Saturday, August 14, 2021


“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too..”—Pope Benedict XVI

Although not a papal magisterial statement, when Pope Francis contradicted and abrogated the papacy of Pope Benedict and by extension also that of Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Francis undetermined not only the Second Vatican Council but also papal authority thus exacerbating the already huge virtual schism in the Catholic Church created by those who promote Vatican II as a rupture with what preceded it rather than in continuity with it. 

I consider myself a papist and an orthodox Catholic. What Pope Benedict wanted to do and he made it quite clear in his Christmas talk to cardinals shortly after his election, was to interpret Vatican II in continuity with what preceded this council. He saw this as the way forward for the Church in crisis because of misinterpretations of Vatican II as though a new Church was created.

In his attempt to reconcile the SSPX with the Church (which, when you think about it, is a part of this continuity meme) Pope Benedict even went so far as to say that there are some “theologies” of Vatican II that do not rise to the level of a doctrine let alone a dogma. The two sticking points for the SSPX are the documents on religious liberty and the one on ecumenism, interfaith dialogue and dialogue with unbelievers and the world. 

These can be consider as the theology of limbo for unbaptized babies. Take it or leave it, but it isn’t doctrine or dogma, merely a “theology.” 

In canceling Pope Benedict’s method of interpreting Vatican II which allows for the continuation of the pre-Vatican II Mass and a less dogmatic interpretation of Vatican II, Pope Francis has made Pope Benedict’s point in an unwittingly brilliant way. 

Thus we have a line drawn in the sand about papal authority and the authority of ecumenical councils that are not dogmatic but are promoted as such. 

I am with Pope Benedict and others are with Pope Francis. Is this a Peter and Paul moment? Or is it a schism?

This is a good article: Press the title:


Pope Francis’ motu proprio on the usus antiquior defeats its own stated purposes

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman August 12, 2021 36
Pope Francis new motu proprio on the traditional liturgy of the Roman Rite is, as so many commentators have already observed, a shockingly draconian exercise of papal authority, one that strikes at the heart of [...]


TJM said...

Even the New York Times (Hell’s Bible) is carrying an editorial stating Pope Mercy is tearing the Catholic Church apart

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

You should approach the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on matters of Ecumenical and Interfaith Dialogue and Religious Freedom with greater care.

For references to the doctrinal nature of the Church's teaching on Ecumenism, please refer to the Catechism of the Catyholic Church # 818-822.

Also, you should reference the Vatican's DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM in which you will find, "The ecumenical commitment of the Catholic Church based on the doctrinal principles of the Second Vatican Council" and "In the same way, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" recently published (1992), includes the ecumenical dimension as part of the basic teaching for all the faithful of the Church."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Yes, one is free to believe this theology as one is free to believe the theology of limbo for unbaptized babies in the Baltimore catechism.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

No Fr. ALLAN McDonald - The Church's doctrine on Ecumenism and the principles that underlie that doctrine are not "take it or leave it." You are badly mistaken.

TJM said...

Fr. Kavanaugh,

Engaging in “ecumenism” should be a low priority for a Church that is cratering. You should be on street corners preaching the Catholic Faith like Bishop Fulton Sheen!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

The Church says, "The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council."

Cardinal Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir stated on 15-18 October 2003, "Christian unity was Christ's dearest desire."

Saint Pope John Paul II wrote of ecumenism in Ut Unum Sint, "I myself intend to promote every suitable initiative aimed at making the witness of the entire Catholic community understood in its full purity and consistency, especially considering the engagement which awaits the Church at the threshold of the new Millennium."

In his homily at his inauguration mass, Pope Benedict stated, "With full awareness, therefore, at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome which Peter bathed in his blood, Peter's current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers."

Anyone who says that ecumenism is or should be a "low priority" doesn't know what he is talking about.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Vatican II proposed no new dogmas or doctrines. So we have been told ever since it concluded.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The pastoral plan for ecumenism and the rest of it is to be taken seriously, but pastoral theology cannot be a doctrine or a dogma and none of it is. All your quotes, FrMJK, are from an earnest desire to promote a pastoral plan--nothing more except it has the backing of a council. But just as a liturgy of the Church with centuries of development can be abrogated so too this pastoral plan or at least revised.

