If the American bishops seem especially concerned about the rights of refugees, there is a good historical reason. In the aftermath of World War II, with Europe devastated and huge populations on the move, the bishops lobbied for the US government to accept more refugees. They also began to initiate a huge network to resettle those who arrived.
In 1948, the Displaced Persons Act became law, and Pope Pius XII wrote to the bishops to affirm their stance. “The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people,” Pius told them. “For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all.”
That may help to explain why Catholics were so prominent among the critics of Donald Trump’s executive order last week. The order is a temporary measure, which for 90 days will halt immigration from seven countries (including Syria) previously identified as terrorism risks. It also prioritises victims of religious persecution, and halves 2017’s refugee total to 50,000.
Catholics can hardly be unconcerned by the issues raised here – “oppression of the poor” is one of the “four sins that cry to heaven”, and the Catechism specifies mistreatment of needy foreigners as one aspect of it.
And for many Catholic leaders, the Trump order was appalling – “a dark moment in US history”, as Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago put it.
The US bishops’ committee on migration “strongly disagreed” with the order, according to its chairman, Bishop Joe Vásquez of Austin. “Welcoming newcomers and refugees is an act of love and hope,” he said.
But that is not the only possible Catholic response. The very same letter of Pius XII affirms the right of migration only as long as “the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this”. Pius knew that such caveats could excuse hard-heartedness, but he thought states needed to show prudence as well as charity.
Fr Mark Pilon, associate professor of theology at Christendom College, stresses this. If nations did not have the right to regulate migration, he says, “China with its huge population could simply walk into all the countries of Indochina and annex them through a majority Chinese population.”
America’s situation is less difficult than Europe’s, Fr Pilon believes, but it still has to consider “what is economically and politically feasible”, as well as its “duty in charity” to refugees.
Philosopher Thomas D Williams, who writes for Breitbart News, says “openness” should be the rule, but circumstances may make it harder to integrate refugees. He quotes the then Cardinal Ratzinger as saying that Islam’s legal ambitions meant it could not always be straightforwardly “included in the free realm of a pluralistic society”.
The loudest objections to Trump’s order were moral ones, but its immediate practical effects were unfortunate, too. Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule says: “The Department of Homeland Security was initially told by the White House that the executive order applied not only to new visa applicants from the seven covered countries, but also to existing visa holders and ‘lawful permanent residents’ (holders of ‘green cards’) who were in transit when the order was issued. That was a serious legal overreach.”
The courts argued that the order should only cover new applicants, and the White House eventually agreed – but not before confusion at airports, and great anxiety for some about being allowed into the country.
The order is likely to face a legal challenge, according to Prof Vermeule, on the basis that it discriminates against Muslims. This may be a difficult claim to maintain, he says, since the text of the order excludes certain nations rather than religions. “To win, the challengers will have to show ‘animus’ – invidious intent to discriminate.”
The immense controversy over the order partly reflects how divided America society has become. It is a huge challenge to achieve the “integral peace” which Catholic teaching says is the goal of government. Anna Rowlands of Durham University describes this peace as something which “enables human persons as part of communities to seek basic corporate, moral and spiritual wellbeing”.
Dr Rowlands suggests some ways of testing Trump’s policy, from the Catholic tradition: “Does it appear that this executive order carries within itself a deep search for such a peace? Does it appear that it expresses the character of law which can be considered just from the vantage point of those whose lives most depend on it (a good Thomist test)? Does it seek to balance a commitment to local, national and global goods? Does it even speak in any recognisable language of ‘the good’?”
Immigration is perhaps the most difficult political question of our time, but it is generally debated in soundbites. The questions Dr Rowlands asks suggest that Catholic thinkers and leaders can provide another way, if they can resist the temptation to simplify.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.