Don’t Think It’s Working

There is no doubt that the murder of George Floyd has gripped our nation. The video of a white police officer pinning down a black man with his knee around his neck while other white officers standby doing nothing is haunting. It is sickening. Imagine being pressed down onto concrete with a heavy person sitting directly on your neck while you are slowly being killed for an agonizing ten minutes. Horrible. What a terrible disrespect for life.

The murder of yet another black American at the hands of a police officer haunts the hearts and minds of the country and the world. I have a tremendous amount of respect for police officers and other public servants. Yet when something like this happens, we must do all we can to get rid of the “bad apples”. Across the country there have been protests over the injustice of George Floyd’s killing and its roots in a long national history of racism and police brutality. The violence that has broken out around some of these protests underscores the depth of anger and resentment in our communities. The protests and violence reminds us that there are underlying issues that still need to be addressed. The right to protest is certainly part of what we are about as a country. However, when the protests become violent the violence must be opposed and rejected.

While on my morning walk I was able to see some of the destruction that was done overnight. Stores within a mile of where I live along Fordham Rd and the Grand Concourse have been trashed and looted. No store was sacred. Medical offices, pharmacies, banks, local food stores as well as sneaker stores, appliance stores and other shops were looted. I can’t help but think of all the chaos this will cause as I saw the empty shelves in the pharmacies when people go today to try and pick up their medication or go to a doctor’s appointment. Sadly, I suspect that the “mom and pop” shops will not be able to survive from the coronavirus shutdown and now the destruction of their property even if they had insurance.

The violence, destruction and senseless looting detracts from the whole purpose of the peaceful protests – to take a stand against the underlying racism that exists in our country. Furthermore, it reminds us that we as a country still have not done away with the underlying divisiveness and prejudice that still exists in the hearts of some. In my opinion and that of many others it has only gotten worse in the past few years.

As I write this, a curfew has been imposed on New York City and the Bronx where I live last night from 11pm until 5pm. It has been extended for tonight from 8pm until 5am. Since last night a police helicopter has been flying over this section of the Bronx all night and police cars have been racing up Valentine Ave from the 46 precinct. Despite the curfew, stores in this neighborhood were trashed, police were attacked, punched, thrown to the ground and property destroyed. All this at a time when we are still under restrictions because of the coronavirus pandemic makes me wonder if we will ever get back to some semblance of normalcy in our country and in our communities.

I believe we can with the help of God. After all, as Christians we are a people of hope. So, in the midst of all this, what are we as Christians and Catholics supposed to do?

First, I strongly believe opposing racism and prejudice must be part of the church’s pro-life stance. Being pro- life must be viewed by all who call themselves Christian or Catholic as much more than just being anti-abortion. For far too long this has been resisted by a vocal minority of Catholics. A consistent ethic of life demands that all life be respected and protected. The moment we find ourselves believing that it is more important to protect the life of one group of human beings over others we have ceased to be pro-life. As Archbishop Gomez said: “The killing of Floyd is a sin that cries out to heaven for justice”.

Our bishops voted to make abortion a “preeminent” life issue in the next election. While they have come out and spoken out against the murder and injustice of George Floyd more has to be done. Bottom line, church leadership and all the people of God have to get to a point where they speak up for a respect of life for all God’s people from the womb to the grave. After all, the life of George Floyd with a police officer pressing his knee into his throat until he dies is just as valuable as the life of an unborn child being taken out of its mother’s womb to die.

Second, we Christians just celebrated the great feast of Pentecost. Our readings reminded us of the fact that all are gifted by the Holy Spirit. Our reading from the 1st letter to the Corinthians reminded us that “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.” We must all work towards unity rather than division!

Clearly this has not been happening. There is more divisiveness in our country right now than I can ever remember. I have not seen so much looting in one night since the blackout of 1977. There has not been so much racial unrest since the 1960’s. The political divisiveness within our country has made our government dysfunctional and our country has become the laughingstock around the world. I experienced this when I traveled to many countries in Europe, the Caribbean and Asia the past few years. We have given new life and meaning to the term “the ugly American”.

It is time to break down the barriers that exist and begin to see all people as equal and work toward the common good of all not just a powerful few. It is time to recognize the face of Jesus in the poor, the undocumented, the homeless and look beyond the color of a person’s skin, their sexual orientation or their perceived usefulness to society. It is time to work toward unity, a unity that can only come when we can recognize that we are no more special in the eyes of God than anyone else on this planet!

The third thing we can do is vote. As responsible citizens we all have the responsibility to ask ourselves who best can lead us into the future and then vote in November. President Trump ran on the motto “Make America Great Again”. We all need to ask ourselves the following questions. Is our country better off now than it was three and a half years ago? Is there more unity than disunity in our country? Which candidate can restore some sense of respectability to the office of the Presidency? Which candidate is the most pro-life?

Finally, we can all pray for unity, pray for peace, pray for our country and pray for all the victims of racism and prejudice. My prayer is for justice and peace. Yet I know that you cannot have peace without justice. That is the conundrum we must acknowledge and face. Let us pray that we may be safe and respectful of one another.

May the words of Mary’s Magnificat come true:
“He has shown the strength of his arm,
He has scattered the proud in their conceit.
He has cast down the mighty from their thrones,
And has lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
And the rich he has sent away empty.”

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!   The time between Christmas and the New Year is a slow time in the parish where I minister – St Simon Stock-St Joseph in the Bronx.   In fact, for most parish priests, Christmas begins after the last mass of the day is celebrated and continues well into the New Year since few parish groups meet and many people spend time with their families.   I like the time after Christmas day.  It gives me some time to reflect, reenergize and even think and gather some thoughts for another article on my blog. 

            As the year comes to an end I am conscious that we are entering another decade.   Certainly the 2010’s were perplexing years both for our country and the Catholic Church.   Some would say the cultural, religious, political and technological developments made in the past 10 years were astonishing.  I tend to think that it just seems that way since we are in the midst of change which always brings a certain amount of discomfort as well as readjustments.  In this blog I would like to focus on the future by looking at what has been accomplished in regard to the Church and then briefly look at what I think still needs to be addressed  The past is important.  It helps us to understand the present and can help to guide us in the future.  

Most people would agree that Pope Francis was elected to reform the church, especially the Curia.   By most accounts he was elected because most electors felt he could bring about the change that was needed.   The financial scandals, the sexual abuse crisis and autocratic, “Roman-centric” functioning style of the Vatican made change necessary.  

Pope Francis, by most accounts, since his election in 2013 has taken up the mandate to bring about the needed change in the church.   Despite strong opposition within the Vatican and outside, he has remained consistent to his core values that were demonstrated by the way he lived his life up to his election and is gradually bringing about the change that is needed.  There is still much to do but I would like to highlight a few of the accomplishments so far that have made the Church more merciful, more humble and much more attractive to the ordinary Catholic and non-Catholic. 

Synodality

Massimo Faggioli, a Church historian, Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at Villanova University believes that the decisive “baby steps” that Francis has taken in implementing a “Synodal” approach in the decision-making process is the most important institutional reform of his pontificate.  I tend to agree. 

Synodality is in many ways the heart of his reform.  It was not something he created but a process that he was familiar with from his years as a Cardinal in Argentina.  During those years he participated in the CELAM gatherings of Church leaders.  He participated in the 5^th one which was held in Aparecida, Brazil which was characterized by open conversation and honest reflection on issues and needs in the Church in Latin America.  He was chosen by his peers to lead the committee that would draft the concluding document for the conference which became known as the Aparecida document.  This document in many ways is the basis for the Synodal approach that Pope Francis is using in his pontificate.

In the Aparecida document the bishops spoke of the importance of evangelizing by helping all to have a personal encounter with Christ.    All are called to be evangelizers by living the gospel in their lives.  It also pointed out that there has to be a preferential option for the poor, a serious concern for the environment.   

There is no doubt that the Aparecida document has influenced what the Pope says, does and writes.  Three of his most important documents, considered blueprints for his papacy, are heavily inspired by the key themes of the Aparecida document: the 2016 document Amoris Laetitia about the challenges facing the family, 2015’s Laudato Si’ on human ecology and caring for our earth, and the 2013 document Evangelii Gaudium or Joy of the Gospel, about the new evangelization.

