Monthly Archives: June 2018

Preventing a Partisan Court from Getting Worse: a “liberal” interpretation

The reliably “liberal” (I have trouble using the word for illiberal people) E. J. Dionne Jr. has this figured out: The constitution is a right-wing document.

Our constitutional system of “checks and balances” only works if those in a position to operate the levers of checking and balancing do their job. It is clear that a Republican Congress and Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have no taste for such work. For the moment, President Trump is mostly unchecked and unbalanced.

Unless “constitutionalist” is a word he has trouble with.

via Commonweal Magazine

Who’s Responsible for Separating Alien Kids From Their Parents? Many People, but Not Trump

Who then?

There is a lot of blame to share. That includes President Bill Clinton and the alien parents themselves, as well as the courts and immigration policies foolishly created by the Obama administration.

The perverse incentives in those policies have endangered the lives and safety of children and helped fund the deadly Mexican drug cartels that run the trafficking networks on our southern border.

Read about it here.

Trump’s list of Supreme Court candidates

Ready to rumble.

via StarTribune.com

Chinese cardinal brings urgent matter to Pope, who comments later to Reuters in condescending fashion

This is awful, that he hears the man out, then publicly dismisses him as not to be taken seriously. What a guy.

And as for the criticisms of [papal policy by] Cardinal Joseph Giuseppe Zen Zekiun, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong, [Francis] downplayed them:

“I think he’s a little scared. Perhaps age might have some influence. He is a good man. He came to talk to me. I received him, but he’s a bit scared. Dialogue is a risk, but I prefer the risk to the sure defeat of not talking.”

Lately, however, the news from China has not been encouraging at all. In May, Settimo Cielo reported on an upswing of anti-Christian repression, and the flimsy justifications set forth by the supporters of an agreement at any cost were worthless.

He’s a well-meaning worry wart, says the world’s holiest father. Not good, your holiness.

via China. Cardinal Zen’s “Scare” Has Its Good Reasons – Settimo Cielo – Blog – L’Espresso

More more more from Fr. Phillips lawyer’s Canon Law Letter to Cupich

He aims to vacate the Cupich action.

If Your Eminence, as Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Chicago, prior to giving the March 12th decree had conducted a preliminary investigation, prompting the restrictions [namely] the canonical sanctions, imposed on Fr. Phillips, then it can only be valuated as superficial and incomplete. Hence, your decree is lacking factual foundation (Cfr. canons 48-51 CJC).

What is more, the verbiage of your decree and other public writings appear contradictory, and unfounded in canon law. Hence, this perceived lack of clarity and linearity – also in reference to the erroneous application of the dictates of the prescribed canon law process – gives way to, and even further provokes profound confusion amongst the faithful, causing unnecessary scandal and division.

I can hear the SOS flying across the seas to his padrone Francis: “Papa Francisco, I’m in trouble.”

via Mahound’s Paradise: EXCLUSIVE: Text of Fr. Phillips Canon Law Letter to Cupich

Fr. Phillips’ Canon Lawyer to Cardinal Cupich

From the letter dated from Rome, 4/29/2018:

Primo ictu oculi [at first blink of an eye or at first blush], your decree, the singular administrative act dated March 12, 2018, is ipso jure null and void under canon law. Attentive study of the facts and related documents further confirms this conclusion. [Italics added]

The entire letter, introduced lucidly by the blogger, comes via Mahound’s Paradise: EXCLUSIVE

Fascinating. Whole thing puts the matter in a new, or confirmatory, light.

More more more on the defenestration of Fr. Phillips

Good coverage here.

LifeSiteNews did not hear back on an inquiry to the Archdiocese as to why Cardinal Cupich is keeping Father Phillips from performing priestly ministry.

No.

Oakes Spalding, a St. John Cantius parishioner and blogger, wrote that “This is of course a travesty.”

Spalding said he is convinced Father Phillips is innocent of any wrongdoing, whether moral, legal or civil, and that the charges are political and an attempt to quash a traditional Catholic parish.

“Hostile forces”

He further wrote the allegations were “seized upon by hostile forces in the Chicago Archdiocese and elsewhere as an opportunity to attack and destroy an incredibly successful traditionalist pastor and (perhaps later) the traditionalist order that he founded and the old Chicago church that he saved from the wrecking ball and turned into one of Chicago’s most thriving parishes.”

“The final result was not based on justice but on politics,” Spalding stated, and said those politics are not limited to that of Cardinal Cupich.

Blame Cupich?

“Catholic traditionalists and conservatives have assumed that the liberal Cardinal Cupich is somehow behind it all,” he continued, “not without reason, I think, given his past behavior and reputation. [As convinced opponent of the Latin mass] But I do not believe that blaming Cupich for all of it is correct, or at least, given what we know, entirely correct.”

Father Phillips had other enemies, Spalding wrote, and pledged to name names in a subsequent post.

I’m all ears. Spalding blogs at Mahound’s Paradise, where he is all over this story. Robustly, I might add.

Meanwhile, at One Peter Five, Matt Abbott, regarding the difficulty of finding out what’s going on, asks, “Has Cupich silenced everyone involved?”

Lot of cross-pollination in all of this.

via Cdl. Cupich keeps traditional priest from ministry, despite report finding him innocent | News | LifeSite

It seems we’ll never know what happened at St. John Cantius, Chicago

There are mysteries and there are deep mysteries. What kind do you think this is?

Something happened. What happened? The Congregation of the Ressurrection and the Archdiocese of Chicago have an obligation to make public those parts of their conclusions that can be made public (that is, with names or other information that could identify specific persons blacked out).

Otherwise, the removal of Fr. Phillips will be seen as a persecution motivated not by his “improper conduct” (what was it?), but actually by his good work at St. John Cantius.

The people have a rightful expectation to know what actually happened.

Rightful expectation or not, when has this happened when “causa finita est” is incorrectly applied in incorrect agencies?

via RORATE CÆLI

Fr. Phillips Exonerated | Protect Our Priests | Chicago I St. John Cantius Parish

These people had it right from the start. Let the record show that.

via Fr. Phillips Exonerated | Protect Our Priests | Chicago I St. John Cantius Parish

Catholic pastor C. Frank Phillips innocent of charges but guilty of something else . . .

. . . violating unspecified ” standards for behavior.” and so cannot do public ministry in the Chicago archdiocese.

Although Phillips was not found to have violated any church or secular law, archdiocese spokeswoman Paula Waters said there was other information that warranted his removal and a continued ban on his administering sacraments in public within the archdiocese.

Waters declined to detail the findings against Phillips.

Except to add:

“ . . . The review board “did not recommend that he be returned as the pastor of St. John Cantius. And so, based on their recommendation that he not return and on other factors, the cardinal decided that his faculties to minister would remain withdrawn.” [Italics added]

Question: Was the review board required by the cardinal to recommend that? Without doing so, they really did recommend it? A sort of Humpty Dumpty situation? Or Red Queen?

In any case, the review board that found Phillips innocent “did not make any recommendations,” his lawyer Stephen Komie said. “They returned a straight report.”

So: Why is Fr. P. banned in Chicago? Was it Humpty Dumpty’s “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less”? Or the Red Queen’s off-with-head scenario?

Either way, matters have gotten curiouser and curiouser, as Alice understood her situation.

via Chicago Tribune

%d bloggers like this: