Phil Lawler has an excellent three-part analysis of the opposition of the USCCB to President Trump’s immigration policy, focusing particularly on the very pointed public statements made by two of the administration’s Catholics, the erudite and polished Vice-President, JD Vance, and the tough, non-nonsense “Border Czar,” Tom Homan.
This is the same controversy that has, to my pleasant surprise, introduced ‘ordo amoris’ into American political discourse.
Reading Phil’s pieces — which are, as should be expected, full of common sense — led me to wonder if the Trump transition team had already mapped out the administration’s approach to this Catholic controversy way ahead of time. Foundations and DC think-tanks were producing white papers and war-gaming a second Trump term years in advance, so it may well be that they anticipated this, and used the resources of various conservative Catholics to prepare their response.
All of the faithful should be clear that the polices of the USCCB do not per se constitute Catholic teaching and that whatever the organization does or says in prudential or political matters is not to be taken as necessarily representing the official Catholic position on a given matter. The US bishops, like their brother bishops worldwide, authoritatively teach on matters of faith and morals when they use their Ordinary or Extraordinary magisterial authority (cf. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, Apostolos Suos (1988), paras. 21-23; CIC, Can. 447 and Can. 753). A statement emanating from a committee or spokesman of an episcopal conference is certainly not magisterial in character.
Here are Phil Lawler’s excellent pieces:
- Vance vs. the bishops on immigration, Part I
- Vance vs. the bishops on immigration, Part II
- Vance vs. the bishops on immigration, Part III
