As a New Polity fan, I couldn't help but remember what Marc Barnes said on their podcast at one point (can't remember the exact episode, it was a few years ago): the thrust was that machines don't come in and destroy authentic human labor, human labor is treated as mechanical, then the machines do that same thing better.
AI has already won, in our work, our interpersonal relationships, our communities (what's left of them anyway), our leisure. Its implementation is already a fait accompli.
Side note for Ed/JD/The Pillar team: there are a lot of Extremely Online folks spewing nonsense about postliberalism, but if you want to understand the real thing - a faithful, loving effort to restore a truly Christian understanding of politics - the good folks at New Polity are where it’s at!
AI is a super charged collection of worksheets with tremendously large and complex macros utilizing large language constructs. AI models and algorithms often work with data that is stored and processed in a columnar format.
It can be used to supercharge ordinary tasks, for example finding Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
But, it is not capable of original thought (at least not yet).
Here is a simply stated test for AI to prove it is capable of original thought.
The idea of electricity was first discussed in 600 BC, when Thales of Miletus discovered that rubbing amber with fur created static electricity. It was not until the 16th century when basic understanding of electricity was actually achieved .
AI should be capable of taking similar action against some known fact and discovering how mankind can utilized that fact. It should compress the development of a similar "thing" from the 2,000 plus years it took for electricity to become useful.
For sure. Look up the A. I. Solution of the protein folding problem. How a given sequence of amino acids will fold can now be predicted. That is impressive in an idiot savant kind of way.
The protein folding problem, the idea that a protein's amino acid sequence dictates its three-dimensional structure, was initially established by Christian Anfinsen's experiments in the early 1960s, demonstrating that ribonuclease could spontaneously refold in a test tube. AI has made significant strides in protein folding prediction, accurately predicting the 3D structure of proteins from their amino acid sequence.
Very similar to discovering fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.
My reaction to reading this was that the issue isn’t the machines becoming more intelligent but our becoming stupider. You described the sentiment perfectly.
You see, Ed, you can't be considered a serious journalist when you uncritically link to a CNN piece on the Trump administration's deportation procedures, since there's no way you can't know about CNN's bias against Trump. Buried deep in the CNN piece is the acknowledgment that the man deported "had been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in mid-March 'due to his prominent role in MS-13,' according to a court declaration from a senior ICE official."
There was an accusation against Mr. Garcia that he was a member of MS-13, which his attorneys denied. If we're going to handwave away procedural violations because of this current administration claims that individuals are gang members, we're in for a rough go.
I don't know what you mean by foreigners, but I can assure you that the executive cannot deport someone simply because they are a noncitizen without proper procedure.
Mid March of 2019 (the first Trump term). He was given a trial and was found not guilty of the charge. Now in 2025 the new Trump Administration deports him based on the accusation made in 2019 that the Court threw out.
"My instinct is to panic. To complain. To work longer hours. To commit myself to my own strength and efforts to save me." >> Man, this hits home. Thanks for this reflection. Blessing for the remainder of Lent, and for the Easter celebration. (And prayers for the car situation and the house situation and all the rest...🙏)
As far as I can tell The US immigration policy is more in tune with the Catechism than other "social teaching" on migration uttered by religious figures. CCC 2241, for instance" “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.” And, "Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."
Come on. The Trump administration is deporting people without due process. Trump is overstepping "juridical conditions" by not following our own laws regarding immigration.
No, he's not. The right to due process is enshrined in the the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, and applies to all people within the United States, including foreign nationals, regardless of their immigration status.
You are wrong. The law allows deportation of this category - violent anti-American invaders. Seriously, do you really believe the Brits who invaded us in the war of 1812 needed to be brought into a court!???
Besides, even if your fantasy were true, there is nothing in the law that says they can’t be “prosecuted” in a zoom hearing from their home country.
Bro. You have to prove they are anti-American invaders. Even literal Nazis during WWII got hearings before a judge.
Regarding the British in 1812, you should really read history before citing it as an example. Since one of the casus Belli for going to war the the impressment of Americans in the British navy, there actually *was* some due process give to certain elements in that conflict to ensure we weren’t deporting Americans. (Also, the law wasn’t geared at uniformed soldiers).
It’s possible to have the power and authority to do something and still do that thing in an illegal way. I hope you have a wonderful evening.
“Prove”? They’ve already been (I.e., previously) convicted.
And the Constitutional ‘question’ regarding Executive authority to deport them without more hearings is as yet unsettled. And the same bishops screeching about it are woefully silent about:
Foreigner’s obligation to come here legally, to obey our laws once here legally.
Transies harming others (not to mention themselves).
The pitiable state of knowledge of our Faith among us.
It must be proven that they are part of that particular criminal gang. It’s not a high bar to get over. But it must be done. Their conviction for a crime doesn’t prove that. (As it wasn’t a crime to be part of that gang, it’s impossible for any of them to have a conviction of being a gang member).
I have no comment on your claims About the bishops because I was simply here to point out that the administration is not following appropriate procedural law as they are required to do.
My point is that what you claim to be “law” is not codified, nor precedential. Until it is, claiming that our president is breaking the law is prima facie false.
Ah. Perfect. Thank you. While I would claim that giving Nazis hearing during WWII does set a precedent, I understand from your above comment you disagree with me on that point. Fair enough. I think we may slightly have been talking past each other.
I obviously still disagree with your assessment, but I appreciate the you clarifying where you stood.
So, if I understand correctly... the admin/government needs to follow procedural law (whatever that means) in order to send back an unwanted foreign national, but the same government/admin does not need to follow the same procedural law to let the unwanted foreign national come into the country?
So - to come in there is no requirement, but to send them back there is?
I’m confused by the distinction you are trying to make. In the case of enemy aliens, they either came to this country legally and thereby followed the appropriate procedural law or they came in illegally and did not. But in either case, they are eligible to be removed if an enemy alien.
