Very solid analysis. The picture of Trump as Red Cross (??) was a huge mistake, but now that Trump has said it was not about religion, then who will the Holy See Press office get to call him out on it? Sure the social media memes will not stop, but Trump lanced it,,,, and in same conversation he turned it all to Leo and Church on policies.
- One other point, the Catholic Left's love for Leo is temporary, saw the same in HK for Cardinal Zen, and in Philippines back with Cardinal Sin... They embrace the political battles, but once Leo starts talking gospel and not defense department planning policy... - the Left departs.
Yes, the Left,,,, those creators of jobs and wealth. So successful everywhere the Left takes hold. - As for the opporesssed. So Leo there for the Chinese oppressed? How about in Philippines where Vatican cuts down bishops and priests who stray from government. Leftist Tagle while at the Vatican was key Duterte ally. Lefty Pope's Francis and Leo do what for Cardinal Zen, what for Jimmy Lai?
- Oh, and the 3 big lefties who were on 60 Minutes, McCarricks boys.... how much cover did they provide for a sexual abuser... -- You preeen politically,, but thats it
I don’t know that his response solved anything though…the “doctor” excuse was so weak as to be insulting to everyone’s intelligence. Certainly some will buy it, but I don’t know how many people who aren’t diehard Trump people will believe it.
I'm confused why Bishop Barron would say "No President in my lifetime has shown a greater dedication to defending our first liberty." I'm not sure what he's referencing.
From my perspective, the Trump rants are nothing concerning. I don't think anyone cares what he says about the Pope--either you already thought more highly of Trump, or you already thought more highly of the Pope. I doubt this changes anyone's opinions. My saddest thought is for true, loyal Catholics who also think highly of Trump and this hurts their views towards the pope.
Re: “ My saddest thought is for true, loyal Catholics who also think highly of Trump”, yesterday I once again was subjected to parish deacons who campaign for “I AM YOUR RETRIBUTION” from the pulpit preaching to me about *DIVINE MERCY*. Thankfully I had a very good Acts commentary to study during the homily. 🙏
I voted for him to be President rather than Harris. I don't think much that comes out of his mouth is worth listening to, particularly not if you interpret him to mean what he says. Half of it is to push someone around, and the other half is to find out how people react or what they think, and the third half I strongly suspect is for fun. He's a New Yorker, an entertainer, and an aggressive negotiator, not a teacher or a sworn-in witness. He's been talking in this fashion for nearly a decade now in his political career, and I rather doubt he was much different before. Honestly not sure how anyone can have paid any attention at all to the gap between his extreme statements on various subjects and his actual behavior, or his repeated and sudden reversals regarding who he's friendly toward and who he's antagonistic toward, and not figured this out.
The only thing that has hurt my view of the Pope was the Pope's statements treating war as always objectively morally evil. That is because the Pope *is* a teacher. Either he's forgotten Scripture, tradition (including St. Augustine's statements on the subject), Magisterium, and history, or he was making political statements and not teaching doctrine. Or he messed up as we all do, and then doubled down on it. But it's not like that changes much either, I never imagined he was inerrant or that all his statements were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
i think you should give the pope the benefit of the doubt, like most priests when giving a homily its limited scope not something to nit pick and say "but what about theoretical just war scenario"
if the pope is calling for peace and an end to the evils of wars we he shouldn't have to have an aside about theoretical just war situations.
Just wars are not mere theory, and there are arguments that the Iran war is just, including by Catholic scholars who are experts in just war theory.
Now, having read his entire homily (because I did give him the benefit of the doubt until he removed it all), I noted that he was not merely calling for peace, or for continuing to be open to diplomatic solutions, but that he was also stating, repeatedly, that there is no way to fight any war that does not make all your prayers useless. Which is simply false. He also doubled down on that afterwards, rather than clarifying or correcting.
I heard an excellent sermon on forgiveness recently. The priest was very careful to be clear about what is and is not required for forgiveness, because he knows perfectly well how much harm can be done by telling a person to just forgive and love the person and kiss and make up in the limited scope, rather than nitpicking various scenarios like unrepentant domestic abuse and the long-term effects of trauma. There is good reason for clear teaching, which is why the Church has it.
The point is that the Pope's homily doesn't require he have a whole conversation about just war doctrine when he is calling for prayers and and end to war.
Waging an offensive war is very morally dubious, and the waging of wars even just ones have often been deeply immoral. So the outrage about the Pope not adding caveats about just war doctrine seems like nit picking.
He could most definitely have had a homily where he called for peace and preached about the suffering that results from war and called for diplomacy and de-escalation. Instead he declared all war to be morally evil and to end your friendship with God. I am not objecting to the lack of a caveat, but to the presence of false teaching.
That is not nit picking. If there is no such thing as a just war, then there is no way to maintain the capability of it justly, and the Pope should immediately disband the Swiss Guard, and the US should disband the Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, and National Guard, and the members should confess the sin of having joined. If there is such a thing as a just war, than the Pope should not be claiming there isn't.
This sounds a bit like saying that because the abused spouse has almost certainly committed sins against their abuser as well, they are wrong for not just kissing and making up. Our own moral faults do not require us to be doormats. The fact that no nation has ever had a military that operated perfectly in accord with just war doctrine does not mean that wars can never be fought.
I would say in most cases waging offensive war does rupture ones relation with God.
Killing civilians in the name of pursuing geopolitical gains is not a mark of holiness.
Either way the pope was clearly calling out the Iran war not making a doctrinal statement about all defensive wars. Your "why don't you disband the Swiss guardxl" comment seems exactly like if you started nit picking your priest on forgiveness
Well said. If action had not been taken in the past, we would still be subjects of the King of England, there would be no Jews left in the world - they would have all been killed, and the world would be all speaking German.
Prof Edward Feser has some very helpful posts on Twitter/X on just wars and previous papal condemnations of "all wars". Yes, it does go back to way before Vatican II.
Of course. The question Feser was addressing is this: can it be right for a pope to speak out against all wars, if there is such a thing as a just war?
If he decries all wars as grave and horrendous physical evils, that's something like pointing out that the sun is bright - and there are people who seem not to have quite realized that, so full speed ahead.
If he says that waging any kind of war will cause God to no longer hear your prayers, then he's wrong. The soldiers protected by St. Therese of Lisieux, and St. Joan of Arc are some counter-examples, but there are many more.
I think that some of us forget that there were real discussions under Obama and Biden that churches might have to perform homosexual weddings and cover abortions or face violation of federal law. While you might say that violates the Constitution, there are liberal justices on the SCOTUS that would likely disagree with you. While I don't like the bickering and am deeply disturbed by the egotistical, blasphemous graphic -- I have to keep in mind what is at stake. Pray for all involved.
While I don't think that withdrawing support in the midterm elections is a good idea, I do think it's a good idea for people to push back against the excesses, mistakes, and errors of those they support. Which is exactly what happened with that particular graphic, and is probably why it was posted for less than an hour.
I am less worried about SCOTUS destroying religious liberty (at least for the next decade or so, thanks to Trump's picks) than I am about religious orders and organizations and businesses and individuals being persecuted via lawfare. The state of New York is going after some Dominican nuns, and while they have no hope of getting their laws past the Supreme Court, they certainly can waste a lot of the nuns' time and money, and interfere with their work, and frighten others into submission.
Interesting analysis! But honestly I don't think his attack on the pope had any strategy at all, he just has the emotional regulation of a toddler and lashed out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"The White House, including through the Catholic vice president, JD Vance, accused the USCCB of using the resettlement of “illegal immigrants” to pad its “bottom line.”"
This made me think, would The Pillar do an investigate piece looking into the history of the American church in supporting immigrants and migrants? I've been seeing this conspiracy pop up all over the place and it's horrible for Catholics to genuinely suggest our bishops engaged in migrant and refugee resettlement for financial gain or political power.
the church helped with legal refugee restettlement, a good thing that they helped and were contracted by the federal government to assist with.
This is good public policy and virtuous activity and is a matter of public record.
the church didn't do this for financial or political gain and its disappointing the current admin decided to not only not pay the USCCB for the work they had done in refugee resettlement but also curtailed the legal refugee program and cut aid to refugees in other countries.
I think that it was also known that Catholic Charities were supplying maps to direct people to the border as well as other assistance, thus enabling illegal immigration and even trafficking.
I can't actually find anyything on Catholic Charities, though I do recall similiar things being done or posted at local offices. Catholic Charities is primarily at the Diocese level so not every one does everything the other is doing, but the Archdiocese of NY for example posted this document which encourages illegal immigrants to reside in the US. https://catholiccharitiesny.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Know-Your-Rights-Eng-Spa-1-17-25.pdf
I see nothing objectionable about offering information that helps people in need in the same way that my church stocks in their adoration chapel information material for homeless people but we aren't encouraging homelessness.
also educating people about their rights and how to interact with law enforcement is good.
The difference in your comparison is being homeless is not inherently illegal. Illegally immigrating is.
The more accurate comparison would be if the Church offered information to people who are too poor to afford food on how to steal. Obviously the Church encourages no such thing, because theft is theft, just as illegal immigration is illegal immigration.
"also educating people about their rights and how to interact with law enforcement is good."
Interestingly they do not educate illegal immigrants on how to return to a country they are legally allowed to reside in, or how to turn themselves into said law enforcement. A man commits theft to feed his child and I hope a priest would encourage him to make amends, but a man illegally comes into the country and no correction in behaviour is encouraged.
I am mistaken on Catholic Charities working south of the border. Other Catholic groups were. From Congressional testimony,
"Organizations associated with the Catholic Church, collectively, moved among the largest volumes of cash and other aid into the hands of U.S.-bound foreign nationals, more than $26 million. Three Jesuit-associated groups moved some $5.3 million into immigrant hands, while the Catholic Commission for Social Justice sent out nearly $2 million.
The highly visible Catholic Charities USA is not on the list of those working south of the border with this UN project, although the NGO and its many affiliate components receive tens of millions of dollars in federal awards to manage illegal immigrant transportation north from the border and resettlement activity in the United States interior."
if i recall correctly those "federal awards to manage illegal immigrant transportation north from the border" was things like unaccompanied minors and other things for people with open immigration cases.
Would you agree its good to provide such services to people? Rather than have people be thrown out on the streets to starve?
There have been people in this comment section who have suggested (or stated more strongly) that our bishops have definitely been on the take with respect to migrant and refugee resettlement, in pieces that The Pillas has reported on. It's incredibly disheartening to see.
"There have been people in this comment section who have suggested (or stated more strongly) that our bishops have definitely covered up sexual abuse, in pieces that The Pillar has reported on. It's incredibly disheartening to see."
I will bow and kiss a Bishop's ring, but there is a reason I do not kiss the man.
