Tag Archives: Immigration

Unholy Sophistry

In his classic book, The Death of Christian Culture, John Senior comments that one of the surest indications that a Christian culture is in demise is when believers come to rely on sophistry.  The sophist seeks, not to bring the force of truth into a conversation, but to fabricate compulsion through the mere use of words.  This unholy sophistry, at least in its latest incarnation, seems to afflict the Hierarchy of the Church more than the man in the pew as evidenced by the recent debate in the United States over the crackdown on illegal immigration.  Many Bishops insist that the policies of the new administration are “contrary to the dignity of the human person” and “harm the common good.”  Because these principles have been reduced to mere catch-phrases, it is helpful to take a look at how they are abused.

According to Aristotle, the favorite fallacy of the sophist is the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.  The sophist presents an irrefutable truth as an argument and then is aghast when the interlocutor takes exception to the truth.  This sophistry should be readily recognizable to anyone who has tried to wiggle out of the “Black Lives Matter” verbal finger trap.  The Catholic sophists are skilled at taking the foundational principles of the dignity of the human person and the common good as verbal trump cards to defend what is ultimately, not a moral or religious position, but a political one.  Because this often does harm to the moral authority of the Church, it is important that lay people recognize it and be able to avoid the confusion that is sure to follow from the sophistry buffet that picks and chooses which doctrines to emphasize.

“Dignity of the Human Person”

The dignity of the human person is, of course, the foundation of the Church’s Social Doctrine.  For this reason, it readily lends itself to abuse as an irrelevant conclusion.  The problem is that nearly every issue in society involves a collision in human dignity.  You might speak of the dignity of the immigrant, but you cannot in turn ignore the dignity of the citizen.  The principle of the dignity of the human person is always a two-edged sword.  In fact, this collision occurs so often that God uses the dignity of the human person as His reason for commanding the death penalty in Gn 9:6.

What governs every collision of human dignity is justice.  While a migrant has a natural right to migrate when a dire need arises, it can only be done in a manner that respects the rule of law of the country he is immigrating to.  Assuming that the laws around immigration are just then the country has a right to enforce those laws including removing those immigrants who refused to respect the rule of law. 

The unfortunate part is that the Catholic prelates have done little to explain how the immigration enforcement of the new administration is unjust.  They simply appeal to the dignity of the human person without acknowledging that it is contrary to the dignity of the human person for a country not to enforce her laws.  It comes across as a mere sophistry especially when combined with the fact that Church-affiliated organizations have benefited financially from aiding illegal immigrants.  Because of the way that is often perceived the exchange rate on those millions of dollars comes out to be 30 pieces of silver.

“Contrary to the Common Good”

Likewise, the notion that immigration enforcement is “contrary to the common good” also serves as an unholy sophistry.  How it is exactly contrary to the common good is not really explained, but merely stated without support.  The problem of referring to the common good is that it is really a form a question begging.  Residents of one society do not share in the common good of another.  Furthermore, the role of the State is to protect and promote the common good of its citizens.  Therefore, the citizen always has a precedence over the non-citizen.  To speak of immigration enforcement as contrary to the common good is to assume that the immigrant is a member of the society.  That is clearly a contradiction.

Like the “dignity of the human person” argument, the argument that it is “contrary to the common good” is also avoiding the question of justice.  Justice is a constitutive element of the common good.  The State has an obligation to enforce its just laws as guardian of the common good.  The sophisticated Catholics then need to make an argument based on what is just.

The Church has clearly laid out the principles that ought to govern just immigration policy (Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno and Exsul Familia Nazarethana).  With such clear principles, it should be relatively easy to show how the current policies are contrary to Catholic principles.  Instead, the sophists have relied on unholy sophistry that ultimately undermines their credibility and the moral credibility of the Church as a whole.