Just a week after Archbishop Coakley, the new president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), met with President Trump, Vice President Vance, Secretary Rubio, and Secretary Noem, three U.S. cardinals ignored Archbishop Coakley’s elected authority and issued a statement harshly critical of the Trump administration.
And this in the wake of a very significant win that is fair to credit to Archbishop Coakley’s engagement with the administration: the new regulation that allows religious workers (priests) to remain in the country without having to return home for a minimum of a year, thereby permanently removing many priests from service in the United States.
The hubris of Cardinals Cupich, McElroy, and Tobin cannot be overstated—first with respect to process and second with respect to substance.
With respect to process, it is the president of the USCCB, Archbishop Coakley, who has been entrusted by his fellow bishops to speak on behalf of the U.S. bishops and engage the federal government. It is not the job of three Cardinals who cannot get elected to any positions within the USCCB to appoint themselves as the moral voice speaking on behalf of their brother bishops, which is what the cardinals’ statement tries to communicate.
This is a further breakdown in the collegial unity that is so important to the Holy Father. The narrative from Rome under Pope Francis was that the U.S. bishops are deeply divided. This simply is not the case. The bishops of the U.S. are largely united, but there are a small handful of rogue cardinals and bishops, certainly less than ten percent of the USCCB, who are willing to create division.
Hopefully, Pope Leo understands that the division that does exist is the result of a small group of bishops who do not respect their brother bishops enough to work through the formal channels of the USCCB. It is the USCCB that has the institutional responsibility to work on behalf of the roughly 250 U.S. bishops in a unified and deliberate way.
The action of these cardinals ignores the canonical authority of the USCCB and treats it more as a voluntary organization that can be ignored or bypassed at will. It’s impossible to ignore the sense of self-importance involved. The harm done to Archbishop Coakley’s engagement with the Trump administration is unknown but is likely significant. We can imagine President Trump and his officers wanting nothing to do with the USCCB when cardinals go off and undermine internal negotiations based on efforts to engage in good dialogue and build goodwill.
To be clear: this is not to say the USCCB should not criticize the administration for various actions. It does and will no doubt continue to do so. But the criticism should be within the context of a wider environment that the three Cardinals’ statement ignores.
The three cardinals have no claim to speak on behalf of the Church in the United States. And yet they cannot help themselves. They are the source of division.
With respect to substance, it is reasonable to criticize the Trump administration on various issues, including the rattling of sabers regarding Greenland, the abortion drug, and the use of force by ICE.
What this statement does not do, however, is recognize the many good things the administration has done, which are real and significant, or the nuance of these international situations. President Trump helped end the war in Gaza. He is working toward a multi-national solution in Ukraine, more so than his predecessor. There are other wars he has helped end.
One wonders, as well, what the Venezuelan bishops think about the U.S. interdiction? We know what the Venezuelan people think. President Trump has been clear that he plans to help Venezuela transition to a government of self-rule, something that certainly was not the case under Maduro. Perhaps we should take the judgment of Maduro’s opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado, who gave her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump as a sign of gratitude, as a guide.
The good done by President Trump’s action has saved millions of people from tyrannical rule, stemmed the flow of families having to leave their homeland, and provided a path to much-needed stability in the region. None of that is remotely acknowledged in the Cardinals’ statement.
Yes, the question of international law can and should be discussed. But it is not so black and white as the cardinals imply. Where was the outrage over Maduro’s violation of domestic and international law? The cardinals end up sounding like the partisan voices so prevalent on social media and cable news.
We should not overlook that these same Cardinals were silent when President Biden did everything in his power to expand abortion and support “gay marriage”. They were silent when the Little Sisters of the Poor were again dragged into court.
They were silent when the previous administration permitted numerous violent criminals to enter our country and commit horrific crimes, including murder and rape.
They were silent when the borders were opened for the flow of deadly drugs that killed thousands of young people.
They were silent when peaceful pro-life protestors were arrested.
All of this and more profoundly undermines their credibility now. It is as if they see things through a partisan lens rather than a Catholic one.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Cupich, Tobin and McElroy DO NOT speak for me a as a Catholic. They have overdrawn on their moral teaching account. The word that most readily comes to mind is “frauds.”
“Fraud” is accurate but too polite. The word “evil” came to mind when I was reading this article.
Tobin, Cupich and McElroy have one certain thing in common.
Thank you very much CWR staff, you explained it perfectly.
Keep up the great work.
God’s Blessings
Samuel
Agree with you.
Cupich is well past retirement age. I don’t know about the other two. The pope could get rid of one “problem” by requiring Cupich to retire immediately.
Liberal Protestants denominations went woke a generation ago. Their congregations responded by stampeding— right out the front door. This cabal of liberal bishops seem determined to duplicate that feat. If these Church leaders what to play water-boys for the anti-American, anti-Western Democrat Party, there will be a reckoning!
Corrupt frauds, living well on the pewsitter’s dime.
“With respect to process, it is the president of the USCCB, Archbishop Coakley, who has been entrusted by his fellow bishops to speak on behalf of the U.S. bishops and engage the federal government.”
Unless Leo does something to pull the leash on these three, silence is consent.
Agree.
Agree !
Larry, Moe and Curly…
You beat me to it-I was going to say that I thought they were dead-they LIVE!
Perfec depiction
“It is as if . . .”
As if?
This editorial is utterly unhinged, a feverish rant masquerading as Catholic commentary, riddled with factual distortions, ecclesial ignorance, and partisan hackery.
For starters, whatever their other faults as pastors, these three cardinals never claimed to speak on behalf of the USCCB — or the entire U.S. Church, for that matter. There’s zero basis in Catholic ecclesiology for the absurd proposition that the leadership of episcopal conferences holds the sole prerogative of speaking Catholic truth to power. Episcopal conferences like the USCCB are consultative bodies, not hierarchical overlords with a monopoly on moral pronouncements. Canon law makes clear that bishops retain their individual authority to teach and govern; the conference doesn’t muzzle them. To suggest otherwise is to warp the Church’s structure into a bureaucratic straitjacket, ignoring the collegiality emphasized by Vatican II and Pope Leo himself, who has repeatedly called for bishops to prophetically engage the world without hiding behind institutional facades.
