Good illustration of my problem with Rick Santorum's "preaching"
Here's a good illustration of why I'm tired of Rick Santorum talking about the Catholic Church's views on marriage and contraception. The guest host filling in for Dennis Prager today--not sure who it is--just stated this and I'm paraphrasing:
Rick Santorum believes that if you have sexual relations with your spouse without an accompanying desire to conceive a child then that somehow diminishes your relationship with your spouse. And I have a problem with that.
First of all, regardless of whether this misrepresented anything that the former Senator from Pennsylvania said, what the talk show host stated definitely misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church. The church doesn't teach that you always have to be desiring a child when having intercourse. Otherwise what is having sex while using NFP? or while the woman is already pregnant? The Church teaches that married couples should be open to life, not that they possess a desire for pregnancy each time they engage in sexual relations. Father Pavone has often stated that it is more important to have welcomed children than wanted children, so that is another way to make the distinction.
So here's my problem with Santorum bringing all this up. It doesn't matter if Santorum said exactly that or whether he said something which better represented the teaching of the Catholic Church. Whatever he did say is now out there in the echo chamber and is being reacted to by people who understand and by those who misunderstand, by those who agree and by those who disagree. And this Presidential election is not about contraception at all. It's about the economy, it's about the size of government, it's about the role of government, it's about individual freedom. Et cetera. I don't think the HHS Mandate and that whole battle is really even about contraception either, nor sterilization nor even abortion. It's about freedom of conscience and the rights of religious institutions which are under attack.
Sure, I think it's great to spread what Pope John Paul II called the Gospel of Life, and there is no shortage of material available for anyone who wants to study and discuss it. The Roman Catholic Church has been incredibly careful to elucidate its teachings about human sexuality. A presidential campaign is a terrible venue in which to promote these easily misunderstood doctrines, and Santorum's off-the-cuff style doesn't help. Public figures who are Roman Catholic should be content to allow their strong, and sometimes large, Catholic families be a silent witness to their acceptance of Church teachings. They should certainly avoid looking like street preacher wanna-bes.
All this off-the-cuff (and VERY CARELESS) proselytizing just confirms my belief that Rick glommed onto this catholic so-con angle to further his political career. The cat is so virulently ambitious that it doesn't matter whether or not his beliefs are "genuine" -- he has seven kids, so he's committed, that's for sure. But I have trouble believing someone so inarticulate didn't consider he'd be getting a boost by affiliating himself with a school of thought that boasts intellects like WFB. He desperately wanted a political career and he needed an angle. "Conservative Catholic" was the perfect angle. All he had to do was switch from pro-choice to pro-life, which history tells us happened relatively late in his years-long quest for national office. Even I was surprised to learn how late he was to the pro-life party. And after this primary cycle, it should be obvious that the guy will stop at nothing to get votes. Already he has done incalculable harm to the image of catholic conservatism.
ReplyDeleteHe's done incalculable harm to the image of social conservatism.
ReplyDeleteevery day he's a bigger embarrassment:
ReplyDeletehttp://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/02/santorum-campaign-claims-romney-win-in-michigan-was-really-a-draw.html
Long time, no see, y'all, but I think I must respectfully disagree on a couple points.
ReplyDeletePauli, as a committed Southern Baptist, I disagree with Catholicism on the inherent immorality of artifical contraception, but I think one can point out the political perils in its widespread use: it has turned children into something of a disease, when our understanding for millennia has been that children are a blessing, and this has become even more important with the collapse of Western fertility rates and the looming bankruptcy of the inter-generational welfare state.
In other words, one could make a Steynian point about all this even if the explicitly Catholic position is something of a digression.
The Left is looking to paint socons as complete lunatics, asking about contraception in a debate that preceded the HHS mandate, and digging up four-year-old speeches. I wish we did have a more stalwart conservative candidate who was more choosy about what battles to pick, but I appreciate Santorum's willingness to fight.
Ultimately, I agree with Mark Steyn that the debt is a symptom of deeper civilizational rot, that the problem is ultimately cultural, and I've slowly decided to support a very flawed candidate in Santorum partially because he's a culture warrior.
--
Kathleen, I know people who sincerely believe that Barack Obama is looking for a real identity and he's only latched on to the Marxist radicalism of his father and the authenticity of angry blacks like Michelle and Jeremiah Wright.
It really doesn't matter whether, in the deepest recess of his soul, Obama is really who his record and history show himself to be. He has acted as a stealth radical, and he's doing significant harm to this country regardless.
The train of thought makes me ambivalent about your conclusions about Santorum. Maybe he is assuming the mantle of Catholic culture warrior because of sheer ambition, but there are worse mantles to wear, and he seems committed to it even if it's just a performance.
In an eternal sense, I strongly disagree with the claim in Batman Begins:
"It's not who i am underneath, but what i do that defines me."
Ultimately, those who are saved by faith in Christ are defined by God's actions, but politically, the claim is close enough for my tastes.
I have no problem with that maxim applying to politics. Let's also remember, however, what Santorum "does" politically: he mangles the language, he makes nonsensical arguments, he "takes one for the team" even when it means voting against his conscience, he cynically recruits democrats to vote in a republican primary, and he whines constantly. Most catholics, when putting themselves forward as the public face of catholicism, try to do better. I guess their personal ambition, unlike Santorum's, doesn't get in the way.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would not give for a modern day Hillaire Belloc. He knew how to apply Catholic principles to political life.
ReplyDeleteBubba, you make good points, and I don't care so much about Santorum's inner motives on all this. I guess I hope and pray that if Santorum is the nominee that he won't allow himself to be outmaneuvered WRT the issue of contraception vis a vis independent voters.
ReplyDelete