An Answer to Fidei Defensor

Fidei Defensor of the blog College Catholic(which is listed in my links) recently made a post countering the issue of Catholicism and immigration. Fidei Defensor was countering certain remarks made by MSNBC commentator Tucker Carlson on the issue. You can read the link to see Fidei Defensor's full post, but I wish to answer him on a few things. Don't get me wrong, I like him and enjoy reading his posts; but I respectfully disargee with his approach to this issue.

When countering Carlon's argument that most American Catholics actually oppose illegal immigration, Fidei Defensor answered:

"I am sick of pundits using polls of "American Catholics" to prove something. Not just on this issue but any, the media will say 'oh but 70% of Catholics support contraception, why can't the church be a democracy and go with that?' Then they will say that 'the Pope is stuck in the past and that the end of the Catholic Church is imminent.' Ironic considering the Church is the oldest instituion on earth and has basicaly outlasted every challange."

That's an interesting argument but ultimately it's a non sequitur. The Church's opposition to contraception is based on basic Catholic doctrine. The same cannot be said for issues like illegal immigration. Although many people like Cardinal Mahony try to twist around Catholic teachings to claim that supporting illegal immigrants is somehow the moral thing to do.

In fact this is exactly what the Archdiocese of Santa Fe had to say on this issue:

"Church teaching supports the rights of sovereign nations to protect their borders...We do not support or encourage illegal immigration because it is contrary to federal law and because those living outside the legal structures are open to abuse, exploitation, and death in the desert...The U. S. Catholic Conference of Bishops supports the Senate Bill, under the name "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" (S.1033)."

I pointed out similar views in a previous post. So this notion that Catholics are obligated to support illegal immigration is simply not true. As Richard Neuhaus commented in the February of 2001 issue of First Things Magazine: "Can moral arguments backed by Catholic social doctrine be mustered in support of limiting or even cutting back on immigration? Certainly." However, Neuhaus then goes on to lament that making such arguments is "like spitting in the wind."

Moving on. Fidei Defensor went on to say this:

"By the way Tucker, illegal immigrants are American Catholics, if such a distinction can even be made, the Church doesn't divide itself by nationality, like the Swedish Lutheran Church, the Church of England, the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America."

First off, illegal immigrants are not Americans. One can say that both legally and culturally speaking. Illegal immigrants are of course not American citizens, so legally speaking they're not Americans. Culturally speaking, they're not Americans either since America has traditionally been an Anglo-Saxon based culture. Of course non-Anglo Saxon cultures have existed here as well, but by and large that element has come to dominate American society. Just like how they're are many non-Slavic cultures that exist within the boundaries of the Russian Federation, but by and large the Slavic element is the dominant culture.

Previously, I even posted Charles De Gaulle's position concerning French nationhood. And as I stated then: "Every nation has had its basic ethnic core, and it is wise for that nation to protect that core. Otherwise that nation will lose its identity and become something entirely different." That doesn't necessarily equate to advocating complete ethnic homogeneity(which in most cases is impossible anyways), but it does mean preserving the basic character of a nation over several generations. K.M Gibson of Facing the Sun even posted this quote from John Jay's Federalist Paper #2 concerning America's destiny as a nation:

"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs... This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."

So clearly this notion of nationhood was not unheard of in American society.

But what about Fidei Defensor's argument that "the Church doesn't divide itself by nationality"? Well yes and no. Theologicallylly speaking, the Church is one and universal. However, it should also be noted that universal does not imply uniform. Quite the contrary. In fact this is what Regino of Prum wrote in his Chronicon around the year 900 A.D.:

"Just as different peoples(diversae nations populorum) differ between themselves in descent, manners, language and laws(genere, moribus, lingua, legibus) so the holy and universal church throughout the world, although joined in the unity of the faith nevertheless varies its ecclesiastical customs among them."

So yes, the Holy Catholic Church is indeed one, but in a pluralistic way. The Catholic Church has always adapted the universal truths of its doctrine to the particular customs of different nations and cultures. I urge Fidei to read my post concerning the issue of ethnic-based churches, in which I go into more details about this.

Well that's basically all I had to say about this. A reminder: although I disagree with Fidei Defensor, this does not to imply he's a bad person. In fact most of the time we're largely in agreement on the issue. Same can be said for Catholicam Speluncam Masculum, even though we had an unnecessarily heated discussion concerning the Marine Corps. I was actually going through a bad bout of depression at the time and wasn't in the best of moods for such a discussion.

Oh well.