Statue of St. Peter in front of St. Peter’s Basilica. / Credit: Vatican Media
National Catholic Register, Oct 2, 2023 / 02:34 am (CNA).
Five cardinals have sent a set of questions to Pope Francis to express their concerns and seek clarification on points of doctrine and discipline ahead of this week’s opening of the Synod on Synodality at the Vatican.
The cardinals said they submitted five questions, called “dubia,” on Aug. 21 requesting clarity on topics relating to doctrinal development, the blessing of same-sex unions, the authority of the Synod on Synodality, women’s ordination, and sacramental absolution.
Dubia are formal questions brought before the pope and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) aimed at eliciting a “yes” or “no” response, without theological argumentation. The word “dubia” is the plural form of “dubium,” which means “doubt” in Latin. They are typically raised by cardinals or other high-ranking members of the Church and are meant to seek clarification on matters of doctrine or Church teaching.
The dubia were signed by German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, 94, president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences; American Cardinal Raymond Burke, 75, prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura; Chinese Cardinal Zen Ze-Kiun, 90, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong; Mexican Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, 90, archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara; and Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, 78, prefect emeritus of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
The same group of senior prelates say they submitted a previous version of the dubia on these topics on July 10 and received a reply from Pope Francis the following day.
But they said that the pope responded in full answers rather than in the customary form of “yes” and “no” replies, which made it necessary to submit a revised request for clarification.
Pope Francis’ responses “have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them,” they said in a statement to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s partner news outlet. They therefore sent the reformulated dubia on Aug. 21, rephrasing them partly so they would elicit “yes” or “no” replies.
The cardinals declined the Register’s requests to review the pope’s July 11 response, as they say the response was addressed only to them and so not meant for the public.
They say they have not yet received a response to the reformulated dubia sent to the pope on Aug. 21.
The Register sought comment from the Vatican on Sept. 29 and again on Oct. 1 but had not received a response by publication time.
The cardinals explained in a “Notification to Christ’s Faithful” dated Oct. 2 that they decided to submit the dubia “in view of various declarations of highly placed prelates” made in relation to the upcoming synod that have been “openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church.”
Those declarations, they said, “have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of goodwill, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman pontiff.”
The initiative, the cardinals added, was taken in line with canon 212 § 3, which states it is a duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church.”
The practice of issuing dubia has come to the fore during this pontificate. In 2016, Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller along with late Cardinals Carlo Caffarra and Joachim Meisner submitted a set of five dubium to Pope Francis seeking clarification on the interpretation of Francis’ apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, particularly regarding the admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to the sacraments. They did not receive a direct response to their questions.
In 2021, the DDF issued a “responsa ad dubium” giving a simple “no” to a dubium on whether the Church has “the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex.” That same year, the Dicastery for Divine Worship issued a responsa ad dubia on various questions relating to the implementation of Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’ motu proprio restricting the Traditional Latin Mass.
Then in January of this year, Jesuit Father James Martin directly sent Pope Francis a set of three dubium seeking clarification of comments the Holy Father had given the Associated Press on the issue of homosexuality. The pope replied to the questions with a handwritten letter two days later.
What both dubia contain
The first dubium (question) concerns development of doctrine and the claim made by some bishops that divine revelation “should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether divine revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted.”
The cardinals said the pope responded July 11 by saying that the Church “can deepen her understanding of the deposit of faith,” which they agreed with, but that the response did “not capture our concern.” They reinstated their concern that many Christians today argue that “cultural and anthropological changes of our time should push the Church to teach the opposite of what it has always taught. This concerns essential, not secondary, questions for our salvation, like the confession of faith, subjective conditions for access to the sacraments, and observance of the moral law,” they said.
They therefore rephrased their dubium to say: “Is it possible for the Church today to teach doctrines contrary to those she has previously taught in matters of faith and morals, whether by the pope ex cathedra, or in the definitions of an Ecumenical Council, or in the ordinary universal magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25)?”
In the second dubium on blessing same-sex unions, they underscored the Church’s teaching based on divine revelation and Scripture that “God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and blessed them, that they might be fruitful” (Gen 1:27-28), and St. Paul’s teaching that to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Rom 1:24-32). They then asked the pope if the Church can deviate from such teaching and accept “as a ‘possible good’ objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?”
The pope responded July 11, the cardinals said, by saying that equating marriage to blessing same-sex couples would give rise to confusion and so should be avoided. But the cardinals said their concern is different, namely “that the blessing of same-sex couples might create confusion in any case, not only in that it might make them seem analogous to marriage, but also in that homosexual acts would be presented practically as a good, or at least as the possible good that God asks of people in their journey toward him.”
They therefore rephrased their dubium to ask if it were possible in “some circumstances” for a priest to bless same-sex unions “thus suggesting that homosexual behavior as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God?” Linked to that dubium, they asked if the Church’s teaching continues to be valid that “every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular homosexual acts, constitutes an objectively grave sin against God’s law, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place and the intention with which it is carried out.”
Question about synodality
In the third dubium, the cardinals asked whether synodality can be the highest criterion of Church governance without jeopardizing “her constitutive order willed by her Founder,” given that the Synod of Bishops does not represent the college of bishops but is “merely a consultative organ of the pope.” They stressed: “The supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the pope by virtue of his office and by the college of bishops together with its head the Roman pontiff (Lumen Gentium, 22).”
The cardinals said Pope Francis responded by insisting on a “synodal dimension to the Church” that includes all the lay faithful, but the cardinals said they are concerned that “synodality” is being presented as if it “represents the supreme authority of the Church” in communion with the pope. They therefore sought clarity on whether the synod can act as the supreme authority on crucial issues. Their reformulated dubium asked: “Will the Synod of Bishops to be held in Rome, and which includes only a chosen representation of pastors and faithful, exercise, in the doctrinal or pastoral matters on which it will be called to express itself, the supreme authority of the Church, which belongs exclusively to the Roman pontiff and, una cum capite suo, to the college of bishops (cf. can. 336 C.I.C.)?”
Holy Orders and forgiveness
In the fourth dubium, the cardinals addressed statements from some prelates, again “neither corrected nor retracted,” which say that as the “theology of the Church has changed,” so therefore women can be ordained priests. They therefore asked the pope if the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and St. John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which “definitively held the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, is still valid.” They also sought clarification on whether or not this teaching “is no longer subject to change nor to the free discussion of pastors or theologians.”
In their reformulated dubium, the cardinals said the pope reiterated that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be held definitively and “that it is necessary to understand the priesthood, not in terms of power, but in terms of service, in order to understand correctly Our Lord’s decision to reserve holy orders to men only.” But they took issue with his response that said the question “can still be further explored.”
“We are concerned that some may interpret this statement to mean that the matter has not yet been decided in a definitive manner,” they said, adding that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis belongs to the deposit of faith. Their reformulated dubium therefore comprised: “Could the Church in the future have the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, thus contradicting that the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the sacrament of orders, which the Church cannot change?”
Their final dubium concerned the Holy Father’s frequent insistence that there’s a duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution. The cardinals asked whether the contrition of the penitent remains necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, “so that the priest must postpone absolution when it is clear that this condition is not fulfilled.”
In their reformulated dubium, they note that the pope confirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent on this issue, that absolution requires the sinner’s repentance, which includes the resolve not to sin again. “And you invited us not to doubt God’s infinite mercy,” they noted, but added: “We would like to reiterate that our question does not arise from doubting the greatness of God’s mercy, but, on the contrary, it arises from our awareness that this mercy is so great that we are able to convert to him, to confess our guilt, and to live as he has taught us. In turn, some might interpret your answer as meaning that merely approaching confession is a sufficient condition for receiving absolution, inasmuch as it could implicitly include confession of sins and repentance.” They therefore rephrased their dubium to read: “Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?”
