Immigration Policy and Human Decency, Part 10 million

Whoever will not receive you…it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. (Matthew 10:14-15)

Mark Greenbery border crisis Senate hearing
Nor exactly Mr. Charisma. But more reasonable than anyone else sitting there.

Sometimes the priest simply has to state the obvious. Like at a wedding I did when I was fresh out of seminary. The bride had starred on her college volleyball team. Her maid of honor had, too. The young volleyball star had found a groom of appropriate height, whose best friend, the best man, stood eye-to-eye with him.

So, as the wedding began, five people stood in front of the altar, all of them over 6’ 1”. So I had to say, ‘Yes, this is a wedding. It is not a practice for some kind of co-ed Olympic basketball team.’

US Mexico border wallComcast finally carried out its threat. They took away all the channels that we don’t actually pay for at the rectory, so all I have left to watch is CSPAN. Which is fine. I watched with great interest the night-time re-broadcast of yesterday’s Senate border-crisis hearing.

Here’s the obvious thing that the priest needs to say. When a child comes into our custody, into the custody of the federal government of the United States of America, we are bound by the most fundamental laws of human decency. We must seek out the child’s parents or closest relatives, and, by any practicable means, get the child into the care of his or her parents, as soon as possible.

This moral obligation cannot be qualified in any way by our immigration policies and laws. There is no human authority with the competence to alter the fundamental demands of human decency. If a child comes into my care, and I can find the parents, I must get the child home to his or her parents, wherever the parents are, whether they are ‘legal’ or ‘illegal.’ To do anything other than this would involve offending the most basic standards of human decency, which are an international law that guides everyone.

How could anyone fail to see this? How could a room full of technocrats sit around at a hearing about unaccompanied minors and not begin by accepting as a clear and evident fact that this is the moral duty of the US government? Then we can have a discussion about immigration policy, but only after we recognize that getting the children into the custody of their parents is our primary duty before God. Right?

Of course, all other questions are secondary. Aren’t they? After all, we are a decent, civilized people. We recognize immediately the obligations that adults have towards children.

Oh, wait. I forgot. We are actually a barbarian nation, in which thousands of innocent and defenseless unborn children get killed right under our noses every day.

No wonder we have Senate committee hearings in which technocrats dispute secondary and tertiary political matters ad nauseam while innocent children remain separated from their parents and in our custody.

Approval-Seeking Missiles

As I sat listening to testimony about the D.C. Council’s “Same-Sex Marriage” Act, the key question that emerged in my mind is: Why is this happening?

To listen to all of the Council members and most of the witnesses at the hearing, the answer would be: It is happening became this is a matter of justice and human rights. “Marriage equality” is the civil-rights cause of our era. It is something that “obviously makes sense.” (Mary Cheh)

Mary Cheh
Councilmember Cheh

All of this, however, is manifestly untrue. Most of the witnesses who testified against the bill objected to the exclusion of District voters from the debate. The powers that be in the city government refuse to refer the same-sex marriage question to the ballot box. Councilmember Catania took it upon himself to lecture Bishop Jackson about 19th-century voter referendae.

It certainly would make sense to refer the question to the voters. But even if every citizen of the District insisted that someone was suffering an injustice over who can get a marriage license these days, there still wouldn’t actually be any injustice.

Continue reading “Approval-Seeking Missiles”

Catching You Up

District_of_Columbia_building_1
John A. Wilson District Building

I think the last time I was actually inside the District Building was when John A. Wilson was still very much alive. My dad occasionally had business in there, and I entered those solemn halls with him a few times.

In other words: I was a youth the last time I was in there. There were no blogs then, and only madmen would have proposed that a man could marry a man, or a woman a woman. Homosexuals had no designs on the “right to marry.”

Bishop HolleyA quarter century later: I have just come from listening to two hours of testimony about the City Council’s proposed “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act.”

I went to give moral support to Bishop Holley, the representative of the Archdiocese. (He is one of Archbishop Wuerl’s assistant bishops.)

I was also glad to shake the hand of Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church–the most prominent opponent of the City Council’s same-sex folly. I assured him of my prayers and support.

Bishop Jackson
Bishop Harry Jackson, Hope Christian church
Anyway, I have been wracking my brains, trying to figure it all out. I have a few things to say, but…

I am behind, my dear readers!

I have other things I have to tell you first.

Then I will come back and explain the pain in my heart after listening to two hours of thoughtful testimony in Room 500 of 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

(The pain will probably only get worse after kickoff tonight…)