The big takeaway I have from this is that the USCCB is able to "respond[] with a statement almost immediately, explaining its position, and pushing back" on an issue like immigration, but is *not* able to do so when the issue involves being given membership in the Freemason, statements regarding support for abortion, a priest and/or bish…
The big takeaway I have from this is that the USCCB is able to "respond[] with a statement almost immediately, explaining its position, and pushing back" on an issue like immigration, but is *not* able to do so when the issue involves being given membership in the Freemason, statements regarding support for abortion, a priest and/or bishop actively defying Vatican mandates on how to properly bless those with same-sex attraction, etc.
Comparing like to like, the Conference many times responded critically to statements from the Executive branch supporting abortion (See statements from August 5, 2022, October 25, 2022, and February 1, 2023). So I don’t think it’s correct to say that the Conference is not able to respond regarding abortion.
Further, the Conference might be able to respond to immigration concerns because it has a dedicated Committee on Migration, but has no standing committee on Freemason membership.
"almost immediately" is an important phrase I quoted. Yes, the USCCB has "pushed back" on the executive branch's support for abortion. The question is why it is sometimes so hard to get support from USCCB on some issues, but on others it seems to happen "almost immediately."
The USCCB is being accused by the Vice President of the United States of committing a crime by taking money (from whom?) to resettle illegal immigrants, and they clarified that they are taking money from the US Government (including the last Trump Administration) to resettle people the US Government asked them to help resettle.
As I understand it, they were accused of taking money from the government to resettle illegal immigrants that the US government asked them to resettle, and also for advocating for the US government policy to be to refrain from enforcing immigration law, in order to be able to have more of that government money. Or at least to have their advocacy somewhat swayed by the money.
Since they were directly accused publicly by a powerful figure on a well-watched news program, and they have the committee infrastructure to respond, it doesn’t seem too surprising that they responded quickly.
Just trying to compare like with like, I’m not sure that—with regards to the topics you suggested—there has been much by way of public accusation against the Conference itself by a member of the Executive branch.
To say nothing about the bishops' silence about cartel control of our border these last four years and the rape, prostitution, and child trafficking that comes with that.
2. It's not correct to say "Trump has been convicted in a court of law on sex charges." The case you're referring to was a civil suit. You can't be convicted in a civil suit, there is a lower standard of evidence than in a criminal case and the result is a finding of liability by a jury. This carries a lot less weight than "being convicted on sex charges", which implies a criminal case and conviction, which has not happened.
The big takeaway I have from this is that the USCCB is able to "respond[] with a statement almost immediately, explaining its position, and pushing back" on an issue like immigration, but is *not* able to do so when the issue involves being given membership in the Freemason, statements regarding support for abortion, a priest and/or bishop actively defying Vatican mandates on how to properly bless those with same-sex attraction, etc.
Comparing like to like, the Conference many times responded critically to statements from the Executive branch supporting abortion (See statements from August 5, 2022, October 25, 2022, and February 1, 2023). So I don’t think it’s correct to say that the Conference is not able to respond regarding abortion.
Further, the Conference might be able to respond to immigration concerns because it has a dedicated Committee on Migration, but has no standing committee on Freemason membership.
"almost immediately" is an important phrase I quoted. Yes, the USCCB has "pushed back" on the executive branch's support for abortion. The question is why it is sometimes so hard to get support from USCCB on some issues, but on others it seems to happen "almost immediately."
I'm not sure if it's much of a question.
The USCCB is being accused by the Vice President of the United States of committing a crime by taking money (from whom?) to resettle illegal immigrants, and they clarified that they are taking money from the US Government (including the last Trump Administration) to resettle people the US Government asked them to help resettle.
As I understand it, they were accused of taking money from the government to resettle illegal immigrants that the US government asked them to resettle, and also for advocating for the US government policy to be to refrain from enforcing immigration law, in order to be able to have more of that government money. Or at least to have their advocacy somewhat swayed by the money.
Since they were directly accused publicly by a powerful figure on a well-watched news program, and they have the committee infrastructure to respond, it doesn’t seem too surprising that they responded quickly.
Just trying to compare like with like, I’m not sure that—with regards to the topics you suggested—there has been much by way of public accusation against the Conference itself by a member of the Executive branch.
For some issues there are USCCB offices on the subject in DC and on other issues there aren't. Both refugees and pro-life have offices there.
To say nothing about the bishops' silence about cartel control of our border these last four years and the rape, prostitution, and child trafficking that comes with that.
And the rapes by Trump and Hegseth.
Suffering from TDS are we? You should try being a Catholic.
Trump has been convicted in a court of law on sex charges.
By a kangaroo court which will be overturned on appeal. Let the hate flow young Padawan.
He lost the appeal last December. Of course, the pervert is appealing again.
I have no interest in defending Trump on these matters, but I am interested in accuracy:
1. The jury in Carroll vs Trump declined to declare rape.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-donald-trump-found-guilty-rape-1799935
2. It's not correct to say "Trump has been convicted in a court of law on sex charges." The case you're referring to was a civil suit. You can't be convicted in a civil suit, there is a lower standard of evidence than in a criminal case and the result is a finding of liability by a jury. This carries a lot less weight than "being convicted on sex charges", which implies a criminal case and conviction, which has not happened.
3. Hegseth has not been convicted of anything.
Please, let's keep the discussion factual.
You truly are a "simple christian."