The Apostles’ Creed teaches that the Church, as the Body of Christ, is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Church herself—understood as the Mystical Body and safeguarded by the Holy Spirit—cannot be the object of legitimate criticism in matters of authentic faith and foundational Catholic moral teaching. Mary is the Mother and model of the Church.
At the same time, the Church’s human leadership is not without sin. All Catholics must necessarily distinguish between the Church’s essential divine constitution and the limitations of her human leadership. Scripture illustrates this mysterious reality and distinction.
Peter, though chosen as the chief of the apostles, acknowledges his unworthiness at his first encounter with Christ and later denies him during the Passion. Saint Paul, with righteous indignation, publicly corrects Peter for an imprudent pastoral decision concerning Gentile converts and for placing those who disagree in bad conscience. Priests, bishops, and popes, while entrusted with ecclesial authority, remain susceptible to misjudgments that may lead the faithful into confusion or unnecessary controversy.
This distinction is relevant to recent events. At the November 2025 meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the bishops voted overwhelmingly to approve a statement that included this declaration: “We oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”
According to news coverage, the vote was followed by an overwhelming collective expression of approval among the bishops.
The content of the statement raises questions about the appropriate boundary between moral teaching and political intervention. Deportation may be immoral by intention or circumstance, but it is not intrinsically evil. The term “indiscriminate” is morally uncontroversial: few would defend capricious deportation practices violating the fundamental dignity of human beings. However, it is more likely that most will perceive the statement as a critique of U.S. immigration enforcement, presumably failing to correspond with the USCCB policy position.
If so, the declaration may be interpreted not as a clarification of moral principle but as a political commentary inferring that U.S. policy is immoral.
The bishops, as teachers of the Faith, hold an essential role in articulating Catholic doctrine and moral principles. Yet the Second Vatican Council (cf., Lumen gentium, 31, 36) and subsequent magisterial documents recognize a proper autonomy of the laity in the temporal order.
While the Church’s hierarchy may, and sometimes must, address political issues that bear directly on fundamental moral norms, clergy are generally cautioned against assuming the role of policy advocates, lest they inadvertently constrain the legitimate prudential judgment of the laity. Opinions on immigration policy vary widely among Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and responsible disagreement on such matters is both inevitable and legitimate, provided we maintain bedrock moral principles that respect the dignity of human beings.
We often hear that the USCCB is the American Catholic “teaching authority.” The assertion is dangerous without qualification and appropriate distinctions.
We may quickly conclude that those who disagree with the prudential policy statements of the USCCB consider themselves in “violation of Church teaching.” However, only those who reject fundamental Church teaching in matters of faith and morals are dissident Catholics. Blurring the distinction between the authority of Catholic principles and the broader latitude of prudential judgments is unjust. The ambiguity allows doctrinally dissident Catholics to accuse doctrinally orthodox Catholics of infidelity if they disagree with USCCB political statements.
Recent Vatican guidance regarding Marian titles such as “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of All Graces” demonstrates the care needed in communicating theological concepts and distinctions to avoid misunderstandings. Indeed, we may toss the doctrine of papal infallibility into the arena of misunderstanding. Too many extend the doctrine to all papal utterances (and, by extension, USCCB statements), despite the narrowly defined conditions defined by the First Vatican Council.
In matters of morals, it is generally safer for the clergy to tell us what not to do than what we should do.
When ecclesial authorities speak in ways that appear to endorse or oppose specific political strategies, misunderstandings easily arise. Some observers may conflate the statements of a conference of bishops with the authoritative teaching of the Church herself. This dynamic became apparent in Tom Homan’s public response, appointed as the U.S. Border Czar and publicly identified as a practicing Catholic.
In reacting to the USCCB statement, Homan criticized what he referred to as “the Catholic Church.” His remarks illustrate a broader tendency—common in public discourse—to conflate the Church with its governing bodies or leadership structures. In this sense, the bishops’ statement contributes to the confusion regarding the distinction between fallible pastoral judgments and the Church’s enduring doctrinal authority.
In light of these considerations, it is reasonable to suggest that episcopal statements carefully avoid blurring the line between binding moral teaching and prudential political opinion. When such statements lead members of the faithful to criticize the Church herself—rather than the contingent judgments of her leaders—the result is not only counterproductive, but a danger to souls.
