• Subscribe to Crisis

  • Quixotic Rick Santorum

    by Christian Tappe

    santorum_knight_2

    I half expect to stumble upon a YouTube video of Rick Santorum galloping through a field, lance in hand. Coming upon a small hill, he spurs his trusty steed onward, picking up speed as he nears the crest. Suddenly, he sees the arm of the enemy swing toward him. Pulling his head close to the nape of his stallion’s neck, he readies his lance to strike, and grits his teeth. Clang. He collapses in a heap at the base of one of those grotesque wind-turbine windmills. Looking up, he curses the wretched beast, climbs back onto his horse and circles down the hill to shake of the daze and ready himself for another futile charge.

    The world would laugh and I’d run out to my nearest Renaissance festival to be outfitted with a suit of armor and a mace.

    It’s not that I have a strong aversion to wind power. Of course, I’m speaking metaphorically.

    In many ways, Rick Santorum is tilting at windmills. It’s a seemingly futile battle against the dark forces of modernity. But one that must be taken up.

    Santorum recently questioned the, shall we say, orthodoxy of President Obama’s theology. And this week, news outlets dug up a speech Santorum gave at Ave Maria University in 2008 in which he warned that Satan was at odds with America.

    “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.” Going further, he remarked, “We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

    Those sorts of remarks aren’t going to help him win any elections. His staunch and outspoken views on contraception aren’t going to help either. Neither will his defense of the nuclear, heterosexual family. Nor will his views on gays, abortions, the creation of the world, sex, religion, morality, and a whole host of other things.

    He’s criticized loudly and often in the media for his statements on religion and morality. He’s been branded as a misogynist, a crazy zealot, an idiot, and an enemy of science. He’s been labeled a bigot for his views on homosexuality. Worse, he’s the object of a terribly prominent, and terribly offensive, internet “prank,” which, until recently, held a firm grasp on the number one spot after Googling “Rick Santorum”.

    And despite it all, Santorum continues to battle, hacking away at an enemy with more heads and more persistence than the Hydra.

    Santorum, the candidate, can be criticized for many things. His view of government is not exactly one that is small, frugal, and local. Where foreign policy is concerned, he’s one of the higher soaring hawks.

    As a candidate Santorum may not be ideal, and that’s probably just as well, because you’re not getting elected in this country running on a platform that’s equal parts traditional Catholic social teaching and the Neo-Con brand of biggish government.

    But as a defender of the faith…he’s not half bad. And, frankly, he’s the best we’ve got right now. The bishops may continue to pleasantly surprise the laity when they meet in March and discuss the HHS mandate. And yes, there’s always the newspaper columnist or occasional talking head who comes to the defense of the Church. But when it comes to a sustained and focused attack on modernity in defense of Catholicism, Rick Santorum is as good as it gets.

    He’s in the public eye. He is, amazingly, a legitimate presidential candidate. And he is, first and foremost, a Catholic. He wears it on his sleeve, and he doesn’t apologize for it. Santorum is the polar opposite of John F. Kennedy who famously said: “I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.” That statement helped gain Kennedy the presidency.

    And it’s Santorum’s persistent refusal to make a similar statement that will help crush his chances at the White House. And I pray that he remains strong. I pray that we don’t get a rehash of 2004. It certainly appears that Santorum has learned from his suspect endorsement of Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey for U.S. Senator.

    Aside from my misgivings about some of Santorum’s fiscal and foreign policies, I just don’t think he’s presidential material. This was on display in the recent debate in Arizona where Santorum struggled to defend instances where he eschewed his principles for “the team.”  Rather, he has the stuff of a shabby but brave knight errant. And I mean that with the highest admiration. He doesn’t sit back. He doesn’t ruminate on the issues. He doesn’t compromise. And that hurts his image. It sometimes leads to mistakes.

    But I admire someone like that. Someone who rushes passionately into the fray to defend his faith and beliefs. Someone willing to take blow after blow from the unceasing monster of modernity in order to get in a few shots of his own.

    Santorum is certainly not perfect. He is probably not electable. But he has the faith and the fortitude to dive headlong—again and again—into battle, bearing the standard of Christ as best he can.

    It’s best for him and for all of us that he remains a wandering knight, fighting the good fight. Better to have him out there, unchained from the Oval Office. Better for him to fearlessly and tirelessly defend the Church, the family, morals, and the unborn, rather than to try wade through the political quagmire.

    No, I don’t want him taking up residence in the White House…I want him taking up his lance, donning his sweater-vested armor and hacking away at the enemy in the name of the Church.

    No politician is going to save us. Our culture and our society will not be reclaimed by the political process. But a man willing to hurl himself at seemingly unassailable enemies in the name of truth and goodness, over and over? That can change hearts and minds.

    As Cervantes wrote: “One man scorned and covered with scars still strove with his last ounce of courage to reach the unreachable stars; and the world was better for this.”

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Print this   |   Share this

    • L E Gabriel Smith

      You dismissed Rick. 
      Then who gets your vote? 
      More importantly, why should I vote for your candidate? 
      It is dishonest to write a negative article about candidate, without revealing the candidate the author supports.  Your support for your man helps me to know where you come from. 

      • John Key

        I think the assessment here is not a broadside against Santorum. Tappe clearly admires him as a Catholic and is simply pointing out that our culture is so far gone that someone with strong religiously inspired moral convictions is going to have a terrible chance of winning in a general election. Ron Paul said someting similar not long ago. If anyone knows that standing on principle isn’t popular, its Paul.

        But that is not even the heart of the article. Rick is a bold guy and he might do more for the common good as a high profile citizen than as an executive. Not that we need more media personalities, but imagine Rick on air and what tremendous influence he’d be able to have.

        • peadarban

          “(I)magine Rick on air and what tremendous influence he’d be able to have.”

          Indeed I can.  But, I have an almost certain feeling that that would last until the Obama FCC ruled such kinds of speech as Mr. Santorum’s on the ublic airwaves was a violation of its rules, and effectively did away with the rest of the First Amendment thereby.  He would go soon to be followed by EWTN…and, eventually Crisis magazine. Then would come the American samizdat and Fareiheit 451.  But, by that time, at my age, I’ll probably be in the recycle center.

    • Jcsmitty1212

      Then again, the figure Santorum might more closely represent is David of the Old Testament. Nothing is impossible with God. Wouldn’t it be awesome if Santorum was the David who surprised his skeptics and beat Goliath with his mighty slingshot?

    • Artmmartin

      “Those sorts of remarks aren’t going to help him win any elections.”  Mr. Tappe, your opinion lacks FAITH.  
      Ephesians 6:12  states,”For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.”John 8:31-32  states,”Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

      With prayer and fasting the demons in America
      will be cast out, but we will pay the price for our infidelity.
       After WWII, the famous German Stigmatist and Mystic Therese Neumann told some American servicemen
      that God would spare America the ordeal of the concentration camps
      because of her generosity to other nations.  And that God will bring
      America back by disturbances in nature that
      will continue until America gets on her knees in prayer.  

    • Francis Wippel

      With all due respect to the author of this article, I think this article is defeatist and silly.  The insistence that Santorum is not Presidential material made me laugh: as if Obama is Presidential material and is doing a better job than Santorum would do.
       
      Buying into the criticism that Santorum is not electable because of his beliefs and how he handles himself in debates just plays into the opposition’s hands.  Santorum is doing as well in national polls against Obama as any Republican.  In addition, what is scoring with many voters is his economic plan, especially his focus on revitalizing the manufacturing sector in our nation.  Santorum is the one candidate in recent memory who actually seems to care about doing that.  It is the media that is spending so much time focusing on the social issues, and they’re doing it for one reason: they don’t want him running against Obama.  Why?  Because of all the candidates, Santorum is the least shy about pointing out the failures of the incumbent, especially Obama’s deliberate attempts to steamroll the first amendment.  
       
      This type of criticism reminds me of what I saw and heard about Ronald Reagan back in 1979-1980.  Reagan was considered a war monger because of his hard-line against the Soviet Union.  He was sure to initiate a nuclear conflict, we were told.  His economic plan was labeled ‘voodoo’ by members of his own party.  In addition, his willingness to speak about his conservative beliefs on social issues and his adamant pro-life stance were seen as turning off women voters.  A man who was so unabashedly pro-life could never win the White House.  To make matters worse, Reagan was divorced, which would turn off some of the more religious Republican voters.  We were told a Reagan nomination would guarantee four more years of the incumbent Jimmy Carter, a President whose economic failures may end up being eclipsed by Obama’s.  In short, we were told a Reagan nomination would be a disaster.
       
      The GOP insiders got behind George H. W. Bush; the GOP primary voters made the wiser choice.  Even the press couldn’t believe it on election night, when Reagan trounced Carter by 10%.
       
      No, I am not saying Santorum is going to be another Reagan.  But accepting the mainstream media’s template that a social conservative with a solid, economic, energy, and foreign policy approach cannot be elected nationally has been proven wrong in the past.  Santorum has already surprised EVERYONE by doing as well as he has to this point.  Let this process play out, and don’t buy into the fear that most of the mainstream press (90% of whom vote for the Democrat in Presidential races) is dishing out.  There is a reason the media wants Romney to win the nomination; because they believe he’ll be easier for Obama to defeat.

    • Richard Bastien

      There is something slightly disingenuous in this commentary and it is rather disconcerting to see it stamped with the imprimatur of Crisis Magazine. Christian Tappe wants to be seen as both intellectually sophisticated and politically realistic: he says nice things about Santorum’s beliefs and then dismisses him as a serious presidential contender, this at a time when support for Santorum is growing fast. With friends like that, who needs adversaries? 

      • Marchmaine

        I am very glad to see Crisis looking at both politicians and policies through a Catholic lens and not simply a Republican lens.  This is a refreshing corrective that is long overdue.

        Mr. Tappe does an excellent job of praising Santorum for his determined and dogged stances in favor of important Catholic truths.  More importantly, he recognizes that Santorum’s foreign policy stances are not particularly impressive (in fact they are slavishly Neo-Con), and I might add that his public comments on “enhanced interrogation techniques” can and should be scrutinized by Catholics; and Crisis should be exactly the place to do it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1211206247 Kacey M Brown

         I second this. Also, this seems to completely forget that this is the only “horrible stuff” that can be found against Santorum, and most of the quotes being used to portray him as a Don Quixote are taken out of context.  Santorum detractors love to portray that he is running as a preacher when in fact these things have been said in appropriate forums such as school speeches etc.  It would seem Christian Tappe’s argument is deep conviction disqualifies Santorum, but I encourage anyone to contrast him with our current Preisdent who has no qualms speaking eloquently at Notre Dame about working together on the one hand while the other hand works to tear down the church and remove it from the public square at every turn…   Who sees the windmills now I wonder? And who is really fighting the wind?

    • Parlato_charles

      All I can say is thank God Evangelicals do not read Crisis.  it is clear that the author would never do anything to embarrass himself. Respectability is utmost.

      Who are you, Mr. Tappe?  We know Rick Santorum, and he is not Don Quixote tilting at windmills. He is leading the party right now. He is likely to get this nomination and will likely win the general election.

      This column drips with condescension, and then Crisis and the church wonders why it cannot seem to have a place at the table. For shame.

    • Chassup

      Christian Tappe, and by extension Crisis Magazine seem to be saying, “Rick is a great example of a man striving to live the faith we share, fighting the good fight, standing up to the enemy in our midst, a man who has stumbled, learned and fights on, but he can’t win an election because he sounds a little crazy with all that talk of evil and sin and Satan, not to mention God and life and family.  America has moved past God, we must work inside the secular statist context to have a place at the table, we must make a deal with the devil to survive.”
      Take a look at Obama’s ascendence… from a nobody radical poverty pimp, rabble rouser to State Senator, US Senator to US President in only 12 years!  All along the way his elections were marked by competitors falling by the wayside, being defeated by their own sinful lives catching up to them. He won both the 2004 primary and general election for the US Senate “after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed,” the Chicago Tribune writes.  The way was paved for him, for his ascendency.  Was there a supernatural power involved?  Was Rick Santorum’s speech in 2008 just a little too accurate for some to hear?Call me a Don Quixote, call me a dreamer, call me crazy because I believe God’s provenance can overcome any enemy.  I’m not claimiung sainthood or prophet staus for Rick, but I do believe God provides opportunities if we’re humble enough to see them.  American voters are tired of candidates who make deals with the devil to get elected and stay in office, they are hungry for authenticity and goodness.  Tapper itemizes and admires Santorum’s virtues, then predicts those same virtues make him unelectable.  Tappe’s argument is very familiar, Washington is corrupt with many who’ve used that calculus, and it is leading our nation to perdition.  Tapper’s advice for Santorum is keep crying out Rick, just stay out there in the wilderness.

      Are Christian Tappe, and Crisis Magazine, surrendering?  Are they advising American voters, and specifically Catholic voters to make the old deal with the devil?

    • Sue

      Christian Tappe does more here than just dismiss Rick in his chances to win.  He clearly says that while he likes his solid Catholic stance, he doesn’t want him in office.  Does that mean that if Rick gets the nomination, the anti-Catholic re-writer of the Constitution who would take away the right to freedom of religious expression in the public square has your vote?  Rick was an honest man in the last debates.  He admitted that some of his decisions in the past were wrong – he has learned and he has grown.  Terrible!  He supported Spectre but for reasons he considered more pressing at the time… we needed to get good judges into the Supreme Court.  I don’t agree on that issue but refuse to support him because he thought that the best means to get good judges?  And as for voting with the team – ANYONE … and I mean anyone who has worked in gov’t for any length of time has had to do that at one time or another and to say otherwise is to deny reality.  Likewise, it often happens in budget legislation that you have to accept some very unacceptable items to get an entire budget through.  The left-wing media always jumps on that and says “flip-flopping”.  Bills RARELY come out from floor debates the way you want them to.  We don’t like it?  Then, we don’t like the system and that needs to change but, Rick can hardly be blamed for that.  You call Rick big gov’t, apparently because he voted to raise the debt ceiling, but the fact is that was almost if not totally necessary to keep the gov’t from defaulting on its debts and throwing the world economy into a worse mess.  Still, he has a plan to bring the debt down and he is actually very much into the Catholic policy of subsidiarity.  I don’t think Rick won the debates in Arizona by any means but then, Romney and Paul were both on the constant attack.  Considering all, he actually came out alright and still looking honest while Romney actually lied and Paul, at least to me, seemed totally out of touch with reality.  I would still gladly vote for any of the top three nominees over the like of one who seems to hold our constitution in contempt.  As St. Thomas More told us, when the rule of law fails, nothing is left to protect us.  And when someone in high office is working to “change” (his great slogan) the very laws that were written to protect our God-given rights and all the bishops haveunited because they recognize the threat… and then you turn around and say that because Rick is a good Catholic, you don’t want him in office… well, that’s a sad commentary on you, Christian, and reflects very poorly on Crisis.  If you would have written this while the magzine was being printed, I would have seriously considered cancelling. 

    • Mat

      It’s an article based on reality. I agree with it completely. My goal is the defeat of Obama, first and foremost. I do not believe in idealistic self-destruction. Defeating Obama is paramount if we oppose abortion, socialism and the oppression of religious liberty. Who can realistically achieve that? In my opinion, Romney has the best chance.

      • A V Abela

        Really? Based on what evidence? The polls?

    • Lightninbug

      Rick Santorum has always been my favorite candidate. I confess to worrying in my weakest most frustrated moments about his ‘electability.’ But where has voting for ‘electable’ candidates gotten us, but at the threshold of statist marxism, socialism, bankrupcy, and our very faith is under attack. ‘They’ say we are in a post-Christian America.  I cannot accept that. I see the faith of my 12 year old grandson who whispered to me in Church a few weeks ago, “I hope I can be a priest,” and I know that we have to save America…..so that faith does not have to go underground. I think we are in a silenced-Christian America. I think Christian Americans are bursting to vote for a candidate who knows who America is. Let’s put Santorum up there. No saint, but a man of God. Let’s run him against the president who has come to represent materialistic socialism in our eyes. Man can not serve both God and mammon. I believe in the virtue of Americans. Given the choice between a government led by a flawed man of God, and descending further into a government of mammon, they will choose to serve God. God has blessed America, I beg he will save her.

    • Samuel

       @ Richard Bastien–   Dittos. Tappe needs to stop swallowing the ‘conventional wisdom.’
       
