Humanely deporting people not here legally for crimes against children or adults is absolutely important and justified. If people committed these crimes before they became naturalized US citizens, like the priest above, they need to be deported as well, per my opinion. My objection to ICE and anyone who supports ICE is not about their deportation of violent criminals. My objection to ICE is for killing American citizens, murdered in cold blood, in the streets, captured for the world to see. The kid ICE killed in Houston recently was here on a tourist visa and already had a plane ticket home. They have killed others here legally as well. They have separated many families with children appearing by themselves before a judge. Do you hear me? Are you tracking with me? If your politics, wealth, status, ideology, prevent you from seeing evil where evil exists, well, may God have mercy on your souls.
You seem very angry. None of us can judge the motives of others based on televised accounts, and murder “in cold blood” cannot be adjudicated until all the facts are presented. Like you, I also support the deportation of individuals convicted of serious crimes.
This hits me hard, a priest who once provided sacraments for them in the migrant camps in Michigan. My mother was a Mexican national who was legal from day 1 when she married a brown third generation Texan, an American GI who wiped meth fueled nazis off the face of the earth with his browning .50 cal in the Ardennes, Dec, 1944. This you see, is the issue. Consider this from a retired four star Army General: “After seeing the events of January 6 unfold, Milley said, ‘these guys are Nazis, they’re boogaloo boys, they’re Proud Boys. These are the same people we fought in World War II.” These are the ones President Trump pardoned and returned to the streets. Removing brown folk whether legal or not is the aim and the “rule of law,” that means nothing here. The President sees them as “vermin.” He used that word, as the mustache man did before him. Do you see it yet? Pray. The days ahead will be rough. Laus Deo.
Praying for justice (whatever it may be in this situation).
Also, one of the paragraphs has a missing ending?
“He added that while cases of priests committing crimes may make headlines, it would be a mistake to think of foreign priests serving in the United States as statistically”
“The priest’s faculties were removed” — I never know what this means. It would literally mean that the priest can still celebrate Mass, since no faculty is required to celebrate Mass, or for most things that a priest does. Hopefully it means that the priest was suspended or at least had precautionary restrictions placed on him while a penal process is conducted. I would really like to hear that he was laicized.
It is illicit for a priest without *any* faculties to celebrate Mass, and Confessions and Marriages are invalid. I think in practice it is usually all or nothing, but it is possible to remove one and leave the others. A suspension may also impact those faculties, and/or his exercise of an office, and/or his exercise of some power of governing. I would guess, since he's in prison, that he has been removed from all offices and has no governing powers.
It would indeed be nice to hear that such men being removed from the priesthood. It would also be nice if those who sexually abuse children were kept in prison until they are no longer capable of doing so.
As I understand it, a priest can celebrate some sacraments validly but illicitly by virtue of his sacerdotal ordination (such as confecting the Holy Eucharist), while for other sacraments the granting of faculties from the local ordinary is necessary not only for liceity but also for validity (such as Confession).
The only way to prevent a priest from celebrating Mass is to suspend him (or impose another penalty or precautionary measure). There is no faculty required to celebrate Mass or anoint the sick, so “removing faculties” does nothing. My point is the expression “remove faculties” is incorrect, especially when used by a bishop. Daniel Tucker below is correct.
If removing faculties makes him unable to licitly celebrate Mass, isn't that as much as can be done? Even a laicized priest still has the sacramental character to validly do so?
As you know, dioceses confer confessional faculties on priests, and then most are in the (sometimes praeter legem) practice of conferring the "faculties of the diocese" on their own priests and religious, which includes a mishmash of permissions, delegations, and faculties.
I presume he was at the same time directed not to offer Mass publicly, but dioceses are notoriously imprecise about scuh things.
Worth noting that Bishop Biosca was named pastor of the Shrine in March 2019. Talk about cutting your teeth in leadership to be parachuted in to deal with that fallout.
Unless there is a charge waiting for him back home could it not be safer to keep him locked up here with limit access to victims than if he would lived outside of prison in Mexico?
It has generally been the practice that a non citizen would serve out their sentence and *then* be deported; plenty of non citizens are incarcerated in the US. I assume that would be the case here.
There have been some exceptions - when the prisoner is particularly important to the foreign government and they demand him freed in some diplomatic deal or otherwise; and the Trump administration particularly has sometimes emphasized deporting non citizens arrested for serious crimes immediately, even when the victims' family prefers they stand trial & are imprisoned. Which as you note, does not serve either public safety or justice.
If he lied under oath to obtain citizenship, it seems clear that, after serving prison time (and making some sort of restitution to his victims, if possible), he should be deported. Pray for his victims. I don't think St. Francis would disagree. This wayward son of his should spend the rest of his life here privately and in penance.