The Synodal approach of Pope Francis has certainly ruffled a lot of feathers mostly among the conservative elements in the Church.   The Synods of the past few years have included not only clergy but religious, lay people and outside experts some of whom were women.   The dialogue and open discussions led to a greater understanding of the issues being discussed and left more room for all to listen to the Holy Spirit. 

This past Christmas eve Pope Francis addressed the Roman Curia as he has done since being elected.  In this address he attempted to reassure and encourage the Curia during this time of reform.    He warned against the temptation to rigidity and pointed out that change and reform is in the very nature of a church that is called to be missionary.   The reform of the Curia will continue into the New Year.  But, it is well on its way of being accomplished. 

Consistent Ethic of Life

Pope Francis has often spoken about the call of all Christians to have a consistent ethic of life.  He often does this by speaking out against the “throwaway culture” in which we live.  The throwaway culture way of thinking only values a select few and discards all those who are unproductive.   When a throwaway culture finds them inconvenient or burdensome they are ignored, rejected or even disposed of. 

            A consistent ethic of life on the other hand sees value in all people.   All human beings have value regardless of what they have done, where they come from or their economic status.   No one should be discarded.  Pope Francis has consistently resisted what he identifies as a throwaway culture that uses violent methods like war, genocide, terrorism and the death penalty.  He also points out that this same violent culture includes practices like abortion and euthanasia which treats the elderly like “baggage” to be discarded.

This consistent ethic of life stance of Pope Francis has led him to view abortion as one of many life issues that needs to be addressed.   He sees abortion as part of a consistent global humanitarian ethic of life that includes these other issues such as war, concern for migrants dying at the Mexican border, Euthanasia, capital punishment, gun control, and infant malnutrition.  

This consistent ethic of life stance can be seen in Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation  Gaudete et Exsultate  (Paragraph 101) which he wrote in 2018.   It states:

“Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.”

Catholics can no longer focus on one life issue and neglect to accept or speak out against the others.   Abortion is an important life issue and sinful but other life issues such as the death penalty, gun control, euthanasia, genocide and the terrible care of migrants at the border are also important.  All are life issues and all have to be opposed.   

This change in emphasis and tone has met resistance from some anti-abortion advocates who view abortion as the dominant life issue.  However, it has helped to frame the life issue conversations in a broader context which is needed in our world and society today.  

The Gradual Passing of Clericalism

I have written before about the scorn of clericalism.   Events of the past few years have done a lot of rid the church of this sin.  Clericalism is the belief that clerics of any sort – bishops, priests, consecrated persons – are superior to non-clerics who are treated as inferiors, or children, whose task is to pray, pay and obey and not to question the cleric.  Those with a clerical mindset have done much damage to the church.   Ordination certainly gives powers to administer sacraments and to teach and govern to a cleric.  But it does not confer superiority – morally, spiritually or intellectually over the non-ordained.   Pope Francis has spoken out against the clerical mindset and has made it known that the church needs to be rid of it.   There are two factors over the past few years that have helped to rid the church of this disease. 

            First, nothing could be better designed to bring about the death of clericalism than the revelation of extreme suffering inflicted by clerics on the vulnerable and voiceless, and the failure to stop it.  While clericalism is not the cause of the sexual abuse of minors it is a leading cause in the cover-up, the failure of leaders to address the issue correctly and decisively.  And, to be clear, the abuse of any human being, especially the vulnerable and minors is sinful and tragic.  Yet more tragic is the cover-up and the failure of church leaders to address the issue promptly.  

            Thankfully in many ways clerics are no longer seen by many to be “above” ordinary lay people.   Fewer people put clerics on a pedestal.  More are questioning their motives and society is now holding clerics accountable for all their actions – financial, sexual and moral.   This is good.   It is healthy for the Church and for the clerics themselves. 

            Second,  Austen Ivereigh in his book “Wounded Shepherd” makes the point that the opposite of clericalism is synodality.  In the synodal approach that Pope Francis implemented, the process of discussion and participation in which the whole people of God can listen to the Holy Spirit and take part in the life and mission of the Church has put clerics more on an even level with laity and forced them to listen to the laity.   This method is very much in line with the vision of the Second Vatican Council which called for mechanisms of consultation and participation of all God’s people.     Pope Francis has given new life to broader participation of all God’s people.  He listens to them and talks often in his homilies about the need for all leaders in the church to listen to the people.  He has said that priests should be “shepherds living with the smell of the sheep”, to go out of themselves and be with the marginalized rather than be managers. 

Mercy

Finally, Pope Francis has called for a more merciful church.   For centuries the Church’s pastoral action was geared to imparting knowledge of doctrine and the fulfillment of commandments.  While Pope Francis notes that this is important he says that we have to preach first a God who is merciful and offers His mercy and forgiveness to all people.  Doctrine, following the commandments and teachings of the Church are important.  But, to properly evangelize in today’s society and culture all ministers must first be “vehicles of mercy” to those in need of God’s forgiveness and love. 

For this reason Pope Francis declared a year of Mercy a year or so ago.   During this year Pope Francis invited all (not just Catholics) to reflect upon and experience God’s mercy which has become a central teaching in his papacy.  Pope Francis views mercy as the first attribute of God.   He has said that God does not want anyone to be lost and that God’s mercy is infinitely greater than our sins.   For this reason, in his opinion, the church cannot close the door on anyone.  How refreshing is this approach!

            As Christians and Catholics we are called to go out into the world and help people assume responsibility for their actions, their sinfulness, knowing that God loves them despite their sinfulness.   Pope Francis understands that the world is complex and each person’s experience in life is different.   There’s that saying that you really do not know a person until you have walked in their shoes.    For this reason he emphasizes individual experience over rigid doctrine.   He presents God’s love in a new way without denying any teachings of faith.  

Conclusion

There have been many other accomplishments but these I believe have been his most important ones.   And, there is still much to address.   Issues such as the environment, climate change, the treatment of refugees, further fallout from the abuse scandal will continue to make the news and will need to be address.  We also cannot forget the persecution and murdering of Christians in Nigeria and Sri Lanka which is only now getting publicity and world attention.   No doubt Pope Francis will continue his reform for the good of the Church.   Some will resist change but that is to be expected.   For too long the Church has resisted change and it will be difficult for those who like the way things were to adjust. 

            As the year draws to and end I look forward to the new year with hope.  After all, the Christmas season is a season of hope!   As we continue to celebrate the birth of Christ, let us pray for a more merciful church, for all those persecuted and for a greater tolerance among all God’s people. 

This past year has been a difficult one for the Catholic Church throughout the world and especially here in the United States.  In February the Abuse Summit was held in Rome.  While there is disagreement as to whether the Summit accomplished its goals, one cannot deny that it raised awareness that the child abuse issue is a global issue and not just a problem in developed countries.  Around the same time, former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was dismissed from the clerical state (laicized) after credible allegations of abuse over a number of years came to light.  In August New York State did what Pennsylvania did the year before and lifted the Statute of Limitations on bringing decades old abuse allegations to court.   Because of this, many victims filed civil lawsuits that are working their way through the court system.  Many dioceses and religious orders also began to publish the names of those credibly accused of abuse this past year.  These examples and others are clear reminders of the extent of abuse at the hands of clergy and church employees and the tragedy in how abuse allegations were handled.  

          Catholics continue to be shocked (rightfully so) by the extent of the abuse, the cover-up and failure of leaders to properly address these allegations when they were first brought forth.   As dioceses and religious orders began to publish the names of those credibly accused, questions arose as to what type of oversight and supervision religious orders and dioceses have over those who left.   It came to light that about 1,700 former Catholic priests who are considered credibly accused of child abuse are living with little or no oversight by their former diocese or religious order and no oversight or monitoring by law enforcement here in the United States.  At least some of these found other jobs where they have access to minors.   Some have also gone on to commit crimes including sexual assault and possessing child pornography.  Again, rightfully so, ordinary Catholics were shaken by this revelation.

          This raises the question as to how to monitor and track former priests who often were never criminally charged and were removed from the religious life or priesthood and presently live as private citizens. 

          Publishing the names of those credibly accused is one way of addressing this issue.  But, it is not the solution.   Recently, religious orders and dioceses have been accused of simply laicizing or “getting rid” of those credibly accused of abuse as a solution.   However victims and victim advocates have rightfully pointed out the dangers of doing this since this puts credibly accused priests out in the “real world” with no monitoring or supervision thus creating the real danger that other minors could be victimized. 

          As a former provincial during the development of the Charter for the Protection of Children who participated in the CMSM annual assemblies when it developed and implemented its protocols called “Instruments of Hope and Healing — Safeguarding Children and Young People”, I would like to shed some light on what exactly happened and what steps provincials and the bishops did take to address the issue of how to monitor those who are credibly accused. 

          I attended the CMSM Assembly in August of 2002 when CMSM took major steps to respond to the abuse crisis and to set protocols that would be in line with the standards already set forth by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in the landmark document, the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and applied in the Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons, which became particular law for the United States when the Norms were approved by the Vatican in 2006.

          At this Assembly in 2002 there was discussion as to what to do with those credibly accused.  The “one strike and you are out” mandate was already in place in the “Charter” whereby a priest had to be removed from ministry if an allegation is made of abuse of a minor and if found credible, he had to be permanently removed from ministry. 

          This “one strike and you are out” rule did not sit well with the religious present and caused quite a bit of discussion.  The point was made that when a person becomes a religious, they become our brothers and we cannot just throw them out to the street.  The solution was to develop clear protocols to supervise those who had credible allegations of abuse of minors brought against them so that they could continue to live the religious life while permanently removed from ministry.  The assistance of a Sexual Misconduct Review Board and a Victim Assistance coordinator proved to be invaluable.  Praesidium was hired to assist the provincials in setting up these protocols and to become the accrediting agency to insure they were being followed.  During these next few years, with the assistance of Praesidium, education components were put in place, monitoring guidelines and workshops were offered and Standards of Accreditation were set in place that had to be followed.  The vast majority (not all) religious orders in the United States agreed to follow the new Standards.  Praesidium along with CMSM developed an accreditation process that has been revised a number of times and is followed by most religious orders. 

          Having been provincial of my religious order from 2003 – 2009, I had to follow both canonical and civil laws to resolve the cases of a number of men in my province who had been accused of abuse of a minor.  Some I would deem credible, some not.  I took the advice of the Sexual Misconduct Review Board each time in deciding how to proceed. Regardless, it became clear that the canonical status of each of those with credible allegations of abuse had to be cleared up.   Praesidium, rightfully so, required that we not just leave the status of these men in limbo. 

          Most of them were no longer interested in returning and living the religious life.   Civilly there was no resolution to this situation since none of them had been convicted of a crime.   They were free to go live where they wanted and there was nothing civilly I could do to monitor or supervise them if they did this.   The fact is that a when a person becomes a member of a religious order, they do not give up their civil rights.  So, while I and other provincials tried to encourage these men to continue in the religious life, there was nothing we could do to force them to do so. 

Canonically each of them was dismissed from the Order and they no longer had faculties and could not function as a priest or religious.   They were removed from ministry.  Yet they were free to live where they wanted without any supervision.  Some have died. I do not know where most of them live and have no contact information for them. 

Those that opted to remain a religious and live under supervision were welcomed and allowed to do so.  With the assistance of Praesidium, monitoring protocols and a written agreed upon “supervisory plan” was set in place for each individual.  Each member under supervision had a supervisor who participated in training sessions offered by Praesidium. 

Now quite a few dioceses like religious orders have set up places where those credibly accused of abuse can live and be supervised if the person chooses to remain and live under supervision.    

Monitoring those under supervision was challenging.   When a person did not follow the restrictions in their supervisory plan greater restrictions were placed upon them.  After a while, all but one decided they would be better off leaving and going on with their life.  This they did. 

Unfortunately, if a priest leaves their diocese or religious order, there is very little if anything that a provincial or bishop can do in regard to supervision since they no longer have authority over the former member if they are laicized or dismissed.  They can’t monitor or decide where they go.  Unless they were civilly charged with a crime of child abuse (most were not) they are free to go and live where they want.  They can also go and find work wherever they want and since they likely have no criminal record can perhaps find a job working with minors.  This of course is an unfortunate and dangerous situation.

So, sadly when a person decides on their own to leave a diocese or religious order, church leaders no longer have authority to monitor where they go.  Despite what advocacy groups say about the irresponsibility of religious orders or diocese simply dismissing those with credible allegations of abuse, there is not much religious leaders can do to protect the community and especially minors if the person decides to leave.  Certainly the publishing of the names of those credibly accused is one step religious leaders can take. But, it also is not a solution to the challenge of former religious and clergy gaining access to minors.  Another step is to hold accountable agencies or the institutions that hire them for not doing proper background checks.  In the end, all need to do all we can to protect vulnerable children. 

Victims advocate groups and some attorneys are presently calling  upon religious leaders to disclose the whereabouts of those who left and informing the places where they work and the community they live in.  There are a number of problems with this.  For one, many times there is no knowledge as to where the person lives.  A private investigator can be hired to search for them but there are all sorts of legal and ethical issues involved in talking this step.

Unfortunately church leaders will have to continue to address the numerous lawsuits that are filed and work towards a just solution for all credible victims.   They will also have to continue to make sure all places of ministry and individuals are following the Codes of Conduct and Safe Environment standards where they minister. 

I that been a difficult year and the year is not over yet.  The credibility of the Church and its leaders has been tarnished.  No one knows whether the worst of times is behind us.  Moving forward we need to always put victims at the center of the Church’s response.   We need to continue to do all we can to protect the vulnerable and be transparent in how new allegations are handled.   Let us continue to pray for all victims of abuse. 

On Tuesday, November 12, the United States the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the validity of President Trump’s decision to terminate the program that shields hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation and allows them to live openly in American society.  This Supreme Court case is more an argument over procedure than it is over immigration policy here in the United States. Yet, it can have lasting ramifications on those who presently are protected in the United States from deportation because of  DACA. 

A little background.  In 2017 the President ordered his administration to stop renewing temporary work permits of those in the DACA program which was created by his predecessor.  There are of course legitimate questions as to whether President Obama had the right to make law without congressional support.  At the same time there are legitimate questions as to whether President Trump had the right to attempt to put an end to the DACA program.  Suffice it to say the polarization that exists in the United States and inability of our elected officials to work together to find a solution to the immigration situation in the US is evident. 

The polarization goes on.   President Trump’s order rescinding DACA was blocked by the courts.  Now three cases have made their way to the Supreme Court, where justices will hear arguments on November 12.  The hope is that the Supreme Court decision on these cases will help to clarify the future of DACA.

President Obama created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in 2012, which was open to unauthorized immigrants who came to the US under the age of 16 and before June 2007.  If they applied and passed background checks, they were given a two-year grant of protection from deportation and a work permit.  They could renew it every two years.

No doubt there are constitutional and legal questions raised by DACA and how it was enacted.  But I need to be clear: The fate of these young adults should never have been in the courts in the first place.  And it would not be, if our leaders in Washington would simply set aside their political interests and come together to fix our nation’s broken immigration system.

Since becoming Pastor of St Simon Stock/St Joseph parish in the Bronx, I have gotten to know quite a few young adults who have enjoyed the protection of DACA.  For many of them it is hard to imagine life outside of the United States since in many cases, this is the only country they really know.   They cannot envision what life would be like without the right to live and work legally in the US.  For many undocumented young adults, DACA created a sense of hope that hadn’t been there before.  The fear that it could come to an end is real.   This is not only bad for these young adults.  It is bad for our country.  Here’s why.

Most of those who are presently protected by DACA are college students and/or hard working members of our society.  In fact, I do not know anyone who is here under DACA that is not either working or going to school or doing both.  They may exist but I do not know them.   They pay taxes and contribute to the well-being of the only country they really know.  Here in the United States they are teachers, lawyers, engineers, and doctors who are culturally American, who identify as Americans, and who know no other home than the United States.  They teach in our Religious Education program here at St Simon Stock/St Joseph.  They work in our Priory.  They participate in our Youth Group and in many other activities in the Parish. 

They are fearful.  They are fearful that they may lose their status in the United States and have to face deportation to a country they barely know. 

We should not have young people living under the threat of deportation.  The issues at stake are legal, but they are also humanitarian, economic, and moral.  The 800,000 current DACA beneficiaries are young adults brought to this country by undocumented family members when they were small children.

What is important now is for this president and this Congress to do something to address the immigration situation in the United States rather than let political rivalries cause a stalemate once again in dealing with the situation.  Most reasonable people and politicians admit that the immigration system in the United States has been broken for years.  It is time to fix it. 

Cardinal Blase Cupich in a recent article in the Chicago Catholic  pointed out that  “Americans have never been a people who punish children for their parents’ mistakes. And despite the polarization of our politics, we know in our hearts it is not right to hold these young people accountable for decisions about their lives that they did not make.”

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the DACA cases sometime in the early summer of 2020.  This will be only a few months before the elections.  Congress and the president should take responsibility and act now, and everyone should resist the temptation to make this a campaign issue.  There is broad bipartisan public support for DACA, not only among ordinary Americans but among corporate, civic, and religious leaders.  And there has been broad sympathy and support for helping these young people among our leaders in Washington.

Catholic Social teaching in regards to immigration is clear.  Catholic have been urged to do all they can to protect “Dreamers” and those under DACA from deportation and to provide them with a path to citizenship.  

For at least a century, American Catholic social teaching on migration has also emphasized that immigration law must, as an imperative, protect the family, the central unit in a secure and just society.  I know families where some of the children were born in the United States and some were not and have DACA status.  To break up these families would be unchristian.   For this reason the church has always taken a clear stance against breaking up families for any reason.

What seems clear is that regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, immigration will continue to be a hot issue until the system is fixed and the country can get beyond the tendency to politicize the immigration issue.  I pray that a just and humane solution may one day be found. 

Let us also pray that as the US Supreme Court takes up the issue of DACA on Tuesday for the thousands of young people who have come to depend upon that exemption.  These fine young adults only enrich our nation with their presence.

A Catholic priest’s denial of communion to Joe Biden in South Carolina this past weekend because of his stance on abortion once again raises many questions.  Should clergy and Eucharistic ministers deny communion to people who present themselves if they think they are in a state of sin?  After all, how could they know for sure?   What if they publicly profess by their actions or words teachings contrary to the tradition of the church?   What is the proper pastoral response of a minister distributing communion when confronted with someone who he or she considers a notorious sinner on the communion line?  These are tough questions but common sense should lead to a proper response. 

I have been a priest for over 30 years and have distributed communion in many different places.   Looking back I can honestly say that I have given communion to notorious drug dealers, those not married in the church, those living in a same sex relationship, those who are not Catholic and those who are pro-death penalty.  Not once in my years of pastoral ministry has the idea of refusing communion to someone who presents themselves in these situations crossed my mind.  I have counseled some in these situations before or after they presented themselves and helped them to understand the church teaching on receiving the Eucharist.  But I believe in most cases denying people for their public stances or actions is not only bad theology but also horrible pastoral practice that will once again alienate people.  It is also not Christ-like behavior. 

This of course is not the first time a politician has presented himself to receive communion and was denied.  John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Rudy Giuliani all have been singled out and at least told not to present themselves for communion because of the pro-choice stance.   In response to this, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) formed a task force in 2004 that drew the conclusion that there can be no national rule forbidding Catholic politicians from receiving Communion if they adopt public policy stands that are in opposition to church teaching on fundamental moral issues such as abortion, or euthanasia or same-sex marriages.  The USCCB basically left the decision up to the bishops of each diocese to make the decision in regard to whether certain members of their diocese should be told not to present themselves for Communion.

          Most, including Joe Biden’s own bishop in Delaware have consistently refrained from politicizing the Eucharist.  Their preference is to interact with politicians individually who disagree with significant church teachings.  Most bishops do not consider it good pastoral practice to deny communion to anybody who presents themselves for communion.  In other words, the communion line is not the place to make a political statement.   This certainly seems to be consistent with the attitude and pastoral approach of Pope Francis who famously said: “Who am I judge?”  As Dan Horan, the Franciscan theologian has said: “The Eucharist is not a weapon.  It is also not a reward.”

To be fair I do not think the motivations of the priest who denied Joe Biden communion has much to do with the Eucharist.  I do not know the priest but I suspect that it has more to do with his stance and perhaps obsession with the issue of abortion.  Certainly like me this priest must have encountered other “notorious sinners” like the ones I mention above.  Does he refuse them communion when they present themselves? 

What is clear is that the priest who denied Joe Biden the Eucharist has politicized the situation. He has publically expressed his reasons for denying communion and has spoken to the press freely.   Joe Biden to my knowledge has not.   These actions reinforce the idea that the actions and motivations of this priest is about much more than just the Eucharist.   He has politicized the situation which is never helpful. 

What does church law say?   Well, the relevant canons from canon law are C.912, C.915 and C.916.  Canon 912 states that “Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion”.  Canon 916 addresses those who are conscious of having committed grave sin and warns such individuals that they are not to approach Holy Communion unless they have first been reconciled to God and the Church through sacramental confession.   Canon 915 is addressed to ministers of Holy Communion and says: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

To be clear, to my knowledge no “pro-choice” politician has been excommunicated as a result of his or her public record.   It is also not realistic to deduce that they are “obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin”.   Much more knowledge of the person, the reasons for their actions and the situation they are in has to be known before this can be deduced and thus the reason for dialogue with the supposedly obstinately sinful person rather than refusing them communion.  

I would say that most Catholic politicians do not directly contest the truth of the Church’s teaching.   The disagreement with the church comes with how the teaching should be applied in a pluralistic society where there is no consensus.  Whenever church teaching is applied to particular situation great caution must be used in determining the sinfulness of the act.    And, I would say, certainly a priest or Eucharistic minister who in distributing communion confronts one who they know disagrees with how a teaching should be applied is not the appropriate person to determine this.  Thus, it was wise for the USCCB to leave these decisions in the hands of the local bishop. 

            Now, even if the views of a politician like Joe Biden can be fairly characterized as sinful they do not fall into the category of what would be considered “manifest” grave sin. 

            What is clear is that Joe Biden’s own bishop, (Bishop Malooly) has consistently refrained from politicizing the Eucharist like most bishops.  His preference is to deal with these issues individually with those who disagree with church teachings or their implementation.  He has been wise in not getting drawn into partisan politics or attempts to politicize the Eucharist as a way of communicating Church teachings.  Cardinal Dolan in March of 2013 did the same at St Patrick’s cathedral when Joe Biden received communion.  Joe Biden was not denied communion but Cardinal Dolan met with him after the mass privately.     

            I do find it ironic that the gospel for the weekend when this happened was the gospel of the Pharisee and tax-collector.  It is always a challenge to decide whether an action is sinful or not.  It’s tempting to decide who is a sinner and who is not.  Who is holy and who is not.  This should only be done privately in the sacrament confession or by the individual themselves.    As Jesus reminded us in the gospel last weekend, some of those we may condemn may be holier than we imagine.

On June 24, Salvadoran migrant Oscar Martinez Ramirez and his daughter Angie Valeria drowned while trying to cross the Rio Grande on their way to the United States in Matamoros, Tamaulipas.  In reporting news, sometimes words fail to capture the real tragedy of events such as this.  However, graphic and shocking photos often don’t fail to capture the real tragedy. 

Such is the case with the photo of Oscar and Angie on the shore of the Rio Grande.  While there are many conflicting issues and opinions as to how to deal with the immigration situation in the United States, the graphic photo illustrates much better than words or arguments about immigration reform the deep tragedy and the desperation of people who come to the United States to search for a better life for themselves and their children. 

There are of course many immigrants who have crossed the border safely but have been captured and are now detained in overcrowded conditions as a result of political gridlock in Washington.   There seems to be little dispute in regard to the need for immigration reform among Americans.      Yet, what to do about those who arrive at our borders and are captured is in dispute.   I have written about this before.   Catholic social teaching outlines some basic principles that can serve as a guideline as to how to deal with the current situation.

The first principle is: People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families.  This principle is based on the biblical and ancient Christian belief that the goods of the earth belong to all people.  Catholic social teaching emphasizes that those who are natives of a country do not have superior rights over immigrants who may show up at their borders.   When a person cannot achieve a meaningful life in his or her own land, that person has the right to move.  Like it or not, this is what the Catholic church clearly teaches.

The second principle is: A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration.  No country can be expected to accept all those who wish to immigrate.   People do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living.  They often migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land.

I believe that because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations such as the United States will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle here. So, this second principle makes it clear that while people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life is jeopardized.   A country can set up laws, regulations and even walls when necessary to control the influx of migrants.    Like it or not, this also is Catholic teaching.

Third Principle: A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy.

Catholic social teaching states that principles one and two must be understood in the context of principle three.   All Catholic social teaching is based on the equality of all people and a commitment to the common good.  A country’s regulation of borders and control of immigration must be governed by concern for all people and by mercy and justice.  A sincere commitment to the needs of all must prevail.   Any immigration policy must consider other important values such as the right of families to live together.  A merciful immigration policy should not force married couples or children to live separated from their families for long periods.

After a delay of two weeks, the Trump administration announced once again a deportation crackdown by ICE officials that will begin this Sunday in several cities of the United States including New York.  As pastor of St Simon Stock/St Joseph parish in the Bronx, I know a number of undocumented adults and children in the area.   This announcement has understandably caused a lot of concern, hysteria and panic among them.   The people and families targeted for deportation apparently will already have received final orders that they were to leave the country.   I do not know if any of the people I know have received this final warning.  But I do know it has raised much fear among those documented and undocumented as to how this deportation will be carried out. 

Will families be separated?   Where will those picked up be detained until they can be sent back to their original country of origin?   Clearly the immigration camps where the undocumented who have been picked up are already overcrowded.  Will these raids happen in the middle of the night?   Will those that will be picked up know their rights?   In reality how many people are we talking about? 

It is unlikely that ICE agents will be able to pick up even a fraction of those who received final notices of deportation.   How will it be decided which ones to target first?  In January of 2016 the Obama administration launched a similar operation that led to the arrests of 121 parents and children across the country.  President Trump has tweeted that they plan to pick up “millions”.   He also announced when the raids will take place much to the consternation of the Department of Homeland Security and the ICE agents who will carry out the operation. 

A friend of mine recently pointed out in a comment on Facebook that “Unless you mingle with others, listen to others, break bread with others, share ideas with others, how can you understand and relate to them.” 

I can’t help but think part of the problem is Xenophobia.   Xenophobia is the fear or hatred of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.  Pope Francis has spoken frequently about reaching out to the marginalized and going out to the peripheries.   As Christians we are called to reach out to all God’s people – listen to them, break bread with them, understand and relate to them.   In doing so we can become more sensitized to their plight and better understand their reasons for leaving their homeland searching for a better life for themselves and their children.    

Having talked with many undocumented immigrants over the years and recently I know the vast majority come to escape the violence in their home country and to provide a better life for the family.   Some come because of dire poverty in their home country.  Most are not violent criminals as some believe. 

Whatever the reason, may we always welcome the stranger among us and may God protect all those who may be deported this Sunday.  Let us also pray that the three principles outlined above may always guide the actions of our leaders. 

I had the opportunity to read Pope Emeritus Benedict’s recent essay “The Church and the Scandal of Sexual Abuse”.  I was surprised that he addressed the issue.   Since stepping down as Pope, Benedict has been relatively silent regarding issues within the Church and has let Pope Francis lead.  He has spoken up a few times on some minor issues and his pontificate.   It seems he felt compelled to share his thoughts on the present crisis within the church and did so I understand with the blessing or at least knowledge of Pope Francis.   Some question his motives in doing so and some have seen his actions as undermining Pope Francis.  

It does set up a rather awkward situation since a former Pope is offering a theological assessment of the crisis in an essay that seems to have a theological and ideological agenda that is contrary to that of Pope Francis. 

I would like to share a few thoughts on his essay. 

Generally, the article is classic Pope Benedict.  One can certainly see his logical, theological and philosophical mind at work.   He writes from his experience in assisting then Pope John Paul II in dealing with the abuse crisis when it first started to surface and from his personal experience as Pope.   He speaks of the steps that were taken to deal with the issue back then and clearly shows that both he and Pope John Paul II did not ignore the situation which was quickly increasing to a point where the Congregations for the Doctrine of Faith which handled abuse cases became overwhelmed.   This is not new news.   He also outlines some of the canonical issues, and due process issues that made it difficult to address the abuse crisis in the beginning.  

Yet, his article seems a bit defensive to me and seems to ignore the basic causes of the abuse crisis by blaming the crisis on the sexual revolution of the 60’s, poor formation in the 70’s and 80’s of priests, the collapse of moral theology after Vatican II and the homosexual subculture that allegedly surfaced in seminaries after Vatican II.  His comments on the genesis of the abuse crisis I find are weak and lack any realistic understanding as to the cause of the abuse crisis.   

Pope Emeritus Benedict contends that pedophilia reached such great proportions because of the absence of God.   He says that in order to address this, “there has to be a renewal of faith in the reality of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament”.   Pope Emeritus Benedict states that: “In conversations with victims of pedophilia, I have been made acutely aware of this first and foremost requirement.”  Really?

The sexual abuse of minors by priests, bishops or anyone is not a spiritual problem.   It is a psychological disorder that is exacerbated by the culture of clericalism, cover-up, abuse of power and narcissism.

Other reasons Pope Emeritus Benedict gave as to why it reached such great proportions include the breakdown on moral teaching after Vatican II, homosexuality in the seminaries and the sexual revolution of the 1960’s.  

Some factors have to be kept in mind in reflecting upon Pope Emeritus Benedict’s article.  

First, Pedophilia, ephebophilia and the other paraphilias have existed for centuries.   They are not new developments!   They existed among clergy as they did among people of all walks of life.  They were simply covered up or dealt with internally for many years.    Yet, Pope Emeritus Benedict stated: “The question of pedophilia, as I recall, did not become acute until the second half of the 1980s.”   So, the reality is they have existed for quite some time.  They did not come about because of the sexual revolution of the 60’s.   They were simply hidden before then.

The sexual revolution certainly brought about a dramatic shift in traditional values related to sex and sexuality.   Sex became more socially acceptable outside the strict boundaries of heterosexual marriage.  

However, sexual abuse by clergy and bishops existed before the 60’s.   Like child abuse among other professions and in families it was just covered up or dealt with privately.   The John Jay study shows that child abuse by clergy is not a new phenomenon.   It also shows that most cases of abuse at the hands of clergy originated before the 1980’s. 

Second, Pope Emeritus Benedict may be right in stating there was a “breakdown” in moral theology after Vatican II.  Situation ethics and the questioning of the infallibility of the Pope certainly did develop.   Yet, is this a “breakdown”?  He goes on to say that until the Second Vatican Council, moral theology was largely founded on natural law, but in the “struggle for a new understanding of Revelation,” the “natural law was largely abandoned, and a moral theology based entirely on the Bible was demanded.

While this may be true, I find it difficult to see how this led to the abuse of minors by clergy.   The abuse of minors, pedophilia or ephebophilia, is a psychiatric disorder.  It is not caused by some breakdown in moral theology.   The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty.  So, while there may have been a breakdown (or development) in moral theology as Pope Emeritus Benedict states, I fail to see the connection to the abuse of minors.  

Third, the presence of homosexual candidates in seminaries is not a recent development.   Pope Emeritus Benedict states that: “In various seminaries homosexual cliques were established, which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate in the seminaries”.

It needs to be said that there is no clear connection between the abuse of minors and homosexuality among clergy or any other profession.    As stated above the abuse of a minor is a psychological disorder.  Those who identify themselves as homosexual and heterosexual can be abusers.    Being a homosexual does not make one an abuser!  

Perhaps pedophilia and ephebophilia grew among clergy and were acted upon because of the culture of clericalism, the abuse of power and narcissism which grew within the church and thank God are being dealt a death blow right now!   I contend that the present crisis developed because of this culture rather than a breakdown in the areas mentioned by Pope Emeritus Benedict.   His essay seems to ignore completely these causes which are most commonly put forward by educated theologians and commentators today. 

No doubt Pope Emeritus Benedict has great admiration for Pope John Paul II.  This is clear from his writing.    He also in no way wants to undermine the authority of Pope Francis.    I do not believe he wanted to do this intentionally.   While his article may be a bit defensive, I believe he had only admirable intentions in writing the article and did so for the good of the Church. 

Yet although Pope Emeritus Benedict apparently spoke with Pope Francis about issuing the essay, it seems to have caught the Vatican Press office by surprise.  It was also released to several right-wing websites here in the United States and other places before it was made public.   This has raised all sorts of questions as to what motivated Pope Emeritus Benedict to publish the essay.   It also has raised questions as to whether his actions undermine the papacy of Pope Francis. 

As Pope Emeritus Benedict states, “there is sin in the Church and evil.  But even today there is the Holy Church, which is indestructible.”   Let us get beyond the sin of clericalism, abuse of power, coverup and find ways to make the church more holy. 

In the end the essay of Pope Emeritus Benedict really did not add much to the needed dialogue regarding how to handle the abuse issue since it failed to address the real causes of the crisis as stated above.    My prayer is that fruitful dialogue may happen and that all children throughout the world may be protected from all forms of abuse. 

Social Media has transformed the way many Catholics receive news and communicate with each other.   Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and other online social media and networking companies have given voice to the everyday person by enabling them to express their opinions in a public forum.   There are the Alt-right (conservative) websites and the more progressive websites that are easily assessable at any time on the internet.   There are also the official news agencies such as the Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation, Zenit and Catholic News Service.   There are also blogs like Whispers in the Loggia which I read almost daily.  So, there are plenty of means for a person to get whatever information they want and get it with the “spin” that they prefer.  

At the same time, the catholic church in recent years recognized the importance of communicating in the modern world.   The Vatican has been building a social presence that in recent years has grown enormously.  The Vatican News Service which was launched in 2010 now claims four million followers across YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.   Pope Francis alone has almost 18 million followers on Twitter.

This transformation of how people get their information regarding things “Catholic” has been a blessing.  It has also brought new challenges.   The thin line between “fake news” and the truth can easily become blurred.   Every decision that is made and every stance taken can be quickly critiqued and called into question in public.   Church leaders, priests, bishops and lay people should realize that every pronouncement or decision they make can easily find its way onto the web.   This is good and can certainly help keep people accountable for their actions and decisions. 

Recently, the decision by the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas to deny admission of a kindergarten student with same-sex parents to one of their elementary schools drew a lot of attention in the press.   I am sure they knew this would happen.   Many who commented asked the question why would gay parents want to send their child to a catholic school which realistically would uphold the teaching of the church in classes and perhaps create an uncomfortable situation for their children?  Others have pointed out that there are many issues where Catholics dissent from catholic teaching and at the same time send their kids to a catholic school.  Some examples are the use of contraception and marriage within the church. 

When the lifestyle of parents is not in conformity with the teaching of the catholic church the immediate question that comes to peoples’ mind is:  Why?  Why would parents send their kids to a catholic school?   Do the parents know the teaching of the church?   If so, why are they not living a life in conformity to the church teachings? 

When parents that are living a life not in conformity with the teaching of the church present their children for admission to a catholic school additional questions are raised.   Do they understand that their child will be exposed to church teaching which differs from their choices?   Do they understand that this “disconnect” may be difficult for their children to endure and perhaps expose them to unwanted criticism from other kids and perhaps even bullying? 

I would like to answer these questions from my pastoral experience. 

Having been the pastor of two different parishes that have catholic elementary schools I would say that most schools have a very clear policy that catholic teaching will be done in the classroom and all students, regardless of their religious affiliations must attend these classes.   Parents know this and it is usually clearly outlined in the school handbook.   Most times, this is the policy of the diocese where the school is.   Parents cannot ask that their children not attend religion classes and cannot ask that the religion curriculum be adjusted so that certain topics that may make their children feel uncomfortable not are not included.   So, regardless of the lifestyle of the parents, the parents know what the school will teach. 

Both schools where I was pastor had children who were non-Catholic.  One of them the majority were non-Catholic or non-practicing catholic, and I suspect still is after 30 years.  Few of these families attend mass regularly.   All had to take the religion classes, and all had to participate in the religious activities taking place in the school including attending mass.  Both schools where I was pastor had parents who were not living in conformity with church teaching.  Some were not married in the church.  Some were not married at all.  A few were being raised by parents who were the same sex.  

It is my firm belief that the problem is not one of catechesis or better religious education for adults.  The vast majority of those who are not living in conformity with church teaching know the teaching of the church!   It is not a question of ignorance of the teaching!  They simply choose to disregard it!

Do they make an informed decision in their conscience?   I am not sure, and this is where ministers of the church can pastorally assist those not living in conformity with church teaching to develop their conscience if that is what is needed.  

Each situation is different.  There are parents not married in the church and parents who are not married at all.  There are same sex couples.   There are parents who use contraception.   Each of these situations are unique.  Each of them is not in conformity with church teaching.  And, in each of them, parents made a decision based most times of their understanding of church teaching and their unique situation and likely with an informed conscience. 

Should children be refused acceptance into a Catholic school because their parents are not living in conformity to church teaching?  Absolutely not!  As long as the parents understand that the school will teach catholic teachings and they are willing to have their child exposed to church teachings and practices they should be admitted.  I believe it is morally unacceptable to deny a child the ability to attend a catholic school because of their parents living situation or choices.  And, it is even more morally unacceptable to choose any one of the above situations and refuse entry for that one and not the others. 

The decision by the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas to deny admission of a kindergarten student with same-sex parents has caused division in the parish and certainly become a hot issue on social media with people both defending the pastor and Archdiocese and others condemning the decision.   At a time when the church needs to be about working towards unity, decisions such as this only increase the animosity and hate towards the catholic church.  It also further deteriorates the already tarnished reputation and credibility of church leaders.

As I understand it, there are a number of reasons why the child was refused acceptance.  One is that same sex couples cannot model behaviors and attitudes regarding marriage and sexuality consistent with church teaching.   Another is that if children of same sex couples are allowed entry into the school it could be a source of confusion for the other school children. 

The reality is that if catholic school were to admit only kids whose parents’ values and the values of the school do not conflict, there would be few Catholic schools left!  The loving, Christlike and compassionate thing to do is to admit kids whose parents’ values conflict with the teachings of the church and compassionately do what we as Catholics are called to do – educate them and inform their conscience so that they can develop into morally mature adults.

My experience has shown me that kids are resilient.   They can tolerate a lot confusion and usually make sense out of it themselves.   They do this all the time in the home.   I do not know the statistics, but I do know that many kids that are raised by same sex parents end up not being gay and go one to live a healthy, well adjusted married life with someone of the opposite sex.  The catholic church needs to support these children as they mature and be a part of their lives.  Shutting the doors of our schools for some children because of the behaviors of their parents does not do this. 

It also in not what we are about as Church.    When defending church teaching gets in the way of common sense and being Christlike there is a problem.   Jesus knew this.   He did not shun “sinners”.  He embraced them!  He did the same with children and I do not think he asked about their parents’ marital status before he said “Let the children come to me”.  We need to do the same!  As a product of the catholic school system from first grade right through graduate school, my prayer is that Catholic schools may be more Catholic (Christ like) rather than stuck on defending church teaching at all costs. 

The United States is an immigrant country.   Since is founding, men and women have come from many different countries looking for a better life for themselves and their families.    The United States has a long history of embracing diverse newcomers and aiding them when they arrived on our shores.  This vision and philosophy can best be summed up in the words found at the base of the Statue of Liberty written by American poet Emma Lazarus: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Sitting in New York harbor, this statue, a gift from France, is a reminder to all in the United States of our roots as a country and its values of liberty and justice for all.  However, it cannot be denied that right from the beginning, there was controversy.   Some protested that the government did not protect its own citizens within its own borders and there really wasn’t liberty and justice for all.   Issues such as women’s suffrage and slavery were glaring signs that what the statue stood for in reality did not fully exist.

Regardless, the Statue of Liberty is a reminder to all that the United States has always prided itself on being a welcoming country to immigrants. 

The Catholic church in the United States also has a long history of embracing immigrants, refugees (documented and undocumented).   The Catholic church is the largest single charitable organization in the United States.   Assistance has been given and pastoral care has been provided for many years through its hospital system, educational system and through the various offices of Catholic Charities throughout the US.   Catholic social teaching, outlined in papal encyclicals and many documents written by the bishops of the United States have clearly invited all to welcome immigrants and acknowledged that the current immigration system in the United States is in need of reform.  

I presently have been ministering in the country of Trinidad & Tobago – a country that is only about seven miles from the coast of Venezuela.   I am told that on a clear day, if you look across the Gulf of Paria from the shores of Trinidad you can see Venezuela.   Because of this proximity and the present political situation in Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago has seen a tremendous influx of immigrants and refugees.  I read about it in the newspapers everyday.

Many Venezuelans enter Trinidad legally as tourists, then overstay their permits. Those who lack passports pay boat captains to take them ashore under cover of night.   Trinidadian officials estimate as many as 60,000 Venezuelans have recently settled in Trinidad.  Trinidad only has about 1.3 million people, so the arrival of 60,000 Venezuelans certainly has become a humanitarian crisis.

Catholic Church leaders in Trinidad are working to ensure Venezuelans are received with compassion and have a place to feel at home.  The Archbishop of Port of Spain, Charles Jason Gordon spoke out against the government’s treatment of Venezuelans and other migrants and encouraged all Catholic parishes to welcome the immigrants from Venezuela and provide whatever help they can.

Many European countries have also addressed the increase in immigration that they have experienced.   European countries are presently experiencing the greatest influx of immigrants since World War II from outside the European Union mainly from countries in the Middle East and Africa. 

So, immigration, legal and illegal, is a global situation and each country is presently developing laws and strategies to deal with this situation hopefully in a compassionate and humane way.   Catholic social teaching outlines some basic principles that can serve as a guideline as to how to deal with the current situation. These principles can be found on the website of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

The first principle is: People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families.  This principle is based on the biblical and ancient Christian belief that the goods of the earth belong to all people.  While Catholic social teaching has always held and defended the right to private property, no one has the right to use private property without regard for the common good.   Every person has an equal right to food, clothing and shelter.   Catholic social teaching also recognizes the right of all people to education, medical care and freedom of religion.  

Yet, the reality is that in some parts of the world, people live in fear, danger and in poverty.   This causes them to look to other places and countries to fulfill their basic needs.  It is not God’s will that some of God’s people live in luxury while others have nothing.   So, Catholic social teaching emphasizes that those who are natives of a country do not have superior rights over immigrants who may show up at their borders.   When a person cannot achieve a meaningful life in his or her own land, that person has the right to move.  Like it or not, this is what the Catholic church clearly teaches.

The second principle is: A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration. As the USCCB website states: “The overriding principle of all Catholic social teaching is that individuals must make economic, political, and social decisions not out of shortsighted self-interest, but with regard for the common good.”

This means that a moral person cannot consider only what is good for themselves, their family or even their country.  They must consider the needs of all people.    At the same time, no country can be expected to accept all those who wish to immigrate.   People do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living.  They often migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land.

I believe that because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations such as the United States will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle here. So, this second principle makes it clear that while people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life is jeopardized.   A country can set up laws, regulations and even walls when necessary to control the influx of migrants.    Like it or not, this also is Catholic teaching.

Third Principle: A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy.

Catholic social teaching states that principles one and two must be understood in the context of principle three.   All Catholic social teaching is based on the equality of all people and a commitment to the common good.  A country’s regulation of borders and control of immigration must be governed by concern for all people and by mercy and justice.  A sincere commitment to the needs of all must prevail.   Any immigration policy must consider other important values such as the right of families to live together.  A merciful immigration policy should not force married couples or children to live separated from their families for long periods.

These three principles are to be considered for all migrants.   However, undocumented migrants often present a special concern for many reasons.  They often arrive with no money, no place to live and little education.   Their presence is considered illegal since they arrive without permission. For this reason, they often are not provided any rights or services.  Yet, the Catholic Church teaches that every person has basic human rights and is entitled to have basic human needs met—food, shelter, clothing, education, and health care.  The undocumented are easily exploited by employers, and they are not able to complain because of the fear of discovery and deportation.

In light of these principles, what is the Catholic stance in regard to the building of a wall along the Mexican border?   

To answer this question, Catholics should keep in mind the basic principles outlined above.  We can also look the Catechism of the Catholic Church which outlines two principles which are meant to balance each other: (2241)

“The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.  Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

So, the Catholic view is that a nation such as the United States should be generous in receiving immigrants, especially refugees and the poor, but that there are legitimate limits the nation can apply.  A country has a right to expect things of immigrants: that they follow its laws, respect the country’s way of life.

From personal experience I know that many of the immigrants that come (legally and illegally) from Central and South America have been a blessing to our country.   I have found them to be hardworking, willing to work and grow to respect our country.   Many are Catholic and they come with strong family ties.   The years I spent ministering at St Simon Stock church in the Bronx among mostly immigrant families in the late 80’s early 90’s demonstrated to me that these recent immigrants assimilate to the US culture and values at the same rate as all other ethnic groups that came to the US looking for a better life. 

I was blest to have the experience of living with a refugee from El Salvador when I was first ordained and sent to St Simon Stock in 1986.    By the time I arrived in the parish, he was already living in the priory for quite a few years.  He left his family and friends in El Salvador and came to the US as a young kid looking for safety and a better life.   He ended up in a detention center in NYC where the Carmelite who was pastor at the time did some ministry.   He was able to get him out of the detention center and invited him to live among the Carmelites at St Simon Stock priory.   He completed his high school education, went on to college.  I knew him during his college years when he was attending John Jay College and lived with him at St Simon Stock.   With the help of the parish staff, the Archdiocese of NY immigration office and others, he was able to get legal residency in the US and I was very happy to be able to see him obtain US “green card” before I left the Bronx.  Today he is happily married, a social worker and with his wife the father of two daughters.   I am glad to have been a part of his life in the crucial years when he gradually adjusted to life in his new country.    I am glad the Carmelites that lived at St Simon Stock welcomed him over the years.  

I understand and accept that not all immigrants that come to the US end up as well.   But, most do.   I also understand that our borders cannot simply stay open. There are legitimate concerns for security at the borders and immigration must be well-managed in order to promote the safety and general welfare of all: Americans and immigrants.

The way forward I believe is to work as a nation to reform the present immigration policies and laws to make them more welcoming to those who show up at our borders looking for a better and a safe life for themselves and their families.  No doubt the number of immigrants seeking asylum in the US is quite high right now.  But we must keep in mind that it is no higher than it was twenty years ago.   So, I for one do not buy the argument that there is an emergency.  

The current situation I believe also cannot be solved by building a wall.   Most of the recent arrivals are not trying to sneak across the border.   They are turning themselves in to immigration officials and asking for asylum which is not against the law.   They also are not mostly single men looking for work as we are led to believe but entire families, with children which clearly makes there cases more complicated.  

I fully realize that at some point this all can lead to a time when a decision will have to be made to lessen the number of immigrants who are permitted enter and seek asylum.    How do we as a nation tell the rest of the families they cannot come in?  My hope is that it does not come to that but considering the present situation I do not think we are anywhere near the point that we have to legitimately restrict entry to immigrants who seek asylum for the right reasons.  

Yet, I do believe the whole process of immigration needs reform and efforts should be placed on reforming immigration policy rather than on building a wall which will not solve the problem and contradicts the message the Statue of Liberty stands for. 

Having lived with a refugee and having ministered to many undocumented people especially in my early years as a priest I pray that we may always remain a welcoming country and one that embraces the words found on the base of the Statue of Liberty that still sits proudly in New York harbor.   

The Abuse Summit that took place in Rome in February, 2019 is now over.   There is disagreement as to whether the Summit accomplished its goals or anything at all.   I think it did.   Leading up to the Summit, expectations were lowered.   Statements from Pope Francis and those who organized it made it clear that the success of the Summit will largely be determined by what happens after the Summit.   I agree.  Those that attended have returned to their countries from around the world and in some cases will have to begin the process of putting in place protocols to deal with the sexual abuse of children by clergy and bishops.   

