"Time flies by but in the memory, the strength of a presence that is more alive than ever is neither weakened nor paled.

"Monsignor Giussani, in the mystery of the love of God, is with us and among us. He is with us with that passion for Christ that has fascinated, animated and guided all of his life."

"Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction," ... "They represent without any stretch, the synthesis of the experience, thought, apostolate and the entire life of this Ambrosian priest."

... "The passion for Christ in Don Giussani has always been, without the least interruption, passion for the Church, adherence to the Church, life in the Church and for the Church.

"It has been at least a happy coincidence, and certainly something very pleasing to him, that the earthly existence of Don Giussani has ended on the feast of the Chair of St. Peter."

--Cardinal Camillo Ruini

Way of the Cross over the Brooklyn Bridge

See the video here.

Join the Way of the Cross this Good Friday in a city near you.

In the heart of a city where millions of people carry their daily cross, most of the time dreadfully alone: if God exists, He has nothing to do with my daily life. This is the true cross of every day, the cross of a person abandoned only to himself in his most inner need for a never-ending love, truth, beauty, and justice.

We need the presence of “God-with-us”, Jesus every day. And Jesus, because of the sacrifice of His cross and because of His resurrection, dwells among us every day.

The Way of the Cross in the heart of the city is a simple, humble sign offered to ourselves and to everyone as a witness to His merciful presence in our daily lives and as a plea, through His cross and resurrection, that our eyes and heart may be opened to His presence.

There will be noise on the bridge, possibly confusion. It is the very noise and confusion of our city, where we spend our days. We will need to desire great attention in order to follow Jesus and to fix our gaze on the event of His passion. It is that very same attention that is needed to look at the event of His presence among us every day.

This is why we suggest maintaining silence all along the Way of the Cross, a silence in front of God dying for us, a silence that isn’t merely not speaking, but is the simplest, purest way to beg to recognize His presence in our daily life.

St. Catherine of Siena: lay, that is, Christian

I didn't know much about St. Catherine before reading Louis de Wohl's Lay Siege to Heaven. I knew that she was Dominican, but I didn't know that she was a tertiary, a lay affiliate of the Dominicans. She is called a nun throughout the book but she lived most of her life in her mother's house. In her letters especially, she urged people in every part of society to move beyond their own interests and embrace catholic peace. At one point, someone describes her as both a politician and a saint. Now, that's what it means to be Christian, or lay.

Damien of Molokai

I watched the 1999 film based on Father Damien's life the other day in proximity to a provocative post of Deacon Scott's, "The Last Judgment- the decisive image of hope, not terror". It is a reflection on Spe Salvi, and I will just quote his quote from the Pope's most recent encyclical (43), though the entire post is worth reading and thinking over:

God has given himself an 'image': in Christ who was made man. In him who was crucified, the denial of false images of God is taken to an extreme. God now reveals his true face in the figure of the sufferer who shares man's God-forsaken condition by taking it upon himself. This innocent sufferer has attained the certitude of hope: there is a God, and God can create justice in a way that we cannot conceive, yet we can begin to grasp it through faith. Yes, there is a resurrection of the flesh. There is justice. There is an 'undoing' of past suffering, a reparation that sets things aright. For this reason, faith in the Last Judgement is first and foremost hope—the need for which was made abundantly clear in the upheavals of recent centuries. I am convinced that the question of justice constitutes the essential argument, or in any case the strongest argument, in favour of faith in eternal life. The purely individual need for a fulfilment that is denied to us in this life, for an everlasting love that we await, is certainly an important motive for believing that man was made for eternity; but only in connection with the impossibility that the injustice of history should be the final word does the necessity for Christ's return and for new life become fully convincing.

The thirst for justice is evident in the life of someone like Father Damien. He volunteered to go to the island of Molokai, a desperate place where the sick were consigned for the remainder of their lives, without adequate housing and medical care. To be sent there was a death sentence, since the residents were put on permanent quarantine. Not only leprosy, but typhoid and smallpox had scourged the Hawaiian Islands, and up to 20% of the population contracted these life-threatening illnesses.

Once Father Damien arrived and saw the conditions, he spent the rest of his life ministering to his flock of some thousand inhabitants. He tended the sick, built hospitals and constructed coffins with his own hands. He contended with the rogues in the place who stole and kidnapped girls. The priest was able to avail of connections in Europe to get the story out of the needs of these people and was able to persuade the royalty of Hawaii to have compassion on them.

The hardest part to understand is the injustice with which Damien was treated by his own superiors, even more than the local thugs or indifferent government bureaucrats. The Lord promised persecutions, and Damien received these from his own brothers. This didn't stop him from insisting that he needed sisters to take care of the orphans, who lived there like feral cats, practically out of contact with caring adults. He begged for a means to have confession for himself, when he wasn't allowed to return to the mainland, and the film shows him confessing in French from a boat to his bishop. When he became ill with leprosy himself, he asked for a replacement. For all these things he continually prayed, at times thinking he wasn't heard. Most egregiously, he was accused of impropriety with the native women, since some still believed that leprosy was a stage of syphilis. It was Robert Louis Stevenson who came to his defense when some pastors spread accusations against the priest.

The motivations of the superiors can be difficult to fathom, as in the film The Mission. It may be simply jealousy for what one cannot do oneself. A young doctor who visited Molokai admitted to Father Damien that he could not stay and work because he was getting married. But he promised to return, and he did so often. His humility about his capacity allowed him to be a friend rather than a hindrance to the priest's work.

The wheat and tares grow up together; without this, there would be no freedom. Even if a saint can spend his or her life bringing a bit of justice and love to others through adhesion to the suffering Christ, then the promise has to be much greater than this for all those who did not receive good in their lifetimes. This hope points to a complete answer to all the need of humanity.

Of Journalists and Politicians

I admit to a particular pleasure when traveling, that is when I buy a copy of the New York Times with my latte and spread the paper out over the hotel bed and read it while I sip my coffee. I love print, and though I mostly use my internet reader to go at the news on a daily basis, the inky feel on my fingertips is something the Kindle will never deliver. Come to think of it, it may have been Proust who now makes me feel this way about real newspapers.

Then I considered the spiritual bread of life that a newspaper is, still hot and damp from the press in the murky air of the morning in which it is distributed, at break of day, to the housemaids who bring it to their masters with their morning coffee, a miraculous, self-multiplying bread which is at the same time one and ten thousand, which remains the same for each person while penetrating innumerably into every house at once.

I also love the freedom of the press. Those reporters who stalk the story in scary places, the heroes who are sometimes kidnapped or killed, dig up a view of the world that is hidden under the rhetoric of power. The photos and interviews with the people affected by policies tease our conscience to see how our decisions are global in effect in either piling on more burdens or alleviating the many needs in the world.

The New York Times has some outstanding reporting. It has its mix of opinion, depending on your tastes. The New Republic is also a provocative magazine that I subscribe to and read. It offers some great background to stories where the context is lost in the barrage of daily events transmitted across the information channels.

I would have written about John McCain's war philosophy today, but that will wait. The story of the moment is the way the free press, which is a control on power, instead takes political power into its massive hand. Yesterday's piece in The New York Times about McCain's alleged relationship with a lobbyist is a nasty bit of innuendo and gossip, up to now unsubstantiated. Even the title suggests a political attack rather than offering new facts: "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk". The anonymous sources are problematic, offering no explanation for the shield over their accusations.

