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.
Does anyone have a good reading recommendation on the Church’s view of the relationship between the existence of a nation/supporting enforcement of civil borders and immigration? It seems there are multiple subcategories in the heated dialogue (refugees, migrants, illegal immigrants, terrorist infiltration) and it’s all talked about under the general category of immigration.
People are fired up, the USCCB issues communication, and seemingly very fast compared to normal, and I’m finding a lot of people in my personal circle very confused and not finding any resources outside of passionate Instagram reels.
I'd look at the encyclicals that have solidified much of the Church's application of the teaching on human dignity to the issues of the modern world. I'd look at Rerum Novarum (Leo XIII), Quadragesimo Anno (Pius XI) and Centisimus Annus (John Paul II) as a starting point. There's several others I'd recommend but those are the mainstays.
Thank you! I was also referred to Question 105 of the Summa, where Article 3 is specifically on “Matters relating to foreigners.” Pray for my intellect as I take a stab. I studied clouds.
For what it's worth, I would point out that the Summa reflects Thomas' theological work, and very very often reflects the teachings of the Church. But the Summa is not "the Church's view" as such.
I say that without having read the question in question, just a general observation.
Whaaaat, JD you mean that good ol TA wasn't the Second Coming after all? You heretic. ;)
I jest. But I did enjoy gadflying the Thomists and their tacit treatment of his writing as the kerygma itself while I was studying theology in university. :P
Further, the migration situation has changed in the 800 years since the Angelic Doctor wrote. Since migration and travel in general are now easier and safer, that might change how we view foreigners and our obligations towards them.
Also: a papal document that would be directly on point for the issue of immigration would be Pope Pius XII’s 1952 encyclical Exsul Familia Nazarethana.
Didn’t we know that we act only as if Matt 25 is the only way to understand Christ, not the rest of the Gospels or statements He said? Surely we know that Marxist Social justice is the only thing that matters?! Jesus came only for the poor…that’s why we have a “preferential” option for the poor! It’s not because the world doesn’t care about the poor…it does now because it’s license for monetary redistribution. Doctrine and dogma don’t matter in relation to ethics or morality unless they involve power or class relationships!
In short, our Bishops’ Conference peddles magisterial-rejected heresies. And it does actually help their bottom “evangelization” line, since they haven’t “figured out” that by betraying the actual teachings of Vatican 2 and Jesus Christ for their “spirit” , that’s the failure of our times. They need to bus in more ethnic-cultural “Catholics” (not convicted, participating Catholics) to make up for their lack of evangelical leadership.
Wow there are...so many things about this comment that I don't even know where to start. So, out of temperance I won't but instead am just going to offer some prayers for you.
Indeed we are all spiritually poor; but material poverty is the thrust of Marxism, Socialism and Social Justice Warriors (condemned by many Popes in their Social Encyclicals). Just so for the phrase “preferential option for the poor”. St Anthony was not materially poor but became so because he saw his own spiritual poverty. That you mistook my sarcasm, and misinterpreted the Gospel, just as the Bishops and Progressivists, suggests you ought to re-enter Lady Wisdom’s house for re-instruction.
This is a silly pseudo-analysis. Vance was making a point about revenue. 3/4 of a billion over the last 10 years is a whole lot of revenue. Anyone with any knowledge of the real world will tell you that what gives any corporate entity power is revenue, not profit.
Revenues matter all the more for the Church, especially given that collections are dwindling because of empty pews and the overall culture has turned vehemently against the clergy.
So yes. Vance is right. The Bishops' bottom line is helped greatly by federal funds for immigration resettlement. Without those funds all they would be able to spend on immigrants is a paltry $4 million per year. Pretending that the Bishops are "good stewards" of federal funds does not take away the fact that those federal funds increase the Bishops' real world influence.
Correct. This analysis is taking an ultra literal interpretation on what Vance said: bottom line = profit so Vance is a dum dum. Like you said, millions and millions of dollars coming in to USCCB leads to a lot of power and influence in the real world even if they have to kick in a few million of their own dollars on top of it.
JD, obviously there is more to what Vance is saying than just raw numbers. What is better for the power/influence of the USCCB, to bring in $100 million from the US gov't and have to spend $4 million of their own funds on top (i.e. "lose money") or to hypothetically bring in only $5 million and have a $1,000 profit? One is literally better for the bottom line, but Vance is saying the USCCB likes the power and influence it gets from the huge programs, so maybe they're not exactly unbiased in their analysis of this issue.
"but Vance is saying the USCCB likes the power and influence it gets from the huge programs, so maybe they're not exactly unbiased in their analysis of this issue." Which is an incredibly cynical take. Is JD Vance saying the church should do nothing to help these people. Stay on the sidelines? Really?
The invitation is for the Church to live her mission as a Church and not an NGO.
That the US govt is lawfully repatriating persons here illegally, not to mention the murderers, traffickers, etc. it goes without saying that it is within prudential judgment to do so.
The Bishops should be evangelical, not playing the part of the “Grand Inquisitor”.
I don’t think that is what he is saying. But I have wondered over the years, as the Church has closed school and sold hospitals, nursing homes and cemeteries, why the bishops are so strident and political when speaking to this selective practice of the corporal works of mercy.
I think that, rather than USCCB using federal money to pad their bottom line while providing corporal works of mercy, the United States Government was using the USCCB and Catholic Charities and other nonprofits to take federal money and help facilitate their open border policy, making sure that immigrants could flow quickly over the border and on to sites unknown with our an obviously s humanitarian crisis at the border.
Good points. I think Vance was really making the point that the USCCB fired first with the statement about changes in the policy on implementation of deportations (i.e., picking people up in sensitive locations.) I didn’t watch the entire interview, but it seems he was deflecting and avoiding the trap by pointing out the revenue incentive.
I found the USCCB statement useless because there's categorical differences between refugees (think camps) and immigrants (unvetted border crossing). It also didn't explain how sub-contracted grants to organizations are monitored. Gov$$ always comes with strings attached as well.
We already know grant recipients who abused their Catholic association by being pro-abortion. How could I have confidence what subcontractors & grantees are doing with illegal border crossing crowds. The abuse stories are out there.
The USCCB can't just issue assertions about purity. They can't pretend the US is some bottomless pocket when the government has a $37 trillion deficit and citizens can't find jobs because they're all taken by the world. USCCB "compassion" has become narrow and ossified.
Unfortunately your financial analysis is missing some key details. I am a CPA with nearly twenty years of audit experience, mostly auditing not-for-profits. Most the the funding contracts allow the organization to cover administrative costs. The amount can vary depending on the contract. If you read note 2(g) on page 10 of the 2023 financial statements it states that the administrative costs relating to the migrant resettlement services (MRS) are included with the related MRS expenses. So, the fact that administrative costs are being included in program costs are going to skew the "program expense ratio". I would also argue that since the government contracts are funding administrative costs, the USCCB's bottom line is being helped.
