Denver, Colo., Apr 9, 2017 / 04:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In 1970, there was one priest for every 800 Catholics in the United States.
Today, that number has more than doubled, with one priest for every 1,800 Catholics.
Globally, the situation is worse. The number of Catholics per priest increased from 1,895 in 1980 to 3,126 in 2012, according to a report from CARA at Georgetown University. The Catholic Church in many parts of the world is experiencing what is being called a “priest shortage” or a “priest crisis.”
Last month, Pope Francis answered a question about the priest shortage in a March 8 interview published in the German weekly Die Zeit. The part that made headlines, of course, was that about married priests.
“Pope Francis open to allowing married priests in Catholic Church” read a USA Today headline. “Pope signals he’s open to married Catholic men becoming priests” said CNN.
But things are not as they might seem. Read a little deeper, and Pope Francis did not say that Fr. John Smith at the parish down the street can now ditch celibacy and go looking for a wife.
What the Holy Father did say is that he is open to exploring the possibility of proven men (‘viri probati,’ in Latin) who are married being ordained to the priesthood. Currently, such men, who are typically over the age of 35, are eligible for ordination to the permanent diaconate, but not the priesthood.
However, marriage was not the first solution to the priest shortage Pope Francis proposed. In fact, it was the last.
Initially, he didn’t even mention marriage.
Pressed specifically about the married priesthood, the Pope said: “optional celibacy is discussed, above all where priests are needed. But optional celibacy is not the solution.”
While Pope Francis perhaps signals an iota more of openness to the possibility of married priests in particular situations, his hesitance to open wide the doors to a widespread married priesthood is in line with his recent predecessors, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as well as the longstanding tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
So why is the Church in the West, even when facing a significant priest shortage, so reticent to get rid of a tradition of celibacy, if it is potentially keeping away additional candidates to the priesthood?
Why is celibacy the norm in the Western Church?
Fr. Gary Selin is a Roman Catholic priest and professor at St. John Vianney Seminary in Denver. His work Priestly Celibacy: Theological Foundations was published last year by CUA press.
While the debate about celibacy is often reduced to pragmatics – the difficulty of paying married priests more, the question of their full availability – this ignores the rich theological foundations of the celibate tradition, Fr. Selin told CNA.
One of the main reasons for this 2,000 year tradition is Christological, because it is based on the first celibate priest – Jesus.
“Jesus Christ himself never married, and there’s something about imitating the life our Lord in full that is very attractive,” Fr. Selin said.
“Interestingly, Jesus is never mentioned as a reason for celibacy. The next time you read about celibacy, try to see if they mention our Lord; oftentimes he is left out of the picture.”
Christ’s life of celibacy, while compatible with his mission of evangelization, would not have been compatible with marriage, because “he left his home and family in Nazareth in order to live as an itinerant preacher, consciously renouncing a permanent dwelling: ‘The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head,’” Fr. Selin said, refering Matthew 8:20.
Several times throughout the New Testament, Christ praises the celibate state. In Matthew 19:11-12, he answers a question from his disciples about marriage, saying that those who are able by grace to renounce marriage and sexual relations for the kingdom of heaven ought to do so.
“Of the three manners in which one is incapable of sexual activity, the third alone is voluntary: ‘eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs [emphasis added].’ These people do so ‘for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,’ that is, for the kingdom that Jesus was proclaiming and initiating,” Fr. Selin explained.
Nevertheless, it took a while for the “culture of celibacy” to catch on in the early Church, Fr. Selin said.
Christ came to earth amid a Jewish people and culture who were instructed since their first parents of Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28, 9:7) and were promised that their descendants would be “as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore” (Gen. 22:17). Being unmarried or barren was to be avoided for both practical and religious reasons, and was seen as a curse, or at least a lack of favor from God.
The apostles, too, were Jewish men who would have been a part of this culture. It is known that among them, at least St. Peter had been married at some time, because Scripture mentions his mother-in-law (Mt. 8:14-15).
St. John the Evangelist is thought by the Church fathers to be one of the only of the 12 apostles who was celibate, which is why Christ had a particular love for him, Fr. Selin said. Some of the other apostles likely were married, in keeping with Jewish customs, but it is thought that they practiced perpetual continence (chosen abstinence from sexual relations) once they became apostles for the rest of their lives. St. Paul the Apostle extols the celibate state, which he also kept, in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8.