Vatican context
The public release of the documents, obtained by the Register and other news outlets, comes two days before the opening of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, a pivotal and highly controversial event in the Catholic Church.
The gathering in Rome marks a historic moment for the Church because for the first time in its history, laypeople, women, and other non-bishops will participate as full voting synod delegates, though the pope will ultimately decide whether to accept any of the assembly’s recommendations.
Pope Francis, either directly or through the Roman Curia, has previously addressed the topics brought up by the five cardinals and their dubia.
On the issue of the development of doctrine and possible contradictions, Pope Francis has frequently described a vision of doctrinal expansion grounded in a particular understanding of St. Vincent of Lerins’ maxim that Christian dogma “progresses, consolidating over the years, developing with time, deepening with age.” The pope has said doctrine expands “upward” from the roots of the faith as “our understanding of the human person changes with time, and our consciousness deepens.”
For instance, the Holy Father has said that while the death penalty was accepted and even called for by previous Catholic doctrine, it is “now a sin.” “The other sciences and their evolution also help the Church in this growth of understanding,” the pope said. In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis said that this kind of approach might be considered “imperfect” by those who “dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuance,” but “the reality is that such variety helps us to better manifest and develop the different aspects of the inexhaustible richness of the Gospel.”
On the topic of blessing same-sex unions, which have been pushed for in places like Germany, the Vatican’s chief doctrinal office, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, weighed in on the matter in 2021, clarifying that “the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex.” However, some have speculated that, in spite of the DDF text referencing his approval, Pope Francis was displeased by the document. Relatedly, Antwerp’s Bishop Johan Bonny claimed in March that the pope did not disapprove of the Flemish-speaking Belgian bishops plan to introduce a related blessing, although this claim has not been substantiated and it is not clear that the Flemish blessing is, in fact, the kind explicitly disapproved by the DDF guidance.
Regarding the DDF text, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin cited it in his criticism of the German Synodal Way’s decision to move forward with attempted blessings of same-sex unions, but he also added that the topic would require further discussion at the upcoming universal synod. More significantly, new DDF prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, a close confidant of Pope Francis, stated in July that while he was opposed to any blessing that would confuse same-sex unions with marriage, the 2021 DDF guidance “lacked the smell of Francisco” and could be revisited during his tenure.
Regarding the authority of the forthcoming synod, although Pope Francis has expanded voting rights in the Synod of Bishops beyond the episcopacy, he has also repeatedly emphasized that the synod “is not a parliament” but a consultative, spiritual gathering meant to advise the pope. The pope did adjust canon law in 2018 to allow for the final document approved by a Synod of Bishops to “participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter,” though only if “expressly approved by the Roman pontiff.”
On the possibility of the sacramental ordination of women, Pope Francis reaffirmed in 2016 that St. John Paul II’s clear “no” via Ordinato Sacederdotalis (1994) was the “final word” on the subject. In 2018, then-DDF prefect Cardinal Luis Ladaria confirmed that the male-only priesthood is “definitive.” In a 2022 interview with America magazine, Pope Francis again affirmed that women cannot enter ordained ministry and said that this should not be seen as a “deprivation.”
The pope has established two separate commissions to consider the question of a female diaconate, but the first, historically-based commission did not come to any definitive consensus and the second, focusing on the issue from a theological perspective, seems similarly unlikely to offer univocal support for a female diaconate. However, the synod’s Instrumentum Laboris does ask if “it is possible to envisage” women’s inclusion in the diaconate “and in what way?”
Finally, regarding withholding absolution in the confessional, the pope has previously referred to priests who refrain from offering absolution for certain moral sins without the bishop’s permission as “criminals” and told the Congolese bishops in February that they must “always forgive in the sacrament of reconciliation,” going beyond the Code of Canon Law to “risk on the side of forgiveness.”
Jonathan Liedl, senior editor of the National Catholic Register, contributed to this story.
[…]
Francis needs to stop interfering with the political will of the people of the USA.
