The Catholic Case Against Rick Santorum
GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, a proud Catholic who often speaks about his faith on the campaign trail, is attracting some formidable buzz from pundits who view his strong showing in the Iowa caucuses as a sign that the former Pennsylvania senator might have enough mojo to rally a coalition of religious and blue-collar voters.
New York Times columnist David Brooks waxed poetic Monday about Santorum’s Catholic conservative sensibilities and touted the candidate as an authentic antidote to “the corporate or financial wing of the party.”
Evangelicals are also taking notice. Writing on CNN’s Belief blog, Chris LaTondresse, the founder and CEO of Recovering Evangelical, calls Santorum a post-religious right candidate “whose concern for poor and vulnerable people” is “firmly rooted in his Catholic faith.”
It’s easy to see why Santorum might appeal to some culturally conservative Catholics and moderate evangelicals who are wary of Democrats but also turned off by the Republican Party’s cozy embrace of economic libertarianism and tireless defense of struggling millionaires. Santorum is more comfortable with communitarian language, has been a strong supporter of foreign aid to impoverished countries and connects with personal stories of his blue-collar upbringing.
But it’s a political delusion to think Rick Santorum is a standard-bearer of authentic Catholic values in politics. In fact, on several issues central to Catholic social teaching – torture, war, immigration, climate change, the widening gap between rich and poor and workers’ rights – Santorum is radically out of step with his faith’s teachings as articulated by Catholic bishops and several popes over the centuries.
Immigration
Catholic bishops, priests and women religious have been at the forefront of the fight for comprehensive immigration reform. Catholic leaders have called for an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and consistently oppose draconian policies that break up families. Santorum has publicly challenged the Catholic bishops on this issue, telling the Des Moines Register: “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.”
While promising he doesn’t want to “break up families,” Santorum recently justified massive deportations that do, in fact, separate parents from children. He blithely said of those facing deportation to Mexico (a country currently ravaged by grinding poverty and gang violence) that “we’re not sending them to any kind of difficult country.” Tell that to the student brought here as a young child who doesn’t remember the country of her birth and doesn’t even speak the language.
Poverty, Inequality and Financial Regulation
Pope Benedict XVI has decried the “scandal of glaring inequalities” between rich and poor, and Catholic social teaching supports a more just distribution of wealth. Santorum, in contrast, told the Des Moines Register: “I’m for income inequality. I think some people should make more than other people because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risks, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality.” As a Senator, Santorum voted for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which greatly exacerbated the gap between the top 1% and the rest of us.
The Vatican also recently released a major document on the need for more robust financial regulation of global markets to protect workers and the common good. Santorum clings to the thoroughly debunked lie that regulation caused our nation’s financial collapse. He told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz that “it wasn’t deregulation…it was government regulation” that in part led to our current economic problems. In Congress, Santorum also voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated risky financial schemes that led to the economic crisis of 2008.
While Catholic bishops defend vital government programs that protect the most vulnerable, Santorum recently voiced support for Rep. Paul Ryan’s immoral federal budget plan—a plan the bishops expressed deep concern about because it would cut life-saving programs while spending trillions on massive new tax breaks for the rich. Even worse, Santorum said that the poor who receive government aid could learn by suffering more. When questioned about how his economic views clash with the Catholic demand for a “preferential option for the poor” in public policy, Santorum was completely unfamiliar with this bedrock Church teaching.
Workers’ Rights
The Catholic Church has defended the vital role of unions since 1891, when Pope Leo XIII released Rerum Novarum, an encyclical that puts the dignity of work and labor rights at the center of Catholic social teaching. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church clearly states that workers have a right to “assemble and form associations” and that unions are “a positive influence for social order and solidarity, and are therefore an indispensable element of social life.” Rick Santorum, on the other hand, has argued that all public sector unions should be abolished. In a presidential candidates’ debate, Santorum said he would “support a bill that says that we should not have public employee unions for the purposes of wages and benefits to be negotiated.”
Climate Change and the Environment
Pope Benedict XVI, who has been dubbed the “Green Pope” for his attention to environmental justice and climate change, recently urged world leaders meeting for climate talks in Durban, South Africa, to “reach agreement on a responsible, credible response” to the “disturbing” effects of climate change. Catholic dioceses across the country have encouraged Catholics to limit their carbon footprint, and national advocacy organizations like the Catholic Climate Covenant work to educate Catholics about their faith’s teachings on environmental stewardship. Santorum must not be listening. In an interview with Rush Limbaugh, he described the fact that climate change is caused by humans as “patently absurd” and a “beautifully concocted scheme.” Just this week, Santorum blasted a new Environmental Protection Agency rule limiting emissions of mercury and other air toxins from coal-fired power plants. Catholic bishops hailed the ruling as “an important step forward to protect the health of all people, especially unborn babies and young children, from harmful exposure to dangerous air pollutants.”