Because marriage was such an integral part of Jewish culture, even for the apostles, early Church clergy were often, but not always, married. However, evidence suggests that these priests were asked to practice perfect continence once they had been ordained. Priests whose wives became pregnant after ordination could even be punished by suspension, Fr. Selin explained.
Early on in the Church, bishops were selected from the celibate priests, a tradition that stood before the mandatory celibate priesthood. Even today, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, most of which allow for married priests, select their bishops from among celibate priests.
As the “culture of celibacy” became more established, it increasingly became the norm in the Church, until married men who applied for ordinations had to appeal to the Pope for special permission.
In the 11th century, St. Gregory VII issued a decree requiring all priests to be celibate and asked his bishops to enforce it. Celibacy has been the norm ever since in the Latin Rite, with special exceptions made for some Anglican and other Protestant pastors who convert to Catholicism.
A sign of the kingdom
Another reason the celibate priesthood is valued in the Church is because it bears witness to something greater than this world, Fr. Selin explained.
Benedict XVI once told priests that celibacy agitates the world so much because it is a sign of the kingdom to come.
“It is true that for the agnostic world, the world in which God does not enter, celibacy is a great scandal, because it shows exactly that God is considered and experienced as reality. With the eschatological dimension of celibacy, the future world of God enters into the reality of our time. And should this disappear?” Benedict XVI said in 2010.
Christ himself said that no one would be married or given in marriage in heaven, and therefore celibacy is a sign of the beatific vision (cf. Mt 22:30-32).
“Married life will pass away when we behold God face to face and all of us become part of the bridal Church,” Fr. Selin said. “The celibate is more of a direct symbol of that.”
Another value of celibacy is that it allows priests a greater intimacy with Christ in more fully imitating him, Fr. Selin noted.
“The priest is ordained to be Jesus for others, so he’s able to dedicate his whole body and soul first of all to God himself, and from that unity with Jesus he is able to serve the church,” he said.
“We can’t get that backwards,” he emphasized. Often, celibacy is presented for practical reasons of money and time, which aren’t sufficient reasons to maintain the tradition.
“That’s not sufficient and that doesn’t fill the heart of a celibate, because he first wants intimacy with God. Celibacy first is a great, profound intimacy with Christ.”
A married priest’s perspective: Don’t change celibate priesthood
Father Douglas Grandon is one of those rare exceptions – a married Roman Catholic priest.
He was a married Episcopalian priest when he and his family decided to enter the Catholic Church 14 years ago, and received permission from Benedict XVI to become a Catholic priest.
Even though Fr. Grandon recognizes the priest shortage, he said opening the doors to the married priesthood would not solve the root issue of that shortage.
“In my opinion, the key to solving the priest shortage is more commitment to what George Weigel calls evangelical Catholicism,” Fr. Grandon told CNA.
“Whether you’re Protestant or Catholic, vocations come from a very strong commitment to the basic commands of Jesus to preach the Gospel and make disciples. Wherever there’s this strong evangelical commitment, wherever priests are committed to deepening people’s faith and making them serious disciples, you have vocations. That is really the key.”
He also said that while he’s “ever so grateful” that St. John Paul II allowed for exceptions to the celibate priesthood in 1980 – allowing Protestant pastor converts like himself to become priests – he also sees the value of the celibate priesthood and does not advocate getting rid of it.
“…we really do believe the celibate vocation is a wonderful thing to be treasured, and we don’t want anything to undermine that special place of celibate priesthood,” he said.
“Jesus was celibate, Paul was celibate, some of the 12 were celibate, so that’s a special gift that God has given to the Catholic Church.”
Fr. Joshua J. Whitfield is another married priest, who resides in Dallas and is a columnist for The Dallas Morning News. He recently wrote about his experience as a married priest, but also said that he would not want the Church to change its celibacy norm.
“What we need is another Pentecost. That’s how the first ‘shortage’ was handled. The Twelve waited for the Holy Spirit, and he delivered,” Fr. Whitfield told CNA in e-mail comments.
“Seeing this crisis spiritually is what is practical. And it’s the only way we’re going to properly solve it…. I’m simply not convinced that the economics of (married priesthood) would result in either the growth of clergy or the Church.”
A glance at what the priest shortage looks like in the United States
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is the largest diocese in the United States, clocking in at a Catholic population of 4,029,336, according to the P.J. Kenedy and Sons Official Catholic Directory.
