"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[Ender]

Is Romero contradicting himself here? Or is he, as I believe, affirming a view that would be totally compatible with our bishops?

No to both.

I think part of the problem is that you seem to allow for no middle ground between the clergy proclaiming firm doctrine and the clergy pretending to be experts in fields in which they are not.

Your assumption is not supported by any assertions I have made. I have been very careful in my statements to express exactly what my concerns are, but let me do it again: the bishops (generally) act improperly when they propose specific solutions to social problems, that is, when they do what Romero said he would not do

our pastoral letter quite deliberately offers no more than the Christian principles on which a solution must be based

You have said in the past that when a member of the clergy makes a statement that is not a simple statement of doctrine, many of the laity will be confused and think that because a priest said it, it would be immoral to disagree with it.

No, I have not. Nor can you find an example to support such a claim. This is not my remark but your own (mis)interpretation.

While no practical application of a doctrinal principle that involves any prudential judgement can ever be said to be binding and demanding of assent from the laity…

Just so. That said, in real life most people don’t recognize this distinction.

…neither is such a situation grounds for censuring that clergy person for making such an application.

It is if it is implied that siding with that proposal is a moral choice.

Many of the statements made by Oscar Romero in his homilies named names.

We are obligated to judge actions, which is what Romero did by citing what specific people were doing. He was not judging intentions, which is precisely why he expressly said he was offering nothing more than Christian principles, not presenting specific solutions.

 

[Ender]

I don’t see a great moral distinction between a bishop of El Salvador writing about his government’s treatment of some people and our bishops writing about our government’s treatment of some people.

This sounds a whole lot like Rep Omar’s comment that on 9/11 “Some people did something.” It’s true but so vague as to be meaningless except to otherwise blur distinctions that are critically important.

The fact that the people in the first case are citizens of the bishop’s own country and the the people in the second case are not citizens of our country is irrelevant to the moral case being made.

Moral case? What moral case? There are social problems that need to be resolved. Doing that equitably involves prudential judgment, and as as you conceded above:

…no practical application of a doctrinal principle that involves any prudential judgement can ever be said to be binding and demanding of assent from the laity…

Since solutions involve practical and not moral choices, and since the bishops preferences are prudential, what moral case are we discussing here?

In the present case, our bishops have determined there is a problem with the way our government is treating immigrants.

Yes, everyone recognizes we have problems, and had the bishops left it at that - as Romero did - and not made their own proposals - as Romero did not - we wouldn’t be having this discussion. This is from the USCCB document cited in the OP:

As part of the Church’s response, a diverse group of Catholic organizations with national networks have decided to join the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Justice for Immigrants (JFI)…
The JFI campaign’s primary objectives are:

• …
• To enact legislative and administrative reforms based on the principles articulated by the bishops

Legislative proposals are precisely what I object to.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have been very careful in my statements to express exactly what my concerns are, but let me do it again: the bishops (generally) act improperly when they propose specific solutions to social problems, that is, when they do what Romero said he would not do

our pastoral letter quite deliberately offers no more than the Christian principles on which a solution must be based

But then when you look at what Romero did do, you find that, according to your standard, he did comment on political specifics and call out specific unjust actions by his government. That is all our bishops are doing. You have not shown anything but superficial differences between Romero and our bishops on the issue of what is fair game for a pastoral letter.

Just so. That said, in real life most people don’t recognize this distinction. [between doctrine and non-binding teaching].

I would reduce that to some people - not most people. Romero might have been similarly misunderstood, but he didn’t let the possibility of that misunderstanding keep him from doing what he thought was his calling.

…neither is such a situation grounds for censuring that clergy person for making such an application.

It is if it is implied that siding with that proposal is a moral choice.

An implication that is in your imagination. I cannot hold the bishops responsible for how you misunderstand them.

Many of the statements made by Oscar Romero in his homilies named names.

We are obligated to judge actions, which is what Romero did by citing what specific people were doing.

Right. And the US bishops are judging actions of our government in how we treat immigrants. Same thing.

He was not judging intentions…

Nor are the US bishops. They are not saying that Trump hates Mexicans, or Hondurans, or anything like that. They are saying that immigrants from these places are being mistreated.

which is precisely why he expressly said he was offering nothing more than Christian principles, not presenting specific solutions.

…which can also be said of the US bishops.

 

[Ender]

But then when you look at what Romero did do, you find that, according to your standard, he did comment on political specifics and call out specific unjust actions by his government.

No, these actions are not the same. Romero called out specific illegal actions, and as I said we are all justified in judging actions. What (some of) our bishops have done is propose specific political solutions to generic social problems. That is entirely different. Nor have I dinged the bishops for speaking out on political issues; what I have said several times is that they are justified in speaking to the suffering and hardship people face and of calling on the government to address those issues. What I do not accept is the validity of their proposing prudential solutions. Don’t conflate these things.

An implication that is in your imagination. I cannot hold the bishops responsible for how you misunderstand them.

Bishops have called immigration a moral problem. When those bishops then propose solutions to that problem the inescapable implication is that theirs are the moral solutions. If they’re not proposing moral solutions to a moral problem, what are they doing? That this is how their comments are (mis)understood by most of those who read them is demonstrated by the tenor of the comments coming from those who accept their words as “church teaching”, and opposing them merely another flavor of cafeteria Catholicism.

Right. And the US bishops are judging actions of our government in how we treat immigrants. Same thing.

If they had stopped with criticism of the government’s actions they would have acted properly. That was the point at which Romero explicitly stopped. By going on, however, and proposing their own solutions they overstepped themselves.

which is precisely why he expressly said he was offering nothing more than Christian principles, not presenting specific solutions.

…which can also be said of the US bishops.

It can be said of them. It just isn’t true.

The JFI campaign’s primary objectives are:

• …
• To enact legislative and administrative reforms based on the principles articulated by the bishops

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But then when you look at what Romero did do, you find that, according to your standard, he did comment on political specifics and call out specific unjust actions by his government.

No, these actions are not the same. Romero called out specific illegal actions…

…and some legal ones…

What (some of) our bishops have done is propose specific political solutions to generic social problems.

Let’s not expand the target of criticism to include what “some” bishops have done. I didn’t say every comment by a bishop was appropriate (although I don’t know of any offhand that aren’t). I am only defending this one document - “Justice for Immigrants.” And that document does not propose a specific bill that could be passed or ballot measure that could be voted on. That would be what I would call a specific political proposal.

An implication that is in your imagination. I cannot hold the bishops responsible for how you misunderstand them.

Bishops have called immigration a moral problem. When those bishops then propose solutions to that problem the inescapable implication is that theirs are the moral solutions.

But they don’t propose solutions, moral or otherwise. They proclaim goals. How we get to those goals is up to us.

If they’re not proposing moral solutions to a moral problem, what are they doing?

Teaching moral values.

hat this is how their comments are (mis)understood by most of those who read them is demonstrated by the tenor of the comments coming from those who accept their words as “church teaching”, and opposing them merely another flavor of cafeteria Catholicism.

Cherry-picking by citing postings on Catholic Answer does not represent what the laity think, and perhaps not even what the posters themselves think. It is quite believable that some people will post extreme positions they do not actually believe just to make a point.

Right. And the US bishops are judging actions of our government in how we treat immigrants. Same thing.

If they had stopped with criticism of the government’s actions they would have acted properly.

That is exactly what they did.

 

[Ender]

If they had stopped with criticism of the government’s actions they would have acted properly.

The only way to maintain something so far removed from the reality of the situation is by defining what constitutes an inappropriate proposal to be something that could never be satisfied, which is what you’ve done.

And that document does not propose a specific bill that could be passed or ballot measure that could be voted on. That would be what I would call a specific political proposal.

They have quite openly stated that one of their goals is in fact to enact legislative reforms, and a call for “Abandonment of the border “blockade” enforcement strategy” is precisely the type of specific proposal that is inappropriate. That it is not in the form of a completed bill is truly irrelevant.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If they had stopped with criticism of the government’s actions they would have acted properly.

The only way to maintain something so far removed from the reality of the situation is by defining what constitutes an inappropriate proposal to be something that could never be satisfied, which is what you’ve done.

And that document does not propose a specific bill that could be passed or ballot measure that could be voted on. That would be what I would call a specific political proposal.

They have quite openly stated that one of their goals is in fact to enact legislative reforms, and a call for “Abandonment of the border “blockade” enforcement strategy” is precisely the type of specific proposal that is inappropriate. That it is not in the form of a completed bill is truly irrelevant.

OK, you find it inappropriate. I do not. Most Catholics do not. Most clergy do not. I think you have a high mountain to climb to convince all these fine people that our bishops are acting inappropriately.

 

[Ender]

OK, you find it inappropriate. I do not. Most Catholics do not. Most clergy do not. I think you have a high mountain to climb to convince all these fine people that our bishops are acting inappropriately.

You speak for yourself alone. You have no idea what “most Catholics” or “most bishops” believe, and as you yourself noted the bishops were making prudential judgments in their pronouncements on immigration. That is inappropriate and I am hardly alone in noting it…

I suggested that it is a mistake for bishops to squander their credibility as teachers of faith and morals by issuing pronouncements, especially politically partisan pronouncements, on matters beyond their competence as bishops. These are typically matters of prudential judgment on which Catholics (and others) of equal intelligence and good will can and do disagree. (Fr. Richard Neuhaus)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Did Fr. Neuhaus apply this principle to the Justice for Immigrants letter by the US bishops? Or is that just your opinion that it applies? I do indeed know a great many Catholics , both laity and clergy. I have not heard a single one of them express the complaint that you do.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here is another example of the US Bishops commenting on specific “political” solutions:

Bishops Applaud Final Rules Providing Expanded Moral and Religious Exemptions to HHS Mandate | USCCB

I suppose you are against that too, eh?

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Dealing with a non-negotiable. Immigration policies are not a non-negotiable.

 

[SeraficLeo]

US Bishops are also working to overturn abortion laws, human trafficking, discrimination against the disabled

Absolutely. And because they are working to end those crimes, it’s okay if they promote one.

 

[Ender]

Here is another example of the US Bishops commenting on specific “political” solutions:

http://www.usccb.org/news/2018/18-178.cfm

I suppose you are against that too, eh?

I believe the Romero letter you cited should be used as the model for when clergy involvement in political issues is done appropriately and when it is not.

The Church, which is the extension of the teaching and salvation of Christ, would be wrong to remain silent when faced with concrete problems.

I agree with this; that has never been my objection.

It is also our intention to clarify yet again the attitude of the Church to human situations that, by their very nature, involve economic, social, and political problems.

And such clarification is desperately needed.

It is up to the Christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation proper to their own country… & “In order to make community reflection easier, we are offering, in a separate pamphlet, three clarifying notes. They are not integral parts of the text of this letter, but simply additional notes intended to arouse thought and to stimulate study.”

(So far what stands out is the effort being made to avoid the perception that there is any moral obligation to agree with him. “One can find fault with these notes.…”)

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which this country is a signatory, and article 160 of our Constitution, proclaim the right of all citizens to assemble and to form associations…Unfortunately there is an enormous difference between legal declarations and reality in our country.

This is a statement pertaining to fact and the law, which is quite analogous to the USCCB statement that "These final regulations restore free exercise rights in accordance with the First Amendment and long-standing statutory protections for religious freedom."

The key difference between these letters and the OP document is that in both of these instances, statements are being made that may be challenged for accuracy, but there is no question of them requiring moral acceptance. The distinction is clear that this is a political observation, not a moral obligation.

Why would I object to it?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The key difference between these letters and the OP document is that in both of these instances, statements are being made that may be challenged for accuracy, but there is no question of them requiring moral acceptance. The distinction is clear that this is a political observation, not a moral obligation.

Why would I object to it?

You would have to object to it to maintain the basis for your objection to the OP USCCB letter. In both cases they comment on a factual reality dealing with politics. And to whatever degree moral acceptance is required (I’m not sure I know what you mean by that) both letters either do or do not require that acceptance. You have not demonstrated a qualitative difference between them, both of which are from US bishops.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Dealing with a non-negotiable. Immigration policies are not a non-negotiable.

There is no notion of “non-negotiables” in Catholic doctrine. All Catholic doctrine is non-negotiable. When have you ever seen the Church negotiate away some element of doctrine? And why on earth should clergy not speak on some element of doctrine, whether or not you think it is a negotiable doctrine (since there are are no such doctrines?)

 

[TheLittleLady]

Amen, preach it!!!

For some reason, this term has wormed its way in to the American Catholic lexicon.