The other thing you need to realize is the allocation of administrative costs between programs is subject to significant professional judgment. Some important questions is what percentage of the contract can be used to cover administrative costs and what procedures the USCCB uses to allocate administrative costs between programs.
"Some important questions is what percentage of the contract can be used to cover administrative costs and what procedures the USCCB uses to allocate administrative costs between programs."
As to the admin expense point, you're right. the bishops' admin costs are seemingly the pass through admin costs, not that the resettlement admin costs. but since their job is as a pass through for a largely admin function ,that seems to track.
As a former auditor (mostly for-profit but occasionally non-profit), your second paragraph is what I was thinking about as I was reading. Getting into the minutia of the classification of each financial statement line item and classification within that line item is extremely difficult--even for for-profit companies that invest in their accounting departments. I would be shocked if most non-profits had dedicated resources at that level. However, I am not here to disparage either the accounting department of the USCCB or the fine folks of the KPMG DC office (their auditors). I mention simply to say not everything you read in audited financial statements is as precise or cookie cutter as you would like it to be.
As a former non profit worker, I can confirm that the amount of time I spent squinting at an expense report asking myself "Are these ballpoint pens for the kickoff meeting 'Office Supplies' or 'Program Supplies' or 'Meetings' makes me take all such reports with a grain of salt. There is a reason field office staff love the Other-Miscellaneous budget code (and yes, we know the accountants don't love it. Sorry!)
Thank you for this comment as I was wondering the same thing for much the same reasons. I admit to wondering what would it take for the USSCB (or the Pillar) to make the counter claim and, by the way, what evidence did Vance have for his claim.
"The majority of the funds are passed on as grants or subcontracts to local organizations conducting the work required."
-Out of the whole argument between boondoggle v. compassionate mercy, this is the one thing that gives me pause. The involvement of local organizations and subcontractors is the can of worms that is plaguing the USCCB's CCHD program (https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/why-did-the-cchd-amp-up-spending).
In the federal grant world, money from higher up is distributed down to local entities to make impacts at a local scale. This follow the ideas behind subsidiarity. Good. The problem comes in when the local groups espouse positions CONTRARY to Catholic morality (pro-abortion/contraception, LGBTQ+ advocacy, enabling or encouraging lawbreaking, etc.).
This information is fairly broad and the granular distribution of funds to individual organizations isn't, publicly, known. How many of these organizations are giving out contraception, aiding in abortions, telling those in the community to not cooperate with Federal authorities, or poorly tracking individuals as they are dispersed (such as children being sent w/o parents)? When this information isn't known, or the known information is contrary to Catholic moral positions, it breeds distrust and anger.
The immediate (in USCCB terms), vociferous response when compared to the tepid response on other issues (i.e.-the Biden Admin's pro-abortion, pro-Trans agenda and Card. Cupich's meddling) WILL get people's hackles up. If both sides don't start having a moment of self-reflection this business will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
Thank you. I had similar concerns. Pope Francis' warnings to not become an "NGO church" come to mind (not that I think we are anywhere near this problem as opposed to the Germans, but there are many reasons why subsidiarity is the preferred method, and the USCCB playing the middleman does not instill confidence that these funds will be handled well).
Not sure I understand how illegal immigration is moral. Because the issue is really about illegal immigration (notwithstanding the desperate changing of the term by those who are offended by it) not legal immigration. Besides not following the proper procedures, hence putting legal applicants (including women, children, the elderly, disabled, etc.) at a disadvantage, just considering it increases the supply of labour and brings wages down in many sectors of the economy. This especially hurts the citizen poor and strains social services. Some to many illegal immigrants will accept low wages (including state sanctioned minimums) and some to many businesses will advocate for it. Tax (income, employment, etc.) avoidance/evasion obviously would be on the increase, further putting pressure on government services (i.e. health, education, etc.). This puts many stakeholders in a morally bad predicament. (Sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance) Oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4) come to mind.
From the church's moral teaching, I imagine it would be something like stealing: me robbing banks because I want to buy a sailboat is wrong. Me robbing a pharmacy because I have tried everything else and simply cannot find another way to get my child lifesaving medication is not culpable. Me overstaying an EU visa because I really like Rome and want more chances to eat suppli is morally culpable. Me fleeing to the EU because people aren't trying to kill me there, or because I can make enough to keep my kids from starving there, is not morally culpable
Really? So that means the existing citizenry, which has issues as well, must accommodate everyone even though the social contract doesn't really say that? The state, along with elected leaders, have the prerogative (given by God) to make their own laws. Secondly, many people that want to immigrate follow legal procedures and are in the same boat. Is that fair to them? Also, I'm wondering why there is no criticism of the country or countries that abandon their own people to such evils?
It isn't. Nowhere do we say that right and wrong are based on results alone. It comes down to the hierarchy of goods. The sovereignty of nations is not the greatest good. Obedience to secular authority is not the greatest good either.
How is it exactlty immoral? Whats the Catholic teaching on why its good to have borders? Isnt Catholicism universal? It would be better for these people to stay where they are? Why?
Here's an answer: Why doesn't the Vatican take everyone in? Why is the Vatican a state? If it's universal, why have any home state at all? Or why does the Vatican have a wall surrounding it? Do as I say, not as I do?
Come on, those arguments are so bad it borders on being bad faith. The Vatican is a tiny state that only exists because it is allowed to. The Italians could have seized it in 1871 when they took Rome and completed Italy's unification - or any time afterwards - if they'd had the desire. The walls would not have prevented it. The reality is that seizing the Vatican would have had disastrous consequences for the new Italian state in terms of international relations.
Why does the Vatican have a wall? Because it needed to be defensible...the Vatican was sacked by Muslims at least once during the Middle Ages, and it was sacked again in the 1500s by troops of the Holy Roman Empire, which notably included Lutheran soldiers. The point being there was a perfectly good reason for the walls to be there, and to this day they are useful for demarcating the boundaries of the Vatican City. As far as its reason for statehood, it's partially a way to ensure the independence of the papacy from any other temporal power, and simply the last tiny remnant of the pope's temporal power, which is a convenient precedent for his political independence. The universality is related to all this because the Vatican's independence allows it to speak without being the mouthpiece of any world leader other than the Holy Father himself (at least theoretically.)
There's no value in asking why a tiny state that doesn't function like a typical independent nation and is actually financially in dire straits doesn't take in a slew of people. The answer is obvious: they cannot. The situation of the most powerful country on Earth is a very different one and we have a lot more things to consider when setting our immigration policy. That being said, any state that is actually a sovereign state has the right to control its borders, within reason; anyone who suggests open borders isn't serious about finding a real solution.
Size is not really the issue. I highly doubt that the Vatican, when it had larger Papal lands, ever said everyone is welcome. The Holy Roman Empire, with Papal approved leaders, never said everyone is welcome. Why? Sovereignty.