With 1,051 diocesan and religious priests combined, the archdiocese has one priest for every 3,833 Catholics – more than double the national rate.
Despite the large Catholic population, which presents both “a great blessing and a great challenge”, Fr. Samuel Ward, the archdiocese’s associate sirector of vocations, told CNA he doesn’t hope for or anticipate any major changes to the practice of priestly celibacy.
“I believe in the great value of the celibate Roman Catholic priesthood,” he said.
He also sees great reason for hope. Recent upticks in the number of seminarians and young men considering the priesthood seems to be building positive momentum for vocations in future generations.
The trend is a national one as well – CARA reports that about 100 more men were ordained to the priesthood in 2016 than in 2010. Between 2005 and 2010, there was a difference of only 4.
In the Archdiocese of New York, the second largest diocese in the United States, there is a Catholic population of 2,642,740 and 1,198 diocesan and religious priests, meaning there is one priest for every 2,205 Catholics.
“I think we’re probably like most every other diocese in the country, in that over the past 40-50 years, the number of ordinations have not in any way kept pace with the number of priests who are retiring or dying,” said Joseph Zwilling, director of communications for the archdiocese.
It’s part of the reason why they recently underwent an extensive reorganization process, which included the closing and re-consolidation of numerous parishes, many of which had found themselves without a pastor in recent years.
“Rather than wait for it to hit crisis mode we wanted to be prudent and plan for what the future would look like here in the Archdiocese of New York,” Zwilling said.
Monsignor Peter Finn has been a priest in New York for 52 years, and as rector of St. Joseph’s Seminary for six years in the early 2000s, he has had several years’ experience forming priests. While he admits there is a shortage, he’s not convinced that doing away with celibacy would solve anything.
“After 52 years of priesthood I’m not really sure it would make any big difference,” he told CNA.
That’s because the crisis is not unique to the vocation of the priesthood, he said. The broader issue is a lack of commitment – not just to the priesthood, but to marriage and other vocations of consecrated life.
Fr. Selin echoed those sentiments.
“It goes deeper, it goes to a deep crisis of faith, a rampant materialism, and also at times a difficulty with making choices,” he said.
So if marriage won’t solve the problem, what will?
Schools, seminaries, and a culture of vocations
The Archdiocese of St. Louis, on the other hand, has not experienced such a drastic shortage. When compared with other larger dioceses in the country (those with 300,000 or more Catholics), the St. Louis Archdiocese has the most priests per capita: only 959 Catholics per priests, in 2014.
John Schwob, director of pastoral planning for the archdiocese, said this could be attributed to a number of things – large and active Catholic schools, a local diocesan seminary, and archbishops who have made vocations a pastoral priority.
“…going back to the beginning of our diocese in 1826, the early bishops made repeated trips to Europe to bring back religious and secular priests and religious men and women who built up strong Catholic parishes and schools,” he told CNA. “That has created momentum that has continued for nearly 200 years.”
These three things also ring true for the Diocese of Lincoln, which has a smaller population and a high priest-to-Catholic ratio: one priest for every 577 Catholics, which is less than one third of the national ratio.
As in St. Louis, Lincoln’s vocations director Fr. Robert Matya credits many of the diocese’s vocations to Catholic schools with priests and religious sisters.
“The vast majority of our vocations come from the kids in our Catholic school system,” Fr. Matya said.
“The unique thing about Lincoln is that the religion classes in all of our Catholic high schools are taught by priests or sisters, and that is not usually the case … the students just have greater exposure to priests and sisters than a kid who goes to high school somewhere else who doesn’t have a priest teach them or doesn’t have that interaction with a priest or a religious sister.”
The diocese also has two orders of women religious – the Holy Spirit Adoration sisters (or the Pink Sisters) and discalced, cloistered Carmelites – who pray particularly for priests and vocations.
Msgr. Timothy Thorburn, vicar general of the Lincoln diocese, said that when the Carmelite sisters moved to the diocese in the late ’90s, two local seminaries sprang up “almost overnight” – a diocesan minor seminary and a seminary for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter.
“Wherever priests are being formed the devil is going to be at work, and cloistered religious are what we would consider the marines in the fight with the powers of darkness, they’re the ones on the frontlines,” Msgr. Thorburn told CNA.
