Corpus Christi and the Church of the World

The good ole days

This weekend my mother attended a Corpus Christi procession at a parish that is not her regular parish. She passed on to me the booklet the congregation used for the procession prayers, a composition called the "Litany of Lament for Sins Against the Body of Christ." As I read the prayers, I soon realized that these prayers were of such banal hilarity as to merit being the subject of a post. I should note, this came from a parish that is not known as a particularly progressive or dissenting parish; this is just your typical EWTN-watching, Fr. Barron-loving, Medjugorje-affirming fairly orthodox parish from American Novus Ordo Land.

I have omitted the customary prayers at the beginning of the litany (the "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, etc). I present, the "Litany of Lament for Violations Against the Body of Christ", followed afterwards by my comments.

FOR SINS AGAINST THE BODY OF CHRIST IN THE WORLD

For those times when we have failed to welcome the stranger or have been silent about immigration reform, Lord have mercy.

For those times when we have been silent about political issues, especially those that threatened religious liberty, Lord have mercy. [Laughable, because these same priests who are bewailing being silent about political issues would rather walk on hot coals than criticize Obama or say anything even remotely contoversial]

For silence by too many members of the Church while fifty-five million lives wee lost to abortion, Lord have mercy.

For those times in our history when we have not spoken out against slavery, segregation, or persecution, Lord have mercy.

For those times and in those places we have ignored those in prison and the needs of their families, Lord have mercy.

For ignoring genocide in our world - by starvation, by brutal atrocities, and by civil and military actions, Lord have mercy.

FOR SINS AGAINST THE BODY OF CHRIST DUE TO ABUSE

For the sins of Church ministers who sexually abused children, Lord have mercy.

For the failings of those in hierarchy who failed to remove offenders from parish positions, Lord have mercy.

For the irreparable harm caused by victims of abuse, Lord have mercy. [one wonders if the harm is "irreparable", what is the purpose of this prayer of reparation?]

For all those times when any of us has failed to protect children, Lord have mercy.

Let us pray: Lord, we worship you living among us in the sacrament of your Body and Blood. May we offer to our Fathers in heaven our solemn pledge of undivided love. May we offer to our brothers and sisters a life poured out in loving service of that kingdom, where you live with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen.

FOR OUR SINS AGAINST THE BODY OF CHRIST IS THE DOMESTIC CHURCH

For those times when we have failed to reach out to families who were experiencing difficulties, Lord have mercy.

For too quickly judging divorced and separated spouses, Lord have mercy.

For our failures to reach out and support mothers and fathers considering abortion, Lord have mercy.

For failing to use our resources to help the poor and unemployed, Lord have mercy.

For failing to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless, Lord have mercy.

For those times when we have ignored the gifts of our youth and their contributions to the Church, Lord have mercy.

FOR SINS AGAINST THE BODY OF CHRIST

For all those times when we ourselves have failed to be instruments of reconciliation, Lord have mercy.

For not fully utilizing the gifts of women in the Church, Lord have mercy.

For being uncivil in our disagreements about liturgical practices instead of uniting in worship around God's altar, Lord have mercy.

For those times when we have caused other members of the Body of Christ to suffer, Lord have mercy.

For perpetuating historic divisions among Christians, Lord have mercy.

For not recognizing our shared heritage with Orthodox and Protestant believers, Lord have mercy.

For those times when we have been intolerant of non-Christian believers and to those who profess no faith, Lord have mercy.

LITANY FOR THE COMMUNITY

For those who own businesses, may they be good stewards of their gifts, Christ graciously hear us.

For employees, may they reflect the Gospel of Jesus, Christ graciously hear us.

For those who frequent the businesses, may they be bearers of truth, Christ graciously hear us.

For those who visit, may they see the light of Jesus shining all around them, Christ graciously hear us.

For our leaders, may they be filled with justice, prudence, fortitude and temperance, Christ graciously hear us. [Why not faith, hope and charity, also?]

For our public officials, may they act according to the wisdom of God, Christ graciously hear us.

For our utility workers, may they persevere in joyfully serving the community especially in emergencies, Christ graciously hear us.

For all social workers, may know the peace of Christ, Christ graciously hear us.

For all school teachers and principals, may they reach the children they teach emotionally, spiritually, and academically, Christ graciously hear us.
For all hospital personnel...

[Here it goes on and on, mentioning medical workers, police, firemen, EMTs, charitable agencies, those who work with victims of domestic abuse, Salvation Army, postal workers, court workers and judges, prisoners, the "lost and confused", church ministers, senior citizens, foster care workers, those who are suffering from addictions, the depressed and suicidal, and finally, teenagers]

Let us pray: Lord Jesus, on the night you told us to take and eat your Body and Blood, you prayed to the Father that we may all be one as you are one with your Father. We too pray dear Jesus that we may all be one as you are one with the Father. Amen.

...[end]...

