 |
| GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum |
(Iowa Caucuses) -- The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops are wrong by calling for comprehensive immigration reform that includes an earned path to legalization, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said today.THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I guess it's time we have a frank talk on immigration, especially since a second-tier Catholic Republican candidate for president has thought it necessary to educate the pope and bishops on their teaching.
The Pennsylvania Republican, who is seeking his party’s nomination for president, said in an interview with Des Moines Register political columnist Kathie Obradovich that the United States is a country of laws and it must enforce those laws.
“If we develop the program like the Catholic bishops suggested we would be creating a huge magnet for people to come in and break the law some more, we’d be inviting people to cross this border, come into this country and with the expectation that they will be able to stay here permanently,” said Santorum, who usually attends Latin Mass with his family at a Catholic church in suburban Washington, D.C.
read full story here
To be fair I think I should give Rick Santorum some brownie points here. First, he is a Traditional Catholic and regularly attends a Latin mass. That's a big plus! He is also consistent on the Church's reproductive teachings, as he has seven children. Add another big plus! He's been a Catholic a lot longer than Newt Gingrich - big plus - and his public policy on abortion and euthanasia is 100% consistent with the Church -- plus, plus & plus!!!
On the flip side he's done some pretty weird things. For starters he once endorsed and campaigned for the pro-abortion candidate Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) against the pro-life Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in the GOP primary. Why? That one puzzles a lot of people. He's also a total Zionist, pledging his unwavering (and possibly unconditional) support for Israel. He has openly stated his eagerness to bomb Iran pre-emptively, which is particularly disturbing, and very VERY un-Catholic. Now this...
Santorum has decided to lecture the pope and the US Catholic bishops on immigration policy. Anyone can see why he's doing it. He wants to score some conservative Republican votes in Iowa, and he knows this is his last shot to knock out Newt Gingrich before his campaign effectively goes defunct. Gingrich supports a policy that is closer to the bishops' teaching on the matter.
Now please don't mistake this as an endorsement for Gingrich, because its not. Gingrich is a big government Republican who looks up to both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt as his role models. Gingrich is also a total Zionist and doesn't even acknowledge the Palestinian right to exist as a people -- a position that flies in the face of what the pope has said. So Gingrich is a big part of the problem in Washington DC.
On the subject of immigration though, it's time to be frank, and The Catholic Knight has been very frank with my readers for the last couple years on this one. Look, I have a bitter pill for you to swallow and it's called "truth." You can either take the pill or kick me in the teeth, but the truth doesn't change regardless.
The truth is the United States has a huge demographics problem. Native-born Americans simply don't make enough babies. That's a fact, like it or lump it. Now granted, Santorum is a good Catholic in his personal life, and has produced seven children. He should get credit for that. In this respect he is certainly NOT part of America's demographic problem. Bully for him! We should look to him as an example here. However, that does not give him the right to criticise the pope and bishops on their teachings regarding immigration.
What are the teachings of the pope and bishops? This is one of the pope's instructions on the matter...
Venerable John Paul II, on the occasion of this same Day celebrated in 2001, emphasized that "[the universal common good] includes the whole family of peoples, beyond every nationalistic egoism. The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life" (Message for World Day of Migration 2001, 3; cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, 30; Paul VI, Encyclical Octogesima adveniens, 17). At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity. "The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life" (World Day of Peace 2001, 13).
From Castel Gandolfo, 27 September 2010
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
In regards to the U.S. Catholic bishops, the following resolution has been passed....
I. Persons have the right to find opportunities in their homeland.
34. All persons have the right to find in their own countries the economic, political, and social opportunities to live in dignity and achieve a full life through the use of their God-given gifts. In this context, work that provides a just, living wage is a basic human need.
II. Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
35. The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people. 15 When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.
III. Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders.
36. The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows.
IV. Refugees and asylum seekers should be afforded protection.
37. Those who flee wars and persecution should be protected by the global community. This requires, at a minimum, that migrants have a right to claim refugee status without incarceration and to have their claims fully considered by a competent authority.
