We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-Declaration of Independence
Thus, from the four preceding articles, we see that law is nothing else than an ordinance of reason, promulgated for the common good, by one who has care of a community.
-St. Thomas Aquinas
When they gathered during those steamy summer days in Philadelphia, there was no certainty of the result. Although the war had been going on for over a year, there was still a sense, among a number of delegates, that they were simply English citizens, demanding their rights according to the traditions and customs of their nation. The King and Parliament had sought to deprive them of this identity, but surely a proper resolution would emerge. But, on 7 June 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia rose to offer a resolution: “That these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states.” Though six of the thirteen colonies opposed an immediate declaration, still a committee was appointed to draft a document for the Congress to debate. Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania was the old man of the committee, which included John Adams of Massachusetts, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Robert Livingston of New York, and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. Young Jefferson—a writer of great skill and energy, educated in the philosophy of the Enlightenment—was given the task of drafting the document, and returned with a treatise that others felt needed only minor revision. And when it was read to the whole Congress, it was passed unanimously, affirming an principle greater than the men who approved it, a vision of society in which “all men are created equal” and possessed of “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights that no power on earth—neither king nor Parliament, political majority nor religious zealot—could justly deny or extinguish. Through Revolution and Civil War; through the marches of Suffragettes and the riots at Stonewall; through the blood of Martin Luther King and the fasting of Cesar Chavez; through waves of immigrants from Ireland and Poland, Italy and Eastern Europe, Vietnam and Korea, our nation has strained to live into this principle, to uncover what it means for all people to be created equal, for all to possess not just civil or procedural rights, but “unalienable” rights: i.e., rights derived not from the actions of the state but by the hand and will of the Creator.
Yet, while this Enlightenment value—articulated by those slave-holding white men of the Continental Congress—may have caused much “good trouble” in our nation’s history, it has also challenged other ancient feudal institutions, including the Catholic Church. Since Vatican II, the Magisterium of the Church has affirmed that what the Declaration asserts is not merely a political but a theological truth, a call and command of Christ given to all human beings, not just citizens, not just Americans. In 2017, gathered in Rome with the International Forum on Migration and Peace, Pope Francis quoted with approval the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (of which Eleanor Roosevelt was a principal author), which expands on the American Declaration by noting that “every migrant is a human being who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by every one and in every circumstance” (62). For Francis, the gospel and rich tradition of the Church not only accepts the Jeffersonian idea of “unalienable rights,” not only approves its expansion to include migrants, but goes further, creating a “moral imperative,” by which all Christians—indeed, all humans—are bound to stand in opposition to the “politics of rejection,” in which we “see our neighbor not as a brother or sister to be accepted, but as unworthy of our attention, a rival or someone to be bent to our will” (Address to the Diplomatic Corps, 12 January 2015).
In an age when a presidential candidate—as an applause line—declares of refugees and migrants: “they’re not humans, they’re animals;” when that same candidate bemoans the paucity of migrants from “nice countries like Denmark” (i.e., majority white countries), again to applause, it may be hard to hear the voice of the Declaration or the call of the Vicar of Christ. Ginned up by such rhetoric and by polarizing media, many in our country feel threatened by migrants from the developing world—e.g., from Latin America or Haiti, from the Middle East or North Africa—even while welcoming those from “nice countries,” including even war-torn Ukraine. Equating the notion of migration with a perceived challenge to national sovereignty and “blood purity,” those most rabidly opposed to migrants and refugees seem unable or unwilling to measure their ideas against this nation’s foundational declaration, or against the faith of the One who was himself an infant refugee in Egypt.
While recognizing the need for rational and consistent border security—meant to serve the common good, not merely the self-interest of a particular class or race—Catholic teaching condemns the idea that we can legislate away moral requirements. As Thomas Aquinas notes, an authentic law is not simply a positive expression of power (i.e., something that is enforced), but must be grounded in reason and thus answerable to the common good. Therefore, immigration laws or presidential orders that simply close the national borders to all women and men, regardless of their circumstances or the effect of such a closure, may have the appearance of law, but lack its substance. They are, as Pope Francis notes, mere artifices, “rooted ultimately in self-centeredness and amplified by populist rhetoric.” Likewise, criminalization of migration and the preemptory expulsion of migrants who have entered the country without proper documentation can, in many circumstances, violate the very concept of the common good and the unalienable rights of the human beings involved.
In its essence, Catholic social teaching holds that migration “is the expression of that inherent desire for the happiness proper to every human being, a happiness that is to be sought and pursued.” In other words, migration, across the whole of history, has emerged from a desire by people to live out their unalienable right to happiness—i.e., integral human flourishing. Trapped in situations of war or poverty, violence or oppression, men and women have always sought to move to places in which their lives might be maintained, and the lives of their children might be improved. To deprive such women and men of their human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, simply to protect the comfort of our own station, or the racial and cultural privileges of our group, or the disparity of wealth existing between nations, is a violation of fundamental moral law—even if it is not a violation of statutory law. This “inherent desire,” says our faith, must be recognized and respected as a grace given by God, who puts responsibilities on those richly blessed to share and respect those who suffer from disparity and want. We are, to answer the Cain raises in Genesis, our brother’s keeper; or as Pope Francis puts it, “Our shared response may be articulated by four verbs: to welcome, to protect, to promote, and to integrate.” More than mere charity, this response comes from an authentic sense of justice, from the shared nature of our humanity, and from the rational (and Scriptural) demand that we treat others as we, ourselves, would be treated. This is what Francis means by a “moral imperative,” i.e., a demand of reason, so fundamentally tied to our common human nature and to the intrinsic rights given us (to paraphrase Jefferson) by our Creator, that it transcends statutory law and the particular desires of individuals. We should obey such an imperative, not because of the coercion of legal sanctions, but because of the demands of our redeemed humanity.
As American citizens and as Catholic Christians, we are heirs to a great heritage of moral reasoning and to an imperfect but constant history of moral growth. In Christ and in our own nation, we see the truth of Dr. King’s declaration that, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Although, in both Church and State, we have often closed ourselves to the implications of this truth—choosing our own immediate self-interest over the deeper good of reason and grace—still, the moral voice rooted in our being constantly draws us back to the true Way, to the deep Truth, and to the Life that we share with every woman and man on the earth. In these most dangerous times, when racism and xenophobia seem to be bending the arc of history towards violence, let us join Pope Francis’ “revolution of compassion.” Let us remain faithful to what Lincoln called our “better angels.” Let us stand against the criminalization of migration and the dehumanization of our migrant and refugee brothers and sisters—whatever their current status. Let us stand with all those sisters and brothers, children and infants, who live in peril across the sea or face unsustainable burdens across the deserts of our southern frontier. Let us say, to paraphrase our Lord, “These are our body! These are our blood!”—and let us back our words with deeds.
Fr. John Whitney, S. J.
Photo: Girl with American flag at immigrants' rights rally, Chicago, May 1, 2006. Flickr / Joseph Voves (cc)