But look what this Pope does in his own little nation:
“Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties for Illegal Aliens Crossing its Border
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/16/vatican-promises-stiff-penalties-for-illegal-aliens-crossing-its-border/
I agreed. Our current Holy Father never adored our President Trump and the mass illegal immigrants have already destroyed the safety and security of American people to have peace in living. Did our Pope consider the huge human trafficking to cause Americans in taking the fentanyl to death and mental crush, the rapes, the sexual business? Right now, President Trump is trying to clear up and clean up the Deep State their unending corruption at least for the past 20 years. Our Pope is sitting inside the Rome and giving the sarcastic remarks how terrible for what the United States of deportation of illegal migrants. I am as a cradle Catholic just so sad to hear what his ridiculous and nonsense and critical comments without constructive advices instead using the Bible to be kind of manipulation. No wonder our Mass have so many empty pews. It’s upset me after Pope Francis as our Holy Father, there are many young Catholics converted to other churches. I wish our US Bishops should require the entire American Catholic Churches in praying the movement for Trump’s administration instead condemning his greatest and beneficial policies. I heard someone suggested how about our Pope to take over those American illegal immigrants to Rome if he doesn’t concern about the safety of American peoples life. Sorry I hate to criticize our Holy Father but since he’s Pope, all I see he is more cling to communism because he never spoke one word to condemn Hong Kong government how to arrest so many innocent protestors.
Of course no such letter regarding the democrats’ pro abortion and pro transgender lgbtq policies. Not being consistent just indicates a political preference.
I agree that this is disturbing. However, I doubt that sending letters to Democrats would make any difference. Pres. Biden (and other Democrat elected officials in the U.S.) professes to be a “good Catholic” but utterly ignores the Catholic (and many Protestant sects’) teaching against abortion. Of course, we could be charitable and contend that Pres. Biden was just suffering from the onset of old age “confusion”–but many Catholic-professing politicians are certainly in their right minds and still support “the right of a woman to choose to kill her child.” Even Bluey (the beloved cartoon dog from Australia) recognizes that a baby in the womb is a baby! God be merciful to Americans!
Agree jbg. No apocalyptic crisis statement about abortions in the U.S. (including as a media event at the Democrat National Convention) or the transgender surgical mutilation of confused and manipulated children. Those statements would have been welcomed.
Respect for human dignity of all? Yes, definitely. But open borders and no immigration that is illegal. A profoundly political statement that certainly can be ignored by faithful Catholics.
The beam in thine own eye prevents the seeing of dignity, order, charity, civility, justice in another. Does the pope have any claim on any US Catholic citizen except canonically? He himself should recognize the rigid legalistic pharisaism in putting forth a canonical argument. We note the words and we note the shape of the tongue putting them out.
Sorry Francis, wrong again! In a nation governed by the rule of law, the law comes first. We are to uphold the dignity of law abiding, tax paying citizens first and foremost. If you’re so cover about immigrants, open up the Vatican City to migrants. Let us know how that goes.
Jesus the Refugee. How can any American in good conscience now oppose open borders if Our Lord himself wandered about seeking refugee status?
Agreed. I’m headed to the safety of the good life guarded by Swiss dudes tucked inside the Vatican walls.
Birds have their nests, the fox his lair. But the son of man has nowhere to lay his head. Did he not say that? He wanders in the desert seeking entrance into our miserable hearts. Yet we hesitate to dismantle the barriers that keep him outside in the cold. To offer him more than the usual tryst.
Jesus and His Father set an example for us by Giving us Laws and urging that we follow them. Jesus was not illegal. Jesus was neither sinner nor criminal. Jesus was not illegal.
Jesus was King, living in the world but not of it. Borders between sovereign nations do not keep Jesus out. Have you not heard? Jesus can go anywhere and everywhere, passing through walls, closed doors, and even hard hearts when that is His sovereign will.
My response to God’s Fool is intended to be spiritual only, not an oblique support of illegal migration, which I have consistently written against.
