The Rev. Daniel D. Groody, a University of Notre Dame theologian, has produced a new immigration documentary called “One Border, One Body: Immigration and the Eucharist” saying essentially that Jesus was a migrant so you have no right to enforce the border.
Logical, right?
The film highlights a Mass held at the United States-Mexico border with half of the community in the United States and the other half in Mexico. The altar for the service is joined at the fence. The Mass was celebrated in memory of thousands of undocumented immigrants who have died while attempting to cross the border.
If that were all this was, I wouldn’t have any problem with this at all. Groody has been quoted saying, “Christ is the ultimate migrant,” he said. “Jesus’ family were refugees in Egypt.”
Groody produced the film “Dying to Live,” which detailed the struggle of migrants crossing the border into America.
In an article, he wrote
According to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, immigration is not simply a sociological fact but also a theological event. God revealed his Covenant to his people as they were in the process of immigrating. This Covenant was a gift and a responsibility; it reflected God’s goodness to them but also called them to respond to newcomers in the same way Yahweh responded to them in their slavery: “So you too must befriend the alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:19).
Building on this same foundation, Catholic social teaching has reiterated that the true moral worth of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. John Paul II has consistently underscored the moral responsibility of richer nations to help poor nations, particularly with regard to more open immigration policies. While some in America claim these undocumented immigrants have no right to be here, the church believes that a person’s true homeland is that which provides a migrant with bread…
The Catholic church recognizes the right of a nation to control its borders, but it does not see this as an “absolute right,” nor does it see sovereign rights as having priority over basic human rights. While acknowledging the ideal of people finding work in their home country, the church teaches that if their country of birth does not afford the conditions necessary to lead a fully human life, persons have a right to emigrate.
More info about the film can be found at One Border One Body.
Christianity, I believe, calls us to love all but I don’t believe it means our country is not allowed to have borders, as Fr. Groody seems to believe. And I’m not sure that using the Eucharist as a way to advance a political agenda or stoke a media frenzy is the way to go.
May 1, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I didn’t read where Fr. Groody said a nation didn’t have a right to have borders. I read where he said that the Catholic Church “recognizes the right of a nation to control its borders, but does not see this as an ‘absolute right,’ nor does it see sovereign rights has having priority over basic human rights.” Misrepresenting those with whom you disagree in order to strengthen your own argument doesn’t help the discussion.
Because something is not an absolute right doesn’t mean it isn’t a right at all. This is an argument I’ve heard used by the pro-aborts: “You either recognize that a woman has an absolute right over her body, or you’re saying she has no right at all.”
No, that’s not it. Rights exists, but no right is absolute. You have a right to swing your arms through the air, but your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins. Or your right to the pie you baked sitting on your window pane to cool ends when it becomes the only means I have to feed myself and my starving children.
Our very real right to protect our borders ends where that protection becomes a hindrance to the basic human rights of others: life, liberty, etc…
The question becomes, when does that happen? The discussion is over how a nation may control it’s borders, not whether or not a nation has a right to borders. Certainly we have no obligation to take in those who are doing well in their own countries or are coming for the purpose of causing havoc or terror in our own. But certainly we have no right to exclude those who are coming for basic needs and life support.
Calvin Coolidge said it about as well as it can be said: Laws “must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness.”
Bob Hunt
May 1, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“The Catholic church recognizes the right of a nation to control its borders, but it does not see this as an “absolute right,” nor does it see sovereign rights as having priority over basic human rights. While acknowledging the ideal of people finding work in their home country, the church teaches that if their country of birth does not afford the conditions necessary to lead a fully human life, persons have a right to emigrate.”
Bob,
Fr. Groody is saying there that we have no right to borders because in fact what he’s saying is that you can have a right to borders unless someone feels the need to cross it, which nullifies your non-absolute right to a border.
May 1, 2008 at 3:22 pm
You know, I can’t stand these open border idealists who try to tell me I’m not Catholic because I believe we should have a secure border. Give me a break. If we accepted everyone who was poor and oppressed in the world we’d be overpopulated, unable to feed ourselves, and America would be a third world country.
