It is the Catholic bishops who depart from the Church’s Doctrine on immigration, not “conservative” laity September 4, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, Papa, persecution, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
John Zmirak notes that many bishops – including those considered “conservative” – the democrat party, and its propaganda arm, the media, are giddily anticipating Pope Francis’ coming visit to the United States to include clear endorsements of some of their most cherished shibboleths. This especially includes utterly unconstrained illegal immigration, provided it continues from predominately Hispanic/Catholic countries. Even Archbishop Chaput, that supposed scion of conservative Catholicism, has come recently endorsing extremely progressive views on immigration and castigating as heretics any who would dare oppose him.
We are thus being treated to a growing chorus about how “conservative Catholics” somehow “reject Church social doctrine” because we may have grave concerns over present and proposed US immigration policy. But Zmirak challenges this assumption, arguing that actual Catholic Doctrine on immigration is quite limited, and to the extent it does exist, is entirely consonant with “conservative” concerns over US immigration policy. Even more damningly, he also points out the degree to which the USCCB and individual bishops are compromised on this matter, promoting their own self-interest as “doctrine.” Some good points below:
Abp. Chaput’s remarks do not reflect real Catholic teaching on immigration — not the text of the current Catechism, nor the historic practice of Catholic countries, including the Papal States, on immigration. (To how many Muslims has the Vatican granted citizenship?) No more do Pope Francis’ speculations on the causes of inequality, or the vagaries of earth’s climate, have the slightest guarantee of religious authority. On all of these matters, popes and bishops are merely playing pundits, speaking beyond their proper authority and undermining it in the process.
That detailed, policy-specific “Catholic social teaching” from which conservatives allegedly dissent does not exist. It is a myth. The only authority that popes have is to pass on the deposit of faith given to the apostles, and clarify where needed the moral law as known by reason. When it comes to specific political applications of those principles, popes have wildly contradicted each other over the centuries, discrediting completely any claim that they represent a consistent “Magisterium” (teaching authority) on political issues…….
…….So what must Catholics believe about immigration? The relevant section of the Catechism, drawn up under Pope John Paul II, is brief and reasonable. I will quote it in its entirety:
The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Immigrants are obliged 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 (2241). [OK, so we know that a catechism is not a dogmatic document in and of itself, it is supposed to be a compendium of Catholic thought, a reliable resource-guide that will not lead one astray. The 1990 Catechism was imbued with post-conciliar thought and contained elements that are sometimes in apparent conflict with previous catechisms, such as the excelled Catechism Explained. The point is, however, immigration policy is a prudential issue that should be guided by Catholic moral precepts but is not, in and of itself, a Catholic moral precept, as is something like the inviolate right to life from conception to natural death, nor the intrinsic evil of usury]
All the misty-eyed rhetoric bubbling up from Chaput and from Francis on the sufferings of immigrants and the “selfishness” and alleged “nativism” of conservatives on this issue founders on these words, “to the extent that they are able.” Well, that is what we are arguing about, now isn’t it? How many unskilled immigrants is the U.S. “able” to accept from Latin America, without unjustly endangering the interests of native low-skill workers — whose wages have been static for two generations? Or of working families who pay taxes to support the 73 percent of Latin American immigrant households receiving welfare? Or of unborn children, whom the same immigrants overwhelmingly (and in defiance of their stated religious faith) vote to leave at the mercy of Planned Parenthood?….
…..Questions such as immigration totals, or welfare benefits…….are issues for patriotic, tax-paying citizens to argue over rationally with a clear eye to the common good, and a “preferential option” for the poorest people in their own countries. Not the poorest people in the world, but their poorest fellow citizens — whose ancestors worked, fought, and in many cases slaved, to build those countries……. [And here again we see the dread hand of the Revolution at play, as the Revolution wants a one-world super-state, to go along with an indifferent, worldly, immanentist, non-salvific one world religion. National borders are an imposition to the Revolution and must be done away with. There are many adherents of the Revolution in the Church today, and many of them wear pink or red piped cassocks]
…….The U.S. Catholic bishops have several clear conflicts of interest on the subject of immigration, which completely negate their claim to the moral high ground. First, they are eager to refill the emptying pews in our parishes. Clearly, our bishops have proven unable to pass along the Faith in their schools and churches. The Pew Study just reported that a shocking 50 percent of native-born American Catholics leave the church at some point, most never to return……..Second, the U.S. bishops collect tens of millions of dollars from taxpayer-funded programs to resettle those immigrants, which sluice through misnamed organizations like Catholic Charities, which in fact mostly act as federal contractors dispensing public money. [Awesome, awesome quote, and all too true. Catholic Charities and CRS both receive over 90% of their funding from the federal government, which is a major source for all the scandals we see in both of these organizations endorsing immoral activities and partnering with immoral organizations at federal behest. The federales pay the tune, and the Katholyc pipers play what they want to hear.]
Secure the borders, and two things happen: Catholic parishes will be forced to sink or swim, to evangelize and catechize the children of American Catholics, without the constant human subsidy of millions of Catholics who haven’t yet been confused and alienated by the state of the American Catholic Church. [Absent continued unconstrained immigration, certain “large, suburban parishes” in this diocese would experience a massive decrease in size, and a large number would have to close] And bishops will see their budgets shrink by tens of millions of dollars, as “charities” have to rely on the willing donations of laymen, instead of tax money that has been collected from them by force and handed over to the bishops.
Obviously, we can’t have any of that. And so we’ll continue to be chastised for failing to serve the bishop’s narrow interests.
From the comments at the link, here’s just one small, if unsubstantiated, episode that illustrates the larger problem:
I personally heard a woman from Catholic Charities in Delaware tell the non-profit I worked for to set up an illegal immigrant legal clinic (ironies abound there) because there is “millions of government money available.”
That is the mentality of far too many among the tens of thousands of self-interested careerists staffing the massive Catholic bureaucracy today. “But there’s all this money! We have to go get it!” And everything else, including Doctrine and moral decency, simply falls by the way.
Chaput is not the great orthodox prelate many think he is. He is thoroughly institutional and beholden to the dominant power structure in the Church.