The bishops rightly may raise moral objections since law ought to be founded on morality.
But the basic question here is beyond their competence, which is the division of power between the state and central government,
The state cannot be indifferent to such intrusions, especially when they reach such levels that they , like the migrations of the ancient Germans across the frontiers of the Roman Empire, become disruptive of ordinary life. Given that the bishops have a responsibility for their flocks, which include these aliens, they are right to worry that they may not be treated fairly.
They themselves cannot discriminate because the Church literally knows no political boundaries. But in truth I would ask them to be more even handed in their concern and raise objections with the Mexican consulate that they ALSO be responsible and NOT encourage these people to think they have a right to be in this country. I have yet to hear that any bishop has done this.
We have to look at two points here. First, we must look at the bishop’s letter. They are not objecting to the entire package. They raise questions about two specific points, which are morally questionable. If the law were to correc those two points, the legislators would not hear from the bishops again. They’re not asking the legislators to allow crime to run rampant. They are not asking legislators to allow illegal immigration. They are asking for two very specific points.
The second point is that the bishops are not alone in this request. They were joined by several Jewish and Protestant leaders. This whole thread has been bashing the bishops But no one has mentioned or even provided copies of the other letters written by Jewish and Protestan leaders.
As I have said, we must always remember that when a bishop speaks on a moral point, he need not be an expert in political science. He is an expert in theology. That’s what he’s doing. He’s doing theology. If we, as Catholics, do not understand the theological point, we can ask before we attack or cirticize. The same statements that we make about the bishops not knowing anyting about politics or economics, they can make about us not knowing anything about theology. But what good does all this finger-pointing do for the soul?
We have to remember that the most important thing in our lives is our soul. The State cannot save our soul, a bishop can. We save our souls through our communion with the Church. We cannot achieve communion with the Church unless we’re in communion with the local bishops. If we cannot be in communion with the local bishops, we may as well leave the Catholic Church. Because there is no such thing as membership in the Catholic Church while bypassing the local bishop. Where there’s the bishop, there’s the Church. No bishop, no Church. They are more essential to the union between our soul and God, than is civil law. They certainly know more theology than a politician. Just because we don’t understand the theological principle, does not mean that there is not one present.
The only time that we can ignore that principle is if it’s in conflict with the Magisterium. No one here has proven that the bishop’s theological principle is in conflict with the Magisterium. In fact, on poster admitted that these statements reflect those of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, bu then the poster went on to say how wrong John Paul and Benedict are on these points. Well that’s what Catherine of Siena would call spiritual audacity.
While she was the first to call bishops and popes to task, she was also the great defender of the dignity of the bishops and popes. She dearly loved the Church and showed her love for the Church in her manner of speaking to the bishops and popes about their failings. She communicated to them her love for them and her subservience to them. Her articulation was very balanced.
Most of us would consider ourselves much more sophisticated than Catherine. She was illiterate, never learned to read and write. She didn’t even speak Italian propertly. But look at her wisdom and her common sense. She called them to task on their faults, but always made sure that she mentioned her love for them and her great reverence for their position in the Church. She made it a point to tell anyone who complained about the bishops and popes about their importance in their salvation.
Catherine should be a great example for laity in a time of crisis. She was a lay woman and lived in a time of crisis, worse than our own today. She and Franics of Assis were both lay people, both lived in crisis. Both had to deal with difficult bishops and popes. Both were very clear on one thing. If you’re Catholic, you need the bishops. A non-Catholic is in a different position, because he or she is saved through the mercy of God that reaches out from the Church beyond her physical boundaries. But if you’re Catholic, you’re dependent on the bishop for your salvation. Only a bishop can teach faith and morals, absolve from sin, consecrate the Eucharist and keep the priesthood going. If you’re a Catholic, you have no way of saving your sould without this.
For this reason, we cannot take on an antagonistic attitude toward our bishops. It only poisons our souls. We must make use of the systems that the Church has put in place for these questions. Finally, I know for a fact that the Mexican bishops are deal with the migration problem from the other side, trying to get Latin American governments to hep their people survive in their homeland so they do not have to leave. Everyone has a right to live in his homeland.
As a Franciscan, I’m more concerned about the salvation of our souls, than about being right. As St. Clare told our order, “You can be right and be condemned to hell by your hatred and anger.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
