Philosophical Parasites and the Cuckoo's Egg

There are two kinds of philosophies in the world:
1) those that encourage adults to have children and
2) those that discourage adults from having children.

Any cultural group that follows the second philosophy will extinguish itself. If we consider these philosophies in total, it doesn't matter deeply what the pro-life philosophy is. It could be religious, e.g., Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Confucianist, Taoist. It could be economic, e.g., capitalist, socialist, communist, hunter-gatherer, whatever. It could be some philosophy based on experimental or formal science. It could even be a philosophy based on astrological symbols and homeopathy. Doesn't matter. All we care about is, does this philosophy encourage fertile adults to have and raise children?

Similarly, it doesn't matter deeply what the anti-life philosophy is. Again, it could be religious, economic, scientific, pagan. Doesn't matter. The question is, does this philosophy encourage fertile adults to avoid having children?

Natural growth cultures, if they are functioning correctly, naturally have the children necessary to carry on the next generation. Anti-life cultures naturally don't have any children. The only way they maintain themselves is by successfully converting (stealing) adults from the Natural Growth cultures.

Notice, it doesn't matter what the children think. Children, by definition, don't generate. Only adults generate. So, if children are raised in an anti-life philosophy, it doesn't matter. Only the adults matter. The adults - at some point during their fertile lives - will necessarily adopt one philosophy or the other. Converting children is a complete waste of time. Conversion of adults is the only thing that can effect outcomes. So, we might summarize these philosophical families this way:

Philosophy	Natural Growth Culture flourishes unless adults abandon it		Cuckoo’s Egg Culture must convert adults or die
Pro-life, encourages adults to have   children		X
Anti-child, discourages adults from having children			X

Now, Catholicism, and Christianity in general, has traditionally considered itself pro-life. We think of ourselves as an evangelical culture that grows by converting adults to Christian belief. Let's see how we have been doing for the last couple of centuries. TFR stands for Total Fertility Rate. It refers to the total number of children a fertile woman in the culture will have over the course of her lifetime.

So, we see that in the United States, Christianity has consistently failed to impart its ideas to the next generation of fertile adults. You can try to argue that we succeeded for 20 years out of the total 200 years in the chart, but that really doesn't work well. It means we failed for 180 years out of the total 200 on the chart. Worse, it is obvious the anti-child philosophers have been consistently successful in convincing fertile adults to follow an anti-child philosophy.

But that's just the United States.
How has the rest of the world done? Well, the numbers are clear.

The entire world has consistently lowered its TFR. Not one culture, anywhere in the world, has maintained or raised its TFR over the course of the last 200 years. Not one. This victory of anti-life philosophies is called the "demographic transition." Over the last two centuries, pro-life philosophies have failed to win converts. Anti-life philosophies have consistently won the converts necessary to flourish. People who participate in the pro-life culture are having the children and raising them to adulthood. As adults, those former children are being converted to prefer not having children.

Obviously, this cannot continue. Insofar as every fertile adult adopts in anti-life philosophy, that adult's DNA disappears from the gene pool, that adult's philosophy dies with him or her. The numbers indicate that the anti-life adults are, during their lifetimes, converting other fertile adults to their own sterile philosophy at a much, much higher rate than any of the pro-life philosophies convert adults to a fertile philosophy. This is true even when the people pushing the anti-life philosophy show a marked contradiction between what they say they believe and what they actually do to live out their purported "beliefs".

If evolutionists honestly believed that only the fittest survive, then they clearly don't consider themselves or their philosophy fit. People who teach evolution don't have children, at least not enough to replace themselves. Thus, they must believe themselves to be unfit to procreate, they must consider themselves an evolutionary dead-end. The person who accepts evolutionary theory apparently becomes evolutionarily unfit.

So, how does this apply to Catholics?

Well, obviously, we have not previously, nor are we now, successfully evangelizing any modern culture. This is not a post-Vatican II problem. This is not even a post-Vatican I problem. This problem has existed since at least the dawn of industrialization. We have had this problem ever since industrialization started making us physically rich.

Christianity, and the world's other pro-life philosophies, do not know how to evangelize the modern, wealthy industrialized world. We were quite, quite good at evangelizing the world when it was mostly agricultural. We have had no success since it has become industrial and post-industrial. Quite the reverse, in fact. The modern industrial world has a very good idea of how to spread its anti-child gospel to successfully convince fertile adults, whether Christian or not, that humankind should become extinct.

We obviously cannot yet answer their outlook or arguments because we obviously have not yet successfully answered those outlooks or arguments.

Everything we have tried in the last 200 years has failed.
The things they have tried in the last 200 years have succeeded.
We have God on our side, but we are losing.

That's worth pondering.

Pope St. Pius X on the Papacy

Distracted with so many occupations, it is easy to forget the things that lead to perfection in priestly life; it is easy [for the priest] to delude himself and to believe that, by busying himself with the salvation of the souls of others, he consequently works for his own sanctification. Alas, let not this delusion lead you to error, because nemo dat quod nemo habet [no one gives what he does not have]; and, in order to sanctify others, it is necessary not to neglect any of the ways proposed for the sanctification of our own selves.

...

The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.

It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls.

Saint Pius X

Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union 

November 18, 1912

“Tradition? I am tradition!”

                   - Bl. Pope Pius IX 

The American Popes

I find it fascinating that Americans get very upset when the Pope makes a statement that applies to America's political situation ("separate Church and state!"), but consider themselves fully authorized to tell the Pope how to handle events in the Catholic Church.

American outrage over the abuse problem is especially ironic, given that those same Americans chose to make their last two top presidential candidates a choice between a woman who viciously covered up her husband's rapes vs a man credibly accused of rape by his own wife and thrilled to be endorsed by the convicted rapist, Mike Tyson.

Remarkably enough, even as they pontificate to the Pope about how to handle sexual abuse, most Americans still defend their chosen rape perpetrators as excellent choices to rule over them.

It's almost like Americans are hypocrites.
Imagine that.

Update:
Hey, look, yet another newspaper points out that Vigano is a damned liar.

Conversation With A Vigano Supporter

Him: The question remains did Pope Francis know McCormick was a serial molester when he brought him back into the fold? What say you about Danneels as well? No, while this doesn't make B16 look good, McCarrick was always independent. While he flouted sanctions, he was disinvited from all seminarian events, and Wuehrl even cancelled his meetings with seminarians, They all knew. And McCarrick never showed the Bishops conference B16 letter saying no communion for pro choice politicians - in fact misrepresented it. Guy was fearless and shameless. But Danneels . . . Cardinal Coccos orgy, the Hondurans, the Msgr Ricca debacle, the $25 million request from the Papal Foundation - let alone the confusion in doctrine - this has to end. Debacle.

