Jesse Romero Terry and Jesse Show last Thursday

Hi guys,

So I was listening to the Terry and Jesse Show last week and heard them talking about illegal immigration. I was a little disturbed by their tone which basically was “illegal immigration is immoral” . I was really shocked though when Jesse described illegal immigrants as antinomian heretics because they believe they don’t need to follow the civil law of the nation of the USA. He even brought in the render unto Ceaser support for this.

I believe this link takes you to the Sept 1 show

In addition, he has brought up that we should build a wall on the border and that there is a wall on the Mexican/Guatemalan border and so we should have one too.

Anyway, I was pretty disturbed by these comments to the point I emailed him and he actually emailed back but did not back down at all.

My problems with this;

  1. the tone would fit in well at a Trump Rally and would seem out of place at the USCCB’s mass on the border last year.

  2. Antinomian heresy has nothing to do with civil law. It is the belief that the moral laws or mosaic law does not play any roll in salvation. Today antinomians are sort of the once saved always saved types. I asked Jesse if he felt that the little sisters of the poor had a moral obligation to follow the HHS mandate. How about if states require catholic colleges to allow gay married couples in the student housing? Must we follow that law in danger of antinomian heresy?

He didn’t answer.

  1. there are countless resources describing the Mexican and Guatemala border and you can view it on google maps. Yet he cites obscure right wing articles (Fox News and the blaze) describing Mexico wanting a wall as well as a Mexican article describing a similar want.

One article here I shared :

It’s very frustrating to hear this being sent out on the Catholic Airwaves. Would love to hear the forums opinions on these issues and their place in Catholic Social Teaching.


I hesitate to reply because I expect that this thread will become heated and be deleted very quickly.

I asked Jesse if he felt that the little sisters of the poor had a moral obligation to follow the HHS mandate? How about if states require catholic colleges to allow gay married couples in the student housing? Must we follow that law in danger of antinomian heresy?

Those examples are hardly comparable with obeying immigration laws. I know that many argue that poor people have a right to break immigration laws in order to better their economic situation.

However, where will such rationalizations end? Do poor people have an unqualified right to to break the law? Did Christ teach that?

Catholic Social teaching is that people have a RIGHT to migrate in order to work. I’m not saying it should be unlimited but we can do so much more. Look at how poor they are and how rich we are. It’s that whole “whoever has two coats steals from his brother who has none”.

I hope the thread doesn’t get too heated. It’s important to talk about these things.

Regardless of the difference in degrees of my examples compared to immigration, and let’s face it we can argue what is worse all day, but the overarching point is that Jesse claims antinomian heresy refers to following civil law.

How can he justify that error with one side of the mouth and not the other.

It’s an erroneous position in its principle. Antinomianism either means one must follow civil law (Jesse’s point) or it doesn’t. At what point according to Jesse are laws allowed to not be followed.

I don’t like those kinds of pro-Republican or pro-Democrat talking points on Catholic radio either. These things should be avoided, especially during election seasons, if they significantly deviate from the official USCCB reasoning or Papal teaching. They are entitled to personal opinion but it should be prefaced that way

I agree with Jesse, we HAVE to do something to protect our boarders. It’s like a flood. And we have no idea who all is flooding in. Would you open your front door to just anyone that wanted to come in your home and take over, expect you to provide everything for them?? Break your home rules etc. I thinkNOT. God Bless, Memaw

Thanks but this sort of misses the point.

You agree that antinomianism refers to following civil law?
You agree that we have a moral duty to obey all US civil law no matter what?
You agree Mecico has a southern border wall when they do not?

It’s clear Jesse is anti immigration reform but I’m more interested in discussing his erroneous arguments used to support his position.

That said I live and work in high immigrant communities and near several sanctuary cities and these are not low life’s looking for hand outs. They are hard working people looking for jobs

It would depend on the law, if a secular law in unjust, not only do we have the right to disobey it, but a duty to do so under our Constitution, Plus, Jesus instructed us to give unto Caesar THAT which IS Caesars, he did not say give Caesar everything he asks of us and on every single occasion.

There is nothing moral about destroying a people through genocidal immigration. Even the flawed UN recognizes the immorality of genocidal immigration.

Forcing unwanted immigrants on unwilling hosts is not charity. Charity is correcting the problems that made the immigrants want to leave. Why should immigrants have to break up their families by leaving their home lands? That has broken up far more families than forcing illegals to leave the US ever would.

One of the few legitimate functions of government is to protect the interests of the people it represents.

Genocidal immigration? Really? Like we are dying off by the millions.

Again your post has nothing to do with the theological questions I’ve posed. This thread is not for biased and unfounded grandstanding.

It’s to discuss the questions I posed.

When you open a can of worms, you should expect a few of them to get out. Hot topic!!! God Bless,Memaw

I like this definition: from Theopedia,
"Antinomianism comes from the Greek meaning lawless. In Christian theology it is a pejorative term for the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality. Few, if any, would explicitly call themselves “antinomian,” hence, it is usually a charge leveled by one group against an opposing group.

Antinomianism may be viewed as the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation. In this sense, both antinomianism and legalism are considered errant extremes."

I doubt that immigrants are thinking in terms of Greek theological definitions. They are concerned with survival.
Obeying the law is generally a moral requirement, but not always. Some laws are immoral (the law permitting abortion, for example).
I think we should work with Mexico’s government to encourage them to take care of their own people. If there were sufficient jobs in Mexico, paying a living wage, people wouldn’t be risking their lives to cross the border. Instead the Mexican government (used to) hand out pamphlets describing how to cross the border safely!


Maybe Jon could just disparage Terry & Jesse with the “N” word next time.

In the meantime, perhaps Jon should do a little research on the fruits of illegal immigration.

Nothing like “salvation at the voting booth”. You don’t have to do a thing!

It is not disparaging to ask critical questions. Especially of those with very large microphones.

Your comment though is a good example of disparaging others.

Thanks for your input Vicki.

I agree and I do believe that we should do whatever we can to encourage Mexico to be a better place with more opportunity. But it is up to them ultimately they are a sovereign nation. What should we do in the meantime. Watch people suffer from the gun turrets on our wall? Or welcome those seeking something better? Share our affluence with those who have nothing?

You should go down there and help. Or at least give money to someone who does go there.

I do both . Do you?

I give money.
If you are going down there, why do you ask what we should do? You already know.

I do both . Do you?

I can highly recommend the ministries I’m involved with. They really make a difference. The first is Corazon. They build homes for people in Mexico in a single weekend. It’s great that a family can go from living in a hut made of old garage doors to a secure and safe home in a single weekend.

The second is Unbound child sponsorship. Our sponsored child is an adorable hard working boy from a hard working family in Guatemala.

I asked what should we do in the meantime?

The answer is much more than “give money”.

We can donate and give and volunteer. That’s part of it. But meeting needs is also welcoming the stranger among us.

The USA is the wealthiest nation in the world and yet we are number 22 in the world when it comes to immigrants coming here as percent of our population. We can do much better and fix our unjust laws that separate families and encourage undocumented crossings that result in death and unnecessary poverty.

But again, my focus of the thread is to discuss the theology and information that was on the show the other day, particularly the myth of the southern Mexico wall and the idea antinomianism refers to people who cross the border undocumented.

Certainly being kind to strangers is a virtue. However, virtue taken too far is no longer virtue. It becomes a vice. What you are apologizing for is imprudent. I believe that is obvious from the negative effects of illegal immigration. You should research this yourself and perhaps next time on your way down to Mexico spend some time cleaning up trash on the immigration routes.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit