An Open Letter to Pope Francis
Your Holiness,
In response to your letter, dated February 10, 2025, to the bishops of the United States, I have the following to say as a Catholic layman and convert from 26 years ago. Your vision of Catholicism and the papacy is not what I signed up for a quarter-century ago, and it is because of your leadership, I have decided to make some changes.
The changes are as follows…
Having been raised as a Protestant, I was taught by my parents to be heavily engaged in American politics. I was initially raised as a Democrat, but during the Reagan years of the 1980s, my parents and I came to see that the U.S. Democratic Party had lost its way and no longer reflected our values as working-class American citizens. So my parents began voting Republican in 1984, and officially changed to the Republican Party in 1992. In the first election I could participate in as an adult, in 1988, I registered and voted Republican, and continued to do so up until 2004. By that time, I had become a Catholic, and began seeing significant problems with Bush-Republican foreign policy (that was very pro-war), which clashed with the warnings of your predecessor, the Great Saint, Pope John Paul II. So in 2005, I left the Republican Party and began looking for a more Catholic alternative way of voting. For years I explored third parties, as well as trying to find pro-life Democrats I could vote for (which is a real challenge by the way), until I finally gave up and decided to remain an unregistered independent voter for many years. Most recently, I thought I could find a way to reconcile Catholic teaching with American politics through the American Solidarity Party, a nascent third-party, but as the 2024 election moved forward, it became clear to me that would not work. However, it was your teaching, and the teaching of many of your subordinate bishops in the U.S.C.C.B., that cause me to come to the realization that it was a mistake to leave the Republican Party just because of one bad president. Thanks to you, and your brother bishops in America, I have re-registered as a Republican, started making monthly contributions to the party, and I have thrown my full support behind the agenda of Donald J. Trump and the M.A.G.A. movement. Your recent letter to the U.S. Catholic Bishops only confirms and validates my decision. I plan to remain Republican indefinitely now, financially supporting the party, and throwing my political alliance to M.A.G.A, which includes the agenda of Donald J. Trump, and whoever inherits M.A.G.A.’s support in 2028. For this, I am thankful to you and your brother bishops, for helping me see this was the right thing to do. With that, I will now critique your letter to the U.S. bishops, since it is public and available for all Americans to see on the Vatican website.
In paragraph one, you wrote: “The journey from slavery to freedom that the People of Israel traveled, as narrated in the Book of Exodus, invites us to look at the reality of our time, so clearly marked by the phenomenon of migration, as a decisive moment in history to reaffirm not only our faith in a God who is always close, incarnate, migrant and refugee, but also the infinite and transcendent dignity of every human person.“
I find this paragraph particularly troubling, and here’s why. The way it is written, it leaves readers with the impression that illegal migrants, as in those who break the migration laws of the United States, which has the most generous migration laws in the world (by the way), are somehow equivalent to the ancient Hebrews who left Egypt in search of the Promised Land. It implies that all of the countries they came from are somehow “evil” and “oppressive” as if they were “slaves” in those lands, which is not at all true in most cases. I find these words slanderous to Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. While some of these countries have implemented governments that are problematic, and should be reformed, they do not enslave their people, nor are the people incapable of rising up and forcing a redress of grievances. I support the people of these lands, and I do so by encouraging them to dig deeply into the richness of our Catholic tradition on social doctrine, implementing that in the ways they see fit, in their own particular circumstances, which is the competency only of the laity, and over which the clergy (including yourself) has no direct jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the way this paragraph is written, it leaves readers with the impression that illegal migrants are somehow a “holy people” making pilgrimage to the “promised land” (which I suppose is the United States?), under the direction of God’s guidance. Your Holiness, Moses and Joshua did not lead the Israelites into the Promised Land to settle there as illegal migrants. They led them into the Promised Land to conquer it, and to show no mercy, so as to drive the indigenous inhabitants out, so the Israelites could take it for themselves. Is this what you are saying illegal migrants should do to Americans? If not, then I fail to see the parallel you’re attempting to make here.