Put it this way: Catechism of the Catholic Church s.1899 "The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
So how does illegal immigration fit into or better yet, get around this?
The only way I can think of is that the Church declare laws for illegal immigration being morally unjust or contrary to the moral order. Has it and is it valid?
Another reason why the Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire didn’t have “open borders” or otherwise loose immigration was that immigration on a large scale wasn’t something that really could happen prior to about the 19th century.
Technology has made large-scale immigration more easy and more safe, and perhaps these changes can help us to revise how we view immigration.
God created many different and diverse nations and we are not at liberty to facilitate their destruction. We have greater moral obligations to our family, kin, and nation than to foreigners in foreign land.
I dispute that it would be better for them to stay here, in a foreign land, cut off from their ancestral customs and behaviors, separated from their extended families, etc. and this can be demonstrated by the disastrous social outcomes of their children, including leaving the Church and high rates of crime.
Here's the thing. The Pope made declarations against the Italian mafia and virtually declared them excommunicated if anyone persisted in being part of it/them. Why not all the gangs and cartels in Latin America or every other gang or cartel around the world? They pretty much do (even worse in many circumstances) what the Italian mafia does.
If that were really the concern they wouldn't be traversing multiple countries to get here and they wouldn't be leaving their families at home to do so.
Many of the countries between here and there are also extremely dangerous. I have read that in 2019 the only American country that cracked the top 5 for # of immigrants was Columbia taking in Venezuelans. But those fleeing Nicaragua or Haiti don't necessarily have a safe neighboring country to flee to.
“While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there. By this principle the Church recognizes that most immigration is ultimately not something to celebrate. Ordinarily, people do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living. Instead, they migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land. Immigrants and refugees endure many hardships and often long for the homes they left behind. As Americans we should cherish and celebrate the contributions of immigrants and their cultures; however, we should work to make it unnecessary for people to leave their own land.”
This is a good analysis, and Vance should correct himself. If he keeps BS'ing like this, he's going to be useless.
A few things to note, however.
First, while the USCCB is not in any way profiting from assistance to immigrants and refugees, it certainly seems to be the case that it is locked into a symbiotic relationship with the federal government that enables it to do the work it does. If this government funding disappeared tomorrow, how would this work continue? This is to say nothing of the fact that the need for this charity is directly proportional to how many people the federal government lets in as refugees. Thus, the debate seems to devolve back to the question of who is let in and why.
Second, while the funds from the government are not propping up the Church financially, the people flowing into the country seem to be doing so demographically. If I'm not mistaken, the only reason the population of Catholics in the US is stable or increasing (???) is because of immigration from Latin and South America in recent decades. At least that's according to the numbers in the books. Is this true of the refugee population as well, or are they a separate category not having much effect on Catholic demographics?
So is Vance wrong? Apparently. Does the Catholic Church in the US have a vested interest in keeping the borders open. Well...
Wow I didn’t realize that the murderers, rapists, child traffickers, and general bad guy were helping to bolster the Catholic numbers in our U.S. churches “according to the books”.
As we all should, Rob. Thank you for your honest humility, which reminds me that I also need to reflect deeply upon myself before I engage in heated topics.
The Bishops are complicit in the disrespect to both the people who came here illegally and to the people who live in the US. They won’t participate in our communities for fear of repatriation, and allow the migrants money to be stolen as they use fake Social Security numbers so they can pass federal e-verify checks. If they really cared, they’d have them follow legitimate laws, and not discourage them from hiding from law enforcement out of fear.
We have claimed that we “care” by providing them bread, but not the Gospel. That they are intent upon bolstering the parish populations due to their evangelical failures is a testament not to their faithfulness but to the management of a declining spiritual museum. That they cannot actually read Vatican 2 and follow it, and through the lens of the existing Deposit and would rather traffic in government money says more about their deal with the devil.
I appreciate that you give Vance the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that by "illegal immigrant" he probably meant "migrants let in through lax enforcement of federal law to a degree that amounts to disregarding the law".
Similarly, by "padding the bottom line" I think he probably meant "when the USCCB gives money to local Catholic charities, and they give money to local programs who actually do the work, if each is taking a 15% expense margin then you've got 40% of the money initially given to the USCCB going to 100k+ salaries of people who work in the same building as the diocesan bishop".
It's not that the bishops themselves are literally pocketing federal funds for their own lavish lifestyles, but that the bishop's don't want to have to go to the Executive Director of the local Catholic Charities who works down the hall in the chancery and say "sorry, but you're going to have to lay off your peer because we don't have funding for refugee work anymore".
JD Vance may want to do a quick refresher on calumny before speaking so sharply about Church leadership...it's one thing if he's certain there is malfeasance, but saying this kind of thing carelessly is not good for the body of Christ.
Incentivizing and enabling immigration in violation of the legitimate, duly enacted laws of a sovereign nation is also not good for the body of Christ, especially when it results -- as it did in the last administration -- in the unaccountable whereabouts of hundreds of thousands of children whose unvetted "sponsors" turned out to be child traffickers working hand in glove with criminal cartels.
"By many assessments, the basic disagreement between Vance and the US bishops seems to be over whether refugees and migrants, whom the vice-president seems to discuss interchangeably with illegal immigrants, ought to receive charitable assistance within the borders of the US at all." Another interpretation of Vance's reference to "bottom line" could be one of total revenue and taxpayer-funded charity spending, given that the taxpayer-funded grants make up more than half of USCCB's current revenue. USCCB management may not be indifferent to whether it goes away even if it is unprofitable - for a salaried manager, it's always preferable to be in charge of spending lots of money and managing lots of people, than less. It's interesting that the grants are classed as "unrestricted" if the grants are restricted to spending solely for the purpose of US Resettlement program support, and it would also be interesting to know whether the recipients of the grants issued by USCCB are ever audited to confirm that the money is spent solely in support of resettlement of Visa holders. Meanwhile, several state-level politicians have accused some Catholic charities of enabling illegal immigration.
All excellent points. As for your last sentence, Arizona and Texas have taken legal action against Catholic Charities for violating state laws designed to protect and promote orderly management of the health, safety, and security of state residents.
The grift here happens downstream at the NGOs they give grants to, which are staffed almost entirely by leftwing apparatchiks. For example, the USCCB gives more money to pro-abortion causes than pro-life because of its various other programs which are administered by pro-abortion NGOs.
"By many assessments, the basic disagreement between Vance and the US bishops seems to be over whether refugees and migrants, whom the vice-president seems to discuss interchangeably with illegal immigrants, ought to receive charitable assistance within the borders of the US at all."
He discusses them interchangeably because most of these "refugees" are not actually real refugees and the government illegally granting them legal status does not change the actual state of their undesired presence within our borders. Anybody that travels across multiple safe countries prior to arriving in the US is no longer a "refugee" as their actions prove their safety is not the primary motivation for their movement.
