Here is an article at NRO by George Neumayr on Roger Cardinal Mahony.
… Mahony’s de facto calls for civil disobedience on immigration would be more persuasive if it could be demonstrated that he understood the natural-law basis for the distinction between a just and an unjust law. Unfortunately, there’s little evidence of this; indeed, it is ironic that a famously modernist bishop like Mahony, who normally treats the concept of natural law as a pre-Vatican II relic, suddenly cites it when justifying illegal immigration.
And anybody who thinks Mahony is a sincere advocate for civil disobedience should talk to protesting pro-lifers: Squeamish about getting too close to them, Mahony won’t even let them collect signatures for ballot propositions on his parishes’ property. Notice, too, that he now speaks of compassion as more important than law — but when common sense and basic compassion dictated that he cooperate with the authorities in protecting children from pedophile priests, he didn’t, arguing that his understanding of the law didn’t technically require cooperation.
If only the Cardinal called for prayer and fasting when it comes to abortion instead of holding pro-lifers at arms-length and inviting and embracing pro-abortion politicians at every turn. Maybe if we started calling babies in the womb "undocumented workers" we could get attention by some bishops to defend them.
Now I haven’t wrote about my own opinion on immigration, but it basically comes down to immigration I’m for it, illegal immigration I’m against it. Or as Thomas Friedman said "A very high fence with a very wide gate." My wife is a legal immigrant so obviously I don’t have a problem with legal immigration. I would take more seriously the sudden interests of some bishops on this subject if they had previously been lobbying for both larger quotas for new immigrants and a call to streamline what can be a very burdensome process. Instead of making the strawman argument that the proposed law would require them to turn in illegal’s when giving assistance. Debate always goes down the tubes when the arguments advanced are just plain dishonest. If the bishops want to lobby for open borders than I don’t see how they can really put forth an argument that isn’t other than their own opinion. More effectively they should lobby to reduce the amount of illegal aliens coming into the country and after this is done to possibly lobby for amnesty. I can see a case made for amnesty within Church teaching as long as it is doesn’t deny that it is a forgiveness of an illegal act.
One of the problems with illegal immigration and the reasons that the countries they come from encourage it is that it helps them to not address a problem. These governments won’t face tough decisions to improve their own economies when they can in part bleed off those unemployed and to also come to rely on capital coming back into their own countries. We should be doing what we can to improve economic conditions in these countries instead of encouraging a situation that only delays real solutions.
Now in this one instance I think the Democrats actually have a workable plan to stop illegal immigration. If only we would listen to them and adopt the Kyoto treaty, tax businesses even higher, and increase burdensome laws in no time our economy would be in the dumps and people would have no reason to desire to come here in the first place.
He strongly supports the immigration issue because it is ‘sexy’ and PC – it is easy to stand up for it because the liberal establishment ok’s it. Being Pro-Life is frowned apon. He and others like him are so transparent…
Comments are closed.