Catholic Teaching on Immigration Policy and Universal Heathcare?

[Elizium23]

For those who want the real teaching of the whole Church on social justice issues, please see this document, which should go into more detail than the Catechism would.

And Bill, for your ongoing questions of what is right and wrong about our nation’s laws, the best possible people to interpret Church teaching in this light is your pastor and your local bishop. Seek their opinions on all matters relating to faith and morals, and respect their judgement when viewing political issues through the lens of Church teaching. But ultimately, the political landscape is the unique province of the laity; the Church teaches that it is us who have been entrusted with the secular roles of governing ourselves. The clergy merely act in an advisory role here.

On the whole, God wants us to accept legitimate secular authority and obey just laws. What is a just law? One that does not offend a well-formed conscience and one that does not compel us to sin. The vast majority of laws made to run a country with legitimate governing authority are just laws. If you don’t hear our bishops protesting it, and it isn’t tugging at your conscience, then you can reliably trust that it is a just law and should be obeyed, all things being equal. In the end, once again, it is your conscience that should inform your obedience to the state, and your conscience is formed by assiduously studying Church teachings and listening to your legitimate pastors and the Word of God as we are spiritually fed every week in the Mass.

 

[Ender]

So, where do I as someone who strives to live his life according to the teachings of God, Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church get my information as to ‘what the church’ teaches about immigration (legal and illegal)?

The first thing to understand, and it is a point lost on a lot of people, is that the Church does not provide specific proposals for the solutions to social problems. She provides guidelines but leaves it to the laity to work out the details. This is an example of what you will find:

The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life" (Message for World Day of Migration 2001, 3; cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, 30; Paul VI, Encyclical Octogesima adveniens, 17). At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. (BXVI)

Although you will find individual bishops who (e.g.) oppose the Arizona immigration law you will not find anything in Church teaching that compels us to either support or oppose it. The opinions of bishops on this matter are just that, their opinions and we are not obliged to agree with them. One may surely argue that the Arizona law should be overturned as it would do more harm than good but one may not validly argue that it should be overturned because it is immoral and contrary to Church teaching. That claim would be incorrect.

Here are links to some Church documents you might find useful:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/migration/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_25071995_undocumented_migrants_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/migration/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20100927_world-migrants-day_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20080831_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2006_101/rc_pc_migrants_pom101_the-challenge-migr.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/migration/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20010213_world-migration-day-2001_en.html

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

Please remember that discussions about particular political parties are not allowed on this forum.

Thank you, Ms. Bennett!

 

[pnewton]

Although you will find individual bishops who (e.g.) oppose the Arizona immigration law you will not find anything in Church teaching that compels us to either support or oppose it.

There will not be anything by name that compels opposition, if that is what you mean. However, one may well find something in Church doctrine that compels him to oppose it, as I once did. If all the bishops are of one mind on something, then a good Catholic would do well to understand why.

In any case, the OP’s question is that the bishops as a group, and some individually, do have a position on immigration and healthcare. The Church as a whole has doctrine on these topics.

 

[Ender]

There will not be anything by name that compels opposition, if that is what you mean. However, one may well find something in Church doctrine that compels him to oppose it, as I once did.

There is nothing in doctrine that will tell us the effects of a particular action. Church doctrine that leads you to one set of policies can just as readily lead others to a different set and given that the Church doesn’t have doctrines that specify which policies we should adopt we are more or less free to adopt those we think proper.

If all the bishops are of one mind on something, then a good Catholic would do well to understand why.

Yes, and on the question of the HHS mandate all of them were of one mind. On the question of the Arizona law they assuredly were not.

In any case, the OP’s question is that the bishops as a group, and some individually, do have a position on immigration and healthcare. The Church as a whole has doctrine on these topics.

Having a “position” on an issue is way too vague. The Church has guidelines that do not translate into policies which is quite reasonable as that is the responsibility of the laity. That individual bishops prefer this or that policy is interesting but does not carry with it the obligation to agree with them. On matters of policy the bishops may believe as they will. And so may we.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Yes, and on the question of the HHS mandate all of them were of one mind. On the question of the Arizona law they assuredly were not.

Yes, they were at one point, before it was amended. While their specific current immigration beliefs vary, they do not vary that much. For example, none hold a position of major deportations or a massive border fence being acceptable.

