Washington D.C., Sep 13, 2017 / 03:14 pm (CNA).- Catholic moral theologians have responded to Steve Bannon’s accusation that the U.S. bishops are economically motivated in their stance on immigration, calling the former White House chief strategist “rash” in his take on the issue.
But what’s more, they say Catholics should not treat the guidance of the bishops as just another “guy with an opinion,” as Bannon said – even when dealing with situations that are applications of the Church’s doctrinal teaching.
“I absolutely reject Bannon’s way of formulating it in general,” Dr. Kevin Miller, a professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, told CNA.
“In teaching about matters dealing with faith and morals: even when the bishops are speaking in a prudential way, in a non-magisterial way, they’re not just some other guy in the conversation,” he said. “There’s a certain kind of appropriate deference that is due there, even if one is to end up disagreeing with what they say or do there.”
“But I also disagree with Bannon because I think he’s making an artificial distinction between, on the one hand, the realm of faith and morals, and on the other hand, the realm of politics,” Miller added.
“Politics has to be engaged in morally and the Church has something to say – and has said a great deal over the centuries – over what that means.”
Miller’s comments came in response to remarks by former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, during an interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” host Charlie Rose, posted online Sept. 7. The full interview aired September 10. In the clip, Bannon criticized the U.S. Bishops’ immigration policy stances and said that the bishops support undocumented immigration because of a cynical “economic interest.”
Rose asked Bannon about the Trump administration’s recent announcement to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program (DACA). After Bannon defended the decision, Rose pressed further, noting that Bannon is a Catholic and that New York Archbishop Cardinal Timothy Dolan – along with other leaders – have opposed the move.
DACA was established in 2012 by former President Barrack Obama to create a pathway to legal residency for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children so that qualifying individuals can work or continue their education. After challenges on the executive order’s constitutionality – which was partially upheld– the Trump administration responded to pressures from numerous state attorney generals to repeal the program. Currently, around 800,000 persons are part of the DACA program.
“The bishops have been terrible on this,” Bannon responded.
“By the way, you know why? Because [they have been] unable to really, to come to grips with the problems in the church, they need illegal aliens,” Bannon said. “They need illegal aliens to fill the churches. It’s obvious on the face of it.”
He continued, saying that while he respected the bishops on elements of doctrine, “this is not about doctrine. This is about the sovereignty of a nation.”
“And in that regard,” Bannon said, “they’re just another guy with an opinion.”
In response, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying that the bishops’ stance on issues including life, healthcare and immigration reform “is rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ rather than the convenient political trends of the day.”
“It is both possible and morally necessary to secure the border in a manner which provides security and a humane immigration policy,” the statement said. “For anyone to suggest that it is out of sordid motives of statistics or financial gain is outrageous and insulting.”
Cardinal Dolan also responded to the interview, calling Bannon’s insinuation that the bishops’ teaching is based on an economic incentive “preposterous.”
“That’s insulting and that’s just so ridiculous that it doesn’t merit a comment,” the cardinal said. Both Dolan’s comment and the statement from the bishops’ conference referenced long-standing Church teachings highlighting the Christian duty to care for one’s neighbors, as well as to protect the vulnerable within a society.
Miller explained that while there is an element of truth in Bannon’s statement, in that the statements of bishops’ conferences “don’t share in the magisterium,” or the official authoritative teaching of the Church, that does not mean the bishops’ statements or positions on policy should be disregarded. The lack of official magisterial weight of a statement like the bishops’ Sept. 5 comments in defense of DACA “doesn’t mean it doesn’t require significant, significant deference.”
Miller said it would be “rash” to disregard the guidance of the bishops, and that often, when a bishop comments or signs a statement, it’s generally “a fairly clear application” of teachings the Church does hold.
The professor also discussed the issue of prudential judgement, and that Catholics are able to disagree on matters of prudence in how a situation is handled or implemented. Dr. Miller acknowledged that in situations like immigration, there is a prudential component in determining how best the Church’s teachings should be applied. Yet, he continued, the bishops’ statements and judgement still require deference. The prudential character of subjects the bishops might talk about, Miller stressed, “doesn’t mean that you can feel free to ignore them and they’re like some guy next door.”
Miller also pushed back against the distinction Bannon made between matters of prudence and matters of “dogma.” He said that while Catholics can, in good faith, disagree on matters of practicality and approach, the bishops’ moral voice still has relevance to politics.