"I've been seeing this conspiracy pop up all over the place and it's horrible for Catholics to genuinely suggest our bishops engaged in migrant and refugee resettlement for financial gain or political power."
This is not horrible to suggest at all. In fact, it's prudent as Catholics to except the reality of our fallen nature. Man falls to sin, this includes a desire for money and power. The clergy is not immune to this. Church leaders are not immune to this. The financials check out that migrant and refugee resettlement resulted in a significant financial gain for the USCCB, and individual diocese. This does not mean that was everyones perogative who was involved, but it's not horrible to recognize that money and power are corrupting forces.
Can you imagine it's the 1980's "I've been seeing this conspiracy pop up all over the place and it's horrible for Catholics to genuinely suggest our bishops engaged in a coverup of sexual abuse for financial gain or political power". People do bad things sometime, and it's up to everyone to keep an eye out for the thorn and plank in other's eyes, it is the loving, neighborly thing to do.
“Audited financial statements by an outside firm show that the USCCB received about $122.6 million in 2022 and about $129.6 million in 2023 in funding from government agencies for refugee-related services. But the same statements show that the USCCB spent more on those services than the government gave them, meaning the conference did not profit from the grants, according to the conference’s auditors.“
Sadly, this is not how financial statements or money works. How much infrastructure does 100+ million dollars a year provide? How many employees? How does this influx of money affect the economies of scale of a large organization? If the USCCB spent 1 extra dollar a year over what the government gave does that mean the USCCB didn't benefit from government contracts?
The only question we actually have an answer to is the last one, and it's of course no. You clipped off the last sentence of that paragraph. "In 2023, for example, the conference spent $134.2 million for such services." Spend less than 5 million dollars and get 130 million in government contracts is quite a steal.
A non-profit means that the organization is tax exempt and funds are reinvested into the "mission" nothing else. The NFL was a non-profit from 1942-2015. The CEO of Red Cross very famously makes sickly amounts of money, $1,313,605 a year per CharityWatch.
For what it's worth, I don't think the Bishops are pocketing money from Catholic Charities, nor did I ever say that. There is a difference between financially benefitting from government contracts and theft or fraud. I hope you can appreciate that difference, and discuss that with me instead.
Happy to discuss. Interesting that you cite the Red Cross CEO salary. Can you point to anyone in Catholic Charities grossly overpaid? I understand that some people can use alleged non-profits as personal piggy banks and pet projects, but I haven't seen evidence of same with Catholic Charities. Who is "financially benefitting" from migrant resettling? You are making the claim, that this simply must be for someone's benefit, but have not provided any proof.
And to be clear, I consider myself a conservative, who did not vote for Ms. Harris (interpret that as you'd like), and was quite against Biden's border policy (but am likewise against Trump's sledgehammer approach). But having policy disagreements doesn't mean that Catholic Charities is doing something untoward by using government funds to help immigrants, or that it is open season to accuse them of same with no evidence.
From what I'm witnessing, Trump lost a LOT of Catholic support last night & is not going to get it back. Leo sees Trump's game & is not playing it. Leo's refusal to play on Trump's terms will ultimately backfire on Trump. The midterms are not going to go well for the Republicans by way of current trends, & Trump just all but guaranteed another major blow.
And the alternative is a party that prosecutes those who pray in front of abortion clinics and who sue the Little Sisters of the Poor. Some of us can see beyond the chaos. Despite obvious flaws, Trump has not lost my political support.
Have you thought about what it *would* take for him to lose your support?
Or does your disdain/fear/hatred/disgust regarding the other party reach such a level that the only thing that would do it would be for him to…become one of them?
Interestingly, there are two main ways to look at voting. Lesser of two evils voting is valid, and has been not only encouraged but considered the norm by many Catholic leaders. The other method is a perfect person vote, where though the person is never going to win you cast your vote for them because they truly align to the closest a candidate reasonably can to your position.
In the first scenario, voting for Trump could and will by many, still be considered reasonable. I don't think many people who vote via the second method voted for Trump in the first place.
Trump is convincing some people to vote via the second method instead of the first, but when it comes down to it, every presidential candidate for the past 150 years that hasn't ended up assassinated has royally broken their campaign promises, and injured the American people deeply. All we have are if's and but's of what would have happened had someone else won, and it's not unreasonable to assume it would be worse or better. So we will just continue as we have done for a long time, just deciding between Evil 1 and Evil 2.
And we will just continue along minimizing and justifying whichever one of the evils we've chosen to support, coming to resemble them ourselves more and more over time...that's simply human nature, and the main moral hazard in choosing to support wildly unfit candidates bereft of virtue.
Kevin, you pose an interesting question. For me to abandon support of the administration, they would have to go down a policy route that results in curtailment of our God given rights, for instance, that of free speech, freedom of religion, property, etc. They would need to endorse national actions that weaken our nation and the value of our citizenship. They would need to put us on the trajectory that most of Western Europe and Canada are currently on. Until Trump, the uniparty of the Republicans and Democrats were painfully placing us on a similar path. In the end, it is one of personal oppression and even suppression of religion. Our freedoms and nation have been paid for by the past sacrifices of others. It is morally wrong to squander that.
In converse, I would ask you how bad would the Democrats have to be for you to support Trump? By the way, the argument that you would support a 3rd position doesn’t work as we live in a 2 party system.
In my view, the current administration has amply demonstrated that it is a recurring threat to multiple God-given rights, and it is squandering many things that have been paid for by the past sacrifices of others, from the health of our civic life and political culture to the strength of our alliances and trade relationships and more. There is a lot of misery ahead in the medium- to long-term, and I don't think it'll be long before even the president's base dearly misses many things their faction has been merrily burning down.
I know you won't remotely agree with all that, and I'm clear on what your reasoning is. I'm simply seeing different things and weighing them differently, and there's surely nothing we'd be able to say to change each others' minds, even if we do manage to understand each other's reasoning better over time.
We're also simply in completely different mental universes as to your final points. I think it is a logical and moral error to believe that anything the Democrats have ever done or would ever conceivably do makes their opposition more acceptable in any way...or vice versa, and yes, the opposite case is of course made every day too. ("Vote Blue, no matter who!") I catch about equal flak from both Team Blue and Team Red for my position, and it's uncanny how often they use the exact same arguments on me, only with the ideological polarities reversed. (Which I...do not find convincing, to say the least.)
And I am a longtime unapologetic ticket-splitter and third-party voter. At the last general election I voted for candidates from four different parties and at least one other non-party independent; and in the ten presidential elections I've voted in so far, I've voted for a major-party nominee less than half the time, and the winner only once. I have very few regrets about any of it...and the lion's share of those regrets stem from times I played along with the partisan game rather than bucking it.
Do you see any solutions to this? Should we do away with political parties? Should we have 5 major parties rather than 2? Should we elect a president like a pope, with a 2/3 majority? Because our system is broken.
I agree with EA, though, I think the path that Europe and Canada is on is worse than what we are experiencing. I believe the unintended consequences of "progress" and technology, communication, AI, and many other factors have thrown this world towards a place it has not experienced or thought it would.
The problem, I'm afraid, is not in our system...it's in ourselves.
Without sufficient formation in both democratic-republican civics and classical virtue, any people under any system will have a hard time remaining free for long.
The main thing I can do personally is work on this at the micro level; and that is indeed often a primary focus of most of my day's work.
(When I can avoid distraction and discouragement...he says, in an online combox.)
What you mention is utterly trivial. The Trump administration has done far worse to Catholics. The Republican Party now strongly supports abortion rights. They removed pro-life from their platform. They are finding Planned Parenthood hard a higher amount than under Biden. They are providing federal regulations to guarantee access to abortifacients, removing the ability of states to regulate them.
The Bible makes clear that anyone who impedes or harms aliens in the slightest way will be slain with the sword.
Trump has made it clear that he sees himself as Jesus. Or he is suffering from advanced dementia. Take your pick.
Jesus made clear that those who worship false gods, I.e. Trump, cannot be saved.
This is not accurate. Just this month, the administration has put forth a 2027 budget with the directive to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortionist entities. When Roe v Wade was overturned due to a concerted effort by the MAGA movement, there was hardly a whimper of thanks by the Catholic Church. I suspect that some of the anti-Catholic rhetoric we are seeing on the right now is a response to that. When some are too busy congratulating themselves on their social consciousness, they lose the bigger picture. And so goes the Catholic hierarchy.
I think Trump suffers from ego inflation and his blasphemous graphic causes me to pray for him to a greater degree. Hopefully, the pushback that he has received will help him reconsider his view of Providence. Nevertheless, I will not overlook the positive impacts of his policies on the nation and what is at risk if our bastion of freedom fails.
From the Our Sunday Visitor Catholic News Service, last week:
"The Trump administration signaled it would provide another year of Title X grant money to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, the day before those funds were set to expire. The move prompted condemnation from leaders of pro-life groups.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a March 31 statement the decision was “an inexplicable slap in the face to the pro-life GOP base.”
Support for IVF and support for mifepristone (backing legislation to take away the ability of states to regulate it) is support for abortion. End of story, Nothing else matters.
This is from April 6 on Planned Parenthood's own website...I would say they are a reliable source for this.
"PRESIDENT TRUMP RELEASES BUDGET THAT ATTACKS HEALTH CARE, “DEFUNDS” PLANNED PARENTHOOD HEALTH CENTERS — AGAIN: It often feels like Groundhog Day (the movie) here in Washington, D.C., and Friday, when President Trump released his proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027, was no exception.
In a copy-paste of his Fiscal Year 2026 budget, President Trump’s proposal once again calls to “defund” Planned Parenthood health centers. This comes as Congressional Republicans have proposed their own plan to permanently “defund” Planned Parenthood."
From the National Right to Life website,
"A renewed effort to defund Planned Parenthood is moving forward—and it relies on a strategy that has already worked once before.
At the center of this effort is the “Title X” family planning program, which distributes federal tax dollars for services such as birth control and health screenings. While by law, these funds cannot be used to pay for abortions, as pro-life advocates have long pointed out, giving taxpayer money to organizations that perform abortions still helps sustain those operations.
During his first term, President Donald Trump put a stop to that funding stream through what became known as the “Protect Life Rule.” That rule required any organization receiving Title X funds to refrain from performing or promoting abortion.
Faced with that choice, Planned Parenthood chose to leave the Title X program rather than comply—giving up tens of millions of dollars in federal funding.
Now, that same approach is coming back.
According to recent reports, the administration is in the process of reinstating—and strengthening—the Protect Life Rule. A new version of the rule is currently being drafted and moving through the regulatory process.