TJM said...

Fr. Kavanaugh is using ecumenism to deflect from the failure that is Vatican II and the inability of many clerics to attract new people to the One. True, Faith. He’s really a broken record and all of his Mark Thomas type research is not persuasive

John said...

Pope Benedict XVI taught that V-2 must be interpreted in continuity with Tradition. From what we can read in the press the German synodal fathers claim to be acting according to Vatican 2 teachings. Yet, no serious Catholic, let alone orthodox theologian, could approve of the synod's novel proposals such as inter-communion, female ordinations, homosexual marriage, and so on. In the name of Vatican 2 the Germans endorse all manner of heresies. What we need instead of useless novelties is clarity, we need to think and act consistent with Sacred Tradition as taught Benedict XVI.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Given the various monikers that TJM and FRMJK have had over the course of time and since one now has to enable their google account for me to publish their comments, we have not heard from quite a few monikers including Mark Thomas. And now I wonder, was he TJM or FRMJK? Inquiring minds want to know!

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

TJM here! Not me but there is a definite similarity between Mark Thomas and Father K - neither would address inconvenient truths and engaging in non sequiturs

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Ecumenism and Religions Freedom are far, far more than some "pastoral plan."


"Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act."

From JOHN PAUL II Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio AD TUENDAM FIDEM, by which certain norms are inserted into the Code of Canon Law and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:

"Code of Canon Law, Canon 752 – While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine."

"There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship, while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Thank you FRJMK aka Mark Thomas, so you agree with me—ecumenism as we have known it can be abrogated for an updated model similar to the pre-Vatican II Mass and the post-Vatican II Mass. Nothing is set in concrete and under this pope neither is dogma or doctrine, actual ones, not a pastoral plan.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Fr ALLAN McDonald - No, I do not agree with you.

The work toward the unity of the Church is essential since the unity of the Church is the will of Christ. It cannot be abrogated.

The work done toward the restoration of unity is not merely a "pastoral plan." For you to make such a claim reveals just how little you know about the work and the teaching that underlies it.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Oh yes, you agree with me as prior to Vatican II the manner of ecumenism was to convert or reconvert the world to Christ, but Vatican II abrogated that and a new hermeneutic was established that borders on the heresy of universalism and no need to convert anyone.

But that hermeneutic can be changed by a pope alone or an ecumenical council with a pope in charge unless a pope abrogates both.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Fr. ALLAN McDonald - No I do not agree with you. You use this third grade ploy all the time.

Again, you reveal your ridiculous lack of knowledge of the work of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue with your claim that the work being done today is not directed toward uniting the human family in the Church of Jesus Christ.

If you would actually "do your research" and read the documents it becomes abundantly clear that the goal is unity in the Church, not some kind of "universalism."

From the USCCB website: "Ecumenical dialogue, the search for full, visible unity is thus essential to the Christian life."

From Unitatis Redentigratio: "When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity. This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."

"Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons who, though attached to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her."

Etc, etc, etc.

The goal is full, visible unity in the Church.

I defy you to find a single document from the Church that suggests that the work of ecumenism is universalism, whatever you think you mean by that.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

How often have you, MT, I mean, FRMJK, have you had ecumenical dialogue within your parish and church in celebration the Mass now abrogated by the pope? How often have you engaged SSPX, who are as close to being the fullness of the Catholic Church, so that they and we may be completely one again? After all, Pope Francis said you can go to confession to an SSPX priest, but I dont’ think you can to an Episcopal Priest or Methodist or Lutheran minister.

And speaking of reunited, the Ordinariate’s is the role model going forward but of course that could be abrogated too.

You stand on shifting sand with your theology of ecumenism which isn’t dogma or doctrine, but merely one pastoral plan among many.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Fr. ALLAN McDonald - First, if you turn the following: "How often have you, MT, I mean, FRMJK, have you had ecumenical dialogue within your parish and church in celebration the Mass now abrogated by the pope?" into a sentence that makes sense, I'll respond.

Second, mentioning the SSPX and the Ordinariate is a sad diversion, meant, I suspect, to cover up your equally sad ignorance regarding what the Church's ecumenical documents actually say.

Keep looking for the document that supports your fatuous assertion that "universalism" is the goal of ecumenical dialogue.

Let us know when you've found it.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Father, you need a hermeneutic of reading the Council and me. On the liturgy, VII was very conservative about changes and the decree on ecumenism was too. It is the post spirit of VI that is the problem and the hermeneutics of rupture now endorsed by the current pope after abrogating the previous pope’s sound pastoral plan is officially in vogue. But make no mistake, rupture in whatever document of VII is not to be found but only in its spirit.

Back to my question, how much ecumenism have you done with EF Catholics and the SSOX? They will tell us your pastoral plan for ecumenism.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Fr. ALLAN McDonald - I see you have not found a single church document that supports your sad assertion that the work of the Church in matters ecumenical has some kind of "universalism" as its goal.

I can cite dozens that state the Church's real goals for dialogue.

Your claim is false, you will not find such a document, so now you attempt to divert the conversation to the SSPX, the Ordinariate, abrogated masses, a "hermeneutic of rupture," and some non-existent "pastoral plans."

John said...

Fr. K

The documents of Vatican 2 are often ambiguous. They were deliberately done that way by renegade theologians. It is as if not churchmen and women but unknown descents of Lewis Carroll published the synod papers. And kept interpreting them every which way until Pope St. John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI restate what they really mean when read in continuity with Sacred Tradition. But then Pope Benedict XVI resigned. So back to Alice in Wonderlandish times.


“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Best to avoid general statements. Use concrete example of what you mean unless you just can't think of any.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Fr MJK, I see you have no comment on ecumenism with the SSPX and in house ecumenism with those who prefer the EF Mass. The absence of comment is deafening.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

This article will reveal the true ecumenism of Vatican II that avoids the heresies of the lowest common denominator and certain it ruptures the heresy of universalism so offer practiced in ecumenical circles:

Mark said...

Methinks Father McDonald doth protest too much. It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that_he_must be Mark Thomas, commenting under that moniker to prime the pump and stimulate spirited conversation. One expects no less from a trained secret agent with a pen communicator. -:)

Anonymous 2 (and not Mark Thomas)

TJM said...


Nah, Fr. K has outed himself to be Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

UK priest has been missing in action too since the new way of registering. Hmmm.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Fr. ALLAN McDonald - No, I have not commented on the topic you tried to use as a diversion. And I won't comment on it because it is a deflection.

You made false accusations against the people who work in ecumenism and, when challenged, offered no evidence, zero, to support your claim. But that's what you and others do.

Now we have John asserting that "renegade" theologians "deliberately" wrote "ambiguous" documents at Vatican II. More baseless accusations that, while they ring true with the traddie crowd, are, nonetheless, meaningless outside that echo chamber.

You might as well be selling "The Election Wqas Stolen Fro Trump" to his sycophants and the smiliarly deluded.

People who want to know what the Church says are the goals of ecumenism are and what the work of those involved in ecumenical dialogue is all about have every opportunity to read it for themsleves. I hope they won't listen to the ignorant clergy and the angry nay-sayers.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Wow, talk about a serious case of not only deflection but projection--UK priest, I mean, Mark Thomas, no I mean, FRMJK, reread your comment and then apply what you wrote to yourself and then physician heal thyself.

William said...

Learned Fathers, how are we to go about convincing disaffected, protesting Christians that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ when 70% of nominal Catholics now claim otherwise? Please, enough inter communion in the name of ecumenism!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

In terms of multiple moniker personality disorders, that FRMJK played or lived the mark of Mark Thomas deserves an academy award so deceptive and subversive was the role he played. Who even thought it was he? Uk priest, yes, the other monikers, yes, but Mark Thomas, wow, no!

TJM said...

Father K,

You should be more concerned that you support Biden with his rabidly, pro abortion agenda

Thomas Garrett said...

