The News & Topicality Thread

[Biff]

Where’s the popcorn?

Foyer. $10 for a small bag.

I'm in for a dime bag.

That'll get you one kernel. Unpopped.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Title: Federal judge rejects Texas’ migrant ‘invasion’ defense in DOJ lawsuit over border buoys
Source: Dallas Morning News
Link: dallasnews DOT com/news/politics/2023/08/22/federal-judge-rejects-texas-migrant-invasion-defense-in-doj-lawsuit-over-border-buoys/

The Money-Quotes:

“This court is not going to delve into political questions,” U.S. District Judge David Ezra said after the initial hearing on the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against Abbott.

[…]

A ruling is not expected earlier than next week. Attorneys for Texas and the department have until Friday afternoon to submit written closing arguments.

On Tuesday, the judge appeared unreceptive to one of Texas’ core defenses for the buoys — that the state has authority to defend its sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution because there is an “invasion” by migrants and drug smugglers.

“We are here for purposes of determining whether this is a barrier to navigation, whether this is a navigable waterway,” Ezra said.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[…]

Biden's border policy is ignorant of and unguided by Catholic moral teaching... just like his abortion policy. He should know better, even with his dementia.

[…]

'Twould certainly seem he should know better, yes.

Perhaps the Biden Admin thinks it has to sop to the Fortress America crowd similarly to the way many ProLife GOPers trip over themselves playing to the Bodily Autonomy crowd.



〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰

[…]

… Do you genuinely support Biden's failure to execute the immigration laws passed by our Congress?

[…]

I aid & abet the rollback of Trump-era (or earlier) policies offensive to nonnegotiable principles, decry & resist those efforts which introduce or retain such nonnegotiable elements, and admit the legitimacy of negotiable (indifferent) elements.

If more Trump supporters had followed this basic template, perhaps they could've magnified the admissible elements of Trump-era policy (e.g. a more robust, hawkish stance at the Border) and militated against the nonnegotiable offenses against Universal Human Rights (e.g. both the outright denial and purpose-built suppression of Due Process for Illegals).

My 2¢

[Del]

nonnegotiable elements nonnegotiable offenses against Universal Human Rights

nonnegotiable offenses against Universal Human Rights (e.g. both the outright denial and purpose-built suppression of Due Process for Illegals).

Maybe you are confusing "non-negotiable Catholic practice" with "Wosbald's application of Catholic teaching about which Wosbald will not negotiate."

Catholic bishops have complained loudly about Trump's policies and about Biden's policies regarding the border. Both are "problematic," of course. But no bishop, and certainly not the USCCB, has come out with a clear statement that we must tolerate Biden's crisis because it would be a mortal sin to vote for Trump's policies.

As for myself, I must tolerate one version or the other of immoral border policy. But I cannot vote for a candidate or party that promotes abortion.

I have not forgiven the Obama/Biden Administration for cancelling the USCCB's very effective rescue ministry for sex trafficking victims at the border.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[…]

[N]o bishop, and certainly not the USCCB, has come out with a clear statement that we must tolerate Biden's crisis because it would be a mortal sin to vote for Trump's policies.

[…]

That's prolly cuz the Bishops and the USCCB don't speak (at least, not authoritatively) in such a hamfisted, politically weaponizable way. They are well aware that a Vote for Public Office is a vote for persons — not for policies — and that policies (though certainly not negligible or isolable from the moral calculus) are only an indirect consequence of said vote.

〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰

[…]

As for myself, I must tolerate one version or the other of immoral border policy. But I cannot vote for a candidate or party that promotes abortion.

[…]

Of course, yes. That's your prerogative. The Catholic is principally free to vote (though not with blithe equanimity) for whomever he prudentially deems best. Though the standard conditions apply:

• One must weigh one's choice, with sincerity and docility, against the Church's ethical norms.
• One must not vote because of any political positions offending against the Nonnegotiables, but only despite them.
• Just as in golf, casting a vote has a followthrough. And in the followthrough from pulling-the-lever on voting day, one must refrain from aiding & abetting said offenses in the pubic square, and further, must oppose them as much as one is reasonably and prudently able.

[Del]

+JMJ+

[…]

[N]o bishop, and certainly not the USCCB, has come out with a clear statement that we must tolerate Biden's crisis because it would be a mortal sin to vote for Trump's policies.

[…]

That's prolly cuz the Bishops and the USCCB don't speak (at least, not authoritatively) in such a hamfisted, politically weaponizable way. They are well aware that a Vote for Public Office is a vote for persons — not for policies — and that policies (though certainly not negligible or isolable from the moral calculus) are only an indirect consequence of said vote.

〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰

[…]

As for myself, I must tolerate one version or the other of immoral border policy. But I cannot vote for a candidate or party that promotes abortion.

[…]

Of course, yes. That's your prerogative. The Catholic is principally free to vote (though not with blithe equanimity) for whomever he prudentially deems best. Though the standard conditions apply:

• One must weigh one's choice, with sincerity and docility, against the Church's ethical norms.
• One must not vote because of any political positions offending against the Nonnegotiables, but only despite them.
• Just as in golf, casting a vote has a followthrough. And in the followthrough from pulling-the-lever on voting day, one must refrain from aiding & abetting said offenses in the pubic square, and further, must oppose them as much as one is reasonably and prudently able.

As soon as a Catholic authority utters "Non-Negotiable," he is talking about grave matter and the risk of mortal sin.

The only issue in America that is so clear -- and so clearly evil -- that bishops have couched discussion in terms of "Non-Negotiable" is the matter of Life (abortion, assisted suicide, human cloning, etc.).

To put a fine point on it: There is no balance to counter a candidate who expresses full-throated support for abortion and who desires easy, wide-spread access to abortion. There never was a "seamless garment."

No combination of border policy, environmental policy, tax and fiscal policy, foreign policy, et al., is good enough to merit voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Not only are millions of children at risk, but also the voter's soul and salvation.

As my own bishop preached, "There will be over three million children murdered during the next four years. And at your judgment, you would have to face them..... and explain, "What policy was so important that they could not be protected by your vote?" Are you ready to give them your account? What answer would you give?"

The only way a Catholic can morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate is if the other candidate is even more stridently pro-abortion. As you said, voting in spite of the evil position, not because of it.
===================================

Meanwhile, we can still enjoy a jolly discussion as to how and whether Biden's border crisis is morally superior to Trump's former border policy.
And we can speculate as to whether Trump's policy during his second term might be far better than that of his first term.

I hope we find out.... for the sake of migrants, and for the protection of children.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

As soon as a Catholic authority utters "Non-Negotiable," he is talking about grave matter and the risk of mortal sin.

The only issue in America that is so clear -- and so clearly evil -- that bishops have couched discussion in terms of "Non-Negotiable" is the matter of Life (abortion, assisted suicide, human cloning, etc.).

[…]

Hmmm … Well, considering that the Archdiocese of San Francisco's website (led by Abp Salvatore Cordileone of the "Excommunication of Nancy Pelosi" fame) notes that Immigration is a "Life Issue", you might wanna review & revise the assumptions informing your moral calculus.

Title: Immigration: The In-Between Life Issue
Source: Archdiocese of San Francisco
Link: sfarchdiocese DOT org/immigration-classroom/

Immigration: The In-Between Life Issue

How is immigration a life issue? Isn’t it simply a matter of political policy — over which Catholics may certainly disagree? The Church’s position on provocative topics like abortion is well-known. However, the spiritual and intellectual sources behind the headlines — the Catholic social tradition (CST) — is less known. In fact, it has been called “the Church’s best kept secret.” CST provides the foundation for the Church’s consistent life ethic, an understanding of life issues that extends beyond abortion to include physician-assisted suicide and capital punishment. The Church’s view on immigration, and support for immigrants, draws on the same CST resources. This course will examine these sources — ranging from Scripture to papal encyclicals and recent bishops’ statements — to appreciate immigration’s position, particularly in the American context, as another “life issue” worthy of Catholic consideration.