“Although there’s this difference between basic moral principle and prudential judgement about how to apply it in sometimes complex cases, I don’t think that that distinction is as neat as people sometimes think it is in at least some cases.” Miller explained that the Church has long spoken on the moral duties of nations, and their obligation to serve the common good. While states can do some things in the name of “sovereignty,” he continued, they must act in the interest of the common good – particularly with an eye towards the most vulnerable.
Joseph Capizzi, professor of theology at the Catholic University of America and executive director of the school’s Institute for Human Ecology, told CNA that while there may not be a definitive, set doctrine on immigration itself, there is aconsistent teaching within the Church “on principles that pertain to immigration.” He pointed to scriptures and to traditions reaching back to the earliest centuries of the Church that highlight the Church’s concern for “the poor, the outcast, refugees, orphans – the physically vulnerable.”
“Those are the first people who get our attention. We’re supposed to care for them.” Capizzi also pointed to the Church’s tradition of care for one’s neighbor and those within one’s community. The care for individuals of that community must be promoted in concert with the common good of the community and its people, he explained.
The issue of immigration is not one that is new for the Church in the United States, Capizzi said. “When many of our parents and grandparents came into this country, they faced very similar antagonisms,” and many of the same arguments used against immigration today were used in previous decades and centuries, he noted.
“The Catholic bishops are only articulating the same defense of good Catholic people that was articulated on behalf of their parents and their grandparents, and in some cases, themselves, over the course of the history of this country.”
The positive contribution of Catholic immigrants and immigrants in general to the Church and to the United States should outweigh the concerns raised by Bannon’s “crass” and “unprovable” statements, as well as those of a decline of Christianity in the United States and the West.
“There’s no question the Catholic Church benefits from the presence of hard-working, faithful young Catholic men and women who are coming into this country seeking better lives for themselves and their children,” Capizzi said.
[…]
The Betty White stamps are out too.
Life is good.
Buckley was a classic conservative, not a right wing populist. They are not the same thing.
A classic conservative believes in the Constitution, the separation of powers. Right wing populists seem to want an all powerful executive, unrestrained by the Constitution.
Yes, Buckley wanted a smaller Federal Government, but he also wanted a Federal Government that operates within the law.
Both definitions serve only to create dismissive means of understanding by the enemies of conservatism. The driving factors of anyone gravitating towards an identification as a conservative have always been culturally based and intuitively based on religion. Despite how many bad historians falsify history by associating leftist tyrannies with the political right, conservatives, not progressive secularists, value, innate truth, natural law, and rights as divine endowments rather than political inventions.
Hitler and Mussolini were”Leftists?” I don’t think so. They were Fascists. Ditto Franco, Peron, etc.
Fascists are leftists. Don’t be swayed by the preposterous projections of leftist history.
So, there is no Extreme Right? I don’t agree that Fascists are Leftists. Communists are indeed extreme Left, but Fascists are extreme Right.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a Leftist, not a classic Liberal. Marjorie Taylor Greene is not a true Conservative, but a Right Winger. I wish the media would get this right.
It really matters little to those suffering under a totalitarian regime what the regime leadership identifies as. Totalitarian is as totalitarian does.
Who are those who deny objective morality. Those who actually deny it, such as all leftists including all communists and fascists, or those who affirm objective morality, such as those who value conserving immutable truths, such as all right wing anti-fascists and anti-communists. Reconsider your knowledge of history in place of the cliched assumptions of airheaded academics, journalists, and historians.
William: Your definitions are the accepted conventions, so they can’t be faulted for their intent.
Nonetheless, as the post war Austrian historian Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and others pointed out, the very concept of an ideological political spectrum is an invention of religion hating revolutionaries who always stood to salvage respectability by creating the fiction of moral equivalency between those competing socialist factions who identify themselves differently whether they see nationalized tyrannies or internationalist tyrannies as primarily the means to social utopia, which they assume, everyone desires.
Liberals believing they have been fair to conservatives place their ideas at some place on this fictional spectrum but are not fair enough to know that conservative arguments revolve around denying this spectrum. Conservatives might grudgingly concede the language of the revolutionaries at times, for purposes of rebuke, while making the religious argument that only a moral people can create honor and justice in society, and there can never be anything “revolutionary” in the human condition. Conservatives don’t see government as their savior, nor do they even view conservatism as an “ideology” since that term assumes truth is manmade rather than divinely endowed. Buckley’s famous quip for original sin and against the myth of progress in the human condition was his plea to stand atop history and yell, “Stop!”
Buckley on a stamp! A great move, although on his “Firing Line” he immediately would have debated the reasons behind today’s inflated price of stamps. His Stamp Act, for sure.
And, this commemoration is much to be preferred over placing Obama on Mount Rushmore as some fantasized earlier.