Is it IMMORAL for the Catholic CHURCH to give aid to illegal immigrants?

Question

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/Immigration/Downloads/Documents/ncliturgy.pdf

Should the church be held accountable for helping people violate a law that they think is inhumane?

Extra for Experts: In the 1960s, was civil disobedience wrong because it violated the laws at the time?

truthspeaker: Do you claim that America's immigration laws aren't as moral as they should be?

James K: If civil disobedience was legal, then why were so many people arrested in the 60s?

James K: I meant to say if "most" of the civil disobedience was legal, then why were so many people arrested in the 60s.

Answer 1

There are many good comments regarding the church part of the question so I want to add my 2 cents to the civil disobedience portion. By definition, civil disobedience does involve breaking a law, hence the disobey portion of the name. The civil part of the name refers to non-violence. So we have here an act of breaking the law without resorting to physical violence. Rosa Parks' refusal to sit at the back of the bus is a prime example. It can also be called nonviolent resistance.

Civil disobedience does break a law, however; wrong or right is a determination made by human conscience, not the law. Very often a minority group does not have the prestige or money necessary to hire lawyers to get a law changed using the court system. Civil disobedience is a way to bring awareness of an issue to the majority without the stigma of rioting. Democracy is a constantly evolving process, and how we define individual rights within a democracy also changes over time.

In the military, enlisted personnel are legally required to follow orders. However if an unjust order is given, a soldier is not required to follow it. The military however is very black and white and the UCMJ leaves very little room for gray areas.

In civilian life however, we do not have the benefit of a single manual of uniform laws that apply across the country. Ghandi campaigned to speed up independence from the British. Colonist dumped tea in the Boston Harbor to protest unfair taxation. Illegal yes, violent no. Across the country today environmentalists chain themselves together around buildings or trees to protest non-violently. Usually they are breaking trespassing laws but feel they are serving the greater good to help bring about discussion of the issues. Nelson Mandela used these techniques in South Africa to help eventually bring down Apartheid.

Immigration Reform. The current hot button issue is criticized by those who say illegals should not be rewarded for breaking the law. But changing outdated laws is part of the American process. We are not and should not be forever bound by the laws created by our predecessors. Especially when it is painfully obvious that those laws are not working.

Should we never change any law? How about the right to vote? The constitution guaranteed all citizens the right to vote. However those in power (white men) used unconstitutional means to keep women and minorities from voting until new amendments were finally written that expressly guaranteed these rights. Despite the constitution, women and minorities were prevented from voting until only about 80 years ago. I could go on forever but the point is, those who bury their heads in the sand, and refuse to consider the merits of change, simply because some have broken what may be an unjust law, do this country a disservice by stubbornly refusing to help all people improve their lives.

The original patriots of this country were also law-breaking rebels.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry

Answer 2

The Catholic Church helps mostly CATHOLIC illegal aliens from Mexico and Latin America. I haven't seen them extend a lot of aid to the Buddhist illegal aliens who come in to the US from SE Asia or the Muslim one who come in from Africa. If the argument is that civil disobedience is right when the law is wrong, who then determines that one person is more right than another. It is disingenuous to say that there is a humanitarian purpose behind breaking the law, if the Church then favors one religious group over another in dispensing that aid.

On the other hand, since the existing immigration law is very loosely enforced anyways, why would the authorities single out the Catholic Church for enforcement? Why not choose McDonalds, Armour, Tysons or other employers that violate the same law in order to get cheap labor?

Answer 3

Immoral and self serving.

I was raised Catholic. When the Vietnamese boat people landed, I remember the Catholic charities helped the Catholic among them, The Buddhists and other religions were on their own. Look at the religious make-up of the illegals: Catholics from Mexico. If they were some other religion, you would not hear a peep from the Church.

Lets send 100,000 of these folks to Vatican City and see what humane laws they have there.

Civil disobedience has a price. Paying that price is what gives the disobedient their "street cred."

Answer 4

no not at all. it would be immoral if they didnt. this in no way has anything to do with what a government policy on immigration should be, but in my opinion, a chuch, (any church), should be above that. i don't want my church checking someone in needs papers before they render aide; BUT i want my government to!

and you kind of miss the point on civil disobedience. the whole point of civil disobedience is to create change within the law and peacefully. the first ammendmant to the constitution guarantees these rights. um, so far the most part the activism of the 60's that would qualify as legit civil disobedience was in fact, within the law.

reply:
local jurisdictions who were not tolerant of those involved in disobedience in some cases overstepped their legal grounds to break up demonstrations, make arrests, and just plain ol bust a few heads. some of the police action may have been justified, but a lot of it was just out of anger.. this is why you saw federal troops and national guard protecting some marches and such. AND make no mistake there are still lots of people who firmly believe the local government was following the law with their actions. BUT the constitution is supposed to apply to all. at least that's the way i see it. BUT we did fight a big ol' war over federal government vs. states rights and to some extent that war still rages; and back in the 60's it really raged as civil war almost broke out again. trust me i was there.

im sorry. one more thing, just because you are arrested does not mean you have broken a law. duh on me!

Answer 5

Christianity does not have authority over the civil authority.

But God does have authority of Christians.

Christians reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws.

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.

We must obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

With love in Christ.

Answer 6

No, it would not be immoral for the Church to give aid to illegal immigrants. Part of being a good Christian (or person, really) involves helping the less fortunate when you have the ability. It would be immoral, however, for the Church to give aid known child molesting priests.

Answer 7

I don't think aiding anyone in time of necessity is wrong, but what I DO think is wrong is the Catholic Church opposing the law. The Bible says we should abide to the law, and if there are agents looking for one certain person and the Catholic church gives him/her refuge, then they are guilty of disobedience. I am a pro amnesty person, like many of you know, but I also am a law supporter.

Answer 8

Why would it be immoral to help a human being in need?

The church is in no position to determine whether an individual is in the country legally or not, but they are in a position to detrmine whether someone is in need of charity.

Answer 9

Praise God some people throughout history have had the nerve and fore site to challenge laws that were unjust.Women on here wouldn't be on here if not for the suffragettes many of whom went to jail for their fight.Blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus.Native Americans would still be forced to live on reservations.No one on here has ever suffered any of the indignities previous generations had to so they can't comprehend how it would have been if some hadn't stood up and fought against LAWS that weren't fair to all.I'm not Catholic but I give them credit for giving sanctuary to people who are being used and abused.

Answer 10

This is where the separation of church and state plays out. They are just helping other human beings regardless of their legal status......I'm agnostic but good for them.