Second, the editorial’s conspiracy-mongering about “rogue cardinals” undermining Archbishop Coakley falls flat on its face. OSV News reported that “Chieko Noguchi, spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told OSV News that the conference ‘was consulted on the statement.’ She added that USCCB president Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City ‘supports the emphasis placed by the cardinals on Pope Leo’s teaching in these times.'” So much for the imagined “hubris” and “breakdown in collegial unity” — this was coordinated, not a freelance sabotage. If anything, it’s the editorial that’s sowing division by fabricating rifts where none exist, all while hypocritically accusing others of the same. The USCCB’s own history shows bishops issuing individual or group statements on issues like immigration and war without full conference plenary approval — think of Bishop Mark J. Seitz’s critique of family separation policies, Cardinal Cupich’s statement on standing with immigrants, or the Texas bishops’ joint call for policies prioritizing family unity. This isn’t rogue behavior; it’s standard prophetic witness.
Third, pastoral interventions must be judged on their inherent merits, not on whether the pastors have issued equally strident condemnations on every pet issue dear to the reader’s heart. This should be painfully obvious, even to the most obtuse partisan. A bishop might rightly conclude that the Church’s voice on abortion is already deafening (amplified by decades of USCCB documents, papal encyclicals like “Evangelium Vitae,” and relentless advocacy from groups like the Knights of Columbus) so it doesn’t require yet another redundant screed to maintain credibility on other matters of faith and morals. Meanwhile, on emerging threats like militarized adventurism or draconian border policies, a fresh intervention is urgently needed. Demanding bishops obsess over abortion like the deplorable Catholic neo-right does is just a cynical deflection tactic, akin to whataboutism from a toddler dodging accountability. It’s not Catholic consistency; it’s selective outrage designed to shield political idols.
Finally, many of this article’s substantive critiques are not just wrong — they’re morally and factually bankrupt. The U.S. border “crisis” is entirely the creation of sinful American nativism and anti-immigrant bigotry, rooted in a degenerate immigration policy that denies the natural, God-given right to migrate for survival and dignity — a right affirmed repeatedly in Catholic social teaching since the late Middle Ages. The Catechism explicitly states that political authorities, for the sake of the common good may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, but not absolute exclusion or dehumanizing enforcement. While the editorial concedes that criticisms of Trump’s saber-rattling on Greenland and ICE’s use of force are reasonable, it then grotesquely pivots to praising his militaristic adventurism elsewhere as “good things” that “saved millions.” These actions and threats flagrantly violate the Church’s perennial just war doctrine, which requires legitimate authority, just cause, proportionality, and last resort — none of which apply to unauthorized wars of aggression. Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war; the president’s unilateral threats and engagements in places like Venezuela, Iran, Greenland, and Yemen (whether through direct strikes, proxy forces, or invasion threats) lack this authorization and any genuine self-defensive justification, rendering them illegal, immoral, and mortally sinful by Catholic standards. Internationally, via treaties like the UN Charter (binding as U.S. law), such aggression without Security Council approval is outlawed. The editorial’s fawning over Trump’s Venezuela “interdiction” (which involved coercive military posturing and economic strangulation that risked civilian lives and regional chaos) ignores how it aped Maduro’s own tyrannical tactics in flouting sovereignty, all while one opposition figure’s symbolic gesture of gratitude hardly absolves the bloodshed and instability it unleashed. The cardinals’ statement rightly highlights these nuances, while the editorial parrots Fox News talking points.
In the end, this screed isn’t defending Catholic unity — it’s weaponizing it to prop up a regime that mocks the Gospel and principled conservatism. If the authors truly cared about the Church, they’d confront their own partisan blindness instead of smearing faithful shepherds. But hypocrisy like this exposes the rot: a faux-Catholicism that bows to Caesar while crucifying prophets. Time to repent, or risk being the Pharisees of our age — irrelevant, unhinged, and utterly damned.
Having a hard time, are you? Poor you, at a minimum you have three more years to endure.
This sounds like the musings of a progressive internet troll. Were you paid by the number of words here? You realize that posting MSNBC talking points is not really an honest critique of the article, right? You are defending the indefensible here for people who are in the know about these three.
A.I.
You might want to take a breath erecting your next wall of text.
Touché
And I didn’t even begin to address the projection.
“utterly unhinged, a feverish rant masquerading as Catholic commentary, riddled with factual distortions, ecclesial ignorance, and partisan hackery”
I will limit myself to one comment: that you think the UN charter is as binding as US law in itself demonstrates your total lack of understanding of the United States of America, its laws, history, and most certainly, its Declaration of Independence.
Ms. Kahn:
You wouldn’t know it getting your “alternative facts” from Trump and MAGA-deplorable outlets, but the United States Senate overwhelmingly ratified the UN Charter in 1945, per Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 (the Treaty Clause) of the U.S. Constitution. Under Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause), of that same Constitution the Charter is a part of U.S. law.
MAGA deplorables utterly despise the United States, its tradition, and its rule of law.
“MAGA deplorables utterly despise the United States, its tradition, and its rule of law.”
And yet it’s the left that invented a right to abortion, militated for homosexual pseudonogamy, insists that plainly stated right to bear arms does not exist or should be abrogated, that the electorral college should be ended and supports anarchy in the streets.
You remind of “Blinded by the Light” by Manfred Mann’s Earth Band. Yes, it is that easy.
Blinded by the light
Revved up like a deuce, another runner in the night
Blinded by the light
Revved up like a deuce, another runner in the night
Blinded by the light
Revved up like a deuce, another runner in the night
Sure. The UN Charter is part of US law in the same way that US immigration law was during the Biden Administration.
My town has speed limit laws, laws against unleashed dogs and unlicensed cats. My town disallows parking on city streets overnight and urinating in its public swimming pools. There’s more…. but you seem smart enough to catch a drift and to square a single digit number.
BTW, are you related to the TOTO Co.? “TOTO USA offers innovative and award-winning bathroom products, such as smart toilets, bidet seats, faucets, and lavatories. Find your desired combination with the Faucet and Lavatory …”
Precisely.
Infinitely articulate. Grossly misguided.
I’d like to see the second point from Donald’s comment addressed by CWR. If true, it seems to be a pretty critical refutation of the author’s claims about the Cardinal’s statement and ought to bear some sort of clarification.
About “Catholic social teaching since the Middle Ages” on the right to migrate, a complicating factor is the later emergence of constitutional nation-states responsible for a coherent internal Common Good.