      Mr. Tappe, I recommend disconnecting yourself from the D.C.-NY establishment-think.  And it sounds like you’ve given up on the political process.  Although you may think you have far-sighted reasons for this, and that we simple-minded conservatives are all just as stupid as Santorum,  I think you’re part of the problem if you think that conservatives are incapable of seizing and reversing the reins of political power in this country.  If you’ve already surrendered our nation to the Leftists, then I assume you’re ready to be herded into a concentration camp. Not me. Not Santorum. Not any self-respecting American.

    • John Lynn Gullickson I

      I liked the article.  It’s the comments that make me realize why I am a Democrat.  Yes — a Democrat, who attends the Latin Mass and lives the Faith.  As Roman Catholics we have to realize we live in a pluralistic society and can best influence it in ways that are not always political.  Santorum is the guy in the work place, who you are always a little bit embarrassed for because he draws so much attention to himself (i.e., I’m more Catholic than YOU).   Lets get real; the media is eventually going to crucify him and he’s going to become the poster boy for Catholics is a very negative way.  His candidacy will not serve well the Church’s mission of spreading the Gospel or sharing the Truth of Catholicism.  He will blemish us as a community, and marginalize our influence.

      • Francis Wippel

        So in other words, let the media get away with their character assassination and sit back and enjoy it?  No thanks.

        I personally have never seen Santorum suggest that he was more Catholic than anyone else, so please provide an example.  Where does that charge come from? 

        Santorum spends most of his time on the campaign trail talking about how to revive the economy and increase energy production.  It’s the media trying to divert attention over to the social issues.  What’s worse is that they’re using Obama’s HHS mandate to drive the discussion into “Santorum wants to ban contraceptives”, which is an outright lie.

        Also, why would a man who lives his faith in his personal life be a “poster boy for Catholics in a very negative way”?  How does that happen?  Why is a public official who lives his faith a source of embarrassment to you? 

        • Carl

          Of the five candidates left for President Santorum would be the clear winner if a true dissemination of past gaffes and embarrassing words and videos were released. 

          • Carl

            Winner with the least amount of embarrassing moments.

      • Samuel

        Santorum will blemish us as a community?  You’re doing that very well yourself. 

    • MarkRutledge

      I think it high time good religious folk stop buying into the secular media-driven meme that Santorum is “unelectable.”  The more Americans see of Rick Santorum (and I mean of Rick himself, not a news report) the more they like him.  Remember there are more right-leaning independent voters than left-leaning, and they, too, are often religious.  Rick not only CAN win, but I believe he will.

    • Parlato_charles

      Matt,

      Why do you say that Romney is more electable?  More and more polls are indicating that Romney does no better against Obama than Santorum.   Rick can handle himself and he can defend his statements and opinions.   Romney was born with a huge silver spoon in his mouth. (Son of the President and CEO of American Motors and 3 time liberal Republican Governor of Michigan) Rick comes from modest means, and he relates much better to the Republican base and working class families.

      The South will be solid Rick. The mid-West will be solid Rick and Rick will win most of the Rust Belt states.  (Rick is leading Romney in PA now by 47% to 18%)

      You are simply repeating what the establishment wants you to repeat.  They are terrified of this rebellion in the ranks because they fear for their own positions within the party structure.

      Charles

    • Carl

      This post reads like a USCCB voter’s guide that facilitates in the end leaving the Catholic faith at home before entering the voting booth.

      Really, hmmm, Obama, Paul, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, whom to vote for?

    • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

      Senator Santorum claimed on national television that contraception is a “right,” one that would remain safe during his presidency. Regardless of the prudence of attempting to outlaw contraception at the federal level, the Senator is simply wrong. There is no “right” to contraception. It is against the natural law. If he’s going to get into the issue at all, he could point out that he agrees with Saint Thomas than not every sin needs to be outlawed and leave it at that. Cf. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm#article2 Voting to fund it is, of course, unconscionable.

      His worldview is quite Americanist, which may be why he’s often mistaken for an Evangelical Protestant. In a Q&A session, he told me that it was acceptable for President Wilson (an on-the-record anti-Catholic) to remap Europe and dismantle the last Catholic Empire, whose head of state was Blessed Karl von Habsburg. His answer to my question included a dismissive anti-Habsburg comment. He saw no connection in what we did the Empire after WWI and the subsequent Communist enslavement of Central Europe.

      Sadly, he would continue the American policy of inflicting our way of life on people who quite simply don’t want it.

    • http://www.ourmothersdaughters.blogspot.com/ Leila

      I wish that the picture this article paints of Santorum were true. It is not. 
      For one thing, until the pro-life movement wakes up and punishes politicians with a refusal of support when they sell out the cause of life, we will get nowhere. Santorum gave us the aptly named Arlen Specter, backing him over a strong pr0-life candidate. That alone should have written him right out of the running. Santorum admitted in the last debate that he went against his principles to be a “team player.” One issue was funding of Planned Parenthood — in that case he simply maintains that to pass a huge piece of legislation, it was necessary to accept PP. Would that the Catholic congressmen of the past 30 years had not been so quick to do the same. Perhaps our country would be many millions of children richer.As Fred Freddoso quipped, “nothing says leadership like… that.”

    • Brian G

      The people who ardently oppose this type of political discourse are poor americans. Just because Santorum is a great Catholic doesn’t mean he is a good president. The fact of the matter is that we have an anti-catholic president and none of the GOP candidates are anti-catholic. If we win, we win back our religious liberty. So I ask the Santorum followers to follow his own dictates, namely Obama is the enemy, not each other. I applaud the author for his well crafted article and I look forward to seeing more of his published work. 

