Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Never mind that “without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6)…

Catholic Answers: God Can Choose to Save Atheists!

The California-based non-profit organization Catholic Answers, which aims to explain and defend the Vatican II religion in full communion with ‘Pope’ Francis, is becoming a parody of itself.

One of the many things published on the Catholic Answers web site is a brief post with the intriguing title, “Can atheists be saved just by acting charitably?” The truly Catholic answer would have been fairly simple — something along the lines of, “Of course not; for ‘without faith it is impossible to please God’ (Heb 11:6).” … READ MORE

In the past couple of months, thousands of students from across the country began courses offered by new schools of “civic thought.” These new institutions have found homes at some of America’s most highly respected and elite public universities: UNC–Chapel Hill, UT-Austin, and the University of Florida, among others. The growth and spread of these schools has taken on a somewhat revolutionary character.

Several state legislatures have taken a direct role in efforts to reshape American higher education by diverting taxpayer dollars to the creation of new, autonomous academic units capable of hiring faculty and setting their own curricula. But despite their growing popularity, these institutions have prompted criticism from media outlets seeking to expose their supposedly partisan character and their allegedly obscure Western-minded curriculum. In response to these claims, defenders have argued that this is instead a renaissance of civic thought and a good-faith effort to return higher education to standards of excellence that all Americans should embrace.   

The Path from Civic to Liberal Education

In May of 2023 I graduated from the first iteration of this new kind of school: The School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership (SCETL) at Arizona State University. It set forth an unconventional kind of education that allowed me to study a variety of subjects, including politics, law, grand strategy and political philosophy—all within the same department. Despite slanderous claims about an alleged right-wing political slant—false allegations that SCETL has faced since its inception in 2018—I felt very early on that there was something quite free, perhaps even liberal, about the breadth of our study, especially when contrasted with my experience in other departments.  

And yet critics, from the outset, claimed that liberal education had no place at SCETL. They denounced the school because of its origins in government intervention, and because they believed a focus on the history and thought of Western civilization apparently prevented it from considering “diverse political theorists.” True liberal education, critics claimed, could only occur in the “real” humanities majors or in the university’s already established departments of Political Science and Justice Studies. Only there could students actually come to shed their partisan commitments on behalf of a newfound faithfulness to a vague conception of human rights and equity, established through cold, hard, unimpassioned empirical science and analytical philosophy.  

Nevertheless, at my freshman orientation, professors made a compelling case for a new kind of broad, interdisciplinary education that would take its bearings by the question of the ideal American citizen. The school’s curriculum, in order to prepare us to confront and even revive perennial questions about the American democratic republic, would go beyond a mere survey of the founding documents. Our education, they told us, would reach to the philosophical roots of the American experiment by examining the Founders’ various treatments of questions concerning the human condition, the basis of law, and the natural limits of politics.

Yet, because the Founders did not all agree as to the conclusions of these treatments—and insofar as we were interested in attaining a vantage point from which to critically reflect on the basis of the American experiment—our education would need to venture beyond mere civic education. To better grasp for ourselves the character of the discord present at the American Founding, we would have to initiate our own encounter with the same texts and thinkers that inspired the Founders’ most significant reflections. 

By not merely taking the Founders at their word regarding uses of philosophical authorities, leaving open the possibility that these authorities had something to say beyond what the Founders attributed to them, we crossed over into the realm of liberal education. In my own case, the additional depth of our inquiry granted me an awareness of how the American citizen might be viewed as the Founders’ earnest attempt to solve what they believed to be the greatest problems posed by the Western tradition. For this reason, it became clear to me how—and why—a liberal education could contribute to students’ civic reflection by deepening their understanding of the rights and duties that characterize their citizenship. Less clear to me, though, was how a civic education could or should contribute to a liberal education. 

A Reconsideration of the Requirements for Liberal Education

A year later I declared a second major, this time in the Department of Political Science. Between my experience there, and in elective courses alongside many students from other humanities majors in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, I found SCETL’s education much less partisan and far less narrow than the alternatives offered by ASU. It eventually became clear to me that the cold, hard, and unimpassioned empiricists and political scientists—who bred a body of students with the opposite dispositions—put the cart before the horse. They sought to build before laying the foundation on which to build. 

While the kind of liberal education they taught—or what they conducted in its name—did offer exposure to a variety of laws, norms, cultures, and ideologies, it took for granted students’ preparedness to look harsh facts in the face unflinchingly. In failing to distinguish for students the attempt to understand these subjects on their own terms and the attempt to understand them through the latest flavor of twentieth century liberalism, the departments in question prepared students for a total detachment from the American political tradition. Residual imprints that the American story might have left on their souls, or lingering effects of having been reared in the Western world, had to be identified and discarded.

Ironically, this attempt to detach students from the complicated, and at times morally objectionable, tapestry of American political history leads students to be far less reflective about the very basis of their education and their freedom to pursue the truth. It has the effect of leaving students stranded at sea, without knowledge of the very tradition and history that thoroughly articulated the basis for their freedom to depart—however unknowingly—from that tradition and history. That articulation in part comprises the many historical experiences we have of confronting obstacles to the sound application of law and justice, and it supplies the basis for the free and open inquiry that our institutions of higher education can (at least in principle) enjoy today. 

Secondly, but perhaps more importantly, students who never cultivate a reflective admiration or love for the American experiment run the risk of adopting a disposition that regards any theoretical or practical departure from the American political tradition as trivial. I refer to the tradition that originated in the first conscious attempt to realize democratic republicanism on a continental scale, and which never took for granted the problems that such scale posed to the task of protecting the natural rights of man. Yet today, when it comes time for the students described above to give a defense of these rights in the political sphere, they either find themselves unprepared to earnestly confront the alternatives to American democracy, or they take a position that unconsciously sacrifices institutional and cultural safeguards that were regarded as crucial to democracy by the political tradition. 

If they have yet to understand the American order on its own terms, how can we trust that they will both critique and defend it with the proper care? Moreover, how can we expect them to bear the weight and significance of assessing any alternative to liberal democracy, as is required of students who pursue a true liberal education? It follows that for liberal education to have its greatest impact, it must be taken up by students who hold neither a childish love toward their country nor an outright indifference to it. An analysis of how civic education might contribute to a liberal education ought to begin along these lines. 

My own education at SCETL began with two lower-division core requirements for the major. The first was an introduction to political philosophy, and the second was a study of the great debates of the American political tradition, taught by Professor Zachary German. In the latter course, we spent a significant part of the semester hashing out the competing arguments surrounding the abolition of slavery; and through insights I gained in the introductory political philosophy course, I was better able to reflect on both the timeless and the historical character of a few key questions that have permeated the Western tradition.

In returning to a well-known debate concerning the nature of justice, recorded by Plato, I was able to see most clearly the crux of the disagreement between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. Through Douglas’s proposed local democratic solution to the problem of slavery, his constituency of Northern Democrats and former Whigs, great in number and in strength, would be permitted to preserve the institution of slavery. For Lincoln, no fact of strength or number could be permitted to deny the natural rights of man embodied in the Declaration of Independence. The character and problem of justice, then, seemed to require more than the principle of “one person, one vote.”

In a course I took with the then-director of SCETL, Paul O. Carrese, we engaged in a comparative study of Abrahamic, Hindu, and Confucian philosophy and theology. The adverse reaction that large branches of the Islamic tradition had to the idea of democracy became a central focus of study for much of the semester. Examining the prospect of liberal democracy from democracy-skeptical Muslim perspectives helped me to see more clearly than I had ever before the requirements of liberal democracy, the peculiarity of the basis of our rights, and the historical novelty of the American system that separated church and state. 

The Function of Schools of Civic Thought

Institutions like SCETL rightly see American citizenship and the American political tradition as the proper starting point from which to begin a practical education in law, statesmanship, and grand strategy. Through civic education we can retrace the character of that liberal education sought out and applied by the Founders in the design of our democratic republic, keeping an eye on the subtleties they identified in the human condition and on the enduring questions they posed about our nature. Schools of civic thought such as SCETL therefore also prepare us to zoom out from the particular in search of universal truths in a manner that is more conscious of potential obstacles to clear thought and sound judgment. This blend of civic and liberal education keeps the question of our own citizenship in the forefront of our minds, and for that reason it will better prepare us for the task of reassessing the potential of democracy and the health of our society. 

Furthermore, the highly practical nature of this education will prepare students for law school, for work in federal and state government, for organizing civil associations, and for leadership in the private sector, among other roles in public life where we are in desperate need of better leadership. Students will learn how to read, write, and speak with a certain prudence attainable only through a deep study of the American political tradition and Western civilization.   