What then with the simultaneous and whole Common Good? A good question! Also, how to deal with an expansive and immigrating 7th-century Islamic culture for whom the common good is understood as assimilation into the unitarian and dictatorial ummah brotherhood of Muslims, by either jihad or infiltration. All of the Middle East and North Africa used to be Trinidadian under which we have a recognition of the transcendent dignity of each human person…
Such are the “signs of the times.” Waiting now for Pope Leo’s announced catechesis on the real Documents of the Second Vatican Council which—with ALL the bishops participating—opened the door for the Mystical Body of Christ to engage with the modern and now post-modern world.
How to do engagement on the layered and global chessboard but without being naive about monologue dialogues?
Autospell! “Trinitarian.”
TL;DR, but it looks like you’re worked about something.
In an unintended contribution to irony, this comment’s first sentence inveighs against “utterly unhinged…feverish rant[s]…masquerading as Catholic commentary.”
Immediate and complete inversion of reality is one of the telltales of diabolic influence. Popularly described in psychology as projection.
Oh Donald, your opening response “utterly unhinged…feverish rant[s]…masquerading as Catholic commentary” is so typical of people who are struggling with hatred. The verbal venom is so obvious. We will keep praying for you and your TDS.
Are you a Protestant? Your protestations doth give you away.
Somebody needs a hug.
We’re not in Kansas anymore Toto
These ultra-liberal churchmen are simply the infidel Democrat Party at prayer. Bad karma. Very bad.
You seem to be as unhinged from the Catholic faith as the three cardinals. “Obsess over abortion”?, Like obsessing over slavery and nazism, you mean? This trio pays absolutely no attention to the most important issues in the Catholic faith, the life issues, which keep the faith and humanity intact. Then again,the trio didn’t see much wrong with McCarrick: “rabbit hole” , said Cupich. Go figure. Not much Catholic about them but a red cap.
Virtue-signaling is always nauseous, but when it is ‘Princes of the Church’ engaged in such activity it is especially so.
My suggestion – ignore them.
Virtue-signalling? What religion do you think you’re a part of?
The Catholic religion I would imagine. The one that constantly warns against the sort of moral displacement that substitutes real virtue with phoney virtue.
Agree.
You are putting your head in the sand rather than using your mind. Nothing Trump has done is good.
Nothing? Absolutely nothing? Really? How about deporting millions of illegals who are here taking advantage of the system? How about lowering gas prices? How about trying to bring nations to the table to negotiate peace deals? How about appointing conservative judges who overturned Roe vs. Wade?
Bill: Giving token recognition of religious freedom and pushing back on sexual morality issues is something.
We have a substantial decrease in crime, the self-deportation illegal migrants, the arrest of criminal illegal aliens, a well maintained boarder which discourages the trafficking of women, children and men, fewer deaths from drug abuse, peace across a significant number of international disputes, the reconstruction of an economy promoting personal prosperity, the nurturing of energy resources, significant enhancement of national security, increased military enlistment, the establishment of cheaper prescription drugs, et al.
Year one.
Again – immediate and total inversion or reality. A hallmark. Sad.
Bill, really!
I’m not even a huge Trump supporter and that’s the most useless comment I’ve read yet.
Venezuelan Nobel Prize winner says you are mistaken:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sLXFnUg1UdE
“Hopefully, Pope Leo understands that the division that does exist is the result of a small group of bishops who do not respect their brother bishops enough to work through the formal channels of the USCCB. It is the USCCB that has the institutional responsibility to work on behalf of the roughly 250 U.S. bishops in a unified and deliberate way.”
J.M.J.
Unfortunately, the fact that the roughly 250 bishops in a unified and deliberate way have not been able to state clearly and succinctly, that it is a blasphemy of The Holy Ghost, The Lord And Giver Of Life, and thus a denial of The Divinity Of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, to deny God Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, that has led to a hardening of the hearts of a multitude of Baptized Catholics, who continue to present themselves to receive The Holy Eucharist , even though their manifest heresy has been made visible, and stands in contradiction to all the Faithful, those who desire to demonstrate that they believe what every Catholic must believe with “Divine and Catholic Faith”, The Deposit Of Faith that Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost,For The Salvation Of Souls.
A Baptized Catholic who has liberated themselves from The Deposit Of Faith, can no longer be in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, having ipso facto separated from The One Body Of Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, and the fact that these manifest heretics have not been informed that they have been charitably anathema, due to an ideology of false compassion, is evidence enough that Vatican II, which claimed to be, in essence, a council with a “pastoral” emphasis, in essence , by no longer emphasizing The Charitable Anathema, Christ Himself Instituted for The Salvation Of Souls, when He Stated clearly and succinctly, “You cannot be My Disciples if you do not Abide In My Word”, became, in essence, a council that accommodated a Great Apostasy, because the fact is, In Christ, communion is not a matter of degree; if you are not With Christ, you serve against Him.
It is the responsibility of the Faithful Bishops, those who believe what every Catholic Bishop must believe with Divine And Catholic Faith to declare clearly and succinctly, that apostasy is not of The Holy Ghost, and in fact, if left uncorrected at the hour of one’s death, will lead one to reject Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy, available to all who desire to repent, serve our Penance, and believe in The Power And Glory Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Salvational Love.
“Hail The Cross, our Only Hope.”
“For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
This said it well. It also came to mine what the late Mother Teresa said. We were not put on this earth to be successful, we were put on this earth to be faithful. Politics is not the way to be faithful!
Bergoglio’s thugs. They have their outdated socialist agenda which Trumps anything to do with Catholocism. Useless old men. So be it.
Speak out – we can, should and must, but as a team. The united voice of the USCCB is needed. All issues need to be examined through the lens of Catholic moral teaching without the influence of secular, partisan politics. Both Liberal and conservative Cardinals can lobby within the body to draft their concerns and submit to the whole body for moderation, then a final document can be released to the public in an appropriate way. We need a united voice in order to be taken seriously, and a loud voice we must have. Wayward Cardinals need to be reigned in.
James: Do you muzzle the prophet?
Three yapping chihuahua’s.
No mention of similar criticism from Archbishop for the Military Services Timothy Broglio?
https://spectator.com/article/could-military-service-become-morally-untenable-for-catholics/?edition=us
The right of a public “dubia” asking for clarity when issues are neglected or unclear?
While I’m not at all a fan of this particular group of cardinals, I’m sure that I’m not alone when I say that I have a little trouble with the idea that the funneling all statements through the USCCB is a much better solution. I do see this as a sign that the group of three is concerned that its influence may be waning– and they have been outliers in the overall picture.
