The Pope has issued a letter (It’s in larger type at the link than what you’ll see below) to the “Bishops of the United States of America.”
Ethics verdicts: Abuse of position, abuse of authority, grandstanding, hypocrisy, breach of responsibility and intellectual dishonesty.
Nice job, Your Holiness.
Because you are likely to be semi-conscious or have your brains splattered on the ceiling from serial head-explosions after reading this thing, I’ll make my other ethics observations now:
1. I’ll pay attention to the Pope’s dictates about how my country handles illegal immigration when the Vatican lets anyone who feels like it move into Vatican City because it will give them “a better life.” Instead of sending the “worst of the worst” to Guantanamo, let’s send them right to the Pope. Based on this screed, I’m sure he’ll welcome them with open arms in the spirit of recognizing the inherent human rights of “the most fragile and marginalized.”
2. Anyone who uses the migration practices that existed in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago as an analogy to 21st century policy issues in the United States of America is either a con artist, a liar or an idiot. The same goes for comparing Jesus to fentanyl smugglers. Fans of the Pope can take their pick. It’s an indefensible, insulting, reductive argument. Nobody should make such comparisons who are over the age of six; for a major world figure revered by millions to stoop to it is signature significance for demagoguery.
3. The Pope admonishes Americans not to equate illegal conduct with criminal conduct. Funny, I just looked up “criminal conduct” and the definitions all boil down to “Criminal conduct is an unlawful act that breaks the law.” Call me a nit-picker, but it sure seems that breaking our laws to come into and stay in the U.S. is the equivalent of a criminal act.
Maybe it’s a language thing. Does “not criminal” in Italian mean “lawbreaking that the Pope regards as excusable if one is ‘poor and marginalized’?
4. “Love builds a fraternity that is open to all without exception.” Gee, when did John Lennon become Pope? Most of the letter is a less tuneful version of “Imagine” crossed-bred with a few of John’s other most facile efforts. No borders, no nations! “Love is all you need!” How insulting.
5. My vote for the worst line in the whole, cynical, infuriating diatribe: “7. But worrying about personal, community or national identity, apart from these considerations, easily introduces an ideological criterion that distorts social life and imposes the will of the strongest as the criterion of truth.”
Easy for him to say: there are no mosques or synagogues in Vatican City.
6. Incredibly, the only predecessor Francis cites in the letter is the controversial Pius XII, the Pope during World War II who maintained public Papal neutrality while the rest of the civilized world was battling evil. Pius also used weasel words to express disapproval of Hitler’s genocide without ever condemning the Nazis by name.
Naturally, the Catholic Church declared him a saint.
7. From Catholic Culture
If the Pope’s primary goal is to uphold human dignity and expose injustice, it is curious that he addressed this letter—by far the strongest political statement of his pontificate—to the bishops of the United States. He might, for example, have denounced the injustices perpetrated by the Communist regime in China, with its suppression of democracy and religious freedom, its brutal treatment of ethnic minorities, and (since Pope Francis is keenly interested in “our common home”) its deplorable level of pollution. But this Pope has remained silent about injustice in China. In fact under his leadership the Vatican has done everything possible to ingratiate itself with the Beijing leadership, while one of the Pontiff’s key allies actually cited China as a model of Catholic social teaching!
And if the Pontiff wanted to bring the principles of Catholic social teaching to bear on the American scene, why did he never denounce the Biden administration for its worldwide promotion of abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender ideology? Pope Francis has, to his credit, frequently complained about the “ideological colonization” practiced by powerful nations that have foisted their destructive ideas on the developing world, using their financial clout as leverage to further the sexual revolution. Under the leadership of President Biden, a Catholic, the US was the world’s most powerful force for this ideological colonization.
Ethics Alarms 
One planeload of TDA migrants dropped off at the gates of the Vatican will expose the BS this is,
As long as that plane has about 250,000 migrants. They’d easily be able to handle a couple of hundred from a standard commercial airlines load and then flaunt their virtue in everyone’s face, but 250,000 is an entirely different condition. They’d collapse under that kind of influx and they’d dump it all off on their extended congregation and excommunicate anyone that didn’t fall in line. The church will always win even if they have to destroy their congregations in the process.
Good point. I thought of that after I shot my mouth off. It is this kind of BS that caused me to keep the Catholic Church for the last 58 years.
