope not saying sub rosa that while a country might sometimes regulate its immigration, its primary obligation is to welcome immigrants? And, when it comes to immigration, do the “reasons” immigrants decide to enter another country–legally or illegally–trump (in the names of “human dignity” and the “surpass[ing] value of the human person”) the country’s right to exclude or remove them?
Is the Pope saying that Catholic Social Teaching requires a state to have a default, pro-immigration legal structure absent other reasons to restrict them in any serious way? If so, what kind? And how compelling? Further, is he saying that the immigrants’ real or perceived threats should receive more weight than national immigration policies?
Under Francis’s criteria and his focus on the “poor,” may a state adopt an immigration policy that gives preference to skilled immigrants who actually contribute ab initio to the receiving country? If not, what “mix” of immigration preferences must a state adopt? Where in Catholic social teaching, which purportedly grounds this conclusion, are such ratios for practical policy prescriptions to be found?
Let me specifically focus in on this statement: “The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.”
I find this line ambiguous. Yes, I know that many people claim that illegal entry to the United States is not a crime but a “civil offense” akin to a parking ticket. Does someone have a “wrongly formed conscience” if he supports a “measure” that declares such illegal entry a criminal offense? Border Czar Tom Homan invokes 8 USC 1324, which makes facilitation of illegal immigration punishable by various terms of imprisonment. Imprisonment is clearly due to a criminal offense, not a civil offense.
So, is enforcing that law wrong? The Immigration and Nationality Act imposes various non-return exclusions for persons who cross the U.S. border illegally, especially when not at ports-of-entry. Are those bans immoral? If a legislator proposed a “measure” that would make clearly illegal border transit a criminal offense, would he lack a “rightly formed conscience?” Are all these potential caveats carve-outs from the theoretically conceded right of a nation to regulate its borders and immigration?
In § 6, the Pope takes issue (without naming him) with Vice President Vance’s invocation of the concept ordo amoris (the order of loves) as pertains to immigration. Francis says proper understanding of the concept comes from “constantly meditating on the parable of the Good Samaritan.”
I am not sure the papal response is not a straw man. The Parable of the Good Samaritan challenges us to expand our concept of “neighbor” to become all-inclusive. We are called to love all people. Vance’s exact words were:
But there’s this old-school concept—and I think a very Christian concept, by the way—that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.
Is Vice President Vance, in fact, telling us not to love all people? Or is he telling us that when it comes to the limited resources needed to “effectuate” that “love,” there is an ordo amoris in how they are allocated?
Love is a spiritual good. Spiritual goods do not diminish upon division: one can love ever more inclusively without “subtracting” love from individual persons. But the deeds of love often involve material goods which do diminish upon division: one cannot give the same amount of material goods to sixteen people that one give can to eight.
As Francis apparently expects the ever more inclusive “love” he calls for regarding immigrants to translate into practical measures, that means a state must by their very nature apportion material goods: housing, social subsidies, transportation costs, increased social benefits expenses (including education), job opportunities. All those goods are limited, even in the most affluent country, and require allocation of resources and spending priorities whose decisions have an impact on one’s own citizens. Do those citizens have priority, under ordo amoris, to preference in the allocation of those finite resources?
I also want to question the use of symbols and history. The Pope begins his Letter by using the Old Testament event of the Exodus. How exactly does that event “fit” into Francis’s immigration narrative? The Hebrews departed Egypt not necessarily of their own accord (forty years of Sinai “grumbling” about “flesh pots” attests to that) but by Divine warrant. Arguably, also, the Exodus was not so much an “immigration” as a “going home” to the land Yahweh originally gave them: the Israelites wound up in Egypt as a result of famine-driven migration.
The Pope also invokes Pope Pius XII’s Exsul familia Nazarethana without, it seems, distinguishing the historical circumstances in which that apostolic constitution was written in 1952. When I studied theology under Jesuits, we were told to examine the historical context in which something–including papal documents–happened.
Exsul familia was written seven years after World War II. Displaced persons were still in detention camps, primarily in Germany. The millions of displaced persons were not roaming at will across Western Europe for seven years after the Second World War, and they were not roaming into Eastern Europe as a result of a hermetically sealed Iron Curtain. Exsul familia was written with a need to address the need for a permanent solution to a unique historical phenomenon created by political events. It was not written for a migratory population moving at will out of economic choices, much less because of “serious deterioration of the environment.”
What, then, is the hermeneutical principle by which we are to be sure that teaching designed for one situation is applicable to a different one?
Finally, I want to ask about the “human dignity” that drives this document. “Human dignity” has a sonorous ring to it. As I noted when, less than a year ago, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Dignitas infinita, it is likely that the concept is intended better to link Catholic social teaching with contemporary secular human rights documents. That said, I also noted that the content and basis (including metaphysical basis) of “dignity” seems ambiguous and amorphous.
How do we know what “dignity” includes? What is the methodology by which we conclude something is implicated in “human dignity?” Are those implications of “human dignity” graduated, i.e., X involves human dignity “more” than Y?
These are real questions about which Catholic statesmen and people of good will require clarity. If they are matters of “human dignity,” they should be implicated by natural law—that is, in principles intelligible to every human being.
But it appears that the ambiguous nature of “dignity” as used in by Pope Francis presupposes papal instruction in whether particular cases implicate “dignity.” Yes, Catholic teaching has affirmed that the Church can speak authoritatively even in matters of natural law. That said, natural law ought normally to be able to speak for itself.
How does “dignity” immunize persons who choose to immigrate from the consequences (including deportation) of their violation of national law? Francis declares such enforcement to “damage the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness” (§ 4). How so? How does a state’s enforcement of its declared laws regarding illegal immigration, which a particular person knew themselves to be violating, constitute a “dignity” offense against them? Why does such enforcement, rather than their consciously chosen decision to live in violation of those laws, put “them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness?”
In response to this letter, the Archbishop of Chicago has called immigration our “preeminently urgent” question. If immigration is that serious, it would appear the theological and philosophical justifications behind the Pope’s prescriptions should be able to respond persuasively to questions about what exactly they entail.
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.
Look at what this Pope actually does in his little nation: “Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties for Illegal Aliens Crossing its Border”:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/16/vatican-promises-stiff-penalties-for-illegal-aliens-crossing-its-border/
I think that if somehow this world manages to persevere and sustains that academic inquiry into the past known as history-the accounts of the Papacy will note two particularly lamentable names: Borgia and Bergoglio.
I think that this Papal letter is little more than an instruction to those priests who aspire to the episcopacy and the bishops that aspire to be cardinals and reflects the follow quote:
Right thinking will be rewarded, wrong thinking punished.
-George Orwell
I wondered the same thing.
The catechism says that immigrants are to respect the laws of the host country. To enter a country illegally violates this precept. I wish the Pope would acknowledge this.
We are on the brink of World War III. No other country has been more generous than America to all foreign countries. Now we are 37 trillion dollars in debt, on the brink of bankruptcy. Millions of Americans have lost their homes and every thing they own from fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.; not to mention all the homeless and mentally ill living on the street. The flow of immigrants in our times is more like an invasion. It seems to me that immigration has been weaponized for political reasons. Terrorists and criminals, cartels, and drugs are being smuggled into our country. immigrant children are being sold into sex slavery. We have to be able to vet immigrants and to integrate them into our communities in a healthy and orderly manner. This is causing great suffering for legal immigrants, as well as American citizens.
About whether the various implications of human dignity are “graduated”, the answer is clear: “all implications are equal, but some implications are more equal than others.”
However, there does appear one possible filter. To what extent was previous non-enforcement over many years a de facto sort of welcome mat? Given the severe budget restrictions on total deportation (an unfunded one Trillion dollars over ten years) is a dysfunctional policy of “bait-and-switch” a factor for sorting out a tiered and partial deportation project?
Dr. Grondelski illustrates once again the embarrassing fact that Bergoglio is in *way* over his head.
Agree completely.
In way over his head along with a palpable disdain for the United States and for Americans with any sense of patriotism.
