A faithful Catholic could run for President, and win!  Faithful to God and Faithful to serving his or her fellow man. But not faithful to the out of date ramblings of tired old men who nobody voted for.

A liar and bigot like Rick Santorum is not Catholic. He is an opportunist.

Rick: Right now Rick Santorum is the only, the only candidate who will not penalize the public for not providing contraceptives and this respects my conscience.

Santorum is a “liar and bigot”??!!

Rick (above), what universe are you living in.  Why don’t you supply some evidence for your claims, instead of just slandering the man and walking off?

Santorum is the only real conservative in the race; he’s a good man and a wise leader, and he has my vote.  I just hope I get to vote for him in November.

And in the meantime, I wish people would try using truth and logic instead of slander.

I can never vote for a person that has 1. Vatican teaching. 2. American constitution.  A “good” catholic will not rule in the US’s favor in a conflict between the two. 

I voted for Kerry because he valued the US over the Vatican (imho).

There is no major conflict between the U.S. Constitution and Catholic morality, as both are based on the Natural Law, on reason. However, there is a conflict between the Constitution and the HHS mandate, and other such policies of the administration. There are also conflicts between the Constitution and invalid laws, such as those, for instance, that permit the deliberate killing of innocent children before birth. SCOTUS and other lower courts have also radically erred at times in interpreting the Constitution, by putting ideological or political views above the Law. The conflicts are, for the most part, between the institutions of the State on the one hand, and the Constitution, with it’s acknowledgement of nature and objective reason, on the other.

If people gasp and are offended by what Rick Santorum said about contraception they are not prepared to explain in person to JESUS CHRIST why they feel artificial contraception is acceptable. In fact, it might be asked just how many contemporary Catholics ( all world-wide Christians for that matter) would want JESUS CHRIST to be the SUPREME HEAD of His own Church on Earth if He were living on Earth once again in PERSON.

When you look at all the candidates together, Rick Santorum stands out, not for his looks, but for his spirituality.  I was struck by his humility, not to be confused with naievete or weakness.  He campaigned trusting in Divine Providence and what happened?  He received the monetary backing he needed to go on.  He doesn’t back down when he’s heckled or booed,he stands his ground.  He was the only candidate who told Americans to stand up to the HHS mandate.  He trusts in God and will not compromise his Catholic faith, as the Kennedys, Biden, Pelosi etc. I will campaign for Rick Santorum! God Bless and guide him.

It will be Providential for Rick to get elected in our God-rejecting, secular humanist country. I’m not so sure it will come to be, as I believe that Providence is allowing us to experience the folly of our foolishness, ie., chastisement. It is notable that we are being confronted with such a stark choice

I like Santorum, but I’ve heard that he doesn’t mind the use of torture (maybe it was waterboarding? My memory is sketchy.). It was my understanding that this violates Church teaching. If both these things are true, why would such an openly Catholic candidate hold a position that violates Church teaching? Do you think he can be convinced to change his mind? :/

Hooray for Rick Santorum who speaks the truth.  I believe The Culture of Contraception in America is the chief cause of our cultural decline which began in earnest in the 1960’s manifests itself today in our weak economy and the coming bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare.  One could assume that we would have 100 million more fellow citizens today if not for abortion and contraception. It encourages selfishness, hedonism, materialism, etc.  One needs only look at the facts as outlined in Charles Murray’s new book ‘Coming Apart’ to see the destruction.  The prognosis is not good for our country based on his findings.  And one more thing if women were smart that would have nothing to do with contraception as it turns them into objects.  Anyway this is enough to irritate a few.

Dear Rover Serton,

Hard to believe that you would pick a secular government over our church.  If you “do” attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass then you should remember that we say the Creed which is all we believe, maybe you heard the phrase; “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”  The Church is that very thing, we are the church, the Holy Father and the Bishops and all its teaching make up the church.  St James said in the reading yesterday “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is vain” Not to mention you voted for a anti-life candidate, by the fact that you vote for candidates that do not reflect the values of Jesus you are complicit in committing the same sins they do.  If you were you, I would spend some time examining your conscience and ask yourself what side are you on the left or the right? (Matt 25) God Love you.

Great Post, Matt.  It was really hard for me to see and read Catholic so close, well adjacent to Sebelius and Pelosi.  Could we in future add the word “formerly” or “baptized” before Catholic so it is less offensive to Catholics who find their public behavior offensive?

I really like Santorum.  I am amazed that he is faithful out loud to his beliefs unlike so many other baptized Catholic politicians.  I never thought he would be doing this well, but then I have other faith challenges as well.  I am starting to think he is someone that is seeking after God’s will regularly and just doing the best he sincerely can everyday to run and persuade people to vote for him.  I am sure the Romney and Gingrich operatives are scratching their heads that someone that routinely breaks the focus group language rules and parry the question that exposes your controversial in this culture values is doing so well.  May God continue to bless him and give him the grace to be faithful and to be elected President!

I’m glad Santorum is honest enough to speak about contraception and is using his podium to do that.  Ron Paul is the better candidate from an overall Catholic values point of view, though, because of subsidiarity and just war issues.  Anyway, whichever candidate wins the nomination will be facing an uphill battle.  Please pledge your prayers for our country at http://www.rosariesforlife.com

People will vote for santorum because ws can believe in him. Thw reason we love thw catholic church is its lack of relwtivity. Rick will uphold the law and constitution unlike our current administration. He is a stark change ans Breath of fresh air.

We’ll have to do something about his cultural awareness, though.
Santorum: “All the people that live in the West Bank are Israelis.  They are not Palestinians.”

Unfortunately, there will never be a perfect candidate. Let’s pray that God gives us discernment to makes way for the best guy for the job when the time comes.

So now birth control is bad according to Mr Santorum. Why wasn’t he saying these things when he was in Congress instead of voting spending bills that contained Title X funding? (You know, the funding that goes to “family planning” services, you know, birth control?)

*Before the name calling starts, I am in total agreement that birth control/contraceptives are very bad for men and women and society in general. I am just tired of Mr. Santorum’s voting record being ignored by the Catholic Media.

Go Rick Go!  Bringing morals and values into the presidential spectrum will make it well grounded.  Right now it seems a world of instant gratification and pleasing everyone - which leads to going around in circles ... Destroying what has been set in place for a reason, and trying to reinvent the wheel.  For instance the Conscience Clause was working, this issue has been tackled before, but suddenly we are starting over from Point A again, as though the past years didn’t mean anything.  This gets old.  We need some principle fundamental rules of basic fairness and understanding, and it appears to me Rick can grasp the bigger picture and wrap it up in a simplistic, unabashed fashion.

I absolutely can’t believe you classify Santorum as being faithfully Catholic. You do realize the man openly disagrees with the USCCB on issues such as immigration, wants to ban public unions (in direct opposition to Rerum Novarum and Centesimus Annus), says assassination of foreigners is “a wonderful thing”, supports torture (in opposition to Catholic teaching), supported the Iraq War (which both JP2 and B16 vehemently opposed), supports pre-emptive war (in opposition to Catholic teaching), voted for Title IX (which funds contraception, and Planned Parenthood especially, among many other non-Catholic stances.

To say that Santorum is faithfully Catholic is a farce.

“Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian [Catholic] any more than standing in your garage makes you a car.”
? G.K. Chesterton

Matt, I find it interesting that some well known Catholics like to pick & choose. What it means to be Catholic or how Catholic teaching is wrong about things or it really is a choice between two evils. I find no gray area in Life as to when it starts or if one life is worth more than another. Pelosi claims Catholic teaching is wrong & then bends down & slobbers all over the ring of ST. Peter. Sounds like she is conflicted & tortured about what value life has, as she rejects it’s a baby as she looks at the pictures of her grandchildren; or is it that she is a hypocrite? But then this allow the woman who believes sitting at home on your backside creates wealth & jobs, not actually dragging a comb through your hair & showing you at a place of employment working for your daily bread.
The question is not Can a Catholic win, but with how our Country is being run & the values espoused by certain “Catholic” politicians, why would any Faithful,decent, or authentic Catholic actually think he has a chance when so many people are following the shouts of Satan rather than the whispers of God.

God gives us the leaders we need, when we need them.  I firmly believe he allowed Obama to be elected, if for no other reason, to wake Christians up!  From what I’m seeing, IT HAS!!!!  Now we have a Roman Catholic who truly lives his faith, who applies his faith in all instances and is the polar opposite of the executive we have now.  Is he electable, you betcha’,  as long as it’s God’s Will!

Marc,
“Now we have a Roman Catholic….who applies his faith in all instances”

Did you read Steve’s post above?  No one is saying you can’t support Santorum, but open your eyes.

The anti-obama! Rick should use that. It has legs.

I heard that in a recent interview Santorum stated he would not outlaw contraception as president and has, in the past, voted for legislation that paid for contraception domestically and abroad.  What about that?  That is not truly Catholic!

Is this article and some of the previous comments above only wishful thinking?  People only wanting to hear what they like or what they want to hear?  Is gladly going 100% for Santorum simply based on the fact that there are NO better options out there to defeat Obama?  Is he simply the “lesser” of 2 or 3 evils?  What Steve posted above at 10:46 AM disturbs me.  Unfortunately, I already sent my donation to Santorum’s campaign.  The first time I’ve ever sent political donations and I’m 51 years old.

I haven’t made a decision about Santorum one way or another, but I do find it funny that all these people think it is offensive and irrational for him to talk about and question contraception and yet it is deemed completely rational to see contraception as the miracle worker for all of societies ills and force it on everyone.  Never mind that so many social problems have become measurably worse since contraception became so mainstream or that according to statistics it has not lowered the number of abortions like promised.

I also love the whole Vatican vs. Constitution debate.  Any person who calls themselves a Christian is supposed to put God’s law before Man’s law.  Christians are supposed to love and serve God above all things.  Any any Christian should have his/her conscience formed by his/her belief in God. 

Yes, we live in a pluralistic society.  And it would be wrong if any president tried to force just pure doctrine into law.  At the same time, the underlying assumption on a lot of these issues is that one can only believe contraception is a bad thing if one takes it as a tenant of blind faith set down by religion, as if there may not be logical or even scientific reasons for coming to that belief.

The reason that I have faith in the Catholic Church on things that I can’t prove or see for myself is because after much study in sociology, psychology, and science in conjunction with my own life experience I have realized that the “old men” are wiser and more far-seeing than I am on most topics (contraception, divorce, chastity, etc).

To Michael @ 11:38, you can always write a personal letter to the Santorum campaign and tell them that while you donated money to him, you no longer support him based on (whatever your reasons are).

Donations to political candidates and parties are public information, so you might want to, also, write a public letter (blog, facebook, classified ads, craigslist, parish bulletin (;))) stating that you no longer support him.

May God have mercy on my soul if I ever became a Pelosi/Sebelius-Catholic!  Doubtful I’ll go down that road, however, since just thinking about it makes my gag relfex act up, no joke!

It undermines his chances because he is missing the point himself, and going off on an tangent.

The HHS mandate contravenes the First Amendment. Period. We don’t need to have a conversation about whether contraception is good or bad, or whether Catholics hold the theologically sound position (which obviously, I think we do). Santorum, and all the Catholics who are rallying behind him, don’t seem to get that this country is made up of mostly non-Catholics, and that the Constitution doesn’t enshrine the Catholic Church as the national Church. They act as if Rick Santorum is running for High Priest of America. And I’m sure he would’ve made a fine priest; but that is not the job he is seeking.

All he does by going off on tangents about the moral duties he thinks people have (obviously, I agree) is alienating people who disagree with the duties he supports. For example, he oftens goes off on tangents about ‘radical individualism’ and how they “Libertarianish” (his word) tendency toward individual liberty is too extreme…..excuse me? I’m sorry, but this sounds like a totalitarian fascist seeking to impose Catholic morality on people. I am a Catholic. I like Catholic morality. But I do not support making laws and using the police power of the government to force everyone to comply with it. That’s absurd, and that is what a lot of people are hearing from Santorum (whether or not that perception is true, that is what people take away from him).

He is also TERRIBLE when it comes to two extremely important Catholic doctrines: (1) Subsidiarity and (2) the Just War Doctrine. Subsidiarity means to separate the roles of government and society, and to allow maximum freedom and independece for the smallest/most-local units of authority. Santorum ALWAYS interjects some statement about not letting individuals be too free, and what the federal government’s responsibility is to people…..that makes him, to some extent, a Socialist. The federal government is there to repel foreign invasion and regulate interestata commerce; the states are there to manage every other governmental function; the society is left to chart its own course and thrive without the constant policing of government. Santorum clearly disagrees.