People coming in the country illegally is not an example of the government failing to follow procedural law.
But I’m still unsure I actually understood your objection, my response at be off base here.
If you are here illegally and in contravention of our laws, what do you propose is appropriate? They can go home and apply for citizenship. That is their due process and what they should have done to begin with.
Hey Brian, I agree that they should have done that in the first place. But Congress and the courts have established a process for how to remove people in the US illegally. What that process does is ensure the person the government alleges is here illegally truly is. It’s the governments burden of proof. It’s not a particularly hard burden to meet, but it does take time and that portion of our court system is seriously underfunded and has a huge backlog.
But either way, the government needs to follow the path Congress established, or, in the case of Enemy Aliens, that the executive branch has committed itself to via precedent (that’s where Stephen Brown and I differ).
There comes a point where pragmatism needs apply. During the Biden presidency there were….100,000+ coming in per month. I am sorry but there comes a time to shoot first and ask questions later. Let those who feel they were deported despite having established they had a right to be here for to the US consulate in their country of origin and take it up there. Either way, this is a crisis and I am not interested in media generated tear drop stories when one out of every 30,000 are possibly improperly deported.
I hopefully this comes across as dialogue as opposed to snark or pure argumentation.
First, so what does that have to do with the question re whether the Executive has the authority to remove someone from our country? Listing someone as 'persona non grata' is something all nations exercise - and not necessarily for crimes.
Second, I think you misstate the case in question - was s/he supporting Hamas, for example? In any event, foreigners presence here does not make them immune to deportation. Countries do it rather routinely.
Third, removing those who criminally entered is not a deprivation of any of their rights - but rather a common sense exercise of ours.
//so what does that have to do with the question re whether the Executive has the authority to remove someone from our country?//
It has everything to do with the right, in that it is not absolute as Trump's defenders claim. A President cannot remove people because they refuse to pay him off or grant him sexual favors, or just based on an unproven allegation or for writing a newspaper article critical of some foreign nation.
Foreigners do not have a “right” to be in this country, and deportation is not penal.
If prosecuted for a crime committed here that could result in incarceration, then some ‘rights’ apply (as with all defendants here in criminal cases). Allowing foreigners to enter the U.S. is an administrative act of the Executive Branch. So is rescission of that entrance.
No one, not even America hating voters, is claiming that these terroristic deportees are being sent back because of the scurrilous claims you made about bribery and seploitation.
There is, though, both bribery and sex trafficking on the part of the foreigners bringing others here. So .. are you saying that what the people smuggling rapists are doing is ok?
It needs to be noted that the problem with AI isn’t with the technology or those who create it. The problem is that people lack the discipline to use it sparingly and properly. Thus, this is a human problem: not a technological problem.
In this regard, this problem is no different than the invention of the wheel, the gun, nuclear fission, or the airplane. All can be used for great good or for great evil.
Bingo. Tools are simply things. Why do so many people seem to fail to understand this and, instead, elaborate endlessly and melodramatically about hypothetical marvels or horrors that these things will surely create? We talk too much and reflect too little. Homo chatterbox.
I’m not entirely sure if missing Sunday Mass is still considered a sin in today’s context, but if it is, then the Pillars weekly lede provides an almost irresistible excuse. The lede, with its concise and engaging style, offers insights that are consistently more compelling than the often lengthy and repetitive homilies one might encounter during Mass. It’s not just a matter of brevity; the content of the lede strikes a chord that makes the traditional sermon feel, at times, outdated or even overly pedantic.
I find myself wishing that someone like Ed and JD would take the initiative to launch an online homiletics class—a course designed to teach the art of sermon delivery and spiritual communication in today’s digital age. Such a class, mandated in all seminaries, could equip future preachers with the skills to craft messages that are both profound and relatable. This could bridge the gap between traditional practices and contemporary expectations, making the Church’s teachings more appealing to a modern audience.
Agreed that the Pillar reflections are pretty good, and that a great deal of homilies are trite fluff.
Concerning your first line though, it's my understanding that missing Mass on a Sunday or other day of obligation (unless it is morally impossible due to illness, distance, or the like) is grave matter. It's a precept of the Church to attend mass on these days, and the precepts are the bare minimum necessary to be considered a practicing Catholic. They're obligations, not suggestions.
As much as everyone enjoys an elegantly delivered, edifying homily, we do not attend Mass for the preaching. I’m sure you know that and I think your comment was primarily tongue-in-cheek, so I apologize if I’m coming across as harsh. But I’ve known too many Catholics who parish hop trying to find the “best” (i.e., most entertaining or validating of our own opinions) preaching. One friend told me she wasn’t “being fed” by her priest’s lackluster preaching. Mass is Mass no matter how poor an orator the priest is. We are fed by the Eucharist, not the homily. This is a soapbox of mine so again, I apologize if you’ve had to take my ire!
I'm sympathetic to your friend. I'm especially sympathetic to parents who find themselves in your friend's situation, but worried on behalf of their children
Since upwards of 60% of younger Catholics don’t know about, much less believe in, the Real Presence, sermons/homilies are a critical component of the liturgy. And it’s wise to keep in mind that the Lord - through His Chosen People (=Church) - mandates them. Those of us who ‘already’ are believers may not ‘need’ a sermon as much, but we still do need them. Which is why I criticize poor sermons and compliment good ones.
Thank you — I didn’t find your comments harsh at all; they were well stated and reflect the convictions of millions of Catholics who deeply believe in the Real Presence and are fed by the Eucharist. But I also think we’re living in a time when many others, for a variety of reasons, may struggle with belief but still long to be held within the Church. That’s the great dilemma — how to hold everyone under the same umbrella.
