At around the age of twelve, Roman Catholics receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. One of seven sacraments, this represents a bestowing the Gift of the Holy Spirit. The practice enables one to spread and defend faith in a set of teachings in actions as well as in words.
For Roman Catholics, including Rick Santorum, those teachings include the principles of social justice and a reverence for the environment. The strength comes from accepting this call to demonstrate faith in a set of principles on a daily basis. This acceptance confirms an important step in the development of a Catholic’s life and faith in making that choice.
Public discourse typically avoids a discussion of religious and spiritual matters. The separation of church and state as outlined in the Establishment Clause of the Constitution has kept the focus away from religion, although that has not always been the case in the aftermath of 9/11. But Rick Santorum’s rise to prominence in the current political debate and his public announcing of his religion has now forced the issue onto center stage.
In doing so, Mr. Santorum has demonstrated that his Catholicism remains unconfirmed. The former Pennsylvania Senator professes to have a strong faith in his religious teachings and yet his public record indicates another reality. The Catholic Church has taken very explicit positions on a range of public issues which Rick Santorum has also weighed in on and voted on as a senator.
Mr. Santorum recently said openly, “They talk about income inequality. 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 risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality.” This of course begs the question of who decides which job is harder than others and who works harder at them.
The Papal Encyclical issued June 29, 2009, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) reiterates many of the progressive social teachings of the Church for 21st Century followers. One of its most salient principles calls attention to distributive and social justice: “…the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy, not only because it belongs within a broader social and political context, but also because of the wider network of relations within which it operates.”
Santorum has said,”I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families.” This statement is obviously ripe with faux pas. Suffice to say that when examined against the papal letter, Mr. Santorum’s comment indicates a clear disregard of Catholic teaching.
Let’s not forget the third word in this encyclical issued by your Pope in your church, Mr. Santorum: truth. Belief in economic inequality may be fine for your political base Mr. Santorum, but don’t hide behind the veil of your religion to justify your positions on public policy.
Candy Hill, senior vice president for social policy and government affairs for Catholic Charities USA recently said “the best possible scenario is a bipartisan agreement and not a partisan political debate,” she said. “The poor and marginalized are at risk whenever there is a partisan political debate.” Regarding the Catholic Church’s support for the poor, Mr. Santorum says, “I’m not too sure I understand what that term–preferential option for the poor… in what respect?”
Santorum has promoted himself as a staunch supporter of life. While his consistency with the Church’s position regarding abortion may be the only issue in agreement between the two, it’s questionable how that should translate into public policy and the consequent dominion of choice a woman should have over her health, body and personal welfare. “Life,” Mr. Santorum, applies to women and all of humanity. Ethical consistency means all of life, not just one aspect.
The living environment and the health of all its ecosystems is another critically important area of life. The 2009 encyclical states, “…technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption, either through an evolution in manufacturing methods or through greater ecological sensitivity among their citizens.”
The U.S. Conference of Bishops also takes an explicit stand on the environment with its Environmental Justice Program. The Program “seeks to educate and motivate Catholics to a deeper reverence and respect for God’s creation, and to encourage Catholics to address environmental problems, particularly as they affect poor and vulnerable people.”
Rick Ungar recently wrote that various groups supporting a prolife position have rejected Santorum’s opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency, saying that it opposes those groups who support a prolife agenda.
On June 15, 2001 the United States Conference of Bishops issued a statement on climate change. They wrote, “The United States bears a special responsibility in its stewardship of God’s creation to shape responses that serve the entire human family. As pastors, teachers, and citizens, we bishops seek to contribute to our national dialogue by examining the ethical implications of climate change….. Whatever the extent, severity, or geographical distribution of global warming impacts, the problem is expected to disproportionately affect the poor, the vulnerable, and generations yet unborn.”
Mr. Santorum’s view is that climate change is “junk science.”
During the presidential debates Mr. Santorum has endorsed torture. He seems to forget that his own religion has vehemently defended the dignity of every human being. In the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, issued on December 7, 1965, the Church refers to torture as representing a “supreme dishonor”.
