LETTERS
2006 LETTERS
September/October
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2006
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
July/August 2006
POLITICALLY CORRECT MISSION
As Mission has already graciously printed my first letter concerning illegal immigration [see "Takes Issue With Storck," April Letters], I shall not write on this issue again and promise to be as brief as possible in response to Mr. Zehnder and Mr. Storck. While I feel virtually obliged to expose the glaring flaws in their facile account of Old Mexico's "ownership" of California, would dearly like to breach the important topic of the differences between natural rights (which illegal immigrants possess) and rights of American citizens (which they do not), and sorely wish I had time to detail the best traditions of Catholic social teaching on the sovereignty a nation has over its borders and laws, another reader must open these discussions: Mission clearly lacks the will to do so itself.
My first letter already demonstrated that the fundamental problem with illegal immigration is its devastating spiritual effects on émigrés. Storck ever so briefly mentions these; Zehnder doesn't even address this "elephant in the living room" -- families separated (often for years); widespread marital infidelity; millions leaving the Catholic Church for Protestant sects, or no faith at all. Is this the "better life" our Latino brothers are coming here for? Far from "chastising" them or simply crying "go home," as Storck irresponsibly implies I advocate, the Church needs to remind them that even in poverty (sorry, Mr. Zehnder) human freedom exists. If the price of a "better life" means women repeatedly raped, men beaten and robbed, and children crammed into false trunks and dashboards (actual cases) by so-called coyotes of their own race, then the price is too high. I never used the phrase "love of money" (did Mr. Storck even read my letter?), but I repeat that countless illegal immigrants have admitted they crossed the border for cash -- as if this were any revelation. It is precisely because I care deeply for them that I worship with Latinos in their native language at a parish 30 minutes away, go to their homes to teach their children, and fraternally warn them that they are wrong when they put money before Church, family, and their own well-being. Poverty I have witnessed firsthand in Latin America, though not the starvation Mr. Zehnder wildly suggests is the doom awaiting those who choose not to enter America illegally. But is poverty sufficient reason to pay thugs thousands per person (where do they get the money?) to smuggle your loved ones across a rugged border, or worse fund the crossing by agreeing to run drugs into the U. S. on your way in? Everyone recognizes that Latinos are often among the hardest working and most decent residents of their communities, but when 80 percent of the cocaine, 20 percent of the federal prisoners (29 percent in California state facilities), and the single largest recipient group of education/health and social services tax dollars in your most populous state have all been smuggled across your border, your country has a problem.
Yet Mission finds it inexpedient to admit that illegal immigration is due overwhelmingly to the notorious corruption and incompetence of the Mexican government, preferring instead to indict U.S. government and business interests. Storck lumps all of these groups together, claming that "exact responsibility [for illegal immigration] is hard to fix." No it isn't: it is owing prima facie to the longstanding callous disinterest of Mexican officials. Our nation's involvement is a symptom -- not a cause -- of Mexican authorities' own misdeeds. To the extent that any U.S. entity has taken advantage of this state of affairs, I reiterate, throw the book at them -- especially for abuse of workers, amen. Just ask yourselves, first: what is happening in Mexico to drive 12 million of her citizens into America? Go talk to the (at last count) 18 billionaires who rule things down there and the despotic government officials who take bribes from drug cartels. Clean up this mess, then you'll see that foreign interests no longer take advantage of the Mexican people. Let's stop spraying our roof with water when the house next door is on fire: the time has come to get the neighbors to their hoses, too, and attack the inferno at its source. "Activists" such as Dolores Huerta, José Gutierrez, and radio DJs -- manipulative opportunists rather than true friends of illegal immigrants or the Church -- serve only to fan the flames of confusion and self-interest on this issue. Engineering the recent protests and encouraging illegal immigrants to be arrogant and hostile toward their host nation is generating a massive backlash by millions of previously middle-of-the-road legal residents, large numbers of whom happen to be Latino themselves.
As I close my remarks, I understand why Kenneth Fisher "would expect better from the Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission!" You do equate labor rights with the right to life. The Church does not share your confusion, nor does Anglican Bishop Leonardo Saavedra, who quite correctly takes the Los Angeles archdiocese to task for doing far less to defend the unborn and the family (vis-à-vis issues like abortion and pornography) than illegal immigrants' "rights." For his part, Jose Madero is too busy politicizing the border debate to be confused with facts, as he falsely decries "anti-immigration" measures in Congress. Who is against immigration? The issue is illegal immigration, and it is deceitful of Mission to put such a spin on the question, still worse to celebrate the unfortunate fact that "many priests ... told their flocks during Mass to attend the [so-called pro-immigration] march." So it's adios to preaching the Faith during Mass, and instead, viva la revolución! Someone forgot to tell John Paul the Great, who wrote in Tertio Millenio Ineunte, "it is not a matter of inventing a new program. The program already exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition, it is the same as ever." Guess Christ didn't tow the party line either -- rather than rally against the patently unjust Roman occupation of Palestine (that was Barabbas' pet project), He embraced the Cross and destroyed death so that man could receive a new heart for eternal life. Mission, however, appears more interested in its own politically-correct version of earthly justice on the illegal immigration issue, and Catholics whose informed consciences cannot accept it are not longer welcome.
