CrossCurrents A Catholic Reflects on Faith in Our Times
Bernard
F. Swain, Ph.D. www.CrossCurrents.us
Hospitality – or
Hostility?
During Easter season, we Catholics delight
in the story of two of JesusÕ disciples meeting a stranger on the road to
Emmaus. Only after they offer him hospitality
do they recognize the presence of Jesus among them. We also know that such hospitality
is a key to thriving parishes. Yet
once outside Mass, some Catholics instinctively switch from hospitality to
hostility.
Immigration is suddenly the hottest issue in
the land. A quick survey of Internet blog sites
reveals that many people, many of them Catholics, are incensed by the very idea
that the Catholic Church would resist current plans for a more restrictive immigration
policy. The most visible target for such Catholic critics is Cardinal Roger
Mahoney, Archbishop of Los Angeles (the largest diocese in the U.S.). He is
being accused of Òdefying the lawÓ or of Òencouraging lawbreakersÓ or even of Òinciting
rebellionÓ.
This is a classic case of the disconnect
between church leaders and church members. Regular readers of CrossCurrents know
that I have regularly criticized members of the hierarchy for contributing to
this disconnect. Their inept, insensitive, and imprudent actions (or inactions)
have cost them the confidence of their flock.
But perhaps the saddest consequence of
this widespread loss of confidence in our leaders is a tragic side-effect: people
will not follow their lead even when they are right.
Immigration is a perfect illustration: the bishops are right on this
one, but what difference does that make if no one is listening?
At least the attack bloggers are paying
attention, but it is not at all clear that they are getting the message.
Granted, immigration is an exceedingly
complicated issue. It's easy to get bogged down in the specifics of any
particular case, or policy, or legislation. So it might help to clarify some basic points. First, how
did Cardinal Mahoney draw such fire? Second, what is the nature of church
teaching in this area? Third, what are the relevant conclusions?
1. What did Cardinal Mahoney say? Most
attacks targeted Cardinal MahoneyÕs position on one specific legislative proposal,
which would require church authorities to demand residency documents from
immigrants before administering charitable aid.
Mahoney was preaching the Ash Wednesday
Mass. He told congregants gathered at the cathedral that the Catholic Church
exists to serve people, not the government. He called on Catholics in the
archdiocese to commit to immigration reform, "especially in the face of
increasing hostility toward immigrants." The cardinal did not propose defying
the law; he called on his own priests to ignore the requirement, saying:
The Church is not in a position of negotiating
the spiritual and the corporal works of mercyÉWe must be able to minister to
people, regardless of how they got hereÉWe are called to attend the last, littlest,
lowest and least in society and in the Church.
Even the Mayor of Los Angeles thought the
position was reasonable:
The Church should not be in the
business of enforcing our immigration laws. ThatÕs a Federal responsibility. The idea that the Church would deny services to the
homeless, that the Catholic Church would deny services to families who are
hungry because of their immigration status is absolutely incredulous.
Both men understand this legislation the
same way: it imposes a secular restriction on the ChurchÕs practice of
charity. From that point of view,
the cardinal is doing nothing but asserting the independence of the Church to
practice charitable acts unconditionally.
2. All laws are not equal. Bloggers attacking Cardinal Mahoney use arguments
about ÒRender unto Caesar what is CaesarÕs,Ó and quote the Catholic Catechism
on the obligation to obey laws.
But all the verbiage ignores this simple fact: Catholic tradition has
never required Catholics to obey all laws, even when unjust (St. Thomas said
unjust laws are not really laws at all, just a form of gangsterism).
Catholic tradition has always allowed for
an appeal to a higher law, and obliged Catholics to follow their conscience if
they believe that obeying a particular law would violate church teaching or GodÕs
will.
Thankfully, not all Catholic bloggers are
as ignorant as those attacking the Cardinal. HereÕs one example of a Catholic
who knows what he (or she) is talking about:
The Giving Bank at Holy Family Church
in South Pasadena distributes food to about 300 families weekly. Some of that
food is government surplus, while the remainder is provided by a combination of
parish funds and donations from local supermarkets. The Giving Bank does not
ask for documentation of residency before providing services. It doesn't even
ask if you are Catholic. It just provides.
The Church was given government food
under federal laws mandating how it shall be used. If the Church must give up
that food, so be it; we will find replacement food elsewhere.
Under the Catechism of the Roman
Catholic Church, Cardinal Mahoney, like every other citizen, is obligated not
to obey unjust laws. Cardinal Mahoney is subject to a higher law. Every
Catholic understands the ultimate price for not obeying the authorities;
witness what happened to Jesus on the Cross.
Cardinal Mahoney is hardly recommending
wholesale defiance of U.S. immigration law; he is simply refusing to submit
church practice to one particular requirement. (It is important to remember here that immigrating is not a
crime, anymore than hunting or fishing or driving is a crime. Even doing any of these things without
the appropriate paperwork is a
misdemeanor, not a felony.)
3. Missing the Point. But arguments over Cardinal Mahoney can distract
Catholics from the larger question: Why do Cardinal Mahoney and many other Catholics consider
current and proposed restrictions unjust? We cannot understand why, unless we
examine this question of immigration in general.
Looking at ÒimmigrationÓ as a general issue,
the only conclusion I can draw from
reading numerous attacks on Mahoney and other church leaders is that there is a
very basic division among Catholics.
To put it bluntly: many ordinary Catholics are hostile where they should
be hospitable. Their basic attitude is anti-immigration, while the official Catholic position has been
consistently and resolutely pro-immigration.
As Cardinal Mahoney said on Ash Wednesday,
ÒAt this particular moment in our history, there seems to be these strident
voices that are very much anti-immigrant."
ThatÕs why immigration has become another
example of the disconnect between hierarchy and many Catholics. The difference
is: the hierarchy is right on this one!! To see why, weÕll need to review the
whole tradition of Catholic faith on the question of immigration. The results
may surprise you!
Next time: What is the connection
between Catholic Tradition and our attitudes about immigration?
© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2006
Send Your Comments and Questions to bfswain@juno.com
Dr. SwainÕs
opinions do not represent the views of this parish or any other official body.
Bernie Swain has
devoted more than 30 years to adult spiritual formation in dioceses in the US,
Canada, and France. Since 1991 he has maintained a private practice as trainer,
teacher, and consultant to leaders in parishes and other religious
organizations. He holds degrees in theology and political science from Holy
Cross, Harvard, The University of Paris, and The University of Chicago.
His writings include Liberating
Leadership (Harper & Row,
1986) and more than 200 articles in periodicals such as The National Catholic
Reporter, Commonweal, The Miami Herald, The Catholic Free Press, The Pilot,
Harvard Theological Review, and
Liturgy.
A lifelong layperson,
he lives in Boston with his wife and three children. Visit his website at:
CrossCurrents
Is a weekly subscription
service for parish websites.
Individual Subscriptions
are also available.
For Information, contact bfswain@juno or call 617-282-0183