The vast majority of the people who are resettled through the US refugee resettlement program are those who have applied for asylum through the UN High Commission for Refugees, which conducts the initial vetting of their asylum claim. The US then agrees to accept the refugees after conducting an interview and background check. The refugee undergoes a health screening and cultural orientation, and receives assistance once they arrive in the US. The entire process can take two years. Vance is (perhaps willfully) ignoring the distinction of refugees under the UNHCR which is the category intended to be helped through the USCCB resettlement program. If that’s not a “desired presence within our borders” I’m not sure what is.
Every agency you just described is staffed by people who have strong ideological beliefs which compel them to approve as many "asylum" claims as possible. There is no reason why we should hand over the sovereignty of our borders to them.
The US has every right to decline to participate in this process which moves people halfway across the world to a foreign land totally foreign to them.
I think you might be confounding 2 groups of people: there are people who cross the southern border on their own (some of whom cross legally and some illegally; and some of whom meet the US reqs for asylum & some of whom do not), with the refugees resettled under the USCCB program. The refugees resettled under that program are typically flown to the US, and the resettling agency helps them integrate & settle in the US - think things like helping them find work, sign up for English classes, get their kids enrolled in school. Being recognized by UNHCR is a prerequisite to even applying for resettlement, but the receiving country has the final say on both 1- how many refugees they accept through this program and 2- which specific refugees (the US asks for a ton of extra paperwork forn security vetting). Participating in the resettlement program in no way involves the US ceding it's border control to the UN
It strikes me that this is the most important question and it appears to me that VP Vance is either ignorant of this (which strikes me as unlikely) or he is being somewhat disingenuous about an important distinction
The USCCB is reaping what they've sown. Nobody takes them seriously as a moral voice. Especially not politicians. Why would VP Vance care what they say after watching them tolerate President Biden? They couldn't even form a united front after Abp. Cordileone finally excommunicated Pelosi.
I need to start a drinking game where I take a shot every time someone here throws around absolutes like "always", "never", "nobody", "all" etc. It's honestly comical.
Just as a factual correction: Archbishop Cordileone didn’t excommunicate Nancy Pelosi. He declared that she was “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”
No. Excommunication is stating that one is no longer a member of the Catholic Church. Forbidding someone in an obvious state of mortal sin from receiving the Eucharist is, or should be, an impetus for the person to repent and go to the Savrament of Reconciliation.
Excommunication is a formal sanction of the Church that has its own process and reasons. It is a penalty, whereas what Cordileone did was different. What he did was more akin to declaring a statement of fact. He was at pains to mention in his letter that what he did was not a penalty or sanction.
If Pelosi had been put under interdict or had been excommunicated, then the other bishops would have been bound to respect that process and its outcome (including barring her from communion). But that’s not the route he went down.
This only examines one aspect of the funding for immigration. I have stopped giving to my archdiocese appeal because a big portion has gone to building and staffing immigrant facilities (I am in a border state). It isn't just an issue of federal funding. The general attitude of the bishops is that we must accept the current state of affairs and allow our country to be overrun because Jesus moved from one Roman province to another fleeing a threat. In this world nation states exist and it seems to me that without national sovereignty we can't have private property rights. The CCC says “The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.”
The cherry picking gets old especially when they were so mute on the blatant abuse of pro life Catholics by the last administration. I can only think of one bishop who said anything that looked like a rebuke of some of our supposedly Catholic leaders.
> because Jesus moved from one Roman province to another fleeing a threat.
Here I thought it was because Moses said we need to remember that we were once aliens ourselves in the land of Egypt (I think this just came up in Office of Readings recently.)
As I recall, they were legal aliens. Joseph was brought in against his will, but still legally, for the time, and Pharaoh welcomed his family, due in large part to Joseph saving the skin of the Egyptians.
I don’t know, I think the vast majority of bishops are not in favor of open borders or Biden’s lack of enforcement of current laws. Giving aid to house immigrants or refugees sounds to me not as an endorsement of policy but a desire to treat these people as people and recognize their basic human dignity.
Giving aid is an incentive and the money received impacts the bishops’ ability to speak out against the human trafficking and other crimes associated with immigration. They are connected to the business side of immigration because of federal funding. It’s hard to be vocal when one of your charity arms is getting millions. Catholic Charities offices are under the Archdiocese at least where I am and if the bishops don’t want to be perceived as supporting open borders, then they need to put more distance between themselves and CC.
I think it’s more a realistic approach to a practical problem: regardless of who the refugees and immigrants are and what their motivations are, they need to be housed. And even when it hopefully will be a much smaller number of people coming in, the same problem will still apply. At least Catholic Charities and these grants funneled through the USCCB can hopefully be administered in a way that respects their human dignity and doesn’t further degrade them.
$43,657,781.00 Department of State : Department of State
TO ENSURE THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE PROMPTLY INTO THE UNITED STATES REFUGEES APPROVED FOR ADMISSION UNDER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
My sense is that practically speaking most bishops are for open borders. I could very well be wrong about that. However, when was the last time a bishop on either side of the border told people they were obligated to follow immigration laws?
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."
Does anyone have a good reading recommendation on the Church’s view of the relationship between the existence of a nation/supporting enforcement of civil borders and immigration? It seems there are multiple subcategories in the heated dialogue (refugees, migrants, illegal immigrants, terrorist infiltration) and it’s all talked about under the general category of immigration.
People are fired up, the USCCB issues communication, and seemingly very fast compared to normal, and I’m finding a lot of people in my personal circle very confused and not finding any resources outside of passionate Instagram reels.
I'd look at the encyclicals that have solidified much of the Church's application of the teaching on human dignity to the issues of the modern world. I'd look at Rerum Novarum (Leo XIII), Quadragesimo Anno (Pius XI) and Centisimus Annus (John Paul II) as a starting point. There's several others I'd recommend but those are the mainstays.
Thank you! I was also referred to Question 105 of the Summa, where Article 3 is specifically on “Matters relating to foreigners.” Pray for my intellect as I take a stab. I studied clouds.
For what it's worth, I would point out that the Summa reflects Thomas' theological work, and very very often reflects the teachings of the Church. But the Summa is not "the Church's view" as such.
I say that without having read the question in question, just a general observation.
Whaaaat, JD you mean that good ol TA wasn't the Second Coming after all? You heretic. ;)
I jest. But I did enjoy gadflying the Thomists and their tacit treatment of his writing as the kerygma itself while I was studying theology in university. :P
Further, the migration situation has changed in the 800 years since the Angelic Doctor wrote. Since migration and travel in general are now easier and safer, that might change how we view foreigners and our obligations towards them.
And for what it’s worth, I’m positive he appreciates a good distinction on his feast day. Well played.
Also: a papal document that would be directly on point for the issue of immigration would be Pope Pius XII’s 1952 encyclical Exsul Familia Nazarethana.