Taken at face value, the statement claims an authority that exceeds its jurisdiction. That is unjust. Further, a normal reader would infer from the document that what ICE is doing is, in fact, ‘indiscriminate’. But anecdotal failures do not necessarily lay the foundation for official policy. It’s ‘bearing false witness’ to accuse people (even if implicitly) of systematic indiscriminate behavior that violated human dignity (and is therefore immoral)—without clear evidence.
Finally, invoking reasonable natural law principles, there is no unqualified right for someone to enter a country illegally. Assuming sufficient evidence, there is no violation of human dignity in refusing to admit criminals or deporting them if they entered illegally. How should one compare the violation of human dignity of: 1) a citizen who has been robbed or injured, with 2) the perpetrator who has been deported?
Maybe the USCCB will apologize to Tom Homan for provoking him to resist the authority of “the Church” rather than the political opinions of many bishops. Homan’s failure to discriminate between “the Church” and the USCCB continues a necessary controversy to overcome the hubris of ecclesiastical mission creep.
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.
The bishops weren’t able to stop clergy from molesting our sons yet they are presumptuous enough to think they can manage the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. What chutzpah!
Thank you Father for being a priest and for your words of Wisdom. What I find confusing is when the conversation of immigration comes up these days, most of the time, including in your article, the word “Illegal” is left out. Congress has for years failed to address the immigration issue because on a whole they lack fortitude. The current administration is following the law when they deport “Illegal” immigrants. As for as how they do it and what procedures they use, that’s up for discussion. But illegal immigrants are illegal and until the law is changed we should follow the law.
I agree with this. We have laws for a reason, and we simply can’t permit illegal immigrants to enter our country. Yes, most of the immigrants have good intentions and want to become American citizens, but there are those who have committed horrible crimes, or are part of dangerous gangs and mobs–we have the right to protect ourselves from these evil ones. And we must also return those who come to our country illegally back to their country even if they have good intentions to become full U.S. citizens–but give them concrete HELP (legal, financial, safe lodging, tutoring in American English, health care, child care, etc.) to be able to come to the U.S. legally as quickly as possible.
Perhaps if the churches developed committees of people willing to donate cash, rental properties, cars and pay for the training to get their license to drive, household goods, food, etc. and help any sponsors out in their parish by inviting the new immigrants to visit their home and share a meal, more people would come forward to be sponsors. I think the main reason our Protestant church was successful in bringing 22 Montagnard people (the allies of the Americans during the Viet Nam War) to our city back in the 1980s was that almost everyone in the church (around 500 people) were involved in some way, even if it was just donating cash to the fund to help the new “Americans”!
I disagree that most illegal immigrants want to become American citizens. I worked for many years in the landscape industry and have known many illegals well. My experience is that you have bought into a false stereotype used by those who wish to justify illegal immigration. In my experience, most illegals merely want to work in the US, save money for a time, and use it to buy a house and start a small business in their country of origin. Not all, but most. It is not uncommon, if you speak Spanish, to hear illegal immigrants bashing the US in various ways and exhibiting a high level of disdain for Americans, our laws and American culture. Although there are exceptions, in my experience, the average illegal from Latin America is here to exploit the economy and make money and not become an American. Otherwise, they would be waving American flags at their protests, instead of Mexican or Guatemalan flags, wouldn’t they? But they are not. I’m not saying this out of unkindness. Rather, I think that facts are important to the American discussion about illegal immigration.
I don’t see the problem in working in the States in order to support one’s family and build a home for them. That sounds admirable to me.
A million and a half US citizens live in Mexico. Many work remotely from places like Mexico City, enjoying the lower cost of living. They haven’t intentions of becoming Mexican citizens either.
Respect is something important and we should be respectful in other nations and with those we interact with. But it works both ways.
I personally haven’t experienced or heard disrespectful words from Latin Americans here or in Mexico. Or the Caribbean.
Just the opposite.
100%
They were able to stop themselves from abusing little boys, and stop their priests who committed abuse. They just did not want to.
