Tancredo to pope: Stop promoting amnesty

World Net Daily ^ | April 18, 2008 | unknown

[ovrtaxt]

Rep. Tom Tancredo – who vied for the Republican presidential nomination to make illegal immigration a priority issue – suggested in a House speech yesterday that Pope Benedict XVI is encouraging Latin Americans to come to the U.S. to bolster flagging membership in the Catholic Church.

[Norman Bates]

The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories

If this first limiting clause doesn't give you a clue, then nothing will.

[Norman Bates]

Those organizations have their own direct leaders and/or boards. Therefore they do not speak for the Pope.

[Norman Bates]

First, the Catholic bishops of Mexico and the United States do not speak for the Pope. Each diocese is guided by a bishop or bishops. They have “ordinary, proper and immediate power” in their diocese. They are not “representatives” or “stand-ins” for the Pope and therefore do not speak for the Pope, nor do episcopal conferences speak for the Pope.

Second, if you examine those statements in the context of eternity and the inherent dignity of the human person you’ll see easily that there is truth in them.

[Norman Bates]

There are no boundaries, political or secular, to the realm of the soul.

[rob777]

"Sorry, but I fail to see what is “childish” and especially “nonsensical” about it. The immigration issue is clearly not nonsense. ... You may think that the Pope is above criticism on this issue, because he is the Pope — and that any criticism of the Church’s agenda is “childish” and “nonsensical” — but the Pope needs to butt out on this issue, period."


You have totally missed my point. I never said that Tancredo's take on the immigration issue was either childish, or nonsensical. Neither did I ever suggest that the Pope should not have been challenged on the issue, in fact I explicitly stated that he SHOULD have been. What I find childish and nonsensical, and have VERY LITTLE patience for is to substitute a personal attack on someone you disagree with for a substative attack on the issue itself. This is a separate issue in and of itself apart for the specific issue of immigration. I have had about as much as I can take of this approach to arguing an issue, ANY ISSUE!!!

[buccaneer81]

I do not subjugate the judgment of the Holy Father to political formulae, whether conservative or otherwise.

You would have loved Pope Pius XII. His poor judgment certainly aided the Nazis.

On that issue, Pius was wrong. On illegal immigration, Benedict is wrong.

[exhaustedmomma]

Tancredo and all who raise this charge against the Church are spectacularly ignorant of Church history and teaching on this subject. The issue, from the view of the Church, is the human dignity and social justice due to all men, not the Catholicity of immigrants.

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church.
Catholic Encyclopedia

Texas History: Catholics came in, set up missions and presidio's using Native Americans as the main source of labor. The missions and presidio depended on this labor. The Indians were controlled once they entered the missions. They were punished for not working or for what was considered bad behavior. If the Indians ran away, they were hunted down, caught and returned to the Missions. The Missions were religious places and a key purpose was to convert Native Americans to Catholicism.

Martin Luther, William Tyndale, and others... certainly shed light on the history of the Catholic Church... and it's leadership. Has the Catholic Church and it's leadership done good? YES! Can they err?

It is the responsibility of a church to step in and help her people when they are in dire straights as are these illegal immigrants. It is not the responsibility of another nation nor that nation's taxpayers to foot that bill. The Catholic Church has vast wealth and resources that should be used in this obvious situation causing huge numbers of its members to run from countries of orgin to invade another country.

[Norman Bates]

Pope Pius saved over 800,000 Jews. Get a clue.

[buccaneer81]

Here's where Pius was wrong:

1)During the war, the Pope followed a policy of neutrality mirroring that of Pope Benedict XV during World War I.

2)In March 1942, Pius XII established diplomatic relations with the Japanese Empire and received ambassador Ken Harada, who remained in that position until the end of the war.

3)When asked by French Marshal Philippe Pétain if the Vatican objected to anti-Jewish laws, Pius responded that the church condemned antisemitism, but would not comment on specific rules. Similarly, when Pétain's puppet government adopted the "Jewish statutes," the Vichy ambassador to the Vatican, Léon Bérard, was told that the legislation did not conflict with Catholic teachings.

4)In October 1941 Harold Tittman, a U.S. delegate to the Vatican, asked the pope to condemn the atrocities against Jews; Pius replied that the Vatican wished to remain "neutral," reiterating the neutrality policy which Pius invoked as early as September 1940.

