The Church’s social doctrine is therefore of a theological nature, specifically theological-moral, “since it is a doctrine aimed at guiding people’s behavior.” “This teaching … is to be found at the crossroads where Christian life and conscience come into contact with the real world. [It] is seen in the efforts of individuals, families, people involved in cultural and social life, as well as politicians and statesmen to give it a concrete form and application in history.” In fact, this social doctrine reflects three levels of theological-moral teaching: the foundational level of motivations; the directive level of norms for life in society; the deliberative level of consciences, called to mediate objective and general norms in concrete and particular social situations. These three levels implicitly define also the proper method and specific epistemological structure of the social doctrine of the Church.1
This essay is a reflection on “Erga migrantes caritas Christi.”2 The epigraph to my reflections on the Church’s social doctrine and immigration helpfully structures this doctrine into distinct levels of theological-moral teaching.
First, there is the foundational level of motivation. At its root this motivation is biblical: “The love of Christ towards migrants urges us (cf. 2 Cor 5:14) to look afresh at their problems, which are to be met today all over the world.” This Christ centered love promotes an “authentic culture of welcome” (no. 39). “Welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (Rom 15:7). This welcome entails respect for the dignity and fundamental rights of the human person from different cultures (no. 5), and hence their different cultural identities.
There is a directive level of norms that grounds this culture, namely, legal norms that “ensure the rights of migrants, refugees and their families” (no. 6; see also, no. 29). Still, significantly, the Church, in particular, Vatican II, “recognized the rights of the public authorities, in a particular context, to regulate the flow of migration” (no. 21). Thus, on the one hand, as John Paul II correctly states:
In her pastoral activity, the Church’s . . . proclamation of the Gospel is directed towards the integral salvation of the human person, his authentic and effective liberation, through the achievement of conditions of life suitable to his dignity. The comprehension of the human being, that the Church acquired in Christ, urges her to proclaim the fundamental human rights and to speak out when they are trampled upon. Thus, she does not grow tired of affirming and defending the dignity of the human person, highlighting the inalienable rights that originate from it. Specifically, these are the right to have one’s own country, to live freely in one’s own country, to live together with one’s family, to have access to the goods necessary for a dignified life, to preserve and develop one’s ethnic, cultural and linguistic heritage, to publicly profess one’s religion, to be recognized and treated in all circumstances according to one’s dignity as a human being.
But on the other hand, there is “the right of every country to pursue an immigration policy that promotes the common good” (no. 29). John Paul explains:
These rights are concretely employed in the concept of universal common good, which includes the whole family of peoples, beyond every nationalistic egoism. The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life. Certainly, the exercise of such a right is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant.3
In his message for the World Day of Migrants and refugees of 2013, Benedict XVI echoes his illustrious predecessor’s very point, “Certainly every state has the right to regulate migration and to enact policies dictated by the general requirements of the common good.”4 Harm to the common good of the community occurs, in my judgment, when innocent citizens and law-abiding immigrants bear the consequences of “open borders” such that migrants who illegally enter the country “qualify for scarce public resources such as Medicaid, welfare, and other public assistances; and the costs of all these things would be borne by the American taxpayers.”5
Furthermore, there is a religious dimension to immigration and hence to the Church’s pastoral ministry, which reflects her missionary and dialogical task, which includes the proclamation of the Gospel, as well as an inter-religious dimension, of the Church in dealing with cultural and religious plurality, particularly with “basic questions such as the meaning of life and history, suffering and poverty, hunger, sickness and death” (no. 30). The Church carries out its fundamental task in this context in the following ways: “Being communion. . . Being missionary. . . and Being the People and family of God, mystery, sacrament, Mystical Body and Temple of the Spirit” (no. 37).
