At its annual spring assembly in Florida this past Wednesday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a harsh criticism of the Trump administration’s policy of separating families at the border.
As reported on the USCCB website, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo claimed that “asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life” and that separating families is “immoral.”
Cardinal DiNardo’s full statement:
At its core, asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life. The Attorney General’s recent decision elicits deep concern because it potentially strips asylum from many women who lack adequate protection. These vulnerable women will now face return to the extreme dangers of domestic violence in their home country. This decision negates decades of precedents that have provided protection to women fleeing domestic violence. Unless overturned, the decision will erode the capacity of asylum to save lives, particularly in cases that involve asylum seekers who are persecuted by private actors. We urge courts and policy makers to respect and enhance, not erode, the potential of our asylum system to preserve and protect the right to life.
Additionally, I join Bishop Joe Vásquez, Chairman of USCCB’s Committee on Migration, in condemning the continued use of family separation at the U.S./Mexico border as an implementation of the Administration’s zero tolerance policy. Our government has the discretion in our laws to ensure that young children are not separated from their parents and exposed to irreparable harm and trauma. Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together. While protecting our borders is important, we can and must do better as a government, and as a society, to find other ways to ensure that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral.
This statement from the USCCB is plainly ridiculous. Since when is it the job of foreign governments to provide “asylum” from domestic violence? The purpose of asylum and of refugee status is to protect the lives of people who face systematic threats to their existence, e.g. civil war or genocide, not to protect Ms. Juanita Squatemala from getting backhanded by her alkie husband.
If anything, the Roman Catholic Church should put pressure on the governments of Mexico and the Central American states to provide for more protection against domestic violence for their own citizens, that and the Catholic Church itself should do more to open up its churches to those suffering from domestic violence.
Moreover, one does not have to move to an entire different country in order to protect oneself from a violent spouse—moving to a different town or city is often good enough. Besides, the word “asylum” indicates that the protection and immigration status being afforded to these families is temporary, not permanent, which is often what ends up happening in these cases.
The real problem here isn’t that American Bishops are all of a sudden concerned with domestic violence in Central America. It’s that the Roman Catholic Church has been hemorrhaging members in the United States (where Christians have a plethora of more conservative denominations to choose from) ever since Vatican II, so now they seek to pad their membership numbers with Latino immigrants who are predominantly Catholic themselves. That is the real reason why they’ve been pushing for open borders policies in the United States for so many years.
This also speaks to a larger problem within Christianity—the problem of liberals and leftists infiltrating it and then teaching that Christianity preaches a message of unworkable nonsense like love, inclusion, and open borders for all. But nothing could be further from the truth. Christianity is a religion that favors the preservation of human biodiversity and is opposed to the destruction of national identities through mass migration.
Christianity as a Pro-Human Biodiversity Religion
Far too many Christians today fall for the trap of what I call the “neither Jew nor Greek fallacy,” which is the belief that certain Biblical passages meant to indicate that all individuals are equal spiritually and can be saved by Christ, actually mean that all people are equal and should mix into one massive indeterminate coffee-colored mass.
This is, of course, named after Galatians 3:28-29, which states:
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The problem with interpreting this passage—and certain other passages that globalists and multiculturalists like to use—as meaning that we should have open borders and mix all cultures and nations into one indeterminate mass is that this passage doesn’t have any real world implications on public policy.
As evidenced by the second half of Galatians 3:28 “there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus,” this passage is meant to convey that we are all equal spiritually before Christ. It’s not actually saying that there are no differences between men and women (those differences are obvious) or between Greeks and Jews.
It’s also not a prohibition on setting different rules for men and women or for Greeks and Jews. Let me ask you: how many Christians do you think support only having unisex locker rooms and bathrooms for everyone? After all, if the message of Galatians 3:28 is that everyone is equal and should be treated equally according to public policy, which is exactly what globalists and multiculturalists argue, then there shouldn’t be any difference between how we treat men and women and there should be no separation between them. Yet, in the real world, we recognize that it is often beneficial to separate men and women, e.g. having separate bathrooms and locker rooms.
Likewise, this passage cannot be used as an injunction to open up our borders, treat every potential immigrant as totally equal, and mix into one large indeterminate mass. As the great Early Church Father St. Augustine of Hippo commented about this passage:
Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.