You’ll be arrested, sure, and maybe luck will place you in the Vatican walled prison. Francis may deliver ice cream to you.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2021/09/08/vatican-pope-francis-ice-cream/1231631103034/
How can the Vatican have walls and announce more strict penalties on illegals there? https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/01/15/vatican-cracks-down-on-illegal-entry-into-its-territory/
Jesus was not a refugee, and He would not have violated the law. We do not have open borders. The border is governed by established federal laws that must be upheld. It is a matter of law, not conscience. As a priest, you should not be aiding and betting criminal behavior.
The Holy Family were in fact seeking refuge from Herod but within another region of the Roman Empire where there were already Jewish communities.
Fr. Morello has a heart for those in need & oppressed. We all should. We should also realize that the US is by default cooperating with criminal smuggling gangs by not securing our border properly & not establishing & enforcing better immigration & visa laws. Our enabling the cartels creates more of the violence in Latin America that people are fleeing from. It’s a never ending circle of corruption & extortion that we need to put the brakes on.
I’m obliged to defend myself here because of your damaging accusation. If I’m wrong, correct me. You apparently are referring to me since I believe I’m the only priest commenting. My comments were not intended to support open borders or illegal migration. I take offense to your accusation of my aiding and abetting criminal behavior, which is slander. Serious sin.
How can anyone think that I would actually believe that “Our Lord himself wandered about seeking refugee status”? Unless he had a preset prejudiced opinion of me, because its sarcasm is so evident? You must suffer from Fr Morello Derangement Syndrome.
You have expressed support for illegal immigration in multiple posts now. Your points, though morally misguided, have, nonetheless, been perfectly clear. Recognizing that fact is not slander; it’s simply calling you out. You just don’t it like when people expose and challenge your viewpoints on the site.
If charity in respect to limited hardship cases is deemed support of illegal immigration I proudly stand guilty.
How can we not support open borders? For the same reason we support prisons–because we don’t want criminals to murder Americans, sell them drugs, run inner-city street gangs, or kidnap our kids for sex-trafficking. Decent, law-abiding people are welcome into our land, but not criminals. Adding an influx of criminals into our nation would be nightmarish for our police departments who are woefully short-staffed due to our decreasing population (due in large part to legal abortion). Let the good refugees in and welcome them with open arms–they are a part of our hope for the future of the United States! But keep the criminals OUT, please! Nations, including the Vatican, have a right to protect their borders and their people.
That comment was sarcasm Mrs Whitlock.
I hear you Father. Johnny Cash had some thoughts on this matter:
“If you’ve never fed the hungry, or given clothes to the poor
If you’ve never helped the stranger who came knocking on your door
If you forgot to send some flowers to sick and shut-in friend
Well if you ain’t helping none of these, then you ain’t helping Him
If you’ve ever seen some children, playing ball behind a school
If you’ve ever watched an old man, plowing ground behind mule
If you’ve ever stopped and listened, when you could not hear a sound
Then brother you have met Him, because Jesus gets around
Would you recognise Jesus if you met Him face to face?
Or would you wonder if He’s just another one you could not place?
You may not find Him coming in a chariot of the Lord, Jesus could be riding in a “49 Ford”
**********
How we deal with each other face to face can differ from how we enforce federal policies. But it shouldn’t be one or the other. Hopefully one day it will be both. We need immigrants. We just need them to come here safely, minus organized crime
The dignity of illegal immigrants can be upheld as they are arrested and deported in an efficient, professional and humane manner. Force may be needed, although how much depends on if they resist while being apprehended. Discrimination against lawbreakers is quite justifiable. There is some suffering associated with being jailed and expelled from a country where one has no right to be. Law enforcement should, of course, avoid brutality in carry out their duties, but sometimes some violence is required. The United States has no moral or legal obligation to take in any person “seeking a better life.” It certainly owes absolutely no consideration to anyone who came in without permission.
The act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution, or serious deterioration of the environment damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness,” he said.
That statement by the Pope is so vague that anyone can place themselves in a position where they feel they have a right to illegal enter another country. How many of the millions of people who crossed the border sought out refugee statu?
On another issue, where was the justice in the Pope shutting down the TLM.
Bare-knuckled clericalism. Is there a lay sphere? There was for Biden…
And for what it’s worth, the Holy Family were not illegal immigrants. They never left the Roman Empire. Unlike the Pope, God does not enable others to disobey laws. (See, Amoralist Laetitia.)
The Holy Family also returned to Judea once the threat was over.
The property and safety of legal citizens come first. The political scoldings of Jorge Bergoglio come last.
The safety of folks in places like Latin America is important to consider also. The more illegal entries, the more profit to the trafficking cartels and the more violence back on the home turf where they operate.
We just enable and strengthen organized crime through our lack of border security.
Equating the three members of the Holy Family and the single victim in the story of the Good Samaritan, which is also done, with the flood of immigrants coming over open borders is quite a stretch. God gave Joseph and Pharaoh a heads up about seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine to give them time to prepare. The Pope and adulthood responsibility look like they are not on speaking terms. I’m tired of him making messes and then using emotional blackmail and extortion to make others clean them up.
Can His Holiness cite an Egyptian law that the Holy Family broke when they emigrated to Egypt?
I don’t think it broke any law since Egypt, if I remember correctly, was under the Roman Empire. There were established Jewish communities in Egypt at the time also.
All I see in the comments is a grand display of the arrogance of the typical American Catholic!
Ify Oby: easy solution…don’t come here to read them.
Much like the Democrats, he seems to be on the wrong side of every issue.
Note to Francis: No one has a RIGHT to enter the United States unless we consent. Most certainly they have no claim on the many financial resources we have here.That very issue has caused great difficulty in our attempts to care for our OWN poor and needy. Its notable that he NEVER suggests these illegals have a home country of birth that should be taking responsibility for them. That they do not do so is less a reflection of lack of resources as much as greed, government corruption, crime and political power struggles. Why doesn’t he say something?? And how do these people become OUR problem?
Why does he not tell the illegals that if a country allows them entry, they have a moral obligation to obey ALL that country’s laws and not engage in crime?
I could phrase this more forcefully, but an awful lot of us would like Francis to stop targeting the US for his opinions on illegals.
What is so terrible about sending illegal migrants back to their home countries? We are not putting them out to sea on a raft with no food and water. They are not being sent to a gulag or concentration camp or sold into slavery. They are being flown back, at our expense, to where they were raised and where many still have family and friends.
Few face death (as Herod threatened the Christ Child) or imprisonment in their native countries. For those who do, we have an asylum system which has been very
much abused by healthy adults seeking more earning opportunities.
The Vatican seems totally unwilling to make vital distinctions. “Don’t confuse me with the facts.,” they seem to say.
Our asylum laws are set up so that anyone who steps foot on US soil has the right to request asylum, whether they enter legally or not. The only requirement is that they have credible fear of returning home, not facing an imminent death. Sadly a great many migrants really have been threatened with extortion & bodily harm to themselves & their families. People aren’t stupid though. That claim can also be abused to gain asylum. The more we allow cartels to bring people here, the more people will have legit claims of asylum due to increased gang turf wars back home.
If our laws need tweaking that’s on us to fix.
“Threatened with bodily harm”.. Well, thats a lot different than threatened with death. Further, why didnt they then remain in Mexico when they arrived THERE? But no, they have a bearing interest in coming to the US. Its likely because Mexico isnt so free with a peso to criminal migrants and is not putting them up in luxury hotels.
This week our Coast Guard captured a Chinese migrant trying to paddle from Bermuda to Florida!!! Bermuda is a tourist spot, how bad can it be?? Why didnt the Chinese migrant STAY there? Thats because this is NOT about safety, its about getting freebies , crime and taking our jobs in the US . Illegals go home!
AS I have said before, there are billions of folks out there who would come here if they could. Witness what happened these last 4 years. Its a catastrophe for us here. The time has come to say NO to an overflow of folks breaking in here. We cannot absorb or Americanize them in those numbers. Thats assuming they even WANT to be Americanized. I say bravo to Tom Homan and Trump for the job they are doing.