Moreover, regarding cultural plurality, not just anything goes, that is, accepting cultural identities indiscriminately (no. 30). Again, on the one hand, the Church is open to all that is true, good, and beautiful in this cultural plurality; but, as Benedict XVI puts it, “it has always been critical of culture also, and it must continue fearlessly and steadfastly to critique culture, especially today.”6 The Pontifical Council elaborates:
“Inculturation” begins by listening, which means getting to know those to whom we proclaim the gospel. Listening and knowing lead to a more adequate discernment of the values and “countervalues” of their cultures in the light of the Paschal Mystery of death and life. Tolerance is not enough; needed is a certain feeling for the other, respect as far as possible for the cultural identity of one’s dialogue partners. To recognize and appreciate their positive aspects, which prepare them to accept the gospel, is a necessary prelude to its successful proclamation. This is the only way to create dialogue, understanding and trust. Keeping our eyes on the gospel thus means attention to people too, to their dignity and freedom. Helping them advance integrally requires a commitment to fraternity, solidarity, service and justice. The love of God, while it gives humankind the truth and shows everyone his highest vocation, also promotes his dignity and gives birth to community, based on the gospel proclamation being welcomed, interiorized, celebrated and lived. (no. 36)
A distinction should be made in reflecting on a culture of welcome between “assistance in a general sense (a first, short-term welcome), true welcome in the full sense (longer-term projects) and integration (an aim to be pursued constantly over a long period and in the true sense of the word)” (no. 42). In this connection, we must consider the legitimate requirements stemming from the responsibilities of civil authorities to preserve order, protect citizens, and punish wrongdoers (Rom 13:1-17), and hence of “order, legality and [national] security” in our understanding of welcoming the migrants.
Consequently, civil government must attend to national sovereignty. The latter informs immigration policy, entailing the right to determine the criteria for legally admitting foreigners into the country. In this connection, the common good means that “immigration policies should principally benefit citizens, not harm citizens’ well-being.” This means, in my judgment, that immigrants must obey the laws of a nation, including its laws of immigration, such that “illegal immigration is morally wrong.” Entering the USA without a valid visa and inspection is illegal activity. “Lawbreaking aliens bear moral responsibility for their unlawful actions.”7 I don’t use the term “illegals” as a noun, but it is correct to refer to the activity of an individual as illegal.8
Lastly, there is the deliberative level when considering the multi-dimensional causes of migration. The later is taken not only for economic reasons but also for cultural reasons, for the good of children and family life. (no. 1) In particular, the Pontifical Council stresses, “migration raises a truly ethical question: the search for a new international economic order for a more equitable distribution of the goods of the earth” (no. 8; no. 3). Whatever one makes of a international economic order, and the corresponding notion of globalization (no. 4), the framing of this ethical question as a matter of “equitable distribution” is also problematic, in my judgment.
At issue here is the principle of the universal destination of created goods.9 I agree with this principle of Catholic social doctrine but it should not be interpreted as supportive of a form of state socialism, which would include the government’s redistribution of wealth. John Paul explains in his social encyclical, Centesimus Annus:
The original source of all that is good is the very act of God, who created both the earth S and man, and who gave the earth to man so that he might have dominion over it by his work and enjoy its fruits (Gen 1:28). God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favoring anyone. This is the foundation of the universal destination of the earth’s goods. The earth, by reason of its fruitfulness and its capacity to satisfy human needs, is God’s first gift for the sustenance of human life. But the earth does not yield its fruits without a particular human response to God’s gift, that is to say, without work. It is through work that man, using his intelligence and exercising his freedom, succeeds in dominating the earth and making it a fitting home. In this way, he makes part of the earth his own, precisely the part which he has acquired through work; this is the origin of individual property. Obviously, he also has the responsibility not to hinder others from having their own part of God’s gift; indeed, he must cooperate with others so that together all can dominate the earth.10
Clearly, John Paul II doesn’t see a conflict between this principle of the universal destination of created goods and individual liberty and a free market. He does not support the idea of the common ownership of all material goods because private property would then be impossible.11 The notions of liberty, including economic liberty, and a free market, raise the question: “Should capitalism . . . be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?”
John Paul answers the question this way:
If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy,” “market economy” or simply “free economy.”12
In short, to deal with the economic issues of the causes of migration, we need to focus not on the distribution of wealth but about the creation of wealth, as formulated above by John Paul II.
(Note: This paper was presented at an ecumenical meeting of the USCCB and the Methodist Church.)
Endnotes:
1 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 73.
2 “Erga migrantes caritas Christi” (2004), Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, no. 1. Further reference to this source will be cited parenthetically in the text.
3 John Paul II, Message for the 87th World Day of Migration, 2001. Emphasis added in the last sentence.
4 Message for the 99th World Day of Migrants and Refugees, 2013 (12 October 2012) | BENEDICT XVI (vatican.va).
5 James R. Edwards, Jr., “A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy,” September 2009, Center for Immigration Studies, 5.
