Showing posts with label US bishops. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US bishops. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Near tears - migrants


Today I assisted and preached at two Masses to celebrate the feast of Saint Anthony of Padua. But at the prayer of the faithful in the first Mass, I added a prayer for migrants, especially since I know that one bright young man from that village is in the US.

But I nearly cried as I prayed for a change of heart for the US. Thinking of the policy of separating families, my heart filled with lament in the face of such inhumane – and sinful – policy. I prayed that we might build bridges, not walls.

This expression of grief is the result of pent-up anger and sorrow over US immigration policy and the results in the lives of so many.

I thought of the article on the Honduran who killed himself when separated from his family. Then there was the article that mentioned a Honduran child separated from his mother. An article earlier this week detailed the horror a Honduras boy experienced separated from his father.

I do not know what is happening but in the last month I have heard more of persons trying to get to the US, of persons deported, and of some who have made it there. People ask prayers for their loved ones at Mass. Others just mention to me that so and so is in the US.

After the second Mass, I spoke with a young man I knew. He told me that his wife and one child have been in the US for about two months. She was detained but now is released with a tracking device. Thanks be to God the child is with his mother. He wants to join her – but I warned him about the new policy.

Later, talking with some of the men I heard of a case that has me reeling. A man with his son was arrested in the US by immigration agents. They were separated. The father was deported and he does not know where his child is. I don’t know the age of the child, but this is a crime against humanity.

I cry for my country. I fear for a country that separates children from parents in such a way. I beg forgiveness from God and from all those affected by these actions.

God have mercy on us.

The words of Cardinal Sean O’Malley, OFM Cap, Archbishop of Boston, speak eloquently:

by the order of the U. S. government, individuals with children and families with children who are seeking asylum at the southern border of the United States now have their children separated from their parents. The intent of this policy is clear: to discourage those seeking asylum by severing the most sacred human bond of parent and child. Children are now being used as a deterrent against immigrants who are appealing to us for asylum in order to protect themselves and their families. As disturbing as this fact is, the narrative of this development makes clear the misguided moral logic of the policy.
These individuals and families are fleeing documented violence, chaos and murder in the neighborhoods of Central America. The United States is now openly before the world using children as pawns to enforce a hostile immigration policy. This strategy is morally unacceptable and denies the clear danger weighing upon those seeking our assistance.
As a Catholic bishop, I support political and legal authority. I have always taught respect for the civil law and will continue to do so. But, I cannot be silent when our country's immigration policy destroys families, traumatizes parents, and terrorizes children. The harmful and unjust policy of separating children from their parents must be ended.

The support of the US bishops meeting today in Florida for a strong statement by Cardinal DiNArdo against this and the new government policy regarding victims of domestic violence and gang violence offers a bit of hope.
Fort Lauderdale, FL—"At its core, asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life. The Attorney General's recent decision elicits deep concern because it potentially strips asylum from many women who lack adequate protection. These vulnerable women will now face return to the extreme dangers of domestic violence in their home country. This decision negates decades of precedents that have provided protection to women fleeing domestic violence. Unless overturned, the decision will erode the capacity of asylum to save lives, particularly in cases that involve asylum seekers who are persecuted by private actors. We urge courts and policy makers to respect and enhance, not erode, the potential of our asylum system to preserve and protect the right to life.
Additionally, I join Bishop Joe Vásquez, Chairman of USCCB's Committee on Migration, in condemning the continued use of family separation at the U.S./Mexico border as an implementation of the Administration's zero tolerance policy. Our government has the discretion in our laws to ensure that young children are not separated from their parents and exposed to irreparable harm and trauma. Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together. While protecting our borders is important, we can and must do better as a government, and as a society, to find other ways to ensure that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral."'
The call of one bishop to consider canonical penalties is really encouraging.

But I am still nearly crying – and we should all take up the prophetic stance of lamentation. Maybe it is time for a “cry-in” at federal offices.

Friday, December 23, 2016

Prince of Peace, nuclear weapons, and the challenge of peace

I have read that President-elect Trump has advocated more nuclear weapons. A tweet from him stated:
“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

To put this in context, according to a BBC report
Jason Miller, the communications manager for the Trump transition team, explained he "was referring to the threat of nuclear proliferation and the critical need to prevent it - particularly to and among terrorist organizations and unstable and rogue regimes".
Mr Miller also added that the president-elect "emphasised the need to improve and modernize our deterrent capability as a vital way to pursue peace through strength".

I will save another post to write about nuclear deterrence but I wanted to offer a few thoughts

In the days before we come to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace, who came as a vulnerable baby and died on a cross, bringing “peace through the blood of the Cross” (Colossians 1:20), I find myself grieving. I thought we were moving beyond this, although I recognize that President Obama had plans to invest about one trillion dollars in the nuclear arsenal.

