St. Thomas on immigration
In response to the article in the Hawaii Catholic Herald by Father Ron Rolheiser, “Welcoming the stranger,” March 10:
We as Catholic Christians should not be led by “emotions” or “false guilt.” Prudence is the first of the cardinal virtues. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest doctors of our church, makes three key points on immigration:
- “Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold, peaceful and hostile, and in directing both kinds of relation the law contained suitable precepts.” St. 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.
- “For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Second, 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].’”
- “Third, 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.” (“What Does St. Thomas Say About Immigration?” July 4, 2014, by John Horvat II)
Anna Tognaci, Waianae
The struggle of voting morally
Thank you, Ruth Prinzivalli. Your letter to the Herald, Feb. 4, “Thank you Bishop Silva,” was timely, courageous and very thought provoking.
I struggle with the complex and conflicting issues we face when it comes time to choose a candidate and cast my vote. A particular candidate may hold a position on an issue which is in alignment with church doctrine and simultaneously hold a position on another issue diametrically opposed to church doctrine.
In “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the U.S. Catholic bishops state:
“There are many times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamentally moral evil.”
St. John Paul II, in his encyclical “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,” writes:
“The Church’s social doctrine is not … an ideology, but rather the accurate formulation of the results of a careful reflection on the complex realities of human existence, in society and in the international order, in the light of faith and of the church’s tradition. … It therefore belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology.”
Perhaps if I were a moral theologian, I might make a good guess at who should get my vote, but I’m not a theologian and I’m liable to get it wrong a lot of the time.
Exit polls following the 2012 general election indicate that of the Catholics who voted, half voted for one of the presidential candidates while the other half voted for the other candidate.
It’s as if no Catholics voted at all. We cancelled out our voice in the electoral process. We are obligated to do better than this.
William Cesaletti, Keaau, Big Island
