John L. Allen Jr. interviews Roger Cardinal Mahony on immigration and all I can say is that I hope the Cardinal went to confession after the whoppers he told. For one he says "Absolutely" that giving a hungry man a sandwich is criminalized under the Sensenbrenner bill. I guess he has paid just as much scrutiny to the actual text of the bill as he does the GIRM. Maybe he is appealing to the spirit of the Sensenbrenner bill.
He later goes on to say that there is almost no middle class left. He also says that a good Catholic could not vote on this bill, though being the generous person he is he also says he wouldn’t deny them Communion. I also wonder since apparently he is on such close and cozy terms with Sen. Boxer and was able to get her to come around to his view on having a comprehensive immigrations bill that he might mention some other subjects since is such a fervent supporter of the Culture of death.
There are some aspects of what he says that I partially agree with. He says we need a comprehensive bill, because after the general amnesty in 1986 that congress didn’t address the rest of the problem. Though his five points of what a comprehensive bill required doesn’t include the obvious one of preventing people from coming into the country illegally in the first place. More like we are at fault for attracting them in the first place.
12 comments
I love your commentary on issues that relate to our Church. But I am very wary of the disparaging way you refer to Cardinal Mahony. I’m not from the US and I don’t know a whole lot of what he has done…but still…however bad you think he is, however wrong his stances are, the Cardinal is, afterall, a priest. And this is NOT the way we should be talking about someone who is sent out by Christ himself. Criticism is fine. It’s vital. Just tone down on the sarcasm.
God Bless.
That the Eucharist will still be distributed to Catholics who vote on this bill should be a great relief to Ted Kennedy; stuck as he is between his sense of duty to his constituents and love for the moral teachings of the Church.
Seriously though, the Vatican needs to reign this loon in before he causes an international incident.
Whether he likes it or not, as a “Prince of the Church,” his statements about the internal affairs of a sovereign government DO represent the opinion of the Vatican State. There is a line between rendering moral judgment and attempting to dictate policy and legislation. The Church crosses this line at Her own peril.
Of course, there are times to do this, but that determination must be made in Rome. When two-bit Feudal lords from Los Angeles take such authority on themselves, great harm can occur.
OK… I’ll step down from my soap-box now. I feel much better.
CJ, if one is to believe economists, the USA has more demand than supply for labor, so immigrants are necessary. Since the immigration system is bogged down and Mexico is a terribly run country, millions just came directly. With a better border and faster, more efficient immigration administration, things should get better. Of course the far Left and the Right are in the way of that.
Didn’t read the Mahoney interview. But to call him a “loon”…perhaps you’ve noticed practically every bishop in the USA condemning the House version of the bill?
How is denying aid to those least fortunate against the culture of life? Indeed, how is it not part of it?
A few other loons at the link below. From the USCCB.
http://www.usccb.org/mrs/articles.shtml
At the risk of getting too serious about a matter of unimaginable complexity…
The United States provides tax exempt status to bona fide religious organizations. This is an important part of the temporal administration of the church. This is a policy matter, not a constitutional one.
Mixing the religious and the legislative is a delicate dance. On the one hand, religious institutions must remain true to themselves and to their mission. On the other, their legal and property status are defined by the state.
When a Bishop calls on his priests, those under his DIRECT authority, to violate the law, he endangers the privileged position that the Church enjoys. I don’t think it is being alarmist to suggest that, over time, the erosion of the support of the State for religious institutions can be weakened to such a point as to be under assault.
There ARE times in which the Church must stand up to the State, no matter what the law says. JPII provided, what I believe to be, the perfect example of this in Poland under the USSR. However, such actions are extreme and have to be carefully scripted.
My point was that Mahoney has a tendency to take such monumental decisions on his own shoulder. We see this in his reworking of the institutions and places of worship as well as in the Mass itself. This strikes me as more of the same.
I don’t know whether it is arrogance or an honest appeal to an ultra-liberal flock, but his actions endanger the Church’s relationship with the State and I don’t think he has that power.
By the by, “those least fortunate” brought their condition on themselves. U.S. immigration law is among the most liberal in the Western world. Their are special programs galor and we have conducted five “amnesty” programs since 1954. This is NOT a fundamental rights issue. It is a POLICY issue. It is NOT a human rights issue, it is a LEGAL matter.
When we conflate the policy and legislative sphere with the purely emotional reaction to need and want, we write destructive and senseless laws. The Legalization and Special Agricultural Worker programs of the mid-late 1980s are an excellent example of this.
Good immigration policy, is exactly that… POLICY. The last thing that the Senate should be doing is listening to alien advocates on the one side or “Minutemen” on the other. If we want to solve this problem, we need an honest and effective debate about policy. Mahoney’s call to religious to violate the law is misguided, at best, in this context.
Re: Not an Immigrant
I try hard not the call Cardinal Mahony anything disparaging, such as “loon”, in accordance with his dignity as a Prince of the Church. That doesn’t at times, I must confess, mean I don’t think it because of his violation of liturgical norms at the REC (something well recorded at The Cafeteria is Closed.)
