In this episode of The Open Door, panelists Jim Hanink, Valerie Niemeyer, and Christopher Zehnder discuss the multi-faceted issue of immigration. How can we better understand the new waves of immigrants, whether in the United States or Europe? What does the Church teach about the ethical issues that come into play? How can we assess the politics of immigration? What role should our parishes play and how might we best respond at a personal level? Our special and welcome guest is Fr. Piotr Mazurkiewicz. He is a professor of political science and Catholic social thought at Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw as well as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Christianity—World—Politics. From 2008-2012 he served as Secretary General of the Commission of Bishops of the European Community COMECE. Mazurkiewicz recently authored Two Towers and a Minaret: Migration from a Catholic Perspective (En Route Books, 2024). Among the questions we’ll ask are the following.
Mass migration is a serious challenge in both America and Europe. Hence the question of the ethical limits of hospitality. The answer must consider not only the needs of migrants, but also the ability of the host country to integrate migrants. This depends not only on the size of the migration, but also on its homogeneity. For example, a peculiarity of the current migration to Europe is the strong dominance of Muslims, which is changing its religious demographics and, consequently, European culture.
https://enroutebooksandmedia.com/twotowers/
- Fr. Piotr, could you tell us how you came to your work on the topic of migration?
- How would you compare current migration to Europe with migration to the United States?
- What is national sovereignty and what is its foundation? What are the limits of sovereignty?
- Is there a right to emigrate? A right not to emigrate?
- What happens to property rights in times of grave necessity?
- How do you understand multiculturalism? Is it an ideology?
- On what basis can we evaluate the practices of a given culture?
- Here in the United States we often speak of a “culture of death.” Might not the first concern of many cultures be the need for repentance?
- Should Poland respond to migration from Africa and the Middle East in the same way that it is responding to refugees from Ukraine?
- What might it mean with regard to immigration to be neither right nor left but simply Catholic? What might be some promising political approaches to migration?
Mass migration is a serious challenge in both America and Europe. Hence the question of the ethical limits of hospitality. The answer must consider not only the needs of migrants, but also the ability of the host country to integrate migrants. This depends not only on the size of the migration, but also on its homogeneity. For example, a peculiarity of the current migration to Europe is the strong dominance of Muslims, which is changing its religious demographics and, consequently, European culture.
https://enroutebooksandmedia.com/twotowers/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to WCAT radio your home for authentic Catholic programming.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Please join us at the Open Door. We discuss solidarity, subsidiarity,
economic democracy, in non violence in light of Catholic social teaching.
We explore how to move from discussion to political change.
Culture and politics, to be sure, are interwoven, so we
care deeply about education and the arts. Our questions often
(00:29):
lead us to report on the projects in promise of
the American Solidarity Party.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Welcome to the Open Door, Jim Hanik here with fellow
panelists Valrie Demeyer and Christopher Zander. Today we discuss the
multi faceted issue of immigration. How can we better understand
the new waves of immigrants, whether in Europe or the
United States. What does the church teach about the gothical
(00:59):
issue that come into play, How can we assess the
politics of immigration, What role should our parishes play, and
how might we respond at a personal level. Our special
and welcome guest his father, Pyotra Maserkiech. He is a
(01:20):
professor of political science and Catholic Social thought at Colonel
Stephen Vishinski University in Warsaw, as well as editor in
chief of the journal Christianity, world politics. From two thousand
and eight till twenty twelve, he served as Secretary General
(01:41):
of the Commission of Bishops of the European Community. Father
recently authored Two Towers and a Minaret Migration from Catholic
perspective en Root Books, twenty twenty four. Let's begin as
we always do and prayer. Come, Holy Spirit, sell the
(02:04):
hearts of your faithful, and kindle on them the fire
of your love. Send forth your spirit, and they shall
be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth.
O God, who have taught the hearts of the faithful
by the light of the Holy Spirit, granted in the
same spirit we may be truly wise and ever rejoiced
(02:27):
in His consolation through Christ, our Lord. Amen, Father, Please
tell us how you came to your work on the question,
the multifaceted question of immigration.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
You see as I am a Catholic priest and on
the other hand social scientists. So in this my scientific research,
I always try to accompany the Church in a different
challenges the Church is facing. So I started with the
(03:08):
time of transition from the communists to democracy, then with
integration and how the Church should approach this issue. After
the word trade Center. I came to violence in politics
and reflection on terrorism and ethics. And after twenty fifteen,
(03:31):
so after this wave of massive migration to Europe, I
started to work on migration. And that's strictly linked with
the fact that on the one hand you have the
facts and you have real people, and on the other
(03:55):
hand you have politics. So there was a figure of
interest and and and so on. And the question is
what is morally good in this context, because the church
should not just follow this or that political line, this
(04:16):
or that program, but reflect on the on the morality
of on the moral approach to to this issue. So
I try to do this.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
You said, uh, on the other hand, you have politics.
Can you said politics? On one hand?
Speaker 4 (04:34):
Mh uh. If you see formally, I am a political scientist,
so uh when we when we are talking on politics.
On the one hand, you have this Aristotelian approach, and
(04:54):
I think the church is following this, this line of
reflection that politics is said part of ethics. Oh, this
is the careful for the common well. On the other hand,
you have this mcchavillian approach. But this is only in power.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Here in the United States. Politics won't sit on one
hand for two hands. It spreads everywhere, everywhere. Well that's Christopher, Christopher,
can you take us forward?
Speaker 5 (05:28):
Yes, I'm curious. Immigration is a big issue, as you
probably know in the American election. It's been a big
issue now for as long as I can remember it,
but especially with the Republican side to make it a
very big issue, and we're treated with rhetoric that it's
all migrants are or a huge number of them are
(05:51):
a very dangerous people. I'm not as familiar with what's
happening in Europe, but when you would, you say, it
would be how is Mica the whole migration issue differ
from in Europe as from the United States? What are
the commonalities where the things? How do they differ?
Speaker 4 (06:09):
You see, it is somewhat different, But at the same time,
I think what is in common is this massive character.
So the challenge for us is not just migration, but
the massive migration because always in human history we were
on the move as people, uh, And that the measure
(06:35):
of this massive migration exceeds the capacity to integrate migrants.
And here is the question of political and ethical responsibility.
So how many people you can integrate into your society,
not provoking risk, a big risk for example of open
(06:58):
conflicts as we have you know recently in England and
so on. On the other hand, the challenge is strictly
linked with this high homogeneity, so that when we reflect
on Europe before it doesn't for Tea, in uh there
(07:19):
was a dominant dominance of Muslims, but also a high
percentage of Christians among migrants, also due to the persecutions
of Christians in the Middle East and so on, and
then this was changed and it's clear that mostly we
(07:42):
are talking in Europe on Muslim migration to Europe. So
in the in the US, I think that's mostly migration
from Latin America means Spanish speaking people, mostly Catholics, and
(08:04):
mostly probably also as in Europe, these are young men.
In Europe we can say in draft age. So in
this context we can say due to this homogeneity, the
(08:26):
massive migration with time is changing also our culture structure
of society in Europe. In a certain sense, it is
forbidden to talk about religion in this migration process, but
in my understanding that's a very important factor also because
(08:49):
in the migration process is very important for the integration
of migrants. The cultural distance, so not the geographical one,
but how cross is the culture of newcomers to the
culture of the country which is hosting them, and to
(09:10):
what extent that people would like to become a member
of the hosting societies. And I think one of the
mistakes is that we sometimes in debate we are looking
on migration from an individual perspective, so if always the
(09:33):
policy would be on single people, but when we are
talking about massive migration, we are very conscious that these
are communities which are on the booth, so that people
are moving from one village in one country and they
are forming a quarter, taking a quarter in the big
(09:57):
city somewhere in Europe or in there was. They're not
just dispersed all over the country. So in Europe we
have cities since more than ten years the majority of
inhabitants are Muslims like what we're done, for example, and
(10:21):
in the former time, because that's also natural for human beings,
we would like to live among people are like we.