People’s beliefs aren’t set in stone; they can shift over a lifetime. The challenge for the Church is to meet people where they are — and to stay with them, patiently, as they grow, wrestle, and return. If priests are formed to think that simply having the faculties to transubstantiate is all that’s required to be a good shepherd, I believe that’s short-sighted. People are fed in different ways. For many, preaching is the connection point — the bridge to the deeper mysteries of the faith. Dismissing that can unintentionally close the door on those still finding their way.
Hi Dennis, I sincerely appreciate your good faith and open hearted engagement with my reply to your comment. Rather than a “you’re wrong and here’s why” dismissal, you have made your point more clearly and given me a chance to better understand your perspective. So, thank you.
I have a seminarian son. I know that seminarians are formed in much more than having the faculties to transubstantiate. Homiletics is part of seminary. And yet, priesthood is not just a job, it’s the particular vocation of these particular men, so of course they will bring vastly varied gifts to the table. One of the holiest and most committed priests I have known is only a so-so preacher.
However I also really hear your point. There ARE people who struggle with belief and yet long to be held by the Church. That is real and it goes beyond just wanting to hear an entertaining sermon that gives an emotional response or aligns with one’s biases.
I believe that formators are holding this tension. They are not blind to what’s going on. And yet, these men, with their own strengths and weaknesses, are being sent out with still more growth to undergo. Just as a married couple will not have mastered the art of communication until perhaps decades into their marriage. So it strikes me as a both/and situation.
As seminarians journey toward the priesthood, they’re often asked to reflect on the key influences that led them to pursue their vocation. Almost always, parents top that list. Congratulations to you for creating a home filled with faith, service, and a deep spirituality—qualities so profound that your son felt called to dedicate his life entirely to God and His people. That’s truly remarkable.
It’s also wonderful to connect with someone who understands that becoming a priest is about far more than mastering theology or liturgy. It’s about a transformation—one that shapes the whole person to be more like Christ. Like you, I’ve been blessed to know priests whose holiness wasn’t found in dynamic preaching, but in the quiet, steady ways they lived their faith and touched others deeply.
I’ll be praying for your son as he continues to discern his calling. May he remain open to the grace and guidance that will help him reflect the deep holiness of those we’ve both known—individuals who inspire others to grow in goodness and faith.
Thank you, that is so generous of you. Seminarians (and priests) thirst for the prayers of the faithful. I never knew how much until I was this close to it.
Not long ago, until very shortly before his death, Quentin de la Bédoyère moderated an online discussion group, on behalf of the Catholic Herald, on topics directly and indirectly related to Catholicism, ethics, morality, and such. He would regularly write a short essay that the group might consider and discuss. Since, sadly, that conversation ended, I have looked through the Internet in vain for something seriously similar. It would take time and dedication and, of course, discipline and talent. I suspect that Ed and JD, being principally jurists and journalists, would simply not have the leisure for it. But surely at least *someone* would.
Forgive me for the judgemental attitude here, but it has seemed to me for a while that it is the habit of a midwit to trust LLM output. If you're asking it for information which you don't yet know, how will you know whether it is reliable or not? We know that these things are prone to "hallucination" when asked about facts. So, they must be fact-checked. But if you know the subject well enough to fact check the output, then why ask the thing the question in the first place?
Perhaps if it can provide a source for its claims, then it could be used as a sort of search engine. But that's about it.
Yeah. I have been occasionally impressed with AI search results on my browser as a quick check, but relying on it feels like relying on Wikipedia. And the results can be rather humorous, such as when it mishmashes recipes from different sources (a frequent search topic in our household).
My favorite newsletter to date. Much needed reflection on Lent and a fitting segue to AI. The "great power rising" redeems our humanity and overcomes the prison of the algorithm in all its manifestations over space and time.
That last observation about AI is the correct one: computers aren't becoming more human, we're becoming more mechanical. I think there's a parallel to be drawn with this country's obsession with pets as quasi-children: we're becoming more like animals, like pets.
With regards to the seeming inconsistency of Pope Francis, I would encourage people to look up some of the writings of a Substacker going by the name N. S. Lyons. While I won't vouch for everything the man says, I think his basic theory of the open society vs. the closed society is the correct interpretation of what has been happening during the last century on the global political stage. Read through this lens, Pope Francis is certainly a man of the open society, and I think that is his highest priority. In fact, I suspect that this is how he reads the entire Spirit of Vatican II, so-called: Vatican II was the Church's entry into a compact with the world powers for the building of an the open society, and there's no going back. It didn't really have to do with the church so much, but the churches place in the world, and therefore it's orientation towards and investment in the world. ("Latin Mass," anyone?)
Pope Francis's overwhelming concern with the Trump administration, and other "right wing" administrations throughout the world, is that they are contrary to the open society. The Democrats named in this article, however, were definitely believers in that vision. Look also at the variable treatment of different ecclesiastical figures throughout the world. Therefore, I suspect that Pope Francis thinks he is taking the broader view of what is necessary for world peace and justice, and this must be prioritized. Perhaps he feels he can overlook a relatively localized problem as abortion in the United States for the sake of the bigger picture of the global order.
I'm not saying this is justified, BTW, only that this might be how he thinks through things. I also think that it explains the mindset of a few of generations of clergy and religious. With the open society international order breaking down, see if the lens I've sketched out helps you think through the reactions you're seeing from people on both sides of the aisle. This lens has helped me quite a bit, especially when it comes to being patient with people. There is a lot riding on the two different visions of what makes for a good political order, i.e. closed vs. open society.
This is an interesting perspective, and makes sense considering that the generations most likely to hold the "open society" ideal would be those who experienced WWII and/or the early days of the nuclear arms race. It's easy to see how you might come out of such experiences believing that the best way to prevent it happening again would be to abolish all meaningful differences between people groups.
I think Pp Francis is just trying to administratively impose his political world view. And that view is very much the 1960s South American jesuitical view: USA bad, communazifasciocialism good. That’s how he was intellectually raised. He doesn’t appear to have critically reflected upon his own biases / prejudices (witness his constant harping against America along with his complimenting the chicoms).
Notice how he has no “overwhelming concern” for the actually genocidal chicom regime.
When he preaches politics I disregard him. When (if?) he preaches Christ as our rescuer instead of some socialistic utopia I will listen.
Father thank you so much for this very thoughtful and edifying reflection. This feels very much like a hermeneutical key.
I find myself wondering, what is the worldview of the global political stage and also of the Church via the world is coming in pendulum swing? Bc pendulum swings almost by nature tend to be an extreme of the other which feels …. Ominous. And more importantly than what is coming, what is the *correct* one 🤷🏽♀️
Thank you for your perspective on ‘open society vs closed society’ as possible agendas of our present-day world leaders. I would suggest one caveat; that each world leader is tasked with a responsibility to their ‘flock’. That caveat in the friction between Pp Francis and the “right-wing” (or left-wing or totalitarian or communist or Marxist or socialist) world leaders is the real driver and divider between the national vs global societal lenses (IMO). That responsibility and subsequent accountability should not be left out of the dynamic.
Both lenses might be justified in seeking the goal of the common good, given the caveat above.
As to justification of one societal view over the other; mankind has had and has a propensity to want to “fix it”. But my understanding is that man is a sinner first. His Fall opens the door to Pride and those nasty things that follow, like power (and those in the shadows wanting the power [Parolin or AOC].
All of this has a long history to include prophets and earthly leaders consistently ‘fumbling the ball’. Little did Peter realize that including the Gentiles would prove to be so problematic but here we are. I’m praying that Jesus returns soon with His peace and justice.
Yet he seems rather miffed that Christians tried to spread the gospel in the Amazon. He seems rather unwelcoming to traditionalists. He had held the most closed society on earth as the great example of Catholic Social teaching. And within his own hierarchy he seems to have little love for those whose cultural values clash with his own.
Seems to me that the danger of thinking machines is overstated. The greater danger is in making something artificial that is quasi alive, as a virus is, by virtue of using truly living cells as vehicles for reproduction and dispersal. No consciousness required. EDIT We, as individuals, might become those living vectors for the helpers we are making for ourselves if we are not careful.
In terms of thinking, not necessarily living machines vs nonconscious replicating systems.
The former we might form some kind of alliance with. The latter would be a new kind of disease.
Seems nearly everything is divisive doesn't it? Unfettered illegal immigration isn't beneficial to our citizens or immigrants. Yet there are equally emphatic arguments to maintain the status quo, and to upset the apple cart. Each argument rests almost wholly on one's political views. In either case the dignity of people is impacted in some way. It is and will remain a point of fundamental disagreement with no easy "feel good" solution.
Why is there necessarily "very real antagonism between the Trump administration ... and the hierarchy" regarding treatment of the undocumented migrants? What happens when some "undocumented" migrants manage to sneak past the Swiss Guard? And what happens if one of them commits a serious crime against a resident?
FYI - ChatGPT is not a Microsoft product (though it's incorporated into Microsoft's Copilot AI tool for programmers). It's developed by OpenAI.
Also, I read Ars Technica's report on that AI study, and there was an interesting caveat that the most creative memes are still coming from humans - https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/ai-beats-humans-at-meme-humor-but-the-best-joke-is-still-human-made/. That being said, we truly do need more caution when it comes to AI and less of the current "put it every product and shove it everyone's faces, at every moment, all the time" attitude that it currently has.
No, Microsoft does not own OpenAI. While Microsoft has invested significantly in OpenAI and maintains a non-voting observer position on its board, it does not hold any ownership stake in the company. OpenAI remains an independent organization governed by its nonprofit parent.  
The machine is misleading you, because that’s what machines do. OpenAI Inc. is a nonprofit which Microsoft isn’t involved in. OpenAI LP is the subsidiary for-profit of which Microsoft owns nearly half.
One should always read between the lines, Ed, no matter what the sources. In this world of woe, there is no such thing as an unbiased narrative.
For what it's worth, here's a little more not unbiased narrating from ChatGPT, responding to "who owns openai lp":
// OpenAI LP operates under a distinctive hybrid structure designed to balance its mission with financial sustainability. Initially founded as a non-profit organization, OpenAI established a for-profit subsidiary, OpenAI LP, in 2019 to attract necessary capital and talent. This for-profit entity is governed by the original non-profit, OpenAI Inc., ensuring that the overarching mission of developing artificial general intelligence (AGI) for the benefit of humanity remains central.  
In recent years, OpenAI has secured substantial investments from various stakeholders. Notably, Microsoft has invested approximately $13 billion, acquiring a significant equity stake in OpenAI. Additionally, in April 2025, SoftBank led a $40 billion funding round, further diversifying OpenAI’s investor base.  
Despite these investments, OpenAI Inc., the non-profit parent organization, retains control over OpenAI LP. This structure ensures that while investors and employees can receive returns, the non-profit’s mission-driven objectives guide the company’s strategic direction.  
In summary, OpenAI LP is primarily owned and controlled by its non-profit parent, OpenAI Inc., with significant investments from entities like Microsoft and SoftBank providing financial support and holding equity stakes. //
As a New Polity fan, I couldn't help but remember what Marc Barnes said on their podcast at one point (can't remember the exact episode, it was a few years ago): the thrust was that machines don't come in and destroy authentic human labor, human labor is treated as mechanical, then the machines do that same thing better.
AI has already won, in our work, our interpersonal relationships, our communities (what's left of them anyway), our leisure. Its implementation is already a fait accompli.
Side note for Ed/JD/The Pillar team: there are a lot of Extremely Online folks spewing nonsense about postliberalism, but if you want to understand the real thing - a faithful, loving effort to restore a truly Christian understanding of politics - the good folks at New Polity are where it’s at!
