Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m sure it will lose him votes, and it should. There’s another thread, similar, about the Catholic Bishops and illegal immigration who are calling for just treatment for illegals – not an open border policy. It was posited that the Catholic Church uses illegal immigration for “recruitment” – not by Santorum, but by another. I suggest that Santorum read what the Bishops said before jumping to conclusions.

More Catholic bashing, and from one of our own. Should Catholics publicly oppose Catholic Bishops? I would not think this is an example of a Good Catholic to publicly critcize Bishops who are merely proposing fair treatment and a legal pathway to legal status, since the government doesn’t seem to take this issue seriously in any form. Is Santorum playing to the greater majority who may be non-Catholic, than to his faith?

By the way, Gingrich is Catholic having converted in 2009.
He is not critical of the Bishops, he simply disagrees with them. The Bishops views are these matters are important, yet they are not binding. Now, had Santorum stated he disagreed with the Church’s view say about abortion, then he is doing harm.
 
A few thoughts:
  1. Santorum has other issues, that keep me from voting for him. By far the largest is the fact he endorsed and campaigned for Arlen Spectre. He put aside his professed convictions to work for a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-socialism man simply because at the time there was an (R) next to his name and he was the incumbant. It was a clear case of putting party power politics above principles and saving lives. I and many others in Pennsylvania and elsewhere were greatly disapAccepting the culturepointed. Before I could consider voting for the man, I would have to hear a serious response from him on this issue- why he did what he did, is he sorry, would he do it again? I am happy to hear he is attending the TLM.
  2. I have to strongly disagree with those saying immigrants must “accept the culture” when they come here. Accepting the culture is why the Catholic Church is in such disarray in this nation. What is the American culture today- materialism, promiscuity,rebelliousness. The exact opposite of poverty, chastity, obedience. This nation started off Protestant and over the past half century has transformed into a pagan one. It’s a culture that says a mother has a basic human right to murder her own child and that marriage is a temporary arrangment of convenience. Why in the world should Catholics accept a pagan culture? We must not accept the culture. We must transform it.
Pax.
You, along with millions of other people, do not understand what “accepting the culture” actually means. It does NOT mean that we accept all manners of sinful practices (pagan at best in many regards), it does mean that we are to cherish life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that we are to be one people from many, and it means we trust in God, and yes it means we speak english and embrace our constitution. It means we place the freedoms given to every person–and it means that while everyone can choose their own path, in the end we are supposed to form one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty andf justice for all.

In today’s world, rather than being “out of many one,” we have instead become "out of one, many."

Keep looking for the perfect candidate, and we will just keep getting more of the same. Santorum has made mistakes, yet he is a strong Catholic and is a strong family man, he strongly supports traditional marriage, and he is a strong defender of life. He is far from perfect, yet he is way above the rest.

Frankly, if we (as a nation) do not return to cherishing life and marriage and children, then there is very little hope for us—so the things Santorum espouses are far more important than all the issues combined. Without good traditional Christian families with many children, and without a love for life, a nation has no future.
 
I was going to respond , but then I saw Darryl 1958 's response . His response is fine with me . ( IOW , what he said ) .

Dennis Prager refers to those 3 pronouncements on every US coin as the " American Trinity " .
Thanks.
I don’t think that there really ought to be any real disconnect between the understanding of God as it has been presented to Americans in their constitution and the beliefs of anyone, not even atheists. The ‘God we Trust’ in of Dennis Prager’s American Trinity is as relevant to him as a Jew as it would be to any of the Christians who framed the constitution for a secular nation in the first place.

This basic building block of America, to which any American really needs to subscribe to if America is to have any meaning at all, is that the source of their rights and freedoms— and responsibilities too— lie outside of any government decree and are part of their birthright. Like God himself, the source of naturally endowed rights and responsibilities lie outside of any political process.
It is easier of course for a Christian or a Jew to intuitively understand this more than an atheist might, but the American principle set for is the same for anyone.
It is something being lost with Obama, as he misquotes the basic line of where American rights come from.

To try to steer back on topic, I think the bishop’s compassionate response is that the rights of the immigrants come from God too, and no government decree can take them away. Where the bishops fall short, as with many liberals, they forget that responsibilities come from God too, and as such immigrants are responsible for respecting the laws of the country, including the laws of entry. They also have a moral responsibility, not just to their own families on whose behalf they have jumped queue in the first place, but to those in line whom they have displaced in the first place, and to those who are already here, who are now out of work on account of their jobs going to the queue jumpers.

The bishops may describe themselves like the revolutionaries who founded this country in their statement that oppressive laws do not trump rights, which come from a higher source in God. They are also being political nevertheless by conveniently not noticing that the source of the illegal immigrants grief is not really with American law, but with the corrupt and economically oppressive regimes which make the emigrants life so intolerable in the first place. They are also forgetting that any who call on God’s name for compassion and for rights, are also obliged to follow God in showing compassion and in respecting the rights of others.
Queue jumping is not a victimless crime. The people lined up waiting to get in are the real ones being hurt by bad law, the real victims of a muddled immigration policy. The fact that millions are jumping the line altogether and taking their place makes their situation impossible.

As well, those already here and who cannot get work as a result of the queue jumpers are being victimized too.
 
I’m with Rick on this one.
  1. A nation that does not/can not control its borders is no longer a nation
  2. It is unfair to legal immigrants-to-be to legalize illegal immigrants.
👍 Justice is important to God, it should be Just as important to the Bishops.

Peace
 
Justice is important to God, it should be Just as important to the Bishops.
The major fault with the bishops’ comments on immigration is that they foster attitudes such as this one. The question facing us is not whether or not to work for justice but what actions are appropriate to achieve it. The implication that those who support the bishops are acting morally while those who oppose them are acting immorally is simply false. The choices we face are not principally moral; they are prudential and it is inappropriate for the bishops to infer otherwise.

Ender
 
You, along with millions of other people, do not understand what “accepting the culture” actually means. It does NOT mean that we accept all manners of sinful practices (pagan at best in many regards), it does mean that we are to cherish life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that we are to be one people from many, and it means we trust in God, and yes it means we speak english and embrace our constitution. It means we place the freedoms given to every person–and it means that while everyone can choose their own path, in the end we are supposed to form one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty andf justice for all.

In today’s world, rather than being “out of many one,” we have instead become "out of one, many."

Keep looking for the perfect candidate, and we will just keep getting more of the same. Santorum has made mistakes, yet he is a strong Catholic and is a strong family man, he strongly supports traditional marriage, and he is a strong defender of life. He is far from perfect, yet he is way above the rest.

Frankly, if we (as a nation) do not return to cherishing life and marriage and children, then there is very little hope for us—so the things Santorum espouses are far more important than all the issues combined. Without good traditional Christian families with many children, and without a love for life, a nation has no future.
Hello,

Why “must” someone speak English? Certainly there are many benefits, but there is no moral obligation. There is a moral obligation to obey the civil law, as long as it is a just one. So what happens when it is not? “Must” is a strong word. If we *must *follow the Constitution, what happens when an ammendment is passed banning Catholic worship? Or when “equal protection” is used to justify the state mandating “women priests” (as the Obama administration recently alluded to)?
 
Keep looking for the perfect candidate, and we will just keep getting more of the same. Santorum has made mistakes, yet he is a strong Catholic and is a strong family man, he strongly supports traditional marriage, and he is a strong defender of life. He is far from perfect, yet he is way above the rest.
Frankly, if we (as a nation) do not return to cherishing life and marriage and children, then there is very little hope for us—so the things Santorum espouses are far more important than all the issues combined. Without good traditional Christian families with many children, and without a love for life, a nation has no future.
\

I agree there are no perfect candidates. I also agree that abortion- the murder of millions of children- is the most important issue. That is why I find Santorum’s support of a well known pro-abortion incumbant against a pro-life challenger so troubling.

I support Ron Paul. Is he perfect? No. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But I find his positions to be the most suited for correcting the course of this country, including ending abortion. Very importantly, I find him to be very sincere and consistent in his position, even when being so has come at a political cost for himself- something I can not say about the other candidates including Santorum.

Pax
 
The best part of Santorum’s statement is that the point he raised needed to be made: the political positions of the bishops do not require our assent. Whether you agree with the bishop’s position on immigration or not it is important to recognize that Catholics are not called to agree with them and that their position is neither more nor less moral than any other position.
Yes, but it is sometimes dificult to know when the moral principle stops and the practical application begins. I hear many comments made against illegal immigrants that are devoid of charity. When disagreeing with what a bishop says about immigration, it is important that we not abandon all moral teaching regarding our obligation to Jesus in the most needy. I do not think Santorum does this in his statement, but then again, I have seen others.
 
Hello,

Why “must” someone speak English? Certainly there are many benefits, but there is no moral obligation. There is a moral obligation to obey the civil law, as long as it is a just one. So what happens when it is not? “Must” is a strong word. If we *must *follow the Constitution, what happens when an ammendment is passed banning Catholic worship? Or when “equal protection” is used to justify the state mandating “women priests” (as the Obama administration recently alluded to)?
There is no legal obligation to become part of the larger society by understanding the dominant language. There is a moral responsibility for newcomers however to respect the larger culture and to become a part of it.
Without a common language, there is not a common people. Speaking the same language brings people together like virtually nothing else can. Otherwise it is mainly ships passing in the night. Superficialities are virtually all that there would be left, if minds do not touch through language.
Other countries are not so interested in e pluribus unom. In certain countries, if people are not part of the land from time immemorial, they are merely strangers passing through. German speaking communities living in Italy may be well citizens, but neither they nor Italians think of them as anything other than German.
America is different that way. America at its best is always striving to make everybody a part of the greater culture. It does not mean that Catholics cease to be Catholics, or Irish stop drinking green beer, but it does mean that everyone is expected to communicate with everyone else before they can really be American.
It is not a racist concept; indeed it is racism’s antidote. It is like Latin for Europe, or Arabic for the Muslim world. English is what binds the people together like nothing else can.
 
