Father Richard John Neuhaus has a post up today entitled “Who Speaks for the Church?” at the First Things On the Square blog. Neuhaus proffers scattered criticism of Roger Cardinal Mahony’s presentation on immigration reform at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Without offering us any remedy for what he perceives to be the deficiencies in the Cardinal’s presentation, Neuhaus consistently misrepresents Mahony, suggesting to me that Neuhaus has not carefully considered the force of the Cardinal’s message. This all amounts to a disservice rendered by Neuhaus. He underestimates the knowledge and resource of his readers in this latest On the Square post by means of his irresponsible distortion of Mahony’s message and accusation of Mahony being “conceptually confused” in his view of national sovereignty.
Allow me to first fill-in the details conveniently left out in Neuhaus’ post. The “account” to which Neuhaus refers was Cardinal Mahony’s lead talk at the Fifth John M. Templeton Jr. Lecture on the Constitution and Economic Liberty, held on May 8
, 2007. Mahony’s lecture, entitled “The Challenge of ‘We the People’ in a Post-9/11 World: Immigration, the American Economy and the Constitution,” is not really aimed at presenting “the Church’s position on comprehensive immigration reform,” as Neuhaus suggests, but is rather a cursory overview of the manner in which the biblical tradition of compassion for the stranger can be applied to the practical issue of undocumented migration in the United States. It is well worth the time to read, especially because it concisely conveys many of the similar concerns expressed by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI on the problem.
It is imperative to note that neither the Church nor Cardinal Mahony has a concrete and comprehension immigration reform policy, and Neuhaus’ adumbration that Mahony presented any sort of official policy–in the name of the Church, no less–bespeaks of a tragic incomprehension of the Cardinal’s remarks.
So what exceptions does Neuhaus take to Mahony’s lecture? There seem to be four issues that Neuhaus raises: 1. Mahony does not touch on ways to encourage the economic and social development of Mexico; 2. Mahony tends toward biblical fundamentalism in his presentation of scriptural norms; 3. Mahony confusedly attacks the “nation-state,” which is not warranted in Catholic social doctrine; 4. Mahony does not speak for the Church.
Let’s put Neuhaus’ reading comprehension and ideology to the test by address these four issues.
Mahony does not touch on the economic and social development of Mexico
Cardinal Mahony’s concern for the well-being of illegal immigrants is laudable—and unavoidable in view of the population mix of Los Angeles and southern California. It is a concern we all must share. The difficulties many of these people encounter are severe but not, in their own judgment, as severe as the difficulties they encounter south of the border, or else presumably they would not be here. It is a pity that the cardinal’s comprehensive address on these questions does not touch on ways to encourage the economic and social development of Mexico. Such ways are persuasively suggested in, for instance, the 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, which is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The title of Mahony’s lecture, mind you, is “The Challenge of ‘We the People’ in a Post-9/11 World: Immigration, the American Economy and the Constitution.” The title of the lecture alone invokes the first words of the U.S. Constitution, the socio-political consequences of 9/11 (which occurred on U.S. soil), and the U.S. economy. Obviously, Mahony’s brief lecture (nine pages as a PDF document) was intentionally limited to some remarks on the economic and social affect of immigration in the U.S. It may behoove Neuhaus to not only notice that Mahony does not exclusively or explicitly speak of Mexican immigrants, but also to recall that the problem of undocumented migrants, though a serious matter between Mexican migrants and the U.S., is a multi-cultural reality.
Mahony defines the scope of his lecture in the first sentence of the first paragraph: “I am grateful for the invitation to be with you this evening and to offer remarks on the topic of immigration, the economy and the Constitution.” There you have it. Mahony wishes to speak on the interrelatedness of immigration into the U.S., the U.S. economy and the U.S. Constitution. Plain, simple and explicit. Did Mahony anywhere suggest that his lecture would be “comprehensive,” as Neuhaus suggests? The objection that Mahony is reticent on the plight of Mexico’s citizens is utterly irrelevant in the context of Mahony’s specifically and intentionally limited presentation, a critique that is nothing more than a phantom.
But how could the readers of On the Square know the scope and direction of Mahony’s lecture, anyway? Neuhaus did not even think to link to Mahony’s lecture so that readers of On the Square could weigh Neuhaus’ seemingly informed objections with Mahony’s actual words. But no such service is provided by Neuhaus. Presumably, he’s earned our trust without any need for verification.
