Mark Shea on immigration: Ignorant and enjoying it...

Once again, Mark She's has it wrong with regard to immigration.  See here.

Some common sense from TFP:

In looking at the debate over immigration, it is almost automatically assumed that the Church’s position is one of unconditional charity toward those who enter the nation, legally or illegally.

However, is this the case? What does the Bible say about immigration? What do Church doctors and theologians say? Above all, what does the greatest of doctors, Saint Thomas Aquinas, say about immigration? Does his opinion offer some insights to the burning issues now shaking the nation and blurring the national borders?

Immigration is a modern problem and so some might think that the medieval Saint Thomas would have no opinion about the problem. And yet, he does. One has only to look in his masterpiece, the Summa Theologica, in the First part of the Second Part, question 105, article 3 (I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3). There one finds his analysis based on biblical insights that can add to the national debate. They are entirely applicable to the present.


Commentary: In making this affirmation, Saint Thomas affirms that not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, “peaceful,” to the common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or “hostile” to its citizens.

The second thing he affirms is that the manner of dealing with immigration is determined by law in the cases of both beneficial and “hostile” immigration. The State has the right and duty to apply its law.


Saint Thomas: “For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exodus 22:21): ‘Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]’; and again (Exodus 22:9): ‘Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino].’”

Commentary: Here Saint Thomas acknowledges the fact that others will want to come to visit or even stay in the land for some time. Such foreigners deserved to be treated with charity, respect and courtesy, which is due to any human of good will. In these cases, the law can and should protect foreigners from being badly treated or molested.

Saint Thomas: “Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”

Commentary: Saint Thomas recognizes that there will be those who will want to stay and become citizens of the lands they visit. However, he sets as the first condition for acceptance a desire to integrate fully into what would today be considered the culture and life of the nation.

A second condition is that the granting of citizenship would not be immediate. The integration process takes time. People need to adapt themselves to the nation. He quotes the philosopher Aristotle as saying this process was once deemed to take two or three generations. Saint Thomas himself does not give a time frame for this integration, but he does admit that it can take a long time.

Saint Thomas: “The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”


Commentary: The common sense of Saint Thomas is certainly not politically correct but it is logical. The theologian notes that living in a nation is a complex thing. It takes time to know the issues affecting the nation. Those familiar with the long history of their nation are in the best position to make the long-term decisions about its future. It is harmful and unjust to put the future of a place in the hands of those recently arrived, who, although through no fault of their own, have little idea of what is happening or has happened in the nation. Such a policy could lead to the destruction of the nation.

As an illustration of this point, Saint Thomas later notes that the Jewish people did not treat all nations equally since those nations closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close. Some hostile peoples were not to be admitted at all into full fellowship due to their enmity toward the Jewish people.

Saint Thomas: “Nevertheless it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted to citizenship on account of some act of virtue: thus it is related (Judith 14:6) that Achior, the captain of the children of Ammon, ‘was joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his kindred.’”

Commentary: That is to say, the rules were not rigid. There were exceptions that were granted based on the circumstances. However, such exceptions were not arbitrary but always had in mind the common good. The example of Achior describes the citizenship bestowed upon the captain and his children for the good services rendered to the nation.

*          *          *
These are some of the thoughts of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the matter of immigration based on biblical principles. It is clear that immigration must have two things in mind: the first is the nation’s unity; and the second is the common good.

Immigration should have as its goal integration, not disintegration or segregation. The immigrant should not only desire to assume the benefits but the responsibilities of joining into the full fellowship of the nation. By becoming a citizen, a person becomes part of a broad family over the long term and not a shareholder in a joint stock company seeking only short-term self-interest.

Secondly, Saint Thomas teaches that immigration must have in mind the common good; it cannot destroy or overwhelm a nation.

This explains why so many Americans experience uneasiness caused by massive and disproportional immigration. Such policy artificially introduces a situation that destroys common points of unity and overwhelms the ability of a society to absorb new elements organically into a unified culture. The common good is no longer considered.

A proportional immigration has always been a healthy development in a society since it injects new life and qualities into a social body. But when it loses that proportion and undermines the purpose of the State, it threatens the well-being of the nation.

When this happens, the nation would do well to follow the advice of Saint Thomas Aquinas and biblical principles. The nation must practice justice and charity towards all, including foreigners, but it must above all safeguard the common good and its unity, without which no country can long endure.

