Sunday, March 23, 2025

Catholicism and immigration

My article “A Catholic Defense of Enforcing Immigration Laws” appears at Public Discourse.

Posted by at

7 comments:

  1. Paul D. Van PeltMarch 24, 2025 at 4:41 AM

    Dear Professor:
    I sort of understand why you might weigh in on this topic. Even wealthy business people are throwing money and influence into affairs of government now, and, to their credit, it appears they are transparent about it. That admitted, from, and only from, what I hear through media, I yet wonder why anyone closely connected with the Church chooses to get involved with such a hot button issue. True, government and business are interwoven now---may be so, forevermore. I just don't understand why an emissary of the Church would do this. Seems to me the Church has bigger and more relevant problems?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WOLF BRONSKYMarch 24, 2025 at 4:56 PM

      The Church has a role to play in helping people think through moral questions, even when they’re politically charged (like pro-life issues). Immigration touches on justice, charity, and the common good. So it makes sense for Catholics to reflect on how these principles apply.

      In general, Feser seems to write whenever there’s some confusion that needs to be cleared up and no one is clearing it up adequately. This definitely seems like an issue where that sort of clarity is needed.

      Delete
  2. Paul D. Van PeltMarch 25, 2025 at 5:03 AM

    I don' t agree with that assessment. Catholicism is not, nor should it be an instrument of or influence on governance, in my opinion. I would have the same thing of Southern Baptists or Jewish worshipers. Government (and by association, politics) and religious faiths are, in Gould's parlance, NOMA: non -overlapping magisteria. Separation of Church and State is an old holding which is dusty, in the eyes and minds of many.

    I still subscribe to it. Another commenter, here, does not agree. We disagree, and that is part of freedom. Many people disagreed with Steven J. Gould's notion too. I believe he was right. May all be well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 25, 2025 at 9:38 AM

      Add another commenter who doesn't agree. The right of churches to attempt to influence the state to be more in line with their morality strikes me as both the right to free exercise of religion and the right to free speech guaranteed by the first amendmentbto the U. S. Constitution

      Delete
    2. TonyMarch 25, 2025 at 6:46 PM

      Government (and by association, politics) and religious faiths are, in Gould's parlance, NOMA: non -overlapping magisteria. Separation of Church and State is an old holding which is dusty, in the eyes and minds of many.

      First, "magisteria" refers not to matters of concern but to sources of knowledge and sources of authority The Church's sources of knowledge are indeed via revelation, but ALSO include science and philosophy. The government's sources of information are primarily those of the natural order, but in confessional states it includes revelation. You may want to say "confessional states are forbidden" but that is (in part) just what is up for discussion.

      As for sources of authority: God is the source of all authority, both that of the Church and of civil governments (and of parents, for that matter). But in terms of the apparent and manifest sources, the Church claims the Bible and Tradition, whereas the government claims it's source is "the people", but even that's implicitly founded on philosophical systems that, ultimately, cannot be proven sound without reference to human nature and natural law. So, that's a bit muddled.

      But both have mutually shared areas of concern. One of the reasons that the civil government makes large room for charitable organizations is that a great many of these entities fill services that, if not for charity, would force government to step in. Schools and hospitals exist as a widespread system because religious groups started them, centuries ago. And the government is fine with religious people doing education motivated by their religious beliefs, even though the government wouldn't carry out the task that particular way.

      Delete
  3. NormMarch 26, 2025 at 1:04 AM

    Well written Prof. Excellent as always.

    Prof if you have the time to reply, could you please clarify this statement

    “Of course, there can be individual cases where a nation should forgo its right to deport those who enter it illegally, and cases where the manner in which deportations occur is associated with moral hazards, such as when doing so would break up families or return an immigrant to dangerous conditions back in his home country,” he said."

    What is meant by "dangerous conditions back in his home country".

    And is it an absolute exception ?

    Surely a lot of illegal immigrants from south american countries migrate on these precise grounds of danger, gang violence etc and those of Arab countries migrate on ethnic persecution.

    Can a illegal pakistani immigrant who doesn't want to integrate forego deportation on grounds that he is a Shia Muslim who is likely to be persecuted in Pakistan?

    Doesn't quite strike me as an exceptions.

    It seems to me that there could be situations where we might have to deport people regardless of the situation in their country.

    Would appreciate a response. Seems pertinent

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousMarch 26, 2025 at 1:28 PM

    I don't take anything J.D. Vance says seriously. He said the Catholic bishops encouraged illegal immigration because they more concerned about their "bottom line." And, oh, yes, he also said former V.P Mike Pence was wrong for not certifying Trump as president in 2020.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)