Bet on it.
It is in the nature of being a narcissistic progressive to believe that they represent a superior form of compassion and sensitivity that their imagined inferiors do not, and this requires a level of moral blindness that refuses to consider any and all negative repercussions of their crusade. Francis has never displayed any serious knowledge of the Catholic religion publicly, and his ideological mind calls those who do “ideologues” without any sense of irony. He cannot grasp why subsidiarity is a rational moral truth nor would he make an effort to understand this Catholic principle.
Conjecture. Suppose the crisis of illegals could be managed in a way so as to admit newcomers to the populace to reestablish, over a certain period of time, a right or better socio-political milieu; well, then, there could now be a most compelling context in which the moral matter of the dignity of the person would be positioned as a primacy.
Suppose. But to make that supposition requires just what I argue for: recognition that the state has a right to regulate immigration (incl., at times, to cut it off).
John as you know, the Catechism clearly states that immigration is subject to the capacity of a nation to receive entrants (legally) and it specifically states that immigration can be limited for various reasons.
I submit to you that our capacity is exhausted.
It does not grant economically interested Bishops, who prevaricate with euphemisms like “immigration status” and “undocumented” a veto over those reasons.
As my Bishop sent a letter parroting the Francine injunction, his annual appeal will be answered by me with a resounding silence. I’m not donating to a servant of the people who are bankrupting the unborn.
Some Bishops can be thought ignorant of financial matters; but mine is a degree collector with an MBA, and since I have the same degree, I know even if you do not concentrate in accounting or finance as I did; you are required to exhibit basic financial literacy, so he should understand what a soon to be $40 trillion dollar (acknowledged) national debt means to the diminished future generations who manage to be born in spite of the growing antinatalism-even apart from the slaughterhouses of unplanned barrenhood.
Excellent article as usual Mr. Grondelski.
The Pope is supposed to be a point of unity. Instead he has become a point of disunity, whether by proposing blessings for homosexual couples, cancelling the latin Mass, or now the illegal immigration issue.
Cardinal Cupich has now called for immigration to be the preeminent issue, where he previously opposed the murder of the unborn being listed by the USCCB as the preeminent issue.
The American bishops have spent more time in the last three weeks criticizing Trump than they spent in the last year criticizing Biden for all of his pro-abortion actions. It might be a good thing that Trump is not Catholic or the bishops might be refusing him the Eucharist.
Also, the pope is using the old terminology of legal and illegal migrants. The new terminology of the USCCB is “Newcomers, authorized and unauthorized.”
Let me specifically focus on this statement: “The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.”
This is at the heart of the issue of a judgment of good or evil regarding illegal immigration. First I assure the reader that I’m against illegal immigration, open borders, and much of what Pope Francis says directly or implies on immigration. Biden’s open border policy has caused much damage and strife. Now the issue of human dignity raised by Francis.
There are some, a portion of illegals that entered our nation under circumstantial duress, poverty etc. He refers to “some migrants” charged with criminality. There are instances taught by Aquinas, when persons in dire necessity may take from the excess of others while avoiding confrontation. Alphonsus Ligouri taught the same.
When in necessity we might appropriate what belongs to others. Can illegal entry across a nation’s border be forgiven? For justice sake, illegals during Biden’s watch were encouraged. Must we in all cases interpret the law as unrelenting and judge them as any common criminal? Depending on the conditions it may be the charitable option not to. That is what Archbishop Broglio and the USCCB refer to. At least they agree while they are here we should feed them if they’re hungry, clothe them if naked. Insofar as theology it may simply come down to prudent judgment.
A sort of amnesty needed to be proclaimed during the period while things will get updated?
In all fairness to Pope Francis, he addressed himself to bishops. He hasn’t sought to challenge or controvert the whole political community, only to guide the bishops and remnd them to be guided, along a gentle path.
I have ecclesiology issues with that, too, precisely because of Francis’s own “synodal” paradigms. Why was this letter addressed only to bishops?
We did an amnesty in 1986. I remember it. Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty of illegals on the understanding that this was a one-time deal to regularize the situation that would not be repeated. 40 years later, are we to repeat?
