Many Catholics take a cavalier attitude toward mass immigration, including commenters on this here blog. “Sure, immigration might be a problem,” they say, “but at least most of the immigrants are Catholic!”
How can we face our fellow citizens in the public square and argue for our views if we take that attitude? Translated, this says to our opponents, “Either agree with our arguments, or we’ll import zillions of foreigners and your guys will never get elected again because Latin Americans aren’t keen on abortion or gay marriage or all those other things you like so much.”
There are two problems with that approach. First, it treats American citizenship as if it means nothing — hardly a convincing tactic to anyone who is the least bit patriotic. Second, it isn’t true, because the current wave of immigrants will enshrine the Culture of Death for at least another generation.
I’ve met lots of Mexicans, and I’ve been to Central America a couple of times; Latin America as a whole is unquestionably more morally traditional than the U.S. But in the end, it won’t matter: Latinos will vote for Democrats, because the Democrats will promise them welfare, medical care, and subsidized education, and in the end, those goodies will trump moral traditionalism.
This is not an ethnic slur, it’s a sociological fact. Immigrants of all ethnicities overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is true of poor Salvadoran laborers and wealthy Indian entrepreneurs. There are a few anomalies — Vietnamese and Cuban immigrants trend Republican — but they do not disprove the rule.
That’s why California, which 40 years ago elected Ronald Reagan, now will have pro-abortion governors in the future. Arizona, which sent Barry Goldwater to the Senate, now drifts leftward; Colorado continues on the same path, and as more Mexicans are naturalized and begin voting, Texas will follow in a decade or so.
And the Democrats they’re electing in these states aren’t like the morally conservative Democrat politicians that you can find in Mississippi or Alabama. Even if they elect Republicans, they will be weak on moral issues. Look at Schwarzenegger, and you will see the future of American politics.
If you agree with mass immigration on Catholic grounds, and I disagree with it on Catholic grounds, we can agree to disagree. Just don’t think the country will be moved closer to Catholic teachings because of it.
Two postscripts:
1. Latin immigrants won’t necessarily remain Catholic, even if they were Catholic to begin with. In the Arlington Diocese, where I reside, there are about 300,000 Spanish-speaking immigrants, and only about 10% actively practice the Catholic faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal groups are much better at getting Hispanics involved.
2. Read about the American Church in the 19th century, and the widespread resentment against the Irish domination of the Catholic clergy and institutions. But as the Mass was in Latin, there was no controversy about the language of the liturgy. Catholic schools taught their classes in English. But if the current illegals are given amnesty, and 40 million additional Latino immigrants come to the U.S. because of family reunification laws (a low number, by some estimates), we will essentially have two parallel churches in the same country, one English, one Spanish, each with their own liturgies, traditions, institutions, clergy, religious, and laity. Many bishops will be forced to contend with two linguistic blocs within their dioceses, and will have to adjudicate an endless series of disputes between the two.
Will that be a source of unity, or division?
10 comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Your postscript #2 makes me think of my own parish in Spring, TX, which is largely two parallel congregations: one with English liturgy and one with Spanish.
Sometimes we have “dual language” Masses. I always thought that this type of thing would be a *perfect* use for Latin in the Latin Rite. I’m not calling for exclusive Latin, or even a return to the Tridentine Mass, but the use of Latin in the Novus Ordo in a “mixed language” congregation seems like a good idea, to me.
Eric, are you taking the existence of national parishes into account? The Church in the US has had parallel parishes according to language and nationality for over 150 years, and in the past there have probably been whole dioceses with non-English-speaking majorities.
Back in the day, some Catholic schools serving ethnic parishes didn’t even teach their classes in English. For this reason, one occasionally meets older Catholics who attended such schools as anomalies: e.g., an Italian who attended a Polish parish school because it was near home and therefore knows Polish.
Control over immigration is no longer within the scope of public policy – it is a lost cause. I say this because two things have to happen to regain control over our borders: a wall on the Mexican frontier and some kind of secure ID card establishing a person’s legal right to work in the US. No political consensus is foreseeable behind either of these ideas. Too many people now have a large stake in massive immigration. This will change our country in ways we cannot begin to imagine.
