Archbishop Garcia-Siller In Context
Oddly, the archbishop's current pattern of making posts on X that he's had to delete, walk back, and apologize for, didn't begin until 2019. But then he stayed away from open controversy until this past year, when in May he had to delete, walk back, and apologize for two posts critical of Israel and the Jews in general. Then, following the New Orleans Bourbon Street attack, he indirectly blamed "trump (sic)". He deleted the post, but so far, he hasn't felt the need to apologize. What's going on?
I'm starting to get the impression that times are catching up with received opinions among the Catholic hierarchy. As far as I can tell, up to now, there's been a tacit agreement among the US bishops quietly to agree to disagree and avoid public debate on key issues that could potentially be divisive. It's been clear enough that Catholic laity has been moving toward support for Trump and away from boutique issues like transgenderism, over which some bishops have been squishy, and they've been hesitant to weigh in on a losing side.
Trump's election may be changing this. Recent remarks from Chicago's Cardinal Cupich, prominent among the squishy bishops, suggest the cease-fire may be ending:
Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich has warned of “prophetic” denunciation by the U.S. bishops if President-elect Donald Trump tries to deport illegal immigrants.
In an interview this weekend with the Argentinian daily La Nación, Cardinal Cupich said that the bishops “are going to have to be prophetic and denounce any abuse of human dignity that may occur” during the Trump presidency, especially regarding immigrants.
. . . Cupich said that he and the bishops conference have “expressed our concern regarding the issue of the deportation of undocumented persons, something that could divide families and make many see the newcomers as enemies.”
. . . Cardinal Cupich has made a name for himself by suggesting moral equivalency among diverse social issues, such as immigration, abortion, capital punishment, and joblessness, provoking a sharp response from his brother bishops.
The problem is that Cathoic Social Teaching makes it clear that countries have the right to resrict immigration and control their borders:
Because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle in their lands. Catholic social teaching is realistic: While people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized.
For this reason, Catholics should not view the work of the federal government and its immigration control as negative or evil. Those who work to enforce our nation's immigration laws often do so out of a sense of loyalty to the common good and compassion for poor people seeking a better life. In an ideal world, there would be no need for immigration control. The Church recognizes that this ideal world has not yet been achieved.
Trump and those who support his policies have been successfully making the point that in fact, under Biden's open-border policies, the US has been receiving "so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized". This is evident when the native-born poor complain that new immigrants are taking the housing, food, and educatonal benefits they had previously received, or that the numbers of convicted criminals and mental patients in current unrestrricted immigration waves are creating an increased public safety problem.A related problem has been the willingness of the squishy faction in the hierarchy to ally itself with secular leftist anti-Semitism. Alan Dershowitz makes the point,
In an act that flies in the face of the Christian Bible, the Vatican recently featured a nativity scene which laid the baby Jesus on a keffiyeh, thus accepting the false Palestinian narrative that Jesus was a Palestinian and not a Jew.
The bible of the Catholic Church expressly states that Jesus was born a Jew in the Judean city with the Hebrew name of Beth Lechem ("House of Bread," Bethlehem in English). He was born there on what has now become Christmas, around the time of the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah. He was circumcised as a Jew on New Years Day. He preached as a Jewish rabbi in the Jewish area called the Galil (Galilee in English). He was crucified as a Jewish enemy of the Romans in Jerusalem. During his lifetime, he never heard the word Christian. He lived as a Jew and died as a Jew. He did not wear a keffiyeh. The Muslim faith only began 600 years after his death. It would have been more appropriate for the Vatican to lay the baby on a Jewish tallit (prayer shawl) and wearing a Magen David (star of David). The Vatican willfully violated their own teachings by falsely trying to present him as a Palestinian.
The problem for the hierarchy is that the bishops -- many of whom are aging -- who've adopted a fashionable leftism of earlier decades are being left behind, and in fact, they've never been in step with actual Catholic teaching. At this point, even liberal bishops like Cardinal Gregory are calling the avatars of that old Catholicism like President Biden "cafeteria Catholics". The world is changing.
The old consensus held that immigration was an absolute good, with multiculturalism the end goal. Arguments contrary to progressive social attitudes was “disinformation” that must be combated by robust online censorship. People would quickly adjust to massive changes in social attitudes around sex and gender because objections would be seen as bigoted. And anyone who said anything that questioned the consensus would become a pariah.
This consensus is being rejected across the West. Donald Trump won the presidency by building a multiracial, working-class coalition that had little affection for the progressive activists who supposedly spoke for them.
It looks like the squishy bishops, in an end-phase desperate move, want to restart the old debates on the old terms. This isn't going to work, and newer bishops recognize this.