Father Kavanaugh,

Since you have no compunction about steering the conversations away from their original focus and since YOU opened the door to this, I'll state unequivocally, Trump DID win the election.

When Bush and Gore had their disagreement in Florida in the 2000 election, we had a different media. Just about every media outlet used phrases like, "alleged" miscounting of votes or "allegations of miscounting" or "accusations of". Jump to 2020, when any pretense of objectivity is long gone and we have the media IMMEDIATELY IN LOCKSTEP using phrases like, "unfounded charges of voter fraud" or "baseless claims of voter fraud" rather than getting up off their lazy butts and finding out for themselves--who's going to find out what they don't want to see or hear in THIS day and age?

Rudy Guiliani once the most respected mayor in New York history, the man who put the heads of the Five Families away is suddenly "nuts". Ditto for Sidney Powell, one of the nation's most respected attorneys. George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and their lockstep minions in the "mainstream" establishment media have decreed that they are both now officially unhinged crazy people, so it MUST be so! We saw the same thing happen to Trump, who was once honored by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for his efforts on behalf of New York's black community--until he decided to run against Hillary Clinton. It was instantly decreed he was a "racist" and, viola, the lockstep media proclaimed it so.

But the lockstep, "respectable" mainstream media has one little problem: At least 50 percent of Americans have doubts about the validity of this election--a wound that will not heal. Election officials in various places--including Georgia today--continue to resign or get arrested or indicted or both. Increasing numbers of counties and states are calling for forensic audits.

Yes, yes, yes, you and the lockstep media will continue to affect your studied sophistication and condescendingly assure us poor unwashed that these are all "baseless claims" as you pity us for our ignorance.

We'll see.

John Nolan said...

This game of ping-pong between two clerical gentlemen who are acquainted with one another and so don't need to resort to a blog exchange is generating more heat than light. When someone posts as Anonymous or uses a daily changing pseudonym without changing style or content (except to make it more vituperative) it is not difficult to detect a common authorship.

In the case of the erstwhile commentator 'Mark Thomas' his manifest absurdities and OCD style strongly suggest that he is a caricature and not a real person. However, he is a sublimely comic creation, and his creator must be possessed of a genuine sense of humour, not to mention an indefatigable appetite for selective quotation. Fr K has the latter but not the former, so I think we can rule him out.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Thomas - I will state unequivocally that Elvis, JFK, and Jimmy Hoffa are living a happy life on an island off the coast of Brazil. That doesn't, however, make it so.

60 lawsuits by the law cabal of Giuliani, Powell, and Wood - you left out Lin Wood - were dismissed in 60 courts.

50 state governments, 29 of them being in Republican control, certified their elections for Biden.

The multiple "re-inauguration" dates for the former resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have comes and gone. March 4, March 20, and others all came and went and still Trump lives in Florida.

The most recent re-inauguration fiasco came and went on August 13 when My Pillow Guy was set to announce the "evidence" of a rigged election. During that event, when it was announced that the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against him and Powell and Giuliani was going to be allowed to proceed, Lindell fled the stage.

So, you go on being unequivocal aboutg whatever cockamamie conspiracy theories you want.

We'll see? No, we've seen.

Thomas Garrett said...

No conspiracy theories.

The sudden, unexplained resignation of the Fulton County registration chief Ralph Jones is a fact.

Arizona's preliminary Maricopa County audit report is coming out next week. And the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors continue to refuse to abide by subpoenas for passwords to unlock vote info (not the behavior of people who have nothing to hide).

The lady in Atlanta who on camera (naw, don't believe your lying eyes) pulled ballots out from under a table and "counted" them after sending everyone home on election night AND her daughter are both facing a lawsuit for their role in vote tampering. When they are both deposed, you can bet, someone's going to flip.

"Big Lie"
"Big Lie"
"Big Lie"

Keep chanting. Stay smug. Yeah, you've seen it all.

Like I said, we'll see.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Thomas - You do realize that you have just described a "conspiracy," don't you?

You even list some of the prominent conspirators - Soros, Zuckerberg, and Dorsey. Then, for good measure, you add not a few co-conspirators - the mainstream media.

