In case you’re wondering, the print edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer reports that the Archdiocese of Cincinnati applauds Obama’s illegal imposition of the “Dream” act:
“Archbishop (Dennis) Schnurr has been advocating for passage of the Dream Act for some time now, and this is a welcome development towards that goal,” said Tony Steritz [sic], director of the Catholic Social Action Office for the Cincinnati Archdiocese.
“He’s taking an incremental, ‘go-slow’ approach.”
“You can’t expect him to come out guns blazing.”
“He needs a lot of time to fix the mess the archdiocese is in.”
“Nobody should expect him to change things overnight.”
Lather, rinse, repeat.
16 June 2012 at 10:12 am
I’m sorry, but no matter how you feel about the policy, if you support President Obama’s unconstitutional abuse of authority, you have no standing to complain about the unconstitutionality of the HHS mandate. Sadly I doubt Bishop Schnurr will be the only one applauding.
Again, this isn’t about the policy but the way in which it was achieved.
17 June 2012 at 1:26 pm
Was it really Archbishop Schnurr who applauded this or was it one of his officials? I’m just saying… if there is criticism that needs to be leveled lets be accurate and specific. It would be more accurate to describe the criticism as giving license to one of his official to applaud in the media this exo-Constitutional political maneuver.
17 June 2012 at 4:46 pm
Stieritz is the bishop’s mouthpiece on issues touching public policy. He was speaking in an official capacity as +Schnurr’s representative.
16 June 2012 at 10:57 am
[...] troubling to me is seeing a handful of Catholics applauding this decision, including Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati. I understand why these individuals support the overall policy, but again, the policy [...]
16 June 2012 at 11:26 am
There goes the Constitution! We can’t abuse it without infringing on everyone’s rights and destroying this country. In my opinion, this is just to buy votes and to “throw the Church a bone.” I’m in favor of immigration reforms, but DONE PROPERLY, and constitutionally. As Mike Huckabee commented recently, (I’m paraphrasing) the border should be secured before anything else is done. This was just one more Machiavellian (or should I say “Alinskyan”) move from this administration. Where is the call for his impeachment? I hear only silence.
I think it was also done to draw our attention away from the fact that a pro-abortion Supreme Court judge just received confirmation.
16 June 2012 at 2:47 pm
I’m amending my own post, which was a knee-jerk reaction (and I should know by now not to post those). I didn’t do my homework. My spouse says it wasn’t unconstitutional, and that it can still be overridden, but how likely is that?
I will be studying remedial U.S. Government while I wait to see any Republican countermoves, but I won’t hold my breath.
16 June 2012 at 3:25 pm
Your husband is wrong, Rosemary. Read Paul Zummo’s excellent post, which is linked at the second comment.
18 June 2012 at 1:16 am
I was not aware of any Supreme Court vacancy. Perhaps you meant the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. To my knowledge, the “9th Circus” was already overwhelmingly pro-abortion.
18 June 2012 at 11:52 am
D.P. – You are correct.; Andrew Hurwitz, Ninth Circuit. Mea culpa.
16 June 2012 at 7:04 pm
As the Romans would say: “Id quod, modus quo.” It’s not just what you do, but how you do it. The action may have by itself been a positive thing, but that it took place outside the law, indeed (and by the President’s own admission), against the law, affords us no guarantee that such would not happen at the expense of any class of people — say, for instance, religious institutions being forced to support contraceptive services.
We are no longer a nation under the law, but a nation under fiat. Be afraid.
18 June 2012 at 1:13 am
Although I personally disagree with abuse of executive orders, I do hope, for the sake of consistency, that the USCCB would also have been fine with Santorum, for example, imposing a federal ban on abortion without consulting Congress. However, I doubt this would have been okay with them, for they are at the mercy of the ‘nuns’ (sisters) of the LCWR, who may well have objected by bringing coat hangers to their anti-Magisterium rallies.
