The USCCB and Immigration: Render Unto Caesar?
By Charles J. Russo www.americanthinker.com
Whether referred to as undocumented individuals or illegal aliens, millions have entered the United States without authorization during the Biden administration.
Estimates of how many vary widely, from a low of 5.5 million or 6 million to the “10 million people here who don't have documents” that Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago suggested, or as many as 14 million.
Meanwhile, as of Oct. 27, 2025, following stepped-up efforts at enforcing immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security reported that “[m]ore than 2 million illegal aliens have left the U.S., including 1.6 million who have voluntarily self-deported and more than 527,000 deportations.”
Responding to this crisis, by a vote of 216 votes in favor, 5 against, and 3 abstentions, the Plenary Assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a “Special Message” on immigration, essentially criticizing the policies of the Trump administration during their meeting in Baltimore.
The last time the USSCB released such a special message was in 2013, in response to a mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services voice that would have required employers, regardless of their religious beliefs, to provide employees with abortifacient drugs and devices, sterilization, and contraception without exception.
At the risk of being accused of “whataboutism,” the bishops’ stance is inconsistent. Their stance on this moral matter stands in stark contrast to their silence in the face of the putatively Catholic Joe Biden's approach to abortion and the sanctity of the lives of the unborn after he repudiated his earlier pro-life positions, and conducted his administration accordingly.
Archbishop Joseph Naumann, then Chair of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life activities, questioned Biden’s having described himself as "devout" given his support for abortion and other positions inconsistent with his professed Catholic beliefs. But even that didn't rouse the bishops to speak out.
Returning to the immigration controversy, the bishops wrote “[w]e are disturbed when we see among our people a climate of fear and anxiety around questions of profiling and immigration enforcement. We are saddened by the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants.” Thus, they declared that “we feel compelled now in this environment to raise our voices in defense of God-given human dignity . . . [as] Catholic teaching exhorts nations to recognize the fundamental dignity of all persons, including immigrants. We bishops advocate for a meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures.”
Not surprisingly, Pope Leo XIV supported the bishops, stating “[w]e recognize that nations have a responsibility to regulate their borders and establish a just and orderly immigration system for the sake of the common good.” He added that “[n]o one has said that the United States should have open borders. I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter.”
Bu the “Special Message” cautioned against language vilifying immigrants while referring to reports of parents no longer dropping their children off at school, skipping church and granting them dispensations from attending weekly Mass.
Yet, why did the bishops not ask whether these undocumented individuals had given thought to applying to enter the country legally, perhaps even offering assistance when they seek to enter?
Rather than applaud themselves on approving their “Special Message,” the bishops should have taken three important points into account.
First, they should have distinguished between those who entered the United States lawfully and those who did so unlawfully when describing those subject to arrest and detention, amid accusations that federal officials are acting indiscriminately by engaging in mass deportations.
On the one hand, the bishops and pope aptly recognized the right of nations to control their borders in not calling for open borders. Yet, by criticizing the Trump administration in way they have not done in other situations, even recognizing that without appropriate laws procedures “immigrants face the risk of trafficking and other forms of exploitation,” they failed to distinguish between those who are peaceful and the estimated 40% with criminal convictions, of whom 8% have violent convictions, by lumping all “immigrants” in one group.
Second, amid the bishops' simplistic 'welcome the stranger' exhortations of pastoral concern, they failed to look at other dimensions of the situation.
More specifically, even if one were to say that such incidents were limited, where were the bishops’ expressions of concern and prayer for the victims such as Laken Riley and others who were raped and murdered by those who entered unlawfully while others were subjects of other violent crimes and/or lost their lives in drunk driving accidents caused by individuals who entered the United States illegally?
Rather than simply criticize the administration perhaps the bishops could have offered resources, or suggestions to help those who have not entered the United States legally to comply with the law if they wish to remain and pursue citizenship
Third, amid resistance to agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, who are trying to perform their legal duties, the bishops’ statement “pray[ing] for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence ... directed at law enforcement” officials may not have been strong enough.
Perhaps the bishops should have more explicitly urged immigrants to follow the law while reminding them and their supporters to remain peaceful and non-violent when interacting with ICE agents.
Unfortunately, the bishops’ rhetoric risks placing ICE agents and other law enforcement officials at risk. In fact, as threats of violence increase, from Jan. 21 through Nov. 21, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security recorded 238 assaults on ICE officers an increase of 1,150%, up from just 19 during the same timeframe in 2024. Further, officials faced a surge in vehicle ramming attacks as they attempt to carry out their duties.
In refusing to “render unto Caesar,” the bishops appear to be ignoring the reality, that most, if not all, of these adults, broke the law in entering the United States without documentation or following the prescribed immigration process; of course, this is to acknowledge that children have no choice but to be with their families, but the problem remains for most. This mass unchecked entry is a far cry from what happened during the wave of mass immigration in the early 20th century when people immigrated into the U.S. through Ellis Island, and other locations, and then completed processes enabling them to achieve legal status.
As religious leaders, one can understand the bishops' concerns about members of their flocks.
However, by focusing on the “immigrants” without looking more closely at their legal status and the dysfunctional system, the bishops did not go far enough. Instead, the bishops risk breaching the Jeffersonian “wall of separation” by engaging in what may be perceived as political activism.
Rather than having released a document that risked being perceived as overtly political, the bishops should have offered practical suggestions designed to help ameliorate the crisis by encouraging those who wish to enter the United States to do so legally.
No comments:
Post a Comment