UNFORTUNATELY, there is no organization of Catholics, as far as I know, that is explicitly working to combat the errors and distortions of Catholic bishops and activists who are pushing for the current amnesty bill and who in general advocate the dissolution of American sovereignty and identity through overwhelming waves of mass immigration from non-European countries. That there needs to be such an organization, even at this late date, goes without saying, if only to correct those heresies for future generations. Next month, some of the major dioceses will be aggressively pushing the bill, with a coordinated effort on Sunday Sept. 8, that will include homilies from the pulpit. Such homilies will almost certainly involve major misreadings of the Church’s moral teachings, which do not advocate the breaking of laws, theft, the overturning of civil authorities, and the abolition of nations.

Christian charity requires humane treatment of illegal immigrants as they make the move back to their own countries, not open arms to anyone who wants to live in this country. Scratch the surface of a so-called Catholic who is passionate about immigration reform and you will likely find that underneath what he is really passionate about is not open-ended immigration as a principle. Open-ended immigration as a principle would result in worldwide chaos. It is an unworkable fantasy that no one has ever seriously advocated. No, what this faux Catholic is really interested in is a certain kind of open-ended immigration, specifically one that will assuage his racial guilt, a sin for which, unlike other sins, there is never adequate atonement, and one that will protect his real religion, which is utopian universalism. There is a recipe for the Babylonian stew he longs for and it requires first the dismantling of Western nations. If you were to ask such a Catholic whether he thinks I should be able to show up at the Rome airport and demand permanent entry to Italy, he will almost certainly say no. Yet he would probably say yes if I were an African Muslim. If you ask him whether he thinks hundreds of thousands of Italians should be able to enter an African country illegally, demand citizenship, change democratic elections with their numbers, receive free health care and tax-supported scholarships, require banks and schools to adapt to their language and take jobs from Africans, he will almost certainly say no.

Unfortunately, again and again, powerful bishops and Catholic professors demand that Western nations, especially America, be dissolved and their laws flagrantly violated. These are not Catholics at all, but invaders from a false religion. This analysis by Robert Klein Engler is more in tune with the Church’s historic teachings:

In his Letter to Philemon, Paul addresses the issue of what is to be done about a runaway slave. In short, Paul sends back the runaway slave, Onesimus, and encourages his master, Philemon, to accept and forgive him. This may seem an unusual act by Paul to those who know that under Roman law, the master had absolute authority over the life and person of the slave.

Although illegal immigrants are not slaves the way Onesimus was a slave in the apostle Paul’s time, we can see illegal immigrants today as persons running away from their moral obligations to improve their own country and not run down ours. If that is the case, then it is certainly a moral and Christian thing to encourage illegal immigrants to return home and make life better in their own country.

Moving from scripture to the domain of Christian theology, we learn that moral actions have both an objective and subjective component. The theologian Thomas Aquinas held that both subjective intention and objective consequence are necessary in making a moral judgment. In one of Thomas’s examples, while out hunting it is better to kill your father believing he is a stag, than to kill a stag believing it is your father.

From the point of view of the moral theology of Thomas Aquinas, we may judge illegal immigrants from Mexico from both a subjective and objective point of view. Objectively, illegal immigrants are breaking U. S. immigration laws, but do these criminals have a subjective intention that outweighs the objective criminal act? Is breaking U. S. immigration laws justified because it is the only way poor Mexicans can feed their families, or do illegal immigrants who come to the U. S. have another choice?

Coming to the U. S. illegally is not the only choice poor Mexicans can make to improve their lives. They could also choose to stay in Mexico and work to make Mexico a better country. In fact, as good Christians it is their moral obligation to do this. It is better to improve Mexico than to be a criminal in the U. S. Illegal immigration may be the easy way out, but it is not the moral way. Christians are supposed to do what is good, even if the good is difficult to do.

Although Christianity encourages acts of charity, we cannot be both charitable and law breakers. We cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. The Archbishop of Mexico City should be encouraged to prevent Mexicans from coming illegally to the U. S. He should encourage Mexicans to work for Christian social change in Mexico instead of criticizing U. S. immigration policies. Unless the Mexican state changes, many Mexican citizens will never be able to have a fulfilled life. Nor can they find fulfillment by breaking U. S. immigration laws. To push the poor from your door to your neighbor’s door is not an example of Christian charity.

And here is a more recent piece in The American Thinker by Engler. He writes:

Amnesty is not mercy. Amnesty is to illegal immigration what enablers are to alcoholics. Amnesty only gets more of the sin of illegal immigration. Undocumented immigrants are citizenship thieves. When someone steals your car, you do not dismiss his theft by calling it undocumented ownership.

Unfortunately, many bishops believe in “social justice” and what can be called the Babylonian Heresy*. They have lost the traditional teachings of the Church in favor of contemporary meanings. The consequence of their actions will be the creation of social upheaval instead of peace among nations.

The Babylonian Heresy is the false religion of utopian universalism.

— Comments —

Jane S. writes:

Ever since the beginning of the Maoist “People’s War” of Nepal in the mid-90s, the United States began issuing huge numbers of refugee visas to Nepalis. You could get a refugee visa whether or not you were a refugee. They issued refugee visas to Nepalis who were already living in the United States, working or going to school.

This caused a brain drain, wherein all Nepalis who are educated, who have the means and the motivation, leave Nepal as soon as they get the chance. Nepal’s main source of income is Nepalis abroad sending money home to their families. The Maoist government has no reason to get its act together as long as the Nepalese economy is being propped up by foreign dollars, primarily American.

Emigration is destroying the fabric of Nepalese family life. Nepalese families used to live four generations under one roof. Some still do. But it is common nowadays for Nepalese families to have a son or daughter on every continent.

Nepalis who come here have no love or attachment for America and the American way of life. It is the best place to make money, and that’s all they care about. You could turn the United States into another dysfunctional Maoist squat and they would do nothing to resist it, just like they did nothing to resist it there. When it gets to the point where they feel it in the pocketbook, they will just pick up and leave and go somewhere else.

How can anyone think this is a nice thing to do to a society?

 Laura writes:

And we’re supposed to believe destroying other nations is the height of Christian charity.

 Jane adds:

Oh, and Christianity is illegal in Nepal. Maybe we could stop shoveling money at them at least until they fix that.

Please follow and like us: