On Feb.1, 2008 in Napa, California, Archbishop Gomez of San Antonio addressed a special meeting of Latin American bishops on immigration.
He began by reminding his audience that the Holy Family and their flight into Egypt has provided a powerful symbol of migrants. "For many decades, the Popes have held up the Holy Family in exile as a sign of Christ’s solidarity with all refugees, displaced persons, and immigrants—in every time and in every place. In his exile in Egypt, the infant Jesus shares in the fears and worries of all who are forced by violence and need to rise and flee their homelands seeking a better life in a new land that is not their own.
"Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has said: “In this misfortune experienced by the family of Nazareth . . . we can catch a glimpse of the painful condition in which all migrants live . . . . the hardships and humiliations, the deprivation and fragility of millions and millions of migrants” (Message for World Day of Migrants and Refugees 2007, para. 1)."
After assessing the current political situation, Archbishop Gomez offered his reflections on the root causes of immigration, the church's teaching on the contours of a just immigration law and policy, and practical concrete steps for resolving the current crisis. The full text of his insightful, prophetic, and nuanced remarks can be found here.
At the end of his remarks, Archbishop Gomez spoke to a critical issue that, IMHO, transcends the immigration debates.
"But before I leave you, I want to talk about one more area that deeply concerns me. In the bitter debates of recent years, I have been alarmed by the indifference of so many of our people to Catholic teaching and to the concrete demands of Christian charity.
It is not only the racism, xenophobia, and scapegoating. These are signs of a more troubling reality. Many of our Catholic people no longer see the foreigners sojourning among them as brothers and sisters.
In some ways we are back to the debates of the first evangelization. Then the Church, in the person of brave pastors like Bartolomé de las Casas, had to fight to establish that the indigenous peoples of the New Worldwere truly and fully human, worthy of rights.
To listen to the rhetoric in the U.S.and elsewhere it is as if the immigrant is not a person, but only a thief or a terrorist or a simple work-animal.
Throughout the lands of America, we need repentance and conversion to the Gospel. We need to restore the truth that the love of God and the love of neighbor have been forever joined in the teaching—and in the person—of Jesus Christ.
“As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:40).
Pope Benedict said in Deus Caritas Est that with Christ: “Love of God and love of neighbor have become one. In the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God” (no. 16)."
Isn't this problem - a problem that has been evident in the immigration debates in Oklahoma and elsewhere - part of a larger problem in our society where we so often fail to see the other as another "I"?
HT: David Scott
One Sunday morning in Manhattan a few years ago, I was with my daughters and was confronted with a particularly lewd billboard. I had never done so before, but I decided to call the city's 311 information number to complain. I spoke to the operator for more than ten minutes, as he tried to find any suitable category for recording the complaint -- there were countless categories, but nothing remotely relevant for a billboard depicting two nearly naked models engaged in an obvious sexual act. No "public indency" category, no "inappropriate advertising" category, nothing. In the end, the operator told me to call the police if it was really a problem. The not-so-subtle message was that I was Ward Cleaver, and this was no longer the 1950s.
I'm no longer a New York City resident, but I thought of that 311 operator when I read about the new government-sponsored ad campaign launched in the city on Valentine's Day. That operator won't lodge a complaint about indecent billboards, but he will gladly take my order for free condoms! For the record, I do not reflexively dismiss every attempt by a government to facilitate safer sex among its residents. Indeed, I still struggle mightily to understand the Church's opposition to the distribution of condoms among high-risk populations in Africa, for example. But the Church's hardline position may become significantly more compelling if the New York model becomes the alternative: i.e., does a "safe sex" government initiative mean having tax dollars implore every resident, young and old, to "get some?"
Sunday, February 17, 2008
This article, by Walter Berns, is interesting. Here is the opening of "Religion and the Death Penalty":
The best case for the death penalty--or, at least, the best explanation of it--was made, paradoxically, by one of the most famous of its opponents, Albert Camus, the French novelist. . . .
. . . The death penalty, he said, "can be legitimized only by a truth or a principle that is superior to man," or, as he then made clearer, it may rightly be imposed only by a religious society or community; specifically, one that believes in "eternal life." Only in such a place can it be said that the death sentence provides the guilty person with the opportunity (and reminds him of the reason) to make amends, thus to prepare himself for the final judgment which will be made in the world to come. For this reason, he said, the Catholic church "has always accepted the necessity of the death penalty." This may no longer be the case. And it may no longer be the case that death is, as Camus said it has always been, a religious penalty. But it can be said the death penalty is more likely to be imposed by a religious people.
The reasons for this are not obvious. . . . Whatever the reason, there is surely a connection between the death penalty and religious belief.
I would be strange, wouldn't it -- but I wonder if it is nonetheless the case -- that the best arguments against the death penalty were religious, as well as the best arguments for it? Anyway, check out the piece. Any reactions?
So, I am getting depressed about the fact that the 2008 Summer Olympics are going to be held in China. And, even more depressing are the stories I have been reading in recent weeks about weak-kneed corporate-sponsore types who are terrified of anything that might embarass the regime, and Olympic teams that are demanding that athletes refrain from any expressions of disapproval of China's human-rights policies.
I have blogged more than a few times here at MOJ about religious freedom, and the Freedom of the Church, in China. What I'm thinking about now -- and I'd really welcome readers' and other bloggers' thoughts -- is: what should I be thinking, and what should "we" be thinking, about the facts that the Olympics are being held in China; are being used there as an occasion for, I gather, more, rather than less, repression (see "Swifter, Higher, Crueler," by Joshua Kurlantzick, in the current New Republic); and will serve as a non-trivial propaganda weapon (taking the torch to Mt. Everest, in Tibet!) for a regime that, I think, is morally problematic.
I am not sure that my friend Michael's post responds to my question. So, a recap: Michael posted a link to a piece from the New York Times and asked "MOJ Republicans" -- I guess that's me! -- "is there a way to understand this story such that what the the Bush Administration has done seems genuinely defensible?" The Times piece stated, among other things, "the Bush administration pressured dozens of states to accept a scheme that would let some plants evade cleaning up their pollution[.]" This "scheme", which would have let some plants "evade" cleaning up, was a cap-and-trade plan.
So, rather than offer any opinions about whether or not what the Bush Administration was done was defensible, I simply asked Michael for the basis of (what I gathered from his post was) his opposition to such a plan. (If I misunderstood, and he has no objections to cap-and-trade policies, then I'm sorry.)
Michael asks, "[d]id the federal court [that struck down the cap-and-trade plan] get it wrong?" I have no idea; I am not an environmental- or administrative-law expert, and have not read the decision. Did the court get it right?
Michael asks, "[w]asn't it legally wrong for the Bush Admin to have tried to prevent the states from being more strict against mercury than are the feds?" I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes the law invites state experimentation, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes a uniform solution is more efficient and beneficial, sometimes a thousand flowers should bloom. Here, we are talking about "power plants", which -- I'm pretty sure -- serve customers in states beyond the ones in which they are situated. Does that matter? What's the relevant "legal[]" rule here? I don't know, and didn't purport to know. I just asked for the basis for what I understood to be Michael's objection to cap-and-trade programs.
Michael asks, "[d]oesn't every Admin, Democratic too, make morally indefensible choices?" Of course. I did not suggest, and never have suggested, otherwise. Michael says, "[p]rotecting the interests of the economically powerful rather than protecting the public's health is indefensible." Agreed! And, one reason why I asked the question I did -- I did not, obviously, say that it was cool to protect "the interests of the economically powerful rather than protecting the public's health" -- was to gather information that might help me and others decide whether, in fact, pressuring states to stick with a nationwide "cap-and-trade" program really involves "protecting the interests of the economically powerful rather than protecting the public's health." I will admit that it is not as obvious to me as, apparently, it is to Michael that for the administration to pressure states to stick with a nationwide program that -- as the Times reports -- "capped overall mercury releases from power plants nationwide" is best characterized as one that protects the powerful rather than the public's health.
Of course, for all I know, the plan was entirely foolish, and the relevant officials' motives entirely contemptible. I don't know. I am pretty sure I need more information than the Times story provided. I do know, though, that it is not "indefensible" to think that cap-and-trade-type programs might be a good solution to many pollution problems. Do you disagree, Michael?
Did the federal court get it wrong? Wasn't it legally wrong for the Bush Admin to have tried to prevent the states from being more strict against mercury than are the feds? Doesn't every Admin, Democratic too, make morally indefensible choices? Credit where credit is due: e.g., the Bush Admin's aid to African countries to help our sisters and brothers there deal with HIV/AIDS. But discredit where discredit is due, Rick: Protecting the interests of the economically powerful rather than protecting the public's health is indefensible.
I just re-read the NYT article. Rick, we seem to be reading different articles. MOJ readers, if you haven't read the article yet, do so now, here.