April 3’s “2027 Notice of Funding Opportunity” made clear that funds may not be used “in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”
While funding has temporarily continued under policies put in place during the Biden administration, that is expected to change. “The administration has issued the fifth and final year of Title X grants that were locked in place during the Biden presidency,” the White House told EWTN News in a statement.
Madison LaClare, National Right to Life’s Director of Government Affairs, explained that the updated rule will once again require a clear choice. Any group that receives Title X funds must either stop performing abortions or stop receiving taxpayer dollars.
In other words, organizations can choose to do one or the other, not both.
Defunding Planned Parenthood does not require Congress to pass a new law. Instead, it can be accomplished by enforcing common sense conditions on how federal funds are used.
The Protect Life Rule does exactly that. It does not single out one organization by name. Rather, it applies the same standard to all recipients: if you receive taxpayer funding for family planning, you cannot be involved in abortion.
If the rule is finalized, it is widely expected that Planned Parenthood will again decline to comply—resulting in the loss of millions in federal funding.
For pro-life Americans, this represents a significant opportunity. It shows that policy changes—especially those rooted in existing law—can have real impact.
By ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not entangled with the abortion industry, the Trump administration’s Protect Life Rule offers a clear and effective path forward."
You don't think they might misrepresent things to try to get more donations? So, no, I don't consider them a reliable source.
If you think Planned Parenthood is a more reliable source than the president of the March for Life and the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, well that is revealing.
I agree that many "maga" people have made Trump a false god but you seem to imply that anyone who voted for him or the Republicans are worshipped him and I think that is incorrect. I think these comments make clear that many Catholics don't feel at home in either political party and are weighing lesser of two evils. I'm not going to judge anyone who comes to a different decision than me because again, both parties and the personalities running them have deeply problematic aspects.
There are other parties. Look closely on your ballot for where the individuals running for office stand. Automatically exclude from consideration those who support abortion, whether as pregnancy reduction in the case of IVF or in the killer pill or in surgical abortion. If all the candidates support the killing of the unborn, then look at other issues to see which candidate comes closest to respecting all others. Vote for people, not parties.
I generally agree on 3rd party candidates. I have voted 3rd party in probably about half of the Presidential elections of my lifetime. However, more recently, being on the brink of national calamity has caused me to reconsider this for certain points in time.
I think we are past the point of being on the brink of national calamity and are already in it. I would say our only hope is doing what Our Lady of Fatima requested we do: Offer our personal difficulties up for sinners, pray the rosary daily for world peace, make the First Saturdays, amend our lives and repent for our sins. Look up Father Petrus Pavlicek OFM Cap to see what happens when we listen.
Let's remember to pray for our Pope. 18 flights, 25 planned speeches all in 10 days for this current tour of Africa. We are blessed to have him, and more important than getting bogged down in political shenanigans, let's support him with our prayers.
The president’s comments about the Holy Father are disrespectful and uncharitable but ultimately just noise to me. That a hotheaded man with a history of saying stupid, irreverent things said them about the Vicar of Christ is utterly unsurprising and largely unremarkable. What deserved total repudiation was the president’s generation of an image of himself as Christ. While I’m glad the bishops defended the Vicar, I wish they would have condemned the image. Maybe they would have stopped short of labeling it blasphemous, though I openly called it that on my own social media. They should have sternly addressed it.-
I've been charitably assuming that since it wasn't up for very long (due to all the Trump supporters protesting it on social media) they missed the opportunity. But the image does rank a bit higher in importance as far as I'm concerned too.
I do wish they had responded to his accusations toward them, of shutting down Mass, preferably with a resounding promise not to do so again, and to protest the government heavily if it forced them again or otherwise violated the religious rights of Catholics.
I think engaging him on those points would be a mistake. He 100% does and says things to provoke people not to reach conclusions. He wasn’t personally wronged by decisions about church closures in 2020, I don’t want to see any US bishops responding to him in this context.
True enough. But that particular point was not aimed at provoking the bishops. It was aimed at provoking the Catholics (the 20% or so who actually go to Mass) who are still hurting from those shutdowns, having never received any apology from the bishops. They may not have any responsibility for Trump, but they do have a responsibility to the Catholics subject to them.
Even if they waited a few weeks and then talked to Catholics about it, ignoring Trump entirely, they'd do better then just letting it continue to rankle. Trump's criticism was valid, even if it didn't touch him personally, and even though he did have something of a hand in the closures. It would be silly for the bishops to refuse to make amends to Catholics just because they don't like Trump.
I don’t understand how Trump’s criticism is valid when he’s the one who forced the shutdowns. He was the president at the beginning of Covid and oversaw all the shutdowns. Has he forgotten that part?
By saying it's valid I do not mean that Trump is a good guy and the bishops are bad guys. I mean that his criticism of the bishops for shutting down the Mass is correct.
This does not mean that Trump's influence on the shutdowns was OK, or that he doesn't deserve criticism for not opposing the shutdowns that the state governors/legislatures ordered (there were states that didn't shut down). We do not make ourselves immune to criticism by correctly criticizing others.
But it is valid to criticize wrong things, even when you also do wrong things, and even when you do the same kind of wrong things. For example, if you're familiar with the examination of conscience based on the 10 commandments, where there are a whole lot of sins related to anger included under the commandment against murder. Still, no one thinks it's invalid for a judge who commits sins of anger or impatience, even grave sins, to sentence a person who committed assault.
When you say "Trump's influence on the shutdowns," it makes it sound like Trump was removed from the process or operated at a distance, which was not the case. My point is that Trump's comments make it sound like someone else was responsible for the shutdowns, completely overlooking that it all happened on his watch, with his blessing and approval or more, and it's really odd now for him to act like that was someone else's doing entirely.
There is so much beef to be had with bishops if we allow ourselves to be affected by it. If someone is holding grief that can only be resolved by the bishops "making amends" - that is sad. And it would be resolved by whoever is president of the USCCB standing up and saying "On behalf of the bishops, I apologize for closing churches in 2020."? Or do they need to do particular acts of penance that would meet the criteria of those who feel grief? Should they contribute to a reparations fund or create Covid grief gardens like they have for abuse victims? Should they also apologize for every really horrible interaction that someone has had with a priest over the years which resulted in the person leaving the church? These are just rhetorical questions.
Very narrow request: bishops apologize to those they harmed by their wrong decisions, at least when it's their entire diocese that they harmed. It's not exactly asking them to act contrary to the Gospel. A couple bishops have even proved that they are capable of it.
It should be clarified that Bishop Barron is on the Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom. Barron’s remarks on religious freedom make complete sense when this context is not bizarrely omitted from the article.
He functions as a de facto diplomatic envoy to the administration. If the President were criticizing the leader of France, for example, nobody would be surprised if the French ambassador emphasized some specific good things the administration had done for the U.S.-France relationship while respectfully demanding an apology. That’s just the job description of a diplomat.
What are you suggesting when you say the Pope needs to "Dolan" him out of the Church? The cardinal remains in good standing within the Catholic Church.
Not so sure about that. It was the Tablet magazine I believe who quoted some insider a few years ago that claimed Dolan seemed to care more about being in the FoxNews studio than St Patrick’s.
Barron is on a similar path. And from what I heard is in full panic mode today.
I like Dolan and Barron but when you align with a known pedophile at the expense of the poor, it won’t end well for you. The USCCB is conservative but they understand not getting to close to the fire.
Whether an unnamed "insider" source has particular credibility, I can't judge, but it sounds outlandish as I understand Dolan celebrated Sunday Mass at St. Patrick's at 10:15 most every Sunday. According to his twitter page, he was often visiting schools, prisons, etc. How often did he appear on Fox? Is there a difference between Dolan going on Fox and Fr. Jim Martin often going on Colbert or CNN?
To be sure, I'm disappointed with Barron's qualification in his statement, but where has he sold out the poor? Or Dolan, for that matter?
I can't help but notice you avoided answering my original question. What do you mean for Barron to be "'Dolan[ed]' out of the Church?" You want him removed after he reaches retirement age?
Please stop the spin. There are other Cardinals the same age than Dolan in the US. You may have seen two just last night on 60 minutes. Look- Trump comments and actions are disturbing. Even the Lamp, the same paper the Pillar was promoting, came out with an article tonight asking if Trump is the anti-Christ.
Here is a blurb from the Lamp that the Sean Hannity types won’t tell you “No president, no medieval king, no emperor or modern dictator has ever publicly represented himself as Jesus Christ or claimed for himself the ability to raise the dead. To Catholics the posting of this image is, or should be, the most profoundly offensive act imaginable, a grave public sin that brings shame to, and invites God’s judgement upon, our nation.”
Agree.
I’m with Pope Leo. You pick your side, I’m certain Jesus has his side picked.
You can call it spin, all I'm asking is for you to back up what you're saying about two bishops with anything but conjecture.
I can't say I'm surprised you're not addressing any of my points given that you have no facts to offer in defense of your claims. Even when you do try to assert a fact, that there were two cardinals on TV last night older than Dolan, you are wildly incorrect. Cardinal Tobin is more than two years younger. Get better at debating! For what it's worth, Cardinal DiNardo, who was not regularly on Fox News or other outlets you dislike, was even younger than Dolan when he retired from leading Houston. Retirements happen for a multitude of reasons.
Where we are in full agreement that Trump's comments and actions are disturbing. I'll even go one step further than you and declare him unfit for office. I thought so as far back as 2016. I wouldn't go so far as calling him the anti-Christ, however. Again, anyone making such a claim better have some facts to support it.
I'm with Pope Leo. I'm not sorry to disappoint you with that!
Why does one have to pick a side? Trump is my President and Leo is my Pope. I support both. I voted for Trump and support him for his policies and his ability to do what he says he is going to do, Make America Safe, Prosperous, and Great Again. I did not vote for him for his political correctness. YES, there are times I shake my head in disbelief of what comes out of his mouth or what he posts. His wife and children have the same reactions. But Trump is Trump. He loves this country, gets things done, is an excellent negotiator, and will do the right thing. He is not a pedophile, as you continually state. He reflects more Catholic values than the Catholic president who preceded him.
Pope Leo wants peace but he does not have the responsibility of keeping a nation safe, he doesn't have the intel Trump has.
I agree, but couldn't you turn this argument against the way *a lot* of the hierarchy is speakign to Democrat politicians? I see no reason to single out Bishop Barron for being diplomatic with an administration that he tries to work with.
Oh, I was wondering why I both experienced a resistance to the animosity against Bishop Barron's response, and at the same time felt like I had thought exactly that thought many times, and I think it's exactly this: That church leaders have been so hopelessly diplomatic again and again that it seems to me to be a bit of fresh wind that he takes the trouble to criticize Trump before pointing out what a pleasure it is to work with him.