On Just War, he has supported every military intervention of the last 30 years, including those explicitly condemned by the Church. He has supported preemptive wars, disproportionate military responses, unsolicited agressions, and the reshaping of the world in the name of (holy?) democracy. In other words, he has joined forces with those in the Wilsonian-Progressive-Neoconservative school that has effectively replaced the Church with the United States (the “indispensable nation” spreading democracy like a holy mission).

Rational, philosophically-grounded Catholics are electable. Santorum is an authoritarian, Neoconservative ideologue with a room-temperature IQ. He is a complete disaster.

@Steve on Thursday, Feb 16, 2012 10:46 AM (EST):

I absolutely can’t believe you would NOT classify Santorum as being faithfully Catholic.  Our obligation is to the Magisterium of the Church, and not, necessarily, with pronouncements of a council which has, in and of itself, nothing more than advisement status.  You choose to equate non-negotiable items out of the Magisterium of the Church with areas of informed conscience, and provide equal weight to each.

The USCCB positions on immigration do not rise to the level of Magisterial teaching.  I disagree that Rerum Novarum and Centesimus Annus requires public unions.  While I agree that your claim on assassination of foreigners raises valid questions, it does fall into the question of whether a Government has the right to carry out acts of Just War, and whether the particular action referred to meets that criteria.  As to the Iraq War, Catholics are free to either agree with, or reject the War, as there has been no Magisterial pronouncement as to this issue.  Why would you choose to reject those areas where Magisterial pronouncements about inherent evil HAVE been given?  I am certain that Santorum would disagree with your pronouncment that the things he agrees with constitutes torture.  I would agree that he voted for Title IX , which is problematic, but neither party has put forth a candidate more devout than Santorum (all Kennedys included).  To say that Santorum is NOT faithfully Catholic is a farce.

I believe we were warned about the plank in our own eyes.

“Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car.”
? G.K. Chesterton

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/can-a-faithful-catholic-run-for-president#ixzz1mZSDl99l

I just read Vatican Information Services’ most recent synopsis of a papal address about the power of finance and the power of the media to subvert society. (Talk about timely!) It automatically reminded me of the Romney/Foxnews/Establishment-Republican bias against Santorum’s (or anyone else who dares suggest that any candidate who is in line with natural law social principles can win the presidency) winning the Republican nomination. I realize it would be very difficult, if not humanly impossible, given that the Republican Establishment also gets a lot of its money from Planned Parenthood. (Democrats aren’t the only ones owned by the culture of death, surprize, surprize!) But let’s have faith, people! Let’s not ignore the time of our visitation, since it’s clear that God still is giving us a chance to have life, family, & marriage faithfully represented in November! Don’t allow “mammon” to win the day!

Gene Church:

How in the world is funding Planned Parenthood by Title X funding (which both directly and indirectly funds abortions) in keeping with the non-negotiables?

Gene,
What does a candidate’s “devoutness” have to do with anything?  I mean, I guess that’s good, but I’d look at the candidate’s positions.  I don’t see how assassination of a nuclear scientist could fall under Just War.  Read the criteria and tell me how that can be squared with Just War.  The Iraq War didn’t meet the criteria for a Just War, and Pope John Paul II and (then) Cardinal Ratzinger were pretty clear about that.

So, Santorum favors torturous treatment of prisoners, but denies that it constitutes torture.  That’s nice.  Seems like torturous logic to me.

Some of your other points, regarding immigration and unions, are reasonable.  I think Santorum is a faithful Catholic, but although I don’t claim that he’s doing it knowingly, he is not following the teachings of the Church on Just War and treatment of prisoners.

I would add that he’s pretty much shown himself to be a big government “compassionate conservative” in the mold of GW Bush. Personally, I don’t want another four years of a GW Bush clone.  I want someone that will actually balance the federal budget, follow Church social teachings on subsidiarity, and not pursue useless, immoral wars.

Would I vote for Santorum over Obama?  Yes.  Obama is a tyrant.  But is he the best candidate the GOP has to offer?  No.

BTW, Ron Paul is much closer a great Catholic vote than Santorum is, both by his philosophy and his record. Educate yourself if you don’t understand this.

It undermines his chances because he is missing the point himself, and going off on a tangent about birth control (which most people, like it or not, support) instead of addressing the real issue of Obama’s contravention of religious freedom.

The HHS mandate contravenes the First Amendment. Period. We don’t need to have a conversation about whether contraception is good or bad, or whether Catholics hold the theologically sound position (which obviously, I think we do). Santorum, and all the Catholics who are rallying behind him, don’t seem to get that this country is made up of mostly non-Catholics, and that the Constitution doesn’t enshrine the Catholic Church as the national Church. They act as if Rick Santorum is running for High Priest of America. And I’m sure he would’ve made a fine priest; but that is not the job he is seeking.

All he does by going off on tangents about the moral duties he thinks people have (obviously, I agree) is alienating people who disagree with the duties he supports. For example, he oftens goes off on tangents about ‘radical individualism’ and how the “Libertarianish” (his word) tendency toward individual liberty is too extreme…..excuse me? I’m sorry, but this sounds like a totalitarian fascist seeking to impose Catholic morality on people. I am a Catholic. I like Catholic morality. But I do not support making laws and using the police power of the government to force everyone to comply with it. That’s absurd, and that is what a lot of people are hearing from Santorum (whether or not that perception is true, that is what people take away from him). The government should prevent and penalize people who harm or defraud others; it should not police each and every private action based on moral law (it begs the question: Whose moral law? The federal government’s moral law?).

He is also TERRIBLE when it comes to two extremely important Catholic doctrines: (1) Subsidiarity and (2) the Just War Doctrine.

Subsidiarity means to separate the roles of government and society, and to allow maximum freedom and independece for the smallest/most-local units of authority. Santorum ALWAYS interjects some statement about not letting individuals be too free, and what the federal government’s responsibility is to people…..that makes him, to some extent, a Socialist. The federal government is there to repel foreign invasion and regulate interestata commerce; the states are there to manage every other governmental function; the society is left to chart its own course and thrive without the constant policing of government. Santorum clearly disagrees.

On Just War, he has supported every military intervention of the last 30 years, including those explicitly condemned by the Church. He has supported preemptive wars, disproportionate military responses, unsolicited agressions, and the reshaping of the world in the name of (holy?) democracy. In other words, he has joined forces with those in the Wilsonian-Progressive-Neoconservative school that has effectively replaced the Church with the United States (the “indispensable nation” spreading democracy like a holy mission).