Great idea, CM. Cots in the Sistine chapel. Tents all around outside St. Paul’s. Bunk beds inside St. Paul’s. Porta-potties all around. Soup kitchens. Medical tents. Free wi-fi. Surely the Vatican Bank owns some luxury hotels here and there that they could turn over to immigrants.
Actually, a plane load or two dumped into Vatican City would work. Look at what happens in Martha’s Vineyard. One busload of 60 – 70 migrants cratered the city. They were gone in less than 48 hours.
jvb
I look forward to some atheist main stream journalist, use this letter as a “gotcha” with JD Vance. Much lamentation will be heard.
Looking forward to the day the Jesuits are declared a heretical sect within Catholicism.
I cannot muster any defense of Pope Francis on this one. The following is what is official Church teaching on a nation’s ability to restrict immigration:
In this is clearly stated that, while prosperous nations have an obligation to welcome the foreigner, this is not anywhere near a demand of accepting everyone carte blanche. The United States has official ways for people to migrate into the nation. We can debate if the US is too restrictive and should expand the number of immigrants it legally allows, but it is clear that those who hop the border in defiance of official channels are failing to uphold the duties the CCC lists here, namely to respect and obey the laws of the receiving country.
The most I can conclude is that Pope Francis has not been well informed on, despite his assertion of closely following, the extent of the crises this flood of unchecked illegal immigration has caused. It isn’t simply concern over national identity, though that is a legitimate worry. The humanitarian crises include trafficking, essentially slave labor, and stress on communities that are incapable of handling the high rates of incoming illegals.
Jack finds paragraph 7 to be the most mind-blowing, but frankly, I find paragraph 2 to be the most egregious.
Mary and Joseph fled with the child Jesus down to Egypt, yes, but there was a large Jewish community in Egypt at the time, and they undoubtedly dwelt amidst that Jewish community. Furthermore, in terms of boundaries, Judea and Egypt were both territories of the Roman Empire. Even setting aside the fact that the modern notion of the nation-state did not exist back then, the Holy Family was not traveling across major political borders. Instead, it would be more akin to someone from Wyoming fleeing down to Colorado.
Nevertheless, I will stress that there are important factors we should remember in dealing with all these illegals. They are human beings and should be treated as such. There is always the temptation to dehumanizing those whom we don’t desire among us. Holding them accountable for illegal entry is one thing. Excoriating the traffickers, molesters, thieves, and murders found among the illegals is vital. But dehumanizing them is a grave wrong. In addition, the ordo amoris that has now received national attention, thanks to JD Vance, cannot be an excuse to utterly dismiss the concerns of people who are far away. Those who are closest to us are those toward whom we have the highest responsibility, but that does not mean that we can focus all our attention on our inner circle and let the rest go rot. I cannot materially support everyone in the world, nor can I give even a moment’s thought to every individual in the world, but I can at least pray for the world at large, for those I hear who have undergone disasters, or for those individuals who are prominently in peril far away. I can also contribute some of my wealth to pool with the wealth of others to care for those who are far away.
I’ve defended Pope Francis against those spinning his words, or tried to offer clarifications that help put his words into a more understanding (and ethical) framework. But this written document seems to speak for itself quite well, and is indefensible. I’m not about to stop being Catholic, and Pope Francis is my Pope. I’m just disappointed.
The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able… This got me to wondering if the U.S. is one of those “more prosperous”. Is the “more prosperous” merely an illusion emerging from the federal governemtn spending 20% above actuall revenue? That 20% being spent creates employment in a way that puts the economy itself on the dole at the macro level.
Is the “more prosperous” merely an illusion emerging from the federal government spending 20% above actual revenue?
This is one of the reasons why Pope Francis’ document is so troubling. The Catholic Church offers a great many guidelines in the moral realm, but implementing them in the political realm is a matter of imperfect prudential judgment. How prosperous is the United States? I can probably argue that we’re very prosperous, even with the debt hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles. Certainly if I look at my own finances, I know I feel stretched at times to make additional donations, but that is largely because I do spend so much on luxury items for myself and my family. The United States is in a similar boat. It could afford to give all kinds of aid to foreign countries, or welcome in a great many more people, but it struggles at the moment because of all the wasteful spending. Certainly on the books right now we’re running in the red, and that has to be addressed before we can realistically turn to help more people who aren’t US citizens.
Surely, if Pope Francis has been following what is happening in the United States, he should understand that the US needs to pause and clean house, bail out the ship, and restore order before much else happens. Deporting all those illegals is one of those steps. Send the people out and let them follow the appropriate channels. Send the message that the appropriate channels must be followed. Otherwise the goose will die and there will be no more golden eggs.
Hubby would like to agree with you, and add “If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow”…sometimes John got it right! 🙂
One of the reasons my late wife was so fond of both versions of John’s “Revolution.”
Baiting me, are you?
I’m just leaving work now and I insist on spending time with my son and my dog. I will rebut you and your commenters when and if I can, because you know of course that I must. But I don’t know if I feel it’s worth my dwindling time on this earth to scream into this void.
Oh, but for the Pope???? Surely he’s worthy your valuable time!
Wow! That’s breathtaking!
I would not presume to debate Biblical understanding with the Pope, even though I am not a Catholic. I will say that I was always taught that we were to obey the laws of God and man, because the authorities were part of God’s design. Where the two were in conflict, we were to obey God’s law.
But clearly, those who are coming to America with the intention of illegally immigrating are violating both the laws of God and man. The Pontiff fails to address this problem, excusing them as victims of poverty, insecurity, etc. No doubt this is sometimes true, but there are many countries that might be willing to accept them, including the United States if they attempt to immigrate in accordance with our laws.
But the main thrust of the Pope’s comments seems to be those who are already here illegally. He claims that deporting them in accordance with our law “damages [their] dignity.” Perhaps that is so, but these people, regardless of their reasons for being here illegally, are in fact in violation of the law. If we ask them to leave and go elsewhere, they will refuse. That is not, in fact, the act of a dignified person. It is neither dignified nor just to ignore laws that are inconvenient to you. It is neither dignified nor just for you to demand others take care of you, or give you opportunities that rob them of their treasure or security.
So the Pope is not just mistaken, he has turned Biblical principles on their head, twisting them as apologia for lawbreaking in the name of dignity. It’s both an oxymoron and an absurd interpretation of the Bible’s teaching.
Frank’s a Commie of the first order. He’s an embarrassment to the Church. How did the Cardinals end up electing him? When is organized Christian religion stop obsessing about social justice and go back to saving souls and preparing them for eternal life?
Abuse of position, abuse of authority, grandstanding, hypocrisy, breach of responsibility and intellectual dishonesty.
The Pope pontificating on world issues he seems important to pontificate on isn’t an abuse of position (pontificating is exactly what his position grants him to do so there’s no abuse there), authority (he isn’t making anyone do anything), grandstanding etc. This is literally what the Pope is supposed to do. I dont even know what intellectual dishonesty means in this context.
Gee, I do.
1. The Pope has almost always avoided direct interference with specific national policies. Iy is not and has never been that office’s place to kibitz about sovereign power: as I mentioned, the Pope even refused to do it when it involved condemning Nazi genocide.
2. Maybe using intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy in the same post is redundant, but as I pointed out, the Vatican is not welcoming of refugees or illegal immigrants, and assuming the Pope has had above a 3rd grade education, he knows that using the legal and political conditions of 2000 years ago as any kind of an analogy for 21st Century USA is absurd.
I’m not sure how what you you said addresses anything I said.
But to your point, the Vatican City is smaller than Central Park and I think the Pope would have the same opinion of Italy if they were doing the same thing. Not really comparable.
Hypocrisy, as I said. The Pope’s endorsement of taking in illegals had no exceptions or qualifiers. It was pure do as I say, not as I do. Hey, he doesn’t have to take all of them: I’d be satisfied with say, 50.
Someone needs to remind the Pope about the Golden Rule. US Presidents don’t tell him how to run the Vatican or the Catholic Church. What part of “abuse of position” and “abuse of influence” puzzles you?
but we weren’t talking about hypocrisy at all. The Pope is also just a religious figure, he doesn’t make government policy.
What do you mean “we”? I was and am. The Pope is also not “just a religious figure.” He’s an authority figure and a leader.
We as in our conversation, as in you’re changing the subject. Yes he’s a leader, I dont Know what “authority figure “ means in the capacity that he has no authority to change the immigration policy of Italy.
Do you always debate like this? He’s a world authority figure because inexplicably millions of people think he’s really and truly a pipeline to God. When he uses that authority to intentionally try to control other nations—that is, other than the Vatican, which he oversees and has sovereignty—and their policies, he is abusing his position and authority. That is why, traditionally, Pope’s speak in broad generalities and do not specify which nations and leaders and populations he is implicitly criticizing.