“So right in the midst of the establishment of these two seminaries, the Carmelite sisters… asked if they could look at building a monastery in our diocese.”
A commitment to authentic and orthodox Catholic teaching is also important for vocations, Msgr. Thorburn noted.
“I grew up in the ’60s and ’70s and ’80s, and many in the Church thought if we just became more hip, young people would be attracted to the priesthood and religious life … and the opposite occurred. Young people were repelled by that,” he said.
“They wanted to make a commitment, they wanted authentic Catholic teaching, the authentic Catholic faith, they didn’t want some half-baked, watered down version of the faith; that wasn’t attractive to them at all. And I’d say the same is true now. The priesthood will not become more attractive if somehow the Church says married men can be ordained.”
Pope Francis’ solutions: Prayer, fostering vocations, and the birth rate
Pope Francis, too, does not believe that the married priesthood is the solution to the priest shortage. Before he even mentioned the married priesthood to Die Zeit, the Pope talked about prayer.
“The first [response] – because I speak as a believer – the Lord told us to pray. Prayer, prayer is missing,” he told the paper.
Rose Sullivan, director of the National Conference of Diocesan Vocation Directors, and the mother of a seminarian who is about to be ordained, agrees with the Pope.
“We would not refer to it as a ‘priest shortage’ or a ‘vocation crisis.’ We would refer to it as a prayer crisis. God has not stopped calling people to their vocation, we’ve stopped listening; the noise of culture has gotten in the way,” she said.
“Scripture says: ‘Speak Lord for your servant is listening.’ So the question would be, are we listening? And I would say we could do a much better job at listening.”
Another solution proposed by Pope Francis: increasing the birth rate, which has plummeted in many parts of the Church, particularly in the west.
In some European countries, once the most Catholic region of the world, the birth rate has dipped so low that governments are coming up with unique ways to incentivize child-bearing.
“If there are no young men there can be no priests,” the Pope said.
The vocations of marriage and priesthood are therefore inter-related, said Fr. Ward.
“They compliment each other, and are dependent upon one another. If we don’t have families, we don’t have anything to do as priests, and families need priests for preaching and the sacraments.”
The third solution proposed by Pope Francis was working with young people and talking to them directly about vocations.
Many priests are able to trace their vocation back to a personal invitation, often made by one priest, as well as the witness of good and holy priests that were a significant part of their lives.
“A former vocation director took an informal poll, and he asked men, ‘What really got you thinking about the priesthood?’ And almost all of them said ‘because my pastor approached me’,” Fr. Selin related.
“It was the same thing with me. When a priest lives his priesthood with great joy and fidelity, he’s the most effective promoter of vocations, because a young man can see himself in him.”
Msgr. Thorburn added: “There is no shortage of vocations.”
“God is calling a sufficient number of men in the Western Church, who by our tradition he gives the gift of celibacy with the vocation. We just have to make a place for those seeds to fall on fertile ground.”
[…]
Totally misguided and wrong action by the bishop. Fear of the law being rightly enforced against you does not excuse you from Mass attendance. Those who are hiding from ICE are guilty of being in the country illegally; they are guilty of violating immigration law. How is that possibly understood as an excuse not to attend Mass? The bishop is pandering. The bishop would not excuse people who are guilty of other crimes from Mass attendance because they didn’t want to venture outside their homes lest law enforcement apprehend them.
Let’s get this straight: is the bishop condoning violating immigration laws? He seems to think it’s wrong for law enforcement to apprehend and prosecute for immigration crimes. I have no respect for any bishop who cannot bring himself to use the word “illegal” in conjunction with “immigration” or “alien”. This bishop is an example of such.
The bishop is emoting about “standing with immigrant communities” without acknowledging that illegal aliens have brought this on themselves by attempting to evade immigration laws and/or not regularizing their legal residency, thinking that the law does not apply to them.
I voted for this enforcement. I voted for Trump. These actions by ICE are exactly what I voted for. Illegal aliens have their willful violations of immigration law and the Democrat Party’s open border, sanctuary city, and lax enforcement policies to blame. It’s now time to face reality under a law and order administration.
Meanwhile, the Vatican does not tolerate illegal immigration into its own territory. See how it threatens illegals:
Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties for Illegal Aliens Crossing its Border
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/16/vatican-promises-stiff-penalties-for-illegal-aliens-crossing-its-border
What a bunch of political horse manure. Bishop Rojas ought to be ashamed of himself.
