Fr. Pavone Says Brownback is His Choice in ‘08
(Hat tip: Amy Welborn)
From Catholic News Agency:
Washington DC, Jan 17, 2007 / 10:55 am (CNA).- A national pro-life leader has announced that he has thrown his support behind Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.My Comments:
In a letter to his own supporters, Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said he intends to serve on the Advisory Committee of Brownback’s potential campaign for president.
Senator Brownback has not officially announced his candidacy, but has formed an exploratory committee.
The priest said he is making this endorsement in his personal capacity, and not in the name of any of the organizations he leads.
He said Brownback has his “unequivocal support.” He described the senator as “a hero for the unborn and one of the strongest and most consistent supporters of pro-life policies” since Brownback was elected to Congress in 1994.
In a letter to “fellow conservatives”, Brownback described himself as “the only tried-and-true social conservative seeking the Republican Party's nomination.”
“Social issues first and foremost … drive my passion,” he said, referring to marriage, family, and pro-life issues.
I like Fr. Pavone, and I am a supporter of Sen. Brownback's candidacy. But I'm not sure it is appropriate for a Catholic priest to endorse a political candidate.
At least Fr. Pavone is endorsing a candidate who isn't hostile to the unborn (and even some lucky enough to be born alive), unlike, say, this priest.
UPDATE
Perhaps this is too fine a distinction, but I should add that I have no problem with a priest acting in the role as an unofficial advisor to a candidate. But even this is something that should be done with extreme caution. In this case, I believe Fr. Pavone, serving in an official capacity on the Brownback team, runs the risk of compromising the ministry and mission of Priests for Life, not to mention the Catholic Church.
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Brownback Opposes Troop Surge in Iraq
Massachusetts Conservatives Back Brownback Over Romney
Brownback to Move on Presidential Bid
Priests for Life on "Mr. Brownback"
Sam Brownback Goes to Prison
Pro-Life Senator Sam Brownback Says He'll Win GOP Presidential Primary
Brownback Eyes 2008 White House Bid
Students for Brownback
Looks Like Feddie's Endorsing Brownback, Too
Mr. Compassionate Conservative
Sen. Brownback Files Bill Against Assisted Suicide
Washington Post Profile on Sen. Sam Brownback
USCCB Official Expresses Gratitude to Sen. Brownback for Hearings on Capital Punishment
Senator Brownback Conducts Senate Hearings To Examine Pornography's Effects On Families, Society
Will This Catholic Senator Be the Next President?
Kansas Senator Brownback, Looking at Presidential Bid, Makes Faith the Bedrock of Campaign
posted by Pro Ecclesia 2:12 PM
28 comments
28 Comments:
That Chicago guy seems like a wannabe Fr. Groppi (of Milw. 1960's).
As for Fr. Pavrone's endorsment, I have no problem with a Priest endorsing Brownback, better to see the Clergy speak up for good men than quietly give the bad guys (and gals) a pass far too often.
This is not an endorsement, but . . .
Rep. Ron Paul looks good; and if Gov. Frank Keating gets in, that would show promise, too.
Tom Tancredo is 100% pro-life and he's right on a major issue. Illegal immigration. No Republican can win without being right on that issue in this election. That is one of the biggest reasons for Republican losses this last election. Ron Paul would make an excellent running mate with Tancredo.
Keating I like, although he seems to have a severe case of thin skin. But he could make the case that he has everything to offer that Giuliani has, plus the conservatism.
Tancredo? His problem is that even among conservatives he's considered fringe.
As for Ron Paul, I just can't shake the fact that he was the Presidential nominee of the pro-dope big "L" Libertarians a few years ago. And aren't the Libertarians in favor of open borders? Doesn't that make him a "flip-flopper" on the immigration issue? Finally, I'm not sure social conservatives will be too impressed by his libertarian tendencies.
Tancredo is totally unacceptable to me and him getting the nomination, a million to one shot, is the worse thing that could happen to the Republican party, worse even than McCain or Rudy. Tancredo would lose because he only has one issue, immigration, it is like some kind of all consuming passion with him, he forgets that we are a nation of immmigrants, he is a modern day know-nothing. His canidacy would send a message to hispanics that they are unwelcome in the Republic Party, in the Conservative movement, and as Americans.
