… The attempted exile of God from human affairs by Darwinism has been extermely harmful. …
As President Santorum would take an oath to defend the Constitution. Many of his positions are at odds with the Constitution. From indefinite detentions without charge or trial to undeclared wars to expansion of the federal government into areas in which it has no authority- such as retirement planning, education and healthcare. …
Define “nonsense” vs “pragmatism”.
If nonsense means refusing to compromise the faith even in the faith of overwhelming secular pressure to do so, then heaven is full of nonsenical idiots, better known as martyrs. Was it nonsese for Sts. Thomas More and John Fisher to die for the faith rather than make a simple, pragmatic, compromise? Pax
Your point about Darwinism, it is interesting; although, my memory places Darwin in the 1800’s, and John Locke, and Rosseau, as far back as the 1600’s, and their writings, and acts, appear to be the root of our U.S. Constitution, which I believe hold some part, as roots go, to be in error; although, further consideration is in order, with respect to such things as “tolerance” as a plea from John Locke.
Being at odds with The U.S. Constitution is a norm even among those whom advertised it as a form of government, in The Federalist Papers, throughout the streets of NY. That being said, an editor at Breitbart, I believe, that his name is Larry O’Connor, approached “protestors” in support of Ron Paul, at a Rick Santorum event in NH. Eventually the report led to a matter, which you raise as a point, foreign matters concerning the use of military force. Ron Paul supporters mention: it is unconstitutional. Larry O’Connor stated as a paraphrase: the existence of The U.S. Supreme Court is constitutional and therefore, military force justified by interpretations of “laws”, by The U.S. Supreme Court, stand.
You ask a question about Pope Leo XIII, using words, “nonsensical”, and a synoym of “practical”, “pragmatic”. You may have clarified your use of those words.
I’m unfamiliar with one saint mentioned; still, Thomas More, that he failed to make a practical decision to save his own life – may be moot, arguable – seems unlikely with the assumption, that he understood: he had no calling to martyrdom and thus, would have avoided the matter with every wit, and matter of conscience, and phsyical strength, available to him, that would allow for self-preservation. He missed the boat. His family lived. He was executed. Henry VIII married again, and again, and … degraded Holy Matrimony, as Roman Catholics go, to a rather heinous, if not murderous, extent. Was it non-sense? God’s Ten Commandments, the decalogue, extant since The Hebrews left slavery in Egypt, concern very pragmatic issues: life, property, authority, human relations, and a sense of order, toward God, rather than away from God – it seems, to me, reasoning is rooted in categorical matters, more solidly and plainly in what is done, or will be done, rather than in denials, or what is not present, but a matter of good reasoning, it has something to do with details, which specifiy, or generalize, what we may know and therefore, communicate. To this end, it would seem, that acknowledging, and ordering, acts toward God: this is a practical matter.
I may not be able to further address your position on Santorum’s stance on foreign policy, but it is a military matter – international in scope – as defined within various sections of two articles, of The U.S. Constitution, and as such: there is little relevance of The U.S. Constitution, and subsequent amendments, to matters regarding the use of military force, except to the empowerment of the use of military force. As regards U.S. citizens, and U.S. resident aliens, and their congressional representatives: congressional debates, and speeches extant are so to the priviledge of being unquestionable, Article I, Section 6 [1]. The questions may only pertain to law(s). I have found nothing at least, within one act, H.R. 1540, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012”, demonstrative of anything un-constitutional. Whatever acts are done militarily by The U.S., to the detriment of others, must be judged according to what The U.S. Congress has prescribed to judge military matters. To my view: you do not question at least two sections of H.R. 1540, and their regard to terrorism, and detention, but altogether condemn them.
All of that being said, thank you for being agreeable on a number of points, and for being charitable, and challenging.
It may be The U.S. Congress does not argue from what they either read of The U.S. Constitution, or what interpretations of it, we have from The U.S. Supreme Court, but it may be they do argue their care of it, and it may be both on the basis of what they read, and what care they give to what they read, that we have such an act as H.R. 2012. Rick Santorum left congress in 2007, if I’m not mistaken, but it is good to hear his support for it, both with The U.S. Congress, and The President of The U.S…