V. The human dignity and human rights of undocumented migrants should be respected.
38. Regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity that should be respected. Often they are subject to punitive laws and harsh treatment from enforcement officers from both receiving and transit countries. Government policies that respect the basic human rights of the undocumented are necessary.
39. The Church recognizes the right of a sovereign state to control its borders in furtherance of the common good. It also recognizes the right of human persons to migrate so that they can realize their God-given rights. These teachings complement each other. While the sovereign state may impose reasonable limits on immigration, the common good is not served when the basic human rights of the individual are violated. In the current condition of the world, in which global poverty and persecution are rampant, the presumption is that persons must migrate in order to support and protect themselves and that nations who are able to receive them should do so whenever possible. It is through this lens that we assess the current migration reality between the United States and Mexico.
Strangers No Longer Together on the Journey of Hope
A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States
Issued by USCCB, January 22, 2003
read full statement here
Now to be balanced and rational, neither the pope nor the bishops have advocated a libertarian-style open border policy. On the contrary, both the pope and bishops have acknowledged a state's right to protect it's own borders and national sovereignty. That's why a comprehensive policy must be found in America that both seals the porous border with Mexico, and simultaneously creates a way for Mexican immigrants to enter the United States legally and be documented and tracked, while those already in the United States must apply for permanent residence visas or face deportation. Citizenship should not be an option for those who enter the United States illegally, unless of course they leave for a short time and return legally. In that case they can go to the back of the line just like everyone else.
Americans do not produce enough babies - period - and because of that we need immigrants to shore up the safety net and the economy. Americans do no produce enough children to do either. So if we don't take the Mexicans in, to counter our own lack of fertility, than we are going to end up taking in the African and Asian Muslims just like Europe did. I'm not willing to go down that road. So I say, until the day comes when they finally outlaw abortion and "the pill," bring in the Mexicans by the truckload, document them and assimilate them into American culture. Do the same with those who are already here, but put them at the back of the line, since they tried to cut in front by crossing the border illegally, and then deport only those that will not comply with this new and generous policy.
Rick Santorum is wrong to lecture the Catholic bishops on this. That of course does not make him ineligible for the presidency, as previous presidents and presidential candidates have done far worse, but he should be called out on this. Santorum is wrong. The pope and bishops are right. Period.
31 comments; post here:
Please have the good sense to correct your article:
1. The USCCB is NOT the Magesterium.
2. Our Pope has NOT advocated breaking of US immigration law.
Santorum is exactly right, and the 30-odd Latino US Bishops who signed a letter encouraging immigrants to ignore our laws are wrong.
The fact that someone came here 25 years ago illegaly does not suddenly make him or his family legal. This exactly the kind of bleeding-heart progressivism that is destroying our country.
Furthermore, US bishops damage their credibility when they take such positions.
Where do I find support for them in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Second Edition)?
The ends never justify the means. It is not Catholic teaching to break a law to solve a problem. If the U.S. needs more babies then the solution is for Americans to have more babies, not water down immigration laws.
Fred, I hope I clarified to your satisfaction above.
Fred and KWTC, I am not advocating that anyone break the law, neither is the pope nor the USCCB. I cannot speak for individual bishops though. The problem here is the law is both unjust and outdated. It doesn't work. It has not been enforced by the United States government, and it has been this way for so long that it has now become unenforceable. The law should be replaced with a new law, a law that gives Mexico most favoured immigration status, makes it easy for Mexicans to come here to work and live, that forgives illegals if the register (but blocks them from citisenship), deports illegals that fail to register by a certain date, and seals the border in a real and tangible way. That is justice. That is charity. And that is very VERY Catholic.
In 1975 the US had a population of 200 million. Just 40 years later its 300 million. Is that not enough population growth? How crowded do our cities have to get before we recognize that everything has its limits. How does the Catholic concern for stewardship of the environment relate to reasonable limits on turning our cities into packed sardine cans?
Anonymous, I'm afraid there are some flaws in your statistics and your reasoning. First of all, while the population of the United States has grown (as has the population of Europe) the actual reproduction RATE of the United States has fallen to about 1.6 children per household. That is unsustainable. A nation needs a minimum reproduction rate of 2.11 children per household to survive. However, that level is attained as soon as you add in the influx of Latino population, both legal and illegal, which brings our fertility rate back up to a barely sustainable level without having to open the doors to Muslim immigration from Africa and Asia. Both Europe and Canada are having to do this, because they face the same fertility problem, and it is destroying what is left of their culture. We Americans are the fortunate ones. Thanks to throngs of Mexicans coming in from the south, we have been spared this Islamic nightmare -- for now.
The reason why the overall population continues to grow in spite of a falling fertility rate among native-born Americans, and only a marginal increase to just-above-sustainable thanks to Latino migration, is because people are living longer. Yes, the population is getting larger, but it is also getting greyer with each passing year. When the baby-boomer generation starts to die off, we will begin to see the full effects of our folly, as for the first time in history, the American population will begin to decrease if it's not countered by either more Latino immigration, or else making birth control illegal!!!
Also, I'm afraid you've bought into the whole global warming climate change a little too much. You see the Holy Father has made it clear that the Church supports efforts to clean up and preserve the environment, SO LONG AS it is not at the expense of humanity. Human beings come first, then the environment. That is the Holy Father's message to mankind which he gave immediately after making the Vatican the greenest city-state on planet earth, with a carbon footprint of literally zero. The pope leads by example.
Lastly, you are mistaken to equate immigration with overpopulation. You see those people who are migrating here would still exist in other nations even if they weren't allowed to migrate here. So the world population increases, even if American population freezes or decreases. The only difference is in those third-world nations, where poverty abounds, environmental issues are not as big of a concern. If those populations remain there, they will in the end create more pollution. For the good of the planet, and humanity itself, it is better for some of those people to come to more industrialised nations, like the United States, where they can better their lives and in the process become more environmentally conscious.
Dear CK, your points are well made. I would add that the reason why birth rates in Europe and the US are unsustainable, as you say, is because we have a flawed economic model; this model states that those aged 25-65 should work for most of their waking lives while those over 65 retire and do nothing. I would suggest a workweek of about 30 hours a week for those 25-65 and then a reduction to 15 hours a week for all those over 65 whose health would allow. That way, with the older populations making their contributions there would be no need for constant population growth just to support a flawed work life cycle. Young people are overworked (when employed) while the old have nothing to do so my suggestion would balance that out.
I will not support Santorum becase of his betrayal of the unborn. However, I think your assumption that the legal and illegel Mexican immigrants wish to assimulate is naive. Every news report than I've seen seems to point out that they don't want to assimulate into our culture. They openly scorn our culture and defy own laws. They show no desire to learn or langauge, so we meekly have bi-lingal instructions on our ATM's and in government offices. They brazenly say they want to take back the Southwestern United States from us. These people will not make good citizens CK, they will be a criminal element that will subvert this country. Instead of leting these people in, we need to encourage a higher birthrate among our own citizens, and respect for our own cultural values. Also, Sir Knight, considering the violence of the Mexican drug cartels, do we really need to allow that to immigrate to America?
That makes sense to me anonymous.
Scotju. The empire is lost. All of the politics we see going on today is debate over how best to manage America's decline. The future of America is dictatorship, followed by balkanisation. The Mexicans you speak of on American soil will likely get their Latino state in the former Southwest USA. It is inevitable now. The window of opportunity we had to change this closed twenty years ago.
It is not unreasonable to require a certain level of assimilation from immigrants, and I don't see where the bishops or the Pope's statements deny this. As for breaking the law, yes, laws have been broken, and some consequence should ensue because of it. But by definition, immigration reform in which we seek to change or reform laws to deal with present and future realities is not "breaking the law". Many of you are therefore conflating two different things: how to change current laws to deal with current/future realities, and what to do about those who broke the prior law. They may be related, but they are distinct issues.
