“…Francis’ intervention now is almost certain to be interpreted — at least in part and by some — as a sign of partisanship…”
By only some…or by most everyone who owns an Occam-brand razor and is willing to use it?
Not that being partisan means one is also necessarily wrong about a given thing; nor that the failure to speak up about a dozen other things means one is necessarily wrong to speak up about a given thing.
But great googly moogly…the tricky but often critically-important business of neither thinking and acting in blunt partisan fashion, nor giving off clear persistent impressions of doing so, is just about a dead art isn’t it.
(Not only just about dead…but as often as not actively despised when it is attempted.)
Right? Why only have half the country hate you for your opinions (by being partisan), when you can have the *whole* country hate you (by attempting to be non-partisan)? Sounds too good to pass up.
And if there used to be a sweet spot in between, it’s shrunk dramatically in a world where people are liable to be madder at their 70% friends than their 95% enemies.
"But while Francis left no room for confusion on where he stands in the debate about immigration in America."
Are we sure about that? It doesn't really say much about what kind of deportation is or isn't allowed, and under what conditions. It doesn't say much about actual border security measures, what is or isn't permissible, etc. Doesn't even speak in vague generalities.
Its more a concern that current immigration policy is becoming unmoored from charity, to which people will respond "nuh uh" or "what exactly is an immigration policy moored in charity", and we're kinda back where we are.
Compare this to Mit brennender Sorge , in which specific tenets of National Socialism were condemned, and considered their position and where exactly it went astray. This letter badly wants to be Mit brennender Sorge, where a Pope, feeling the weight of history upon him, MUST SPEAK.
I don't neccessarily find much objectionable to it (since its intentionally vague on particulars), but I don't think it really offers much clarity and dispels confusion. Its an attempt to say SOMETHING without actually saying something.
The fact that Pope Francis sat on his hands while the Catholic President repeatedly endorsed anti Catholic views and backed a Vice President who thinks the Knights of Columbus are a terrorist organization for their pro life actions then suddenly finds his voice when a Catholic Vice President says something that could be an anti Catholic view is all you need to know here.
And I say that as a person who is not in line with all of Vance's arguments. The Pope clearly is choosing sides in American politics. That's wrong and won't help anything. All he's done is make matters worse and make it harder to feel he's actually guiding the flock per the wishes of God vs the wishes of man.
For many clergy, especially those under the age of 50, we have serious Francis fatigue. Everything with this papacy and the US Church has become ideological and political. We are seeing this letter at the same time that the pope (really Cardinal Cupich) has appointed mediocre ideologues to arch episcopal sees. At this point, theologically thin missives from Rome and major episcopal appointments of the ideological mediocrities, has led us to tune out and turn off. Almost every document from Rome and major episcopal appointment is predictable, ineffective, and unhelpful.
At least to me: It seems like a vapid Ecclesial age in need of heroes. And I'm for doubling down on mental prayer, serious fasting, living the Evangelical Counsels (aka being a true Vatican II Priest), reaching hearts one at a time, and trusting the Lord to take care of the rest. Make the Latin West mystical again.
Yes! There is nothing in the Christian life more important than the interior life. Mystical theology lost its bearing after the Church threw it out with the “bathwater” of Quietism.
There are plenty of Catholics, including clergy, who are over the age of 50 and having their patience tried by Pope Francis as well. In the case of clergy specifically, many who have hung in there for 30, 40 or 50 years and not bailed on their vows lean conservative. They may not come out with big political statements from the pulpit - after 4 or 5 decades as a priest, they know better - but if you get to know them personally, or can pick up on subtleties, it's pretty obvious that they are internally heaving heavy sighs and praying for patience.
Exactly, my Pastor with almost 51 years as a priest, won't hear a word against Pope Francis, but everything else about his ministry says that he totally believes in the Magisterium. He has already lived through McCarick and now he has McElroy to look forward to in his last years as an active priest. I feel so badly for him.
"Vance could counter — as he has argued already — that the moral of the story is to help first those immediately in front of you, before helping those far away." I am not aware of any proposal from the Trump administration to help those far away. I cant understand either how removing the vast majority of foreign aid will directly help those in front of us. Isnt the Trump administrations philosophy to help ONLY those close by? Thats what it feels like at least.
If we use the money saved to pay down our debt before we go bankrupt and have no money for anything, we will eventually have money to help our own destitute and then those from other countries.
Do you mean like government subsidies for e cars only the wealthy can afford or grants given by a government agency to NGO’s controlled by wealthy. insiders? Like just relax and take a pause on the partisanship and see where what happens. What are we not even a month into a different administration?
Not even a month. It’s so nuts to me how people of every persuasion are falling apart. “Not enough is being changed!” Or “he’s going to change and ruin everything!” Like…we don’t even know. It hasn’t even been a month.
Amount spent last year by the United States on foreign aid:
$71,900,000,000
Current United States national debt:
$36,475,300,000,000
So all we have to do is zero out our foreign aid budget, live within our means in all other respects (pause for hysterical laughter), and we'll have paid down the debt in a mere...
I'm foolish enough to think this administration will be doing a lot of other cutting of expenses, especially since I had to move to Kentucky to keep a roof over my head and have discovered Senator Rand Paul's weekly discovery of wasted government money on all sorts of stupid things much less important than some of what has already been cut.
Without dramatic changes to Social Security and Medicare, it will make zero difference in the end.
