We must be very careful not to identify as sins that which civil laws identify as illegal. They are not always compatible. We must always strive to be first and foremost, children of the Church, then citizens of nations. If we put our national identity before our Catholic identity, we run the risk of losing sight of our common brotherhood.
No one understood this better than St. Francis of Assisi. Therefore, in his rule to the Secular Franciscans, he wrote that they were not allowed to swear allegiance to any nation or to bear arms for any nation. He was not unpatriotic. He loved his own little kingdom. He had a much broader view of life and man. If man was to live in peace, he had to put aside the things that divide us. Nationalisms often does just that.
Nationalism is not meant to do that. It’s meant to unite people for a common good. Over the many centuries, we have turned it around and made it a divisive concept. That’s the result of Original Sin. We are driven to take what is good and use it incorrectly. The only way to protect ourselves from the temptations that come from original sin is to follow the teachings of the Church.
In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II is very clear that the dignity of the person is not subordinate to civil law. While the Church protects the rights of nations, she must stand over nations to remind them of their duty to protect the dignity of men. Nations cannot discriminate between people. Discrimination that offends human dignity is evil.
We go back to the same point. As people who are first Catholic and second American, we must impress upon our lawmakers the importance of making immigration laws that protect the rights of those living within our boarders, and protect the rights of those who enter our country, legally or illegally, and the law must always be enforced in a manner that shows reverence for the dignity of the person.
When the language of the law, the manner of enforcing it, the attitude of those who enforce it is one of condescension, dislike, disrespect, or rejection of the person, then there is a moral problem. It is one thing for Catholics to demand protection from evil and it is another for Catholics to sound-off as if they were talking about garbage instead of human beings. Even the criminal remains a person and has the right to be treated as such and to be spoken about politely and dealt with politely and with his best interest in mind. As the Knights of Columbus said at their recent national gathering, “I am my brother’s keeper.”
The argument that we have few resources is not a moral argument and cannot be supported by Catholic moral law. We have a promise from Christ that God will be merciful toward those who show mercy. If we stand on the ground that we cannot share a meal, because there will not be enough for us, how do we justify that to Christ?
I’m always reminded of a simple story about our Holy Father Francis. When a woman came to the door asking for food, there was no food to give her. Francis went to the chapel and took the missal and gave it to the woman. He told her to sell it and buy food. The brothers asked him why he has done such a thing and questioned the morality of it. Francis responded that Christ had revealed to him that “our mother may never be allowed to go hungry, as long as we have something to offer.” The ordained brothers complained, because they were unable to celebrate mass. Francis told them that they had joined the order not to be priests, but to be brothers. A brother must always give even if he goes without. The mass was a non-issue for him, because the brothers could walk the five miles to the nearest town and attend a mass celebrated by a priest at the Benedictine abbey. It was cold and the trek was not easy, because of the snow.
When Elizabeth Ann Seton arrived in Emmitsburg to found her new school, the building was incomplete. It was winter. She had five young children. The first night there, it snowed. Her children were snowed on. One of her children died as a result. She asked God if she had the right to impose such poverty on her children. The revelation that came back to her was that Mary had surrendered the life of her son for the sake of the world. From that moment on, Elizabeth never again feared sacrificing herself or her children. Two more of her children would eventually die, as well as a young sister-in-law who was orphaned and entrusted to her care. They all died as a result of the hardship that they endured for the sake of charity.
When Elizabeth’s case came up for canonization, there was a missing miracle. She was a blessed, but the law required one more miracle. After much reflection and prayer, Pope Paul VI decided that the missing miracle had already been granted. That miracle was Elizabeth’s great charity toward perfect strangers, most of whom were non-believers and even enemies of the Church. Thus, he canonized her.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