Then there was that tween book The Always War by Margaret Peterson Haddix in which the teenagers fix the problem as they usually do in such fiction.
AI is a super charged collection of worksheets with tremendously large and complex macros utilizing large language constructs. AI models and algorithms often work with data that is stored and processed in a columnar format.
It can be used to supercharge ordinary tasks, for example finding Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
But, it is not capable of original thought (at least not yet).
Here is a simply stated test for AI to prove it is capable of original thought.
The idea of electricity was first discussed in 600 BC, when Thales of Miletus discovered that rubbing amber with fur created static electricity. It was not until the 16th century when basic understanding of electricity was actually achieved .
AI should be capable of taking similar action against some known fact and discovering how mankind can utilized that fact. It should compress the development of a similar "thing" from the 2,000 plus years it took for electricity to become useful.
For sure. Look up the A. I. Solution of the protein folding problem. How a given sequence of amino acids will fold can now be predicted. That is impressive in an idiot savant kind of way.
The protein folding problem, the idea that a protein's amino acid sequence dictates its three-dimensional structure, was initially established by Christian Anfinsen's experiments in the early 1960s, demonstrating that ribonuclease could spontaneously refold in a test tube. AI has made significant strides in protein folding prediction, accurately predicting the 3D structure of proteins from their amino acid sequence.
Very similar to discovering fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.
My reaction to reading this was that the issue isn’t the machines becoming more intelligent but our becoming stupider. You described the sentiment perfectly.
You see, Ed, you can't be considered a serious journalist when you uncritically link to a CNN piece on the Trump administration's deportation procedures, since there's no way you can't know about CNN's bias against Trump. Buried deep in the CNN piece is the acknowledgment that the man deported "had been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in mid-March 'due to his prominent role in MS-13,' according to a court declaration from a senior ICE official."
C'mon man.
There was an accusation against Mr. Garcia that he was a member of MS-13, which his attorneys denied. If we're going to handwave away procedural violations because of this current administration claims that individuals are gang members, we're in for a rough go.
No hand-waving here, just information-providing.
(Note, it appears his attorney’s argument did not convince the court.)
It did convince the Court. It was in 2019 and he was found not guilty. The Court gave him TPS.
Foreigners are here at the pleasure of the American people and can be removed by our duly elected executive at any time.
I don't know what you mean by foreigners, but I can assure you that the executive cannot deport someone simply because they are a noncitizen without proper procedure.
Mid March of 2019 (the first Trump term). He was given a trial and was found not guilty of the charge. Now in 2025 the new Trump Administration deports him based on the accusation made in 2019 that the Court threw out.
"My instinct is to panic. To complain. To work longer hours. To commit myself to my own strength and efforts to save me." >> Man, this hits home. Thanks for this reflection. Blessing for the remainder of Lent, and for the Easter celebration. (And prayers for the car situation and the house situation and all the rest...🙏)
As far as I can tell The US immigration policy is more in tune with the Catechism than other "social teaching" on migration uttered by religious figures. CCC 2241, for instance" “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.” And, "Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."
Come on. The Trump administration is deporting people without due process. Trump is overstepping "juridical conditions" by not following our own laws regarding immigration.
No, he is not. He is following the law.
No, he's not. The right to due process is enshrined in the the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, and applies to all people within the United States, including foreign nationals, regardless of their immigration status.
You are wrong. The law allows deportation of this category - violent anti-American invaders. Seriously, do you really believe the Brits who invaded us in the war of 1812 needed to be brought into a court!???
Besides, even if your fantasy were true, there is nothing in the law that says they can’t be “prosecuted” in a zoom hearing from their home country.
Bro. You have to prove they are anti-American invaders. Even literal Nazis during WWII got hearings before a judge.
Regarding the British in 1812, you should really read history before citing it as an example. Since one of the casus Belli for going to war the the impressment of Americans in the British navy, there actually *was* some due process give to certain elements in that conflict to ensure we weren’t deporting Americans. (Also, the law wasn’t geared at uniformed soldiers).
It’s possible to have the power and authority to do something and still do that thing in an illegal way. I hope you have a wonderful evening.
“Prove”? They’ve already been (I.e., previously) convicted.
And the Constitutional ‘question’ regarding Executive authority to deport them without more hearings is as yet unsettled. And the same bishops screeching about it are woefully silent about:
Foreigner’s obligation to come here legally, to obey our laws once here legally.
Transies harming others (not to mention themselves).
The pitiable state of knowledge of our Faith among us.
Etc.
Etc.
It must be proven that they are part of that particular criminal gang. It’s not a high bar to get over. But it must be done. Their conviction for a crime doesn’t prove that. (As it wasn’t a crime to be part of that gang, it’s impossible for any of them to have a conviction of being a gang member).
I have no comment on your claims About the bishops because I was simply here to point out that the administration is not following appropriate procedural law as they are required to do.
My point is that what you claim to be “law” is not codified, nor precedential. Until it is, claiming that our president is breaking the law is prima facie false.
Ah. Perfect. Thank you. While I would claim that giving Nazis hearing during WWII does set a precedent, I understand from your above comment you disagree with me on that point. Fair enough. I think we may slightly have been talking past each other.
I obviously still disagree with your assessment, but I appreciate the you clarifying where you stood.
So, if I understand correctly... the admin/government needs to follow procedural law (whatever that means) in order to send back an unwanted foreign national, but the same government/admin does not need to follow the same procedural law to let the unwanted foreign national come into the country?
So - to come in there is no requirement, but to send them back there is?
I’m confused by the distinction you are trying to make. In the case of enemy aliens, they either came to this country legally and thereby followed the appropriate procedural law or they came in illegally and did not. But in either case, they are eligible to be removed if an enemy alien.
People coming in the country illegally is not an example of the government failing to follow procedural law.
But I’m still unsure I actually understood your objection, my response at be off base here.