6 Pope Benedict XVI, “Communication and Culture,” in On the Way to Jesus Christ, trans. Michael J. Miller (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), 42-52, and at 49.
7 James R. Edwards, Jr., “A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy,” 2, 8.
8 Pace Matthew Soerens & Jenny Yang, Welcoming The Stranger, Justice, Compassion & Truth in the Immigration Debate, Revised and Expanded (Downers Grove, ILL: IVP Books, 2018), 16.
9 See Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2402; 2405. Also, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, nos. 171-175.
10 John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, Encyclical Letter 1991, no. 31.
11 Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2403. Also, Also, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, nos. 176-181.
12 John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, no, 42.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Ask Native Americans/Indigenous People “How did unlimited immigration work out for you?”
Immigration brought Christianity to native Americans. Can you think of a better gift?
Apparently so as many of them call what occurred atrocities against indiginous people, anent the pachamama and smudging ceremony debacles.
Christianity was a whole lot better gift to bring than measles & smallpox. I wish we’d only brought our Faith along.
And the indigenous returned the favor by giving Europeans syphilis. All the exchanges would have happened from absolutely peaceful contact, had that been the case.
Yes,viruses and bacteria are the gifts that keep on giving. There are differing theories about the origins of syphilis in Europe though. Some people think it’s connected to the slave trade. Yaws in Africa is closely related to syphilis.
Sadly, syphilis is becoming a larger problem again these days.
According to the LDS, Jesus brough the Gospel to the Americas 1500 years before Columbus. But in all seriousness, my point was that open borders can destroy a civilization and culture – even if they do bring some tasty food options.
I’m not in favor of open borders but if it’s a question of Mexicans entering into the US, their culture preceded the Anglo one in our Southern border states. And Spain controlled a huge portion of North America including the Gulf Coast. I think Andrew Jackson had to swear an oath of allegiance to Spain when he settled near Natchez. If I’m not mistaken.
If you want to look at a greatly changed culture consider Arizona pre air conditioning and Northern retirees. Plus ca change…
The state of Florida gave a statue of John Gorrie, who did work in the area of mechanical refrigeration, to the National Statuary Hall Collection. He settled in Apalachicola, Fl giving him a Florida connection.
*
The Anglo system is not perfect, but a lot of people come here to benefit from its economic system. Open borders is to responsible immigration what a torrential rain is to a refreshing afternoon shower. One is destructive and the other beneficial.
What Spain or Mexico USED to control in North America is of no consequence. You lose the war, you lose. Period. It doesnt give Mexicans, central Americans, South Americans, blah blah blah, the right to enter the country on their own terms, ILLEGALLY. And then to impose on our taxpayer base and social and educational and hospital services. I have already heard stories of AMERICANS denied a job in the US because they did not know Spanish. Who gave the ok to these cultural changes to the country? Presently, we have roads that are impassable, sewer and water lines in major cities that are 100 years old and need replacing, and bridges in disrepair and dangerous condition. We have ancient schools in need of replacement. In other words, we have need of the funds which are now being shoveled at illegal aliens who are not our own citizens. And the planet can provide an UNLIMITED supply of them. The only result of this will be a degraded quality of life for AMERICANS. Further, with the unprovoked and barbarous attack just leveled at Israel, only a fool would imagine that no TERRORISTS have come through the southern border gates that Senile Joe graciously welded open for them. We have millions of people here now who are unidentified, as are their motives. We know what terrorists we CAUGHT in the attempt to enter. We don’t know who got away. There are words I could use to describe the folks stupid enough to vote for this party and policy that would not be printed here. We have no obligation to have our own country run into the ground. That is exactly what is happening. The church helping these folks could be described as aiding and abetting a crime. They are not doing honest people any favors.
As Christians we must live within the government and society that we find ourselves in; obeying laws to the fullest within our convictions , participating in government to the extent of our liberty. Always with the realization that we are mere pilgrims loyal to another kingdom. Our tents must be welcoming to others and our resources shared . We can work with others toward social justice as long as we don’t compromise our values. We can and should work together with other Christians to demonstrate the beauty and value of applied Christianity for the common good. The volunteer living together in Christian community (communes) should be explored and the petitioning of government to allow the choice of such self governing and sustaining communities to exist within their borders without harassment.