The story behind the story, as reported by MSNBC, is that The New Republic was about to put out a story on this scandal and the way The New York Times has been sitting on it. I find the timing interesting, because The New Republic brought out a ten-year old story on Ron Paul right before a key primary. The allegations involved unsigned racist comments in some of Paul's newsletters. The reporting cannot be objective if timed either to scoop a story or to influence an election. I'm not sure The New Republic is clean on this one, even if the scandal scoop is framed to be a critique of The New York Times. We'll see. It seems that people do see through sleaze, and the reaction of disgust against this kind of reporting came not only from the conservative talk-show hosts (who are not above salacious gossip themselves) but from the mainstream media as well. Or it seems a good moment to hypocritically distance themselves from such blatant tactics.

Another piece of reporting caught my eye, and that was from John Allen's always excellent column (see also my posts on Allen). John Allen, if you don't know of him, is a veteran Vatican observer. At one time a critic of Cardinal Ratzinger, he has come to be an admirer of the Pope, and a very balanced and interesting writer on Church affairs. In his How the Vatican Works, he also offers helpful insights into the differences between American and Vatican (often European) assumptions. In his latest column, he discussed the upcoming papal visit to America during an election year and how he thought the Holy Father would address our political situation. It will be interesting to see how close Allen comes to the mark.

In my experience of covering the Vatican over the last several years, two notes tend to dominate when officials look across the water at the United States.

First, Vatican officials tend to see the United States as a bulwark against secularism, especially in contrast with contemporary realities in Western Europe. Despite the fact that one can certainly find strong pockets of secularism in America, especially among elites, the reality is that the United States remains a deeply religious culture....

On that score, Benedict and the senior leadership of the Vatican are appreciative of those forces in American society that seem most respectful of religion, and most committed to fostering a robust role for faith-based groups in public affairs. In practical terms in American politics, that often means the Republicans. The fact that Republicans are also more likely to be pro-life obviously also creates a favorable inclination.

At the same time, the Vatican also looks to the United States as the great patron and guarantor of human rights, especially religious freedom, around the world, and on that score the recent foreign policy choices of the American government have caused deep alarm. During my last trip to Rome in late January, a senior Vatican official described a meeting he’d recently attended with ambassadors to the Holy See, many of whom had reported a “rising tide” of anti-American sentiment in their nations based on the U.S.-led war in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, renditions, and a host of other issues related to the war on terror.

For those reasons, the Vatican is also inclined to favor those forces in American politics most likely to end the war and to pursue a multi-lateral foreign policy that might restore the moral standing of the United States. In practical terms, of course, to some extent that means the Democrats.....

In light of these considerations, I suspect the political subtext of Benedict’s April trip is unlikely to have much to do with the dynamics of the ’08 elections, since the Holy See, in tandem with many American Catholics, regards both parties as flawed. Instead, I suspect Benedict is likely to try an “end-run” around partisan politics, and talk instead about the formation of a Catholic culture in the United States capable of acting as a “leaven” within the existing formations, trying to transform them from the inside out.

The Bush Administration's Success Story in Africa

President Bush's success story in Africa deserves to be known and remembered, by critics and fans of this administration alike. This was not business as usual in terms of aid, but an innovative and forthright policy to help this suffering continent with multiple humanitarian crises.

Some five years and $15 billion after its inception, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief continues to provide health and hope to millions who might otherwise have died.

It's by far a more ambitious and effective assault on the disease plaguing Africa and the Caribbean than any previous administration has undertaken or advocated. African governments, which oversee the distribution of PEPFAR funds and supplies, say the program has been instrumental in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

What's more, widespread attention to the epidemic has helped reduce the stigma of the disease, leading to an increase in the number of support groups and testing centers. The funding has also provided for the care of AIDS orphans and has made great strides against malaria.

Eric Goemaere, the top official in South Africa for Doctors Without Borders, initially criticized Mr. Bush for resisting the use of generic drugs and failing to integrate its AIDS effort with national health programs. But he now acknowledges what the initiative has accomplished. "Five years down the line, they have been much more promising than many other funders," he said.

Even Bono and Bob Geldof, the celebrity consciences of the world, have praise for Mr. Bush and his determination to make a difference in Africa. (The Times, NJ, 2/21/08)

Bob Geldof , the musician activist who heads Live Aid with the help of U2's Bono, praised President Bush's work in Africa in 2003:

You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Geldof told the Guardian.

The neo-conservatives and religious rightwingers who surrounded President George Bush were proving unexpectedly receptive to appeals for help, he said. "You can get the weirdest politicians on your side." (Guardian, 5/28/03)

Geldof has also given surprising credit to the chastity-based programs in the fight against AIDS because they restore dignity, particularly to women:

"Pepar, which is Bush's almost personal response to the Global Fund, is a highly effective Aids combatant mechanism.

"It works. It's uncomfortable for people to speak these unspoken truths but a lot of that stuff is working."

He continued: "In general in rural Africa women have no power. They also cannot refuse sexual favours. I've seen marked in chalk on these rural huts - 'safe sex, fidelity' ".

He added: "It's giving women a weapon they can use."

Geldof was speaking during a question and answer question with the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, and the International Development Secretary, Hilary Benn.

He told the audience: "I'm not saying that we should go down that route.

"I'm not saying that anyone should do it. But nonetheless, in some parts of Africa I have seen that this has become a weapon for women to use where they can stabilise a relationship and indeed perhaps their own health." (Telegraph UK 9/28/06)

Everything Is Possible

On beginning the new book for our School of Community, Is It Possible to Live this Way? by Fr. Giussani, we are talking about the problem of trust. Fr. Giussani issues this challenge: "the more one is moral, the more one is capable of trusting; the less one is moral, the less one is capable of trusting, because immorality is like a schizophrenia or psychic dissociation." Marie and Suzanne have blogged on their impressions of this provocative question.

As far as trust goes, our natural reaction seems to be that it is a matter of being smart more than being moral. Of course, we don't want to be deceived. We would even risk missing out, rather than be duped. This is the problem set out in a wonderful little parable by Isaac Bashevis Singer, "Gimpel the Fool." "I am Gimpel the fool. I don't think myself a fool. On the contrary. But that's what folks call me."

Gimpel is a storyteller, and he tells the story of himself as the most gullible person in his village. He believed any story anyone would tell, or at least would consider it.

I like a golem believed everyone. In the first place, everything is possible, as it is written in the Wisdom of the Fathers. I've forgotten just how: Second, I had to believe when the whole town was down on me! .... "You want me to call everyone a liar?": What was I to do? I believed them, and I hope at least that did them some good.

For example, a yeshiva student came and announced: "[T]he Messiah has come. The dead have arisen." Foolish Gimpel asked why he didn't hear the ram's horn blow.

Like Hosea, Gimpel has the misfortune to have an unfaithful wife. As the schoolmaster told him, "There isn't a woman in the world who is not the granddaughter of Eve." Four months after their marriage, she is delivering the child of another father, and Gimpel does what he must when a wife is in labor. "The thing to do was to go to the House of Prayer to repeat Psalms, and that was what I did." Gimpel is the true realist. He says, "You can't live without errors." Besides, he loves the little boy.

For Gimpel, there's more at stake in believing than outing lies: "What's the good of not believing? Today it's your wife you don't believe; tomorrow it's God Himself you won't take stock in."

Time unravels everything. On her deathbed, his wife asks forgiveness. Gimpel quotes the rabbi: "Belief in itself is beneficial. It is written that a good man lived by his faith."

Now, Gimpel warns us that after his wife's death he leaves the town and becomes a storyteller, so take his "yarns" as you will. Or just accept his lesson on believing.

No doubt the world is entirely an imaginary world, but it is only once removed from the true world... When the time comes I will go joyfully. Whatever may be there, it will be real, without complication, without ridicule, without deception. God be praised: there even Gimpel cannot be deceived.

Traces 1, 2008

It is Possible to Live this Way by Luigi Giussani

A Jolt with Reality by Lorenzo Albacete

But I always read the letters first: our letters of communion.

Unable to Pause For Beauty?

This is a wonderfully provocative article on the disconnect between American culture and beauty. Is this culture formed by our educational system, as the author suggests? And what if a large sector of children began to be allowed the indulgence of entering the embrace of beauty as it happened to appear?

Barak Obama and the language of hope

In his book, What is the Point of Being a Christian?, Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, OP observes that despite the fact that we in the West are in most ways "safer than our ancestors," that "we are more protected from illness, violence and poverty" than previous generations, we remain fearful. We have, rightly, even come to fear human progress, "ecological disaster, BSE [i.e., mad cow disease], nuclear power, genetically modified crops," etc. This fearful environment, which produces an anxious climate, Radcliffe points out, "is manipulated by politicians, who practise (sic)'the politics of fear'." He was writing this passage on the day of the 2005 General Election in the U.K. Just as with our current presidential election, some of those running for office tried "to impel [them] to vote by tapping into fear of hoards of immigrants, violence in the inner city, the collapse of the Health Service [oh that we had one!], and hospital bugs." If hope does not win our vote, then fear will, or at least-ironically-it is hoped it will. I think Fr. Radcliffe is correct in concluding that it is "fear that has justified the reduction of human rights since 9/11 and the scandal of Guantanamo Bay". This weekend it is fear mongering by the Administration in arguing for continued infringement on our civil liberties. I think Radcliffe correct in his statement that "Fear dissolves society and undermines citizenship" (pgs. 70-71).

I understand and even find legitimacy in concerns expressed about the messianic aura that Sen. Obama has for many. I, too, am dubious about political messiahs. On the other hand, like Bill Clinton, Barak Obama speaks the language of hope. This resonates with people. I think it important to note that his campaign, his message, is that he may not have all the answers, or even the best answers, but working together there is nothing we cannot do, no problem we cannot solve. At the heart of a speech entitled One Nation Under God?, which he delievered in June 2006, are these remarks by Sen. Obama about religion and public life:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

To me at least, this sounds a lot like the late Jesuit John Courtney Murray.

I think then-Archbishop Levada's The San Francisco Solution shows us how we can be creative in the public square, not reactive, not constanly fighting a rear guard action. Things like this proposal are true to what the Church teaches. Access to neccessary heath-care, for example, is a human right according to Church teaching. Therefore, the more universal we make it the more we are in the service of the truth.

Immigration: A Catholic Response, by Bishop John C. Wester

The full text of Bishop John C. Wester's Aquinas lecture, delivered at St. Catherine of Sienna Newman Center at the University of Utah (where I was baptized, confirmed, brought into full communion, married, and where our two oldest children were baptized), 27 January 2008, is now available. As chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration & Refugee Services, he is deeply engaged all issues surrounding immigration. I cannot think of a better person for this job. I do not believe that Bishop Wester has an ideological bone in his body. He is a consummate bridge-builder.

The title of his lecture is Immigration: A Catholic Response.

"Some of you might ask why the Catholic Church would speak out on the
issue of immigration. It is primarily because of the Gospel mandate to 'welcome
the stranger,'” with strong roots in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy warns Israel
that 'the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, almighty
and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe, who executes justice for the
orphan and who loves the stranger, providing them food and clothing' (Dt. 10-17-
18). Israel’s care for the stranger was to be guided by God’s command and their
own experience: 'You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the
land of Egypt' (Dt. 10-12)."

So, you can now either watch or read Bishop Wester's lecture courtesy of our diocesan newspaper the Intermountain Catholic. I do not hesitate to give Barbara Stinson Lee, the IC's editor, credit whenever possible, we are blessed to have such a knowledgeable, tenacious, passionate, and committed person in our local Church. We are also tremendously blessed to have Bishop Wester leading our diocese. All of us in the U.S. are fortunate to have him as the Church's spokesman and advocate on this issue at this time.

The old US guest workers: the Bracero program

"Guest worker proposals renew interest in retired migrants"

The program, which took its name from the Spanish word for arms - brazos - was initiated in 1942 to replace American field workers who went to fight in World War II. After the war, farmers lobbied the government to keep the program going until 1964.

Wikipedia: Bracero Program

And here's the Smithsonian's Opportunity or Exploitation: The Bracero Program.

Before starting new guest worker programs, we should evaluate the one that happened before.

A classic investigative report on immigrant farmworkers

The following quotes are from a 1995 article that I used in the Peace and Justice classes I taught in the Bronx during the 1995-96 school year. Looking over it again today, I'm still wowed by its descriptive power, statistical richness, and incisive commentary. It brings together a close look at one industry with the big picture. Yes, it has a particular point of view which is political and ideological, but it also demonstrates a seriousness at investigating the reality in question. I would be interested in reading complementary or contradictory studies.

a bit of history:

«Philip L. Martin is a professor of agricultural economics at the University of California at Davis and one of the nation's foremost authorities on farm-labor demographics. According to his estimates, during the 1920s there were some two million migrant farm workers in the United States. During the 1940s there were about one million. And during the early 1970s, when Cesar Chavez's labor-organizing drive among migrant workers was at its height, there were only about 200,000. Then the number began to climb. Today it is impossible to gauge the size of the migrant work force with any precision, among other reasons because so much of it is composed of illegal immigrants. Martin believes that 800,000 to 900,000 migrant farm workers are now employed in the United States. And not only are there far more migrants today but they are being paid far less.»

An interesting fact:

«It is risky and expensive to grow, but it can yield more revenue per acre than virtually any other crop except marijuana.»

Source: "In the Strawberry Fields" by Eric Schlosser. Atlantic Monthly. November 1995.

Immigrants: An Underclass of Workers

Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the episcopal conference's Committee on Migration, criticized immigration laws in a Feb. 7 statement sent after both houses of Congress approved an economic and stimulus package that included language to prohibit undocumented immigrants from receiving tax rebates.

"The decision to prohibit undocumented immigrants from receiving tax rebates in the stimulus bill highlights the injustice in our immigration system," he wrote. "It proves that these workers pay into the tax system and help support our economy. It also reveals the hypocrisy of our laws. With one hand our government attempts to deport these workers, but with the other it holds tight the taxes they pay into the system. This perpetuates an underclass of workers without full rights.

"We should not accept the fruits of the labor of these workers at the same time we refuse to provide them the protection of our laws. As a democratic and free nation protective of human rights, we cannot have it both ways. Congress must mend a broken system and show the courage to enact comprehensive immigration reform."

(Zenit)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Priorities

I'd vote for Deacon Scott!

But the act of voting will only take about a half hour out of my year. What I am trying to figure out is how to live the half hour I have before me right now. And then the next half hour. I understand that several of the hours that I will have before the election will be spent researching the positions of the available candidates, before I can spend that particular half hour wisely. That still leaves vast stretches of my life (should God deign to grant them to me) up for grabs.

In light of the impact that the questions concerning immigration have had on my heart, I want to look again at Matthew 25:31-46. The criterion for salvation seems very clear in these verses. Crafting policy has its place, but it's nothing beside placing a loaf of bread in the hand of a hungry person.

Two questions

First, apart from pulling a Romney with regard to his stance on immigration (i.e., dramatically changing his position from when he was governor to win in Iowa), how can Huckabee be considered a populist by proposing the replacement of a progressive income tax for a regressive national sales tax? I agree that our income tax system, like our immigration (non)system, our healthcare chaos, and our anti-democratic laws about campaign finance, is in dire need of overhaul in the direction of being flatter and fairer, but I fail to see how such a candidate can appeal to working people in this way.