Thank you Matt. They are two different issues, closely related, but two issues nonetheless. Some of the problems we deal with today, particularly the criminal element of illegal migrants, and the failure to assimilate among many Mexican migrants in general, is directly related to the unjust and obsolete nature of our current immigration laws, coupled with the fact that the US federal government has for thirty years refused to enforce them in any kind of substantive way. There are many reasons for this, and I do hope we will get into them here, but for now we should acknowledge that there are somewhere between 10 to 20 million people in the United States illegally, of which at least 95% are Mexican nationals. To be sure, any kind of comprehensive immigration reform is going to have to (1) address the increased need of Mexicans to migrate here, (2) make penalties for illegals already here reasonable so as to encourage them to register, and (3) seal the porous border with Mexico to stop further problems.
Kill the current tax code, then mommy can stay home and have more kids....just like our parents did 40 years ago when they only had to work until Feb or Mar to pay the tax bill.
Under the current, and I am sure, subsequent regimes (if the current one does not become permanent), taxes will increase since our children now have $100K tax obligations and they have not even started working yet.
Secession, anyone?
Just another nitpick of everything these candidates say. None of them are perfect, they all have flaws. There's never been a political figure that didn't have flaws and there never will be. Yet it seems in this political season every republican candidate has everything they say or have ever said nit picked to death and twisted every way possible by every person possible.
I believe we need to take a more reasoned approach and look at the legislative and leadership record of all these candidates and base our voting decisions upon their actual records.
1. Barrack Obama-has an extremely liberal legislative and short term leadership record that are very much against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
2. Mitt Romney-has a pretty liberal legislative and leadership record that are against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
3. Newt Gingrich-has a very long legislative record that for the most part is very conservative and a leadership record as speaker of the house that put forth the most conservative govt reforms in the last half of a century. Has a political record that does not fly in the face of the teachings of the Church.
4. Ron Paul- has a very long legislative record with a very conservative yet libertarian slant that sometimes flies in the face of the teachings of the Church. Has no leadership record to evaluate.
5. Rick Perry-has a fairly conservative record as governor of Texas but does has some liberal tendencies years ago supporting some things as a Democrat.
6. Rick Santorum- Has a long legislative record that is very conservative and in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. He has no leadership record to evaluate.
7. Michelle Bachman-Has a fairly short legislative record that is very conservative and in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. She has no leadership record to evaluate.
Lets stop nit picking every little thing these people say and look at their records as a legislator and when they have been in leadership positions. Then make up your mind.
Leadership is the key. Conservatism and a philosophy in line with Church teachings is also key.
I could give a crap about legislative experience. All they do is compromise and the citizens lose. A true leader leads and directs and the legislative body works with that leader. There's always a push-pull, but a good leader can successfully navigate it...not always win...but is generally successful.
I maintain that the tax code has to be abolished. It is killing the family, killing the business, and killing the country (as such). Momma has to go to work just so the taxes can be paid. She used to be the CEO of Homestead America and it didn't financially ruin families to have 4, 5, or 6 children. Now, not so much, and the Federal Tax code is almost as effective as China's One Child Policy.
Confederate Papist, you are absolutely right. Though this might seem off topic, it actually isn't. The tax code is a major contributor to the demographic crisis. It forces mothers into the workplace, and that destroys families. Destroying families causes families to be smaller just to survive. That in turn leads to a lower fertility rate, thus increasing the dire need for immigration to shore up the population gap. The tax code must be eliminated completely, and everything turned over to the states, allowing Americans to vote with their feet as to how they want to be taxed.
However, you and I both know that will never happen with the United States federal government. It is incapable of any meaningful reform. The future of America is laid out for us in the history of past empires. First we will consolidate government into a collective dictatorship. Things will get better for a short while just before they implode completely. At that point states will peal away from a defunct federal government and what we will see is the balkanisation of the former United States of America. Perhaps then Dixieland will finally have her crack at freedom. Lord willing. Deo Vindice.
If you honestly think any of these candidates (including Ron Paul) or anyone else for that matter is going to get elected president and fix everything you are sadly disillusioned. None of them will totally revamp hardly anything, they will not be a dictator. All they can do is slow the slide of socialism we are on.
It's going to take a major change in we the people before many of those problems are fixed, politicians will not fix them until it is popular to do so. We as a society get the politicians we ask for and we as a society are in one hell of a moral mess that will take generations to fix.
Confederate papist and Sir Knight,
What lies at the heart of the transformed ecconomic structure that has morphed over the past 40 years from one where one single income had been enough to support a family, where, (in Australia at any rate) the cost of purchasing a home has skyrocketed from on average 70 weekly incomes to 500 weekly incomes (in full) to what we have now is Feminism.
Feminist philosophy demands women must be able to work just as a man. Note; at its core, feminist philosophy, though it touts the rhetoric of choice DOES NOT consider a woman's right to raise her children herself and run her household herself as a choice; they see this as slavery and any woman who seeks to adopt this choice as in need of liberation. If it were genuine, feminism would champion a woman's right to raise her children at home and run her household in equal measure to everything else, which, in practice, of course, as we all know, is not the case.
Ideology has driven ecconomic change and the new ecconomic reality is predicated upon ideology, with ALL, regardless of their wishes, more or less being forced to adopt the choice feminist philosophy prefers us to make. this means that families such as that of my brother, and others I know, who are having children, are truly doing it hard; much harder than our parents did it one a single wage; indeed, with skyrocketing utility prices in Australia, even those who live very modestly are almost unable to do so on one income; at the very least, the wife (or to use politically correct speak) the secondary 'earner' is caused to take up part time work and if they are very very very lucky, trust in the help of grandparents to look after the littles for a few days a week.
If it isn't earned in payed employment, it is not respected as legitimate work etc by the ideologues. Further to this, once women began to enter the workforce en mass, tax authorities began to notice, and liked what they saw - a hitherto untapped tax potential of magnificent scale! Thus it became the raison d'etre of governments everywhere to 'encourage' women into paid employment, viewing us as 'ecconomic units' as said tax authorities view all persons. those not engaged in paid employment are even seen to a certain extent as denying government what should be 'rightfully theirs', thus they do all they can to make it harder and harder for us to stay home, so it becomes easier and easier to tax a greater proportion of the populace and rake in the $$$. Over time the entire ecconomic model has become dependant upon the double income family, using the false rhetoric of 'womens' liberation' as the rallying cry to herd us into the office or factory. (yes, we have always 'worked' as it were, but NEVER before as we have from the 1920's, then far more extensively, from the late 1960's). Why tax one when you can tax two for twice the gain??....
....From the 60's to 1970, the likes of Betty Friedan, Gloria steinem and germaine Greer began to wag the dog. . Now ideology has become the bedrock of federal and state ecconomic policy all over the Western World. We are now post Christian. One well-meaning leader will not be able to change a political and legislative system that is broken; indeed, they will be effectively prevented, for instance, from enacting legislation that favours the one income family with a 'living wage' etc and other measures that allow we women to have more children and raise them all ourselves.
A nation receives the government it deserves. I truly believe this. I seem to remember a new Testament passage (from romans 1 24 to around v26) where God claims that a people will be eventually given over to their sin if they persist for long enough unrepentant. - Though this passage is most usually associated with sexual sin, I believe the principle has far broader application; read the verses immediately preceeding and following these; they are concerned with pagan practice and idol worship - are we not once again in pagan and idolatrous times, especially concerning govt - right up to the sacrifice of infants (unborn in our case) to the 'baal' of choice etc and all that goes with it? This is the fruit that the populice of Australia and the US is finaly harvesting; the fruit of disobedience to God's word (the word of the Lord haveing once been enshrined in civil law in Australia as late as the 1980's in some instances e.g. illegality of homosexuality in NSW prior to 1985 and as late as 1997 in Tasmania until the UN exerted pressure for the govt. to change this) even though legislators may have long forgotten the biblical foundations underpinning said legislation.
For us to turn toward Christ, faith, family and fidelity, and such to impact upon legislation will take all permiating and far reaching change to occur first in the heart of the individual, then in the family, household by household, before the will of the populace as oriented toward God can be enshrined into law. of interest, orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam hold to similar tenants of family.