The Coup de Grace... Tancredo is an apostate Catholic who has left the Church for Protestantism, I have no clue as to his reasons but methinks maybe the association of Catholicism and immigrants was too much for him to tollerate.
Michelle I have the utmost respect for you and your blog, but I strong oppose Tancredo and I don't think us Catholics need look any further than Sam Brownback to find the best pro-life candidate.
Father Drinan was not allowed to be in Congress as a Priest, nor shoud Pavone be allowed to be such a partisan. Catholic teaching does not fit the right or the left. By taking such a position based on one issue - Pavone marginalizes Church Teaching. An investigation of his 501c3 must be advanced.
All this conversation about candidates is mostly for not - the Republican part will either nominate McCain - (Senator "McWar") or the pro abortion, pro gay right - liberal Rudy G.
Americans may want to get used to the fact that the next President will be a man of color or possibly a woman.
Cheers!
I have to say that my objections to a Tancredo candidacy echo FD's.
Look at the state of the Republican Party in California - permanent minority status. Oh yeah, they can elect a movie-star Republican as governor, so long as he acts like a liberal Democrat. But is that what you want for the Republican Party nationwide?
That's what will happen - permanent minority status - if Tancredo is the nominee. His single-issue-anti-illegal-immigrant candidacy would do to the national Republican Party what Prop 187 did to the Republican Party of California.
"Americans may want to get used to the fact that the next President will be a man of color or possibly a woman."
I think those of us posting here are much more likely to be concerned that the next President will have a 100% NARAL rating, will favor same-sex marriage, and will sign ESCR funding into law.
Of course, that could apply to Rudy Giuliani as much as it could to any of the Democrat candidates.
I think those of us posting here are much more likely to be concerned that the next President will have a 100% NARAL rating, will favor same-sex marriage, and will sign ESCR funding into law.
Why does it always have to boil down to these wedge issues Jay? How does same sex marriage really affect peoples lives at the end of the day? How does it put food on the table? How does it affect where people have their jobs and keep them? Gays make up about 1% of the population, yet so much conversation in the public arena is aimed at them. Who are we to enforce our morals on others? I do not agree that our founders had that in mind. This should be a country free of discrimenation.
As for Abortion - Candidates with low NARAL ratings have done nothing over the last 30 years to end abortion - so what is the point? Roe V Wade will never be overturned. And if it was overturned - what then? States will still have it legal. Do you really think a state like California will ever outlaw it?
Why don't we as a society look to ways to reduce the need for abortion? If we agree in a civil debate the Abortion will never go away, then why do we not look to ways to make it a rarity? Why do we not support bills in Congress like HR6067 Reducing the need for abortion and supporting parents act?
I am Catholic. Next question.
To be more precise:
“As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:
• Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
• Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family — as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage — and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union ...;
• The protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.”
~ Pope Benedict XVI
March 30, 2006
Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
Ok - then lets here your condemnaton of George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. At least the escalation. The Pope has condemed the war. The Vatican recently spoke out against the escalation, as have the Bishops. You are Catholic - right?
I am Catholic. Next question.
But you overtly support Republican Candidates based on a single issue mostly. You overlook so much. Are Catholics supposed to be Republicans?
Bush=Hitler.
There. Are you happy? But this post isn't really about Bush, is it?
I'm not trying to be partisan here. I'm NOT a Republican. I'm just trying to apply my faith to how I vote.
Brownback - the man I have endorsed for 2008 - opposes the "surge". Okay? Happy? In addition to being unequivocally pro-life, he also has exhibited the Church's preferential option for the poor in his policy-making decisions. He's a person that I would think any Catholic should be happy in supporting.
The only ones who seem to have a partisan angle here are those who would tell us to ignore clear Church teaching on abortion, euthanasia, ESCR, same-sex marriage, and myriad other issues in order to support someone like Obama or Hillary! for President.
And just what, exactly, am I "overlooking" by supporting Brownback and not supporting the above-mentioned Democrats, who are overtly hostile to so much that I believe in?
