US BISHOPS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Part Two

Government performs its functions by means of law. Through the direct or indirect authorization of law, taxes are collected, public money is expended, public services, such as the post office, the public schools, the department of justice, the fire department, the police department, are administered, and the various regulatory measures affecting individuals and associations are ordained and enforced.

It is law that warrants and supports every civil act performed by any official in any of the three great departments of government, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. When a public official proceeds without the authorization of law or exceeds the scope of the law, his action has no civil validity.

The authority of the State to make laws is derived from God.  He has endowed men with such qualities and needs that they cannot live reasonable lives without the State. Therefore, He wishes the State to exist and to function in such a way as to attain this end, to promote man's temporal welfare. It does so by means of law.

Hence civil law is genuine moral law, not merely a kind of legal or physical coercion. It binds in conscience. Herein it differs from the rules of a social club. The latter do not produce moral obligation. Even though they should be disregarded to such an extent as to destroy the club, its members would suffer no vital injury. On the other hand, men are deprived of a necessary means to human life and development when there is general disobedience of the laws of the State.

The moral law which binds men to live reasonable lives, obliges them to adopt one of the essential means to this end, that is, to maintain the State and to obey its laws.

Such is the rational basis of the doctrine laid down in Holy Scripture, and taught without variation by the Catholic Church. According to this doctrine, the civil law binds in conscience, as such.

Accordingly, ethically valid civil laws are those which are in harmony with the moral law of nature. A statute which is contrary to a precept of the natural law, has no moral force, however solemnly it may have been enacted, or formidably sanctioned, or vigorously enforced. Such an enactment is not law at all, but, as St. Thomas calls it, "a species of violence."

Like our inherent and inalienable rights, true morality derives from the nature of man and his life on this planet. It is not possible to consider a political philosophy intelligently and adequately without also considering its moral implications.

There not two moralities: one governing personal and the other governing national affairs. Personal morality has its counterpart in the national arena, and the principles that govern the former are just as applicable to the latter.

Morality, in essence, concerns the nature of man and his relationship with other men.  It is the same whether one considers persons individually or collectively, because the nature of man remains the same regardless of the circumstances under which he lives.

It would be absurd, therefore, to suggest that a million human beings collectively are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.

Furthermore, the same moral laws which govern the relationships of people within a given society operate also between different societies of people.  Moral obligations are as obligatory on nations as they are on individuals because they arise from the same source and bind equally on human beings, whatever their number or collective nature.

Now among the moral rights which pertain to the State, chief among them is the right to territorial integrity.  States enjoy the moral right to exercise supreme authority over their territory, free from interference from any external agent or force.  A State's territorial integrity is defined by its borders, which the state is morally obliged to protect from invasion or unlawful incursion.  Without such defined and acknowledged territorial borders, a State cannot exist nor can it exercise its moral authority and obligation to provide and promote the general welfare of its citizenry.

States not only possess the moral right to territorial integrity but have the consequent obligation to protect that integrity by defending their borders.

No declaration of any Church authority can be cited in favor of the contrary opinion regarding these teachings. It has been the consistent teaching of the Church that the rights and obligations of State are morally binding on their own account, because of the moral authority possessed by the State itself. 

It seems, however, that Bishop McElroy and the Bishops of the USCCB have somehow forgotten this clear and fundamental Catholic teaching.  

When the Bishops aid and abet those who enter this country illegally by sheltering them from the just and moral laws which protect our country's sovereign territory, they undermine the moral authority of the our civil government.  Our country has the moral and legal right to defend its borders in order to protect American citizens as well as provide for their welfare and security.

No matter how sincere their desire to provide for illegal immigrants, Bishops who shelter them from the legal and moral authority of the government to enforce its sovereign laws engage in immoral and unlawful acts. Their protestations of serving a greater good are morally indefensible.  "The end does not justify the means."

It is true that many immigrants come to this country seeking relief from intolerable conditions or circumstances in their native countries.  The desire of the Bishops to assist them is laudable, conforming as it does to the Evangelical counsel that we are to love one another.  They should assist such suffering masses.  But, in doing so, they are not free to exempt themselves or those they wish to serve by failing to observe the moral authority of our government to protect and promote the welfare and security of its legal citizens.

Certainly, the Bishops have every right to petition the government and to encourage the Catholic faithful to join with them in advancing legislation which may lawfully allow for more tolerant immigration policies.
 But, until the time that such policies are adopted, the Bishops are obliged to honor the moral and lawful authority which the State rightfully exercises.

The USCCB says next to nothing about the countries from which these immigrants come.  No condemnation of the deplorable conditions in Mexico and Latin America which force people to leave their native lands to seek a better life elsewhere.  Where are the voices of the Bishops in those countries decrying the terrible violation of the human rights of their people?  

Why does the USCCB think it more fitting to be silent about the corruption which causes mass immigration but be so loud in providing an immoral and illegal solution which does nothing to alleviate the suffering of these people in their native lands?

If the goal of the USCCB is to keep the pews filled with illegal immigrants (which is what Bishop McElroy implies), their actions are that much more shameful for being so self-serving.

A just and moral peace depends upon recognition and respect of the principles upon which rightful governments function in serving their citizens.

The recent Presidential election provides adequate evidence that the American People, and American Catholics among them,  understand these morally clear principles.  The fact that the Bishops willfully choose to ignore them is very troubling indeed.