That’s why Cardinals Cupich and Tobin, in particular, are moving as quickly as they can to use their self-perceived “clout” in Rome via their seats on the Catholic Church’s Dicastery for Bishops, to get as many of their episcopal “stooges” appointed to Catholic dioceses and archdioceses in the U.S.
Witness, as examples, the recent appointments of Bishop Robert Casey (formerly Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Chicago) as Archbishop of Cincinnati, and of Bishop Michael McGovern (formerly Bishop of the Diocese of Belleville) as Archbishop of Omaha (where he is now in prime position to run Bishop James Conley out of the Diocese of Lincoln – the same way Bishop Thomas Tobin was run out of the Diocese of Providence 4 years ago), and of Bishop Ronald Hicks (formerly Bishop of the Diocese of Joliet) as Archbishop of New York. And what else do these three have in common, besides being among “Cupich’s stooges”? They were all ordained for the priesthood for the Archdiocese of Chicago in 1994 by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin – as was notorious and unrepentant homosexual predator Daniel McCormack (laicized by Holy Mother Church in 2007).
I think that Pope Leo XIV will allow Cardinal Cupich to remain in his post at least through the fall of 2027 – because the only good Catholic bishop in the Province of Illinois, Most Rev. Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, turns 75 in on 5 August 2027, and the Archbishop pro-tem of Chicago will most certainly want to wield his self-perceived “clout” to get one of “his guys” appointed as Bishop Paprocki’s successor in Springfield, to rid himself of “this troublesome priest.”
And I disagree with the author about the size of the hard-heterodox problem within the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. I think that there are many, many more of the same theological and moral bent as Cardinals Cupich and Tobin and McElroy out there – and the problem gets bigger with each passing year, as the toadies and lickspittles and yes-men and fellow-travelers and “useful idiots” of the “Gang of Three” establish themselves hither, thither and yon throughout these United States, “from sea to shining sea.” I will go as far as to say that ALL episcopal appointments in the Catholic Church in the U.S. have been tainted since the day that Cardinal Cupich was given a seat in the Dicastery for Bishops – the seat formerly held by Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke.
Let’s continue to pray for God to call these three to their particular judgments sooner rather than later, keeping in mind that these things always happen in GOD’s time and as GOD wills them, not in OUR time or as WE will them.
I keep looking in the New Testament for answers, for understanding issues like the 3 rouge bishops, are there instances where apostles placed the actions of Roman officials above our salvation? Or even linked our salvation to politics? I keep coming up against “render unto Caesar”. Is our church too focused on Rad Trads and leftie Liberalism?
The behavior of these three men embodies the self-righteous indignation and moral superiority often associated with the Left, showing little beyond their own self-importance. When they speak, it brings to mind the actions of the so-called Lavender mafia, as they lack moral standing or respect. Harsh as it may sound, they consistently demonstrate qualities far removed from those of true servants of Jesus Christ.
Also sound like the moral superiority of the right! 😂
Perfectly summed up these 3 characters.
If these “men of faith” are so motivated to aid “the poor, the outcasts and the dispossessed”, have they considered channeling the vast resources of their church body into aiding those folks where they currently reside? Or must they simply parrot self-serving leftist political thinking on the subject? The RCC is repeating the errors of liberal Protestant denominations whose congregations responded to their Leftist tropes by stampeding — right out the front door!
A few thoughts for the three cardinals:
Leviticus 18 – (on abortion and homosexuality)
21 You shall not offer any of your offspring for immolation to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
24 Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, because by them the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves.
25 And so the land has become defiled, and I have punished it for its wickedness, and the land has vomited out its inhabitants.
26 You, however, must keep my statutes and decrees, avoiding all these abominations, both the natives and the aliens resident among you—
27 because the previous inhabitants did all these abominations and the land became defiled;
28 otherwise the land will vomit you out also for having defiled it, just as it vomited out the nations before you.
29 For whoever does any of these abominations shall be cut off from the people.
And later, Leviticus 20 –
1 The LORD said to Moses: (on abortion and homosexuality)
2 Tell the Israelites: Anyone, whether an Israelite or an alien residing in Israel, who gives offspring to Molech shall be put to death. The people of the land shall stone that person.
3 I myself will turn against and cut off that individual from among the people; for in the giving of offspring to Molech, my sanctuary was defiled and my holy name was profaned.
4 If the people of the land condone the giving of offspring to Molech, by failing to put the wrongdoer to death,
5 I myself will turn against that individual and his or her family, and I will cut off from their people both the wrongdoer and all who follow this person by prostituting themselves with Molech.
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.
Satanists and occultists know that abortions are offers to molech, regardless of whether or not the parents do.
These rules of Almighty God still fully apply today, although sincere conversion and contrition is preferable to being stoned to death.
By championing sin, these sodomites in high places, by their stubbornness and recalcitrance, challenge God Himself.
The entirety of western civilization already bears an unimaginable amount of blood guilt. This, when combined with satan’s arrogance which these three aptly demonstrate, is Divine wrath waiting to happen.
Cupich, McElroy and Tobin all have one thing in common.
A Scots Guard? Aside from British military the term is used to identify persons designated to protect someone’s, let us say the boss’s interests. Men who reveal their mission to protect when they oppose a dissenter.
Perhaps as in the instance of Archbishop Coakley to preempt his positions should they oppose, in this sense the Pope. This was their duty under Francis. The key player Cardinal Cupich has already been assigned to Rome by Leo. The ‘Guard’ likely has their mission, unless otherwise to promote Leo’s agenda.
Let’s not forget that Cupich actually stood up and gave the invocation at the 2024 Democratic Convention.
An invocation in which he failed to mention the Name of Christ Jesus.
And in which he failed to remark about the mobile abortion van parked outside that was slaughtering babies all through the proceedings.
These three are worse than clowns and stooges. They are dedicated adherents to the Luciferian death cult that is the Democratic Party.
Exactly.
Cupich seems very discordant. Not integrated. Not at all at peace. That can happen when you are trying to impose your own will on the world around you.
What planet do you live on? The war is far from over in Gaza, seeing as how Hamas has been executing opponents; the multilateral “peace talks” will certainly yield a pro-Russian outcome; Trump is working overtime to amass powers he clearly shouldn’t have, per the flawed unitary executive theory; the mutation of ICE into a paramilitary goon squad beholden only to Trump and committing crimes against the citizenry. There’s plenty more. All that said, the three cardinals may or may not have been talking out of school, but I don’t like the authoritarian structure proposed here. I would not restrict my speech vis-a-vis the president of the organizations I belong to.
