Monday, March 26, 2012

Andrei Religious illiterate Washington Post "On Faith" writer

The piece begins
He has seven children, attends a Latin Mass and has driven issues of reproductive rights back into the center of American politics. In 2002, he traveled to Rome to express his support for the founder of the ultra-conservative Catholic lay movement called Opus Dei.

With these boxes on his religious resume checked, Rick Santorum has convinced Americans, even those who disagree with him, that he’s the Republican candidate who most stands for orthodox religious faith. He has been called “devout,” “traditionalist,” and even — by the Catholic historian Garry Wills — “a papist.”

 With nearly one in four Americans in its fold, a powerful lobby and extensive charity work, the Catholic Church is one of the most influential institutions in America.

So it is worth pointing out here that Santorum is not, in fact, all that Catholic.
Really? Why is he not?
  1. Because he doesn't oppose the Death Penalty
  2. He doesn't oppose enhanced interogation (cast as torture by the writer, whether it is or not is a legitimate subject for debate)
  3. He has not dismissed out of hand the possibility of war with Iran
  4. And finally he does not support unlimited immigration into the United States

My friends, Mr Santorum may not be entirely on the same page as some of the American Bishops on these contemporary issues but none of them form Catholic Doctrine, not one. The are political issues not matters of Faith though Faith may help in formulating an opinion on any of them.

I sometimes wonder if Liberals and Liberal Christians muddle the distinction between politics and Faith - something they often accuse Conservative Christians of doing, projection perhaps?

6 comment(s):

Anonymous said...

Santorum is not a catholic. He is in opposition to the catholic Bishops and he is oposition to Catholic Doctrine.

He profits from abortion.

He profits from sterilisation.

He profits from contaception.

Any one of these should see him excommunicated, and yet the church fawns over his wallet.

He is the very worst type of hypocrite.

kowtow said...


How does he so profit?

Lucia Maria said...

Yeah, I'm interested as well.

If you don't back up your assertions, LRO, your comment will be deleted at midnight.

Anonymous said...

Well, there is this marvellous thing called google, or the slightly less amrvellous thing called bing.

Let's see what we can find.

"Despite his clearly stated position that birth control is a terrible sin that should be discouraged, Rick Santorum is more than happy to profit from it. He is on the board of directors of Universal Health Services, a huge national health care company."

So far, so good. He should be permitted work and income.

"He has earned almost $400,000 from that position since 2010. And guess what? UHS makes money through all kinds of birth control services, including tubal ligations and other forms of birth control and vasectomies. So he’s making money through what he proudly proclaims to be an evil thing."

Maybe not so good for a confessing catholic. Or is it ok to profit from it, just as long as you don't use it yourself?

And its not even midnight...

Andrei said...

How ridiculous can you get LRO?

By your feeble reasoning Catholics shouldn't work for banks because abortionists might bank there and therefore they are making money from abortion.

Or car dealers because they might sell a car to an abortionist etc.

We all do our best to function in a world full of evil without being party to that evil but there are limits ......

ZenTiger said...


Your ilk were all apolectic that Rick Santorum, as a Catholic, is against contraception and abortion. Many a rant theorised he would ban contraception, but it seems that even though he doesn't agree with it, he went on record as saying he would leve it to the conscience and personal choice of the individual.

So, spinning your head around 180 degrees and levitating off the bed, you now declare that to respect individual choice is hypocritical. The tenous link between providing a range of health services and recieving pay for it, apparently makes him a hypocrite (the liberals idea of the worst crime possible to level at a conservative).

So by that logic, if he became the President of the United States, and he didn't ban contracpetion, you would call him a hypocrite for being paid by the very government he is not acting a facist about.

You've given no credence to the fact he might be working within the system to guide policy and direction according to his conscience, which is publicly displayed, whilst balancing a respect for people's choices, even those he believes ultimately is not too good for them.

As a Catholic I have some appreciation of this position. I personally would not use the heavy hand of the government to dictate on every single moral issue - it takes a change from within society to understand and change their behaviour. The current trajectory is one of growing immorality and the problems to a peaceful, safe and propserous society that belief sytstem brings.

The real hypocracy is with the current government - pretneding to respect freedom of religion and yet willing to punish Christians for their beliefs. B ut it's not the hypocracy I rail about (unlike your main argument) - it is the obvious violation of the constitution and the respect for the core beliefs of Christians and Catholics.

Your argument changes according only to how much damage you think you can make arguing that line. I see no moral consistency in your approach, just vitriol. Is this really the new standard of humanism? Is this the choice you offer me? Not buying it yet.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.