Catholic Thought discussion
Chaput, Things Worth Dying For
>
Chapters 5 & 6
date
newest »
newest »
One can’t help thinking of what the world lost as a result of WWI, the brilliant poet Wilfred Owen, who wrote “Dulce et Decorum Est,” and almost lost: J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S Lewis.
Mod
Manny wrote: "I was surprised the Archbishop used the phrase Dulce Et Decomum Est in the original context from Horace rather than how Wilfred Owen turned it on its head about a hundred years ago. The original me..."I'd like to extrapolate 2 things:
1) Archbishop Chaput mentions Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" in reference to ultimate sacrifice for a commonly shared need. Pope Francis mentioned Lincoln as one of the 4 fundamental American characters in his speech to Congress in 2015. Every American Catholic should read a biography of Lincoln to understand the highest level of our national principles. I recommend Ronald C. White's single-volume bio: https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Biogra...
2) In speaking of this, Chaput mentions that America is more than a "commercial republic" or a balance of factions. Indeed, we have always been marked by rituals of patriotism. Unfortunately, I don't think Archbishop Chaput properly integrates the life of the Black American into his account, but he is attempting to get to something deeper. During these times of polarity, I find myself drawn to the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was able to unite our nation through soaring rhetoric and an appropriate understanding of the national common good. He saw more than a commercial republic or a deft management of factions: he saw liberty, unity, and equality, principles that Pope Francis espouses in his letters and encyclicals.
Yes, the Archbishop is getting at something deeper and he may have done so via rhetorical flourishes but he almost lost me. The opening of "Dulce Et Decorum Est" was the first time I disagreed with the Archbishop - but it was on a very literal plane. I sensed too much admiration for warrior culture and even penciled a note of "thank goodness" when he wrote that we no longer live in such a culture. (And I do understand that war is sometimes necessary.) But I kept reading and finally saw where he was going: unity, service, and collective action, and how far we as a country are from those ideals today.
The Archbishop segued into a topic close to me - the level of historical illiteracy today and the dangers that stem from it. Catholic Thought members know my eyes glaze at philosophy, but I'm an avocational student of domestic/social history. Historical illiteracy makes it easy for the faceless state to continue weakening the "grip that national identity has on our moral imagination."
Our nation has sins to grapple with and amends to make, but it also has victories to laud. But history is being served to students today through a lens of theory that distorts and divides. During the time I worked in academia (as staff, not faculty), I witnessed the demise of the General Education requirement in History. College students were no longer required to take even a survey course. How can that be beneficial? Of course, it's not. As the Archbishop so rightly points out, the intelligentsia, not the masses, mastermind revolutions.
As I wound my way through these two chapters, I realized a very important aspect of this book as a whole. The Archbishop supports and explains his thoughts via references to philosphers and other scholars that many people (ok, me) haven't read. He's delivering important concepts and information in a form accessible to the average reader. And readers everywhere need to hear what he says.
Gerri said, "The opening of "Dulce Et Decorum Est" was the first time I disagreed with the Archbishop - but it was on a very literal plane. I sensed too much admiration for warrior culture."I spent some time mulling over the Archbishop's discussion of what some might call the "virtues" that emerge from the experience of war: patriotism, fellowship, sacrifice, especially. Not just in the Song of Roland, but these "old verities" (William Faulkner's term), may be found in many works we English majors studied,The Iliad, Beowulf, Morte d"Arthur, and many others. I recall the word our professor used for that highest form of male bonding was "comitatus."
I also remember many discussions among us English majors in the student union building after those lectures, the guys in our group parsing that word "comitatus" trying their best to relate. Some of them would go on to Vietnam after graduation. We lost a few over there, and those who survived came back broken, changed from their free-spirited characters they once were. One man in particular who was sent over was married with three small children, and was MIA during all the years his children grew up, and all that time his parents, who had not approved of the marriage, remained estranged from his wife and their grandchildren. I heard the story when I attended the memorial service after his remains had finally been found and sent home. So sad and unnecessary, that division, when they should have taken comfort together in shared grief.
I don't recall very many of the Vietnam veterans I knew who would describe their experience of war as "liberating." And I can't help but compare them with my observations of the older veterans--WW II (including my father and father-in-law) and Korean veterans I have know (some are still with us, but not many). Our dads were deployed for two years to Europe (or Africa or Asia), leaving our mothers with expected or newborn babies. Family bonds then were much stronger, both our mothers were living with and surrounded with supportive relatives, whereas that was not the common experience of those our Vietnam vets left behind. Not that our fathers and grandfathers had an easier time of it, of course they didn't, but they carried those "old verities" to war with them, the patriotism, the fellowship of being united in a clear battle of good vs. evil (not so clear in later wars), and sacrifice, which was in those days an expected virtue in a Christian culture we can no longer claim.
