I got some push back on my homily last week.  I was grateful for the honest feedback.  A common sin in the priesthood is a sense of superiority.  “Just listen to me and you’ll be okay with God.”  I pray that I have enough humility to realize that my viewpoint is not the last word on anything.  I do believe that the Church needs to bring gospel values to the “public square”, but I am not always sure that it is wise to get “too political” in the pulpit.  My “hat” reference was too political, and I apologize because I think it distracted from a very powerful gospel message.  For the record, I do not belong to a political party.  I do not feel at home on either side of the aisle and it saddens me that there seems to be so little desire to work for the common good by either Democrats or Republicans.
 
For a variety of reasons – some of which were self-inflicted – the moral voice of our Bishops has been greatly weakened over the years.  But even if many Catholics disagree with them, our Bishops will continue to try to bring moral clarity and gospel values to the issues of our day.  One of the biggest issues in the public square at the moment is border security.  There are some who inaccurately criticize the Catholic Church as supportive of "open borders" in an attempt to discredit the strength of Church’s voice in the immigration policy dialogue.  In their 2003 pastoral letter, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recognized the right of the sovereign to control and protect its borders, stating: "we accept the legitimate role of the U.S. . . . government in intercepting undocumented migrants who attempt to travel through or cross into [the country]." The U.S. Bishops made clear, however, that ". . .[w]e do not accept . . . some of the policies and tactics that our government has employed to meet this. . .responsibility." No. 78.
 
In Strangers No Longer, the U.S. Bishops made clear that despite the sovereign’s right to control its borders and engage in enforcement of immigration laws, the "human dignity and human rights of undocumented migrants should be respected." The Bishops declared that "regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity that should be respected . . . Government policies that respect the basic human rights of the undocumented are necessary." No. 38.
 
In January of 2011, long before the present administration took office, the U.S. Catholic Bishops clearly restated their position on border security.  They accept the legitimate role of the U.S. government in enforcing immigration laws. However, USCCB opposes "enforcement only" immigration policies and supports instead comprehensive immigration reform which includes an enforcement component. In Strangers No Longer, the U.S. Catholic Bishops outlined the elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. These include: earned legalization; a future worker program; family‐based immigration reform; restoration of due process rights; addressing root causes of migration; and enforcement measures which adhere to the following three principles.
 
Targeted. U.S. enforcement interventions and resources should be narrowly tailored, focusing on the dangerous and criminal elements. U.S. enforcement should not rely upon ethnic and racial profiling and should not be so overly broad as to curtail basic rights. Improvements in intelligence, information sharing, and border security technology would help ensure that those who are most dangerous—smugglers, human traffickers, and terrorists – are intercepted.
 
Proportional. Enforcement of immigration laws should not feature unnecessary penalties or rely upon unnecessary force. Immigration enforcement officers and border patrol agents should receive intensive training on appropriate enforcement tactics and the appropriate use of force. Border enforcement policies should not drive migrants to risk their lives or violate the due process rights of migrants. Because immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, the civil enforcement of immigration laws should remain in the hands of the federal government not transferred further to local or state law enforcement authorities whose role is maintaining public safety and fighting crime.
 
Humane. In any enforcement action, the human rights and dignity of the person should be preserved and respected to the greatest extent possible. U.S. immigration policy should prioritize family reunification and protect vulnerable populations. Unauthorized immigrants should not be detained for lengthy periods of time or intermingled with violent offenders. U.S. immigration policy should prioritize the use of alternatives to detention for those who do not threaten public safety or national security. U.S. immigration policy should provide meaningful protection to refugees and asylum seekers by eliminating the one‐year filing deadline, providing appropriate screening by a qualified adjudicator for all asylees, and eliminating mandatory detention of asylum seekers among other measures. And, the conditions for processing and holding children upon apprehension should be appropriate and the least restrictive possible. Children should be accommodated within a child welfare context
I got some push back on my homily last week.  I was grateful for the honest feedback.  A common sin in the priesthood is a sense of superiority.  “Just listen to me and you’ll be okay with God.”  I pray that I have enough humility to realize that my viewpoint is not the last word on anything.  I do believe that the Church needs to bring gospel values to the “public square”, but I am not always sure that it is wise to get “too political” in the pulpit.  My “hat” reference was too political, and I apologize because I think it distracted from a very powerful gospel message.  For the record, I do not belong to a political party.  I do not feel at home on either side of the aisle and it saddens me that there seems to be so little desire to work for the common good by either Democrats or Republicans.
 