There's a nice summary of how Church teaching balances border enforcement and migration in paragraphs 28-39 here: https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/strangers-no-longer-together-on-the-journey-of-hope
Didn’t we know that we act only as if Matt 25 is the only way to understand Christ, not the rest of the Gospels or statements He said? Surely we know that Marxist Social justice is the only thing that matters?! Jesus came only for the poor…that’s why we have a “preferential” option for the poor! It’s not because the world doesn’t care about the poor…it does now because it’s license for monetary redistribution. Doctrine and dogma don’t matter in relation to ethics or morality unless they involve power or class relationships!
In short, our Bishops’ Conference peddles magisterial-rejected heresies. And it does actually help their bottom “evangelization” line, since they haven’t “figured out” that by betraying the actual teachings of Vatican 2 and Jesus Christ for their “spirit” , that’s the failure of our times. They need to bus in more ethnic-cultural “Catholics” (not convicted, participating Catholics) to make up for their lack of evangelical leadership.
Wow there are...so many things about this comment that I don't even know where to start. So, out of temperance I won't but instead am just going to offer some prayers for you.
Thank you!
And for them as well, since they have yet to repent of the damage done to the faithful!
> Jesus came only for the poor
Well, yes, we are all destitute and I am astonished you do not know this. Buy ointment for your eyes, etc, he says somewhere to somebody.
Indeed we are all spiritually poor; but material poverty is the thrust of Marxism, Socialism and Social Justice Warriors (condemned by many Popes in their Social Encyclicals). Just so for the phrase “preferential option for the poor”. St Anthony was not materially poor but became so because he saw his own spiritual poverty. That you mistook my sarcasm, and misinterpreted the Gospel, just as the Bishops and Progressivists, suggests you ought to re-enter Lady Wisdom’s house for re-instruction.
> That you mistook my sarcasm
Oh, a jocose lie. My apologies.
This is a silly pseudo-analysis. Vance was making a point about revenue. 3/4 of a billion over the last 10 years is a whole lot of revenue. Anyone with any knowledge of the real world will tell you that what gives any corporate entity power is revenue, not profit.
Revenues matter all the more for the Church, especially given that collections are dwindling because of empty pews and the overall culture has turned vehemently against the clergy.
So yes. Vance is right. The Bishops' bottom line is helped greatly by federal funds for immigration resettlement. Without those funds all they would be able to spend on immigrants is a paltry $4 million per year. Pretending that the Bishops are "good stewards" of federal funds does not take away the fact that those federal funds increase the Bishops' real world influence.
Correct. This analysis is taking an ultra literal interpretation on what Vance said: bottom line = profit so Vance is a dum dum. Like you said, millions and millions of dollars coming in to USCCB leads to a lot of power and influence in the real world even if they have to kick in a few million of their own dollars on top of it.
we're really just breaking down the numbers. the good steward remark refers specifically to the admin ratio.
JD, obviously there is more to what Vance is saying than just raw numbers. What is better for the power/influence of the USCCB, to bring in $100 million from the US gov't and have to spend $4 million of their own funds on top (i.e. "lose money") or to hypothetically bring in only $5 million and have a $1,000 profit? One is literally better for the bottom line, but Vance is saying the USCCB likes the power and influence it gets from the huge programs, so maybe they're not exactly unbiased in their analysis of this issue.
"but Vance is saying the USCCB likes the power and influence it gets from the huge programs, so maybe they're not exactly unbiased in their analysis of this issue." Which is an incredibly cynical take. Is JD Vance saying the church should do nothing to help these people. Stay on the sidelines? Really?
The invitation is for the Church to live her mission as a Church and not an NGO.
That the US govt is lawfully repatriating persons here illegally, not to mention the murderers, traffickers, etc. it goes without saying that it is within prudential judgment to do so.
The Bishops should be evangelical, not playing the part of the “Grand Inquisitor”.
I don’t think that is what he is saying. But I have wondered over the years, as the Church has closed school and sold hospitals, nursing homes and cemeteries, why the bishops are so strident and political when speaking to this selective practice of the corporal works of mercy.
I think that, rather than USCCB using federal money to pad their bottom line while providing corporal works of mercy, the United States Government was using the USCCB and Catholic Charities and other nonprofits to take federal money and help facilitate their open border policy, making sure that immigrants could flow quickly over the border and on to sites unknown with our an obviously s humanitarian crisis at the border.
Interesting that you make a distinction between revenue and profit and then say that this money affects the bottom line instead of the top line
Good point. I'm bad at accounting just like Vance.
Good points. I think Vance was really making the point that the USCCB fired first with the statement about changes in the policy on implementation of deportations (i.e., picking people up in sensitive locations.) I didn’t watch the entire interview, but it seems he was deflecting and avoiding the trap by pointing out the revenue incentive.
I found the USCCB statement useless because there's categorical differences between refugees (think camps) and immigrants (unvetted border crossing). It also didn't explain how sub-contracted grants to organizations are monitored. Gov$$ always comes with strings attached as well.
We already know grant recipients who abused their Catholic association by being pro-abortion. How could I have confidence what subcontractors & grantees are doing with illegal border crossing crowds. The abuse stories are out there.
The USCCB can't just issue assertions about purity. They can't pretend the US is some bottomless pocket when the government has a $37 trillion deficit and citizens can't find jobs because they're all taken by the world. USCCB "compassion" has become narrow and ossified.
I think I need to step away for a bit. At first I read ´think CAMPS’ as ´THINK camps’ and thought I had missed some dark effort at alien mind control.
Unfortunately your financial analysis is missing some key details. I am a CPA with nearly twenty years of audit experience, mostly auditing not-for-profits. Most the the funding contracts allow the organization to cover administrative costs. The amount can vary depending on the contract. If you read note 2(g) on page 10 of the 2023 financial statements it states that the administrative costs relating to the migrant resettlement services (MRS) are included with the related MRS expenses. So, the fact that administrative costs are being included in program costs are going to skew the "program expense ratio". I would also argue that since the government contracts are funding administrative costs, the USCCB's bottom line is being helped.
The other thing you need to realize is the allocation of administrative costs between programs is subject to significant professional judgment. Some important questions is what percentage of the contract can be used to cover administrative costs and what procedures the USCCB uses to allocate administrative costs between programs.
this, i agree, is a hugely important question:
"Some important questions is what percentage of the contract can be used to cover administrative costs and what procedures the USCCB uses to allocate administrative costs between programs."
As to the admin expense point, you're right. the bishops' admin costs are seemingly the pass through admin costs, not that the resettlement admin costs. but since their job is as a pass through for a largely admin function ,that seems to track.
As a former auditor (mostly for-profit but occasionally non-profit), your second paragraph is what I was thinking about as I was reading. Getting into the minutia of the classification of each financial statement line item and classification within that line item is extremely difficult--even for for-profit companies that invest in their accounting departments. I would be shocked if most non-profits had dedicated resources at that level. However, I am not here to disparage either the accounting department of the USCCB or the fine folks of the KPMG DC office (their auditors). I mention simply to say not everything you read in audited financial statements is as precise or cookie cutter as you would like it to be.
