Here we wrap up my four-part series on suggestions for improving the pastoral letter on immigration by the Archbishop of San Antonio, the Most Rev. Gustavo García-Siller, MSpS.

The Archbishop cites St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians (2:19) in support of his statement that “by Baptism we are incorporated into the Body of Christ, and that bond of communion transcends national borders, legal categories, and political identities” (Para. 36). In another paragraph (39) he cites the Letter to the Romans (8:14-17) in this: “Brothers and sisters who arrive in the communities of the Archdiocese do not threaten its identity. They are fulfilling it. They stand as a living witness that the Church is truly a home for all, one Body moved by a single Spirit, and a family that transcends borders, all of us led by the Spirit and adopted as children of God…”

Since the Archbishop cites St. Paul on the bond of Christians which “transcends…legal categories,” it is highly appropriate to bring to his, and your, attention St. Paul’s Letter to Philemon (and Colossians 4:9) written when he was in prison in Rome, or possibly in Ephesus. Rev. James T. Burtchaell, C.S.C., writes:

Onesimus had been a slave of Philemon in Colossae. He ran away. As a fugitive slave, he had been baptized and had become dear to St. Paul: “a child of mine, whose father I became while wearing these chains.” Paul decided to regularize Onesimus’ status by sending him back to his master, although he knew that Philemon could, under Roman law in the First Century A.D., execute, and certainly torture, Onesimus. So, one baptized person (Onesimus), an illegal migrant, was being returned by another Christian (Paul) to his homeland and might face severe discipline at the hands of a Christian master (Philemon).[i] We do not in fact know if Onesimus made it back to Philemon. Maybe he ran away.[ii] Maybe he became a bishop.[iii] We do know that Paul’s letter was addressed not only to Philemon but also to the Colossians who met in Philemon’s house and the letter became public and part of the canon.

In light of this Scriptural precedent, couldn’t the Archbishop encourage members of his flock to consider, for example, returning to their homelands via self-deportation?

The Distinction Between Private and Government Responsibilities

It is extremely important for the Archbishop to distinguish between how the United States government responds to the presence of illegal immigrants and how we citizens, Catholic and not, might respond privately. We private citizens can welcome the immigrant, no matter their status, as a humanitarian endeavor, as a Christian endeavor. But this can be different, very different from how our government should respond.

The Archbishop expands on a statement made by Pope Francis in 2017 about “welcome, protect, promote, and integrate”:

To welcome is to open the door and declare, ‘You belong here.’ To protect is to shield the vulnerable from exploitation, fraud, and abuse. To promote is to build a community where all can flourish, with access to education, health care, and dignified work. To integrate is to welcome the gifts that people who migrate bring, including faith, resilience, cultures, and work, all of which enrich both Church and country. (Para. 37)

The lawful response of the United States Government is not necessarily the same response as a private citizen. The lawful response is: “No, you don’t belong here if you did not enter, or remain, lawfully. Even for bona fide refugees, we have procedures.” The government may regularize your status and offer you a pathway to citizenship, but as an initial matter, not to be unkind but to be factual, “You don’t belong here.” The word belong means “to have the proper qualifications to be a member of a group.”

In the final pages of his August 3 pastoral letter, the Archbishop makes clear the distinction between private and governmental action. He first describes a “roadmap for action” for his flock[iv] and then addresses “civic leaders, elected officials, law-enforcement officers, and public authorities.” With respect to the former, he had earlier mentioned that “From September 2022 to February 2025, the Migrant Resource Center, also known as Centro de Bienvenida, operated by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese in partnership with the City of San Antonio, welcomed around 335,000 men, women, and children” (Para. 60). After defunding by the United States government, that Center had closed. Oddly, he does not say in his letter, including under the “roadmap for action,” that private donations for these efforts were welcome.

When he addresses public authorities, he recognizes that many defend the human dignity of all and “demonstrate that security and compassion are not opposed” (Para. 75). He makes a number of recommendations to them that I list below.[v]

Summary

• I had several criticisms of the Archbishop’s analysis of detentions.
• I easily rejected his charge of racism in enforcement.
• I asked for:
• an explanation of the word indiscriminate in the context of “mass deportation,”
• more details on the economic impact of mass deportation,
• more attention to the duty of people to remain in their native countries, and
• more clarity when he asks private persons to respond to the Gospel versus the government’s options.

Everyone working on the issue of immigration could use more detailed statistics; this would help with analysis of issues such as:

• how many arrested were convicted or charged with crimes,
• how many arrested were married to citizens or were married to persons not lawfully residing in the United States,
• how many from geographic areas in the United States had self-deported and to what countries, and
• how many arrived in the United States without spouse or children.

[A link to Part 3 is here; Part 2 is here; Part 1 is here.]

[i] See Rev. James T. Burtchaell, C.S.C., Philemon’s Problem (1973, revised and enlarged 1998).

[ii] If Onesimus did not return to Philemon, the odds are that the letter would not have made it to Philemon. If the letter made it to Philemon without Onesimus, would the community have preserved it?

[iii] The letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians, written circa 110, chapters 1 and 6, mentions a “Bishop Onesimus” of Ephesus. Maxwell Staniforth, trans. Early Christian Writings, pp. 75, 77 (1968).

[iv] He urges people to make their homes “a sanctuary of prayer” (Para. 63), to “form small church communities, clusters of three to five neighboring households meeting in homes for Scripture reflection, mutual support, and shared prayer” (Para. 64), celebrating in parishes the annual World Day of Migrants and Refugees (Para. 66), developing “active ministries of accompaniment that reach into the homes of those paralyzed by fear” (Paras. 67, 72, 73), hosting Know Your Rights training (Para. 68), forming parish “Rapid Response Teams” which can “include a legal liaison, a food and-transport coordinator, an interpreter, a caregiver for children, and a member devoted solely to prayer” (Para. 69), creating an emergency plan with powers of attorney, emergency contact, child caregivers, essential documents, and warning against notario fraud (Para 70), and visits to the detained (Para. 74).

[v] “The right to asylum has been severely weakened, leaving those fleeing persecution with little chance of protection…. Congress and the administration must reform the immigration system, and at the same time must address the root causes in countries of origin that force families [to flee]” (Para. 77)

“Protect sensitive locations: places of worship, schools, and hospitals…from immigration enforcement” (Para. 78)

“Keep families together: we oppose family separation and the deportation of members of mixed-status households…” (Para. 78)

“Restore asylum and due process: asylum seekers must not be abandoned to the dangers they fled” (Para. 78)

“End enforcement tactics that intimidate communities, especially stops without probable cause, warrantless arrests, and racial profiling” (Para. 78)

“End mass detention and mass deportation…” (Para. 78)

“Build just pathways to citizenship: address root causes and enact bipartisan immigration reform that offers a pathway to citizenship for those already contributing to our communities, raising children, paying taxes, and serving this nation” (Para. 78)