Rick Santorum is the latest and most unlikely Republican to soar in the polls. In many ways he is the most dangerous. I say this because his candidacy poses the greatest threat to the Catholic Church, as his election will give credibility to the Americanist -ie, the conservative- faction within the Church. It will thus be divisive beyond that of any other candidate, including the other Catholic candidate, Newt Gingrich. That is because Mr Gingrich is not a very convincing Catholic, while Mr Santorum is a recognizable sort of bourgeois believer: personally pious, big family, homeschooling, etc. And recognizable as well in his willingness to dismiss large areas of Catholic social teaching: on preemptive war, on torture, on capital punishment, on labor. His candidacy will confirm rather than challenge the errors of Catholic Republicanism.
Of course his candidacy would be a disaster for many other reasons as well, but for Catholics striving for moral consistency, it presents the gravest danger because it would undermine the Church’s mission in this country.
In fact, the way this election is taking shape, it may be morally imperative for a Catholic to vote for neither of the major parties. Ordinarily, of course, there is a moral obligation to vote. But these are not ordinary times, and there is no obligation to vote for a grave evil.
But in many ways Santorum poses the greatest, if subtlest, threat to the Catholic vision of things.
Caelum Et Terra 
Daniel,
Have you seen this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/rick-santorum-conservative-pro-life-ronald-reagan_n_1280033.html
I have defended Mrs. Santorum from accusations of ‘hypocrisy’ on the basis of her having been the paramour of an abortionist for 6 years. People change their minds and their behavior. Fine.
But given that Mr. Santorum began his political career as a “progressive Republican” who was up in the air on life issues, and given that there was no notable mea culpa when moving from former to current position and that not that long ago he was campaigning for Arlen Specter, it is really hard to believe that the man’s ideology is formed by anything other than whatever he thinks puts him in the best political position.
Wow; that certainly raises eyebrows, doesn’t it?
Of course people change, and Lord knows I can’t hold anything against anyone for what they did in their youth. But for a prominent social conservative’s wife to have lived with an abortionist? Awkward….
I think the problem here, is that your idea of striving for Catholic consistency is dependent on organizations outside the Church. For myself, Christ spoke to hearts – to me and my heart, you and yours. Not to Caesar, and not to Sadducees and Pharisees. Those in high positions who would invite Christ into their hearts would see the fruits of His work in theirs. Do you deny any corruption in Unions and Government institutions?
I’m really trying to figure out where you’re coming from.
Of course unions and governments contain corruption; so do families, the Church, and every other human institution. However there is a distinction between an institution whose purpose is good- families, churches, unions, the State- and one whose purpose is destructive- the Pentagon, Planned Parenthood, the Bank of America.
I’m not really “on fire” for old Rick Santorum, but this doesn’t strike me as a very fair critique of the man (which is strange since there are so many issues to knock him on). To expect a Catholic candidate for political office to design his platform on the basis of “Catholic Social Teaching” — one of the more amorphous bodies of doctrine out there — misses two points. First, every candidate for office in the U.S. has to work within institutional constraints, whether they are a member of the Senate, the President, or even a member of the Supreme Court. As such, “first best” world realities can’t always come into play automatically. You have to be cognizant of what your fellows are striving for as well and see where you can appropriately make some impact without compromising every gesture on the grounds that you demand every single piece of public policy to conform 100% with CST. If the choice is between supporting a bill that gets you, say, 50% of the way toward some CST payoff or one which gets you 100% of the way while having almost no chance of passing, which do you choose? Granted, I’m not saying that this is Santorum’s actual dilemma, but I’m hesitant to take CST as the sole guiding light for a politician’s actions.
Second, and more importantly, is the fact that CST is (or, at least, has become) ill defined. However, I do agree with you that there are certain basic outlines which are generally agreed upon which Santorum, as a Catholic, ought to adhere to. (I don’t know much about Santorum’s labor record other than the fact his past voting pattern has given Romney ammunition to attack him as a “big labor supporter,” but who knows what that actually means in practice.) Regardless, I doubt his labor voting record was informed by CST directly; its far more likely his labor vote was guided by the fact he’s from Pennsylvania and not, say, Texas. But let’s assume that Santorum takes CST to heart. What should his labor policy be? Is the “big labor” charge — assuming that it is true — a plus or a negative in that column? Or let’s move on to something a little less vague than labor issues (which no one seems to agree upon in the context of CST except, ironically enough, traditionalist Catholics who root their views in Rerum Novarum and other pre-Vat II CST documents): the death penalty. As much as people have tried to close it, the case for/against the death penalty has not been closed in the Catholic Church. JPII’s statement in Evangelium Vitae is taken as the “be all, end all” by those — surprise, surprise — who are against the death penalty, but it’s hardly dispositive. Moreover, I find it disingenuous when Catholics will hold up some line in an encyclical which fits within their ideological framework while jettisoning everything that doesn’t. I’ve met more than a couple of Catholics who will treat certain social statements by JPII as the gospel, but scoff at the idea that they are “bound” by documents like Humane Vitae.