Rational, philosophically-grounded Catholics are electable. Santorum is an authoritarian, Neoconservative ideologue with a room-temperature IQ. He is a complete disaster.

@Jared: Torture for the purpose of causing another person pain is EVIL. Torture to bring about the rescue of innocent human beings may be necessary. If the individual being tortured is decent he will gladly give up information to save innocent human beings. If the individual is complicit in the murder, bloodguilt, of murdering innocent human beings and torturing him will help save those INNOCENT human beings, the individual deserves the opportunity to help save those innocent human biengs and undo the evil he has done.

Mary, that is disgusting and most certianly not inline with the teachings of the Catholic Church:

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. **Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.** Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.91

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

JP, the Planned Parenthood attack is merely a political one.  Where do you find that Santorum has ever suggested that funding Planned Parenthood is something he favors.  Your argument is that PP got funded through a vote he has made before.  Santorum has indicated back in 2006 that while he did support Title X in the past, he believed that portions of it needed to be repealed.

Dave, neither the Iraq War, nor your interpretation on torture, has had any Magisterial declaration.  Santorum’s positions on abortion and contraception, however, have.

I would agree that he has done things in the past that would indicate that he has leaned toward Big Government, as has all candidates running.  George Washington served as a British officer, and was solidly in with the “enemy,” before the Revolutionary War.  But I hear few claiming that he shouldn’t lead the Revolutionary Army given his experience with the enemy.

Dude, he voted to fund PP. He voted to kill babies. Enough said.

If the argument is “just political” to you, I think you need to seriously consider what you have at stake here. What affiliation are you willing to put in importance over your Faith?

I don’t think that God is “okay” with political compromise which allows the direct funding of the death of innocents. That is NOT something to be brushed aside conveniently. And leading other people to do so is a scandal, for you and especially for a politician.

From the CCC 2297 “Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person…Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

In case that wasn’t clear enough, here it is again:

RICK SANTORUM VOTED TO KILL BABIES THROUGH TITLE X

Can the problem here be made any clearer.

If there were some sort of contrition, fine. However, in a VERY recent interview (within a couple of weeks from today) he brushed it off, saying that the bill also funded chastity programs and fatherhood programs.

As if chastity program funding makes the murder of babies ok. This man has some serious flaws in logic as well as in morals.

“This man has some serious flaws in logic as well as in morals.”—JF

Bingo.

@Michael Dowd: Alienating the Person of God, Jesus Christ, the ONLY INNOCENT MAN WHO ever walked the earth from the public square began America’s descent into hell. Jesus Christ went to hell for each and every human being so you and I would not have to. Having denied the Person of God freedom of religion, speech and assembly in the public square owned in joint and common tenancy, in whole and in part by each and every citizen, the totalitarianism began. THE IMMORTAL SOUL OF THE HUMAN PERSON WAS DENIED. The endowed, unalienable rights inscribed in our Declaration of Independence were removed from every human being in existence.

In addition:@Michael Dowd:  Clinton wrote an executive order making all public property the executive’s property, Obama wrote Executive Order 13575 Rural Councils to seize every piece of private property, and the National Defense Authorization Act Obama signed on New Years Eve from Hawaii, unconstitutionally gives the president the power to detain (read imprison) any person indefinitely with out charge, eradicating the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus, the constitutional right to trial by jury. It is not over, the project is a one world government run by an atheistic bank. Clinton has signed onto the United Nations gun control, International bank and LOST the sea treaty giving the United Nations control of the mineral rights under the sea, and making Americans pay for sailing the sea, like they owned the sea. Without the freedom of religion, the atheist will not be give a CHOICE, a freedom to change his mind and become a death bed convert. The atheist ought to at least have that much freedom of religon.

In case anyone has any doubts that Santorum has no idea of proportion (he weights the good of a little funding of chastity and fatherhood programs much more than the massive funding of childkilling), watch these:

http://blog.catholicmumma.net/2012/02/09/integrity/

The only people who are unelectable are atheists.

Santorum is also a murder-minded Zionist. Zionism is Masonic, and therefore no faithful Catholic can be a Zionist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n8uNcIEvGdo

A Catholic can run for President and win! One already did! John Fitzgerald Kennedy! Or, come to think….was JFK the first real
Catholic President? You decide! For me, I think we had a “nominal”
only in the Oval Office in the early 60’s. The first thing Kennedy did when questioned about his Catholicism “interfering” with the duties of
Office was to run down to Texas and tell some Protestant ministers
that they were not to worry…his Catholicism would never influence
his decisions while in office. Well, at least he was honest, sort of..Come to think his Catholicism never influenced him in or out of office. And then there is our current Prez…who says he is a Christian
Well, that does not seem to influence him any too much. So I quess the
real question is not can a Catholic be president..but can a religious person ever hold the office..get elected? From what is happening around us I would say NOT A CHANCE unless, like Kennedy, the allegiance was strictly nominal! The Prince of this World holds to much sway and influence.

If anyone has actual evidence that Rick Santorum has taken actions or held positions that the Church unambiguously opposes, I’d like to hear that.

@Coast Ranger: Google Satorum’s thoughts on torture or “enhanced interrogation” - there’s one for you, then look up in the CCC # 2297.

Look at him justifying voting for bills that contained funding for Title X (source with video: http://blog.catholicmumma.net/2012/02/09/integrity/)

But I don’t think it really matters, I think people who are sold on him are so sold on him that they cannot be persuaded to see anything that he does that are contrary to teachings of the Faith he is so readily happy to proclaim.

@ Mrs. F, I’m saying do the work, not just throw a charge out there. What are his “thoughts” on the subject of torture and how is that unacceptable to the faith? Has he said, I’m for torture as the Catholic Church defines it? When people say, “But I don’t think it really matters, I think people who are sold on him are so sold on him that they cannot be persuaded to see anything that he does that are contrary to teachings of the Faith he is so readily happy to proclaim” you are defeating your own argument. I mean why make the argument if it is futile?

Coast Ranger, I actually see numerous facts stated right here on this comment board, which (if any are true) prove that Santorum dissents from Church dogma, and Church leaders (including the pope).