Personally, I believe such change will require nothing less than Divine intervention to work a change of heart; natural disaster? man-made disaster? or the blazing fire of the Holy Spirit transforming hearts and minds across entire nations, coupled with good catechesis, preaching and consistant Church advocacy/support. Even works such as Laborem Exercens and the writings of Vatican II (not to be confused with the heretical and distructive 'spirit' of VII) have room for this, and even call for it. The feminist ideology has also been intrinsically wedded to democracy in ways unthinkable 40 years ago, to the detrament of our nations in my thinking.
Sir Knight, what say you?
blessings,
Sarah,
Australia.
All feminist philosophy is based on the belief that behavioral psychology is mostly responsible for human conditioning. In that sense they are both outdated b/c as the new field of genetics develops it becomes obvious that men and women have different biological natures that are not changed due to environmental conditioning.
So men, learn to be masculine and courageous and you will be happier; women learn to be beautiful and elegant and you will be happier; when conditioning is in harmony with biology happiness results; Americans are the least happy people in the developed world b/c their cultural conditioning goes against their biological and spiritual natures.
Well-stated, Sarah.
Luciana
Thank you, sir, for this excellent article.
I must say it is profoundly disturbing for me to see so many Catholics, and so many traditional Catholics as well, who have this almost messianic view of America as a nation that can do basically no wrong. I have actually heard one such kind but deluded sould tell me that America was "divinely inspired." And to see so many Catholics swallow whole the ubiquitous Israeli propaganda is, in a word, rather disgusting.
Your article was excellent and well thought out and you should be commended for it. Mr Santorum, despite his good qualitites, is nothing more than a stooge for the Israelis and the financial oligarchs (or do I repeat myself?) who have brought so much misery to the world.
As for his anti abortion stance, it is commendable. But, alas, talk is cheap. I have yet to see a pro-life Republican really, and I mean REALLY, go to bat for the unborn.
Dan, Santorum betrayed the unborn when he endorsed pro-abort Arlen Spector for senator in 2004 against Pat Toomy, a fellow Republican who was pro-life. When he came up for re-election, he lost his Senate seat becase the pro-lifers remembered his betrayal. http://mttu.com/articles/Ba-bye%20Rick.htm has the tragic story of Santorum's backstabbing of the unborn. Rest assured, this Israeli puppet will not get my vote next year!
This is a strange article, especially its inflammatory title claiming that Santorum is out of step with the Pope or the Church. None of the supporting documents seem to suggest that illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship--quite the contrary.
Indeed, we impugn those who want to immigrate legally to this country by allowing illegals to stay here. God bless my Muslim friend from Saudi Arabia (here on a student visa) when his hearing for citizenship comes in February. If we allow an illegal to bump him out of his citizenship, we rob him of his dignity in favor of the illegal.
It seems to me that church leaders wanting to grant citizenship to illegals are breaking their own teaching.
Santorum's view, however, is consonant with the Church's written documents.
How unjust for Steve "scotju" Dalton to attack Santorum as not being pro-life.
Santorum authored every passed pro-life legislation that has come out of the Senate in the last 20 years.
It was Santorum who made Barbara Boxer famous when he cornered her into arguing that a baby was not yet human so long as its little toe was still inside the womb.
It was Santorum's back door dealings that got us our pro-life judges Roberts and Alito. If Santorum had endorsed Toomey's unwinnable campaign over Specter, Specter would have used his position as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to block these two Bush appointees.
Yes, we had to deal with Snarlin' Arlen for two more years, but we got two more pro-life constitutionalist Supreme Court justices who will likely serve for decades.
