It is possible to enjoy a person’s writing style and the sound of the gears whirring in the brain even while disagreeing with what you are reading. People forget to remember that fairly often.
Thus, today I take strong exception to a writer I enjoy, Ann Coulter.
Ann staged a little nutty about Catholic Sen. Santorum HERE.
[…]
Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, [?] which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God. [Inapt and inept. I think the only thing Santorum and Kennedy had in common is that they were baptized.]
Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go, but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as “a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate.” [She seems to be accepting that last description. Therefore Santorum is in Coulter’s mind he is, at the same time, a “pro pol” but also a “Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate”. Perhaps she wrote that paragraph under the influence of sleep deprivation.]
The Catholic missionary was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, [And yet he is supposed to be like Ted Kennedy, right?] but more like a Catholic bishop in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous “bridge to nowhere.”
Santorum cites his father’s admonition to put any extra money in the poor box at church to explain his wanting to use the federal government to help the poor. [So… no aid for the poor? None?]
You get only one or two big issues in a presidential campaign. But in the middle of the second Great Depression, [We are nowhere near the suffering that implied. Yet.] Santorum is on the campaign trail saying, “The reason I ran is ’cause I think people know there is more than just a little narrow issue called ‘jobs.'”
Actually, this year, it’s pretty much just jobs.
[…]
I think we can and must talk about more than one issue at a time, even in the campaign season.
The bottom line is that – insofar as this piece is concerned – she implies that if someone is Catholic she can’t be conservative. Did you get that impression as well?
In any event, it is possible to enjoy a person’s writing style and even while disagreeing with what you are reading.
Loading ...
Kinda strange because her “favorite politician” is Chris Christie who is a Roman Catholic. (at least according to Wikipedia)
While Ms. Coulter is certainly off the rails in some of her comments, as to the issue of government aid for the poor, I say no. The principle of subsidiarity supports the notion that the FedGuv is the last place to consider establishing such “support”. The real history of our Federal programs shows an unbroken history of mismanagement, corruption, and failure to serve the goals for which they were ostensibly created. This is true of every welfare program of which I know, as well as of Social Security, the poster child of government meddling.
We have a personal obligation to charity. That extends to a community obligation, as well. A village is certainly capable of caring for its own.
Yes, it does seem that Catholics can’t be Conservatives according to Coulter. But that is no different from the rant I read on Mark Shea’s blog today about how Santorum is a dissenting Catholic on par with the likes of Catholics for a Free Choice. Apparently if you don’t blindly follow every piece of white paper coming out of Rome, then you are bad a Catholic. Heh. Poor Santorum, too Catholic for some and not Catholic enough for others.
Perhaps when Ann Coulter talks about Santorum resembling a Catholic bishop on certain issues, she means to compare him to particular liberal bishops. This doesn’t sound like she is trying to insult Catholicism. Her own late father was a devout Catholic.
“He is more of a Catholic than a conservative…”
Coulter had always been a little too boorish for my liking, but when I heard that line earlier today, I immediately decided that Santorum has my vote (but I guess it doesn’t really count since I am currently domiciled in California).
Yeah I was never a santorum fan before but that’s only because I didn’t know him. He’s got my vote. Wish I lived in Ohio or Florida so it would matter.
I think that she is arguing that a devout and adherent Catholic will necessarily not line up one several issues with a strict social and fiscal libertarian conservatism. On this she is probably correct.
This has been the challenge of the American political right for the last thirty years: how to hold together a coalition of social conservatives and libertarian conservatives. The challenge has grown more pronounced as social mores have changed—thirty years ago gay marriage was not even on the radar. Now the Church’s stance (and thus a devout Catholic politician’s stance) on gay marriage will often be at odds with the libertarian position.
I have come to my senses regarding Ann Coulter. I have come to really despise her writing. Back when I was a right wing republican, I thought she was the best thing since sliced bread. Never mind that her arguments are weak, and that she never convinced anyone who didn’t already agree with her.