Mahony resembles a biblical fundamentalist
Neuhaus seems to take issue with Mahony’s use of Scripture to illustrate the Judeo-Christian tradition of care and concern for the stranger and the marginalized. Here is Neuhaus’ charge followed by the rather meager case he presents for painting Mahony as a fundamentalist:
A greater difficulty with the cardinal’s lecture, however, is the facile move from Bible quoting to public-policy prescription. That move is less characteristic of Catholic social thought than of the habits of biblical fundamentalists. The cardinal’s position is devoid of respect for what Pope Benedict repeatedly stresses as the role of reason in rightly ordering the sphere of the “authentically secular.”—
At points in his presentation, it seems that God’s household is the Church; at other points, it is the people of Israel. In the latter connection he cites Deuteronomy 10, “You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt,” and Exodus 22, “You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” At yet at other points, God’s household seems to be the entire human race.
Now is not the time to remind Neuhaus how fundamentalist he tends to be in his attempts to garner biblical and papal fragments in defence of his socio-political views. Rather, I want to stick strictly with Neuhaus’ post on Mahony.
Is Neuhaus fair to Mahony? Consider this liberal sampling of Mahony’s biblical perspective:
Deuteronomy 10:19 You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.Exodus 22:21 You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 19:33-34 When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 24:17 You shall not deprive a resident alien of justice…
This wise and urgent teaching to care for the stranger and the alien who responds to hope and despair is emphasized just as powerfully in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who directly teaches His followers to treat the stranger and welcome them as if we welcome Jesus Himself among us:
Matthew 25:35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me. . .
Finally, the head of the Jerusalem Church, the Apostle James, sternly warns us never to take advantage of those who work among us as guests, or their despair will reach the ear of God just as the cries of Hebrew slaves under Egypt once did:
James 5:4 Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.
As a Christian, there are no prior commitments that can overrule, or trump, this Biblical tradition of compassion for the stranger, the alien, and the worker. In whatever economic, political, or social policies we discuss – whatever discussion of constitutional rights and liberties – we cannot turn our backs to this Biblical legacy of hope.
I don’t see Mahony doing anything along the fundamentalist lines of say, Catholic Answers, an organization of whose publications Neuhaus has been critical in the past. Mahony is not doing fundamentalism; synthesizing passages from the scriptures without divorcing them from their significant context is not fundamentalism, especially when these passages prescribe the same charitable response with remarkable clarity and consistency. Did Neuhaus fail to notice that Mahony’s biblical synthesis and ensuing commentary strongly resemble the following remarks:
The Church considers the problem of illegal migrants from the standpoint of Christ, who died to gather together the dispersed children of God (cf. Jn 11:52), to rehabilitate the marginalized and to bring close those who are distant, in order to integrate all within a communion that is not based on ethnic, cultural or social membership, but on the common desire to accept God’s word and to seek justice. “God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).Man, particularly if he is weak, defenceless, driven to the margins of society, is a sacrament of Christ’s presence (cf. Mt 25:40, 45). “But this crowd, who do not know the law, are accursed” (Jn 7:49), was how the Pharisees judged those whom Jesus had helped even beyond the limits established by their precepts. Indeed, he came to seek and to save the lost (cf. Lk 19:10), to bring back the excluded, the abandoned, those rejected by society.
“I was a stranger and you welcomed me” (Mt 25:35). It is the Church’s task not only to present constantly the Lord’s teaching of faith but also to indicate its appropriate application to the various situations which the changing times continue to create. Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that “stranger” in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself.
These remarks were made by none other than Pope John Paul II in his Message for World Migration Day in 1996. Would Neuhaus be comfortable characterizing the Pontiff’s synthesis of scriptural passages as a “facile move from Bible quoting to public-policy prescription” or as “less characteristic of Catholic social thought than of the habits of biblical fundamentalists”? Considering that Neuhaus points to John Paul II as a more balanced alternative to Mahony, I do not think that he would be comfortable levelling a similar critique against the former Pope. Perhaps Neuhaus’ political persuasions in immigration reform have prevented him from seeing how similarly Cardinal Mahony and John Paul II apply the scriptures to the practical issue of immigration, be it legal or illegal.