It becomes a preposterous conspiracy theory when you make the claim while offering no evidence. None.

I imagine you include among those conspiring against Trump the 29 Republican governors who certified the elections in their states, including Governor Kemp of Georgia. Remember, Georgia votes were counted, audited, and re-audited, each time resulting in a win for Biden.

Powell's own lawyers, you might recall, attempted to defend her indefensible position by saying, and I quote, "No reasonable person would conclude that the statements [Powell made about election fraud] were truly statements of fact.” Recall also that Powell had asserted herself that another person responsible for the "steal," was Hugo Chavez of Venezuela WHO DIED IN 2013!

Powell's assertions, and then her claim that those claims were not credible, seem to violate four rules that attorneys are bound to follow.(1) A lawyer can’t make a false statement in court. ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (3.3(a)(1)); (2) a lawyer can’t engage in conduct whether representing a client or not involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation (8.4(c)); (3) a lawyer can’t engage in conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice” (8.4(d)); and (4) a lawyer can’t make false statements to third parties in the course of representing a party (4.1).

Regarding the mysterious counting of Atlanta ballots, "What you saw – the secret suitcase with magic ballots – were actually ballots that had been packed into those absentee ballot carriers by the workers in the plain view of the monitors and the press,” Georgia Election System Implementation Manager Gabriel Sterling said, according to the Augusta Chronicle." I supposed Mr. Sterling must be added to the list of co-conspirators.

Mark said...


“The sudden, unexplained resignation of the Fulton County registration chief Ralph Jones is a fact”

The resignation is a fact. But it seems that it is hardly unexplained:

As for the rest, I am more than happy to leave matters to the legal process (unless lawsuits are used to harass and intimidate, or the process gets otherwise corrupted). Indeed, if we are to live by our commitment to the rule of law, I don’t really know any other way to do it, especially as we no longer seem able to engage in political conversation based on a shared set of facts. So far, however, Team Trump has not done too well in the courts.

Although I am no Trump supporter, my position is a non-partisan one. Above all else, I want to defend the rule of law in our constitutional republic, closely followed by effective self-rule in an uncorrupted representative democracy based on honesty, integrity, and other key virtues exhibited by elected leaders, by the electorate, and by the media. It goes without saying that cheating of any kind, by whomever it might be and whatever form it might take, is to be strongly proscribed.

I hope you share these commitments. If you do, what must we do to make them a reality?

Mark (aka Anonymous 2)

Mark said...

To Father Kavanaugh’s point, it also goes without saying that lawyers must exhibit key virtues as well, including the special inflection of honesty required of them by the rules of professional conduct, and that cheating by lawyers is also to be strongly proscribed if the practice of law and the rule of law are not to be corrupted.

TJM said...


The Biden Administration has no interest in the rule of law if can avert your eyes from the corrupt national media you would see that. For all the railing the corrupt media against President Trump he never defied a court order but moved things through proper legal channels unlike Biden who has ignored a court order on the DACA program. Our national media is a disgrace and will be the end of us. Law Schools are no longer guardians of the rule of law but enforcers of leftwing ideology

Mark said...


My attention has necessarily been elsewhere this summer, and the last time I was teaching about DACA was this past spring before Judge Hanen’s anticipated decision in Texas. So, you will have to instruct me on how the Biden Administration is defying Judge Hanen’s order given the following information on the USCIS website, from which it seems the Administration is complying with the order, not defying it:

On the broader issue, however, let’s get DACA done. It is long past due to deliver justice to these people and not to continue penalizing them for something for which their parents, not they themselves, are primarily or solely responsible and over which so many of them had very little, or no, control. Come to that, let’s get more comprehensive immigration reform done. Congress needs to stop playing silly political games and get on with the job for which we elected them. It’s called governing. They can look it up in the dictionary if they have a problem understanding the concept. They have proved this year that they are indeed capable of governing—Covid-relief, bipartisan infrastructure—when they put their mind to it, so . . . .