Mark Shea: Our Founding Fathers Franklin and Jefferson were treasonous knuckledraggers

Over at Patheos (read pathological), Mark Shea, who has a tendency to regale us with his paucity of intellect from time to time (see here) is mocking supporters of Donald Trump while accusing Patrick Buchanan of "treason."

The mental and moral midget writes:

"When a Muslim urges the violent overthrow of the United States we call that 'terrorism'. When an American Muslim does it, we call that 'treason'.
When a grumpy old white male Trump supporter does it, Trumpkins call it 'patriotism', but in fact it is still treason. And if it finds violent expression, it is still terrorism.

News flash to Trumpkins: Your Dear Leader is trailing in the polls fair and square and he will lose fair and square. He already knows it, which is why he is telling his mob of knuckledragging mouthbreathers the election is 'rigged' so they will reject the results of the election as a 'conspiracy' when they lose. This is toxic to our Constitutional order. You will lose. Too bad. Grow up. And if you take up arms against your country in a fit of adolescent pique you will be rightly and properly crushed for your treason."

Let's set aside Mr. Shea's fit of partisan politics and look at this calmly and objectively.

If Mr. Buchanan and others are guilty of "treason" for desiring an overthrow of a government which most Americans would agree has become thoroughly corrupt, then our Founding Fathers were guilty of agitating treason.

Ben Franklin, whom Shea obviously hasn't read, said clearly that:

"We need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years."

And how old is America now Mr. Shea?

Thomas Jefferson, that treasonous and "grumpy old white male," said that:


"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established,
should not be changed for light and transient causes... But, when 
a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the 
same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute 
despotism, it is [the people's] right, it is their duty, to throw 
off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Clearly Mr. Shea has no sense of American history.  But then, Mr. Shea has evidenced very little sense whatsoever.

Mark Shea, what of the "fabulisms" of the Culture of Death crowd?

Mark Shea is concerned that Zachary King's account of being a Satanic High Wizard who performed child sacrifices to Satan in abortion clinics is merely some fabulous tale, the main purpose of which is to make a pile of money while confirming pro-lifers in their "ideological beliefs." He writes, "If we did not learn from the fabulisms and lies of Fr. Corapi, here is another cautionary tale for Catholics unfamiliar with the way credulous, agenda-driven media can help visible-from-space frauds put one over on people who really want to hear an awesome story that titillates with lurid tales of sin, confirms them in their ideological beliefs about their culture war enemies, and tells them how freaking awesome they are."

I don't know whether Mr. King's tales are the stuff of fantasy or an all too troubling reality, even if I am inclined to believe it, knowing full well the evil that men do and the ugly nature of the occult, having made an exhaustive study of the sound Catholic documentation from such reliable scholars as Fathers Thurston and Summers.  But do pro-lifers really need "fabulisms" when the ugly truth regarding their culture war enemies is already revealing itself? See here.

And what of the "fabulisms" of the Culture of Death crowd?  As Texas Right To Life notes at its website:

"One of the most common arguments abortion advocates make in defense of legal abortion is that making abortion illegal will cause women to go to the 'back alleys' and obtain unsafe abortions.  They cite how thousands of women died as a result of unsafe abortions before abortion was legalized through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

First, it is worth noting that legal abortions are not even safe - they harm women physically and emotionally.

Regarding the myth of 'back-alley abortions,' Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, admits that his group lied about the number of women who died from illegal abortions when testifying before the Supreme Court in 1972.  "We spoke of 5,000 - 10,000 deaths a year....  I confess that I knew the figures were totally false ... it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"  

Furthermore, the claim that thousands of maternal deaths occurred due to illegal abortion doesn't measure up when compared with other statistics.  About 50,000 women of child-bearing age die each year - from all causes combined.  To suggest that 10,000 of these deaths were from illegal abortion would make that the cause of one out of every five deaths, or twenty percent.  This would have made illegal abortion the leading cause of death among women in that age group."

Fabulisms Mr. Shea?  Indeed!

Oh, by the way Mr. Shea, if the abortion movement has nothing to do with Satanism, if there isn't a demonic component, why would pro-abortion zealots shout "Hail Satan" outside of the Texas State Capitol ?  Merely to provoke pro-lifers? An odd choice of words when so many alternatives would have accomplished the same effect.  See here.

Mark Shea, Deacon Greg Kandra and false compassion

Deacon Greg Kandra is impressed with Mark Shea's Blog post about Perry Lorenzo, a homosexual man who lived in the Seattle area.  According to Deacon Kandra, "Mark Shea tackled a tough subject with a kind of grace and compassion that couldn't help but leave me impressed."  Here's what Mark Shea wrote:

"One of the people I admire most in the world, who I regard as an inspiration and, very likely, as a saint was a gay guy who lived here in Seattle named Perry Lorenzo. You can get something of a sense of the man from his blog. Dunno if he was celibate or not and, frankly, regard it as none of my business. All I know is that the guy was clearly a man who loved Jesus, loved his Catholic faith, and taught a huge number of people about it, both gay and straight, in a way that was immensely attractive and uplifting for everybody who encountered him. He was also one of the most learned people I have ever met and a profoundly humble man. He was, for many years, the director of education for the Seattle Opera. Had a brilliant knack for speaking the Catholic tradition to the cultured despisers of tradition here in Seattle. His funeral, which he planned himself as he was dying, was one of the most beautiful and Christ-centered liturgies I’ve ever experienced. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if half the congregation was not Catholic: a testament to his greatness.


Some Catholics (and some of my gay readers) will probably be surprised to hear that I’m not interested in whether or not he was celibate. Not my business. That’s between him and God. (I had a reader write me in some degree of scandal after I posted on his death because he apparently had a partner he lived with. If memory serves, I expressed to my reader a deep lack of interest in that fact since a) Not. My. Business and b) merely living with his partner is not proof of anything anyway, either about his relationship with his partner, nor about his relationship with God.

So do I contradict myself, since it’s not a secret that I agree with the Church that homosexual acts are sinful. I don’t see how. If Perry was an active homosexual, it’s none of my business and certainly not mine to judge. After all, I also agree with the Church that my own acts of gluttony are sinful and even gravely so. But I don’t believe God has abandoned or rejected me and I trust his grace to help me slowly become conformed to Christ, so why should I believe for a second that somebody like Perry, who manifested such abundant and beautiful fruits of the Spirit was not pleasing to God and was not doing his best to strive for God? On the contrary, I regard him as a role model and greatly admire his deep, generous and true faith. I hope he prays for the Church in Seattle and I think he is (not was, God rest his soul) one of the great ornaments of the Church."

Mark Shea's argument that it is none of his [and by extension, none of our) business whether a man who professed to be Catholic was an active homosexual or not is specious.  On the surface it might seem charitable or compassionate to some.  But at its root, it is nonsense.  Although the privacy of a person's home is indeed sacred, it is not absolute.  Granted that the scandal of an evil act [such as a homosexual act] is greatly compounded when it is done in public.  But the same evil act does not become a good act simply because it is performed in private.  Its evil nature remains unchanged.  If a man is sexually abusing children within the privacy of his own home, does Mr. Shea take the attitude that it's none of his business?

Although homosexual acts are graver when they are public or manifest, these acts continue to be "intrinsically evil" when done in private.  This is the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor: "If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it.  They remain 'irremediably' evil acts per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person" (Veritatis Splendor, No. 81).

When Mr. Shea writes, "If Perry was an active homosexual, it’s none of my business and certainly not mine to judge," again this might appear on the surface to be the Christian attitude.  But, as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, while "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others: 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone'..This norm..does not preclude judgments necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned...the responsibility, stated precisely, is not to admonish sinners, but to admonish those who seem to be sinning.  To evade this responsibility on the ground that one cannot fulfill it without being judgmental is to rationalize indifference and cowardice, rooted in the inadequacy of love of neighbor." (Citing Gaudium et Spes, No. 28).

Mark Shea is advancing a false idea of compassion.  True compassion, as Thomas Aquinas tells us, is an effect of charity (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 25, a. 6, ad 4).  But the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to creatures (St., II-II, q. 25, a. 3).  Thus the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who is suffering so that he may participate in God's infinite love.  As Saint Augustine explains, "'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'  Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself.  What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49).

Obviously, none of us has the right to judge Perry Lorenzo's internal guilt.  For as Gaudium et Spes emphasizes, "God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts."  But for this same reason, none of us has the right to declare Perry Lorenzo a saint.  The fact that Mr. Lorenzo was openly homosexual and was known to have lived with another man is a matter of serious concern not to mention a source of scandal.

I would pray for Mr. Lorenzo's soul.  But to declare him a saint is imprudent.