PERSPECTIVEnSHELTER FROM THE STORM by Thomas FlemingnThe trial of 12 sanctuary workers in Tucson has heatednup an issue which is being hailed in many quarters asnthe great moral issue of the 1980’s. The movement, whosenmembers provide protection to illegal immigrants fromnCentral America, is protesting the U.S. Immigration andnNaturalization Service’s refusal to recognize Salvadorannand Guatemalan emigrants as political refugees. Takingnmatters into their own hands, more than 150 churches havenoffered “sanctuary” and have provided active assistance tonCentral Americans who wish to enter the U.S. withoutnbenefit of papers. If we can believe what we read in thenpapers, the movement is, even for nonbelievers, an opportunitynto prove strength of their humanitarian convictions;nfor Christians and Jews, it is a test of faith.nFor those who make a career out of moral outrage, thenissue could not have come at a better time: it is a God-send.nThe radical Catholic bishops of the archdiocese of Milwaukeensent a letter of “personal endorsement” to the localnsanctuary coordinating committee, and Jesse Jackson hasnpledged the support of Operation PUSH. It is the grayhairednveterans of the 60’s street-fighting that are the mostndelighted. William Sloane Coffin has recovered much ofnhis old exuberance as he tells his Riverside Church congregationnthat, “It is not enough to resist with confession, wenmust confess with resistance.” The language of obligationncomes easily to Coffin, who speaks with such assurance ofnthe Lord’s will, we have to assume he has been taken intonHis confidence. He appears eager for the graceful martyrdomnof a weekend in jail: You can arrest the church leaders,nhe proclaims, but persecution “will only strengthen thensanctuary movement, whose Head is just beyond the reachnof the INS,”nWhile Coffin and the rest are sometimes incautiousnenough to speak of their own domestic political agendan—“We can no longer separate foreign policies from domesticnpolicies”—the movement’s strength is based not on itsnpolitical commitments, but on its straightforward moralnappeal. Christians have an obligation to help the poor andnunfortunate. Doesn’t that obligation take precedence overnthe decrees and regulations of a national government?nBefore we can answer the question, we must remember thatnthere is no right of sanctuary in the modern world. Even ifnthere were, it could not be used to protect illegal aliens.nExperts on international law sometimes try to make a case forna right of political asylum, but even if such a notion werenaccepted, the obligation would be imposed on governments.nIt is absurd to pretend that private citizens—even inngroups—have the right to grant asylum.nProponents of “sanctuary”—despite the dishonesty ofnthe term—are aware of the problem. To justify theirn61 CHRONICLES OF CULTUREnnnconduct, they fall back on religion. Jim Corbett, one of thenfounders of the sanctuary movement, insists that he and hisnfriends are “following the traditional Judeo-Christian injunctionnto minister to those in need.” This injunctionnseems to involve more than the obligations of conscience;nCorbett sees his actions as “the work of the faith community.”nAs he told the Christian Science Monitor (7 Februaryn1985), “You can’t do it as an individual.” The bishops ofnthree Lutheran synods (not Missouri or Wisconsin) havendeclared that the sanctuary churches are fulfilling obligationsnderived from scripture. These are, therefore, thencorporate acts of congregations rather than merely individualndecisions. When an individual breaks the law, he isneither a criminal or a civil disobedient or both. When anchurch body is involved—a congregation or a nationalnorganization—it is presumably a more serious business.nBut in American constitutional law, churches have rathernfew rights.nThe First Amendment expressly forbids the establishmentnof religion, by which is meant either a strictly nationalnchurch, like the Church of England, or an internationalnchurch with legally recognized rights and privileges, like thenCatholic Church in France under the ancien regime. Nonchurch in the U.S. enjoys special constitutional privileges,napart from the right of individuals to establish an organizationnor worship as they please—so long as their activities donnot conflict with laws. (Druids are, for example, notnallowed to practice human sacrifice.) Where it has seemednappropriate, we have seen fit to confer special privileges onnreligious groups. Clerics, for example, are exempt fromnmilitary service, although that was not always the case. Innthe War Between the States, the Episcopal Church petitionednCongress to exempt their priests from the draft.nTheir petition was denied.nFor most of the participants in the sanctuary movement,nthe defiance of U.S. law is an act of civil disobedience. Innthe eyes of Eric Jorstad, an American Lutheran Churchnpastor, it is “an act of resistance against what its supportersnbelieve to be the unjust foreign policy of the United Statesntowards Central America.” Civil disobedience is a murkynterm, which can be made to cover everything from anconscientious refusal to salute the flag or take an oath, allnthe way to acts of organized terrorism.nReligion enters the picture when churches forbid orndiscourage some practice which the state requires. GoodnQuakers, for example, were not supposed to swear an oathnor bear arms. Throughout most of this century, therenexisted a rough-and-ready consensus on religious exceptionsnfrom civil obligations, but by the 1960’s that consensus wasngone, and the Selective Service was flooded with appealsn