Monday, June 24, 2013

Dr. Mirus Disappoints Again

Dr. Jeff Mirus today released a piece on his CatholicCulture site entitled "We Can't Afford Children, Can We?"  This is an obvious attempt to lay upon good people who are concerned with out-of-control immigration a guilt trip akin to that of the guilt of abortion.  Dr. Mirus, if the attempt weren't so silly and clumsy, it would border on the unethical.

All he does in his two scenarios is basically describe two motivations for abortion and contraception, then asserts that they are analogous to our concerns for illegal immigration.  He doesn't really expound on any philosophical parallels.  It's somehow expected that the reader will passively assume that such must exist.  If the reader is an opponent of illegal immigration, he/she will be tempted to try to refute an argument that really doesn't exist and will expend much mental effort in a wild-goose chase.  It's quite an interesting debate tactic, one in which I've learned not to fall while debating real pro-aborts.

His last paragraph is his real blooper, where he in effect turns the Gospel of John into some progressive screed.  Let's explain this in black and white, shall we?  Jesus came to the Jews proclaiming the Gospel and Himself as the Messiah.  The Jews rejected Him as their Messiah.  How on earth does Mirus justify using this passage to pretend that the Jews declared Him "illegal"?  Does Dr. Mirus really think so little of the intelligence of his readership?

The only voice of sanity in that column is the comments of Ms. Agnes Day; more may appear after this post is published.  Thank you, Ms. Day.  Dr. Mirus, for your sake I hope you are indeed "wrapping this up".


  1. Mirus is shilling for the bishops and like them he is now using Jesus Christ. Maybe he'll go whole hawg and let us know what we owe the Occupy Wall Street movement! I still say for the sake of honesty he should come clean and say what percent of his income is coming from Catholic Church. We know how dependent the bishops are on the Hispanic Catholic so their bias is obvious. How dependent is Trinity Communications on funding from U.S. bishops?

    1. To be fair, immigration is an issue that falls within the realm of prudential judgment. Good people can disagree on the best ways to address a matter without differing on moral principles. But that's my point; Dr Mirus doesn't seem to be acknowledging that good people can disagree vehemently with the USCCB on this matter as they see very serious consequences that will come about if the borders are loosened further than they are. I do take strenuous exception with his usage of that passage from the Gospel of John. That's something that I might have expected from Jesse Jackson or one of the "nuns on the bus", not from someone of his stature.

  2. Recommend "The Catholic Bishops and Immigration Reform" Crisis Magazine online, May 14th, 2013 by Christopher Manion (actually a repost of same in Crisis Magazine, December 16, 2011).

    To quote Mr. Manion's essay " . . . under the leadership of USCCB President Archbishop Timothy Dolan, our bishops have seldom reminded us that their political views are their own—that good Catholics can and do differ on the application of Catholic precepts on specific legislative issues; in fact, that the Church calls on the laity to lead on practical legislative issues like immigration and federal spending."

    And this:

    "Perhaps we should pray that our bishops will bring eternal and objective truths like those in Humanae Vitae “out of the shadows,” and let the laity, not the hierarchy, deal with practical legislative particulars that Holy Mother Church calls us to address, in charity and in truth, to pursue the common good for all.

    Thanks for your comments.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.