One last word on this paragraph. This idea of the “infinite and transcendent dignity of every human person” sounds nice. And I can go along with the word “transcendent,” as mankind was made in the image of God, but the word “infinite” is troubling to me, simply because I am not an “infinite” being, and neither are you, nor any other human being. We are, by nature, finite. Only God is infinite. Is my dignity equal to God’s dignity. No. I don’t think so. Moving on…
In paragraphs two, you wrote: “These words with which I begin are not an artificial construct. Even a cursory examination of the Church’s social doctrine emphatically shows that Jesus Christ is the true Emmanuel (cf. Mt 1:23); he did not live apart from the difficult experience of being expelled from his own land because of an imminent risk to his life, and from the experience of having to take refuge in a society and a culture foreign to his own. The Son of God, in becoming man, also chose to live the drama of immigration. I like to recall, among other things, the words with which Pope Pius XII began his Apostolic Constitution on the Care of Migrants, which is considered the “Magna Carta” of the Church’s thinking on migration: The family of Nazareth in exile, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, emigrants in Egypt and refugees there to escape the wrath of an ungodly king, are the model, the example and the consolation of emigrants and pilgrims of every age and country, of all refugees of every condition who, beset by persecution or necessity, are forced to leave their homeland, beloved family and dear friends for foreign lands.”
Here’s the problem with these paragraphs. While I disagree with what you wrote in the first sentence, for the reasons cited above, and I fully agree with what you wrote in the second sentence, obviously, it is the third sentence wherein you start to make some artificial and unfounded declarations. The Son of God, Jesus Christ, was not an illegal migrant. He lived in the Roman Empire. Under Roman law, as Roman subjects, our Blessed Mother, St. Joseph, and the Christ Child had every right to migrate from one province to another within the Roman Empire. The Holy Family did not migrate to the Parthian Empire, a truly foreign land to them, nor did they choose to infiltrate the Arab lands, another foreign country. Instead, they travelled south and west, to Egypt, which was lawful for them to do, and broke no laws in the process. Furthermore, when the danger of the wicked King Herod had passed, they returned to their homeland. It can accurately be said that the Holy Family were temporary refugees. It can also rightly be said that they were temporary migrants — but they were legal migrants. It is entirely false to call them immigrants, because they were not, as the Holy Family did not permanently stay in Egypt. It is slanderous, dare I say sacrilegious, to compare them to illegal aliens who show zero respect for migration laws. The Holy Family respected the migration laws of the Roman Empire. Illegal aliens do not respect the migration laws of modern nations. It seems strange to me that a layman would feel the need to remind you of these things. Indeed, if the words of Pope Pius XII are to be taken seriously, and they should be, then the Holy Family is the perfect model for all migrants today. They followed the law!
This is particularly personal to me, because I, myself, am a migrant and a refugee. It happened while I was a young man, twenty-three years of age. Due to severe economic turmoil in the United States, along with political upheaval in my chosen profession at the time, I was forced to leave my childhood home of California, to seek refuge in the Ozark Mountains of Southern Missouri. My migration was absolutely necessary, in my estimation at the time, and it was heart wrenching to leave my childhood home to seek a better life somewhere else. I know exactly what this feels like on a very personal level. All the while, however, I followed the laws of the land. Like the Holy Family, who stayed within the Roman Empire, where they were allowed to migrate freely, I too stayed within the Federal Union of the United States, where I was allowed to migrate freely. I did not try to sneak into Mexico, or Canada, or even Europe, all of which I could have done at the time, if I was careful. However, I chose not to do this, because I am a law-abiding citizen. Jesus and his Apostles taught us that we should always obey the laws of the land, so long as they do not infringe on the laws of God. So that’s what I did. That’s what all Christian people should do. You should know this, Your Holiness.