Most of us, whether soldiers or those who stand and wait, can't seem to get those values to stick with us in our trials and battles today. I believe we need God, or some being much higher than our own puny selves, to bless ourselves, our soldiers, and the rightness of our missions, even in a war perceived as unjust. We don't seem to know how to do that anymore. Our Blessed Mother came to Fatima to give us the rosary as an antidote to war, but I don't think the advice was passed on to our generation as it should have been. Curious to see what the movie will do for this generation.
Mod
My breakdown of Chapter 5, again it has four sections.
(1) His family ancestry—We are All Connected to History—Dulce Et Decorum Est—Willingness to Die for One’s Country—Roland—Lesson 1, Loyalty & Friendship—Lesson 2, Piety—Death Consecrates.
(2) Battle Elevates Us from Mediocrity—Survival as Goal of Civic Life—Liberation from Collective Action—Comradeship—Sacrifice from Communal Bond—Sacrifice Repudiates Death—Mystical Element of War.
(3) To Be Human is to Be Divided—Patriotism & Civic Mindedness—The United States of America is Artificial—The Artifice is The Declaration of Independence & Constitution—America as Model Modern Nation—Modern Nation as Bureaucratic State—No One Dies for the Telephone Co.—Patriotism is Vanishing.
(4) The Collapse of the Roman Republic—Our Nation is Our Home—The Duty of Patriotism—Patriotism Leads to Ordered Social Love—Multiculturalism & Individualism has Weakened Patriotism—We Need Patriotism.
So here are summaries of each section:
(1) Cultures unable to inspire the ultimate sacrifice from their people for a communal need have not future.
(2) Sacrifice, especially that of one’s life, tests and seals love.
(3) The modern nation state has withered the love of one’s country.
(4) The family and the nation cannot be replaced as a means to ordered social love.
So if I were to articulate the gist of this chapter I would say this: The modern nation state, with its administrative bureaucracy, does not inspire the love and sacrifice for one’s nation as in previous generations.
Mod
I don't think he means liberating in the way is commonly used Madeleine. Here's the exact quote:
""By Glenn's account, battle offers a kind of liberation, a release from the mediocrity of our little selves."
I haven't read Glenn's book but it sounds like the liberation is not an emotional or spiritual one, but an elevation from one's abilities, to become more than mediocre. I'm skeptical anyway. It does seem like a stretch, but I haven't read Glenn's book and I have never been in battle. I will say that soldier's are transformed after their war experience. You are "liberated" from your previous self. I don't know if that's what the Archbishop means, but there is an element of truth there.
Mod
(1) The modern administrative state destroys patriotism. No one dies for the telephone company is so true.
(2) Sacrifice repudiates death. Sacrificial love consecrates and elevates. Sacrificial death is love, and if one's nation is one's extended family, then one can understand why the Archbishop maintains Dulce Et Decorum Est.
(3) "Catholic social doctrine holds that the family and the nation are both natural societies, not the products of mere convention. He quotes Pope John Paul II there. If that is so, then why does the church advocate such mass immigration? Mass immigration alters the foundation of the nation, especially when today we emphasize multiculturalism rather than insisting on a melting pot.
(4) I love this also from JPII: "Patriotism leads to properly ordered social love."
Manny wrote: "There are a number of places in the chapter that resonated for me. (1) The modern administrative state destroys patriotism. No one dies for the telephone company is so true.
(2) Sacrifice repudi..."
The Church has to support mass immigration, as our Jewish ancestors were migrants themselves, and were exhorted to "welcome the stranger." The Church supports reforming the immigration system, which, quite honestly, helps to grow both the American population and the economy.
Human dignity and the common good are columns of Catholic Social Teaching, which both demand openness to the stranger. However, Pope Francis also writes in "Evangelii Gaudium" that each nation should accept as many immigrants as it responsibly can to preserve the domestic good. Indeed, the Church advocates for the immigrant because of its preferential option for the poor, while realizing the need for prudent limits.
How does immigration fundamentally alter the foundation of our nation? The American Church has a history of such famed institutions as the Knights of Columbus supporting both Irish and Italian immigration in the late 1800s. How is the current immigration wave different from that one?
Finally, the health of any society is exemplified not only by its unified principles, but by its dynamic ability to assimilate other cultures and adapt them to improve while still retaining its fundamental identity. If the United States can't continue to welcome the immigrant, haven't we already lost one of the fundamental aspects of our national identity of abstract principles, as Archbishop Chaput writes?
Peej,St. Thomas Aquinas said that no virtue is a virtue unless it is informed by the virtue of prudence. So, nations set standards for their endeavors. My grandparents came to this country from Austria; my best friend’s, from Croatia. Our doctor is a legal immigrant from India; one of our neighbors, from Canada. All followed the immigration laws, studied English, if they needed to, and are now citizens. They wouldn’t feel that the U.S. was unwelcoming, or, because it set standards, had lost any aspect of its national identity.