Father Pokorsky misrepresents the authority and role of the Church’s hierarchy, conflating prudential statements with binding moral or doctrinal teaching. Scripture and Catholic tradition provide clear guidance on this point. Exodus 23:9 commands, “You shall not oppress a resident alien; you well know how it feels to be an alien.” This teaching is rooted in natural law and human dignity and obliges the faithful to exercise mercy and justice, irrespective of political debate. The USCCB’s statements on immigration reflect this perennial principle, balancing protection of the vulnerable with respect for legitimate governmental authority.
Pokorsky errs in portraying bishops’ guidance as political overreach. From Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum to modern USCCB documents, the Church consistently emphasizes the responsibility of civil authorities to safeguard the poor and marginalized, while recognizing the Church’s duty to instruct the faithful in moral discernment. Leo XIII writes that those without means must rely on society and government for protection (Rerum Novarum 37). Prudential judgments—such as opposing indiscriminate deportations—do not supplant the rule of law but ensure that enforcement respects human dignity, avoids unnecessary harm, and upholds distributive justice (CCC 2236, 2240).
Bishops’ pastoral statements are precisely that—pastoral, contextual, and prudential. Like the vineyard owner in Matthew 13:28–29, they must weigh the wheat and the weeds. Overzealous enforcement risks destroying the good along with the harmful. The Catechism confirms that authority is exercised to promote freedom, responsibility, and the common good (CCC 2236, 2241), not to coerce conformity in prudential matters.
Father Jerry exaggerates human fallibility in Church leadership to question the legitimacy of pastoral guidance. While bishops are fallible in judgment, this does not nullify their duty to offer principled guidance on social and moral matters. The USCCB’s nuanced statements protect human dignity, respect the rule of law, and embody both prudence and charity. To suggest that disagreement with prudential statements constitutes dissent from Church teaching misrepresents Catholic tradition and risks undermining the faithful’s understanding of the Church’s authentic moral voice.
I forced myself to read your post late at night. My suspicion that it made little sense was confirmed. You use a lot of words in an incoherent way to eventually acknowledge that the bishop’s immigration statement was a prudential judgement, which is exactly what Fr Pokorsky said. Nowhere does Father “suggest that disagreement with prudential statements constitutes dissent from Church teaching.” To the contrary, his point was that bishops should not misrepresent their political views as being Official Church Teaching as they so often do.
A nation’s Immigration policy is a certainly a matter of political judgement for the laity to decide on. Church teaching provides a general framework for considering the moral aspects of the issue, but there is wide latitude for disagreement among faithful Catholics. The bishops personal or collective political views on the subject aren’t of any greater weight than those of well-formed and well-informed laymen. Actually, there is little evidence to indicate that bishops know very much at all about the topic.
Excellent response, Tony W. Also excellent article, Father Pokorsky.
Thank you Tony you done good lol.
Nice job
100%
Yup
For Father Pokorsky’s next article”
What “Deacon Dom” Gets Wrong About Everything.
LOL!
Deacon Dom: The usual bad theology and lack of common sense.
Deacon Dom:
“Exodus 23:9 commands, ‘You shall not oppress a RESIDENT ALIEN; you well know how it feels to be an alien.’
Do you know what a “RESIDENT ALIEN” is? Resident Alien means LEGAL IMMIGRANT. That is the trouble with the hierarchy right now – from the pope to the bishops to priests and down to deacons. The don’t make the distinction between immigrants who follow the law and aliens who violate the country’s sovereignty.
Let me ask you, Deacon. When was the last time you preached to your congregation that breaking through the back door of your neighbor’s house – or a country’s southern border – is immoral? When did you ever preach to your assembly the principle behind the commandment “Thou shalt not steal?” Even Our Lord, in John 10:1, says whoever enters not through the gate but climbs another way is a thief and a robber. Do you ever preach that?
It is true that asylum seekers, according to the International Refugee Law, must be provided for with food, shelter, medicine, education, access to transportation and help in finding employment until their cases are heard by the courts. But the influx of illegals who came in through the back door – by the thousands, caravan after caravan, in the past four years overwhelmed our system. So they are made to wait for long periods before they could be heard in courts. That means up to five to ten years of enjoying unearned benefits (freebies) paid for by taxpayer money, while they waited their court dates. The Biden administration even gave them free cellphones to set up their own hearings, which they did up to 10 years or longer. The longer the waiting period, the more freebies they got. Others don’t even report to the courts – they simply disappear into the interior of the country while they continue to enjoy the freebies. Is that moral? At the rate we were going during Biden’s time, our country would soon run out of resources and leave little or nothing for our own poor. Is that moral? Research institutes also discovered that majority of illegals are seeking fake asylum. The grounds for asylum are persecution and a founded fear that if they went back to their home countries they would be killed. Were they? The hundred thousands of them coming from all over the world fearing for their lives? If it is for a better livelihood they come, we have the legal system for that.