Me: This is where the pro-Vigano people fail to understand what they are supporting.

If you want to believe Vigano, then you have to believe Pope Saint John Paul II, Benedict and Vigano himself are all guilty of malfeasance. There's no avoiding those conclusions.

You just want to focus on Pope Francis. But Vigano implicates himself and every Pope in the last forty years.

Vigano accuses the saint of the Church who STARTED the investigations into sexual abuse, he accuses the Pope who acted as that saint's watchdog in investigating the sexual abuse, and he accuses himself, the papal nuncio who claims to have instigated McCarrick's sanctions himself. If he is correct, all of them are guilty of gross malfeasance.

Him: No, that's not a fair reading - (1) it's clear McCarrick disregarded some (but not all) of the sanctions. There is a record of Uncle Ted being told not to attend seminarian events. (2) B16 famously told a reporter "my authority stops at that door"; (3) Viganos actions, while falling short, are not really the story - this is a pattern of rehabilitating abusers. It is a deflection to rebut one small part of this story and miss the elephant in the room. The Smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican.

Me: according to Vigano, Saint JP II was informed about McCarrick in the year 2000.

Read his charges.
That's what he says.

That saint elevated McCarrick to DC and the cardinalate in 2005.

HOW in the WORLD is JP II not grossly malfeasant for having done that?

Him: He is. Probably shouldn't be a saint based on a to of this. However, the PAYMENTS were made in 2006. Follow the money. That's where Pope Francis must resign. He used a known pederast to advise him on placing Cardinals, and unlike Vigano, who gave public platitudes b/c the payouts were private and under NDA, Francis relied on this pervert. Disgrace. It's Windswepthouse.

Me: OK, well, the declaration of sainthood is an exercise of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

So, now you have just denied a dogma of the Church.
THAT is where supporting Vigano leads.

Bishops from around the world realize this.

When both Ave Maria University and National Catholic Reporter are on the same page about an event in the Church, the few Catholics who are on the other side of the debate should start to re-think their positions.

La Stampa journalists call Vigano's entire account into question

They have now produced a timeline showing how ridiculous Vigano's account is.

An additional conservative bishop support Pope Francis


Update:
Vigano is a convicted thief. Amazing.

UPDATE:

Just a reminder from canon law

Can.  1404 The First See is judged by no one.

Can. 1372— The following are to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§ 2-4: 

1° those who hinder the freedom of the ministry or the exercise of ecclesiastical power, or the lawful use of sacred things or ecclesiastical goods, or who intimidate one who has exercised ecclesiastical power or ministry; 

 2° those who hinder the freedom of an election or intimidate an elector or one who is elected.

Can. 1373— A person who publicly incites hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office or duty, or who provokes disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.

Canon 331 - [The Pope], by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

Canon 333.1 - By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. 

Canon 333.2 - The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner. (Canon 333  2)

Canon 333.3 - There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff. 

Silence and The Papal Dilemma

The major kicker in Vigano's accusations revolve around whether Pope Benedict put sanctions on McCarrick. Without that central accusation, Vigano has nothing.

By saying Benedict put sanctions on McCarrick, Vigano has essentially charged Pope Benedict with being weak and malfeasant. Think about this. Vigano has said Benedict imposed sanctions on America's leading prelate. But even Vigano can't seem to remember when these sanctions were imposed or what they comprised. Then he says McCarrick flouted the sanctions, and Benedict didn't do anything about it because Vigano himself, as America's papal nuncio, failed to inform Benedict.

Saying you can't remember much about the sanctions placed on the Cardinal who ran Washington DC is like saying, "Yeah, I lived through that experience in New York when those terrorists blew up the WTC. The smoke and ash were horrific. But I don't remember exactly what day it happened. Heck, I don't even remember exactly what year it happened. I am also not sure exactly what happened. How many planes, and how many towers fell and who actually made them fall .... I'm kind of fuzzy on all that."

Saying you were America's papal nuncio when an American cardinal flouted papal sanctions is like adding, "But I was THERE! I was a member of Air Defense Patrol that day! I knew it was going to happen, I warned everyone several years before, but I kept absolutely silent on the day of the event and during the days leading up to it!"

And blaming Pope Francis simply adds, "This WTC terrorist disaster was all Donald Trump's fault!"

Yeah. That's a good look for both Benedict and Vigano. Vigano accuses JP II, Benedict and himself of malfeasance and then insists the situation is all Pope Francis' fault. Amazingly enough, people actually buy this.

And what, exactly, is Benedict supposed to say? Benedict can't afford to make a public statement one way or the other.

If Benedict says he did impose sanctions, he makes himself look weak and his successor look bad, which harms the office of the papacy. If he admits he didn't, then HE looks bad, which harms the office of the papacy.

Likewise, Francis won't allow Benedict to state that Benedict did not issue sanctions. If Benedict did NOT impose sanctions, then Benedict looks malfeasant, which Pope Francis simply will not allow. The two are friends, Francis won't permit Benedict to sacrifice himself that way. If Benedict DID impose sanctions, than McCarrick clearly flouted them prior to Francis taking office, and that makes Benedict and the papacy look weak, which Francis can't allow either.

Here is the irony: if Vigano's account is correct, then JP II, Benedict and Vigano himself were all malfeasant. But none of them are being attacked.

And further irony: as far as anyone can confirm, Pope Francis is the only person who DID impose sanctions on McCarrick. He is also the only person who is being attacked.

Neither the Pope Emeritus nor the Pope himself can afford to respond to these charges at all. They have to just hope that the people paying attention to the timeline put the pieces together and realize that Vigano is lying. On Vigano's part, he has intentionally posed a dilemma which will deeply undermine the papacy and the Catholic Church for years to come. Remarkably enough, Catholics throughout the United States are getting in touch with their inner Protestant and backing Vigano's play.

Sad times.

UPDATE: 
Dawn Eden has done yeoman's work in creating a timeline that calls Vigano's actions in Minnesota into question. Her timelines shows that Vigano's apologia in LifeSiteNews is deeply problematic.

UPDATE 2:
You know, when you think about the Vigano-Benedict-McCarrick situation, Vigano's charges should actually clear Pope Francis of all blame. Think about it. Vigano claims (while still living in Rome, no less) to have been the watchdog who goaded Benedict into imposing sanctions on McCarrick. Benedict supposedly imposed the sanctions, then appoints Vigano America's papal nuncio. While living in America, McCarrick supposedly flouted these sanctions.