No. What I refer to is Church support when required while they’re here. And when processed for deportation, leniency for those with family who are working, contributing to the Nation. That would likely be a narrow segment of the presumed millions who entered illegally. I’m in agreement that the vast majority be deported to their nations of origin.
Let’s investigate a different time-period and look at it chronologically.
During the Obama years immigration was controversial from the standpoint of abuse of and abusive neglect toward immigrants. Families deliberately separated, children in cages, processes in permanent abeyance, people lost in separated processes, spiral of immigrant crimes and immigration-related crime, etc.
What happened from there would show that Biden stepped in with the aim to make the inundation continue but without all the depredations. Yet maintaining the inundation. Obama had come under some heavy criticism for the wreckage and Biden never acknowledged the hue and cry as he should have done!
Now Trump has to have the acumen, right advisors and slate of laws to get things to go in favour of the good and the land. There then has to be some bright collection of personnel, federal, state and local, who can confidently ensure it works well and draw out the best the US has to offer.
Hear what I am saying. For example, there are immigrant people in the US still illegal and already regularized, who suffered gravely under Obama.
On the other side the Pope himself might not approve my characterization of his letter to the bishops!
My reading of the situation is that prudence is called for and the different working parts need an examination. Likely there should be new laws and policies. I can only speculate about this as an observer without first hand knowledge.
For instance, the capitulation on the law the past few years means that the illegals have been helped by American officials who could remain in charge of their breaches and excesses. Also the “wrong” people still in place would likely not carry out enforcement orders properly with perhaps things going even deeper “underground”. Then the right people, depending on what the law is like, get caught in conflicted situations they can’t solve advantageously and they get the blame. The bishops will be thrown into the mix. Things get forced into court who have to wrangle through old policies and discretion-set with people getting off when they shouldn’t.
My understanding is that the whole thing about immigration is discretion. That’s the general underlying disposition of it. Seems desperately crying out for a re-balancing. Yes I have said elsewhere in CWR the States should be involved in coming to a new or added formula worked through with the Federal Government. Unfortunately the Biden Administration did not honour the commitment not to repeat the 1980’s. This however has handed an opportunity to the Trump Administration to “make the best” out of it -prudence, discretion, humaneness, justice, etc.
Briefly, I have faced US immigration numerous times and the engagement is intelligent while being both professional and hospitable. I have never had to complain. It’s a huge load-up of “goodwill on your balance sheet” (as it were) and if that’s the way illegals have been treated the US has so much to build on for the ones who will be allowed to stay.
Finally, give jack his jacket, as they say. The bishops have the right to exert their own influence in the politics and the communities. A lot of the news about that is negative, that’s true. But surely the preponderance of their works of mercy can redound to their credit and to the credit of the US and we should give defend the leeway they need. Perhaps they themselves should look back on the Reagan years for lessons from their own doings at the time.
1. “Must we in all cases interpret the law as unrelenting and judge them as any common criminal?” Yes, we must. They violated our national immigration laws. That technically makes them criminals. If the shoe fits…
2. “Depending on the conditions it may be the charitable option not to.” The rule of law must be applied uniformly for it to be fair and just. If you make allowances for illegals, then why not make exceptions for other criminals? Where does one draw the line?
3. “At least they agree while they are here we should feed them if they’re hungry, clothe them if naked.” Who is this “we” you speak of? There is no collective “we,” there is no collective responsibility. Charity is an individual decision.
Was there the same energy to strictly enforce Covid restrictions during the lockdown?
I’m all for law & order but it seems like we can channel Inspector Javert very selectively depending upon the law we want enforced.
Well, immigration policies are federal laws passed by Congress. Covid restrictions were burecratic policies. Two different things; not a fair comparison.
We had a pastor of a church arrested in our state because he refused over over again to follow the Covid lockdown orders. He was widely lauded for taking that stand.
I just think we can pick & choose what we support enforcing. People can be all for law & order until they’re not.
You know what illustrates the deficiency with this search for excuses for illegal invasion is the blatant myopia.
