Although even Pope Leo XIV acknowledges that mass immigration is a “huge problem,“ a recent “Pastoral Note to Migrants” issued by Michigan’s Catholic bishops is an embarrassing combination of fallacy, contradiction, doctrinal subversion, begged questions, conflict of interest, and hypocrisy.

To start, the letter from the bishops ignores the elephant in the room: the violation of immigration law is a crime. Since the bishops subsequently claim that “The Catholic Church affirms the rule of law….” they must prove that current immigration law is unjust if they seek to continue supporting mass immigration in violation of the law. How the Catholic Churc... Thomas E. Woods Best Price: $8.00 Buy New $9.06 (as of 05:30 UTC - Details)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2241 lays out the proper disposition of immigrants to their new country and the right of a receiving country to determine the conditions for entry. Furthermore, the Catholic social teaching of Pope St. John Paul II urged the sincere participation of citizens in the cultural, economic, and social life of a civil community—not merely taking advantage of promises of free stuff (transportation, health care, food, services, housing) without contributing anything. To ignore this balance is an injustice to working Americans who themselves may be struggling.

When some newcomers seek to subvert the existing legal system by substituting Sharia or by illegally voting in a presidential election, how is it not reprehensible? Adding insult to injury, Catholic Charities supports “crucial care” funding that includes free chartered flights into the country for so-called asylum seekers—people who may never have thought to enter the United States without such services. Bishop Emeritus Joseph Strickland pointed out that 80 percent of immigrants would not qualify for asylum or refugee status. Even worse, Catholic Charities’ free legal advice includes instruction on how to remain silent when questioned by immigration authorities. Is this honorable?

The bishops also ignore theologian and Doctor of the Church Thomas Aquinas, who quotes Aristotle in recommending that immigrants should wait three generations before full admission into a community lest they meddle in hurtful ways (Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 105, a.3).

Emotional Blackmail

Instead of addressing these pertinent issues, the bishops decided to change the subject and exploit the emotional aspects of poverty and hunger. This move was completely unnecessary because assistance to those suffering from genuine hunger and thirst can just as easily be provided in one’s country of origin without the social disruption, risk, and high cost of intercontinental travel required by immigration. Moreover, the immigrant assistance addressed in CCC 2241 is itself limited to “those who cannot have a means of livelihood in their country of origin.” Given the lack of documentation for the vast flood of immigrants, was there even an attempt to determine how many really suffered such a fate?

The exploitation of emotion-laden words like “empathize,” “anxiety,” and “fear” not only obscures the illegitimacy of their position but it is entirely one-sided (i.e., card stacking, an informal fallacy). Why don’t the bishops extend the same attitude to the thousands of U.S. citizens whose properties along the border and elsewhere are overrun by waves of immigrants lured by promises of free stuff? Why no empathy for taxpayers, the victims of child- and sex-trafficking (vastly increased by this policy), and those whose neighborhoods have been transformed by the overwhelming incursion of immigrants?

Current Immigration Law and Tacit Deception

The bishops urged elected officials to “work for a humane immigration system.” The tacit assumption here is that the lawful immigration process that Trump seeks to restore (which Democrats abandoned), is somehow inhumane. But that begs the question: Compared to what? The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965—in effect for 60 years—is widely recognized as one of the world’s most radically accommodating to immigrants. It has been long criticized as too generous—transforming the social fabric of the country by permitting a vast influx of immigrants who neither understand nor value America’s unique freedoms. The 5-Ingredient Cookb... Kelly, Benjamin Best Price: $3.72 Buy New $8.57 (as of 11:51 UTC - Details)

So, why assume that a decades-old policy is inhumane? This is particularly galling when Vatican City itself increased its own restrictions, fines, and imprisonment penalties for unauthorized entry on December 19, 2024: “Anyone convicted of illegal entry will be banned from entering Vatican territory for a period of up to 15 years.” Hypocrisy seems to have found a home with Michigan’s bishops on this issue.

Subsidiarity Ignored

Catholic social teaching is grounded in the concept of subsidiarity (CCC 1883-1885, 2209). This means that the smallest, most local social institution (usually the family) should resolve problems first. Why? Because the institutions closest to, most intimate with, and most likely to understand all of the details and parties involved are best equipped to get the job done successfully, efficiently, and with minimal disruption.

Along with subsidiarity comes a warning: larger, more remote social institutions must not interfere with the primacy of local social units. Knowing this, why do the bishops take the opposite approach? In effect, they are prioritizing a vast, faceless, remote bureaucracy that is itself funded by the most massive tax-and-spend bureaucracy in the history of mankind (the U.S. government)—not to mention its copycats in Lansing. And the bishops don’t even offer the thinnest tissue of an excuse for violating this principle.

Read the Whole Article