So for example, in Chicago, Chicago was in the former
time the second biggest Polish city in the world. Afterwards,
(10:43):
I think it's not the case today, but this means
that people were forming also kind of ghetto in this
new country and with the development of new technologies, we
are talking about diasporus. So it means that that the
(11:06):
community which settled down somewhere in the US or in Europe,
but they have the feeling that they are still a
part of the society in their own nation state. And
on the one hand, it's quite easy to to take
(11:31):
a cheap flight and they are going for holidays and
so on. Back on the other hand, you have social media,
you have national access to national TV and so on.
So there's no so so many factors which would push
(11:55):
us to integrate in this new country, to UH, to
really wish to be alike on the people in their neighborhood.
I think that that's that's that's very important. And also
what is important is the average age of migrants, because
(12:22):
in my understanding, one of the most important incentives for
migration is demographic crisis on the West UH in Europe
that's very sharp, so that that the average age of
migrants is much lower that of Western societies. This means
(12:48):
also that the mortality rate is lower and the fertility
rate is higher in these groups. So we see that
this process of a change in the society provoked by
(13:11):
migration can accelerate in the future, and we should just
consider that. That's the first thing, I think, is to
understand the phenomenon and then to reflect how we should
react this.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
So is it? I guess too that for Europe immigration
means something different from us. From the United States. And
the United States we've had this historically predominant angle Protestant culture,
Scots Irish Protestant culture. But we've always held the idea
of our country in a melting pot. So it's supposed
(13:50):
to bring in where we sort of more or less
expect that people from other cultures are going to come
and live here. To be an American, to become become
an American citizen, it's to be is to be naturalized,
and it doesn't really carry with it necessarily, or hasn't
always carried with the notion that you become a certain
culture or a certain nationality. But in Europe, I mean
(14:12):
some years ago, I remember reading hearing about a German
who did a German who did a suicide bombing in Israel,
and I thought, what was a German doing a suicide
bombing in Israel? What turns out that German was actually
a Midese gener but he's called a German because he's
a German citizen. That makes sense with the United States.
(14:32):
Doesn't make as much sense, it seems to me with Europe.
Is that so you have this other aspect where if
you're a German that has a meaning over and above
what constitutional order you're living under. It seemed to me
that would create further difficulties.
Speaker 4 (14:47):
And what we have here, yes, something that there was
a huge difference. So you see, when I had lectures
in the US gents, all of my students had migration
background in previous generation or somewhere in the in the past.
(15:10):
So and that's characteristic of American society. I think that
this from this point of view, is also very natural,
not to have just a negative approach to migration as such,
but to uncontrolled migration. And in the US in the
(15:32):
former time, you for example, had some quotas for different nations,
for different UH direction from which you UH were ready
to receive migrants, because for example, you were afraid in
a certain time of Chinese a massive migration to the
(15:53):
US in Europe. But that's mostly our intellectual perception. We
are thinking that we had homogeneous nations. We have to
(16:15):
say we have and this is you've been experienced uh
the historical nations, but especially in my country, we never
were homogeneous because Poland was on the border of civilizations,
so that the border is not just strict that no
(16:37):
one can pass from one side of the river to
the other one. And on the other hand they also
in Poland, for example, we had the there was a
Polish Commonwealth country of three nations plus Jews, which form
(17:03):
about ten percent of the society. For this reason we
had four national parliaments and then the parliament of the country,
and then we had also other minorities German one or
Armenian one or we Since six hundred years we have tatars.
(17:25):
So the Muslim community which was invited to Poland to
protect Polish is a boorden and after the six hundred
years we can say got very well integrated. But at
(17:45):
the same time they behave like Christians being Muslims, so
that this transform also their understanding of Islam, which were
sent risk. But this is I think an important experience
(18:06):
also for for other countries that on the one hand
Islam social political concepts link it is some are totally
different than this associated with Christianity, especially because there is
no concept of a church as a separate from politics institution.
(18:34):
And on the other hand that the people regardless of
their religion, so they can accommodate. And but this is
this is taking taking time. But also if if this
(18:55):
is not on small groups but on large groups, so
they are changing the hosting country, the culture, maybe the language.
Also we have also some for example Jewish words in
(19:17):
Polish language or German and so on. And on the
other hand, this can also change political culture. So that
one of my friends, after the colapse of the Soviet Union,
he made research so how developed the political systems in
(19:41):
those communist countries. The conclusion was that all the countries
with the society dominated by Western Christianity became democratic. UH.
With Orthodoxy. That was a mixture because we had, for example,
(20:07):
we have a Bulgaria, Romania which are in the U
in NATO, and so when we have Ukraine which was
in a certainstance in the middle for quite a long time,
and then we have Bilo Russian Treasure. UH. And when
(20:29):
we approach the Muslim countries and it's democratic, so we
we are we can see just in this case that
religion and this tradition, this political tradition, which is somehow
linked with religion, is playing a role. So the question
(20:52):
is also how our political systems can be changed by
massive migration.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
H all right, thank you, Valerie.
Speaker 6 (21:05):
Rather wow, you're really helping us open up so many
dimensions of the issue that we so often aren't thinking of.
Thank you help us understand just the concept of national sovereignty.
What's national sovereignty, what is it, what is it founded on?
And what are the limits that we can understand national
(21:28):
sovereignty would have.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
I think we should start with the old origins of
this concept. So French thinkerda in the sixteenth century. He
was proud that he elaborated the concept of sovereignty through
the player's time, even if the word was used before
in the Middle Age, but in a totally different sense.
(21:55):
And he treated the concept of solerty as absolutely necessary
because he wanted to justify absolute power. So for the
absolute system and for this reason for us Christians, that's
a tricky that we we are using this concept also
(22:23):
because it's in the international law and so on, but
trying to avoid the strap up of the absolute power.
It means that when we are talking about the sovereign power,
we are saying, yeah, there's some limits of competencies, so
(22:46):
that the data the government cannot do anything they want.
And we will say here, I think especially in the US,
but also in Polish democratic tradition, there was a constitution
and there are limits in the constitution. Inscribed in the
(23:11):
constitution means also in the system that like James Medicine
who said, if people would be angels, there would be
no need of a government. If angels would govern people,
there would be no need for control mechanists, for checking balances, mechanisms.
(23:37):
So but they are already in our Western constitutions. But
at the same time, and I think the German case
with the Vinyl constitution here is very important. That's the
democratic country with the democratic constitution directly could switch into
(24:02):
a totalitarian system uh uh without any visible break in
in politics. So that that we we know that the
culture is necessary, this democratic culture and just. But just
(24:28):
concerning the the sovereignty concept, this concept is saying that
the state is entitled to the highest possible level of autonomy,
that the states are equal in the international relations, formally
equal because in practice we see that the power of
(24:51):
different states are different. And but it's also important that
the state authority has a default compet in internal affairs.
So if for example, there's a new issue which should
be regulated, like at a protection artificial intelligence or pandemic,
(25:15):
and we say who has the right to regulate this,
who should issue a lot? We are saying yes, sovereign power. Uh.
But there we can say from this this ethical point
(25:35):
of view, the sovereign power is obliged to respect, for example,
the human rights, human rights not only of citizens but
also of residents. So that's that here in this human
dignity we are equal, even if we are not citizens.
(26:01):
That this means also that in extreme situation, also from
the international point of view, international law point of view,
there's a possibility of creumentary intervention to protect the citizens
in front of their own government. And I think also,
(26:23):
or maybe especially in the American context, we are very
conscious that this institution should not be abused. So that's
an extreme institution to intervene in such a way. In
the context of migration, I think what is important is
(26:48):
that the government is responsible for migration policy, so that
the decision how the migration process is organized should be
taken by the sovereign power, not by another country, not
by international community, but by the state, and so here
(27:15):
we can we can say that that's also from all
point of view, the state should have a migration policy.