Torture and War
Many Catholic conservatives ignore the Church’s teaching about “a consistent ethic of life” and excuse a candidate’s position or record on the economy, immigration and the environment by downplaying their moral importance compared to the issue of abortion. Catholics can disagree in good faith on some issues, they assert, but not over “intrinsic evils.” Unfortunately, even under this standard, Santorum fails. When it comes to torture, which the Church calls an “intrinsic evil,” Santorum is a proud proponent.
The Catholic bishops describe the barbaric practice as an assault on the dignity of human life. “The use of torture must be rejected as fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person and ultimately counterproductive in the effort to combat terrorism,” they wrote in Faithful Citizenship, a political responsibility statement released before every presidential election. But Santorum eagerly endorsed “enhanced interrogation” techniques during the first Republican primary debate.
Santorum’s predilection toward pre-emptive war also clashes with mainstream Catholic theology. When the late Pope John Paul II warned against the invasion of Iraq, Santorum vocally championed the war. And while the Catholic bishops repeatedly called for a responsible withdrawal, Santorum remained a staunch defender of the occupation – blasting the “media” and “liberals” for undermining support for the war.
Catholic politicians across the spectrum will all find aspects of Church teaching that challenge their ideological agendas in discomforting ways. But for too long Catholics in public life have only been scrutinized when it comes to abortion and same-sex marriage. This does a disservice to voters, ignores the Catholic social justice tradition’s broad moral agenda and lets Catholic candidates like Rick Santorum off the hook even when they consistently disregard their faith’s teachings on key moral and political issues.
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, Flickr
Thank you. I don’t know if the people who ought to read this will, but I am glad it is out there.
It seems that your overall conclusion is that defending life and marriage in public life is a disservice to voters…while have the audacity to publish this piece in a “faith in public life” website!
Somehow, I don’t see how you got to your conclusion. The article is clear that if an objective person looked at Santorum from a Catholic perspective across all issues, he does not belive in the stated believes of the Catholic Church on these issues. He may certainly be in line with the Church on marriage and abortion, but he certainly doesn’t come close on the others.
One difference is that the Catholic “Social Doctrine” as articulated (or more accurately badly articulated) by the various Popes since Rerum Novarum are not infallible whereas the teachings on marriage, contraception, and abortion are infallible. I love Benedict XVI, but his latest effort, Cartitas in Veritate was written primarily by Cardinal Turkson and is a mishmash of misconceived social engineering and bad economics.
There are only two teachings in the history of the Catholic Church that a Pope has designated as infallible and “the teachings on marriage, contraception, and abortion” are not one of them. You need to explore your theology a little bit more before you re-write the history of the church. It is easy to be a “cafeteria Catholic,” but don’t try to change Catholic theology to meet your political preferences. It would be better to just disagree with the church, or at least more honest.
You need to check your history before you denounce the Ryan Bill as being at odds with Catholic Teaching. Archbishop Dolan applauds Ryan, congratulating him on “continued attention to the guidance of Catholic social justice in the current delicate budget considerations in Congress”
Oh, he’s not on board with the left-wing kook cafeteria Catholic movement? Oh, the horrors!
Now you’re going to the other end of the spectrum and throwing a red herring with the “left-wing kook cafeteria Catholic movement.” Many Conservatives who were baptized Catholic use their faith as a shield in their conservative vs liberal battles.
They don’t want to accept that their Church is moderate and compassionate, to the downtrodden and endangered.
Anyone remember Cardinal Bernardin with his “Seamless Garment” philosophy? Have we as a church become this divided and forgetful?
I certainly do remember Bernardin’s seamless garment.. Thanks for the reference. Perhaps a few will look it up. Nice comment.
please submit this to the NY Times Op-ed page
So what you are saying, basically, is that Catholics have the right to shy away from the documents issued by Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI stating that certain issues have a preeminence over other, such as the right to life, and the protection of the unborn?
To me, it sounds like you are advocating a morally relative version of Catholicism and are backing away from important Church teachings, ignoring the words of the Magesterium which you do not agree with, and are therefore dissenting form the Catholic Church herself.
You are standing in odds with the Papacy.
I think you need to reread the article.
I think it ironic (and funny, too) that Santorum courted the Evangelicals when they would burn him at the stake for being Catholic at the first opportunity.
That’s a lie and extremely unhelpful. I am an evagelical pastor and I can tell you with certainty that no evangelicals (not even someone as cooky and extremist as Pat Robertson) has ever advocated persecuting Catholics. We see Catholics as allies in the fight for the life of the unborn and the sanctity of marriage.
It’s also more than a little hypocritical for a Catholic to speak of evanglical Protestants wanting to burn Catholics. Remember “Bloody” Queen Mary of England or the French Huegenots or the Spanish Inquisition? Yet you don’t hear any evangelicals saying that Catholics want to repeat these bloody persecutions.
