McFadden, a 2017 appointee of President Donald Trump, said during a hearing Thursday USCCB might have the better of the two arguments in the long term. In the short term, though, he said the organization had failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm by having to shoulder the burden of funding its programs until he can rule on a preliminary injunction.
Go here to read the rest. I think our bishops are about to find how expensive it can get to fight with Caesar in Caesar’s court over Caesar’s gold. I doubt if most of the bishops have any idea how bad this looks to the Catholics who attend Mass each week and whose donations keep parishes afloat. Most of the bishops took a vow of silence when it came to the Federal government being weaponized against Catholics during the previous Administration, but they head directly to court when their money for engaging in the human trafficking of illegal aliens is threatened. Hapless Bench of Bishops indeed.
Dale Price observing who did and did not receive episcopal sanctions in a particular Connecticut diocese some years ago identified the bishop’s operative principle to be ‘don’t screw with the money’. These characters are telling you that it ain’t just one bishop who thinks that way.
Sensible judge. How embarrassing to all Catholics, but especially the Catholics of the US. They are treating the Faithful with utter contempt. Let’s hope and pray the next Pope will push a wide broom through the Church. Please God.
I mentioned this in another post a couple of days ago, but it bears repeating: with President Trump’s vigorous enforcement of our immigration laws, the flow of illegal immigrants has slowed to a trickle. For example, in El Paso, Texas a month ago a Catholic Charities shelter was processing 3000 undocumented migrants every month. Since Trump’s inauguration their volume now averages 12 persons per day.
Which raises the question: if the very reason for the USCCB to be receiving those millions of taxpayer dollars is drying up, then why are the bishops complaining that they aren’t still being paid in the manner to which they’ve become accustomed?
I find it quite bizarre that Catholic Bishops who have been given grants of tax payers money to fund their various schemes are so pissed that the gravy train has stopped, because the purpose for the funding has ceased, that they are prepared to litigate to keep the gravy train running, and they are benefitting from being tax exempt anyway. I wonder if the IRS may decide to check into other funding activities ?
Don, I’m just an IP litigator so don’t know how to do this-please enlighten: want to file a motion in the heretical criminals suit so that judge rules that their use of “Catholic” is 1. Not universal and 2 doesn’t include me or Jesus Ty for your thoughts. Guy, Texas
I think the operative principles should be that ‘grants, subsidies, and contributions’ to private corporate bodies are verboten except for disaster relief and that those to governments are few in number and have a strictly defined set of properties. Cash transfers to households should be for (1) disaster relief, (2) veterans, (3) the elderly, (4) the disabled, (5) niche clientele which fall outside the ken of state and territorial government, (6) those with discrete injuries, (7) the interstitially unemployed, or (8) take the form of matching funds for earned income. Subsidized services for households should be for (a) medical care, (b) long term care, (c) schooling, (d) legal services, or (e) shipping and transportation. For the latter two, the subsidies should be on the margin. Another principle: subsidies are not delivered through tax preferences.
Haven’t read the court documents and don’t plan to, but I’m struggling a little with the notion that the Chief Executive cutting off money being paid through an Executive Branch agency, without any apparent accountability to, or specific appropriation from Congress, is somehow unlawful. Biden refused to spend money specifically appropriated for a border wall, yet Trump is supposedly legally bound to keep the bishops’ gravy train running? Not buying.
Am I to surmise that the USCCB is essentially suing for a breach of contract? I don’t know the legal niceties of any of this, but as Frank said above, the common sense approach is to wonder how executive branch discretionary funding being withheld can be considered unlawful.
The USCCB is showing itself to be a drug addict that is just upset its supply has been cut off, nothing more.
Can anyone find me the verse where Jesus tells us that when someone requires your cloak, sue until they give it back?
It wasn’t even their cloak!!
Whatever happened to separation of Church and State?
art,
Sadly, I think the USCCB has aimed to function according to a “generous” interpretation of each of those criteria.