The stage was set for this in the 1960’s immigration reform and the battle was lost in the 1986 amnesty.
Nobody is going to ship 12 million illegals out of the country and as they have children and marry here the problem of their legal status will eventually evaporate. But they are going to stay and their success draws millions of others while discouraging people trying to enter through legal channels.
The real issue is whether we have the cultural confidence to Americanize these people or whether our culture and institutions will be forever lost.
Latin liturgy would go a long way to obviate some issues (although would the readngs and homily be in Latin as well? – If not, it doesn’t seem to solve much).
Best way to acculturate immigrants would be to dump bilingual ed. IMHO, that has been one of the biggest factors in balkanizing immigrants. And it helps neither the native nor the immigrant.
Just don’t think the country will be moved closer to Catholic teachings because of it.
You are right that nothing is certain. But it may also come to pass that, as Hispanics grow in influence in the Democratic party, the abortion grip on the party may loosen. It may be very slow going, and it may never happen, but it cannot be ruled out. And an enterprising pro-life Democrat might be smart enough to take advantage of it someday. Regardless, I wouldn’t see that as a reason to favor or disfavor particular immigration policies.
but the use of Latin in the Novus Ordo in a “mixed language” congregation seems like a good idea, to me.
Jason, you beat me to it. :)
Richard, I know that ethnic parishes exist — we have two in the Arlington Diocese (Korean and Vietnamese). But they are exceptional rather than normative. Do you think it was better when members of the Universal Church gathered together in their own isolated linguistic groups?
Charles, I disagree that the battle against illegal immigration is lost: it has yet to be fought. We might not be able to deport 12 million people, but we can sure try to whittle that number down as much as possible. You say, “The real issue is whether we have the cultural confidence to Americanize these people or whether our culture and institutions will be forever lost.” I don’t think we have that confidence. The Catholic Church used to be the primary engine of Americanization for new immigrants, but today’s bishops show little interest in the American project.
As for using more Latin and abolishing bilingual education, fine by me on both counts.
I would like to remind/advise you folks that Mexico was where people went in the 1950s, 60s, and early 70s to get abortions and divorces. Hardly what one would call Catholic. And Brazil (another large source of ‘catholic’ immigrants) has a culture where in it is expected to have only one or two children, deliver them by elective cesarean section, and get sterilized as part of the surgery.
I would hope that the Catholicity of these immigrants would stick and that we would get the likes of Miguel Pro coming in. But I think that we will be as disappointed in the Latin American immigrants as we are now in the Irish (think Kennedy) unless we do something drastic to improve catechesis among all Catholics.
Concerning ‘ethnic’ parishes – until I moved to New England I didn’t realize just how big a problem this still is for the Catholic church in the USA. I can’t believe that a community as small as Concord NH has 3 parishes within walking distance of each other – each founded by a different ethnic/language group and each extremely jealous of their rights. I’m not dissing Concord NH – I’m sure that this pattern is repeated across the East Coast and probably into the midwest as well. But it was really alien to me when I came here from the West Coast.
First, I would like to know what you mean by “Catholic Grounds”?
The only grounds of argument I see you referencing are political grounds, and those are based on an assumption that Democratic Ideals are “not moral”.
You may want to try to review what are Catholic Grounds in relation to Immigration.
I would suggest a study of Catholic Social Teaching.
Here is a link.
Mr. Knowles, I’m not a bishop or theologian, I am a layman. I speak as a layman from a Catholic perspective, and I respect our readers enough to make an argument without sounding like an encyclical.
If you would like them spelled out, here are some of the the “Catholic Grounds” by which I oppose mass immigration:
Loving your country and working for the common good of your fellow citizens is a Christian duty. Mass immigration is doing serious harm to the common good, and will perhaps irreparably damage our country.
Christians have an obligation to speak out against political policies that hurt the poor.
Abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, and other manifestations of the Culture of Death are bad things.
We should not create conditions that advance the careers of politicians who support the Culture of Death.
It is better to be relatively poor in your home country, but remain a practicing Catholic, than to emigrate to a wealthier country and lose your faith.
Since lingustic differences tend to divide people, having a linguistic divide between two halves of the American Church will lead to big problems. Division and rancor among Catholics is not desirable.