WHY NOT CHURCHES?

Victor Hugo camping it up on Jersey Island. 

I recently watched a disturbing interview between a news commentator and a Christian bishop. The topic was illegal migration into the U.S.. The bishop's church has actively encouraged migrants in Mexico to illegally cross from Mexico into the U.S.. She stated that she felt it was her ethical responsibility to do this. 

The commentator wisely put her ethics to the rationality test. He asked, "Are your congregation members going to house, feed and provide medical care for these migrants indefinitely?" The bishop was obviously surprised by the boldness of the question. In her politically correct and deluded world, such a question has no relevance. And most likely would be viewed as impertinent. 

She eventually conceded reluctantly that she expected the American taxpayer to pay these bills. The commentator admirably asked her what was ethical about her position to work to incur inevitable expenses for someone else to pay. She stupidly said, "It is our Christian obligation to help the world's poor." The commentator's paraphrased reply, "It seems you're saying it is my obligation to pay for your ideology."

These public conversations are too rare.

+++

Christian churches have established themselves throughout history as sanctuary from mob violence or legitimate authority. Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame is a wonderfully sentimental portrayal of ecclesiastic sanctuary. Hugo himself did not seek sanctuary in a church after he dared criticize Napoleon III as a tyrant. He set himself up nicely in a quirky house on Jersey Island in the English Channel. Thus giving the finger to the tyrant and political instability across the water.

The sanctuary myth gets dented when you look at the Catholic Inquisitions (12th century-19th century) and subsequent Reformation in Europe. The Spanish Inquisition (13th-16th centuries) placed about 45,000 people in prison, tortured them and judged them without any level of public scrutiny. It is guessed that 2,000 were executed, about half burned alive as public entertainment. This was out of a population of about 9 million. 

Henry VIII's (!6th century) destruction of Catholic monasteries and churches was supported by many educated Catholics initially because of the horrors of centuries of Spanish Inquisition, which had spread throughout the Christian world. Due to Henry's alienation of the Spanish royals after he divorced his first Spanish wife, invasion by Inquisition-loving Spanish royals was feared in England. Unfortunately, the Tudor reformation took to the same methods as the Inquisition to establish its politically based Church of England.

+++

My question is a simple one: Given the vast holdings of real estate by the Roman Church in Central and South America, why aren't migrants seeking refuge by utilizing the sanctuary of the Roman Church in their areas rather than walking hundreds of miles to the U.S. border? Could it be that churches themselves have helped to create the misery from which these people are seeking refuge? And why should the American taxpayer, who already carries a greater tax burden due to the tax exemption given to churches, pay for actual sanctuary which is neither offered nor supported economically by preachers themselves?