If you think Tancredo is considered extreme by conservatives, you are sadly mistaken. Unless you consider Karl Rove and George Bush conservatives. Would you consider Phyllis Schlaffly "fringe"? As an activist in the Republican party, I have discovered there is a war going on for the heart and soul of the party. One side is pro-life and wants to preserve our constitutional principles, the other side is pro-death and cares only about money and power. A large segment of the pro-death wing is made up of coorporate fat-cats who like illegal immigration because it helps their bottom line. Unfortunately, though Brownback is pro-life, he has been what many of us in the conservative movement refer to as a "useful idiot" to the pro-death wing of the party. When the state reps to the RNC got together to vote on some resolutions a year ago, including taking a position on illegal immigration and guest worker amnesty programs, Bush sent in the "big guns", Dick Cheney and Sam Brownback to persuade (strong arm) members to their side in the name of "unity". Sound familiar?
The Catholic position on illegal immigration? Can one of you here give me an authoritative statement from the Catholic Church (the USCCB is not the magisterium) that says (implicitly or explicitly) we must give amnesty (or a "guest worker" program and a "pathway to citizenship") to illegal aliens?
Sam Brownback may be popular with some pro-life Catholics, but not all. I commend him for his position on Life. But you must understand that he cannot win the Republican nomination with only a portion of pro-life Catholics. Pro-lifers must unite, attend their caucuses in March of '08, vote in their primaries. But we also must unite a whole coalition of conservatives. Life is my #1 issue as it should be with all of us. But it doesn't mean we don't take other issues into consideration. And since it is not the #1 issue with all conservatives, we must find a way to coalition with others. The illegal immigration will be the hot issue of the upcoming election. Like it or not. Sam Brownback is wrong on this issue, and if pro-lifers go for him, the nomination will go to McCain, Giuliani or Romeny. None of them are pro-life.
"I have discovered there is a war going on for the heart and soul of the party..."
This is nothing new, it dates back atleast to the Rockefeller Republicans, or look at the animosity between Ford and Reagan, while it is hardly cut and dry in the murky world of politics, the Republican party is to an extent a mix of three parts, the Greed wing and the God wing, the the occasionaly along for the ride wing, be it the anti-terrorist voters of 02 and 04 etc. I realize I am over simplifying.
Anyway I would not call Brownback a "useful idiot," rather this is a guy who gets it, who understands the big picture.
What has been said about prop 192 is 100% true. As much as I shudder to say it, the Republican party can survive a pro-choice republican better than it can survive a xenophobic one.
I fail to see how Brownback is so wrong on immigration? As I have said before we Americans are blessed to have people who want to (for the most part) come into our country, work hard, raise familes, and build the country up. At the very least it is keeping us out of the the demographic death spiral you see in most of Europe.
Yes the Republican party is not perfect, in fact, it is debatable how long before it becomes just as bad as Catholics for the democrats, at that point, we'll just have to create some sort of "Christian Democrat," or "Catholic Center" party as has existed in Europe,
fidei,
You fail to see how Brownback is so wrong on immigration? First of all, it's ILLEGAL immigration. It's ILLEGAL immigration we're talking about, not merely "immigration". The way Brownback is wrong is that he favors rewarding illegals with a "pathway to citizenship" after they've broken the law by coming here illegally.
The fact that you think the Republican party can survive a "pro-choice" candidate better than it can survive a "xenophobe" candidate gives me great concern. What is your priority? Protecting LIFE or protecting illegal immigration?
I know the war in the party is nothing new, but to talk to some who aren't active in it, it seems that the obvious needs to be explained.
Note: I placed "xenophobe" in quotes just as I did "pro-choice". You didn't do either. Tancredo is no more a "xenophobe" than pro-abortion people are "pro-choice". Words have meaning.
Michelle, sorry if my tone was curt, and sorry about forgetting the quotes, I am the first to admit that when it comes to commenting on blogs my spelling and grammer is 2nd rate.
There is no need to question my priorties regarding to issues of immigration and abortion. Ask anyone who ever read my blog and they'll second that.
I stand by what I said about the party being able to survive a pro-choice candidate better than being able to survive a xenophobe, I didn't say I'd like it, the thought of a pro-choicer like Rudy on the ticket makes me gag with disgust. All I meant by that is that a pro-choice Republican candiate, as awful as that would be, probably would not neccesarily mean the party would be purged of pro-life senators and congressmen. A xenophobic candidate would as Jay pointed out make the Republican party the constant minority party and that would in the long run spell doom for pro-life republicans in the legislative arena. A pro-choice republican president would be tragic, but it has happend before (Gerry Ford) and we have proven our abillity to bounce back (The Gipper).
