What the bishops got wrong on immigration

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.