Well, not precisely zero. Gutting USAID, wielding the DOGE chainsaw, and all the other boob bait for Bubba will surely be enough to push the ultimate date of insolvency *several* weeks farther into the future.
(I am not in the least opposed to eliminating spending that is wasteful, harmful, and/or immoral…but we should be under no illusions that it will help the overall fiscal picture in any meaningful sense when both parties are sworn to preserve structurally-unsustainable entitlement spending.)
Agree . Social Security and Medicare are the elephants in the room. Trump won’t touch it . Paul Ryan was the last politician to have the courage to actually propose something serious . Trump is a demagogue .
Actually the point of removing foreign aid (temporarily) is to help those far away. Mainly by not funding terrorists (with hundreds of millions of dollars), and by not pushing LGBT and DEI nonsense on countries that don't want it, and perhaps also by giving the leaders of those countries some motivation to do their jobs. Foreign aid is often used to force American policies on other countries, whether or not they are good for anyone. First you give the money with no strings attached, so they become reliant on the funds, then every Congress/President thereafter can start adding and altering requirements to continue receiving the money. It's bribery on the national level, making governments more beholden to the US than to their citizens.
Trump has never opposed legal immigration, and I don't expect him to start now. He's also currently working on ending a war in Ukraine, and establishing lasting peace in Gaza. In addition to which, he has slapped tariffs on South Africa, of all the ignored places in the world, for their gross refusal to uphold property rights. His methods may or may not all be effective and/or ethical, but I don't think he counts as an isolationist.
On the main Pillar page, this article appears as if there is a caption under the picture of Pope Francis labeling him as J.D. Vance. I find this more amusing than I probably should.
This article matches up almost exactly with my own complicated feelings about the immigration issue, and the response of Pope to that issue. I get so frustrated with the criticisms of policy that are unaccompanied by concrete suggestions for a fair system. If the current system of legal immigration is inadequate, the country
(or at least portions of it) is completely overwhelmed by the current rate of illegal immigration, and deportations are unfair then what is the solution? We have a lot of talk about the dignity of the migrant - good! These are people who need to be treated with dignity and compassion, and the language surrounding the issue is frequently dehumanizing. But what about the dignity of the people whose communities are being overwhelmed? Most of the places where the migrants end up were stressed to a breaking point before huge numbers of migrants were resettled there. It isn't rich and privileged parts of the country bearing the burden. When wealthy communities do have migrants sent there, they are removed as quickly as possible (ie. Martha's Vineyard). I remember reading an article about a group of inner city mothers suing their city (Chicago, maybe?) over the loss of resources due to the migrant issues. Their kids didn't even have anywhere to play anymore because the parks had been converted into settlements for the migrants brought there by the government. It feels like the assumption underlying the Pope's letter is that everyone in America is wealthy and privileged and all communities are able to provide proper care for these migrants, but just don't want to. That just isn't the case. Also, what about the migrants who have been waiting a long time for their legal immigration to be cleared, but now have to wait even longer because the system is so overwhelmed dealing with those who entered without permission? Does their dignity not matter? I feel like these statements completely ignore the reality of the situation and try to simplify to the point where the statement is essentially useless.
Yes, the Pope sees the United States through the eyes of America's elites and completely misses that the illegal refugees have taken resources that would normally have gone to destitute Americans. The mainstream press probably doesn't show American citizens sleeping under overpasses because the people there can't find shelter while the government houses refugees. It may or may not show Americans lining the streets to receive food from charities. To some people we are this big rich nation which should do everything for everybody. We aren't and we can't.
This is exactly right, and this why this letter will greatly harm the Church with ordinary Americans. It definitely can reasonably be read to say that their dignity is irrelevant.
" illegal refugees have taken resources that would normally have gone to destitute Americans."
A wholly false statement.
There are no resources used for refugees that would have normally gone to other destitute people. For the most part, the same political players objecting to migrants are seeking to cut programs for destitute Americans.
This is a sincere question, so please don't assume I am just asking to be a jerk.
Can you provide evidence to me that there are no resources being siphoned off of programs for destitute Americans and being given to migrants? This is one of the areas in which I struggle the most in regards to the migrant issue. I do very much believe that we should be as generous as possible in regards to migration, but I also don't think that the poor in our country should be the ones paying the price for our generosity. I have read many statements by mayors of cities impacted, the mothers in the article I mentioned above, heads of charities who now have their already thin resources stretched even further, etc. that seem to contradict your assertion. There are only so many resources available, only so many places for people to be housed cheaply, only so much donated food/time/money. I have always trusted that these people are accurately reporting their situations as a result, as it just make sense that finite resources will now have to be split into smaller pieces to accommodate greater need. If you have evidence to the contrary I would appreciate you sharing it.
There is no federal assistance program that limits aid to destitute Americans because of the needs of migrants. Each of these programs are funded by their own budgets approved by Congress. So, there is no issue that anyone is being denied SNAP benefits, disability insurance, unemployment, Medicaid, veteran's benefits, etc. because of migrants. And there is no support from the supporters of Trump's immigration stance to increase the funding of any of these programs.
On the Chicago matter, you were misinformed. No parks were closed. Five field houses in parks (most of them in affluent neighborhoods and in all cases with community support) were temporarily used as shelters. All of them had nearby fieldhouses fully available during the temporary alternative use.
Thank you. Unfortunately, the article where I read about the situation in Chicago is paywalled. I used to be a subscriber, but I let it lapse for a variety of reasons, so I can't reread to determine if I simply misremembered the claims.