Whew. Okay. A few observations-

First and foremost, was there anything in this entire litany about the actual, sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, which is the whole rationale for the feast? No. Never is the presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament mentioned, except for one vague allusion in the prayer "Lord, we worship you living among us in the sacrament of your Body and Blood," and the presence of the phrase "living among us" renders this prayer extremely questionable - as if we cannot worship the sacramental Lord without doing so mediately through the community who receives Him.

Second, I also noted that every intercession, without exception, is entirely worldly, focused on this side of heaven. No prayer for those in the hour of death. No prayer for the conversion of poor sinners. No reparation for offenses against the Sacred Heart or our Eucharistic Lord. No prayers for the poor souls in Purgatory. No prayers for the salvation of the non-believer or for the Church's missionary efforts. Whoever composed these prayers evidently envisions the Church's mission as completely earth-bound, about speaking up for immigration reform.

Third, it should be evident that the presence of Pro-Life sentiments is no longer and indicator of orthodoxy. Perhaps this was once otherwise; maybe back in the 80's and 90's. But the Pro-Life standard has become so ubiquitous within Catholic parish life that it has become kind of disconnected from any larger orthodoxy. This same litany which laments the holocaust of abortion and prays for mothers considering abortion simultaneously prays for greater recognition of the "gifts of women" in the Church (we know what that means), suggests that arguing about liturgical matters is "uncivil", and laments that we are "intolerant" of other faiths. In other words, we have reached a place where Pro-Life sentiments coexist comfortably with progressive theology. Being Pro-Life is no longer an indicator of legitimate Catholicism, and it can be arguable that it never was (related: Profile of a Theological Liberal).

Fourth, the incredible naivete! This "Litany of Lament" bewails the fact that there is not enough influence of women in the Church, that we are too intolerant, that our problem with Protestantism is that we have not sufficiently affirmed it, that we are too judgmental about divorced Catholics. So, women don't have a big enough role in the Church? Maybe whoever wrote this prayer has not seen some of our diocesan publications, or has never Googled "Director of Religious Education" on Google Images,  nor Googled images for "RCIA Director" - or for that matter, "Director of Faith Formation" or "Parish Administrator". Can anyone who has spent one year in a modern Catholic parish and done these basic image searches really be serious that women are not represented enough in the Church today? That the Church has not been sufficiently pro-illegal immigration? That divorced Catholics are treated too harshly? These people are living in fantasy land. But, as has often been pointed out, the solution for the problems caused by liberalism is more liberalism.

Catholics obviously think of the Church as merely an institution for the betterment of society - and when the Bishop of Rome says things like the greatest crisis facing the modern world is youth unemployment and then skips out of Rome's Corpus Christi procession so he can make a pastoral visit to a Calabrian prison, the situation is definitely not made any better. By the way, I also noted the "Litany of Lament" did not include any prayers for the Pope.

We could go on, but why bother? 

"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." ~Rev. 22:11

The "sojourner" and the "foreigner"

The following is taken from Los Pequenos Pepper from the Diocese of Albequerque on the fascinating question of the use of Sacred Scripture in the debate on immigration in this country. Regardless of how you feel about illegal immigration, this article in very enlightening as it takes a look at the legal status of the "sojourner" in the ancient world. The original article is by James K. Hoffmeier is Professor of Old Testament and Near Eastern Archaeology at Trinity International University.

"Secularists and liberals, both political and religious, are typically loath to consult the Bible when it comes to matters of public policy. So it is somewhat surprising that in the current debate about the status of illegal immigrants, the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is regularly cited in defense of the illegal. Debra Haffner, a Unitarian Universalist minister — a denomination not known for taking Scripture seriously — offered a recent critique of the Arizona illegal immigration law in the Washington Post online (May 25, 2010), saying “It’s as if the 70 percent of Arizonans who support the law have forgotten the Biblical injunction to ‘love the stranger for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.’” This verse and others like it are frequently quoted in the name of “justice” for the illegal immigrant. A left-wing Christian advocacy group Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which is affiliated with Sojourners, had this passage on its website: “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the stranger. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you.” (Leviticus 19:33)

A second area where advocates for illegal immigrants rely on the Bible (whether they know it or not) is the “sanctuary city movement” that defies the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Cities like New York, New Haven, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Denver have declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities” and will not cooperate with federal authorities in matters related to illegal immigrants. Some

churches have even permitted their facilities to be so-called sanctuaries for illegals.

As an Old Testament scholar I was first intrigued by the fact that the Bible was even being used in the immigration debate, and yet knew that the Bible was not being read seriously. So I decided to do just that. The result of my study was a small book, The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible (Crossway, 2009). The observations made in this article summarize briefly some observations reached in that book.

The very positive statements about the treatment of strangers in the Bible, some of which were already quoted, show compassion for the alien in ancient Israel. The defenders of illegal aliens point to these passages as the rationale for rewriting current laws. The problem is that they make a simplistic correlation between the ancient Israelite social law and the modern situation as if the Bible was addressing the same problem. Three important questions must be raised before one attempts to apply Israelite law to the modern situation:

(1) Was there such a thing as territorial sovereignty in the second millennium B.C. when these laws originated;
(2) Within that socio-legal setting, what was a “stranger” or “sojourner”?
(3) How does one obtain this status?

