Mediaboss Marketing

Friday, Jun. 23, 2023

OSV News photo/Bob Roller

Bishop Andrew H. Cozzens of Crookston, Minn., chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Evangelization and Catechesis, speaks June 15 during the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' spring plenary assembly in Orlando, Fla. Also pictured are Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services, the USCCB president; and Father Michael J.K. Fuller, USCCB general secretary.

ORLANDO, Fla. (OSV News) Meeting in Orlando for their spring assembly, the U.S. bishops moved ahead on some efforts to advance the Churchs mission in the United States, including new pastoral initiatives aimed at activating Catholics as missionary disciples. The gatherings June 15-16 plenary sessions proved relatively smooth, but featured moments of vigorous discussion at a few points, particularly around the formation of priests.

Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services gave his first address as U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops president, presiding over the bishops plenary assembly. He covered a variety of issues of concern to Catholics, such as the need for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform and for an end to Russias unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

We cannot fail to see the face of Christ in all of those who need our assistance, especially the poor and the vulnerable, he said.

The papal nuncio to the U.S., Archbishop Christophe Pierre, made his case to the U.S. bishops June 15 that synodality, oriented to Jesus Christ as their true north, unleashes missionary activity.

The purpose of walking this synodal path is to make our evangelization more effective in the context of the precise challenges that we face today, Archbishop Pierre said in his address at the U.S. bishops spring plenary assembly in Orlando.

The archbishop also singled out Auxiliary Bishop David G. OConnell of Los Angeles, who was shot to death earlier this year, as a model of synodal service, combined with Eucharistic charity.

The U.S. Catholic bishops gathered voiced their approval for the advancement of a cause to canonize five missionary priests from Brittany, France, known as the Shreveport martyrs.

They demonstrated heroic charity during the third worst pandemic in U.S. history, said Bishop Francis I. Malone of Shreveport, noting they were all young men who voluntarily sacrificed their own lives to journey with the dying and bring the Eucharist to the faithful.

In their message to Pope Francis, the bishops also strongly condemned an execution that the state of Florida carried out June 15 in the evening following their meeting.

Bishop Daniel E. Flores of Brownsville, Texas updated the bishops on the progress of the 2023-2024 global Synod on Synodality. Bishop Andrew H. Cozzens of Crookston, Minn. presented on the National Eucharistic Revival, and outlined how the small group initiative in the parish year could help deepen peoples relationship to Christ in the Eucharist.

We all know how much our Church needs to move from maintenance to mission; ... this is really the heart of what were attempting to do, he said.

Most votes taking place had near unanimous approval, such as the agenda items related to retranslating the Liturgy of the Hours into English, including having the future edition include some prayer texts in Latin.

The bishops approved the National Pastoral Plan for Hispanic Latino Ministry with 167 in favor, two against and two abstentions. The 62-page plan seeks to respond to the needs of about 30 million Hispanic/Latino Catholics in the U.S. and strengthen Hispanic/Latino ministries at the national, local and parish level.

Ahead of the vote, Bishop Oscar Cant of San Jose, Calif., chairman of the bishops Subcommittee on Hispanic Affairs, told OSV News there was a great need to get moving so that (the new pastoral plan) can be implemented in our dioceses and parishes.

A day before the vote took place, Detroit Auxiliary Bishop J. Arturo Cepeda, who chairs the USCCBs Committee on Cultural Diversity in the Church, called the plan a sign of the times that recognizes Hispanic/Latino Catholics who account for more than 40 percent of U.S. Catholics as missionaries among us who can reinvigorate the life of the Church.

The most contentious discussion took place regarding the proposed second edition of the Basic Plan for the Ongoing Formation of Priests. Some bishops took to the floor to object they had not had time to read the document, or that it was so lengthy priests would likely not read it and dismiss its contents.

Other bishops expressed concern that the discussion on spiritual fatherhood needed to be fleshed out, expressing concern that otherwise it could fuel the narcissistic tendencies and hubris of some priests.

Bishop Steven R. Biegler of Cheyenne, Wyo., said he appreciated the documents beautiful description of the Christian relationship to God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What I find lacking is that communal relationship to the Body of Christ ... that puts us in solidarity with one another as brother and sister, he said.

However, other bishops pushed back against delaying the document, noting the hard work that went into developing it, and that the document was meant to be a guide adapted to the realities of local churches.

Bishop Juan Miguel Betancourt, ordained as a priest for the Servants of the Eucharist and Mary, who is an auxiliary for the Archdiocese of Hartford, Conn., said the term spiritual fatherhood is actually a term that is more familiar and clear for those who are younger in the priesthood.

Ultimately, the bishops approved the formation document with 144 voting in favor, 24 against and eight abstentions.

The discussion and vote on priorities for the 2025-28 USCCB strategic plan were put on hold so that the bishops could reflect upon and, presumably, include some of the discussion from the synod conversations.

In a voice vote, the bishops approved beginning the process of consultation and revision of ethical directives for Catholic health care facilities to guide them in caring for people suffering from gender dysphoria and who identify as transgender.

Bishop Flores said potential changes would be limited and very focused in nature, and involve extensive consultation. He praised the calls from bishops on the floor for a pastorally sensitive approach to the complex topic.

The U.S. bishops also voiced approval for the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth to move ahead on drafting a new pastoral statement for persons with disabilities.

We do believe a new statement is needed to address disability concerns in the 21st century, Bishop Robert E. Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minn., the committees chair, told the bishops June 16. The intended statement aims to emphasize the giftedness of persons with disabilities, eliminate outdated forms of referring to persons with disabilities, and would be inclusive of persons who have mental illnesses.

During the discussion, Cardinal Sen P. OMalley of Boston joined Bishop John T. Folda of Fargo, N.D., in noting the importance of Catholics being allied with the disability community against assisted suicide, and the cardinal asked for more attention to support parents of children with autism.

The bishops also heard an update on the upcoming World Youth Day in Lisbon, Portugal, and were encouraged to have their own stateside events for youth and young adults to form them as missionary disciples.

Finally, just before the bishops concluded their assembly, Bishop Earl A. Boyea of Lansing, Mich., chair of the bishops Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations, discussed The Catholic Projects 2022 study of 10,000 Catholic religious and diocesan priests that found most priests distrust their bishops, with only 24 percent saying they had confidence in bishops in general.

Bishop Boyea encouraged the bishops to help priests feel kinship and fraternity with us through better personal communication, such as recognizing important moments in their lives, and better lines of communicating information to them.

This is not the completion, but a beginning, to heal our relationship, he said of the report.

At the conclusion of their assembly, recognizing it was the Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, the bishops prayed together the Litany of the Sacred Heart, invoking Jesus heart repeatedly to have mercy on us.

More:
U.S. bishops advance pastoral initiatives to strengthen Church amid ... - Intermountain Catholic

(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) Gov. Spencer Cox answers questions during his monthly news conference at the Eccles Broadcast Center, on Thursday, May 18, 2023. Cox, who said hes passionate about immigration reform, called Congress imbeciles who should all get fired" for not assign immigration reform.

| May 18, 2023, 7:10 p.m.

| Updated: May 19, 2023, 12:07 p.m.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox is fed up with Congress using immigration as a political football and not addressing the human and economic crisis at Americas border. Cox, who said he is passionate about immigration reform, called Congress imbeciles who should all get fired.

The remarks came during the governors monthly news conference on Thursday and after he was asked about strict immigration policies recently signed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

We absolutely have to do more to secure the border. First and foremost, that is critical. We live in an ordered society, a society of laws, and that piece matters, the governor explained, adding that he thinks the Biden administration has done a terrible job of enforcing border security.

Those poor security efforts are not just an issue President Joe Biden hasnt addressed, Cox said, and other administrations have also failed. But it wasnt solely on the White House to fix immigration, he said.

Congress has abdicated their responsibility around immigration for the last 40 years. They punted every time. So its hard to blame any single administration when really this problem lies at the feet of Congress, the governor responded to Telemundo reporter Jos ngel Galavis, who had asked about DeSantis immigration policies.

Cox explained that he also supports fixing legal immigration, which, he said, will help the economy and ensure immigrants arent forced to enter the U.S. illegally through a backdoor.

We do need more immigrants in our country, Cox said, we have so many job openings right now in the state of Utah and other places that cannot be filled.

Immigration reform, Cox said, is an issue where he thinks Republicans and Democrats are aligned. But, growing more passionate during his two-minute-long response, Cox criticized Congress for neglecting its responsibility to address the countrys immigration crisis, and, instead, using the issue as a political cudgel.

The Constitution is very clear that immigration is a federal issue. But states have to step in because these imbeciles in Congress cant get their crap together to do something that everybody knows needs to be done, and that is to protect the border and to fix legal immigration, Cox criticized. And all they want to do is get reelected by pointing fingers at each other and they divide us and they do it on purpose, and its embarrassing, and they should all get fired.

Earlier this month, DeSantis signed a bill aimed at restricting migrants working illegally in the U.S. The law ends a program that provides identification cards for undocumented immigrants and toughens penalties for individuals that bring migrants to the U.S., the Tampa Bay Times reported.

Unlike Cox, the Florida governor whos exploring a run for president put the blame for the immigration crisis at the foot of the White House.

This is something that is the responsibility of Joe Biden. This is a responsibility that he has defaulted on really from day one of his presidency, DeSantis said at a news conference, according to the Tampa Bay Times. Obviously if we had a different administration it would be a lot easier to actually deal with the problem at its source.

In February, Cox and Indiana Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb wrote a Washington Post op-ed that called on Congress to act on immigration. Utah, Cox said, was willing to sponsor immigrants for the open jobs in the state.

To help us do our jobs as governors, we call on Congress to end its two-decade standoff on setting immigration policy one of its most basic duties, the governors wrote. And, as leaders of states, we pledge to share the accountability. Though border security is a national concern, and a nonnegotiable requirement of national security in a world with drug cartels and terrorists, we believe that states should be able to sponsor whatever immigrants serve the needs of their communities.

Editors note This story is available to Salt Lake Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.

See more here:
'They should all get fired': Utah Gov. Cox calls Congress 'imbeciles' for not passing immigration reform - Salt Lake Tribune

It seems that the anticipated humanitarian crisis of thousands of migrants streaming across the border, which many predicted with the end of the Title 42 program, has been avoided.

Still, something like 12 million undocumented people currently live in the United States, and we are probably just one migrant caravan away from having scores of families forced to live in squalor in border cities and perhaps being subject to violence at the hands of border agents.

Making matters worse, no recently proposed legislation concerning immigration has much chance of becoming law.

It's the design of the Farm Bill that we should focus on. Its form, not its content.

For instance, the 2021 US Citizenship Act, which Biden championed early in his term and that would have created a pathway to citizenship for undocumented people, ran aground quickly last term due to GOP opposition. Now, Republicans have their own version of revamping our immigration system with the Secure the Border Act. This bill, which calls for hiring more border agents, as well as championing some Trump-era initiatives like building a physical border wall, has no path out of the Democrat-controlled Senate.

So, is there any hope of getting beyond our seemingly never-ending policy quagmire that is immigration reform?

The Farm Bill is where our leaders should turn.

The point is not to add some provision about immigration to this omnibus piece of legislation that governs most facets of our agricultural system.

Instead, it's the design of the Farm Bill that we should focus on. Its form, not its content.

By form, what's key is that the Farm Bill comes up for debate every five years. The expiration date is even written into the law.

The legislations design poses quite the task, as the Farm Bill sets the terms for most of the critical elements of the U.S. food system, from commodity prices and conservation policy to international trade and farm credit.

But that's the bill's geniuswith such serious issues to debate, it makes sense to revisit them every now and again. And here's the best partif one party misses something, then they can try again next time.

That much was behind the bill's creation. Before becoming law in 1933, for most of the 1920s, politicians fought over how to address the economic crisis ravaging farmers. While farmers did well during World War I, they struggled once the conflict was over. In response, some legislators wanted protectionist policies, others believed promoting exports was the answer. They couldn't find middle ground and our nations food producers suffered for years.

So, what happened? When FDR became president, farmer groups and politicians created an omnibus billthat contained sections dealing with the issues that were the subject of debate years before and that required periodic renewal. The bill itself has come to include new sections from time to time, such as rural development and food assistance in the 1970s.

Agriculture aside, doesn't such a way of addressing complicated policy matters, such as migration, make sense?

Think about itwho could have foretold when early in Biden's term, when he sent Vice President Kamala Harris to Central America to search out ways to keep people from fleeing poverty, that Cubans and Venezuelans would eventually join the exodus of people? Or that Russia would invade Ukraine, sending millions seeking safe haven abroad?

Furthermore, historically, we see that migrants come to the U.S. in waves. Such moments are related to all kinds of unexpected events, including wars, famines, and natural disasters.

Comprehensive immigration reform has evaded our lawmakers for decades. So, it would make sense to take some of the pressure off of them and at least create a framework that they can work with.