Speaker 5 (27:25):
In this.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
They are invited by the church to accept migrants, but
conditionally as far as it is as this is possible,
So the church is saying they are limits. Also, we
don't expect that the country will do something which will
(27:56):
be irrational, destroy the society, probable conflict, because this sovereign
government is primarily responsible for its own citizens uh. And
this is a part of Caroholic theology. There is there's
an order of charity. So that's when we are saying
(28:20):
the what for what we first we are responsible, so
we start with for example, the family uh and the
circle are growing that this means also that the government
should try to maintain the living standards or the citizens
(28:43):
that ensure security, social peace, but also to protect national identity,
cultural continuity of the community. So the term with with this,
I think what is specific is that if someone is
(29:04):
thinking that the national identity also in this political identity
in the US, that this is a closed concept, so
that Americans should always be like today, he's wrong because
the culture is something living, so is changing, but at
(29:31):
the same time we expect that they will be a
continuity and that we can decide what is fitting to
our culture and what is contrary to read.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
There's a library, and there's not just a book. There's
a library and a couple of thoughts that I have.
First of all, a sovereignty. Some of us on this program,
one of us, in particular our students of Jacques Martin
(30:12):
and Maritan was sharply critical of what national sovereignty has
come to be seen ass and a man in a state,
he too begins with a discussion of Boutan, And it's
very interesting that we have this dispute about national sovereignty.
(30:37):
I think that I think that what the Church teaches
about national sovereignty is not what any nationally sovereign state
would teach about itself. I think that the differences between
the two views are often papered over, and that brings
(30:59):
us to who Maritian's view of the state as the
top most agency of the people, at the top most
agency of the people. At any rate, there certainly is
a role for the state, and there is a role
for the state in determining policy with regard to migration,
(31:21):
and yet when I think at things, think of things
at a more personal level, I find myself my wife,
and I find myself well, very often ignoring what the
state teaches about immigration. For example, we have someone who
(31:43):
is vital to our household, a caregiver for my brother,
suffers from demension, and she's not here illgally. And there
are a fair number of Americans, I imagine, who would
not hire on those grounds. And there are a small
number of Americans, I imagine, who would just as soon
(32:04):
report the fact that we employer. But we have every
intention of continuing to employ her, and we think that
the policy set by the state is simply wrong headed,
and we weren't going to pursue that, and we're not
(32:25):
particular pressed by it either. Now there is also a
new point this out again and again in your splendid book.
So many differences in different regions when you respect to immigration.
Here in Los Angeles, your background things. While this is
(32:48):
saying in a broad brush way Anglos, and I count
as an Anglo because I'm Dutch. Anglos pretty much stole California,
and they pretty much got away with Stephen California. And
now in Los Angeles, once again, the majority of the
(33:09):
population is latinum and it's going to continue that way.
And there isn't any cultural rupture because the culture was
pretty much that way anyway, except the suppression really of
Latinos by far more wealthy oil industries led to a
(33:35):
period in which Anglos deported Latinos. In fact, it become citizens,
they deported them anyway. So there's this incredible hodgepodge. Now
it is the case that we have to think of things,
and we certainly respect this. We have to think of
(33:56):
things in the communitarian way. But communities don't go to
heaven or don't go to hell. Individuals go to heaven.
Individuals go to hell. And when I think of things
from the individual level, personal level, it seems to me
that I have a right to leave the country, and
(34:21):
that I also have a right prima facial right to
stay in the country. The American political philosopher has been
so enormously influential. John Rawls like to distinction between voluntary
organizations and the state, and it seems to me, at
(34:45):
a fundamental level, the state is also a voluntary organization.
I don't have to stay here. I don't think if
I don't want to, I should have good reasons for
leaving because causes all sorts of connections with other people
to be impacted. But also it seems like none of
(35:09):
us are mere creatures of the state. If I wanted
to immigrate to Poland, it seems to me that I
ought to be able to and the same for people
in Poland ought to be able to immigrate here. You
mentioned your students having background as immigrants when you were
(35:31):
in the United States. I grew up in a place
called Grand Rapids, Michigan, and half the time was Polish
and half the town was Dutch. That's just the way
it was. And we certainly had contacts with the Netherlands,
and the Polish people certainly had contact with Poland. At
(35:53):
any rate. That was not a library, that was not
a book. That was what we call here irant Rand.
Today you are most cordially invited to do so.
Speaker 4 (36:07):
You see when I'm talking about this fact that they
are communities on the move. Uh, that's just a social fact.
And a different thing is the question of in dural
responsibility of citizens in this sense that the government is
(36:30):
taking decision. But if the US would like to accept
one hundred thousands immigrants a year or one million that's
not your personal decision, but you are voting for this
other government. So but but this political decision consuming the
(36:54):
directions from which immigrants are welcomed, and so on, how
to react on the just on the pundomenon, that's the policy.
But when you are meeting a person with immigrant background
(37:15):
that you personally so in this case, that's as a
question of more obligation my or more obligation to this
concrete person. And here we are not replaced by the government.
(37:37):
So it might be that there is someone who is
illegal migrant, so from the point of view of the state,
shouldn't be here. But he is, and he is sick,
and you are like a Samaritan passing by, so you
(38:01):
don't ask who the person is. But on this background,
it's impossible to construct the state police that we would like,
that citizens would be like good samaritans.
Speaker 5 (38:28):
M h.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
And soert. It's true that every person has a natural
right to leave its own country. I was born in
the communists Domini state, and we were depraved of this right,
(38:53):
So we should apply for a passport. And the answer,
simplifying depends on what is our approach to the communists.
If you are against you will not receive if you
decide to cooperate with them. The passport was delivered and
(39:17):
this is over the time, so citizens are not the
prisoners of the state. Recently, quite recently, I heard a
similar message on a meeting with the Turkish minister. We
said Turkey is a country that the government decides who
(39:42):
has the right to enter and who has the right
to leave the catch that's my experience from the past.
Today everyone has his own passport at home and is
free to go where he wished, But it doesn't mean
that everyone has the right to settle down anywhere. Because
(40:11):
the lens is not empty. So we can say using
this word that the land is occupied, so that the owners.
There's a hosting community, and this community should have accept
(40:32):
us if you would like to settle down there and
to become a member of this community. This is like
just when you someone would like to enter your home.
You are the host, so you decide under which condition,
for how long and so on. They so we as
(40:56):
the Catholics, were invited to hospitality too. But at the
same time, it doesn't mean that at home the role
of guests and horse should be changed today and that's
the question of rationality of responsibility and so. But in
(41:23):
such a case, when when we are talking about an
appointment with a conquers person, our moral responsibility is individual.
We can be in very different situations. I remember my
Italian friends. They had, I think for children, and the
(41:51):
day they came the Scypito came to me with the
children and one black child on hand. I was surprised
because they were white, and how it came that they
have a black child. And I said, I in the
morning in Milan, I husband for a newspaper and I
(42:18):
found on a street in a newspaper a baby. So
I informed the police. We filled all the documents, but
the question was, but what to do now with this baby?
And that's a very nice story on mertural Rough because
(42:43):
he said, in this moment, I started to reflect what
my wife would do, and he said, my wife would
adopt this child. So I took the child, and my
wife reacted exactly that way, and that came to me
with this child. I don't think that every one of
(43:07):
you will have a similar story. But this responsibility is
always very concrete. And on the other hand, when we
(43:27):
are talking about the right to leave the country, just
when you will see all of the statistics. More than
ninety seven percent of humanity is living in the country
of origin. It means much more natural for a person.
(43:49):
It's not migrate, but to stay well, because this is
my city. I was born here, as my church, high school.