• Class 1: Introduction [Video: 70 min]
  Link: youtube DOT com/watch?v=Jmkgnfc5RhI
  ​
• Class 2: Catholic social justice, 7 principles (USCCB) [Video: 71 min]
  Link: youtube DOT com/watch?v=o5W7PBZJ70U
  ​
• Class 3: Vatican II and American Catholic historical examples [Video: 75 min]
  Link: youtube DOT com/watch?v=KXDrnxLWtvM
  ​
• Class 4: Recent papal statements (St. John Paul II to Francis) [Video: 81 min]
  Link: youtube DOT com/watch?v=j8zZMOE3gJk
  ​
• Class 5: USCCB documents on immigration (and current issues) [Video: 84 min]
  Link: youtube DOT com/watch?v=p6UPblk5hbs
  ​
• Class 6: Summarizations [Video: 74 min]
  Link: youtube DOT com/watch?v=2wKLRDDZZWo
  ​
• 5 Principles on Immigration with Archbishop Salvatore [Video: 5 min]
  Link: youtube DOT com/watch?v=El93WxBmiJo

In this light, Catholics might wanna rethink any hamfisted, politically weaponizable certitudes they may be reflexively regurgitating in order to (intentionally or not) bogart the national convo for partisan interests.

[Del]

In this light, Catholics might wanna rethink any hamfisted, politically weaponizable certitudes they may be reflexively regurgitating in order to (intentionally or not) bogart the national convo for partisan interests.

Don't complain to conservative-voting Catholics. We are not your enemy. We only differ in our hopeful strategy to bring justice to migrants. We can talk about it, if we ever get the chance.

Bring your moral outrage to the Biden Administration. Join NY Governor Kathy Hochul in the fight.
New York Governor Shifts Tone, Pressures Biden To Speed Up Migrant Work Permits

Biden lets millions of families in. Families who want to work and support themselves. Then he won't let them work legally, and delays processing for years. And also expects local communities to support them while they wait.

In the hierarchy of Catholic "Non-Negotiable" moral teaching, not letting people work and receive fair pay is a much greater sin than not inviting people to migrate. Denying work is true a life-issue, much closer to murdering children.

Please tell me that you understand that this is true. For all of your jesuit gyrations, I know that you are well formed in Catholic social justice regarding life, property, work, and dignity of the family.

You should read less Fishwrap and more Chesterton. You'll be a happier man.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Title: Catholic Charities in US accused of abetting illegal immigration
Source: La Croix
Link: international DOT la-croix DOT com/news/world/catholic-charities-in-us-accused-of-abetting-illegal-immigration/18268

The Money-Quotes:

Critics want a funding cutoff to religious charities and to stop funding the UN for the purposes of global migration.

[…]

The right to feed somebody

But Sister Norma Pimentel, the executive director of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley, begs to differ. She does not think Catholic Charities is in the cross-hairs of politicians. "Not at all. Not at all, by no means," she said.

Assertions by politicians are incorrect, said Sister Pimentel, a Missionary of Jesus nun. "We help everybody who moves to our center by the Border Patrol. They have been processed. They have been given papers to remain in the U.S. temporarily. They are brought to us by the Border Patrol or by ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) or by Customs. They have been processed, they have been vetted and they have permission to proceed … so they can continue that journey." She added, "They are legally in the U.S. at the point when we see them."

That number is currently about 250 families a day, down from the all-time high of close to 2,000 people in 2019, before the pandemic. "It's not illegal to help somebody to help move forward with their journey. And therefore, helping them is not aiding and abetting. You have a right to feed somebody," she said. "We're not breaking any laws if so you give them water and food."

For those immigrants who get to the Catholic Charities center on their own, "and they haven't been in contact with Immigration or Border Patrol to get processed," Sister Pimentel said, "then they need to do that. Somebody arriving in those conditions, we will tell them you have two options. You can either allow us to call the Border Patrol or continue your journey walking, because we can't help you at this point."

[Jocose]

Labor Day USA: 1.2 Million Native-Born Workers Have Lost Their Jobs and Been Replaced With 668K Foreign-Born Workers