The Apostolic Exhortation Dilexi Te limits its discussion of “migrants” to three paragraphs: 73–75. Paragraph 73 claims that “The experience of migration accompanies the history of the People of God,” citing Abraham, Moses, and the Flight into Egypt. Paragraph 74 focuses on two 19th-century Church figures involved in the care of migrants in the Americas: St. Frances Xavier Cabrini and Bishop Giovanni Battista Scalabrini. Paragraph 75 cites contemporary examples of work with “migrants,” quoting Pope Francis’ line that “our response to the challenges posed by contemporary migration can be summed up in four verbs: welcome, protect, promote, and integrate.” It further reminds us that every person is a child of God, made in the divine image and likeness, and insists that “proclamation of the Gospel is credible only when it is translated into gestures of closeness and welcome,” concluding that “in every rejected migrant, it is Christ himself who knocks at the door of the community.”

Before these claims even reach the level of theology, standard logic would challenge them. The first question arises from what Dilexi Te does not ask: the legal status of a “migrant.” The Exhortation simply ignores the issue. There are only “migrants.” Vaccines, Amen: The Re... Siri, Aaron Buy New $22.63 (as of 09:51 UTC - Details)

What are we to conclude from that omission? That the legal status of a migrant is irrelevant? That would surprise nearly every state in the world, each of which not only distinguishes between legal and illegal immigrants but among legal categories themselves: temporary workers on nonimmigrant visas, refugees, asylum seekers, parolees, or permanent residents. The legal status of a migrant determines that person’s rights, obligations, and future in the host country. Would the Holy See tell  states to abandon such distinctions? If not, why does Dilexi Te fail even to acknowledge them?

Or is the Exhortation suggesting that Catholics should disregard the legality question altogether? If so, that would represent a radical shift in Catholic teaching about the obligations of citizens toward the state. If this is now doctrine, when and where was it promulgated? If it is not, then what is the nature of Dilexi Te’s statements on migration? Are they opinion, advice, or fervorino? Catholics have a right to know what binds conscience and what does not. A clear line has always separated authoritative teaching from pastoral commentary, the latter not enjoying magisterial weight.

These distinctions matter. What should a Catholic who works for ICE in field enforcement think? Or a CBP officer at a border checkpoint? Or a USCIS employee adjudicating claims for status change? Does a Catholic immigration officer act in bad faith by enforcing his country’s immigration laws?

Dilexi Te also plays loosely with history. Migration patterns in the ancient world differed radically from the modern era. Israel lay along the Fertile Crescent, between Egypt’s Nile and Babylon’s Tigris and Euphrates. Movement along that route was normal—but not unregulated. Those who use Exodus 23:9 (“you were aliens in the land of Egypt”) as a proof text for open borders forget that even St. Thomas Aquinas noted that Old Testament norms for foreigners were nuanced and conditional.

Moreover, to use ancient migration as a model for modern policy ignores the Westphalian system of sovereign states that emerged after 1648. Modern theology praises “historical development,” yet Dilexi Te seems blind to the historical development of political order itself. If doctrine may “develop,” why can’t history? Does anyone in Rome seriously believe the Westphalian state can—or should—be erased?

The discussion of Cabrini and Scalabrini likewise sidesteps the legality issue. When Mother Cabrini tended an orphan, she did not ask his legal status, but she lived in an era of lawful, regulated migration. The late 19th century was marked by large-scale, legally sanctioned immigration to the United States and Canada. Her ministry, and that of Bishop Scalabrini, did not conflict with the legal order of the countries they served. Indeed, the Catholic bishops of the United States then worked hard to reinforce the idea that “good Catholic” meant “good American.” It is difficult to imagine John Ireland or “Dagger John” Hughes endorsing or abetting large-scale illegal entry into the United States.

Invoking historical precedents from a different time and legal order to justify contemporary mass illegal immigration stretches analogy beyond reason. Only by ignoring both history and law can one claim—on Francis’ word—that the verbs governing migration can only be “welcome, protect, promote, and integrate.”

Does “welcoming” mean disregarding national immigration law? Nothing in Catholic teaching defines immigration restrictions as intrinsically unjust. On what basis does the Church think it may ignore—de jure or de facto—legitimate state law in this area?  Under the banner of “protecting” migrants? When violations of those laws occur on a massive scale, does the Church’s practical disregard for them amount to material cooperation with lawbreaking? Or does it evade that charge by saying it merely “promotes” the cause of migrants, regardless of legal status?

If immigration controls are a legitimate act of sovereignty, then when the Church “integrates” migrants sociologically without corresponding legal integration, it risks trespassing on rights that belong to Caesar. By fostering sociological integration absent legal status, the Church effectively pressures the state to create legal pathways, even though determining such status is a civil competence. Caesar has rights in justice too—including not to have his hand forced by faits accomplis. Quiet Your Mind: A Men... Stone PhD, Jett Best Price: $8.91 Buy New $12.90 (as of 09:51 UTC - Details)

These are not just questions of “standing with the poor.” They concern the relationship between Church and state and the Church’s role in telling states how to adjudicate legal presence, residence, and citizenship. Their implications reach far beyond charity. To omit the core issue—legal status—is to discuss migration as if the modern political order did not exist.

When Jesus was asked about paying taxes to Rome, He did not merely dodge a trap; He recognized that while God’s primacy is absolute, Caesar has real, subordinate rights. Vatican II called this the “autonomy of created things.” Those “created things,” after 1648, include the sovereign state. No honest discussion of migration can ignore that fact.

In the end, Dilexi Te’s treatment of migration leaves Catholics with serious unanswered questions. The Church may and must remind believers of the moral dignity of every person. But she cannot call Catholics to actions that imply contempt for lawful authority, nor can she treat the existence of sovereign states as a regrettable accident of history. If Rome wishes to speak credibly about migration, it must do so in full awareness that the world of Abraham and Moses is not the world of passports, borders, and visas—and that Catholics, while bound by charity, are also citizens. Between God and Caesar, the Exhortation seems to have forgotten that both still have legitimate claims upon us.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.