And before you say it, I agree . . . with 20/20 hindsight Obama squandered the opportunity to get it done during the first two years of his first term. But that doesn’t let Congress off the hook, it only underscores the need for them to do their job now in a bipartisan manner.

And even if he never defied a court order, Trump quite inappropriately attacked judges when they did not do as he wanted. Moreover, I have little doubt that he would defy a court order if he thought he could get away with it. But I digress.

Mark (aka Anonymous 2)

TJM said...


I saw this on DACA and Biden officials ignoring the judges ruling:

Last month, a federal judge in Texas ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which granted pseudo amnesty for illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who were brought to the United States as minors, was illegal, and halted the program. The Biden administration vowed to fight the ruling, but, according to a report from The Washington Times, Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security approved at least nine DACA applications and advanced dozens more—a direct violation of the judge’s ruling.

The US does not need more illegal aliens. It is a burden on taxpayers and an affront to people who pursue coming into the US legally.

I recall Obama attacking the Supreme Court during a State of the Union message but I imagine that did not bother you one bit. However, when judges act ultra vires and as a super legislature, they should be called out by the President and Governors. Judges brought us the Roe v Wade and gay marriage debacles, issues which should have been handled by the peoples elected representatives.

Mark said...


“[A]ccording to a report from The Washington Times, Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security approved at least nine DACA applications and advanced dozens more—a direct violation of the judge’s ruling.”

I strongly suspect that what the DHS did is wrongly characterized as defiance given Judge Hanen’s qualification to his order. As the USCIS website explains,

“The Court, however, temporarily stayed its order vacating the DACA memorandum and its injunction with regard to individuals who obtained DACA on or before July 16, 2021, including those with renewal requests.

Consistent with this order (PDF, 401.59 KB), DHS will continue to accept the filing of both initial and renewal DACA requests, as well as accompanying requests for employment authorization. However, pursuant to the July 16, 2021 order from the Southern District of Texas, DHS is prohibited from granting initial DACA requests and accompanying requests for employment authorization. Also consistent with that order, DHS will continue to grant or deny renewal DACA requests, according to existing policy.”

I would need to know whether the applications the Washington Times is referring to are new applications or renewal applications. Granting the former appears to be prohibited, but granting the latter is temporarily permitted. If the DHS has indeed been granting the former in defiance of Judge Hanen’s order, then I will be among the first to criticize them and call for them to stop. If the DHS has been granting the latter, then I fully support them, and so should you from a legal viewpoint.

On the general policy issue of undocumented aka illegal immigration, whatever one’s views on the general phenomenon may be, DACA recipients or the “Dreamers” more broadly are a special case.

Regarding Obama, are you referring to this statement by Obama in his 2010 State of the Union address?

Perhaps Obama should have refrained from mentioning SCOTUS. It is probably a judgment call given that the context was, “with all due deference to separation of powers,” Obama calling for a legislative correction to the SCOTUS decision whose alleged consequences he was unhappy with, something that Congress does regularly.

Compare that with the following litany of Trump attacks on courts ad judges compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice:

Res ipsa loquitur I think.

Mark said...


To be clear and to be fair, you make a perfectly reasonable point when you say “when judges act ultra vires and as a super legislature, they should be called out by the President and Governors. Judges brought us the Roe v Wade and gay marriage debacles, issues which should have been handled by the peoples elected representatives." It is a point, moreover, that people, perhaps especially lawyers, should seriously consider and discuss, both as to the general principles articulated and the specific instances mentioned. So, I agree with you to this extent. I just don’t think that is what Trump is doing when he attacks judges. He seems to be a completely transactional thinker, not a principled one. I refuse to play that type of power game. Indeed, the rule of law is there precisely to cabin it.

ByzRus said...

Francis encouraged a "mess" and he certainly has met and exceeded expectations there. The only blessing is the proverbial genie is out of the bottle and its highly unlikely, despite his best efforts, that the genie is going back in.

As easily as this papal toilet paper was issued is as easily as its soiled remains can be flushed by the next pope.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Father Kavanaugh:

Is it true, as our host states, that you have appeared on this blog under other aliases, including "Mark Thomas" and "UK Priest"?