My church used to have a pamphlet with a proposed examination of conscience that in many ways reminded a penitent of oft-forgotten offenses such as gossip.
One of the questions, situated under the Fourth Commandment was a question I’ll paraphrase as best as I remember “have I paid all the taxes I owe”, with the spurious reference to pay Caesar what he’s due.
I always thought two things: How naive-and how the beep do I know (and I’m a licensed CPA).
I know of nobody who things that federal taxes are reasonable, fair, clear. We all know it’s inestimably voluminous, overly complicated, and by no measure can it be considered “equitable”.
The hierarchy has never excused tax evaders (evasion is illegally understating one’s liabilities) as “undocumented taxpayers” and in fact seems hostile to tax avoidance (avoidance is legally minimizing one’s liability).
There is no sympathy for people that can’t navigate Title 26’s thickets or who inadvertently incur usurious liabilities (a lot of COVID era day traders found out a bout something called a “wash sale” loss disallowance-something so complicated the IRS can’t even figure it out most times).
When will our Bishops have sympathy for the people whose exigent circumstances demand they not pay?
Immigration laws are simple. Enter through the front door, during the day-not through the window at night-and yet there’s a foundry of excuses for the invasion and subsequent theft and not a scintilla of concern for those paying the bill.
The Holy Father seems concerned with burning through the remaining good will of many conservative American Catholics.
Brilliant expose of the shoddy thinking coming out of this pathetic Vatican. Thank you, Mr. Grondelski.
How long, Lord?
Who even pays a millisecond attention to Bergoglio anymore? OK, maybe Cupich and McElroy, but most of us are fed up with the pontiff. St. Joseph, intercede for us and quickly!
This epistle missile is an extreme example (even for this Pope!) of bare-knuckled clericalism, romantic radicalism and prejudice.
Am praying that a future pontificate will care about your good questions and clean up this cock up.
Dr. Grondelski raises some important and relevant questions. However, this pope has no record of deep and careful thinking on pressing issues. A John Paul II or Benedict XVI or even Paul VI he is not. He does seem to have his prejudices which he has no interest in overcoming. He appears sympathetic to Third World Marxism. Though he is supposed to be a universal pastor, he dislikes large segments of his flock. Will we ever understand his unbounded hostility to the traditional Catholic or to the Latin Mass?
Vance is saying that to just survive, you have to work/manage with priorities. A Mormon told me once when they go on a 3rd world mission the first thing they do is make sure everyone is fed etc.., as they can’t be taught if they’re starving – thus, be practical.
If even 28.57 % of what DOGE has uncovered is true our country is not running in that manner of practicality. Consider how the hill people were ignored in NC while the illegals are put up in posh hotels.
The first sentence, nay, the first few words of that embarrassing screed authored by the reputed Pontiff had me closing the browser tab. What a joke.
It is no doubt true that, as the Pope notes, many leave their native land-“…for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment…”. A just system will have a process in place to adjudicate such cases and distinguish them from those who enter for other, possibly nefarious, reasons. In fact we do have such a legal apparatus in place to do so. It has been overwhelmed by the vast numbers crossing our borders illegally. I would not interpret the Pope’s document as proscribing an orderly attempt to regulate immigration or entry across our borders. He did acknowledge after all, the rights of a nation to ensure such order, and the Catechism (2241), makes clear that Catholic teaching affirms such a national right. A dedicated effort to reinforcing our immigration system while toning down the rhetoric might be what’s called for at this time.
Dr. Grondeleski cites the criminal prohibition against harboring in 8 USC Sec. 1325. The very next section, 8 USC Sec. 1325 specifies that improper entry by an alien is a criminal offense punishable by up to 6 months for the first offense and up to 2 years for a subsequent offense. Sec. 1325 states: “Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
So illegally entering the United States is a criminal act. And I expect that the United States is not unique in this. I would expect illegal entry into most countries around the world is likewise a criminal act. Every country I have ever visited checks documentation before entry. I note that the Vatican itself has criminal penalties for illegal entry.
Whose jail? That’s expensive as well here.