That said, I read her article differently than Fr. Z does. Despite her efforts to the contrary, she has convinced me Santorum is worth supporting, because in fact he DOES support things like justice for the poor, and will actually defend marriage instead of just giving up the fight as Ron Paul (and rest assured… Mitt Romney as well) would.
Now, all this is moot. We are going to be voting for either Mitt Romney or Obama (I chose Mitt Romney in this race by the way… obviously…) but that doesn’t mean that Santorum hasn’t impressed me greatly with his courage and forthrightness.
Coulter is an anti-Catholic by the way, and has been for some time. Welcome to reality. She is a nut-case. Her writing is poor, myopic, mean spirited, and unconvincing.
I know almost nothing about Miss Coulter, but if she means by “Catholic” the way the USCCB represents itself politically, then she’s right on the money. How can we expect her to know the difference between the Church’s true positions (justice, subsidiarity, etc.) on these issues and what so many bishops are continually lobbying for if, well, if they don’t know it themselves? Of everyone currently ‘in the field’ the one who most represents the ‘Catholic position’ (given the confines of our Constitution, an important side-note) is Ron Paul. All the other ‘conservatives’ seem just at ease with our massacre of civilians in unprevoked, unjust, and undeclared foreign wars as they are with the idea that it’s somehow ok for the government to be able to indefinitely detain (or assasinate) American citizens on nothing more than ‘suspicions’ of terrorism.
I’ve never understood why you like Ann Coulter, Fr Z. She’s not someone I enjoy at all, and certainly not someone whose style I would ever want to model myself after.
One of my volunteer jobs helps the homeless (through St Vincent de Paul). They are assisted by a mix of government and nonprofit groups, and often a lot of the money that funds the nonprofit groups is coming from the government. Often the way someone gets out of homelessness is by getting on SSI or SSDI–it is a population with genuinely a lot of disabilities (though also substance abuse and other behavioral problems). Providing housing and health care can be very expensive and although subsidiarity and charitable giving is a wonderful idea currently it’s the government that has the capability of marshaling that much resources.
She likes to stir the pot…
The piece itself wasn’t one of her betters ones. The problem with Rick is that he is pro-life except when that life is a baby in a muslim womb and that is where moral conservatism is stuck in the USA. The country needs a reboot and only the philosophically flawed Ron Paul is prepared to hit the on-off switch. He would get my vote for that reason.
The number of people in traditional media who know how to speak knowingly and intelligently about the Church… I can count on one hand, I think, maybe not even the whole hand. I put little stock in most pundits or reporters.
Elizabeth D says: One of my volunteer jobs helps the homeless (through St Vincent de Paul). They are assisted by a mix of government and nonprofit groups, and often a lot of the money that funds the nonprofit groups is coming from the government. Often the way someone gets out of homelessness is by getting on SSI or SSDI–it is a population with genuinely a lot of disabilities (though also substance abuse and other behavioral problems). Providing housing and health care can be very expensive and although subsidiarity and charitable giving is a wonderful idea currently it’s the government that has the capability of marshaling that much resources.
The trouble with accepting money from the government is that you put yourself in a position to be blackmailed by the government. How easy is it to resist compromising Catholic principles when this becomes a condition of receiving money upon which you have become dependent?
Sometimes i wish we could/would be Catholics first……and Americans second. Railing against Bishops who, although considered Faithful and conservative, press for programs for the poor and less fortunate is a black eye for what we as Catholics are taught. From Pope Leo XIII to Pope Benedict XVI we are continually reminded of our responsibility to our brothers. Trying to balance libertarian economic policies with Church teaching on social issues is a dance that just will not work.
And if you think Ms. Coulter’s remarks on Senator Santorum are questionable, just wait untill he gains more popularity and then you will see the true haters of all things Catholic crawl out from under their rocks. Pax Christi.
D. Morgan
I have never cared for Coulter – but…
Anyone familiar with the typical political pronouncements of the USCCB might be excused if they imagined that the average catholic was just a typical liberal who happened to oppose abortion.
My understanding of the poor box is that one puts one’s own money into it, not the money of others. We need more generous people in the churches and more Davey Crocketts in the Congress.
Ann Coulter reminds me strongly of Martin Luther. Both have abrasive, take-n0-prisoners, very funny writing styles. It’s like brain candy if you agree with ’em and annoying (at best) if you don’t.
On the left, if you’re not a Kennedy-style Catholic, you’re an extremist.
On the right, if you’re “a Cath-o-lic,” you might be useful to them, but they don’t trust you.
Catholics are the most tight-wad Christians out there. Protestants tithe. Your lucky if Catholics even give 1% to their parish. I hope those who advocate getting government out of caring for the poor are giving till it hurts and very actively encouraging others to do the same. Some good reading: “Happy Are You Poor” by Fr. Thomas Dubay.
I think Coulter’s favorite pol is Romney; she seems to be quite fixated on him as of late.
As for comparing Santorum to Kennedy, she might want to look at Pelosi or Biden, as they sure fit the bill.
I once thought she had something worthy to say; now it seems like she says things just to sell books. Maybe if she ate more . . .
We are going to be voting for either Mitt Romney or Obama ….
To quote Tonto, “What do you mean we, paleface?”
Neither man will ever get my vote.
@Capt. Morgan
I’m totally with you on this one. And I love the name.
That society needs to help the poor is a Catholic value which Catholics must accept.
How that is done is a matter of prudential judgment left to competent authorities.
If Santorum believes that the government should help the poor, I would disagree. That doesn’t make either of us bad Catholics. It means we are Catholics of goodwill trying to implement the value (i.e., “help the poor”) as best we think. To me, that means getting the government out of the way of civil society, especially charities. If Santorum disagrees, then I think he is wrong, but he is not a bad Catholic.
As of now Santorum will get my vote( in Florida). But after reading Coulter’s column I didn’t think she was too far out in her analysis on electability. Generally I do find her too strident. My worry about Santorum is that he does seem more like the “assistant manager”. I do think Romney is the only viable candidate in the long run but maybe a strong showing for Santorum would make him a good contender for VP.
Miss Anita Moore, I agree Catholic organizations should not take government money. And our SVDP does not as far as I know (precisely because there are strings attached), though unfortunately in my opinion they ARE affected and compromised by some regulations anyway (and put up too little resistance). My point is that for the poor the reality is that the government is where the substantial resources are to help them. SSI means among other things having an apartment, Food Stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid, it makes all the difference for many people who were formerly homeless.
“Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative…”
Amen. Catholics needn’t equate their religion with American political conservatism. Where in our faith are we called to be conservatives? We should be on the side of truth, justice, and compassion on any given issue, regardless of whether that puts us on the right, the left, or in the center. Jesus Christ isn’t a conservative…he’s simply right, no matter where “right” happens to fall on the (ever-redefined and changing) American political spectrum. Catholic does not = Republican.
“Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go, but he is still a professional politician.”
Oh, heaven forbid. A presidentila candidate who is a politician. That’s never happened before. Professional politicians, as it happens, are generally the sort who know how to get things done in Washington.
“The bottom line is that – insofar as this piece is concerned – she implies that if someone is Catholic she can’t be conservative. Did you get that impression as well?”
She simply states a fact (however venomously), namely that a good Catholic simply is not going to take the “conservative” position on every single merely issue for the sake of being conservative on issues. A Catholic doesn’t need to be conservative, he needs to be Christian. If being Christian on a certain issue means that he is not conservative on it, so be it. Ask the priests and Pharisees how conservative they thought Jesus Christ was.
Catholics aren’t called to be conservatives. Catholics are called to be Christians. I’ll take a Catholic president over a conservative one any day.
“Coulter is an anti-Catholic by the way, and has been for some time. Welcome to reality. She is a nut-case. Her writing is poor, myopic, mean spirited, and unconvincing.”
Totally agree. She’s a nutter with nice hair.
Whatever! Just as long as he doesn’t get the nomination.
http://www.culturewars.com/2007/Santorum.html
Santorum is a
CatholicSo many are so willing to judge others whom they know not. I thought this was a Catholic blog?