Again, Mr. Santorum’s faith is apparently unconfirmed if we are to believe his support for waterboarding.
In January 2011, The Conference of Bishops issued a statement on immigration. They point out that “Survival has thus become the primary impetus for unauthorized immigration flows into the United States.” In terms of public policy the Conference supports, “An earned legalization program would allow foreign nationals of good moral character who are living in the United States to apply to adjust their status to obtain lawful permanent residence.”
Santorum has publicly disagreed with the bishops on this issue, saying that “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.” Not only is this statement in direction contradiction to those who establish the official views within Santorum’s own religious community but it’s also just plain ignorant. Santorum is in effect saying that the United States should deny its own legacy of providing a beacon of hope that welcomes all people seeking refuge from oppression. This is the vision that has historically shaped our immigration policy, not the other way around. Home schooling has not worked for you Mr. Santorum.
In their best selling 2010 book American Grace: How Religion Divides Us, Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell identify the religious polarization that affects public attitudes far beyond the church pew. Santorum’s views do nothing to unite people, whether new immigrants, second generation minorities, or any other Americans. Santorum’s Catholicism divides people rather than unite them.
Santorum has also been a consistent supporter of hunting, the right for all Americans to own guns, and aggressive military action against other nations, including war. These views all directly oppose those of the Vatican. War is not prolife.
Despite his heterodox views, he has gained some traction among certain Catholics. A super PAC called the Catholic Vote Candidate Fund, has apparently bought radio ads in New Hampshire. If this group’s support stems from the single issue of abortion as it probably does, much of the prolife ethic of consistency across all arenas that the Vatican and U.S. Conference of Bishops propose gets lost. One dimensional support does not vindicate Santorum’s so-called faith. It remains unconfirmed. It certainly doesn’t follow the teachings of his professed religion.
On a broader scale, Rick Santorum’s candidacy for President of the United States represents a denunciation of social, economic and environmental justice. It clearly and directly opposes liberty and justice for all. The real loyalty in his views and policy positions show his love for money and its concentration among those who will serve his rise among peers. The costs to people and the environment are irrelevant to Santorum. His views are reactionary and seek to solidify the pre-New Deal America that is already threatening Americans with the latest rise of the American Right.
Of course, this is all fine. Mr. Santorum is free to promote his brand of conservatism. But what’s insidious about his self-portrayal as a devout Catholic using the proclamation of scripture while conspiring to further alienate Americans from their right to succeed through an American tradition of social and economic mobility is that many Americans believe him. It disingenuously wins over less informed Americans while alienating them from access to the very social mobility that has made Mr. Santorum a current frontrunner for the GOP nomination for President of the United States.



14 Comments

Since Santorum has brought forced this issue, I have decided to right about it.
Thanks for reminding us what Catholicism is really about. I cringe at the public positions pseudo-Catholics like Santorum and Gingrich take, all too often with the more or less open support of the Church’s current, reprobate hierarchy. I especially cringe at their contempt for separation of Church and State.
Because the Pope has condemned abortion and homosexual marriages, tried to exempt the dioceses from secular laws against child molestation, and called for state subsidies to religious schools, we are told that we should support candidates like Santorum. They will do his bidding. By tearing down the wall between secular and sacred life, they will make us a more spiritual, moral, religious society.
But this is not a Catholic position at all. Separation of Church and State was inherent in Catholic thought long before in was codified in the US Constitution. It was formulated explicitly by Saint Augustine in the early 5th century. It is embodied in the history of the Papacy (in the Orthodox East, the Emperor headed the Church, something the bishops of Rome rejected). But the separation was implicit in Catholic life from the very beginning. The martyrs suffered and died because they could not accept a society that made religious observance a required part of political, legal, and economic life. They would not worship the head of state, Caesar, as a god. They would not accept legally mandated participation in pagan sacrifices. They could not equate worldly success with holiness. So, if anything, the so-called religious right’s position is anything but Judaeo-Christian: it is pagan. It worships secular society–something made by human hands–rather than the Creator.
