Wherein I defend Santorum

Yeah, it had to happen. I don’t actually hate the man and I think he might be an interesting person to sit and talk with…maybe.  I do think when he is attacked for defending teachings of the Catholic Church that people have crossed the line. Attacking his speech at Ave Maria is a perfect example of this. I wanted to write  a post about that, but found this post, which is pretty much what I wanted to say, without me having to find a dark/quiet corner for three hours.

 

Santorum, the media, and the religious test

By Phil Lawler | February 22, 2012 6:06 PM

Of course New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd thinks of Sen. Rick Santorum as a religious fanatic. That’s what one expects from Dowd, whose contempt for the Catholic faith is as strong as her political liberalism. But for the past few days the Drudge Report, ordinarily friendly to conservative candidates, has been sending a similar message about Santorum. When I last checked, Drudge was giving top-of-the-page prominence to eight different stories about a speech that Santorum delivered three years ago, in which he said that “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America.”

Drudge does not make the point explicitly, but by giving the issue such saturation coverage, he is clearly conveying the impression that Santorum’s words were astonishing.

What makes the senator’s statement so remarkable? That he professed a belief in Satan? Tens of millions of American hold the same belief. That he believes Satan is active in American institutions? Well, if you believe in a malevolent being who seeks to harm mankind, wouldn’t you expect him to work his evil through existing institutions? Granted, we don’t expect to hear political candidates ascribe social problems to Satan. But at the time he delivered this speech—again, it was three years ago—Santorum was not a political candidate. He was speaking as a Catholic, to an audience of his fellow Catholics, at a Catholic university.

Now let’s be honest. Even in Catholic circles, one doesn’t hear Satan mentioned frequently. Many Catholics are uncomfortable with any discussion of unpleasant subjects such as the Devil, Hell, or even sin. Unless I am missing the point entirely, the subtle message of the Drudge Report coverage is that those Catholics—the ones who don’t mention things that might upset people–may be acceptable political candidates. But the ones like Santorum, who actually believe in Satan and say so, are beyond the pale. In other words, Catholics are acceptable candidates if and only if they are prepared to soft-pedal certain inconvenient Church teachings. That’s essentially the message that is regularly conveyed, in less subtle ways, by Maureen Dowd.

The US Constitution (Article VI) explicitly provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” So the government cannot assign a formal religious test. But unless I am much mistaken, the America mass media are imposing an informal one. Santorum’s candidacy is questioned not because he is a Catholic, but because he’s that kind of Catholic. And if we could just eliminate that kind of Catholic, then we’d have… Do you see what we’d have? A political test for holding public office.

Nothing in the argument above should be understood as an endorsement of Sen. Santorum. I think he should be questioned sharply about his views and votes on both domestic and (especially) foreign policy. But not about his faith.

Filed under: General Stuff

Quiz Time

Put on your thinking caps and move away from the google.

 

Who said:

“All of us have heard people say, ‘I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it’s not right for somebody else?’ It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience.”

 

Filed under: General Stuff

Santorum’s Funding of Planned Parentood….

how can that be defended? As hard as it might be for some of my readers to believe, I have been hoping for the best in this situation, really hoping that he was just clueless and didn’t realize what, exactly it is, that Plann.ed Parenthoo.d does. Yet he just keeps going on and on about how wonderful it was that he funded it while in the senate.

I have been called a hate-monger or worse regarding my sharing of this information. I have been told that we are all on a journey for truth. Well, why is that when, presented with facts (truth about his voting record) from his own mouth that people still support Santorum? And they support him, to the point of lying about or denying his record.

I have said this before and I will continue to say it: Isn’t this the biggest insult of all, to have a man claiming to be pro-life yet funding the organization who is at the center of the Life v Choice debate?

 

Santorum’s vote to fund Planned Parenthood indefensible

by Joel McDurmon on Feb 22, 2012

Pro-life website LifeNews.com is attacking a new ad by the Ron Paul campaign which exposes some uncomfortable news for pro-lifers who support Rick Santorum. The ad (video below) simply exposes the fact that Santorum—a warhawk who describes himself as “consistently pro-life”—”even hooked Planned Parenthood up with a few million bucks.”

The statement in the Paul ad is absolutely true, and yet LifeNews’ headline reads “Paul Ad Wrongly Implies Santorum Supports Planned Parenthood.” The article then tries to defend Santorum’s vote, pointing out the vote was part of  ”an overall budget bill that funded the federal government that contained Title X funding,” and then showing that he has been a staunch supporter of funding abortions through PP.