Let me tell you what a resident alien – a LEGAL IMMIGRANT – goes through before he is permitted to enter the country. He has to go to the US embassy in his home country and file his application there. He has to pay the fee, show proofs that he is of good moral character (no criminal records) and proofs that he is able to make a living without being an economic burden to society. He goes to three, four strenuous, almost inhumane interviews and investigations before given permission to enter. He has to promise that he will pay taxes and not vote nor get involved in our judicial system until he becomes a naturalized US citizen.
Then he is made to get in the legal immigration line and wait and wait and wait till he is called and permitted to enter the country. Among Filipinos, the wait is up to 15-20 years. Compare that to illegals who demand they be taken in and be processed the minute they show up at the southern border, elbowing aside those who wait. Do you or the bishops think that’s fair?
I was recently reviewing what presidential candidates in the past said about the immigration issue and was surprised that Hillary Clinton’s stance was a whole lot more reasonable and moral than that of our bishops today.
Hillary Clinton made this remark in 2008 in Mishawaka, Indiana:
“I think we’ve got to have tough conditions. Tell people to come out of the shadows. If they’ve committed a crime, deport them. No questions asked. They’re gone. If they’ve been working and are law-abiding, we should say, ‘Here are the conditions for you staying. You have to pay a stiff fine because you came here illegally. You have to pay back taxes. And, you have to try to learn English. And, you have to wait in line,’” she said at the rally. The crowd erupted in applause.
BTW, I read that five of the bishops voted no on the statement and three abstained. I’d like to know their names. They are our heroes.
“You shall not oppress a resident alien;” An illegal alien is not a resident.
If the bishops wished to engage in a fruitful dialogue with the laity on the opposite side of this question, they would at least make an effort to address the substantive objections to their position. Is there any limit at all to the number or variety of immigrants that they think we are obligated to take in? The US and other Western countries accept far more people in than anywhere else in the world, yet it never seems to be a high enough number. They show no recognition at all (or don’t care) that certain immigrants might be more difficult to assimilate culturally than others. There is not even an distinction in their eyes between, say, a Mexican Catholic woman and a young Syrian Muslim man. They all must be granted admittance indiscriminately (to use their word) or you’re a bigot. They show no appreciation of the economic costs associated with mass immigration. They surely can find someone who can show them how wages are driven down, housing prices increased and government budgets strained as a result of mass immigration.
I could go on and on. It doesn’t matter because they have no interest in the facts or a reasoned debate. They don’t know and they don’t care. A minority have an ideological commitment to destroying what’s left of the West they hate. The rest are just morally posturing.
TonyW: You write about the bishops: “They show no appreciation of the economic costs associated with mass immigration. They surely can find someone who can show them how wages are driven down, housing prices increased and government budgets strained as a result of mass immigration.”
That’s because bishops don’t have to work to support themselves, a wife, and children to feed, house and educate. Bishops are supported by others’ work. So it’s no wonder that their comprehension of economics is so miserably inadequate.
Agreed. They live in a bubble and they resent anyone who tries to burst it. That said, I do think that the agenda on these political issues is driven by the radical minority among the bishops and the Marxist permanent staff at the USCCB. I don’t think my own bishop would come up with these preposterous stances on his own. The moderates and conservatives are willing to go along with them, though.
100%
I asked AI how many Bishops have MBAs and received the following:
Cardinal Kevin Joseph Farrell (Prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life; former Bishop of Dallas): MBA from the University of Notre Dame.
Archbishop James F. Checchio (Coadjutor Archbishop of New Orleans; former Bishop of Metuchen): MBA from La Salle University.
Bishop Thomas John Paprocki (Bishop of Springfield in Illinois): MBA from the University of Notre Dame.