These new schools of civic thought will continue to “teach critical minds and to puncture complacency” while urging students “to be both proud of genuine greatness and humble about human imperfection.” As Americans begin to familiarize themselves with this new front in higher education—one that can no longer be marginalized or dismissed out of hand—it is my hope that wrongheaded media criticism will eventually give way to the clear positive impact that these schools are having. I challenge the critics to meet these schools on their own terms—that is, as institutions supporting genuine diversity of thought and intellectual rigor.

Image by Wangkun Jia and licensed via Adobe Stock.

The Globe and Mail report on April 12 emphasized that Poilievre will not expand euthanasia, in March 2027, to include people with mental illness alone.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes all euthanasia deaths, but we recognize that stopping the expansion of euthanasia is necessary.

On April 1, 2025 I published an article titled: Elections have consequences. Vote for candidates that will oppose further expansions to euthanasia.

This is an important election for Canadians who oppose killing people.

• Repeal Track 2 Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), including the 2027 commencement of Track 2 MAiD for persons whose “sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness”;
•  Not support proposals for the expansion of MAiD to include “mature minors” and through advance requests;

Update on the Covid “Vaccines”

Dr. Russell Blaylock

Dr. Blaylock is a nationally recognized neurosurgeon, health provider, lecturer, and editor of and reviewer for medical journals.

Dr. Blaylock was one of the early medical professionals who warned of the faulty treatment of Covid by the medical establishment, warned of the dangers of the “vaccine,” and supported the use of Ivermectin and HCQ as both preventatives and cures.  As he is in private practice, he couldn’t be fired for telling the truth.

Studies have shown that by the third injection with a COVID vaccine, a person’s immune system is virtually destroyed. This occurs because a factor called IgG4 is drastically increased by these injections, and IgG4 suppresses immunity.

This explains why so many people who have been “vaccinated” have suffered from multiple bouts with COVID-19 and other infections, including bacterial pneumonia.

It also explains, in part, the emergence of what are called “turbo” cancers — the appearance of fatal, stage IV cancers within weeks or even days of injection. Pathologists all over the world have stated that they’ve never seen cancers grow this fast (hence the turbo label). In addition, people who have had their cancer under control for years have died within weeks of a stage IV cancer following vaccination.

Molecular biologists examined several vials of the COVID-19 “vaccine” and found thousands of fragments of foreign DNA — most likely from the cells used to grow the virus. This was reported at the time, and the study has been repeated, with new researchers finding the exact same thing: thousands of bits of foreign DNA in each vaccine vial. They also found a promoter/enhancer gene for the SV40 cancer virus in each of the vials.

Research has demonstrated that DNA fragments from vaccines can be incorporated into a person’s DNA and be transmitted to their offspring. Even the mRNA producing the spike protein (the toxic part of the virus) has been shown to be incorporated into an injected person’s DNA, thus producing the deadly spike protein, possibly for a lifetime. That would also enable it to be transmitted to the person’s offspring.

In another comprehensive study based on 325 autopsy studies reported in the medical literature, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler along with nine other experts representing many scientific fields looked for a possible connection to the COVID vaccine as a cause of death. They found most of the deaths occurred within one week after getting the injection. The most common cause of death was cardiovascular (49 percent).

The other common causes of death included:

Hematological (17 percent)

Respiratory (11 percent)

Multiple organ system failure (7 percent)

Some 73.9 percent of the deaths (240) were deemed to be secondary to the injection. Three or more organ systems were involved in 21 cases. The average time between the injection and death was 14.3 days.

Why wasn’t the “vaccine” pulled at that point as being too dangerous? In the past, a vaccine —especially if it was a new design — was withdrawn even after a few deaths were reported.

Why did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) do everything in its power to prevent any autopsies from being performed on the deceased? The pathologists were literally screaming to do them.

Autopsies are the best way to discern the various aspects of a new disease or infection. The refusal to perform autopsies was not caused by a fear that the pathologists would get infected, as none were shown to be linked to autopsying these cases.

In my opinion, there were two reasons for the CDC’s decision. First, with the actual infection, they didn’t want proof that most of the deaths were caused by the CDC protocol all hospitals were told to follow — not the virus itself. Second, they didn’t want anyone having proof that many died as a result of neglect by the hospitals.

With the vaccines the motivation was different. They didn’t want proof that these “vaccines” were killing people, though that is exactly what the autopsies showed.

Now we have proof, and we have proof that the authorities and the mainstream media hid the truth about virtually every aspect of this sordid episode.

Note by PCR:  Biden protected Fauci and others involved with his federal pardons.  However, the federal pardons do not prevent states from bringing criminal charges.  Those who destroyed people’s lives and health must be held accountable.  

Dr. Blaylock’s monthly reports will save you from Big Pharma “medicine” for as little as $50 annually.

Satan’s Chosen People at Work with the Help of Their American Puppets

https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/israel-is-about-to-empty-gaza?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=778851&post_id=161183182&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=10r3uc&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email 

 We’ve come a long way!

In November last year, I discussed the importance of yield spreads, historically the market's "early warning system." To wit:"

"Yield spreads are critical to understanding market sentiment and predicting potential stock market downturns. A credit spread refers to the difference in yield between two bonds of similar maturity but different credit quality. This comparison often involves Treasury bonds (considered risk-free) and corporate bonds (which carry default risk). By observing these spreads, investors can gauge risk appetite in financial markets. Such helps investors identify stress points that often precede stock market corrections."

In other words, the yield spreads reflect the perceived "risk" in the financial markets. The spread between risky corporate bonds and safer Treasury bonds remains narrow when the economy performs well. This is because investors are confident in corporate profitability and willing to accept lower yields despite higher risks. Conversely, during economic uncertainty or stress, investors demand higher yields for holding corporate debt, causing spreads to widen. This widening often signals investors are growing concerned about future corporate defaults, which could indicate broader economic trouble.

The two charts above show the importance of yield spreads, which tend to rise before financial turmoil in the stock market. When yield spreads began to widen, those increases often preceded liquidity events, reduced corporate earnings, economic contractions, and stock market downturns. In other words, the increase in yield spreads reflected increased investor risk aversion. Eventually, that risk aversion spilled over into the financial markets as investors realized the fundamental shift in the financial markets.

As we discussed in this past weekend's #BullBearReport, yield spreads reflect the recognition of a shift in three primary areas:

1. Corporate Financial Health: Credit spreads reflect investor views on corporate solvency. A rising spread suggests a growing concern over companies’ ability to service their debt. Particularly if the economy slows or interest rates rise.
2. Risk Sentiment Shift: Credit markets tend to be more sensitive to economic shocks than equity markets. When credit spreads widen, it typically indicates that the fixed-income market is pricing in higher risks. This is often a leading indicator of equity market stress.
3. Liquidity Events: As investors become more risk-averse, they shift capital from corporate bonds to safer assets like Treasuries. The flight to safety reduces liquidity in the corporate bond market. Less liquidity potentially leads to tighter credit conditions that affect businesses’ ability to invest and grow, weighing on stock prices.

The recent market disruption caused by Trump's trade war has undoubtedly widened spreads between "risk-free" treasury yields and corporate bonds. This is because those tariffs directly impact corporate financial health (reduced profitability), a shift in "risk sentiment" (valuations), and liquidity (potential increase in default risk). Regarding the last point, the lack of market liquidity is at levels not seen since the economic shutdown in 2020.

While yield spreads have widened, they remain well below the long-term averages. However, if recession risks increase due to tariffs, sentiment, or illiquidity, those yield spreads will widen further. The illiquidity issue is currently the most significant risk to the markets, as the sharp spike in yields this past week is warning of a more significant event brewing in the bond market. As we noted in our Daily Market Commentary this past week:

"On Monday, Treasury bonds had a sharp decline far beyond what the economic or tariff data suggested would be the case. We suspect that on Monday, there was forced liquidation through either margin calls or demand redemption of an institutional fund. The outsized selling and volume on a single day for bonds is highly unusual. The media excuses of “tariffs” or “economic concerns” are issues the bond market has known about for quite some time."

That type of sharp liquidation has historically been the issue of some liquidity events in the bond market. In this case, it appears to be the heavily leveraged arbitrage trade used by hedge funds called the "basis trade." That trade is a little complicated but critically important to understand. The link below is a brief explanation.

However, the increase in yield spreads and the disruption in the bond and equity markets certainly raise the risk profile for investors in the near term.

Economic Policy Uncertainty

We previously addressed the market's selloff, primarily due to the Trump administration's "tariff on, tariff off" policies.

“That catalyst turned out to be President Trump’s “on again, off again” tariff announcements, which created turmoil in earnings expectations. The flux in tariff policies makes it difficult for markets to predict future earnings and corporate profitability. With the “E” in forward valuation measures in flux, markets struggle to price in expected outcomes.”

