Let’s look at another point raised by one of those who commented on immigration as regard the statements of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops called Strangers No Longer:
#35 says that “all the goods of the earth belong to all the people”. Wow. That eliminates all private property up to and including my toothbrush. In fact, it would seem to decriminalize burglary, since my stuff is your stuff. Crazy.
Well, that sounds terrible until one considers it in context. That is, one must read the full statement in order to understand what is being said. It is part of the current way of dealing with issues to pick a quote and drop a whole weight of interpretation on it without considering the surrounding statements which help to define it. Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of this. So, let us look at the surrounding statements:
35. The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people. When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.
III. Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders.
36. The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows. . .
39. The Church recognizes the right of a sovereign state to control its borders in furtherance of the common good. It also recognizes the right of human persons to migrate so that they can realize their God-given rights. These teachings complement each other. While the sovereign state may impose reasonable limits on immigration, the common good is not served when the basic human rights of the individual are violated. In the current condition of the world, in which global poverty and persecution are rampant, the presumption is that persons must migrate in order to support and protect themselves and that nations who are able to receive them should do so whenever possible. It is through this lens that we assess the current migration reality between the United States and Mexico.
I think that the Church makes it quite clear in context that it is neither arguing against private rights nor arguing that immigration should be uncontrolled and at the simple decision of the person who desires to immigrate. But, it does argue that national and private rights are not the ultimate measure of right and wrong. Rather, the argument is that there is a larger picture, a picture which comes all the way from the Old Testament, which argues that people in other areas have the right to emigrate in order to find freedom and economic security. The Church further argues that any body which looks back to an Exodus, which looks back to a Savior who had to become a political refugee in another country, which looks back to a band of Apostles in an occupied country, cannot behave like the Romans of the New Testament.
That is, the theological argument is that salvation history itself is built on the history of immigrants to a country which was not theirs (Abraham and the children of Israel in Canaan), of emigrants who were political refugees (The Holy Family), of a Passover Supper which is built on the declaration that one is a stranger and an alien, of a New Testament declaration that continues the theme of strangers and aliens (my Kingdom is not of this world). That Church cannot be a Church which fails to take the stranger and the alien and their rights into serious consideration. For those of you who doubt this, read the Old Testament passages that deal with God’s strong words about the treatment of strangers and aliens in the midst of Israel.
Now, as to the statement in point 35. I freely admit that I would have felt more comfortable with a more Biblical statement. What is that Biblical statement? “The Earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” That statement is found in both Psalm 24:1 and 1 Corinthians 10:26. What is the theological outcome? Well, in Jeremiah it says that Israel was sent into exile because of all the years in which Israel failed to observe the Sabbath Year, the ecological year of the Lord. In the Old Testament it continually states that because the Lord has given the land of Canaan to Israel, they must remember that and take care of the stranger and the alien. So, does this mean that the Lord owns your toothbrush? Most of us would tend to say YES. But, when we must take responsibility for the welfare of our fellow Christians, let alone our fellow human beings, suddenly that becomes a clear NO. This tells me that we are happy to say YES to God because we have no real expectation that He will require us to make good on our YES.
But the Church requires us to say some types of YES. “In the current condition of the world, in which global poverty and persecution are rampant, the presumption is that persons must migrate in order to support and protect themselves and that nations who are able to receive them should do so whenever possible. It is through this lens that we assess the current migration reality between the United States and Mexico.” In the current condition we have several million illegal immigrants. In the current condition, many of them are individuals who came as young children and who are now adults who could not return to their “home” country because they have neither the language skills nor the training to survive there. In the current condition, most of them have productive jobs which support our economy. In the current condition, the Congress, the Courts, and the Presidency are more guilty than the illegal immigrant for they did not take care of their responsibilities when they could have. In the current condition, those “Christians” whose only attitude and goal is to treat all illegal immigrants as though they were violent criminals need to repent and look for a solution that is equitable both to the illegal immigrant and to this country. In the current condition, the Church calls all Christians to look for ways to allow more immigrants into those countries which can support them, even if the standard of living is somewhat lowered. In fact, the bishops’ statement condemns the desire to maintain a certain high standard of living at the cost of the alien and stranger. In the current condition, many “Christians” are not behaving at all Biblically, nor are listening to their Church leaders. While I can excuse Protestants who do not believe in hierarchical authority, I cannot excuse those Roman Catholics and those Orthodox who persist in disobeying their hierarchs.
So, are we called to unthinking opening of the borders? NO, NO, NO. But, we are called to an economic responsibility for others that includes our willingness to find solutions rather than simplistic condemnations.
The wider context for this statement concerning private property is the (RC) Church’s teaching on private property in general. This teacihng basically affirms the right to private property, but not as an end in itself; rather, this right is seen as a mean to ensuring a larger right, that being what the RCC calls “the universal destination of all goods.” In other words, all humans have a right of access to the basic necessitities of life, and the right to private property is a means given so that all may attain that right. When the right to private property conflicts with the right of all to access that which is required to live, the former right must give way to the latter, more basic right.
The problem is that the Religious Right (along with the Tea Party) is arguing that private property is a higher right than another individual’s right to the basic necessities of life. In fact, many will argue that there is no such right, and will go on to talk about welfare mothers, etc., as examples of what happens if you try to ensure that people have the basic necessities of life. But, that is not what the statement is saying per se. For instance, the right to choose your clients (which was a part of private property rights) was taken away from restaurants and other public places during the civil rights struggles of the 20th century in order to give others their greater right to access. This is also why it is moral to force private businesses to hire minorities. Because the evidence clearly showed that unless they were forced, then the right of access to the means of self-improvement and to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was being withheld from African-Americans (and others) and would continue to be withheld.
This is a clear dividing line between Orthodox / Catholic teaching and certain (but not all) of the Protestant groups. We do clearly teach what you said above.
As my father used to say–My right to swing my fist ends where your face begins.
GRIN, much of the arguments today have to do with the perception that the government is shoving its face so far forward that it needs to step back a bit. I think this is an argument that could be made. Government must have limits, otherwise it all too easily becomes overwhelming. However, when an attempt is made to push the government so far back that we are in danger of returning to the 1950’s, then that is too far.
This is a topic worthy of discussion and even argument. The problem is that discussion and argument have been replaced by slogans and emotion.
Heck, Fr. Ernesto., in many ways we have disgressed back beyond the 1950s, especially in terms of income and wealth inequality.
You may be familiar with the principle, “Do no harm.” This of course is reminiscent of the neo-pagan slogan, “Do as you will as long as you do no harm.” I find this convergence interesting.
The problem, of course, is that pretty much everything one does has the potential of doing harm. Therefore, societies as a whole engage in a cost-benefit analysis. Does allowing a given behavior cost more than it is worth or is the benefit greater? Would prohibiting a given behavior cost more than the damage it engenders? Obviously, that analysis changes over time as data change and the awareness of society changes. Thus, c. 1919, the majority of U.S. citizens, acting through their elected representatives,chose to outlaw alcohol. However, a few years later, this same society reversed that decision. Unfortunately, libertarianism in general fails to take this matter as seriously as is warranted.