Bishop John O. Barres (Bishop of Rockville Centre): MBA from New York University.
Now I know this isn’t complete, because my Bishop Timothy Senior has an MBA. I can’t find any Bishops with economics degrees and I assume there might be some with degrees in business or another topic that covers economics such as industrial engineering, but the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
The reason I asked about MBA’s is that I have one, so I know that in large part is that you exposed to economic concepts and taught to apply them and to do so under conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty.
So there are men in their ranks who have academic exposure, if not actual practice at making economic decisions. The problem is myopia.
Four decades ago, the Bishops gave us the forgettable mess “Economic Justice For All” and wrote this: Every economic decision and institution must be judged in light of whether it protects or undermines the dignity of the human person.” Keep in mind, this is the same crop that played “musical parishes” so yeah, dignity.
Immigration policies are economic decisions. What they don’t know or most likely forget thanks to the thirty pieces of federal silver their “resettlement” enterprise receives-is that bringing an illiterate third world person to a foreign land where they will be chronically dependent isn’t dignified. In addition, the people living in this country, their children, their grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren are burdened with an almost inconceivable mountain of debt that grows without ceasing. Is it dignified to any person when a shopper (me) to tell a store employee about a spill that could cause a fall only to get the response “no Ingles”? That happened Saturday night?
I’m tired of their broken record. I support my Parish, and other charities; but episcopal appeals are ignored. Harrisburg is one of those 40 or so Dioceses that shamefully declared bankruptcy. I don’t need them bankrupting my house or militating for things that will cause a national fiscal collapse.
If anyone who comes here able bodied ends up being “chronically dependent” on govt. assistance that’s on the govt. Most migrants arrive from societies that have few to no welfare benefits.
Like many Americans I’m descended from poor, illiterate immigrants & they & their descendants did just fine. There’s a host of able bodied US citizens dependent on the welfare system today & shame on us if we turn immigrants into dependents also.
But Ellis Island immigrants (like my grandparents) had to have sponsors, were examined for disease, and could be sent right back home if they didn’t measure up.
Close hippie relative that once declared, “The land belongs to everyone!”
When he eventually bought his land, some decent acreage, the sign went up,”Trespassers will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!”
Yes, that’s a common story about our human nature.
🙂
I truly want to trust the bishops on their guidance. I want to believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit, I really, really do. But they make it so difficult. Where were they when the Dodges honored The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Notre Dame giving an honorary degree to President Obama, a Lifetime Achievement Award to Senator Durbin, Father Martin flaunting his rejection of Church teaching, staying quite on Cardinal McCarrick. Do I need to go on? Yes, a (very) few spoke out and good for them. I think back to Henry VIII, when there were about 20 bishops in England, and only one stood up to him. So about 5%. At least then the penalty was being drawn and quartered. I’m writing this as someone who tries to be faithful and look to my shepherds for guidance.
Deacon Dom errs in asserting that the command in Exodus 23:9 relates in any way to the 21st-century situation addressed by the USCCB in its statement. Even were one to admit that the situations were comparable, Deacon Dom (like the bishops) would err in equating ‘oppressing a resident alien’ and ‘enforcing immigration law’.
Thank you, Father! The article is rich in principles, leading this reader to consider many other related issues in the same light. The subject of immigration is merely an object that allows us to expand our understanding of speech, staying in our lane, and the importance of avoiding“mission creep.”
The bishops should have looked a little further back and examined their conscience. The USCCB and Catholic organizations willfully and knowingly (two pre-conditions for a mortal sin, just sayin’) helped illegals break United States immigration laws and got hundred of millions of dollars for doing it. Their repentance can be filed under ‘until hell freezes over’.
Exactly.
OF COURSE the average layperson will look at statements from the USCCB “as the American Catholic Teaching authority.” Why would they not? Who else but our Bishops are supposed to provide guidance to those of us who are not theologians?
AS for immigration, the clearly negative impact of 20 million uninvited residents forcing their way into the country is not a benign action. How many young American girls and children have been raped or assaulted? Consider too, how many of those people are criminals, gang members, sex traffickers and drug dealers. Sorry, those folks get no sympathy from me. Nor am I frankly concerned with how gently they are given the boot.