Historically, separation of Church and State has beeen especially critical to Catholics. The Protestant Church of England was the legally established church of most of pre-revolutionary America, even in Puritan New England. Catholicism was a minority religion, persecuted everywhere except Rhode Island and Quaker Pennsylvania. The anti-establishment clause was added to the Constitution with this minority experience in mind. I, for one, am old to remember that our first Catholic president was John Kennedy and that his election was controversial in some quarters on grounds of his religion.
Thanks for your comments robspierre.
In the midst of the total destruction of freedom and liberty in the fascist, theocratic, corporate states of America it is awe inspiring to know there still is room for black humour and yards of it at that.
In response to your laughter inspiring suggestion that the would-be Inquisitor General Ricitatis Santorum is giving the Roman Catholic Church a bad rap by distorting the dogma of that august organization, allow me to add a summation of thoroughly documented, relevant historic facts.
The tears of its victims will never wash away the oceans of innocent blood spilled by the most monstrous and evil institution created by the most pathological inner machinations of the human mind, the Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church in its dogma and actions is and forever will be mankind’s ultimate crime against humanity.
Therefore, allow me to interject a short refrain to your laughter provoking diary: Chime the bell, close the tome, and extinguish the taper on the blight of the human mind: The Roman Catholic Church.
You look at a Roman Catholic clergyman in 2012 and see an enemy. I look at the same clergyman and see at least potential ally. Did not their Christ teach, “As you treat the least of these(meaning the poor), so you have treated me?” and “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?”
The message of Jesus of Nazareth is neither oppressive nor oligarchical. The message of Rick Santorum is both. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church enthusiastically engaged in both in the past. My own ancestors chose to flee to an England in the midst of revolution and civil war because they had a better chance of surviving there than they did in Germany during the Thirty Years War. At least most Catholics, including Popes, no longer support that kind of thinking.
As for the Roman Catholic Church being a “blight on the human mind,” there have been far worse blights advocated by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ayn Rand, and Pol Pot. Atheists all.
Never has so much blood been spilled as in the reign of Christ.
To the best of my knowledge the likes of “…Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ayn Rand, and Pol Pot.” didn’t last for over two thousand years and is still going strong today.
And the words of the Christ: hearsay at best; manipulated fiction at worst.
Whoever or whatever was the Jewish person referred to as ‘Jesus’ would weep tears of bitter grief at what mankind has done in his name as would any honorable human being.
Santorum wants to bomb Iran. He’s pretty stupid so he may not know that the Pope doesn’t like that idea. But then George Bush and Barack Obama (both murderers) claim to be Christians. Who would Jesus bomb? Pretty much nobody. Although it is reported he kicked some banker ass in his day.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ayn Rand, and Pol Pot.
Four of the above are modern mass murderers. Can you guess which one is a novelist who never killed anybody?
Of course. Though I think “novelist” is too high a praise for her, but that’s just my aesthetic opinion.
But I was referring to a blight on the human mind. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is such a blight, and has just as much potential for mass murder and evil as Stalinism ever did.
Whether there really was a Jesus of Nazareth is irrelevant. The ideas of those who believed, and believe, in him are definitely relevant.
There’s a very simple reason that Christianity is still around, and it has nothing to do with mass murder or the atrocities that were committed in its name. It is the same reason that Buddhism and Islam are still around. At their core is the old Golden Rule–to treat others as one would be treated by others.
Even agnostics and atheists should see THAT.
Some future bloody tyrant may claim Ayn Rand as inspiration. Don’t you believe it. Ayn Rand does not advocate murder.
He is awful, but being that I live on the ground in Iowa, I will tell you that it was crossover Obama supporters that put him over the top, here. They are thrilled to use him as a bogey to scare support for Obama, just like the used Sarah Palin.
Fortunately most other states have abandoned the corrupt caucus system so he is not likely to do well from here on out.
Since I am not a Catholic this diary was very informative for me. I don’t find any of the R candidates especially religious and Santorum is just a whack job. I read this morning that he has dropped to fifth in NH.
@workingclass
Rand perhaps didn’t advocate murder (though implementing her philosophy would invariably lead to it), but she did admire a murderer.