Regarding the first, the answer is unequivocal. Nations small and large had clearly recognizable borders, typically demarcated by natural features such as rivers, valleys, and mountain ranges, much as they are today. Warring Egyptian Pharaohs often claimed that they went on campaigns to widen or extend Egypt’s borders. Wars were fought over where boundary lines would be drawn, and forts were strategically placed on frontiers to defend the territory and to monitor movements of pastoralists. Permits akin to the modern visa were issued to people entering another land. In the tomb of Khnumhotep, governor of central Egypt (from ca. 1865 B.C.), a band of foreign travelers are shown before the governor. An official presents him with a permit or visa, which spells out that there were 37 people from Syria-Canaan. At the key entry points of Egypt, forts would have issued such entry permits. Recent excavations in north Sinai have revealed a pair of such forts at Tell Hebua, located less than two miles east of the Suez Canal. Three miles southeast of the second Hebua fort is Tell el-Borg. Nearby are two forts that guarded the road to Egypt between 1450 and 1200 B.C. The ancient Egyptians were very careful about who they allowed into Egypt.

The Israelites were well aware of the need to respect territorial sovereignty. After the exodus from Egypt, Moses and the Hebrews lived a nomadic existence for 40 years in Sinai. Since no country, not even Egypt in those days, claimed hegemony over the peninsula, the Hebrews could move freely and required no permission [Not entirely true - Egypt used Sinai for mining purposes, but it was not heavily inhabited - Boniface]. But when they left Sinai, they needed to pass through Edom in southern Jordan, and permission of the host nation was necessary, as Numbers 20:14-21 reports:

“Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom: ‘Thus says your brother Israel … here we are in Kadesh, a city on the edge of your territory. Please let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard, or drink water from a well. We will go along the King’s Highway. We will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory.’ But Edom said to him, ‘You shall not pass through, lest I come out with the sword against you.’ And the people of Israel said to him, ‘We will go up by the highway, and if we drink of your water, I and my livestock, then I will pay for it. Let me only pass through on foot, nothing more.’ But he said, ‘You shall not pass through.’ And Edom came out against them with a large army and with a strong force. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory, so Israel turned away from him.”

Despite politely seeking permission and offering to compensate the Edomites, the Israelites were refused; furthermore, Edom sent out their army to make sure the Israelites did not enter their territory. It is clear: foreigners had to obtain a permit to enter another land.

Secondly, what about the “stranger” or “alien”? The Bible is not “a living breathing document” that can mean whatever you want it to say. This question must be answered contextually and based on what the key words meant when they were written before we apply what that might mean in our own times. The most significant Hebrew word for our discussion is ger, translated variously in English versions, which creates some confusion, as “stranger” (KJV, NASB, JB), “sojourner” (RSV, ESV), “alien” (NEB, NIV, NJB, NRSV), and “foreigner” (TNIV, NLT) [The Latin Vulgate uses the ambiguous term advena, "foreigners", or more literally, "visitors from abroad"-Boniface].  It occurs more than 80 times as a noun and an equal number as a verb (gwr), which typically means “to sojourn” or “live as an alien.” The problem with more recent English translations (e.g. TNIV and NLT) is that they use “foreigner” for ger, which is imprecise and misleading because there are other Hebrew terms for “foreigner,” namely nekhar and zar. The distinction between these two terms and ger is that while all three are foreigners who might enter another country, the ger had obtained legal status.

There are several episodes in the Bible that illustrate how a foreigner became a ger. The individual or party had to receive permission from the appropriate authority in that particular culture. Perhaps the best-known story has to do with the Children of Israel entering Egypt. In the book of Genesis, we are told of how during a time of famine in Canaan, the sons of Jacob did the natural thing under the circumstances — go to Egypt where the Nile kept the land fertile. Even though their brother Joseph was a high-ranking official who had recommended to Pharaoh that they be allowed to settle in the northeast delta of Egypt, they felt compelled to ask Pharaoh for permission:

“And they said to Pharaoh, ‘Your servants are shepherds, as our fathers were.’ They said to Pharaoh, ‘We have come to sojourn in the land, for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks, for the famine is severe in the land of Canaan. And now, please let your servants dwell in the land of Goshen.’ Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘Your father and your brothers have come to you. The land of Egypt is before you. Settle your father and your brothers in the best of the land. Let them settle in the land of Goshen.’” (Genesis 47:3-6)

Here we notice that they declare their intention “to sojourn” (gwr) and deferentially they ask “please let your servant dwell in the land of Goshen.” No less authority than the king of Egypt granted this permission. This means that the Hebrews, though foreigners, were residing in Egypt as legal residents, gers.