Coulter is rude, often crass, but very intelligent.
Anyone who declares that any given Republican cannot have his vote is complicit in the likely return of Obama the abortionist to office. Politics is a matter of compromise, always. You may abstain, but that does not alleviate your responsibility.On the other hand, there is no compromise possible in the case of Obama. No Catholic who honors our faith can in good conscience vote for that man.
Coulter and a penful of other arch-neocons are eager to taint Santorum because they think (and I don’t agree) that Santorum can’t beat the incumbent. Her rhetoric is all about promoting Romney because she believes only Romney and beat Obama. For them it’s “anybody but Obama,” and they think only Romney has a fighting chance. With Coulter it’s about rhetoric, not content. The uglier her rhetoric the higher her ratings. I doubt that she believes much of what she says.
Well Father, your buddies at Acton would agree.
BTW: has anyone checked out realclearpolitics(dot)com?
Seems to consolidate a great deal of good information without a discernible bias.
@Athanasius! Well said! I do not see how those at Acton are given such a pass on this.
@ContraMundum… I have never been called paleface before. I was drinking my milk and nearly ruined my keyboard. That was funny! (You should vote for Romney over Obama by the way in my opinion. Obama represents a serious threat to the Church and our religious liberty, ANYONE but the current President…)
@Cpt.Morgan: Agree with you 100%
I’d like to chime in somewhere along what vox B and Centristian are saying. First, I didn’t get the impression (from the excerpt) that Ms. Coulter was talking down to Catholicism PER SE, but she did appear to say that, as a Catholic, he would OBVIOUSLY support some things she’s against. This is the flip side of what Centristian is saying — just as Catholics don’t need to define themselves by conservative politics, they also don’t need to identify with the American left, which is essentially what Coulter is saying. I DO disagree with the premise that a conservative has to be suspect of the Catholic point of view — I mean, what institution could be more “conservative” than the Catholic Church?
Along with vox borealis, I have to say that many folks today do think Catholics inherently like liberalism and I find that one of the biggest tragedies, certainly the largest unspoken tragedy, to spring from the Second Council of the Vatican. The Church USED TO BE very clear about these social issues, and while she inspired ideas such as distributism with focusing on private property, small enterprise, and worker’s rights, she also focused on liberty, and subsidiarity. She also spoke against things like State Socialism and Communism — clearly, frequently, and BY NAME. But now, the Church sees only poor, and no other issue, and if Communists or Socialists or the House Progressive Caucus want to take YOUR MONEY to give it to ME in the name of ‘helping the poor’, why, the USCCB trips all over themselves to get to the front of the line to kiss THEIR ring fingers — but it’s still the Communist/Socialist THEFT that the Church consistently condemned for over a century!! They don’t bat an eye UNTIL it looks like some of that “help” will be funding for Planned Parenthood.
So I can see why an intelligent right-winger with a great writing style but boorish or hot-headed tendencies when speaking would say this about Senator Santorum. I agree – politically, he did things that aren’t that conservative, and he did the same amount of horse-trading that other pols do. I can see why she suspects Catholicism as a cause for that, and I cringe when I admit that it DOES line up with the Church as seen in America under the … deleterious effects of the USCCB.
But on his worst day, Rick Santorum would be far better than Barry. Now, I’m going to watch the rest of the World Junior Finals … Socialists outshooting Communists 33 to 4 …
Pingback: Ann Coulter: Mormons okay, but those Catholics are just too Christian | Unsettled Christianity
Athanasius says:
5 January 2012 at 8:58 pm
[So… no aid for the poor? None?]
Well Father, your buddies at Acton would agree.
Well said, Athanasius.
Santorum isn’t the Catholic candidate as Tom Herron demonstrated:
http://www.culturewars.com/2007/Santorum.html
Her father was a practicing Catholic and from her writings she attributes much of her thinking to him.
Interesting.
