The reason why is that Robert Baker, the Catholic bishop of Birmingham, is generally considered to be a pretty good bishop. I can't speak to the Methodist or Episcopal ones, one way or the other.
Contrary to P-Marlowe's allegation, I'm sure all these pastors (in addition to being haughty looking bald faced liars) support abortion on demand and gay marriage, I know for a fact that Bishop Baker is not a supporter of either.
Having said the above, it would be a radical interpretation of the law to interpret it in such a way as is alleged in this blog entry:
The blog entry says: "the bishops have reason to fear that administering of religious sacraments, which are central to the Christian faith, to known undocumented persons may be criminalized under this law."
After repeatedly reading the law (linked above), the only section that I could see that would have any applicability to the ability to administer the sacraments would be this paragraph:
Section 13. (a) It shall be unlawful for a person to do any of the following:(1) Conceal, harbor, or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield or conspire to conceal, harbor, or shield an alien from detection in any place in this state, including any building or any means of transportation, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered, or remains in the United States in violation of federal law.
Of course, to harbor means to give shelter or refuge to.
The area that is of concern may be the recklessly disregards verbiage. That is a squishy term that could be up to interpretation. For example, is a Presbyterian pastor recklessly disregards the possibility that the parishioner may be illegal (as opposed to "knows"), if this parishioner only speaks Korean? (there are a lot of Korean Presbyterian churches around here, that's why I use this example)
In theory, I guess it might be possible to hypothesize that a person could go to confession, identify that he/she was an illegal, and then, if the priest did not immediately physically remove the person from the premises, the priest could be charged.
Likewise, the blog says about the lawsuit: "If enforced, Alabama's Anti-Immigration Law will make it a crime to follow God's command to be Good Samaritans."
Considering the above paragraph, I guess it is possible that if a person showed up in a church-run homeless shelter and happened to mention that he/she was an illegal, if the shelter did not immediately kick the person out onto the street, the employee of the shelter could be charged.
Both are pretty wild and (imho) unrealistic interpretations...but I guess they are theoretically possible.
As for providing other "good Samaritan" benefits, section 7 of the above-linked law states:
(e) Verification of lawful presence in the United States shall not be required for any of the following(2) For obtaining health care items and services that are necessary for the treatment of an emergency medical condition of the person involved and are not related to an organ transplant procedure.
(3) For short term, noncash, in kind emergency disaster relief.
(snip)
(5) For programs, services, or assistance, such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter specified by federal law or regulation that satisfy all of the following:
a. Deliver in-kind services at the community level, including services through public or private nonprofit agencies.
b. Do not condition the provision of assistance, the amount of assistance provided, or the cost of assistance provided on the income or resources of the individual recipient.
c. Are necessary for the protection of life or safety.
(6) For prenatal care.
(7) For child protective services and adult protective services and domestic violence services workers.
The key is if those services receive public funding in any way (as is the case, at least with most modern Catholic -- can't speak to Episcopal or Methodist --services)
So, with the exception of a shelter that provides emergency housing to the poor (income verification needed), I don't see Good Samaritan issues being impacted all that much.
Now as far as the obligation to obey the civil authorities, we all remember Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God rather than men. Civil law cannot be used as a justification to disobey the moral law. Matthew 25 is pretty explicit on our responsibilities to the poor (as individuals, not used as justification for government policy).
Bottom line is that I would think it would be smart of Alabama to amend Law 2011-535 to include text along the following lines:
Bona-fide religious organizations are exempt from the provisions of the law regarding services rendered, provided:
The service rendered receives no funding, whether by way of contract or grant, from state or local governments
In other words, the Catholic, Episcopal, and Methodist churches would be best advised to turn back any government funding they receive for their services. They would have a whole lot stronger case to make if they did so.
Good job, thanks.
That paragraph has the same wording as the Federal Immigration law (which is not being enforced).
“Bona-fide religious organizations are exempt from the provisions of the law regarding services rendered, provided:
The service rendered receives no funding, whether by way of contract or grant, from state or local governments”
Yeah, but it’s not there, which is a problem. The legislation as is overreaches, and will get stomped on by the courts.
Rather then passing a limited bill that would not only pass, and hold up in the courts, they’d rather pass this nonsense which prevents better bills from actually succeeding.