I hope this virtue signaling idiocy costs them dearly. I will not contribute to the annual diocesan appeal this year, and it may be many years, if ever, before I do so again. They hope that Trump is an anomaly and that they soon will get back on Caesar’s payroll again to facilitate human trafficking by the millions. They have little but contempt for the people in the pews who disagree with this.
Nothing evacuates the meaning of the concept of “human dignity” quite like the overuse and misapplication of it.
This Sunday we will have to sit through the insipid Diocesan Appeal from the Mother Church of our recent occupant of the White House.
Not one cent to be given to that slush fund.
“They have little but contempt for the people in the pews who disagree with this.”
Yeah it’s noticeable and if you’re not on board (with the James Martin program and/ or believe in Holy Tradition) there’s excommunication.
“Tradition” is now a dirty word.
“Schismatic” now means not in our control and not submitting to silence.
Oh and “Synodal” means listening….
George Orwell would be proud.
“The Archdiocese of Maceió (Brazil) issued a note warning that attending the traditional Mass outside the one location authorized by the archbishop will be treated as “public schism” and will incur “automatic excommunication.”
https://www.gaudiumpress.ca/brazilian-archbishop-declares-automatic-excommunication-for-priests-celebrating-the-old-mass-outside-authorized-chapel/?amp=1
To the USCCB I give the traditional one fingered submarine sailor salute.
Ezekiel 34:1-10
1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 Mortal, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel: prophesy, and say to them—to the shepherds: Thus says the Lord God: Ah, you shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep. 4 You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured, you have not brought back the strayed, you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them. 5 So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd; and scattered, they became food for all the wild animals. 6 My sheep were scattered, they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill; my sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with no one to search or seek for them.
7 Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 As I live, says the Lord God, because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild animals, since there was no shepherd; and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep; 9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 10 Thus says the Lord God, I am against the shepherds; and I will demand my sheep at their hand, and put a stop to their feeding the sheep; no longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, so that they may not be food for them.
I would rather listen to the SOTU than a Bishop appeal. One is truthful and the other is not.
I am still waiting for the Bishops to define terms like “human dignity,” “inviolable rights,” and “immoral” when it comes to the issue of immigration and laws of a country. What I conclude from their remarks and usage of these terms is that by “being human” we have the “right to violate the laws of a country” or to appropriate these terms, as it is convenient according to whatever we want to justify. Could it be due to that many of the Bishops are children of illegals too? Or perhaps that after so many years of receiving State and Federal money for illegal settlements, now that they don’t get it anymore, they have too much free time and don’t know how to use it?
There are so many flaws and so many goals to accomplishing in the mission of the Catholic Church! It baffles me to see them so focused in immigration while neglecting to spread the gospel, to make the name of God known and worshiped throughout the country and the world, to find the lost sheep, to gather the flock, to study deeply the word of God, and seek the truth.
Where were the Bishops during Covid? They didn’t hesitate to close the doors of the churches and leave whole parishes without administering the sacraments to the hungry, the ill or the dying! Are they all the sudden lawyers that want to impose their own civil laws even when they are against the laws of the country and the wishes of the popular majority who elected President Trump?
Let us respond with action! No more contributions to the ADA this year or in years to come!
I read the amicus.
There are basically two parts. The first claims that birthright citizenship predates the Civil War and goes back to traditional English Law, as well as Roman law. I don’t know enough legal history to evaluate this, though I’m pretty sure Roman citizenship was not granted by your place of birth.
The second part is the defense from Catholic teaching. This is the part that is not really an argument. There main idea cited is that all humans have inherent dignity, which is definitely true and the teaching of the Church. But this is never really connected to birthright citizenship. There are some statements that just assert a relationship without explaining it (ex. “Birthright citizenship accords with the Church’s teachings concerning the State’s obligation to uphold and protect human dignity because it treats birth within a community as a sufficient and objective basis for political belonging.” But why does defining “political belonging” by birth specifically have anything to do with one’s dignity?) In this case, the very next sentence contradicts the claim: “The Church teaches that equal human dignity is inherent in the mere fact of personhood and does not depend on citizenship, immigration status, or parentage. ” (But if that is the case, it would follow that not being a citizen does not remove the inherent dignity of a person.) Similarly there is a long discussion of what subsidiarity means (an actual good and something advocated for by Church teaching) but barely any attempt to say that Birthright citizenship is necessary for promoting subsidiarity.
Later it is said that not having birthright citizenship is immoral because it makes some people into “others” and it denies people the ability to affect the politics in the place where they live. But note: none of these arguments have anything to do with Birthright Citizenship. If it is immoral to make human beings into “others” and if denying someone citizenship makes them into an “other” then it follows that every person on Earth must be made into a citizen, regardless of where they were born. Similarly, if it is immoral to deny citizenship because it denies people the ability to affect the politics of where they live, then it would follow that anyone present in the US, including illegal immigrants, students on temporary visas, etc. would have to be immediately granted citizenship even if they were not born here. These conclusions are absurd, so by reductio ad absurdum the premises must be false, which means that these arguments also do not work for birthright citizenship.
Next it is said that birthright citizenship is necessary to not oppress the alien, which God has commanded since the time of Israel. But note that aliens in Israel were aliens, i.e. not citizenships of the nation of Israel, so the idea that aliens are oppressed unless they are granted citizenship is incoherent. And of course if this reasoning applied it would apply to all aliens, not just the ones born here, so this has nothing to do with birthright citizenship as such.
Next it is argued that this will weaken the family structure, as if a child is not a US citizen the family may be separated. I don’t even really understand the argument here: if the child is considered a citizen but the parents are not, would not that make it more likely to have the family be separated? The argument seems to be that if the family was deported and the parents were citizens of one country but the children were stateless, then it is possible that the same country that accepts the parents (either as returned citizens or as refugees) might not accept the children. I guess this does address birthright citizenship in some way (perhaps the first moral argument that actually does, rather than arguing that we should have broader citizenship in general and then arbitrarily limiting it to birthright citizenship) but it is too hypothetical and reliant on corner cases to be a serious political argument.
Here on some quotes from Thomas Aquinas. First, from the commentary on Aristotle’s Politics:
“He says then, first of all, that for the present we must exclude those who are called citizens in a certain way, that is to say, metaphorically or by comparison, for these are not really citizens.
The first way is by residence. People are not said to be truly citizens by the fact that they reside in a city, for foreigners and slaves reside in a city and yet they are not citizens absolutely speaking.
The second way is that some people may be called citizens because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the city. Thus they share in the justice of the city in that at times they obtain a favorable verdict and at other times they are judged, that is to say, condemned. But this is also true of people who are bound by contracts and who are not citizens of the same city. In certain cities, however, foreigners do not share perfectly in this justice, like the citizens, but must present a sponsor, that is to say, someone who vouches for their obedience to the law, if they wish to litigate. Hence it is clear that outsiders share imperfectly in the interchange of justice and so, in this respect, they are not citizens absolutely speaking but can be called citizens in a qualified sense.”
From the Summa Part Two, question 105, article 3, discussing foreigners wanting to become part of Israel:
“With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people. Hence it was that the Law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob’s brother), that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation; whereas others (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship; while the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity: for it is written (Exodus 17:16): “The war of the Lord shall be against Amalec from generation to generation.””
As for that diocese in Brazil threatening excommunication if one attends…I’ll be happy to to to Mass there. I have no time for stupidity.
“ since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”
Self defense of every sovereign person who has human dignity and the citizenship wherein this sovereign person might live in freedom without fear of criminals.