There is no crystal ball that we can peer into and see where in the works some disaster will take place. The best we can do as a country is to craft a bill that provides parameters within which our legislators can debate every five years or so. Furthermore, all the major issues currently raging now could be foundborder security, temporary protected status for people who are temporarily displaced, visas for students and workers, and so on.

A majority of Americans agree that something has to be done about immigration. Our parties also agreethis much is seen in how regularly their policy proposals come up in the news.

So, why not give them a space to hash out their differences, not as a one-shot game, but something they can come back to every now and again?

Let's also not forget the migrants in this discussion. Now we are talking about Title 42 and Venezuelans, but in a year or two, it will be some other policy and another group of people. What is certain is that for quite some time, people will want to come to the US to work and live.

Comprehensive immigration reform has evaded our lawmakers for decades. So, it would make sense to take some of the pressure off of them and at least create a framework that they can work with. Both parties could also take credit for promoting it. And who knows, maybe they will compromise once in a while. They do so already with Farm Bill. Maybe the same could happen with immigration.

Go here to read the rest:
Immigration Reform is Possible the Farm Bill Shows How - Common Dreams

What is included in my trial?

During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.

Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here.

Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the Settings & Account section.

If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for $69 per month.

For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the Settings & Account section. If youd like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.

You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many users needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.

Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.

You may change or cancel your subscription or trial at any time online. Simply log into Settings & Account and select "Cancel" on the right-hand side.

You can still enjoy your subscription until the end of your current billing period.

We support credit card, debit card and PayPal payments.

More:
US executives call for immigration reform to staff manufacturing boom - Financial Times

For nearly a quarter century, as successive waves of migrants have tried to enter and work in the United States, presidents have appealed to Congress to address gaps in an immigration system nearly everyone agrees is broken.

Yet year after year, congressional efforts to strike a wide-ranging bipartisan deal one that would strengthen border security measures while expanding avenues for people to immigrate to the United States in an orderly and lawful way have fractured under the strain of political forces.

Immigration has proved to be a potent political messaging tool, particularly for Republicans, who have rallied voters behind campaigns to close the border with Mexico and denounced anything other than stringent security proposals as amnesty. And Democrats have long resisted border security initiatives without measures to grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants residing in the United States and to expand immigration in the future.

While many lawmakers have tried to bridge the gap, not once in the 21st century has Congress managed to send a comprehensive immigration bill to the presidents desk.

The legacy of that inaction is seen in factories and farms, where undocumented migrants work grueling jobs for low wages; in the skyrocketing backlog of asylum cases that have yet to appear before an immigration judge; in the enrichment of cartels trafficking migrants and drugs to the U.S.-Mexico border; and in the uncertainty at the border after the expiration this week of pandemic-era restrictions on entry.

As lawmakers try to tackle immigration yet again, here is a look at how and why previous efforts in Congress failed.

On May 25, 2006, the Republican-led Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 by a vote of 62 to 36. Twenty-three Republicans including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the current minority leader supported the bill, along with all but four Democrats and one independent. The Republican-led House never took it up.

What was proposed: The bill was based on a compromise struck by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. Their framework coupled border security measures that Republicans were demanding such as fencing, radar and aerial surveillance tools and an influx of personnel with provisions championed by Democrats offering millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States a way to earn citizenship and the creation of a guest worker program.

Why it failed: Despite opposition from some top Republicans, the bill drew enough backing to pass the Senate after an aggressive push by President George W. Bush, who had campaigned on overhauling the immigration system and dedicated a prime-time Oval Office address to promoting the bill the week before the vote. It also had the backing of big business groups and some powerful labor unions.

But the more conservative House, which in late 2005 had passed a bill placing strict limits on immigration and criminalizing unlawful entry prompting widespread national protests never took it up, effectively killing it. Republicans instead brought up a measure dealing with only border security, called the Secure Fence Act, which passed both the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. Mr. Bush signed it into law two weeks before the 2006 midterm elections.

After congressional Republicans suffered punishing defeats in the 2006 midterms, new Democratic majorities in the Senate and House tried to tackle immigration again. But the new bill failed to clear a series of procedural hurdles in the Senate in June 2007 and never received a final vote in either chamber.

What was proposed: The 2007 bill adopted the approach of the previous years proposal, but with a trigger conditioning legal status for undocumented immigrants on first meeting a series of border security benchmarks. The bill also proposed granting legal status based on a points system that scored immigrants according to job skills, education level, family ties and English-language proficiency.

Why it failed: The coalition of senators that worked out the legislation, which came to be known as the Gang of 12, represented the broadest bipartisan coalition yet to join forces on an immigration compromise. But the bill encountered dogged opposition from both parties and ultimately collapsed.

Senator Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who would go on to carry out a zero-tolerance policy for unlawful border crossings as President Donald J. Trumps attorney general, led a conservative revolt against the bill, denouncing it as amnesty. At the same time, pro-labor Democrats objected to the expanded temporary guest-worker programs, while others in the party panned the points system for prioritizing job skills over family ties.

In December 2010, Democratic congressional leaders, poised to lose control of the House, held votes on the DREAM Act: legislation that aimed to give undocumented migrants brought to the country as children, often referred to as Dreamers, an opportunity to gain legal status. The House passed the bill by a vote of 216 to 198, with eight Republicans in favor and 38 Democrats opposed. Ten days later, the Democrat-led Senate fell five votes short of breaking a filibuster blocking it from a vote.

What was proposed: The legislation sought to enable Dreamers to become legal residents and potentially U.S. citizens, provided they met certain conditions. Eligible migrants would have to have enrolled in college or served in the military for at least two years, pass a criminal-background check and be under 30 years of age. The legislation, first introduced in 2001, had been a component of both the 2006 and 2007 comprehensive immigration bills.

Why it failed: Conservative Republicans in the Senate campaigned against the bill as a grant of amnesty, persuading all but three of their colleagues to oppose it. But Democrats also failed to rally around their partys legislation. Five moderate Democrats refused to back the bill because it did not include a broader immigration plan the five votes they needed to clear the Senates 60-vote procedural hurdle and allow it to advance.

After the 2012 presidential election and a Republican autopsy that concluded the party had to shift its hard-line stance on immigration, momentum built for a compromise bill. On June 27, 2013, the Senate, voting 68 to 32, passed a compromise immigration bill addressing both border security and expanded immigration pathways, with 14 Republicans on board. But the G.O.P.-led House never acted on it.

What was proposed: A Gang of Eight group of senators four Democrats and four Republicans revived the idea of pairing border security measures with expanded immigration avenues, subject to meeting trigger thresholds on border security. The bill called for universal adoption of the employment eligibility system, known as E-Verify, to make it more difficult to hire undocumented workers and put most undocumented immigrants in the country on a 13-year pathway to citizenship. It would have awarded visas based on a points system, with about 50 percent based on job skills, and included temporary guest worker programs.

Why it failed: The bill easily passed the Senate but was effectively dead on arrival in the increasingly right-wing House. Speaker John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, repeatedly refused to give it a vote, saying he would not bring up an immigration bill that a majority of Republicans did not support.

After Mr. Trump ended an Obama-era program that extended deportation reprieves and work permits to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children, pressure mounted for Congress to codify new protections for them.

But Mr. Trump said any such bill would have to include an end to decades of family-based migration policies, the construction of a border wall and a vast crackdown on other undocumented immigrants. House Republicans tried to pass an immigration overhaul they pitched as a compromise between their own moderates and conservatives. But all House Democrats and about half of House Republicans opposed it, and the measure failed in a 121-to-301 vote on June 27, 2018.

What was proposed: At its core, the Republican bill envisioned authorizing stepped-up border security measures, like Mr. Trumps wall, alongside measures to give Dreamers a pathway to citizenship. But the legislation also included conservative measures to limit avenues for asylum seekers and criminalize fraudulent claims, as well as make it easier to both detain migrant children and send unaccompanied minors back to their countries of origin.

Why it failed: Faced with a revolt by Republican moderates who had joined forces with Democrats to try to force a vote on legislation to protect the Dreamers, Speaker Paul D. Ryan sought to put forth an overhaul that could please both the conservatives in his ranks and his more mainstream members. But the measure faced brisk headwinds from the start.

Democrats vocally opposed the bill, which Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, then the minority leader, called a cruel codification of President Trumps anti-immigrant agenda. Republicans were still divided. And the legislation lost critical momentum after last-minute waffling by Mr. Trump, who tweeted less than a week before the vote that Republican leaders should stop wasting their time on immigration until the party could win more Senate seats.

By the morning of the vote, Mr. Trump was back to championing the legislation, but it was too late to persuade his fractured conference to support it.

Go here to see the original:
Before Title 42, Congress Failed to Overhaul Immigration Policy - The New York Times