As if criminals, gang members, and cartel guys are going to be at Mass on Sundays.
With guys like Bishop Rojas leading our dioceses, no wonder weekly Mass attendance is at an all time low.
The problem is more about ordinary folks waiting on asylum hearings, etc. who’ve been rounded up, detained, & then let go. I totally get what ICE is doing as far as criminals & gang members but some other people have been detained that needn’t have been. Stuff happens, mistakes are made but it still must be pretty traumatic to go through.
Those who operate the bleeding heart blue states and sanctuary cities are absolutely the ones responsible for this situation. The ICE folks warned that if blue cities and states continued to ignore ICE detainers and refused to turn over criminal illegals for deportation, but instead released them into the communities, that more “ordinary” illegals would get swept up in the more dangerous process of street arrests. Those illegals are the collateral damage resulting from the lefts self righteous belief that they are correct to defend rapists and murderers and gang members from the punishment due them, in the form of deportation. While ICE has a focus on arresting the “worst of the worst” it is also NOT ok to be here illegally just because you mow lawns and are not a gang banger. If you as a hard working illegal come into view while they are in your neighborhood arresting a gang member, you may indeed get arrested. Because you have no right to be here either. Get it??
Its hard to respect a Bishop who essentially says its ok to escape the consequences of your sins. And breaking the law in this case is indeed an illegality and a sin. Rendering to caesar means obeying the law. A little bit of stealing is not ok, a little bit of sex abuse is not ok, a little bit of ANY sin is not ok, a little bit of slander or lying is NOT ok. If someone robs your home and then is caught, he is not allowed to keep his ill gotten gains just because he is used to possessing it, or has possessed it for a long time, and his neighbors have asserted he is a “nice guy”. Get it? .
It is horrifying to see a Bishop excusing this behavior when he should be advising these people to self deport home and try to return legally. When people think the rules dont apply to them, and they can make their own chaos reigns and civilization breaks down.
They are here illegally. They should return and follow proper immigration protocols, which include asking for asylum in the first country they come to, which is usually not the US
These bishops used to be laughable. They’re no longer even funny. Pitiable, yes; funny, no.
The bishop bespeaks a “Covid-Stay-at-Home” mentality.
Let us pray: O Lord, give us worthy shepherds.
How ironic (but very understandable given the nature of our fallen nature) that the very ones who championed “religious freedom “ are at the same time selectively denying it. Oh what fools we mortals be.
Whether the Bishop agrees or not, these individuals are being arrested for an illegal act – illegal entry into this country. He clearly disagrees and is free to make his case as vigorously as he chooses, but facilitation of illegality crosses the line, and in itself becomes illegal, and this also clearly is his intention.
I hope that’s not the case. If this deportation effort has changed from deporting dangerous criminals to arresting ordinary workers who came in the wrong way but have otherwise clean records & have been productive members of our communities then I wouldn’t support it. I’m more in agreement with Ronald Reagan & Rick Perry on this issue. They were/are conservatives with a heart.
You can get arrested for traffic infractions and unpaid tolls, even if you have an otherwise clean record and are a productive member of society.
There are two possible methods for illegal immigrants: make them legal, or deport them. Making them legal has been tried before, and was followed up by a gradual, then sudden, cessation of enforcement of immigration law – the stuff that keeps the cartels and terrorists out. Their continued residence as an illegal underclass contributes to creating a refuge where the cartels and terrorists can hide and abuse their neighbors with no fear of the police being called, not to mention a steady stream of income from the perfectly ordinary illegal workers who have otherwise clean records.
Traffic fines are not felonies or the sort of heinous crimes associated with cartels.
We need a secure border but we can deal humanely with folks who have been in the workforce for years and kept clean records. It benefits everyone. Especially with the looming demographic shrinking we face.
I was comparing unpaid traffic fines, which can get you arrested, with illegal immigration, which can get you arrested.
You can deal humanely with people and arrest them.
A demographic increase can be orchestrated in 3 ways: end contraception, end pornography, and increase LEGAL immigration. A permanent underclass is not beneficial. A refusal to enforce the immigration laws will result in a permanent underclass regardless of how many more amnesty laws get passed.
I wish we could solve our demographic crisis by outlawing contraception but that horse left the barn generations ago. We’re reaping the harvest.
Too mush haste leads to overstep and I think this is not good. Illegals have a lot of useful background information that would stabilize law enforcement and show better who among them could be legitimized the more easily and quickly. The authorities have to go on trust with the legal interlocutors/intermediations; and anyway in this process will learn even more.
Two contrasting movies might bear out some of the issues.
In The Lineup with Eli Wallach, you see well-organized crime chasing a lucrative criminal trade mixed into legitimate trade and travel; smuggling needing in-depth and committed long-term investigation to uncover what is deeply hidden, a lot of it out of reach. The detective/police work is hard-nosed, matter-of-fact and relentless.
In Border Blues with Gary Busey, you have multiple disparate intersecting character lines involved in more or less innocent pursuit incidentally complicating the search for a serial bomber. Some of the detective/police work is a bit fly-by-night for which L.A. got a notoriety; albeit everyone is on board, consistent and persistent.
Please note Border Blues is a basically “clean” movie as I saw it on YOUTUBE with an instance of verbal profanity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lineup_(film)
https://www.thefilmcatalogue.com/films/border-blues
The bishop quotes canon law having to do with “Spiritual Goods” but actually seems to be dispensing them from the Sunday Mass obligation for their temporal good of not being arrested for the crime of being in the United States illegally.
What part about they are here illegally, against the law, does this Bishop not understand.
Typical Church State Politics that we’ve seen for the past many years….is this a “sanctuary” situation? It’s ok to break a just law? What is his Excellencies status…??!!
Not to ever worry that this Bishop will ever die for his Faith.
“We shall continue America’s tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries. We shall also, with other countries, continue to share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression.
At the same time, we must ensure adequate legal authority to establish control over immigration: to enable us, when sudden influxes of foreigners occur, to decide to whom we grant the status of refugee or asylee; to improve our border control; to expedite (consistent with fair procedures and our Constitution) return of those coming here illegally; to strengthen enforcement of our fair labor standards and laws; and to penalize those who would knowingly encourage violation of our laws. The steps we take to further these objectives, however, must also be consistent with our values of individual privacy and freedom.
We have a special relationship with our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Our immigration policy should reflect this relationship.
We must also recognize that both the United States and Mexico have historically benefited from Mexicans obtaining employment in the United States. A number of our States have special labor needs, and we should take these into account.
Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.
We shall strive to distribute fairly, among the various localities of this country, the impacts of our national immigration and refugee policy, and we shall improve the capability of those agencies of the Federal Government which deal with these matters.
We shall seek new ways to integrate refugees into our society without nurturing their dependence on welfare.
Finally, we recognize that immigration and refugee problems require international solutions. We will seek greater international cooperation in the resettlement of refugees and, in the Caribbean Basin, international cooperation to assist accelerated economic development to reduce motivations for illegal immigration.
Immigration and refugee policy is an important part of our past and fundamental to our national interest. With the help of the Congress and the American people, we will work towards a new and realistic immigration policy, a policy that will be fair to our own citizens while it opens the door of opportunity for those who seek a new life in America.”
Ronald Reagan
Date
07/31/1981
I LOVED Ronald Reagan, but knew this immigration law he agreed to was a huge mistake. The amnesty only encouraged more of them to come, hoping for an amnesty themselves.
From Wikipedia:”Despite the passage of the act, the population of undocumented immigrants rose from 5 million in 1986 to 11.1 million in 2013.[16] In 1982, the Supreme Court forbade schools to deny services based on illegal immigration status in Plyler v. Doe. In 1986, Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which forbade hospitals from denying emergency care services based on immigration status.”
In other words, they came in droves and ever since have been a major financial burden on the country. As for the jobs that “Americans wont do”,–well, who do you think did them before we were inundated with illegals, undercutting wages? They are without question a financial burden on the entire nation.” This needs to end. Illegals need to understand that WE get to decide to gets into the US.
I hope Trump does not start giving carve out exemptions to certain businesses like agriculture who want to use illegal labor. . At best, they should be given work permits which can be revoked, but NEVER the right to vote.
Poor folks, new immigrants, and slaves have done those sorts of agricultural jobs in the past LJ. And occasionally convicts .
It’s very difficult to find US citizens who will do that kind of labor or who can do it dependably. Ditto for many service industry jobs.
I personally think we should do our own work, too but that’s not what most Americans are looking for these days. Fewer Mexicans also. I read that as the standard of living in Mexico has risen US farmers have to seek workers from further away.
To our beloved bishops: Obviously you want the chaos and human trafficking of the past four years. You do not care that children have disappeared and are sexually exploited. You stand with the the cartels that made millions of dollars on expediting illegal immigration and profiting from human misery. And you are willing to tolerate the mass migration and misery brought on by open, unmanaged borders.
Or is it you just hate Trump?
Probably both.
Good. Maybe now they can discontinue Spanish Masses since no one will be attending.
Why would they discontinue Spanish Masses?
I’ve been attending those since the 1970s and so have lots of US citizens.
Mass attendance in Spanish down because the faithful fear deportation? Proves beyond all possible doubt Trump and Miller’s claim that “illegals” are Islamist terrorists, rapists and murderers. Shame, shame shame.
Would ICE raid churches? Probably not. Churches are sanctuaries, going back to the Middle Ages. ICE should not violate this principle. The idea of armed ICE agents entering a Church is reprehensible. ICE should make this clear. Churches are off limits.
I doubt Mass raids would happen because it could put the rest of the congregation in danger of crossfire. It seems better practice to arrest offenders as they enter or exit Mass.
We had a gunman try to enter a Mass in our diocese a few years ago but thankfully a member of the congregation wrassled him to the ground until law enforcement came. The officers told everyone to duck down for cover in case there was a 2nd gunman inside. Thankfully that wasn’t the case.
No. No arrests on Church property. Do it elsewhere. Church is a sanctuary. Any arrests on Church property is a step towards Fascism.
If there’s a gunman, law enforcement has no other choice. Otherwise it’s much more prudent & respectful to make arrests outside of church.
So the bishop is telling me that rather than attend Mass more often to ask God for His protection, I should run away from the law, and now from Him because the truth isn’t going to be on my side?
This bishop has all the sophistication of thought about law, justice, and morality that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has. Two ways to deal with such a person in a position of influence: mockery or dismissiveness. Both this bishop and Ketanji have views that possess no merit.
If you are in my nation unlawfully you are owed neither my empathy nor my sympathy. My moral obligation is to the eradication of such lawlessness, as directed by my constitutionally protected Christian faith, as directed by my nations history and traditions.
Obviously the good bishop should be counseling those among his flock who have sinned by breaking a legitimate law to turn themselves in to the proper authorities or take advantage of the policy which allows them to return to their homeland and apply for LEGAL immigration to the United States…with a $1,000 in their back pocket.
Yes, sinned. By their actions illegal aliens are placing themselves ahead of the line for all sort of benefits designed for the aid of American citizens. They are robbing disadvantaged citizens of aid to which they alone are entitled.
It would appear that while the good bishop received his academic theological training he was never catechized.
Can’t be a pastor without catechesis.
Very proper dispensation by the Bishop of San Bernardino. As in the times of the catacombs Catholics are under persecution. Now ten million of them are threatened with deportation for a misdemeanour like jaywalking. It’s saddening to see other Christians applauding the persecution of these hardworking fellow believers just because the WASP establishment fears them. This is the real motive behind this spectacle. It’s all pointless in any case. Last month only sixteen thousand were deported. Sixteen million to go. It’s just another political stunt that will divide the country in the long term.
“…just because the WASP establishment fears them.”
Keeping it classy and fact-based. Nice. (Ahem.)
It’s an issue that can’t be avoided, the facts you are concerned about. The United States has amnestied millions of Catholic “illegal” Hispanic migrants before without any threat to its integrity. It is simply dishonest for Trump and Stephen Miller to talk about Islamic terrorists, rapists and drug traffickers when almost the entirety of the 10 million plus Hispanic Catholics who live in the United States with irregular status work hard. Like the 30% of US citizens who have “form” for “crimes” of varying gravity, some also trespass. But obviously this isn’t the real reason for continuing this cruel political stunt which is only damaging the US (while gratifying a minority, it’s true). Time and time again the real motive comes out, and it’s got nothing to do with the law of Christian ethics: they don’t assimilate properly into the dominant WASP culture. It’s time for the United States to address its bi-cultural reality. Like Canada, it is a bi-lingual country (23% Hispanics in the US, 19% Francophones in Canada). London regognised this reality in Canada in the nineteenth century, and Canada has continued this. The US now needs to do what it had already done in New Mexico, afford official status to Hispanic civilisation by virtue of its continuous (indeed prior) existence and contemporary strength. This wont kill the US. Continuing to provoke 80 million of its own people with this cruel stunt will have terrible effects if prolonged. I’m not talking about liberal “multiculturalism”, but something people who read a publication like this one ought to be thinking about, rather than lifting the terms of the debate from the dominant social and political caste, which has no interest in the Christian West
Mr. Cervantes, when is the last time you visited the States? The days of “WASP” culture are in the past.