As a former non profit worker, I can confirm that the amount of time I spent squinting at an expense report asking myself "Are these ballpoint pens for the kickoff meeting 'Office Supplies' or 'Program Supplies' or 'Meetings' makes me take all such reports with a grain of salt. There is a reason field office staff love the Other-Miscellaneous budget code (and yes, we know the accountants don't love it. Sorry!)
Thank you! It’s like Planned Parenthood claiming not to spend tax dollars on abortion as if money were not fungible.
Money is fungible and what they spend on refugees and migrants is just having fun with numbers
Thank you for this comment as I was wondering the same thing for much the same reasons. I admit to wondering what would it take for the USSCB (or the Pillar) to make the counter claim and, by the way, what evidence did Vance have for his claim.
"The majority of the funds are passed on as grants or subcontracts to local organizations conducting the work required."
-Out of the whole argument between boondoggle v. compassionate mercy, this is the one thing that gives me pause. The involvement of local organizations and subcontractors is the can of worms that is plaguing the USCCB's CCHD program (https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/why-did-the-cchd-amp-up-spending).
In the federal grant world, money from higher up is distributed down to local entities to make impacts at a local scale. This follow the ideas behind subsidiarity. Good. The problem comes in when the local groups espouse positions CONTRARY to Catholic morality (pro-abortion/contraception, LGBTQ+ advocacy, enabling or encouraging lawbreaking, etc.).
This information is fairly broad and the granular distribution of funds to individual organizations isn't, publicly, known. How many of these organizations are giving out contraception, aiding in abortions, telling those in the community to not cooperate with Federal authorities, or poorly tracking individuals as they are dispersed (such as children being sent w/o parents)? When this information isn't known, or the known information is contrary to Catholic moral positions, it breeds distrust and anger.
The immediate (in USCCB terms), vociferous response when compared to the tepid response on other issues (i.e.-the Biden Admin's pro-abortion, pro-Trans agenda and Card. Cupich's meddling) WILL get people's hackles up. If both sides don't start having a moment of self-reflection this business will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
Thank you. I had similar concerns. Pope Francis' warnings to not become an "NGO church" come to mind (not that I think we are anywhere near this problem as opposed to the Germans, but there are many reasons why subsidiarity is the preferred method, and the USCCB playing the middleman does not instill confidence that these funds will be handled well).
Not sure I understand how illegal immigration is moral. Because the issue is really about illegal immigration (notwithstanding the desperate changing of the term by those who are offended by it) not legal immigration. Besides not following the proper procedures, hence putting legal applicants (including women, children, the elderly, disabled, etc.) at a disadvantage, just considering it increases the supply of labour and brings wages down in many sectors of the economy. This especially hurts the citizen poor and strains social services. Some to many illegal immigrants will accept low wages (including state sanctioned minimums) and some to many businesses will advocate for it. Tax (income, employment, etc.) avoidance/evasion obviously would be on the increase, further putting pressure on government services (i.e. health, education, etc.). This puts many stakeholders in a morally bad predicament. (Sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance) Oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4) come to mind.
From the church's moral teaching, I imagine it would be something like stealing: me robbing banks because I want to buy a sailboat is wrong. Me robbing a pharmacy because I have tried everything else and simply cannot find another way to get my child lifesaving medication is not culpable. Me overstaying an EU visa because I really like Rome and want more chances to eat suppli is morally culpable. Me fleeing to the EU because people aren't trying to kill me there, or because I can make enough to keep my kids from starving there, is not morally culpable
Really? So that means the existing citizenry, which has issues as well, must accommodate everyone even though the social contract doesn't really say that? The state, along with elected leaders, have the prerogative (given by God) to make their own laws. Secondly, many people that want to immigrate follow legal procedures and are in the same boat. Is that fair to them? Also, I'm wondering why there is no criticism of the country or countries that abandon their own people to such evils?
See the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2408.
Is that not consequentialism?
It isn't. Nowhere do we say that right and wrong are based on results alone. It comes down to the hierarchy of goods. The sovereignty of nations is not the greatest good. Obedience to secular authority is not the greatest good either.
With the caveat that there could be places one could immigrate to legally that would not present any significant dangers.
How is it exactlty immoral? Whats the Catholic teaching on why its good to have borders? Isnt Catholicism universal? It would be better for these people to stay where they are? Why?
Here's an answer: Why doesn't the Vatican take everyone in? Why is the Vatican a state? If it's universal, why have any home state at all? Or why does the Vatican have a wall surrounding it? Do as I say, not as I do?
Come on, those arguments are so bad it borders on being bad faith. The Vatican is a tiny state that only exists because it is allowed to. The Italians could have seized it in 1871 when they took Rome and completed Italy's unification - or any time afterwards - if they'd had the desire. The walls would not have prevented it. The reality is that seizing the Vatican would have had disastrous consequences for the new Italian state in terms of international relations.
Why does the Vatican have a wall? Because it needed to be defensible...the Vatican was sacked by Muslims at least once during the Middle Ages, and it was sacked again in the 1500s by troops of the Holy Roman Empire, which notably included Lutheran soldiers. The point being there was a perfectly good reason for the walls to be there, and to this day they are useful for demarcating the boundaries of the Vatican City. As far as its reason for statehood, it's partially a way to ensure the independence of the papacy from any other temporal power, and simply the last tiny remnant of the pope's temporal power, which is a convenient precedent for his political independence. The universality is related to all this because the Vatican's independence allows it to speak without being the mouthpiece of any world leader other than the Holy Father himself (at least theoretically.)
There's no value in asking why a tiny state that doesn't function like a typical independent nation and is actually financially in dire straits doesn't take in a slew of people. The answer is obvious: they cannot. The situation of the most powerful country on Earth is a very different one and we have a lot more things to consider when setting our immigration policy. That being said, any state that is actually a sovereign state has the right to control its borders, within reason; anyone who suggests open borders isn't serious about finding a real solution.
Size is not really the issue. I highly doubt that the Vatican, when it had larger Papal lands, ever said everyone is welcome. The Holy Roman Empire, with Papal approved leaders, never said everyone is welcome. Why? Sovereignty.
Put it this way: Catechism of the Catholic Church s.1899 "The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
So how does illegal immigration fit into or better yet, get around this?
The only way I can think of is that the Church declare laws for illegal immigration being morally unjust or contrary to the moral order. Has it and is it valid?
Another reason why the Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire didn’t have “open borders” or otherwise loose immigration was that immigration on a large scale wasn’t something that really could happen prior to about the 19th century.
Technology has made large-scale immigration more easy and more safe, and perhaps these changes can help us to revise how we view immigration.
God created many different and diverse nations and we are not at liberty to facilitate their destruction. We have greater moral obligations to our family, kin, and nation than to foreigners in foreign land.