We don’t need this kind of over-heated, extremist and false rhetoric when the truth is that both Catholics and evangelicals are being heavily persecuted in the world – by Muslims and Communists.
Brother Jason- I’m glad that you hold no prejudice towards Catholics in your heart, but I have sat in church leadership and evangelism conferences or seminars on several occasions that focus on Catholicism being a cult, having dangerous motives, being a pagan religion, etc. Even recently. There is a large “movement church” that teaches regular classes about evangelizing to Catholic family and friends by “exposing the truth” of Catholicism’s beliefs. There are CDs and digital message series available online… a few minutes of web search found several.
You may not advocate marginalizing (persecuting) Catholics for their beliefs. But denying the existence of such sentiment in today’s day and age only helps it to continue.
Not surprising that those whose focus is fixed solely upon abortion and marriage issues have lost sight of the church’s teaching on social justice which encompasses both but not limited by either.
In response to “with no shoes on my feet”:
Could not agree more on the implied hypocracy of a man living in palatial splendor and criticizing everyone else. Sounds too much like “do as I say, not as I do”. But to all, let’s remember that most of what the popes say is not ex cathedra but simply their opinions as human men. Benedict directs through the Vatican beaurocracy $billions in charity given out only on the basis of need and not a particularly faith.
Catholics are bound by two commands, love God and love one another. Let’s remember that the one moral shortcoming that Jesus railed against in the new testament was hypocracy and also let’s remember to “render unto Caeser…. Try to keep religion, be it catholicism, mormanisn or “anythingism”, out of the debate. It’;s way too important for the 300+million of us.
Pope Benedict as decrying the gap between rich and poor? We all do but according to Christ, the poor you always have with you. He’s been correct for about 2000 years.
Pope Benedict has a collection of 28,000 books….I’ll let you do the math.
He has a grand piano in a ten room Rome apartment with recently renovated marble floors…2 maid/cooks…one room with dental chair and medical equipment. He has bodyguards carrying a most expensive pistol…the SigSauer…and an expensive submachine gun…Heckler and Koch. He has personal cobbler red shoes and serenghetti sun glasses (less ostentacious than Bono I’ll grant).
So can we forget about portraying Benedict as Robin Hood. We are the emperor’s new clothes religion….I know…I know.
When reading these comments I was reminded that the law of selective indignation is in full effect among us.
Dear Papist, the fight for life conducted intelligently in view of political reality will be best served by ensuring that there is no reason for a pregnant woman to fear giving birth or fear for the future well being of the child and the child’s family. Unfortunately, that could cost a lot of money underwriting medical care, counseling, and child care; but let’s not be guilty of opposing abortion only if it doesn’t cost us any money.
That ‘preferential option’ for the poor, the sick, the outcast, the stranger that riddles Jesus’ teaching may be exactly what’s needed not only to reduce abortion to an infinitesimal fraction of the present problem, but to generally improve America.
One not only should not be a cafeteria Catholic, one should also be intelligent and knowledgable about what our problems and options really are.
Fact: As public spending on poverty relief has increased to hundreds of billions of dollars per year, it has not helped curb abortion.
People don’t get abortions because they’re poor; they do so because they view children as a problem and an obstacle and not a blessing. They also do so because the sexual revolution has taught them that sex is a pleasurable activity to be engaged in as often as possible with no fear of consequences.
How many pieces of silver do these left wing so-called Catholic organizations receive from Obama?
Sadly, liberals again show they could care less about the mass murder of babies.
The irony of the Vatican finger-wagging at Santorum for promoting the “scandal of glaring inequalities” between rich and poor is mind-boggling, but has already been illustrated above. However, I find it more than a bit disingenuous to criticize Santorum for failing to support “vital government programs that protect the most vulnerable,” when Catholic Charities has closed its own doors on just such government funded programs in four states, having chosen to take its toys and go home rather than (quelle horreuer!) consider same-sex couples eligible to adopt children in foster care. Pot, kettle, I’m sure you have loads to talk about.
As in all elections, we have yet to find a viable candidate who is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching. So I would like a comment from the author to address the question, “if not Santorum, then who?” I can’t imagine any of the other candidates are closer to Catholic social & moral teaching than Santorum, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I’m truly curious.
Mark:
Faith in Public Life is the blog equivalent of a clip joint whose idea was no doubt spawned from a hangover following the “how-did-this-happen-to-us?” 2004 election loss. John Podesta’s non-profit group – Center for American Progress, Sojourners Jim Wallis, Rabbi David Saperstein, Rev Jim Forbes, Rev Bob Edgar, Sr. Catherine Pinkerton, Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, and Rev. Timothy McDonald – gathered in Washington, DC . to figure out a way to lessen the impact of the pro-life/pro-family vote–social justice here equals liberal election victories… Loved your points. jme
Dear Marc,
Romney won Iowa, and please heed the words “love your enemy” more closely. You are forgiven.
First of all, someone sent me a link to this intellectually dishonest hatchet-job of a blog. Before I read it, I figured it was the Catholic equivalent of a airport TSA-screening, complete with wands just to see just how much anti-Catholic views he’s really hiding. But, i stopped right away before going too much past the 1st paragraph. I wanted to stop and read the other blogs post on this rag and see what you have done in the past with regard to similar evaluations. I wanted to see how you have handled other Catholic politicians – or other Christians or Evangelicals. I wanted to go into the Santorum evaluation you were presenting feeling good. But, just like I figured, this was your first piece EVER detailing the positions on any one candidate. So, I didn’t even bother reading the rest of it. Skimmed it. But didn’t want to waste my precious time. Why did I not finish reading this piece of garbage? Because it was crystal clear that the author and web-site are nothing but opportunistic Democrat bastards waiting for the chance to attack pro-life GOP candidates that have a hint of winning any election. That being said, I will finish reading this when your author and web-site take even a half an attempt at doing a similar anal exam of any other Christian (Catholic or Prod) politician or candidate, democrat or GOP. You’ve been live for 6 months and not a single similar study of any another candidate or politician’s positions – Catholic or otherwise! How f-ing convenient you picked Rick Santorum right after he wins Iowa. What about the dopey Democratic Catholic politicians out there!?! Spend a few precious blogging moments crawling up their records and positions. Let’s see how they stack up to your dopey idea of what matters in a candidate. You won’t!! Because you’re all opportunistic cowards and have exposed yourselves in less than 6 months. You’re all dressed up as some half credible blog about “faith in public life” (as if) and won’t even bother to go out an even honestly do the same type of study on anybody else. This whole thing was launched conveniently right before the 2012 elections to take a wholesale shit on any pro-life candidate, especially those in the GOP that even have a hint of faith.
Lastly, we’re not electing a Pope here people. We are electing a president of the US. Why does Santorum have to stand up to the standards of the Church to this level of scrutiny all of the sudden? Just to be considered a worthy candidate from your “faith” perspective? WTF!!?
Second what the Rev said up there–submit this to the New York Times OpEd
This is a really terrible representation of Catholic Social Teaching. Yo really should be ashamed of yourself. Read this for a good antacid for this drivel: http://rjgrace.ipage.com/wp/2012/01/05/rule-42/
I write this as an ex-Catholic, but even were I still an adherant of the faith my views would be the same.
First of all some little bts you left out. Morher Church has, in recent decades, aligned itself wth science and especially Evolution, as both the current and previous Popes have spoken and wrtten about. Santorum is a Young Earth Creationist whose pathetic attempt to have the stupidity taught in US schools faled miserably.
Mother Church also teaches, as I was at the Salesian school in the UK I attended till 18, that the Old Testament is allegorical. Santorum is a Biblical Literalist.
SO…..when are the Catholic Bishops, or better yet Arch Bishops, going to stand up before the media and call out Santorum loudly and publcally for gong against Church doctrine and ignoring the princple of Papal Infallablity?
Yeah…..I thought so….the day Satan buys a wooly jumper to wear.
Intelligent design, which is what Santorum has shown sympathy for, is not the same thing as young earth creationism. ID has no problem with geological time or the evolution of species from other species through genetic changes producing organisms that must survive natural selection. What it rejects is the claim that purely random processes *alone* are sufficient to produce all observed biological systems and *therefore* there are no other possible causes. You can bet that the Popes reject that claim too.
That ID is the same as young earth creationism is a lie that the Dawkinsites and others who like to use such terms as “IDiots” spout because they think they can get away with it.
Hey, so all you “good Catholics” who are against abortion and same-sex marriage, go vote for Santorum. Even though the rest of his views are staunchly ANTI-Catholic. And the puzzlement here is: does he even know it or does he not even care, using his “faith” to push his agenda?
I think: the latter. The man talks out of 12 sides of his mouth.
What is Truth
The problem with this left wing drivel is that liberals have a very, very, hard time with concepts like truth or moral values. Only another liberal could read this piece and see it as anything but libelous misconstrued trash. However, I look forward to the author’s analysis of Nancy Pelosi’s Catholicism. I am sure that he will find her particular “faith” quite enlightened.
Mr. Gehring is under the mistaken belief that if one is not a liberal Democrat, they can not be a good Catholic. History is filled with accusations that some one is a heretic, professes something other than Catholic doctrine, but what is, in fact, a political difference in judgment. If this is the Catholic case against Rick Santorum, he is found innocent of all charges. But not necessarily our best choice for POTUS, which is what we Catholics, and all Americans, must decide.
