Left to right: Scott Hahn, Kimberly Hahn, Senator Santorum
I’m sure Senator Rick Santorum has never heard of me or read my blog. But it appears that in spite of this he is eager to make the point I made the other day: that his candidacy poses the greatest threat of any to the integrity of the Catholic faith in this country.
First, the day after I wrote of the danger that his candidacy poses, of how it would confirm right wing Catholics in their selective dissent, he spoke of the “theological” dispute between himself and Mr Obama, thus injecting a whole new kind of rhetoric into the campaign.
And a couple of days after that, he spoke in Steubenville, itself a center of Republicatholicsm.
According to the news reports:
“Santorum almost immediately acknowledged the strong Franciscan University of Steubenville presence at the campaign rally.
‘Its great to be here. Thank you Steubenville Franciscan. We love you. It’s good to be back here. You have a gem in the university here in the Ohio Valley. You are a beacon of light for the country and the Catholic church,’ Santorum told the audience….
The speech resonated with Kimberly Hahn, president of the Jefferson County Federated Republican Women, who brought her son to the rally.
‘I thought it was an outstanding speech from someone who understands the roots of our area and who is faithful to those who went before us. This is a momentous election. He inspired everyone in the room, especially the high school and college age students. What comes through so clearly is Rick Santorum has a principled approach to our nation’s complex problems,’ explained Hahn (wife of Catholic apologist Scott Hahn -ed.)“.
Afterwards, he attended Mass at the campus chapel.
Meanwhile, also confirming my point, over at CatholicVote.com, which says it is ”a lay movement, foremost, of committed Catholics who are passionate about living out the truths proclaimed by Christ and His Church in the modern world”, there is a blog entry by Thomas Peters (“American Papist”) called “Rick Santorum, Catholic hero”.
Is there any doubt that Senator Santorum seeks the mantle of “the Catholic candidate”? This in spite of his selective adaptation of Catholic social teaching, which I remind you is simply applied moral doctrine? This is a man who said that the assassination of an Iranian scientist was “wonderful”, who endorses waterboarding and other torture, who implies that he will launch yet another preemptive war, who is hostile to immigrants, who supports the death penalty, who does not criticize the Empire, who, in spite of his repeated references to his blue collar grandfather, proposes policies that are hostile to labor (see: http://unionreview.com/blue-collar-baloney)
Granted, he speaks eloquently of the life of the unborn. But that is but one part of Catholic teaching regarding the sanctity of life and of justice. As important as that is, we should not ignore it when someone dismisses wide areas of the tradition that apply to other lives.
I reiterate: it would be a tragedy for the Church if this man assumes the Republican candidacy. And it is tragic that so many Catholics seem eager to overlook the man’s inconsistencies.
thank u daniel.agreed!
many people have abortions for selfish reasons.many choose because they feel they have no other choice i.e. money, healthcare,freedom,etc.Republicans do not think about how so many women come to the point of having to choose.Maybe with support they wouldnt have to.But leave it to republicans to wait til the last second to step in to say “Dont do it!”
Kudos on a well thought out, well written op- ed brother.
There is something in Scott Hahn’s eyes that look almost sinister there. But I’ve heard the man isn’t quite the megalomaniac he once was. Who knows? His cult disgusts me whatever one might say about his actual life.
Well written Daniel. Another reason to sigh in disgust when Steubenville is mentioned. What a travesty that their nationalist neo-Catholicism exists under the mantle of St. Francis.
Don’t sigh in disgust; there is diversity at the university, where many of my friends have taught or gone to school or otherwise were associated in some way or another. Some of these are conservatives and are very fine people in many ways (though more of the Ron Paul brand of conservative than other). They just, in my view, have blind spots. Sort of like the way I see you; you wear the mantle of an ideology that killed more people in the last century than any other, and you can be boorish to my other readers, but I know you love justice and seek God and are not reducible to your errors.
And I am sure you view me in the same light.
I’ve never embraced any ideology responsible for killing “more people in the last century than any other” ideology. I’m not a Stalinist or a Maoist or an Anglo imperialist, the three ideological schools which one could make such a claim concerning.
One of my closest friends is a grad of Fran U, and he is a Republican who likes Scott Hahn. I don’t deny that there are fine people there.
But if we are going to play that game then why not assume that Santorum is a very fine person with some blind spots?
The ideology is Marxism, not some narrower version thereof. Do the math.
And I don’t doubt that Mr Santorum is indeed a fine person with some (huge) blind spots. In fact he may be blind in one eye and near sighted in the other. But I know folks who know him and say he is not evil incarnate or anything, but the sort of personally pious Americanist with whom we are so familiar.
Sometimes I think that the most common intellectual trait among third-wayers is not actually the finding and maintaining of a coherent third way system that can both defend itself and attack other systems in its own right, but rather the holding of a combination of selected conservative and liberal tropes simultaneously.
He also made some comments recently about don’t ask don’t tell, which consisted of a rhetoric implying homosexuals were all rapists, endangering all those around them…not catholic in teaching or spirit.
I suppose is comes down to the fact that there are truly no perfect people this side of heaven. This includes Santorum, I think there is currently a problem within the Catholic Church that has nothing to do with politics. People like to classify the orthodox Catholics as “conservative.” Although catholic view on abortion line up with the conservative republicans the views on social justice often seem like they line up with the democratic principles. So is a faithful Catholic who supports the life of the unborn, who has a voting record of trying to help out the socially underprivileged, who has been faithful to his wife, who has maintained a consistent stance on issues a bad candidate for the republicans. I cannot think so, he may not be everything you have ever hoped for as a Catholic, but then again we come back to my original point. Is there a better candidate that fits with the Catholic faith…the answer is clearly no! So is it bad that some Catholics want to get behind someone that they can have some hope in a bad thing, I think we again have to answer in the negative. Santorum might be disturbing to some, but as far as Catholicism he is the closest to a person who tries to live what he says and a person that makes a commitment to his cause and sees it through. He would make a fine candidate
You suppose wrong.
This not uncommon narrative sees Santorum as making his choices about this and that and amounting to a confrontation with reality that has landed him into a supposedly fruitful ‘position’ regarding humanity (or at least for US citizens). That he is potentially fruitful is based on the ‘strong’ stance he takes regarding the ‘most important’ moral issues and the apparent sanctity of his own life; contradicting the idea that not all people are perfect – he is perfect in certain respects like the faithfulness to his wife – which is foreign to the catholic conception of sanctification.
Moral movement is not coming to certain positions but becoming open to others and God. The attainment of one virtue or the realization of one moral truth should should help in realizing other virtues and moral truths. The pope has shown how this principle applies even to some seemingly ‘bad’ decisions in the case of a person who decides to use a condom with the hope of not giving AIDS to others, as this reveals a care for the other that will hopefully develop further. Santorum’s against abortion. Great! He must also support *fill in various other teachings Santorum fails to support*. Nope. He is praised for his Catholicism and the various ways he seems to know it and live it but he has somehow managed to neglect a variety of other teachings, all of which contribute to a greater form of being pro-life. But he is not pro-life, he is anti-abortion. That’s it. He may know about Humanae Vitae but he neglects Popularum Progressio, which Paul VI wrote first!
You say “People like to classify the orthodox Catholics as “conservative.” ” No, people like to classify ‘conservatives’ as orthodox Catholics. That is Daniel’s point.
Francis I accept that this is your opinion, you have every right to your opinion, as do I. I did some cursory research regarding Santorum and his views regarding the things that Daniel posted about and found that he does not say much on capital punishment, especially in the last seven years. What he does say in 2005 can be found in this article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05081/475366-84.stm, is
“we are called to recognize the face of God in everyone — even the criminal. The destruction of human life, even in the form of capital punishment, takes away a gift that is God’s alone to take. Capital punishment is irreparable.”
This speaks pretty clearly about his views. He seems to be very closely aligned with the Catechism which I have quoted here
“2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. “Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
You stated that ” Moral movement is not coming to certain positions but becoming open to others and God.” Becoming open to loving other and God yes, but open to sinful behaviors, I vehemently disagree with this stance. The pope in his comments also made very clear that when he spoke of the very limited love that a person was showing by using a condom was still love and love is of God, but it is better not to sin against the other through sexual intercourse outside of marriage. He was speaking about male prostitutes and their beginning to have a moral turnaround in their lives, yes we must praise that step towards God, but it cannot stop there, they must continue on the path and out of the lifestyle that causes the poison in their live entirely.
I think that most peoples real problem lies in his very clear stance on homosexuality. Many Catholics find this position offensive even though it is also an orthodox catholic viewpoint.
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
This viewpoint is difficult especially in our society where the homosexual movement is in everyone’s face. It is always on the news, it is rare to find any television show that does not address it, and yet Santorum stands decidedly on the Catholic side of this issue despite the fact that it will probably lose him a lot of votes.
Daniel’s post brings us that Santorum has views “hostile to labor” which is somewhat ridiculous in that you cannot have labor if you do not have business, Santorum is for creating more business, not necessarily protecting some economically unsound ideas of supporting labor to the exclusion of business. Labor in this country is clearly over-protected, or we would be more competitive in the world market. Hostility toward illegal immigration is better for everyone, including the illegal immigrants. Hostility toward immigration, which Santorum does not have, would be unfounded based on our society and the way were founded, but this is not his view (visit his website to see his view on immigration). Finally, Daniel mentions waterboarding. I am not on any side on this issue, but I can certainly see arguments to support waterboarding. First, torture is defined as an act that inflicts pain. Waterboarding does not do this, it does inflict fear and so yes possibly mental anguish could be construed as pain, but there is no damage done to the person other than they are afraid, and yet our media has demonized this practice. It is clearly a coercion, and therefore only to be used (if at all) under extreme circumstances, which it was. So, while I may not want our country to waterboard criminals, I can certainly understand why someone informed on the issues, would support it.
I cannot help but think that people are upset by more than what is written here. This is an emotional reaction to some perceived wrong that Santorum stands for, not an objective criticism of his faith and how it plays out in his politics. He is surprisingly consistent there not just for a politician, but for a human. He has lived what he believes and is trying to do that in his bid for the presidency. Ultimately God is in control of who is chosen as the bible clearly lays out, but I think it is wrong for devoted Catholics to bash Santorum in regards to his Catholic faith. If you want to go after him for other reasons, by all means be my guest, but regarding Catholicism he is a beacon on a hill.
Thank you for your response, Boris. I don’t find it difficult to find support for Santorum in the Catechism. Rather, I find it difficult to find support for the Catechism in Santorum.
My reference to Santorum’s opinions on homosexuality are his comments to two reporters, one several years ago and the second just recently. The former equated homosexuality to incest, adultery, and bestiality. The latter equated being a homosexual to someone being necessarily involved in and actively seeking sexual relations (even with those not desiring it – rape). Granting that the catechism linguistically accurately defines homosexuality as the ‘relations’ between people of the same sex, Santorum used the word homosexual in both cases to refer not to the acts but to people who are inclined to those of the same sex. In either case, his comments betray decency towards others. What you leave out in your quote from the CCC, but what is most relevant is the directed to ‘accept [homosexuals] with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
Regarding labor, Santorum’s rhetoric and how he wishes to portray himself are as a blue collar guy for jobs and american exceptionalism. The main faults I see here are a miscalculation of economical problems, seeing man as his ‘work’ and a limited (not catholic) worldview. The things he supports, such as capital gains, corporate taxes, bringing-the-jobs-home, etc. are all violations in my mind. These things (I do not have the time to go into more details, but recommend reading more of daniel’s articles, more CST, and a more detailed look at the catechism for reasons to be more skeptical of these subjects) promote usury, economic abuse and violate the dignity of those overseas workers by means of supporting spurious money, denying the actually very small taxes corporations already enjoy and not factoring the consequences of taking jobs from those who already have them beyond our borders.
Regarding capital punishment, I see your quote as potentially promising. Not at all promising is that nothing can be found after that point in time. How can a candidate who has, for a long time, known of his candidacy not say anything about his position on capital punishment. His campaign website says nothing, even within his article on the declared ‘consistent pro-life’ article. If he is against the death penalty (and the many issues with incarceration in the U.S.), then he is not willing to courageously state his stance (going against your praise for his ‘positions’ despite the loss of votes). If he is for it, he is in contradiction to church teaching.
I respect your conscience development on water-boarding or torture. I suggest being against it.
On immigration, the Church speaks to the obligation of rich nations to welcome others seeking security and livelihood when it cannot be had elsewhere, as well as saying that people can disobey civil authorities when they are against moral order. A conservative reading of the former allows many to be invited into our country, a liberal reading of the latter might allow illegal immigration where there is grave, moral disorder in a country-of-origin and a bureaucratic, lengthy immigration process in the desired country. More argumentative support for the liberal reading might be found in CST’s and CCC’s allowance for ‘stealing’ when one does not have his due. The catechism also calls Christians, by way of quotation, ‘in their own nations, but as resident aliens’, effectively calling us all immigrants.
While Santorum does have the praise-worthy position on ‘streamlining’ the immigration process, he is also firmly against amnesty (a denial of the realities of many immigrants (as well as one of the only reasons Catholicism enjoys a majority in this country)), and rhetorically favors legal immigration for ‘highly educated and entrepreneurs’ (which is discrimination, a violation of human dignity, and goes against the Church’s option for the poor).
In general, I think the issue is correctly described by Daniel. The problem is seeing Santorum as defending Catholicism when it is better to ask whether Catholicism supports Santorum.
Fancis, clearly we will not come to agreement about this subject. I do understand your stance on Catholic Social teaching, but I think there are multiple ways to interpret how best to carry out this social teaching. Santorum has shown a lot of compassion for the poor, but he is clearly not on the side of liberation theology. My aim in pointing out the other side of this argument is to present an alternative perspective from a devoted Catholic. I have no doubt that Daniel or you are devoted to your faith, but your perspective is very one-sided and when we compare ANY other candidate including the incumbent to Catholic teaching, there is NO other candidate that even closely resembles a Catholic position, and some are decidedly anti-Catholic as we have recently seen. I think this article does a disservice to a potentially moral candidate that Catholics could at least have some hope in, but it again comes back to my original point, we cannot have perfection in a political candidate, it is surprising that we even have someone that resembles someone with moral fiber as a potential at all. In all things we can submit ourselves to the Lord in prayer and let Him direct our hearts and minds, and who knows, maybe neither of us is correct.