I think this is the crux of the issue that most people have with the Pope's statements; he speaks unevenly, and selectively on some issues, but not others. And most of the issues that he speaks out on, he conveniently comes down on the side that the secular media, and more left-wing ideologies and political parties, favors. He saves the remarks about gender theory/abortion/family issues for small, select, usually sympathetic groups; not the public spectacles like this letter, or big world events, etc. And often when he does, he qualifies his statements heavily, saying we must be understanding, merciful, meet people where they are, etc.
It's a similar situation when Fr. James Martin speaks out using a biblical reference to make a point on some issue. No one takes him seriously when he invokes the story of the Good Samaritan because on another day he will remind everyone how all of the biblical references to homosexual acts have been misinterpreted for thousands of years, and that how they actually say the opposite, or whatever claims he makes. He has no credibility, so it is easy to dismiss his arguments out of hand. The Pope faces the same problem, and not just because he makes errant statements on occasion, but also because he has squandered a lot of moral credibility on the sexual abuse crisis, with a seemingly ever growing list of names of predators that he has likely had a hand in protecting.
Couple all of this stuff with the fact that most Americans seem to approve of Trump's immigration actions (so far), the fact that most Catholics voted for Trump, and the fact that the "mass deportations" haven't really happened as of yet, and it's mostly been people with criminal records that have been targeted - I don't think the Pope's message is going to reach very far here or convince many skeptics.
I strongly suspect that Francis spoke because James Martin’s nose was out of joint, so put a quick call for backup to the SJ hotline. And that’s just no way to run a papacy.
It isn't just that he speaks unevenly and selectively on some issues (though that is certainly true). A bigger problem is that Pope Francis acts entirely differently than he speaks. Vatican laws in immigration and illegal border crossing are some of the harshest in the world, certainly harsher than US laws.
His talk on migration is like his talk on justice for sex abuse victims: he doesn't seem to belive believe at heart. and more motivated by personal animosity than any clear or even consistent principle.
Your middle paragraph reminded me of the sense of loss of a father I have felt since around the second year of this Pontificate. It is a sense of being unloved and unwanted, simply because I am an American Catholic. When he came to the US in 2015 I defended going to see him to many of my close friends who felt betrayed by him. I offered that I wanted him to get to know who we are. I wanted him to love us too. I became especially disheartened when I heard from so many priests and seminarians that they, too, were experiencing this loss.
I would ask the Holy Father to consider this quote from scripture with us in mind, as we are asked to do about the migrants in our country:
“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,but do not have love, I gain nothing.”
Yes, he speaks unevenly, but also with open or veiled contempt. That is the reason so many have stopped listening.
What specifically has Pope Francis said or something that gives you the impression that he is anti-American? I’m a fellow Catholic in the USA and although Francis isn’t my favorite Pope (Pope Benedict XVI is), I don’t get the impression that Pope Francis is anti-American at all, so I’m trying to listen and understand where you are coming from on that.
Your heartbreak (sense of losing a father) is eloquently expressed, as is your love (plea to read Paul). Many feel the same; thank you. Let’s pray for our Holy Father and country.
Francis is being totally dishonest. He twists Church teaching--which is immutable and part of the apostolic deposit of faith--to fit his own ideological preferences. He expects the United States to let absolutely anyone in who is not a violent criminal. Well, we can't and we don't have to under Church teaching. I've already had to explain this to several Protestants today, which shows that Francis is a scandal and an embarrassment.
I don't know that Pope Francis is twisting Church teaching here. The Catechism of the Catholic Church proclaims that "[t]he more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin." So the wealthiest country in the world, the United States, should be expected to accept a disproportionate amount of immigrants.
Further, Pope Francis' letter more has to do with the program of "mass deportations" than whom Americans decide to let in to their country. He even explicitly mentions that he does "not impede the development of a policy that regulates orderly and legal migration," so your claim that he's some sort of open borders advocate doesn't seem to be factually correct.
Pope Francis' message is in alignment with that of Pope Pius XII, who stated in Exsul Familia Nazarethana that "there never has been a period during which the Church has not been active in behalf of migrants, exiles and refugees."
And the Catholic tradition generally defines "scandal" as "an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil." I'm not sure that a generous posture towards immigrants and immigration is an intrinsically evil act.
We are not the wealthiest country in the world. We are $37 trillion in debt. The cost of housing has gone up so high in the last 3 years that many Americans who used to have a roof over their heads no longer do and are homeless. In the meantime the federal government provides housing for immigrants but not for newly homeless Americans because the waiting lists to get into housing for Americans are so long.
Perhaps because it doesn’t seem to make your point clearly. The second paragraph speaks of the ability of the state to subject the right to migrate to various juridical conditions, but that doesn’t seem to obviate the primary posture of generosity that nations—especially the more prosperous ones—are to have towards migrants.
Your initial comment seemed to say that we don’t have any such obligation, but I think the Catechism teaches otherwise. And thus Pope Francis isn’t being “totally dishonest.” At least prima facie, he’s standing pretty sturdily on Church teaching.
When the whole world seems to be revolving around the tics of DJT, can't the Pope do better? Why take the bait? What will it change? He is only signaling that he takes one side in a political debate. He could just as easily had expressed his pastoral "closeness" to those, both illegal and legal, in the US who are fearful and distressed. Nobody doubts that reality. This sounds like a guy who stands next to the man taken by thieves on the way to Jericho and preaches a sermon to the priest and the levite while the poor man bleeds out. He might also wonder why so many countries, many historically Catholic, are so crappy that people are dying to leave.
I guess what I'd say is, for every migrant -- including those who are criminals and dangerous-- even as we deport we have to know, "The Father desires to see this person in heaven equally as he does me. Mary sees this child as her son. Jesus died for this person on the cross." It might not change what has to be done, but it will help inform how we do it. And how we talk about it.
When you read this in a theological mindset and Pope Francis understands that some adverse actions are necessary. Theology is rarely neat. It is always messy. It is the job of the pope to help us with our framework & how to discern, not with the execution.
The problem is when we try to interpret his statements through a legal lens. Equally problematic if we try to read ordo amoris through an outcome-based or legal lens. The reason is that law, as important as it is (and incomplete as our Church is without it), is not as adept in grappling with inclination toward virtue.
If you honestly believe that, I would suggest you study Church history. There are a number of points on which the Church is clear. But one only look at the Christological heresies of the 4th century, the scholastic era, or the Protestant revolts against to understand how messy theology can get in the public sphere.
Prudential judgements can be quite messy, due to our limitations in knowledge and resources. Prudential judgements require knowledge about the situational facts, and not just the theology.
I appreciate the enthusiasm, but as a man working on his PhD is Systematic Theology: no. Theology is messy. We have the blessing of hindsight -- to know Augustine and Aquinas are the greatest theologians (but what do you do when they disagree? Sometimes they do), to have had heresies argued, formalized, and anathematized, and to have hundreds of years of question-and-answer back-and-forth on all sorts of things. All of this is very good, and has cleaned up a great deal of the mess, but not all of it. At any given time in history, both active questions in that day and questions of comparing our predecessors' answers have been messy.
But if you want some interesting reading and a strong proof theology is messy, go look up the De Auxiliis controversy on sufficient and efficacious grace. It's 400 years old and still running.
(Edit: on further reflection, it's actually heresies are clean, theology is complex. Consider that heresies usually try to over-simplify a complex point. Jesus is God AND man; there are ancient heresies arguing both God, not man and man, not God. Protestants reduced faith AND works to faith, not works, while Pelagius reduced it to works, not faith. Nature AND grace is a constant sticking point, as is sin AND redemption. Or scripture AND tradition, which protestants simplify to scripture, not tradition.)
You have given a very good argument that theology is hard, but not one that it is messy. And the De Auxillis controversy proves that disputes between Jesuits and Dominicans are messy, but not theological.
To give one (oversimplified) example: atonement theology is often held to have begun with St. Anselm of Canterbury, who explained in Why God Became Man and other places the actual grace-mechanics (for lack of a better term) behind _why_ Christ's sacrifice on the Cross actually brought about salvation. Fast forward a dozen centuries or so, and theologians (mostly Protestant) start using his ideas - more or less literally - to create the vision of an angry God whose bloodlust had to be sated by the death of His Son in order for men to be saved. The satisfaction theory of atonement, and other models, are one of the messiest theological battles that still rage to this day.
"on further reflection, it's actually heresies are clean, theology is complex. Consider that heresies usually try to over-simplify a complex point. Jesus is God AND man; there are ancient heresies arguing both God, not man and man, not God. Protestants reduced faith AND works to faith, not works, while Pelagius reduced it to works, not faith. Nature AND grace is a constant sticking point, as is sin AND redemption. Or scripture AND tradition, which protestants simplify to scripture, not tradition."
Exceptionally well-put. The truths of the faith almost always dwell within the realm of the paradoxical, or at have a taproot in it. A triune God; the hypostatic union; the anthropology of psychosomatic union; the "happy fault"; faith-and-works; the foreknowledge of God; theodicy; the nature of free will; the definition of a sacrament; transubstantiation; the simultaneous power and non-power of sin; the power of suffering; the Beatitudes; the nature of heaven; you name it. Paradoxes are pretty much never clean: they push our minds and hearts to their limits, demanding cooperation of both faith *and* reason in concert. Understanding of them isn't one-and-done; it's a lifelong process in and of itself. Honestly for me is the reason I am confident that the faith is true. Paradoxes like that can't be created, they can only be discovered.
Heresies, like you said, flatten these beautiful, messy, challenging paradoxes into something clean and unchallenging, something we can own--tellingly--as our own creation, that we can fully comprehend and therefore have power over. And that proves their falsehood.
If you want a case of theological messiness, I can recommend the never ending debates on the real meaning of Dignitatis Humanae, the VATII document on religious liberty. Back in 1965 the Relator declared that it would be down to future theologians to explain how DH is consistent with previous Church teaching. Yes, lots of them have. At least 40 at my last count. Unfortunately none of these very learned explanations has been officially adopted by a Pope or the DDF. And Pope Francis' more bizarre statements (all religions are paths to God, etc) go way beyond the most liberal interpretations of DH.
It was Chesterton's great insight that orthodox theology isn't "humdrum" or "safe," but is instead the "equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses" in which the orthodox Church never "took the tame course or accepted the conventions."
Veritatis Splendor is super helpful in that it really grounds academic moral theology in the concreteness of life. No objections from me. When you visit the bookstores in Rome, walk from each language section to the next. You'll see that there are a lot of focuses on virtue. Except for the English sections, which tend to have a book dedicated to each vice. That's our foremost focus. The problem is not that we aim for clear definitions but that we obsess about ourselves too much. After all, if we only talk about vice (possessiveness) then it's just another way of talking to and about the self.
The flip argument could be made that other language groups ignore that side.
Your first paragraph is spot on and I love it. Shout it from the rooftops! I need to remember that every time I leave my garage and drive on the road with other people, or set foot into my office space where other people work.
I confess I don't really understand the rest of your post.
English speaking countries have a remarkably strong preference and demand very clear theology. Typically “tell me what I have to do and I’ll do it, and then defend it.” It’s our culture. It’s also super helpful considering especially in America we are in such a Protestant territory. Our way of reading Church documents—even though we share all of the same conclusions—is different that most of the world. It is not any less Catholic. It’s just different. And unfortunately way more political.
Gotcha. I didn't know Catholics in other countries read Church documents in any less of a "political" way than we do, just their own flavor of "political". I don't want to derail this topic, though, because you've satisfied my curiosity about your post. Thank you!
I believe this Papal intervention will generate more heat than light, I’m afraid. The Pope did quite well with his encyclical on the Sacred Heart. Perhaps a similar reflection on the Ordo Amoris is in order. I could certainly do with an introduction to it.
I agree, I think he probably just ticked off a lot of people and could have possibly harmed the U.S. bishop’s working relationship with the Trump Administration.
However, I think that people on the other side of this issue from the pontiff should take heart that even acknowledged that a state has a right to deport criminals. I have not seen such nuance from him on the issue. So we can perhaps hope that he has taken to some pains to better understand the situation. Even if it has not led him to a complete agreement with the political right on this issue.
I loved the meditation on the Sacred Heart. It got a little wordy at the end, I have to confess, but otherwise I was edified every time I put it down. (I read it in bite-sized chunks over the course of a couple months.)
I hate to agree so flatly with JD Vance - someone about whom I know little and whose recent words I've paid very little attention to outside of this recent fiasco - but it does seem obvious to me that my wife and kids deserve a different kind of (immediate) love from me than a suffering person in Colombia. As much as I would love to ameliorate the suffering of both categories of people with the snap of my fingers if I could...
I'm sure I have lots of room to grow on this issue just like I do in how much I entrust myself to Jesus (and his sacred heart).
There seemed to be a lot of Catholic disagreement on Ordo Amoris. The pope's letter solidified that a neophyte vice president has no business making theological moral claims about Ordo Amoris, which up until 3 weeks ago only us Theologians knew anything about. Plus the very next question after ordo Amoris St. Aquinas clearly states "on the contart, love should be universal"
Yes, to apply Ordo Amoris to a distribution of resources or rights was truly shocking. It's about orientation. It's about not looking inward. I consider myself conservative, vote conservative, and used to attend Latin Mass. But there has to be a bold recognition that I cannot authentically hold these two tensions unless I spend a lot of time with the discarded people in our society. And despite popular opinion, there are a lot of conservatives working in homeless ministry. At least in DC.
There is not significant Catholic disagreement on the ordo amoris. There are, however, plenty of people who just learned about it 5 seconds ago, talking like people who just learned about something 5 seconds ago.
Pope Francis' encyclical Fratelli Tutti deals a bit with the subject of love and brotherhood in a globalized world, using the parable of the Good Samaritan as its framing device. So probably the closest thing we have to an Ordo Amoris papal document. I'd recommend giving it a read if you haven't already!
Regarding Ordo Amoris: I feel like we have two sides bellowing that their own extreme and un-nuanced understanding of things is the ONLY correct interpretation. What happened to the good ol' Catholic "both/and?" Yes, everyone is my neighbor and I am called to love them, but it is insane to suggest that I have the same duties to any given stranger as I do to my wife, my son, or parents, etc. The balance between those obligations can be difficult to discern.
Take as an example: you live in Nazi-occupied Europe in the 1940s and they're rounding up Jews, including your neighbors. Do you hide them, even if it means risking that you and your family will be punished? You have children...are you obligated to risk that they will be harmed or killed in order to shelter your neighbors? What if the Jews are total strangers, does that change anything? There are heroic cases in which people take those risks and make those sacrifices; a Polish family who did just that and paid with their lives were recently beatified or canonized, can't remember which it was. However, I am not sure that their example is a binding norm for all people...there's got to be an element of personal discernment involved, and I think that scales up to the level of national policy as well. Theology doesn't translate easily into legislation or government policy.
I'm not going to pretend I even knew the phrase "ordo amoris" last month, although I've certainly heard arguments that cover the same ground. But I don't find it tremendously helpful for most controversial issues. No one would deny that my duties toward my own child are different from those I owe to, let's say, a 6 year old in Malaysia. But that doesn't tell me too much about what to do in an extreme situation like the one you describe. Or even how to set national policy about immigration.
TBH, I don't think any of us (probably not even JD Vance) know what his comments really meant, because we don't yet understand what the policy he was running rhetorical cover for is actually going to look like. That will determine everything.
But really, I’m trying to make sense of it all, the pope making blanket statements as if all immigrants were equally innocent people fleeing persecution. I support the immigrant and also the country’s right to control its borders. We as Christians have a duty of charity toward all, but it is the state’s duty to protect its citizens.
Francis should speak on the principles…but on the specifics? I think he may have overstepped here. I’m interested to read what others have to say.
Archbishop Gomez' take on the situation is worth reading. It is thoughtful and balanced. If the pope had written something like this instead of letting his anti-American streak get the better of himself, he would have come across as reflective, consistent, and sophisticated; willing to think through all sides of a situation.
What do you mean that the Holy Father is anti-American? I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Can you point to a few examples? I just want to understand why you think he’s anti-American.
Pope Francis frequently makes critical statements of the America, Americans, and the American Church that anyone familiar with the subject would know simply do not correspond to reality.
It honestly doesn't have much to do with Trump. Pope Francis has been making snide comments about America pretty much for the entirety of his papacy, and usually they're about the Church in America.
I haven’t seen any instances of that but maybe there’s something I’m missing, which is possible. I honestly don’t pay close attention to the news these days and I tend to stick to reading The Pillar and the text of teaching documents themselves because I don’t trust media commentary or reporting on the Church (other than The Pillar and a couple other places that don’t put any ideological glosses on their reporting).
He does, check it out. Just the fact that he did this in such a public way tells you. I am a naturalized US citizen. My birth country is Canada and if you don't know what is going on there with euthanasia laws check it out. I haven't seen the Holy Father put out a blanket public rebuke about that and that is real life and death!
I am struggling to come up with specifics, but I have also gotten the sense that the pope...kinda just doesn't like America or Americans - and on economic issues, I'm pretty liberal, so it's not just a political thing. I think his thinking is interesting and worth reflecting on seriously, but I can also see how that general sense of "he doesn't know us" makes his message harder to hear
I've never quite been able to make out whether the Pope dislikes America, or whether the news media in America likes using the Pope's statements to put the screws on everything about America that they hate.
And I'm not interested in reading enough to figure it out.
I trust very few media outlets to accurately report on anything related to the Church. I tend to stick to reading Church documents and addresses from the Holy Father themselves whenever I can, and when I can, the Pillar is one of less than a handful of sources I trust that won’t put an ideological spin or gloss on its reporting.
It's best not to trust media outlets to accurately report on anything.
I think it was Murray Gell-Mann who commented on the newspaper amnesia so many people get. They read in the newspaper an article on a subject they know something about, and get thoroughly irritated about the factual errors and incorrect rationales. Then they turn the page, read an article on a subject they know nothing about, and assume that the newspaper got that pretty well. If you know a reasonable amount about a second subject, you find out that the media gets that all wrong too...
One of my middle school history teachers kept a bulletin board of every news article that mentioned the school with each factual error highlighted -- just little stuff like naming the wrong mascot in a write up about a sports team -- to make that exact point. And in this case, not even errors attributable to bias, just the kind of thing that slips in when you are trying to publish 10 different articles in completely different subject areas every day. It made a huge impression on young me, I remember it being one of the first times I realized I could /actually check/ what adults asserted
I am (at least up to this point) a big Pope Francis plan and follow his actions closely. Although examples may be hard to find, it has frequently been said that at most, Francis is apathetic towards the United States. He is not a fan of capitalism and believes we are very hedonistic. Obviously, he doesn't like Trump, and that doesn't bode well for him with about 80,000,000 people.
Thanks for the link. After reading Archbishop Gomez' article I completely agree with your post. His take is mostly thoughtful and balanced, unfortunately our Church leaders never want to acknowledge the damage done by the open borders we have experienced the last 4 years. Plus the US does have immigration rules and processes, it is just that they were not enforced by the previous President. So the hit is both on that President, and the people who took advantage of the situation by illegally crossing our borders. And I certainly welcome these enlightened Church leaders to propose and draft their own changes to our immigration laws. Sitting on the sidelines and complaining does not help the true refugees.
Thank you for that link. +Gomez saying most balanced, reasoned things I’ve seen on the subject. LeftCaths did not break our immigration “system.” Left- and RightPols did.
I’ve read the full letter and I recommend reading the full letter (it’s pretty short). I don’t think that’s what he’s doing at all.
Paragraph 4 of the letter is key. He clearly distinguishes between violent criminals and people fleeing poverty, persecution, starvation, and violence in their homelands.
His criticism is the mass deportations aren’t just going after violent criminals, they’re going after every single immigrant in the country illegally, and THAT is what the Holy Father is saying is unjust.
So far I believe all the deportations have been violent criminals. The fact that there are more than 10,000 of them and just getting started, does a decent job of underlining the scale of the problem.
I guess for me I trust the Holy Father and our bishops more than I trust either political party when it comes to issues of faith and morals. They wouldn’t be concerned about what’s going on if it was only violent criminals being deported.
I don't trust the Holy Father to discipline bishops who have sexually abused minors without significant pressure from various media outlets.
At the very least, the Vatican bureaucracy is quite skilled at preventing the relevant information from getting to him. I don't see why that wouldn't also apply to information on the on-the-ground application of the policies of a foreign country.
I would have more trust in the pope if he had dealt with Marko Rupnik in timely manner. But somehow the pope is just so busy writing letters to American Bishops to put out the fire in his own house.
While the rhetoric has focused on violent criminals, the reality has been quite different. From a 1/29/2025 news story: "Federal law enforcement agents have arrested thousands of immigrants within the last week, but it’s unclear how many violent offenders have been removed. Just over half of those arrests were considered “criminal arrests,” according to law enforcement data first reported by NBC News. The rest of those arrested appear to be nonviolent offenders or people who have not committed any criminal offense other than entering the country without legal permission." https://www.yahoo.com/news/200-deported-colombians-included-pregnant-171447129.html There are many other such news reports.
The vast majority of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. can only be described as "criminals" by referring to their continued presence without documentation as the crime. (And please be aware that some 40% of people in the U.S. without legal status are visa overstays, not people who entered without inspection.)
Interesting. It's not like it's wrong to also arrest nonviolent offenders. They're just not the priority. If half the arrests are violent offenders, and presumably much more than half of all immigrants are NOT violent offenders, than it seems they are prioritizing the violent offenders. I wouldn't expect them to clear out a house full of illegals, and let all the nonviolent offenders go.
Pregnant women are not at particular risk from flying. They are also capable of being criminals (obviously, as they immigrated illegally). And of having violent crime in their record.
The recently passed Vatican law providing for several years in prison for those in unauthorized areas did not provide for letting the nonviolent offenders off the hook. Most laws don't have a clause that lets offenders retain whatever benefit from breaking the law they had, with no punishment, if only they have a record clear of violence. But if you have some idea for a penalty that can practically deter illegal immigration that doesn't involve deporting people, I'm willing to listen.
Great comment. You said this much better than I did. It's so frustrating that Church teaching is being used as a pawn in personal grudges rather than applied and understood in all of its nuance.
I don't understand why the bishops aren't advocating for an opening up of legal immigration: higher quotas, streamlined process (DOGE could have some fun with that), more people to process the paperwork, better security for immigrants against those they might be fleeing-open borders do not provide that!
Better legal immigration is a key part of the solution to illegal immigration, as so many come illegally because the waiting lists are so atrociously long, and the process so confounding. They in turn provide effective cover to those who can't get in because they can't pass a background check. The bishops should get in on being part of this solution.
YES! Unmentioned in the general mucky swirl of immigration discussions is how disastrous is the US process for entering and remaining in the country legally.
Prior administrations convinced enormous numbers of people they could violate the immigration policies of the United States without consequence. They did not convince them to come and then provide a way to remain in legal security in a sustainable way—any legal protections offered were achieved by circumventing Congress and so were temporary at best. *This was also an affront to people’s dignity as it amounted to knowingly selling them a bill of goods.*
To my mind, Republicans (for whose political candidates I tend to vote) had a chance to reform, explain, and promote a “pathway to citizenship” model in the late 90s/early 2,000s. They blew it and instead took up the early form of “invader” rhetoric we see today.
So the Republicans broke it and the Democrats broke it and now we have a flaming mess and nobody offering to look deeper as you say. All the while the immigrants are in the middle of mom and dad’s divorce tug of war.
Unless I missed something, the last time Congress expanded legal immigration (by a few hundred thousand) was under W. Bush. The "tall fences, wide gates" rhetoric gets employed to some extent during most election cycles, but always gets eaten by the swamp.
My assumption is that both Democrats and Republicans are profiting (not necessarily monetarily) from specifically *illegal* immigration, and therefore want it to continue - and those that aren't, are stymied every time they attempt change.
I'm willing to give Trump a chance to wrap around to actual implementation of tall fences, wide gates, and I think it would be very helpful if immigrant advocates started working on the wide gates *now*, rather than belly-aching about the entirely legitimate fences.
Whatever they think of Trump, it's fairly clear that he aims to change things. Abraham Lincoln's response to criticism of the high casualties under Gen. Ulysses Grant comes to mind "I like this man, he fights." We should try to use that, while we have it.
I agree that both parties seem to show no interest in fixing the underlying problems. Instead they can point to the problem as a reason for people to vote for them and to vilify their opponents. I encourage people not to play this game.
Bush and the head of Mexico were about to sign an agreement for Mexicans to come work in the US for a few years and then go home when 9/11 happened and nothing ever came of it.
And Mr. Homan is just completely off-base in his remarks about the pope. I don't think anyone, especially a public figure proclaiming his Catholicism, should speak about our Holy Father like that.
Fratelli Tutti is very much worth the read! It takes as its framing device the story of the Good Samaritan, and is engaging as a kind of lectio divina on that parable.
I appreciate the explainer. I agree with your assessment of what the letter says, but disagree that the directness of the critique is unusual. Scolding American Catholics is typical of this Pope, as is preoccupation with our politics. He frequently responds publicly to President Trump’s bluster without attempting to understand actual policies. What is unusual is the writing style, the nuanced provocation and baiting response to individuals, as you have highlighted (e.g.,James Martin, Vice President Vance). It reads almost as if an anti Vigano has emerged. Did Pope Francis write this? If not, who did? For what purpose? I cannot see where it is helpful in any way in addressing the responsibilities of bishops or individual Catholics regarding the deportation process (I don’t know if it is an actual crisis), especially when the issue is hopelessly entangled with the USAID issue. The letter seems to have the primary purpose of doing damage to the administration. I hope I am wrong.
I think the pope’s positions should be faithfully represented, and attempted to be understood. It’s ok for us to be challenged. I’ve probably never voted the way Pope Francis would like but I’m not worried about that.
He is definitely not of the strain of liberation theology you see in Latin America. Unlike a Peronist, he’s been clear that using the Gospel to address fundamental structural and systemic injustices is ideology. I think the only English language news to cover this has been Fox (2022 article). Just as he is harsh on conservatives he has been critical of relativists.
That’s probably why Latin America does not share USA’s perspective that Francis is liberal. Ironically it’s relative.
Aquinas and Pope Benedict/some of JPII shared methodology in answering “how we know things.” Interestingly enough, Benedict XVI and liberation also share *some* same methodology. Both emphasizing experiences as a way of understanding.
It’s complex. No pithy statement can correctly box Benedict and Francis against one another.
Well, I don’t know enough to agree or disagree. I would like to think that, as the Pope, he would have broadened his understanding of the world. But it is pretty clear that he has an antipathy for our economic system and doesn’t really understand it. He is often irresponsible and offensive when he speaks about it.
Ironic that, in the picture the editors put at the top of this article, Cardinal Pierre, the nuncio to the US, is prominently featured in the background
Pope Francis might want to sit this one out, given his extremely harsh laws against crossing the Vatican's border without permission. Vatican laws make the "far right" proposals they oppose look lenient by comparison. They accept no refugees as permanent residents, yet expect others to do so. They jail and expel those who cross Vatican borders illegally, yet expect the rest of the world to open up their arms to a new Los Angeles every year, without complaint.
Combine that with the decision to remain relatively silent when governments push abortion, to say nothing of the mass rape and child trafficking that has come with cartel control of the border, and ignoring the slavery and organ harvesting in China: the Vatican look like a bunch of posers trying to snuggle up to Macron, Starmer, and Xi by being anti-American (at least when the pro-Abortion side loses). One wonders if Chinese government "donations" will make up for the drop in American donations to Peter's Pence?
Moral authority? What is that? If it didn't leave with the Rupnik and McCarrick scandals, it certainly has now.
It is ironic how strict the border policies are there. I don’t think you can read Pope Francis’ statement in a legal way. In a theological light, he’s saying we’re not permitted to “other” or create perceptions someone is lesser. Look at paragraph 5 in the pope’s statement.