Jan Brady is back again. Russia! Russia! Russia!. Enough with the Russophobia. If you think Putin is the devil, but Carney, Macron and Starmer are just fine, you have a cognitive issue requiring therapy.
Left wing indignities about ICE are so obviously hollow after we watched the FBI attempt to infiltrate the “Latin Mass” groups (one wonders if some hostile Bishop or Cardinal concocted that idea), apprehend Mark Houck with a fully equipped “paramilitary goon squad” in front his children and then root employ the same tactics in rooting through Melania’s underwear drawer and the left said NOTHING.
Crimes against the citizenry? Where the hell were you when Michael Byrd shot an unarmed Ashli Babbitt from behind a door?
As for the expansion of executive power, apparently you missed Obama announcing he had no authority to act on immigration over twenty times and then proceeded to do that exact thing by executive order.
As the late Bob Grant used to say “fake, fraud, phony”.
In the “you were silent” category I will add the deafening silence surrounding Cardinal Cupich during the pandemic where he said nary a word when presidential hopeful Gov. Pritzker shuttered churches, thus ending the celebration of the Mass.
The only words to come out of his mouth at the times were the ones requiring all Archdiocese of Chicago employees – bishops, priests, deacons, male and female religious, and laity alike – to take their full complement of “jabs” of mRNA-combinant sterilizing agents, calling taking the jabs “a moral imperative.” (Yes, he really DID say that.)
And he had neither the right nor the competence to say that.
Having read The Three Cardinals statement it doesn’t differ from Pope Leo’s position nor the bishops on exercising war as foreign policy.
This all erupted prior to Trump announcing at Davos that he wouldn’t attack Greenland, apparently a political tactic of warlike bluster prior to ‘making a deal’, as opined by a couple of commenters here. Nevertheless it appears a disingenuous, dangerous policy. As the three cardinals did not state anything extraordinary or adverse to Catholic doctrine.
“Nevertheless it appears a disingenuous, dangerous policy.”
And yet below:
“I’m not in a position to answer that since I don’t create policy”
You “can’t” (won’t) opine on Church policy, but you can opine on civil policy. Fascinating.
Creating policy refers to the special relationship Cupich has with Leo, and a privileged ability to issue statements. Otherwise, as I refer to later bishops have in the past addressed both doctrinal matters and the morality of political issues.
Bishops are successors of the Apostles and are mandated to defend the faith. Openly and to a global audience. Bishop Barron does this through his media enterprise. Cardinal Willem Eijk occasionally speaks openly to the world. Astana Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider frequently speaks openly to a world audience. As does Bishop They don’t require papal permission to do this. Yes. I suppose you can say it’s fascinating. Keep up with the news.
Corrected addition: As does Bishop [Paprocki]
Are you saying one must have political credentials, or studied political science to offer an opinion on politics? That you, and all those who comment here on political issues are entitled to address political issues except priests? That I exclude religious, spiritual matters?
Rant all you wish. I’ll still pray for you as well as your supporting cast.
Nothing you wrote explains why you feel competent to opine on civic, political or state matters matters where you possess no special aptitude, competence or experience with-but defer on Church matters, which should be in your wheelhouse.
Plenty of priests who don’t create policy opine on church or theological matters and we expect them to do so with some better information having attended a seminary and studied these matters.
For a guy who claims to not seek enmity, you certainly go out of your way to instigate it with evasion, clericalism and condescension. Pope Francis surely nailed it as “it’s when “Clerics feel they are superior”, but then again he was kind of an expert.
I’ve tuned into the abba channel and share the wont with you: “Get thee to a confessional, Forked Rebel! For the good of your immortal soul.”
Nothing evasive about that! Wait for it…
Additionally the Cardinals spoke in favor of protecting human life and resisting abortion and euthanasia. They also criticized the withdrawal of contributions to humanitarian foreign assistance programs.
Finally, they disagreed with Ukraine, Venezuela policy but weren’t specific, for example on removing Maduro, which former AG Barr argues was entirely legal. If it were considered as a moral opinion, which the Pope has encouraged prelates to be more engaged in with our world it doesn’t rise to the level of abuse of their office.
Hello Father, just curious. If their joint comment was not an abuse of their position, would you then support the entire USCCB to break down into a multitude of individual twosomes and threesomes all commenting on the actions of individual political leaders across the nation? I find that proposition to lead to total Catholic chaos. I don’t see any benefit of such an effort in the same way that I reject seeing these three to combine their voice to speak to the nation.
I’m not in a position to answer that since I don’t create policy, as it seems Pope Leo sanctions this.
There does nonetheless appear to be a venue for prelates to speak out openly to a wider audience, the world itself. As did great bishops in the past.
Michael, the Church is an organic body, meaning a living body containing the dynamics of dialogue and discourse over continuously developing issues. Furthermore, bishops and cardinals are successors of the Apostles and possess an Apostolic mission to spread and witness to the faith, and to defend it as did the five cardinals who openly submitted the Dubia to Francis I.
As a matter of course it benefits this mystical, living body that contesting matters are brought to fore and addressed. If unresolved and there’s conflict with doctrine then the metropolitan may address it or the Roman pontiff.
“Catholic chaos”?
There’s another reality mixed into this conundrum. The reality is that of the apostolic succession whereby the papacy is the successor of St. Peter and the individual bishops are successors of the other apostles—and both personally and institutionally responsible. The National bishops’ conferences are an administrative convenience (Apostolos Suos, 1998) and do not constitute a substitute layer of ecclesiology and authority. The bishops can speak as a conference but cannot be silenced.
Yes, some say that the triumvirate are problem children, and we all remember how Cupich grabbed the mic and talked over the president of the USCCB when the latter was proposing a discipline related to clerical sexual abuse. Cupich—the self appointed court jester at the head (or whatever) of the USCCB annual meeting.
Not endorsing all of the content of the troika pronouncement, here, but simply noting the primacy of Lumen Gentium (chapter 3 on the pre-bureaucratic “hierarchical communion”) over any of modernity’s secularist layered/bureaucratic constructions (National bishops’ conferences or even hybrid synods on synodality!). The domain of prudential judgment in current events might become a megaphone minefield but in terms of the coherent apostolic succession it is not chaos. Bishop Strickland might agree.
I addressed this issue earlier Peter in Extra extra on a commentary by Phil Lawler:
@ Three cardinals don’t speak for the Church
Phil Lawler raises an important question. Whether the three cardinals spoke for the Church, or simply expressed their private sentiments?