That's uh. This here are the terms of members of
my family and so on. It's important that I can
(44:12):
go to the cemetery and I see not only at
the term of my father, but grandfather, grand grandfather, and
I'm rooted here. That's really my place, and that's the
natural experience of of people. Uh. So we have to
(44:37):
say that this right to stay home is much more
natural a person than this right to leave the camp,
even if everyone should be free to live mm. And
(44:57):
that here when we are thinking about the right to
leave the country and to the right to stay in
the communist country, from time to time, people were forced
to migrate to any grade if they were troublesome for
(45:19):
the government and they were depraved of citizenship. So we
will say, no, it shouldn't be like this. You have
your own country, your own place, and you have the
right to stay there. And then we can reflect. But
(45:39):
if a group of people quite large is leaving the
countries migrating. So what for you have a separate fundomenon
concerning the refugees, because these are people who are forced
(46:00):
to leave the country. And when we are talking about
refugees also in the international law, they have a different
status and a different right. So we are talking about
people who are forced to live because for example, the
life was at risk, and who would like to come back.
(46:25):
There's a right to return safely, but for a certain
moment they need a shelter. Uh. And we usually naturally
(46:50):
see the distinction between one and the other group. So
we are much more open on a natural way to
those who suffer because they were depraised for the country
of their home and so on. And when we for example, UH,
(47:14):
in the context of migration, we refer to the Holy
Family who left Palestine and settled down for a certain
time in Egypt. They were not just immigrants. There were refugees.
They never had idea to settle down forever because the
(47:38):
storys of salvation would be stopped, this story which which
happened if Jesus wouldn't come back to Palestine. And on
the other hand, when we are thinking about economic migrants,
(47:59):
so they want in general to change their living standards.
We can say everyone can have this wish to live
have better living conditions, but if we would like to
(48:24):
grant them that they will be able to stay home,
so we should invest them. And that's the question of
development aid, not just just sham aid, that we really
want that those poor countries we are calling them developing
countries today, that they really developed, and that we that
(48:49):
we want that people will have the better living conditions,
also political standards and guaranties for the rights. So here
we have the problem that sometimes trying to solve the
(49:12):
issue of migration, we are using so called end of
pipe technology. So people are on the border. What to
do with them? People are just on some ships on
the Materraneans. See what to do with them. But this
is the end of the process. If we would like
(49:35):
to change something, we should ask what is going, what
is pushing them on the own country, what we can
do there, not at the end of the pipe, but
at the beginning. And I think that's that's the problem
(49:55):
of real solidarity in this sense that we wouldn't like
that a country in Africa and we'll live on a
higher sundard that in Germany people are living or in
the US we would like just to help a little,
(50:23):
but not too much because there's a competition also on
the market and in between the countries.
Speaker 3 (50:34):
Spode it sadly, how about if we use the last
five minutes for a file fought from Christopher and a
final thought from Valerie, and then we always end with
the Gospel for the day, so we're push for Tom Christopher.
Speaker 5 (50:58):
I think one of the difficulties with the whole immigrant
should question, at least the United States, and probably analogous
in Europe, is that when when's own government is responsible
for policies that actually help impoverish other nations. You talk
about we look at things, we asked questions about what
the beginning of the process of immigration, and I remember
after the Natural North American Free Trade Agreement was passed
(51:21):
back in the nineties that the rate of immigration from
the Latin America the United States increased tremendously. And it's
always been there, but it increased tremendously. And some of
the causes where the destruction of certain Mexican industries like
farming took a big hit because the United States government
was that the Congress was subsidized American agriculture productions so
(51:44):
they could sell their core and south the border below
market price. So you have this. So what we have
now is we have people protests immigration, immigrants coming from
Latin America up into into our country. But historically much
of that has been because actions our own government taken
(52:08):
in our name. So it seemed like I think sometimes
we're not looking at is basic justice, how we been
acting justly to neighboring nations, especially when we have a
country like the United States who's immensely powerful in governments
in Latin America, particular in Mexico and others which are not.
(52:32):
So that's something I think that's not coming into the
equation often enough. It's not simply people coming up here
when a better their condition. It's people who have often
come up here because they have no other condition, They
have hardly any condition to better down in their own
native countries.
Speaker 6 (52:51):
Thank you, bellor Yes, I just see so many connections.
As you were talking, I'm thinking about well, I'm thinking
about capitalism in the free market, and thinking about abortion
and how we want to address the end game, you know,
the end situation, but we're not addressing their root causes.
And you know, you just see that in this this
culture of we have this, we can contribute to a
(53:13):
culture of life, or we could contribute to a culture
of death. But we must we must nurture at all
levels a culture of life, not complain about, you know,
the results of kind of an apathy or a contribution
to things that produce these these problems. So yeah, I
think this is just really good food for thought, and
(53:34):
I would just invite you to share your final thoughts
that you would want people to think about you.
Speaker 4 (53:40):
See, I think that's on the On the one Hunter,
the issue of justice is very important, but this means
also of distent politicians. So we need virtuous and they
(54:01):
in this moment can lead organize just policy. On the
other hand, on many issues, the problem there's a problem
of ideology, so that the government. What you see that
the change of the government and the change total change
of the policy for example my gration. Uh. And why
(54:28):
because one group is uh sharing this ideology and the
other group the other one. And the real responsibility political
responsibility is linked with rationality. So we should try to
really understand the problem and look for for good solutions
(54:55):
and for what is serving the common good? Uh. When
we are referring to the culture of death. That's the
term which was probably coined by John Paul too, but
in in two different sciences, because one UH is just
(55:21):
concerning the content uh, the concept carries and the content destroys. UH.
What is most human in humans, so that we are
in a certain sense as humans that we should be.
(55:42):
On the other hand, that this culture mussively inflicts death
of innocent people, for abortion, for tenancia, for experiments of
human embryos. But might be that also a result of
(56:03):
this culture can be that of some migrants if we
don't we look at them as on people mm hmm,
if we don't respect the dignity. I think that's that's
the question that that in in this question approach, we
(56:27):
are saying every human being has the same dignity and
the same vetu uh. And then is the question what
we can do to grant the best respect for this
technity for for everyone. And then there are this this
(56:49):
order of.
Speaker 6 (56:49):
Love in a sense, what is the most humanizing thing
that we can do in this concrete in a situation,
And that human dehumanized people tend to just dehumanize one another,
So we do have to tend as you say, it
is important to consider the the culture, and the and
the continuity and and and the communal aspect. And it's
(57:14):
hard to hold all these things intension.
Speaker 5 (57:16):
But yeah, but.
Speaker 4 (57:20):
On the one hand, you can see that, for example,
the far left is saying the more migrants, the best
the better, uh, because they are saying this multicultural society
is better or the better quality than homogeneous one. So
(57:44):
we should destroy the homogeneity of the society. But on
the far right you can see that sometimes a very
negative approach to migration. Also the human design people, so
that there was not only a fear because we don't
(58:09):
know what will happen, but also because we don't respect
the dignity of others. And that's also risky.
Speaker 3 (58:20):
We we said we come to the end, and coming
to the end, we come for us to the beginning
the Gospel, the Gospel for today. Jesus told his disciples
this parable. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a landowner
who went out at dawn to hire labors for his vineyard.
(58:43):
After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he
sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o'clock,
he saw others standing idle in the marketplace and he
said to them, you too go into my vineyard, and
I will give you what is just. So they went off,
and he went out again around noon and around three o'clock,
(59:05):
and did likewise. Going out about five o'clock, he found
others standing around and said to them, why do you
stand to your idol all day? They answered because no
one has hired us. He said to them, you too,
go into my vineyard. When it was evening, the owner
of the vineyard said to his foreman some of the
(59:26):
laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last
and ending with the first. When those who had started
about five o'clock in pain, each received the usual daily wage,
so when the first came they thought they would receive more.