Second, are not people who oppose the horrific injustice of abortion liberals? After all, we are the ones opposing the unjust status quo. Hence, we are the ones seeking to establish a more humane and progressive societal order. This implies that people who defend the unjust status quo are the conservatives. Probably not an original thought, but it is one that hit me with force today.

Making a prudential judgment based on reason: Immigration

I am very happy that we have opened a dialogue on immigration. Without a doubt it is one of the particular issues that we need to grapple with and resolve as a nation. Having a presidential election is a good way of bringing this issue to the fore. I am even happier, as I mentioned in my initial post, that all three candidates who have a shot at being our next president have reasonable, just, compassionate, and comprehensive proposals on this issue. It helps to point out that it is now mathematically impossible for Gov. Huckabee to receive enough delegates in the remaining primaries and caucuses to win the nomination. He can stop Sen. McCain from doing so and force an open convention- every political junkie's dream. I guarantee that Gov. Huckabee would not emerge from an open Republican convention as the nominee. So, in the wake of Jack's post and Fred's comments, I want to emphasize that the proposals on the table are based on reason, not sentiment. I also believe that among the many issues facing our country, immigration is one that can be resolved. I feel the same way about healthcare. Determining the biggest obstacle to resolving both issues is easy, just look at who benefits from the status quo. Hint: it is neither you nor me, nor immigrant people now living in the shadows.

I begin by pointing out that, like faith and reason, justice and compassion are complementary, not contradictory. A truly just proposal is also a compassionate proposal and, as with the inverse property of multiplication, vice-versa. Now, allow me to apply this to my take on immigration.

A nation not only has the right, but the duty to secure its borders because it is the fundamental duty of the state to protect its citizens. Nobody on either side of the debate disagrees about the need to accomplish this end. What we differ about is the most effective and just means of so doing. Deciding on the best means comes down to a prudential judgment. I disagree, both on practical and moral grounds, that building a wall is the best way to accomplish this.

I once again point out the impossibility of the logistics, not to mention the injustice, of deporting more than ten million people. However, I oppose just giving people who entered the country illegally a completely free pass. Indeed, there may be some who, for various reasons, it is desirable and even necessary to deport. People who have been here a long time, work, obey the laws, pay taxes, etc. should be allowed to stay and they should be given a path to accomplish this relatively easily and in short order. An important component to this process would be honestly acknowledging their status, paying a reasonable fine, and doing all this by a realistically established deadline. However, their safety should be guaranteed until such a time as the government can establish the process and get it up and running. In other words, no more futile, arbitrary raids on meat packing plants for political purposes! Such actions accomplish nothing, except throwing people's lives into turmoil. Given the current situation and our obligation to act morally, such arbitrary and selective enforcement is unjust. In any established process, the reunification of families should be high on the agenda. This means that separated families should be given priority.

Again, establishing a guest worker program would allow us to know who is coming into and leaving the country and why. Such a program also goes a long distance toward discouraging people from undertaking perilous border crossings and seeking the services of exploitative "coyotes". So, we kill two birds with one stone. It does not end there, we get a third bird. If people are here legally, the ability of employers to treat employees unfairly and unjustly is greatly diminished. How? Because a legal worker does not have to hesitate to bring a grievance through legal channels, be it a refusal to pay wages, provide promised or required benefits, or unsafe working conditions.

Finally, working with Mexico and Central American governments in accomplishing the necessary political and economic reforms to provide their people with more opportunities in their native countries will help address all of these issues. Granted that is a bit vague. So, more concretely, we need to revisit treaties, most particularly NAFTA, which has only benefited the rich, not workers in the U.S., Mexico, or Canada. We also need to look at the prudence and justice of our current agricultural policies, particularly as it pertains to subsidies.

This is not some sentimental screed about how we love our neighbors by aiding and abetting their breaking of the law. It is a judgment about how to bring our faith to bear on a real issue confronting our nation, on our collective circumstances. It is not ideological. These proposals also have the distinct advantage of being in accord with what our national conference of bishops has proposed. Is it a 100% solution? No, but what is? It is a workable solution that, over time, will justly, which is to say compassionately, render a big problem much smaller, a giant step in the right direction. What strikes me as an emotional, not to mention nativist, which is to say anti-Catholic, even if only by implication, position is build a wall, deport ten million people, keep current free trade agreements unamended, and deny opportunity to people looking for a better life and willing to work hard to earn it. I, for one, do not want to live in fortress America.

The roots of dialogue

«What we have in common with the other is not to be sought so much in ideology as in the other's native structure, in those human needs, in those original criteria, in which he or she is human like us. Openness to dialogue, therefore, means the ability to take as a starting point those problems to which the other's ideology or our Christianity proposes solutions, because what is common to different ideologies is the humanity of the men and women who carry these ideologies as banners of hope or as an answer.»

~ Fr. Giussani, The Journey to Truth Is an Experience, p 132

Overwhelmed by the Complexity of Reality

Reading "JACK"s post below, "More Questions, No Answers," I feel a bit overwhelmed at the complexity and contradictions of immigration. I dream of a solution that I could get my head around: something quick, simple that could erase the problem.

1. the words of Psalm 131 come to mind again: I do not busy myself with great matters, with things too sublime for me. Since I am not the Ruler of the Universe, the solution of this problem does not rest on my shoulders.
2. I'm suddenly aware of my preconceptions - my ignorance of the details of immigration: it's history, its causes, etc. Here's Fr. Giussani on preconceptions:

«preconception is irrational for at least two reasons: first, because you claim to know something you don't know, claiming to know it already - thus, it's an evident contradiction - and second, it's irrational because normally what you think you already know about what you don't know is simply what the others think, not even an original idea of your own.»

(Giussani, It Is Possible to Live this Way, p 15. Traces 1, 2008)

If we are going to examine this issue (or many others), we need first of all to (as we say in sales, especially complex sales) move off of the solution. A cultural work is needed to educate ourselves, to research and examine the variety of factors involved in immigration. Otherwise, we just end up replicating talking points produced by others.

(as I type this, I'm half listening to African American Lives 2 on PBS. A great deal of what I thought I knew about American slavery is being challenged!)

Rendering

Shortly after September 11, 2001, a friend told me something that sounded to me like this: that John Paul II had remarked that whenever we are confronted with evil and recognize it as such, it is a call from God to personal conversion. Try as I might, I can't find where or in what context he said it (and it is possible that I misheard or misunderstood my friend, who has since passed away), but this insight struck me, and still strikes me, as something profound and powerful. When I am confronted with an instance of injustice, cruelty, heartlessness, or even petty unkindness, I sometimes (sometimes eventually) remember that whatever feelings have been called up in me are a concrete sign that there is something in me that needs to be examined.

Often what bothers or frightens me most, or even calls up revulsion in me, makes a powerful impression because somehow I recognize that it is calling out to a shortcoming in myself, some evil in me. So, in front of the attacks of September 11, I tried to ask myself what it was that I needed to face about myself. For me, personally, I saw that I needed to be more open to the great mystery of life and also to the great mystery of other people's needs, even if they seem inscrutable to me.

Now, what about this icky feeling I have as I read the accounts of immigrants who have had their lives and their families torn apart? And how about the sense of painful recognition when I read about the diminished voice of Catholics in the public sphere?