It’s a double edged sword in that it can be interpreted as a yes and a no. For one, they don’t manifestly represent a quorum including the pope. Otherwise they may rightfully express a correct moral response. Furthermore, as Lawler suggests they do have the right to express their opinions.
The other related issue is their favorable standing with Pope Leo who positioned Cupich in Rome in a consultative position. Pope Leo has since publicly spoken in context favorable to their position. Finally ending the discussion Lawler is correct.
My comment was intended as a favorable reflection on your earlier comment with which I concur.
About Cupich as now in a consultative position to Pope Leo, my initial hope was more naïve(?). That is, that in being assigned to the Vatican city-state, the divisive Cupich might be replaced in Chicago in order to tend to such weighty urban urgencies as solar panels and the placement of public porta-potties. And, maybe to help handle the city-state budget—to tap his reportedly excellent administrative skills. An abrupt broom-closet assignment on the heels of Cupich’s poorly-received and then rejected attempt to honor the immigration politics of an aggressively pro-abortion Senator with a 100% approval rating from NARAL.
These distinct city-state consultations would not be the same as for matters before the distinct Holy See.
As a consultant of some sort, at least he’s not part of a privileged C-9 or then C-6, but instead is only one member of another welcome “consistory” of ALL cardinals six months from now, and other consistories on an annual basis. These consistories as a good substitute, we hope, for the alternative path of hybrid diocesan, regional, and continental “synods”—as previously floated by Cardinal Grech and aimed at yet another proposed “synod” (rebranded as an “Ecclesial Assembly”) in Rome in 2028—geographic super-Congregationalism replacing (?) the Apostolic Succession and even the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium).
“They also criticized the withdrawal of contributions to humanitarian foreign assistance programs.”
Of course, it’s always money that excites them, money is their god.
Wasteful grifts. If these three individuals want to operate these sorts of programs, then by all means they can do so. There is absolutely no evidence these programs achieve any objective than relieving their consciences while they live comfortable lives- other than “telescopic philanthropy” and there is plenty of evidence that the moneys are siphoned off by intermediate actors and riddled with waste fraud and abuse.
From
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
U.S. Agency for International Development
PEPFAR Fraud
We are actively investigating allegations of wide-scale fraud involving the volunteer medical male circumcision program funded by the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The investigation has, so far, led to the termination of a $105 million contract and one mission employee. Approximately $52 million remained unspent due to the contract termination.
Ethiopia Food Aid Diversion
Our investigation in Ethiopia has uncovered the diversion of USAID-funded food commodities, routed for sale by elements of the Ethiopian National Defense and Tigray forces. OIG fieldwork revealed World Food Programme knowledge of nonexistent food distribution points.
Bid Collusion in Bosnia and Herzegovina
We are investigating a reported appearance of bid collusion by a USAID awardee in Bosnia and Herzegovina for a USAID subaward to design a vaccine-tracking software program.
Ukraine Aid Fraud
We are investigating fraud and misrepresentation by a USAID awardee in Ukraine. The initial allegations suggested the awardee had knowledge of the fraud and made several internal changes as a result but failed in their reporting obligations.
Fraud and Money Laundering in Global Public Health Programming
Recently, a USAID OIG investigation resulted in a federal jury convicting a Virginia man and Maryland woman for conspiracy to defraud a non-profit corporation dedicated to global public health through payments for work that wasn’t performed.
“Cupich, McElroy, and Tobin are widely known for their progressive theological emphases and alignment with left-leaning political narratives—not to mention their past resistance to prioritizing non-negotiable moral issues in political discourse—the attempt to avoid the appearance of partisanship quickly collapses. Once again, these same progressive cardinals unite forcefully against a Republican administration on prudential foreign-policy questions, yet they did not unite comparably when a Catholic Democratic president advanced policies that directly contradicted non-prudential Church teaching.” – Patheos blogger Dennis Knapp
Not to mention that they are longtime close friends of Ted McCarrick and the didn’t see nothin’, hear nothing’, say nothing’ and , most importantly, didn’t do nothin’. They are in no position to lecture anyone on morality.
Tobin, Cupich and McElroy all have one thing in common.
They are The Three Mouseketeers.
I share the sense of repulsion voiced by those commenters opposed to these 3 men, all 3 of whom I consider to be enemies of Jesus, and friends of the sex abusing fraud and engineer of the secret-Chinese-Communist-Party-According to, the very model of the counterfeit Cardinal: Theodore McCarrick.
On a secondary note, perhaps there is a canon law expert who might shed some light, but I was of the understanding that contrary to the statement in the article, national conferences of bishops have no such thing as “canonical authority.”
Good point. I’m not a canon lawyer, but I like to do a little research.
JPII’s motu proprio Apostolos Suos addressed in 1998:
“The Conference of Bishops can issue general decrees only in those cases in which the common law prescribes it, or a special mandate of the Apostolic See, given either motu proprio or at the request of the Conference, determines it”. In other cases “the competence of individual diocesan Bishops remains intact; and neither the Conference nor its president may act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consent”.
Canon lawyer Kathy Caridi addressed the issue in 1/24: https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2024/01/18/limiting-diocesan-bishops-authority-recent-decrees-from-pope-francis/
It’s hard to see how grabbing Maduro has liberated anyone in Venezuela, as Washington indicates it intends to work with the existing regime.
Miguel Cervantes: Tobin, Cupich and McElroy all have one essential thing in common.
MG:
The Nobel Peace Prize winner explains, making it easy to see:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sLXFnUg1UdE
I suspect that if these three Cardinals had come out in support of various Trump administration policies, CWR and many of the same commentators would be praising them as “brave”. Instead, because these Cardinals are already unpopular due to their positions on a range of other issues, CWR and the commentators on this article are strongly opposed to them on this latest statement. That raises the question of whether the criticism is driven more by political alignment than by the substance of the Cardinals’ argument itself.
And yet, oddly enough, CWR has often criticized various Trump positions, policies, and actions, going back to when he first entered politics and including recent pieces strongly criticizing his administration’s lamentable changes to pro-life/abortion policies. So, CWR (both in comments and on other sites) has been accused to being MAGA and of also hating Trump. Neither is true. Speaking just for myself, as editor of CWR, I take the apparently abnormal position that Trump is neither God’s anointed servant or the second coming of Hitler. Some of his positions/actions clearly are in line with Catholic teachings/principles; others are not. And some are open to prudential judgment and assessment. But for some readers, unfortunately, if CWR does not adulate Trump, we supposedly hate him, while for others, if we say anything positive about Trump, CWR is MAGA and fascist. I’ll leave it to reasonable readers to make their own judgments.
