The Catholic Church upholds the dignity of every human person. Just as certainly, the Church acknowledges the inviolability of just laws. It also upholds the moral right and necessity of nations to secure their borders and enforce immigration policies. These teachings are not opposed, but rather they mutually support one another. If there are those who perceive or present them as contradictory, then they fail to understand – or worse, intentionally misrepresent – the Church’s teaching.
The Church’s balance is grounded on centuries of Catholic teaching, which promotes both the common good and the protection of individual rights. An understanding of the Ten Commandments and their application shows the need to obey lawful superiors.
The Role of Nations in Securing Borders
The Church recognizes the legitimacy of nations and their duty to protect the common good of their citizens. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, asserts that the primary role of government is to safeguard the peace and order of society (Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 90, Art. 3). For this reason, nations are morally justified in enacting laws to regulate immigration, ensuring that newcomers contribute positively to the common good and do not undermine societal stability.
Catholic moral theologians such as Fr. Henry Davis, S.J., in his Moral and Pastoral Theology (1935), emphasize the necessity of governments maintaining order. Father Davis writes:
“The state has the right, and indeed the duty, to control the influx of foreigners, in order to protect the rights of its citizens and maintain public order. This includes the power to impose limitations on immigration when the common good so demands.”
Similarly, The Catechism of the Council of Trent published in 1566 teaches that rulers must ensure “peace, security, and the promotion of the welfare of the state.” This responsibility includes the prudent regulation of immigration, ensuring that a country’s resources and social order are not overwhelmed.
The Rights of Nations and Immigrants
While the Church acknowledges the rights of individuals to migrate in search of a better life, this right is not absolute. Pope Pius XII, in his apostolic constitution Exsul Familia Nazarethana published in 1952, addressed the plight of migrants while upholding the principle that migration must respect the laws of the receiving nation. He wrote:
“The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to the great multitude of exiles driven from their homes… but it is equally true that the right to migration must be regulated for the sake of the common good.”
This principle is further elaborated in older, clear moral manuals. For example, in Manuale Theologiae Moralis by Fr. Dominic Prümmer, O.P. (1923), it is noted:
“The right of a sovereign state to regulate the entry and settlement of foreigners is derived from its obligation to promote the common good of its people. It would be contrary to justice and prudence to allow unrestricted immigration when such would lead to disorder or harm to the established community.”
In recent years, this clear and reasonable teaching has been muddled by imprecise terminology and emotional (illogical) arguments.[1] Note, this is a common methodology by which modernists undermine true Church teaching.
Deportation and the Common Good
The enforcement of immigration laws, including the deportation of those who enter or remain in a country unlawfully, is morally permissible when done with justice and charity. St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, emphasizes in De Laicis that the temporal power of the state is ordained by God to maintain justice and order. Deportation, when used as a tool to address serious threats or illegal actions, aligns with this principle.
Naturally, public authorities must strive to treat even criminals with the dignity every human person respects. [However, when authorities face individuals who resist their rightful and just authority, or who escalate a situation into violence, then stronger measures must be employed. This can be the case when dealing with a deranged individual, a person under the influence of drugs, or organized resistance.]
Moral manuals prior to Vatican II also support this position. Fr. John A. McHugh, O.P., and Fr. Charles J. Callan, O.P., in Moral Theology: A Complete Course (1929), write:
“While charity demands that strangers be treated with respect and their basic needs met, justice permits the removal of those who violate the laws of the land or who pose a threat to the welfare of the nation. Deportation, when carried out with due process and consideration of individual circumstances, is a legitimate exercise of state authority.”
This respect for human dignity entails ensuring humane treatment throughout the legal process, avoiding inhumane detention conditions, and providing basic needs before deportation. It also requires distinguishing between those who violate immigration laws but pose no threat to society and those whose actions harm the common good through criminal behavior.
Balancing Justice and Mercy
Catholic teaching stresses the need for a balance between justice and mercy. While nations must uphold their laws and safeguard their citizens, the treatment of migrants, even those subject to deportation, should reflect Christ’s command to love one’s neighbor (cf. Matthew 22:39). Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum (1891) reminds us that all individuals, regardless of their immigration status, are created in the image of God and possess inherent dignity.
Fr. Joseph Rickaby, S.J., in Moral Philosophy (1918), captures this balance, writing:
“The state must act with firmness to protect its citizens and uphold its laws, yet it must also temper its actions with mercy, recognizing in every man the spark of divine image and likeness. Thus, even when enforcing justice, the state must strive to act as a steward of God’s charity.”
Conclusion
Catholic teaching affirms the right and duty of nations to secure their borders and enforce immigration laws to protect the common good. At the same time, these actions should be carried out with reason and in accordance with the dignity a human person deserves. (Note, a dangerous criminal who acts with violence foregoes certain rights and does not deserve, in justice, to be treated in the same manner as a calm, law-abiding, and non-violent individual.)
As Pope Pius XII articulated, the proper regulation of migration is a matter of prudence and justice, ensuring the welfare of both the immigrant and the host society. By adhering to these principles, nations can harmonize their responsibility to uphold order with their call to embody Christian charity.
[1] Editor’s Note: Consider the following and feel free to join the conversation below.
The modern Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) states:
“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” (CCC, 2241).
This teaching has never been put forth in Catholic tradition or in any centuries-old sources (as far as we know). In large measure this is surely because the verbiage used here introduces many elastic terms which have no clear definition and can be interpreted in a wide variety of contradictory ways. For example:
– What is a “more prosperous” nation? That very term is relative. If the GDP of Germany is greater than the GDP of France, then is Germany obligated to accept all French nationals into their country?
– Who determines the “extent they are able.” This too is an utterly relative term. It is highly unlikely that people would ever agree on such a matter, and therefore using this clause in a Church document is fraught with problematic dissension.
– How can it be established that an individual is unable to find reasonable security or a sufficient livelihood in his native land? This can only be determined on an individual case-by-case basis, by an objective authority, not by vague general policies or by the subject himself. Again, this “principle” is so vague that it is utterly unhelpful to include as a catechetical teaching and will inevitably lead towards division and dissent.
– The natural right of a host protecting his guest only exists because the host has authority over his home and invites the guest in. It could be argued that immigrants who come into a country legally and remain there legally have been, in a certain sense, invited, and therefore deserve due protection of law and other natural rights. But if they have entered illegally, they cannot claim these rights. Imagine if a violent abuser or a thief entered your home without your permission and then demanded you extend the “natural rights” of a guest to him?
– Note also, that even in this modernist statement, this obligation to welcome the foreigner is conditional upon the ability of the host country to provide for their needs without compromising its own citizens’ welfare. However, who makes this determination? In recent years, many immigrants with criminal records in their native lands have entered the United States illegally and committed violent crimes in the USA, yet leadership within the Democratic party maintained that these criminals had not compromised American citizens’ welfare. The families of Laken Riley and many other victims would certainly disagree. Once again, the statement proposed in the modern Catechism is far too ambiguous to be of practical use.