A Catholic charity that serves migrants cannot invoke religious freedom to avoid complying with a legitimate inquiry by the attorney general of Texas.
A Catholic charity that serves migrants cannot invoke religious freedom to avoid complying with a legitimate inquiry by the attorney general of Texas.
A re U.S. Catholics who are caring for immigrants at the Texas border being attacked for their faith? If not, what’s behind the effort by Texas’s Attorney General Ken Paxton to shut down Annunciation House, a Catholic nonprofit that has been caring for immigrants and asylum-seekers since the 1980s?
In the early part of February, Paxton’s office demanded that Annunciation House, a nonprofit registered to operate in Texas, turn over certain records. Annunciation House refused, obtained a temporary restraining order, and applied for a temporary injunction. It claimed that immediate compliance with Paxton’s request would be nearly impossible; that Paxton’s request to produce all logs “identifying aliens to whom you have provided services in the relevant time period” violated the right to association as guaranteed by the First Amendment; and that Paxton had threatened “imminent injury” to Annunciation House unless it complied with the request to examine documents within one day, including revoking the group’s “right to continue performing its religious mission and serve persons who it chooses.”
Paxton filed a counter-claim demanding, among other things, that Annunciation House forfeit its rights and privileges as a registered entity in Texas and that a receiver be appointed to “wind up Annunciation House’s affairs.” He alleged that Annunciation House was guilty of “openly and flagrantly violating many provisions of law in a systemic fashion,” and he accused Annunciation House of “alien harboring, human smuggling, and operating a stash house” — charges the nonprofit furiously denies.
A hearing on the matter has been scheduled for March 7.
Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso is in no doubt that Annunciation House is being targeted for its faith. “We will not be intimidated in our work to serve Jesus Christ in our sisters and brothers fleeing danger and seeking to keep their families together,” he says — and all the bishops of Texas and California, both those considered theologically conservative and those with liberal views, are supporting him. Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Ind., chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty, similarly has spoken out in support of Annunciation House.
Of course, not all Catholics are lining up to support Annunciation House. They might not go as far as the editors of the New York Post, who wrote this past weekend that groups like Annunciation House are “complicit with migrant traffickers.” But they are taking seriously the allegations in Paxton’s counter-claim.
The overwhelmed border is a very sensitive and difficult problem. The volume of immigrants arriving at the border without prior authorization reached a historic high of 3.2 million “encounters” in fiscal year 2023. In December of 2023, the U.S. Border Patrol had nearly 250,000 encounters with immigrants crossing into the United States from Mexico, reaching a historic monthly high. Such numbers present a humanitarian crisis of cataclysmic proportions.
In light of this, Paxton’s desire to shut down an experienced social-service agency seems counterintuitive. Annunciation House has been caring for the poor in West Texas for 46 years. Its staff and volunteers are undoubtedly committed Catholics motivated by their faith. And caring for the physical needs of refugees by offering food and shelter is indeed a Corporal Work of Mercy. But if, as Paxton alleges, the shelter is knowingly shirking its obligations under the law, then it doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on in this fight.
To better assess whether Annunciation House is being religiously targeted, perhaps it would be useful to compare the legal battle in Texas with the attempt to target traditionalist Catholics by the FBI, which came to light last year when an internal memo from the Bureau’s branch office in Richmond, Va., was leaked to the public. The memo claimed that Latin Mass communities were linked to violent extremists — but it was unable to provide any evidence of this conspiracy theory. Some “radical traditionalists” surely hold nutty views, but they pose no real threat to the fabric of society. And even if you are not attracted to traditionalist groups, some of which are outside the main body of the Catholic Church, it is inescapably clear that these groups were being targeted because of their religious views.
Can we apply the same reasoning to Annunciation House? With all due respect to the bishops speaking out in support of the organization, and acknowledging much of the courageous, self-sacrificing work it has done over the decades, I don’t think we can.
By statute, any entity registered to operate in Texas that fails to comply with an investigative request issued by the Office of the Attorney General “forfeits the right . . . to do business” in the state. The good people at Annunciation House may regard this as an unjust law, but there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that a religious group may simply disregard any law that is inconvenient or offends its principles. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that Ken Paxton’s actions are motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment. If the nonprofit were run by Methodists, Unitarians, or militant atheists, it would presumably face exactly the same punitive measures.
This is, as I say, an immensely sensitive subject. We should hope that Annunciation House reaches an agreement with Ken Paxton’s office soon. But what it cannot do, even in these distressing circumstances, is ignore the rule of law or make unfounded accusations of anti-Catholicism. Doing so could provoke precisely the sort of anti-Catholic sentiment that, on this occasion, does not appear to be motivating Paxton.