In the third paragraph, you wrote: “Likewise, Jesus Christ, loving everyone with a universal love, educates us in the permanent recognition of the dignity of every human being, without exception. In fact, when we speak of “infinite and transcendent dignity,” we wish to emphasize that the most decisive value possessed by the human person surpasses and sustains every other juridical consideration that can be made to regulate life in society. Thus, all the Christian faithful and people of good will are called upon to consider the legitimacy of norms and public policies in the light of the dignity of the person and his or her fundamental rights, not vice versa.“
I have no problem with the first sentence. In fact, I agree with it. Aside from my problem with the word “infinite,” as stated above, in relation to human dignity, because we are not equal to God, I find your statement that the value of the human person “surpasses and sustains every other juridical consideration” to be a very curious one. Does that mean my value as a human being “surpasses and sustains every other juridical consideration” on things such as theft and fraud? Can I steal another man’s land by squatting on his property? After all, he owns it, and I don’t, therefore it’s fair, right? When I came to the Ozarks from California, I was broke. I had less than a hundred dollars in my pocket, no car, and no place to live for the long term. Should I have just pitched a tent on somebody’s farm here? Is that what you’re saying? Should I have stolen that farmer’s truck and used it to go find work without paying taxes. Is this what you’re telling us to do, Your Holiness? Americans already have extremely generous migration laws, as I will further elaborate below.
In your fourth paragraph, you wrote: “I have followed closely the major crisis that is taking place in the United States with the initiation of a program of mass deportations. The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality. At the same time, one must recognize the right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes while in the country or prior to arrival. That said, the act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness.“
Is this what you told the former President, Joseph Biden, on the issue of abortion? How about former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, on the same issue? As you know, the Catechism instructs migrants to follow the laws of the land, and a rightly-formed conscience would compel any rightly-formed Christian to obey the migration laws of the land, especially if they are generous and just, which is true of U.S. migration law. I find it odd, as a Catholic American, that you would immediately go into this narrative within weeks of the Trump Administration, when for four years we have heard you say literally nothing about the radical pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-homosexualist and pro-transexual positions of the Biden Administration. This regime had done nothing but promote the killing of unborn children, and disfigure the bodies of children already born, all the while persecuting Catholics for refusing to take an experimental (and some would argue immoral) vaccine, and spying on Catholics who were “too conservative” in the Administration’s eye. We heard nothing from you when we Catholic Americans needed you then. Now, however, you attack our consciences, as not rightly formed, for daring to believe our generous migration laws should be enforced.
Our Lord, and his Apostles, explicitly instructed Christians to follow the laws of the land, so long as they do not directly contradict the laws of God. Illegal migration is a crime, both in the United States and the Vatican, as you know. Thus, breaking these laws is a criminal act, making those who break them, by definition, criminals. You know this to be true especially in the Vatican, wherein those who illegally sneak in, and set up residence within the Vatican walls, are treated much more harshly than those who violate American migration laws. Your residence, surrounded by walls much higher than ours, will forcibly deport (as criminals) anyone who illegally migrates to your country, forcing them to remain outside of the Vatican for years! And, should they return during that time, they will face imprisonment in a Vatican dungeon. You know this is true, and yet you criticize us for our generous migration laws, wherein we allow around a million legal migrants, every year, to enter the nation legally, set up residence, and build a life here. Your Holiness, how many legal migrants did you allow to take up residence in the Vatican City-State last year, or the year before, or the year before that? If it is less than a thousand, please do not lecture us about damaging the dignity of many. The United States uplifts the dignity of a million new migrants, legally and happily, every single year.