In other words, we are equal spiritually before Christ, but this should not guide our “mortal interactions” and we should live “in accord with racial differences.” So what exactly does that mean? This is explained elsewhere in the Bible.
The first Bible passages worth mentioning are the ones relating to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), where all of mankind speaks one language, is made up of one “people” (meaning a single ethnicity/race), and grows so full of itself that they decide to build a tower that reaches Heaven. God then decides to destroy the Tower, scatter people all over the Earth, and give them different ethnicities/languages:
1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
If God forcefully separated us into many different races, ethnicities, and cultures that speak different languages, then who are we to determine that this should be reversed? Should we not instead respect the differences that we have and seek to preserve them for the glory of God?
This lesson—that God created all of the nations and peoples of this Earth to be different and unique, and that these unique racial, ethnic, and cultural qualities should be preserved—is unfortunately ignored by the Roman Catholic Church, as well as many other Christians, who would rather seek to turn the United States of America into a Babel-esque coffee-colored mixture of all peoples and nations, instead of preserving our unique European heritage.
(As a quick aside, another lesson from this Bible story is that whenever mankind is united we engage in dumb projects like building the Tower of Babel—projects which inevitably lead to our destruction. I believe we can see certain parallels to this in the United Nations and other multinational organizations today, but that will have to wait for a different article.)
Moreover, this lesson about God creating all of the different nations of the Earth and wanting us to preserve our differences is reiterated time and time again in the Bible. For example, Deuteronomy 32:8 states that God created all of the boundaries between nations while Deuteronomy 7:3 prohibits miscegenation, both signs that God divided mankind into different nations and intends for us to keep it that way.
Oh, and speaking of separating families being immoral: the Israelites deported their foreign wives and mixed children at the behest of God in Ezra 9-10. This clearly shows God’s emphasis on keeping the bloodline of the Israelites pure and free from foreign admixture, even when doing so comes at the cost of separating families. Would the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops call the Bible (or God) immoral for that?
Furthermore, in Numbers 20:14-21 when the Israelites seek passage through Edom and are refused, they seek a way around the country, indicating that God and the Israelites valued the Edomites’ national sovereignty and borders. Had a liberal written the Bible today, then surely the Israelites would have marched into Edom and demanded welfare!
In Revelations 7:9 we also see that all nations and races are represented in Heaven, indicating that God values all nations’ distinctiveness and wishes us to preserve it even in Heaven.
Even the Early Church Father St. Thomas Aquinas dealt with the issues at hand here, the issues of human biodiversity, immigration, and national sovereignty, and came to a similar conclusion. In Summa Theologica Aquinas acknowledged that peoples of certain nations were allowed to be admitted and assimilated, but only if they were closely related to the Jews and only after three generations, while peoples from other nations were never allowed to immigrate to Israel and integrate with the Israelites:
Hence it was that the Law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob’s brother), that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation; whereas others (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship; while the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity: for it is written (Exodus 17:16): “The war of the Lord shall be against Amalec from generation to generation.”
Notice how immigrants from different nations are given ranked-order preference based on their ethnic relation to the Jews, e.g. the Idumeans are near the top due to being descended from Jacob’s brother.
This seems similar to United States immigration laws prior to 1965, when Brits were given preference, followed by Northern Europeans and Germans, followed by Western Slavs and Italians, followed by some other European nations, and with very little left over for anyone else. In other words, U.S. immigration law gave an ordered preference for immigration from different nations based on how they were racially, ethnically, and culturally related to us, not unlike what Aquinas describes in the above passage!
Of course, I am not arguing here that we should follow the laws laid out in the Old Testament exactly to a T, but they are useful for learning about the basis of Christianity, understanding God’s will, and they serve as good guidelines for Christians to use when making public policy decisions today. And those guidelines that God lays out in the Bible are clear: He created all of the different peoples of the world and wishes us to remain distinct and unique, instead of mixing into a single indistinct coffee-colored mass with one culture and one language.
So instead of falling for the false teachings of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other Christians who would have us open up our borders to the whole world and build our very own Tower of Babel in the United States, let’s do our best to preserve our European-derived culture and heritage.