Mixed response to bishops’ letter on immigration

The bishops’ recently published advisory letter on immigration has provoked mixed responses, with Director of the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice Dr Kevin Hargaden praising the bishops for issuing “a very strong word against the fear-based politics that have been developing in the nation”, while Dr Gerard Casey, a Catholic academic, was critical of the letter’s “flaws” and “errors”.

Speaking to The Irish Catholic, Dr Hargaden said that it is not the bishops’ job to devise public policy on the matter but merely affirm the underlying Christian message around immigration, which is to remind Catholics of their duty to welcome the migrant.

“The letter is very strong and clear,” he said. “I would be very clear in terms of communicating to others that it’s not about the contentious and fraught topic of immigration in the sense of proposing any policy directions that need to be taken. The bishops are very clear that this is a matter for Government and encourage Catholics to inform their consciences and involve themselves as actively as they possibly can in the political discourse.

“There’s great freedom for the baptised to take different positions on these political questions. What this letter does is very clearly communicate a biblical and eternal teaching of the Church, which is that people have a right to migrate and the migrant who is actually in your country is your neighbour.

“It’s a very strong word against the fear-based politics that have been developing in the nation.”

Speaking in the aftermath of the publication of the letter, Dr Casey said although some parts of it “merit consideration”, it was mostly flawed and “rife” with errors for a number of reasons.

“There are parts of this document that merit reflection and consideration but, unfortunately, the document as a whole is flawed by the category mistake of not distinguishing between what the New Testament requires of individuals and what, if anything, it requires of the State,” he said. “The New Testament addresses its moral imperatives to individual believers, not to any political entity.

“The pastoral’s category error, rife throughout the document, can be seen clearly in this sentence: ‘Fearful and angry voices even call for us to close our borders and our hearts to the newcomer’. Who is ‘us’? Borders are matters for the State; the opening or closing of our hearts are matters for individuals.

“I should note,” he continued, “in passing, that one significant matter that, so far as I can tell, receives little or no attention in this document is the cultural/religious implications of migration. This is a topic that one might expect to have been explored in a pastoral letter on this topic.”