A second story illustrates how permission or an invitation to a foreigner to reside in a foreign land resulted in Moses becoming a “sojourner,” “stranger,” or “alien.” After Moses struck and killed an Egyptian taskmaster, he fled Egypt and crossed Sinai, ending up in Midian (most likely in northwestern Arabia). At a well he met the daughters of Jethro, the local priest, who had come to water their flocks. When they were harassed by other shepherds, Moses came to their aid and helped them, so that they were able to return from their chore earlier than normal. So their father asked:

“‘How is it that you have come home so soon today?’ They said, ‘An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds and even drew water for us and watered the flock.’ He said to his daughters, ‘Then where is he? Why have you left the man? Call him, that he may eat bread.’ And Moses was content to dwell with the man, and he gave Moses his daughter Zipporah. She gave birth to a son, and he called his name Gershom, for he said, ‘I have been a sojourner in a foreign land.’” (Exodus 2:18-22)

While the details are limited, it is apparent that Moses, after being invited to Jethro’s home (tent?) for a meal, made an arrangement in which Zipporah, the priest’s eldest daughter, was married to Moses who then took on responsibilities caring for Jethro’s flocks (see Exodus 3:1). Moses was thus able to call himself a sojourner (ger), not a foreigner (nekhar), even though he lived in a foreign (nakhiriyah) land. Gershom, his son’s name, contains the word ger, reflecting his change of status.

From the foregoing texts we can conclude that in the ancient biblical world, countries had borders that were protected and respected, and that foreigners who wanted to reside in another country had to obtain some sort of permission in order to be considered an alien with certain rights and privileges. The delineation between the “alien” or “stranger” (ger) and the foreigner (nekhar or zar) in biblical law is stark indeed. The ger in Israelite society, for instance, could receive social benefits such as the right to glean in the fields (Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 24:19-22) and they could receive resources from the tithes (Deuteronomy 26:12-13). In legal matters,“there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:15-16). In the area of employment, the ger and citizen were to be paid alike (Deuteronomy 24:14-15). In all these cases, no such provision is extended to the nekhar or zar. In a sense, the ger were not just aliens to whom social and legal protections were offered, but were also considered converts, and thus could participate in the religious life of the community, e.g. celebrate Passover (Exodus 12:13) and observe Yom Kippur, the day of atonement (Leviticus 16:29-30). They were, moreover, expected to keep dietary and holiness laws (Leviticus 17:8-9 & 10-12). It is well known that within Israelite society, money was not to be lent with interest, but one could loan at interest to a foreigner (nekhar). These passages from the Law make plain that aliens or strangers received all the benefits and protection of a citizen, whereas the foreigner (nekhar) did not. It is wrong, therefore, to confuse these two categories of foreigners and then to use passages regarding the ger as if they were relevant to illegal immigrants of today.

Finally, a brief word on the biblical practice of sanctuary. This had its origin in the wilderness period in Sinai after the exodus from Egypt. There, the entire community lived with the Tabernacle, Israel’s sanctuary, in the middle of the camp. Exodus 21:12-14 establishes the practice:

“Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. However, if it is not done intentionally… they are to flee to a place I will designate. But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar (in the sanctuary) and put to death.”

Cases of involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide (Exodus 21:33-36) were not capital offenses. So to keep the lex talionis (law of retribution), “eye for eye, tooth for tooth … life for life” (Exodus 21:23-25) from being carried out by family members, the offender was to run to the sanctuary where he would be safe and his case heard. Once the populace spread throughout their new homeland, it was impractical to have just one place of sanctuary. Consequently six cities of refuge were designated, three on either side of the Jordan River (Numbers 35:11-30; Joshua 20:1-6). Once again the conditions for sanctuary protection are plainly stated, “these six towns will be a place of refuge … so that anyone who has killed another accidentally can flee there” (Numbers 35:15 – NIV). Sanctuary, then, is explicitly a place to get a fair hearing in the case of accidental death, but for no other crime. The cities of refuge were not a place to avoid trial or punishment. American cities that use their communities to circumvent the law to help the illegal aliens in the name of justice are doing a gross injustice to the letter and spirit of the biblical law.

The intention of my above-mentioned book and this paper is not to discourage Americans from consulting the Bible or even using it to shape public policy and law, but to call attention to the abuse of Scripture and to urge that it first be read carefully and contextually."

In case the conclusion of the article above was not clear, it is that when the Bible mentions a "sojourner", such as was Ruth or Moses in the land of Midian, it is not referring to the equivalent of our illegal immigrant, but rather to someone who already had obtained permission to be in the land and had some sort of established legal standing - more like our legal immigrants or foreigners with visas. Therefore, invoking Old Testament verses about how to treat the sojourners and the aliens with regard to the current debate about illegal immigration is misleading because these ancient "sojourners" were not the same thing as our illegal immigrants.

Please note, this article makes no argument on immigration policy one way or another, but only attempts to show that the Scriptural evidence often put forward for a pro-illegal immigrant argument is abused.

The Ethics of Immigration

The "jungle" outside Calais, France, where hundreds of illegal immigrants were busted this week attempting to cross clandestinely into the U.K.

This week the liberal presses throughout the world are decrying the "inhumane" treatment of illegal immigrants busted at the French port of Calais attempting to illegally enter the UK. As with most stories of this type, the emphasis is placed not on the fact that a substantial population is illegally squatting in a country and attempting to pass clandestinely into another one that does not want them, but rather on the "conditions" in French society that makes this type of behavior "necessary" on the part of the migrants. When illegals are busted, the French liberal presses are asking "What did we do wrong?"

Unchecked illegal immigration is a bane on any country, and it is illogical to tell these host countries that they need to permit unrestricted access to all manner of illegals from God knows where to come in for any reason. The media is trying to turn this crackdown into a human interest story by focusing on the poor conditions that these migrants were fleeing from when they came to Europe. Some fled starvation in war torn Somalia, others were seeking asylum from reprisals by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The unstated point is that we are all expected to feel so very sorry for these migrants and extend our sympathy to them in their quest to illegally enter other countries.

Let me return some sanity to this issue by pointing out that most countries have legal methods for persons to seek political asylum, and if such legal methods exist I can hardly see a justification for the type of clandestine, illegal operation these immigrants were attempting. Let's also be reminded that it is not as if the French police went out busting down doors and dragging these migrants out in the night; these immigrants were very publicly camping out in a tent city on the outskirts of Calais, in open and arrogant disregard for French law. The arrogance with which these illegal immigrants flaunt their crimes is staggering to me (and yes, sneaking into a country illegally is a crime just as much as sneaking into a house illegally would be). I am amazed at how they rally together by the thousands to protest for equal rights and care at the expense of the host country's taxpayers. When I see these rallies (like the one in Los Angeles a few years back), I stare at the TV flabbergasted and think, "Why doesn't the border guard surround this mob right now and start asking for Green Cards?"

But let's look at this problem rationally. Clearly, as the Catechism states, persons must have freedom to move and migrate to improve their lives and the lot of their family. It states:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him (CCC 2241).

So there is a right of persons to migrate, which is not in dispute. My dispute is with the way this right is absolutized in the modern world, and understood in a sense which no nation or kingdom has ever understood it in the past. Migration is not an absolute right that cannot be denied under any circumstances; in fact, migrants are obliged to render a certain duty towards their host country, the first of which (the CCC tells us) is to obey that country's laws. The very same paragraph quoted above goes on to say:

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens (CCC 2241).

An immigrant is obliged to share in the civic burdens of society and show gratitude towards their host country - but how can they do that if they violate the fundamental integrity of that nation's laws by violating those very laws they have a duty to uphold in the act of entering the country? It is like if I man were to kidnap a woman violently so that he could force her into marriage; how can a true marriage, built on love and mutual respect, be built if the very foundation of that union is based on fear and violence? An immigrant cannot enter the country illegally in flagrant defiance of the law and then claim that they are law-abiding persons. A law-abiding persons abide by laws, especially laws that dictate who can and cannot enter the country.

If we look back at Catholic (or rather I should say, secular medieval) tradition, we see that nowhere in history did kings, popes or prelates ever show the scruple they now show regarding the rights of immigrants. It was taken for granted in the Middle Ages that a king could close or open his borders as he saw fit. There were times when the Kings of England forbid anyone from leaving the isles (or from landing). There were many around who disagreed with these policies, but no pope or bishop ever denied that the king had a right to close his kingdom's borders if he so chose.

Likewise in ancient Rome, during the closing centuries of the Empire when the border was constantly under siege by Germanic invaders, we hear nothing of any bishop or pope lecturing Theodosius or Honorius on any natural inalienable right of the poor Germans to migrate into the more prosperous Roman domain. It was taken for granted in the ancient world and the Middle Ages that the ruler of the kingdom could decide, with absolute authority, who could and could not enter the realm. Exception was made for ecclesiastics, of course, and the only papal condemnations of these restrictions of movement comes when the kings tried to stop priests from coming into their realms during various phases of history. But you would be hard pressed to show me an unmitigated right to immigrate in tradition.

The reason for this is that for most of European history, the kingdom was regarded as the extension of a house; in many cases it literally was, if the nobles and the king were all of one bloodline. People swore allegiance to a personal king and saw him as a father figure, and the nation, the patria, was the extension of king's paternal authority. What the house was to the father the kingdom was to the king (at least in theory); hence the literal Latin for nation or kingdom is patria, or "fatherland."

Therefore, to sneak into the domain of the king illegally was tantamount to breaking into a private home. Just as a private individual has the right to bar from or admit into his home whomever he chose and on whatever conditions, so too did the kingdom have this authority with regards to its own borders.

I know many will say that the concept of the nation as an extension of the king's patrimony has passed away with monarchy, but it is still true that in the democratic society the state is still the "commonwealth"; i.e., the common inheritance of all. In effect, the situation is now that the nation represents the common inheritance of all its citizens, which is passed on and established by the sacrifices, legislation and labor of the prior generations. Just because monarchy has regrettably passed away does not mean we should stop seeing the nation as a type of "house" or extended family. Just as a person has a right to defend his own home from unwanted intruders, so a nation as a right (even a duty) to protect its own borders - to secure its own "house."