Everyone knows Ratzinger was JP II's enforcer on the sexual abuse scandal. Vigano claims to be the enforcer on McCarrick. If neither Bulldog Vigano NOR JP II's bulldog on sexual abuse, Ratzinger, were willing to enforce sanctions, or even keep one another informed about the sanctions, then why WOULD Pope Francis think the sanctions were important? The whole sanction bit is so nebulous, Vigano apparently isn't even sure what year the sanctions were imposed.

What...The...Flick? How can the man who goaded the Pope into sanctioning America's leading prelate over sex abuse charges forget the details of his victory? It isn't like this happens every day. This is HUGE! But, if you listen to the pro-Vigano crowd, neither Pope Benedict nor Vigano himself can even remember what year the sanctions were imposed, much less any of the details. Seriously?

SERIOUSLY??!?!?!

If Pope Benedict communicates that well with the papal nuncio who is supposed to oversee the American prelate he sanctioned, one can only imagine how much fun Pope Francis had trying to get any information out of Benedict. And how could anyone take seriously sanctions so poorly formulated and enforced that neither of the men responsible for their imposition can remember anything about them?

UPDATE 3:
From EWTN, one of Pope Francis' main persecutors at the moment:

"The present Code of Canon Law includes three such censures: excommunication (c. 1331), interdict (c. 1332), and suspension (c. 1333)....

Father Beal proposed that censures are unlikely to be effective punishments for priest abusers.

He explained: "Since they can only be imposed after a warning, there must be evidence of an incident of abuse or at least suspicion that a particular cleric is prone to such abuse before a censure can even be threatened. Sad experience of the recent past suggests that even the sternest warnings and threats are unlikely to be effective in deterring abusive clerics from repeating their offenses. Even when a censure has been imposed, it must be remitted once the offender evidences repentance — and, as many bishops have learned to their chagrin, sexually abusive clergy can make very convincing displays of repentance when they are confronted with evidence of their offenses."" (emphasis added)

Da Vigano Code

If what Vigano says is true, then Pope Saint John Paul II was told of McCarrick's issues in 2000, but elevated McCarrick to DC and the cardinalate in 2005. This was at the same time that Benedict was in charge of ferreting out child abuse as head of the CDF.

When Benedict took the throne, he had just spent years ferreting out child abuse throughout the world, especially in the US, where the scandal started. He presumably would have known about McCarrick, yet Benedict allowed McCarrick to stay on for nine months past his retirement age of 75. Vigano says he warned the Vatican about McCarrick in 2006 and 2008, but Benedict - who would have known about McCarrick for at least a decade at this point, only places restrictions on McCarrick in 2009 or 2010 - that no one can seem to remember which year is itself absolutely remarkable. And why would Benedict, who was the point man on investigating sexual abuse in America under JP II, permit the sanctioned McCarrick to move to the grounds of the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE) seminary, an institution whose founder was himself convicted of sexual abuse and removed from that same seminary?  If true, this is absolutely gross malfeasance on Benedict's part, and completely out of character with how he handled sex abuse cases when he was JP II's watchdog.

Vigano gets appointed America's papal nuncio in 2011. By this time, McCarrick was supposedly flouting Benedict's one-year old sanctions (or was it two-year old sanctions??). This disobedience was, according to Vigano, being hidden by other prelates. But if McCarrick was flouting Benedict's sanctions in 2011 or later, then Vigano - as America's papal nuncio - could easily have gotten a private audience and informed Benedict himself about the misbehaviour of an American prelate. Given Vigano's uniquely powerful position, there would be absolutely no way for other prelates to hide McCarrick's disregard for Benedicts fabled sanctions. Vigano would have been there, right?

But Vigano apparently wasn't there. He never bothered to get that audience with Pope Benedict to inform the Pope about McCarrick's disobedience. This is really odd, given that Vigano insists it was his memo in 2008 that got Benedict to act in 2009 (or was it 2010?).  No, instead of warning the Pope about McCarrick's residence and activities, Vigano, as papal nuncio, gets himself involved in questionable behaviour concerning the alleged sexual abuse by Nienstadt in Minnesota. Dawn Eden has done yeoman's work in showing Vigano's explanation of Minnesota simply doesn't work.

So, let's recap. According to Vigano, Pope Saint John Paul II was criminally malfeasant. Sure, he sent the future Pope Benedict after every sexual abuser in the United States, but JP II not only left McCarrick alone, he elevated the man to DC and the cardinalate. When his chief investigator, Ratzinger, becomes Pope Benedict, Ratzinger-Benedict inexplicably leaves McCarrick in the most powerful position in the American church for months past McCarrick's retirement, then allows McCarrick to retire to a seminary with extremely well-known past problems of sexual abuse. Benedict, at Vigano's urging, then imposes penalties on McCarrick, and appoints Vigano to be America's papal nuncio. One would think Vigano could keep a weather eye on McCarrick from that perch, but Vigano inexplicably neglects to inform the Pope about the malfeasance of the American prelate that Vigano himself had urged sanctions upon just a dozen (or was it two dozen?) months prior.

Now, the only person who says Benedict imposed sanctions is Vigano. Vigano essentially claims Benedict waited for YEARS before doing it. And no one, not even Benedict (according to the pro-Vigano National Catholic Register reporter claiming sources close to the Pope Emeritus) can remember exactly what those sanctions were! Imagine that! The Pope imposes sanctions on America's leading prelate during the height of the sexual abuse crisis and can't remember what the sanctions were!

In fact, Vigano apparently didn't even remember the sanctions while he was papal nuncio. La Stampa reports:

 "And even Viganò himself, in the meantime removed from the Vatican by decision of Benedict XVI who “promotes him nuncio to Washington, does not appear at all worried about the situation. His participation in public events with the harassing cardinal is documented, such as concelebrations in the United States or the attribution of an award to McCarrick (on 2 May 2012, Pierre Hotel in Manhattan), a ceremony during which Viganò appears anything but indignant or embarrassed to be photographed alongside the old cardinal harasser. "

Nor did Vigano have a problem with praising the "sanctioned" cardinal at an awards dinner: Wow - handing out awards, concelebrating Mass with a known abuser.... those were certainly some nasty sanctions the papal nuncio was enforcing on behalf of Pope Benedict, eh?

If Vigano is correct, then Pope Saint John Paul II was complicit in elevating McCarrick, Pope Benedict was complicit in waiting years before sanctioning McCarrick, and Vigano was complicit in failing to notify Pope Benedict that not only was McCarrick flouting sanctions, he, Vigano, was helping McCarrick flout the sanctions.