    • Mark

      Educated Christians in general and Catholics in particular need to get over their misconception (motivated by intellectual pride) that in order to succeed politically, you must always keep one foot in the liberal college classroom… in order too never sound TOO religious.

      “Hey, I’m not just religious, I’m smart too!”

      Get over yourselves, it’s not about you.

    • Alex

      Weak praise for a decent man. There will be few others as authentically Catholic as Santorum running for President, so savor it while it lasts. Then we can go back to moaning about the lack of truly Catholic candidates.

    • Shocked

       

      Christian Tappe
      and Crisis Magazine need to visit the board room and decide just what they want
      to accomplish … so far, I’m betting they’re not on the same page?  Have we really lost so completely to liberalism
      that person’s like Santorum cannot and should not attempt to run for the
      highest office in this country, because it’s reserved for those of far less
      character and fiber; and non-Christian?   The fight is now … not four years from now.
        With four more years of Obama’s
      “change,” people like Tappe won’t be writing about Christian
      candidates without … government guidance; and then it will probably not be
      published.  

      It’s taking Americans
      too long to wake up to its sicker existence;
      and, in just the blink of an eye, it can get a whole lot worse.  My Grandparents came over from Germany many
      years before the war started, but some of the relatives did not get out… and
      died there.   Letters received between 1946 and 1947 were of
      unbelievable hardships: starvation, freezing temperatures, and loss of family
      members to those natural conditions, or murdered by hoodlums for food stamps or
      clothes.  Many didn’t know where the
      others were, and could only surmise that they were either killed in bombing raids
      or shot trying to leave.  It was obvious
      that returning to old times was not an option for German citizens after they
      allowed Hitler to “change” their nation.  One particular letter referred to remembering
      how wonderful and beautiful everything was and how happy the family was and
      then … how unbelievably quickly that changed to total despair, extreme hardship
      and death.  This is the
      election that has to be won.

    • Samuel

      A perfectly typical article by David Frum. I wonder, though, why he’s resorted to using this preposterous pseudonym. 

    • Martial_Artist

      Mr. Tappe,

      I think you are sadly mistaken in your characterization of Senator Santorum. He has publicly boasted on national television of voting in favor of public funding of contraception programs via Planned Parenthood.

      On top of that he has:

      • Voted for a Schumer amendment to make the debts of pro-life demonstrators not dischargeable in bankruptcy. (Senate Roll Call Vote.

      • Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same payraises as uniformed military. Senate Roll Call Vote.

      And the list of questionable votes goes on and on.

      Santorum is neither a conservative, nor a noteworthy example of a particularly faithful Catholic politician.
      Pax et bonum,
      Keith Töpfer

    • michelangelo3

      This article is pretty much my take on Rick Santorum. Thanks for giving voice to it.

    • MMC

      You don’t seem to have an accurate view of Rick Santorum…for he is far from a bumbling, sad yet faithful conscript…he is a righteous man, something we don’t see too often since they are a rare breed in this weak and selfish world.  The reason he may seem to be fighting against a bohemoth these days is not due to the strength of the enemy but rather the abandonment and betrayal of his fellow soldiers (i.e. you, me, lay Catholics, priests and bishops etc) who continue to undercut his brave and honest fight via articles such as this, silence, acrimony, selfishness and cowardice…we should be ashamed of ourselves and humbly pledge to support such a man who is unafraid to lead the battle for Christ in the political realm.

      You are correct in stating that having a president will not change our souls…for only God can do that…but to have a model of a righteous man in the most powerful office in the world when said world is on the brink of spiritual destruction is not a gift any sane man would turn away.

      God bless you, Rick Santorum…you are the leader we do not deserve…a leader that reflects the mercy and grace of God…and thankfully not our own pride, stupidity, and arrogance.

    • Lmln56

      Patronizing and condescending, repetitive ad nauseum.
      Good grief, you sound like a sophist version of the MSM and PBS, all in one!
      Electability my eye! Look what happened in 2008!!!

    • RK

      The most recent debate demonstrated that only Ron Paul has any grasp or willingness to consider our predicament with a mind to Catholic ideas. Here’s why.

      * Ron Paul stated very clearly that he believed in the Just War Theory as a way to evaluate our military engagements. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, wants to bomb the whole world into submission.
      *Ron Paul adheres to the principle of subsidiarity, much to the chagrin of neo-cons like Santorum who are drunk with the ever expanding federal Leviathan.
      * Ron Paul says that we shouldn’t rely upon the state to establish and maintain a moral code for us on issues like contraception. Virtue comes from within not from without. Santorum is so confused about personal morality that he votes to fund Planned Parenthood and he votes to fund abstinence.

      Not only is Santorum unelectable, he’s a poor excuse for a catholic politician.

    • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

      Senator Santorum said in a Fox News interview, that contraception is a “right” that would remain safe during his presidency. This is totally wrong, as contraception is a violation of the natural law. If he wanted to assure people that he would not go on a crusade to outlaw the evil of contraception, he could inform Fox’s viewers that, while he knows contraception to be sinful, he agrees with St. Thomas that not all sin needs to be outlawed by the government. As it stands, he made an error that reveals his thinking on a hot-button moral issue to be severely flawed.

      His thinking on just war doctrine is also severely flawed, which is why he is on record disagreeing with Pope Benedict and his predecessor on the invasions of Iraq. His foreign policy is worse than Quixotic: He wouldn’t be bombing windmills.

      • Carl

        My exact thoughts about “rights,” but I believe Rick would admit that verbal slip and recover.

        On the just war doctrine I believe you are mistaken, nations have the right to arm themselves, nations have the right for preemptive measures.

        The right to arm is not absolute, meaning just as citizens have the right to arm, states have the right to “gun control.”  Between states (nations) there should also exist nuclear arms control.

        Iran has no legitimate use for nuclear arms. Period.

        Santorum’s foreign policy amounts to nuclear arms control and not a blank check for war as you suppose.

        • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

          Considering our country’s use of nuclear weapons to murder the civilian populations of two Japanese cities, I don’t think we are in a position to determine who has a “legitimate use for nuclear arms.” And engaging in a preemptive war with such a nation is foolish. Israel has a nuclear arsenal, the numbers of which they keep secret, and I don’t see us launching a war with them over it. And yes, given their own history of murdering civilians, I doubt that the Israelis have a “legitimate use” of nuclear arms either.

          Santorum told me that Woodrow Wilson’s role in remapping Europe after WWI was morally acceptable. He dismissed my objection to Wilson’s dismantling the last Catholic Empire, whose head of state was Blessed Karl von Hapsburg. An on-the-record anti-Catholic American president dismantles a Catholic Empire, selling out its citizenry to Freemasonic oligarchs and (eventually) Communist enslavement — and a Catholic candidate thinks that’s OK?

          American political messianism and regime changing across the globe is nothing new, but it remains unconscionable. It sure doesn’t square with Catholic social teaching.

          • Guillermo Bustamante

            Dear Brother André,

            You are right about Santorums lack of preparation in war themes, being deluded by a industrial military complex that… devours a military budget of a size equal de the NINETEEN COMBINED industrial countries that follow the US. Poor gringos, no social security & paying for the defense of South Korea, Japan, etc.

            With all due respect, you are wrong about the right to contraception: is allowed by the Popes to have it the NATURAL way in order to have a responsible fatherhood.

            Cordially

            Guillermo Bustamante

            • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

              Dear Guillermo,Thank you for your comment. Just to clarify: My comments regarding contraception were specifically about artificial means, for that is what Sen. Santorum was speaking about. The use of chemicals and devices to prevent contraception is generally what is meant by “contraception” in English. NFP, which the Church tolerates under strict conditions, is a different matter, one that I care not to get into here.

        • Carl

          Foxnews:

          “abortion because we have another — we have another person involved in the decision.”"But the issue of contraception, that’s not the case. It’s something that people have a right to do in this country. And it certainly will be safe to do so under the Santorum presidency.”

          Notice he did not say a right as Christians or Catholics!

          Then went on to say:
          “the whole concept of sexual liberation, sexual freedom has had its down sides, and certainly birth control is part of that with a dramatic increase in sexually transmitted diseases, dramatic increase in out of wedlock births, a dramatic increase in the number of abortions.”
          “The bottom line is there are consequences to the sexual revolution that we are living with in America today.”

          With all due respect we have to pick our battles, or at least the sequence of battles, to win the cultural wars, and Obama would love the relive the Griswold vs. Conn court case this Presidential election cycle—in fact its his choosing!

      • Lightninbug

        I am agape. You listened for a code word, “right”, upon which you intend to discard a candidate as flawed. Have you heard (former) Senator Santorum’s impassioned discourses on what is happening to the family, and the role of contraception in the decline of the family. And the role of marriage and family in preventing and eliminating poverty. Have you read his book, It Takes a Family? 

        In what forum did you question Santorum about the events of nearly 100 years ago. Was it a lively debate over dinner, where he had in front of him the same information and maps that you had, or did you ask this impossibly complex question at a townhall meeting where everyone else was worried about their job? Mr. Santorum has long been considered one of the foremost authorities on the middle east. Nobody knows it better.  Example, in yesterdays online Wall Street Journal, “Santorum Was Right About Iran–When It Was Unpopular”.

        Tell me, what candidate do you recommend?

        • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

          Sen. Santorum was here at our monastery, where he had just came to Mass. There were about 50 to 70 people in the coffee room after and I asked him. I had his full attention. And the fact that these events happened so long ago do not excuse his answer. My point is that his positions on foreign policy are not guided by Catholic social teaching, but by Anglo-Protestant Americanism.

          I did not seize on the word “right.” I simply listened to what was said. It could be the kind of thing that he will retract later. I hope he does.

          I don’t want to be disrespectful, Lightninbug, but the idea that he is a “foremost expert” on the Mideast is comical. I doubt he even speaks Arabic or Farsi. To qualify as a foremost authority on a region, one should probably know the language.

          • Lightninbug

            You are right, foremost expert was too strong a phrase. However I have seen Senator Santorum passionately debate current events in the region where the other candidates only looked on, and were quick to agree. He demonstrated  knowledge of the interactions between the various countries in the Middle East, and how that affects us. We must pick from four candidates. I don’t think any of them speaks Arabic or Farsi.

            Catholic social teaching directs us to work for the common good. There are many different ways of achieving the common good. It is my understanding, from reading the bible and the Catechism, that we are, as Catholics, allowed to disagree with the Popes regarding what is and what is not a just war. The Church set the guidelines for just war, and leaves the decision up to legitimate governments. It grieved me greatly to send my 19 year old son off to war without the Popes ‘blessing’, so to speak. But I couldn’t really expect the Pope to say, “Get ‘em!”  Nor did the pope issue a statement forbidding Catholics in the military from participating in the war.

            I’m voting for Rick Santorum. I think he is an excellent Catholic, capable of speaking Catholic social values into government. You disagree. I respect that. But who is better?

            • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

              Lightninbug,

              Rest assured that I don’t consider Arabic or Farsi a requisite for office for President of the United States! 