But each of them also got the usual wage, and
on receiving it, they grumbled. They grumbled against the landowners,
(59:50):
saying these last ones worked only one hour, and you
had made them equal to us, who bore the day's
burden and the heat. He said to one of them
in reply, my friend, I am not cheating you. Did
you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
Take what is yours and go. What if I wish
(01:00:12):
to give this last one the same as you or
am I not free to do as I wish with
my own money? Are you envious? Because I am generous
us the last will be first and the first last. Come,
Lord Jesus Come. Thank you so much. Father, that's like
(01:00:40):
appreciate you're giving us this time.
Speaker 4 (01:00:44):
Thank you very much for to talk.
Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
Hello, God's beloved. I'm Annabelle Mosley, author, professor of theology
and host of them Sings My Soul and Destination Sainthood
on WCAT Radio. I invite you to listen in and
find inspiration along this sacred journey. We're traveling together to
make our lives a masterpiece and with God's grace, become saints.
(01:01:11):
Join me annabel Moseley for then sings My Soul and
Destination Sainthood on WCAT Radio. God bless you. Remember you
are never alone. God is always with you.
Speaker 4 (01:01:29):
Thank you for listening to a production of WCAT Radio.
Speaker 1 (01:01:34):
Please join us in our mission of evangelization, and don't
forget Love lifts up when knowledge takes flight.
You're listening to WCAT radio your home for authentic Catholic programming.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Please join us at the Open Door. We discuss solidarity, subsidiarity,
economic democracy, in non violence in light of Catholic social teaching.
We explore how to move from discussion to political change.
Culture and politics, to be sure, are interwoven, so we
care deeply about education and the arts. Our questions often
(00:29):
lead us to report on the projects in promise of
the American Solidarity Party.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Welcome to the Open Door, Jim Hanik here with fellow
panelists Valrie Demeyer and Christopher Zander. Today we discuss the
multi faceted issue of immigration. How can we better understand
the new waves of immigrants, whether in Europe or the
United States. What does the church teach about the gothical
(00:59):
issue that come into play, How can we assess the
politics of immigration, What role should our parishes play, and
how might we respond at a personal level. Our special
and welcome guest his father, Pyotra Maserkiech. He is a
(01:20):
professor of political science and Catholic Social thought at Colonel
Stephen Vishinski University in Warsaw, as well as editor in
chief of the journal Christianity, world politics. From two thousand
and eight till twenty twelve, he served as Secretary General
(01:41):
of the Commission of Bishops of the European Community. Father
recently authored Two Towers and a Minaret Migration from Catholic
perspective en Root Books, twenty twenty four. Let's begin as
we always do and prayer. Come, Holy Spirit, sell the
(02:04):
hearts of your faithful, and kindle on them the fire
of your love. Send forth your spirit, and they shall
be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth.
O God, who have taught the hearts of the faithful
by the light of the Holy Spirit, granted in the
same spirit we may be truly wise and ever rejoiced
(02:27):
in His consolation through Christ, our Lord. Amen, Father, Please
tell us how you came to your work on the question,
the multifaceted question of immigration.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
You see as I am a Catholic priest and on
the other hand social scientists. So in this my scientific research,
I always try to accompany the Church in a different
challenges the Church is facing. So I started with the
(03:08):
time of transition from the communists to democracy, then with
integration and how the Church should approach this issue. After
the word trade Center. I came to violence in politics
and reflection on terrorism and ethics. And after twenty fifteen,
(03:31):
so after this wave of massive migration to Europe, I
started to work on migration. And that's strictly linked with
the fact that on the one hand you have the
facts and you have real people, and on the other
(03:55):
hand you have politics. So there was a figure of
interest and and and so on. And the question is
what is morally good in this context, because the church
should not just follow this or that political line, this
(04:16):
or that program, but reflect on the on the morality
of on the moral approach to to this issue. So
I try to do this.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
You said, uh, on the other hand, you have politics.
Can you said politics? On one hand?
Speaker 4 (04:34):
Mh uh. If you see formally, I am a political scientist,
so uh when we when we are talking on politics.
On the one hand, you have this Aristotelian approach, and
(04:54):
I think the church is following this, this line of
reflection that politics is said part of ethics. Oh, this
is the careful for the common well. On the other hand,
you have this mcchavillian approach. But this is only in power.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Here in the United States. Politics won't sit on one
hand for two hands. It spreads everywhere, everywhere. Well that's Christopher, Christopher,
can you take us forward?
Speaker 5 (05:28):
Yes, I'm curious. Immigration is a big issue, as you
probably know in the American election. It's been a big
issue now for as long as I can remember it,
but especially with the Republican side to make it a
very big issue, and we're treated with rhetoric that it's
all migrants are or a huge number of them are
(05:51):
a very dangerous people. I'm not as familiar with what's
happening in Europe, but when you would, you say, it
would be how is Mica the whole migration issue differ
from in Europe as from the United States? What are
the commonalities where the things? How do they differ?
Speaker 4 (06:09):
You see, it is somewhat different, But at the same time,
I think what is in common is this massive character.
So the challenge for us is not just migration, but
the massive migration because always in human history we were
on the move as people, uh, And that the measure
(06:35):
of this massive migration exceeds the capacity to integrate migrants.
And here is the question of political and ethical responsibility.
So how many people you can integrate into your society,
not provoking risk, a big risk for example of open
(06:58):
conflicts as we have you know recently in England and
so on. On the other hand, the challenge is strictly
linked with this high homogeneity, so that when we reflect
on Europe before it doesn't for Tea, in uh there
(07:19):
was a dominant dominance of Muslims, but also a high
percentage of Christians among migrants, also due to the persecutions
of Christians in the Middle East and so on, and
then this was changed and it's clear that mostly we
(07:42):
are talking in Europe on Muslim migration to Europe. So
in the in the US, I think that's mostly migration
from Latin America means Spanish speaking people, mostly Catholics, and
(08:04):
mostly probably also as in Europe, these are young men.
In Europe we can say in draft age. So in
this context we can say due to this homogeneity, the
(08:26):
massive migration with time is changing also our culture structure
of society in Europe. In a certain sense, it is
forbidden to talk about religion in this migration process, but
in my understanding that's a very important factor also because
(08:49):
in the migration process is very important for the integration
of migrants. The cultural distance, so not the geographical one,
but how cross is the culture of newcomers to the
culture of the country which is hosting them, and to
(09:10):
what extent that people would like to become a member
of the hosting societies. And I think one of the
mistakes is that we sometimes in debate we are looking
on migration from an individual perspective, so if always the
(09:33):
policy would be on single people, but when we are
talking about massive migration, we are very conscious that these
are communities which are on the booth, so that people
are moving from one village in one country and they
are forming a quarter, taking a quarter in the big
(09:57):
city somewhere in Europe or in there was. They're not
just dispersed all over the country. So in Europe we
have cities since more than ten years the majority of
inhabitants are Muslims like what we're done, for example, and
(10:21):
in the former time, because that's also natural for human beings,
we would like to live among people are like we.
So for example, in Chicago, Chicago was in the former
time the second biggest Polish city in the world. Afterwards,
(10:43):
I think it's not the case today, but this means
that people were forming also kind of ghetto in this
new country and with the development of new technologies, we
are talking about diasporus. So it means that that the
(11:06):
community which settled down somewhere in the US or in Europe,
but they have the feeling that they are still a
part of the society in their own nation state. And
on the one hand, it's quite easy to to take
(11:31):
a cheap flight and they are going for holidays and
so on. Back on the other hand, you have social media,
you have national access to national TV and so on.
So there's no so so many factors which would push
(11:55):
us to integrate in this new country, to UH, to
really wish to be alike on the people in their neighborhood.