In paragraph five, you wrote: “This is not a minor issue: an authentic rule of law is verified precisely in the dignified treatment that all people deserve, especially the poorest and most marginalized. The true common good is promoted when society and government, with creativity and strict respect for the rights of all — as I have affirmed on numerous occasions — welcomes, protects, promotes and integrates the most fragile, unprotected and vulnerable. This does not impede the development of a policy that regulates orderly and legal migration. However, this development cannot come about through the privilege of some and the sacrifice of others. What is built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the equal dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly.“
I have no problem with this paragraph, except for the last sentence. Who are the privileged you’re referencing here? Is it me? Am I the privileged you speak of? Is it because I’m an American, and I have worked hard all my life, while obeying the laws of the land, that I am privileged? Your Holiness, it is not my fault that conditions in my nation are better than the conditions in others. It is not my fault, or any other American’s fault, that living conditions in Latin America are not always as good as they are in the United States. As you know, the United States makes high demands of its citizens, in terms of taxation and regulation, forcing many Americans (usually small family-run businesses) to sacrifice profit for the good of society. They are heavily taxed. Even regular employees of larger companies are taxed very heavily in America. Is this privilege? Why must we pay taxes when illegal migrants don’t? They take our jobs. They use our resources, and they clearly do not follow our laws. Who, exactly, is privileged here: The citizen who must work, and pay taxes, for everything he owns and does? Or the illegal migrant who pays no taxes and gets all the social benefits (and then some) for free?
You also said that our government should develop“a policy that regulates orderly and legal migration.” Have we not done that, to the tune of one-million legal migrants a year? Or is that not good enough, Your Holiness? What would be good enough, in your view: two-million, five-million, ten-million, annually!? Please tell us, so we can know. How much is enough? How much should we strain our infrastructure, our safety net, our hospitals and our schools, to accommodate the number you decree? Please, dispel all doubt for us. Give us an exact number and abandon your ambiguity. After all, I have to pay for these migrants with my taxes, as do my fellow Americans. So we have a right to know.
In the sixth paragraph, you wrote: “Christians know very well that it is only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity. Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. In other words: the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings! The human person is a subject with dignity who, through the constitutive relationship with all, especially with the poorest, can gradually mature in his identity and vocation. The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.“
Again, in the first sentence, I have a problem with “infinite dignity” for human beings. We are not God, and only God has an infinite amount of anything. Unless, Your Holiness is proposing to us that we are God? If this is what you mean to say, please explain.
Is the pope seeking to correct St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine of Hippo on the ordo amoris? Shall I disregard the needs of my own family to feed the families of others? Do not even the Sacred Scriptures tell us that if any man denies the needs of his household, and does not provide for his family, he has denied the Christian faith and is worse than an unbeliever? (1 Timothy 5:8) Who am I to believe, Francis or Augustine? Francis or St. Thomas Aquinas? Why do you make us choose between your words, on the ordo amoris, and theirs? Whatever issues you have with the Vice President, J.D. Vance, a fellow convert, there is still the issue with Aquinas and Augustine. Does the pope suggest that we should deny historic Catholic teaching to embrace yours?
The Good Samaritan was “good” because he helped a man in close proximity to him, while he was traveling. His travels brought him in close proximity to the man who was beaten, robbed and laying on the side of the road. The Good Samaritan did not bring in millions of people and pay for all of their medical care. For even the Good Samaritan had limited means. We do not know if he had a family, but we can safely presume that if he did, he would have not done anything to endanger their needs while taking care of the beaten and robbed man, lest he violate what St. Paul taught Timothy (ibid). It is noteworthy that the Good Samaritan paid for the hospitalization of this man in a nearby inn. He did not bring the man into his own home, where he might have compromised the safety of any presumed spouse or children he might have. He helped the man, but he kept him at a distance from his presumed house and family. What made him a “good” Samaritan is that he used the means available to him, to help a downtrodden man (a victim of a crime), within his reasonable means, and without compromising the security of his own home and family, all the while providing for those needs too.
Your Holiness, I’m no linguistic scholar, but this looks like artificial conflation to me. It doesn’t seem that any example you’ve given so far works as justification for illegal migration. Nor does it seem that any example you’ve given so far acts as a condemnation of the mass deportation of those who have broken our nation’s laws, and live among us illegally, stressing the very stability of our nation.
Your seventh paragraph: “But worrying about personal, community or national identity, apart from these considerations, easily introduces an ideological criterion that distorts social life and imposes the will of the strongest as the criterion of truth.“
That is not what’s happening, Your Holiness, and I think you might have the United States confused with Nazi Germany here. I remind you, again, that the U.S. brings in around a million new legal migrants every year, from all over the world, representing every nation, race, color and creed. We do not deport people based on “ideological criterion.” If they are here legally, they stay. If they are here illegally, they go. What’s “ideological” about that?