Too many of our clergy live in a fantasy world where hard decisions to protect the safety of others need not ever be made. Lets roll along and pretend everything is lovely? No thanks. And we know what happens from here. Left leaning judges will decide NO ONE can be deported. And their hearings will go on for YEARS. With hope from their side that NONE will be deported. Time for US citizens to smarten up. Push come to shove, I am an American first. I find it awful that the Bishops can no longer discern right from wrong.
Exactly.
That would be the Nicene Creed, Fr. Pokorsky.
An excellent article, Fr. Jerry. I think the Church ( in this case the council of Bishops) has a responsibility to weigh in on situations which could lead to gross abuse by government toward it’s inhabitants when there is a possibly of abuse. When a significant number of citizens call out a situation of concern such as we are experiencing, general moral principles should be addressed and presented in order to help the layman to form a well formed conscience and come to moral conclusions. Only when gross moral infractions occur should they pronounce unconditional condemnation- such as the Nazi extermination of the Jews. As far as I can determine this that have not done in this case. They do have both a right and responsibility to weigh in on the matter however. The authors insight into the difference between looking at situations from a politically generated viewpoint is a valid one that needs to be addressed. He points out that both parties exhibit extreme “liberal” viewpoints. We must try to avoid the heated, extreme rhetoric when considering this situation and make our judgments based on the moral teachings of the Church and the bishops certainly have a place in helping us to make these decisions.
“I think the Church ( in this case the council of Bishops) has a responsibility to weigh in on situations which could lead to gross abuse by government toward it’s inhabitants when there is a possibly of abuse.”
The IRS, FBI, and other agencies routinely abuse CITIZENS who are owed more than invaders. Ask Mark Houck or a couple of my former tax clients who were terrified by the IRS. Nothing quite like an IRS “audit by mail” terrifying an elderly Air Force widow because THEY lost a document that was submitted to them.
Perhaps you’ll share some of your or the Episcopacy’s contemporaneous comments about the FBI gestapo-like arrest of Mr. Houck in front of his children, the Stasi like classification and penetration of the Latin Mass groups or monitoring school board meetings. It would edifying to see some consistency in objecting gross abuses.
For foreigners in the US who face real religious or racial, ethnic persecution in their homeland, we have an asylum process. Most of the illegals, though, are here for economic reasons – to make money. Every day in every country people break the law for economic gain – thieves, drug dealers, etc. Why should migrants get a pass on this?
For these migrants, what is so awful about deportation? They are not sent to a gulag, slave labor camp, concentration camp or even prison. They are returned (at our expense) to their home country where they know the language and culture and may well have family and friends, much that is familiar to them. Then they can apply to come legally to the US if they love this country so much. (or do they?)
A lot of awful things can happen Francy depending upon where people are deported to.
I think our immigration policies under the Biden administration were a disaster but if these folks have been brought here temporarily for work, are awaiting an asylum hearing, or came as children they deserve a chance. We’re going to need them and their descendants in our future workforce as it ages.
We don’t need more drug dealers or gang members though. They need to go.
One could argue yhat if they came temporarily for work, they knew it was temporary, and there’s nothing immoral about withdrawing a temporary privilege.
As for people who came as children, if my parents stole something and gave it to me, that doesn’t mean I have a right to keep it.
I wonder how many Americans and legal immigrants would have more children if more housing was available because it wasn’t being occupied by illegal aliens, and if wages weren’t being depressed by illegal aliens, and if government resources weren’t being used to provide for illegal aliens.
Matt 25:35 is not political
Exodus 22:21 is not political
Lev 19:33 is not political
etc.
If the dignity of immigrants were “political” then Jeremiah 1:5 (e.g. abortion) would also be political.
Dignity is something we all possess & I agree it’s not political.
Immigration laws are another conversation though.
“When Bishops Are Silent, Injustice Speaks Louder”
Border Czar Tom Holman claims that bishops should spend their time “fixing the Church” instead of criticizing Trump’s immigration policies. But this argument misses the heart of their mission. Yes, the Catholic Church, like any human institution, has areas that need reform. Yet silence in the face of cruelty would be a far greater failure. If bishops ignored the Trump administration’s harsh immigration policies, they would add another wound to the Church—complicity in injustice.