 

[Nate13]

Yes, they were at one point, before it was amended. While their specific current immigration beliefs vary, they do not vary that much. For example, none hold a position of major deportations or a massive border fence being acceptable.

What is their reasoning for being against a fence? I think your confusing being against turning immigrants in need away and being against a fence. I’m all for securing the border, and then completely opening up legal immigration with Mexico, but I’m curious how many people would immigrate if we left it completely open, almost no charge. Do you think 90% of the Mexican population might immigrate? I’d highly doubt much more than 10% of Mexico’s populations is living at standards above the average living standard hear in the U.S. Does it really help anyone out if 90% of Mexico immigrates here?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Church doctrine that leads you to one set of policies can just as readily lead others to a different set and given that the Church doesn’t have doctrines that specify which policies we should adopt we are more or less free to adopt those we think proper. …The Church has guidelines that do not translate into policies…

And there’s a reason for that: the reason is that various policies may both support Church doctrine in some areas while opposing it in other areas. I myself have illustrated some of these many conflicts often when discussing the immigration topic on CAF. There is no uniform Church doctrine which states that faithful, sincere Catholics must support illegal immigration in general, or support or oppose certain policies or legislation in particular, to demonstrate their Catholic fidelity and sincerity. And anyone on this thread or on this forum who implies or states the opposite has stepped over the line.

 

[Elizabeth502]

none hold a position of major deportations or a massive border fence being acceptable.

Are you referring to the fact that --not just the bishops, btw, but many non-Catholic civic leaders-- find any combo of mere negative action(s) unsupportable? (And certainly not very constructive or practical!)

I didn’t remember that there was a particular statements of the U.S. bishops united, which condemned any effective fence between two sovereign nations. If so, that would certainly conflict with the bishops’ often (and recently) stated position that sovereignty is to be respected as a matter of justice, regardless of whatever heterodox positions there are about that on this thread (which imply that sovereignty is immoral, and perhaps even opposed by the bishops, which is of course factually untrue).

 

[Nate13]

Are you referring to the fact that --not just the bishops, btw, but many non-Catholic civic leaders-- find any combo of mere negative action(s) unsupportable? (And certainly not very constructive or practical!)

I didn’t remember that there was a particular statements of the U.S. bishops united, which condemned any effective fence between two sovereign nations. If so, that would certainly conflict with the bishops’ often (and recently) stated position that sovereignty is to be respected as a matter of justice, regardless of whatever heterodox positions there are about that on this thread (which imply that sovereignty is immoral, and perhaps even opposed by the bishops, which is of course factually untrue).

As well as begging the question that if not between the borders of nations, how about the border between my neighbors and I?

 

[Elizabeth502]

As well as begging the question that if not between the borders of nations, how about the border between my neighbors and I?

Indeed.
Thus, Gospel values, together with applied directives from our bishops, priests, Pope, would instruct us as follows:

My neighbor has no inherent right to destroy the fence between himself and someone else. Rather, he has an inherent right to seek relief from poverty, and to migrate in order to do so. (That is taken directly from the Church’s social doctrine.) When we know our neighbor is hurting so much economically that he might be inclined to do something drastic, such as scale the fence and take food from my yard, someone else’s yard, etc., the proactive Christian approach would be to try to prevent such a limited option in the first place, knowing that even if I as his neighbor do not object to such extreme behavior, someone later living there, or law enforcement authorities, might notice such violations of law, which would endanger my neighbor. (Causing him to be prosecuted and imprisoned.)

The more comprehensive, holistic approach would be to look at how/why he became so poor, so desperate, so without resources that he saw only one option. And then to address those reasons at their root, with the greater education and resources I have at my disposal vs. what my neighbor has at his disposal. (I have enumerated some of these analogous examples elsewhere on the forum, as they relate to more healthy perspective.)

I certainly would not see it as a Christian response to support any dangerous, vagabond lifestyle on his part, requiring him to go from fence to fence, yard to yard, hiding in the shadows (and myself conspiring with his shadowy lifestyle), as a “solution” to his problem. It’s not a solution. It’s a different problem: another evil, another roadblock in his life.

If, at some point, before my efforts succeeded on his behalf, the authorities stepped in to announce some kind of contingent amnesty or absorption for him or his family (or both), I would support such a step by the government depending on what the terms of acquiring that legitimacy were. If I found that a particular proposal was unjust to a different neighbor, I could not support such a proposal, because to do would oppose the Catholic moral principle that evil means (hurting a different neighbor) never justifies a good end (providing for my neighbor whom I have befriended or chosen to take responsibility for).

Pursuing different solutions to illegal immigration than the ones currently active does not rise to the level of intrinsic evil; abortion, on the other hand, does rise to the level of intrinsic evil.

 

[pnewton]

There is no uniform Church doctrine which states that faithful, sincere Catholics must support illegal immigration in general, or support or oppose certain policies or legislation in particular, to demonstrate their Catholic fidelity and sincerity. And anyone on this thread or on this forum who implies or states the opposite has stepped over the line.

No one has.

 

[pnewton]

If so, that would certainly conflict with the bishops’ often (and recently) stated position that sovereignty is to be respected as a matter of justice, regardless of whatever heterodox positions there are about that on this thread (which imply that sovereignty is immoral, and perhaps even opposed by the bishops, which is of course factually untrue).

No one has said sovereignty is immoral or that it should not be respected. That is two strawmen. Any more?

…and perhaps even opposed by the bishops, which is of course factually untrue

Really?
old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-197.shtml

On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I write to ask that you veto H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. As you know, H.R. 6061 would authorize the construction of up to 700 miles of fencing and barriers along our southern border with Mexico, among other provisions…In our estimation, the erection of a border fence would force immigrants, desperate to find employment to support their families, to seek alternative and more dangerous ways to enter the country,

We also feel strongly that the erection of a 700-mile border fence would send a signal to Mexico and other countries in the hemisphere that the United States is not willing to work cooperatively to address the problem of illegal immigration. It could harm our relations with these countries and inhibit bilateral progress on mutual interests. As the world’s greatest democracy and lone superpower, our nation should be able to address the issue of illegal immigration without resorting to the construction of fences and barriers.

Now, if I am so off base, perhaps instead of more argument based on what passes as logic here, you would be so kind to post where some such bishops has supported the building of a border fence?

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is no uniform Church doctrine which states that faithful, sincere Catholics must support illegal immigration in general, or support or oppose certain policies or legislation in particular, to demonstrate their Catholic fidelity and sincerity. And anyone on this thread or on this forum who implies or states the opposite has stepped over the line.

No one has.

for the second time now:

If you would rather reject the DREAM Act, and welcome oppressive legislation like Arizona’s SB 1070, that is up to your poorly-formed conscience to go right along with the Republican party line.

No one has said sovereignty is immoral or that it should not be respected.

Also, I do not believe in the concept of a Soverign Nation.

That is -]two/-] zero strawmen.

Any other posts you care not to read before claiming arguments have not been made?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Unlike other posters, I do not engage in selective quoting and omissions in order to distort a policy statement for my particular point of view. Here, CAF friends, is the letter in its entirety. I will note also that the poster said that all the bishops opposed the fence. This letter is from one bishop, speaking on behalf of others. The poster implied that all of the bishops in the country had individually weighed in on this issue, in agreement, as opposed to a statement from a bishop. But that’s not even the important part. The important part is that there is no indication in this letter that the simple act of securing our borders is illegal. This particular fence is being opposed, due to certain factors in its construction. Not the fact that there is a fence.

Importantly, the final Paragraph happily reiterates what I’ve been saying for years on CAF. I highlighted the whole paragraph in blue. Interestingly, I came to the same moral conclusion as this bishop, even before reading this (it’s a position that I had prior to registering with CAF). Why did I come to it? Not specifically because of this bishop. (He is not my personal bishop.) Nor would I automatically disregard what anyone but my own bishop said. **Rather, I am formed by the same well-formed conscience that anyone well-steeped in Catholic moral theology would come to. ** And I certainly don’t need to be lectured by anyone on this thread or forum as to how well my conscience is or is not formed. They would have no clue.

WASHINGTON (October 11, 2006)—Bishop William Skylstad, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), has sent a letter to President George W. Bush asking him to veto H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 that would authorize construction of up to 700 miles of fencing and barriers along the southern border of Mexico.