Now National Catholic Register would have us believe that Pope Benedict can't remember the precise nature of the sanctions he imposed on America's leading prelate during the height of the sex abuse scandal investigation that he himself had led.

Nothing in that timeline makes any sense.

In fact, we only KNOW of one person who imposed sanctions on McCarrick: Pope Francis. And, oddly enough, within two months of doing it, Pope Francis is the only person everyone is attacking.

It sure looks like a mafia hit on Pope Francis.
And NCR sure looks like it wants its hands in any papal blood that is spilled.
These certainly are remarkable times.

Addendum:

When you look at the dates and how Vigano has handled himself in the years since, it all becomes clear. Pope Francis ordered McCarrick to resign July 27, 2018. Vigano began attacking Pope Francis August 25, 2018.

We already know Vigano publicly praised McCarrick in 2012, when Vigano himself testified that he knew McCarrick was not supposed to even be present at the dinner. it's on videotape, on Youtube. 

What's going on? Well, Vigano is trying to undermine Pope Francis because Vigano is the point man for the homosexual lobby. When Pope Francis stripped McCarrick of his cardinal title, the Pope demonstrated that Vigano was incapable of protecting the homosexual clique. Vigano couldn't stand to be outed like that, so he has attacked Pope Francis ever since.

Update 2020:

“Viganò wrote to Cardinal [Marc] Ouellet, the new prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, about this in 2012 and Ouellet instructed Viganò to take certain steps, including an inquiry with specific diocesan officials and Priest 3, to determine if the allegations were credible.” The report states that “Viganò did not take those steps (emphasis added) and therefore never placed himself in the position to ascertain the credibility of Priest 3.” As for McCarrick, he “continued to remain active, traveling nationally and internationally....

... Nuncio Viganò first claimed in 2018 that he had mentioned McCarrick in meetings with the Holy Father in June and October 2013, but no records support Viganò’s account (emphasis added) and evidence as to what he said is sharply divided...

...“Until 2017, no one—including Cardinal Parolin, Cardinal Ouellet, Archbishop Becciu, or Archbishop Viganò (emphasis added)—provided Pope Francis with any documentation regarding allegations against McCarrick, including the anonymous letters dating back to the early 1990s, or documents relating to Priest 1 or Priest 3.” 

.

”

Vigano's Vinegar

Vinegar is wine gone bad, the drink Christ was given as He hung on the Cross. Now we have a papal nuncio named Vigano who is saying some extremely nasty things about Pope Francis. What is going on?

I have not worked in the Vatican, and I am currently far removed from the rumor mills of the chancery offices. However, I have worked in a chancery office, and I have worked for three different bishops. I have a small inkling of how politics is played in the Catholic Church. The first and foremost rule you must learn is the rule of romanita:

Romanita, that particular brand of power is called. It is axiomatic that any Pope who hopes to succeed must be at least two things: iron-willed, and skilled in romanita. Romanita rests upon one basic principle: Cunctando regitur mundus. If you can outwait all, you can rule all. The hallmark of romanita is understatement in action and in all forms of expression. It is, in a way, power in whispers. Essential to it are a sense of timing reamed with patience, a ruthlessness that excludes the hesitation of emotions, and an almost messianic conviction of ultimate success. Few are born with it. Most genuine "Romans" who flourish must learn it over time. 

 All chancery offices, all ordained men, operate on this principle. Quiet patience is not just a virtue, but a necessity. No one offers himself up as a target, rather, the wise man provides some stalking horse, some paper cut-out, to take whatever hits are necessary.

If Vigano, a former papal nuncio, is speaking out, he is speaking out in order to advance someone else's agenda. Ordained men, especially a papal nuncio who undoubtedly got his position precisely because he is skilled in romanita, do not speak out as Vigano has unless that man has very powerful protection. Never.

So, by the very fact that we hear his voice, we know Vigano is not the man who came up with the idea to speak out and we know that there is a hidden agenda to speaking out. This is especially true if the ordained man vociferously denies he has any agenda, as Vigano has already denied it.

What is that agenda?  Look at what he says. Vigano is careful to absolve both Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict of all blame. This is directly at odds with the rest of his message.

After all, Vigano claims Pope Saint John Paul II was apprised of McCarrick's problems in 2000. But JP II was precisely the man who elevated McCarrick to New Jersey (1986), Washington DC (Nov, 2000) and the cardinalate (Feb 2001).  According to Vigano's timeline, a saint of the Church put McCarrick into the most powerful position in the American church, Washington DC, just weeks after being told McCarrick was a homosexual abuser. Keep in mind, this is the same saint JP II who took years to deal with Maciel and the Legion of Christ scandal in the 1990s, but Vigano mentions none of this.

From the timelines, we know Pope Benedict followed JP II's example. After all, Benedict was elected April 2005, but didn't accept McCarrick's resignation (May 16, 2006) until McCarrick was almost 76  (he was born July 7, 1930), that is, almost a year longer than the customary retirement age of 75. Vigano claims Benedict put restrictions on McCarrick, and is thus not to blame. But, since Benedict was the head of the CDF, wouldn't Benedict have been just as much at fault for allowing McCarrick to continue in his post for another year? And McCarrick was known to have retired to the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE), during Benedict's pontificate. IVE not only had a seminary on the grounds, the founder of IVE was a known homosexual abuser who was actually forbidden by Rome from associating with his own organization. Obviously, all of this would have been known to Benedict.

But Vigano barely mentions either Pope Saint JP II or Pope Benedict. In fact, Vigano holds up Pope Benedict - the Pope who resigned precisely because he felt he could not handle the homosexual cabal in the Vatican - as a shining example.  Vigano lauds Benedict's (in)action and pours all of his venom out on the head of Pope Francis, the one man who clearly DID put restrictions on McCarrick. You see, as of 20 June 2018, Cardinal McCarrick was removed from public ministry by the Holy See after a review board of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York found an allegation "credible and substantiated" that he had sexually abused a 16-year-old altar boy while a priest in New York

Vigano, who is conveniently retired, and thus nearly untouchable, decides to step forward and attack Pope Francis scant weeks after McCarrick is publicly humiliated.

Hmmmm....

This is classic romanita, folks. If the romanita script is being followed, then Vigano is McCarrick's stalking horse, put up to the task of tearing down the Pope for daring to publicly humiliate Cardinal Theodore McCarrick by either McCarrick supporters or McCarrick himself.

Don't buy into this caca.