Illegal aliens are not hard working and they are not being persecuted. They are here in violation of federal law. It is necessary and appropriate for them to be deported.
Tennessee’s law provides for 30 days jail for jaywalking. I’ll wager many more than 30,000 a month would be arrested if it were applied, which is the number of arrests ICE can manage at the moment. The law isn’t the real motive. The migrants’ Catholic, Hispanic civilisation is.
Tennessee jay walking laws were made to catch illegal immigrants? Or US state laws are enforced for that reason?
Being in the US without proper documentation is reason enough.
Jaywalking is not a threat to our national security.
Nor are millions of Catholics working to put food on your table.
Migrant workers who came to our area work very hard indeed. But yes, they are here in violation of the law.
I hope we can find a way to make them legit, at least with temporary work permits so they can get their jobs done. Especially for agriculture. Crops and livestock can’t wait.
Complete fearmongering and hysteria. Firstly, Christians in Nigeria and the Middle East continue to attend Mass despite facing actual persecution (i.e violence at the hands of Radical Islamists).
Secondly, fearing consequences for breaking the law is not persecution. Being a criminal doesn’t make you a “victim”.
Thirdly, breaking the law is a sin, so these illegals need to go to confession.
Finally, the Catechism teaches that immigrants need to accept the laws of their host country and show gratitude, not a sense of entitlement. The Bishop is violating Church teaching by protecting ingrates who forced their way into the country.
I thought my comment points to a need to harmonize the issue on a scale. Just being an illegal is, “as a crime” and/or “as moral offense”, is on the very low end of the scale of priorities.
Another interesting movie description about immigration is Men In Black 1997, there at the beginning, when MIB had to zone in on the worst threat. (I am not advocating on “necessary inevitable violence” either.)
I have always argued elsewhere that immigrants present many positive opportunities. BUT that it had to be ordered to right flourishing. Obviously, it’s people and futures involved.
The reactionary approach is the opposite, it is time-consuming, divisive, facilitative of more expert bad elements who skip over it and manipulate it, up-ending of the positive opportunities, costly, sterile, sterilizing of local officials.
In other words you’re “PUTTING BACK” EVERYBODY and the new economy but you imagine it’s “so wise” and “well-feathered”.
Also, I have hit out at international organizations on emigration and mass cross-border movements, for being slack, lugubrious, always behind the curve, self-involved bureaucracies -ultimately inhumane and anti-economy serving entrenched interests within and in the private sector.
“Just being an illegal is, “as a crime” and/or “as moral offense”, is on the very low end of the scale of priorities.”
*********
I agree Mr. Galy. Before this issue became so politicized & illegal immigration became so massive I don’t think it was on too many people’s radar.
The Government shouldn’t be able to take people from Church sanctuaries against their will. I always thought that they were places of refuge in this country the same as foreign embassies.
There are no such sanctuary laws in the states. If illegals are hiding in churches, they are subject to deportation.
I think sanctuary is a good tradition but it worked that way more in the past.
Temporary work permit is a brilliant idea mrscracker. It’s a way to bring the situation under some clear-sighted management and organization -a big section of it. But it mustn’t be a ruse. What they could do ahead of advertising it is, publish a list of qualifying and semi-qualifying attributes that would be applicable with additional caveats: that people would be able to repeat temporary work if not made permanent immediately, that they would be re-engaged in temporary status for mere visits and that they would not be black-listed for merely having crossed the border, etc., etc., etc. The temporary work permit could be granted as a matter of right for individuals not themselves under the pale of serious suspicion of crime.
Temporary work permits weren’t my idea of course but possibly Donald Trump’s. Or his advisors. We’d have a huge crisis in those US industries if everyone here illegally was deported.
We shouldn’t be in this situation in the first place & we have ourselves to blame as well as the border crossers & the cartels who brought them here. Everyone played a part. Secure borders & safe & a legal immigration/work visa process benefits everyone. (Except the cartels.)