I believe you are probably correct about federal funding, but not all funding is federal. Take the public school system. My husband works for our local district and is on several committees with the superintendent. There has obviously been a lot of concern about federal funding given Trump's stance on the Department of Education. However, per our superintendent, only 2% of the funding coming into our rural, low-income district is federal. Many of the articles I read were discussing state, local, or private charitable organizations like food pantries - mayors discussing the allocation of limited city resources, for example. Do you happen to know anything about these resources? Thanks again.
I think the Holy Father's message was primarily about federal policy. But the average for local is schools is 14% of their funding is from the federal government, but an affluent school district would receive less.
My parish runs a food pantry. Nothing in law stops us from excluding migrants and telling them the food is only for American citizens. I have no familiarity with any pantry that chooses to take advantage of what they could freely do if they so choose.
And of course, whatever charity migrants receive there is also the matter of the contributions they make through taxes, charitable giving, etc. In my parish, immigrants are more generous than native born American parishioners in both money and volunteer time. If Trump follows through on his pledge to deport El Salvadorians on TPS, my parish will probably close.
I have a subscription and read the same article and it was schools. Schools and community centers that they were told closed for lack of funds and nobody could use buildings that then immigration funding arrived to use those buildings to benefit the new folks.
Obviously I understand that those are completely separate pots of cash and it wasn’t robbing one to pay the other. But I can understand a hurt feeling of “this school across the street was unusable due to lack of funds for MY KIDS but now you have magic money from somewhere else for OTHERS kids”. It literally pits poor people against each other. You can understand why people in an underserved community would have issues with folks suddenly being served on their back doorstep while still being told they can’t be helped.
But aren't you assuming that the only "benefits" for poor Americans that counts are those provided by government money? What about driving down wages among the unskilled and taking jobs they could fill? What about reducing supply of housing and pushing up prices for lower-end housing?
However, we have added 20 million people without increasing the housing supply and while giving government housing subsidies to immigrants, thereby pushing native born Americans onto the streets and increasing the cost of housing to the point where poor Americans are pushed out.
I was unclear how long I could go on without losing your interest. :)
I don't agree with the abortionist/zero population growth unsupported assertions that by reducing the numbers of humanity, we create a better world. Migrants are buying homes and renting apartments. The market is capable of expanding production under such circumstances. New housing is built everyday.
I'm no Francis fan but damn does it ever feel good to see a leader, any leader, refusing to bend the knee to Trump. The Veep "subtweet" was also a nice reminder that no one ought to consider himself more Catholic than the Pope. Thank you, Pope Francis, for showing a little courage.
Would it also have been a problem for anyone to consider themselves more Catholic than the Pope during the reign of Alexander VI? Just wondering how far you're willing to take the elitism.
I didn't think you were setting yourself up as an elite person. It does seem like you're setting the Pope (regardless of who that happens to be) up as an elite Catholic. I do not understand how that works, given the number of canonized Saints who lived during the reigns of Popes who definitely weren't. In such a case, I would call the Saint an elite Catholic, and I would not call the Pope one.
But yes, even if the Anti-Christ should become Pope, he would have a superior teaching *office* to the Blessed Virgin. I don't think he would be any good at actually teaching though. The office confers neither knowledge nor skill. That is part of why historically, people typically get their Catholic education from people who are not Popes.
And of course, barring ex cathedra statements, Popes get things wrong. One of the many reasons we don't get to shut our brains off, regardless of what Protestants like to say.
It is fun to imagine the response of a 30-70 AD Catholic social media and online publication world to the early ministry of Jesus and the creation of the Pauline Corpus.
"Come on Jesus, couldn't you have not emphasized that bit about 'eating my body and drinking my blood?' That is just going too far; people are going to misunderstand that. I mean, feeding all those people was nice and all, but you didn't have to say all the rest. It is just going to harden the attitude of all those Pharisees. The purse is getting a little low and we need all we can get."
Or,
"Paul what are you thinking! You called those Galatians "foolish"?!? How is that going to help anything? And calling them bewitched? That is just too far."
I am wondering how much of the letter the Pope actually wrote. I suspect +Tucho had something to do with it. (I don’t intend disrespect, I can’t remember the DDF cardinal’s real name currently).
Also, I am in bemused wonder over clerics in the Vatican following and responding to the VP’s Tweets. This is Post-Modernity that we are living.
I think you may be right about Cardinal Tucho (Heal me with your mouth) Fernandez having a large input to this letter. The letter invokes the principle of human dignity which Tucho used so extravagantly in Dignitas Infinita issued in April 2024.
Plus there is the very visible bad health of Pope Francis. He is not yet gaga like Dementia Joe. But how much of his work has to be covered by a support team?
I also thought it was fairly unlikely that the pope himself wrote this. He is 88 years old, hospitalized, and extremely ill. Reports are attempting to downplay it but he is already medically compromised (one lung partially removed) and he has double pneumonia after a long battle with bronchitis. When a major public figure or head of state is ill, the news that is reported is usually only part of the story because the public doesn’t generally need every detail and I assume they also try to minimize alarm. But I sincerely doubt he wrote this from his sick bed. I don’t know him so I can only assume that it reflects his general opinions, but even that, I suppose, we don’t fully know.
This is great. Thanks for this, Ed. You expressed pretty much every one of my thoughts regarding the pope's letter, this issue, the complicated task of respecting the borders but also welcoming in those in need, etc.
