Most e-mailers agreed with JJM and Kathryn, panning my observation that the RC bishops’ views on immigration are colored by the fact that immigration is the only thing keeping the Catholic proportion of the population from dropping. One of the more thoughtful responses:

I agree with your views on immigration nearly all the time. I think, however, that your off-the-cuff remarks that perhaps Roman Catholic bishops do not support stronger immigration enforcement because they’re looking to pad the ranks with Latinos is uncharitable at best, and overly cynical. As it happens, I profoundly disagree with the Church’s position on the issue of immigration. While I think we have an obligation to be charitable to our fellow men, I do not think that overrides a country’s obligation to enforce its sovereignty, and to care for its own citizens, first. But I think that the U.S. bishops position is that their desire for liberalization of immigration laws and for amnesty is based in love and charity, and I see no reason to doubt that, despite disagreeing with where they end up, policy-wise. The business of ascribing motives can be very tricky, so sometimes I think it’s sufficient to note that someone is wrong, and why another way is better, rather than trying to damn someone based on motives they may or may not actually be moved by.

Well, if you want uncharitable and cynical, how’s this, from another reader apparently responding to Kathryn:

You’re arguing that the Bishops would advocate just as zealously for mass immigration/ illegal immigrant “rights” if the bordering countries to the south were primarily Muslim?
I think everyone knows that the catholics are simply advocating to stock their pews and protect the interests of their own showing up in their churches, a great many of whom are illegals. Social justice teaching may apply too, but it wouldn’t have half the force if the influx in question threatened and diminished the reach of the Roman church rather than fortified it.
Or lets put it another way, regarding the motivational purity of roman clergy: why did John Paul II advocate first and most against communism in Poland instead of Mongolia?

Unlike this guy, I am not a Catholic-basher; after all, I also belong to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (though not to its Roman subdivision). But it’s naive to think that the stewards of a large institution are not influenced by practical concerns of organizational continuity. Sure, no one is motivated solely by practical concerns; even Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has ideological and sentimental reasons to support open borders, in addition to his members’ financial interests. Obviously, the bishops’ advocacy for open immigration is a mix of sincerely held beliefs about social justice plus concern about replenishing numbers.

But the intensity of the bishops’ involvement in advocating for effectively open borders is not simply a matter of parochial concern. The Pew study that started this discussion shows that fully one-third of Americans raised Catholic leave the Church, higher than other denominations; so it’s fair to ask whether the hierarchy of America’s largest grassroots organization views the federal immigration program as a crutch, a way to avoid addressing the real problems that are causing so many Catholics to leave. If so, then the clear message of the bishops that those who disagree with their policy positions are morally wrong needs to be taken with a grain of salt.