To put this in context and bring it back to immigration: Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

Now, here is the insanity in all this: according to those who support unrestricted illegal immgration, you are required to let me stay in your house. You are required to add me to your family's insurance plan. You are required to educate my kids. You are required to provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house. And oh yeah, I get a free education, where you have to pay your own way through college. I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE so you can communicate with me. And don't forget to make sure your forms are in MY language - I need to understand them...

This is absolute insanity. The state has a perfectly legitimate right to admit or not admit whom it chooses for whatever reason (so long as it has some legal process for getting people in, but even then I would say it would be justified in restricting immigration considerably).

We also have to stop being duped by those who pull the rug over our eyes by focusing only on the human interest element of these stories. I know a Mexican immigrant from Tiajuana will probably be able to find a better life in the Midwest; I have no doubt that the Somalis arrested in France were fleeing poverty and war. These things may be true - but we cannot continue to focus narrowly on the plight of the individual immigrant and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them. We are talking about movements of persons in the millions and millions, movements of populations not seen since the fall of the Roman Empire. Any nation that failed to see this problem cumulatively would be acting at its own peril; I'd say ignoring this problem would be suicidal. The Romans were ultimately unable to fight off the Germanic invasions, but they would have been even less effective had they saw each German as someone just trying to better himself and his family; at least the Romans had the common sense to see unwanted illegal immigration for what it is: nothing other than a foreign invasion.

I also hope Catholics stop being duped by the argument that just because we are a "nation of immigrants" means that we must grant unrestricted and unlimited access to all immigrants until the end of time, as if there is no difference between settling an untamed wilderness and coming to a depressed economy with an already overflooded labor market; as if there is no cultural distinction between a largely homogenous European-Christian influx in the 19th century and the Muslim, Hindu and non-European immigration we see today; as if the fact that the verdant fields and limitless forests of frontier America were enough to sustain the immigrants of the 1800's means that the overtaxed, debt-ridden populace of the 21st century is able to accomodate an unlimited number of non-productive beneficiaries of state handouts indefinitely. Don't even go there with that "nation of immigrants" nonsense.

Well, I've ranted long enough about this. The bottom line is that if you want to come in, obey the law and do it by the book. That's what any decent person expects of someone entering their home, and if we really believe that our country is a Republic (res publica - public thing or common work) then we'd be utterly insane not to expect the same of those pounding at our door.

I'd like to hear especially from some of the readers in the UK - how do you feel about hordes of illegal immigrants crowding the shores of Brittany just waiting for their chance to sneak into your country illegally?

Results of Unchecked Muslim Immigration

France has again been rocked by riots, described as even worse than those that it suffered in 2005. As was the case then, media reports of the riots are referring to the rioters as "roving bands of angry youths" without drawing attention to the fact that these bands of angry youth are almost entirely Muslim. This article from the International Herald Tribune does mention halfway through that the rioters are "mostly the offspring of Arab and African immigrants," but then it goes on to absolve the rioting Muslim youth from any responsibility for the disaster and simply goes on and on about how they can't help rioting because the French government has put them in this situation to begin with, blah blah blah, boo hoo.

The fact of the matter is, this is what happens anywhere the Muslims obtain a sizeable populace. They start by trickling in, saying that they are a religion of peace and that they do not agree with the ways of their jihadist cousins (remember, in Islam it is acceptable to lie to further the cause of the religion). Then, once they obtain a solid minority they start the agitation, as they are doing now in France. Then, once they grow from a slim minority into at least a 35-45% minority, they bring on the open war and jihad will be upon that unfortunate nation that took them in. We need to get this through our head: these Muslims will eventually end up rioting no matter what. The only time the Muslims in France will stop agitating is when Arabic is the official language of France, when Notre Dame has become a Muslim mosque (or Christian museum), when the firstborn daughter of the Church and the scions of Charlemagne groan under the weight of sharia law, and when the women of the humble village of the Maid of Lorraine are forced to cover themselves or face the lash. Then they will stop agitating, but not before.

Hey Prime Minister Sarkosky, if you want to stop the problem, round em' up and deport em. Easy as that. Don't complicate the matter with a bunch of questions about the "compassion" of such an act: just do it. Do you want to know what is not compassionate? Letting Islam take root in another country. That is what ought not be tolerated. Is it narrow minded? Yes, but so were the great Catholic men of old who proclaimed with unwavering confidence in the righteousness of their cause, "Paynims are wrong; Christians are right!" (Song of Roland, LXXIX/1015)

"Jobs Americans Won't Do"

American girls picking beans in the 1940's. Wait a minute! I thought that was a job "Americans won't do," wasn't it?