The eighth paragraph: “I recognize your valuable efforts, dear brother bishops of the United States, as you work closely with migrants and refugees, proclaiming Jesus Christ and promoting fundamental human rights. God will richly reward all that you do for the protection and defense of those who are considered less valuable, less important or less human!“
I don’t believe that migrants (legal or illegal) are “less valuable, less important or less human.” Is that what you think of me as an American? I suppose it is. You wrote it. Once again, it appears you have Americans confused with Nazis, even though it was Americans who fought the Nazis (alongside others), and it was Americans and British who liberated the Holy See during World War II. I don’t know anybody, in America, who thinks of migrants (legal or illegal) as “less valuable, less important or less human.” This seems like a straw man attack to me, and it’s beneath you as the Vicar of Christ. The only thing Americans want is for all migrants to follow American migration laws, which is exactly what you would expect in the Vatican. No? Please tell us when it’s legal for us to sneak into the Vatican and set up camp in the gardens, to live there as long as we like. I’m looking forward to planning an extended vacation there. Or maybe, I should just quit my job and move in? Have you got any spare rooms in Domus Sanctae Marthae?
I should point out here that the U.S. Catholic Bishops are accused of accepting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to resettle migrants. Some of those migrants were clearly illegal. This was a violation of U.S. law. I don’t think it’s very responsible to praise the U.S. Bishops for breaking the law. Perhaps if you had distinguished what you meant, by only praising them for their work among legal migrants, it would seem a little more responsible. This blanket commendation, however, makes it appear like you are approving their work in breaking U.S. law. Is that the case?
Paragraph nine: “I exhort all the faithful of the Catholic Church, and all men and women of good will, not to give in to narratives that discriminate against and cause unnecessary suffering to our migrant and refugee brothers and sisters. With charity and clarity we are all called to live in solidarity and fraternity, to build bridges that bring us ever closer together, to avoid walls of ignominy and to learn to give our lives as Jesus Christ gave his for the salvation of all.“
Once again, this seems like a straw man to suggest that we are giving in to “narratives that discriminate against” certain people. Once again, that is not happening. Anyone may come into the United States legally, by simply following our laws. They don’t need to be a certain race, color or creed. They simply need to follow our laws. Why is that so hard to ask of you? Why does the pope oppose law and order? If around a million a year is not enough for you, then what is? I asked for a number. What is it? Americans have always been generous people. We share the wealth of our land with everyone, provided they enter here legally. Once again, why is that so wrong? How can the pope be taken seriously when there are “walls of ignominy” around the Vatican, and admission into the city-state is restricted to the public? Why are Vatican migration laws so prohibitive? If Your Holiness wishes to lecture Americans on immigration policy, you should lead by example. Why do you not tear down the walls of the Vatican? Why do you not open all the gates, and let everyone in to stay?
The last, and tenth, paragraph of your letter states: “Let us ask Our Lady of Guadalupe to protect individuals and families who live in fear or pain due to migration and/or deportation. May the “Virgen morena”, who knew how to reconcile peoples when they were at enmity, grant us all to meet again as brothers and sisters, within her embrace, and thus take a step forward in the construction of a society that is more fraternal, inclusive and respectful of the dignity of all.“
As I said, Your Holiness, once you lead by example, then maybe we can take you seriously on this. Until then, however, this letter is an insult to Americans, and other nations, as it is written in hypocrisy and it is ideologically foreign to the historic teachings of the Catholic Church on the ordo amoris. I do hope, in the future, Your Holiness is able to tone down the hostile rhetoric, and approach Americans in a more sensible and less hypocritical way.
I am sincerely yours in Jesus Christ our Lord,
Shane Schaetzel
Layman, Husband, Father, Convert, Healthcare Worker and Author