Speaking the same language brings people together like virtually nothing else can. Otherwise it is mainly ships passing in the night. Superficialities are virtually all that there would be left, if minds do not touch through language.
One of the many great arguments for spreading the TLM 🙂

Pax.
 
Yes, but it is sometimes dificult to know when the moral principle stops and the practical application begins.
Perhaps, but I suspect in most cases it’s not all that difficult. In any event, what the bishops are saying - inferring is perhaps a better term - relates to application, not principle.
I hear many comments made against illegal immigrants that are devoid of charity.
True enough. On the other hand we should recognize that charges against those who oppose the bishops’ views are utterly without charity as well and the fact that the bishops and clergy are often leveling such charges is considerably worse.

Ender
 
Hello,

Why “must” someone speak English? Certainly there are many benefits, but there is no moral obligation. There is a moral obligation to obey the civil law, as long as it is a just one. So what happens when it is not? “Must” is a strong word. If we *must *follow the Constitution, what happens when an ammendment is passed banning Catholic worship? Or when “equal protection” is used to justify the state mandating “women priests” (as the Obama administration recently alluded to)?
Yes, if we are to nation that is “out of many one,” then we MUST speak english as our primary language. What language people speak in their personal lives, is their business. If we desire to be a people who are “out of one many,” than there should be no primary language, it should be a complete free-for-all. People have every right to hang onto to their own personal cultures, yet as Americans we should be speaking as one, not as many.

I agree, there is no moral obligation to obey an truly unjust law.

If an amendment is passed banning Catholic worship, it will have to completely ignore the establishment clause that gaurantees our right to free worship. As for female Priests, the same point applies. In both cases the Church would likely be forced to go completely private.
 
\

I agree there are no perfect candidates. I also agree that abortion- the murder of millions of children- is the most important issue. That is why I find Santorum’s support of a well known pro-abortion incumbant against a pro-life challenger so troubling.

I support Ron Paul. Is he perfect? No. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But I find his positions to be the most suited for correcting the course of this country, including ending abortion. Very importantly, I find him to be very sincere and consistent in his position, even when being so has come at a political cost for himself- something I can not say about the other candidates including Santorum.

Pax
Santorum admitted he made a mistake with the Specter decision–he apologized and stated that all people make mistakes. I too did not like what he did with that, but how many times do you hear national politicians step-up and admit a mistake and apologize?

Important note: while Santorum has apologized, he also makes it clear that he had extracted a promise/committment from Specter that he (Specter) would support any nominess President Bush would appoint to the Supreme Court–we now have Alito and Roberts thanks to Bush and to the work of the Senate (including Santorum extracting that promise from Specter). So, while we can rightly question Santorum’s choice to support Specter, his extraction of a promise did help bring two profoundly pro-life judges to the SC. Santorum once said: “You can question my judgment and you have every right to do so, but please don’t question my intention to do what’s right for those little babies.” So, in the end Santorum supported a pro-choice Senator, while extracting a promise from that Senator to support pro-life judges (pretty good work actually). Santorum consistently shows that he is 100% behind life. He also has seven children, which means he has lived his support of life in his real family life as well–he is walking the talk.

He is the strongest of all candidates regarding marriage, family, children…and he has stated that the nation cannot prosper without protecting, life, traditional marriage, children and families–he sees those as the cornerstones of any healthy nation and will fight for each of those issues. His conscience is guided by his Catholic faith, and not by the world.

IMO–NUFF said.
 
There may be valid reasons for opposing Santorum but his position on the life issues is not among them.

Ender
Yes, agreed, yet he is also very strong on the other issues too. Considering how crucial the life issue is, and considering how crucial traditional marriage, families, and children are–it would seem to me that Catholics should be seeking the strongest candidate in those areas (which is Santorum).

The truth is, without a true defense of life, and without strong marriages, families, and many children, all the other issues will become meaningless over time.
 
Santorum admitted he made a mistake with the Specter decision–he apologized and stated that all people make mistakes. I too did not like what he did with that, but how many times do you hear national politicians step-up and admit a mistake and apologize?
Do you have a source where I can read what he said? Thank you.

Pax Christi
 
The debate began when Colmes responded to a question on whether or not undecided voters will truly stick by Santorum when it’s time to cast a vote. Colmes answered, saying that his rising support will stop short once people “get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after child birth home and played with it so that his other children would know that the child was real.”

nation.foxnews.com/rick-santorum/2012/01/02/fiery-debate-breaks-out-between-lowry-and-colmes

Colmes is a perfect example of the attitude of those who have embraced the culture of death
 
The debate began when Colmes responded to a question on whether or not undecided voters will truly stick by Santorum when it’s time to cast a vote. Colmes answered, saying that his rising support will stop short once people “get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after child birth home and played with it so that his other children would know that the child was real.”

nation.foxnews.com/rick-santorum/2012/01/02/fiery-debate-breaks-out-between-lowry-and-colmes

Colmes is a perfect example of the attitude of those who have embraced the culture of death
I often wonder if Colmes is for real.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top