Vance vs. the bishops on immigration, Part III
By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Jan 30, 2025
Rounding out the argument that I began here and continued here:
Thus far I have demonstrated that:
- the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is not “the Church,” but an organization formed to assist the bishops, and
- that organization is now primarily involved in fulfilling government contracts, and
- the fulfillment of government contracts is not a charitable endeavor but a business relationship, but
- the terms of that business relationship are unusual, because government contracts are governed by political considerations, which can and do change, and
- Catholic bishops have neither authority nor expertise in addressing political questions—although, regrettably, they often think otherwise.
Contracts vs. charity
In little New England towns like the one in which I live, many private contractors make deals with local government to help plow the streets after snowstorms. Even when local government leadership changes hands, those contractors usually keep their work, because they can safely assume that, regardless of other political differences, town officials will always want the streets plowed.
But the same cannot always be said about government contracts. Sometimes a new government will no longer want the services that an earlier regime required. With the advent of the Trump administration, with its strong commitment to ending illegal immigration, some dramatic policy changes were inevitable, and, just as inevitably, those changes would bring the White House into conflict with the USCCB, which was strongly identified with the policies of the Biden administration—policies which a majority of American voters had repudiated in November. The Trump team undoubtedly saw this battle coming, and led by Vice President Vance, who is Catholic, confidently took the offensive.
Is it not obvious to all that the USCCB, which has been granted over $100 million a year in federal contracts for the last four years, will soon see that figure plummet—perhaps to zero—in coming months? That predictable development will reflect a recognition that the USCCB, in its refugee-resettlement programs, has been doing things that the Trump administration no longer wants done.
If they are serious that the refugee programs are a necessary obligation of Christian charity, the American bishops could theoretically raise private donations to replace the government contracts. But in order to do that, as Michael Pakaluk points out,
… they would need to have persuaded parishioners to give 25 times more than the $4 million they were already giving to assist refugee resettlement. Who believes that they could have succeeded in doing this, when—for instance parochial schools are woefully underfunded? There is an order of charity.
So it is disingenuous at best to suggest that when the USCCB criticizes the Trump administration, and the administration fights back, the argument is a sign of uncharity or of anti-Catholic bias. This is a political battle, governed by the logic and the rules of American political discourse.
The Biden dispensation
During the past four years the USCCB worked companionably with the Biden administration on immigration (and on other issues including health care, welfare, and education), while chiding the Catholic president for his stands on abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and gender ideology. Although he regularly invoked his Catholic background when it suited his political purposes, Biden did not engage the bishops in debate on those dignity-of-life issues; he recognized that he had nothing to gain by a public squabble with the leaders of the faith he professed. His core of political supporters, who shared his views in opposition to the “culture of life,” were not moved by the bishops’ protests.
Here too the Trump administration is making a different set of calculations. Zealous proponents of abortion and gender ideology will never be strong Trump supporters. But the Trump team realizes that many loyal Catholics share the new administration’s views on immigration, education, health care and welfare. So whereas the outgoing administration avoided confrontation, the new crew came into the White House spoiling for a fight.
Politics, as the old saying goes, “ain’t beanbag.” The most successful political practitioners are accustomed to blunt speech and tough criticism, to rewarding their allies and punishing their adversaries. Donald Trump is certainly no exception, and his closest aides are following his lead.
So it is that Vice President Vance took aim at the USCCB, and the new team’s “border czar,” Tom Homan (who is also Catholic) responded to criticism by Pope Francis with an angry suggestion that the Pontiff “ought to stick to the Catholic Church and fix that. That’s a mess.”
Homan enlarged on his point, comparing American border policies with those of Vatican City:
They have a wall around the Vatican. And if you illegally enter the Vatican, the crime is serious. You’ll be charged with a serious crime and be jailed. So he can protect the Vatican where he lives. He can build a wall where he lives, but the American people are not allowed that.
Such tough public criticism of a Roman Pontiff would have been unthinkable for any respectable American politician a generation ago. But habits of deference to Church leaders went out of style in 2002, with the eruption of the sex-abuse scandal, and the American hierarchy has done little since that time to restore its credibility. Politicians today can take aim at the American bishops without fear of the political fallout.
The politicians know that. But do the bishops? Does the Vatican? The appointment of Cardinal Robert McElroy to become Archbishop of Washington—where his outspoken advocacy for immigrants will bring him into steady conflict with the White House, and his close association with the disgraced “Uncle Ted” McCarrick makes him an easy target—creates a situation in which the Trump administration could profit politically from continued sparring with the country’s Catholic leadership. It is, as Homan observed, a mess.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: howwhite5517 -
Jan. 31, 2025 8:12 PM ET USA
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. It seems to me that Pope Francis has an animus against USA. That is the heart of the problem.
-
Posted by: d97cbaseball -
Jan. 31, 2025 10:18 AM ET USA
Thank you Mr Lawler: I so appreciate your in-depth analysis on everything. We "sheep" tend to feel like we must agree with everything stated by anyone "inside" the church. It's important that you have taught us that this is not necessarily true. When I read what the Bishops and even the Pope say on immigration, and then read the Catachism, it's hard to believe they EVER read it (Paragraph 2241).They use their political beliefs to make us think we MUST believe their political views. We don't.
-
Posted by: feedback -
Jan. 31, 2025 8:58 AM ET USA
Thank you for the important three-part analysis! Our Bishops need to realize that they will not be able to restore their moral credibility, and thus stop harming the Church, until they clean up their house. The scandal of McCarrick's secret double-life continues to linger over the USCCB, and over the papacy of Francis. It is still unknown who promoted McCarrick to the very top, and whom he promoted, and why? This makes the criteria for all recent hierarchical promotions look suspicious.
-
Posted by: ewaughok -
Jan. 31, 2025 1:37 AM ET USA
I entirely agree, Mr. Lawler! And would echo your final sentence quoting from Senior Advisor to the Department of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Mr. Homan. But we can go further in this case, and ask “who is responsible for the ecclesial mess?” Umm … it’s not the US government… ‘nuff said …
-
Posted by: miketimmer499385 -
Jan. 30, 2025 6:59 PM ET USA
I believe you've fairly stated the general temperament of the USCCB concerning immigration and its general position vis-a-vis the Executive Office of the US. Michael Pakaluk is an admirable soldier to cite in support. This issue should be a big wake up call to the USCCB and the staff employed in its operation in matters of prudential politics. Each bishop needs to redirect his attention to his own bailiwick on elementary matters of faith and morals. Evangelization starts and ends with education.
-
Posted by: DrJazz -
Jan. 30, 2025 6:46 PM ET USA
One thing's for certain: Tom Homan is a DUDE! He takes no prisoners. Good for him. And this series is excellent, Phil.