I obviously defer to the pope when I am obliged to do so and respect him as the Roman Pontiff, but I have to say that I find myself struggling with a silly inconvenience in regard to this: I actually like JD Vance. This situation has primarily disappointed me for the reasons that Ed listed, but a small part of me also was disappointed that a politician I actually like turned out to be...a politician. Go figure!!
I must confess, I've been feeling somewhat utterly perplexed by the reactions to the letter. My immediate response was, "prophetic yet unpatronising leadership - finally! We got what we've begging for for [x time units]. And blessedly short!" Yet in every attempted discussion of the letter, from personal interactions to even the articles on this website, I seem to be an outlier in my response. Am I just out of touch? Or are my expectations so low that this seems better than it is? I also tend to like movies statistically significantly more than reviewers' consensus suggests, so perhaps the dissonance is located in my personality. Either way, I remain grateful for the prophetic intervention.
Honestly, it just sounds to me that you have a heart that hasn't been twisted up by cynicism and the temptation to deem oneself a fit judge (whether of movies or of papacies). I also tend to like things more than reviewer's consensus across the board: movies, wines, shows, etc., but I can feel the temptation sometimes to be a bit more critical so as to not seem naive or uncultured. But I think ultimately it's a good trait!
In the spirit of charity, the main argument of Pope Francis' letter is:
1. We should not violate people's infinite dignity.
2. Deporting non violent "migrants" escaping extreme poverty, persecution, insecurity, exploitation, or environmental degradation violates their dignity.
3. Trump's mass deportations include people in premise 2.
4. Therefore, we should not go through with Trump's mass deportations.
The problem is with premise 2. How much suffering does a person have to experience to justify an absolute right to "migrate" anywhere he wants? Exploitation and insecurity are part of the human condition that would seem to apply to most of the world. In reality, most "migrants" are poor, but they're not starving or being killed in a genocide.
People breaking our laws to sneak into our country are doing something wrong, and they put a heavy burden on average people in the US. There is not a life threatening emergency that justifies them crossing the border illicitly.
In summary, there are some conditions that justify illicitly crossing the border. But contra Pope Francis, the vast majority of people don't fall in that category. Therefore Trump's mass deportations are not violations of human dignity.
In fact, I say NOT carrying out mass deportation is a violation of human dignity of US citizens. We have a right not to be compelled to shoulder burdens to heavy to bear.
Given the Pope's past rhetoric regarding walls, I'm not sure what means of securing the border are left, if deportations of any non-violent person is definitively immoral. It seems like he's saying keeping them out is offensive to human dignity, and making them leave is also offensive to human dignity.
When he provides a realistic means of controlling immigration that he approves of, then I'll pay attention. At this point he's just nixing every available option, and that is effectively advocating for open borders.
Yeah I agree. His comments are vague but they imply that poor people have right to migrate to any country they want. Countries have a right to ask migrants to follow procedures in the immigration process, but countries do not have a right to force migrants to follow these procedures.
It's been 12 years of this sort of behavior, so I expect Francis knows this logic is insane, so he uses vague language to make it sound palatable.
Not so sure about his intentions but making precise distinctions is not his strong point. He doesn’t seem to think they can ever be important -or at least it seems that way . He seems to equate it with being a “Pharisee” .
As to the lack of clarity, I’ve been reading occasional Pillar writer (and I assume reader) Charles Camosy’s work on Pope Francis’ application of a Consistent Life Ethic, and I can’t help but wonder if maybe he simply has better things to do than constantly clarify an ethic he has arguably been applying with more consistency than most of us have taken the time to realize throughout his papacy.
Did Francis write the letter himself or merely sign it? Four years of a mentally absentee US president makes me wonder about Pope Francis’s health & whether Popes should resign when they turn 85
I think it's important to note that, back on January 30th, Ross Douthat also responded to JD Vance's comments with a reference to the Good Samaritan story -
"Okay I will bite: The moral duties of a Christian are as @JDVance describes them, but with duties to God first that can override the natural duties (one good reason why priests and nuns are celibate), and as with the Good Samaritan, immediate duties to people outside your normal circles who present themselves in serious need. The questions of how the latter cashes out in a globalized age and how it shapes the moral obligations of a superpower's government are not, I think, actually all that easy to answer."
If the letter was intended for the administration's critics and the media, then mission accomplished!
If it was intended for the faithful who support Trump ..then still got ways to go, I'm afraid, exactly for some of the reasons you lay out.
Good article.
“…Francis’ intervention now is almost certain to be interpreted — at least in part and by some — as a sign of partisanship…”
By only some…or by most everyone who owns an Occam-brand razor and is willing to use it?
Not that being partisan means one is also necessarily wrong about a given thing; nor that the failure to speak up about a dozen other things means one is necessarily wrong to speak up about a given thing.
But great googly moogly…the tricky but often critically-important business of neither thinking and acting in blunt partisan fashion, nor giving off clear persistent impressions of doing so, is just about a dead art isn’t it.
(Not only just about dead…but as often as not actively despised when it is attempted.)
Right? Why only have half the country hate you for your opinions (by being partisan), when you can have the *whole* country hate you (by attempting to be non-partisan)? Sounds too good to pass up.
And if there used to be a sweet spot in between, it’s shrunk dramatically in a world where people are liable to be madder at their 70% friends than their 95% enemies.
"But while Francis left no room for confusion on where he stands in the debate about immigration in America."
Are we sure about that? It doesn't really say much about what kind of deportation is or isn't allowed, and under what conditions. It doesn't say much about actual border security measures, what is or isn't permissible, etc. Doesn't even speak in vague generalities.
Its more a concern that current immigration policy is becoming unmoored from charity, to which people will respond "nuh uh" or "what exactly is an immigration policy moored in charity", and we're kinda back where we are.
Compare this to Mit brennender Sorge , in which specific tenets of National Socialism were condemned, and considered their position and where exactly it went astray. This letter badly wants to be Mit brennender Sorge, where a Pope, feeling the weight of history upon him, MUST SPEAK.
I don't neccessarily find much objectionable to it (since its intentionally vague on particulars), but I don't think it really offers much clarity and dispels confusion. Its an attempt to say SOMETHING without actually saying something.
It says hardly anything philosophically or theologically, but I think it does establish where the Pope stands politically.
Saying something without actually saying something is, unfortunately, rather this pontificate’s hallmark.
The fact that Pope Francis sat on his hands while the Catholic President repeatedly endorsed anti Catholic views and backed a Vice President who thinks the Knights of Columbus are a terrorist organization for their pro life actions then suddenly finds his voice when a Catholic Vice President says something that could be an anti Catholic view is all you need to know here.
And I say that as a person who is not in line with all of Vance's arguments. The Pope clearly is choosing sides in American politics. That's wrong and won't help anything. All he's done is make matters worse and make it harder to feel he's actually guiding the flock per the wishes of God vs the wishes of man.
You're right.
For many clergy, especially those under the age of 50, we have serious Francis fatigue. Everything with this papacy and the US Church has become ideological and political. We are seeing this letter at the same time that the pope (really Cardinal Cupich) has appointed mediocre ideologues to arch episcopal sees. At this point, theologically thin missives from Rome and major episcopal appointments of the ideological mediocrities, has led us to tune out and turn off. Almost every document from Rome and major episcopal appointment is predictable, ineffective, and unhelpful.
At least to me: It seems like a vapid Ecclesial age in need of heroes. And I'm for doubling down on mental prayer, serious fasting, living the Evangelical Counsels (aka being a true Vatican II Priest), reaching hearts one at a time, and trusting the Lord to take care of the rest. Make the Latin West mystical again.
#MLWMA
This is the best response we can make as priests.
Yes! There is nothing in the Christian life more important than the interior life. Mystical theology lost its bearing after the Church threw it out with the “bathwater” of Quietism.
Reminds me of "Passport to Perfection" by David Torkington
There are plenty of Catholics, including clergy, who are over the age of 50 and having their patience tried by Pope Francis as well. In the case of clergy specifically, many who have hung in there for 30, 40 or 50 years and not bailed on their vows lean conservative. They may not come out with big political statements from the pulpit - after 4 or 5 decades as a priest, they know better - but if you get to know them personally, or can pick up on subtleties, it's pretty obvious that they are internally heaving heavy sighs and praying for patience.
Exactly, my Pastor with almost 51 years as a priest, won't hear a word against Pope Francis, but everything else about his ministry says that he totally believes in the Magisterium. He has already lived through McCarick and now he has McElroy to look forward to in his last years as an active priest. I feel so badly for him.
"Vance could counter — as he has argued already — that the moral of the story is to help first those immediately in front of you, before helping those far away." I am not aware of any proposal from the Trump administration to help those far away. I cant understand either how removing the vast majority of foreign aid will directly help those in front of us. Isnt the Trump administrations philosophy to help ONLY those close by? Thats what it feels like at least.
If we use the money saved to pay down our debt before we go bankrupt and have no money for anything, we will eventually have money to help our own destitute and then those from other countries.
Or for tax cuts for the wealthy, which is the Administration's position.
Do you mean like government subsidies for e cars only the wealthy can afford or grants given by a government agency to NGO’s controlled by wealthy. insiders? Like just relax and take a pause on the partisanship and see where what happens. What are we not even a month into a different administration?
Not even a month. It’s so nuts to me how people of every persuasion are falling apart. “Not enough is being changed!” Or “he’s going to change and ruin everything!” Like…we don’t even know. It hasn’t even been a month.
Amount spent last year by the United States on foreign aid:
$71,900,000,000
Current United States national debt:
$36,475,300,000,000
So all we have to do is zero out our foreign aid budget, live within our means in all other respects (pause for hysterical laughter), and we'll have paid down the debt in a mere...
...507 years.
I'm foolish enough to think this administration will be doing a lot of other cutting of expenses, especially since I had to move to Kentucky to keep a roof over my head and have discovered Senator Rand Paul's weekly discovery of wasted government money on all sorts of stupid things much less important than some of what has already been cut.
Without dramatic changes to Social Security and Medicare, it will make zero difference in the end.
Well, not precisely zero. Gutting USAID, wielding the DOGE chainsaw, and all the other boob bait for Bubba will surely be enough to push the ultimate date of insolvency *several* weeks farther into the future.
(I am not in the least opposed to eliminating spending that is wasteful, harmful, and/or immoral…but we should be under no illusions that it will help the overall fiscal picture in any meaningful sense when both parties are sworn to preserve structurally-unsustainable entitlement spending.)
Agree . Social Security and Medicare are the elephants in the room. Trump won’t touch it . Paul Ryan was the last politician to have the courage to actually propose something serious . Trump is a demagogue .
Actually the point of removing foreign aid (temporarily) is to help those far away. Mainly by not funding terrorists (with hundreds of millions of dollars), and by not pushing LGBT and DEI nonsense on countries that don't want it, and perhaps also by giving the leaders of those countries some motivation to do their jobs. Foreign aid is often used to force American policies on other countries, whether or not they are good for anyone. First you give the money with no strings attached, so they become reliant on the funds, then every Congress/President thereafter can start adding and altering requirements to continue receiving the money. It's bribery on the national level, making governments more beholden to the US than to their citizens.
Trump has never opposed legal immigration, and I don't expect him to start now. He's also currently working on ending a war in Ukraine, and establishing lasting peace in Gaza. In addition to which, he has slapped tariffs on South Africa, of all the ignored places in the world, for their gross refusal to uphold property rights. His methods may or may not all be effective and/or ethical, but I don't think he counts as an isolationist.
On the main Pillar page, this article appears as if there is a caption under the picture of Pope Francis labeling him as J.D. Vance. I find this more amusing than I probably should.
Under similar conditions, I somehow got the impression that JD Vance had guestwritten this article. I was quite impressed and surprised.
I had a similar thought: "Wow, I'm unlikely to agree with him, but mad respect that the guy was willing to do an interview with The Pillar!"
Tonight, on The Pillardome: Two JDs enter! One JD leaves!
This article matches up almost exactly with my own complicated feelings about the immigration issue, and the response of Pope to that issue. I get so frustrated with the criticisms of policy that are unaccompanied by concrete suggestions for a fair system. If the current system of legal immigration is inadequate, the country
(or at least portions of it) is completely overwhelmed by the current rate of illegal immigration, and deportations are unfair then what is the solution? We have a lot of talk about the dignity of the migrant - good! These are people who need to be treated with dignity and compassion, and the language surrounding the issue is frequently dehumanizing. But what about the dignity of the people whose communities are being overwhelmed? Most of the places where the migrants end up were stressed to a breaking point before huge numbers of migrants were resettled there. It isn't rich and privileged parts of the country bearing the burden. When wealthy communities do have migrants sent there, they are removed as quickly as possible (ie. Martha's Vineyard). I remember reading an article about a group of inner city mothers suing their city (Chicago, maybe?) over the loss of resources due to the migrant issues. Their kids didn't even have anywhere to play anymore because the parks had been converted into settlements for the migrants brought there by the government. It feels like the assumption underlying the Pope's letter is that everyone in America is wealthy and privileged and all communities are able to provide proper care for these migrants, but just don't want to. That just isn't the case. Also, what about the migrants who have been waiting a long time for their legal immigration to be cleared, but now have to wait even longer because the system is so overwhelmed dealing with those who entered without permission? Does their dignity not matter? I feel like these statements completely ignore the reality of the situation and try to simplify to the point where the statement is essentially useless.
Yes, the Pope sees the United States through the eyes of America's elites and completely misses that the illegal refugees have taken resources that would normally have gone to destitute Americans. The mainstream press probably doesn't show American citizens sleeping under overpasses because the people there can't find shelter while the government houses refugees. It may or may not show Americans lining the streets to receive food from charities. To some people we are this big rich nation which should do everything for everybody. We aren't and we can't.
This is exactly right, and this why this letter will greatly harm the Church with ordinary Americans. It definitely can reasonably be read to say that their dignity is irrelevant.
" illegal refugees have taken resources that would normally have gone to destitute Americans."
A wholly false statement.
There are no resources used for refugees that would have normally gone to other destitute people. For the most part, the same political players objecting to migrants are seeking to cut programs for destitute Americans.
This is a sincere question, so please don't assume I am just asking to be a jerk.
Can you provide evidence to me that there are no resources being siphoned off of programs for destitute Americans and being given to migrants? This is one of the areas in which I struggle the most in regards to the migrant issue. I do very much believe that we should be as generous as possible in regards to migration, but I also don't think that the poor in our country should be the ones paying the price for our generosity. I have read many statements by mayors of cities impacted, the mothers in the article I mentioned above, heads of charities who now have their already thin resources stretched even further, etc. that seem to contradict your assertion. There are only so many resources available, only so many places for people to be housed cheaply, only so much donated food/time/money. I have always trusted that these people are accurately reporting their situations as a result, as it just make sense that finite resources will now have to be split into smaller pieces to accommodate greater need. If you have evidence to the contrary I would appreciate you sharing it.
Thank you.
There is no federal assistance program that limits aid to destitute Americans because of the needs of migrants. Each of these programs are funded by their own budgets approved by Congress. So, there is no issue that anyone is being denied SNAP benefits, disability insurance, unemployment, Medicaid, veteran's benefits, etc. because of migrants. And there is no support from the supporters of Trump's immigration stance to increase the funding of any of these programs.
On the Chicago matter, you were misinformed. No parks were closed. Five field houses in parks (most of them in affluent neighborhoods and in all cases with community support) were temporarily used as shelters. All of them had nearby fieldhouses fully available during the temporary alternative use.
Thank you. Unfortunately, the article where I read about the situation in Chicago is paywalled. I used to be a subscriber, but I let it lapse for a variety of reasons, so I can't reread to determine if I simply misremembered the claims.
https://www.thefp.com/p/black-democrats-sue-chicago
I believe you are probably correct about federal funding, but not all funding is federal. Take the public school system. My husband works for our local district and is on several committees with the superintendent. There has obviously been a lot of concern about federal funding given Trump's stance on the Department of Education. However, per our superintendent, only 2% of the funding coming into our rural, low-income district is federal. Many of the articles I read were discussing state, local, or private charitable organizations like food pantries - mayors discussing the allocation of limited city resources, for example. Do you happen to know anything about these resources? Thanks again.
I think the Holy Father's message was primarily about federal policy. But the average for local is schools is 14% of their funding is from the federal government, but an affluent school district would receive less.
My parish runs a food pantry. Nothing in law stops us from excluding migrants and telling them the food is only for American citizens. I have no familiarity with any pantry that chooses to take advantage of what they could freely do if they so choose.
And of course, whatever charity migrants receive there is also the matter of the contributions they make through taxes, charitable giving, etc. In my parish, immigrants are more generous than native born American parishioners in both money and volunteer time. If Trump follows through on his pledge to deport El Salvadorians on TPS, my parish will probably close.
I have a subscription and read the same article and it was schools. Schools and community centers that they were told closed for lack of funds and nobody could use buildings that then immigration funding arrived to use those buildings to benefit the new folks.
Obviously I understand that those are completely separate pots of cash and it wasn’t robbing one to pay the other. But I can understand a hurt feeling of “this school across the street was unusable due to lack of funds for MY KIDS but now you have magic money from somewhere else for OTHERS kids”. It literally pits poor people against each other. You can understand why people in an underserved community would have issues with folks suddenly being served on their back doorstep while still being told they can’t be helped.
Sigh. What a mess.
But aren't you assuming that the only "benefits" for poor Americans that counts are those provided by government money? What about driving down wages among the unskilled and taking jobs they could fill? What about reducing supply of housing and pushing up prices for lower-end housing?
We are currently at full employment.
However, we have added 20 million people without increasing the housing supply and while giving government housing subsidies to immigrants, thereby pushing native born Americans onto the streets and increasing the cost of housing to the point where poor Americans are pushed out.
I notice you used etc. instead of listing housing.
I was unclear how long I could go on without losing your interest. :)
I don't agree with the abortionist/zero population growth unsupported assertions that by reducing the numbers of humanity, we create a better world. Migrants are buying homes and renting apartments. The market is capable of expanding production under such circumstances. New housing is built everyday.
Very well stated. Thank you.
I'm no Francis fan but damn does it ever feel good to see a leader, any leader, refusing to bend the knee to Trump. The Veep "subtweet" was also a nice reminder that no one ought to consider himself more Catholic than the Pope. Thank you, Pope Francis, for showing a little courage.
He is indeed bravely facing the applause of everyone whose opinion he appears to care about.
I doubt very much the Pope cares about my opinion.
Well that’s always the first mistake of any churchman, isn’t it: failing to take the temperature of Pillar Readers (In A Good Way)™.
Would it also have been a problem for anyone to consider themselves more Catholic than the Pope during the reign of Alexander VI? Just wondering how far you're willing to take the elitism.
Re elitism I'll just say I'm not the one throwing around Latin phrases to advance my politics.
I didn't think you were setting yourself up as an elite person. It does seem like you're setting the Pope (regardless of who that happens to be) up as an elite Catholic. I do not understand how that works, given the number of canonized Saints who lived during the reigns of Popes who definitely weren't. In such a case, I would call the Saint an elite Catholic, and I would not call the Pope one.
I wouldn't start JD Vance's cause just yet!
You did not say JD Vance is not as Catholic as the Pope, you said it is problematic for *anyone* to consider themselves so.
Not really caring here whether Vance or Francis is closer to sanctity. The phrase "more Catholic than the Pope" is historically silly.
Yes I'd say in general I find it problematic to play the "more Catholic" game, especially where the Holy Father is concerned.
Not with respect to Alexander’s moral behavior but I would generally say yes with respect to his teaching office .
He seems not to have exercised it.
But yes, even if the Anti-Christ should become Pope, he would have a superior teaching *office* to the Blessed Virgin. I don't think he would be any good at actually teaching though. The office confers neither knowledge nor skill. That is part of why historically, people typically get their Catholic education from people who are not Popes.
And of course, barring ex cathedra statements, Popes get things wrong. One of the many reasons we don't get to shut our brains off, regardless of what Protestants like to say.
It is fun to imagine the response of a 30-70 AD Catholic social media and online publication world to the early ministry of Jesus and the creation of the Pauline Corpus.
"Come on Jesus, couldn't you have not emphasized that bit about 'eating my body and drinking my blood?' That is just going too far; people are going to misunderstand that. I mean, feeding all those people was nice and all, but you didn't have to say all the rest. It is just going to harden the attitude of all those Pharisees. The purse is getting a little low and we need all we can get."
Or,
"Paul what are you thinking! You called those Galatians "foolish"?!? How is that going to help anything? And calling them bewitched? That is just too far."
Jesus would have had a lot of "mean Tweets".
Well done with this article. This'll be one I point people to. Great work, and God bless.
I am wondering how much of the letter the Pope actually wrote. I suspect +Tucho had something to do with it. (I don’t intend disrespect, I can’t remember the DDF cardinal’s real name currently).
Also, I am in bemused wonder over clerics in the Vatican following and responding to the VP’s Tweets. This is Post-Modernity that we are living.
I think you may be right about Cardinal Tucho (Heal me with your mouth) Fernandez having a large input to this letter. The letter invokes the principle of human dignity which Tucho used so extravagantly in Dignitas Infinita issued in April 2024.
Plus there is the very visible bad health of Pope Francis. He is not yet gaga like Dementia Joe. But how much of his work has to be covered by a support team?
I also thought it was fairly unlikely that the pope himself wrote this. He is 88 years old, hospitalized, and extremely ill. Reports are attempting to downplay it but he is already medically compromised (one lung partially removed) and he has double pneumonia after a long battle with bronchitis. When a major public figure or head of state is ill, the news that is reported is usually only part of the story because the public doesn’t generally need every detail and I assume they also try to minimize alarm. But I sincerely doubt he wrote this from his sick bed. I don’t know him so I can only assume that it reflects his general opinions, but even that, I suppose, we don’t fully know.
This is great. Thanks for this, Ed. You expressed pretty much every one of my thoughts regarding the pope's letter, this issue, the complicated task of respecting the borders but also welcoming in those in need, etc.
I obviously defer to the pope when I am obliged to do so and respect him as the Roman Pontiff, but I have to say that I find myself struggling with a silly inconvenience in regard to this: I actually like JD Vance. This situation has primarily disappointed me for the reasons that Ed listed, but a small part of me also was disappointed that a politician I actually like turned out to be...a politician. Go figure!!
I must confess, I've been feeling somewhat utterly perplexed by the reactions to the letter. My immediate response was, "prophetic yet unpatronising leadership - finally! We got what we've begging for for [x time units]. And blessedly short!" Yet in every attempted discussion of the letter, from personal interactions to even the articles on this website, I seem to be an outlier in my response. Am I just out of touch? Or are my expectations so low that this seems better than it is? I also tend to like movies statistically significantly more than reviewers' consensus suggests, so perhaps the dissonance is located in my personality. Either way, I remain grateful for the prophetic intervention.
You're not alone!
Honestly, it just sounds to me that you have a heart that hasn't been twisted up by cynicism and the temptation to deem oneself a fit judge (whether of movies or of papacies). I also tend to like things more than reviewer's consensus across the board: movies, wines, shows, etc., but I can feel the temptation sometimes to be a bit more critical so as to not seem naive or uncultured. But I think ultimately it's a good trait!
I appreciate your deeply positive take on what I am otherwise quite tempted to dismiss as naïvete. Thank you!
In the spirit of charity, the main argument of Pope Francis' letter is:
1. We should not violate people's infinite dignity.
2. Deporting non violent "migrants" escaping extreme poverty, persecution, insecurity, exploitation, or environmental degradation violates their dignity.
3. Trump's mass deportations include people in premise 2.
4. Therefore, we should not go through with Trump's mass deportations.
The problem is with premise 2. How much suffering does a person have to experience to justify an absolute right to "migrate" anywhere he wants? Exploitation and insecurity are part of the human condition that would seem to apply to most of the world. In reality, most "migrants" are poor, but they're not starving or being killed in a genocide.
People breaking our laws to sneak into our country are doing something wrong, and they put a heavy burden on average people in the US. There is not a life threatening emergency that justifies them crossing the border illicitly.
In summary, there are some conditions that justify illicitly crossing the border. But contra Pope Francis, the vast majority of people don't fall in that category. Therefore Trump's mass deportations are not violations of human dignity.
In fact, I say NOT carrying out mass deportation is a violation of human dignity of US citizens. We have a right not to be compelled to shoulder burdens to heavy to bear.
Given the Pope's past rhetoric regarding walls, I'm not sure what means of securing the border are left, if deportations of any non-violent person is definitively immoral. It seems like he's saying keeping them out is offensive to human dignity, and making them leave is also offensive to human dignity.
When he provides a realistic means of controlling immigration that he approves of, then I'll pay attention. At this point he's just nixing every available option, and that is effectively advocating for open borders.
Yeah I agree. His comments are vague but they imply that poor people have right to migrate to any country they want. Countries have a right to ask migrants to follow procedures in the immigration process, but countries do not have a right to force migrants to follow these procedures.
It's been 12 years of this sort of behavior, so I expect Francis knows this logic is insane, so he uses vague language to make it sound palatable.
Not so sure about his intentions but making precise distinctions is not his strong point. He doesn’t seem to think they can ever be important -or at least it seems that way . He seems to equate it with being a “Pharisee” .
Same. My first thought was actually how much the letter had in common with my own diocese’s response to Trump’s early activity this term -https://dallascatholic.org/humane-approach-to-migration/.
As to the lack of clarity, I’ve been reading occasional Pillar writer (and I assume reader) Charles Camosy’s work on Pope Francis’ application of a Consistent Life Ethic, and I can’t help but wonder if maybe he simply has better things to do than constantly clarify an ethic he has arguably been applying with more consistency than most of us have taken the time to realize throughout his papacy.
Did Francis write the letter himself or merely sign it? Four years of a mentally absentee US president makes me wonder about Pope Francis’s health & whether Popes should resign when they turn 85
I had this same thought. He’s 88, and currently very ill and hospitalized. I personally doubt that he wrote it.
I think it's important to note that, back on January 30th, Ross Douthat also responded to JD Vance's comments with a reference to the Good Samaritan story -
"Okay I will bite: The moral duties of a Christian are as @JDVance describes them, but with duties to God first that can override the natural duties (one good reason why priests and nuns are celibate), and as with the Good Samaritan, immediate duties to people outside your normal circles who present themselves in serious need. The questions of how the latter cashes out in a globalized age and how it shapes the moral obligations of a superpower's government are not, I think, actually all that easy to answer."
I don't think it's that easy to answer in precise detail. Which is one of the points Pope Francis' letter completely missed.
But I think it's fairly easy to answer the question of whether the criminals currently being deported can be morally deported.