And all those open border people would be banging on Canada’s door to get in and they’d be locked out.
May 1, 2008 at 3:54 pm
true moral worth of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members
Shouldn’t he be telling this to Mexico? If they had it better down there they wouldn’t need to come here.
May 1, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Well, yes, Renee, but then it wouldn’t be America’s fault. And that wouldn’t do at all.
May 1, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Matthew,
Fr. Groody isn’t saying that at all. No where in the statement you quoted does he limit the the right of a nation to control it’s borders to the absurdly low litmus test of a foreigner who “feels the need to cross it.” We’re talking about basic human needs here. To reduce the man’s point to such a ridiculous caricature doesn’t help the discussion. Let’s talk about what he does say.
How should our nation respond to those whose basic human rights are in jeopardy? How do we determine if one crossing the border meets that definition? How do we protect our borders from those who would exploit our immigration policy to enter the country for hostile reasons?
These are legitimate questions that call for reasonable, open debate and reflection. That isn’t going to happen as long as people misrepresent other’s points, accuse others of challenging their Catholicism, reduce the matter to one of open borders vs. closed borders, employ scare tactics (we’re going to turn into a Third World country!) or insist, like Renee, that this is really somebody else’s problem.
Bob Hunt
May 1, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Bob Fr. Groody wrote:
“if their country of birth does not afford the conditions necessary to lead a fully human life, persons have a right to emigrate.”
A right. Rights are not negotiable. That means if someone wants to leave another country he has the right. That means we would have no right to stop them.
And please don’t make this a difference between an open border and a “closed” border. I think most people just want to regulate the border. We want to know who’s coming in and when. And most of us believe we have the RIGHT to limit those numbers.
May 1, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Anonymous – hows is Renee’s comment an insistence that this problem is someone else’s? What’s wrong with making demands on Mexico to better treat their own citizens? You would think with so many American corporations setting up shop there, they would have plenty of good jobs to go around.
Bottom line is, Mexico treats their own people pretty poorly, and their immigration policies are far more stringent that ours. A better system needs to be developed, one that balances human rights with the the right of a nation to secure its own borders.
I agree with MAtthew though – using the Eucharist as a Social Justice Awareness event was an abuse of the sacrament, and INHO, a sacrilege. Someone as supremely holy as our Lord and Savior should never be reduced to a political prop.
May 1, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Matthew,
Fr. Groody said, “If their country of birth does not afford the conditions necessary to lead a fully human life, persons have a right to emigrate.” Honestly, that’s pretty basic Church teaching, isn’t it? People have been coming to the United States for decades under those conditions, including my ancestors who fled the Irish potato famine.
Frankly, I don’t see how you interpret that as meaning that Fr. Groody is saying that the United States has no right to enforce our border against anyone who “feels the need to cross it,” or simply “wants to leave another country.” Terrorists “want” to leave their country to come to the United States to kill and maim Americans. Is it your contention that Fr. Groody insists that we have no right to stop a terrorist because he “wants” to come here and “feels the need to cross” our border? I don’t think you mean that, honestly. That would be ridiculous. Fr. Groody makes it clear that there are conditions for legitimate emigration. Yet, you want to insist that he’s saying that anybody who wants to can come here with no other condition than that he wants to. Again, that isn’t what he’s saying at all.
Rights may not be negotiable, but they are not absolute. Different people’s rights are constantly coming into conflict with each other. It’s part of the work of ethics to sort out which rights take precedent. Unless you’re working under the presumption that rights are absolute. But I don’t think there’s much support in Church teaching for that.
My comment on open border vs. closed border was in response to anonymous’s comment on “these open border idealists.” It’s not so simple as open border vs. closed border. That was my point, of course. If you re-read my earlier posts, there’s nothing there that contradicts the position that we certainly have the right to regulate our borders. Hey, I don’t want any more Canadians getting in than you do! It’s a complex issue. So let’s talk about the issue seriously instead of misrepresenting Fr. Groody’s position, eh?