If you are here illegally and in contravention of our laws, what do you propose is appropriate? They can go home and apply for citizenship. That is their due process and what they should have done to begin with.
Hey Brian, I agree that they should have done that in the first place. But Congress and the courts have established a process for how to remove people in the US illegally. What that process does is ensure the person the government alleges is here illegally truly is. It’s the governments burden of proof. It’s not a particularly hard burden to meet, but it does take time and that portion of our court system is seriously underfunded and has a huge backlog.
But either way, the government needs to follow the path Congress established, or, in the case of Enemy Aliens, that the executive branch has committed itself to via precedent (that’s where Stephen Brown and I differ).
There comes a point where pragmatism needs apply. During the Biden presidency there were….100,000+ coming in per month. I am sorry but there comes a time to shoot first and ask questions later. Let those who feel they were deported despite having established they had a right to be here for to the US consulate in their country of origin and take it up there. Either way, this is a crisis and I am not interested in media generated tear drop stories when one out of every 30,000 are possibly improperly deported.
I hopefully this comes across as dialogue as opposed to snark or pure argumentation.
Writing a newspaper column critical of the government of Israel does not make one a "violent anti-American invader."
Never claimed it did.
But such a person is among Trump's deportees.
First, so what does that have to do with the question re whether the Executive has the authority to remove someone from our country? Listing someone as 'persona non grata' is something all nations exercise - and not necessarily for crimes.
Second, I think you misstate the case in question - was s/he supporting Hamas, for example? In any event, foreigners presence here does not make them immune to deportation. Countries do it rather routinely.
Third, removing those who criminally entered is not a deprivation of any of their rights - but rather a common sense exercise of ours.
//so what does that have to do with the question re whether the Executive has the authority to remove someone from our country?//
It has everything to do with the right, in that it is not absolute as Trump's defenders claim. A President cannot remove people because they refuse to pay him off or grant him sexual favors, or just based on an unproven allegation or for writing a newspaper article critical of some foreign nation.
Foreigners do not have a “right” to be in this country, and deportation is not penal.
If prosecuted for a crime committed here that could result in incarceration, then some ‘rights’ apply (as with all defendants here in criminal cases). Allowing foreigners to enter the U.S. is an administrative act of the Executive Branch. So is rescission of that entrance.
No one, not even America hating voters, is claiming that these terroristic deportees are being sent back because of the scurrilous claims you made about bribery and seploitation.
There is, though, both bribery and sex trafficking on the part of the foreigners bringing others here. So .. are you saying that what the people smuggling rapists are doing is ok?
B I N G O !!! ( How’s that for a ‘pre vat 2’ word?)
But, seriously, you quoted one of the most ignored (often deliberately) statements of the Catechism!
And ditto the difference (not mere distinction!) between immigration and invasion.
It needs to be noted that the problem with AI isn’t with the technology or those who create it. The problem is that people lack the discipline to use it sparingly and properly. Thus, this is a human problem: not a technological problem.
In this regard, this problem is no different than the invention of the wheel, the gun, nuclear fission, or the airplane. All can be used for great good or for great evil.
Bingo. Tools are simply things. Why do so many people seem to fail to understand this and, instead, elaborate endlessly and melodramatically about hypothetical marvels or horrors that these things will surely create? We talk too much and reflect too little. Homo chatterbox.
I’m not entirely sure if missing Sunday Mass is still considered a sin in today’s context, but if it is, then the Pillars weekly lede provides an almost irresistible excuse. The lede, with its concise and engaging style, offers insights that are consistently more compelling than the often lengthy and repetitive homilies one might encounter during Mass. It’s not just a matter of brevity; the content of the lede strikes a chord that makes the traditional sermon feel, at times, outdated or even overly pedantic.
I find myself wishing that someone like Ed and JD would take the initiative to launch an online homiletics class—a course designed to teach the art of sermon delivery and spiritual communication in today’s digital age. Such a class, mandated in all seminaries, could equip future preachers with the skills to craft messages that are both profound and relatable. This could bridge the gap between traditional practices and contemporary expectations, making the Church’s teachings more appealing to a modern audience.
Agreed that the Pillar reflections are pretty good, and that a great deal of homilies are trite fluff.
Concerning your first line though, it's my understanding that missing Mass on a Sunday or other day of obligation (unless it is morally impossible due to illness, distance, or the like) is grave matter. It's a precept of the Church to attend mass on these days, and the precepts are the bare minimum necessary to be considered a practicing Catholic. They're obligations, not suggestions.
As much as everyone enjoys an elegantly delivered, edifying homily, we do not attend Mass for the preaching. I’m sure you know that and I think your comment was primarily tongue-in-cheek, so I apologize if I’m coming across as harsh. But I’ve known too many Catholics who parish hop trying to find the “best” (i.e., most entertaining or validating of our own opinions) preaching. One friend told me she wasn’t “being fed” by her priest’s lackluster preaching. Mass is Mass no matter how poor an orator the priest is. We are fed by the Eucharist, not the homily. This is a soapbox of mine so again, I apologize if you’ve had to take my ire!
I'm sympathetic to your friend. I'm especially sympathetic to parents who find themselves in your friend's situation, but worried on behalf of their children
Since upwards of 60% of younger Catholics don’t know about, much less believe in, the Real Presence, sermons/homilies are a critical component of the liturgy. And it’s wise to keep in mind that the Lord - through His Chosen People (=Church) - mandates them. Those of us who ‘already’ are believers may not ‘need’ a sermon as much, but we still do need them. Which is why I criticize poor sermons and compliment good ones.
Thank you — I didn’t find your comments harsh at all; they were well stated and reflect the convictions of millions of Catholics who deeply believe in the Real Presence and are fed by the Eucharist. But I also think we’re living in a time when many others, for a variety of reasons, may struggle with belief but still long to be held within the Church. That’s the great dilemma — how to hold everyone under the same umbrella.