The Magesterium does not need to unequivocally rule on every single item of American public policy in order for us as Catholics to know that a particular policy is against Church teaching. When John Paul II publically opposed the Iraq War, he was doing so in light of the Just War Doctrine, which is official, unequivocal Church dogma. He did not need to pronounce it ex cathedra, for us to be able to conclude that supporting US entrance into Iraq under those circumstances was contrary to Church teaching. Sure, you remain entitled to support the Iraq War and the Bush Doctrine in good faith so long as the Church does not pronounce these things heretical or immoral. Rick Santorum can even take communion. But I’m going to go with JPII’s application of the Just War Doctrine here, not George W Bush’s and not Rick Santorum’s.

He has further supported assassinations, preemptive war and disproportionate military strikes that certainly violate the Just War Doctrine, and methods of interrogation that arguably violate Church teaching on torture.

His positions on the constitution, federalism, welfarism, the federal education regime, funding for planned parenthood, etc, also provide a strong case that he is not a true proponent of Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is, like Just War, enshrined in the Catechism.

That’s enough evidence for me.

@Robert C, Honestly, I see no evidence in your post, only claims.

Coast Ranger, do you want a verified transcript of Santorum publically stating the exact positions I’ve mentioned? Should I copy and paste the results of all of his senate votes in favor of preemptive war, including Iraq; as well as the text of pertinent portions of the Catechism (which Mrs. F actually did).

You seem to be complaining about his critics here (myself included) not doing the work of producing evidence. You YOURSELF have several options here: (1) Dismiss everything being said against Santorum and passively wait until evidence is handed to you by his critics; (2) Accept everything said without question; (3) Use Google to verify the claims being made (many of which just happen to be public knowledge).

To reiterate just ONE piece of evidence that Santorum occassionally takes unCatholic positions on public policy: (a) JPII publically condemned the Iraq War; (b) JPII did so, while having an unquestioned understanding of the Just War Doctrine; (c) Rick Santorum, to this very day, publically endorses the Iraq War.

Again, each those 3 facts (as well as the text of the Just War Doctrine) can be googled.

@Mrs. F 2:16 Two words you missed reading 1) victim. No enemy combatant is a victim. 2) innocent. Perhaps my post ought to have said that bloodguilt is participation in killing innocent people. If these innocent people can be rescued by forcing an enemy combatant to divulge information, it is wrong not to. The Catechism might call this a just war.

Back in the early 90s, Santorum voted for Title IX funding and that is the ONLY time he hasn’t rated 0% on PP issues.  National Right to Life has given him 100% every year since 1996.  I think there are quite a few shills posting here with the intent to destroy his good name.  The other issues “Steve” brought up are not a matter of Doctrine.  I think some people on here need to refresh themselves on the commandment about bearing false witness.

Not everything needs to be a matter of doctrine; especially, specific APPLICATIONS of doctrines. The pope has spoken ex Cathedra precisely two times in over 2,000 years. Thus, the overwhelming majority of public statements by popes, including 100% of that which has been publically stated by JPII and BXVI, has not been doctrine. YET, mystifyingly, all of us Catholics hang on the pope’s every word for direction and guidance. For Catholics, the pope is the world’s preeminent theologian and spiritual leader. Just because a particular APPLICATION of a doctrine to a given public policy is not concrete doctrine in and of itself, does not mean we are free to dissent in good faith when the Pope says “X is condemnable” or “Y is good.” You can support the Iraq War and the other military aggressions the US has engaged in during the War on Terror all you like, but you are placing yourself in clear opposition to the position of the Pope. Again, I’ll take the Just War Doctrine over the Bush Doctrine; and, I’ll take JPII’s application of the Just War Doctrine over that of GW Bush or Rick Santorum.

CoastRanger,
It’s not OUR job to convince you that Santorum isn’t the best candidate from a Catholic point of view.  It’s YOUR job to do the work to research the candidates, and honestly and prayerfully compare them in the light of Catholic teaching, and then select one.

If you start with your mind already made up, then there’s always a rationalization or diversion one can use to defend their favorite candidate.

I started with an openness to all candidates, since none of them initially thrilled me.  When I started comparing candidates STATEMENTS and RECORDS on various issues, it became quite obvious that Ron Paul had the most Catholic stance on every issue, starting with abortion, and then down the line to federal spending, just war, torture, education, etc. etc.

If you decide to do the hard work, bestselling Catholic author Tom Woods (tomwoods.com) has a good site which has many posts explaining why Ron Paul is the best candidate from a Catholic perspective.  I’m sure you can find a site touting Rick Santorum as well.

Marc,
I think Santorum supporters need to seriously ask themselves why they continually need to make statements like “shills are attempting to ruin Santorum’s good name” (and I’ve seen this on plenty of Internet discussions) as if it’s wrong to point out TRUE votes or statements Santorum has made.

Most of us here are Catholic, Republican, and American.  We need to decide in which order.  I am Catholic first, and if a person puts themselves out there as a candidate for President, you bet your sweet patooie that I’m going to analyze their statements and votes very carefully, and analyze them in the light of Catholic teaching.  I’d be irresponsible to do otherwise.

@Jared: Torture for the purpose of causing another person pain is EVIL. Torture to bring about the rescue of innocent human beings may be necessary. If the individual being tortured is decent he will gladly give up information to save innocent human beings. If the individual is complicit in the murder, bloodguilt, of murdering innocent human beings and torturing him will help save those INNOCENT human beings, the individual deserves the opportunity to help save those innocent human biengs and undo the evil he has done.</i>

Wow.  Where to start? So torturing for one reason is evil, but for another reason may be good - in other words, the ends may justify the means?  While that is a form of reasoning, I suppose, it has been condemned by the Church.  And if the victim being tortured is decent, he will guive up the info - are you kidding me?  If he were decent, you wouldn’t need to torture him in the first place.  And if he isn’t, how do you know he won’t just lie to you (even Princess Leia, a decent gal, lied when tortured to give up the Rebel base).

Rick is certainly better than Obama, but his lack of understanding of just war and torture hardly make him 100% in line with Catholic teaching.

I think if the source article is about whether a faithful Catholic can run for president, and then commenters claim the man is actually a heretic, then the burden of proof is on those who claim he is an unfaithful Catholic.

Unfortunately no Roman Catholic could possibly be elected POTUS during this cycle. American voters are afraid a Roman Catholic President would be bound to follow the bishops and the pope no matter what. You youngsters don’t remember what John Kennedy went through and before him Al Smith. If you think poor Romney is getting it for being Mormon just try and run a Catholic. You’ll find all kinds of folks who are happy to say Catholism is a cult. The outspoken bishops have sealed Santorum’s and Gingrich’s fate.

