There are two sides to the Catholic immigration debate

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church teaches that wealthy nations ought to welcome immigrants.  It is less well known that she also teaches that a nation may put conditions on immigration, that it need not take in all those who want to enter it, and that those it does allow in must follow the law. In an article at UnHerd, I spell out this neglected side of Catholic teaching.  Defenders and critics of Trump administration policy alike can appeal to moral premises from the Church’s tradition.

Vallicella on Immortal Souls

At his Substack Philosophy in Progress, my old buddy Bill Vallicella engages with my book Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature.  Bill kindly opines: “[It] may well be the best compendium of Thomist philosophical anthropology presently available.  I strongly recommend it.”  All the same, he has doubts about the compatibility of two of the books key themes: the Aristotelian hylomorphic conception of the soul as the form of the body, and the continued existence of any particular individual’s soul after the death of his body.  Let’s take a look at his objection.

Fastiggi and Sonna on Catholicism and capital punishment (Updated)

Recently, theologian Robert Fastiggi was interviewed about the topic of the Church and the death penalty by apologist Suan Sonna on his podcast Intellectual Catholicism.  Fastiggi’s views are the focus of the discussion, but Sonna, who largely agrees with him, adds some points of his own.  Their main concern in the discussion is to try to defend the changes Pope Francis made to the Church’s presentation of her teaching on the subject. 

I appreciate their civility, and Fastiggi’s call at the end of the interview for charity in dealing with those who disagree.  But their attempt fails.  Much of what Fastiggi has to say are reheated claims that I have already refuted in past exchanges with him, such as the two-part essay I wrote in response to his series on the death penalty at Where Peter Is.  (You can find it here and here.  The essay was reprinted as a single long article in Ultramontanism and Tradition, edited by Peter Kwasniewski.)  Fastiggi simply repeats his assertions without acknowledging, much less answering, my rebuttals.  He also makes some new claims, which are no more plausible than the older ones.  Let’s take a look.