Most accounts in the press have noted that the Summit was taken seriously by those who attended, and that progress was made in heightening awareness not only of the horrible crime of the sexual abuse of children but also of the cover-up of this situation throughout the world.   German Cardinal Reinhard Marx said, “Files that could have documented the terrible deeds and named those responsible were destroyed, or not even created”.   Pope Francis at the end of the Summit made a promise that the church will “decisively confront” the abuse of minors.  He also said: “I make a heartfelt appeal for an all-out battle against the abuse of minors both sexually and in other areas, on the part of all authorities and individuals, for we are dealing with abominable crimes that must be erased from the face of the earth.”  Will these strong words lead to action?

I believe so.    If nothing else the Abuse Summit has made it clear that the Church in moving forward and is more determined to rid itself of the terrible sin of the abuse of minors and its cover-up on a global level.   How this will be done will likely look different and different protocols and standards will have to be set up in each country.  This I believe is necessary since cultural factors, what is considered “abuse” and civil laws vary from country to country.  Victims and victims’ groups were angry that “zero tolerance” was not accepted by all.  I understand that.     Still, the Church knows that it needs to do all it can to protect the children it serves globally.   This is a big step by itself.   

An interesting dynamic that played out during the Summit is that the Church was reminded that if this reform does not happen, the secular press is ready to force it to do so once again.   The press, victims and victims’ groups have been relentless in their pursuit of justice.    During the Summit, the New York Times had a story on children of clergy and the Vatican admitted they had files on these cases.   The book “In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy” was published which claims that 80% of the Vatican clergy are gay.   The New York times also ran a front-page story entitled; “It is not a Closet, it is a Cage” which detailed the struggle of some gay clergy and the pressure they felt to keep their sexual preference private.  Clearly the press, victims and victims’ groups will continue to be relentless in their pursuit of transparency on the part of the Church.  This is good. 

However, solving the abuse issue in the Church cannot and will not solve the underlying issue of what the Church needs to do to bring about authentic reform which is needed.    One critique of the Summit is that it has worked under the illusion that the Bishops (Hierarchy) can reform themselves and bring about the needed change in the Church.  The Laity, who make up by far most of the Church has largely been left out of any type of needed reform. 

The sexual abuse of children by clergy is a symptom that developed in the Church because of an underlying problem.   There are many other symptoms we have seen such as: clericalism, the abuse of adults by clergy, clergy involved in financial scandals.  Some would say that homosexuality among the clergy is another symptom even though any link between homosexuality and the abuse of children by clergy has been scientifically proven to be false by the John Jay Study that was published in 2011 and can be found on the USCCB website.  Many other studies have come to the same conclusion. 

There are plenty of “symptoms” out there that show the Church needs reform.  Yet, if you just treat and deal with the symptoms you never solve the underlying problem.    Any management consultant would tell you this.  Medical professionals also know this.   For true reform, true healing to happen that can lead the church into the future the underlying problem has to be addressed. 

I believe the underlying problem is that the Church has functioned out of an old model of church that no longer works.  The credibility of the church is pretty much gone.   The present symptoms pretty much killed this old model and the church is struggling to find its identity and be relevant once again in the world today.  Let me explain.

For true reform to happen, a new model of church has to emerge.  Or, perhaps there has to be a better balance of the “Models” that Avery Dulles outlined in his classic book “Models of the Church” (Published 1974).  Avery Dulles often stated that one model of church that he outlined should never be seen as the only way of viewing the church or for the church to function.    Indeed, he believed that the church is a “mystery” and anyone looking to understand the complex reality of the Church must always work simultaneously with different models.   Any model used in isolation or used too much will lead to distortions because each model exhibits only one reality in our human experience of the world and the Church.  Looking at the church in different ways can help people who have very different outlooks of the church to move forward. 

I have always worked from the premise that the Church that Jesus envisioned (if he envisioned the Church at all) was a welcoming Church.  There is room for all, saint and sinner, progressive and traditional. 

Perhaps the underlying problem is that the Church (at least the hierarchy) has been working too much out of one model – what Dulles identified as “The Church as Institution”.  This model emphasizes canon law, the governing body of the church and views the members of the church as subjects of the Bishops and Priests.  This model focuses on the rights and authority of the hierarchy.  In this model the Pope, bishops and priests are responsible for teaching, sanctifying and ruling the laity. 

This model dominated the Church from the Middle Ages until 1962 and the start of the Vatican Council.   This model of Church certainly had its strengths.  For many years it gave a strong sense of identity for Catholics that led to a strong sense of loyalty.  Yet, it no longer is relevant given the crisis the Church now faces.    

There are some drawbacks to this model of church that became evident.   First, clericalism.  This was manifested by the control, domination and even oppression of the laity by the ordained.   At the same time, it consisted of passivity, blind obedience and non-involvement on the part of the laity.  This fed the clerical attitude and helped it to grow.    Second, there was an emphasis on law and the doctrines of the church.   The role of the laity was limited to pay, pray and obey.     The third defect was a sense of triumphalism which leads to a claim that the church has the fullness of divine revelation and the right to pass judgment on the personal and social obligations of all.

Yet, the laity are no longer passive and no longer looking to be a part of a church that focuses merely on law and doctrine.   Instead of triumphalism the laity are looking for a church that goes “outward” rather than focusing on itself.  

The vision of Vatican II certainly attempted to move the church beyond this model. There was never an attempt to get rid of it. Rather it attempted to incorporate it as one model among others.   Dulles’ book helped to do this.   Yet, under the pontificate of Saint John Paul II this model enjoyed a bit of a comeback and was favored.   Avery Dulles outlined some of other models in his book.  They are: The Church as Communion, The Church as Sacrament, The Church as Herald, The Church as Servant.  Later Dulles would add a chapter to the book called “The Church: Community of Disciples”.  This was sort of a unifying model that brings the previous five together.  But Dulles’ masterpiece was written in 1974 and the church is different today. 

Perhaps the way forward is for a new model to emerge which incorporates “the good’ of all the previous models and takes into consideration the present challenges of the Church in light of the present crisis.    This new model would have to emphasize the important role of the laity in the governance of the church.   It would do away with clericalism and focus more on equality among the “people of God”.   It would be a model which would be less focused on protecting itself from the secular world or battling with the secular world and focus outward on evangelization.  It would be a model which balances doctrine with mercy. 

If we learn anything from the present crisis the church is facing, it is that the old way of being church no longer is relevant and it caused many of the problems today that could have been avoided.   The way forward is not in the past. There is a vocal minority on social media and in the conservative press who would like to return to the “glory days”.   In fact, the “glory days” of the Church were not that glorious and likely contributed greatly to the problems the church faces today.    

I firmly believe there is plenty of room in the church for all – saint and sinner.   Pope Francis has been working out of a new model of church that is more inclusive than exclusive.   It is a church that balances tradition with mercy.   It is a church that is ecumenical rather than inward thinking.  He has not done away with tradition and church teaching.  He has simply kept it in perspective as Jesus did. 

Some church teaching will need to be retrieved such as the role conscience when it comes to church teaching.   Also, the significance of baptism as the sacrament by which we are “incorporated into Christ’s body and part of the People of God”.   Through baptism we become Christ’s disciples and “share the priestly, prophetic, and kingly office of Christ, and to the best of their ability carry on the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world” (Lumen Gentium).

Moving forward I am sure great strides will be made around the world in dealing with the crime of the sexual abuse of children by priest and bishops.   Great strides will be made in dealing with the issue of clericalism.   The church will look at the formation of priests and see what can be improved.   These “symptoms” will be addressed. 

Will needed structural change happen so that a new model of church can emerge?   This will take longer but I sense the laity and a good number of clergy and religious are no longer going to sit back and wait too much longer.   Clearly the old model of church no longer works.   I am not a theologian.  Perhaps we need a new Avery Dulles figure (or figures) to help clarify what this new model could look like.    I pray that in moving forward a new model may emerge that can enliven the church and focus it more on its mission which is the mission of Jesus – to build the Kingdom of God.