In looking at the problem of immigration in this country (and it is a problem), there are several arguments that are usually put forth by those in favor of unrestricted immigration (both legal and illegal) by which they attempt to support their point. I can think of four main ones right of the bat:

Reason 1) Immigration is good for the economy because they provide a source of labor for jobs that American's won't do.

Reason 2) Our country is made up of immigrants. Immigration is essential to what America is; we cannot keep out immigrants without being hypocrites.

Reason 3) Immigration is just, because the illegal immigrants who come here are only trying to better themselves and their families, something which they have a right to do.

Reason 4) The USCCB says it is a good and Christian thing to do to allow unrestricted immigration.

I am sure there are other reasons put forth as to why open immigration is a great thing, but I think these are the main ones (although I'm going to disqualify number 4 right out of the gate because the USCCB bases it's conclusion on the first four reasons, and because the USCCB holds absolutely no water with me. Therefore, I'm going to ignore the USCCB and hope it goes away). In this particular post I propose to deal only with Reason 1, which I think is the stupidest one but is one of the reasons most frequently cited. "Immigrants do jobs Americans won't do." My economics professor tried to sell us on this one today. I think this phrase was originally coined by President Bush a few years back when he was pushing his immigration reform (aka, amnesty) bill. Since then, spokespeople in favor of unrestricted immigration and illegal alien amnesty have ceaselessly repeated this mantra until people have started to believe it.

The rationale is that immigrants are willing to do tasks that are seen to be beneath the dignity of most Americans, jobs like bean picking, janitorial work, menial services and agricultural services. Since no American will do these jobs, we need the immigrants to do them. Beans need to be picked, yards mowed, strawberries harvested and floors mopped. Since immigrants are the only ones who will do these tasks (since they are jobs American's "won't do"), massive immigration is an obvious solution to the labor problem.

First of all, the problem with these "jobs Americans won't do" is not with the jobs themselves. It is not below the dignity of any American to do any work. You find any disgusting, filthy, difficult, unrewarding, socially taboo job out there and there is somebody willing to do it. Seriously! We have no lack of Americans willing to get knee deep in feces in order to suck out a septic tank; we have no shortage of of American carnie's who travel around with our circuses; we have no shortage of embalming specialists willing to work with dead bodies; we have no shortage of sea men willing to work on Alaskan oil rigs for months on end or sail the storm-tossed Great Lakes for four months out of the year during shipping season. We have no shortage of police willing to take up the thankless and life-threatening task of patrolling places like South Central L.A. Truly, Americans are willing to do any job. The question is one of pay, not one of the job being below Americans' dignity.

So what about the pay? Well, in all of the above mentioned jobs (shipping, policing, cleaning septic) there is a degree of skill involved that demands a skilled worker, who usually commands more for his services than an unskilled worker. And thus Americans are still found in these jobs. Our standard and price of living here is ridiculously high, and so an American worker (especially if he has a family) must make massive amounts of money to support himself, not because he is greedy, but just because everything is so expensive. Now, the so-called "jobs Americans won't do" are all low-skill jobs. They have always paid low; janitors always got paid less than policemen. But at least there was a janitor's union that saw to it that they could command at least a living wage. Unskilled jobs always pay less, but until the last few decades, an American could still make a sufficient living from unskilled labor.

In comes the immigrants. Because they are unskilled, unskilled labor is the only kind of work they can do. They always are willing to work for less than an American because they do not share our living standards and because much of the money is sent back to their home country. When they enter the workforce, they drive the price of labor down. This phenomenon has been so well documented in American history that I am surprised anybody still questions the fact that immigration drives down the price of labor. So, whereas public school janitors used to get paid $12-$15 per hour, now school districts can privatize and hire immigrant labor who charge only $7 - $9 per hour, if that. No American can support himself on that wage. Thus, janitorial work for the public schools soon becomes a job Americans won't do. They can't anymore. Immigrants came in with a wage advantage that nobody could compete with, drove the wages down until only other immigrants could afford to take the jobs, and then the job becomes a job American's won't do.

I would be happy picking strawberries! I really would. I've been a janitor; it's not bad work. It is not that I won't do them, but I won't do them for an immigrant's wages. Raise the wage, and Americans will do the job. It is certainly true that there are jobs Americans can't do, but the jobs have become that way because of immigration, and obviously we do not want an economy built on jobs that American's can't do. Our economy cannot sustain itself on that philosophy. That is what needs to be rectified. But let's stop all this nonsense about jobs Americans won't do. It makes it look as if we think we're too good to work. I know a million people who would gladly take a menial job, but not at $5.75 per hour.

I can think of one job that American elected officialts won't do: deporting illegal aliens. This seems to be the one job that no American elected official wants to touch with a ten foot pole.