Also, while there is no religious test for public office or anything, I would be very curious to know why exactly Tancredo left the Catholic Church. Brownback, a convert to Catholicism, has been very open about his entering the Church, why did Tancredo leave it?
fidei,
I appreciate you clarifying your tone.
I don't know if you understand the frustration among the American people about the illegal immigration issue. The people rightly do not want to see illegal behavior rewarded through an amnesty program. It is not racist or xenophobic to have indignation about it. There are even American Hispanics who are angry about it. Check out
http://dontspeakforme.org
As far as surviving a pro-abortion presidential *candidate* (I say candidate, because he will never win the general because grassroots Republicans will not support a pro-abortion nominee.), you're wrong. You're right about Ford but remember: he was NOT ELECTED. Look what happened to him when he tried and look what happened to Dole. That's what will happen to Giuliani, McCain and maybe Romney (as long as he doesn't fool enough pro-lifers on his "shift"). And because the illegal immigration issue has reached critical mass among conservatives and even the average joe's with no political affiliation who are effected by it, Sam Brownback will lose. Our only hope is someone like Tancredo who's right on all the issues. And if pro-lifers want to see a pro-life candidate get elected, they better get right on illegal immigration and stop the name calling.
As for why Tancredo left the Church, I'm not sure. I'm curious too. I am a convert (2000) who came from evangelical protestantism in (believe it or not, the Methodist Church), but made a stop along the way to the Episcopal church for several years (the liturgy attracted me, and I met some faithful Christians who were there, and every Catholic I knew at the time was a "practical atheist". Perhaps Tancredo had the same experience with Catholics he knew. From what I understand the protestant church he attends is as close as you get in moral doctrine to us). I was searching for the Truth.
I don't think it is right to judge Tancredo on it. You have no idea what the background is there. Was he well catechized? Did he know that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded. So many cradle Catholics don't know and they leave because they were never taught these things or never had a relationship with Christ through their Catholic experience. Pray for him. He is however, doing the right thing in his office, to defend the Constitution and he consistently defends human life.
I've noticed that none of you have answered the question I posed to you about illegal immigration and Catholic teaching. I asked: Can one of you here give me an authoritative statement from the Catholic Church (the USCCB is not the magisterium) that says (implicitly or explicitly) we must give amnesty (or a "guest worker" program and a "pathway to citizenship") to illegal aliens?
In fact, Catholic teaching is contrary to this notion. I'd like to know what is meant by "Sam Brownback gets the big picture." Please explain the "big picture" to me. Why is it helpful to reward illegal behavior? Do you not realize that doing so, furthers the culture of death?
Michelle,
I don't know that anyone posting here has made any claims with regard to Catholic teaching and a solution to the illegal immigrant situation in America.
For one, I don't believe the Church requires one to take a position one way or the other on amnesty or a "guest worker" program or a "pathway to citizenship". I believe those to be prudential judgments on which Catholics can in good faith disagree.
Nevertheless, I don't believe the position of the U.S. Bishops on the issue should just be dismissed or ignored. I think we have an obligation as Catholics to listen to them and prayerfully consider their statements on the issue. When Abp. Chaput, who I consider to be among the very finest and most orthodox bishops in the U.S., takes a position on an issue, I'm going to listen to what he has to say.
But I don't take the position I have regarding what to do about the illegal immigrants in this country because the Church mandates it (it doesn't). I take the position I do because I believe it to be the most prudent and because I belive it to be humane toward people who seek a better life for themselves and their families.
Do I like "rewarding" those who break our laws? No. But we're looking at 10-12 million people, many of whom have children who ARE U.S. citizens by virtue of the Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship. What do we do about that?
If you think we're going to mass deport 10-12 million people, it's NOT going to happen. It's not viable either physically (we don't have the manpower or the means to round them all up and ship them back) or politically.
Do we deny them basic goods and services? Now THAT does run contrary to Church teaching.
Do we allow them to continue to live as a permanent illegal underclass without hope of normalizing their situations? What problem does that solve?
The great Ronald Reagan also offered amnesty to illegal immigrants during his presidency. To offer these people an opportunity for normal lives does not brand one a "liberal". It is a humane solution to a bad situation.