So James, if I understand you, I'm being unfair to condemn Santorm because he did all these pro-life things, besides stabbing Pat Toomy in the back, by supporting pro-death Arlen Specter, becase Toomy had an unwinnable campaign. James, by supporting a pro-abortion candidate, Santorum automatically excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church. He later expressed 'regret' for supporting Specter, but I don't know wheater it was regret for compromising his faith or him losing his next senate election bid to Casey. I'm will to bet it was the later.
and my 2 cents: first, with all due respect to Mr Knight, RIck Santorum did not "lecture" the pope or bishops, much less did he slander them. First of all, the issue of dealing with ILLEGAL (let's use the correct term, instead of the wimpy "undocumented)immigrants is as much a social and political issue as it might peripherally be moral or religious. How to deal with this problem is not a question of dogmatic church teaching. The church's SOCIAL teachings are important but not morally binding on catholics to obey in lock step. When the bishops see fit to intrude in the political process, they can expect to take heat from those who respectfully disagree. These are issues on which people of good will are free to disagree. When did Rick Santorum ever challenge dogmatic church teaching? (as Mr Knight himself reluctantly admitted) It is particularly troublesome that the LATINO bishops are unanimously behind this charade to bankrupt the social services of the states and country as a whole. As was pointed out, LEGAL immigrants have to get in line while those who sneak into the country look for a free ride, and also, by and large they are unwilling to assimilate into our culture, but are prepared to take, as well as bring in their drug and violence saturated "culture" Their so-called "catholicism" is nothing more than a veneer of evangelicalism. And does the Knight seriously think Texans, or even Arizonians are going to yield an inch of their land to Mexico? They fought too hard for their independence from that corrupt, anti-catholic masonic country. I have warned the Knight before about his naive belief that mexican catholics can catholicize the US---- WRONG WRONG WRONG. The president's primary duty is to protect the nation, and that's what this regime has miserably failed to do (just ask Gov Brewer of AZ)and halting or controlling illegal immigration is a postive imperative. Talk about white demogrphics changing is hardly justification to allow these millions to displace americans from jobs and from security. The Knight is still tilting at windmills on this issue. Pete Frey
Steve "scotju" Dalton, you're using over the top extremist language ("stabbing Toomey in the back"). This may suggest an inability to judge this issue impartially.
Are you unable to see that Santorum's move which brought Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court did much more for the pro-life movement than an endorsement of Toomey could have accomplished?
Surely, the Lord, the Judge of all souls, looks favorably on Santorum's difficult decision.
Santorum may have expressed some qualified regret over supporting Specter, but his decision was sound, and he stands by his reasoning.
You lose all credibility with me just by your tabloid-style title of this piece. Where exactly does Santorum "lecture Pope and Bishops"? Come on; use a little maturity.
I'm not a Santorum supporter, more for Perry. But I totally disagree with your whole thing here about Santorum's immigration views, and really bristle at your use of deliberately inaccurate verbiage.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth, the problem with Rick Santorum is that he is not what he seems. He tells his supporters that the pope and bishops are wrong in immigration. He tells his supporters that he would pre-emptively bomb Iran when the pope has made is absolutely crystal clear that pre-emptive war does not meet the qualifications of a just war and is therefore immoral. I'm afraid that for all of Santorum'a good personal life, and I commend him for that, when it comes to his political life, he is more Republican than Catholic.
As I said above, this does not disqualify him from the office of president. He is still electable if he performs well in the primaries, but Catholics should not be fooled. His personal life does not always translate into his political policies. Don't be fooled. Just because he's a good Catholic personally, doesn't mean you're going to get a good Catholic politically.
So James, what you are saying is, let us (or Santorum) do evil that good may come. Well, I'm sure all the babies that were aborted because of Santorum's actions will appreciate that!
You're right Steve. While Santorum may be a good Catholic personally, he has not been a very good Catholic politically, especially in his support of Arlen Spector. However, I would like to throw another thing out there. Santorum frequently tells us how much he cares for American babies, and that's good, but how much does he care for Iranian babies? His willingness to ignore the pope's teaching on just war, and pre-emptively bomb Iran is very disturbing and very un-Catholic. Such actions would definitely result in the deaths of many Iranians, some of them mothers, and some of them pregnant. Warfare always has a disastrous effect of children and is usually devastating to newborns. Don't tell me the Iranians will thank us or bombing them and 'liberating' them from their oppressive regime. We've all heard that one before with Iraq. We saw how much the Iraqis 'loved' us there.
Post a Comment