When last I checked Barron is the Bishop of Winona-Rochester, MN and any political appointment he has taken is (or should be) entirely subordinate and in service to that role. Maybe the Pillar should send a correspondent to Minnesota to see how the hoi polloi are feeling about their Ordinary.
Although in fairness, some recently charged that Barron was neglecting his diocese during Holy Week, and it was instead proved that he had presided at all Holy Week services in the Cathedral. Apparently this involved constant flights back and forth from Washington to Minnesota all week long.
Which was a bizarre accusation from Christopher Hale because Bishops holy week liturgies are important starting on Holy Thursday. The events he was doing in DC were earlier in the week on Monday and Tuesday.
I'm not sure this is just a diplomat thing. Generally speaking, if you are attempting to make peace, acknowledging the good that another person has done is helpful. Similarly in arguments, it is frequently helpful to clearly state your agreement with the person you disagree with on those things that you do agree on. Not as a substitute for pointing out problems, but as a way to build and maintain the basis that you work on the problems from.
That he would choose religious freedom specifically to compliment Trump on makes sense given the Commission.
History has shown it is much better to be in the room, particularly with a leader you don't trust, than to walk out of it (the Russian revolution is a good example - never walk off the committee because you don't like the people in charge). It is much better for US Catholics that he be on that committee and have a voice, even if it is ignored.
I'm not 100% convinced it's better; but I do think it's fair to to say that Bp. Barron's engagement falls well within the Church's current approach to engage with civil leadership (ie. trading the risk of being perceived of approving/lending legitimacy to a regime's evil actions; in exchange for being in the room/keeping open communication/the chance to mitigate the worst excesses). The church has these kinds of friendly-ish engagements with far worse governments than the US all over the world.
For those more interested in an application of just war theory to the current war, then in the political statements and counter-statements (and non-statements) tangentially related to it:
I’ve read portions of “How to Stay Christian in College”, but I haven’t read any of his more academic titles, or for that matter his popular style philosophy titles, but I have been reading him since his olden times writings for the “Boundless” online publication produced by Focus on the Family. I think that was his “Office Hours” column. I enjoy his perspective and his writing style. He’s very clear. He reminds me of a slightly less cheeky Peter Kreeft.
I believed you misspelled "this is offensive, blasphemous [bleep] and we at the Pillar will finally cease engaging in both-sides-erism to validate people and retain the subscriptions of those who prefer Trump to the Holy Father."
I am pretty harsh on Catholics who (in my view) abandon their principles to support Trump, but in my opinion JD and Ed are among the few figures in Catholic media who actually hold Trump accountable and I really don’t think we need 1000 words of angry fuming from Ed to get the point across. If anything staying a step removing and calmly recounting the situation makes Trump look even worse.
Objectively, the other side supports legal abortion and has a growing contingent in support of assisted suicide. We exist in a system that is a two-party state with two parties that are (increasingly) hostile to life. If we're talking about the "seamless garment" of life issues, both parties fail. The GOP struggles further in care for the poor and the immigrant, but the Democrats struggle further in social and cultural issues and growing hostility towards faith. Neither of these parties are good
I don't know that the Pillar has ever argued that "full throated MAGA support" is an acceptable "prudential choice" (and if you feel they have, I'd ask you for a citation as to where), but considering that neither party has a consistent ethic of life, many Catholics *do* have to make a prudential judgment as to which, profoundly flawed, party they will support in elections. To disagree with your personal judgment on that matter is not sinful and does not make them bad people.
I'm not here to debate political "sides". The bottom line is you cannot serve both God and MAGA. Other choices are downstream of that objective moral reality.
If all you're saying is that, we don't disagree and I've never read anything in this publication that would suggest they disagree with you either. But you seem to be insisting that the Pillar disavow a position they've never taken or even hinted at. It's not even a position that's popular in the comments, there are a few very pro-Trump people, but it's never been a sizable crowd so I'm not even sure who you think Ed and JD are afraid of upsetting
We serve God; MAGA serves us. The policies of the administration have strengthened the United States. If you have not noticed, we are one of the last bastions of freedom in this world. Both religion and speech are under attack in places as familiar as Canada and Western Europe. If we fall, darkness falls on the world.
As to flaws in the President or MAGA, sure they exist. God uses imperfect vehicles for His end. Do you think it is an accident that Christ came to Earth at the time of the Romans? The Catholic Church was able to expand rapidly because of the existence of the Roman Empire. The Romans were imperfect, even to the point of persecuting Christians, yet they were helpful to spread God's Word. There is a bigger picture than Trump is mean.
Not sure anyone cares who holds Trump accountable anymore. The issue is holding those Catholic Bishops who look the other way for personal gain. The same Bishops who compared Charlie Kirk to St Paul as an example.
You would think an Easter post about removing 90 million people would give the attention seekers some pause.
You would also think the unprecedented attack on the Pope by the US President would force some back to the faith, but instead we see why the Sanhedrin are featured so prominently in the Gospels.
That's not the job of a journalist, at least the (good) kind of journalism Ed and JD publish here. If you've ever listened to The Pillar podcast, you would know that they are not fans of Trump and don't engage in "both-siders-erism."
It would be appropriate for an editorial, definitely, to take a point of view like you're suggesting, which is not what this piece is. I couldn't actually recall The Pillar publishing any editorials, but when I search the site I found exactly one, and it said this at the beginning: "Editors’ note: The Pillar does not, as a rule, publish editorials — we reserve the expression of our opinions to our twice-weekly newsletters." Maybe Ed and JD will write another editorial some time, but this is not it.
Genre notwithstanding, when the editor of a publication opines (even in the form of "analysis"), one can assume it is at least consonant with the approach or position of the publication. And I happen to think the "above the fray" approach with regard to MAGA has long been craven and increasingly untenable and I am sad that these journalists whose work on a variety of topics (abuse, financial crimes, etc) I appreciate and admire is tarnished by their inability to "let your yes mean yes and your no mean no."
It’s puzzling to me why some choose to criticize the President’s language, but not the President’s and his administration’s innumerable abuses of the human person (rape, killing of civilians, threats of nuclear annihilation, theft, lying, calumny, support of IVF and abortion drugs, urging political violence, inhumane detention, family separations, et cetera et cetera et cetera).
People keep quiet because however bad they think he is they also think he's better than the alternative and crushing him now would strengthen the other party. It's just the way it is.
You mean like the rapes that occurred during the border surge, discussions of winning a nuclear war against Russia, 10% in payoffs to the Big Guy from China, arresting those praying outside abortion clinics, suing the Little Sister's of the Poor for not covering abortions, describing Antifa as peaceful protesters, holding children in cages? Oh wait, all of these happened under Biden and Obama. If you were not vocal about these, do not pretend to hold moral high ground.
I think we should call out all abuses of the human person, no matter what party the person or administration belongs to. I believe Pope Leo wants all souls to be saved, and so he is inviting everyone, including this president and his administration, and other past and present politicians, to abandon a culture of death and follow Christ.
Many conservatives seem to have forgotten who was president in 2020. Trump not only fully supported the lockdowns, at one point he claimed governors couldn’t lift restrictions without his permission even if they wanted to. The only restrictions on public worship came during the Trump Administration!
I was thinking about that too -- from his post, it sounded like Trump forgot he was the head of state in 2020 who forced all those lockdowns and social distancing. He's condemning what he did at the time without even realizing it.
There may be something to this: “as part of a mutual exchange between Leo and Trump, as though they were equal participants in a performative public clash of personalities…” My March 1 article: Ambassador Burch’s Moment: “Today, even after everything we’ve seen from this administration, Burch talks about Catholics Vance and Rubio, about a “Catholic “trump” moment” in the United States.” — They may be aiming to get the Vatican’s blessing via TB for their “program” which runs contrary to the Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, specifically: “The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.” Burch and like may want to reverse this. They will push, and push, hqve 47 take it even further. Do what they can to get Christ’s vicar to kneel to them. He would gladly go the way of Saints before he did that. Time for the world’s bishops to unite in defense of Christ’s Church now under attack.
Anyone who knows Church history knows that this same situation between some powerful political leader and a Pope has played out about 500 times already. In this case there is very little chance that Catholics in USA will be deprived of privileges, freedom, or their lives because Pope Leo took the expected Pope position of condemning a war. File under Tempest in a Teapot.
From an actual theological perspective, Pope Leo's use of the word "communion" in a tweet about Catholic-Muslim relations today was much more interesting.
I was wondering about that, as well. I thought perhaps the Pillar team decided this issue was one they’d prefer not to open to comments, so I was surprised when this analysis style piece permitted comments while a more roundup “straight news” style piece barred comments.
Very solid analysis. The picture of Trump as Red Cross (??) was a huge mistake, but now that Trump has said it was not about religion, then who will the Holy See Press office get to call him out on it? Sure the social media memes will not stop, but Trump lanced it,,,, and in same conversation he turned it all to Leo and Church on policies.
- One other point, the Catholic Left's love for Leo is temporary, saw the same in HK for Cardinal Zen, and in Philippines back with Cardinal Sin... They embrace the political battles, but once Leo starts talking gospel and not defense department planning policy... - the Left departs.
Yes, the Left,,,, those creators of jobs and wealth. So successful everywhere the Left takes hold. - As for the opporesssed. So Leo there for the Chinese oppressed? How about in Philippines where Vatican cuts down bishops and priests who stray from government. Leftist Tagle while at the Vatican was key Duterte ally. Lefty Pope's Francis and Leo do what for Cardinal Zen, what for Jimmy Lai?
- Oh, and the 3 big lefties who were on 60 Minutes, McCarricks boys.... how much cover did they provide for a sexual abuser... -- You preeen politically,, but thats it
He did not lance it? You don’t lance blasphemy. You repent from its grave sinfulness.
I don’t know that his response solved anything though…the “doctor” excuse was so weak as to be insulting to everyone’s intelligence. Certainly some will buy it, but I don’t know how many people who aren’t diehard Trump people will believe it.
I might. A cursory listening to the man demonstrates an ignorance of Christ on par with the stereotypical Catholic ignorance of the Scriptures.
I don’t think anyone cares what Trump thinks about Catholicism.
We care about those Bishops who still defend this nonsense and hate. Those Bishops who seek fame and power by being close to Trump.
Enough is enough. We don’t have Cardinal Dolan spinning this clown show anymore on FoxNews.
Will the Pillar interview Barron and ask him to resign from the Religious Liberty Commission?
I'm confused why Bishop Barron would say "No President in my lifetime has shown a greater dedication to defending our first liberty." I'm not sure what he's referencing.
From my perspective, the Trump rants are nothing concerning. I don't think anyone cares what he says about the Pope--either you already thought more highly of Trump, or you already thought more highly of the Pope. I doubt this changes anyone's opinions. My saddest thought is for true, loyal Catholics who also think highly of Trump and this hurts their views towards the pope.
Re: “ My saddest thought is for true, loyal Catholics who also think highly of Trump”, yesterday I once again was subjected to parish deacons who campaign for “I AM YOUR RETRIBUTION” from the pulpit preaching to me about *DIVINE MERCY*. Thankfully I had a very good Acts commentary to study during the homily. 🙏
I voted for him to be President rather than Harris. I don't think much that comes out of his mouth is worth listening to, particularly not if you interpret him to mean what he says. Half of it is to push someone around, and the other half is to find out how people react or what they think, and the third half I strongly suspect is for fun. He's a New Yorker, an entertainer, and an aggressive negotiator, not a teacher or a sworn-in witness. He's been talking in this fashion for nearly a decade now in his political career, and I rather doubt he was much different before. Honestly not sure how anyone can have paid any attention at all to the gap between his extreme statements on various subjects and his actual behavior, or his repeated and sudden reversals regarding who he's friendly toward and who he's antagonistic toward, and not figured this out.
The only thing that has hurt my view of the Pope was the Pope's statements treating war as always objectively morally evil. That is because the Pope *is* a teacher. Either he's forgotten Scripture, tradition (including St. Augustine's statements on the subject), Magisterium, and history, or he was making political statements and not teaching doctrine. Or he messed up as we all do, and then doubled down on it. But it's not like that changes much either, I never imagined he was inerrant or that all his statements were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
i think you should give the pope the benefit of the doubt, like most priests when giving a homily its limited scope not something to nit pick and say "but what about theoretical just war scenario"
if the pope is calling for peace and an end to the evils of wars we he shouldn't have to have an aside about theoretical just war situations.
Just wars are not mere theory, and there are arguments that the Iran war is just, including by Catholic scholars who are experts in just war theory.
Now, having read his entire homily (because I did give him the benefit of the doubt until he removed it all), I noted that he was not merely calling for peace, or for continuing to be open to diplomatic solutions, but that he was also stating, repeatedly, that there is no way to fight any war that does not make all your prayers useless. Which is simply false. He also doubled down on that afterwards, rather than clarifying or correcting.
I heard an excellent sermon on forgiveness recently. The priest was very careful to be clear about what is and is not required for forgiveness, because he knows perfectly well how much harm can be done by telling a person to just forgive and love the person and kiss and make up in the limited scope, rather than nitpicking various scenarios like unrepentant domestic abuse and the long-term effects of trauma. There is good reason for clear teaching, which is why the Church has it.
The point is that the Pope's homily doesn't require he have a whole conversation about just war doctrine when he is calling for prayers and and end to war.
Waging an offensive war is very morally dubious, and the waging of wars even just ones have often been deeply immoral. So the outrage about the Pope not adding caveats about just war doctrine seems like nit picking.
He could most definitely have had a homily where he called for peace and preached about the suffering that results from war and called for diplomacy and de-escalation. Instead he declared all war to be morally evil and to end your friendship with God. I am not objecting to the lack of a caveat, but to the presence of false teaching.
That is not nit picking. If there is no such thing as a just war, then there is no way to maintain the capability of it justly, and the Pope should immediately disband the Swiss Guard, and the US should disband the Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, and National Guard, and the members should confess the sin of having joined. If there is such a thing as a just war, than the Pope should not be claiming there isn't.
This sounds a bit like saying that because the abused spouse has almost certainly committed sins against their abuser as well, they are wrong for not just kissing and making up. Our own moral faults do not require us to be doormats. The fact that no nation has ever had a military that operated perfectly in accord with just war doctrine does not mean that wars can never be fought.
I would say in most cases waging offensive war does rupture ones relation with God.
Killing civilians in the name of pursuing geopolitical gains is not a mark of holiness.
Either way the pope was clearly calling out the Iran war not making a doctrinal statement about all defensive wars. Your "why don't you disband the Swiss guardxl" comment seems exactly like if you started nit picking your priest on forgiveness
Well said. If action had not been taken in the past, we would still be subjects of the King of England, there would be no Jews left in the world - they would have all been killed, and the world would be all speaking German.
Prof Edward Feser has some very helpful posts on Twitter/X on just wars and previous papal condemnations of "all wars". Yes, it does go back to way before Vatican II.
Just war theory goes back at least to St. Augustine, I expect well before that.
I'm not on X.
Of course. The question Feser was addressing is this: can it be right for a pope to speak out against all wars, if there is such a thing as a just war?
Or: is it "modernism" to speak out against all wars?
I'd think it would depend how he does it.
If he decries all wars as grave and horrendous physical evils, that's something like pointing out that the sun is bright - and there are people who seem not to have quite realized that, so full speed ahead.
If he says that waging any kind of war will cause God to no longer hear your prayers, then he's wrong. The soldiers protected by St. Therese of Lisieux, and St. Joan of Arc are some counter-examples, but there are many more.
This post summarizes his points well. I don't think you need to be on X to read it.
https://x.com/FeserEdward/status/2043143531095785512?s=20
I think that some of us forget that there were real discussions under Obama and Biden that churches might have to perform homosexual weddings and cover abortions or face violation of federal law. While you might say that violates the Constitution, there are liberal justices on the SCOTUS that would likely disagree with you. While I don't like the bickering and am deeply disturbed by the egotistical, blasphemous graphic -- I have to keep in mind what is at stake. Pray for all involved.
While I don't think that withdrawing support in the midterm elections is a good idea, I do think it's a good idea for people to push back against the excesses, mistakes, and errors of those they support. Which is exactly what happened with that particular graphic, and is probably why it was posted for less than an hour.
I am less worried about SCOTUS destroying religious liberty (at least for the next decade or so, thanks to Trump's picks) than I am about religious orders and organizations and businesses and individuals being persecuted via lawfare. The state of New York is going after some Dominican nuns, and while they have no hope of getting their laws past the Supreme Court, they certainly can waste a lot of the nuns' time and money, and interfere with their work, and frighten others into submission.
Interesting analysis! But honestly I don't think his attack on the pope had any strategy at all, he just has the emotional regulation of a toddler and lashed out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"The White House, including through the Catholic vice president, JD Vance, accused the USCCB of using the resettlement of “illegal immigrants” to pad its “bottom line.”"
This made me think, would The Pillar do an investigate piece looking into the history of the American church in supporting immigrants and migrants? I've been seeing this conspiracy pop up all over the place and it's horrible for Catholics to genuinely suggest our bishops engaged in migrant and refugee resettlement for financial gain or political power.
the church helped with legal refugee restettlement, a good thing that they helped and were contracted by the federal government to assist with.
This is good public policy and virtuous activity and is a matter of public record.
the church didn't do this for financial or political gain and its disappointing the current admin decided to not only not pay the USCCB for the work they had done in refugee resettlement but also curtailed the legal refugee program and cut aid to refugees in other countries.
Not paying people for work they performed has been one of the man’s trademarks for decades.
I think that it was also known that Catholic Charities were supplying maps to direct people to the border as well as other assistance, thus enabling illegal immigration and even trafficking.
what is your source on that?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/red-cross-maps-migrants/
I can't actually find anyything on Catholic Charities, though I do recall similiar things being done or posted at local offices. Catholic Charities is primarily at the Diocese level so not every one does everything the other is doing, but the Archdiocese of NY for example posted this document which encourages illegal immigrants to reside in the US. https://catholiccharitiesny.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Know-Your-Rights-Eng-Spa-1-17-25.pdf
I see nothing objectionable about offering information that helps people in need in the same way that my church stocks in their adoration chapel information material for homeless people but we aren't encouraging homelessness.
also educating people about their rights and how to interact with law enforcement is good.
The difference in your comparison is being homeless is not inherently illegal. Illegally immigrating is.
The more accurate comparison would be if the Church offered information to people who are too poor to afford food on how to steal. Obviously the Church encourages no such thing, because theft is theft, just as illegal immigration is illegal immigration.
"also educating people about their rights and how to interact with law enforcement is good."
Interestingly they do not educate illegal immigrants on how to return to a country they are legally allowed to reside in, or how to turn themselves into said law enforcement. A man commits theft to feed his child and I hope a priest would encourage him to make amends, but a man illegally comes into the country and no correction in behaviour is encouraged.
For one, here is a link of the Jesuits aiding the path.
https://americanjesuitsinternational.org/project/accompanying-migrants-in-the-darien-gap/
https://jerseycatholic.org/religious-congregations-help-us-bound-migrants-stranded-near-the-darien-gap
From a Heritage Foundation study, we know that various NGOs including Catholic Charities transported the illegal aliens / migrants north.
https://static.heritage.org/2022/BorderNGOMemo.pdf
I am mistaken on Catholic Charities working south of the border. Other Catholic groups were. From Congressional testimony,
"Organizations associated with the Catholic Church, collectively, moved among the largest volumes of cash and other aid into the hands of U.S.-bound foreign nationals, more than $26 million. Three Jesuit-associated groups moved some $5.3 million into immigrant hands, while the Catholic Commission for Social Justice sent out nearly $2 million.
The highly visible Catholic Charities USA is not on the list of those working south of the border with this UN project, although the NGO and its many affiliate components receive tens of millions of dollars in federal awards to manage illegal immigrant transportation north from the border and resettlement activity in the United States interior."
if i recall correctly those "federal awards to manage illegal immigrant transportation north from the border" was things like unaccompanied minors and other things for people with open immigration cases.
Would you agree its good to provide such services to people? Rather than have people be thrown out on the streets to starve?
There have been people in this comment section who have suggested (or stated more strongly) that our bishops have definitely been on the take with respect to migrant and refugee resettlement, in pieces that The Pillas has reported on. It's incredibly disheartening to see.
"There have been people in this comment section who have suggested (or stated more strongly) that our bishops have definitely covered up sexual abuse, in pieces that The Pillar has reported on. It's incredibly disheartening to see."
I will bow and kiss a Bishop's ring, but there is a reason I do not kiss the man.
"I've been seeing this conspiracy pop up all over the place and it's horrible for Catholics to genuinely suggest our bishops engaged in migrant and refugee resettlement for financial gain or political power."
This is not horrible to suggest at all. In fact, it's prudent as Catholics to except the reality of our fallen nature. Man falls to sin, this includes a desire for money and power. The clergy is not immune to this. Church leaders are not immune to this. The financials check out that migrant and refugee resettlement resulted in a significant financial gain for the USCCB, and individual diocese. This does not mean that was everyones perogative who was involved, but it's not horrible to recognize that money and power are corrupting forces.
Can you imagine it's the 1980's "I've been seeing this conspiracy pop up all over the place and it's horrible for Catholics to genuinely suggest our bishops engaged in a coverup of sexual abuse for financial gain or political power". People do bad things sometime, and it's up to everyone to keep an eye out for the thorn and plank in other's eyes, it is the loving, neighborly thing to do.
https://www.osvnews.com/audited-financials-show-claims-the-church-profits-from-refugee-work-just-wrong/
“Audited financial statements by an outside firm show that the USCCB received about $122.6 million in 2022 and about $129.6 million in 2023 in funding from government agencies for refugee-related services. But the same statements show that the USCCB spent more on those services than the government gave them, meaning the conference did not profit from the grants, according to the conference’s auditors.“
Sadly, this is not how financial statements or money works. How much infrastructure does 100+ million dollars a year provide? How many employees? How does this influx of money affect the economies of scale of a large organization? If the USCCB spent 1 extra dollar a year over what the government gave does that mean the USCCB didn't benefit from government contracts?
The only question we actually have an answer to is the last one, and it's of course no. You clipped off the last sentence of that paragraph. "In 2023, for example, the conference spent $134.2 million for such services." Spend less than 5 million dollars and get 130 million in government contracts is quite a steal.
Huh? This is a non-profit. If you have evidence that bishops are pocketing money from catholic charities, provide it.
A non-profit means that the organization is tax exempt and funds are reinvested into the "mission" nothing else. The NFL was a non-profit from 1942-2015. The CEO of Red Cross very famously makes sickly amounts of money, $1,313,605 a year per CharityWatch.
For what it's worth, I don't think the Bishops are pocketing money from Catholic Charities, nor did I ever say that. There is a difference between financially benefitting from government contracts and theft or fraud. I hope you can appreciate that difference, and discuss that with me instead.
Happy to discuss. Interesting that you cite the Red Cross CEO salary. Can you point to anyone in Catholic Charities grossly overpaid? I understand that some people can use alleged non-profits as personal piggy banks and pet projects, but I haven't seen evidence of same with Catholic Charities. Who is "financially benefitting" from migrant resettling? You are making the claim, that this simply must be for someone's benefit, but have not provided any proof.
And to be clear, I consider myself a conservative, who did not vote for Ms. Harris (interpret that as you'd like), and was quite against Biden's border policy (but am likewise against Trump's sledgehammer approach). But having policy disagreements doesn't mean that Catholic Charities is doing something untoward by using government funds to help immigrants, or that it is open season to accuse them of same with no evidence.
From what I'm witnessing, Trump lost a LOT of Catholic support last night & is not going to get it back. Leo sees Trump's game & is not playing it. Leo's refusal to play on Trump's terms will ultimately backfire on Trump. The midterms are not going to go well for the Republicans by way of current trends, & Trump just all but guaranteed another major blow.
And the alternative is a party that prosecutes those who pray in front of abortion clinics and who sue the Little Sisters of the Poor. Some of us can see beyond the chaos. Despite obvious flaws, Trump has not lost my political support.
Oh EA, save your political hate for Breitbart. The Pope like the left cares for the poor, the oppressed, the sick. Join us.
Or in your political only world- join the pedophile enablers who want to kill 90 million Iranians.
See the difference? What transpired last night was a watershed moment. Usually people come together at this time.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your political hatred is on display. EA did not exhibit it in their comment.
Have you thought about what it *would* take for him to lose your support?
Or does your disdain/fear/hatred/disgust regarding the other party reach such a level that the only thing that would do it would be for him to…become one of them?
Interestingly, there are two main ways to look at voting. Lesser of two evils voting is valid, and has been not only encouraged but considered the norm by many Catholic leaders. The other method is a perfect person vote, where though the person is never going to win you cast your vote for them because they truly align to the closest a candidate reasonably can to your position.
In the first scenario, voting for Trump could and will by many, still be considered reasonable. I don't think many people who vote via the second method voted for Trump in the first place.
Trump is convincing some people to vote via the second method instead of the first, but when it comes down to it, every presidential candidate for the past 150 years that hasn't ended up assassinated has royally broken their campaign promises, and injured the American people deeply. All we have are if's and but's of what would have happened had someone else won, and it's not unreasonable to assume it would be worse or better. So we will just continue as we have done for a long time, just deciding between Evil 1 and Evil 2.
And we will just continue along minimizing and justifying whichever one of the evils we've chosen to support, coming to resemble them ourselves more and more over time...that's simply human nature, and the main moral hazard in choosing to support wildly unfit candidates bereft of virtue.
Kevin, you pose an interesting question. For me to abandon support of the administration, they would have to go down a policy route that results in curtailment of our God given rights, for instance, that of free speech, freedom of religion, property, etc. They would need to endorse national actions that weaken our nation and the value of our citizenship. They would need to put us on the trajectory that most of Western Europe and Canada are currently on. Until Trump, the uniparty of the Republicans and Democrats were painfully placing us on a similar path. In the end, it is one of personal oppression and even suppression of religion. Our freedoms and nation have been paid for by the past sacrifices of others. It is morally wrong to squander that.
In converse, I would ask you how bad would the Democrats have to be for you to support Trump? By the way, the argument that you would support a 3rd position doesn’t work as we live in a 2 party system.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply.
In my view, the current administration has amply demonstrated that it is a recurring threat to multiple God-given rights, and it is squandering many things that have been paid for by the past sacrifices of others, from the health of our civic life and political culture to the strength of our alliances and trade relationships and more. There is a lot of misery ahead in the medium- to long-term, and I don't think it'll be long before even the president's base dearly misses many things their faction has been merrily burning down.
I know you won't remotely agree with all that, and I'm clear on what your reasoning is. I'm simply seeing different things and weighing them differently, and there's surely nothing we'd be able to say to change each others' minds, even if we do manage to understand each other's reasoning better over time.
We're also simply in completely different mental universes as to your final points. I think it is a logical and moral error to believe that anything the Democrats have ever done or would ever conceivably do makes their opposition more acceptable in any way...or vice versa, and yes, the opposite case is of course made every day too. ("Vote Blue, no matter who!") I catch about equal flak from both Team Blue and Team Red for my position, and it's uncanny how often they use the exact same arguments on me, only with the ideological polarities reversed. (Which I...do not find convincing, to say the least.)
And I am a longtime unapologetic ticket-splitter and third-party voter. At the last general election I voted for candidates from four different parties and at least one other non-party independent; and in the ten presidential elections I've voted in so far, I've voted for a major-party nominee less than half the time, and the winner only once. I have very few regrets about any of it...and the lion's share of those regrets stem from times I played along with the partisan game rather than bucking it.
Do you see any solutions to this? Should we do away with political parties? Should we have 5 major parties rather than 2? Should we elect a president like a pope, with a 2/3 majority? Because our system is broken.
I agree with EA, though, I think the path that Europe and Canada is on is worse than what we are experiencing. I believe the unintended consequences of "progress" and technology, communication, AI, and many other factors have thrown this world towards a place it has not experienced or thought it would.
The problem, I'm afraid, is not in our system...it's in ourselves.
Without sufficient formation in both democratic-republican civics and classical virtue, any people under any system will have a hard time remaining free for long.
The main thing I can do personally is work on this at the micro level; and that is indeed often a primary focus of most of my day's work.
(When I can avoid distraction and discouragement...he says, in an online combox.)
What you mention is utterly trivial. The Trump administration has done far worse to Catholics. The Republican Party now strongly supports abortion rights. They removed pro-life from their platform. They are finding Planned Parenthood hard a higher amount than under Biden. They are providing federal regulations to guarantee access to abortifacients, removing the ability of states to regulate them.
The Bible makes clear that anyone who impedes or harms aliens in the slightest way will be slain with the sword.
Trump has made it clear that he sees himself as Jesus. Or he is suffering from advanced dementia. Take your pick.
Jesus made clear that those who worship false gods, I.e. Trump, cannot be saved.
Choices matter.
This is not accurate. Just this month, the administration has put forth a 2027 budget with the directive to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortionist entities. When Roe v Wade was overturned due to a concerted effort by the MAGA movement, there was hardly a whimper of thanks by the Catholic Church. I suspect that some of the anti-Catholic rhetoric we are seeing on the right now is a response to that. When some are too busy congratulating themselves on their social consciousness, they lose the bigger picture. And so goes the Catholic hierarchy.
I think Trump suffers from ego inflation and his blasphemous graphic causes me to pray for him to a greater degree. Hopefully, the pushback that he has received will help him reconsider his view of Providence. Nevertheless, I will not overlook the positive impacts of his policies on the nation and what is at risk if our bastion of freedom fails.
From the Our Sunday Visitor Catholic News Service, last week:
"The Trump administration signaled it would provide another year of Title X grant money to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, the day before those funds were set to expire. The move prompted condemnation from leaders of pro-life groups.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a March 31 statement the decision was “an inexplicable slap in the face to the pro-life GOP base.”
Support for IVF and support for mifepristone (backing legislation to take away the ability of states to regulate it) is support for abortion. End of story, Nothing else matters.
This is from April 6 on Planned Parenthood's own website...I would say they are a reliable source for this.
"PRESIDENT TRUMP RELEASES BUDGET THAT ATTACKS HEALTH CARE, “DEFUNDS” PLANNED PARENTHOOD HEALTH CENTERS — AGAIN: It often feels like Groundhog Day (the movie) here in Washington, D.C., and Friday, when President Trump released his proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027, was no exception.
In a copy-paste of his Fiscal Year 2026 budget, President Trump’s proposal once again calls to “defund” Planned Parenthood health centers. This comes as Congressional Republicans have proposed their own plan to permanently “defund” Planned Parenthood."
From the National Right to Life website,
"A renewed effort to defund Planned Parenthood is moving forward—and it relies on a strategy that has already worked once before.
At the center of this effort is the “Title X” family planning program, which distributes federal tax dollars for services such as birth control and health screenings. While by law, these funds cannot be used to pay for abortions, as pro-life advocates have long pointed out, giving taxpayer money to organizations that perform abortions still helps sustain those operations.
During his first term, President Donald Trump put a stop to that funding stream through what became known as the “Protect Life Rule.” That rule required any organization receiving Title X funds to refrain from performing or promoting abortion.
Faced with that choice, Planned Parenthood chose to leave the Title X program rather than comply—giving up tens of millions of dollars in federal funding.
Now, that same approach is coming back.
According to recent reports, the administration is in the process of reinstating—and strengthening—the Protect Life Rule. A new version of the rule is currently being drafted and moving through the regulatory process.
April 3’s “2027 Notice of Funding Opportunity” made clear that funds may not be used “in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”
While funding has temporarily continued under policies put in place during the Biden administration, that is expected to change. “The administration has issued the fifth and final year of Title X grants that were locked in place during the Biden presidency,” the White House told EWTN News in a statement.
