I'm a bit shocked by some of the comments above that seem to be rationalizing the deliberate manipulation of facts for the sake of political power. In other contexts, that's called lying. Color me old-fashioned.
Now I suppose one could justify the Trump-Vance behavior as a type of performance art, but is that where we really want to be as…
I'm a bit shocked by some of the comments above that seem to be rationalizing the deliberate manipulation of facts for the sake of political power. In other contexts, that's called lying. Color me old-fashioned.
Now I suppose one could justify the Trump-Vance behavior as a type of performance art, but is that where we really want to be as a country? And if we are there, then should Catholics be participating in it?
There IS such a thing as rhetoric, but there are limits to what counts as GOOD rhetoric. The ancient Greek tradition, as I understand it, considered people SOPHISTS who used words instrumentally without believing what they argue. They were derided because they cared nothing for the truth, only for producing a particular reaction in the hearers.
I think we as Catholics have to stand for something better. And I think it's shameful that Vance is picking a fight with the bishops over the immigration issue rather than reaching out to them to work with them. Vance is the one with the upper hand, so he's the one more responsible for seeking peace and a constructive way forward.
I'm with you father right up to the last paragraph.
In this situation, which party is supposed to be the one with moral authority? From the election up to today, what has been the outreach, as seen by the public, been?
Once the Trump policy positions became clear, I think that the USCCB and Vatican took the exact wrong approach. The Vatican took a swing by giving +McElroy DC when Brian Burch (a supporter of Trump and Vatican critic) was nominated, when humility would have suited best. The USCCB took a swing in white paper and across the media (re: see +Dolan et al. as they reacted to the immigration Executive Orders) instead of getting ahead of a policy they knew was coming by engaging the VP in person, publicly through the media.
Then came VP Vance's comments about ordo amoris, and the Catholic internet becomes abuzz as partisan actors like Fr. Thomas Reese and S.J., Michael Sean Winters made it their mission to nitpick his understanding and application, rather than celebrate that Augustine's teaching is gaining a new foothold with people who have never heard it articulated before.
The entire state of communication between the Church and the Trump Admin needs a complete reset. I contend that it is those who claim the mantle of spiritual and moral authority that need to extend a laurel and hearty handshake first.
I could ( and DO) just say “Amen” to your post; but I would add that on this thread Vance is taking a pretty good “smack-down”. Would that some comments here be more conciliatory given he’s a “newbie Catholic”. After all, convert might be a noun but converting is a verb. So, the “upper hand” reference of your predecessor ( Fr BJ) is debatable IMHO.
The bishops started this, not Mr. Vance. And this pope didn’t engender dialogue with his scurrilous comments about Mr. Trump (and Americans in general).
Was it ok for the Lord to say:
“You family of venomous snakes!”
“Better for that man to have never been born, or to be hurled into the sea with a huge stone collar tied around his neck!”
Or referring to the Samaritan woman as a dog.
Sometimes, sometimes, ya gotta get people’s attention. For their sake.
and then the Pharisees said "oh! we're sorry and we'll try to do better"
> “Better for that man to have never been born, or to be hurled into the sea with a huge stone collar tied around his neck!”
and then Judas changed his mind and did not betray his very good friend who, also, he knew to be God
Your examples are "1 for 3" (the Samaritan woman, arguably, was trying to get the attention of *Jesus* rather than the other way around, but I'll allow it) - so I would say it's not a very effective technique even though God is *of course* permitted to address His creatures in any way He wants to.
The lady’s response to Our Lord was quick witted, honest and from her heart. I have often imitated her in prayer by thanking God for whatever crumbs of His Love He deigns to give me.
As for “it not being a very effective technique” - that depends on the recipient. Hard heads like me actually like bluntness. As for the hard hearted, it just might ‘verbally jack hammer’ some sense into them. We in law enforcement, when confronting evil-doers in the act of committing a crime don’t have time to convene a process meeting to come to a consensusfulness that what the criminal is doing isn’t nice and then twittertweet “please stop”.
We just bluntly tell them, “Stop or else!” Sometimes God tells us in that way. Sometimes so must we.
// I think we as Catholics have to stand for something better. And I think it's shameful that Vance is picking a fight with the bishops over the immigration issue rather than reaching out to them to work with them. Vance is the one with the upper hand, so he's the one more responsible for seeking peace and a constructive way forward. //
Vance has *an* upper hand. The bishops also have one. And I believe that one of Vance's points was that the bishops are themselves being obstructionist rather than trying sincerely to find "a constructive way forward."
It is a fact that the USCCB has chosen this fight, which represents hundreds of millions of dollars to them , while remaining virtually silent for 4 years regarding the “intrinsic evil” promoted by the previous administration, fully staffed by so-called Catholics.
“We as Catholics have to stand for something better.” Right. How about the millions of abortions, fentanyl, murders, rapes, child traffickings? Maybe that’s “something better” to stand against.
I'm a bit shocked by some of the comments above that seem to be rationalizing the deliberate manipulation of facts for the sake of political power. In other contexts, that's called lying. Color me old-fashioned.
Now I suppose one could justify the Trump-Vance behavior as a type of performance art, but is that where we really want to be as a country? And if we are there, then should Catholics be participating in it?
There IS such a thing as rhetoric, but there are limits to what counts as GOOD rhetoric. The ancient Greek tradition, as I understand it, considered people SOPHISTS who used words instrumentally without believing what they argue. They were derided because they cared nothing for the truth, only for producing a particular reaction in the hearers.
I think we as Catholics have to stand for something better. And I think it's shameful that Vance is picking a fight with the bishops over the immigration issue rather than reaching out to them to work with them. Vance is the one with the upper hand, so he's the one more responsible for seeking peace and a constructive way forward.
Thank you for this, Father.
I'm so glad I waited to respond to the rationalizing comments you mentioned, Fr., because you nailed on the head way better than I could!
I'm with you father right up to the last paragraph.
In this situation, which party is supposed to be the one with moral authority? From the election up to today, what has been the outreach, as seen by the public, been?
I think that what you've written in the past (https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/cupich-steps-out-on-immigration-will/comment/87815827) is reflective of my same thoughts on the matter (https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/bonus-joe-biden-and-the-freemasons/comment/89514196).
Once the Trump policy positions became clear, I think that the USCCB and Vatican took the exact wrong approach. The Vatican took a swing by giving +McElroy DC when Brian Burch (a supporter of Trump and Vatican critic) was nominated, when humility would have suited best. The USCCB took a swing in white paper and across the media (re: see +Dolan et al. as they reacted to the immigration Executive Orders) instead of getting ahead of a policy they knew was coming by engaging the VP in person, publicly through the media.
Then came VP Vance's comments about ordo amoris, and the Catholic internet becomes abuzz as partisan actors like Fr. Thomas Reese and S.J., Michael Sean Winters made it their mission to nitpick his understanding and application, rather than celebrate that Augustine's teaching is gaining a new foothold with people who have never heard it articulated before.
The entire state of communication between the Church and the Trump Admin needs a complete reset. I contend that it is those who claim the mantle of spiritual and moral authority that need to extend a laurel and hearty handshake first.
I could ( and DO) just say “Amen” to your post; but I would add that on this thread Vance is taking a pretty good “smack-down”. Would that some comments here be more conciliatory given he’s a “newbie Catholic”. After all, convert might be a noun but converting is a verb. So, the “upper hand” reference of your predecessor ( Fr BJ) is debatable IMHO.
I read that as a “Laurel and Hardy handshake” and was really confused for a moment. 😂
The bishops started this, not Mr. Vance. And this pope didn’t engender dialogue with his scurrilous comments about Mr. Trump (and Americans in general).
Was it ok for the Lord to say:
“You family of venomous snakes!”
“Better for that man to have never been born, or to be hurled into the sea with a huge stone collar tied around his neck!”
Or referring to the Samaritan woman as a dog.
Sometimes, sometimes, ya gotta get people’s attention. For their sake.
> “You family of venomous snakes!”
and then the Pharisees said "oh! we're sorry and we'll try to do better"
> “Better for that man to have never been born, or to be hurled into the sea with a huge stone collar tied around his neck!”
and then Judas changed his mind and did not betray his very good friend who, also, he knew to be God
Your examples are "1 for 3" (the Samaritan woman, arguably, was trying to get the attention of *Jesus* rather than the other way around, but I'll allow it) - so I would say it's not a very effective technique even though God is *of course* permitted to address His creatures in any way He wants to.
The lady’s response to Our Lord was quick witted, honest and from her heart. I have often imitated her in prayer by thanking God for whatever crumbs of His Love He deigns to give me.
As for “it not being a very effective technique” - that depends on the recipient. Hard heads like me actually like bluntness. As for the hard hearted, it just might ‘verbally jack hammer’ some sense into them. We in law enforcement, when confronting evil-doers in the act of committing a crime don’t have time to convene a process meeting to come to a consensusfulness that what the criminal is doing isn’t nice and then twittertweet “please stop”.
We just bluntly tell them, “Stop or else!” Sometimes God tells us in that way. Sometimes so must we.
Indeed!
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/01/28/the-ethics-of-invective/
People in this country don't know how to give a man their vote without also giving him their soul.
// I think we as Catholics have to stand for something better. And I think it's shameful that Vance is picking a fight with the bishops over the immigration issue rather than reaching out to them to work with them. Vance is the one with the upper hand, so he's the one more responsible for seeking peace and a constructive way forward. //
Vance has *an* upper hand. The bishops also have one. And I believe that one of Vance's points was that the bishops are themselves being obstructionist rather than trying sincerely to find "a constructive way forward."
It is a fact that the USCCB has chosen this fight, which represents hundreds of millions of dollars to them , while remaining virtually silent for 4 years regarding the “intrinsic evil” promoted by the previous administration, fully staffed by so-called Catholics.
“We as Catholics have to stand for something better.” Right. How about the millions of abortions, fentanyl, murders, rapes, child traffickings? Maybe that’s “something better” to stand against.