In 2012, the ends justify the means and we are in chaos. Long live Benedict XVI and, after that, come, Lord Jesus.
16 June 2012 at 8:20 pm
Curious, not a word of this on the msm, just conservative take radio, Obummer is going to speak to a gathering of Hispanic groups including La Raza next week, I DREAM of democrat votes, quid pro quo ?
17 June 2012 at 12:09 am
Weird that it is not online.
18 June 2012 at 8:32 am
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-23/news/os-obama-latino-leadership-orlando-20120523_1_marco-rubio-president-obama-rick-scott
President Obama to speak at Latino leadership conference at Disney in June
President Barack Obama will be among of the speakers at a Latino leadership conference scheduled for next month at Walt Disney World.
The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials announced this week that the president will address the group on June
22.
18 June 2012 at 10:58 am
Disney World? Why not someplace with a more Latino flavor? Yet more evidence of the ABC/ESPN/Disney/Obama connection.
17 June 2012 at 3:27 pm
The Bishop’s role is to preach the Gospel not any country’s constitution
18 June 2012 at 12:54 am
The Bishop’s role is to preach the Gospel and to protect his and his priests’ ability to do so within his diocese, not to dispense praise or blame upon a dictator depending on whether the royal proclamation of the day happens to coincidentally reflect his interpretations of Gospel values. The former approach is proactive, principled and future-oriented, while the latter is reactive, easily manipulated and fossilized.
17 June 2012 at 9:02 pm
I’m reminded of the response of priest friend of mine a few years ago at the enthusiasm I had when Archbishop Schnurr was appointed to lead the see of Cincinnati. He warned that His Excellency was a “company man.” The company, of course being the USCCB.
His Excellency came of age in the USCCB and for better or for worse, how the USCCB goes, so goes Cincinnati.
Of course the USCCB supports this move by the Obama Administration too.
Looking back, I think his concern was well founded.
18 June 2012 at 1:04 am
It appears the philosophy of the USCCB, like that of the major US political parties, has been reduced to ‘the ends justify the means’.
This is why they supported the ACA ‘healthcare law’ for institutionalizing a dubious ‘right to health care’, until it infringed upon their own conscience rights directly. It was also the stance of the Pharisees in sentencing Our Savior to death to save their own skins from the Empire.
This continued lack of insight on the part of the USCCB, which had heretofore shown glimmers of hope, is extremely disappointing.
18 June 2012 at 10:05 am
I think we can safely leave in place the old saying, that the USCCB is the Democratic Party at prayer.
18 June 2012 at 1:51 pm
I don’t think anybody has said this yet, but it’s obviously a tax grab. If you make a bunch of illegals born in the US retroactively US citizens, you don’t just give them votes and legal status; you also make them retroactively liable for income tax, Social Security tax, et al.
This also includes people who have always lived and worked in other countries, who just happened to get born here; they and their banks immediately fall under the horrible recent IRS laws, which have been harassing expatriate Americans and encouraging them to go so far as renouncing their citizenships to help others be able to live with them.
Obama and the IRS have just replaced a lot of the expatriates who’ve escaped them with an entirely new group of money targets to harass.
Sigh. I’m tired of being so cynical.
19 June 2012 at 6:49 pm
If true, this brings a whole new meaning to ‘preferential option for the poor’.
22 June 2012 at 7:51 am
In a radio interview, Archbishop Schnurr said he does not support the executive order. FYI.
http://thecatholicbeat.sacredheartradio.com/2012/06/22/archbishop-schnurr-enquirer-not-correct/
22 June 2012 at 9:44 pm
Then his representative, Tony Steiritz, has once more done him a disservice by introducing confusion about the positions of the local church.
24 June 2012 at 8:53 pm
[...] lawless executive order on immigration a “welcome development.” We discussed it here. The Archdiocese now seeks to walk back the dog, claiming incredulously that Mr. Stieritz’s [...]