Mr. Santorum’s people have tentatively scheduled a meeting at the Shriner’s Lodge in Phoenix.

Real Catholics do not hold meetings at Freemason Lodges.

*

How can you be both Republican and Christian?  They are contradictory philosophies.  Jesus was FAR to the LEFT of Obama. Wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy to help pay for health care for the poor, what could be more Christ like?

I was a big Santorum fan, but Tom Woods has led me to reconsider:
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-catholic-vote-ron-paul-or-rick-santorum/

Ron Paul won’t get the nomination but we can’t just dismiss his solid record and his commonsense, no nonsense approach. Faithful Catholics really should take another look at him.

CoastRanger,
A claim by a blogger is not sufficient to shift the burden of proof in my opinion.  If you haven’t found ground to wonder, at least, whether Santorum’s views on war and torture aren’t formed more by the neo-con think tanks than Church teaching, then you haven’t been paying attention.

Also, his pro-life credentials, which although better than Romney and Gingrich, are not unimpeachable.  It’s not just one vote for Title X, he supported Title X through 2006.  Now, he claims not to…fine.  But he also supported the Freedom of Access to Abortion Clinics law, which has been used to persecute pro-lifers, and supported Arlen Specter over a pro-life candidate in endorsement processes.  His PAC has even given money to pro-abortion Republicans.  You can make your own judgments, but to me, it looks pretty clear that, at times, his pro-life views can be trumped by other factors.

All these matters e.g. torture, just war, etc are prudential matters. Which means a Catholic Christian can make up his own mind with the use of prudence…a word meaning common sense! If Rick Santorum isn’t “Catholic” enough for you then don’t vote for him. But who is running that is more acceptable to you? Ron Paul with his zany foreign policy? Newt Gingrich with his “heavy baggage” of previous marriages, etc? Mitt Romney with his past history of being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage? My point is that the perfect candidate does not exist but the least of all evils for me is the candidate that is most likely to defeat our current socialist/secularist President. Another four years of this control freak and you might want to consider joining Newt’s moon colony! As Catholics and Americans we should work hard to prevent the re-election of this anti-Catholic, most pro-choice ( as long as your choice agrees with his) President.

@Thirst for Truth, the CCC is pretty clear about torture: Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. (2297)

@ThristforTruth, I’m with you. Each of us will have to make a prudential decision for which we will each be personally responsible. There is no perfect candidate so at some point we will have to settle on the least imperfect one. I admire things about all the Republican candidates but they all have their flaws, too.

ThirstForTruth,
They are not prudential matters.  Whether a certain situation meets the criteria is, to a CERTAIN EXTENT, prudential, but the teachings themselves are not.  But Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger said that the Iraq war DID NOT meet the criteria of just war.  Not that it was their opinion - they said it was clear that it didn’t.

I support Ron Paul and his “zany” foreign policy that we should treat other nations the way we’d want to be treated.  Imagine that!  Totally crazy!  And he’s also got a plan to overturn Roe vs. Wade immediately.  That goes a long way with me.

When it comes to the general election, I’ll even vote for Romney to unseat Obama, if it comes to that.  For now, though, the focus is on selecting the best candidate who also has the best chance to beat Obama.  The only two candidates that seem to be attracting any independents and moderate Dems are Romney and Ron Paul.

I’m with Dave on the Romney or Paul, only issue. Honestly, I don’t think Romney is that much different than Santorum and Gingrich. But at least he’s not pompous, alienating and snarky. Also, being a Mormon, I don’t have to worry about Romney showing scandal for the whole Church like Santorum (with his positions on Subsidiarity and Just War) and Gingirch (same as Santorum + 3 marriages, 2 extramarital affairs). And Romney never made idiot-statements warning everyone about those pernicious Libertarians in the GOP like Santorum. What a moron. Contrast that with Reagan who said Libertarians are the “heart” of the Conservative movement. As for the issues raised here being prudential, again, people are confusing DOCTRINES with APPLICATIONS of Doctrines. JPII and B16 didn’t say “you can disbelieve in Just War or be against Subsidiarity.” They CANT do that. What they’ve done, as the WORLD’S PREEMINENT THEOLOGIANS is make public statements APPLYING non-prudentual doctrines like Just War: Eg, condemning the war in Iraq. So, yes, you can choose to apply Just War differently and come out with some other conclusion than JPII; but I’m going to stick with JPII on this one and suggest that it is Rick Santorum who needs to figure things out. This is like a Liberal saying “there is no doctrine that says the USA can’t establish Universal healthcare and force the Church to buy insurance!” Well, that’s technically true, but then again, believing that socialized medicine and setting the State above the Church is doctrininally-sound is a highly difficult thing to do in good faith given the Church’s position on subsidiarity and Socialism (as is believing the Iraq War was just, given the Pope’s unequivocal condemnation).

Scott P. Richert does a nice job summarizing Pope John Paul’s and Pope Benedict’s views on the Iraq wars here: http://catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/f/popes_on_iraq.htm.
I don’t think they are nearly as “clear” as some of the commenters here suggest. For example, JPII said “it is never too late to come to an understanding and to continue discussions.” Taken absolutely, how can that be correct, because if it is “never too late” then a nation can never choose to go to war? I think certainly in retrospect Pope Benedict was right in that we would cause more damage than we would stop. We Americans seem awfully adolescent in rashly acting and hoping for the best. But bear in mind, when it comes to some matter, even popes can only advise. It was the American president’s decision to make, not the pope’s, and the president is responsible for his judgment and command. It’s actually a good argument for following the Constitution and gaining a Congressional Declaration of War.