              One may disagree with the Roman Pontiff on a particular application of the just war doctrine. But if one does so, he better be right. Sen. Santorum was quite wrong. The requisites for ius ad bellum are strict, and none of our recent Mideast wars met the qualifications. Policy was dictated my monied interests and the interests or Israel. It was justified by a series of falsehoods whose perpetrators never admitted that their “facts” were wrong. 

              In the wake of all these wars, don’t forget, we attempt to leave “our way of life,” including funding abortion and contraception in these regions. And we don’t make things better. Iraq is being systematically dechristianized, and the sectarian violence there has predictably increased. Human rights violations are horrid, no better than in the dark days of the man we groomed to help us fight Iran: Saddam Hussein. There were those who predicted all this, but the great warlords would not hear them.

              Pat Buchanan, who is also Catholic, has a much firmer grasp of these questions. Joe Sobran (RIP), another Catholic (a “revert”), had a firm understanding. Of the candidates, I think Ron Paul understands just war better that Sen. Santorum, even though Ron Paul is a Baptist. (I did give him a Miraculous Medal, which I hope has its effect for his coming to the truth Faith!) I’m not enthusiastic about libertarian principles; however, in these days when the nanny state is messing up everything, funding all sorts of evil with taxpayer money, disenfranchising the middle class, and acting as globe-trotting superpolice of the world (and funding abortion and contraception in Africa, and Asia!), I think our best bet is to have the man in office who wants to shrink the Federal Leviatian to its constitutional limits.

              • Lightninbug

                I disagree with your precept that current wars do not meet the criteria for just war theory. George Weigel, in “Just War Principals, Pre-emptive Military Action Against Terrorists Is Morally Legitimate” takes this on. He discusses what the just war thory is, and is not. “it is not an algebra that provides custom-made, clear-cut answers under all circumstances. Rather, it is a kind of ethical calculus, in which moral reasoning and… analysis… work together, in order to provide guidance to public authorities on whom the responsibilities of decision-making fall.” Makes sense since religious leaders do not sit in on the national security meetings of any of the nations involved in a conflict; they would of course defer to the heads of nations.

                You are right that too much policy  is “dictated by moneyed interests”, I get it. But, do you not see that we all have money- interests; that’s how we acquire food and clothing for our children, medicine, and the tuition for Catholic school. Again, George Weigel, same article. “In today’s international context, “justice” includes…. the defense of a minimum of order in international affairs.” Yes, we wanted to buy oil from the Middle East; but they wanted to sell it to us. What’s wrong with that?  International terrorism disrupts the order of international affairs. Blowing up American buildings goes against the common good of Americans. I don’t care what they think we did to deserve it. I think Senator Santorum is right to seek ways to promote the common good by working to secure international order…hopefully through diplomacy, but through military action, if we must.

                I agree our government assistance to other countries should never include abortion, contraception, sterilization, etc. Congressman Paul stood up at the last debate and declared that the morning after pill is just contraception. I disagree, if conception has occurred, it’s murder. His statement, to me, violates an immutable tenet of the Church’s teaching.

                I’m voting for Rick Santorum.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EDFDRT2YIMC4PUXIZ67H3QAUHI Country Jos

        Hey Brother:

        I wonder if in your exhaustive writings you have held priests and bishops to the same standard that you do Mr. Santorum.  The uncatechized Catholics who vote for pro-death candidates like Obama, Pelosi et al can thank cowardly clergy for not promoting Church teaching from the pulpit. Im anxiously awaiting your words to that effect.

        • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

          Country Jos,

          The clergy, of course, should be held to a much higher standard than a Catholic politician.  A fortiori, the bishops. I agree with your second sentence; there is miserable catechesis and virtually non-extant preaching on this subject.

          I was highly critical of liberal clergy on the subject at hand in this article:

          http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-177.html

          You will find additional criticism of clergy in this piece on our site.

          http://catholicism.org/boston-college-magazine-on-the-catholic-contraceptive-sellout.html

          Note: It’s not under my byline, but I approved it.

        • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

          Country Jos,

          I agree with you. I have been critical of liberal clergy on this point. Please go to our web site Catholicism dot org and search for “Christ’s Commission and Obama’s Mandate: A Teachable Moment”. You might also  search for “Boston College Magazine on the Catholic Contraceptive Sellout”. Note: Crisis Magazine’s Disqus forum seems to choke on URLs embedded in posts. That’s why the cryptic references.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EDFDRT2YIMC4PUXIZ67H3QAUHI Country Jos

            Keep it coming! I think you need to walk on eggs when it comes to posting on such controversial topics, however, because the shepherdless sheep are easily influenced by you words, the sum of which can be interpreted to mean ‘ do not vote for Santorum.’  You have lowered both barrels on Rick, incontestably the lesser evil in this race, without making it clear that the other options are worse. 

            • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

               Point taken. I’m not into “the lesser evil,” which is not a Catholic criterion. (I actually wrote something on that on our web site.)

              I’m not telling anyone who to vote for, frankly. I would have qualms about Sen. Santorum, for a couple of reasons. Given a choice between the Senator and the Incumbent, I would obviously choose Santorum.

              Since I’ve “lowered both barrels on Rick,” let me say this: When I met the Senator, his wife, and one son, I was impressed that they were good people. They went to Mass (traditional rite) here at our monastery. The young man impressed me as a clean-cut Catholic boy light years ahead of his peers, and well-parented. Mrs. Santorum is a real lady.

              I guess a lot of “good people” are messed up by their party-line on certain issues. And a man who lambasts Kennedy (rightly so) for selling out his Catholicism should not make such a gaffe as to say that contraception is a “right.”

              • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EDFDRT2YIMC4PUXIZ67H3QAUHI Country Jos

                Its fine and dandy to be an armchair philosopher/theologian as you pretend to wrestle with the political/moral cunundrums of the day. But the harsh reality is that folks are walking a thin line as to who they should vote for in this upcoming presidential election and you have persuaded many to shy away from Rick Santorum. Romney the Morman won Michigan by a relatively close margin. You have penned convincing words as to why Santorum is less than worthy of a Catholic’s vote. Are you celebrating Romney’s victory? Can a moderate defeat Obama? Consider yourself a collaborator in Rick’s undoing.

                • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

                  Pointing out the strengths and weaknesses in the candidates is part of the tradition of electoral politics. I have no moral obligation to turn a deaf ear to the Senator’s inadequacies just because some Catholics wrongly consider that we have a moral imperative to prop him up.

                  I frankly doubt that I have “persuaded many” to shy away from the man. It would be good if my comments would motivate others to speak to him — as I did — so that he might become a great Catholic statesman some day. He is still young, and can learn.

                  Our salvation is not in politics. It is in Our Lord Jesus Christ. That holds true even in the political order. Until Christ is King — that is, until his Social Reign is welcomed in this nation — our politics are doomed to be what they are and have long been: Evil. Someone who calls the abomination of contraception a “right” does not understand the rights of God sufficiently to be a genuine Catholic statesman.

                  In short, the man is not above reproach; don’t fault me for reproaching him.

                  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EDFDRT2YIMC4PUXIZ67H3QAUHI Country Jos

                    Has a bishop been reproached by you? A Catholic University?

                    • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

                      Supposing I had. Does it really matter to you?

                      It’s obviously irrelevant to the subject at hand.

                      Your rejoinders have nothing to do with the content of my replies.

                      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EDFDRT2YIMC4PUXIZ67H3QAUHI Country Jos

                        It is completely relevant.  The point is that you are a RELIGIOUS who has taken it upon himself to dive into the putrid world of POLITICS by PUBLICALLY criticizing a Catholic politician who, by and large, is the most moral of the candidates.  Thus you are complicit in his political demise and perhaps Obama’s success if that happens to be the final outcome.  (We’ll know that in the next life wont we?) A key issue in this election has been related to Catholics and birth control.  The overwelming majority of Catholics contracept. Why? Because the clergy failed us.  I am asking, why do you choose to be publically critical of an imperfect lay Catholic who is running for office when the root problem with the Catholic Church was/are the Judas’?  The smoke indeed has entered the sanctuary. If  the promulgation of Humane Vitae was, for example, taken up as the central mission of say, the Society of Jesus or the majority of US Bishops 40 years ago where might Catholics be with regard to contraception today? You say “Senator Santorum said in a Fox News interview, that contraception is a “right” that would remain safe during his presidency. This is totally wrong, as contraception is a violation of the natural law.”   That is music to my ears – but is it Rick’s job to state that publically or the job of the clergy, bishops, religious…? In almost 50 years of being a Catholic I have heard words to that effect ONE TIME. And Im not a Sunday only Catholic. This is not a reprimand just a pep talk. Use your talent to do real good —take the bulls by the horns and stop picking on the dopey calves.

                      • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

                         You’re going in circles. I already addressed these points, and made it clear — with references on our web site — where I stand on the effete clergy who are ultimately responsible for the moral (and doctrinal) apostasy that we’re mired in. You’re opposing what ought not be opposed — what, in fact, does not even exist (my supposed overreaction to a Catholic pol vs. my supposed inaction in regards to clerical evil).

                        One might suppose from your reaction that I had made a career out of attacking Sen. Santorum. One would be mistaken.

                        This discussion, such as it is, has come to its end. God bless and Mary keep you.

                      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EDFDRT2YIMC4PUXIZ67H3QAUHI Country Jos

                        Ora et labora. Non bloga.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

      On the so-called social issues, Rick Santorum, an ordinary blue-collar small-town sort of fellow (I mean those as terms of praise), believes what just about everybody before five minutes ago believed.  If we could go back in time to the Griswold courtroom, with but a few minutes to show the jurists what the sexual revolution brought on my Madame La Pill would look like forty or so years later, they’d have recoiled in horror, and would have retreated to juridical conservatism, passing the issue over to the legislature, and recommending that the lawmakers be presented with the same damning evidence.

      The difference between us and them is that they still had enough love for the family and residual love of virtue for them to be appalled by the chaos and decadence we just take for granted.

    • sjm

      Rick Santorum has been a huge  blessing to our nation. He has proclaimed Truth boldly and with love. He has been a man of great courage who has spoken in ways few have been brave enough to speak from the pulpit. He is a sincere man of honor who is trying to reclaim the family as critical to our society’s health.

      Our country is in great need of someone to stem the tide of our culture of -  rights without responsibilities, narcissism, selfishness, and demand for entitlements. Until we get to the root causes of our many problems, and recognize the importance of the family as opposed to an all-intrusive government,  as Mr. Santorum has been trying to point out, we will continue to deteriorate as a country and a people.

    • Mark

      When did Mark Shea change his name to Brother Andre Marie?

      • http://catholicism.org/author/bam Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

         OUCH!

    • Ellen

      So, Mr. Tappe, if you would not have Mr. Santorum as president, whom would you have?

    • Tom K

      Check your final paragraph: Cervantes did not write the broadway musical.

    • Mary Alexander

      Excellent article!
       

    • chrism

      We’ve had several folks contact us about not being able to post. We assure you there is no censoring. We are trying to get to the bottom of this, but suspect volume may be the culprit.

      Thanks for your patience.
      Editor