Do I think we need to do more to enforce our borders? You betcha! So does Pres. Bush and so does Sam Brownback. But for those already here, something needs to be done, and it WON'T be mass deportation. Not even Tancredo would be able to accomplish that.
And Tancredo does mark me as particularly mean-spirited on the issue, and toward Spanish speakers in particular. Today he complained about the fact that Sen. Salazar was going to be providing one of the rebuttals to the State of the Union in Spanish. Why? Is Spanish an inferior language? Is Spanish culture inferior to Anglo culture?
While the English were busy ridding England of all vestiges of "popish influences", the Spanish were already here in the Americas for over 100 years evangelizing and spreading Western culture to the natives. Spanish was being spoken in Texas, California, Florida, and even Tancredo's Colorado for almost 300 years before the first English speakers ever arrived in those places.
I am not a Republican, but I am a conservative. And I don't want Tancredo as the face of any movement to which I belong.
Michelle
Maybe you live in a border state or something, but here where I am in the great lakes, most people, liberal or conservative have no problem with immigrants, this issue is hardly pressing. I concede that it may be different in your area.
I realize Ford lost an election, as did Dole (though I would argue Dole was pro-life atleat nominally) but I mean that their candidaces did not shut the door for pro-lifers in the Republican party, as Clinton's candiadcy did for the democrats, just look what they did to Bob Casey Sr. at the 1992 convention.
I should also point out that I simply don't think immigration will be, or should be, the number one issue in this election. For better or worse, voters are going to vote with one thing in mind "Iraq," at the moment I am not qualified to compare and contrast Brownback and Tancredo's views on that.
Jay is very correct (as he often is) to point out that we simply can't deport 12 million illegal immigrants, its not feasable, it would be a disastor. Reegan knew this. We Amerians forget how good we have it sometimes. Michelle if you were a poor Mexican don't you think you'd consider a better life for you and your family in America?
"Sam Brownback gets the big picture." Here is the big and I mean big big big picture. In the 19th Century the world was a collection of NATIONS, in the 20th century is was a collection of IDEOLOGIES, communism, nazisism, capitalism, etc. With the end of the cold war the world is quickly slidding back into what it used to be, collections of CIVILIZATIONS. The Muslim civilization is on the up-and-up, so is that of the Chinese. The Western Civilization is tettering on the brink of Christian and post-Christian, depending on the nation. It's all about demographics.
Without immigrants, mostly Catholic ones from Latin America, or some major religious rivival, America will follow in the footsteps of Europe, see our population shrink, as those who hate us turn there eyes on a land rich in resources, inhabited by an aging, shrinking, populace.
Also as Jay said, the Hispanics were there first. We TOOK that land in the 1846-1848 War.
I should also add that some of Tancredo's actions, like trying to get books in Spanish pulled from public libraries are just plain petty.
fidei,
You keep failing to make the distinction between ILLEGAL aliens and immigrants. I, nor Tancredo is against immigrants, nor Mexicans, etc. It is the ILLEGAL behavior that we're against. And the nation must protect the borders from criminals.
Correction, Ford did not merely lose "an election". He was NEVER elected in the first place (as president). Yes, Dole was "nominally pro-life", but conservatives could smell his phoniness on not only that issue, but others as well.
We took their land??? Your synopsis of history is fictional. The continental U.S. was a vast wilderness extremely sparsely inhabited by nomadic tribes of savages. They made no claim to owning the land because they were anarchists. These were the broken remnants of ancient cultures. These were the ones who had abandoned all morality. They had no agriculture, no technology, no relationship to God, not even the wheel.
European Christians--including Catholics like Christopher Columbus, who settled our continent were not only willing to live in peace with them, but attempted that innumerable times (while many Indians, in fact, accepted God, and were assimilated--get the real story of Pocohontis--banned by your local and school library), the core of remnants from most tribes remained pagan, anarchistic and many of them engaged, on a repeated basis, in the recreational torture of innocent people. Within themselves, they had assimilated homosexuality, slavery and part of their economy was engaging in murderous raids of other tribes and white farmers. They displayed their victims' human body parts as decorations in and on their dwellings and frequently on their clothing. The destructiveness of this can't be over-emphasized.
We civilized their land. As the Culture of Life grew in America, they became its habitual enemy. Indian rading parties instigated Indian wars. They became pariahs because they were outlaws, very much like Charles Manson's "family". Modern American Political Corectness is incapable of recognizing the existence of evil cultures because they disbelieve in the existence of evil. Hence the revisionist history they teach in schools.
Those of you here claiming "we took their land", while you have not bought the Planned Parenthood's Culture of Death, you have bought the lies about the American Aboriginal Culture of Death, sold to you by the same vendors.
The tribal culture exists today. They too form rading parties of bandits who carry a philosophy of anarchy and hostility to American law. These are the Illegal aliens. If they have any ties to the Catholic Church, it is nominal, like that of Fidel Castro. Again, I make a distinction between ILLEGAL aliens and immigrants.
Good Catholic Hispanics do not break into our country anymore than they break into banks or our homes to "make a better life for their families."
The Church requires that we obey the moral law. The Church is not "one issue" anymore than it is the "'seamless garment' that cloaks sinfully silent consent to legalized abortion." (Bob Dornan)
Michelle,
I did not need the history lesson the Indians. I mean we took the land of the Spanish/Mexicans. Do you think cities like Santa Fe, San Antonio, and San Francisco, were founded by Anglos?
Second, I would suggest you start researching some of the people Tancredo affilites with, one of his top supporters is pro-choice, and plenty of them are anti-Catholic. In fact, I am under the impression that Tancredo himself harbors some deep anti-Catholic sentiments.
For example a few months ago he wrote the Pope a letter of "advice," what hubris for a man who left the Church to do that!
I think a lot of Catholics might be under the impression that Tancredo is a good Catholic Italian boy, he certainy refers to going to Catholic schools and being an altar boy (sound familar, John Kerry anyone?) For more check out this link, "Tancredo Vs. Catholics?"
http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=334
Please, I am not trying to pick a fight with you, but Tancredo's candidacy is a symbolic one, meant to draw attention to his pet issue/obsession, it will serve no purpuse other than to weaken and split the conservative/ traditionalist minded people in the party. I don't want to seem like some kind of star-struck fan but Brownback is the best man we can hope for, and not just as the lesser of two evils, but truly a great man who has what it takes to confront the culture of death.
The Spanish and Mexican Christians that named the cities that you mentioned were part of the Christianization of America. I never said anything about them our founders being all "anglo". However, our common language is English and both Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict support nations having a common identity, culture and language. The Spanish and Mexican Christian founders were with "us". How did we "take it from them"?
Apparently you ARE in need of a history lesson. I admit that I'm no expert, but I atleast have a handle on our founding principles, the constitution and even Catholic teaching on this. I don't mean to pick a fight with you on this either. But I have predicted that this issue would divide the pro-life movement and we must resolve it. If you are a Truth seeker like me, let's keep working at this, OK? Respectfully. Please take none of the above personally.
As for the "anti-Catholic" claims about Tancredo, they are about as baseless as the ones that were made of President Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University. Come on, let's think about this. As the late great Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, (paraphrasing): many hate what they think the Catholic Church teaches, but few hate what the Catholic Church teaches.
The statements by the USCCB (as I've mentioned before are not authoritative teachings of the Church) and they quite frankly, contradict consistent Catholic teaching on the rights of nations to secure their borders, regulate immigration and the duties of immigrants to OBEY the laws of their host land. I have a link to Jimmy Akin's post on this on my blog. (Though, he does not explicitly name the USCCB for the error). Yes we have a duty to consider what the bishops say, but when it conflicts with Church teaching and we know it, we have the duty to guard the truth and pray for the erring bishops. I am puzzled by what motivates the bishops to lobby this way, myself. Does that make me anti-Catholic? It is obvious that Tancredo has the impression that the bishops conference represent the difinitive teaching or he is looseley describing "the Catholic Church's position on this". Who can blame him? Even practicing Catholics are confused about this.
What letter are you referring to that he supposedly wrote to the Popeto give him "advice"? I only know of his statements of support for Pope Benedict's statement about Islam that caused such contraversy. And those statements about being an alter boy and such weren't to make him out to be a "good Catholic boy" but they were followed by the fact that he now belongs to another church. That was to demonstrate that he has no idea what motivates the "Catholic Church" to be pro open borders. You're reading too much into things.
Post a Comment
<< Home