Humanely deporting people not here legally for crimes against children or adults is absolutely important and justified. If people committed these crimes before they became naturalized US citizens, like the priest above, they need to be deported as well, per my opinion. My objection to ICE and anyone who supports ICE is not about their deportation of violent criminals. My objection to ICE is for killing American citizens, murdered in cold blood, in the streets, captured for the world to see. The kid ICE killed in Houston recently was here on a tourist visa and already had a plane ticket home. They have killed others here legally as well. They have separated many families with children appearing by themselves before a judge. Do you hear me? Are you tracking with me? If your politics, wealth, status, ideology, prevent you from seeing evil where evil exists, well, may God have mercy on your souls.
You seem very angry. None of us can judge the motives of others based on televised accounts, and murder “in cold blood” cannot be adjudicated until all the facts are presented. Like you, I also support the deportation of individuals convicted of serious crimes.
This hits me hard, a priest who once provided sacraments for them in the migrant camps in Michigan. My mother was a Mexican national who was legal from day 1 when she married a brown third generation Texan, an American GI who wiped meth fueled nazis off the face of the earth with his browning .50 cal in the Ardennes, Dec, 1944. This you see, is the issue. Consider this from a retired four star Army General: “After seeing the events of January 6 unfold, Milley said, ‘these guys are Nazis, they’re boogaloo boys, they’re Proud Boys. These are the same people we fought in World War II.” These are the ones President Trump pardoned and returned to the streets. Removing brown folk whether legal or not is the aim and the “rule of law,” that means nothing here. The President sees them as “vermin.” He used that word, as the mustache man did before him. Do you see it yet? Pray. The days ahead will be rough. Laus Deo.
Praying for justice (whatever it may be in this situation).
Also, one of the paragraphs has a missing ending?
“He added that while cases of priests committing crimes may make headlines, it would be a mistake to think of foreign priests serving in the United States as statistically”
… likely to write incomplete sentences?
“The priest’s faculties were removed” — I never know what this means. It would literally mean that the priest can still celebrate Mass, since no faculty is required to celebrate Mass, or for most things that a priest does. Hopefully it means that the priest was suspended or at least had precautionary restrictions placed on him while a penal process is conducted. I would really like to hear that he was laicized.
It is illicit for a priest without *any* faculties to celebrate Mass, and Confessions and Marriages are invalid. I think in practice it is usually all or nothing, but it is possible to remove one and leave the others. A suspension may also impact those faculties, and/or his exercise of an office, and/or his exercise of some power of governing. I would guess, since he's in prison, that he has been removed from all offices and has no governing powers.
It would indeed be nice to hear that such men being removed from the priesthood. It would also be nice if those who sexually abuse children were kept in prison until they are no longer capable of doing so.
As I understand it, a priest can celebrate some sacraments validly but illicitly by virtue of his sacerdotal ordination (such as confecting the Holy Eucharist), while for other sacraments the granting of faculties from the local ordinary is necessary not only for liceity but also for validity (such as Confession).
The only way to prevent a priest from celebrating Mass is to suspend him (or impose another penalty or precautionary measure). There is no faculty required to celebrate Mass or anoint the sick, so “removing faculties” does nothing. My point is the expression “remove faculties” is incorrect, especially when used by a bishop. Daniel Tucker below is correct.
If removing faculties makes him unable to licitly celebrate Mass, isn't that as much as can be done? Even a laicized priest still has the sacramental character to validly do so?
well, it definitely doesn't do nothing regarding, for example, penance.
As you know, dioceses confer confessional faculties on priests, and then most are in the (sometimes praeter legem) practice of conferring the "faculties of the diocese" on their own priests and religious, which includes a mishmash of permissions, delegations, and faculties.
I presume he was at the same time directed not to offer Mass publicly, but dioceses are notoriously imprecise about scuh things.
Worth noting that Bishop Biosca was named pastor of the Shrine in March 2019. Talk about cutting your teeth in leadership to be parachuted in to deal with that fallout.
Well, bye
Unless there is a charge waiting for him back home could it not be safer to keep him locked up here with limit access to victims than if he would lived outside of prison in Mexico?
It has generally been the practice that a non citizen would serve out their sentence and *then* be deported; plenty of non citizens are incarcerated in the US. I assume that would be the case here.
There have been some exceptions - when the prisoner is particularly important to the foreign government and they demand him freed in some diplomatic deal or otherwise; and the Trump administration particularly has sometimes emphasized deporting non citizens arrested for serious crimes immediately, even when the victims' family prefers they stand trial & are imprisoned. Which as you note, does not serve either public safety or justice.
If he lied under oath to obtain citizenship, it seems clear that, after serving prison time (and making some sort of restitution to his victims, if possible), he should be deported. Pray for his victims. I don't think St. Francis would disagree. This wayward son of his should spend the rest of his life here privately and in penance.