Why the bishops’ statement on immigration is not important

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Nov 20, 2025

Let’s look at the bishops’ statement on US immigration policy from a completely different angle.

Forget the arguments for and against unrestricted immigration, for and against the Trump administration’s crackdown. Instead ask this question: Why are the bishops making any statement at all?

We can all agree, regardless of our political perspectives, that the immigration problem in the US today is severe. We may disagree about the causes of that problem and about the appropriate remedies. Those are political issues, best resolved in political debates—which are not the bishops’ primary concern.

Our bishops, as spiritual leaders, have the duty to remind us of the moral principles involved in the political debate. In this case, the Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out those principles with admirable balance and clarity:

[2241] The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

How should those principles be applied to the current crisis in the US? The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has offered one interpretation. Do all Catholics agree with their judgment? Obviously not—as anyone knows who has followed the recent debates. CatholicVote has done a service by providing a very different reading of the situation, explicitly based on the principles set for in the Catechism.

Are faithful Catholic obligated to accept the bishops’ leadership on this issue? No, because a bishop’s authority does not extend to political matters. Unless the bishops can show that only their approach satisfies the moral principles cited in the Catechism, alternative suggestions are not only permissible but undoubtedly desirable.

Thus our friend and regular contributor Father Jerry Pokorsky is right to chide the “border czar,” Tom Homan—who is a Catholic—for saying that he disagrees with “the Catholic Church.” Father Pokorsky writes:

His remarks illustrate a broader tendency—common in public discourse—to conflate the Church with its governing bodies or leadership structures. In this sense, the bishops’ statement contributes to the confusion regarding the distinction between fallible pastoral judgments and the Church’s enduring doctrinal authority.

Unfortunately this confusion is especially evident among the bishops themselves. Whenever a public issue with some moral implications comes to the fore, our prelates behave like the proverbial figure from the French Revolution, who, when he saw a mob rushing past him, shouted that he must follow them because “I am their leader.” Not content to let lay Catholics hash out the political application of moral principles, they insist on doing it themselves. The fundamental problem here is that our bishops see themselves not primarily as spiritual guides and teachers, but first and foremost as Community Leaders.

The giveaway came at the USCCB meeting when, after giving resounding approval to their statement on immigration, the bishops joined in a hearty round of applause. Applause for whom? For themselves, of course! They congratulated themselves for making what they saw as an important statement on what is acknowledged to be an important issue. But is it an important statement? Politically important, I mean, since we are discussing a political issue. And the answer is No. Politicians—the people who ultimately make the decisions on these questions—know how few votes the bishops control. They know that, as the early reactions to this USCCB statement show, the bishops do not speak for a majority of Catholics on this issue. They also know that the US hierarchy has been unable to persuade Catholics to vote consistently against legal abortion or euthanasia or legal recognition of same-sex marriage: all issues on which the moral principles are much easier to apply.

The politicians know, for that matter, that most American Catholics don’t even follow their bishops’ directives to attend Mass on Sunday. Although, come to think of it, our bishops have not expended nearly this much attention in calling people back to regular Mass attendance. The bishops have been too busy acting as Community Leaders to fulfill their real responsibilities as spiritual fathers. The disappearance of a distinctive and coherent Catholic voting bloc is just one of the many unhappy consequences.

Granted, the bishops won a huge amount of media attention for their statement on immigration. So they might judge their effort as a success, if they measure success by media coverage. And I’m afraid they do.