Replies

"I agree that attacking the substance without attacking the Pope himself might have been the most prudent way to do it."

It is more than imprudent, it is a formal fallacy of the rules of logic. I have absolutely no respect for this approach. In fact, I would have more respect for someone who I disagreed with on the issue, but who was able to argue his point of view in an adult way.

As for the supposed "evidence" of an ulterior motive, the only evidence is that the Pope appears to agree with the U.S. Cardinals on pushing for more open borders. How in the he-- does that prove what the motive for that agreement is???? I personally know Catholic Priests who are morally the salt of the earth who agree with the notion. Does the fact that these Priests agree with the open borders position mean that there motive is more a matter of increasing the U.S. flock? I disagree with them on this issue but am fully aware that they take it because they sincerely believe that it is a matter of human dignity.

As far as I'm concerned, the motive is irrelevant. I'm sure it probably is motivated by a concern for human dignity. Doesn't matter. They are pushing Bush for compromises that would bring in more illegals, and that deserves to get called out and knocked down.

Also, with regard to this post...

"WND:The pontiff, asked by reporters on his flight to the U.S. Tuesday if he would address Hispanic immigration, (My underscore)"

The reason the reporters asked that question is because they are aware of the Pope's and the US Cardinals' historical public stance on the issue and the fact that both the Pope and the Cardinals have pushed Bush for more lax immigration laws, more open border policies, and many more compromises than what we currently have.

Now just think about what we do currently have and grok that the Vatican and its Cardinals in the United States wants it to be even worse.