Catholic Replies

Q. While preparing for her Confirmation, my niece had to memorize the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, but not all of them were the ones I learned at my Confirmation. I recognized three of them — Wisdom, Understanding, and Knowledge — but the other four were different. Can you explain this? — M.C., via e-mail.
A. For the last thirty or so years, certain substitutions were made for the traditional listing of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Wisdom, Understanding, and Knowledge remained the same, but Counsel became Right Judgment, Fortitude became Courage, Piety became Reverence, and Fear of the Lord became Wonder and Awe in God’s Presence. However, the revised Rite of Confirmation has restored the former names to the gifts and that is what your niece should have been told to memorize. Here is the prayer that the bishop reads at Confirmation before administering the sacrament:
“All-powerful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, by water and the Holy Spirit you freed your sons and daughters from sin and gave them new life. Send your Holy Spirit upon them to be their Helper and Guide. Give them the spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, the spirit of Counsel and Fortitude, the spirit of Knowledge and Piety. Fill them with the gift of Fear of the Lord. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.”

Q. In a recent front-page story in The Washington Post about U.S. immigration policy, several Catholic Church leaders were cited as opponents of President Trump’s efforts to slow down the number of those immigrating to the United States. The story mentioned Pope Francis, Blase Cardinal Cupich of Chicago, Joseph Cardinal Tobin of Newark, and Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles.
It quoted Peter Cardinal Turkson of Ghana, head of the Vatican Dicastery on Integral Human Development, as saying that “luckily there are dissenting voices, contrary voices, in the U.S., in explicit disagreement with Trump’s positions.”
I thought that the mission of the Church was spiritual, that of winning and saving souls for Christ. Sadly, I believe the focus of current Church leadership is now political. Your thoughts, please. — D.M., via e-mail.
A. As we have said in the past, we have a divine command to welcome the stranger, but this does not mean opening our borders willy-nilly to those who might harm us. A prudential immigration policy is not at odds with Catholic teaching.
For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “the more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin” (n. 2241).
The same paragraph goes on to say, however, that “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 civil burdens.”
But those quoted in The Washington Post story do not appear to support such a balanced policy. The Post said that “Catholic cardinals, bishops, and priests are emerging as some of the most influential opponents of immigration crackdowns backed by right-wing populists in the United States and Europe.” No mention of whether a “crackdown” might keep the country safe by preventing an influx of dangerous persons, or whether it makes common sense to deport convicted felons who have used their time in this country not to obey our laws, but to commit serious crimes.
In his recent apostolic exhortation on the call to holiness (Gaudete et Exsultate), Pope Francis parted company with his two recent Predecessors when he placed “defense of the innocent unborn” on the same level as defense of “the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection” (n. 101).
He said that “we often hear it said that with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the ‘grave’ bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Matt. 25:35)?” (n. 102).
So is it un-Christian to want to keep out members of the MS-13 gangs, who have murdered scores of innocent Americans in the cities where they have migrated? Or is it “right-wing populism” to curb immigration from certain Muslim countries, though not all of them, that have been a recognized training ground of terrorists? Is it being anti-religion to worry about those terrorists, mostly Muslims, who have killed millions of Christians and forced millions more to flee their homes in the past decade or so?
The Post story spoke disparagingly of an “anti-migrant party” in Germany, which was condemned by the conference of Catholic bishops in that country. But wasn’t it in Germany, which has been so welcoming to immigrants from Muslim countries, where, on New Year’s Eve in 2016, over 1,200 German women were sexually assaulted by Muslim men? Wouldn’t you think that, instead of condemning efforts to make sure that American women are safe from such predators, our bishops would be at least open to reasonable immigration restrictions?
So why aren’t they? Could it have anything to do with the more than half a billion dollars that the USCCB has received from the federal government over the past nine years for its refugee resettlement programs?
The bishops “have a heart for people who are suffering,” said EWTN news editor Raymond Arroyo, but if “the president decides that it’s time to take a pause, everybody has to step back and let it happen. President Obama did it, President Bush did it after 9/11. It’s not forever, it’s just for a time. But these groups, I think, sometimes their heart, and perhaps the financial motives, get in the way.”
Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, told LifeSiteNews that Pope Benedict XVI, in his motu proprio On the Service of Charity, “made it clear that Catholic charitable work should begin with the Mass and sacraments, work in conjunction with local bishops and Church, and hire faithful Catholics to carry out the programs. It seems to me that these refugee resettlement programs fail on all counts.”
Michael Hichborn, whose Lepanto Institute has exposed Church involvement in immoral relief programs overseas, also told LifeSiteNews that “we never hear the USCCB complain about much, except for the decisions to cut funding from the troughs feeding its social programs. The USCCB cried the same sob-story over USAID and PEPFAR, despite the fact that they both work hand in glove for the spread of abortifacient contraception and condoms.”
He said “the fact that Catholic Relief Services receives nearly two-thirds of its annual revenue from those agencies is most definitely linked to the lobbying efforts. So its concern over refugee resettlement is really no different. How can the Catholic Church be a free, prophetic voice when it has created a financial dependence on the federal government? Answer: It cannot.”