I really think we basically agree.
Yes, Frances, I think that you and Peej are in agreement. Calling for immigration reform by the USCCB or Catholic social teaching that calls for the compassionate treatment of the migrant does not nullify any country's need for just immigration policies. The questions are around what constitutes just policies, how wealthy countries should respond when there is a crisis caused by war or famine in other countries that results in a large number of refugees, and how the citizens of a country should respond when foreigners become their neighbors and co-workers.Manny, I am not sure how immigration alters the foundation of the nation, particularly in the US which is a country made up entirely of immigrants (if you don't count Native Americans). I would think that immigration is the foundation of this country.
Irene and Frances, I do agree with both of you. Very well said, and thank you for bringing St. Thomas into it.Prudence, mercy and charity must dictate all of our actions, as they manage and balance the rest of the virtues. I think St. Thomas would agree with this statement.
Obviously, we can disagree on the prudent acceptance of immigrants in our nation to balance the national common good, the acceptance of refugees and the poor, and the building up of our society with the integration of immigrants. Pope Francis has even said so, while supporting the migrant throughout his papacy.
The issue arises when we start using the poor immigrant as a scapegoat for our national problems.
Are we using immigrants for scapegoats, or misunderstanding who the poor “yearning to breathe free” are?For example, in Kabul, Afghanistan yesterday a bomb exploded near a girls’ school, killing at least 30 children. Years ago, we promised the women and girls of that country that if they went to school and lived an openly Western life — a noble aim — we would always protect them. But we are with drawing now, and they are left to their fate. Why couldn’t some of them become refugees?
In Iraq, young Iraqi men who acted as translators for American personnel are being sought for execution, now that we have left. Why couldn’t some of them become refugees?
In the Congo and Nigeria, ISIS is cutting a savage swath through the countryside, slaughtering desperate Christians, the martyrs of our time. Why couldn’t some of them become refugees?
In Hong Kong, the brave young men and women who in 2019 protested against the Chinese crackdown on freedom are quietly being rounded up and imprisoned, now that the world’s gaze is turned elsewhere. Why couldn’t some of them become refugees?
Around the world, wherever we choose to look, many thousands of suffering people, feel as if, in the line of David Bowie’s song Heroes, “we’re nothing, and nothing will help us." Why couldn’t some of them become refugees?
My point is that we are politicizing immigration, when what we should be doing is taking hard, long looks at what we can accomplish realistically, and helping especially those who sacrificed for us. I don’t believe in mass immigration; I do believe in mercifully reaching out to those who have no one to turn to because they are of no political use to anyone, “the wretched refuse of our teeming shore.”
Mod
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2...
The whole article is important, but let me just quote one particular paragraph:
“Although Catholic monuments are still ahead, one mosque is erected every 15 days in France, while one Christian building is destroyed at the same pace,” Lamaze said. “It creates a tipping point on the territory that should be taken into account.”
Mass immigration does change the nature of the host country. That should be without question but we have romanticized immigration, especially here in the United States. We look at the past and since immigration had some benefits at one time, there is a fallacious argument (fallacy of analogy) that therefore immigration is beneficial at all times. When the economy was labor intensive, yes blue collar labor was a premium. It helped the economy when you needed men to do muscular jobs that didn’t require education. Today we are machinery and robots to do that sort of labor. Today’s economy requires software engineers and white collar workers. And back then they didn’t have a welfare state to provide support for immigrants who fell out of work. You were basically on your own. Today there is a cost to immigrants. Language and education costs, and in a lot of cases, poverty and medical benefits. Today people in their home countries can perform jobs through the internet and conference calls. There is no need for immigration.
And the economic benefits are dubious at best. Yes, more population gives you a higher GDP. But that’s just a gross number. The GDP per capita does not match the increasing taxes and inflation per person. And even that can be deceptive because the wealth tends to be centralized in the owners and big stock holders of companies. It does not get spread out evenly. The mid-west of the United States that relied on industry has been collapsing for some thirty to forty years now.
And why do you need a bigger population? Why would you want to add to suburban sprawl? Why would you add to the garbage and waste disposal issues? Why would you want to add to pollution and energy needs? It seems like we want to do one thing and endorse what would bring on the opposite.
And who says immigrants don’t change the nature of the host country? That is just a lie. I live in New York City, a place with all sorts of immigrants. I don’t begrudge them their cultures, but of course as I walk through neighborhoods I see the changes.