5)Pinchas Lapide, a Jewish theologian and Israeli diplomat to Milan in the 1960s, estimated that Pius "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000 but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands." Some historians have questioned this number, which Lapide reached by "deducting all reasonable claims of rescue" by non-Catholics from the total number of European Jews surviving the Holocaust

Your 800,000 figure is disputable.Nice propaganda, though, if you are an apologist for Pius.

The guy was wrong. To err is human. That applies to Benedict as well.Popes are only infallible when it comes to dogma. Not politics.

[Norman Bates]

Pope Pius saved over 800,000 Jews. Tell me what so moved the chief Jewish Rabbi of Rome to convert to Catholicism after the war? It was Pius’ holiess and his salvation of Jews. He had the perspective of being there. The propaganda book Hitler’s Pope which you no doubt admire has been roundly debunked.

Pope Pius did everything he could to save Jews without putting many more Catholic clergy in grave danger (which onlly a great fool would do or require as a prerequisite for right judgment). In a perfect world perhaps you can issue edicts roundly condemming whatever you please but in the heart of militant facisism it is much more delicate for real Popes. Pius was a great and holy man, and one of wisdom and intelligence. Your arrogance to summon the typical hit-and-run potshot at a man who bore responsibility for guiding millions of souls, physically saved hundreds of thousands, and who is surely in Heaven is sick and ludicrous. I put it in the Phony Catholic category.

[buccaneer81]

I put it in the Phony Catholic category.

So glad you know my soul, sheeple. Try questioning the baloney you've been fed all your life. It won't make you any less of a Catholic. Unless you lack the courage to open your mind.

[buccaneer81]

Your arrogance to summon the typical hit-and-run potshot

Hit and run? I'm still here. And the five points I posted did not come from "Hitler's Pope." I laid out my position. You, on the other hand respond with few facts and too much emotion.

Popes are to be admired if they meet your standards of what is right and profound within the faith. They are not to be worshiped. You are on the verge of worship.

[Norman Bates]

Spoken like a true liberal. I happen to love my Church and deeply respect the Holy Fathers (especially in recent times) who are called to guide the Ship on earth. I’m not fool enough to run roughshod over saintly people. I’m also not petulant enough to dump the Holy Father overboard because he “deviates” from an article of politcal creed.

Saving 800,000 people is not baloney. It’s also not something you’ve done.

[buccaneer81]

Saving 800,000 people is not baloney. It’s also not something you’ve done.

I never said it was. It is in dispute.

As for what I've done, well that sort of retort is something I would expect from a child. Your intellectual immaturity is showing, and it's not pretty.

As far as my right-wing credentials, it's safe to say that my membership in the John Birch Society (Special Catholic Branch) is secure.

[Norman Bates]

You are on the verge of worship.

Bullshit. What I have said, my deference and deep respect for the person of the Holy Father, is nothing more or less than would be expected of how any Catholic should treat, act, and defer if ever were they to meet His Holiness one-on-one. The Holy Father represents the person of Christ on earth. Which at the very least commands respect. It also places him above your silly political scorn.

Your position ignores by the way that Pius saved hundreds of thousands of Jews. And emotion? Please. Was it I foaming at the mouth with Trancredo?

[buccaneer81]

And emotion? Please.

Bullshit

I rest my case.

[Norman Bates]

If you lose your salvation I promise you God will not be impressed with your self-impressive intellectual maturity, as you put it. I promise you that.

By the way, tell me then how many Jews Pius saved? 700,000? 600,000? 100,000? 50,000? 10,000? 1,000? Any one of those numbers would be deeply meaningful. And tell me why the chief Rabbi of Rome converted because of Pius great holiness in saving Jews? And tell me why you have a better perspective than he? You realize the movement against Pius was fostered in large part by a communist playright in the 1960s. Kudos for continuing his work.

[Norman Bates]

I rest my case.

You should. It's ill conceived and morally wreckless.

[buccaneer81]

my deference and deep respect for the person of the Holy Father, is nothing more or less than would be expected of how any Catholic should treat, act, and defer if ever were they to meet His Holiness one-on-one.

Respectful questioning of a foreign head of state regarding his public pronouncements regarding OUR laws and policies is the right thing to do, if you disagree with what he has said.

I'm not questioning transubstantiation. I'm challenging a MAN, a head of state, about his views on OUR laws and policies.

[Norman Bates]

That MAN, as you put it, is Christ's vicar and your shepherd. He does not issue statements lightly nor for pure political motive, as your entire line of attack is suggesting. There is no contradiction nor anything un-Christian about the Pope saying that countries have a right to enforce laws and have a responsibility to treat immigrants with the respect that the inherent dignity of the human person demands.