People’s beliefs aren’t set in stone; they can shift over a lifetime. The challenge for the Church is to meet people where they are — and to stay with them, patiently, as they grow, wrestle, and return. If priests are formed to think that simply having the faculties to transubstantiate is all that’s required to be a good shepherd, I believe that’s short-sighted. People are fed in different ways. For many, preaching is the connection point — the bridge to the deeper mysteries of the faith. Dismissing that can unintentionally close the door on those still finding their way.
Hi Dennis, I sincerely appreciate your good faith and open hearted engagement with my reply to your comment. Rather than a “you’re wrong and here’s why” dismissal, you have made your point more clearly and given me a chance to better understand your perspective. So, thank you.
I have a seminarian son. I know that seminarians are formed in much more than having the faculties to transubstantiate. Homiletics is part of seminary. And yet, priesthood is not just a job, it’s the particular vocation of these particular men, so of course they will bring vastly varied gifts to the table. One of the holiest and most committed priests I have known is only a so-so preacher.
However I also really hear your point. There ARE people who struggle with belief and yet long to be held by the Church. That is real and it goes beyond just wanting to hear an entertaining sermon that gives an emotional response or aligns with one’s biases.
I believe that formators are holding this tension. They are not blind to what’s going on. And yet, these men, with their own strengths and weaknesses, are being sent out with still more growth to undergo. Just as a married couple will not have mastered the art of communication until perhaps decades into their marriage. So it strikes me as a both/and situation.
Anyway thank you for your thoughtful response.
As seminarians journey toward the priesthood, they’re often asked to reflect on the key influences that led them to pursue their vocation. Almost always, parents top that list. Congratulations to you for creating a home filled with faith, service, and a deep spirituality—qualities so profound that your son felt called to dedicate his life entirely to God and His people. That’s truly remarkable.
It’s also wonderful to connect with someone who understands that becoming a priest is about far more than mastering theology or liturgy. It’s about a transformation—one that shapes the whole person to be more like Christ. Like you, I’ve been blessed to know priests whose holiness wasn’t found in dynamic preaching, but in the quiet, steady ways they lived their faith and touched others deeply.
I’ll be praying for your son as he continues to discern his calling. May he remain open to the grace and guidance that will help him reflect the deep holiness of those we’ve both known—individuals who inspire others to grow in goodness and faith.
Thank you, that is so generous of you. Seminarians (and priests) thirst for the prayers of the faithful. I never knew how much until I was this close to it.
Not long ago, until very shortly before his death, Quentin de la Bédoyère moderated an online discussion group, on behalf of the Catholic Herald, on topics directly and indirectly related to Catholicism, ethics, morality, and such. He would regularly write a short essay that the group might consider and discuss. Since, sadly, that conversation ended, I have looked through the Internet in vain for something seriously similar. It would take time and dedication and, of course, discipline and talent. I suspect that Ed and JD, being principally jurists and journalists, would simply not have the leisure for it. But surely at least *someone* would.
Forgive me for the judgemental attitude here, but it has seemed to me for a while that it is the habit of a midwit to trust LLM output. If you're asking it for information which you don't yet know, how will you know whether it is reliable or not? We know that these things are prone to "hallucination" when asked about facts. So, they must be fact-checked. But if you know the subject well enough to fact check the output, then why ask the thing the question in the first place?
Perhaps if it can provide a source for its claims, then it could be used as a sort of search engine. But that's about it.
Yeah. I have been occasionally impressed with AI search results on my browser as a quick check, but relying on it feels like relying on Wikipedia. And the results can be rather humorous, such as when it mishmashes recipes from different sources (a frequent search topic in our household).
My favorite newsletter to date. Much needed reflection on Lent and a fitting segue to AI. The "great power rising" redeems our humanity and overcomes the prison of the algorithm in all its manifestations over space and time.
That last observation about AI is the correct one: computers aren't becoming more human, we're becoming more mechanical. I think there's a parallel to be drawn with this country's obsession with pets as quasi-children: we're becoming more like animals, like pets.
With regards to the seeming inconsistency of Pope Francis, I would encourage people to look up some of the writings of a Substacker going by the name N. S. Lyons. While I won't vouch for everything the man says, I think his basic theory of the open society vs. the closed society is the correct interpretation of what has been happening during the last century on the global political stage. Read through this lens, Pope Francis is certainly a man of the open society, and I think that is his highest priority. In fact, I suspect that this is how he reads the entire Spirit of Vatican II, so-called: Vatican II was the Church's entry into a compact with the world powers for the building of an the open society, and there's no going back. It didn't really have to do with the church so much, but the churches place in the world, and therefore it's orientation towards and investment in the world. ("Latin Mass," anyone?)
Pope Francis's overwhelming concern with the Trump administration, and other "right wing" administrations throughout the world, is that they are contrary to the open society. The Democrats named in this article, however, were definitely believers in that vision. Look also at the variable treatment of different ecclesiastical figures throughout the world. Therefore, I suspect that Pope Francis thinks he is taking the broader view of what is necessary for world peace and justice, and this must be prioritized. Perhaps he feels he can overlook a relatively localized problem as abortion in the United States for the sake of the bigger picture of the global order.
I'm not saying this is justified, BTW, only that this might be how he thinks through things. I also think that it explains the mindset of a few of generations of clergy and religious. With the open society international order breaking down, see if the lens I've sketched out helps you think through the reactions you're seeing from people on both sides of the aisle. This lens has helped me quite a bit, especially when it comes to being patient with people. There is a lot riding on the two different visions of what makes for a good political order, i.e. closed vs. open society.
This is an interesting perspective, and makes sense considering that the generations most likely to hold the "open society" ideal would be those who experienced WWII and/or the early days of the nuclear arms race. It's easy to see how you might come out of such experiences believing that the best way to prevent it happening again would be to abolish all meaningful differences between people groups.