We recently had to ban a homeless man from our parish property, because he was mentally not stable and has had repeated incidents. But to do this correctly, we had to pause and figure out how to uphold his dignity and not throw him away and embarrass him further. Also we gave him new clothes and food, and wished him well. That approach was successful even as it was sad.
Catholics have rightly objected to the dehumanizing rhetoric that has been deployed against unborn children. They are not "products of conception", etc. Finding loopholes in Catholic teaching to justify abortion is wrong.
But when the Holy Father asks us to examine our hearts and our language, perceiving that we may be deploying the same dehumanizing labels against "illegals" and "invaders", we Catholics rend our garments and call the Pope a Marxist. Distorting Catholic teaching to stoke fear and rationalize evil is wrong.
The political rhetoric of the past ten years has brought out the worst in us. I fear there is worse to come. What will Catholics say when government efficiency experts remind us that subsidizing medical care for the poor, for veterans, and for the elderly is *really* expensive and inefficient?
Archbishop Gomez had a thoughtful and balanced take on the situation. If the pope had written something like this, he would have gained respect. Instead, he let his hatred of the US get the better of himself.... again.
Yes, well said and nuanced... but Pope Francis is absolutely right to call out the dehumanization and fearmongering. I don't see +Gomez letter addressing the "heart issue". Many millions of people in the US won't necessarily notice the direct effects of immigration policy. But our entire society is certainly becoming hardened and debased by the ways in which we debate it. That is a moral issue, not just a policy issue.
Thank you for highlighting this. I frequently turn to Archbishop Gomez when there is an issue concerning all of the bishops because of his personal integrity and credibility. Even when I disagree, I appreciate his perspective and personal experience.
From the article:
“ The recent controversies with the new administration in Washington, D.C., reflect a lack of awareness of the history and confusion about the duties of the Church and government.
The Church has been a good partner. Working with the government through Catholic Charities and other agencies, we have helped our nation welcome and settle millions of legal immigrants and refugees.
We work with efficiency and compassion and use the taxpayer monies entrusted to us wisely. On top of that, the Catholic faithful give very generously, not only their money but countless volunteer hours, to help those seeking a new life in our country.”
This statement is far too broad, to say that “the Church” has been a good partner and that “we” work with efficiency. I am sure that this is true of Archbishop Gomez and others but it is definitely not true across the board.
I understand why he said it, and I have witnessed and been involved with successful resettlement of legitimate refugees. But the landscape has changed in forty years, with many rogue clergy abusing the program. Hopefully true reform will take place. It is time.
I combed through the entire orgy of dude-rage that is this comment section because I know somebody would really get it--and it was you! (And Dan, and Patricius Clevendensis lol)
"What will Catholics say when government efficiency experts remind us that subsidizing medical care for the poor, for veterans, and for the elderly is *really* expensive and inefficient?"
Oh it depends entirely on who is in charge when they say it. If it's a Democrat, conservatives will loudly and angrily repeat the sort of things (rightly!) being said about Canada's MAID program while libs will fret and say that there's other moral issues too and this rhetoric is all quite extreme and unhelpful. If it's a Republican, conservatives will suddenly become doctrinaire libertarians and solemnly inform us that they're not opposed to supporting those things per se, but gosh that national debt is getting rather large and should the government really be in this business and you know they've probably been doing things corruptly and wokely anyways, while the libs suddenly find their moral backbone and scream it from the rooftops.
Our religious beliefs don't influence our political beliefs nearly as much as the other way around, and that is probably the most underrated scandal of our time in American Catholicism. Are Catholic teachings timeless moral truths, or matters of prudential judgement? Depends on if it agrees with My Side when you ask. We have rendered unto Caesar the things that are God's.
The whole mess of “moral truths, prudential judgments, government efficiency, and political/papal leadership” needs a certain separation/clarification of Jesus’ teachings IMHO.
Yes, with the parable of the Good (and hated) Samaritan HE uses as a paradoxical example of’who neighbor is’. But HIS proclamation of what belongs to Caesar while looking at Caesar’s coin doesn’t include using Caesar’s government to accomplish the moral command of ‘giving to the poor’.
Beyond the hypocrisy of the Vatican and the ongoing conversion of the VP is the missed opportunity for dignity (both for the giver and the recipient). I stand by those who recognize the purpose and value of that face to face encounter.
Pope Francis has no moral ground nor credibility to comment on immigration policy. Ed wrote about the Vatican's new trespassing policy on January 17th. Fines AND jail time for "undocumented migrants". (This is timely since the recent breach in St. Peter's, the vagrant kicking down altar candles.) He forgets to remove the plank from his own eye.
The Pope has lost credibility by cozying up to leftist and globalist ideologues like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, the World Economic Forum, etc. I can't take the Pope seriously when he promotes leftist and secular talking points. The vibe of this letter is the shrill leftist indignation at anything Trump does or stands for. This will only add fuel to the fire and perpetuate theological division on political lines.
Also, his handling of abuse is the repeated death knell to his pontificate's credibility.
The Holy Father - as a moralist and proclaimer of gospel truth- is likely also struggling to cozy up to Trump, Hegseth, Musk, Thiel, Kennedy Jr, et al who follow the Hellenistic view represented by Pseudo-Demosthenes (4th century BC):
“We have wives to bear us children, concubines for the daily care of our persons, mistresses we keep for the sake of our pleasure” (Against Neara 122), Private Orations III, Loeb Classical Library, 445-46. Not a Biden fan but in terms of Christian morality these guys won’t easily win over the vicar of Christ on earth in any cosmos or universe.
Even if you disagree with what the Holy Father is saying, can we please show him respect, civility, and charity? He is the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Peter and he is our spiritual father.
For a related example, I disagree with some of the decisions that my earthly father has made but he’s my dad and I have a duty to treat him with respect and charity, even when I think he made a bad decision.
I think the same principle applies to our relationships with our deacons, priests, bishops, and the Holy Father, and the venom in some of the comments on here isn’t in accord with that.
I get that there are some people here that are angry about some of the decisions made by the Holy Father, and I get that, but he’s still our spiritual father, and we still need to show him respect and charity.
Pope Francis not my favorite Pope (Pope Benedict XVI will always have that special place in my heart), but Pope Francis is our spiritual father.
I may not like or understand or even agree with some of the decisions he has made, but I try my best to treat and speak about him with respect, civility, and charity. I strongly urge everyone on here to do the same, and also to pray for the Holy Father.
> Responding to the letter, Cardinal Blase Cupich told Vatican News: “The Holy Father has clearly identified for the U.S. bishops and Church the protection and advocacy for the dignity of migrants as the preeminent urgency at this moment.”
Is he in one of the fortunate states in our 50 states in which abortion is now illegal? (Off the top of my head I only know which state my own bishop is in.) I can totally understand that his priorities would shift to the new crisis in that case. Where I sit, in the other kind of state where we still have the old crisis (which is as old as I am), I would rate the new crisis as whatever word comes second to preeminent (still worth considerable energy), but maybe that is because I was raised in a culture that is awash with materialist "this life is the only one you've got" utilitarianism... If souls are being lost at high scale in the new crisis then that would be worse than lives still being lost at high scale in the old crisis and should rank first in eminence.
Edit: now that I think about it, he's in Chicago, right? Or at least he was during the Eucharistic processions. So scratch that first part.
Francis: Russian invasion of Ukraine is complicated
Also Francis: sending people back to their country of origin is wrong
I’m totally fed up of Francis making the papacy all about his personal whims, opinions and biases, especially as he appears to have an IQ of 110.
I think this is the crux of the issue that most people have with the Pope's statements; he speaks unevenly, and selectively on some issues, but not others. And most of the issues that he speaks out on, he conveniently comes down on the side that the secular media, and more left-wing ideologies and political parties, favors. He saves the remarks about gender theory/abortion/family issues for small, select, usually sympathetic groups; not the public spectacles like this letter, or big world events, etc. And often when he does, he qualifies his statements heavily, saying we must be understanding, merciful, meet people where they are, etc.
It's a similar situation when Fr. James Martin speaks out using a biblical reference to make a point on some issue. No one takes him seriously when he invokes the story of the Good Samaritan because on another day he will remind everyone how all of the biblical references to homosexual acts have been misinterpreted for thousands of years, and that how they actually say the opposite, or whatever claims he makes. He has no credibility, so it is easy to dismiss his arguments out of hand. The Pope faces the same problem, and not just because he makes errant statements on occasion, but also because he has squandered a lot of moral credibility on the sexual abuse crisis, with a seemingly ever growing list of names of predators that he has likely had a hand in protecting.
Couple all of this stuff with the fact that most Americans seem to approve of Trump's immigration actions (so far), the fact that most Catholics voted for Trump, and the fact that the "mass deportations" haven't really happened as of yet, and it's mostly been people with criminal records that have been targeted - I don't think the Pope's message is going to reach very far here or convince many skeptics.
I strongly suspect that Francis spoke because James Martin’s nose was out of joint, so put a quick call for backup to the SJ hotline. And that’s just no way to run a papacy.
It isn't just that he speaks unevenly and selectively on some issues (though that is certainly true). A bigger problem is that Pope Francis acts entirely differently than he speaks. Vatican laws in immigration and illegal border crossing are some of the harshest in the world, certainly harsher than US laws.
His talk on migration is like his talk on justice for sex abuse victims: he doesn't seem to belive believe at heart. and more motivated by personal animosity than any clear or even consistent principle.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/261557/vatican-cracks-down-on-illegal-entry-into-its-territory
https://zenit.org/2024/08/29/vatican-citys-immigration-law-one-of-the-strictest-in-europe/
My thoughts exactly. Do as I say not as I do
Your middle paragraph reminded me of the sense of loss of a father I have felt since around the second year of this Pontificate. It is a sense of being unloved and unwanted, simply because I am an American Catholic. When he came to the US in 2015 I defended going to see him to many of my close friends who felt betrayed by him. I offered that I wanted him to get to know who we are. I wanted him to love us too. I became especially disheartened when I heard from so many priests and seminarians that they, too, were experiencing this loss.
I would ask the Holy Father to consider this quote from scripture with us in mind, as we are asked to do about the migrants in our country:
“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,but do not have love, I gain nothing.”
Yes, he speaks unevenly, but also with open or veiled contempt. That is the reason so many have stopped listening.
What specifically has Pope Francis said or something that gives you the impression that he is anti-American? I’m a fellow Catholic in the USA and although Francis isn’t my favorite Pope (Pope Benedict XVI is), I don’t get the impression that Pope Francis is anti-American at all, so I’m trying to listen and understand where you are coming from on that.
Your heartbreak (sense of losing a father) is eloquently expressed, as is your love (plea to read Paul). Many feel the same; thank you. Let’s pray for our Holy Father and country.
Francis is being totally dishonest. He twists Church teaching--which is immutable and part of the apostolic deposit of faith--to fit his own ideological preferences. He expects the United States to let absolutely anyone in who is not a violent criminal. Well, we can't and we don't have to under Church teaching. I've already had to explain this to several Protestants today, which shows that Francis is a scandal and an embarrassment.
I don't know that Pope Francis is twisting Church teaching here. The Catechism of the Catholic Church proclaims that "[t]he more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin." So the wealthiest country in the world, the United States, should be expected to accept a disproportionate amount of immigrants.
Further, Pope Francis' letter more has to do with the program of "mass deportations" than whom Americans decide to let in to their country. He even explicitly mentions that he does "not impede the development of a policy that regulates orderly and legal migration," so your claim that he's some sort of open borders advocate doesn't seem to be factually correct.
Pope Francis' message is in alignment with that of Pope Pius XII, who stated in Exsul Familia Nazarethana that "there never has been a period during which the Church has not been active in behalf of migrants, exiles and refugees."
And the Catholic tradition generally defines "scandal" as "an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil." I'm not sure that a generous posture towards immigrants and immigration is an intrinsically evil act.
We are not the wealthiest country in the world. We are $37 trillion in debt. The cost of housing has gone up so high in the last 3 years that many Americans who used to have a roof over their heads no longer do and are homeless. In the meantime the federal government provides housing for immigrants but not for newly homeless Americans because the waiting lists to get into housing for Americans are so long.
In luxury hotels, no less.
Is there a reason you didn’t finish quoting the Catechism, namely the second paragraph of that section which clearly makes my point?
Perhaps because it doesn’t seem to make your point clearly. The second paragraph speaks of the ability of the state to subject the right to migrate to various juridical conditions, but that doesn’t seem to obviate the primary posture of generosity that nations—especially the more prosperous ones—are to have towards migrants.
Your initial comment seemed to say that we don’t have any such obligation, but I think the Catechism teaches otherwise. And thus Pope Francis isn’t being “totally dishonest.” At least prima facie, he’s standing pretty sturdily on Church teaching.
When the whole world seems to be revolving around the tics of DJT, can't the Pope do better? Why take the bait? What will it change? He is only signaling that he takes one side in a political debate. He could just as easily had expressed his pastoral "closeness" to those, both illegal and legal, in the US who are fearful and distressed. Nobody doubts that reality. This sounds like a guy who stands next to the man taken by thieves on the way to Jericho and preaches a sermon to the priest and the levite while the poor man bleeds out. He might also wonder why so many countries, many historically Catholic, are so crappy that people are dying to leave.
I guess what I'd say is, for every migrant -- including those who are criminals and dangerous-- even as we deport we have to know, "The Father desires to see this person in heaven equally as he does me. Mary sees this child as her son. Jesus died for this person on the cross." It might not change what has to be done, but it will help inform how we do it. And how we talk about it.
When you read this in a theological mindset and Pope Francis understands that some adverse actions are necessary. Theology is rarely neat. It is always messy. It is the job of the pope to help us with our framework & how to discern, not with the execution.
The problem is when we try to interpret his statements through a legal lens. Equally problematic if we try to read ordo amoris through an outcome-based or legal lens. The reason is that law, as important as it is (and incomplete as our Church is without it), is not as adept in grappling with inclination toward virtue.
Virtue = orientation towards harmony/encounter
Vice = orientation toward possessiveness/control
Theology is never messy.
If you honestly believe that, I would suggest you study Church history. There are a number of points on which the Church is clear. But one only look at the Christological heresies of the 4th century, the scholastic era, or the Protestant revolts against to understand how messy theology can get in the public sphere.
Heresies are messy, theology is the clean up.
Prudential judgements can be quite messy, due to our limitations in knowledge and resources. Prudential judgements require knowledge about the situational facts, and not just the theology.
I appreciate the enthusiasm, but as a man working on his PhD is Systematic Theology: no. Theology is messy. We have the blessing of hindsight -- to know Augustine and Aquinas are the greatest theologians (but what do you do when they disagree? Sometimes they do), to have had heresies argued, formalized, and anathematized, and to have hundreds of years of question-and-answer back-and-forth on all sorts of things. All of this is very good, and has cleaned up a great deal of the mess, but not all of it. At any given time in history, both active questions in that day and questions of comparing our predecessors' answers have been messy.
But if you want some interesting reading and a strong proof theology is messy, go look up the De Auxiliis controversy on sufficient and efficacious grace. It's 400 years old and still running.
(Edit: on further reflection, it's actually heresies are clean, theology is complex. Consider that heresies usually try to over-simplify a complex point. Jesus is God AND man; there are ancient heresies arguing both God, not man and man, not God. Protestants reduced faith AND works to faith, not works, while Pelagius reduced it to works, not faith. Nature AND grace is a constant sticking point, as is sin AND redemption. Or scripture AND tradition, which protestants simplify to scripture, not tradition.)
You have given a very good argument that theology is hard, but not one that it is messy. And the De Auxillis controversy proves that disputes between Jesuits and Dominicans are messy, but not theological.
What precisely do you mean by "not theological"?
To give one (oversimplified) example: atonement theology is often held to have begun with St. Anselm of Canterbury, who explained in Why God Became Man and other places the actual grace-mechanics (for lack of a better term) behind _why_ Christ's sacrifice on the Cross actually brought about salvation. Fast forward a dozen centuries or so, and theologians (mostly Protestant) start using his ideas - more or less literally - to create the vision of an angry God whose bloodlust had to be sated by the death of His Son in order for men to be saved. The satisfaction theory of atonement, and other models, are one of the messiest theological battles that still rage to this day.
"on further reflection, it's actually heresies are clean, theology is complex. Consider that heresies usually try to over-simplify a complex point. Jesus is God AND man; there are ancient heresies arguing both God, not man and man, not God. Protestants reduced faith AND works to faith, not works, while Pelagius reduced it to works, not faith. Nature AND grace is a constant sticking point, as is sin AND redemption. Or scripture AND tradition, which protestants simplify to scripture, not tradition."
Exceptionally well-put. The truths of the faith almost always dwell within the realm of the paradoxical, or at have a taproot in it. A triune God; the hypostatic union; the anthropology of psychosomatic union; the "happy fault"; faith-and-works; the foreknowledge of God; theodicy; the nature of free will; the definition of a sacrament; transubstantiation; the simultaneous power and non-power of sin; the power of suffering; the Beatitudes; the nature of heaven; you name it. Paradoxes are pretty much never clean: they push our minds and hearts to their limits, demanding cooperation of both faith *and* reason in concert. Understanding of them isn't one-and-done; it's a lifelong process in and of itself. Honestly for me is the reason I am confident that the faith is true. Paradoxes like that can't be created, they can only be discovered.
Heresies, like you said, flatten these beautiful, messy, challenging paradoxes into something clean and unchallenging, something we can own--tellingly--as our own creation, that we can fully comprehend and therefore have power over. And that proves their falsehood.
Long live the messiness of the truth!
If you want a case of theological messiness, I can recommend the never ending debates on the real meaning of Dignitatis Humanae, the VATII document on religious liberty. Back in 1965 the Relator declared that it would be down to future theologians to explain how DH is consistent with previous Church teaching. Yes, lots of them have. At least 40 at my last count. Unfortunately none of these very learned explanations has been officially adopted by a Pope or the DDF. And Pope Francis' more bizarre statements (all religions are paths to God, etc) go way beyond the most liberal interpretations of DH.
🤣
It was Chesterton's great insight that orthodox theology isn't "humdrum" or "safe," but is instead the "equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses" in which the orthodox Church never "took the tame course or accepted the conventions."
“Virtue = orientation towards harmony/encounter
Vice = orientation toward possessiveness/control”
Yeah, no. Go review Veritatis Splendor
Veritatis Splendor is super helpful in that it really grounds academic moral theology in the concreteness of life. No objections from me. When you visit the bookstores in Rome, walk from each language section to the next. You'll see that there are a lot of focuses on virtue. Except for the English sections, which tend to have a book dedicated to each vice. That's our foremost focus. The problem is not that we aim for clear definitions but that we obsess about ourselves too much. After all, if we only talk about vice (possessiveness) then it's just another way of talking to and about the self.
The flip argument could be made that other language groups ignore that side.
Beautiful. Never miss the bookstores on a visit!
Your first paragraph is spot on and I love it. Shout it from the rooftops! I need to remember that every time I leave my garage and drive on the road with other people, or set foot into my office space where other people work.
I confess I don't really understand the rest of your post.
English speaking countries have a remarkably strong preference and demand very clear theology. Typically “tell me what I have to do and I’ll do it, and then defend it.” It’s our culture. It’s also super helpful considering especially in America we are in such a Protestant territory. Our way of reading Church documents—even though we share all of the same conclusions—is different that most of the world. It is not any less Catholic. It’s just different. And unfortunately way more political.
Gotcha. I didn't know Catholics in other countries read Church documents in any less of a "political" way than we do, just their own flavor of "political". I don't want to derail this topic, though, because you've satisfied my curiosity about your post. Thank you!
I believe this Papal intervention will generate more heat than light, I’m afraid. The Pope did quite well with his encyclical on the Sacred Heart. Perhaps a similar reflection on the Ordo Amoris is in order. I could certainly do with an introduction to it.
I agree, I think he probably just ticked off a lot of people and could have possibly harmed the U.S. bishop’s working relationship with the Trump Administration.
However, I think that people on the other side of this issue from the pontiff should take heart that even acknowledged that a state has a right to deport criminals. I have not seen such nuance from him on the issue. So we can perhaps hope that he has taken to some pains to better understand the situation. Even if it has not led him to a complete agreement with the political right on this issue.
I loved the meditation on the Sacred Heart. It got a little wordy at the end, I have to confess, but otherwise I was edified every time I put it down. (I read it in bite-sized chunks over the course of a couple months.)
I hate to agree so flatly with JD Vance - someone about whom I know little and whose recent words I've paid very little attention to outside of this recent fiasco - but it does seem obvious to me that my wife and kids deserve a different kind of (immediate) love from me than a suffering person in Colombia. As much as I would love to ameliorate the suffering of both categories of people with the snap of my fingers if I could...
I'm sure I have lots of room to grow on this issue just like I do in how much I entrust myself to Jesus (and his sacred heart).
I loved Francis on the Sacred Heart too. Most excellent!
There seemed to be a lot of Catholic disagreement on Ordo Amoris. The pope's letter solidified that a neophyte vice president has no business making theological moral claims about Ordo Amoris, which up until 3 weeks ago only us Theologians knew anything about. Plus the very next question after ordo Amoris St. Aquinas clearly states "on the contart, love should be universal"
Yes, to apply Ordo Amoris to a distribution of resources or rights was truly shocking. It's about orientation. It's about not looking inward. I consider myself conservative, vote conservative, and used to attend Latin Mass. But there has to be a bold recognition that I cannot authentically hold these two tensions unless I spend a lot of time with the discarded people in our society. And despite popular opinion, there are a lot of conservatives working in homeless ministry. At least in DC.
There is not significant Catholic disagreement on the ordo amoris. There are, however, plenty of people who just learned about it 5 seconds ago, talking like people who just learned about something 5 seconds ago.
Pope Francis' encyclical Fratelli Tutti deals a bit with the subject of love and brotherhood in a globalized world, using the parable of the Good Samaritan as its framing device. So probably the closest thing we have to an Ordo Amoris papal document. I'd recommend giving it a read if you haven't already!
Regarding Ordo Amoris: I feel like we have two sides bellowing that their own extreme and un-nuanced understanding of things is the ONLY correct interpretation. What happened to the good ol' Catholic "both/and?" Yes, everyone is my neighbor and I am called to love them, but it is insane to suggest that I have the same duties to any given stranger as I do to my wife, my son, or parents, etc. The balance between those obligations can be difficult to discern.
Take as an example: you live in Nazi-occupied Europe in the 1940s and they're rounding up Jews, including your neighbors. Do you hide them, even if it means risking that you and your family will be punished? You have children...are you obligated to risk that they will be harmed or killed in order to shelter your neighbors? What if the Jews are total strangers, does that change anything? There are heroic cases in which people take those risks and make those sacrifices; a Polish family who did just that and paid with their lives were recently beatified or canonized, can't remember which it was. However, I am not sure that their example is a binding norm for all people...there's got to be an element of personal discernment involved, and I think that scales up to the level of national policy as well. Theology doesn't translate easily into legislation or government policy.
I'm not going to pretend I even knew the phrase "ordo amoris" last month, although I've certainly heard arguments that cover the same ground. But I don't find it tremendously helpful for most controversial issues. No one would deny that my duties toward my own child are different from those I owe to, let's say, a 6 year old in Malaysia. But that doesn't tell me too much about what to do in an extreme situation like the one you describe. Or even how to set national policy about immigration.
TBH, I don't think any of us (probably not even JD Vance) know what his comments really meant, because we don't yet understand what the policy he was running rhetorical cover for is actually going to look like. That will determine everything.
Believe it or not, I have actually heard people make such an argument. It may be outlandish, but there are real people who think that way.
100% agree. It seems, alas, that we have thrown the both/and out with the bathwater in the last decade or so.
You're describing the Ulma family! Such an incredible and frightening story.
> However, I am not sure that their example is a binding norm for all people
This example reminds me also of the Lauren Handy interview
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/lauren-handy-is-the-sacrifice-worth
I came here for the comments 🍿
But really, I’m trying to make sense of it all, the pope making blanket statements as if all immigrants were equally innocent people fleeing persecution. I support the immigrant and also the country’s right to control its borders. We as Christians have a duty of charity toward all, but it is the state’s duty to protect its citizens.
Francis should speak on the principles…but on the specifics? I think he may have overstepped here. I’m interested to read what others have to say.
This is just anti-American bluster born from his hatred of certain people.
I'd consider his talk migration through the same lens that I take his talk on justice for sex abuse victims (e.g., Rupnik, Zanchetta, Grassi, etc.).
If you want to know what he really thinks, look at how he acts.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/261557/vatican-cracks-down-on-illegal-entry-into-its-territory
https://zenit.org/2024/08/29/vatican-citys-immigration-law-one-of-the-strictest-in-europe/
Archbishop Gomez' take on the situation is worth reading. It is thoughtful and balanced. If the pope had written something like this instead of letting his anti-American streak get the better of himself, he would have come across as reflective, consistent, and sophisticated; willing to think through all sides of a situation.
https://angelusnews.com/voices/gomez-immigration-reform-again/
What do you mean that the Holy Father is anti-American? I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Can you point to a few examples? I just want to understand why you think he’s anti-American.
Pope Francis frequently makes critical statements of the America, Americans, and the American Church that anyone familiar with the subject would know simply do not correspond to reality.
Criticism of Trump's bigotry is not an attack on America.
Cool beans. If anyone says as much, I’ll let them know.
Bigots rarely recognize bigotry.
It honestly doesn't have much to do with Trump. Pope Francis has been making snide comments about America pretty much for the entirety of his papacy, and usually they're about the Church in America.
I haven’t seen any instances of that but maybe there’s something I’m missing, which is possible. I honestly don’t pay close attention to the news these days and I tend to stick to reading The Pillar and the text of teaching documents themselves because I don’t trust media commentary or reporting on the Church (other than The Pillar and a couple other places that don’t put any ideological glosses on their reporting).
He does, check it out. Just the fact that he did this in such a public way tells you. I am a naturalized US citizen. My birth country is Canada and if you don't know what is going on there with euthanasia laws check it out. I haven't seen the Holy Father put out a blanket public rebuke about that and that is real life and death!
I am struggling to come up with specifics, but I have also gotten the sense that the pope...kinda just doesn't like America or Americans - and on economic issues, I'm pretty liberal, so it's not just a political thing. I think his thinking is interesting and worth reflecting on seriously, but I can also see how that general sense of "he doesn't know us" makes his message harder to hear
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on that.
I've never quite been able to make out whether the Pope dislikes America, or whether the news media in America likes using the Pope's statements to put the screws on everything about America that they hate.
And I'm not interested in reading enough to figure it out.
I trust very few media outlets to accurately report on anything related to the Church. I tend to stick to reading Church documents and addresses from the Holy Father themselves whenever I can, and when I can, the Pillar is one of less than a handful of sources I trust that won’t put an ideological spin or gloss on its reporting.
It's best not to trust media outlets to accurately report on anything.
I think it was Murray Gell-Mann who commented on the newspaper amnesia so many people get. They read in the newspaper an article on a subject they know something about, and get thoroughly irritated about the factual errors and incorrect rationales. Then they turn the page, read an article on a subject they know nothing about, and assume that the newspaper got that pretty well. If you know a reasonable amount about a second subject, you find out that the media gets that all wrong too...
One of my middle school history teachers kept a bulletin board of every news article that mentioned the school with each factual error highlighted -- just little stuff like naming the wrong mascot in a write up about a sports team -- to make that exact point. And in this case, not even errors attributable to bias, just the kind of thing that slips in when you are trying to publish 10 different articles in completely different subject areas every day. It made a huge impression on young me, I remember it being one of the first times I realized I could /actually check/ what adults asserted
I am (at least up to this point) a big Pope Francis plan and follow his actions closely. Although examples may be hard to find, it has frequently been said that at most, Francis is apathetic towards the United States. He is not a fan of capitalism and believes we are very hedonistic. Obviously, he doesn't like Trump, and that doesn't bode well for him with about 80,000,000 people.
Thanks for the link. After reading Archbishop Gomez' article I completely agree with your post. His take is mostly thoughtful and balanced, unfortunately our Church leaders never want to acknowledge the damage done by the open borders we have experienced the last 4 years. Plus the US does have immigration rules and processes, it is just that they were not enforced by the previous President. So the hit is both on that President, and the people who took advantage of the situation by illegally crossing our borders. And I certainly welcome these enlightened Church leaders to propose and draft their own changes to our immigration laws. Sitting on the sidelines and complaining does not help the true refugees.
Thank you for that link. +Gomez saying most balanced, reasoned things I’ve seen on the subject. LeftCaths did not break our immigration “system.” Left- and RightPols did.
I’ve read the full letter and I recommend reading the full letter (it’s pretty short). I don’t think that’s what he’s doing at all.
Paragraph 4 of the letter is key. He clearly distinguishes between violent criminals and people fleeing poverty, persecution, starvation, and violence in their homelands.
His criticism is the mass deportations aren’t just going after violent criminals, they’re going after every single immigrant in the country illegally, and THAT is what the Holy Father is saying is unjust.
So far I believe all the deportations have been violent criminals. The fact that there are more than 10,000 of them and just getting started, does a decent job of underlining the scale of the problem.
I guess for me I trust the Holy Father and our bishops more than I trust either political party when it comes to issues of faith and morals. They wouldn’t be concerned about what’s going on if it was only violent criminals being deported.
I don't trust the Holy Father to discipline bishops who have sexually abused minors without significant pressure from various media outlets.
At the very least, the Vatican bureaucracy is quite skilled at preventing the relevant information from getting to him. I don't see why that wouldn't also apply to information on the on-the-ground application of the policies of a foreign country.
I would have more trust in the pope if he had dealt with Marko Rupnik in timely manner. But somehow the pope is just so busy writing letters to American Bishops to put out the fire in his own house.
While the rhetoric has focused on violent criminals, the reality has been quite different. From a 1/29/2025 news story: "Federal law enforcement agents have arrested thousands of immigrants within the last week, but it’s unclear how many violent offenders have been removed. Just over half of those arrests were considered “criminal arrests,” according to law enforcement data first reported by NBC News. The rest of those arrested appear to be nonviolent offenders or people who have not committed any criminal offense other than entering the country without legal permission." https://www.yahoo.com/news/200-deported-colombians-included-pregnant-171447129.html There are many other such news reports.
The vast majority of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. can only be described as "criminals" by referring to their continued presence without documentation as the crime. (And please be aware that some 40% of people in the U.S. without legal status are visa overstays, not people who entered without inspection.)
Interesting. It's not like it's wrong to also arrest nonviolent offenders. They're just not the priority. If half the arrests are violent offenders, and presumably much more than half of all immigrants are NOT violent offenders, than it seems they are prioritizing the violent offenders. I wouldn't expect them to clear out a house full of illegals, and let all the nonviolent offenders go.
Pregnant women are not at particular risk from flying. They are also capable of being criminals (obviously, as they immigrated illegally). And of having violent crime in their record.
The recently passed Vatican law providing for several years in prison for those in unauthorized areas did not provide for letting the nonviolent offenders off the hook. Most laws don't have a clause that lets offenders retain whatever benefit from breaking the law they had, with no punishment, if only they have a record clear of violence. But if you have some idea for a penalty that can practically deter illegal immigration that doesn't involve deporting people, I'm willing to listen.
The Holy Father appropriately responded to Trump, for whom almost every comment he makes about immigrants drips with hate and false accusations.
Great comment. You said this much better than I did. It's so frustrating that Church teaching is being used as a pawn in personal grudges rather than applied and understood in all of its nuance.
I don't understand why the bishops aren't advocating for an opening up of legal immigration: higher quotas, streamlined process (DOGE could have some fun with that), more people to process the paperwork, better security for immigrants against those they might be fleeing-open borders do not provide that!
Better legal immigration is a key part of the solution to illegal immigration, as so many come illegally because the waiting lists are so atrociously long, and the process so confounding. They in turn provide effective cover to those who can't get in because they can't pass a background check. The bishops should get in on being part of this solution.
YES! Unmentioned in the general mucky swirl of immigration discussions is how disastrous is the US process for entering and remaining in the country legally.
Prior administrations convinced enormous numbers of people they could violate the immigration policies of the United States without consequence. They did not convince them to come and then provide a way to remain in legal security in a sustainable way—any legal protections offered were achieved by circumventing Congress and so were temporary at best. *This was also an affront to people’s dignity as it amounted to knowingly selling them a bill of goods.*
To my mind, Republicans (for whose political candidates I tend to vote) had a chance to reform, explain, and promote a “pathway to citizenship” model in the late 90s/early 2,000s. They blew it and instead took up the early form of “invader” rhetoric we see today.
So the Republicans broke it and the Democrats broke it and now we have a flaming mess and nobody offering to look deeper as you say. All the while the immigrants are in the middle of mom and dad’s divorce tug of war.
Unless I missed something, the last time Congress expanded legal immigration (by a few hundred thousand) was under W. Bush. The "tall fences, wide gates" rhetoric gets employed to some extent during most election cycles, but always gets eaten by the swamp.
My assumption is that both Democrats and Republicans are profiting (not necessarily monetarily) from specifically *illegal* immigration, and therefore want it to continue - and those that aren't, are stymied every time they attempt change.
I'm willing to give Trump a chance to wrap around to actual implementation of tall fences, wide gates, and I think it would be very helpful if immigrant advocates started working on the wide gates *now*, rather than belly-aching about the entirely legitimate fences.
Whatever they think of Trump, it's fairly clear that he aims to change things. Abraham Lincoln's response to criticism of the high casualties under Gen. Ulysses Grant comes to mind "I like this man, he fights." We should try to use that, while we have it.
I agree that both parties seem to show no interest in fixing the underlying problems. Instead they can point to the problem as a reason for people to vote for them and to vilify their opponents. I encourage people not to play this game.
Bush and the head of Mexico were about to sign an agreement for Mexicans to come work in the US for a few years and then go home when 9/11 happened and nothing ever came of it.
Thanks for this explainer! I read the Pope's letter in about 7 minutes - of course we all (Americans) should - but this gave some great context.
I guess I need to read Fratelli Tutti now to understand Pope Francis's allusion to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. At first I thought this article from Word on Fire was a really good review (https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/first-love-locally-jd-vance-and-ordo-amoris/ ) but now I'm not so sure!
And Mr. Homan is just completely off-base in his remarks about the pope. I don't think anyone, especially a public figure proclaiming his Catholicism, should speak about our Holy Father like that.
The Litany of St Joseph seems appropriate: https://www.usccb.org/prayers/litany-saint-joseph
Lord have mercy on us all, please.
Fratelli Tutti is incredibly long and boring, really not worth the effort.
Can confirm this. Find a synopsis if you're interested.
Matthew thank you, I think you’re right, brother.
Fratelli Tutti is very much worth the read! It takes as its framing device the story of the Good Samaritan, and is engaging as a kind of lectio divina on that parable.
It’s long winded, wordy, badly written and pretentious. It would be about ten millionth in the list of books I would recommend Catholics to read.
I agree!
I appreciate the explainer. I agree with your assessment of what the letter says, but disagree that the directness of the critique is unusual. Scolding American Catholics is typical of this Pope, as is preoccupation with our politics. He frequently responds publicly to President Trump’s bluster without attempting to understand actual policies. What is unusual is the writing style, the nuanced provocation and baiting response to individuals, as you have highlighted (e.g.,James Martin, Vice President Vance). It reads almost as if an anti Vigano has emerged. Did Pope Francis write this? If not, who did? For what purpose? I cannot see where it is helpful in any way in addressing the responsibilities of bishops or individual Catholics regarding the deportation process (I don’t know if it is an actual crisis), especially when the issue is hopelessly entangled with the USAID issue. The letter seems to have the primary purpose of doing damage to the administration. I hope I am wrong.
When you recall that he is a dyed-in-the-wool Peronist, then the U.S. of A. will always be looked upon antagonistically.
I think the pope’s positions should be faithfully represented, and attempted to be understood. It’s ok for us to be challenged. I’ve probably never voted the way Pope Francis would like but I’m not worried about that.
He is definitely not of the strain of liberation theology you see in Latin America. Unlike a Peronist, he’s been clear that using the Gospel to address fundamental structural and systemic injustices is ideology. I think the only English language news to cover this has been Fox (2022 article). Just as he is harsh on conservatives he has been critical of relativists.
That’s probably why Latin America does not share USA’s perspective that Francis is liberal. Ironically it’s relative.
Aquinas and Pope Benedict/some of JPII shared methodology in answering “how we know things.” Interestingly enough, Benedict XVI and liberation also share *some* same methodology. Both emphasizing experiences as a way of understanding.
It’s complex. No pithy statement can correctly box Benedict and Francis against one another.
Well, I don’t know enough to agree or disagree. I would like to think that, as the Pope, he would have broadened his understanding of the world. But it is pretty clear that he has an antipathy for our economic system and doesn’t really understand it. He is often irresponsible and offensive when he speaks about it.
Ironic that, in the picture the editors put at the top of this article, Cardinal Pierre, the nuncio to the US, is prominently featured in the background
Pope Francis might want to sit this one out, given his extremely harsh laws against crossing the Vatican's border without permission. Vatican laws make the "far right" proposals they oppose look lenient by comparison. They accept no refugees as permanent residents, yet expect others to do so. They jail and expel those who cross Vatican borders illegally, yet expect the rest of the world to open up their arms to a new Los Angeles every year, without complaint.
Combine that with the decision to remain relatively silent when governments push abortion, to say nothing of the mass rape and child trafficking that has come with cartel control of the border, and ignoring the slavery and organ harvesting in China: the Vatican look like a bunch of posers trying to snuggle up to Macron, Starmer, and Xi by being anti-American (at least when the pro-Abortion side loses). One wonders if Chinese government "donations" will make up for the drop in American donations to Peter's Pence?
Moral authority? What is that? If it didn't leave with the Rupnik and McCarrick scandals, it certainly has now.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/261557/vatican-cracks-down-on-illegal-entry-into-its-territory
https://zenit.org/2024/08/29/vatican-citys-immigration-law-one-of-the-strictest-in-europe/
It is ironic how strict the border policies are there. I don’t think you can read Pope Francis’ statement in a legal way. In a theological light, he’s saying we’re not permitted to “other” or create perceptions someone is lesser. Look at paragraph 5 in the pope’s statement.
We recently had to ban a homeless man from our parish property, because he was mentally not stable and has had repeated incidents. But to do this correctly, we had to pause and figure out how to uphold his dignity and not throw him away and embarrass him further. Also we gave him new clothes and food, and wished him well. That approach was successful even as it was sad.
Thanks for the links
Catholics have rightly objected to the dehumanizing rhetoric that has been deployed against unborn children. They are not "products of conception", etc. Finding loopholes in Catholic teaching to justify abortion is wrong.
But when the Holy Father asks us to examine our hearts and our language, perceiving that we may be deploying the same dehumanizing labels against "illegals" and "invaders", we Catholics rend our garments and call the Pope a Marxist. Distorting Catholic teaching to stoke fear and rationalize evil is wrong.
The political rhetoric of the past ten years has brought out the worst in us. I fear there is worse to come. What will Catholics say when government efficiency experts remind us that subsidizing medical care for the poor, for veterans, and for the elderly is *really* expensive and inefficient?
Archbishop Gomez had a thoughtful and balanced take on the situation. If the pope had written something like this, he would have gained respect. Instead, he let his hatred of the US get the better of himself.... again.
https://angelusnews.com/voices/gomez-immigration-reform-again/
Thanks for the head’s up re: the Archbishop’s article. His humility inspires, as he leads. Lots to think and pray about too.
Yes, well said and nuanced... but Pope Francis is absolutely right to call out the dehumanization and fearmongering. I don't see +Gomez letter addressing the "heart issue". Many millions of people in the US won't necessarily notice the direct effects of immigration policy. But our entire society is certainly becoming hardened and debased by the ways in which we debate it. That is a moral issue, not just a policy issue.
Thank you for highlighting this. I frequently turn to Archbishop Gomez when there is an issue concerning all of the bishops because of his personal integrity and credibility. Even when I disagree, I appreciate his perspective and personal experience.
From the article:
“ The recent controversies with the new administration in Washington, D.C., reflect a lack of awareness of the history and confusion about the duties of the Church and government.
The Church has been a good partner. Working with the government through Catholic Charities and other agencies, we have helped our nation welcome and settle millions of legal immigrants and refugees.
We work with efficiency and compassion and use the taxpayer monies entrusted to us wisely. On top of that, the Catholic faithful give very generously, not only their money but countless volunteer hours, to help those seeking a new life in our country.”
This statement is far too broad, to say that “the Church” has been a good partner and that “we” work with efficiency. I am sure that this is true of Archbishop Gomez and others but it is definitely not true across the board.
I understand why he said it, and I have witnessed and been involved with successful resettlement of legitimate refugees. But the landscape has changed in forty years, with many rogue clergy abusing the program. Hopefully true reform will take place. It is time.
Amen!
I combed through the entire orgy of dude-rage that is this comment section because I know somebody would really get it--and it was you! (And Dan, and Patricius Clevendensis lol)
Very well-stated, I have that same concern, and this is coming from someone whose favorite Pope is Benedict XVI.
Thank you, Steve. Your comments above are the best and most Christian of any here and frankly better than the Pillar article on this topic.
"What will Catholics say when government efficiency experts remind us that subsidizing medical care for the poor, for veterans, and for the elderly is *really* expensive and inefficient?"
Oh it depends entirely on who is in charge when they say it. If it's a Democrat, conservatives will loudly and angrily repeat the sort of things (rightly!) being said about Canada's MAID program while libs will fret and say that there's other moral issues too and this rhetoric is all quite extreme and unhelpful. If it's a Republican, conservatives will suddenly become doctrinaire libertarians and solemnly inform us that they're not opposed to supporting those things per se, but gosh that national debt is getting rather large and should the government really be in this business and you know they've probably been doing things corruptly and wokely anyways, while the libs suddenly find their moral backbone and scream it from the rooftops.
Our religious beliefs don't influence our political beliefs nearly as much as the other way around, and that is probably the most underrated scandal of our time in American Catholicism. Are Catholic teachings timeless moral truths, or matters of prudential judgement? Depends on if it agrees with My Side when you ask. We have rendered unto Caesar the things that are God's.
Yep, the two major parties have basically become quasi-religious cults.
The whole mess of “moral truths, prudential judgments, government efficiency, and political/papal leadership” needs a certain separation/clarification of Jesus’ teachings IMHO.
Yes, with the parable of the Good (and hated) Samaritan HE uses as a paradoxical example of’who neighbor is’. But HIS proclamation of what belongs to Caesar while looking at Caesar’s coin doesn’t include using Caesar’s government to accomplish the moral command of ‘giving to the poor’.
Beyond the hypocrisy of the Vatican and the ongoing conversion of the VP is the missed opportunity for dignity (both for the giver and the recipient). I stand by those who recognize the purpose and value of that face to face encounter.
Fiducia Supplicans was more coherent.
Pope Francis has no moral ground nor credibility to comment on immigration policy. Ed wrote about the Vatican's new trespassing policy on January 17th. Fines AND jail time for "undocumented migrants". (This is timely since the recent breach in St. Peter's, the vagrant kicking down altar candles.) He forgets to remove the plank from his own eye.
The Pope has lost credibility by cozying up to leftist and globalist ideologues like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, the World Economic Forum, etc. I can't take the Pope seriously when he promotes leftist and secular talking points. The vibe of this letter is the shrill leftist indignation at anything Trump does or stands for. This will only add fuel to the fire and perpetuate theological division on political lines.
Also, his handling of abuse is the repeated death knell to his pontificate's credibility.
The Holy Father - as a moralist and proclaimer of gospel truth- is likely also struggling to cozy up to Trump, Hegseth, Musk, Thiel, Kennedy Jr, et al who follow the Hellenistic view represented by Pseudo-Demosthenes (4th century BC):
“We have wives to bear us children, concubines for the daily care of our persons, mistresses we keep for the sake of our pleasure” (Against Neara 122), Private Orations III, Loeb Classical Library, 445-46. Not a Biden fan but in terms of Christian morality these guys won’t easily win over the vicar of Christ on earth in any cosmos or universe.
+5 for the Loeb cite!
Credibility would be wounded in my view if Pope Francis, or the next pope, appeared too friendly to Trump et al.
I dunno, does the Vatican policy call for the trespassers to be let off the hook if they are not violent criminals?
Even if you disagree with what the Holy Father is saying, can we please show him respect, civility, and charity? He is the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Peter and he is our spiritual father.
For a related example, I disagree with some of the decisions that my earthly father has made but he’s my dad and I have a duty to treat him with respect and charity, even when I think he made a bad decision.
I think the same principle applies to our relationships with our deacons, priests, bishops, and the Holy Father, and the venom in some of the comments on here isn’t in accord with that.
I get that there are some people here that are angry about some of the decisions made by the Holy Father, and I get that, but he’s still our spiritual father, and we still need to show him respect and charity.
Pope Francis not my favorite Pope (Pope Benedict XVI will always have that special place in my heart), but Pope Francis is our spiritual father.
I may not like or understand or even agree with some of the decisions he has made, but I try my best to treat and speak about him with respect, civility, and charity. I strongly urge everyone on here to do the same, and also to pray for the Holy Father.
> Responding to the letter, Cardinal Blase Cupich told Vatican News: “The Holy Father has clearly identified for the U.S. bishops and Church the protection and advocacy for the dignity of migrants as the preeminent urgency at this moment.”
Is he in one of the fortunate states in our 50 states in which abortion is now illegal? (Off the top of my head I only know which state my own bishop is in.) I can totally understand that his priorities would shift to the new crisis in that case. Where I sit, in the other kind of state where we still have the old crisis (which is as old as I am), I would rate the new crisis as whatever word comes second to preeminent (still worth considerable energy), but maybe that is because I was raised in a culture that is awash with materialist "this life is the only one you've got" utilitarianism... If souls are being lost at high scale in the new crisis then that would be worse than lives still being lost at high scale in the old crisis and should rank first in eminence.
Edit: now that I think about it, he's in Chicago, right? Or at least he was during the Eucharistic processions. So scratch that first part.
Yep, his state is one of the most extreme on abortion (in a bad way)