To this end the Anabaptist Bruderhof or Hutarian (sp) models should be explored for those Catholics who would like to raise their families in a more wholesome environment. If States would allow such communities to exist unharassed , perhaps we could survive a bit longer in ever increasing evil world.
We must take stock of what is going on now and project the likely future planning ahead for our faith and families. The rapid advancement of technology and the universal eroding of common morality is a real threat to our very existence and we must plan and act now. We must not be caught like the sleeping Virgins in the parable.
I have Mennonite friends who live and support each other in community. Ive always admired the Hutterites and would love to visit one of their communities one day also.
Are you suggesting that the hordes of unlawful migrants be settled in groups or communes within the US?
I am constantly amazed how the failed systems of the origin country are never condemned. It always becomes the responsibility of the importing country to extend its plenty at is own expense and at the expense of any real improvement that might be expected of the origin country and their (usually) corrupt economic and political istitutions. That has to change. No importing country can sustain unlimited expectations of plenty. That’s nonsense and delusion.
To be fair, many of the immigrants we see come from former Spanish, French, & Portuguese colonies originally set up under Catholic rulers. Our nation was set up primarily by Protestants.
I agree that Latin American govts fail at much higher rates but unlike us, they began in Catholic cultures.
In some cases we’ve contributed to those failures.
I tend to think that when Plutarchus set about the slaughter of Catholics in Mexico precisely because they were not the indigenous, we can safely say that many of the Mexicans don’t see it the way that you describe. Besides that, take a look at Argentina. It was booming when it was in its prime and the Church had a great deal to do with that – take a look at it now: socialism has destroyed it. Their dollar is in unprecedented free-fall; their only hope is to give up their socialism/communism and go back to the pursuit of virtue, personal responsibility and the Church has the value system that can lead to, again, a land flowing with milk and honey.
The indigenous have had a sad history everywhere in North America. The Yaquis were forcibly marched off their lands and sold into slavery by the Mexican government in the not too distant past.
I’m an old school, traditional Catholic and I love Mexico and the Caribbean but Latin America has been plagued with revolutions, unrest, and dictatorships from the beginning. It’s not just about socialism.
We’ve had two civil wars of our own and instigated invasions of our neighbors but on the whole our nation founded by Protestants (and not a few Masons) has been more stable. Less Catholic, less colourful, but stable.
For historical perspective, consider the magnitude of expatriations (not the same as emigrations) in the recent century…
After WWII the partition of India and Pakistan uprooted 18 million (with two or three million deaths). The Federal Republic of Germany took in 12 million refugees, Japan over 6 million, South Korea 4 million, Hong Kong over one million, Israel one million. The overall total adds up to 45 million forced migrants. “Thus, in one decade the number of people compelled by governments to move across frontiers was equal to the entire traffic of free migrants across the Atlantic Ocean in the century ending in 1913” (Encyclopedia Britannica). Now, about voluntary emigration (how many are “compelled by ‘[mis]governments’”?), what are the numbers? Not on my fingertips. And then there’s the mingled human and fentanyl trafficking and subversive/criminal infiltration…
How are sovereign “nation-states” (the institutional idiom of modernity) to reconcile their eroding stability with the somewhat prior rights of human “families” (from the core of perennial Catholic Social Thought/Teaching) to immigrate?
Alongside such an urgent and historic imponderable, we find the Synod on Synodality deliberatively distracted instead into contemplating its navel. That is, discerning whether or not the Church of moment is now morally (as in natural law) and ecclesiastically invertebrate, and even whether or not gay sex is the banner “concern” of the new century!
The synod “expert” reports (the world waits with bated breath!) might still pass the red-hat test,
but what about the red-face test?
Thank you for this fine summary of Church teaching on a topic that requires the use of prudential judgement and, regarding which, the appropriate policies can vary widely depending on the facts and circumstances a particular nation may face at a given time. Somehow, Professor Echeverria’s analysis does not align very well with The Magisterium of Francis and the pastoral letters of the USCCB.
Given that illegal immigration is an immoral violation of a nation’s sovereignty, what can we say about Catholic Charities, other Church affiliated organizations, as well as bishops, priests and popes who on a large scale facilitate this lawbreaking rhetorically and materially? That they are cooperating with similar NGOs and lawless governments is hardly a defense of their own criminal behavior. I have many problems with the way the Church conducts itself in our time. Aiding and abetting the destruction of nations, including my own, ranks near the top of the list.