Coast Ranger, it’s perfectly fine to come to a different conclusion than the pope. I don’t think Santorum is a heretic for doing so. There are areas of Caritas in Veritate I disagree with, or that I at least think aren’t well developed. B16 isn’t an economist. JPII wasn’t a military general. However, I find both of their perspectives in both of those areas highly persuasive and worthy of consideration, given the theological overlap with economics and warfare. JPII’s statement about continuing discussions and coming to an understanding is grounded in the Just War Doctrine and in the Gospels themselves. Contrast this with some of things Santorum has been saying about Iran; and what other Neoconservatives have said about placing devastating sanctions on a nation that hasn’t attacked anyone in 200 years, is not close to developing nukes, and is so much poorer and weaker than us that we have no good reason to fear them. Santorum has no interest in beginning, let alone continuing discussions with Iran. Moreover, his Iran policy would be perpetuating precisely the same preemptive war-policy we got from the Bush Doctrine (which I think flies directly in the face of the Just War Doctrine)—we are again going to preemptively invade a poor country, who hasn’t attack us, and probably can’t attack us, on specious evidence of weapons, for the purpose of (a) defending ourselves from these hypothetical weapons, and, alternatively, (b) to spread democracy. And in the end, for the purpose of hypothetically sparing American lives from a weapon that may not exist, and probably can’t be launched, we end up killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, driving a wedge between Islam and Christians in the region (like the Chaldeans), and saying it was all in the name of freeing the people of that nation. Then, they turn around and [democratically] elect even worse governments, implementing Islamic theocracies, and we act bewildered! B16 was CERTAINLY right that we do more damage than good by invading these nations to democractize them. It’s not our job, and none of our business how they want to run their governments. Spreading democracy is, moreover, by no sensible application, a valid reason for going to war under the Just War Doctrine. When the US government starts going on a holy mission to spread democracy, it blurs the lines between its role as a limited institution created to protect Americans, and its potential role as a quasi-Church. It is also not the president’s decision to go to war; it is the people’s decision, and the people speak and vote through their elected representatives in the Congress, who in turn (are supposed to) declare war. The president may request a declaration. When the president started sending troops on extra-Congressional, extra-Constitutional military adventures, he became a Caesar (Caesar, by the way, was for all intents and purposes a quasi-god and religious “leader” of the empire; Rome was in certain respects a Pagan religious entity; he also had plenary executive and legislative powers…looks like we’re back at square one in America: Where the president is a god, and the State is infallible, even when its invading weak nations that haven’t attacked us).

@Robert C, I don’t agree with you a 100% but I think you make a lot of sense.

Good Catholic Santorum yesterday told Hannity in an interview that he voted to provide government funding for contraception.  He didn’t seem to think there was any problem with that.  Not sure what his thinking pattern is sometimes.

Rick Santorum is the best hope for this nation to survive as a truly free democratic nation.

@Maggie - How so?

Santorum supporters toss out expressions like that, but I have yet to hear what he says he will do to save our country.

@ Mrs. F:

Try his website:

http://www.ricksantorum.com/issues?gclid=CMPyj_Ptpa4CFRIDQAodFR71TQ

Given the facts that

1) America is no longer “a truly free nation”,
2) America is not a true democracy (even if democracy really were as good as people seem to think), and
3) Santorum will do little to no good in correcting the economic problems America is currently facing,

... no, I don’t see ANY hope that he would increase, or even preserve any chance for America to “survive as truly free democratic nation.”

That said, I am not completely opposed to voting for him, only because at least he isn’t openly hostile to Catholics, and I suspect there would be a chance that the Catholic Church in America wouldn’t be becoming like the Catholic Church in China quite as soon as it’s looking right now….

I think I’m a pretty fervent Catholic, but I could care less about electing a Catholic president. We need somebody who will following the Constitution. We need somebody who is fiscally responsible, meaning not spending money we don’t have. We need somebody who believes in small government. Those three things are “catholic” enough for me, right now.

Coast Ranger,

I totally agree with you on that.  That’s exactly why I am voting for Ron Paul.  In fact, if you’re looking for someone who:

(1) Follows the Constitution carefully.
(2) Won’t spend money we don’t have
(3) Believes in small government

In fact, I can’t see how you can vote for anyone BUT Ron Paul, if those are your qualifications.  Paul completely trounces the other three GOP candidates on all three of those issues.

@ Dave, I agree with you, but you left out “(4) Can beat Obama.” I have no sense Ron Paul can do that.

Coast Ranger,
That part is a prudential judgment.  Personally, I believe that Paul and Romney are the only two with a chance to defeat Obama.

If you think of the average voter, they will see Santorum as a GW Bush clone, and rightly so.  IMO, Santorum will lose the majority of independents to Obama, and has virtually no chance to unclench Obama’s headlock on the youth vote.  I don’t think Santorum would hold up in a debate with Obama very well, either.  My best hope for that is that he wouldn’t lose by a knockout.

Ron Paul, IMO, has a lot better chance from Santorum, as he can not only cut into the youth vote, he might actually win it over Obama.  He also does well with independents.  With his common sense consistent values, he could debate Obama to a standstill or even beat him.

It is true that Paul will have to overcome the perception of many that he is a “kook”, but if nominated, he’d definitely have the stage and the platform to do that.

Like I said, it’s a prudential judgment, but no one has been able to really tell me why they think Santorum is more electable than Paul.

Some say that Rick is catholic and care for Vatican and so they will not vote. Such great people will be ruled by Communists or People of bin Laden ; then they may open their eyes and cry loud without any use

I believe that faith drives what a person thinks, does, and say. In order for any religious politician (Catholic, Mormon, Baptist) is to use his God-given grace and use his religious moral conscience values to protect all persons from “womb to tomb”.

I noticed at the beginning of the comments, Mary De Voe said that “Right now Rick Santorum is the only, the only candidate who will not penalize the public for not providing contraceptives and this respects my conscience.”

Dr. Ron Paul has issued a statement on the HHS Mandate: http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1949:the-latest-obamacare-overreach&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

He is totally and completely against it.

“I noticed at the beginning of the comments, Mary De Voe said that “Right now Rick Santorum is the only, the only candidate who will not penalize the public for not providing contraceptives and this respects my conscience.””

Yeah, not to mention the fact that Santorum has voted to fund contraception, and Paul hasn’t.  Of course, since Santorum is a big government “compassionate conservative” like GW Bush, he votes to fund A LOT of things that Paul doesn’t. 

With a debt already at $16 trillion and rising, can we really afford to nominate another big government lover?  It is estimated that by 2020, the best case scenario (assuming we continue to spend like we have in the Bush/Obama years) is that we’ll be spending 1/6 of our national revenue just on paying INTEREST on the national debt.  That’s the best case.  The worst case is something like 1/3.  So we’ll be throwing 17 to 33% of our money out the window, or more accurately, giving it to China.

I don’t know about anyone else but I cannot, in good conscience, vote to pass even more debt on to my children and grandchildren.  We’re getting uncomfortably close to Greece territory with the debt, folks.