“To be clear, the U.S. Catholic bishops are supportive of efforts to enforce immigration law and secure our borders, so long as the mechanism and strategies applied toward this end protect human dignity and protect human life,” Bishop Skylstad wrote. “However, we are opposed to this legislation because we believe it could lead to the deaths of migrants attempting to enter the United States and increased smuggling-related violence along our border. We also believe it would send the wrong signal to our peaceful neighbor to the south, Mexico, as well as the international community.”

Bishop Skylstad also noted that a recent study from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found migrant deaths have doubled since 1995, about the time the government began a series of border enforcement initiatives designed to stem illegal entries at ports-of-entry and other traditional crossing routes. Since this time, close to 3,000 immigrants have died in remote portions of the southwest region of the country.

“In our estimation, the erection of a border fence would force migrants, desperate to find employment to support their families, to seek alternative and more dangerous ways to enter the country, contributing to an increase in deaths, including women and children,” Bishop Skylstad wrote.

The Catholic Church bears witness to the poverty that drives desperate people to seek employment in our country, and these root economic issues that drive illegal immigration will not be solved by more fencing and barriers. “From this universal perspective, we strongly feel that the development of just global economic and trade policies designed to help create living wage jobs in countries of origin would permit persons to remain home and support themselves and their families,” Bishop Skylstad said.

 

[pnewton]

Any other posts you care not to read before claiming arguments have not been made?

I do read the whole post and consider them to be strawmen, for the reasons stated above. Yes, I selectively quote in order to comment with both the rules here and copyright law. However, I linked the letter from the USCCB.

The poster implied that all of the bishops in the country had individually weighed in on this issue, in agreement, as opposed to a statement from a bishop.

No, I did not imply this. Yet this shows why we must not assume. I said, and I believe until someone shows evidence to the contrary, that this is one area in which the any of the bishops have only expressed one opinion. Please understand this in no one implies all bishops have expressed this opinion, just that I have never heard an opinion to the contrary. Though please, post otherwise if you know where this has happened.

 

[TEPO]

I do read the whole post and consider them to be strawmen, for the reasons stated above. Yes, I selectively quote in order to comment with both the rules here and copyright law. However, I linked the letter from the USCCB.

No, I did not imply this. Yet this shows why we must not assume. I said, and I believe until someone shows evidence to the contrary, that this is one area in which the any of the bishops have only expressed one opinion. Please understand this in no one implies all bishops have expressed this opinion, just that I have never heard an opinion to the contrary. Though please, post otherwise if you know where this has happened.

I bet globally we can find one Bishop who disagrees.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I do read the whole post and consider them to be strawmen, for the reasons stated above.

They were no “reasons” stated above, and clearly they are not straw man. I just quoted for you where one poster said directly that he opposes the concept of sovereign nation, even though the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops – not only a particular bishop – but the bishops who produced the Faithful Citizenship Document, for example – restate the importance of national sovereignty. So clearly my argument was in direct response to that poster, and therefore not a “straw man.”

Point Two, I quoted you also a poster who suggested that supporting this particular DREAM Act was a matter of binding Catholic doctrine, which is, of course, nonsense. The poster further reinforced the false connection of a certain political proposal with “doctrine” by suggesting that anyone who did not support that legislation had a poorly formed conscience. Of course what was conveniently and simplistically neglected by that poster was whether anyone who was perhaps more intellectually sophisticated in the whole area of immigration might in fact have stronger and more enlightened proposals than the slipshod one developed by secular politicians and which is being presented as “Catholic doctrine.” I quoted that poster as well. Not straw men.

Yet this shows why we must not assume. I said, and I believe until someone shows evidence to the contrary, that this is one area in which the any of the bishops have only expressed one opinion. Please understand this in no one implies all bishops have expressed this opinion, just that I have never heard an opinion to the contrary.

Logical fallacy, as well as resorting to anecdote. Because “only one” bishop expressed, in writing, an opinion means neither that no other bishops agree with him nor that all bishops agree with him. It could be that all bishops agree with him or that none or few agree with him – not on Catholic social doctrine, which are principles, but on whether specific proposals do or do not accord with Catholic social doctrine.