I dispute that it would be better for them to stay here, in a foreign land, cut off from their ancestral customs and behaviors, separated from their extended families, etc. and this can be demonstrated by the disastrous social outcomes of their children, including leaving the Church and high rates of crime.
But an improvement over being murdered or enslaved in their home countries.
Here's the thing. The Pope made declarations against the Italian mafia and virtually declared them excommunicated if anyone persisted in being part of it/them. Why not all the gangs and cartels in Latin America or every other gang or cartel around the world? They pretty much do (even worse in many circumstances) what the Italian mafia does.
If that were really the concern they wouldn't be traversing multiple countries to get here and they wouldn't be leaving their families at home to do so.
Many of the countries between here and there are also extremely dangerous. I have read that in 2019 the only American country that cracked the top 5 for # of immigrants was Columbia taking in Venezuelans. But those fleeing Nicaragua or Haiti don't necessarily have a safe neighboring country to flee to.
Then let them seek entry by legal means.
The USCCB says this, as part of its Second Principle of Catholic Social Teaching regarding immigration: https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/catholic-teaching-on-immigration-and-the-movement-of-peoples
“While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there. By this principle the Church recognizes that most immigration is ultimately not something to celebrate. Ordinarily, people do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living. Instead, they migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land. Immigrants and refugees endure many hardships and often long for the homes they left behind. As Americans we should cherish and celebrate the contributions of immigrants and their cultures; however, we should work to make it unnecessary for people to leave their own land.”
A country without borders is not a nation -- it's a mere land mass. Nothing in Catholic teaching is to the contrary.
This is a good analysis, and Vance should correct himself. If he keeps BS'ing like this, he's going to be useless.
A few things to note, however.
First, while the USCCB is not in any way profiting from assistance to immigrants and refugees, it certainly seems to be the case that it is locked into a symbiotic relationship with the federal government that enables it to do the work it does. If this government funding disappeared tomorrow, how would this work continue? This is to say nothing of the fact that the need for this charity is directly proportional to how many people the federal government lets in as refugees. Thus, the debate seems to devolve back to the question of who is let in and why.
Second, while the funds from the government are not propping up the Church financially, the people flowing into the country seem to be doing so demographically. If I'm not mistaken, the only reason the population of Catholics in the US is stable or increasing (???) is because of immigration from Latin and South America in recent decades. At least that's according to the numbers in the books. Is this true of the refugee population as well, or are they a separate category not having much effect on Catholic demographics?
So is Vance wrong? Apparently. Does the Catholic Church in the US have a vested interest in keeping the borders open. Well...
Wow I didn’t realize that the murderers, rapists, child traffickers, and general bad guy were helping to bolster the Catholic numbers in our U.S. churches “according to the books”.
Bad faith argument.
You’re right. As a continuing convert I’m still working on my faith. And I should be more reflecting before engaging on this theological thread.
As we all should, Rob. Thank you for your honest humility, which reminds me that I also need to reflect deeply upon myself before I engage in heated topics.
You are hardly wrong.
The Bishops are complicit in the disrespect to both the people who came here illegally and to the people who live in the US. They won’t participate in our communities for fear of repatriation, and allow the migrants money to be stolen as they use fake Social Security numbers so they can pass federal e-verify checks. If they really cared, they’d have them follow legitimate laws, and not discourage them from hiding from law enforcement out of fear.
We have claimed that we “care” by providing them bread, but not the Gospel. That they are intent upon bolstering the parish populations due to their evangelical failures is a testament not to their faithfulness but to the management of a declining spiritual museum. That they cannot actually read Vatican 2 and follow it, and through the lens of the existing Deposit and would rather traffic in government money says more about their deal with the devil.
And don't forget they are eating our pets.
Now you have my attention.
I appreciate that you give Vance the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that by "illegal immigrant" he probably meant "migrants let in through lax enforcement of federal law to a degree that amounts to disregarding the law".
Similarly, by "padding the bottom line" I think he probably meant "when the USCCB gives money to local Catholic charities, and they give money to local programs who actually do the work, if each is taking a 15% expense margin then you've got 40% of the money initially given to the USCCB going to 100k+ salaries of people who work in the same building as the diocesan bishop".
It's not that the bishops themselves are literally pocketing federal funds for their own lavish lifestyles, but that the bishop's don't want to have to go to the Executive Director of the local Catholic Charities who works down the hall in the chancery and say "sorry, but you're going to have to lay off your peer because we don't have funding for refugee work anymore".
JD Vance may want to do a quick refresher on calumny before speaking so sharply about Church leadership...it's one thing if he's certain there is malfeasance, but saying this kind of thing carelessly is not good for the body of Christ.
He might see it as detraction rather than calumny?
Yes that’s probably more accurate!
Incentivizing and enabling immigration in violation of the legitimate, duly enacted laws of a sovereign nation is also not good for the body of Christ, especially when it results -- as it did in the last administration -- in the unaccountable whereabouts of hundreds of thousands of children whose unvetted "sponsors" turned out to be child traffickers working hand in glove with criminal cartels.
"By many assessments, the basic disagreement between Vance and the US bishops seems to be over whether refugees and migrants, whom the vice-president seems to discuss interchangeably with illegal immigrants, ought to receive charitable assistance within the borders of the US at all." Another interpretation of Vance's reference to "bottom line" could be one of total revenue and taxpayer-funded charity spending, given that the taxpayer-funded grants make up more than half of USCCB's current revenue. USCCB management may not be indifferent to whether it goes away even if it is unprofitable - for a salaried manager, it's always preferable to be in charge of spending lots of money and managing lots of people, than less. It's interesting that the grants are classed as "unrestricted" if the grants are restricted to spending solely for the purpose of US Resettlement program support, and it would also be interesting to know whether the recipients of the grants issued by USCCB are ever audited to confirm that the money is spent solely in support of resettlement of Visa holders. Meanwhile, several state-level politicians have accused some Catholic charities of enabling illegal immigration.
All excellent points. As for your last sentence, Arizona and Texas have taken legal action against Catholic Charities for violating state laws designed to protect and promote orderly management of the health, safety, and security of state residents.
The grift here happens downstream at the NGOs they give grants to, which are staffed almost entirely by leftwing apparatchiks. For example, the USCCB gives more money to pro-abortion causes than pro-life because of its various other programs which are administered by pro-abortion NGOs.
"By many assessments, the basic disagreement between Vance and the US bishops seems to be over whether refugees and migrants, whom the vice-president seems to discuss interchangeably with illegal immigrants, ought to receive charitable assistance within the borders of the US at all."
He discusses them interchangeably because most of these "refugees" are not actually real refugees and the government illegally granting them legal status does not change the actual state of their undesired presence within our borders. Anybody that travels across multiple safe countries prior to arriving in the US is no longer a "refugee" as their actions prove their safety is not the primary motivation for their movement.