Migration as distinct from legal immigration in our historical moment, when the Earth is nationally organized with boundaries [nations have a right to preserve cultural and ethnic identity], is a form of seizure. Sharing the wealth, as practiced, beyond our personal, frequently national contributions to the less privileged – is cryptic Marxism.
Prof Echeverria presents us with the teaching and rationale of a true Christian, just approach to the question of migration. A base premise addresses equitable distribution, which reverses the logic from sharing of wealth [there’s always opportunity for charity] to creation of wealth. This primary premise is true both on the universal, international level as well as in the particular national and local level [an example keeping minorities on the dole rather than the infinitely more beneficial investment of industries in those disenfranchised communities]. It marks the moral difference of the approach of John Paul II to that of Francis I.
GrebB,
That’s pretty funny about the Florida award.Thank you for sharing that. Yes, Florida became a whole different culture following AC also.
We can’t go back and fix history but I’m always disappointed how little history folks are familiar with.
I concur with the assertions that ‘immigrants must obey the laws of a nation, including its laws of immigration’; and that ‘entering the USA without a valid visa and inspection is illegal activity.’
However, viewing the situation in terms of legality is a reduction of what is for many a very complex situation, from the standpoint of civil and criminal law:
Current estimates are that approximately 45% of undocumented immigrants DID NOT enter illegally. See Pew Hispanic Center, Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population [May 22, 2006]. Many, if not most, undocumented immigrants enter legally, but overstay, work without authorization, drop out of school or violate the conditions of their visas in some other way. Even if they are not “entitled to” citizenship, it’s fair to say that many find themselves in situations that can be difficult to rectify.
In addition, might it also be the case that moral culpability for deliberately “illegal migration” be mitigated by other extenuating circumstances? — many cross borders, even illegally, not out of choice but necessity and existential preservation, fleeing egregious conditions of persecution, oppression and violence. Until recently revoked by Trump, the United States has permitted those to apply for reasons of asylum or refugee status.
Most importantly, I think this fails to address those migrants who entered ports of entry LEGALLY; who complied with the lawful request to register themselves via the CPB App under Biden, had every intention of following the law, and who might otherwise — barring present circumstances — be in the process of registering for asylum and refugee status. The present administration is endeavoring to now render the status of ALL those who came into the country legally in prior years ILLEGAL, by removing their temporary protected status, and thus target them for immediate deportation.
I do not think anybody would (or should) take issue with Trump, were he to fulfill the sensible mandate of going after those who were ACTUALLY violent criminals. But according to the Guardian, ICE arrests of migrants with no criminal histories are surging under Trump — “Between early January, right before the inauguration, and June, there has been an 807% increase in the arrest of immigrants with no criminal record.”
The undocumented are often portrayed in terms as an economic BURDEN on citizens — too little is said, however, of the positive contributions migrants make to our nation. As Fr. Neuhaus observed:
“Very few Americans are lining up to wash dishes, mop floors, or deliver pizza. The economy and everyday life of New York and other cities would grind to a near halt in the absence of Hispanic immigrants. Not to mention what would happen to the vast agricultural enterprises of California and other states.” It is hard to argue with Andrew Ferguson, who writes: “Restricting that flow of willing workers would cause an economic calamity that no federal official will seriously contemplate.”
From an economic perspective it is sensible to take into consideration the practical costs of any effort at “mass-deportation”.
“Even assuming that 20 percent of the undocumented population would ‘self-deport’ under a yearslong mass-deportation regime,” says the American Immigration Council, “we estimate the ultimate cost of such a longer operation would average out to $88 billion annually, for a total cost of $967.9 billion over the course of more than a decade” — taking into account courtroom processing and the building of 24x the number of ICE detention centers than we presently have.
This obliges me to wonder if there are more sensible means of resolving this issue — first, by dedicating our resources (justifiably so) to focus exclusively on those undocumented who are violent or engaged in criminal activity; secondly, by acknowledging that a greater percentage might be so inclined, IF given the opportunity, to make a positive contribution to our nation were pathways to full citizenship were introduced.
Sources:
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/FINAL_criminalizing_undocumented_immigrants_issue_brief_PUBLIC_VERSION.pdf
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/low-migrant-encounters-border-trump
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/14/ice-arrests-migrants-trump-figures
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/mass-deportation/