The same Facebook friend who has previously endorsed idiotic comparisons between Mary and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem and illegal immigration approvingly posted the photo above from St. Susanna Parish in Dedham, Mass. Its Nativity scene includes a sign reading “ICE was here” in place of Mary, Joseph, and the infant Jesus. Behold…
Terrific: bad history and bad analogies for ignorant progressive dupes! Merry Christmas!
The ethics villain in this case is the church’s hyper-political pastor, Rev. Stephen Josoma. Josoma has exploited the manger display to make other political statements that have nothing to do with Christmas in the past, putting Jesus in a cage during Trump’s first term and having Nativity scenes advocating climate change policy and gun control.
Holy asshole, Batman!
The Archdiocese of Boston has condemned the Dedham church’s conduct. “The people of God have the right to expect that, when they come to church, they will encounter genuine opportunities for prayer and Catholic worship — not divisive political messaging,” an Archdiocese spokesperson said. “The Church’s norms prohibit the use of sacred objects for any purpose other than the devotion of God’s people. This includes images of the Christ Child in the manger, which are to be used solely to foster faith and devotion.The display should be removed, and the manger restored to its proper sacred purpose.”
But the reverend is neither abashed nor apologetic. “What is the objective by doing this? To help people recognize the plight of people who are really in dire need, and how are we treating them,” Rev. Josoma told local media. Yeah, well you can do that on your own time in a place that people do not trust to provide respite from politics and partisan propaganda, jerk.
Of course, the Vatican shares responsibility for his arrogance, as the last two popes have stuck their mitres where they didn’t belong regarding the U.S. enforcing its borders and litigation laws. Belafonte, the late calypso singer and civil rights activist, probably would be an open borders guy too, but he knew that other boundaries had to be respected.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m stunned the diocese dropped the hammer on this guy. Their statement is admirable and bears repeating: “The people of God have the right to expect that, when they come to church, they will encounter genuine opportunities for prayer and Catholic worship — not divisive political messaging,” Would this stance were adopted by ALL churches. Stay in the saving souls lane, churches.
Of course, maybe the diocese won’t make him take the sign down and he won’t suffer any consequences. Hah.
In the past, I have simply agreed with the criticism that erring usage of nativity scenes is misapplication of analogies.
But, just now, with “Ice Was Here”, the thought occurred to me that this is not analogy but an implied message “ICE is so bad they would kidnap baby Jesus” implying further that ICE would and does violate everything that is holy. Oddly also, the only thing “holy” about illegal immigration is its implicit oportunism which also pair well with the “almighty dollar” which so many Americans pursue to the lowest price of everything.
When a war is fought and both sides commit atrocities, must those atrocities be punished legally. Or, at the conclusion of the warring, can both sides ethically walk away and let the past be in the past?
Do ethics prevent us from clamping down on any further illegal immigration with zero tolerance while grandfathering in those who previously entered illegally due to poor management but on the condition that they only get work authorization and zero chace of a green card or citizenship?
Do ethics prevent us from clamping down on any further illegal immigration with zero tolerance while grandfathering in those who previously entered illegally due to poor management but on the condition that they only get work authorization and zero chace of a green card or citizenship?
I could support the idea of granting work authorization and zero chance of a Green Card or citizenship. It would have to be limited to that individual alone and not family members not already here and they would not be counted in the census. In other words, we are granting temporary work visas only and treat them in a similar manner as we do for embassy personnel but without the diplomatic immunity.
I would however be open to allowing the individual the opportunity to return to the persons country of origin and after a period of time – more than a year – apply for entry with a path to citizenship using existing legal methods.
The problem with such a compromise is that one political party wants an instant path to citizenship to increase their immediate political support and maintain numerical representative superiority in states that currently have high numbers of illegal aliens. The advantage of making such an offer.
I think that could be a reasonable approach. I would certainly like to see it codified into law so as not to be subject to the whims of the current or future presidents.
It is a generation past the time when Congress needs to sit up and do its job to reform our immigration system.
Regarding pathway to citizenship:
Hell no! for anyone who has entered the US in the last five years. They absolutely knew it was illegal to enter and took advantage of a corrupt administration’s folly. Send every single one of them home. Anyone who came in before 2021 and is not reliant on social services – a 20 year path to citizenship starting NOW (assuming all other requirements are met, of course, and no other criminal acts). And a legal maneuver that prevents the 20 years from reduction. I’m not a lawyer – you all can find a way.
As for the Church:
commentary isn’t enough. There should be severe consequences for this priest. Like you, I am sick of the political agendas, especially with a dogma that is so rigid about other matters of import. For example, my 43-year marriage to a really good man is both illicit and invalid in the eyes of the Church, because he is not a baptized Christian. I am denied the Sacraments, but the Church gives a pass to illegal immigration, with all its dire consequences. To quote a very interesting man, “Bite me.”
Thanks Jack:
I am really enjoying all the classic Christmas music. Many decades ago Danny and I attended a Harry Belafonte show in Las Vegas. He was spectacular. And Perry Como was my Dad’s favorite.
Merry Christmas, Grandma Lisa
Then other pastors would be free to put in a picture of Laken Riley, who was raped and murdered by an illegal.
/
The primary function of the Church (in any local and denominational instantiation) is to preach the Gospel, and in Advent season that means to prepare us for the coming of Jesus Christ; this means that Advent is a time of reflection and repentance. This emphasis on repentance requires attention for how to live a good, God pleasing live. That means that one of the tasks of the Church is to help us navigate how to live our lives properly from a moral and ethical perspective. The Church has many unique resources available for that purpose, foremost the Holy Scriptures, plus two thousand years of tradition and theology. Applying all this is involved, requires a lot of wisdom, and there are a lot of issues where the right answers cannot be ascertained based on these resources, as these are not addressed, or because certain Bible texts are only relevant in a certain context (e.g. many laws in the Old Testament are abrogated in the New Testament, or certain Bible texts speak only to a particular situation or apply to a particular cultural context).
Can the Church properly claim to have the last word on immigration issues? There certainly where foreigners residing in ancient Israel in the time the Old Testament was written. E.g. Deuteronomy 24:14-15 “Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the LORD against you, and you.” So this text implies that the social laws in the Torah offers protections to foreigners (non-Jews).
There is also the 4th Commandment in Exodus 20: 8-11: “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” This text implies that the foreigners in Israel are subject to all the laws of Israel, including the cultural and religious laws. In other words, the foreigners could nor retain their own culture in Israel, but they had to assimilate and worship the God of Israel.
The cultural differences between the Israel in Old Testament and today are vast. Old Testament Israel was a proper theocracy governed directly by God. It was not a modern nation state with borders, immigration laws, a constitution, and three branches of government. Direct application of Scripture to solve current immigration issues is impossible.
The temptation many clergy fall into is to selectively quote a verse in the Scripture out of context that on the sound of it matches their political and moral preference. Texts that do not seem to match their preferences are conveniently skipped. This is abuse of spiritual authority and theological malpractice.
And with this nativity scene stunt with its cheap shot at ICE the priest has really beclowned himself. No wonder so many churches are empty at Sunday.