That said, I am suspicious of Neuhaus’ intentions to push-aside Mahony’s biblical remarks. Could it be that Neuhaus recognizes the strongest case for Mahony’s perspective in the pages of Scripture and that he must resort to characterizing the Cardinal as if he were possessed by proclivities to biblical fundamentalism? If Neuhaus wants to undercut Mahony’s interpretation of Scripture, he must likewise do so in the case of Pope John Paul II. But perhaps Neuhaus’ appeal to the “characteristics of Catholic social thought” as a foil for Mahony’s exegesis is merely a desperate diversion concocted to distract his readers from the biblical force of Mahony’s argument. This could be the reason that Neuhaus makes no attempt to provide what he may deem the proper reading of the quoted verses. In any case, Neuhaus is regrettably confused in his presentation of Mahony’s remarks.
Mahony attacks the nation-state
Neuhaus accuses Mahony of attacking the nation-state in “unmistakable” fashion:
But most striking and, I believe, unfortunate is the cardinal’s conceptually confused but unmistakable attack on the nation-state, both in its domestic responsibilities and in the international order. Such an attack has no warrant in Catholic social doctrine.
For the life of me, I have no idea why Neuhaus is attempting to portray Mahony as an enemy of the state. As Morning’s Minion has already noted, Neuhaus’ extremism in this silly accusation smacks of a covertly operating nationalism that Neuhaus himself may not wholly detect. Does criticism of immigration policy amount to an attack on the nation-state? Neuhaus’ preoccupation with U.S. sovereignty almost makes his concern for the “economic and social development” of Mexico appear as mere tokenism.
I invite all to read Cardinal Mahony’s lecture carefully, searching for any hint of an attack on either the conceptual or existent “nation-state,” a term Mahony does not once use. You will find no trace of a subversive attempt to undermine the nation-state, and in particular, the U.S. I’m afraid that here is yet another place where Neuhaus is displaying his adept skill in employing the logical fallacies of constructing men of straw and question begging: Not only does Neuhaus mischaracterize Mahony, but he also assumes from the start that the questioning and criticism of current immigration policy is an affront to the nation-state’s domestic and international responsibilities!
Now, Neuhaus writes, “There is a passing reference to respect for “national sovereignty,” but this likewise is a mischaraterization of Mahony’s lecture. Mahony affirms national sovereignty twice in his lecture, the first reference being at the very heart of his analysis of the current approach to enforcing immigration laws in the U.S.:
Church leaders would agree that we are a nation built on a system of laws and that a sovereign nation has the right to protect its borders. But the term “rule of law” refers to how we are governed, and suggests that no one, not even our leaders, are free from honoring the law. Even if the most powerful citizen breaks the law, he or she is accountable to it. This is the basis of our democracy and is one of the elements that distinguishes our system from monarchy or dictatorship.
—
In summary, then, the Church’s position on immigration seeks to change an unjust law to a just one, within the democratic system, while also respecting the rule of law. It respects the place of national sovereignty – based on moral principles and freedom – not a fiction of artificial national security. It also is grounded in a proper view of economics, true to the etymology of the term which emerged in ancient civilizations and in early Christian history to describe the arrangement of a household – God’s household which is ordered and open to those who long to sit at the table which they helped set. Finally, it rests upon a basic moral principle: that we should not, either systemically or individually, undermine the basic dignity or God-given rights of every human person.
No evidential threat to the nation-state or to its sovereignty in these passages.
Mahony does not speak for the Church
Cardinal Mahony says that he speaks for the Church. Fortunately, and while he is undoubtedly an important voice in the Church, that is not true.
Let me ask, for the sake of argument: If Cardinal Mahony does not speak for the Church on immigration, then who does according to Neuhaus? To whom does Neuhaus refer us in order to come to a better understanding of the Church’s perspective on the migrant? Would Renato Cardinal Martino, the Pope’s man on issues of justice and peace, be a worthy herald? Does the pope alone speak for the Church? Does Richard John Neuhaus? I do not understand Neuhaus’ ecclesiology here, nor do I understand why Neuhaus leaves us with such a concluding remark, inevitably leaving open the very question with which he titled his own post: “Who Speaks for the Church?” In truly Socratic imitation, Neuhaus is far better at closing a critical piece with a question rather than with the much needed answer.
But issues of spokesmanship aside, perhaps Neuhaus’ beef over Mahony’s authority is found in earlier remarks in his post:
He very specifically and repeatedly asserted that he was setting forth “the underpinnings of the position of the Catholic Church on immigration reform legislation.” His lecture is sprinkled with expressions such as “the church leadership argues that . . .”; “the Church maintains that . . .”; and “the Church’s position is . . .” We are clearly given to understand that he is not merely expressing his own views or speaking in his capacity as the archbishop of Los Angeles but is speaking for the Catholic Church.