Jesus didn't give us a handbook of practical approaches to solving social and political problems. Perhaps his most explicit pronouncement on a political question was, "Render unto God...and render unto Caesar...," an answer that provokes more questions. When confronted with the greatest injustice ever perpetrated, Peter jumped to Jesus' defense, only to be rebuked by him: "Put your sword into its scabbard..." (in John).

If I am reading these scriptures correctly, then it seems possible to say that there is something worse than political injustice, the oppression of the weak, slavery, or even outright murder. There is a sort of dream of personal efficacy and success that could lead me slowly away from the mystery of the cross and all it demands of me. I sometimes imagine that if I could only cogitate with enough determination and stamina, I could see my way through to a victory over the designs of evil men whose thoughts are all destruction. Then, either my determination or my stamina fails me. And that's truly the best possible outcome!

We depend on God for everything. So what are we supposed to render unto him? What can we possibly render? I think there is only one thing we have that we can truly say is ours to give: our freedom. Our freedom is the source and product of our fecundity in this world. It is the talent of gold that can actually multiply or remain buried, depending on our poverty of spirit. It is a birthright that we could squander in a distant land before landing among the pigs.

Or, consider Mary and Joseph's circumstances when Caesar Augustus decreed that "the whole world" should be enrolled. Luke's Gospel says simply, "And Joseph too went up from Galilee..." What Caesar decreed was evil, and to obey this decree was to participate in humiliation and unjust taxation by a cruel foreign power. There had to have been Jews who grumbled, who resisted, but Joseph and Mary did not. And it was precisely through this unjust decree that a great prophecy was fulfilled and Christ was thus born in the city of David. Why should it have happened this way and not some other way? God has his reasons, and I want to attend to them.

So, the plight of the displaced who have found their way to this country, and the fact that the public sphere is closed to certain voices leads me right back to where I was standing after September 11: I need to be more open to the great mystery of life and the great mystery of others' needs.

Do Not Be Overcome By Evil but Overcome Evil With Good

This message, from Pope John Paul II, seems to be such a timely guide for the discussion that has arisen here. If I had Sharon's talent, I'm sure I could have excerpted the most pertinent passages, but alas...

MESSAGE
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
WORLD DAY OF PEACE

1 JANUARY 2005

DO NOT BE OVERCOME BY EVIL
BUT OVERCOME EVIL WITH GOOD

1. At the beginning of the New Year, I once again address the leaders of nations and all men and women of good will, who recognize the need to build peace in the world. For the theme of this 2005 World Day of Peace I have chosen Saint Paul's words in the Letter to the Romans: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (12:21). Evil is never defeated by evil; once that road is taken, rather than defeating evil, one will instead be defeated by evil.

The great Apostle brings out a fundamental truth: peace is the outcome of a long and demanding battle which is only won when evil is defeated by good. If we consider the tragic scenario of violent fratricidal conflicts in different parts of the world, and the untold sufferings and injustices to which they have given rise, the only truly constructive choice is, as Saint Paul proposes, to flee what is evil and hold fast to what is good (cf. Rom 12:9).

Peace is a good to be promoted with good: it is a good for individuals, for families, for nations and for all humanity; yet it is one which needs to be maintained and fostered by decisions and actions inspired by good. We can appreciate the profound truth of another saying of Saint Paul: "Repay no one evil for evil" (Rom 12:17). The one way out of the vicious circle of requiting evil for evil is to accept the Apostle's words: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom 12:21).

Evil, good and love

2. From the beginning, humanity has known the tragedy of evil and has struggled to grasp its roots and to explain its causes. Evil is not some impersonal, deterministic force at work in the world. It is the result of human freedom. Freedom, which distinguishes human beings from every other creature on earth, is ever present at the heart of the drama of evil. Evil always has a name and a face: the name and face of those men and women who freely choose it. Sacred Scripture teaches that at the dawn of history Adam and Eve rebelled against God, and Abel was killed by Cain, his brother (cf. Gen 3-4). These were the first wrong choices, which were succeeded by countless others down the centuries. Each of these choices has an intrinsic moral dimension, involving specific individual responsibilities and the fundamental relationship of each person with God, with others and with all of creation.

At its deepest level, evil is a tragic rejection of the demands of love(1). Moral good, on the other hand, is born of love, shows itself as love and is directed towards love. All this is particularly evident to Christians, who know that their membership in the one mystical Body of Christ sets them in a particular relationship not only with the Lord but also with their brothers and sisters. The inner logic of Christian love, which in the Gospel is the living source of moral goodness, leads even to the love of one's enemies: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink" (Rom 12:20).

The "grammar" of the universal moral law

3. If we look to the present state of the world, we cannot help but note the disturbing spread of various social and political manifestations of evil: from social disorders to anarchy and war, from injustice to acts of violence and killing. To steer a path between the conflicting claims of good and evil, the human family urgently needs to preserve and esteem that common patrimony of moral values bestowed by God himself. For this reason, Saint Paul encourages all those determined to overcome evil with good to be noble and disinterested in fostering generosity and peace (cf. Rom 12:17-21).

Ten years ago, in addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations about the need for common commitment to the service of peace, I made reference to the "grammar" of the universal moral law(2), to which the Church appeals in her various pronouncements in this area. By inspiring common values and principles, this law unites human beings, despite their different cultures, and is itself unchanging: "it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress... Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies"(3).

4. This common grammar of the moral law requires ever greater commitment and responsibility in ensuring that the life of individuals and of peoples is respected and advanced. In this light, the evils of a social and political nature which afflict the world, particularly those provoked by outbreaks of violence, are to be vigorously condemned. I think immediately of the beloved continent of Africa, where conflicts which have already claimed millions of victims are still continuing. Or the dangerous situation of Palestine, the Land of Jesus, where the fabric of mutual understanding, torn by a conflict which is fed daily by acts of violence and reprisal, cannot yet be mended in justice and truth. And what of the troubling phenomenon of terrorist violence, which appears to be driving the whole world towards a future of fear and anguish? Finally, how can we not think with profound regret of the drama unfolding in Iraq, which has given rise to tragic situations of uncertainty and insecurity for all?

To attain the good of peace there must be a clear and conscious acknowledgment that violence is an unacceptable evil and that it never solves problems. "Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings"(4). What is needed is a great effort to form consciences and to educate the younger generation to goodness by upholding that integral and fraternal humanism which the Church proclaims and promotes. This is the foundation for a social, economic and political order respectful of the dignity, freedom and fundamental rights of each person.

The good of peace and the common good

5. Fostering peace by overcoming evil with good requires careful reflection on the common good(5) and on its social and political implications. When the common good is promoted at every level, peace is promoted. Can an individual find complete fulfilment without taking account of his social nature, that is, his being "with" and "for" others? The common good closely concerns him. It closely concerns every expression of his social nature: the family, groups, associations, cities, regions, states, the community of peoples and nations. Each person, in some way, is called to work for the common good, constantly looking out for the good of others as if it were his own. This responsibility belongs in a particular way to political authorities at every level, since they are called to create that sum of social conditions which permit and foster in human beings the integral development of their person(6).

The common good therefore demands respect for and the integral promotion of the person and his fundamental rights, as well as respect for and the promotion of the rights of nations on the universal plane. In this regard, the Second Vatican Council observed that "the increasingly close interdependence gradually encompassing the entire world is leading to an increasingly universal common good... and this involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups and the common good of the entire human family"(7). The good of humanity as a whole, including future generations, calls for true international cooperation, to which every nation must offer its contribution(8).