I increasingly feel that we’re being expected to check off a prescribed list of issues in order to join a team or belong to a political tribe. I might check off many or most of those issues but I don’t feel required to check them all. I don’t need to belong to a team.
Trump’s neither Hitler nor a messiah. He’s done a great number of good things but he falls short in others. As we each might do.
To Mrs. Cracker: “He’s done a great number of good things but he falls short in others. As we each might do.”
I would say as we ALL do at least once if not daily in our lives.
I agree.
I can only add that it seems quite obvious that the US Bishops corporately, as represented by the USCCB, have outrught prostituted “Catholic Charities” (etc), to act as a political network of regional agencies collaborating in industrialized, grand-scale illegal immigration, in exchange for money used primarily for payroll of the employees of these regional “Catholic” Charities (etc), and make millionaires out of the heads of all regional “Catholic Charities” centers in the major US cities.
This is what people in the art world call “poverty-pimping.”
The bishops would do well to steer far clear of the criminal enterprise that is illegal immigration.
Fair enough, but I would challenge CWR to find one thing in the Cardinals’ statement that contradicts Church teaching. In fact, it seems to closely reflect recent comments from Pope Leo (see Vatican link below). I too have issues with these Cardinals, but this statement is not a problem unless one’s Catholicism is viewed through a MAGA lense.
Moreover, these Cardinals don’t need permission from the USCCB to speak on issues anymore than Bishops Barron, Schneider or Strickland do on a myriad of issues. Each bishop is a successor to the Apostles and can speak by virtue of their apostolic authority. Like I said, I think the bias against this statement has nothing to do with the content of the statement itself, but prior dislike of these Cardinals and Trumpian biases.
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/speeches/2026/january/documents/20260109-corpo-diplomatico.html
It’s almost hilarious for the left to talk about fascism after Obamacare. Quit freebasing Rachel Mancow, you’ll be less grating and have more friends.
No. The Episcopacy has no special charism to critique politicians or political matters, unless there is a grave and clear matter. If a President were to publicly contemplate a preemptive nuclear strike, yes. I have no problem if Trump gets hammered for “flexibility on Hyde”. What the left never gets is that the right wants REPRESENTATIVES, not LEADERS.
Trump is hardly perfect and unless you are immersed in the childish apocryphal tales of George Washington cheerfully admitting to his father that he chopped down the cherry tree, or the fawning hagiographies of SOME presidents by chattering class sycophants such as Doris Kearns Goodwin, you realize they all have pleiotropic attributes. Nixon was as paranoid as he was pragmatic, Kennedy as craven as charismatic.
Since they chose to largely cooperate or countenance Barack Obama and J R Biden, they should do the same with Trump.
But most importantly, their focus should be increasing the diminishing flock. Of course that’s hard work that doesn’t offer the sort of celebrity political commentary does.
If I want the opinions of effete snobs who think they know the game, there’s plenty of “talking heads” and DEI hire females who couldn’t play a single snap in a Pop Warner game patrolling the sidelines of NFL games shoving microphones in coaches desperately trying to show their command of formations and plays.
For that matter, my guess is Suzy Kolber offers a firmer handshake than Cupich.
When you don’t accept the fullness of divine revelation, you leave yourself open to the seductive lies of the devil. The 3 cardinals, not coincidently, do not accept the church’s teaching on homosexuality.
With respect to process, they are US cardinals, they are meant to make their contribution at that level. The priest or layman shares his comment in similar vein, however, views coming from cardinals are meant to convey their authority with them.
As to substance, the cardinals give a mix of things some areas prudential and some obliging, eg, the abortion area is more to the obliging. Still, it’s too mixed on the one hand and on the other hand the cardinals appear to take up the process to translate their own way of “expressing conviction” and “guiding the flock”.
A number of people have been addressing the mix of issues, it has not been as if it was these 3 cardinals in isolation commanding the subject and the platforms. Obviously they will have their following listening out for them.
Archbisop Broglio, for example, had spoken out against the bombing of the Venezuelan boats and lately warned about over-step in respect of Greenland. Archbishop Coakley has been explicit about treating with “migrants” in equable manner.
Bishop Barron lately took up the issues with ICE trying his hand at leveling the scales.
I thought Father Raymond J. de Souza at NC REGISTER did a great job of putting the 3 cardinals in context and giving a prominence to Archbishop Gomez -in the link below here, When Catholic Bishops Criticize Presidents, Pay Attention.
Otherwise I would have not heard anything on Gomez, frankly.
Fr. de Souza unknowingly balanced the scale that was loaded down by Phil Lawler whom CWR had featured in Extra! Extra!, Wednesday.
The last 2 links below can be traced through MSN.
https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/desouza-catholic-bishops-criticize-president
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/01/21/extra-extra-news-and-views-for-wednesday-january-21-2026/
https://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-retaliation-sell-america-1dde1429
https://fortune.com/2026/01/22/how-big-national-debt-when-recession-financial-crisis-could-hit/
Yes, I believe Fr. de Souza should have used the occasion to say something against the position with the 3 cardinals on homosexualism.
I can’t speak for him; but if I had a leader’s post I would keep reminding about latae sententiae and the offensiveness of the matter before God and to mankind. How can they press for moral sensitivity and they are insensitive where it is obliging/formative.
Todd Dugan: Tobin, Cupich and McElroy all have one essential thing in common. “Night, night baby.”
Very true. During McElroy’d time in San Diego, during the listening sessions he held throughout the diocese, I cannot forget how his people were quick to shut down those who tried to speak up against actions of homosexual activist and such.
Lavender Mafia is active and well.
One Dennis Knapp, blogging at Patheos, analyzes the cardinals’ actions through the prism of prudential vs. non-prudential church teaching:
“Cupich, McElroy, and Tobin are widely known for their progressive theological emphases and alignment with left-leaning political narratives—not to mention their past resistance to prioritizing non-negotiable moral issues in political discourse—the attempt to avoid the appearance of partisanship quickly collapses. Once again, these same progressive cardinals unite forcefully against a Republican administration on prudential foreign-policy questions, yet they did not unite comparably when a Catholic Democratic president advanced policies that directly contradicted non-prudential Church teaching.”