We can put aside the obvious and precarious problem that Neuhaus faces when he suggests that Mahony could speak “in his capacity as the archbishop of Los Angeles” yet would not be “speaking for the Catholic Church.” The greater difficulty with Neuhaus’ remarks here is his propensity to pull Mahony’s comments out of their proper context in order to give the impression that Mahony was, in fact, claiming to speak with the full authority of the Catholic Church. Mahony never once suggests in his lecture that he is expressing or legislating official Church teaching.
Allow me to place each of Neuhaus’ citations in the foregoing quote within their context (I italicise the quotes Neuhaus tears away):
These Scriptural and theological foundations can be applied to the current debate on immigration in our country. They also provide the underpinnings of the position of the Catholic Church on immigration reform legislation.
This comment immediately follows from his brief biblical presentation on the need to care for the stranger. Mahony does not suggest that his own analysis of the economic and constitutional consequences of immigration, which comes later in his lecture, provides the underpinnings of the Catholic Church’s position on immigration reform. Indeed, Mahony is absolutely correct when he states that his interpretation of the biblical mandate to welcome and care for the stranger and migrant provides these underpinnings, as even Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 and Pope John Paul II’s 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 Messages for World Migration Day make clear through their use of many of the same biblical passages. It is not apparent that Neuhaus is completely familiar with the Church’s approach to immigration, a familiarity that must be demonstrated before any critique of Mahony’s alleged fundamentalism can take place.
Our Constitution was written to ensure that justice is achieved in our land and that all receive due process under the law. In our democratic system we can change unjust laws, and, I would add, are obligated to do so.In the area of immigration, the Church leadership argues that our country has a moral obligation to change the law because it violates the order of God’s household and undermines basic human dignity.
—
Given this reasoning, the Church maintains that our immigration laws must be changed. The remedy to our broken system is to provide legal status and an opportunity for permanent residency for those in the country currently as well as legal avenues for future migrant workers to enter, depart and reenter the country safely and legally.
Throughout his lecture, Mahony makes constant reference to “our constitution,” “our democratic system,” and “our country.” He is referring always to the U.S., and this is how he intends us to understand his invocation of “Church leadership.” The context of the lecture dictates a reference to the U.S. hierarchy, and any one who has followed closely the declarations of the USCCB, groups of bishops such as the Arizona Catholic Conference and individual U.S. bishops such as Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta, Archbishop José Gomez of San Antonio and Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland understands that Cardinal Mahony’s remarks do, in fact, represent the opinion of a clear concensus among the U.S. bishops on the question of undocumented migration. Thus, Mahony quite appropriately expresses this concensus as the “argument” of Church leadership in the U.S.
Conclusion
I can do no more than conclude that Neuhaus has saddly misrepreseted Cardinal Mahony’s lecture, which in itself is a very thoughtful, very balanced and very informed overview of how the U.S. bishops perceive the failure of current U.S. immigration policy to protect the natural rights and dignity of the undocumented migrant. Basing his argument on undeniably Christian biblical principles, Mahony gives a cursory guide to applying these principles to the concrete sitution in the U.S. today. When individuals such as Neuhaus begin to substitute in other questions, however related, about border control, the absolutism of law or the socio-economic questions of a migrant’s homeland without first considering the Church’s consistent teachings on justice and human dignity, they inevitably obfuscate the truly radical contribution that Christianity can make toward a just and peaceful solution to the problems of immigration.
In the case of Neuhaus, I cannot but discourage Catholics from considering his opinion on immigration in today’s On the Square post. He certainly does not exhibit the marks of a “good, well-known, outspoken, tough” Catholic thinker on the topic of immigration, as one blogger has curiously suggested. Rather, Neuhaus betrays his proclivity to think sheerly in political terms in today’s post rather than displaying the healthy combination of faith and reason ordering the “authentically secular.”
As a sort of negative answer to Neuhaus’ own question, I can assure him that he most certainly does not speak for the Church. In fact, his analysis of Mahony’s address places him a bit outside the Church’s pastoral views on immigration. And say what you will about Mahony’s liturgical and legal record; the Cardinal’s lecture is an excellent representation of the manner in which the Church, from Pope to local bishop, is thinking on the problem of undocumented migration.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In