Neither the headline nor the defense is acceptable. The ad does not argue or imply Santorum directly supports abortion, it just proves that he will compromise on the issue given the right circumstances. And it is an unavoidable fact that, for all of his boastful rhetoric about consistency on moral values, Santorum will flip-flop Mitt Romney style even here.

For example, although Santorum told Fox News “Look, I’m not a big fan of Title X, that is Planned Parenthood. No, I want to defund Planned Parenthood,” he turned right around and literally wore his funding vote as a badge in another interview. Tom Woods exposed this nonsense here. Santorum in his own words:

“Just look at my record,” he said smiling, “I was criticized by governor Romney . . . or maybe it was Congressman Paul’s campaign for voting for contraception! That I voted for funding for, I think it was Title X, which I have voted for in the past, that provides for free contraception through organizations even like Planned Parenthood.”

So in his own words, he voted to fund Planned Parenthood and that is exactly and all that the Paul ad states. What makes Christians and pro-lifers uncomfortable with this is not just the hypocrisy involved in voting to support, materially, PP while claiming to be “consistently” pro-life, but more importantly the fact that all funds are fungible. Giving PP funds for the purpose of contraception is just as bad as directly funding abortion because the money for other purposes simply frees PP’s other funds to be used for abortions. This is true for all federal funding in all areas of government.

And this is not just my argument, or Paul’s argument, it is Santorum’s own argument in yet another instance:

“I can’t imagine any other organization with its roots as poisonous as the roots of Planned Parenthood getting federal funding of any kind.”

Can’t you, Rick? Because YOU voted to give PP just that: federal funding, and the most general kind of federal funding there is, directly from Congressional approval.

How in the world can anyone square his vote with his own words?

So while LifeNews may find it ethical to report that Paul’s ad “Wrongly Implies Santorum Supports Planned Parenthood,” I’m not sure how else the giving of federal funds can be defined other than ”Support.” Sure, Mr. Santorum may indeed oppose abortion, but due to this vote it is not wrong to imply or even to state openly that he has supported Planned Parenthood. That may be difficult to admit for some people, but it is a clear and inescapable fact.

Filed under: General Stuff

Some more thinking….

I have boycotted companies known to donate money or in other ways support Planned Parenthood and I know many of you also do that same thing. Yet, for some, it is perfectly okay to vote for the candidate who had (and still seems to have) no problems sending millions of our tax payer dollars to them each year.

 

Filed under: General Stuff

Torture and the Catholic Church

CCC 2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

I have been giving this subject a lot of thought lately. I have actually been thinking about it for a few years, but was a coming and going thought and with the rigors of daily life, I never sat down to read up on the teachings of the Church on the subject. I my heart I knew it was wrong, but so many people were in some ways “pro” torture, so I thought I was missing something. Turns out, the Church comes down on torture much harder than I realized.

I was reading up on the subject during my “quiet time” the other day and came across a blog and this post.

Positions of The Republican candidates on torture and related issues

It has been quite some time since I’ve posted anything on this blog; life has simply been busy, but I hope to remedy things as the 2012 election season heats up.

For today, I’d simply like to post the position of the various Republican candidates on the issue of torture/enhanced interrogation and related issues. I’m drawing my summaries from various sources, so I’ll include a selection of links at the bottom of the post.

The candidates are listed in alphabetical order.

Gingrich: Has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is something America shouldn’t do. Believes that Guantanamo should remain open until the terrorists disappear.

Huntsman: Opposes waterboarding; calls Guantanamo an “imperfect solution” but criticizes Obama for breaking his promise to close it.

Paul: Opposes torture and waterboarding as illegal and immoral; opposes Patriot Act; thinks Guantanamo should be closed.

Perry: Says he opposes torture but approves of enhanced interrogation which includes “any technique” used to save American lives. Supports keeping Guantanamo open.

Romney: Favors enhanced interrogation techniques and will not say whether waterboarding qualifies as such a technique. Has said Guantanamo could be doubled in size if needed.

Santorum: Voted to renew Patriot Act. Would continue using Guantanamo for terror suspects. Says that waterboarding is effective. Said John McCain didn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works, that the object is to break a man so he will become cooperative.

 

The current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI and our former Holy Father, Blessed John Paul II both addressed torture. In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI said,

“In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”

He was repeating what Blessed John Paul II wrote, in 2004,

In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

 

 

 

Filed under: Catholic, General Stuff, Social Commentary

Just Thinking….

I am pretty disgusted with so called Pro Life groups supporting a candidate who think nothing wrong with funding Title X, yet ignore the man who has introduced more pro-life legislation than any other person in Congress.

Honestly, why aren’t more people upset about this? Are we perfectly okay to sit back and let our tax dollars go to fund something we are completely opposed to, while voting for the men who say “yes” to funding it? Doesn’t anyone else find this insulting? Doesn’t it defeat what we have done?

Filed under: Catholic

A Link or two…(updated)

I saw this earlier today, but wanted to wait until I had a free moment to blog. Well my waiting paid off because someone else did my work for me 😉

For those who are only going to read this part: Santorum has no problem using your tax payer dollars to fund birth control. He was also on Greta and implied that the birth control pill was not an abortafaciet.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/02/17/santorum-defends-moral-versus-political-stance-contraception-while-caught-crossfire-super

If you are a Santorum supporter, you owe it to yourself to watch/listen to these.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/02/mr-catholic.html

So Rick Santorum does an interview with Hannity where he proudly declares that he votes to spend your dough on contraceptives and abortifacients (jump to the 9:05 mark).  (Note: the link has the audio clip)

Only he doesn’t say “abortifacients” because he tries to snow the audience that the Pill is not an abortifacient, only the “morning after” pill is. But, in fact, the Pill *is* an abortifacient. So Santorum has effectively voted to support abortion.

Meanwhile, that kerrrayyyzy Ron Paul strongly opposes federal funding for birth control. Why? Because it’s not the job of the Feds to provide birth control.

So we have a non-Catholic candidate who opposes compelling people to pay for what other people choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom, and we have a Catholic candidate who is “personally opposed” like Cuomo but who chooses to compel people (including Catholics) to pay for what other people do in the privacy of their bedroom, even when it includes abortifacients. He makes a show of opposing the morning after pill. But that’s not the only abortifacient.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Happily, Santorum is in the groove on the things that *really* matter to the GOP leadership–pre-emptive war, preserving the precious legacy of Bush era torture, and the sacred pre-eminence of corporate profits over the needs of human beings. So his private fetish about being semi-prolife is fine, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the real agenda. And since he’s already shown himself to be a good soldier when the party demanded he prostitute himself for Specter, we can be sure he won’t make a thing about abortion really. So he’ll be useful for suckering the prolifers back on to the reservation again.

I’m leaning back toward just voting third party and refusing to support either of these corrupt machines. Either way, Obama doesn’t get my vote, and I will not feel like I need a shower if I don’t vote GOP.

Filed under: General Stuff

Anniversary, Birthdays, and German Chocolate Cake

Last night we celebrated Joshua’s birthday. He isn’t big on his birthday but the kids would just die if we didn’t have cake 😉 Joshua likes German Chocolate cake so I found a recipe for and was very excited to try it out.

Here is Karol, waiting for the cake to be cut into. Pardon the drippy icing, I am still learning how to do cakes w/humidity (in February).

The cake after being cut into, it held up nicely!

Side view, doesn’t it look great!

On Thursdays, we go to 6pm Mass at our Parish. This means that we do not get back home until around 7 or so (last night was 745 b/c we stopped by Lowes). What we generally do is feed the kids before Mass then do bedtime routine when we get home and dinner after they are in bed. Last night, we did cake first, then made dinner for ourselves.

The other night Joshua talked about having a chicken sandwich, something we never have at home, mainly because I don’t buy boneless skinless chicken breasts. I do, however buy chicken thighs. I decided to try my hand at a chicken po-boy. I used a bread recipe I got from my friend Stefanie and kinda put the rest together from things I have seen on cooking shows.

Here is Joshua’s sandwich (well one of three or four that he ate!). He really enjoyed it. So much so that he kept complimenting me on them.

 (Oh, and the anniversary part? Nine years ago yesterday, I met Joshua.)

Filed under: Food, General Stuff

{pretty, happy, funny, real}

~ Capturing the context of everyday life ~

round button chicken

Today I am linking up with Like Mother, Like Daughter for {pretty, happy, funny, real}

{pretty}

IMG_20120216_101440.jpg

My beautiful children, a true blessing from God.

IMG_20120216_101418.jpg

{happy}

Nine years ago today, I met my husband, Joshua. It’s hard to believe we’ve known each other for that long!

{funny}

IMG_20120216_101206.jpg

This is not the day we met, but this is what he was wearing when we met. (a picture of a picture, sorry!)

(Long story made short: We met while I was discerning religious life and he was a religious brother. We became friends and that was it, until the first time we saw each other after he had discerned that he was not called to be a priest.  We knew that day that we would be married and were married a year and two months later, a year and a half from the day we met.)

{real}

 IMG_20120216_110705.jpg

The real beauty that came from the friendship that began nine years ago!
IMG_20120213_191138.jpg
Benedict watching Holy Baby – he covered himself up.
IMG_20120210_105620.jpg
They are really good friends.
Filed under: General Stuff