The Pontiff Francis has demonstrated his personal contempt for justice in his career spent defending and promoting sex abusers and sex abuse coverup artists while head of the Argentinian Bishops Conference (e.g., his secret multi-million defense of the notorious sex-abuser-of-orphans “Rev. Julio Grassi) and as Pontiff (the now long publicized cases of his protection of “Rev.” Rupnik-serial-sex-abuser-of-nuns, “Excellency” Zanchetta-serial-sex-abuser-of-seminarians, “Eminence” McCarrick-serial-sex-abuser-of-boys-and-seminarians-and-key-agent-for-the-Secret-Vatican-Accord-with-Communist-Dictators-of-China, “Eminence” Danneels-sex-abuse-coverup-artist-for-Bishop-Roger-Vangelhue-sex-abuser-of-his-own-nephews, and “Eminence” McElroy/sex-abuse-coverup-artist-against-the-young-woman-raped-by-one-of-his-priests-in-his-diocese-in-California.
The Pontiff Francis is the outlaw-tyrant-of-the-Holy-See-as-neo-Pornocracy.
His voice is the voice of the false shepherd.
His letter to Catholic Bishops in the US regarding illegal immigration is a raw political stunt, similar to his televised orchestration of the Pachamama idolatry event.
A man who is an outlaw lives to spread his contempt for justice laws.
Bergoglio’s advocacy of the open borders policy makes the Church complicit in all kinds of evil, from drug smuggling to human trafficking to pedophilia.
He is not inspired by the Holy Spirit, but rather by that other one.
There must be a way to file criminal charges for inciting criminal behavior against Francis in some international jurisdiction.
Well done, Dr Grondelski.
The bishops will never take responsibility for the collateral damage wrecked upon the law abiding citizens and good and patient legal immigrants who choose to obey the legal, moral law of the land.
The well organized, well financed unvetted mob rush at our southern border is of no consequence to the American Catholic bishops. On this issue, the USCCB is beneath contempt. As always, follow the money.
Money doesn’t talk.
Money screams bloody murder.
Right you are. I note that the Catholic Relief Service has deleted from one of its websites, during the past week—its efforts from 2010 onward in today to support of migrants specifically from/in Venezuela and at least one other country.
The US bishops founded CRS post WWII, but their involvement today is ambiguous, perhaps purposely so. CRS receives most of its funding from the federal government, and CRS pays its executives handsomely (1/3 to 1/2 $million/year).
Mr. Grondelski writes clearly, thoughtfully and charitably. I would be surprised and delighted if anyone in authority at the Vatican read his words, much less took them to heart.
The core problem is that the Pope and probably way too many clergy do not understand economics. Socialism does not work, it only created poor countries and destitute people who clamor to get into the US. Letting in illegal immigrants and giving freebees to illegal immigrants does not solve the problem. If it continued it creates a big crime problem as the gangs take hold, and it will in the end destroy the US as the push for America to become a socialist country takes hold. If the illegal immigration is not stopped America will become just like another poor South America country. Suggest the Pope read Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek and learn some economics.
First, before addressing the Pope’s letter, I must call out the abject hypocrisy of the Pope who imposes stiff penalties on anyone who enters the Vatican State illegally. Now, regarding the Pope’s letter, any nation, just like the Vatican State, has the right to create laws regarding immigration as a means of protecting its borders and its citizens, not just from violent criminal acts but also from abuse of the citizens by imposing on them obligations of the care and welfare of those entering illegally. There is also an enormous difference between a person entering illegally, and the invasion of millions of illegal aliens. This invasion severly impacts the rights of those who are applying to enter legally, to assimilate and become citizens.We have no obligation to provide for the millions who invade our border primarily to be cared for without any attempt at being productive. It puts an unmanageable burden on all.
Why do not the Holy Father and his confreres in the global episcopate address the injustices nurtured by national leaders in the homelands of illegal migrants? Why is the United States regarded as a bottomless pit of wealth? Are the streets paved with gold? Why are the necessities of our poor, disadvantaged, veterans not held in the same concern as individuals who cross our boarders illegally while providing lucre to criminal drug cartels and sex traffickers?