The vast majority of the people who are resettled through the US refugee resettlement program are those who have applied for asylum through the UN High Commission for Refugees, which conducts the initial vetting of their asylum claim. The US then agrees to accept the refugees after conducting an interview and background check. The refugee undergoes a health screening and cultural orientation, and receives assistance once they arrive in the US. The entire process can take two years. Vance is (perhaps willfully) ignoring the distinction of refugees under the UNHCR which is the category intended to be helped through the USCCB resettlement program. If that’s not a “desired presence within our borders” I’m not sure what is.
Every agency you just described is staffed by people who have strong ideological beliefs which compel them to approve as many "asylum" claims as possible. There is no reason why we should hand over the sovereignty of our borders to them.
The US has every right to decline to participate in this process which moves people halfway across the world to a foreign land totally foreign to them.
I think you might be confounding 2 groups of people: there are people who cross the southern border on their own (some of whom cross legally and some illegally; and some of whom meet the US reqs for asylum & some of whom do not), with the refugees resettled under the USCCB program. The refugees resettled under that program are typically flown to the US, and the resettling agency helps them integrate & settle in the US - think things like helping them find work, sign up for English classes, get their kids enrolled in school. Being recognized by UNHCR is a prerequisite to even applying for resettlement, but the receiving country has the final say on both 1- how many refugees they accept through this program and 2- which specific refugees (the US asks for a ton of extra paperwork forn security vetting). Participating in the resettlement program in no way involves the US ceding it's border control to the UN
It strikes me that this is the most important question and it appears to me that VP Vance is either ignorant of this (which strikes me as unlikely) or he is being somewhat disingenuous about an important distinction
Unless their lives are in danger because they worked for our troops and then we pulled out of a place like Afghanistan so poorly.
The USCCB is reaping what they've sown. Nobody takes them seriously as a moral voice. Especially not politicians. Why would VP Vance care what they say after watching them tolerate President Biden? They couldn't even form a united front after Abp. Cordileone finally excommunicated Pelosi.
I need to start a drinking game where I take a shot every time someone here throws around absolutes like "always", "never", "nobody", "all" etc. It's honestly comical.
There's no requirement for legal precision in substack comments.
True, but sometimes we do things a certain way because it's the better way, not just because we have to by requirement.
Also my point stands--it would be a fun drinking game. C'mon, you know it would be. :)
Just as a factual correction: Archbishop Cordileone didn’t excommunicate Nancy Pelosi. He declared that she was “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”
Didn't he bar her from receiving communion? Isn't that what excommunication is?
No. Excommunication is stating that one is no longer a member of the Catholic Church. Forbidding someone in an obvious state of mortal sin from receiving the Eucharist is, or should be, an impetus for the person to repent and go to the Savrament of Reconciliation.
Excommunication is a formal sanction of the Church that has its own process and reasons. It is a penalty, whereas what Cordileone did was different. What he did was more akin to declaring a statement of fact. He was at pains to mention in his letter that what he did was not a penalty or sanction.
If Pelosi had been put under interdict or had been excommunicated, then the other bishops would have been bound to respect that process and its outcome (including barring her from communion). But that’s not the route he went down.
Right you are!
Correct on all counts, Kevin -- except, sadly, on your statement that Pelosi was excommunicated.
This only examines one aspect of the funding for immigration. I have stopped giving to my archdiocese appeal because a big portion has gone to building and staffing immigrant facilities (I am in a border state). It isn't just an issue of federal funding. The general attitude of the bishops is that we must accept the current state of affairs and allow our country to be overrun because Jesus moved from one Roman province to another fleeing a threat. In this world nation states exist and it seems to me that without national sovereignty we can't have private property rights. The CCC says “The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.”
The cherry picking gets old especially when they were so mute on the blatant abuse of pro life Catholics by the last administration. I can only think of one bishop who said anything that looked like a rebuke of some of our supposedly Catholic leaders.
> because Jesus moved from one Roman province to another fleeing a threat.
Here I thought it was because Moses said we need to remember that we were once aliens ourselves in the land of Egypt (I think this just came up in Office of Readings recently.)
My comment wasn’t meant for you clearly.
Typical conflation of a part of Scripture without context of the whole, to hammer the rest of us who criticize. Thanks!
You are welcome :-)
As I recall, they were legal aliens. Joseph was brought in against his will, but still legally, for the time, and Pharaoh welcomed his family, due in large part to Joseph saving the skin of the Egyptians.
I don’t know, I think the vast majority of bishops are not in favor of open borders or Biden’s lack of enforcement of current laws. Giving aid to house immigrants or refugees sounds to me not as an endorsement of policy but a desire to treat these people as people and recognize their basic human dignity.
Giving aid is an incentive and the money received impacts the bishops’ ability to speak out against the human trafficking and other crimes associated with immigration. They are connected to the business side of immigration because of federal funding. It’s hard to be vocal when one of your charity arms is getting millions. Catholic Charities offices are under the Archdiocese at least where I am and if the bishops don’t want to be perceived as supporting open borders, then they need to put more distance between themselves and CC.
I think it’s more a realistic approach to a practical problem: regardless of who the refugees and immigrants are and what their motivations are, they need to be housed. And even when it hopefully will be a much smaller number of people coming in, the same problem will still apply. At least Catholic Charities and these grants funneled through the USCCB can hopefully be administered in a way that respects their human dignity and doesn’t further degrade them.
This is how much Catholic Charities and the USCCB have received in federal funding- Taxpayer Money Spent: $1,211,264,461.07
Just a sample of specific grants-
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS (QWGGY6WKJH25)
Award: ASST_NON_2202TXRSSS_7590 | Ends: 2025-09-30
$23,318,360.00 Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
GY 2022 REFUGEE SUPPORT SERVICES AND SET ASIDES
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS (QWGGY6WKJH25)
Award: ASST_NON_2302TXRSSS_7590 | Ends: 2026-09-30
$22,370,348.00 Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
GY2023 REFUGEE SUPPORT SERVICES AND SET ASIDES
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS (QWGGY6WKJH25)
Award: ASST_NON_SPRMCO24CA0336_1900 | Ends: 2025-09-30
$18,019,594.00 Department of State : Department of State
TO ENSURE ALL AFGHAN REFUGEES AND AFGHAN SIVS COMING THROUGH THE OAW/EW PIPELINE RECEIVE RECEPTION AND PLACEMENT SERVICES
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS (QWGGY6WKJH25)
Award: ASST_NON_SPRMCO24CA0342_1900 | Ends: 2025-09-30
$43,657,781.00 Department of State : Department of State
TO ENSURE THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE PROMPTLY INTO THE UNITED STATES REFUGEES APPROVED FOR ADMISSION UNDER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
My sense is that practically speaking most bishops are for open borders. I could very well be wrong about that. However, when was the last time a bishop on either side of the border told people they were obligated to follow immigration laws?
Today I found out that our Archdiocese has deployed lawyers to give advice to parishes regarding "when the feds come around."