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.
[…]
What woke nonsense. Wake up, people.
Actually, for the reasonably skeptical, any marriage between a rugged man and a beautiful woman, especially popular stars in their professions is like a jab of vitamin B12 in the arm of a morally weakened culture.
Know that the end of the world is coming upon us when we start looking to Taylor Swift for cues about how to live 🙄🙄. Lord have mercy.
Well, Athanasius, no one I look up to is perfect, and I myself am far from perfect, but I still attempt to help raise my grandson to be a godly little boy who loves Jesus and wants to serve him, and I have the audacity to confess my sins and approach Jesus in Holy Communion and hope that He will not turn His Face away from me and my continued struggles with certain besetting sins.
We’re all flawed people, and sadly, flawed people, including plenty of Catholic flawed people, get divorced. Sigh.
Taylor and Kelce are as flawed as the rest of us, but…it’s sure nice to see an old-fashioned dating relationship (for 2 whole years, not just 2 weeks!), a traditional engagement (complete with a on-the-knee proposal and an engagement ring!), and plans for a wedding that no doubt will include Kelce’s and Taylor’s mothers in the planning stages! I think a lot of young girls will be inspired to find a boyfriend who will treat them the way Kelce treats Taylor in public.
I hope their marriage lasts longer than most celebrity marriages (sadly, some only last for a few weeks), but there are some celebs that stay married and are faithful to the same person for decades–one example is Robert Patrick (the original Terminator!), who has been married to Barbara for over 25 years and still going strong! I think their active status in their church has something to do with this, along with his commitment to AA and staying sober–something that Barbara told him he had to do before she would even consider marrying him!
I think, or at least I hope, that the long-time dating relationship, the equality of their “celebrity” status, and the presence of very strong and involved moms will help Kelce and Taylor.
And of course, being billionaires hopefully won’t hurt either!
Have they both committed themselves to Christ? Are they committed to walking with Christ in obedience as His disciples? Are they committed to making Christ the center of their marriage? Are they both active in a local church?
These are, of course, rhetorical questions with answers that are quite clear. It’s not appropriate to celebrate or elevate this couple.
This seems rather harsh.
Do you not attend weddings of people who are not committed Christians? Of course that’s your choice, but marriage is certainly better than shacking up.
I doubt Taylor and Kelce attend or are “active” in any church because of the expense (millions of dollars and a staff that most cities and towns can’t muster) that would happen because of the need for security and the disruption to the church service or Mass that would ensue as the thousands of fans converge upon the church, the parking lot, and the church neighborhood. Both of these celebrities have to be extremely careful of criminals or mentally unbalanced folks who could easily do them harm if the celebrity lets themselves be too accessible.
But that doesn’t mean that they are not involved with “church” in some way, perhaps online as most of us were during COVID, or perhaps donating monies, probably with the admonition that no one knows who is actually donating except the church treasurer or accountant.
We cannot say whether they are Christians–both grew up in good homes, and the fact that they honor their mothers and families in public and private speaks well of them.
There is a very active group of Christians in NFL, but again, I doubt Kelce takes a visible role in any of these groups because he doesn’t want to attract a crowd of fans that might make it difficult (or dangerous, if the fan was unbalanced) for the group to meet and get anything done.
There are also groups of “stars” or “celebrities” that hold Bible studies and prayer meetings. Again, I can’t say whether Taylor is involved in any of these, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she stays away so as not to be disruptive, as she attracts so many fans–actual mobs–if she is in public.
I don’t think Taylor’s songs are “Christian” in any sense and I think her costumes are immodest, but if you go to Mass, you will see plenty of younger girls and even grown women wearing outfits that alarm you and make you wonder how they will ever be able to kneel or even genuflect or sit down! It’s not my place to tell the parents of these kids to step in, or to make a comment to another woman! And when you think about it, female stars have been pushing the boundaries of immodesty vs. modesty ever since women got involved with the performing arts–the flappers come to mind. It’s not right, but…our saying so won’t make any difference. And at least, she seems to be dating rather than shacking up.
I don’t want to elevate “stars” to an exalted level, but I think that they work harder and have more pressure to succeed than pretty much anyone, even doctors. I have a daughter who works in professional theater in stage management (and is very successful)–and she works harder than anyone in our family–long hours, different gigs going all at once, constant promotion and interviews with hopes of being hired for another gig, lots of pressure to make no mistakes, long times between meals or snacks, and lots of missed holidays and family gatherings. She is a Catholic, but she doesn’t shout it out to her co-workers–she just does a really good job, encourages her co-workers and the “stars”, and works hard to make sure everyone gets the support that they need to do a good job, too.
I guess until we are in a celebrity’s shoes, we can’t really understand their lives and judge their faith or lack of faith in God.
Diogenes above (1:24 a.m.) – There’s such a thing as being too cynical. If you look up Brad Wilcox, I think you’ll agree that “woke” isn’t a particularly accurate descriptor of him.