Am I to regard this intervention of the Holy Father as ill-informed? Disingenuous? Clueless?
The United States has generous legal immigration policies which are ignored. One is left to reason why. Absorb the fact that 12 million immigrants entered the United States legally between 1900 and 1954. At least that many have entered over the last four years.
Just policy is not crafted by erroneous fantasies paraded on the moral high horse. It is made perfectly clear in CCC 2241 that nations will discern the “peripheries” of legal immigration. The US has very generous quotas for legal immigrants in line with what the nation can reasonably absorb.
The Good Samaritan parable says nothing about loving and helping distant human beings, much less about loving and helping all human beings. Instead, it says we must treat all nearby people as neighbors, regardless of their ethnic character or political affiliation, and so come to their aid when they are seriously in need.
I disagree with Dr. Grondelski when he writes, “The Parable of the Good Samaritan challenges us to expand our concept of “neighbor” to become all-inclusive. We are called to love all people.” Other Gospel teachings may do this, but the Good Samaritan parable says nothing about loving and helping distant human beings, much less about loving and helping all human beings. Instead, it says we must treat all nearby people as neighbors, regardless of their ethnic character or political affiliation, and so come to their aid when they are seriously in need.
Before I give any weight to what any bishop, including the Pope, has to say about the illegal invasion of our country by foreign nationals, I want them to give a complete accounting for the 300,000 missing children who have been brought here. The bishops are partially to blame for their fate.
So many nuances to unpack against the broader vilification of a country’s duly elected executive administration and timeless Truth. Pope Francis’ letter evokes contention with state vs. the church, need vs desire, rights of the individual vs. society, the good vs. evil, poor vs. the more affluent, and overarching: virtue vs. vice.
Yet, at the heart of dismay over the Pope’s tone is that he continues to scold –actually judge–those whom he deems to be rigid, clinging to their religion to rationalize selfish, exclusionary community . I have stated before that Vance could have communicated a more articulate reference to the principle of subsidiarity, but that his comments did not deserve the trouncing he received. Prudence guides us to wisely use and share our resources, but all does start with solid, faithful families. Note that millions swarming across the border–millions–abandoned hundreds of thousands of children. Then as “one can of worms” was exposed, exponentially others come into view. This was an unhealthy influx!
The enormous chaos that has ensued will require generations of assimilation even for those who remain in this country.
As for the “funding” of Catholic workers, I recall Jesus sending out his disciples without any resources, ensuring also that they–and future generations– would not compromise nor be compromised in the essence of their mission.
Perhaps a special council to review Church teaching and provide proper perspective is in order, along with a just USA immigration document. In the meantime, I will close by asserting that I have witnessed many “conservative” Catholics who move in the “spirit of poverty,” and amply give of their time, talent, and treasure to the poor and marginalized. Yet, the”poor” immigrant also has a duty to be “poor in spirit”–understanding, open to instruction, grateful, cooperative, and ultimately contributory. (See St. Thomas Aquinas.)
Jesus the Good Shepherd said “Those that don’t pass through the gate and climb over the fence are thieves and robbers.” John 10:1
Scripture also tells us Jesus realized an order of love, “Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, “Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” And he said to her, “For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.”
Mark 7:24-30
So, Moab authorities should not have allowed Naomi and her family in?
Was Naomi intentionally violating a sovereign nation’s federal immigration laws? Didn’t think so.
In all of the Pope’s letter and in all of the comments so far there appears to be no acknowledgement of the fact that the USA welcomes more refugees who arrive legally than any other country in the whole world!
And maybe even illegally too!
Beautiful aesthetical.
Or, as is heard sometimes, “You have to navigate and find the balance”?
Take a moment to recall a context. President Biden exited stage declaring that the ERA “is the law of the land”. Illegals were to be instrumentalized into this and various budgeting channels like USAID were to be part of the action.
Deporting illegals en masse would not be the only way to to correct that. Be astute.
In addition, a new immigrant wave will surely help avoid demographic declines.