Yes, many of us come from immigrant families. I do, but what does that have to do with what is sound policy going forward? I don’t know what was the sound policy at the time back then. But I can tell you the country changed. Today there are around 25% of the US population that are Catholics. 150 years ago it was probably no more than a couple of percent. To you today it may seem like the country didn’t change but I bet to those Protestants who came to the new world for their religion it did. There was lots of Catholic bigotry as the new immigrants came, and of course that was wrong. But that just shows what the host population was trying to absorb and deal with. It shows you their stress. Their lives got changed because of the immigrants. You even see anti Catholic comments in writers such as Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. Boston used to be a town of Puritans. It became a city of Catholics. No way anyone can argue it didn’t change.
Sure, welcome the stranger, but how many? I find it completely disingenuous when people argue to let the stranger into the country when none of them welcome strangers into their own homes. Do you welcome people off the street into your home? Your nation is your home. If there was a person in the street that needed help, depending on whether he looked dangerous or not, I might bring him in and provide help for the day. Maybe I would let him stay overnight if he built trust. But there are limits. And certainly it’s limited to one or two.
So how many immigrants into our home? And for how long? China has nearly two billion people. India has one billion. There are over one and a half billion Muslims in the world. There are billion in Latin America. Another billion in Africa. At least half of all those people would love to immigrate to the US. There are almost two million legal immigrants per year. Two million in the face of four billion that would love to immigrate is nothing. It’s essentially virtue signaling. It really is meaningless in the face of inviting the stranger. So you are not really inviting the stranger, you are virtue signaling. And yet two million new people per year into our country is the size of a city. Every year we are creating what amounts to a new city in the country. Let that perspective settle in.
Europe has changed immensely from the Muslim immigration. It is unrecognizable. Just read that article I posted above. I have nothing against those immigrant cultures, but they change the nature of the country. They are going to see some real stress in the future. I don’t think it’s prudent.
I argue for limited immigration based on skills the immigrants bring and true refugees, people that are trying to escape persecution. That is humane while trying to preserve one’s country as one envisions it, just as one envisions preserving the nature of one’s home.
Manny, Maybe I missed it, but I did not see anyone arguing for limitless immigration. As I read the posts, I saw people saying that compassion for the stranger in need and prudent immigration policies for the host nation have to be balanced. The place where the arguement will always be is determining what that balance should look like. It has been the consistent struggle for at least the past 200 years. How many starving Irish or Italian immigrants can our already over crowded tennaments and strained charitable services absorb? How many Chinese railroad workers can we handle? How many Jewish refugees from Germany or France can flood over the border to Italy or should the US take in? How many starving Haitians should be allowed to find a home here? As you point out, those who are here usually are reluctant to see that balance in generous terms. It is not simply a matter of having the economic or natural resources to handle the migrants; it is just as much about a fear of the other. The Protestant natives feared the Catholic immigrants in the 19th century. The Anglo natives feared the Asian immigrants in the early 20th century. Now we tend to fear the Muslim and Spanish speaking migrants today. The Protestants feared that the Catholic immigrants would change American culture for the worse. But I would argue that they made the American culture richer. I would argue the same about the Asian immigrants and believe the same to be true about the immigrants from India or the Middle East or Central America. Were the Protestants correct in their fears that the Catholics would change us? Yes. And so will today's immigrants. But is that necessarily a bad thing?I am also not sure that your analysis of the need for immigrants has changed because of changing economics. We certainly do need the brilliant computer engineers and scientists that are often recruited. But we also need manual laborers. Farmers are hurting for farm workers since the recent extreme reduction in immigrants from Central America. Nurse aids and skilled nurses are desparately sought from impoverished countries. The meat packing industry is dependent on unskilled immigrant labor. Our growth rate is reaching a critically low point right now with potentially devistating consequences. We are top heavy with older Americans who need retirement services and expensive medical care. There are not enough younger workers to balance off these elderly members of the population.
But I also think that the Gospel and Catholic Social Teaching ask us to see the stranger in more than economic terms. Even if we do not need their skill sets or they demand more from us than they seem to return, they are still our brother or sister who is in danger of persecution or starvation or gang violence or war. Is it not a prolife issue? In the ideal world, the global community provides the development, the disaster relief, the security to allow everyone to live in peace and dignity in their home land. Unfortunately, we don't live in the ideal world. Rather than support, multinational corporations often exploit poorer peoples creating greater instability and need. Immigration is a terribly complex moral issue. It is one that our faith tradition demands we address with the love of the Crucified Christ as well as the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
Mod
I did not say we should stop refugees. I think economic immigration should be zeroed out completely and then we could have more room for those who are truly facing life and death status in their countries. And even then we can't absorb all of them.
As to new skill sets, sure we can immigrate them but wouldn't it be better to teach that ghetto kid to do that job? Are you saying we don't have the people and desire from the native population for those skilled jobs? And frankly, those skill sets do not require the same mass immigration we had a hundred years ago. Depending on the type of job one needs one engineer to every 20 to 50 to maybe a 100 blue collar laborers. I happen to be an engineer.