As shown, those policies are creating a sharp increase in policy uncertainty. We suspect this isn’t going to change in the near term. However, it is notable that these periods are historically short-term, and such spikes are generally near market lows. In other words, the current policy uncertainty will pass, and markets can return to focusing on earnings and valuations. Until then, market rallies will likely be an opportunity to reduce risk.

Regarding earnings and valuations, Wall Street only expects a one-quarter impact from tariffs. As shown, earnings for Q1 are currently expected to come in at $217/share, down from $226.54 one year ago. But, interestingly, Q2 earnings are expected to rise to $223.86, roughly where Q1 estimates started a year ago.

However, in Q3, earnings are expected to drop sharply to just $179/share. If realized, that 20% drop in earnings will be pretty significant. This is particularly problematic for the equity market when assigning forward valuation multiples. For example, assuming the market trades at an 18x multiple of $179 in earnings would pin the market's fair value at 3,222. Such would be a nearly 40% decline from Friday's close.

Following that sharp drop in earnings, analysts at S&P Global expect Q4 earnings to rebound sharply to their previous estimates. That assumption suggests they believe the tariffs to be temporary, and the Trump administration will negotiate "no tariff" deals with our trading partners. While such could be the case, I am not so optimistic.

However, whatever outcome occurs will likely lead to reduced estimates heading into 2026, closer to the long-term linear growth trend. That is what the rise in yield spreads suggests as the economy slows and inflation falls. That is barring the expansion of the current bond market crisis into a more significant credit-related event that begins to impact the major banks.

This uncertainty, in both policy and markets, is why we are cutting risk for now.

We Cut Risk For Now

As discussed in last week's post, "Hope In The Fear," the weekly "sell signal" was triggered.

"The chart below is a long-term weekly analysis of the relative strength (RSI) and momentum (MACD) indicators. I have denoted when the indicators are trading in bullish and bearish trends. The primary signal is the crossover of the weekly moving averages, as noted by the vertical lines. While the MACD and RSI indicators provided early warning signals, the moving average crossover confirmed a market correction or consolidation. These indicators will not necessarily cause a risk reduction precisely at the top. However, they generally provide sufficient indications to reduce risk ahead of more significant market corrections and consolidations."

"Conversely, they also offered signals when investors should increase market equity risk. These signals were instrumental in avoiding the 2008 market crash and the 2022 correction. Currently, the RSI is crossing below 50, which may suggest a continued correction process with the MACD beginning to revert. However, the moving average crossover has not yet confirmed the RSI and MACD messages."

Currently, both the market and the increase in yield spreads warn investors of elevated market risk that could induce further market declines and increased volatility. While such does not preclude a significant counter-trend rally in the short term, the longer-term risks seem to be growing.

As investors, we could undoubtedly ignore the warning signs, and this could be a short-term corrective event like we saw during the 2020 pandemic or the Fed's "taper tantrum" in 2018. The market correction was brief in those instances, and the bull market resumed. However, it is worth noting that during those periods when the "sell signals" were short, the Federal Reserve intervened by cutting rates, increasing monetary accommodation, or both. Currently, as shown in the Fed Liquidity Index, that is not the case.

For these reasons, we began cutting risk on this week's rally. With the market still technically oversold, we will not be surprised to see a continuation of the rally this week. Such would be similar to the reflexive rally we saw immediately following the weekly "sell signal" in 2022. Today, like then, sellers emerged as market concerns remained elevated. I suspect that will be the case this time as market participants continue to reprice markets for slower economic growth and policy changes. Markets rarely bottom without retracing toward the previous lows or setting new lows. Given the technical damage to the market, we suspect we will see a pullback before this correction process is over.

From a more bullish point of view, the valuation reversion will eventually become complete. However, that is likely not in the coming weeks or even the next couple of months.

If the markets rally substantially from current levels, our risk reduction actions will drag on portfolio performance. I am okay with that until I am more confident that the corrective process is behind us and that the benefits of increased equity exposure outweigh the risks to invested capital. Given the warning signs from yield spreads, the weekly "sell signal," and slowing economic growth and inflation, market risk seems tilted against investors temporarily.

For now, we will continue to use rallies to rebalance risk, manage asset allocations, and hold increased cash levels.

Trade accordingly.

The post Yield Spreads Suggest The Risk Isn’t Over Yet appeared first on RIA.