I think that that's that's that's very important. And also
what is important is the average age of migrants, because
(12:22):
in my understanding, one of the most important incentives for
migration is demographic crisis on the West UH in Europe
that's very sharp, so that that the average age of
migrants is much lower that of Western societies. This means
(12:48):
also that the mortality rate is lower and the fertility
rate is higher in these groups. So we see that
this process of a change in the society provoked by
(13:11):
migration can accelerate in the future, and we should just
consider that. That's the first thing, I think, is to
understand the phenomenon and then to reflect how we should
react this.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
So is it? I guess too that for Europe immigration
means something different from us. From the United States. And
the United States we've had this historically predominant angle Protestant culture,
Scots Irish Protestant culture. But we've always held the idea
of our country in a melting pot. So it's supposed
(13:50):
to bring in where we sort of more or less
expect that people from other cultures are going to come
and live here. To be an American, to become become
an American citizen, it's to be is to be naturalized,
and it doesn't really carry with it necessarily, or hasn't
always carried with the notion that you become a certain
culture or a certain nationality. But in Europe, I mean
(14:12):
some years ago, I remember reading hearing about a German
who did a German who did a suicide bombing in Israel,
and I thought, what was a German doing a suicide
bombing in Israel? What turns out that German was actually
a Midese gener but he's called a German because he's
a German citizen. That makes sense with the United States.
(14:32):
Doesn't make as much sense, it seems to me with Europe.
Is that so you have this other aspect where if
you're a German that has a meaning over and above
what constitutional order you're living under. It seemed to me
that would create further difficulties.
Speaker 4 (14:47):
And what we have here, yes, something that there was
a huge difference. So you see, when I had lectures
in the US gents, all of my students had migration
background in previous generation or somewhere in the in the past.
(15:10):
So and that's characteristic of American society. I think that
this from this point of view, is also very natural,
not to have just a negative approach to migration as such,
but to uncontrolled migration. And in the US in the
(15:32):
former time, you for example, had some quotas for different nations,
for different UH direction from which you UH were ready
to receive migrants, because for example, you were afraid in
a certain time of Chinese a massive migration to the
(15:53):
US in Europe. But that's mostly our intellectual perception. We
are thinking that we had homogeneous nations. We have to
(16:15):
say we have and this is you've been experienced uh
the historical nations, but especially in my country, we never
were homogeneous because Poland was on the border of civilizations,
so that the border is not just strict that no
(16:37):
one can pass from one side of the river to
the other one. And on the other hand they also
in Poland, for example, we had the there was a
Polish Commonwealth country of three nations plus Jews, which form
(17:03):
about ten percent of the society. For this reason we
had four national parliaments and then the parliament of the country,
and then we had also other minorities German one or
Armenian one or we Since six hundred years we have tatars.
(17:25):
So the Muslim community which was invited to Poland to
protect Polish is a boorden and after the six hundred
years we can say got very well integrated. But at
(17:45):
the same time they behave like Christians being Muslims, so
that this transform also their understanding of Islam, which were
sent risk. But this is I think an important experience
(18:06):
also for for other countries that on the one hand
Islam social political concepts link it is some are totally
different than this associated with Christianity, especially because there is
no concept of a church as a separate from politics institution.
(18:34):
And on the other hand that the people regardless of
their religion, so they can accommodate. And but this is
this is taking taking time. But also if if this
(18:55):
is not on small groups but on large groups, so
they are changing the hosting country, the culture, maybe the language.
Also we have also some for example Jewish words in
(19:17):
Polish language or German and so on. And on the
other hand, this can also change political culture. So that
one of my friends, after the colapse of the Soviet Union,
he made research so how developed the political systems in
(19:41):
those communist countries. The conclusion was that all the countries
with the society dominated by Western Christianity became democratic. UH.
With Orthodoxy. That was a mixture because we had, for example,
(20:07):
we have a Bulgaria, Romania which are in the U
in NATO, and so when we have Ukraine which was
in a certainstance in the middle for quite a long time,
and then we have Bilo Russian Treasure. UH. And when
(20:29):
we approach the Muslim countries and it's democratic, so we
we are we can see just in this case that
religion and this tradition, this political tradition, which is somehow
linked with religion, is playing a role. So the question
(20:52):
is also how our political systems can be changed by
massive migration.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
H all right, thank you, Valerie.
Speaker 6 (21:05):
Rather wow, you're really helping us open up so many
dimensions of the issue that we so often aren't thinking of.
Thank you help us understand just the concept of national sovereignty.
What's national sovereignty, what is it, what is it founded on?
And what are the limits that we can understand national
(21:28):
sovereignty would have.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
I think we should start with the old origins of
this concept. So French thinkerda in the sixteenth century. He
was proud that he elaborated the concept of sovereignty through
the player's time, even if the word was used before
in the Middle Age, but in a totally different sense.
(21:55):
And he treated the concept of solerty as absolutely necessary
because he wanted to justify absolute power. So for the
absolute system and for this reason for us Christians, that's
a tricky that we we are using this concept also
(22:23):
because it's in the international law and so on, but
trying to avoid the strap up of the absolute power.
It means that when we are talking about the sovereign power,
we are saying, yeah, there's some limits of competencies, so
(22:46):
that the data the government cannot do anything they want.
And we will say here, I think especially in the US,
but also in Polish democratic tradition, there was a constitution
and there are limits in the constitution. Inscribed in the
(23:11):
constitution means also in the system that like James Medicine
who said, if people would be angels, there would be
no need of a government. If angels would govern people,
there would be no need for control mechanists, for checking balances, mechanisms.
(23:37):
So but they are already in our Western constitutions. But
at the same time, and I think the German case
with the Vinyl constitution here is very important. That's the
democratic country with the democratic constitution directly could switch into
(24:02):
a totalitarian system uh uh without any visible break in
in politics. So that that we we know that the
culture is necessary, this democratic culture and just. But just
(24:28):
concerning the the sovereignty concept, this concept is saying that
the state is entitled to the highest possible level of autonomy,
that the states are equal in the international relations, formally
equal because in practice we see that the power of
(24:51):
different states are different. And but it's also important that
the state authority has a default compet in internal affairs.
So if for example, there's a new issue which should
be regulated, like at a protection artificial intelligence or pandemic,
(25:15):
and we say who has the right to regulate this,
who should issue a lot? We are saying yes, sovereign power. Uh.
But there we can say from this this ethical point
(25:35):
of view, the sovereign power is obliged to respect, for example,
the human rights, human rights not only of citizens but
also of residents. So that's that here in this human
dignity we are equal, even if we are not citizens.
(26:01):
That this means also that in extreme situation, also from
the international point of view, international law point of view,
there's a possibility of creumentary intervention to protect the citizens
in front of their own government. And I think also,
(26:23):
or maybe especially in the American context, we are very
conscious that this institution should not be abused. So that's
an extreme institution to intervene in such a way. In
the context of migration, I think what is important is
(26:48):
that the government is responsible for migration policy, so that
the decision how the migration process is organized should be
taken by the sovereign power, not by another country, not
by international community, but by the state, and so here
(27:15):
we can we can say that that's also from all
point of view, the state should have a migration policy.
Speaker 5 (27:25):
In this.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
They are invited by the church to accept migrants, but
conditionally as far as it is as this is possible,
So the church is saying they are limits. Also, we
don't expect that the country will do something which will
(27:56):
be irrational, destroy the society, probable conflict, because this sovereign
government is primarily responsible for its own citizens uh. And
this is a part of Caroholic theology. There is there's
an order of charity. So that's when we are saying
(28:20):
the what for what we first we are responsible, so
we start with for example, the family uh and the
circle are growing that this means also that the government
should try to maintain the living standards or the citizens
(28:43):
that ensure security, social peace, but also to protect national identity,
cultural continuity of the community. So the term with with this,
I think what is specific is that if someone is
(29:04):
thinking that the national identity also in this political identity
in the US, that this is a closed concept, so
that Americans should always be like today, he's wrong because
the culture is something living, so is changing, but at
(29:31):
the same time we expect that they will be a
continuity and that we can decide what is fitting to
our culture and what is contrary to read.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
There's a library, and there's not just a book. There's
a library and a couple of thoughts that I have.