Finally I object to your use of the word "fear" for those that oppose immigration. There is no fear. That's a political characterization by (1) people who romanticize immigration and (2) to negatively characterize opposing opinion. That's political rhetoric, not charitable based discussion on the issue. People who intellectually oppose immigration don't fear anything. They object to the nature of their lives being altered by things beyond their control. Do yourself a favor and read the dynamics of what is happening in France and other European countries over the life and culture changing enclaves of immigrants.
In my initial comment above, I forgot to mention that today societies are no longer melting pots when it comes to immigrants but multicultural enclaves. I think the term they use is "mosaics" as opposed to melting pots. That in itself tells you that we are dealing with a different situation than the past.
As to the economics, be skeptical of all the economic reports. Both sides present only what supports their argument. The anti immigration side points to how much immigrants cost and the pro point out what they contribute. From what I can tell it's probably a net wash with possibly costing more initially with potential benefits down the road.
But frankly who cares about economic benefits, we are dealing with the nature of one's country and home. If you took in a stranger and he objected to you having a crucifix up, would you care that he's eventually going to pay you some day? Would you find it acceptable that he would want to put up some sort of idol from his religion in your home while he was there? Looking at economic benefits from something like that is along the lines of taking thirty pieces of silver.
Thank you to Manny, Irene and Frances for discussing this issue. I’d like to leave my final comment by quoting “Fratelli Tutti”“135. Here I would mention some examples that I have used in the past. Latino culture is “a ferment of values and possibilities that can greatly enrich the United States”, for “intense immigration always ends up influencing and transforming the culture of a place… In Argentina, intense immigration from Italy has left a mark on the culture of the society, and the presence of some 200,000 Jews has a great effect on the cultural ‘style’ of Buenos Aires. Immigrants, if they are helped to integrate, are a blessing, a source of enrichment and new gift that encourages a society to grow”.[118]”
Mod
The thing is, most people don't want the culture of their place changed. I don't understand why that can't be respected.
Manny, I apologize if my use of the word"fear" sounded inflamitory. I was only trying to pick up on your comments about 18th century Protestant people resisting Catholic immigrants and the bigatry present at that time. I thought you were saying that the Protestants feared the changes that the Catholic immigrants would bring to their communities. Maybe that was not the emotion that you were implying motivated their bigatry. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that there is a concern that immigrants will make a significant change on the host community and that that change will have serious negative components. For me, that concern feels like fear. So, I apologize for not being more clear. I was not trying to negatively characterize any position but was trying to acknowledge a tension that has always been present, not just in this country but in most places. I also was not trying to suggest that you said limitless immigration. I was only trying to say that I don't think any post has indicated that a nation should not set prudent immigration levels. I think all the posts have acknowledged that there should be both a realistic national policy regarding immigration as well as a compassionate Christian response to those in need. The tricky place where the debate takes place is where that balance should be. And, as you point out, it is not a decision that can be made once and for all. War, persecution, famine, natural disasters will always need to be balanced against the changing economic stability and other resources of the host nation.
I think all of us are closer together and have more in agreement in our posts than we have differences. And I don't think any of our posts has wanted to negatively characterize anyone or any group who sees that balance at a different point.
Mod
Yes, respect, respect for those living in the potential host country, respect for the refugee/immigrant, respect for those who view the proper policy differently than I do, etc. My personal experience is that so many of these difficult social questions are rarely discussed in a spirit of respect.
When are we moving on to chapters 7 and 8?
Mod
I don't know if something came up with Kerstin. I'll try to get a hold of her.
Mod
Economic: Both sides exaggerate. A net wash is closer to reality with benefits coming later after spending money now.
Changing the Host Culture: On this we should all agree that this is what happens. I think we can all agree that sometimes it’s for a benefit. For example perhaps mass European immigration into the US at the turn of the 20th century (of which countless romanticizing of immigration has come about), and I’ll take Pope Frances’ point of Italian immigrants in Argentina. I don’t know one way or another but the person making the claim happens to be an Argentine of Italian immigrants, which should give you pause. Do the indigenous people agree? What’s overlooked are examples of negative impact of immigration to a host country. Germanic tribes entering the Roman Empire in the 5th century. Europeans coming to the Americas 16th century. Muslim establishment of culture across the lands they conquered in the 8th century. Coptic Christians once dominated Egypt. I bet they weren’t happy about the immigrants that their new rulers allowed in. Most immigration is probably neither positive nor negative, but a change. Do you want such a change? Are you happy that your life and culture is being changed in a way you probably didn’t ask for?