At Augusta National, tradition reigns supreme—and that means leaving your phone behind. The Masters enforces a strict no-cellphone policy, creating a rare escape from the digital world for attendees. This rule encourages face-to-face interactions and full immersion in the event.   

Instead of selfies and live tweets, patrons experience the tournament through their own eyes, engaging more deeply with the game and fellow fans. As Swedish golfer Ludvig Åberg notes, the absence of mobile devices leads to more eye contact and attentiveness from fans, which he finds particularly rewarding.  

For those needing to make a call, Augusta National provides banks of public telephones—a nostalgic nod to simpler times. These phones allow patrons to connect with the outside world, often surprising recipients with a call from “Augusta National Golf Club.”  

In an era dominated by screens, The Masters offers a refreshing return to presence and tradition. It’s not just about watching golf; it’s about experiencing it fully, without digital distractions.  

#TheMasters #TraditionUnplugged #AugustaNational #RatedRed

Modern politics is overburdened with rights. With a flawed understanding of human nature’s relationality, rights discourse turns us inward away from others. One’s relationship with other persons and communities is centered around an obsession with mine. Too many, according to Pope Benedict XVI, are “concerned only with their rights, and they often have great difficulty in taking responsibility for their own and other people’s integral development.” Ever deepening our concern with rights, the modern person “closes in on himself”—losing track of the fundamental relationality between self and other, between us and them. We need to recall that “rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere license.” We need the necessary grasp of their interrelationship—but also, as Christians, we need to sincerely prioritize what we, in justice, owe others. The name for what we owe is caritas. Caritas is shaped by the need of others and our capacity to give. It is only within this context that we can understand a Christian approach to immigration—one that requires getting the emphasis right between rights and duties, while understanding that giving the love that is owed to the stranger does not detract from our common good, but rather enriches it because it integrates the stranger into our community.

What Feser Gets Right

Edward Feser in his recent Public Discourse essay offers a robust account of the rights of a country to secure its borders and to have and enforce immigration laws. His essay is an important reminder of the need for balance in understanding the question of immigration. The political community is a real expression of the fundamental sociality of the human person. We ought to love the us that we are part of. We rightly prioritize our own communities, and we have a legitimate role in determining who can join this community and how. It is because of this reality that a nation has a right to its borders and “governments have the right to prevent illegal immigration.” 

To show this, Feser quotes several passages from the Church’s magisterium and places in boldface the parts that emphasize the right to territorial integrity. He is right to emphasize this right. Those who advocate “a virtually ‘open borders’ position in the name of Catholicism” should indeed read Feser’s article, because such positions are incompatible with a Catholic stance. Countries have a legitimate right to regulate the who, how, and how many of immigration. 

But quite a lot depends on what one emphasizes. Feser emphasizes that countries have the right to manage immigration, but forgoes much emphasis on the duty to welcome migrants. For him, balancing between these two realities is simply a matter of opinion. Immigration is something about which “Catholics of good will can reasonably disagree.” For Feser, the question of immigration is fundamentally a prudential matter; those arguing for the exclusion of the oppressed, suffering, and impoverished are merely reminding us that America has rights too. But this misses a great deal of the point of Catholic moral teaching and what ideas we should be putting in bold. Feser may be using boldface to remind those who have allegedly forgotten the Church’s moral teaching, yet this is still emblematic of a misreading of Catholic teaching that turns clear moral teaching into optional counsels.

Those who seek to turn away migrants consistently emphasize our rights such that what is mine shapes my relationship with others. All that seems to matter is our borders and our rights. Feser writes that “John Paul II, like Pope Francis and the Church’s bishops more generally, have nevertheless put special emphasis on welcoming migrants. But everybody already knows that.” Does everyone know this? Do we make it the special—dare I say preferential—emphasis of our approach to migrants and refugees? When we balance welcome for migrants and our rights to our borders, we need to get that special emphasis on our duty to the stranger right. The fundamental problem with Feser’s argument is that he acknowledges no special emphasis duty to the needy stranger, and instead especially emphasizes only our rights. 

Scriptural Emphasis 

The Church’s understanding of the treatment of the xenos, the stranger or foreigner, goes back to the Exodus understanding of the people of God. The alien who resides with you should be treated “no differently than the native born among you; have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34). Furthermore, we must store up our goods to share with “the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows in your towns so they may come and eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 14:29). For Ezekiel, the promised Land is to be allotted among the Tribes of Israel “and for the foreigners residing among you,” who are to be treated “as native-born Israelites” (47:22). As a result, less money and land might be distributed to those in the nation as resources are distributed to others.

Christianity continues this tradition, especially in Christ’s teaching that “I was a foreigner [xenos] and you invited me in” (Matthew 25:34). For Pope Pius XII, Christ’s self-identity as a foreigner is grounded in his family’s having been refugees. The Holy Family is “the archetype of every refugee family;” they are “protectors of every migrant, alien, and refugee of whatever kind.” Considering our refugee God, St. Paul tells the faithful to live out philoxenia—a brotherly love, for foreigners to whom we owe hospitality (Romans 12:13). Augustine—in the context of his understanding of the Church as a city of foreigners or migrants (civitate peregrinus)—explains why the Apostles did not recognize the Resurrected Christ on the road to Emmaus: “He became a foreigner (hospes).” For Augustine, the lesson to be taken from Christ’s identification with the foreigner is the obligation to welcome them in from the outside. “Learn to welcome foreigners (hospites), and there you can recognize Christ.” Our hospitality to the stranger is our hospitality to Christ. 

The whole emphasis is on welcoming and giving to the foreigner. These passages lack bold-able words that say that we should welcome the stranger only if we are able, or that we should only distribute to the foreigner if it does not decrease what is owed to our own, or that philoxenia should be less than our love for our fellow citizens. Instead, these central texts only highlight gift, duty, and caritas to the stranger. 

The Emphasis in Catholic Social Thought 

We should also turn to Catholic Social Thought to see how it structures its emphasis. For Pius XII, we are to welcome migrants, aliens, and refugees of any kind who come to our country “whether compelled by fear of persecution [refugees] or by want [immigrants].” Because of this, he wrote to the American bishops about U.S. regulation of migration (just as Pope Francis did). Pius told them that “the natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people.” Considering this, we must understand that “the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to the land is denied to needy and decent people.” Pius XII admonished Americans that the right of the nation must not be exaggerated in the face of outsiders’ needs. Thus he told American senators that they should “administer as liberally as possible” the American immigration laws that he thought were “overly restrictive.” 

Pius XII does hold that there is a limiting principle to this, in that “the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid” aiding the foreigner. But the burden of proof lies on those who would restrict, because the emphasis is the need of the stranger. The fundamental aim must be helping the needy whose way of migration should not be restricted unless a very careful consideration identifies harm in that migration for the public good. There is a right to territorial integrity, to determining the process for managing immigration, and to an order of love that prioritizes our citizens. But more importantly, there is a duty to refugees fleeing oppression and to migrants suffering from want. This duty corresponds, for Pius XII, with the “natural rights of people to migrate.” If grounded in sincere need, this right mitigates—sometimes completely—the wrongdoing of illegally immigrating just as such need can mean that it is lawful to take “the property of another.” 

Our personal and political lives should center on caritas “given and received,” as duty and right. This is the problem with Feser’s reading of Catholic Social Thought. We get truth in his essay, but what is needed is “caritas in veritate in re sociali.” To write about how we ought to treat migrants and emphasize our rights while neglecting the emphasis of Scripture, and deemphasizing what Catholic Social Thought emphasizes, is to lose that intimate connection of love in truth. When one speaks of the truth of one’s rights and speaks less, or not at all, of the truth that we owe our caritas to the needy migrant as an act of justice, one forgets caritas and thus does not fully get to the veritas. Neglecting caritas transforms the ordo amoris from a principle that expands our loves and broadens our duties to those outside our order to a principle that reminds us only of our own rights and prioritizes borders over persons. 

More than Just Rights and Prudence

For Pope Leo the Great—known for his welcome of refugees into Rome—since God is love, “charity should know no limit, for God cannot be confined.” Our caritas cannot be limited to what is our own; while it must include that, it must also extend beyond it. Importantly, love of others and prioritization of the common good is not a zero-sum game. Solidarity with others and the common good itself constitute expansive principles. The common good grows in our sharing it. As Pope St. Leo teaches, “In all this activity, there is present the hand of Him who multiplies the bread by breaking it, and increases it by giving it away.” This is a claim grounded not only in metaphysics and theology, but also in the way economics works—especially in a market economy. When we welcome strangers, we not only benefit them, but we also benefit ourselves. This is the whole history of the United States. Our country’s greatness and public wealth have always been elevated and expanded by the arrival of migrants. 

I am the grandchild of immigrants, the husband of a daughter of immigrants, the neighbor of immigrants, in a nation of immigrants. Patriotism welcomes others into the good that is this nation because we love that good. Such love does not only insist on its rights, but also insists on sharing this good. John Paul II writes (quoted by Feser) that “patriotism is a love for everything to do with our native land.” One of those things that has to do with any native land, but especially this native land, is philoxenia toward those here and at our borders. Real love communicates itself and so welcomes others into our native land in a way that benefits our common good. For those who fear that an expansive welcome to migrants will hurt our country, they can be assured by both economic research and by America’s history of integrating immigrants from every country.

Integration involves all kinds of prudential approaches to this question, including robust foreign aid to make it easier for people to stay in their native land, comprehensive immigration reform, and a due process approach to deporting criminals. Feser’s reminder of the validity of immigration laws is a service to making this possible. But we need more than just rights, and more than just prudence. Rights must be united to duties, prudence must be at the service of caritas in veritate, and caritas must be at the service of both the native citizen and the needy stranger if we are going to get the emphasis right.

Image by sherryvsmith and licensed via Adobe Stock.

Pope Francis and those who enabled this gesture of a stripped down pontiff had not anticipated that such rumors and gossip would circulate worldwide especially through the internet and blogs. 

Thus on Saturday, the Holy Father visited his favorite basilica in Rome, St. Mary Major, where he intends to be entombed wearing his papal cassock. St. Mary’s is my favorite too.

And today, Palm Sunday, the Holy Father made a surprise visit to St. Peter’s Square following the Palm Sunday Mass there, again wearing the papal cassock. He spoke briefly but with a somewhat improved voice.

Are the rumors of renunciation, created by the Pope himself, now put to rest? Time will tell. 

Can Trump and America Survive the Whore Media and the Corrupt Judiciary?

Paul Craig Roberts

The Associated Press, like the rest of the presstitutes who are anti-Trump, report all news falsely in order to undermine Trump.  According to the AP presstitutes Bernard Condon and Stan Choe, Trump is causing the US to lose its reputation as a “safe haven.”  Their evidence is a “freak sell-off of ‘safe haven’ US bonds that raises fear that confidence in America is fading.”

The AP message is clear:  Trump is destroying the world’s confidence in America, and Americans will not be able to get a loan.

The reason for the Bond sell-off is that the stock market was down several thousand points, and people waiting for a buy opportunity sold bonds and bought equities.  So far they have gained 3,000 points on their transaction.  The alleged “freak sell-off” of US Treasuries was nothing but the decisions of people to take advantage of a buying opportunity by shifting from bonds to stocks.

I believe in holding Trump accountable.  That is the responsibility of American citizens.  If the Trump administration has deported mistakenly a father of American children, the error should be corrected.  But I do not believe in permitting the media to lie and misrepresent in order to attack a president of the United States or the government of any other country.  But that is what biased and ideologically-motivated media do in America and throughout the Western world.

There is no Western media, just a propaganda ministry that is against anything that is normal.

Prior to Trump’s reelection, I warned that he would be faced with a corrupt Western media and a corrupt American judiciary. He could break up the media by enforcing the Sherman Anti-trust Act.  But he hasn’t.  

The DEI Democrat judges appointed for the sole purpose of advancing liberal/left agendas are a different kind of problem.  The majority of them are unqualified and should never have been approved.  The question for Trump and his intent to renew America is how is this achieved when Democrat and RINO members of the judiciary are opposed to America?  President Trump is faced with Democrat judges who are ideologues who are enemies of America.

Trump is faced with a judicial system that is willing to violate the 14th Amendment’s requirement of equality under the law by giving legal preferences not only to DEI but also to sexual perverts and to illegal alien immigrant-invader criminal gangs, even trying to stop their deportation.  

The question Trump and American citizens face is:  WHAT CAN A PRESIDENT DO WHEN THE JUDICIARY IS AGAINST THE COUNTRY?

James Howard Kunstler Says It Is Time To Bring Criminal Charges Against the Democrat Criminals

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/04/james-howard-kunstler/the-wicked-flee/ 

Russia designates former Foreign minister Andrey Kozyrev as a foreign agent

Russia has other weak-minded people brainwashed by US propaganda who are traitors to their country.

In America there are an abundance of weak-minded people. They vote Democrat for open borders, for normalizing sexual perversity, for teaching white kids they are racist and need sex change operations.

https://www.rt.com/russia/615669-kozyrev-minister-foreign-agent/