Further, there’s a great deal of simplistic thinking going on here among several posters and in several posts. That thinking (and in general the discussions about Catholic doctrine are often reduced to this) translates to: every bishop in the U.S. shares either an identical enthusiasm or an identical disapproval of any particular proposal affecting Catholic social doctrine. There simply is not that unanimity in the social doctrine area that exists in the moral doctrine area. Completely different animals. And it has nothing to do with implying that moral doctrine is absolute whereas social doctrine is not. They are both absolute. However, one is characteriistically different, being a matter of universal principles rather than dealing with specific personal acts. And no one on this forum, including yourself, has any authority to state whether a particular social proposal has any binding moral weight on the Catholic believer until and unless our bishops state that. They have stated that with regard to certain moral behaviors, because there are not several different possibilities for such intrinsically evil behaviors.

I think the challenge is yours, not mine. You keep raising it or at least implying it. You seem to think that the bishops are saying something that cannot be found in any document. They are not saying (a) illegal immigration is an intrinsic good, and opposing illegal immigration is intrisically evil, or that (b) we must have no fences with other countries, or that (c) unless another bishop publicly contradicts a bishop who has issued a statement, the laity can assume that all bishops think alike on all legislative proposals regarding social doctirne.

Any Catholic is free to interpret the bishops more rigorously and enthusiastically than the bishops interpret themselves. But that Catholic is not at liberty to assign moral weight to any bishop’s statement that neither the bishop nor the Vatican has stated. (And then to suggest that Catholics who do not simlarly over-interpret are merely seeking excuses not to “obey” the bishops, not to “form their consciences,” etc.)

Again I stress that this has nothing to do with opposing social doctrine. We are not at liberty to oppose Catholic social doctrine. We are at liberty and we are mandated to use the maximum powers of our intelligence to work for what we consider, with our experience, any expertise, any imagination, to be the best way to expedite that mandated social doctrine. And no other Catholic has the authority to tell us that in doing so we are “opposing the bishops.”

 

[pnewton]

Logical fallacy, as well as resorting to anecdote. Because “only one” bishop expressed, in writing, an opinion means neither that no other bishops agree with him nor that all bishops agree with him.

It is not an anecdote. It is on the USCCB website. It is written by the president of the USCCB at that time written on behalf of the USCCB.

If Bishop Skylstad was not enough, here is Bishop Barnes
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=21482

In a letter to Sept. 26 on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Gerald R. Barnes of San Bernardino, Calif., chairman of the USCCB Committee on Migration, urged the U.S. Senate to oppose the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation by the end of the year.

Here is where Bishop Sitka reposted the first letter.

dioknox.org/1807/etcnews/bishops-president-urges-bush-to-veto-bill-on-border-fence/

Here is Bishop Pena (who also calls this the Church’s position)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_wtbyW_j3s

.

I think the challenge is yours, not mine. You keep raising it or at least implying it. You seem to think that the bishops are saying something that cannot be found in any document. They are not saying (a) illegal immigration is an intrinsic good, and opposing illegal immigration is intrisically evil, or that (b) we must have no fences with other countries, or that (c) unless another bishop publicly contradicts a bishop who has issued a statement, the laity can assume that all bishops think alike on all legislative proposals regarding social doctirne

No, I have said none of these things. There you go using “imply” again.

But that Catholic is not at liberty to assign moral weight to any bishop’s statement that neither the bishop nor the Vatican has stated.

Quoting bishops should be allowable on a Catholic forum.

This issue, to go back to yesterday, arose when the statement was made, “I didn’t remember that there was a particular statements of the U.S. bishops united, which condemned any effective fence between two sovereign nations.”. The point is, that I have above two presidents of the USCCB, two other bishops of which one which says that this is the position of the bishops, in addition to it being on the USCCB website.

That is a lot of evidence on this specific issue. Going back to the original question about whether the Catholic Church has any issue on immigration or healthcare, I do not and can not agree with the statement that there is no position. There sure is an awful lot out there that has pretty much 100% agreement, like the HHS mandate.

I would encourage the original poster and any Catholic to take seriously any area in which one sees the bishops as unified as they are on immigration and healthcare, even though there remains a lot of differences. The core of the Christian charity remains. There may not be a position that is the most Catholic, but there are positions that have been condemned as unacceptable.

 

[pnewton]

I checked my own bishop. Here is Cardinal DiNardo opposing HR 4437, the Border Protection Act which was to build 700 miles of fence.

vox-nova.com/2008/01/09/cardinal-dinardos-statement-on-immigration-reform/