Bishops' support of illegal aliens

Anybody who has even casually perused the statements of the USCCB will notice their apparent intense love affair with illegal immigration. For example, if we look at the latest news posted on the USCCB website for today (October 2nd,2007), there are six articles linked. Of the six, three of them have to do with supporting illegal immigration. The articles bear titles like USCCB Migration Chairman Expresses Concern About Direction and Tone of National Immigration Debate, U. S Bishops urge congress to make changes to “Material Support” statute affecting refugee and asylum seekers, and U.S. Bishops Urge Elected Officials To Support DREAM Act, Affirm It Is The Right And Moral Thing To Do. So a random sampling of their news outlet shows that a full 50% of the USCCB's statements are in support for illegal immigration. What about abortion? Well, there is one article on abortion, but really it is only about "Respect Life Sunday" and mentions abortion only as one of many issues. For an article really condemning abortion in America, one has to go to the archives and scroll back to August 24th for an article condemning Amnesty International for supporting abortion.

So, on one day we have three articles out of six supporting illegal immigration, and for an equally strong condemnation of abortion we have to scroll all the way back to August 24th. What does this mean? It implies what Christ said, that "Out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks." Given that the bishops speak so often on immigration and so little on abortion, we can rightfully conclude that in their hearts they are more concerned with supporting illegal immigrants than with stopping abortion. Why on earth would this be the case?

I can't figure out why anybody would support illegal immigration, but I think with the USCCB it is tied up with a guilt complex over abortion. It is well known that the bishops, as a whole, have been woefully silent and apathetic over the years in standing up for the lives of unborn infants. I imagine this wears on their conscience, and so they try to assuage it by supporting something else that they wrongfully see as a life issue: illegal immigration. It's as if they are trying to say, "Well, yeah we're silent on abortion. But we're not all bad! Look, see how much we support the rights of illegal immigrants? We really are compassionate and loving after all!"

Of course, the bishops cannot positively take a unilateral position in favor of illegal immigration. They always make certain to throw in the little token reminder that, in the words of the USCCB, “The U.S. bishops acknowledge the right of our country to secure our borders and enforce immigration law. Such enforcement, however, must respect human rights and dignity and minimize the separation of families.” But in an article of 15 paragraphs, the little blurb alone is the only mention of the right of a nation to secure its borders. And notice how reluctant it is; "the U.S. bishops acknowledge"; what a weak statement of support for the government-side of the debate. The other 14 paragraphs are passionate pleas in favor of illegal aliens. It is as if they are saying, "Well, Church doctrine forbids us to positively deny this right of the state, and so we will do as little in support of it as we can; we will merely acknowledge it. But that's it!" They dryly acknowledge the state's right; but when it comes time to defending the aliens, then they get passionate!

The USCCB seems positively intent on promoting the idea that illegal immigration is a human right. Thus, any attempt to curb illegal immigration would be a denial of human dignity. This is so far-fetched that I am surprised that anybody buys into it. First of all, nobody has a right to go wherever they please. Secondly, if people do come into another country, they need to go through the proper channels. Just because you may not like the proper channels does not mean you are therefore free to discard them. At the bank this morning, it took me fifteen minutes in line before I could get to the teller; does that mean I can just bust into the safe and take my money because I think the conventional methods are too slow? Of course not!

Furthermore, illegal immigration does such harm to this nation's economy that I would say the US government has an obligation to strictly enforce the borders. There are 13 million undocumented workers in this country, and most of them send their meager wages back home to Mexico. Billions of American dollars are being exported to a third world country every single year; meanwhile, there are millions who can't get work here. There are many other factors at play here, but the point is that why would we let an army of people who pay no taxes, got here by breaking our laws, and who destroy our economy by their presence, simply send off billions out of our country. Did you know that money sent to Mexico by illegal immigrants is Mexico's chief source of state revenue? What kind of country does that? Mexico is not a country; it is a parasite nation. Furthermore, how can we survive economically if we allow all our money to be exported?

Worst of all, week after week we have to endure our bishops supporting this parasitical relationship as if it were a fundamental, inalienable human right. If you are going to get all worked up, then get worked up about abortion, gay marriage, liturgical abuse or something that really is important. Stifling our country's attempts to protect itself is not a good way to endear yourselves to hard working citizens.

By the way, for a look at how I think we should solve the immigration problem, click here for this article on Operation Wetback, a 1954 operation organized by President Eisenhower. Notice how they managed to remove almost 1.5 million illegals with only 1050 agents. I also like how when the deport them, they don't just drop them at the border; they ship them 500 miles away into the deep Mexican interior or way down the coast at Vera Cruz closer to central America. I hope to post something in the future on this topic that is more scholarly and has some good statistics; but in the meantime, check out this website to view a lot of great articles on illegal immigration that are more well thought out and less off the cuff than mine!

Labor Day - USCCB

Sorry I have not posted for a few days; I was busy for Labor Day weekend, but hopefully everybody had something better to do on Labor Day weekend than go on this blog! Speaking of Labor Day, check out the USCCB's comments on the holiday here. Notice how they talk briefly about labor and then spend the remainder of the document going on about how great illegal immigration is and how morally wrong it is to try to stop it. They talk as if being against illegal immigration is somehow a violation of a person's human dignity or something. Another reason the USCCB has little authority in my eyes; good thing some bishops are finally saying the same.