It strikes me that on the one hand what Cardinal Mahoney is doing is the opposite of what Catholic Charities did in Massachusetts--they are resisting a law that prevents Catholics from honoring their faith commitment, whereas in Massachusetts Catholic Charities in effect capitulated to the law that prevents their facilitating adoptions without a license (on terms they cannot accept). On the other hand, what Cardinal Mahoney is urging is consistent with what Catholic Charities did--urging Catholics not to cooperate with a law that would require Catholics to act contrary to their faith. I think the latter consideration is more relevant, since it goes to substance and not to form.
What a lot of list members seem to be doing with CC is beating up on them for thinking that homosexual conduct is sinful; this is OK as a theological and policy point, but analytically in terms of the roles of government and relligion, shouldn't we be treating a church's theological position as a "black box" that should not be deconstructed or peered into in accordance with non-believers' ideologies? Vance On 3/22/06, Marty Lederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Interesting Op-Ed in today's Times by the Cardinal Arhcbishop of Los > Angeles, who apparently plans to instruct the priests of his archdiocese to > disobey a proposed law that would subject them, as well as other church and > humanitarian workers, to criminal penalties for "assisting" undocumented > immigrants "to remain in the United States." > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/opinion/22mahony.html?_r=1&oref=slogin > > A couple of things to note: > > 1. Cardinal Mahoney argues that providing social services to illegal > immigrants "does not mean that the Catholic Church encourages or supports > illegal immigration." This is, I submit, in at least a bit of tension with > the commonly heard notions that failing to discriminate against gays (e.g., > in facilitating adoptions) is an endorsement of same-sex marriage, or that > renting apartments to unmarried couples is aiding and abetting sinful > behavior. (I acknowledge, of course, that Mahoney does not speak for all > Catholics.) > > 2. More importantly for purposes of this list, does anyone think that > Congress (i) can, (ii) should, and/or (iii) must include a religious > exemption? Does RFRA already establish such an exemption? > > Called by God to Help > By ROGER MAHONY > > > Los Angeles > > I'VE received a lot of criticism for stating last month that I would > instruct the priests of my archdiocese to disobey a proposed law that would > subject them, as well as other church and humanitarian workers, to criminal > penalties. The proposed Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal > Immigration Control bill, which was approved by the House of Representatives > in December and is expected to be taken up by the Senate next week, would > among other things subject to five years in prison anyone who "assists" an > undocumented immigrant "to remain in the United States." > > Some supporters of the bill have even accused the church of encouraging > illegal immigration and meddling in politics. But I stand by my statement. > Part of the mission of the Roman Catholic Church is to help people in need. > It is our Gospel mandate, in which Christ instructs us to clothe the naked, > feed the poor and welcome the stranger. Indeed, the Catholic Church, through > Catholic Charities agencies around the country, is one of the largest > nonprofit providers of social services in the nation, serving both citizens > and immigrants. > > Providing humanitarian assistance to those in need should not be made a > crime, as the House bill decrees. As written, the proposed law is so broad > that it would criminalize even minor acts of mercy like offering a meal or > administering first aid. > > Current law does not require social service agencies to obtain evidence of > legal status before rendering aid, nor should it. Denying aid to a fellow > human being violates a law with a higher authority than Congress — the law > of God. > > That does not mean that the Catholic Church encourages or supports illegal > immigration. Every day in our parishes, social service programs, hospitals > and schools, we witness the baleful consequences of illegal immigration. > Families are separated, workers are exploited and migrants are left by > smugglers to die in the desert. Illegal immigration serves neither the > migrant nor the common good. > > What the church supports is an overhaul of the immigration system so that > legal status and legal channels for migration replace illegal status and > illegal immigration. Creating legal structures for migration protects not > only those who migrate but also our nation, by giving the government the > ability to better identify who is in the country as well as to control who > enters it. > > Only comprehensive reform of the immigration system, embodied in the > principles of another proposal in Congress, the Secure America and Orderly > Immigration bill, will help solve our current immigration crisis. > > Enforcement-only proposals like the Border Protection act take the country > in the opposite direction. Increasing penalties, building more detention > centers and erecting walls along our border with Mexico, as the act > provides, will not solve the problem. > > The legislation will not deter migrants who are desperate to survive and > support their families from seeking jobs in the United States. It will only > drive them further into the shadows, encourage the creation of more > elaborate smuggling networks and cause hardship and suffering. I hope that > the Senate will not take the same enforcement-only road as the House. > > The unspoken truth of the immigration debate is that at the same time our > nation benefits economically from the presence of undocumented workers, we > turn a blind eye when they are exploited by employers. They work in > industries that are vital to our economy yet they have little legal > protection and no opportunity to contribute fully to our nation. > > While we gladly accept their taxes and sweat, we do not acknowledge or > uphold their basic labor rights. At the same time, we scapegoat them for our > social ills and label them as security threats and criminals to justify the > passage of anti-immigrant bills. > > This situation affects the dignity of millions of our fellow human beings > and makes immigration, ultimately, a moral and ethical issue. That is why > the church is compelled to take a stand against harmful legislation and to > work toward positive change. > > It is my hope that our elected officials will understand this and enact > immigration reform that respects our common humanity and reflects the values > — fairness, compassion and opportunity — upon which our nation, a nation of > immigrants, was built. > > Roger Mahony is the cardinal archbishop of Los Angeles. > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