Not my place to judge Santorum’s Catholicity, but I’ve wondered for years why he did not support pro-life candidate Pat Toomey when Toomey ran against pro-abort Arlen Specter in 2004 (and many pundits gave Toomey a good chance of winning). Did fellow Catholic and so-called pro-life Senator Rick Santorum endorse him? No! He endorsed the pro-abort candidate and Toomey lost by just 1.7%. Think what Santorum’s endorsement might have done, especially when Benedict Arnold Specter ended up switching to the Democrat Party.
A couple of points:
FWIW, Coulter is no Romney supporter. She is on record as saying that if Romney wins the nomination, Obama will be re-elected.
I agree with the sentiments of Anonymous Seminarian. Let’s be honest – the great majority of those who call themselves Catholic these days have little clue what the Church teaches, how can we expect Ann Coulter to understand? If she’s basing her notion of Catholic social justice on the drivel that comes from the USCCB and no small number of individual bishops, she is right to be concerned.
Lastly, many folks Catholic and otherwise (for the reasons just stated) are under the impression that “aid to the poor” Catholic style is all about programs (government or otherwise) that facilitate handouts; it’s not. Even Gaudium et Spes, for all of its flaws, if read carefully enough makes the case that justice for the poor has far less to do with making dependents of the needy (which does little to uphold their dignity) than it does with creating opportunities that allow the poor to realize their own potential as fully functioning members of society who are able to uphold their own duty toward themselves, their family members and their fellow men.
I suspect that Coulter, and most “conservatives,” would find Catholic social doctrine properly explained rather palatable.
Negative, Louie.
She’s in the bag for Romney.
Miss Coulter said…
“So the fact that the Iowa caucuses avoided giving the gold to Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul or some other sure-to-lose candidate shows that Republicans are dead serious about beating Obama this fall. Even in Iowa, the only Republican with a chance of doing that won.”
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-race/2012/01/04/coulter-op-ed-iowa-shows-republicans-determined-beat-obama#ixzz1idzEp75U
Former Altar Boy:
Santorum endorsed Specter after getting Specter’s word that he would support and promote Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. Santorum thought that Specter would be more likely than Toomey to win the election, so he took that route. Specter kept his word and we have Roberts and Alito on the Court.
Santorum thought that Specter would be more likely than Toomey to win the election, so he took that route. Specter kept his word and we have Roberts and Alito on the Court.
That’s believable and does not bode well for Santorum with regard to gaining the support of pure constitutionalists.
Coulter has decided to go all-in for Romney, oddly to many. Santorum is the target of the media and the GOP Establishment who want every one to shut up and back Romney. NOW. Coulter’s part of the team, apparently.
If Anne Coulter really believes that jobs and government spending are the only issues, she should endorse Ron Paul. But, of course, she doesn’t really believe that. For her, and for most professional ‘conservatives,’ there are other non-negotiables.
Coulter has endorsed Romney, who is no less a big government conservative than Santorum. In fact, his record may be worse than Santorum’s. That’s why I doubt that Coulter really believes what she has written about Santorum. It’s just her way of contributing to the elimination of anyone who might stand in the way of the electable man with just the right amount of gray at the temples. The conservative media has become just as unprincipled and mercenary as the lamestream.
Peggy R.–
True. Happens every election cycle. Generally, we get a pool of sophomoric fools advertising themselves as philosopher kings, and the last one standing, who only weeks before was as subject to criticism and heavily scrutinized as the next guy, is suddenly the “Anointed One” and above criticism.
It seemed like it was briefly Perry, before the various bizarre moments. And when that didn’t work out, people gravitated to the other guy with Reagan hair.
I would think that Coulter has gone off the deep end. I have lost respect for her opinions. So McCain picks Romney to support. I wouldn’t want him near me for support. Just another loser.
The father of the U.S. Conservative movement, William F. Buckley, Jr., God rest his soul, was a devout traditionalist Catholic. One could make the argument that Traditional Catholicism is the seedbed of authentic American Conservatism… just ask Supreme Court Justices Scalia & Thomas.
