jump to navigation

The USCCB’s flawed left-wing approach to immigration ignores Leo XIII while overstressing post-conciliar ethos July 31, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, Immigration, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
trackback

I almost said “obsessively promoting post-conciliar ethos.”  A really good post by an author I’ve not read before, who explores how the USCCB’s selective reading of the dogmatic Magisterium has led it to promote dangerously flawed and destructive policies with regard to immigration:

The issue, of course, can be defined differently—as a “border crisis that has raised humanitarian concerns,” but the document disparages that definition and, by implication, the US citizens who hold it. It declares: “The US and its regional partners must avoid the simplistic approach of addressing the forced migration by forcing children back through increased border enforcement. This response is akin to sending these children back into a burning building they just fled. Instead the approach must prioritize protection for those who are displaced from their homes, especially children, the most vulnerable.” (This is hardly a responsible consideration of consequences. The bishops ignore the likely effects of failing to enforce the border—encouraging the countries of origin to continue neglecting their social problems, rewarding the lawless “coyotes” for violating US laws, and most important, subjecting the children to deprivation and physical/sexual abuse during their journey and hardship thereafter.) [We also need to understand the huge play on the word “child” going on.  50% of this immigrant flood are males 15-17 yo.  Many have prior drug and gang history.  These are not innocent 6 year olds with Dora jammies and a teddy bear trying to make it 1500 miles to a desert border crossing.]

The USCCB document devotes considerable space to  [almost exclusively post-conciliar] Catholic social teaching, stressing the idea that all people are created in the image and likeness of God and therefore possess an inherent dignity and fundamental human rights. Citing John Paul II, it claims that illegal as well as legal immigrants possess these rights and the illegals’ rights should be balanced against “the rights of nations to control their borders.” Note that the quoted phrasing compares people’s rights with nation’s rights. Is this a fair comparison? Should it not be the rights of certain people (immigrants) versus the rights of other people (citizens)? More about this when I discussRerum Novarum. [It is not a fair comparison and is in fact a deliberate and Orwellian twisting of language, again. People generate sympathy, powerful nations, rarely so.  But nations are comprised of……people. And the people of this nation have MORE rights, according to Aquinas, in this nation, than do those trying to immigrate. Just as the people of Honduras have more rights viz a viz the expat Americans who live there.]

Perhaps the most revealing characteristic of the USCCB document is that it speaks almost exclusively about the response of governments and the Catholic Church to the “humanitarian crisis,” but says virtually nothing about the response of American citizens, taxpayers, or even Catholic parishioners. For example, it declares that “the institutional Catholic Church in the United States has played a critical role in the care of unaccompanied children.” That wording is highly misleading. In reality, everything the “institutional Catholic Church” does is financed by citizen’s taxes (awarded in the form of federal grants), by the generosity of Catholic parishioners, or by both. [The vast majority comes from confiscatory taxation, at the end of a government gun]  The focus on institutional efforts is therefore an insult to the millions of Americans who actually fund the works of charity and mercy. It is also, in effect if not intent, a subtle denial that legal US residents also possess God-given dignity and rights. [Dang right, and a huge point. And that is why I think so many Americans feel so strongly about this fake “crisis,” because they see their rights – as taxpayers and people who have often given a lot for this country – being trampled on in favor of recent immigrants and narrow elite interests, like the incredibly corrupt and self serving US Chamber of Commerce.]

[The author Professor Ruggiero goes on to list elements of Rerum Novarum ignored by US Bishops, then gets back to his arguments…….]   By omitting any reference to Rerum Novarum, the USCCB document conveniently ignores a theological argument that challenges the bishops’ argument. [Gee, wonder why they left it out, then?  Surely not because they have some self-interest?!?  Perish the thought!  In fact, how  much pre-conciliar Catholicism has been dropped or attacked for that same reason?!]

 

If we apply Leo’s ideas to the present US immigration crisis, we will conclude that citizens of the United States are also children of God with fundamental rights that should not be abridged, especially not by the State.  [As I briefly allude in this post] Those rights include secure borders and protection from unfair taxation to provide entitlements to illegal aliens. [And disease vectors, terrorist risks, open venues for drug smuggling (how much of that could be prevented with a fence?!?), destruction of national unity, escalating gang violence, more drunken violence, higher crime rates, higher prison costs, families broken asunder, divorce, growth in santa muerte……I could go on a long time.  The costs of unconstrained immigration are very, very high, and the USCCB ignores almost all of them]  Moreover, again following Leo, we will conclude that, though we all have a debt to our less fortunate neighbors, it is a debt in charity rather than justice, and we are answerable to God, rather than to the government, for its fulfillment.

 

Even if the US bishops lean toward the thinking of Gustavo Gutiérrez,  [that is a nice little head snapping point there. I like that]  they are surely familiar with Leo XIII’s landmark encyclical,  [I would not make that assumption!  Most have probably heard of it, but I bet the vast majority have not read any of it. The scandal of atrocious formation has been ongoing for decades and applies to bishops too, now]   and they should therefore understand its relevance to the present discussion of illegal immigration. [Maybe they should, but it’s inconvenient knowledge, so it goes in the memory hole.]  When they dismiss a line of thought consistent with Pope Leo’s insights as a “simplistic approach,” they do Pope Leo, their fellow Catholics, and the Catholic theological tradition a grave disservice. And when they pretend that only their perspective is compatible with Christ’s exhortation to care for those in need, they deepen the offense. [All very true. But once again, maybe most of the bishops really do believe there was a “new pentecost” and a “newchurch” born in 1965, and that anything that came before that is inconvenient, contradictory, or just not “with it” enough, and can be safely ignored and marginalized]

———–End Quote———–

I don’t know a thing about the author – although I like the piece and respect the thinking in it – but I know a lot of people have started wandering through Rerum Novarum, Quas Primas, the Syllabus, Trent, etc, and started wondering…….why have I never heard of this?  Why have I never seen this wonderful, clear cut catechesis?  And then they come to start wondering, how did we get here? What happened? How on earth can I reconcile 1900 in the Church with 1990?  After cutting through the propaganda on the non-dogmatic uber-council, then they really start to wonder!

I don’t know if this professor, a good deal older than I, is on that path, but it’s a doozy!

 

Comments

1. Baseballmom - July 31, 2014

Excellent post, very informative and much appreciated!


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: