Name:
Email:
Posted: August 24th, 2007 at 12:28am By: Kevin Considine
The staring contest is over.
Undocumented worker Elvira Arellano was deported earlier this week. In case you've been lost in a cave and don't know who she is, Ms. Arellano had taken sanctuary in Adalberto United Methodist Church here in Chicago for a little over a year.
No, the authorities didn't bust down the doors to her church. They didn't have to. Instead they apprehended Ms. Arellano when she sneaked away to Los Angeles to speak about the toll of illegal immigration policy. She gave talks at four churches and later she was arrested.
After her arrest and deportation, the Chicago Tribune conducted an informal, unscientific poll on its website that asked questions such as "Should Elvira Arellano have been arrested for breaking U.S. immigration law?" and "Should a church building provide sanctuary from the law?" The first question might be cut and dry, but I thought the second was more difficult. The respondents to the poll, however, didn't think so. And about 80 percent said "no" to a church providing sanctuary to a fugitive.
Now, excuse me, but I beg to differ. The correct answer is "yes."
Well, sort of. Call it splitting hairs, but there is a double answer to this question. "Yes," a church should provide sanctuary to those it decides are unjustly sought by government authorities. At the same time, "no," the government should not be legally bound to honor this tradition.
About the "yes" part of my answer: A church should offer sanctuary when it discerns it appropriate. This is because the possibility of unjust laws and unjust enforcement is real.
We need only look at our history books to see that we do indeed pass unjust laws from time to time. But unjust enforcement is a more difficult issue. This deals with the law's real consequences and the power to enforce the law. This assumes that sometimes the everyday consequences of a law may not be in proportion to the crime it specifies. And it assumes the very real possibility that the power to enforce the law may be misused.
Hence, the tradition of church sanctuary is necessary. A church, which can wield moral authority over the state in our culture, should retain its moral leverage and prophetic voice to point out and resist injustice and evil. Yet the church is not above the law, and when it chooses civil disobedience, it must accept the legal consequences of its actions.
As to the "no" part of my answer, here's the reason: human fallibility. If the sex-abuse scandal in the U.S. Catholic Church has taught us anything, it's that there is a very real possibility that the leadership of any church might protect its own, even if they are perpetrators of awful crimes.
If a church could legally hide lawbreakers from the authorities then there is a distinct possibility that in some cases justice could not be served. Having said that, there is a big difference between clergy sexual predators and those genuinely seeking sanctuary from persecution. Or those seeking refuge from unjust enforcement of a law.
For its part, the government has the right and the authority to enforce its laws. This means that it can indeed bust in the church doors and seize a fugitive. But that doesn't mean that it always should.
Because taking sanctuary in a church is a hallowed tradition. And people should respect it as such. Sanctuary, however, should not be law, because legal authority does not belong to the church. The church is the pilgrim people of God, not a mini nation-state. And, yes, this means the Catholic Church, too.
As I've written before, there's no certainty in sanctuary. There's only a risk of faith. There's only the risk of the church challenging the state to a staring contest. The church is to serve God's interests, and the state is to serve the national interest. And as they each pursue what they must, sometimes they must contend with each other and wait for the other to blink. It's not always pretty, but it's reality.
Still, it makes me nervous that 80 percent of us seem happy to toss sanctuary out the window. And to those of us who are just itching to do the tossing, let me say this: Be careful what you wish for.
Because high-level bureaucrats aren't known for being incorruptible. And one day your local church, mosque or synagogue may be the only thing that stands between you and the consequences of those drunk with power. Or at least those too blind to wield it properly.
— — —
Kevin Considine is a graduate student at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. Recently he was married to a most wonderful woman who keeps him in line and reads his columns to see if they make sense. He and his wife live on the South Side of Chicago. He welcomes comments, feedback or fits of anger and can be reached at {email considkp@yahoo.com}considkp@yahoo.com{/email}. © Copyright 2007 by Kevin Considine.
Permalink
The staring contest is over.
Undocumented worker Elvira Arellano was deported earlier this week. In case you've been lost in a cave and don't know who she is, Ms. Arellano had taken sanctuary in Adalberto United Methodist Church here in Chicago for a little over a year.
No, the authorities didn't bust down the doors to her church. They didn't have to. Instead they apprehended Ms. Arellano when she sneaked away to Los Angeles to speak about the toll of illegal immigration policy. She gave talks at four churches and later she was arrested.
After her arrest and deportation, the Chicago Tribune conducted an informal, unscientific poll on its website that asked questions such as "Should Elvira Arellano have been arrested for breaking U.S. immigration law?" and "Should a church building provide sanctuary from the law?" The first question might be cut and dry, but I thought the second was more difficult. The respondents to the poll, however, didn't think so. And about 80 percent said "no" to a church providing sanctuary to a fugitive.
Now, excuse me, but I beg to differ. The correct answer is "yes."
Well, sort of. Call it splitting hairs, but there is a double answer to this question. "Yes," a church should provide sanctuary to those it decides are unjustly sought by government authorities. At the same time, "no," the government should not be legally bound to honor this tradition.
About the "yes" part of my answer: A church should offer sanctuary when it discerns it appropriate. This is because the possibility of unjust laws and unjust enforcement is real.
We need only look at our history books to see that we do indeed pass unjust laws from time to time. But unjust enforcement is a more difficult issue. This deals with the law's real consequences and the power to enforce the law. This assumes that sometimes the everyday consequences of a law may not be in proportion to the crime it specifies. And it assumes the very real possibility that the power to enforce the law may be misused.
Hence, the tradition of church sanctuary is necessary. A church, which can wield moral authority over the state in our culture, should retain its moral leverage and prophetic voice to point out and resist injustice and evil. Yet the church is not above the law, and when it chooses civil disobedience, it must accept the legal consequences of its actions.
As to the "no" part of my answer, here's the reason: human fallibility. If the sex-abuse scandal in the U.S. Catholic Church has taught us anything, it's that there is a very real possibility that the leadership of any church might protect its own, even if they are perpetrators of awful crimes.
If a church could legally hide lawbreakers from the authorities then there is a distinct possibility that in some cases justice could not be served. Having said that, there is a big difference between clergy sexual predators and those genuinely seeking sanctuary from persecution. Or those seeking refuge from unjust enforcement of a law.
For its part, the government has the right and the authority to enforce its laws. This means that it can indeed bust in the church doors and seize a fugitive. But that doesn't mean that it always should.
Because taking sanctuary in a church is a hallowed tradition. And people should respect it as such. Sanctuary, however, should not be law, because legal authority does not belong to the church. The church is the pilgrim people of God, not a mini nation-state. And, yes, this means the Catholic Church, too.
As I've written before, there's no certainty in sanctuary. There's only a risk of faith. There's only the risk of the church challenging the state to a staring contest. The church is to serve God's interests, and the state is to serve the national interest. And as they each pursue what they must, sometimes they must contend with each other and wait for the other to blink. It's not always pretty, but it's reality.
Still, it makes me nervous that 80 percent of us seem happy to toss sanctuary out the window. And to those of us who are just itching to do the tossing, let me say this: Be careful what you wish for.
Because high-level bureaucrats aren't known for being incorruptible. And one day your local church, mosque or synagogue may be the only thing that stands between you and the consequences of those drunk with power. Or at least those too blind to wield it properly.
— — —
Kevin Considine is a graduate student at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. Recently he was married to a most wonderful woman who keeps him in line and reads his columns to see if they make sense. He and his wife live on the South Side of Chicago. He welcomes comments, feedback or fits of anger and can be reached at {email considkp@yahoo.com}considkp@yahoo.com{/email}. © Copyright 2007 by Kevin Considine.
Permalink
Add your comments