These three appear as silly as Newcom did at Davos. Their names and actions garner headlines while their credibility erodes. Screwtape’s minions, however, will cheer.
“Nevertheless it appears a disingenuous, dangerous policy.”
And yet below:
“I’m not in a position to answer that since I don’t create policy”
You “can’t” (won’t) opine on Church policy, but you can opine on civil policy. Fascinating.
It’s lost on you that’s all. Don’t pretend to the fascination. Be fair. Not charlatan.
It’s possible to discern the 3 cardinals as being opportunistic on behalf of Trump with Trump embracing that constituency. Admitting that Trump is less than perfect, as you do indeed offer, comes out laming (making lame) both civic and religious sides.
Just release the Epstein files!
What have these three schemers done?
They piggybacked Pope Leo’s address—to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See—to their diatribe of Trump’s foreign and domestic policies. Pope Leo’s address was directed to the diplomatic corps of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR STATES. The pope did not restrict his comments to the US as these schemers have. The schemers INSERTED, indeed centered, Pope Leo’s sentences in the middle of their tirade. The insertion of a few of the Pope’s words is cherry-picking of the lowest branch, actually seeming to encroach on the Pope’s authority. At the least, their act suggests that Pope Leo perhaps shares, motivates, or blesses their position.
Their actions seem a deceit, a bare-boned set of knuckles to the authority of the Pope, the worldwide Church, and the suffering Body of Christ.
Any Catholic who is not critical of our current President does the Church and our country a disservice!
JRB: I’d suggest a very long rest in the psychiatric facility of your choice for your TDS. And stay away from watching CNN and PBS as they are vectors for the spread of this dread disease.
A worthwhile article, but I do take issue with how you present the unity of the bishops: “The bishops of the U.S. are largely united, but there are a small handful of rogue cardinals and bishops, certainly less than ten percent of the USCCB…”
An example of the type of unity they have was illustrated whenCardinal Cupich announced that he was giving a lifetime achievement award to senator Durbin, an extreme pro-abortion Pro-death senator. An internet search said that there were 439 active and retired bishops in the United States at that time. Ten, that is ten, objected. It is not that they are united for evil, but rather that on important moral issues they seem united in do nothingness.
Mr. Verbesey, thank you for what you said. Sometimes I feel that basically good people have become blind to the atrocities this president has committed. He has trampled on God’s laws and on civil laws. No other president could have remained in office the first term much less be reelected. Who could mock the disabled in public, make suggestions about his sexual prowess, have three wives all of whom he has cheated on, be convicted of multiple felonies, make misogynistic remarks regularly, and have so many failed businesses where others lost everything but he came out fine. He is a pathological liar, cruel, and hate-filled. He is unintelligent and proves it often. He does not even understand our Constitution. In a speech he associated it with the Civil War! How can he not know that it came after the Revolutionary War? His speeches usually make no sense and most of it, as he hops from one subject to another, is about praise of himself. Narcissistic, egotistical, blustering, unlawful, and dishonest are but a few of the words to describe this man. Please someone explain to me how it is wrong for other countries to take land but it’s just fine for him to take Greenland “by force if necessary”. I spend a lot of time wondering what we are coming to. I just pray there will be a correction soon. I am nearing 80 years old and I can say that, in my long lifetime, there has never been such a horrible example of an American and of a president. God help us.
“Atrocities”?
The Biden administration left the J6ers rot on cells without due process, while doing nothing about that burned, looted and murdered. That’s an atrocity. I’d say Biden, but we all know he held office with diminished capacity and was replaced on his party’s ticket through mutiny, even as his party screamed “democracy”.
What is it with leftists that they think disordered histrionics equals moral rectitude.
Any person who follows their principles over their party should certainly see that they were right in speaking out.
While I might add that the bible is clear on how immigrants should be treated, the majority of the pushback has nothing to do with anyone’s concerns in regards to the stance on immigration and everything to do with the way that these policies are being enforced.
Any true patriot knows that rights come first, and then laws. Laws must be enforced while upholding the Bill of Rights.
Any true Christian knows that God’s word comes before both.
What’s happening in Minneapolis is a blatant disregard of both the bible and the Bill of Rights, and it is our responsibility to say so.
This piece and anyone continuing to justify this injustice with hatred reflects poorly on Catholicism. Just as was written in Matthew 23:27–28
“On the outside you appear righteous to people, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy.”
I hope people who read this will know that you do not speak for all Catholics, just as there are bad apples in every bunch, the same as Republican and Democrat, but the majority are mostly good – despite what those who benefit from divisiveness may want us to believe.
Does Fr. James Martin, SJ comport with their profile? Just wondering…
He’s their golden boy, sad to say. It’s definitely diagnostic that Leo gave him a private audience when he had not been in office for even four months.
Donald Toto,
You wrote: <>
Yes, I agree with you. They’re prophetic in pampering illegal aliens, canonizing them for breaking US immigration laws, attacking legal authorities for enforcing the law, and fostering charity without truth.
They are united in making me – us, the legal permanent resident aliens and naturalized citizens – appear like SUCKERS for following the law.
When will our cardinals and bishops – and yes, the pope – preach that illegal migration is wrong? Have you ever heard them prophesize that breaking immigration law is a violation of the Seventh Commandment? No, I haven’t, either.
I have never felt so abandoned by the prophetic Shepherds. I have never felt so sad for being a Catholic in my life.
I’ve lived in the Archdiocese of Newark all my life. I was born when archbishop Boland sat on the cathedra in Sacred Heart Cathedral. Since 1974, the church in the diocese has suffered with deeply flawed bishops. The worst of which was Theodore McCarrick. After all these decades, my respect for and trust of the hierarchy can not be lower. Like the high priests of Herod’s temple, they have the lawful authority, but no moral authority. In matters of ecclesiastic governance, I must suffer their authority. In matters of morality, I no sooner listen to them than to listen to a bankrupt financial advisor regarding money matters. Frankly, I resent being abandoned by my spiritual fathers. I resent having to correct the vacuous religious education foisted upon my children. I resent the lack of support regarding non-negotiables like Sanctity of Human Life, homosexual behavior/sexual immorality, and Marriage and then getting lectured on matters of prudential judgement. I’m weary of having to be the one who has to be the sheepdog who’s Sheppard is having tea with the wolves. Frankly, Archbishop Tobin can say what he likes, it means nothing to me.
Tobin, Cupich and McElroy all have one essential thing in common. “Night, night baby.”