UPDATE:
It is as I thought. Source:

Regardless of the truth of his claims, Vigano needs to explain his own reported complicity in covering up sexual wrongdoing by a brother bishop.  After all, this is the very accusation he is making against Francis.  In 2014, Vigano  ordered  a shut-down of an investigation of alleged sexual wrongdoing by Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis archdiocese, according to an internal memo made public by local prosecutors.

And Michael Sean Winter is also calling foul on Vigano.

During the Benedict papacy, with my own eyes I witnessed McCarrick celebrate Mass in public, participate in meetings, travel, etc. More importantly, so did Pope Benedict! If Benedict imposed these penalties, he certainly did not apply them. He continued to receive McCarrick with the rest of the Papal Foundation, continued to allow him to celebrate Mass publicly at the Vatican, even concelebrating with Benedict at events like consistories. (See photo above taken in 2010.) But, as Vigano tell is, it is all Pope Francis’ fault.

...  When the Argentine bishops, under the leadership of then-Cardinal Bergoglio, refused to ordain the Incarnate Word seminarians, McCarrick stepped in to do it. 

Current speculation says Cardinal Burke is using Vigano as a mouthpiece to strike back at Pope Francis. The reasons are easy to identify:

And, under the current nuncio, Archbishop Vigano, there was a series of major appointments in the latter years of the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, when Cardinals Burke and Justin Rigali were on the Congregation for Bishops, that set the culture warrior stamp on the U.S. Church. Only when Pope Francis removed both +Burke and +Rigali from that Congregation, replacing them with Cardinal Donald Wuerl, did the appointment of culture warriors to major archdioceses cease, most obviously in the appointment of +Blase Cupich to the archdiocese of Chicago.

Vigano is a damned liar, trying to take down Pope Francis for personal reasons, and he doesn't mind if the Church breaks apart as a result, since he and Burke are counting on people blaming Pope Francis instead of them.

This is Lefebvre all over again. Burke won't stop until he schisms the Church or dies trying. Using Vigano this way demonstrates that in spades.

P.S. Oh, and why is EWTN's Raymond Arroyo so negative on Pope Francis? Well, both EWTN and National Catholic Register have always had close ties to the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi, the groups founded by infamous child abuser Fr. Maciel. In fact, EWTN had a long-standing Q&A forum with LC priests answering questions, while NCR was originally entirely owned by the Legion. Remember, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a member of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal and a long-time star of EWTN's line-up, was on the board of the Legion’s Institute for the Psychological Sciences in Arlington, VA. So, yeah, there's history there was well.

UPDATE II
Oh, this just keeps getting richer. Now DiNardo is publicly defending Vigano, the man who covered up a sex abuse case in Minnesota. By purest coincidence, SNAP has long since named DiNardo (and Mahoney) as part of the "Dirty Dozen" - the nation's WORST bishops in handling sex abuse cases.

So, we are supposed to take the word of two men who are known to have covered up sex abuse, as they question the competence of the Holy Father. Yeah, who wouldn't be on-board for that?

UPDATE III
From John Paul Shimek:
Things to remember...

Vigano has participated in the Rome Life Forum, which has ties to Burke. Also, Vigano released his 11-page document at an important moment: i.e., at the conclusion of Pope Francis' World Meeting of Families, which Burke had been trying to undermine with his own shadow meeting of families. Lastly, the Missouri Attorney General was about to investigate Burke's former diocese of St. Louis. This bit of news offers Burke some deflection and cover.

N.B. In the linked picture, Vigano stands between Burke and LifeSiteNews' John Henry Westin. Westin's rag website has been notoriously anti-Catholic for the last several years.

Remember, "Viganò invited McCarrick to the nunciature to attend receptions, McCarrick takes part in the US bishops 2012 “ad limina” visit to Rome, where he concelebrates Mass at the tomb of St Peter, and in the same year, he is described by Viganò as “much loved by us all” at a gala dinner."

Update IV

Addendum:

When you look at the dates and how Vigano has handled himself in the years since, it all becomes clear. Pope Francis ordered McCarrick to resign July 27, 2018. Vigano began attacking Pope Francis August 25, 2018.

We already know Vigano publicly praised McCarrick in 2012, when Vigano himself testified that he knew McCarrick was not supposed to even be present at the dinner. it's on videotape, on Youtube. 

What's going on? Well, Vigano is trying to undermine Pope Francis because Vigano is the point man for the homosexual lobby. When Pope Francis stripped McCarrick of his cardinal title, the Pope demonstrated that Vigano was incapable of protecting the homosexual clique. Vigano couldn't stand to be outed like that, so he has attacked Pope Francis ever since.

Did the TLM Cause the Sex Scandals?

I have heard "traditionalist" Catholics, lovers of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), assert the following:

Has any Bishop’s statement included the word “sin”? Seems that word has been scrubbed out of the Church’s lexicon. 

Homilies keep affirming us in our okayness. I hear no mention of sin. 

Our hymns are full of what we are doing for God. How lucky God is to have us.
I came into the Church to get rid of my sins, not have them affirmed or ignored. I want to be challenged, because I need to be challenged continuously. 

One thing I love about the Latin Mass is I have to say the “Domine, non sum dignus” three times. Seems at least the minimum number of times I should remind myself of my unworthiness. That there is something wrong with me that only Christ can heal.

This statement, while centered around a laudable remark on sin and self, demonstrates a completely oblivious attitude towards recent liturgical history. After all, we know men trained and formed in the TLM were actively recruiting homosexuals into the sacred ministry all over the world, which is why the Vatican had to promulgate a world-wide directive to all TLM-trained priests to STOP ordaining homosexuals.

That directive came out in 1961.
That is TWO YEARS prior to VC II.

So, if we want to claim that the liturgy is at the basis of the modern sex abuse problem, then we must admit the Traditional Latin Mass, at least as it was undertaken in the 20th century, is at the basis of the sexual abuse problem. Given the premise ("the liturgy is at the basis"), there is no way to avoid the conclusion ("the TLM is the problem"). This conclusion is supported by the fact that it was the pre-VC II trained priests who committed the bulk of the sexual abuse in the last 70 years.

Which is why, perhaps, VC II recommended an overhaul of the liturgy.

Pennsylvania 300

Much is being made about the recent grand jury report out of Pennsylvania. The grand jury studied allegations made from 1947 to the present against priests concerning sexual abuse. The jury decided that roughly 300 priests over those 70 years were responsible for over 1000 victims of sexual abuse.

To put the numbers another way, in a diocese that currently has 776 priests (and had more than 5000 priests serve since 1947) an average of four priests per year abused 14-15 children a year for 70 years. Obviously, any case of abuse is unacceptable, as cases like those of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein and DNC assistant director Keith Ellison prove. But, given the numbers, the most shocking aspect of all of these cases is the length of time that the abuse was actively covered up.