First of all, a sovereignty. Some of us on this program,
one of us, in particular our students of Jacques Martin
(30:12):
and Maritan was sharply critical of what national sovereignty has
come to be seen ass and a man in a state,
he too begins with a discussion of Boutan, And it's
very interesting that we have this dispute about national sovereignty.
(30:37):
I think that I think that what the Church teaches
about national sovereignty is not what any nationally sovereign state
would teach about itself. I think that the differences between
the two views are often papered over, and that brings
(30:59):
us to who Maritian's view of the state as the
top most agency of the people, at the top most
agency of the people. At any rate, there certainly is
a role for the state, and there is a role
for the state in determining policy with regard to migration,
(31:21):
and yet when I think at things, think of things
at a more personal level, I find myself my wife,
and I find myself well, very often ignoring what the
state teaches about immigration. For example, we have someone who
(31:43):
is vital to our household, a caregiver for my brother,
suffers from demension, and she's not here illgally. And there
are a fair number of Americans, I imagine, who would
not hire on those grounds. And there are a small
number of Americans, I imagine, who would just as soon
(32:04):
report the fact that we employer. But we have every
intention of continuing to employ her, and we think that
the policy set by the state is simply wrong headed,
and we weren't going to pursue that, and we're not
(32:25):
particular pressed by it either. Now there is also a
new point this out again and again in your splendid book.
So many differences in different regions when you respect to immigration.
Here in Los Angeles, your background things. While this is
(32:48):
saying in a broad brush way Anglos, and I count
as an Anglo because I'm Dutch. Anglos pretty much stole California,
and they pretty much got away with Stephen California. And
now in Los Angeles, once again, the majority of the
(33:09):
population is latinum and it's going to continue that way.
And there isn't any cultural rupture because the culture was
pretty much that way anyway, except the suppression really of
Latinos by far more wealthy oil industries led to a
(33:35):
period in which Anglos deported Latinos. In fact, it become citizens,
they deported them anyway. So there's this incredible hodgepodge. Now
it is the case that we have to think of things,
and we certainly respect this. We have to think of
(33:56):
things in the communitarian way. But communities don't go to
heaven or don't go to hell. Individuals go to heaven.
Individuals go to hell. And when I think of things
from the individual level, personal level, it seems to me
that I have a right to leave the country, and
(34:21):
that I also have a right prima facial right to
stay in the country. The American political philosopher has been
so enormously influential. John Rawls like to distinction between voluntary
organizations and the state, and it seems to me, at
(34:45):
a fundamental level, the state is also a voluntary organization.
I don't have to stay here. I don't think if
I don't want to, I should have good reasons for
leaving because causes all sorts of connections with other people
to be impacted. But also it seems like none of
(35:09):
us are mere creatures of the state. If I wanted
to immigrate to Poland, it seems to me that I
ought to be able to and the same for people
in Poland ought to be able to immigrate here. You
mentioned your students having background as immigrants when you were
(35:31):
in the United States. I grew up in a place
called Grand Rapids, Michigan, and half the time was Polish
and half the town was Dutch. That's just the way
it was. And we certainly had contacts with the Netherlands,
and the Polish people certainly had contact with Poland. At
(35:53):
any rate. That was not a library, that was not
a book. That was what we call here irant Rand.
Today you are most cordially invited to do so.
Speaker 4 (36:07):
You see when I'm talking about this fact that they
are communities on the move. Uh, that's just a social fact.
And a different thing is the question of in dural
responsibility of citizens in this sense that the government is
(36:30):
taking decision. But if the US would like to accept
one hundred thousands immigrants a year or one million that's
not your personal decision, but you are voting for this
other government. So but but this political decision consuming the
(36:54):
directions from which immigrants are welcomed, and so on, how
to react on the just on the pundomenon, that's the policy.
But when you are meeting a person with immigrant background
(37:15):
that you personally so in this case, that's as a
question of more obligation my or more obligation to this
concrete person. And here we are not replaced by the government.
(37:37):
So it might be that there is someone who is
illegal migrant, so from the point of view of the state,
shouldn't be here. But he is, and he is sick,
and you are like a Samaritan passing by, so you
(38:01):
don't ask who the person is. But on this background,
it's impossible to construct the state police that we would like,
that citizens would be like good samaritans.
Speaker 5 (38:28):
M h.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
And soert. It's true that every person has a natural
right to leave its own country. I was born in
the communists Domini state, and we were depraved of this right,
(38:53):
So we should apply for a passport. And the answer,
simplifying depends on what is our approach to the communists.
If you are against you will not receive if you
decide to cooperate with them. The passport was delivered and
(39:17):
this is over the time, so citizens are not the
prisoners of the state. Recently, quite recently, I heard a
similar message on a meeting with the Turkish minister. We
said Turkey is a country that the government decides who
(39:42):
has the right to enter and who has the right
to leave the catch that's my experience from the past.
Today everyone has his own passport at home and is
free to go where he wished, But it doesn't mean
that everyone has the right to settle down anywhere. Because
(40:11):
the lens is not empty. So we can say using
this word that the land is occupied, so that the owners.
There's a hosting community, and this community should have accept
(40:32):
us if you would like to settle down there and
to become a member of this community. This is like
just when you someone would like to enter your home.
You are the host, so you decide under which condition,
for how long and so on. They so we as
(40:56):
the Catholics, were invited to hospitality too. But at the
same time, it doesn't mean that at home the role
of guests and horse should be changed today and that's
the question of rationality of responsibility and so. But in
(41:23):
such a case, when when we are talking about an
appointment with a conquers person, our moral responsibility is individual.
We can be in very different situations. I remember my
Italian friends. They had, I think for children, and the
(41:51):
day they came the Scypito came to me with the
children and one black child on hand. I was surprised
because they were white, and how it came that they
have a black child. And I said, I in the
morning in Milan, I husband for a newspaper and I
(42:18):
found on a street in a newspaper a baby. So
I informed the police. We filled all the documents, but
the question was, but what to do now with this baby?
And that's a very nice story on mertural Rough because
(42:43):
he said, in this moment, I started to reflect what
my wife would do, and he said, my wife would
adopt this child. So I took the child, and my
wife reacted exactly that way, and that came to me
with this child. I don't think that every one of
(43:07):
you will have a similar story. But this responsibility is
always very concrete. And on the other hand, when we
(43:27):
are talking about the right to leave the country, just
when you will see all of the statistics. More than
ninety seven percent of humanity is living in the country
of origin. It means much more natural for a person.
(43:49):
It's not migrate, but to stay well, because this is
my city. I was born here, as my church, high school.
That's uh. This here are the terms of members of
my family and so on. It's important that I can
(44:12):
go to the cemetery and I see not only at
the term of my father, but grandfather, grand grandfather, and
I'm rooted here. That's really my place, and that's the
natural experience of of people. Uh. So we have to
(44:37):
say that this right to stay home is much more
natural a person than this right to leave the camp,
even if everyone should be free to live mm. And
(44:57):
that here when we are thinking about the right to
leave the country and to the right to stay in
the communist country, from time to time, people were forced
to migrate to any grade if they were troublesome for
(45:19):
the government and they were depraved of citizenship. So we
will say, no, it shouldn't be like this. You have
your own country, your own place, and you have the
right to stay there. And then we can reflect. But
(45:39):
if a group of people quite large is leaving the
countries migrating. So what for you have a separate fundomenon
concerning the refugees, because these are people who are forced
(46:00):
to leave the country. And when we are talking about
refugees also in the international law, they have a different
status and a different right. So we are talking about
people who are forced to live because for example, the
life was at risk, and who would like to come back.
(46:25):
There's a right to return safely, but for a certain
moment they need a shelter. Uh. And we usually naturally
(46:50):
see the distinction between one and the other group. So
we are much more open on a natural way to
those who suffer because they were depraised for the country
of their home and so on. And when we for example, UH,
(47:14):
in the context of migration, we refer to the Holy
Family who left Palestine and settled down for a certain
time in Egypt. They were not just immigrants. There were refugees.