Certain reductive visions of humanity tend to present the common good as a purely socio-economic state of well-being lacking any transcendent purpose, thus emptying it of its deepest meaning. Yet the common good has a transcendent dimension, for God is the ultimate end of all his creatures(9). Christians know that Jesus has shed full light on how the true common good of humanity is to be achieved. History journeys towards Christ and in him finds its culmination: because of Christ, through Christ and for Christ, every human reality can be led to complete fulfilment in God.

The good of peace and the use of the world's goods

6. Since the good of peace is closely linked to the development of all peoples, the ethical requirements for the use of the earth's goods must always be taken into account. The Second Vatican Council rightly recalled that "God intended the earth and all it contains for the use of everyone and of all peoples; so that the good things of creation should be available equally to all, with justice as guide and charity in attendance"(10).

As a member of the human family, each person becomes as it were a citizen of the world, with consequent duties and rights, since all human beings are united by a common origin and the same supreme destiny. By the mere fact of being conceived, a child is entitled to rights and deserving of care and attention; and someone has the duty to provide these. The condemnation of racism, the protection of minors, the provision of aid to displaced persons and refugees, and the mobilization of international solidarity towards all the needy are nothing other than consistent applications of the principle of world citizenship.

7. The good of peace should be seen today as closely related to the new goods derived from progress in science and technology. These too, in application of the principle of the universal destination of the earth's goods, need to be put at the service of humanity's basic needs. Appropriate initiatives on the international level can give full practical implementation to the principle of the universal destination of goods by guaranteeing to all — individuals and nations — the basic conditions for sharing in development. This becomes possible once the barriers and monopolies that marginalize many peoples are removed(11).

The good of peace will be better ensured if the international community takes on greater responsibility for what are commonly called public goods. These are goods which all citizens automatically enjoy, without having consciously chosen them or contributed to them in any way. Such is the case, for example, at the national level, with such goods as the judiciary system, the defence system and the network of highways and railways. In our world the phenomenon of increased globalization means that more and more public goods are taking on a global character, and as a result common interests are daily increasing. We need but think of the fight against poverty, the promotion of peace and security, concern for climate change and disease control. The international community needs to respond to these interests with a broader network of juridical accords aimed at regulating the use of public goods and inspired by universal principles of fairness and solidarity.

8. The principle of the universal destination of goods can also make possible a more effective approach to the challenge of poverty, particularly when we consider the extreme poverty in which millions of people are still living. The international community, at the beginning of the new millennium, set the priority of halving their number by the year 2015. The Church supports and encourages this commitment and invites all who believe in Christ to show, practically and in every sector, a preferential love for the poor(12).

The tragedy of poverty remains closely linked to the issue of the foreign debt of poor countries. Despite significant progress in this area, the problem has not yet been adequately resolved. Fifteen years ago I called public attention to the fact that the foreign debt of poor countries "is closely related to a series of other problems such as foreign investment, the proper functioning of the major international organizations, the price of raw materials and so forth"(13). Recent moves in favour of debt reduction, centred mainly on the needs of the poor, have certainly improved the quality of economic growth. Yet, because of a number of factors, this growth is still quantitatively insufficient, especially in relation to the millennium goals. Poor countries remain trapped in a vicious circle: low income and weak growth limit savings and, in turn, weak investments and an inefficient use of savings do not favour growth.

9. As Pope Paul VI stated and as I myself have reaffirmed, the only really effective means of enabling States to deal with the grave problem of poverty is to provide them with the necessary resources through foreign financial aid — public and private — granted under reasonable conditions, within the framework of international commercial relations regulated with fairness(14). What is urgently needed is a moral and economic mobilization, one which respects agreements already made in favour of poor countries, and is at the same time prepared to review those agreements which have proved excessively burdensome for some countries. In this regard, new impulse should be given to Public Aid for Development, and new forms of financing for development should be explored, whatever the difficulties entailed(15). Some governments are already looking carefully at promising mechanisms for this; these significant initiatives should be carried out in a spirit of authentic sharing, with respect for the principle of subsidiarity. The management of financial resources destined to the development of poor countries should also entail scrupulous adherence, on the part of both donors and recipients, to sound administrative practices. The Church encourages and contributes to these efforts. One need only mention the significant contribution made by the many Catholic agencies dedicated to aid and development.

10. At the end of the Great Jubilee of the year 2000, in my Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte, I spoke of the urgent need for a new creativity in charity(16), in order to spread the Gospel of hope in the world. This need is clearly seen when we consider the many difficult problems standing in the way of development in Africa: numerous armed conflicts, pandemic diseases aggravated by extreme poverty, and political instability leading to widespread insecurity. These are tragic situations which call for a radically new direction for Africa: there is a need to create new forms of solidarity, at bilateral and multilateral levels, through a more decisive commitment on the part of all, with complete conviction that the well-being of the peoples of Africa is an indispensable condition for the attainment of the universal common good.

May the peoples of Africa become the protagonists of their own future and their own cultural, civil, social and economic development! May Africa cease to be a mere recipient of aid, and become a responsible agent of convinced and productive sharing! Achieving this goal calls for a new political culture, especially in the area of international cooperation. Once again I wish to state that failure to honour the repeated promises of Public Aid for Development, the still unresolved question of the heavy foreign debt of African countries and the failure to give those countries special consideration in international commercial relations, represent grave obstacles to peace which urgently need to be addressed and resolved. Today more than ever, a decisive condition for bringing peace to the world is an acknowledgement of the interdependence between wealthy and poor countries, such that "development either becomes shared in common by every part of the world or it undergoes a process of regression even in zones marked by constant progress"(17).

The universality of evil and Christian hope

11. Faced with the many tragic situations present in the world, Christians confess with humble trust that God alone can enable individuals and peoples to overcome evil and achieve good. By his death and resurrection, Christ has redeemed us and ransomed us "with a price" (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23), gaining salvation for all. With his help, everyone can defeat evil with good.

Based on the certainty that evil will not prevail, Christians nourish an invincible hope which sustains their efforts to promote justice and peace. Despite the personal and social sins which mark all human activity, hope constantly gives new impulse to the commitment to justice and peace, as well as firm confidence in the possibility of building a better world.

Although the "mystery of iniquity" (2 Th 2:7) is present and active in the world, we must not forget that redeemed humanity is capable of resisting it. Each believer, created in the image of God and redeemed by Christ, "who in a certain way has united himself to each human being"(18), can cooperate in the triumph of good. The work of "the Spirit of the Lord fills the earth" (cf. Wis 1:7). Christians, especially the lay faithful, "should not, then, hide their hope in the depth of their hearts, but rather express it through the structures of their secular lives in continual conversion and in wrestling ‘against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of iniquity' (Eph 6:12)"(19).

12. No man or woman of good will can renounce the struggle to overcome evil with good. This fight can be fought effectively only with the weapons of love. When good overcomes evil, love prevails and where love prevails, there peace prevails. This is the teaching of the Gospel, restated by the Second Vatican Council: "the fundamental law of human perfection, and consequently of the transformation of the world, is the new commandment of love"(20).

The same is true in the social and political spheres. In this regard, Pope LeoXIII wrote that those charged with preserving peace in relations between peoples should foster in themselves and kindle in others "charity, the mistress and queen of all the virtues"(21). Christians must be convinced witnesses of this truth. They should show by their lives that love is the only force capable of bringing fulfilment to persons and societies, the only force ca- pable of directing the course of history in the way of goodness and peace.

During this year dedicated to the Eucharist, may the sons and daughters of the Church find in the supreme sacrament of love the wellspring of all communion: communion with Jesus the Redeemer and, in him, with every human being. By Christ's death and resurrection, made sacramentally present in each Eucharistic celebration, we are saved from evil and enabled to do good. Through the new life which Christ has bestowed on us, we can recognize one another as brothers and sisters, despite every difference of language, nationality and culture. In a word, by sharing in the one bread and the one cup, we come to realize that we are "God's family" and that together we can make our own effective contribution to building a world based on the values of justice, freedom and peace.