For seven decades, from 1947 until the present, Pennsylvanian bishops covered for the handful of abusive priests in their diocese. For four decades, the powerful men and women of Hollywood covered for Harvey Weinstein. For at least the same decades, members of Congress have covered up the abuse of staff and interns by elected politicians, who papered over hidden payments made to those same victims with taxpayer money.  And there are more child abuse rings out there among the rich and powerful, as Corey Feldman has repeatedly testified and Clinton-friend Jeffrey Epstein has hinted.

As I pointed out seven years ago, the problem of adults abusing children is common. Wherever large numbers of children congregate in the presence of adults, whether it is on Hollywood sound stages, in Congressional back offices, in public school classrooms, at regional and national athletic competitions, in fast food joints, synagogues or church sacristies, there will be adults who take advantage of the situation. Equally common is the bureaucratic tendency to hide the abuser, hide the abuse, and quietly pay the victims off while moving the abuser to a new position of authority.

I don't mean to engage in "what-about-ism". There is a fine line between raising the red herring of saying "others do it too" versus asking the legitimate question "are Catholic priests abusing at a rate out of proportion to the population?" But that line DOES exist, and we do need to ask that second question.

After all, if Catholic priests ARE abusing out of proportion to the general population or out of proportion to other specific populations, then one of two things needs to happen. Either we:

1. abolish the priesthood OR 
2. take that fact into account in priestly training and make explicit efforts to weed out possible offenders.

But, in order to see whether or not Catholic priests really ARE abusing out of proportion, we have to compare the population of Catholic priests to the general population and/or compare to the other populations that deal with large numbers of children. No matter what the answer, we still have a final question: should the Catholic Church be held to a higher standard than we hold our politicians, coaches, public school teachers and Hollywood heroes? Absolutely, yes. I am all for holding Catholic priests to a higher standard than we do other populations.

The Pennsylvania priests who are guilty should be prosecuted, and so should be the Pennsylvania bishops who hid them. Harvey Weinstein's prosecutor should move on to prosecute all the men and women who knew of his activities but kept silent. Offenders in the House and Senate, the abusive men and women we elected to office, should be jailed, along with every elected, appointed or employed member or staffer who knew it was happening, but kept silent. Public school teachers, their principals and the local school boards should be perp-walked out to waiting squad cars.

As Bill Donahue points out, America apparently wants to convict priests and bishops on a lower standard of evidence than that used for lay people. Go ahead. I won't gripe. I just want a complete picture of what is actually going on. I want everyone to understand and agree that we are using a lower standard of evidence for priests than we use for everyone else.

Pick any organization that deals with a lot of children, advertise for and examine every victim claim made against that organization for the last seventy (70) years, and I absolutely guarantee you will find at least as many perpetrators, as many victims, and as much of a bureaucratic cover-up as you do in any Catholic diocese. Why? Well, at least because the organization wouldn't have lasted 70 years without a successful bureaucratic cover-up. And that level of abuse will be found even if you use different standards of evidence for allegations and/or conviction. But we already know this.

Bill Clinton has been credibly accused of rape, his wife had knowledge of it, but she hid his crimes so successfully that she actually ran for President. In fact, she nearly got elected to the highest office DESPITE the fact that voters knew she was very probably at least an accessory to rape after the fact. She got beaten by a man who was accused of rape by his own wife and who publicly celebrated being endorsed by a convicted rapist. We, the voters, knew all about all of this, but we were fine with it. We still are.

Here's the dirty little secret: ultimately, Americans DO hold different standards of evidence for Catholic priests than they do for Hollywood moguls, public school teachers or the politicians we happily vote into office. I am not griping. From the evidence of the news media and the various levels of outrage, we both know I am just stating the fact. Even non-Catholics recognize this.

We want priests and bishops to be holier than those other groups. That is a perfectly legitimate desire. But are the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church holier than any of those groups? That is, are they less likely to sin? Scripture and experience tells us they are not. This is what human beings are: broken. Even cancer surgeons die of cancer. Even bishops and priests are accursed with broken human sinfulness.  Prosecute every surgeon who acted with malfeasance. It doesn't change the fact that we still need cancer surgeons.

But God Killed People!

Remember that time God killed Cain?

Or that time God wiped out the Chosen People to the last man, woman and child, because they all deserved it, and even Moses couldn't talk Him out of it?

Or that time God killed David for having committed murder and adultery? And besides, David refused to kill Saul, which showed what a weakling David was.

Or that time Jesus executed the adulterous woman by having the crowed stone her to death?

Or that passage in Scripture that says, "In God, there is no lack of shadows, blood and death."

Or that time God said, "Kill your enemies, hate them until they are ground into little bits beneath your feet, for that's what the pagans do, and you know how much I prefer them to you"

Or that time God said, "Make the other guy turn his cheek, and give him a good wallop for Me."

Or that time God said, "If a man asks for your coat, he's trying to mug you, so kill the dirty little bastard."

Or that time God said, "The measure with which you measure isn't something you have to worry about."

Or that time Paul said pagan governments can kill people, because they are pagans and ignorant of God's laws, and their sword falls like rain on the just and the unjust, so Christians should imitate pagans as soon as they get the reigns of government?

Or all the other things God had to say about the death penalty?

Or all those things the early Church said about the death penalty?

And let us not forget about Augustine, Doctor of the Church.

Yes, I tell you what, all of you great Catholics out there, since you are without sin, you can support the death penalty. I'll even let you throw the first stone or flip the first switch.

Otherwise, you need to shut up and listen to the Pope.

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father (the Pope) or the voice of his mother (the Church), and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city (the Holy Trinity) at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

When Can We Disagree With the Pope?

Well, we can't do it on matters of faith and morals.

Lumen Gentium #25

25. ... Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

The Death Penalty Teaching Hasn't Changed

So, some people are upset because Pope Francis explained the teaching on the death penalty. Non-Catholics, such as the men and women of the Chicago Tribune, claim Pope Francis has changed Catholic teaching. Some who claim to be "conservative Catholics" have sided with the Chicago Tribune and promoted this erroneous understanding.

Now, Catholics know it is impossible to change Catholic teaching. So what is going on?

To begin, let us recall the first principle of Christian understanding. Just as you cannot use one Scripture to attack another Scripture, so you cannot use one papal statement to attack another papal statement. We cannot start with the supposition that this Pope is contradicting previous teaching. That is not how Catholic teaching works. So, what is he doing?