Madison LaClare, National Right to Life’s Director of Government Affairs, explained that the updated rule will once again require a clear choice. Any group that receives Title X funds must either stop performing abortions or stop receiving taxpayer dollars.
In other words, organizations can choose to do one or the other, not both.
Defunding Planned Parenthood does not require Congress to pass a new law. Instead, it can be accomplished by enforcing common sense conditions on how federal funds are used.
The Protect Life Rule does exactly that. It does not single out one organization by name. Rather, it applies the same standard to all recipients: if you receive taxpayer funding for family planning, you cannot be involved in abortion.
If the rule is finalized, it is widely expected that Planned Parenthood will again decline to comply—resulting in the loss of millions in federal funding.
For pro-life Americans, this represents a significant opportunity. It shows that policy changes—especially those rooted in existing law—can have real impact.
By ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not entangled with the abortion industry, the Trump administration’s Protect Life Rule offers a clear and effective path forward."
You don't think they might misrepresent things to try to get more donations? So, no, I don't consider them a reliable source.
If you think Planned Parenthood is a more reliable source than the president of the March for Life and the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, well that is revealing.
There is truly very very little need for Planned Parenthood when abortion pills are sent in the mail freely.
I agree that many "maga" people have made Trump a false god but you seem to imply that anyone who voted for him or the Republicans are worshipped him and I think that is incorrect. I think these comments make clear that many Catholics don't feel at home in either political party and are weighing lesser of two evils. I'm not going to judge anyone who comes to a different decision than me because again, both parties and the personalities running them have deeply problematic aspects.
There are other parties. Look closely on your ballot for where the individuals running for office stand. Automatically exclude from consideration those who support abortion, whether as pregnancy reduction in the case of IVF or in the killer pill or in surgical abortion. If all the candidates support the killing of the unborn, then look at other issues to see which candidate comes closest to respecting all others. Vote for people, not parties.
I generally agree on 3rd party candidates. I have voted 3rd party in probably about half of the Presidential elections of my lifetime. However, more recently, being on the brink of national calamity has caused me to reconsider this for certain points in time.
I think we are past the point of being on the brink of national calamity and are already in it. I would say our only hope is doing what Our Lady of Fatima requested we do: Offer our personal difficulties up for sinners, pray the rosary daily for world peace, make the First Saturdays, amend our lives and repent for our sins. Look up Father Petrus Pavlicek OFM Cap to see what happens when we listen.
This is exactly where I stand.
Agree. My question is will right wing Catholic outlets see subscriber loss if they don’t push back harder.
Let's remember to pray for our Pope. 18 flights, 25 planned speeches all in 10 days for this current tour of Africa. We are blessed to have him, and more important than getting bogged down in political shenanigans, let's support him with our prayers.
This is the way!
Did you hear about the suicide bombers? Yes, please pray for our Pope!!!
The president’s comments about the Holy Father are disrespectful and uncharitable but ultimately just noise to me. That a hotheaded man with a history of saying stupid, irreverent things said them about the Vicar of Christ is utterly unsurprising and largely unremarkable. What deserved total repudiation was the president’s generation of an image of himself as Christ. While I’m glad the bishops defended the Vicar, I wish they would have condemned the image. Maybe they would have stopped short of labeling it blasphemous, though I openly called it that on my own social media. They should have sternly addressed it.-
I've been charitably assuming that since it wasn't up for very long (due to all the Trump supporters protesting it on social media) they missed the opportunity. But the image does rank a bit higher in importance as far as I'm concerned too.
I do wish they had responded to his accusations toward them, of shutting down Mass, preferably with a resounding promise not to do so again, and to protest the government heavily if it forced them again or otherwise violated the religious rights of Catholics.
I think engaging him on those points would be a mistake. He 100% does and says things to provoke people not to reach conclusions. He wasn’t personally wronged by decisions about church closures in 2020, I don’t want to see any US bishops responding to him in this context.
True enough. But that particular point was not aimed at provoking the bishops. It was aimed at provoking the Catholics (the 20% or so who actually go to Mass) who are still hurting from those shutdowns, having never received any apology from the bishops. They may not have any responsibility for Trump, but they do have a responsibility to the Catholics subject to them.
Even if they waited a few weeks and then talked to Catholics about it, ignoring Trump entirely, they'd do better then just letting it continue to rankle. Trump's criticism was valid, even if it didn't touch him personally, and even though he did have something of a hand in the closures. It would be silly for the bishops to refuse to make amends to Catholics just because they don't like Trump.
I don’t understand how Trump’s criticism is valid when he’s the one who forced the shutdowns. He was the president at the beginning of Covid and oversaw all the shutdowns. Has he forgotten that part?
By saying it's valid I do not mean that Trump is a good guy and the bishops are bad guys. I mean that his criticism of the bishops for shutting down the Mass is correct.
This does not mean that Trump's influence on the shutdowns was OK, or that he doesn't deserve criticism for not opposing the shutdowns that the state governors/legislatures ordered (there were states that didn't shut down). We do not make ourselves immune to criticism by correctly criticizing others.
But it is valid to criticize wrong things, even when you also do wrong things, and even when you do the same kind of wrong things. For example, if you're familiar with the examination of conscience based on the 10 commandments, where there are a whole lot of sins related to anger included under the commandment against murder. Still, no one thinks it's invalid for a judge who commits sins of anger or impatience, even grave sins, to sentence a person who committed assault.
When you say "Trump's influence on the shutdowns," it makes it sound like Trump was removed from the process or operated at a distance, which was not the case. My point is that Trump's comments make it sound like someone else was responsible for the shutdowns, completely overlooking that it all happened on his watch, with his blessing and approval or more, and it's really odd now for him to act like that was someone else's doing entirely.
There is so much beef to be had with bishops if we allow ourselves to be affected by it. If someone is holding grief that can only be resolved by the bishops "making amends" - that is sad. And it would be resolved by whoever is president of the USCCB standing up and saying "On behalf of the bishops, I apologize for closing churches in 2020."? Or do they need to do particular acts of penance that would meet the criteria of those who feel grief? Should they contribute to a reparations fund or create Covid grief gardens like they have for abuse victims? Should they also apologize for every really horrible interaction that someone has had with a priest over the years which resulted in the person leaving the church? These are just rhetorical questions.
Very narrow request: bishops apologize to those they harmed by their wrong decisions, at least when it's their entire diocese that they harmed. It's not exactly asking them to act contrary to the Gospel. A couple bishops have even proved that they are capable of it.
It should be clarified that Bishop Barron is on the Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom. Barron’s remarks on religious freedom make complete sense when this context is not bizarrely omitted from the article.
He functions as a de facto diplomatic envoy to the administration. If the President were criticizing the leader of France, for example, nobody would be surprised if the French ambassador emphasized some specific good things the administration had done for the U.S.-France relationship while respectfully demanding an apology. That’s just the job description of a diplomat.
Fair point Stenny. The issue others are raising is why Barron is still on the Commission and if Leo needs to “Dolan” him out of the Church.
What are you suggesting when you say the Pope needs to "Dolan" him out of the Church? The cardinal remains in good standing within the Catholic Church.
Not so sure about that. It was the Tablet magazine I believe who quoted some insider a few years ago that claimed Dolan seemed to care more about being in the FoxNews studio than St Patrick’s.
Barron is on a similar path. And from what I heard is in full panic mode today.
I like Dolan and Barron but when you align with a known pedophile at the expense of the poor, it won’t end well for you. The USCCB is conservative but they understand not getting to close to the fire.
Yes, because the bishops would never align themselves with pedophiles 🙄
My thoughts exactly, LOL
Whether an unnamed "insider" source has particular credibility, I can't judge, but it sounds outlandish as I understand Dolan celebrated Sunday Mass at St. Patrick's at 10:15 most every Sunday. According to his twitter page, he was often visiting schools, prisons, etc. How often did he appear on Fox? Is there a difference between Dolan going on Fox and Fr. Jim Martin often going on Colbert or CNN?
To be sure, I'm disappointed with Barron's qualification in his statement, but where has he sold out the poor? Or Dolan, for that matter?
I can't help but notice you avoided answering my original question. What do you mean for Barron to be "'Dolan[ed]' out of the Church?" You want him removed after he reaches retirement age?
Please stop the spin. There are other Cardinals the same age than Dolan in the US. You may have seen two just last night on 60 minutes. Look- Trump comments and actions are disturbing. Even the Lamp, the same paper the Pillar was promoting, came out with an article tonight asking if Trump is the anti-Christ.
Here is a blurb from the Lamp that the Sean Hannity types won’t tell you “No president, no medieval king, no emperor or modern dictator has ever publicly represented himself as Jesus Christ or claimed for himself the ability to raise the dead. To Catholics the posting of this image is, or should be, the most profoundly offensive act imaginable, a grave public sin that brings shame to, and invites God’s judgement upon, our nation.”
Agree.
I’m with Pope Leo. You pick your side, I’m certain Jesus has his side picked.
You can call it spin, all I'm asking is for you to back up what you're saying about two bishops with anything but conjecture.
I can't say I'm surprised you're not addressing any of my points given that you have no facts to offer in defense of your claims. Even when you do try to assert a fact, that there were two cardinals on TV last night older than Dolan, you are wildly incorrect. Cardinal Tobin is more than two years younger. Get better at debating! For what it's worth, Cardinal DiNardo, who was not regularly on Fox News or other outlets you dislike, was even younger than Dolan when he retired from leading Houston. Retirements happen for a multitude of reasons.
Where we are in full agreement that Trump's comments and actions are disturbing. I'll even go one step further than you and declare him unfit for office. I thought so as far back as 2016. I wouldn't go so far as calling him the anti-Christ, however. Again, anyone making such a claim better have some facts to support it.
I'm with Pope Leo. I'm not sorry to disappoint you with that!
Why does one have to pick a side? Trump is my President and Leo is my Pope. I support both. I voted for Trump and support him for his policies and his ability to do what he says he is going to do, Make America Safe, Prosperous, and Great Again. I did not vote for him for his political correctness. YES, there are times I shake my head in disbelief of what comes out of his mouth or what he posts. His wife and children have the same reactions. But Trump is Trump. He loves this country, gets things done, is an excellent negotiator, and will do the right thing. He is not a pedophile, as you continually state. He reflects more Catholic values than the Catholic president who preceded him.
Pope Leo wants peace but he does not have the responsibility of keeping a nation safe, he doesn't have the intel Trump has.
The two need to sit down and have a good chat.
Known Pedophile? Please back up with facts.
crickets . . .
Well, there is an actual nuncio. I don't see any real analogy between Bishop Barron and a diplomat.
Sacred Scripture would read very differently than it does if the prophets and apostles in its pages had viewed themselves in such a way.
I agree, but couldn't you turn this argument against the way *a lot* of the hierarchy is speakign to Democrat politicians? I see no reason to single out Bishop Barron for being diplomatic with an administration that he tries to work with.
Sure, probably. But I see no reason to take a side-trip to Whataboutland in this particular sub-thread.
Oh, I was wondering why I both experienced a resistance to the animosity against Bishop Barron's response, and at the same time felt like I had thought exactly that thought many times, and I think it's exactly this: That church leaders have been so hopelessly diplomatic again and again that it seems to me to be a bit of fresh wind that he takes the trouble to criticize Trump before pointing out what a pleasure it is to work with him.
When last I checked Barron is the Bishop of Winona-Rochester, MN and any political appointment he has taken is (or should be) entirely subordinate and in service to that role. Maybe the Pillar should send a correspondent to Minnesota to see how the hoi polloi are feeling about their Ordinary.
Although in fairness, some recently charged that Barron was neglecting his diocese during Holy Week, and it was instead proved that he had presided at all Holy Week services in the Cathedral. Apparently this involved constant flights back and forth from Washington to Minnesota all week long.
Bare freaking minimum. I expect his people will remember all that airfare and lodging when being hit up by the chancery's annual appeal.
Which was a bizarre accusation from Christopher Hale because Bishops holy week liturgies are important starting on Holy Thursday. The events he was doing in DC were earlier in the week on Monday and Tuesday.
I'm not sure this is just a diplomat thing. Generally speaking, if you are attempting to make peace, acknowledging the good that another person has done is helpful. Similarly in arguments, it is frequently helpful to clearly state your agreement with the person you disagree with on those things that you do agree on. Not as a substitute for pointing out problems, but as a way to build and maintain the basis that you work on the problems from.
That he would choose religious freedom specifically to compliment Trump on makes sense given the Commission.
seems like Barron shouldn't be on that meaningless committee if he feels the need to cater to the administration so much.
He isn't a diplomat to the administration, there's already a nuncio for that.
History has shown it is much better to be in the room, particularly with a leader you don't trust, than to walk out of it (the Russian revolution is a good example - never walk off the committee because you don't like the people in charge). It is much better for US Catholics that he be on that committee and have a voice, even if it is ignored.
I'm not 100% convinced it's better; but I do think it's fair to to say that Bp. Barron's engagement falls well within the Church's current approach to engage with civil leadership (ie. trading the risk of being perceived of approving/lending legitimacy to a regime's evil actions; in exchange for being in the room/keeping open communication/the chance to mitigate the worst excesses). The church has these kinds of friendly-ish engagements with far worse governments than the US all over the world.
that implies that the committee gets him in any rooms of importance.
But it doesn't, the committee is a meaningless PR thing.
We will deeply regret allowing ourselves to get used to this sort of behavior.
For those more interested in an application of just war theory to the current war, then in the political statements and counter-statements (and non-statements) tangentially related to it:
https://www.undergroundthomist.org/is-the-war-in-iran-just
Agree or disagree with the conclusion, I think it's a good example of what it looks like to apply Church teaching to a specific issue.
Love his writing!
Have you read any of his books?
I’ve read portions of “How to Stay Christian in College”, but I haven’t read any of his more academic titles, or for that matter his popular style philosophy titles, but I have been reading him since his olden times writings for the “Boundless” online publication produced by Focus on the Family. I think that was his “Office Hours” column. I enjoy his perspective and his writing style. He’s very clear. He reminds me of a slightly less cheeky Peter Kreeft.
But only *slightly* less cheeky!
I'm... getting around to one of his books. :)
I believed you misspelled "this is offensive, blasphemous [bleep] and we at the Pillar will finally cease engaging in both-sides-erism to validate people and retain the subscriptions of those who prefer Trump to the Holy Father."
I love you. Thank you for posting this. Here is hoping courage will finally take over partisanship. Barron needs to resign from the Commission.
I am pretty harsh on Catholics who (in my view) abandon their principles to support Trump, but in my opinion JD and Ed are among the few figures in Catholic media who actually hold Trump accountable and I really don’t think we need 1000 words of angry fuming from Ed to get the point across. If anything staying a step removing and calmly recounting the situation makes Trump look even worse.
Nearly as bad as full throated MAGA support is entertaining the notion that such support is an acceptable "prudential choice" for Catholics to make.
Objectively, the other side supports legal abortion and has a growing contingent in support of assisted suicide. We exist in a system that is a two-party state with two parties that are (increasingly) hostile to life. If we're talking about the "seamless garment" of life issues, both parties fail. The GOP struggles further in care for the poor and the immigrant, but the Democrats struggle further in social and cultural issues and growing hostility towards faith. Neither of these parties are good
I don't know that the Pillar has ever argued that "full throated MAGA support" is an acceptable "prudential choice" (and if you feel they have, I'd ask you for a citation as to where), but considering that neither party has a consistent ethic of life, many Catholics *do* have to make a prudential judgment as to which, profoundly flawed, party they will support in elections. To disagree with your personal judgment on that matter is not sinful and does not make them bad people.
I'm not here to debate political "sides". The bottom line is you cannot serve both God and MAGA. Other choices are downstream of that objective moral reality.
If all you're saying is that, we don't disagree and I've never read anything in this publication that would suggest they disagree with you either. But you seem to be insisting that the Pillar disavow a position they've never taken or even hinted at. It's not even a position that's popular in the comments, there are a few very pro-Trump people, but it's never been a sizable crowd so I'm not even sure who you think Ed and JD are afraid of upsetting
We serve God; MAGA serves us. The policies of the administration have strengthened the United States. If you have not noticed, we are one of the last bastions of freedom in this world. Both religion and speech are under attack in places as familiar as Canada and Western Europe. If we fall, darkness falls on the world.
As to flaws in the President or MAGA, sure they exist. God uses imperfect vehicles for His end. Do you think it is an accident that Christ came to Earth at the time of the Romans? The Catholic Church was able to expand rapidly because of the existence of the Roman Empire. The Romans were imperfect, even to the point of persecuting Christians, yet they were helpful to spread God's Word. There is a bigger picture than Trump is mean.
"Us." Mmk. Please leave the rest of us out of that.
Not sure anyone cares who holds Trump accountable anymore. The issue is holding those Catholic Bishops who look the other way for personal gain. The same Bishops who compared Charlie Kirk to St Paul as an example.
You would think an Easter post about removing 90 million people would give the attention seekers some pause.
You would also think the unprecedented attack on the Pope by the US President would force some back to the faith, but instead we see why the Sanhedrin are featured so prominently in the Gospels.
That's not the job of a journalist, at least the (good) kind of journalism Ed and JD publish here. If you've ever listened to The Pillar podcast, you would know that they are not fans of Trump and don't engage in "both-siders-erism."
I'd agree it's not the job of a reporter but it is the job of an editor of a publication.
It would be appropriate for an editorial, definitely, to take a point of view like you're suggesting, which is not what this piece is. I couldn't actually recall The Pillar publishing any editorials, but when I search the site I found exactly one, and it said this at the beginning: "Editors’ note: The Pillar does not, as a rule, publish editorials — we reserve the expression of our opinions to our twice-weekly newsletters." Maybe Ed and JD will write another editorial some time, but this is not it.
Genre notwithstanding, when the editor of a publication opines (even in the form of "analysis"), one can assume it is at least consonant with the approach or position of the publication. And I happen to think the "above the fray" approach with regard to MAGA has long been craven and increasingly untenable and I am sad that these journalists whose work on a variety of topics (abuse, financial crimes, etc) I appreciate and admire is tarnished by their inability to "let your yes mean yes and your no mean no."
A really good way to keep losing is to treat people who agree with you about 80% as more foes to be argued with than allies to work alongside.
Mark 8:36
It’s puzzling to me why some choose to criticize the President’s language, but not the President’s and his administration’s innumerable abuses of the human person (rape, killing of civilians, threats of nuclear annihilation, theft, lying, calumny, support of IVF and abortion drugs, urging political violence, inhumane detention, family separations, et cetera et cetera et cetera).
AMEN.
Because he's better than Kamala?
What does that have to do with anything? That debate ended almost 18 months ago, and it doesn't defend any of Trump's actions.
People keep quiet because however bad they think he is they also think he's better than the alternative and crushing him now would strengthen the other party. It's just the way it is.
You mean like the rapes that occurred during the border surge, discussions of winning a nuclear war against Russia, 10% in payoffs to the Big Guy from China, arresting those praying outside abortion clinics, suing the Little Sister's of the Poor for not covering abortions, describing Antifa as peaceful protesters, holding children in cages? Oh wait, all of these happened under Biden and Obama. If you were not vocal about these, do not pretend to hold moral high ground.
I think we should call out all abuses of the human person, no matter what party the person or administration belongs to. I believe Pope Leo wants all souls to be saved, and so he is inviting everyone, including this president and his administration, and other past and present politicians, to abandon a culture of death and follow Christ.
Many conservatives seem to have forgotten who was president in 2020. Trump not only fully supported the lockdowns, at one point he claimed governors couldn’t lift restrictions without his permission even if they wanted to. The only restrictions on public worship came during the Trump Administration!
I was thinking about that too -- from his post, it sounded like Trump forgot he was the head of state in 2020 who forced all those lockdowns and social distancing. He's condemning what he did at the time without even realizing it.
There may be something to this: “as part of a mutual exchange between Leo and Trump, as though they were equal participants in a performative public clash of personalities…” My March 1 article: Ambassador Burch’s Moment: “Today, even after everything we’ve seen from this administration, Burch talks about Catholics Vance and Rubio, about a “Catholic “trump” moment” in the United States.” — They may be aiming to get the Vatican’s blessing via TB for their “program” which runs contrary to the Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, specifically: “The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.” Burch and like may want to reverse this. They will push, and push, hqve 47 take it even further. Do what they can to get Christ’s vicar to kneel to them. He would gladly go the way of Saints before he did that. Time for the world’s bishops to unite in defense of Christ’s Church now under attack.
Anyone who knows Church history knows that this same situation between some powerful political leader and a Pope has played out about 500 times already. In this case there is very little chance that Catholics in USA will be deprived of privileges, freedom, or their lives because Pope Leo took the expected Pope position of condemning a war. File under Tempest in a Teapot.
From an actual theological perspective, Pope Leo's use of the word "communion" in a tweet about Catholic-Muslim relations today was much more interesting.
Kind of an odd move to turn comments off on the other post from today.
I was wondering about that, as well. I thought perhaps the Pillar team decided this issue was one they’d prefer not to open to comments, so I was surprised when this analysis style piece permitted comments while a more roundup “straight news” style piece barred comments.
Maybe they want to have only one firestorm comments section to monitor.