In the face of this I think it is important to re-read the 1983 pastoral letter of the US Catholic Bishops.

One of the strongest statements can be found in the Summary:

In the words of the Holy Father [Pope Saint John Paul II], we need a "moral about-face." The whole world must summon the moral courage and technical means to say no to nuclear conflict; no to weapons of mass destruction; no to an arms race which robs the poor and the vulnerable; and no to the moral danger of a nuclear age which places before humankind indefensible choices of constant terror or surrender. Peacemaking is not an optional commitment. It is a requirement of our faith. We are called to be peacemakers, not by some movement of the moment, but by our Lord Jesus. The content and context of our peacemaking is set not by some political agenda or ideological program, but by the teaching of his Church.

This is, at heart, a question of our spirituality. Are we willing to work beyond fear and threats? Are we willing to open our hearts to all peoples? Are we able to develop our minds to imagine and make real new and peaceful ways of responding to conflict and violence?

Or are we stuck in the old ways of fear, anxiety, recrimination, domination, power, and force?

We need a “moral-about-face.”

These days our bishop is confirming almost 300 young people in our parish. Yesterday afternoon the second reading was from Paul’s letter to the Galatians (5: 16-25) in which he contrasts the works of the flesh (the unredeemed world) with the fruits of the spirit.

It might be useful to use these lists from the first century to discern what a moral-about –face might mean for the United States, the world, and our very selves.

The works of the flesh are:
immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. (New American Bible translation)
or, in N. T. Wright’s The Kingdom New Testament translation:
fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, bursts of rage, selfish ambition, factiousness, divisions, moods of envy, drunkenness, wild partying, and similar things.
The fruits of the spirit are:
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (New American Bible translation)
or, in N. T. Wright’s The Kingdom New Testament translation:
love, joy, peace, great-heartedness, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
In two days we will celebrate the Son of God made flesh, welcomed with the song of angels, “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth to people of good will.”

Let us give glory to God in our lives; let us be people of "good will." And above all, let us welcome Jesus with open arms and not with nuclear arms - loving God and our neighbors, even our enemies.

A nativity scene in an exhibition in the Ravenna cathedral, 2013.
-----------------------------------------
 More photos of nativity scenes from the exhibition can be found here.


Monday, November 14, 2016

US bishops on the poor thirty years ago

Thirty years ago, on November 14, 1986, the U. S. Catholic Bishops released one of their most prophetic documents, Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy.
It would be good for the bishops and all followers of Christ to read it again – or for the first time. It is available here. There are parts that reflect the reality of the 1980s but there is much in its theology and spirituality, as well in its elaboration of Catholic Social Teaching which holds true.

I would suggest that one of the most important paragraphs of this document is found in the section on “Poverty, Riches, and the Challenges of Discipleship.” Paragraph 52 reads:
Such perspectives provide a basis for what is called the “preferential option for the poor.” Though in the Gospels and in the New Testament as a whole the offer of salvation is extended to all peoples, Jesus takes the side of those most in need, physically and spiritually. The example of Jesus poses a number of challenges to the contemporary Church. It imposes a prophetic mandate to speak for those who have no one to speak for them, to be a defender of the defenseless, who in biblical terms are the poor. It also demands a compassionate vision which enables the Church to see things from the side of the poor and powerless, and to assess lifestyles, policies, and social institutions in terms of their impact on the poor. It summons the Church also to be an instrument in assisting people to experience the liberating power of God in their own lives so that they may respond to the Gospel in freedom and dignity. Finally, and most radically, it calls for an emptying of self, both individually and corporately, that allows the Church to experience the power of God in the midst of poverty and powerlessness.
The option for the poor is rooted not in politics or economics but in Jesus, God made human among the poor. This option challenges the church to speak prophetically, to provide a vision of compassion, to speak from the side of the poor, to help people experience the liberating power of God in all aspects of their lives.

These are still challenges for us – not just for the institutional church, but for all members of the People of God.


Are we prophets on the side of the poor, offering hope and assisting liberation for all forms of slavery?

But, more than this, are we willing to empty ourselves of power and wealth, leaving these to the side, not letting them control us and our choices?

The bishops based their option of the poor on the emptying of Christ (Philippians 2).

But are we all too easily swayed by wealth and power, not wanting to appear weak?

Have we forgotten the call of Pope Saint John XXIII to be a “church of the poor” and the call of Pope Francis to be a “poor church” and a “church for the poor”?

Have we closed our ears to the call Pope Francis made to the Popular Movements a few weeks ago to show a real austerity in the way we live and work?

Can we take up again the preferential option for the poor by emptying ourselves – as Jesus did?