The pope is pointing out a change in circumstance which is forcing a change in the discipline. He is not announcing a change in doctrine. What does this mean? It means the APPLICATION of the doctrine has to be changed. The practice has to change. That's a disciplinary change.

To take an example, every human being has a right to eat meat, a right given by God Himself in Genesis 9. So, if this is a right given by God, why do Catholics refrain from eating meat on Fridays? Well, in order to keep fresh the remembrance that God took on flesh so that He could suffer and die for our salvation, and that He chose to do this on a Friday, the Church requires every Catholic to abstain from eating the flesh of land animals on Fridays.

So, when we deliberately eat meat on Friday, the sin does not lie in the eating of meat per se, rather, the sin lies in our refusal to commemorate God's sacrifice for us. It is a sin of disobedience against a discipline. We have the right to eat meat, given in Genesis after Noah lands the ark. But it is the specific circumstances of when we do it that creates the sin.

In the same way, every country has the right to apply the death penalty. That is settled doctrine, and that doctrine cannot change. In ages past due to the general subsistence level poverty most human cultures lived, this was a necessary right. Societies could not afford to permanently house a large, non-working population of inmates. They couldn't guarantee dangerous people could be jailed for life. The death penalty was often the only way to protect the general population from great misery.

What the Pope tells us today is that things are no longer what they were. The world's social institutions have become so wealthy and powerful, they no longer have the excuses of poverty and weakness to invoke. With great power comes great responsibility.

The sin involved in the death penalty derives NOT because the state doesn't have the right to the action. Of course the state has the right to the action. But the circumstances in which the action can be undertaken have essentially disappeared.

While previous epochs in human history may have suffered from such a basic poverty that there was no other recourse, this kind of poverty no longer exists. The Pope merely points out (and the statistics clearly support him) that no such region of the world remains. If any society is too insecure or poor, that is no longer due to an inherent poverty built into the current fabric of human existence, but due to the corruption of its governing officials, who refuse to allocate resources in a just way.  As Hans Rosling pointed out several years ago, the Pope is absolutely correct:

As Rosling points out in his video, for most of the Church's history, all of mankind has lived in a very small box of short-lived poverty. Within the last 200 years, every country on earth has moved out of that box. This change in circumstance requires a change in how doctrines are applied.

It has been pointed out that the death penalty is linked to the right to self-defense, even self-defense that involves taking the life of the aggressor, and the right to wage a just war. Both individuals and states have the rights to defend themselves from unjust aggressors. That hasn't changed. But when I defend myself by taking another human being's life, I only have the right to do so because I have a poverty of choices: I am unable to stop the aggressor with anything less than lethal force.

My right to kill the aggressor in that situation is still intrinsically a violation of the light of the Gospel, and this is reflected in the teaching on self-defense. After all, it has always been standard Catholic teaching that, if I am able to stop the aggressor with less than lethal force, I cannot kill the aggressor. Killing the aggressor in that situation would absolutely be a sin. What is true for individuals is also true for society at large.

Today, governments have no excuse. Any society which is poor suffers from poverty because the murderers and thieves are in the government, not in the street. The unjust aggressor isn't the man on trial, it is the government that tries the man. In the modern world, we are now treated to the spectacle of one extremely powerful murderer and thief (the corrupt government) putting a petty murderer and thief to death in order to cover up and distract from its own sins.

And, to be fair, the death penalty has always had a basic problem. It assumes infallibility on the part of the police and the courts, that they have found and convicted the correct man. Since only the Pope is infallible, and even then only on points of morality and doctrine, that basic presupposition has always been suspect. Honest men and women have always acknowledged this basic flaw.

But today's level of social wealth has laid this flaw bare for all to see. The death penalty is now a sin used by a corrupt government to cover up and distract from its own sins. The United States is one of a rather small list of countries that still use the death penalty. Is there anyone here who would truly try to support the idea that the US government is free from corruption? One sign of our corruption is precisely our insistence on the death penalty.

The Pope exhorts us to recognize what science already tells us: the circumstances in which the state can use the death penalty have disappeared. That is all. The doctrine hasn't changed. The circumstances have changed. The Church is taking official notice of that fact.

All Catholics are required to recognize that the reality on the ground is different. We no longer live in the tenth century. This is a reason for celebration. So, rejoice! We can finally implement the fullness of mercy that God calls us toward.

"A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary." (Homily at the Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).

P.S.
The American Conservative understands how this works.


P.P.S.
Pope Saint JP II and Pope Benedict both agree with Francis

"A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary." (Homily at the Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).

P.P.P.S A note from Miriam Westen

"The 1917 Code of Canon Law barred from sacred ordination: 1) judges who imposed the death penalty. 2) Also, those who assisted as executioners could never be ordained to the priesthood.

From the 1957 Woywod & Smith Commentary on Canon Law:
"The sixth irregularity from defect (which permanently prevents a man from being ordained priest) is that incurred by a judge of a criminal court who has issued a death sentence against a criminal.

"The spirit of the sacred ministry is a spirit of mercy and forgiveness, wherefore the Church declares it improper to raise to the sacred ministry a person who has concurred in procuring the execution of a man, no matter how legitimate and guiltless such action may have been.

"From the earliest times of the Church men who have shed human blood, even apart from any guilt, were refused admission to the sacred ministry" (p. 598 "Practical Commentary on the Code)."

Aquinas on Immigration

Like the Founding Fathers of the United States, Aquinas distinguished immigration from naturalization:

“For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exodus 22:21): ‘Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]’; and again (Exodus 22:9): ‘Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino].’”

That's immigration law. Anyone can immigrate in, and no one can be molested when they do. He's fine with open borders.

But, for naturalizing the immigrants (giving them the right to vote and hold office), he, as well as the founders of the US, recognized the standards would have to be higher.

“Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”

So, yes, Aquinas was fine with open borders, but he insisted on tight naturalization controls.

“The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

This is absolutely identical to US policy for the first century of its existence: anyone can come in and make a life for themselves here, without needing any papers, passports, etc. But if you want to vote and hold office in this country, you are held to stringent naturalization requirements.

So, any conservative who insists on Original Intent (tm) has to be fine with open borders, because that was the Founders' original intent. And, the Founders' original intent was completely in conformance with Thomistic principles, so it's not like a Catholic has any real grounds to object.

Ending the Immigration "Crisis"

Most people don't think about it, but immigration is distinct from naturalization. This fact alone changes the whole debate. Remember, the United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.

However, while naturalization, the ability to vote and hold elected office, was tightly restricted for the first century of United States' history, immigration to this country was completely unrestricted. Indeed, the Founding Fathers explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence that one of the reasons they had rebelled against the King was due to his attempt to restrict immigrants from coming to the colonies:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither

Absolutely anyone could move into the United States, start a new life, a new business, pay taxes, participate in military service, raise a family, die and be buried without ever becoming a citizen. But, only naturalized citizens could vote and hold political office. So, the United States had an "open-borders" policy for the first century of its existence. Anyone could immigrate into the US and start a new life, but only those who went through the naturalization process, only those who became citizens, could vote or hold elective office.

This set of policies, in which open immigration was permitted, but naturalization was tightly controlled, persisted until the 1870's and 1880's. Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859 and Descent of Man in 1871. For the next several decades, growing support for Darwinian eugenics eventually drove the US government to close the borders and adopt immigration laws. These new immigration laws were intended to end the open immigration policy which the Founding Fathers had permitted, in favor of preventing "racial taint" from immigrants who entered from undesirable countries.

Note well: the "racial taint" argument was made by the Progessivism movement, with eugenicist luminaries such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson leading the race-baiting charge against immigrants. While Christianity had used government policy to end slavery, Progressivists used government policy to impose Darwinian eugenics.

Now, every Christian church opposed Darwinian eugenics, and the Progressivists knew it, which is why John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White went to the trouble of inventing and promulgating the preposterous myth of the War Between Science And Religion. The invention of this "war" was necessary in order to push forward the Progressivist eugenics agenda. They were successful. Not only does the general public accept this nonsensical history, Darwinian eugenics has been government policy every since. In fact, every president since, and including, Theodore Roosevelt - with the sole exceptions of GW Bush and Ronald Reagan - has supported eugenics.

So, by 1882, America had passed its first immigration law, the Chinese Exclusion Act. A series of additional immigration acts soon followed, as the United States tried desperately to show that whites were superior to all other races. When the policies were first imposed, "white" was defined rather differently. "White" and "Protestant" were considered essentially identical. Thus, immigrants from Mediterranean countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece, were considered "black" for purposes of immigration and segregation laws. Irish immigrants, being Catholic, were held to be human trash. By the early 1900s, both immigration and segregation laws were considered good Progressive policy, endorsed especially by Democrats and by Woodrow Wilson, who complemented the new immigration laws by introducing segregation at the federal level for the first time.

Even a passing acquaintance with US history demonstrates how our immigration laws built on Progressivism and Darwinian eugenics. It is one of the great ironies of history that so many modern "conservatives" are pushing the self-same Progressivist ideology that their Christian Republican forbears fought over a century ago. If we are really interested in following the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, we would return to the "open borders" policy our Founding Fathers designed and intended for the country. From the perspective of the men who wrote the US Constitution, immigration was never a problem. Naturalization was the primary concern.

The Founders knew what we refuse to recognize. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, actually make better-behaved citizens than America's current voting citizens do. Wherever illegal immigrants congregate in high numbers, crime rates fall.

To shed light on this contention, Governing conducted an analysis using recently released metro area population estimates from the Pew Research Center for “unauthorized immigrants” -- people who crossed the border illegally or overstayed visas. The analysis not only found no link with violent crime, but indicated concentrations of unauthorized immigrants were associated with marginally lower violent crime rates. A statistically significant negative correlation was also shown for property crimes. For every 1 percentage-point increase in the unauthorized immigrant share of a metro area’s population, average property crime rates dropped by 94 incidents per 100,000 residents.... 

It's these same places that tend to record relatively low crime rates. The 20 metro areas where unauthorized immigrants were most prevalent in the Governing analysis recorded, on average, property crime rates 10 percent lower and violent crime rates 8 percent lower than those of all other regions reviewed. El Paso and San Diego, both adjoining the Mexican border, post some of the lowest violent crime rates of any big American cities year after year, for example

The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigration is based on faulty eugenics theory.  Thus, conservatives should be fighting to implement the Founding Fathers' original vision: open borders for immigrants, but naturalization - the ability to vote and hold office - tightly restricted. In that way, we get the best of both worlds. We get the immigrants who were vibrant enough and motivated enough to come to this country, we reap the benefit of their entrepreneurial spirit, while giving them as much time as they need to decide whether or not they want to become full citizens of our republic. What could be better than that?

Note:
Some people argue that the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to be anti-immigration law, but this is false. No one, no lawyer, no historian, considers the Alien and Sedition Act an anti-immigrant law. Those laws provided for powers to DEPORT foreigners as well as making it harder for new immigrants to vote (voting and holding office are subjects concerning naturalization, not immigration), but even the Alien and Sedition Acts said absolutely ZERO about immigration.

And even those laws were never actually used to deport any foreigner. Under the terms of this law over 20 Republican newspaper editors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The most dramatic victim of the law was Timothy Lyon, a Republican congressman from Vermont, who became the first person tried under the new law in October 1798. Lyon won reelection while sitting in jail, and would later defeat a Federalist attempt to kick him out of the House.

And, to add insult to injury, the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed resolutions declaring those specific federal laws invalid within their states. Who wrote those resolutions? Why, James Madison (author of the Constitution) and Thomas Jefferson. Both men explicitly called the Alien and Sedition Acts "unconstitutional."

Summary:
So, the Declaration of Independence demonstrates the colonies rebelled against the King in part because the King would not allow open borders: "He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither"

The Constitution provides rules naturalization (the right to vote and hold office) but never even mentions the word "immigration." That makes immigration control an unenumerated power, and the proper responsibility of the states, not the federal government (10th Amendment). In fact, states used to run their own naturalization boards until nearly the 20th century.

There were never any federal laws restricting immigration until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. That, and all subsequent immigration law, was put in place by Progressive Darwininan eugenicists. In fact, not only was there no law against, it was quite the contrary. Under Lincoln, there was a Federal Bureau to ENCOURAGE Immigration.

Some people point to the Alien and Sedition Acts as "immigration control" laws, but those laws made zero attempt to control immigration. That law DID allow for deportation of citizens from countries with whom we were at war but:

1. no one was ever actually deported under that law, 
2. the law expired at the end of four years and 
3. both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (author of the Constitution) explicitly called those laws unconstitutional AND both men helped Kentucky and Virginia write and pass state resolutions nullifying the federal laws as unconstitutional.

America was founded as open borders country.

The federal government did not attempt to restrict immigration until 1882.

As Ronald Reagan pointed out, immigration is the source of America's greatness: "'We draw our people, our strength, from every country and every corner of the world." — President Ronald Reagan's final speech was a love letter to immigrants.