SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
April 7, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

New Cardinal to be an advocate for immigrants

Archbishop Jose Gomez is a passionate advocate for immigrants, illegal or otherwise, Cardinal Roger Mahoney said about his replacement to the LA Times yesterday:

“Over the years he has been a most effective leader working with priests serving the Spanish-speaking communities across the country, and his leadership in proclaiming the dignity and rights of our immigrant peoples has helped motivate many people to advocate for our immigrants,” Mahony said.

Gomez voiced his unequivocal support for immigration reform and said he wholeheartedly supported Mahony’s advocacy for immigrant rights.

The Catholic Church, in general, is one of the staunchest advocates for immigration reform in the United States. It may take conservative positions on many many other issues, but on illegal immigrants, it has been unequivocal in demanding that we treat them with dignity, respect and understanding and give them a path forward to legal residency.

But you wouldn’t know that if you just looked at the various parishes in Santa Clarita.

Back in 2007, the Daily News reported on an ICE raid in the Valle Del Oro neighborhood of Newhall. Reportedly, some 50 individuals were arrested in the raid. It was, or should have been, a big news story, especially because some of the immigrants had families, children in school etc. One man was arrested on his way to pick up his daughter at a local school. He was gone, just like that.

The Signal didn’t report much on the matter, nor did KHTS or other local outlets. I thought it was potentially a big story, so I called OLPH, the church that the detained immigrants likely went to. I called several times, asking to speak to the Pastor or anyone about the raid. I never got a response; indeed the feeling I got was that the church didn’t know or wasn’t especially interested, despite the fact that it ministers to a huge local Latino population that had to be frightened at the moment.

In other parts of Los Angeles, that wouldn’t have been in the case. Priests often get out in front of such stories and advocate for their parishioners here legally or not. They engage in that “social justice” Glenn Beck has been railing about recently. Mahoney himself has lead immigration protests.

Zoom forward to winter 2010 when illegal immigration was again the hottest topic in the SCV. Our Councilman made national news with his remarks, and for weeks this blog, the newspapers and other outlets were filled with the debate. It was open season on illegal immigrants and day laborers.

Again local Catholic churches could have stepped up and provided some input. They could have spoken out on behalf of their poor, voiceless parishioners, the people who fill their pews week after week and hand over money to Holy Mother Church. They could have defended these people when no one else was.

But they didn’t. Nary a word came from any of the three parishes here in town, even when you had Christian preachers from the Antelope Valley telling us how evil illegal immigrants were, even when the City of Santa Clarita voted to support the most draconian Congressional bills, bills that would strip babies of American citizenship if their parents were illegal. Even when George Runner, of all people, thought the rhetoric was too hot and controversial.

Indeed, the only person who stood up and said that illegal immigrants deserved to be treated with dignity and respect in accordance with Catholic doctrine was Frank Ferry, principal of Alemany High School and a City Council member. And he was roundly mocked and derided for it.

But he had more courage than local Catholic churches, apparently.

New Cardinal to be an advocate for immigrants

Comments (22)

  1. cashApril 7, 2010 at 9:41 am
    Does he like all illegals or just little boys?
  2. Timothy MyersApril 7, 2010 at 10:35 am
    Cash: With a comment like that you better hope Martin Luther was right!
  3. cashApril 7, 2010 at 11:17 am
    Free at last, free at last, good God almighty I’m free at last. Thanks Martin.
  4. Timothy MyersApril 7, 2010 at 12:21 pm
    Cash: The German monk, not the civil rights leader!
  5. cashApril 7, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in …….
  6. DamageincApril 7, 2010 at 11:12 am
    Zing!
  7. Kevin D. KorenthalApril 7, 2010 at 10:35 am
    Illegal immigrants and the companies/individuals that employ them should be held to account for breaking the law. Where laws are broken, the rights of legal citizens are infringed upon.
  8. Spineflower2April 7, 2010 at 11:09 am
    And if he uses the church as a platform for advocating legal reforms, his church should lose its tax-exempt status and register as a political organization.
  9. DamageincApril 7, 2010 at 11:10 am
    I second!
  10. Scott ErvinApril 7, 2010 at 11:49 am
    The prohibition against political activity (by a Non-profit) is for attempting to directly influence legislation (eg lobbying). They are allowed to “engage in political advocacy not related to legislation or election of candidates.” So using the church as a platform (depending on exactly how he may do that) could be allowable.
  11. Spineflower2April 7, 2010 at 11:55 am
    How is “immigration reform” not “related to legislation”? When they harbor criminals (and I don’t just mean their in-house pedophiles, I mean illegal immigrants), they cross a line and should be held accountable just like the rest of us. Hiding behind the cross is no justification in either case.
  12. Scott ErvinApril 7, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    Specific legislation. So, if they say, “Don’t vote for measure XYZ which deports newborn babies,” that’s a violation. But if they pontificate in general, “It is wrong to deport newborn defenseless babies,” probably not a violation . . It’s gray enough to be tough to enforce . . and everyone pretty much knows that. The prohibition is there (IMHO) to protect against blatant, direct attempts to raise tax deductible money for specific political causes in order to circumvent the rules against deducting $$ for political contributions, such as they are.
  13. JeffApril 7, 2010 at 1:16 pm
    Sanctuary for those who are persecuted is a principle going back to the middle ages. So we toss it out just because you say so?
  14. Timothy MyersApril 7, 2010 at 1:28 pm
    Jeff: Let the heathen, er spineflower rage!
  15. SCVPRApril 7, 2010 at 2:20 pm
    No Jeff, I think that you are absolutely right. In the middle ages churches provided sanctuary to fugitives. Those individuals were immune from prosecution as long as they remained on the Church’s property. So if you are suggesting that the modern day Catholic Church take in all of the current illegal aliens, I say go for it. Then we can see how long that would last.
  16. Spineflower2April 7, 2010 at 2:40 pm
    I don’t recognize arrest and deportation of a criminal as “persecution.” More like “prosecution.”
  17. drive66April 7, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    Yes!
  18. CCApril 7, 2010 at 9:05 pm
    so was torture and slavery. If the Catholic church wants to provide sanctuary, fine. Let them feed them, clothe them, and medicate them. But if they step outside the church doors, let them be liberated back to their own country.
  19. AlpinerApril 7, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    The church in America (Catholic or Protestant) has a right to state and stand on its beliefs whether political or otherwise without interference from the state (as long as it does not provoke violence just as our free speech laws contend). This right goes back in this nation to its inception. Only recently, in the 1950s to be exact, did Congress enact the IRS 501 (c) 3 laws for places of worship. This effort was led by Congressman Lyndon B. Johnson as part of the southern effort to curtail the civil rights movement. Whether one is conservative or liberal does not matter when it comes to the rights of the churches in this nation and their believers to stand up for their beliefs whether political or not without the interference of government. Free speech and Freedom of Religion is part of this nation’s DNA.
  20. Spineflower2April 7, 2010 at 2:39 pm
    I do not recognize a general right to disobey the laws of the United States based on one’s membership in a particular religious organization. Just ask the SCV whore who said a few years ago that her church gave absolution via sex with her. She might be out of jail for you to ask her how that worked out.
  21. Spineflower2April 7, 2010 at 2:56 pm
    “The church in America (Catholic or Protestant)…” Isn’t that a little too limited? Does this “right” not extend to Jews, Hindus, Islamists, Buddhists, Wiccans, Rastafarians, …
  22. Scott ErvinApril 7, 2010 at 5:11 pm
    I’ve got this one A… No

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support