Larryd,
Renee’s comment was, in my opinion, a cop out. There’s nothing wrong with telling Mexico to get it’s act together. We should be telling them that. But immigration is our problem, too, and it’s not as simple as telling Mexico to take care of it’s most vulnerable. The numbers of desperately poor in Latin America, and the resources available for taking care of them, will mean that the United States will remain an attractive destination for emigrants for decades to come, regardless of Mexico or other Latin American countries’ policies. Add to that the deep political and social corruption crippling many of these countries and the situation is exacerbated a thousand-fold. This is not a simple problem, and it’s not going to go away by telling other countries what they need to do so their people will stop coming here. That’s not going to happen, so why waste time fuming about it?
I agree that the Eucharist should not be used as a political prop. But I also would say that immigration, like abortion and capital punishment, is not merely a political issue. It’s a faith and morals issue, as well. We regularly have Masses to remember and pray for those who have died by abortion. I don’t have a problem having a Mass to remember and pray for those who have died at the border.
Bob Hunt
May 1, 2008 at 10:01 pm
So anyone from an oppressive country must be allowed in? Craziness. Lunacy. We are not the world’s policemen and we are not the world’s wet nurse either.
May 1, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Matthew,
Perhaps this might help clarify the matter of rights.
The example I gave earlier of my taking your pie to feeding my starving self and my starving children. That isn’t an argument against the existence of the right to private property. It’s an argument that the right to life trumps the right to private property, at least in those limited circumstances. That’s a long way from saying that there is no right to private property, or that I can take whatever of yours I want whenever I want it simply because I want it.
Bob Hunt
May 1, 2008 at 11:50 pm
The people in Mexico are not starving to death. Their quality of life isn’t great but I would hesitate greatly before opening up the border. The priest I wrote the post about clearly believes our border security is secondary to the absolute rights of those who seek a better life in America.
The Vatican is a sovereign state. I don’t believe they allow anyone and everyone to march in and stay in the Sistene Chapel.
May 2, 2008 at 12:53 am
I’m an Australian. Our former PM John Howard said it best in the 2001 election campaign “WE decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come”. That’s the point. Sovereign states have the right to regulate who crosses the border and the circumstances in which they do so. Being an island, we were able to stop illegal immigration, but we did so with some pretty harsh policies that made the “peace and justice” folks in the Church shit themselves. I can’t see the US locking up illegals in camps in the desert, like we did…Or sending them to the Sheep-shaggers Democratic Republic of New Zealand, or to Nauru….
Anyway, it’s being reported that illegal aliens murder 12 Americans every day, and 13 Americans every day are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers.
Now, the Catholic Caveman Blog said this way back in April 2006:
“(This isn’t exactly deep theological stuff here)
Anyone remember the 10 Commandments? OK, I see a buncha hands being raised… good. Now, how many of you remember what constitutes mortal sin? Ohhhh, even more hands up, great! For those who forget, the conditions are as follows;
1- the matter itself is serious or grave
2- sufficient reflection
3- full consent of the will
Alrighty then… now I’m gonna focus on the 7th and 8th Commandment.
7. Thou shalt not steal. Few will doubt that at least a slim majority of illegals are paid under the table. Hence, no federal tax, no state tax, no FICA… nuttin’. Isn’t purposeful tax evasion considered stealing? Sure is.
Should I even bring up job stealing? And don’t give me that garbage that ‘the illegals are doing the jobs that Americans won’t do’. Someone did those jobs before the 12 million strong silent invasion took place, right? And there are plenty of high paying jobs that are being stolen by illegals; plumbers, electricians, framers, etc. And yes, those that knowingly hired illegals and subsequently fired hardworking American citizens are just as wrong.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. The Church has always taught that lying falls under the 8th Commandment. Ummm, being in this country, any country, illegally is lying, right? No amount of liberal verbal gymnastics can get around this simple, irrefutable fact.