With that said, I’m under no illusion that Santorum is a “Catholic candidate” in some robust sense. He’s just another Republican Party candidate who happens to be Catholic. Maybe that makes him less nauseating than Romney, but not by much. I seriously doubt if any “Catholic candidate” could, in good conscience, be a member of either mainstream political party. And even if they could, their career would be over before it even began.
Guess what? Someone who calls himself Catholic and enters politics ought to be informed by Catholic social teaching, which after all is applied moral theology, and while allowing for some differences in prudential judgement is not nearly so vague and “amorphous” as you fancy: there are very clear principles that do not allow for diversity, and Santorum violates any number of them.
And if you really do not see the trajectory of Catholic thought re the death penalty I don’t know what to say. The Church has also tightened moral sanctions on torture, you know, and once it approved and even utilized such practices.
And finally, since I wrote this Santorum has taken to speaking of “theology” to explain the validity of his views. This confirms my sense that his candidacy would confirm Catholic Republicanism in its errors, and certainly that it would identify the Church in the eyes of nonbelievers with his policies.
Don’t be a child. If you could point me to that document which clearly articulates CST, I’d love to read it. (And if you are going to point me to the Vatican’s Compendium, try again.)
Who says I don’t see the Church’s current trajectory on the death penalty? The problem is that it’s a trajectory, not an end point. Until the Catholic Church pronounces in some substantive sense that the death penalty is off the table, there’s still room at the margins for people to support it or, at least, refrain from calling for its abolition. Regardless of one’s views on the death penalty (and I tend to side with JPII’s), it’s disingenuous to claim that Santorum is somehow violating a tenet of Catholic teaching here.
Who says Santorum isn’t “informed by CST”? You? Why? Because he doesn’t follow your ill-defined interpretation of it? Please. I can’t even believe I’m going to bat for old Rick, but the shallowness of your “attack” (gripe?) practically begs for it.
I appreciate this post. I came back to the Church about seven years ago. I have always homeschooled my children and thought hmmm….I wonder if there are any resources for Catholic homeschoolers. There are – lots. But I was always coming up against general attitudes that clearly promoted a Republican/Conservative political slant. I didn’t get it. I couldn’t understand how some of the things I was reading could be reconciled with the *fullness* of Catholic teaching. I am finally realizing that they can’t. Yet so many politically motivated Catholics are portraying their *political* beliefs as completely in line with the fullness of our faith.
To me, it is not a matter of criticisizing a candidate for not being everything that Catholic social teaching embodies but the outright denial that the deficeits are in any way problematic. Or really the lack awareness that there are any deficeits.
As to unions – I think we have to remember why unions were created to begin with and why Catholics (in my mind) were historically pro union. There are problems with unions – let’s fix those problems. My husband is a public high school teacher, he would be the first to step up and say that there are problems with teacher’s unions. But it is because of the protection of the union that he can regularly take on the adminstration of his school when he feels special education laws are being ignored to the detriment of the children in his care. Are there people who take advantage of the system – yeah. But, in general when I think of what unions should do – promote fair wages, ensure safe working environments, protect it’s members from unlawful hiring and firing practices it is clear that without unions the general worker is not better off.
I am very happy to have found this blog and all the links provided. I have for some time now, wondered if I made a mistake by coming back to the Church – my faith might just survive another election year thanks to finding voices different than the ones I have generally encountered so far – thank you.
Amen, and note that those who rail against whatever corruption is in unions are silent on the gargantuan corruption that is corporate America. They like to castigate “union bosses” without noting that union members elect those “bosses”, unlike the actual bosses, the ones who can make life miserable for workers.
I am a union member (NALC) and believe me, there is a lot I don’t like about the union, which like every human institution is flawed. But the good far outweighs the bad, and I probably would have been fired a few times if not for the union.
And I am always so happy to hear when this blog has helped someone maintain their sanity…