I think Pp Francis is just trying to administratively impose his political world view. And that view is very much the 1960s South American jesuitical view: USA bad, communazifasciocialism good. That’s how he was intellectually raised. He doesn’t appear to have critically reflected upon his own biases / prejudices (witness his constant harping against America along with his complimenting the chicoms).
Notice how he has no “overwhelming concern” for the actually genocidal chicom regime.
When he preaches politics I disregard him. When (if?) he preaches Christ as our rescuer instead of some socialistic utopia I will listen.
Father thank you so much for this very thoughtful and edifying reflection. This feels very much like a hermeneutical key.
I find myself wondering, what is the worldview of the global political stage and also of the Church via the world is coming in pendulum swing? Bc pendulum swings almost by nature tend to be an extreme of the other which feels …. Ominous. And more importantly than what is coming, what is the *correct* one 🤷🏽♀️
Thank you for your perspective on ‘open society vs closed society’ as possible agendas of our present-day world leaders. I would suggest one caveat; that each world leader is tasked with a responsibility to their ‘flock’. That caveat in the friction between Pp Francis and the “right-wing” (or left-wing or totalitarian or communist or Marxist or socialist) world leaders is the real driver and divider between the national vs global societal lenses (IMO). That responsibility and subsequent accountability should not be left out of the dynamic.
Both lenses might be justified in seeking the goal of the common good, given the caveat above.
As to justification of one societal view over the other; mankind has had and has a propensity to want to “fix it”. But my understanding is that man is a sinner first. His Fall opens the door to Pride and those nasty things that follow, like power (and those in the shadows wanting the power [Parolin or AOC].
All of this has a long history to include prophets and earthly leaders consistently ‘fumbling the ball’. Little did Peter realize that including the Gentiles would prove to be so problematic but here we are. I’m praying that Jesus returns soon with His peace and justice.
Yet he seems rather miffed that Christians tried to spread the gospel in the Amazon. He seems rather unwelcoming to traditionalists. He had held the most closed society on earth as the great example of Catholic Social teaching. And within his own hierarchy he seems to have little love for those whose cultural values clash with his own.
Seems to me that the danger of thinking machines is overstated. The greater danger is in making something artificial that is quasi alive, as a virus is, by virtue of using truly living cells as vehicles for reproduction and dispersal. No consciousness required. EDIT We, as individuals, might become those living vectors for the helpers we are making for ourselves if we are not careful.
In terms of thinking, not necessarily living machines vs nonconscious replicating systems.
The former we might form some kind of alliance with. The latter would be a new kind of disease.
A machine is a machine, not and never a person. There has been a huge amount of bloviation in the media over this imaginary monster or messiah.
Thank you. That is a more direct statement.
Indeed, we are persons only because God made us so by endowing us with unique immortal souls individually created in His image.
It does seem foolish that some talk of becoming immortal when we already are.
Seems nearly everything is divisive doesn't it? Unfettered illegal immigration isn't beneficial to our citizens or immigrants. Yet there are equally emphatic arguments to maintain the status quo, and to upset the apple cart. Each argument rests almost wholly on one's political views. In either case the dignity of people is impacted in some way. It is and will remain a point of fundamental disagreement with no easy "feel good" solution.
Why is there necessarily "very real antagonism between the Trump administration ... and the hierarchy" regarding treatment of the undocumented migrants? What happens when some "undocumented" migrants manage to sneak past the Swiss Guard? And what happens if one of them commits a serious crime against a resident?
FYI - ChatGPT is not a Microsoft product (though it's incorporated into Microsoft's Copilot AI tool for programmers). It's developed by OpenAI.
Also, I read Ars Technica's report on that AI study, and there was an interesting caveat that the most creative memes are still coming from humans - https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/ai-beats-humans-at-meme-humor-but-the-best-joke-is-still-human-made/. That being said, we truly do need more caution when it comes to AI and less of the current "put it every product and shove it everyone's faces, at every moment, all the time" attitude that it currently has.
Ok but Microsoft owns 49% of OpenAI LP.
ChatGPT:
No, Microsoft does not own OpenAI. While Microsoft has invested significantly in OpenAI and maintains a non-voting observer position on its board, it does not hold any ownership stake in the company. OpenAI remains an independent organization governed by its nonprofit parent.  
The machine is misleading you, because that’s what machines do. OpenAI Inc. is a nonprofit which Microsoft isn’t involved in. OpenAI LP is the subsidiary for-profit of which Microsoft owns nearly half.
One should always read between the lines, Ed, no matter what the sources. In this world of woe, there is no such thing as an unbiased narrative.
For what it's worth, here's a little more not unbiased narrating from ChatGPT, responding to "who owns openai lp":
// OpenAI LP operates under a distinctive hybrid structure designed to balance its mission with financial sustainability. Initially founded as a non-profit organization, OpenAI established a for-profit subsidiary, OpenAI LP, in 2019 to attract necessary capital and talent. This for-profit entity is governed by the original non-profit, OpenAI Inc., ensuring that the overarching mission of developing artificial general intelligence (AGI) for the benefit of humanity remains central.  
In recent years, OpenAI has secured substantial investments from various stakeholders. Notably, Microsoft has invested approximately $13 billion, acquiring a significant equity stake in OpenAI. Additionally, in April 2025, SoftBank led a $40 billion funding round, further diversifying OpenAI’s investor base.  
Despite these investments, OpenAI Inc., the non-profit parent organization, retains control over OpenAI LP. This structure ensures that while investors and employees can receive returns, the non-profit’s mission-driven objectives guide the company’s strategic direction.  
In summary, OpenAI LP is primarily owned and controlled by its non-profit parent, OpenAI Inc., with significant investments from entities like Microsoft and SoftBank providing financial support and holding equity stakes. //