The moral argument of allowing a stranger. As far as I can tell the argument from the Old Testament speaks of in terms of a handful of people who are deemed strangers. If anything the Israelites out of Egypt killed and displaced the Canaanites as they settled Israel. No where do I see anything that could advocate a change to the nature of their home land. Most of the references are single strangers wandering through where one shouldn’t harm such people. As to the New Testament the one single reference that is always brought out is the fleeing of the holy family to Egypt. That is such a mispresentation. They went from one part of the Roman Empire to another, akin to going from New York to New Jersey. There was free flow of people throughout the Roman Empire, as you can see Paul and the Apostles in Acts traveling across the empire unhindered. That argument would hold more water if they went to Persia or China, but they went to Egypt, within the borders of Caesar. The Catholic Church has not always supported such an immigration policy of mass scope. Believe it or not, Catholic Church fully supported Queen Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims and Jews in 1492. In fact they beatified Queen Isabella. She is a “blessed.” She’ll probably never be canonized under today’s values, but she was praised across the Church in her day and for a time after.
Let me make clear, I don’t advocate the expulsion of anyone unless they came under false pretenses. We gave our word when we consented to have them come. We cannot go back on that word, but that’s why it’s critical you make the judgement on immigration policy.
The argument from the benefits of population growth. I remember as a child the population of the US was 200 million. Then I watched it grow to 250, then to 300, and now over 330 million. Have we been better for it? All I know is I’ve seen loss of natural habitat, waste garbage dumps spread across the land, and energy issues, both in generating energy and the pollution that results from the energy. What are the benefits? Higher GDP? That isn’t beneficial to most. Increased military power? Perhaps but even modern warfare relies more on technology rather than manpower. I have no idea why people want a country of 400 or 500 million people. The loss of natural habitat was one of my main drivers that pushed me to this position on immigration. One thing people need to do is ask themselves what should the ideal population of the country be? I kind of liked it around 250 million but that was an impression and not based on any analysis of any sort.
Finally there is one other issue that is hardly ever brought up but probably fits into the points of tradition that Abp Chaput brings up. Large scale immigration disrupts and attenuates one’s link to the past and the host country’s traditions. People who are of different tradition don’t care about the host traditions and push for their own traditions into the mainstream culture. Take for instance the declining of teaching western literature in our schools, both college and below. Shakespeare is being displaced for the literature of third world countries. On the one hand, I guess it is an attempt to be fair to incorporate their literature since they are now part of the country. But don’t you see how incorporating their literature attenuates the host country traditions? If we immigrate a 100 million people—an extreme but I’m trying to make a point—who are not Christians, what happens to all the Christmas traditions? I hope you can see my point. This is happening all over with the coming down of statues and holidays and cultural lessons in schools. It’s happening in Europe with the coming down of Churches and building of Mosques. Under a melting pot theory of assimilation, this was sort of held in check, at least somewhat. This is accelerated with the multiculturalism that is insisted in today’s society.
I think it self-evident to say that adding salt to soup transforms and alters the soup. Each pinch of salt improves the soup until a point when it utterly ruins the soup and makes it inedible.The church's position would be that we all ought to form ourselves to be the sort of chef capable of producing perfectly salted soup. The political question is how to resolve taste differences in what constitutes perfectly salted soup. Those two things are not in conflict.
Unfortunately, our present political conflict finds us fighting over who gets to control the bowl of soup, with the aggressing party seeking to weaponize the salt such that by adding enough to spoil the bowl, it will be relinquished to their control. The defensive party seeks to control the bowl in order to prevent any additional salt being added - preferring to protect the bland, undersalted soup from being destroyed.
I think Chaput's lament (certainly my own) might be that we no longer hold the view that an adequately, if imperfectly, salted bowl shared is preferable to an entire bowl of bad soup.
Mod
What a wonderful analogy Casey. Super. Thanks.
Casey, I realize that any analogy will be limited. I am not trying to accuse anyone of bad faith. I just want to name one of the limitations with the salted soup analogy. It only can see immigration from the vantage point of the soup, the country into which immigrants may be moving. It can't see the issue from the vantage of the immigrant. It implies that life in the salt shaker or in the soup bowl is a horse a piece for the immigrant. But when the migrant is seeking entry because of life threatening lack of adequate resources such as food or water, or is fleeing war or other societal violence, or is endangered because they belong to a persicuted group, then the analogy would have to have a way to consider the well-being of the immigrant/refugee as well as the flavor of the soup.
I think one element of our immigration crisis (and yes, it is a crisis; I live in Texas and have been to the border and had family near there at one time.) Even 30 years ago there were people crossing the border quite visibly--I have seen them on a trip to Mexico before this was ever an issue, but not on the scale we see now-- and not being financed by people who want to destroy the United States and substitute a global godless world controller. Alongside these poor refugees (some of whom reveal they pay upwards of $5000 to coyotes (how do poor refugees get their hands on such money) who will do no more than dump an unaccompanied child wherever they end up, mission accomplished. Or another trafficker who agrees to help somebody across as long as they carry a few pounds of some drug (look up the consequences of the fentanyl the border patrol has already confiscated--enough to kill more people than those who die in wars.) Well make that two elements--there is the lawlessness of letting just anybody (like people on the terrorist watch lists--two who were already well known caught in the first month, so many more that are never caught, and it only takes one to take a number of innocent lives);And the horror stories that ranchers on the border can tell us about who or what turns up on their property, dead or alive. Not any of this is an exaggeration, but if we accept open borders with no means of knowing or following who comes or why, children are murdered, raped, tortured, sold into slavery, along with some uncautious adults. The humanitarian issues aren't just about refugees. Laws being ignored have enormous consequences here.
I applaud the church's efforts to help the refugees; our own parish here does much of that. But I have friends who have worked with migrants and they have seen the worst of the worst. What is happening now also should be addressed by those who want to help--we can't ignore the dark side of ignoring our laws.
Irene wrote: "Casey, I realize that any analogy will be limited. I am not trying to accuse anyone of bad faith. I just want to name one of the limitations with the salted soup analogy. It only can see immigratio..."If you stood at the top of a hill with 100 bottles of water and there were 300 thirsty people at the bottom, you can distribute those bottles to the thirsty any number of ways... first 100 to the top, the 100 youngest, market bidding, one third bottle to each.
From a moral perspective, the only wrong decision is to keep all 100 for yourself. The right decision is far more difficult to discern given that all possible decisions are less than ideal. Somebody will suffer in every scenario.
The church is concerned with the former. Politics is arguing over which less than ideal situation is the best.
Yes, we ought to take into account the salt but even still, too much of the "right" salt spoils the soup. That's bad for the salt and the soup and the chef and everybody.
The church reminds us that we ought to do something. What we actually do is a lot trickier. But in my view the best thing to do is to pick one thing and do the hell out of it. Consistently over a long period of time.
In other words, we need to agree to cherish the pot of soup and hold it steady before we negotiate the level of salt. And, once we decide on a level of salt, accept that it is imperfect and that there is some value in its consistency.
Casey wrote: "Irene wrote: "Casey, I realize that any analogy will be limited. I am not trying to accuse anyone of bad faith. I just want to name one of the limitations with the salted soup analogy. It only can ..."Bravo!
Immigration is definitely a complicated moral issue. Neither the Church, nor anyone in this thread would advocate for completely open borders nor for completely closed borders. Between those extremes are a wide range of options. And people of integrity and good faith can and will disagree on what the best option is because they will disagree on both the scale of the need and the amount of resources available. There will be some who will assess the thirsty people at the bottom of the hill and ask if there are not resources at the bottom that could provide. Others will question if the thirst is genuine or if it is a pretext for other desires. Others will see the bottles of water as a less finite resource, arguing that there is plenty of more water where those bottles came from to provide for all or that each bottle contains sufficient water to be divided so all can have enough. Others will see the bottled water as a finite resource and possibly one that is needed by those at the top of the hill and can't be given away. Some will believe that a steady response over time will be the most effective while others will believe that any response should be constantly reevaluated. All that we can do is to learn as much as we can, pray as faithfully as we can, listen for the Holy Spirit with as much openness as we can and try to love our neighbor as our self as well as we can.
Beautifully said, Irene. And we need ways to come together--our parish, for example, has by necessity a Latino priest, who serves us all. We have Spanish-speaking ministries, but many of these work together with their English-speaking counterparts. Some of our services, such as the Divine Mercy Chaplet, are bilingual, and beautifully done. Both welcome everybody, but the hope is that we can unite, and hopefully end those dark forces that infiltrate our lax border policies, because they harm all of us and serve no one.
Mod
Thanks so much, Irene. Both elegant and definitive.
Mod
Here’s how I breakdown chapter six.
(1) Ideology as Religion—Zamyatin’s novel, We—A Noble Idea Turned Poisonous—American Idea Anchored in Pragmatism—French Revolution Anchored in Secular Ideology—Human Reason Over Divine Revelation.
(2) Nazi Ideology in Opposition to Divine Revelation—Scientific Marxism of the Soviet Union—All Have Roots in the French Revolution—Tocqueville on the French Revolution—French Revolution as Anti Christian—Modern Revolutions are Shaped by Christianity—Ideologies Have Consequences.
(3) Supercomputing—Human Endeavor—Tools—Knowledge vs. Wisdom—Scientism as Modern Ideology—Yuval Noah Harari’s Decoupling—A World Ruled by Science.
(4) Rod Sterling’s “The Caterpillar”—Metaphor for Ideologies—Technology Driven Culture—World of Everything Here and Now—The Church and the Faults of the Past—The Church is Not an Ideology—Christianity is Alive Because of Jesus Christ.
The general gist of each of the sections can be articulated as thus:
(1) “The roots of modern revolutionary impulse” can be traced to the French Revolution and its antecedents.
(2) “Ideas, and the ideologies and the system of thought they breed, have consequences,” and the mass killings from the French Revolution to the present are the horrible consequences.
(3) Scientism is the most current ideology, and equally holding the potential for human catastrophe.
.(4) The Christian faith is not an ideology because its “beating heart” is love, and that love is Jesus Christ.
And so a summing statement of chapter six cold be thus: Since the French Revolution to the present, ideologies have rested on the notion of perfecting human society and has had catastrophic consequences. All these ideologies fail because they either fail to take the love that stems from God as its operating mode or reject that love outright.
Mod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFK99...
If someone finds the actual full episode, please post a link; I would love to see it.
Mod
By the way, I could never and still can’t understand why they celebrate Bastille Day. This was the beginning of the French Revolution and its homicidal events, leading to tens of thousands of deaths under the Reign of Terror. And then factor in the Napoleonic Wars that came afterward, and the deaths are in the millions. Bastille Day should be a moment of national shame, not celebration.
Archbishop Chaput has a great fondness for the movie “Casablanca,” and I think most of us consider it one of the best movies of all time. Remember, however, one of the highlights of that film, the moment when Viktor Laszlo instructs the band to play “La Marseillaise,” one of the most familiar national anthems in history. It’s a wonderful, exhilarating scene — but have all of us read the English translation of the song’s lyrics? They’re quite a surprise.
Mod
Absolutely! Secularists change the nomenclature but in essence they are the same thing.
Mod
Good heavens, I didn't know. Hitler could have written that. You can hear it with English subtitles here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laWIj...
Manny wrote: "Perhaps it’s not controversial—or perhaps it is, and please discuss if you think it is—that all these modern ideologies stem from the French Revolution, with all of them leading to the mass killing..."I agree with you, Manny, that the modern ideologies stem from the French Revolution. And while their beliefs of enlightenment based on scientific principle are what they tout as driving their ideology, they aren't without their human elements of avarice, manipulation, and egoism. At the beginning of the Revolution, the clergy were forced to sign the oath to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in order to ensure the clergy's fidelity to the French government rather than the Church in Rome. In spite of some of the abuses that existed in the Church in France, the people were still faithful and devout in their Catholic beliefs. The Catholic priest in the villages played a central role in the lives of the people, much to the chagrin of the revolutionaries. So it was their intention to use the clergy, manipulating them to sign the oath and prohibiting them from preaching anything contrary to the tenets of the Revolution. The priests were no longer paid through the Church but rather through the revolutionary government. Those that didn't sign the oath faced severe chastisements such as removal of financial support and, in some cases, the ultimate sacrifice of martyrdom. While most religious orders were suppressed and disbanded, charitable orders were allowed to continue, which meant keeping the schools and hospitals functioning. These were purely selfish reasons as at that time the Church was the primary provider of these services. Of course restrictions were put in place. Schools were not allowed to teach the Faith but instead the glories of the Revolution. The sisters who served in the hospitals were not allowed to wear their habits. Then there was the financial component, where the greed comes in. The seizing of the Church properties wasn't just about trying to eradicate the Church. The French economy was in a terrible state, not only because of the famine in 1788 but their involvement in wars that they couldn't afford. The French Church was seen as this big cash cow that they now controlled and would use to fund the Revolution. It was only through this kind of manipulation and greed that they could attempt to push forth their ideology. To your point, this approach has repeated itself multiple times whether in the context of a revolution or simply a change to our society/culture. Our Christian brothers and sisters are experiencing this today in China, Hong Kong, the Middle East and Africa. Is it coming to the US? I do fear we will begin to see this in the US. That sounds a bit dramatic but doesn't the situation with the Little Sisters of the Poor sound a bit like this approach?
Thanks so much, Catherine. And I don’t think what you wrote about the anti-religious tone growing in the US is dramatic at all. It’s very real.
Mod
That's a very nice comment, Catherine. Only if we remember our past can we know what is happening in the present.
Mod
Each person is rooted in the past by our ancestors as well as the places, culture, and religion that shaped them and us. Knowing where we come from as families, or the history of the nation where we live, gives us a sense of who we are and what we hold sacred. We are willing to sacrifice for the things we hold sacred. There is a mystical aspect to this and pointing us to the eternal, our final home.
This Idea’s a Killer
Secular ideologies, scientism have become toxic ersatz-religions. What makes Christianity so different from secular dogmas is that it is not a mere system of ideas, but a living relationship.