Now with all that said, let’s look again at the conditions that constitute mortal sin.
1. Breaking the immigration and taxation laws of this country pretty much constitute grave, wouldn’t you say?
2. I doubt if many of the illegals were just taking a lovely stroll along the border one day and on a lark, decided to jump the fence. I also doubt that many of the illegals jumped the fence on a dare after a rough night of drinking at the Frat House.
3. I also seriously doubt if even a large minority of the illegals were forced to come here. It’s a pretty safe bet that the overwhelming majority gave their full consent to illegally enter this nation.”
You know, a lot of the Mohammedan guys we sent back to the Middle East in the early 2000s had better reasons for jumping on leaky boats than your Mexicans have for crossing the border. This priest should have the balls to say that illegal immigration is a mortal sin.
May 2, 2008 at 2:55 am
Matthew,
“I would hesitate greatly before opening up the border.”
I thought it was agreed that this wasn’t a difference between an open border and a closed border, but of how best to regulate the border. You know, in all of this discussion, we still haven’t touched that subject yet. Why not?
“The Vatican is a sovereign state. I don’t believe they allow anyone and everyone to march in and stay in the Sistine Chapel.”
Maybe that’s why we haven’t been able to speak about the real issue yet. It seems you only hear your opponents in extremes. Open borders! Anyone and everyone! No right to borders! We have no right to stop them! Absolute rights! I really have tried hard to speak reasonably about the matter, to place the matter in terms of legitimate conditions for emigration, how best to implement our right to regulate our borders, the difficult demands of conflicting rights. But all you hear is “OPEN BORDERS!” Why is that, I wonder.
I’ve tried. I’m tired. God bless and keep you, Matthew.
Bob Hunt
May 2, 2008 at 4:47 am
Anonymous – the problem isn’t immigration in general, it’s specifically illegal immigration (I’m focusing on the illegal part). Thousands of people come to this country every year to improve their lives, and I applaud every one of them that do so by following the processes our government has put in place. I think it is an insult to those very people when illegal immigrants sneak into our country and get the benefits automatically that others waited years for. What the heck, they’ll probably all get amnesty depending on who gets elected this year. There is inherent danger with illegal immigration – less so with legal immigration.
No one is saying America should just shut the borders, thumb our noses at the world and say “sucks to be you!” What people here are saying, is stop the illegal immigration. The question of what to do with all the illegals here is a sticky wicket – although a big step in solving the problem would be to deport all the ones we know about who have criminal records.
May 3, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Bob – Your example of the right of a starving person to steal a pie goes right to the heart of the issue of what our rights and obligations towards others are. This is the basic disagreement between liberals and conservatives. There is no right to steal. In fact stealing even in great need is not just a crime, but also a sin. It is a sin that is greatly tempered by the greater good of feeding ones family. The onus falls heavily on the wealthy to help the poor, through charity: this is very clear in scripture, perhaps it is part of natural law as well. This is not a platitude: we have a clear obligation to offer corporal works of mercy. Furthermore, to horde our goods in the face of poverty is done at the risk of our souls. BUT having a government that turns a blind eye and permits illegal immigration has this all backwards. It abets the illegal immigrants in this sin and this crime, robs American citizens of the fruits of their labors through increased taxes, and perverts our impulse to charity. We do not have to help the less fortunate. We need to do so for the good of our souls, but the poor do not have the RIGHT to what belongs to someone else whatever their need may be. Kit
May 4, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Kit,
Sorry for being so long in responding to your post, but I work night weekends, so I spend most of the day on Saturday and Sunday sleeping. But, I’m not working tonight, so I have some time this morning. I hope you get a chance to get back and read this response.
Regarding my pie example, I agree that it does speak to the heart of the matter of our obligation to others, though I can’t really say if it represents the basic disagreement between liberals and conservatives. My thinking on the matter is inspired by Catholic moral theology, most clearly delineated in the Catechism (CCC) and in “Right and Reason” by Austin Fagothey, SJ. Fagothey was a well-respected moral theologian in the Aristotilean-Thomistic tradition. “Right and Reason” was first published in the 1950s and has the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. It remains a popular text because it reflects the consistent and ancient moral thinking of the Church and communicates that thinking in a way that an ordinary “Joe” like me can understand. I highly recommend it (I think TAN books publishes it now), and reference it here in response to your post. I apologize that the quote is somewhat lengthy. This is from the sixth edition, published in 1976 by C. V. Mosby.
On the subject of theft, Fagothey writes:
“Theft can be defined as the unjust taking of another’s property, and the taking is unjust when it goes against the owner’s reasonable will. The word reasonable is put here because, though the owner may be unwilling to give me what I need, there are cases, as we shall see, in which his refusal is unreasonable, and I may take it against his will. …
“What happens when the right to life and the right to property come into apparent conflict? The greatest principle solving such conflicts is that the stronger right prevails. Obviously, property is for life, not life for property. … Therefore man’s right to use material goods for the maintenance of his life prevails, as the stronger right, over any acquired property. …
“If a man is starving, he should first try to obtain food by every legitimate means. … But if his every effort has met with rebuff and he sees that it is practically impossible for him to respect other people’s property and at the same time to keep alive, then he has the right to seize what he needs even if it is the property of another. This is not theft or stealing. Others have the duty to come to his relief, and if they do not, their lesser right to their property yields to his greater right to his life. …
“Theft, or the unjust seizure of rightfully owned property, is morally wrong, but the right to property must yield to the right to life. It is not theft to seize goods needed for life or safety, even if they are someone else’s property, unless he is in equal need. Rather, there is an obligation to share goods with those in extreme need, since supplying human needs is the primary function of property.”
Fagothey’s thinking here, including his definition of theft, is consistent (indeed, verbatim) to that found in the CCC, paragraph 2408, which references “Gaudium et Spes”, (69, 1). So, in my pie example, taking the pie to feed my starving self and my starving children would not be a sin because it would not constitute stealing. Indeed, the poor do have the right to what belongs to someone else, depending on their legitimate need for survival and safety, as a matter of justice.
“When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.” St. Gregory the Great
And, indeed, we do have to help the less fortunate. We certainly do this for the sake of our souls, for to not do so would be stealing on our part.
“Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs.” St. John Chrysostom
It is an obligation, and not an option. No, obviously, we can’t help everyone, but we must do what we can. As Catholics we help the poor, not just for the sake of our souls, but for the sake of Christ.
“When her mother reproached her for caring for the poor and the sick at home, St. Rose of Lima said to her: ‘When we serve the poor and the sick, we serve Jesus. We must not fail to help our neighbor, because in them we serve Jesus.'” P. Hansen, “Vita mirabilis”
We also help the poor for the sake of their souls. As I wrote in a post on another subject, it is difficult to focus on eternal needs when temporal needs are unmet. So, helping to meet the temporal needs of those in desperate need permits them to turn their focus to eternal needs, their eternal salvation. This is why the Church regards the work of charity as part of the work of evangelization.
The obligation to help the poor is founded on the theological virtue of charity: to love God and our neighbor. In the Scriptures, in both Old and New Testaments, this is expressed as a commandment, and not an option. It is the Great Commandment to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. The Scripture references are too numerous to list here, but I would encourage you to read the CCC on the subject of Charity (1822-1829) and Love for the Poor (2443-2449). There are also included in those paragraphs quotes from the Fathers and other saints (as above) regarding our obligation to help the poor.
I’m convinced it’s possible for our nation to meet our obligation to help those in other countries who are in desperate need without turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, or even tolerating illegal immigration. It will require a mindset determined to address the matter both seriously and generously. It will certainly require changes in national policy and working with other nations, and not just Mexico and the Latin American countries. But it must be done, because the problem isn’t going to go away.
Bob Hunt