Steve J. Burns
Editor replies: Mr. Burns makes the claim that the Mission equates labor rights with right to life. Why he thinks this, I do not know, except for the fact that we have run articles on labor rights. (Perhaps he does not know that we have run far more articles on right to life.) The popes, including Pope John Paul II, have written encyclicals solely on labor rights and a just economy. Do they, then, equate labor rights with right to life?
Mr. Burns says that I have not addressed the moral evils arising from immigration. I admit I didn't in my reply to him, but I did write an article on the moral dangers, "I Tell Them to Go Home," which was published in the October 2005 issue (www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2005/0510cz.htm) -- and, incidentally, Mr. Burns referred to it in his April letter. So you see, Mr. Burns, the Mission covers all bases.
Mr. Burns continues to suggest that Latino immigrants come to the United States, not for any real need, but only for cash. Given the fact that they brave such terrors to cross the border, and have their family members brave them, these immigrants must either be the greediest of men or very desperate. Further, to judge immigrants' culpability in placing themselves in spiritual danger by coming to the United States, one has to determine how well they understand the spiritual danger that awaits them. How much do they even understand their Faith and its spiritual requirements? According to the accounts I've read from what I deem are trustworthy sources, these immigrants face serious poverty, not merely material inconvenience, in their home countries. Many, according to these accounts, given how much they earn in their countries, have to choose between sheltering and feeding their families. Mr. Burns says they come to the United States for cash, but for most of us, cash is not a mere luxury. In itself, seeking material subsistence is not merely a good thing but a duty. And living in the United States doesn't necessitate sin, otherwise we should all, perhaps, be packing our bags.
Finally, the Church has concerned herself with "earthly justice," as Mr. Burns calls it, for a long time. Witness the social encyclicals. It belongs to the Church to address the full spectrum of human morality, including justice. At the very least, if any of her children are doing acts of injustice, it is the Church's duty to correct them. But further, the Church's task is to restore all things in Christ (instaurare omnia in Christo), and that means, not just some things, but all things. Where injustice is, Christ is not.
STORCK REPLIES TO BURNS
Mr. Burns continues to take issue with my original article ("Be Thankful They're Not Moslems," January Mission) and with my reply to his letter published in the May issue. I do not entirely understand the intensity of his passion or animus. I heartily agree with him that Latino immigration creates many near occasions of sin for them (sins of unchastity and perhaps greed too), and that the Mexican government bears a great deal of the blame by failing to protect its own people from the ravages of multi-national corporations, and doubtless in other ways too. Mr. Burns seems exercised because I won't agree that the Mexican government is the main culprit. I am not privy to the private or secret deliberations of Mexican officials, or of U.S. officials or of corporate officials, nor can I see into their minds or hearts. I am not even thoroughly familiar with all the ins and outs of their policies. So I simply refuse to follow Mr. Burns and decide which of the major actors deserves the greatest blame.
But it almost seems as if Mr. Burns wants to fix all the blame on the Mexican government: "our nation's involvement is a sympton -- not a cause -- of Mexican authorities' own misdeeds" and "clean up [their despotic government], then you'll see that foreign interests no longer take advantage of the Mexican people," he writes. I certainly am in no position to agree to this. I don't know what resources the Mexican government has, even if it desired, to resist outside pressure, and I bet Mr. Burns doesn't know either. But in any case, there is plenty of blame to throw around and, I reiterate, the Mexican government is failing in some of its most basic duties by not resisting outside economic and financial interests who exploit Mexico and her people.
I wish Mr. Burns had taken the time to go into what he calls "the glaring flaws in their facile account of old Mexico's 'ownership' of California" -- what could he possibly mean here? And of course, if Mexico was not the sovereign owner of California before 1848, then she had no right to cede it to the United States in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and so to whom does California legally belong now?
Lastly, I find it amusing that Mr. Burns denies using the phrase "love of money" and questions whether I had even read his letter. Readers should look at his letter (April) and, behold, Mr. Burns did write those very words.
Thomas Storck,
Greenbelt, Maryland
Editor's note: In his April letter, Mr. Burns writes of "millions of souls leaving their homeland and placing everything they ostensibly value the most at risk for love of money."
TWO CORRECTIONS
I enjoy your paper and look forward to it each month.
However, I must point out two errors in the May issue. First, in the article, "Was it the Cardinal or the DJ's," it was erroneously stated that Proposition 187 was "struck down by the courts as unconstitutional." In fact, one federal judge (Byrnne) ruled that the California law exceeded its jurisdiction. His superior, Judge Pfaelzer, issued a temporary restraining order on the law, then ruled that its enforcement provisions were invalid (e.g., it was a Federal issue). When Gray Davis became governor, he relegated the issue to mediation and cancelled appeals, guaranteeing that the law would languish and die, which it did. Therefore, there was no final ruling that definitively struck down the law; Davis knew that it would die in mediation so his name would not go down in history as the one who killed it.
Second, there was a statement in the news item, "Smog -- Maybe Worse Than You Think" "...that about 66 million Californians are at risk to contract cancer by breathing airborne chemicals..." There are only about 37.5 million Californians, total, according to data gleaned from the US Census Bureau and the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit.
Otherwise, keep up your good work. Meanwhile, I'm going back and take another look at that video of the closing liturgy of the 2006 Religious Congress. Man, those liturgical dancers have really got some moves!
Jim Keller,
Diamond Bar
Editor replies: The sentence to which Mr. Keller refers should have read, "...that about 66 per million Californians are at risk to contract cancer by breathing airborne chemicals..." We apologize for the mistake.