I have to examine my position on this bill myself, though I agree with the House that we need a fence and extra protection measures to secure our border there. The Mexicans definitely won’t do it for us; it’s our responsiblity as a nation.
Here’s my partial list of some of the side-effects of Mahoney’s “compassion”. If anyone has any contact with him perhaps they could get his opinion of what his proposal will result in:
– increased corruption in the U.S. as companies that profit from illegal immigration donate to politicians who look the other way
– increased numbers of low-wage workers coming into a high cost of living country (resulting in people living in garages or even tents in backyards)
– lowered wages for our own low-wage workers, many of whom have simply stopped looking for work
– increased chance of worker abuse and workplace injuries and deaths (much higher for illegal aliens)
– entrenching the corrupt Mexican government rather than forcing them to reform
– assisting the government of Mexico meddling in our internal politics
– assisting attempts to weaken U.S. citizenship and sovereignty
>>>”With a better border and faster, more efficient immigration administration, things should get better.”
Well, not really. About 40% of Mexico’s population would come here if they could, half of that number illegally. And, even if tens of millions more Mexicans came here, there are tens or hundreds of millions of non-Mexicans who’d come here through Mexico or Canada.
>>>”perhaps you’ve noticed practically every bishop in the USA condemning the House version of the bill?”
Could someone look up the thoughts of the Arizona bishops and indicate how far off from the Catholic leadership they are? Does that leadership believe that we have to “live out the principles of global solidarity” or that “the goods of the earth belong to all people”?
The critique of Mahoney’s characterization is, perhaps, well placed.
Yes, he is a Prince and a Priest. Both entitle him to consideration and a degree of deference. Furthermore, JPII had enough faith in him to elevate him to such an high office… This speaks to his worthiness.
However, Bishops like Law and Mahoney have brought the Church into disrepute with thier antics. I would even go so far as to say that a large number of the Princes of the Church have sufficiently failed the fulfilling of thier duties to justify their removal. There is a point at which the Vatican must step in to cut out a cancer before it infects the whole.
Is it time for such a step? Should Mahoney suffer such a fate? Fortunately, for me, this is not my decision. But, that so many have so much substantively negative to say about his service, suggests that Rome should take a gander.
While it is true mixing it up with politicians is always a dicey proposition for the Church, the principle goes both ways. If the politicians hadn’t involved the Church, Mahoney would have had no need to tell his priests to violate the law. From what I understand, and I admit I haven’t read the bill, ANYONE who aids an illegal immigrant IN ANY WAY is subject to a criminal penalty. That would mean the Church in LA is forced to abandon its charitable mission. Mahoney had no choice.
Saying Mahony’s actions will increase corruption by agribusiness is absurd. Agribusiness doesn’t need any help in corrupting politicians.
I have no great love for Roger Mahoney, but he is not trying to let illegals off the hook or to increase their numbers. Accusing him of that is plainly dishonest. What he is doing is trying to get a just law passed, one that will treat an illegal who has been here for 10 years, who has children who are American citizens, fairly and justly. Anything wrong with that?
F.
I admit I haven’t read the bill
Then you ought to, because the bill does not do what you think it does or what Mahoney alleges it does. He has demagogued this issue, and he has been downright deceptive in his public utterances. A “prince of the Church” ought to be more careful before he makes declarations that are – if not outright lies – terrible exaggerations.
“[F]airly and justly”?
One has to be careful about seeking fairness and justice. It is a double-edged sword.
There is a sound argument for stating that every person present in the United States, in violation of law, should justly be denied all benefits of lawful residence. There is an equally sound argument for saying that fairness to those whose relatives wait abroad for their visa to become current should not be trumped by those who violated the law.
I am not so keen on exercising “justice” on the unlawfully present in the United States because I am not so keen on God exercising His justice on me. I seek mercy at His hand and think that it is sound policy to exercies mercy on those unlawfully present.
Then thing about mercy is that it is at the discretion and in the form of the offeror, not the recipient. Just as God’s mercy on me may take a form unexpected and may include a lesser penalty for my offense, the State’s mercy is beholden to policy.
Mercy for the unlawfully present may range from doing nothing to them, thereby permitting them to remain without improving their lot, to forcing them to leave and remain outside for a specified period. (section 212(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.) The key is that it is a policy matter, ENTIRELY within the providence of the State and not subject to the fundamental rights argument that you propose.
Mahoney is wrong b/c he is involving the Church in a purely POLICY matter. As I said before, there is a role for the Church in such issues, but we must not advance the heresy of Liberation Theology in so doing.
Immigration is a policy matter. It is not a theological or social justice issue. As such, Mahoney should be riding in the back with the passengers, not in the front with the whip.
“Agribusiness doesn’t need any help in corrupting politicians.”
They could however use some opposition, and so could those banks that are profiting off illegal activity. Mahoney is effectively on their side and is effectively giving them cover. (“Sure we employ illegal aliens. But, we’re humanitarians!”)
He may or may not intend that, but that is the ultimate impact of his various statements.