The duty of bishops, and of all priests, is not to protect political leaders from criticism but to proclaim the Gospel without compromise. Whenever a policy—no matter which party it comes from—clearly contradicts the teachings of Jesus, the Church must denounce it boldly. To do otherwise is to betray both their calling and the people who look to them for moral leadership.
Catholic social teaching on immigration emphasizes balancing human dignity and national responsibility. It affirms migrants’ right to seek livelihood, a nation’s right to regulate borders, and the moral duty to enforce laws with justice and mercy. Together, these principles guide compassionate, fair policies that uphold both individual rights and communal order. Silence wounds the flock; love compels shepherds to speak. Fr Misael Avila
“It affirms migrants’ right to seek livelihood, a nation’s right to regulate borders, and the moral duty to enforce laws with justice and mercy. ”
*******
Absolutely Father. We can accomplish that without the assistance of the cartels.
Exactly what is so harsh about telling everyone who is in the country illegally to leave, and then offering them a free plane ticket home, time to arrange their affairs and $1,000 to help them get resettled? That seems amazingly compassionate.
It seems like a waste of taxpayer’s money to me if we’re hauling decent hardworking people out of our workforce and shipping them back by air.
The bad ones need to go. The good ones should be integrated into some kind of legal status if eligible. We will be needing them as our society continues to age.
As usual, Phil Lawler nails it – Why the bishops’ statement on immigration is not important – Catholic Culture, Nov. 20.
Although on a certain level, I agree with that assessment on another I disagree.
If by “important” he means that it will be efficacious for its intended purpose, it will not. Much of what the USSCB does amounts to vainglorious and logorrheic prattle about things outside their competence. Too many of their publications seem like they could have MSNBC on the cover, rather than USCCB.
It will not affect any public discourse or policy.
But what is important is that it shows that a group, the Episcopacy doesn’t understand the limits of its authority or competence. Authority can be exercised using power or influence. Power comes from enforceability. Influence deference from the deference of respect.
Tyrants often have complete power, but little influence. The obverse is that there are people who have enormous influence and little power. Both can be lost. Once needs to understand that influence is something that needs to be cultivated through careful use, whereas power is often grasped. As a result, an authority’s loss of influence is often unnoticed when they have lost influence because it is subtle and gradual, as opposed to the loss of power which is obvious and sudden. Worse, where power can go to zero, influence can become negative and deference can become defiance.
Bishops have lost virtually all their influence, as they and their predecessors have squandered their ex officio capital on incompetence and scandal. They still have power over their priests, but even that is limited due to the shortage of priests.
When a person or body that relies on influence in the exercise of their/its faculties doesn’t carefully use that influence, it is diminished.
What this document says to the average pew sitter who thinks closed churches are the problem, not open borders is that the bishops are myopic and distracted and willing to exhaust people’s resources and goodwill in pursuit of a prudential matter they wish to make imperative for idiosyncratic, and I suspect financial reasons. It wouldn’t be the first time Christ was betrayed with money. Unlimited empathy to some is abrasion to others.
They are not only squandering their influence, but they are also breeding disinterest and outright contempt.
Belloc’s quip about the Church being run with “knavish imbecility” comes to mind.
There is no latitude for Christians in the mistreatment of any migrant or human being as there is no latitude in the taking of the lives of the unborn.
You may say this on earth but YOU will face the wrath of the Lord at the final judgement.
Liberals and conservatives are dividing Christ daily!
Define “mistreatment”.
The simple reality is that invasion advocates-who don’t respect the legitimacy or necessity of the immigration law see anything less than a red carpet as mistreatment.
If the obsessed would only expend 1/10 of the energy on citizen mistreatment as they do illegal aliens.
Support of TRUMP policy is not ordained by a Jesus, because Trump is not divine but human. He errs and sins. Blindly supporting all done by and in the name of Trump constitutes moral abnegation akin to support of Nazis. (Remember, Germany had LAWS against all human rights for communists, gays, Jews, etc.). Law does not equal moral decency. So, this author appears to imper morality for his own personal politics of support for obvious purveyors of racial hate. That’s is clearly not the teaching of Jesus.
Bert: Try some logic and facts, and cut back on the sloppy name-calling, adolescent aspersions, and shallow straw men.