I’m glad Santorum has been out there saying some really good things,about the sanctity of life and the family, but I have to agree with some of the other posters above who have a huge problem with his approach to big government, war, funding contraceptives, PP etc.  Let’s just be honest about a couple of things:  1. He wouldn’t win against Obama.  2.  Almost anybody with a pulse is better than Obama.

1. Santorum is NOT a GWB clone, Bush was only just barely right of center, and bowed to his liberal wife’s demands. Santorum is rightwing.
2. Santorum DOSE have a chance to gain the GOP nomination, he is gaining momentum in the polls and approval-wise apears to be the frontrunner by a wide margian.
3. Nobody is perfect, so of course NONE of the canidates have perfect records. As a senetor Obama said that infants born alive prematurely deserve to die because there is no differance between them and their full-term counterparts, he wanted to allow them to die because if they were protected the logical conclusion would be that they would have to be protected in the womb too. How insane is that? And yet, he won.
4. Do NOT listen to liberals who tell you not to let Abortion be a diciding issue. While all issues need to be considered, there are five issues that stand above the rest as being non-negotialble: Abortion, Euthinasia, Fetal Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning and Homosexual “Marriage”. And in that order, too(the first three being the most important, and trump anyother combination). It is the Catholic duty to find and support a canadate who is in line with the Church in this spectrum as much as possible, then you must consider between the ones who qualify the other political issues relivent. To my knowlage(I don’t know much of Ron Paul or Romeny’s veiw on stem cell reserch), all of the GOPers put forward met the bar on these, (whereas Obama meets none of them)So you need to look at the likeliness that they will continue to do so as well as where they are on the other issues.

You forgot “torture” on that list of “non-negotiables” there.

I have to admit I’m not quite sure how some “non-negotiable” items are more or less “non-negotiable” than others based based on their listing order…

(I’m REALLY not talking about homosexual ‘marriage’, but I’m REALLY REALLY REALLY not talking about abortion, mister!”)

All said, Mr. Santorum appears to be a bit more faithfully Republican than he is faithfully Catholic, as he adheres to a greater percentage of GOP doctrine than Catholic doctrine.

From former Republican Senator Simpson:
“I know Santorum, I served with him.”  “...I am convinced that if you get into these social issues and just stay in there about abortion and homosexuality and even mental health they bring up, somehow they’re going to take us all to Alaska and float us out in the Bering Sea or something. If we’re going to do that, and here’s a party that believes in government out of your life, the precious right of privacy and the right to be left alone. How then can they be the hypocrisy of fiddling around in these social issues? We won’t have a prayer.”

I’ll support a candidate who will keep the government OUT of our lives. Santorum is not that candidate. He cannot accept a differing belief without regulating it. Let people CHOOSE, don’t force your CHOICE on everyone.

thank you for this post. Ultimately , whether or not Rick Santorum gets the nomination , it only matters if he stays true to his faith .America (North and South) all need to hear what he has to say. I think its so great that contraception is in the news. ITs news to the news people that not everyone is in agreement with contraception. THe more this is out there the more people will start to think about it and hopefully learn the truth of all the evils it brings. I wish i was American so i could vote for him.

Finally a decent man runing for office!  Santorum 2012!  Rick is the first candidate I donated money to.  Also he is the first candidate I have helped with their campaign.  What a time to be alive!  We sure need such a faithful Catholic at present with all difficulties we face as a nation.  Rick is the perfect candidate the man of the hour, the man of faith.  Vote for Rick Santorum!

Well said, Mr. Archbold! Well said. Thank you so much for speaking truth unashamedly. As the Professor says in the C.S. Lewis book, “The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe:” “Why don’t they teach LOGIC in schools these days?” I make this same lamentation at least once per day!

Interesting to read the absolutely vitriolic comments as the followers of the Democrat Religion come out of the wormy wood work. They sense that their stranglehold on the institutional Church is showing real signs of cracking. They know that for the last 50 years their hand picked acolytes and high priests and priestesses of the death cult ... the Cuomo’s, the Pelosi’s, the Kennedy’s the Sebelius types; whose central sacrament and right of initiation is Abortion are becoming vulnerable. They know that the true glue of genuine social justice is made only tacky when mixed with the poisons of Abortion & Homosexual Marriage & HHS Mandates and will not withstand any rocking of the boat by a Genuine Catholic and may not work this time. They are scared to death or should I say they are scared to life that some Catholic of the caliber of a Rick Santorum might actually capture a significant portion of the Catholic vote. They are frightened of an “informed” Catholic laity and of Bishops who are at last becoming aware of the injustice of being or appearing to be merely rubber stamps for poisoned Democrat policies. Please Bishops and priests rise to the moment ... begin the new Evangalization by catechizing both the Catholics in the pews as well as appealing to the 2nd largest Church in America ... the under or never catechized fallen away Catholics. Appeal directly to them to come back and help in this effort. With all the push back advice you are being given by the “world” you know it is the right thing to do. Prepare to be amazed by the support you WILL get from the least likely places.

Wow - now that last post frome veritas WAS really frightening!
When you are talking about imposing your singular view on everyone without exception or tolerance for anyone else’s point of view it sounds very Hitler in message.
It is appropriate to speak up, stand up and be proud of your religious beliefs, it is quite scary when you will not stop short of imposing those singular beliefs on everyone in America.
Hint: Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are evil. If everyone thought that way then at some point we would each be “evil” to someone else. Are you the “evil” one?

“I absolutely can’t believe you classify Santorum as being faithfully Catholic. You do realize the man openly disagrees with the USCCB on issues such as immigration, wants to ban public unions (in direct opposition to Rerum Novarum and Centesimus Annus), says assassination of foreigners is “a wonderful thing”, supports torture (in opposition to Catholic teaching), supported the Iraq War (which both JP2 and B16 vehemently opposed), supports pre-emptive war (in opposition to Catholic teaching), voted for Title IX (which funds contraception, and Planned Parenthood especially, among many other non-Catholic stances.
To say that Santorum is faithfully Catholic is a farce.
“Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian [Catholic] any more than standing in your garage makes you a car.”
? G.K. Chesterton”
AMEN. Thank you. It’s amazing to me how many Catholics see Santorum’s big family and anti-abortion stance and throw the other Catholic teachings out the window.

Being pro-life means more than being anti-abortion!!!