They never had idea to settle down forever because the
(47:38):
storys of salvation would be stopped, this story which which
happened if Jesus wouldn't come back to Palestine. And on
the other hand, when we are thinking about economic migrants,
(47:59):
so they want in general to change their living standards.
We can say everyone can have this wish to live
have better living conditions, but if we would like to
(48:24):
grant them that they will be able to stay home,
so we should invest them. And that's the question of
development aid, not just just sham aid, that we really
want that those poor countries we are calling them developing
countries today, that they really developed, and that we that
(48:49):
we want that people will have the better living conditions,
also political standards and guaranties for the rights. So here
we have the problem that sometimes trying to solve the
(49:12):
issue of migration, we are using so called end of
pipe technology. So people are on the border. What to
do with them? People are just on some ships on
the Materraneans. See what to do with them. But this
is the end of the process. If we would like
(49:35):
to change something, we should ask what is going, what
is pushing them on the own country, what we can
do there, not at the end of the pipe, but
at the beginning. And I think that's that's the problem
(49:55):
of real solidarity in this sense that we wouldn't like
that a country in Africa and we'll live on a
higher sundard that in Germany people are living or in
the US we would like just to help a little,
(50:23):
but not too much because there's a competition also on
the market and in between the countries.
Speaker 3 (50:34):
Spode it sadly, how about if we use the last
five minutes for a file fought from Christopher and a
final thought from Valerie, and then we always end with
the Gospel for the day, so we're push for Tom Christopher.
Speaker 5 (50:58):
I think one of the difficulties with the whole immigrant
should question, at least the United States, and probably analogous
in Europe, is that when when's own government is responsible
for policies that actually help impoverish other nations. You talk
about we look at things, we asked questions about what
the beginning of the process of immigration, and I remember
after the Natural North American Free Trade Agreement was passed
(51:21):
back in the nineties that the rate of immigration from
the Latin America the United States increased tremendously. And it's
always been there, but it increased tremendously. And some of
the causes where the destruction of certain Mexican industries like
farming took a big hit because the United States government
was that the Congress was subsidized American agriculture productions so
(51:44):
they could sell their core and south the border below
market price. So you have this. So what we have
now is we have people protests immigration, immigrants coming from
Latin America up into into our country. But historically much
of that has been because actions our own government taken
(52:08):
in our name. So it seemed like I think sometimes
we're not looking at is basic justice, how we been
acting justly to neighboring nations, especially when we have a
country like the United States who's immensely powerful in governments
in Latin America, particular in Mexico and others which are not.
(52:32):
So that's something I think that's not coming into the
equation often enough. It's not simply people coming up here
when a better their condition. It's people who have often
come up here because they have no other condition, They
have hardly any condition to better down in their own
native countries.
Speaker 6 (52:51):
Thank you, bellor Yes, I just see so many connections.
As you were talking, I'm thinking about well, I'm thinking
about capitalism in the free market, and thinking about abortion
and how we want to address the end game, you know,
the end situation, but we're not addressing their root causes.
And you know, you just see that in this this
culture of we have this, we can contribute to a
(53:13):
culture of life, or we could contribute to a culture
of death. But we must we must nurture at all
levels a culture of life, not complain about, you know,
the results of kind of an apathy or a contribution
to things that produce these these problems. So yeah, I
think this is just really good food for thought, and
(53:34):
I would just invite you to share your final thoughts
that you would want people to think about you.
Speaker 4 (53:40):
See, I think that's on the On the one Hunter,
the issue of justice is very important, but this means
also of distent politicians. So we need virtuous and they
(54:01):
in this moment can lead organize just policy. On the
other hand, on many issues, the problem there's a problem
of ideology, so that the government. What you see that
the change of the government and the change total change
of the policy for example my gration. Uh. And why
(54:28):
because one group is uh sharing this ideology and the
other group the other one. And the real responsibility political
responsibility is linked with rationality. So we should try to
really understand the problem and look for for good solutions
(54:55):
and for what is serving the common good? Uh. When
we are referring to the culture of death. That's the
term which was probably coined by John Paul too, but
in in two different sciences, because one UH is just
(55:21):
concerning the content uh, the concept carries and the content destroys. UH.
What is most human in humans, so that we are
in a certain sense as humans that we should be.
(55:42):
On the other hand, that this culture mussively inflicts death
of innocent people, for abortion, for tenancia, for experiments of
human embryos. But might be that also a result of
(56:03):
this culture can be that of some migrants if we
don't we look at them as on people mm hmm,
if we don't respect the dignity. I think that's that's
the question that that in in this question approach, we
(56:27):
are saying every human being has the same dignity and
the same vetu uh. And then is the question what
we can do to grant the best respect for this
technity for for everyone. And then there are this this
(56:49):
order of.
Speaker 6 (56:49):
Love in a sense, what is the most humanizing thing
that we can do in this concrete in a situation,
And that human dehumanized people tend to just dehumanize one another,
So we do have to tend as you say, it
is important to consider the the culture, and the and
the continuity and and and the communal aspect. And it's
(57:14):
hard to hold all these things intension.
Speaker 5 (57:16):
But yeah, but.
Speaker 4 (57:20):
On the one hand, you can see that, for example,
the far left is saying the more migrants, the best
the better, uh, because they are saying this multicultural society
is better or the better quality than homogeneous one. So
(57:44):
we should destroy the homogeneity of the society. But on
the far right you can see that sometimes a very
negative approach to migration. Also the human design people, so
that there was not only a fear because we don't
(58:09):
know what will happen, but also because we don't respect
the dignity of others. And that's also risky.
Speaker 3 (58:20):
We we said we come to the end, and coming
to the end, we come for us to the beginning
the Gospel, the Gospel for today. Jesus told his disciples
this parable. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a landowner
who went out at dawn to hire labors for his vineyard.
(58:43):
After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he
sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o'clock,
he saw others standing idle in the marketplace and he
said to them, you too go into my vineyard, and
I will give you what is just. So they went off,
and he went out again around noon and around three o'clock,
(59:05):
and did likewise. Going out about five o'clock, he found
others standing around and said to them, why do you
stand to your idol all day? They answered because no
one has hired us. He said to them, you too,
go into my vineyard. When it was evening, the owner
of the vineyard said to his foreman some of the
(59:26):
laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last
and ending with the first. When those who had started
about five o'clock in pain, each received the usual daily wage,
so when the first came they thought they would receive more.
But each of them also got the usual wage, and
on receiving it, they grumbled. They grumbled against the landowners,
(59:50):
saying these last ones worked only one hour, and you
had made them equal to us, who bore the day's
burden and the heat. He said to one of them
in reply, my friend, I am not cheating you. Did
you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
Take what is yours and go. What if I wish
(01:00:12):
to give this last one the same as you or
am I not free to do as I wish with
my own money? Are you envious? Because I am generous
us the last will be first and the first last. Come,
Lord Jesus Come. Thank you so much. Father, that's like
(01:00:40):
appreciate you're giving us this time.
Speaker 4 (01:00:44):
Thank you very much for to talk.
Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
Hello, God's beloved. I'm Annabelle Mosley, author, professor of theology
and host of them Sings My Soul and Destination Sainthood
on WCAT Radio. I invite you to listen in and
find inspiration along this sacred journey. We're traveling together to
make our lives a masterpiece and with God's grace, become saints.
(01:01:11):
Join me annabel Moseley for then sings My Soul and
Destination Sainthood on WCAT Radio. God bless you. Remember you
are never alone. God is always with you.
Speaker 4 (01:01:29):
Thank you for listening to a production of WCAT Radio.
Speaker 1 (01:01:34):
Please join us in our mission of evangelization, and don't
forget Love lifts up when knowledge takes flight.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.