Love your enemies is non-negotiable
Do good to them who despise you is non-negotiable
Welcome the stranger is non-negotiable

 

[Ender]

More thoughts on Romero’s letter…

…when the Church has to make judgments or advise people looking for guidance based on the gospel about immediate political commitments, the Church must study each situation from a pastoral point of view, show respect for the rightful plurality of solutions, and not identify itself with any one of them, because the Church has to respect the freedom to make specific political choices.

This is my main objection to the bishops’ involvement in issues like immigration: they have not only identified themselves with particular solutions, but have gone so far as to suggest that their solutions represent the moral choice. This is why I find fault with the OP document: the bishops have aligned themselves with specific solutions, suggesting that there is no such thing as a “rightful plurality of solutions.”

“…the Church has no special role in determining the specific means to be chosen to achieve a more just society.”

Romero understood this; the USCCB does not.

Faith ought to inspire political action but not be mistaken for it. It is important to be very clear about this when the same persons who belong to ecclesial communities also belong to popular political organizations. If they do not bear in mind this distinction between the Christian faith and their political activity, they can fall into two errors: they can substitute for the demands of the faith and Christian justice the demands of a particular political organization, or they can assert that only within a particular organization can one develop the requirements of Christian justice that spring from the faith.

I do not believe the problem of US bishops’ involvement in politics stems from their involvement with any political organization, but that it stems from a shared belief about how common goals can be accomplished, and the willingness to use their office to that end. It seems clear that they are suggesting that only one perspective is sufficient to “develop the requirements of Christian justice.” If that was not so then what would make immigration a moral issue?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You can try to spin it any way you want, but Romero does not criticize the US Bishops. (Of course he can’t. He’s dead.) And his general admonitions about proper clergy involvement were issued at the time to defend himself against critics of his time that were accusing him of exactly what you are saying of the US bishops. Romero was commenting on political matters. But to Romero’s understanding, he was not violating the general principles he outlined in his document. Evidence that Romero was getting awfully political is the fact that he was in fact killed by the very political forces he was criticizing.

I do not buy your argument that the OP letter from our bishops violates the principles laid out by Romero any more than Romero’s own actions violated them.

 

[13pollitos]

Regulating migration is important in order to assure the safety of everyone. The migrants need protection. Their home nation needs support. Accepting nations have a responsibility to provide, which isn’t possible if responsible accommodations are not made. The catechism speaks of the right to migrate as is often pointed out. The catechism also speaks to the responsibilities of the migrants, the right of nations to limit migration, and the beauty of diversity in a world with nations.

Open Border Advocates Downplay Human Trafficking - Crisis Magazine

From the article:

“ St. John Paul II, addressing the themes of nation, nationality, and patriotism, stated: “It seems that nation and native land, like the family, are permanent realities. In this regard, Catholic social doctrine speaks of ‘natural’ societies, indicating that both the family and the nation have a particular bond with human nature, which has a social dimension.” Contrasting patriotism to nationalism, he noted that the former “is a love for one’s native land that accords rights to all other nations equal to those claimed for one’s own. Patriotism, in other words, leads to a properly ordered social love.” Nationalism, on the other hand, privileges one’s own country and thus can be a disordered and unhealthy form of idolatry.

The Catholic Catechism (2239) emphasizes that “the love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity.” Regarding immigration, the Catechism (2241) affirms the immigration rights of persons, but also the duty of immigrants 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.”

The right to a nationality presupposes the existence of nations and the right of a nation to exist. Unregulated immigration and large migration flows can represent a challenge to the existence of a nation, its integrity, its security, and even the survival of its national identity.”(bolding mine)

Unregulated migration also threatens the national identity of the home nations as well. It destroys cultures by removing large portions of the people and by allowing the rest of the nation to collapse under organized crime and poverty among other issues.

There is a fine line between caring for migrants and contributing to their unfortunate situations.

 

[Sarcelle]

Are you jealous because you were vying for a 12-hour shift on the killing floor of the meat-packing plant? Were you hoping to risk death by heat stroke while harvesting tobacco in North Carolina? I’m sorry to hear that immigrants took these job opportunities away from you . . .

Question is, why are employers making their employees work in such horrific conditions?

I know of several orchard owners who go through the trouble of bringing in legal migrants from Mexico and Central America. These workers are paid well, treated well and go home to their home countries with enough money to live well after the season is over. It’s a win win situation.