The American Bishops are at it again, urging an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
In the words of the Catechism, "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" (paragraph 2241). You can't do that by entering illegally, or by working illegally, or by evading taxes.
By no means only in America, the sooner the Bishops stop urging their flock to accept the loss of their jobs, the running down of their wages and working conditions, and the confinement of their children and grandchildren to the bottom of the heap by means of de facto State bilingualism, the better. No, these things are not somehow to the good of the Church.
In fact, far from Hispanics' being the great hope of American Catholicism, Latin America has never been a very Catholic place, with slight if any Mass-going majorities, huge numbers of the unbaptised, rampant syncretism and surviving paganism, and a very heavy dependence on (historically European, these days usually North American) missionary priests. No wonder that the strongest opponents of the present levels of immigration, of any amnesty, and of the erosion of English in American life, are themselves traditional Catholics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
American opposition to illegal migration would be sustainable morally if the country itself had not been founded on African slavery, and land grabbing from Catholic Mexicans and "Native" American tribes.
ReplyDeleteWhile Americans are excellent at proclaiming the world "give me your huddled masses" they have never been good at dealing with huddled masses already there.
I applaud the american bishops.
You could say that about anywhere. Everywhere beyond a tiny part of Africa was originally settled by immigrants if you go back far enough. Most migrations have always encountered people who were already there.
ReplyDeleteDriving down wages and other working conditions is not compatible with Catholic Social Teaching. And a large influx from Latin America threatens to pollute the Church in the US with all manner of syncretism, paganism, and political poison.
Well of course this Church of which you speak......you are a mere novice.
ReplyDeleteSpare a thought for those of us baptised a mere 57 years ago and find that right wing freaks such as Selwyn Gummer and Widdicombe presume to know as much and care about it as much as I do.
If youre so critical of Catholic Bishops you can always move to yet another church.
"American opposition to illegal migration would be sustainable morally if the country itself had not been founded on African slavery, and land grabbing from Catholic Mexicans and "Native" American tribes."
ReplyDeleteDidn't know that moral debts were transferable like that. If anything, I'd have thought that avoiding further displacement of the descendants of African slaves, conquered Native Americans, and annexed Mexicans would have to be the paramount concern. You know -- assuming we're actually talking about our moral debts, and not just throwing out some guilt-tripping rhetoric in favor of open borders.
"While Americans are excellent at proclaiming the world "give me your huddled masses" they have never been good at dealing with huddled masses already there."
And we'll do just that, after we've shut the door. Historically, social equality in the US has risen fastest in those periods when we've stopped taking large numbers of immigrants. Working class Americans have lost ground in every measure that matters. My primary interest in reversing that. Which is why I have to reject open borders and mass immigration, despite my sympathy for the immigrants themselves.
That's beneath you, John.
ReplyDeleteNeither Gummer nor Widdecombe is really all that right-wing at all. Gummer voted against the Iraq War, and his column in the Catholic Herald used to be splendidly anti-Bush.
I have asked Widdecombe face-to-face about Catholic Social Teaching, and I can assure you that she is a Christian Democrat at heart. As she told me, she didn't come either to those economic views (although they are still to the right of mine, but there's the room for that) or to her pro-life and pro-family views on becoming a Catholic. Rather, they made her a Catholic. I hear that.
On the immigration question, the Catholics whom I have in mind are mostly Irish-Americans, a key paleocon constituency of course. While there is a certain Irish Catholic element to neoconservatism's base too, prominent neocon Catholics seem to be converts disproportionately. Even Fr Neuhaus was one (he was also a Canadian-born convert to Americanism). And then we see Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, all that crowd.