From the Vatican, 8 December 2004.

JOHN PAUL II

A Nation of Sheep

My basic attitude of the Bush administration has been trust, or perhaps I should more accurately say "I hope I can trust you." I have a strong distaste for personal insults against political figures, as they are human beings after all. But of course that doesn't preclude vehemently disagreeing with policies (as I have always disagreed with Bush's educational policy).

I've been one who has accepted the thought that 9/11 created a need for us to give up some freedoms for the common good. I'm reconsidering that line of thought now, and this book promo gives me food for thought.

The Diminished Role of Christians in the Public Sphere

One of the challenges we face as a culture is that we do not know well how to live with the tension created by the fact that we disagree on fundamental moral questions. We want to resolve that tension. Some attempt to do so through persuasion. Others use force; in our culture, typically the force of law. I disagree with much of libertarianism's ideological tendencies when it comes to the role of the state, but I must admit there's wisdom in some if it, especially in this area: a recognition that relieving that tension though force of law in some situations will backfire. Who cannot look at the abortion debate and not see the weakness of both sides efforts to use courts and judicial decisions to change the debate on this? Or the drug war and not at least recognize that having the law reinforce morality hasn't always resulted in the change of behavior that many hoped for and has often created new problems? ("More Questions, No Answers")

Jack, I'm going to dodge your great questions about immigration, or at least defer them for now to follow another train of thought. The part of your message quoted above starts to articulate something bothering me about the Republican monopoly on "Christian values", in previous elections as well as specifically with Mike Huckabee's campaign. I have thought the problem is due also to the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant conception of social life.

Thomas Aquinas did not expect that the political body should resolve questions of personal morality, except insofar as they would have an impact on others.

Aquinas plainly rejects the idea that the state is a surrogate for paternal authority, or has God's authority over morally significant conduct. Though he frequently states that the political rulers have a proper concern to lead people to virtue, these statements turn out to refer to the appropriate aspirations of rulers, not to their coercive jurisdiction or authority. In the context of the surrounding argument, the statements do not commit him to any wider governmental or legal authority than to require and foster the public good and the virtue of justice, that is, the willingness to perform one's duties to others: 6.1(iii) above. The other virtues can be legally required of citizens only so far as they impact on justice: ST I-II q. 96 a. 3. Moreover, he holds the classic position that doing justice does not require that one's motivations and character be just. And when it comes to coercive measures, he holds that they can bear only upon conduct that is external and immediately or mediately affects other people unjustly or disturbs the peace of the political community: ST I-II q. 98 a. 1. Really private vices are outside the coercive jurisdiction of the state's government and law. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Let me be clear. The state's interest in preventing abortion involves the protection of the innocent child. Same-sex marriages impact the nature of the family, particularly for children adopted or artificially conceived. (The issue of drugs, that you bring up, is mixed, I think. The main question there to me would be exposure to children which we hardly have a handle on.) Still it is not the law's job to turn us into "good" people.

Still, the reduction of "Christian values" in the political sphere to an exclusive emphasis on prolife/profamily issues, which are primarily private-sphere issues with a public impact, seems to me a result of a strange capitulation to religion's relegation to merely private morality. Since the secular society has mostly usurped politics, education, science, social services, you name it, setting religion in the corner to deal with private scruples and personal crises, then we in turn ourselves reduce the Christian social role to dealing with such domestic issues. So our Christian advocates of good private moral practices have no trouble with breaking up families to expel illegal immigrants, or continuing to deny Palestinians their rightful sovereignty, or going to war to impose our "democratic" way of life on another country.

In fact, our Christian outlook does have something to say about many important social issues, war for starters. We have an entire body of Catholic social teaching which is practically unknown to most evangelicals who rely on a personal interpretation of Scripture and a mostly individual response to charitable needs. Those many Catholics who are voting for Hillary Clinton may or may not be pro-abortion, but not a few do remember that Catholics were involved in labor unions so that exploited workers could have a just wage.

No answers here, just an observation. After this, IMHO, disastrous administration, we need to do some soul-searching as Catholics, with our rich tradition of social thought and practice, at accepting our banishment to such a reduced role in the political arena.

More Questions, No Answers

As I mentioned to Sharon before, I struggle with how to stand in front of the immigration issue. It is one that raises mostly questions for me and for which I see no clear paths. Some thoughts:

1) I had never before heard of the DREAM Act that Sharon mentions. An interesting piece of legislation and it strikes me as a sensible emphasis, namely a recognition that not all who come here illegally do so because they choose to and our law should look at their situation more openly rather than merely labeling them as "illegals". (And this is not to say that those who choose to come here illegally should be treated however we feel like, of course. Just to recognize that there is a difference in the situations.)

2) I worry about sentimentalism driving a lot of people's approach to policy on this issue. Charity is a beautiful motivator. But it strikes me that it can become distorted when raised to the government level. First, by the fact of our democracy, it gets distorted in that we are now using law to effect the charitable impulses of some members of the culture over the objections of others. Whether we think that is a good thing or a bad thing, we should recognize that this has consequences. It's one of my main realizations about the so called "culture war" and from my exposure to libertarianism recently through the Ron Paul campaign. One of the challenges we face as a culture is that we do not know well how to live with the tension created by the fact that we disagree on fundamental moral questions. We want to resolve that tension. Some attempt to do so through persuasion. Others use force; in our culture, typically the force of law. I disagree with much of libertarianism's ideological tendencies when it comes to the role of the state, but I must admit there's wisdom in some if it, especially in this area: a recognition that relieving that tension though force of law in some situations will backfire. Who cannot look at the abortion debate and not see the weakness of both sides efforts to use courts and judicial decisions to change the debate on this? Or the drug war and not at least recognize that having the law reinforce morality hasn't always resulted in the change of behavior that many hoped for and has often created new problems? Similarly, I worry that we may underestimate the possibility of the federal government "leaving space" for the states and private citizens to address the immigration issue. I'm not suggesting the federal government per se shouldn't act. But I worry, in our analysis, are we really considering all of the factors?

3) Again, on the theme of sentimentalism, I've encountered at times an attitude that behaves as if the United States is capable of solving worldwide poverty and inequality, if only it opens up its doors more widely. I think this is utopian. Even so, I'm not sure if I would dismiss this attitude if practiced on the individual level. After all, we recognize heroic virtue as a mark of the saints. But again, when it becomes governmental policy, some of the heroism that we might attribute to the "foolish" sacrifices of the saint seems lacking when what one is volunteering to sacrifice is what belongs to another. Isn't there a degree to which this fails to respect the freedom of the other? I have chiefly in mind solutions to the immigration problem that involve expanding ever-greater government subsidies and programs. If someone could demonstrate to me how we can afford all of that, when we can't afford what we already spend, I'd be open to it. But I think there is something to be said for a nation having the humility to recognize that, even as the world's last superpower, there's a limit to what it is capable of doing, that it isn't the Savior.

4) I don't disagree with Deacon's comment that working with Mexico and Central American governments to help them provide people opportunities in their own countries is important. Ironically, this is similar to my advice to union advocates back in the early 90s when we saw one of the big waves of manufacturing moving overseas. My advice was to also move overseas and effect there the noble changes in working conditions that unions made happen in our own history. Largely, this advice was ignored and, I think, to the detriment of American union members (besides those potential members overseas). But back to Deacon's point, the real question is *how* to do this, isn't it? How to do this in a way that is both effective and also respectful of the freedom of the peoples of these other countries? Our history is filled with many examples of how not to do it. The United States has backed many regimes for poor reasons and spent countless billions financing them. We've seen the results and typically they are not for the benefit of the ordinary people of those countries.