Good points. And maybe the responsible thing for them to do is to return home and try to be agents of change in their own societies rather than being burdens on ours.
I’m not a theologian, so I have a question.
If a pope is infallibly fallible, as Bergoglio clearly is, does it count as infallibility?
Why would you write an article like this?
The people of this country and the current group of deportees are at odds because one group believes in abiding by our laws and the other not only violates by crossing illegally but also committing crimes here as they did in their own country.
Wake up and get your facts straight.
By citing the Pope you purposely try to infuse your opinion by hiding behind the the authority of the Pope. Shameful!
A couple of thoughts; 1.A lot of United States illegal drug money from people in the US buying illegal drugs fueled the cartels for decades all so US citizens can enjoy their high. For Example Stevie Nicks from the famous band Fleetwoodmac admittedly spent over a million dollars on cocaine. That million really helped build up the cartels who create the violent atmosphere the some migrants have to flee from.
2. Having said that I agree that we should at least consider sending all illegal immigrants back for another reason. They will certainty change the voting power of the party or politicians that allows illegal immigration further fueling fentanyl, theft, rape, murder and terrorists entering the US. Not all but enough where both Americans and Immigrants suffer.
3. Suggestion, send them back humanely with help in their home countries. Work with their governments and provide food, safety etc where they live there. Then at least we can trust the Bishops and Catholic Charities that they are not assisting illegal activities.
Absolutely. We are on the receiving end of the drug smuggling. It takes two sides cooperating for a smuggling operation to continue, no matter what kind of contraband.
“All so US Citizens can enjoy their high”….Really?? Well, you must know about ADDICTION, don’t you? Its not so easy to kick. Ask anyone who is overweight or a chain smoker. And that stuff is easy to kick compared to drugs and alcohol. When drugs are free flowing, they are CHEAP. Therefore more people are apt to try them. You do have the Hollywood and music folk who do it to seem cool. But an awful lot of the dead fentanyl victims are young kids too stupid not to respond to a dare , or simply lacking the understanding this could kill them. Tighten up supplies of street drugs and guess what? They become too expensive for a lot of those types of young or marginal users to buy. Therefore they DON’T become addicts and they dont die. And the sex trafficking, thats the subject of a whole other long winded post. But the source is exactly the same. Creepy illegal criminals waved into the US by leftists and the Biden folk.
Its clear the Pope is uninformed on the negative impact of illegal immigration. Therefore maybe it would be smart for him to stop talking about it. He is seemingly on the side of those who bring death and violent crime into our nation. Americans are not interested in this pope’s take on the subject.
Agree with all your points and thanks for the clarification on point 1. My use of the phrase “so US Citizens can enjoy their high” did not take into account kids drug use and the need for better law enforcement. I was thinking of celebrities and rock stars when I wrote that. THx!
John Daniel Davidson on Pope Francis’ letter – The Federalist, Feb. 12.
As a Catholic, I didn’t get to vote for Jorge Bergoglio as my Pope.
I did vote for Trump/Vance as my President and Vice President.
When it comes to running our country, I’ll defer to my elected officials and ask Pope Francis to mind his own business.
I’ll defer
Thank you Miss Hannah B. for this article. I agree with Ms. Cindy Chin’s stances enraged at pontifical hypocrisy.
Seems the opposition to homegrown successful honest patriots Trump/Vance has roots in filthy lucre: evidence the scandals not well reported- of both harmful issues hurting/killing Americans -the forced Covid vax and illegal immigration- exposed the disgusting cozy relationship between Vatican/USCCB and Obama/Biden Demoncrats- who used taxpayers’ millions PAID to USCCB for THEIR support! Evil wants to destroy Democracy.
Then the Bishops sued Trump/Vance to continue receiving that $? Repentance yet I pray attending daily Traditional Latin/English Mass.
Sound reasoning, as always, Mrs. Cracker, Athanasius, et al.