Liberal theonomy comes in Catholic variety, too

We have on numerous occasions condemned theonomous reasoning on matters of civic importance (for examples, see here, here, here, and here). Both liberal Christians and conservative Christians can be found arguing that the Bible says x, therefore Christians ought to endorse y policy. Almost invariably one finds that the speaker is a protestant, usually a self-described evangelical.

Today the Bishop of Providence, Rhode Island demonstrates that Catholics are not immune to the temptation to indulge in theonomous lines of argument. According to the AP, "Rhode Island's Roman Catholic bishop is calling on U.S. authorities to halt mass immigration raids and says agents who refuse to participate in such raids on moral grounds deserve to be treated as conscientious objectors." America's immigration laws ought not be enforced, according to Tobin, because they are unjust and immoral.

One of the many problems with the rhetorical tie between theology and public policy is that it is a cop-out. It excuses the one making the assertion from engaging in the rigorous process of reasoning publicly, invoking publicly-accessible propositions and demonstrating proofs. Bishop Tobin doesn't bother to explain his assertion that the democratically-enacted immigration laws of this country are unjust. And the assertion is just that: an assertion. It is anything but a self-evident truth.

The AP author provides a clue, stating, "The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called U.S. immigration policies 'morally unacceptable,' saying they keep families divided and encourage the exploitation of migrants." If that sums up Tobin's concern with current immigration laws, then he has no ground for claiming that the laws are unjust and immoral. The laws may be imprudent. They may result in undesirable (and presumably unintended) outcomes, such as the division of families. They may for these reasons be bad public policy. But that in no way makes the laws unjust or immoral. Unwise perhaps, but not unjust.

And Tobin should know this. As a Catholic bishop, he is aware of the distinction between matters of principle and matters of prudence. The legalization of abortion is unjust in principle. Our current health care laws are unwise as a matter of prudence. Similarly, our immigration policies are prudentially suspect in some respects. But to encourage law enforcement officers to refuse to enforce the law, simply because one has prudential disagreements with the lawmaker, is to thumb one's nose at the rule of law.

How not to engage the Pope

We, and particularly I, have been quite critical of Accommodators, those so-called Progressive Christians who, in their quest for relevance in a secular, liberal world have traded away the only thing that makes them unique -- Orthodoxy -- in exchange for the illusion of acceptance by liberal elites. As we have mentioned before, another faction within evangelicalism is, if not equally as puerile as the Accommodators, at least as embarrassing to thoughtful evangelicals, which we here in the Cloakroom strive to be.

We have termed this latter faction the Know Nothings, after the Nineteenth Century political movement that was characterized by its anti-Catholic bias. Today, Know Nothings earn the appellation not by preserving the secrecy of their societies and meetings but by deliberately fostering an anti-intellectual fideism, a skepticism of religious and institutional authority, and a dogmatic commitment to theonomous reasoning. For an example, consider Pat Robertson predicting that Orlando, Florida would suffer natural disasters as a result of its decision to host a gay pride parade and, on a separate occasion, castigating mainline Protestant denominations as harboring the spirit of the Antichrist.

The Know Nothings have found one of their own in Mike Huckabee. However, perhaps no current American politician better deserves the label of Know Nothing than Tom Tancredo. Here's Tancredo responding to Pope Benedict's call for United States Bishops to welcome and support recent American immigrants: "[T]he pope's immigration comments may have less to do with spreading the gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the church."

There are compelling prudential arguments in favor of an enforcement-first immigration policy. Mr. Tancredo would do well to articulate those arguments. Accusing the Pope of placing proselytization over the Gospel is neither persuasive nor helpful. In the first place, it is not at all clear that the Pope's comments were directed toward American immigration policy. Regardless, what possible harm could come from the growth of the Catholic Church in the United States, by (legal) immigration, evangelizing, or proselytizing?

Just as we criticize the lunacy of the left wing of evangelicalism, we reject the reactionary rhetoric of some of our conservative, evangelical brethren. We can do much better.

Bush Against Romney Because of Immigration?

Robert Novak reports that President Bush won’t support Mitt Romney because he changed his mind about the amnesty bill.

While President George W. Bush has maintained neutrality among contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, he privately expresses to friends his exasperation with Mitt Romney's hard-line stance on immigration.

Bush is upset that Romney changed his position on the issue, compared to what it had been when he was governor of Massachusetts, at the expense of the president's immigration reform. Bush and Sen. John McCain are not close, but the president is grateful for McCain's support on Iraq and immigration.

A footnote: The president's younger brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has not endorsed any presidential candidate. But he and his political allies were behind Romney's losing effort in last Tuesday's Florida primary.

I'm so mad I don't know what to say. This is outrageous! I hope people vote for Romney purely out of spite.