5) I am dubious of some of the reasoning that seems to under gird most defenses of a guest-worker program. I won't get into them all here. But having been told some of the ways agricultural migrant workers get treated, the chief beneficiaries seem to me to be those companies who get to avoid raising wages to a level demanded by the labor market and I really wonder if creating a guest-worker status will really do anything to cause a greater respect for the humanity of these workers. Might it just legalize (and in the way our culture tends to let law dictate morality, make socially acceptable) the already truncated view many hold of these workers? To me, it seems built on a presumption that nothing really can be done about illegal immigration and that sees borders primarily in economic terms and, thus, as (dare I say, archaic) artifice. I consider the correctness of these presumptions as not obvious.

6) No doubt it is a complicated mess and one can't help but address the present large population of illegal immigrants in this country. But I do long for the day when discussion in our culture recognizes again that what's of concern is the illegal nature of the immigration (both from the perspective of the violation of the laws, but also from the perceptive of the net consequences for those who are present here illegally) and not immigration itself. Surely there is a middle ground between no immigration and open borders. It would be nice to be able to speak in favor of just plain-old immigration.

Again, no answers, just questions. This is a tough matter.

Odd Holocaust Thriller

The 2006 Dutch film Zwartboek, or The Black Book, directed by Paul Verhoeven, is exciting but disturbing for its amoral plot. The tagline is: "To fight the enemy, she must become one of them," wholly appropriate for a spy movie. As with the best portrayals of human nature, the lines blur between the good guys and the bad. But even given that, the moral faultline never settles. The press was divided on the film in the Netherlands.

The strange depiction of Christians cannot go unnoted. They are, without exception, bigoted and cruel. A Christian resistance fighter will not shoot to save friends, but only when the enemy blasphemes. A family sheltering a young Jewish woman forces her to memorize Gospel verses in order to receive a meal. After the war, a "Christian" mob abuses those who cooperated with the enemy. This is a strange and suspiciously ideological treatment of Christians as violent fundamentalists, given the country's rescue of some 5000 Jews from the Nazis.

More Dutch have been honored by Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Israel, as `righteous gentiles' than from any other country" (Survival and Resistance: The Netherlands Under Nazi Assault).

Carice van Houten who plays Rachel is a winning heroine who is quick-witted and able to subdue her natural feelings to take up the task at hand. Sebastian Koch is sympathetic as the German official Ludwig Müntze with a tragic story of his own.

It is no surprise that the Resistance may also be infiltated by spies, and so-called friends may profit from the plight of the Jews. Then too enemies can turn out to be the only true friends. Still, overall the plot is capricious in its contortions as bitter betrayals are counteracted by surprising alliances. No one appears to act from principle, but only for personal motives. In the end, only individual survival and revenge prevail.

Reconciliation after a Father's Loss

See this moving video of a grieving Palestinian father who turns to reconciliation instead of revenge after the killing of his 10-year-old daughter in a border dispute. Combatants for Peace brings together former Israeli soldiers and Palestinian terrorists who give up violence to build something new. This family built a playground in honor of their daughter.

The Fragile Immigrant Families

On the occasion of the coming World Day of Migrants and Refugees, and looking at the Holy Family of Nazareth, icon of all families, I would like to invite you to reflect on the condition of the migrant family. The evangelist Matthew narrates that shortly after the birth of Jesus, Joseph was forced to leave for Egypt by night, taking the child and his mother with him, in order to flee the persecution of king Herod (cf. Mt 2:13-15). Making a comment on this page of the Gospel, my venerable Predecessor, the Servant of God Pope Pius XII, wrote in 1952: “The family of Nazareth in exile, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, emigrants and taking refuge in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are the model, the example and the support of all emigrants and pilgrims of every age and every country, of all refugees of any condition who, compelled by persecution and need, are forced to abandon their homeland, their beloved relatives, their neighbors, their dear friends, and move to a foreign land” (Exsul familia, AAS 44, 1952, 649). In this misfortune experienced by the Family of Nazareth, obliged to take refuge in Egypt, we can catch a glimpse of the painful condition in which all migrants live, especially, refugees, exiles, evacuees, internally displaced persons, those who are persecuted. We can take a quick look at the difficulties that every migrant family lives through, the hardships and humiliations, the deprivation and fragility of millions and millions of migrants, refugees and internally displaced people. The Family of Nazareth reflects the image of God safeguarded in the heart of every human family, even if disfigured and weakened by emigration.

In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI called attention to the fragile condition of migrant families throughout the world in his World Day of Migrants and Refugees Message. He offered as a model of compassion the Holy Family that lived through this displacement, in their case as for many war refugees, as a result of lethal threats. We are invited to see every family as the image of the Trinity. This is not necessarily the first thought in the immigration debate which is rife with accusations and acrimony.

The most shameful aspect of the new crackdown on immigration has been the separation of families, including young children (citizens if born here) taken from their parents who are then incarcerated pending deportation proceedings. Some cases are documented here (Face 1, Face 2 and Immigration Families). Others are in financial and legal limbo awaiting immigration proceedings, as for those caught in a raid last September 27th at a McDonald's in Reno:

Marta lost everything after the arrest. She is now out of work and can’t get a new job until her immigration case has gone to court, presumably within the next two months. Unable to pay rent or even buy supplies for her two infant children, she is forced to live with friends and rely on services provided by NHS. Marta says her hardships don’t change the fact that living in Reno gives her the opportunity to improve her circumstances. If she had stayed in her hometown, Mexico City, there was hardly a chance to earn a decent living....

Elena has family in Reno, who have helped since her arrest. She has also been unable to work until her legal status is clarified. Left with no alternative, she has sold most of her belongings in order to pay her bills and feed her three children. She will have to remain unemployed until her case can be heard by an immigration judge. The judge will determine if she can acquire a work permit. Though nervous, she says she hopes she can stay in the United States because living here provides better opportunities for her children than in Jalisco.

For those brought to this country illegally as children, educated by Supreme Court mandate through high school, what awaits them is also a legal limbo. They cannot legally work, and they have to pay out-of-state tuition for college. An independent movie, "This is America", produced by a young man who was brought here illegally at three years of age, makes the case for the now dormant Dream Act.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act would have allowed certain students to apply for conditional status for up to six years of legal residence. During that time, the students would be required to graduate from a two-year college, complete at least two years of classes toward a four-year degree or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years. At the end of six years, students would be given permanent residency if they met the conditions. To qualify, students would have to have come to the United States when they were 15 or younger and would have to have been here at least five years before applying.

Introduced in some form every session since 2001, the most recent version died last fall.... The National Immigration Law Center blamed the Dream Act's failure, in part, on a White House statement against the measure that was released the day of the congressional vote. (Caught in the Crossfire)

Hillary Clinton recognizes the special need to keep immigrant families intact:

We do need to work with the Congress to get legislation that is comprehensive. I am proud to work with Sen. Menendez on trying to make sure that in the process of doing immigration reform, we don't separate families, we try to have family unification as one of the goals. So in addition to giving people a path to legalization, we want to make sure their families can come along with them. There does have to be an intensive effort with our friends to the south to see how the United States can once again be a partner, with a relationship based on mutual respect, where we work together to find ways that we can help them address the needs of the people living in countries to the south. Finally, we have to educate the American people about why immigration is as important today as it was when my family came through into Ellis Island.