El Padre:
That’s a fantasy: http://romancatholicreport.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/samfrancis.mp3
No, the issue is not “jobs”, it is Liberty. The old women standing near the hole in the boards in a restaurant in Moscow, handing out one square of toilet paper, had a “jobs”. An ‘interesting’ McCain 2008 ad: http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/look-whats-gone-from-john-mccains-youtub
Well Colter has no credibility with me anyway and never has. But on a side note she came out for Romney, so I’m not surprised she is now writing a diatribe against Santorum.
Father, you may not feel this as a Great Depression, but we could have a little talk. . . . we’re in a different world than we were 80 years ago so a Depression looks different, but I would match the suffering of some of my friends who drive three hours every day to a minimum wage job after a home foreclosure and years on food stamps — and these working, good, educated people — against the guy in the soup line any day. I can walk you into our local church food bank and you could talk to some of the folks there about the suffering of families here. Or I could introduce you to a friend of mine who is living a devout life, raising her child and a newly adopted child, who just wants to get by with running her mom and pop with her husband and they are broken to the ground. For some folks, it’s just a little lean. But the same was very true during the Great Depression, not everyone was hopping freight trains. Many, many people are strained past the breaking point and there is no indication that this is going to change any time soon, if ever. The Bible Christians I know out here talk about the end times every. single. day. Coulter is right on that part.
The article and the comments bring to mind the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
Coulter started getting a big question mark from me when she cozied up to GOPRIDE.
Now she’s come out against Santorum as being too Catholic. Well guess what? I’ll vote Catholic long before I throw all my marbles in with any party affiliation. If the Republicans ever lose their pro-life identity and the Democrats embrace it, I’ll switch partys in a heartbeat.
Santorum has my vote.
Pingback: Character Assassination Attempts on Rick Santorum | ThePulp.it
I wish I could get enthusiastic about Mr Santorum but his slavish devotion to the Israelis, their lobby AIPAC, and his desire to rain more bombs down on innocent people at the behest of Israel makes him unsuitable to me – just as unsuitable as are all the other candidates for the same reason. On so many other things he is a good man but I am just sick and tired of these wars which are unjust, in violation of Catholic principles and are bankrupting this country.
To the person who suggested above that the reason why Mr Santorum backed Specter over Toomey was Specter’s assurance that he would vote for a good Supreme Court justice let me say that I find that unconvincing. In fact it is rather silly: would not Mr Toomey, a solid Catholic, not have voted for a good Justice?? To ask the question is to answer it. No, I’m afraid Mr Santorum is a Republican first and foremost and the Republicans, the party of War and Usury, wanted Specter in because he was backed by AIPAC and thus reliably pro-Israel. As are, of course, most of the Democrats, the party of Sodomy and Abortion.
Mr Belloc was certainly right when he called elections “these semi-annual puppet shows.”
I wish I could get enthusiastic about Mr Santorum but his slavish devotion to the Israelis, their lobby AIPAC, and his desire to rain more bombs down on innocent people at the behest of Israel makes him unsuitable to me – just as unsuitable as are all the other candidates for the same reason. On so many other things he is a good man but I am just sick and tired of these wars which are unjust, in violation of Catholic principles and are bankrupting this country.
To the person who suggested above that the reason why Mr Santorum backed Specter over Toomey was Specter’s assurance that he would vote for a good Supreme Court justice let me say that I find that unconvincing. In fact it is rather silly: would not Mr Toomey, a solid Catholic, not have voted for a good Justice?? To ask the question is to answer it. No, I’m afraid Mr Santorum is a Republican first and foremost and the Republicans, the party of War and Usury, wanted Specter in because he was backed by AIPAC and thus reliably pro-Israel. As are, of course, most of the Democrats, the party of Sodomy and Abortion.
Mr Belloc was certainly right when he called elections “these semi-annual puppet shows.”
1. Ivan the Mad at 10:50 is quite right in exposing a popular fallacy.
2. I repeat my writeback from 04.i.12 under Fr. Z’s post “Votes Matter” about the need for a Catholic political party in the USA.
“I have never been poor, just broke. Poor is a state of mind. Broke is just a temporary situation.”
