Gerald Augustinus of The Cafeteria is Closed has turned to his wife for support against the barrage of “left-wing Catholic” criticism that is aimed at his views on immigration. Why do I bring this up? After all, some of Vox Nova’s own contributors have stated their views on immigration and have refuted many times the “law of the land/national sovereignty” approach that Gerald and others embrace, consistently ignoring or disregarding the consistent and holistic teachings of the Catholic Church on immigration. Not that the contributors of Vox Nova rely solely on magisterial teaching for answers to the multifarious problem of immigration worldwide; indeed, those of us who have commented draw liberally from sociological, economic and political studies.
Rather than replying to our arguments in a fashion that is attentive to detail, desirous of understanding and respectful toward rational discourse, Gerald and others resort to merely rehashing the same, tired “law of the land” arguments as if shouting the same story over and over, louder and louder, somehow constitutes a responsible, incisive and ultimately faith-filled response to a global situation that requires the precision of mind and openness of heart. Notwithstanding the obvious theological flaws and the philosophical inconsistency in beginning immigration discourse with legality or national sovereignty, those who disagree with the Vatican’s view on immigration in general and with the USCCB’s view on U.S. immigration in particular have failed to produce a viable argument for their positions, relying instead on assertions derived from a thinking that is strikingly conditioned by geographical and cultural localism.
As I mentioned, Erin has now entered the fray. My hopes that she would be a voice of reason were quickly quelled as I read her latest post. Her full post appears here in red with my comments interpolated.
One can disagree with other Catholics and still be faithful, say on how to handle immigration in detail. Unfortunately this is a notion often rather lost on some people, including certain left-wing bloggers for whom Fr. Neuhaus, Catholic Answers, my husband and the majority of the Catholic blogosphere apparently play the role of pinata. While he maintains an astounding degree of civility towards them – he calls it his daily mortification – I find them rather tiresome in their condescension and arrogance.
Right off the bat, Erin delineates the antagonists against whom she plans to launch her rhetorical salvo: “left-wing bloggers” who drip with “condescension and arrogance.” Before spelling out the terms of the debate, before considering the positions of those who disagree and before considering the supposed plurality of positions one can take within Catholicism with regard to the details of immigration, Erin sadly reduces the discussion to a “right-wing” and “left-wing” sling fest. This “us” and “them” approach, which without question distills dialogue into sophomoric categories, falsely presupposes that the terms of the immigration debate among Catholics are set by essentially political limits rather than characterized by the genuine fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) approach of Catholic intellectual endeavor.
But to whom does she refer in her slippery use of “left-wing”? Is she implying that disagreement with her and her husband, along with Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, necessarily locates one along left-leaning lines? And for the sake of argument, let us imagine that it does. So what? Isn’t “left-wing” being used here as a derogatory term employed to discredit its unsuspecting subject? Does being “left-wing” mean one’s opinions are bereft of merit, whereas its counterpart “right-wing” characterizes informed, useful or correct sentiment? Is the use of the “left-wing” label just a covert manner of dismissing the merit of some one’s viewpoint? In any case, portraying anyone as “left-wing” (or “right-wing, if you prefer) in order to convey the sense that being “left-wing” entails being in error or producing farcical commentary is a mark of alarmingly dreadful tribalism and plain, bad logic.
I know Katerina and I have refuted Gerald’s positions on several occasions at the Cafeteria, at Evangelical Catholicism and at Vox Nova. Perhaps Erin is referring to us. But Katerina and I agree that there is no univocal Catholic position on the details of immigration policy. In fact, I’m not sure any so-called “left-wing” blogger would submit that the Catholic Church has a concrete immigration policy. Morning’s Minion and I both have occasionally gone after Fr. John Richard Neuhaus‘ non-sensical responses to certain U.S. bishops, but for entirely legitimate reasons: Neuhaus‘ position is untenable from both a Catholic and philosophical point of view. I don’t think pointing out the many flaws in Neuhaus‘ political and theological positions stems from a “liberal” standpoint, nor does a belief in a homogeneous immigration policy necessarily follow from such a critique.
Assuming that Erin is referring to Katerina, Morning’s Minion and me (she explicitly calls out Michael Iafrate in her next paragraph, so I imagine she has Vox Nova in mind), she’s tragically confused. You see, we do not dispute the claims that Catholics can legitimately dispute the terms of immigration policy. However, what we do claim is that there is a single Catholic fashion of viewing the migrant and its immediately inferred implications are not up for dispute. These first principles of immigration, so to speak, are fundamental to the working out of the details of immigration details, and while these principles are not negotiable for Catholics, the details of policy that follow from these principles can legitmately vary. The fact is that the three of us stand unyieldingly with Pope Pius XII, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, the Roman Curia and many U.S. bishops on the fundamental principles of: 1. The primacy of the migrant’s dignity and value of the human person; 2. The right for all humans to migrate to nations for a better life if they cannot acquire the basic needs for survival and economic viability in their homeland; 3. The need for reform of immigration laws that place unnecessary burdens on migrants and whose enforcement entails injustices; 4. The recognition that undocumented migrants are not equivalent to criminals and the “law-of-the-land” approach is incompatible with the Gospel.
