RJN on immigration

It's telling that almost none of his view is informed by Christ, the Scriptures or faith. He seems to toss up his hands at understanding and not even bother looking at the Scriptures.>

Barry:

Click on the link provided by Rod and read Fr. Neuhaus' complete commentary. RJN begins his reflection by commenting on the very issue of "WWJD", albeit with a conclusion you'd likely find unsatisfactory.

Rod:

I read RJN this morning, and was disappointed by the "hedging" language of his conclusion. From my perspective RJN didn't insist strongly enough that REAL border security be demonstrated. Not "a reasonable approximation of legal control." What the hell does that mean?? It's almost Clintonian in its implications. Not one of RJN's finer utterances.
I really, really respect RJN, but in this matter he seems to be trying to have it both ways, and appears to me to be uneasy about his straddling.
The intellectual apprehension (frankly, informed by Faith or not) of the necessity (for both short AND long term reasons) to effectively secure our borders before tackling the ancillary issues isn't that difficult. We just resist exercising the national will to do what's necessary. The story of our times, and of our souls.>

The counter-majesterium at work. Let me get this straight: the New Oxford Review is routinely trashed because they obey the bishop's teachings, but First Things, This Rock, and the rest of them are held up as catholic chronicles because they discuss religion with their politics.

I have had enough with this Enlightenment claptrap. The State is not merely to promote secular ends. I just loved that line about not considering Jesus as a Senator or President, acting as if the role were not proper to God. I have no problem with people going to Our Lady of the Republican Party, but do not pretend that such a thing is catholic. It would be entirely different if even a single bishop were saying the garbage coming out of these rags, but there is not a single one. Even the Cafeteria Catholics at the Acton Institute aren't pulling this garbage. It never ceases to amaze me the number of converts - Neuhaus is one - who bring their Enlightenment baggage with them.>

Paul P:

VERY well said.>

It seems that what Neuhaus is looking at serious concerns, though, in that quote, and this can't be sidestepped by saying it isn't addressing other serious concerns enough.

What is mentioned in that quote, is something that can be integrated with other concerns.

Enforcement only isn't the solution, is what he said, some consistency and sense in the law was what he thought would set a foundation for some kind of future resolution. Very sensible, on that level.

On a personal moral level, there are many other concerns.

And even on a political and economic level, there are other concerns, too.

I didn't think Neuhaus was being simplistic or wrong-headed in this quote.>