There is neither a right side or a left side of the Church. There is the one “Catholic Church.” You are so funny. I find it more honest to openly disagree with the church then justifying your dissent from the Popes & Bishops by changing the theology and doctrines of the church. It might make you feel better to label this as “left wing,” but in reality it is just your own personal delusion.
More left wing Catholic nonsense — global warming, income “inequality”, enviromental justice and so on.
I did not know that being a Catholic requires me to embrace faulty (and left wing) economics. to believe in a hoax such as man caused climate change, and to support amnesty etc. (excuse me –”comprehensive immig. reform’)
This should be the title “The Kennedy-Pelosi Catholic Case Against Rick Santorum”. The popes say and write many things about political economic issues that later on are changed or re-interpreted. The pope is infallible in moral and theological matters, not on Keynesian economics. Also, after looking over Rerum Novarum make sure to read the Syllabus of Errors and the Oath Against Modernism. And after that shock make sure to read Humanae Vitae.
Mr. Gehring’s piece The Case Against Santorum is not an accurate representation of Catholic political policy, let alone an authoritative one, as it is being portrayed. Here is a more accurate view of the issues it presented.
First, the piece seems to suggest that Mr. Santorum is a hawk who is fine with unjust wars. This is not true. The main issue regarding war as it has been discussed has to do with Iran. All of the candidates, including Santorum, with the exception of Ron Paul, seem willing to use America’s military to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And they should. We know enough about Iran to know that allowing them to obtain a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. The longer we are timid with them the more we ensure they get a weapon. Does Church teaching doom us to accepting a nuclear Iran? I don’t think so. It’s true that just wars are defensive and preemptive strikes generally don’t fit. However, it does not require us to be naïve and stupid either. Mr. Santorum has talked about many approaches, including covert military operations, but not including bombing Iran or targeting civilians. I think this is very reasonable.
The next issue was torture. Mr. Santorum has not advocated torture. He has supported “aggressive interrogation” tactics. The worst of these would be waterboarding. This is an issue on which I disagree with Mr. Santorum. I do not believe in waterboarding, but it may not be so cut and dry. Waterboarding is not torture, especially not according to what is practiced in the countries where our own soldiers are at risk. The issue begs the question, can we use physical means to get a desired behavior in interrogation? Though I would have a different answer than Santorum with regard to waterboarding, I admit that I spank my children, and that is certainly not opposed by the Church. Not only that, when I spank them I hope that it causes them some physical pain. And yet, I do it out of love and it has been an effective way to teach them important lessons.
To make the ludicrous claim that Mr. Santorum doesn’t know the Church’s teaching on the preferential option for the poor is ridiculous and seemingly dishonest. The author has problems with Mr. Santorum’s conservative economic approach, and he has the right to disagree on that issue, but it does not make him more Catholic. This is an issue of prudence. Mr. Santorum (and many Catholics) believes this approach will improve the economy for everyone. He has a long public record of supporting the poor and vulnerable (as testified to by U2’s Bono, hardly a right-winger).
The idea that Mr. Santorum opposes the Church on environmental issues is equally dishonest (or perhaps honestly wrong). He has not been an enemy of the environment and skepticism about Global Warming is certainly permitted for any Catholic (as evidenced by those bishops who have expressed doubt). The Church has not and will not require Catholics to intellectually assent to controversial scientific theories (or even obvious ones). To say this makes Mr. Santorum less than Catholic is totally irresponsible.
Finally, immigration. This is an extremely complicated and difficult issue. First it should be noted that there is no Church doctrine stating what the United States should do with regard to illegal immigration. Certainly we need to apply Catholic social teaching to the problem. Immigrants, legal or illegal, have human dignity. Also, countries have the right to control their borders. The bishops have said this as well. Mr. Santorum, in the debates, has rightly said that first we must control the border and stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Then we can deal with those that are here. This signals he is not taking a hard line position, like Michelle Bachmann, for example, of throwing everyone out. He also wants to liberalize our legal immigration laws, something called for by the bishops. Do we have to grant amnesty to everyone who is here, though according to our laws they should not be? The answer is not so simple. We should not pretend that it is. And when Mr. Santorum says he cares about not breaking up families, his long record tells me he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Let’s not forget that Mr. Santorum also defends the sanctity of life, opposing abortion in all cases as well as euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research. These are non-negotiables for a Catholic, not prudential matters. He also defends the traditional definition of marriage, which is consistent with the teaching of the Church. You will not find that on the other side of the aisle.
I am looking for a candidate that is consistently and faithfully following the principles and teaches of the Church. The only way we will get this is to have a party that is sponsored by the Church itself. In order to do this we would lose our non tax status. If every one who is a Catholic (including those who think they are exCatholics but are baptised and confirmed as Catholics; I hold you to your oath and vow) would vote for this new team of the Catholic Christian Party then we could indeed begin to build the seamless garment referred to above. The only correction I would make in the article is that the Church’s teaching in Rerum Novarum is not for a redistribution of wealth through income, but a redistribution of capital. It is important to note that the Pope was as strongly against communism as he was against the extreme corporate capitalism he was witnessing in 1891. If anything, the advent of Reaganism and the blind faith in markets that the current Republicans hold is what has exacerbated the problems that Pope Leo was witnessing, problems that had been lessened by the advent of the Progressive Movement and the efforts of TR, Wilson and FDR and LBJ. We all must become capitalists and recognize that the first aberration of the free market was when state governments allowed corporations to be formed, thus having the government interfere in the invisible hand of competition among sole proprietorships and partnerships, none of which could exist beyond the life of the owner or owners. As I have mentioned on the Catholic Alliance website, the GOP uses the abortion issue and the gay rights issue to divide and conquer. However, this does not mean that the Church is not right about those issues either. The answer is the admonition that Christ gave to the adulteress as the crowd melted away from her, not willing to stone her knowing they were all sinners. What was it he said, “Go and sin no more.” For my friends who wish to sin through sodomy and abortion I admonish you, in Christ’s name, to “go and sin no more.” Then we can truly begin to build Christ’s Kingdom here on earth.
I do not believe the Church teaches to envy our neighbors nor that we may take our neighbors income. It does teach that we as individuals should give and help those in need. The government is not the Church and such is not asked to care for the needy. As you may notice, when we leave this Christian task to the Government to do, the person receives no spiritual help in the process. And in fact, with the government in charge making the rules in receiving help, women are encouraged to kill thei unborn and to live single. This is not the Lords design for our lives. So therefore, all the people who advocate for government to take from the rich, a form of envy, and give to the poor in a forced manor, clearly do not know what John Paul II FOUGHT AGAINST while he was alive. It is absurd to say the government is serving God. They are doing everything they can to silence God and now with Obamacare, they plan to force all hospitals to operate against the teaching of the Church. The man who wrote this article will have to meet Jesus one day and he will have to give account for breaking God’s first commandment that there shall be no other Gods before Him. This man does not know that poverty is not an evil nor is it Gods will that all people be rich. I have been very poor, even without food. I did not go to the government, because God tod me in His word that He is my provider. I went to him in prayer the night all the food was used up. Since I just had my 3rd baby a week earlier, I was not working, so no income was coming. The next day, I woke up to so much food on my porch, that I couldn’t fit it all in my cabinets. I asked all my friends and people at church and no one knew about it nor that I had a need because I didn’t tell anyone but God. So, is that too difficult for the creator of the universe? Did I need to take from my neighbor shaker their will? No. You see, the enemy of God wants us to envy and take. God wants us to have opportunity to give of pur own free will. If the government, who has replaced the church, were to stop providing to the poor, the people of God would rise up and do a far better job in helping. Then the love of God would be experienced. My story is one of blind faith for Jesus. Rick Santorum loves God and repents when he is wrong but understands that God created man to work. He knows the harm the government is having on the family. So, for the author who thinks that poverty issues are of greater value then the innocent life of little babies, lacks understanding. I hope that people will pray for Santorum. Running for president must be extremely difficult. Kim
“Enhanced interrogation” is torture. As a Vietnam War veteran who did not practice torture in the field and did his best to prevent it—becoming a Roman Catholic in the process—I am disappointed that Santorum’s “holier than thou” candidacy condones the equivalent of The Scourging at the Pillar. “Are you or are you not the king of the Palestinians?,” we ask as we waterboard the subject.
This is Catholic Social Teaching – “The ultimate fulfillment of every human person can be found only in God, but the common good helps groups and individuals to reach this ultimate good. So, if social conditions are such that people are inhibited or deterred from being able to love God and neighbor, then the common good has not been realized.
Abraham Lincoln wrote: “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all or cannot so well do, for themselves — in their separate and individual capacities.”
The government should not intervene to attempt to alleviate all problems. A welfare or “nanny” state, offering cradle-to-grave security and attempting to provide for all human needs, expands the state beyond its proper scope. Pope John Paul II explained:
Malfunctions and defects in the social assistance state [or welfare state] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the state. This overreaching by the state leads to situations that are both inefficient and detrimental to human welfare.”
In the end I must agree with Pope Leo XIII’s in his encyclical Tametsi which states : “The world has heard enough of the so-called ‘rights of man.’ Let it hear something of the rights of God.”
You may, and are free, to disagree with your democratic brothers, but they are your brothers nonetheless. You speak with vitriol too consistent with the far right, and I fear have lost true focus of Christ’s love for all humanity.
Another case in point that politics and religion need to be kept separate…..all these arguments are senseless. If you need religion, go worship, but let’s elect and govern without ANY religious influence. All this friggin constant arguing, dividing even killing and going to war over religion should have finally taught us the senselessness of all this craziness. Good Grief….none of these politicians are being ruled by religion….WAKE UP–they are being ruled by their pocketbooks, corporations and payoffs. Look at Santorum’s rise in wealth after he left the Senate. These politicians pander to the spiritual and the suckers follow!
You mean those nutty people like Scott Hahn? I pray you do not get your guidance from the Da Vinci Code.
What scares me most (and what was not mentioned in the article) is Santorum’s connection to Opus Dei, the nutwing of catholicism.
Santorum is the quintessential anti-abortion Catholic. He is not pro-life in ANY issue except abortion and he is rotten in that regards as well.
Anyone remember Santorum’s repeated endorsement of pro-abortion Arlen Specter (GW Bush ally) over anti-abortion Patrick Toomey?
A few responses:
1. As for the comments regarding infallibilty, there are 2 categories: ex cathedra papal teachings (proclaimed by the pope alone) which are to be accepted by all Catholics as indisputably essential to the faith. There are only two teachings that indisputably fall into this category of official Church teaching: the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary. Worthy of note, too, is that the Church ITSELF declared the doctrine of papal infallibilty in 1870. The irony is impossible to ignore. It’s the age-old question. What came first? Infallibilty itself or the doctrine of infallibility?
The other category of infallibilty are the teachings of the whole body of
bishops (i.e. the College of Bishops), usually expressed through encyclicals. It’s not just the Pope who speaks infallibly, so we all have to be careful when we easily dismiss certain Church teachings. As for the commenter who claimed that a bishop actually wrote most of Benedict’s recent statement, is it not a no-brainer that Benedict (who before becoming Pope oversaw the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith) would approve the statement before publishing it?
2. I think it’s safe to say that, if the Catholic commenters (myself included) are honest with ourselves, most Catholics struggle with SOME aspect of Church teaching. These comments certainly reflect that! So, why don’t we all humbly agree that none of us is a perfect Catholic. Can we at least agree on that?
3. I am registered as an independent specifically because no party’s candidates perfectly reflect Church teaching. Voting as a Catholic is complex, not simple. To claim otherwise is, well, in my humble opinion, simplistic.
Very well said. No one can claim to be a perfect Catholic, or perfect person. I claim to follow the teachings of Christ to the best of my ability, but alas we all falter. Following a Catholic lifestyle is hard and complex in our current world. However, when I need some simplicity, I can always go back to “Love one another as I have loved you”.
The Pope is infalable in matters of Fairh, not politics. As a Catholic I do not blindly follow the Pope and the Bishops. I don’t believe the Catholic Church or the Bishops have a clue as to how to run a global economy. Socialism does not work…. Period…
Cerie Smith said:
“What scares me most (and what was not mentioned in the article) is Santorum’s connection to Opus Dei, the nutwing of catholicism.”
Nutwing? Nutwing? Sorry sister… Opus Dei, founded by SAINT Josemaria Escriva, is one of the most admired and respected lay movements in the Church.
Raises some valid concerns, but overall the article seems based on conjecture and the futile pursuit of perfection. What so many people forget (Catholics included) that while the Church may possess the FULLNESS of truth, that does not mean it is a PERFECT truth. The Church, while divine, also has the human element. I’m not disputing papal infallibility, nor am I rescinding my Catholic faith. Rather, I’m saying that it is unrealistic to hope that any Catholic politician will be 100% in line with Church teaching. The Church was never meant to be political!
Furthermore, the point raised by this article that gets under my skin the most is that about Santorum’s apparent disregard for Rerum novarum. I firmly believe RN raised some valid concerns, such as workers’ rights, the preferential option for the poor, the call for those with means to take care of those without, etc. However, given the shape which labor unions have taken in the latter half of the 20th century, I believe they’ve out-lived their time. Look at how the UAW has pretty much destroyed Detroit since the 1980s. The workers now have too much control.
So while this article has encouraged me to do more digging into Mr Santorum’s past, especially where he stands on financial monitoring and torture, the article proposed nothing firm enough to sway me from where I stood beforehand. Still voting for Santorum.
It is sad and fascinating, but mostly sad, to see someone warp complex issues on social teaching and economics as Gehring has with this simplistic hit-piece. To write this blog post takes great belief in one’s own self… but as Chesterton noted, a man who believes he is a poached egg also believes in himself.
AMEN Chad!
Our CINO (catholic in name only) lefties continually abuse the seamless garment type of philosophy in order to justify their own political views.
Basically they have supported a pro-abortion, pro-infanticide president and regime, in order to obtain some benefits from his promises to redistribute the wealth. One could compare such people to prostitutes, but that would be an unwarranted insult to the sex workers. CINOs instead forfeit the lives of their fellow humans in order to obtain largess from the government for their own personal interests and gain.
CINOs have pushed for a program of forced redistribution of wealth, which discourages personal charity and relegates the responsibility to a government which has become corrupt.
The greenie CINOs ignore the government’s forcing us to bring toxic levels of mercury into our homes (easily broken compact fluorescent bulbs) in the name of energy efficiency. They also ignore the extreme toxicity of lithium battery production for their greenie cars. They ignore the deaths of millions (from malaria and starvation) caused by irrational risk assessments by environmentalists, who ban pesticides. Those are their late term, human sacrifices to Mother Earth.
The CINOs look to unions to facilitate income redistribution while at the same time supporting tax and regulatory policies which have driven job creating corporations overseas. The Union workers and public sector workers are making much greater salaries on average than those from whom CINOs wish to extract taxes for bailing out the union pension plans. Meanwhile the dearth of U.S. jobs has sent immigrants with legitimate work permits back to Mexico, and American Blacks are suffering worse unemployment than Whites.
So far CINO’s have not seen much return on their personal investment in wealth redistribution. Pharmer is comforted by the fact that very few of these people will obtain even scraps from the tables of the corrupt politicians to whom they cling.
Lastly, if the Catholic Church really were actually teaching the garbage that John Gehring is expelling, This lifelong Catholic would have already found another religion.
Who did you vote for in the last presidential election, John? Did you vote for Obama? I will take Santorum any day of the week over the likes of Obama. I doubt that any Catholic thinks Santorum is perfect, but he has a lot more appealing qualities than the other candidates, including the incumbent president.
There is a huge difference in between the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion and marriage than its teachings on immigration, poverty, etc. The Catholic Church has certain teachings that are fundamental to the faith and must be followed to be considered fully, especially in the public realm. Abortion and marriage are in this category along with the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist and so on. The Church’s teachings on the rest of these things in this article are all opinion not teaching that one must agree with to be Catholic. Yes, it is the opinion of very holy men and should carry a lot of weight but it is no way binding in the faith to believe. There is a separation of Church and State for a reason. In an ideal world violence and all these other issues would be not a problem, but instead, the State must step in, and where the Church always cares first about each individual soul, the State must think about the people as a whole first every time. Church and State can work together, but ultimately sometimes the State must implement something that is less than ideal because of the state of the society, as long as it doesn’t cross the lines of fundamental doctrine.
No man is perfect, including Rick, but in no way is he sinning or offending the Church if he disagrees with a bishop or even a pope on a civil or social matter. The Pope is only infallible at certain times and on matters of faith and morals. It doesn’t mean they aren’t necessarily right, but it doesn’t mean he is necessarily wrong.
God bless you Rick and may God bless all of our candidates.
So, after skimming through all the finger pointing going on in the comment, I decided to post a link to a document by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops about what to look for in a political candidate if one is a true Catholic. Yes, I am aware that it is long, but one can get the main points from skimming through it, though it is better to read through the whole thing.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf
So that God my be glorified, I am your humble servant in Christ
Thank you for this article. Rick Santorum is certainly not the standard bearer for my catholic church, which is a church of love, compassion and foregiveness. His rhetoric is so full of hate, distrust and vitriolthat we really need to pray for his soul. Iam, as my church expects, anti-abortion., but at the same time, i see it is my moral responsibility to provide food, shelter and education for these babies that are brought into this world. It seems like Mr. Santorum’s only concern is getting them born – then they are on their own. And don’t get me started on Newt Gingrich
I like Santorum even more now. The “inconsistent with Catholic teachings” points brought up by this author are a more historically recent set of views touted by liberal Catholics, including hierarchs. Way to go, Mr. Santorum! Your boldness in standing up to your church is admirable. We’re to hold ALL fellow Christians accountable, even the leaders.
Please note the above article and all of its Pope and Bishop references are errant in their expression. The Pope has only said it is important t care for the environment. He has said nothing about Global Warming itself and the science. He also used the Environmental comments to shore up that if the environment is important then surely ABORTION is wrong and we must care for the people before the environment. (Smart Pope). The Bishops expression on the economy and immigration is faulty and is BY NO MEANS the expression of the whole Church or the Holy Father. It is their opinion. Read Pope Benedicts book “Jesus of Nazareth.” It explains his views perfectly. The bishops remarks are wrong and violate the Church’s own teaching on “Subsidiarity” and the Catechism of the Catholic Churches references to the “Responsibility of the Immigrant.” Finally, remember that the Church is only infallible on issues of strict morality and theological doctrine. NOT THESE ISUUES. Not all of the Bishops have taken these positions. Please make sure to educate yourselves before accepting these written OPINIONS from “experts.” As a teacher/catechist in the Church I know these things because I have the backgroud in Catechetics. John Gehring is completely wrong and off base. He is perverting the truth to meet a political goal the HE has. He does not represent the Catholic Church!