I’ve linked several times to these official and uncompromising teachings of the Catholic Church on immigration, and I cannot help but notice that neither Erin nor Gerald (nor Neuhaus, for that matter) ever produces a real argument against our position on immigration, which is by and large a reiteration of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church combined with philosophical reasoning and empirical evidence that buttress this teaching. Gerald and Erin unwaveringly assert the right for “diversity” of opinion, but then fail on every occasion to produce an argument in favor of their opinions. Invoking some phantom right to disagree is not an argument. It is not due any respect from an intellectual standpoint. And yet, those of us who do produce arguments out of the constant Catholic tradition are labelled “left-wing.” If being “left-wing” is co-extensive with being Catholic, then color me liberal!!!
Of course the USA, let alone the military, are also constantly attacked. The fundamentalist, blue-eyed, bleeding-heart views expressed by some left-wing Catholics would be cute if they weren’t a cause of Gerald’s high blood pressure when they show up in the comments 🙂
Whoa, hang on now. Suddenly Erin switches gears from immigration to alleged verbal attacks on the U.S. Is she talking about the same “left-wing bloggers” when she speaks of “left-wing Catholics”? Who knows? Erin’s more concerned with mocking chimircal “left-wing” opponents that she’s fabricated. But what precisely is her point? Again, notice the lack of any argument in her predictable, Sean Hannity-style diatribe on “liberals.”
I particularly found it lovely when July 4th was being “honored” by the Michael from Canada, I believe his blog is called Catholic Anarchy, by quoting Dorothy Day, saying that it’d be better the USA perished than survive by war. He even has that as the motto on top of his website.I really appreciate the notion of being fine with 300 million people dying. Be my guest to martyr yourself for the cause of your choice. I’m a country girl who learned to shoot at an early age and I would not hesitate to shoot anyone attacking me or my family, and, by extension, my country. I even applied to join the Navy but slight asthma as a child kept me from being accepted.
For the record, Michael’s not from Canada. He’s from West Virginia. That’s right, he’s a bonafide U.S. citizen. He happens to be studying in Canada.
Also, I couldn’t help but notice Erin’s not so subtle shift from the U.S. building up and using arms to protection of family, as if these matters composed some seamless garment. War, whether it be for protection or not, may be relatively analogous to defense of family, but pacifism in regard to war is not the same as indifference with regard to protection of family. War does not simply affect the military involved. Innocent civilians are wounded and killed, domestic economies often suffer while specific defense and arms corporations benefit and the criteria of just war is complicated and difficult to apply to practical situations. Defense of family, on the other hand, ordinarily entails defense against an aggressor who may intend to hurt or kill the family. Beyond the conflict between the protector and the aggressor(s), there is ordinarily no “collateral damage.” That said, Erin’s implication that Michael would not defend his wife because he objects to American economic and military imperialism is simply preposterous and unwarranted.
So, learning to shoot and desiring to join the Navy is part of Erin’s response to the “liberals”? I learned to shoot at young age, too, but alas I only aspired to join student council. The question I have is: Why does Erin bring up Michael’s affection and admiration for Dorothy Day’s pacifism? On the one hand, she seems to affirm Michael’s right to choose his cause and to put that cause on his website, but on the other hand, she seems to frame Michael’s admiration for Day in an unflattering light. I suppose the fact that Pope John Paul II declared Dorothy Day a “Servant of God” and placed her on the road to sainthood means that any devotion or honor of her and her work makes one a “left-wing Catholic”. The seems to me to be devoid of sensibility.
Now if we could just find a motto from a saint or blessed that lauds recreational shooting.
I find it silly to make up impossible, let alone undesirable, standards, and then denigrate the USA for not living up to them. I find it annoying to question people’s Catholicity if they don’t agree on the interpretation of a particular subject if there is clearly room for such differences in interpretation. There is room between “let nobody immigrate” and “let every poor person in the world come”, for example.
Now who’s Erin talking about? Does any genuine Catholic really hold the perspective of “let nobody immigrate,” which would be contrary to Catholic social doctrine? Does any reasonable Catholic, including anyone at Vox Nova, actually promote a “let every poor person in the world come?” immigration policy? I’m honestly curious to know who Erin is talking about, for I certainly have never seen anyone advocate either of these absurd positions, and the Catholic circles in which I move on a daily basis are quite diverse. I’m afraid Erin’s use of hyperbole and penchant for strawman construction never permits her post to get off the ground of intemparent rant.
I do find it odd, however, that Erin begins her post with the affirmation of the right for Catholics to “disagree with other Catholics,” but then goes on to lambaste “left-wing Catholics” for disagreeing with her, all without producing even a semblance of a rational argument. That’s a colossal double standard. Perhaps this is why the only real evaluation she could muster came not from the intellect, but from feeling: “left-wing Catholics” are so “tiresome” and “annoying.” And lest I be accused of misogyny or masculine bias, let me point out that Katerina has offered some very solid criticism of Gerald’s take on immigration to which he has responded with blind assertion rather than methodical reasoning.
So I close my critique of yet another menu item from the Cafeteria with a final thought: Have U.S. Catholics become so assimilated to the Western world that they can no longer think beyond the political categories of the West? Do they fail to detect the radicality of the Gospel? Are they perhaps afraid of it, eschewing it and labelling it as “left-wing”? I pray not. But if Erin is correct that the “majority of the Catholic blogosphere” falls within her camp (a claim I readily dispute as sheer hyperbole), then our hope for a transformed society has taken quite a hit. But then again, as Ressourcement adumbrated, the Church does not move or save souls through blogs.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In