For a variety of reasons – some of which were self-inflicted – the moral voice of our Bishops has been greatly weakened over the years.  But even if many Catholics disagree with them, our Bishops will continue to try to bring moral clarity and gospel values to the issues of our day.  One of the biggest issues in the public square at the moment is border security.  There are some who inaccurately criticize the Catholic Church as supportive of "open borders" in an attempt to discredit the strength of Church’s voice in the immigration policy dialogue.  In their 2003 pastoral letter, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recognized the right of the sovereign to control and protect its borders, stating: "we accept the legitimate role of the U.S. . . . government in intercepting undocumented migrants who attempt to travel through or cross into [the country]." The U.S. Bishops made clear, however, that ". . .[w]e do not accept . . . some of the policies and tactics that our government has employed to meet this. . .responsibility." No. 78.
 
In Strangers No Longer, the U.S. Bishops made clear that despite the sovereign’s right to control its borders and engage in enforcement of immigration laws, the "human dignity and human rights of undocumented migrants should be respected." The Bishops declared that "regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity that should be respected . . . Government policies that respect the basic human rights of the undocumented are necessary." No. 38.
 
In January of 2011, long before the present administration took office, the U.S. Catholic Bishops clearly restated their position on border security.  They accept the legitimate role of the U.S. government in enforcing immigration laws. However, USCCB opposes "enforcement only" immigration policies and supports instead comprehensive immigration reform which includes an enforcement component. In Strangers No Longer, the U.S. Catholic Bishops outlined the elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. These include: earned legalization; a future worker program; family‐based immigration reform; restoration of due process rights; addressing root causes of migration; and enforcement measures which adhere to the following three principles.
 
Targeted. U.S. enforcement interventions and resources should be narrowly tailored, focusing on the dangerous and criminal elements. U.S. enforcement should not rely upon ethnic and racial profiling and should not be so overly broad as to curtail basic rights. Improvements in intelligence, information sharing, and border security technology would help ensure that those who are most dangerous—smugglers, human traffickers, and terrorists – are intercepted.
 
Proportional. Enforcement of immigration laws should not feature unnecessary penalties or rely upon unnecessary force. Immigration enforcement officers and border patrol agents should receive intensive training on appropriate enforcement tactics and the appropriate use of force. Border enforcement policies should not drive migrants to risk their lives or violate the due process rights of migrants. Because immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, the civil enforcement of immigration laws should remain in the hands of the federal government not transferred further to local or state law enforcement authorities whose role is maintaining public safety and fighting crime.
 
Humane. In any enforcement action, the human rights and dignity of the person should be preserved and respected to the greatest extent possible. U.S. immigration policy should prioritize family reunification and protect vulnerable populations. Unauthorized immigrants should not be detained for lengthy periods of time or intermingled with violent offenders. U.S. immigration policy should prioritize the use of alternatives to detention for those who do not threaten public safety or national security. U.S. immigration policy should provide meaningful protection to refugees and asylum seekers by eliminating the one‐year filing deadline, providing appropriate screening by a qualified adjudicator for all asylees, and eliminating mandatory detention of asylum seekers among other measures. And, the conditions for processing and holding children upon apprehension should be appropriate and the least restrictive possible. Children should be accommodated within a child welfare context.                                                                                                           Fr. Jerry Ragan