— Mike Todd 1957
I have watched several Santorum townhalls in both Iowa and this week in NH. One thing he has demonstrated is that he gets the link between the Sexual Revolution, Great Society programs, welfare dependency and creation of a permanent underclass state of mind. He has cited the rather liberal Brookings Institute studies which showed that in this country you had less than a 5% chance of being and staying poor if you did three things: finish high school, do not get pregnant and start having babies before marriage, and work. But too many leaders seem to want to appear compassionate while fostering that deliterious underclass state of mind. Were I cynical, I might say this is because a dependent people are more pliant and docile as you co-opt their liberty and rights.
I do not understand why people think fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are mutually exclusive. In my 56 years (eek) of experience they go hand and hand. The stronger the family, the stronger and healthier the society. Broken dysfunctional families generate more need for govt spending at every level from feeding kids breakfast to locking up the fatherless kids who gang bang. Santorum’s speeches have convinced me he understands this symbiotic relationship.
As an actress, I have kept that Mike Todd quote on my fridge and it has helped me through the tough times. As a citizen and a Roman Catholic, I never want my tax money nor my private contributions to go to programs which foster and perpetuate the “state of mind” Todd so abhorred. You might say in Catholic lingo: “I have a preferential option for the BROKE.”
“Sometimes i wish we could/would be Catholics first……and Americans second.”
We can. We should.
I think the social issues are good to talk about here. Abortion is not the only social issue. It is the most gruesome and evil of all the social issues facing us without a doubt, and I agree wholeheartedly with those who say we cannot vote for pro-aborts.
Yet, we need to find a balance between addressing the social/economic issues and avoiding Bernadine’s infamous seamless garment argument, which was used to say pro-abort, pro-gay, pro-contraception liberals are within the church because they helped the poor and opposed some anomalous concept of “injustice”.
Now there is more than just abortion that we need to consider when we vote. We need to demand completely Catholic candidates. Now the above piece from Culture Wars was a good piece, but this should not cause us to say Santorum is not Catholic, but that outside of abortion he embraces the 19th century liberal (i.e. Republican) view, rather than the Church’s social magisterium. Remember, Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano said that those who reject the Church’s social teachings are a species of social modernist, JUST AS those who oppose St. Pius X’s Pascendi are doctrinal modernists. He didn’t mince his words.
Now when we look at Santorum, he supports the war on terror, which has brought untold suffering to thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East and Eurasia. Santorum doesn’t have the faintest understanding of Al Qaeda (pronounced Al Keeayduh), Islam, or the political movements in the middle East. Based on his nonsense neo-conservative understanding there is a big bad guy, Islamic militancy which threatens our way of life, and unless we drop bombs on their schools, hospitals and bus stations, we won’t be safe. Even today with the NDAA and random DHS checkpoints, if there was a block of Islamic terrorists who wanted to blow things up, they could do it with little difficulty. In reality, Islamic militancy is based around the concept of the “vanguard”, the pure, whose aim in philosophic systems like those of Sayed Qutb (Milestones) are to remove secular Islamic rulers, and replace them with Islamic ones that will keep Western Sciences while at the same time to have Islam at the forefront to protect virtue and wisdom and reject liberal values. I can guarantee Santorum hasn’t the faintest idea of who Qutb was, or the ideas of his most well known disciple, Aiman al-Zwahiri (binLaden’s mentor). The scariest reality is that Al Qaeda, as predicated in the media, by Bush, by Obama, (and by Santorum) does not exist. It is a fictitious creation of the FBI which allowed them to indict Bin Laden in absentia for the 1998 bombing of the Kenyan embassy in Nairobi. There was never an international organization aimed at attacking the west. Al Qaeda, other than being a slang word in Arabic for using the bathroom (hardly an effective name for a shadowy terror organization) means “the base”, and can by extension mean a basis, blueprint, idea, etc. Bin Laden himself was little more than a guy to go to for funding, and he was moved around to establish whatever projects were given to him. Islamic militancy was first created by the United States through Operation Cyclone in 1979, via the Pakistani ISI, allegedly to fight the Soviets. That’s the official story. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s foreign policy advisor, admitted in 1998 in a French Interview that the CIA trained the militants before the Soviet invasion, a) to oppose the pro-soviet regime in Kabul, and b) to provoke the Soviets to invade Afghanistan (not the other way around) so as to create a Vietnam for them. After that Osama was the sole benificiary of MAK, a CIA front used to supply Osama with money for weapons (see the 1998 book “The New Jackals”). In the 90s Osama funded, armed and trained the Kosovo Liberation Army, at American and Nato’s initiative, to fight the Serbs. We also set Osama up in South Sudan to arm the Arabs against the black Sudanese, in order to drive the Chinese (who are very difficult to bribe) out of South Sudan. Not one iota of this is conspiracy theory, it is merely under-reported fact. Osama was our creation. When he, and his mentor Zwahiri, looked at how they were being used by our State Department, they decided they needed to take their vangaurd movement to the next level and strike the head of the beast. Anyone who reads Arabic and has followed Islam and Islamic movements knows this is unique to Bin Laden (now deceased), it is not a common thread of Islamic thought. The normal thought of Islamic militancy, which is all parochial, is removing secular Muslims and replacing them with “real” muslims as the militants see it. There is no hidden sophisticated terror network out to get us. That is neo-con fiction, much like Rumsfeld’s fairytale about Soviet Terror cells in the 80s.
When we look at the war on terror, we have to realize, that like using groups such as Bin Laden’s for our geo-politicla aims, the war on terror is creating more animosity to the West in the Islamic world. It is creating more fear in China and Russian about our aims (especially given we now have airforce bases in Manas, Kyrgestan (by the Chinese border) and Kazakhstan (by the Russian border). The war on terror has not made us safer, it has put us more at risk. The immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, apart from costing massive amounts of money, American lives and hurt our image, have killed thousands of innocent civilians. Most Aghanis do not even know what 9/11 is!!! These are not wars that Catholics in good conscience should support. Rather than being apart of some “new world order”, I think Santorum is simply an ignorant follower of the Neo-con establishment, which brings me to my next point.
For American catholics, we come to a certain point, where we look at others who are “pro-life” (one hopes) and say, these guys are our allies. So we listen to them. Then we see that they support these immoral and murderous wars, and we say, maybe we should support that, or else overlook it. Let’s overlook that Rumsfeld spewed a whole bunch of nonsense in the 80’s about Soviet terror cells which did not exist, and then was on Meet the Press showing images of Al Qaeda bunkers with high tech weapons, bombs, and command centers which were NEVER found in Afghanistan, then alleging mobile production centers in Iraq which were never found, along with the missing “WMD”s that Sadam did not have. We have to think with the Church’s social magisterium and way from our parochial American view.
The solution is not more war. It is not invade Syria, it is not invade Iran. Its get out and keep ourselves strong. Its restore Christendom and protect the family, restore a production economy and reduce the burden on small business. Santorum is not going to protect the family any more than Obama was going to stop war and close Gitmo, because that is contrary to what the money interest wants. This is the killer for me. I hate Ron Paul, but he’s the only candidate who is consistent and who I trust means what he says. That’s part of the problem. Although I’ll be voting for him in spite of how much I detest his a) libertarianism, b) his idea to legalize drugs c) his support of more destructive free trade agreements like NAFTA and many other things, he is better on the social issues than anyone else, including Santorum, ALL of them. Yet ultimately he can accomplish little against the money interest in Washington. He is just the only candidate I can morally stomach.
The question of a situation where the only solution is a nut who wants to legalize drugs, because he is right both on abortion and our murderous wars abroad, raises the question: what can we do to get a really Catholic candidate? We need grass roots efforts to elect one, and be patient. We need to get away from the Republicans, who do not want to end abortion. They have betrayed human life on every level, our country and our freedom just as much as the democrats. If abortion ends they are a failed party. Let’s not forget, a vast majority of the Republicans voted for the NDAA, which will allow the government to detain pro-life activists as “terrorists”. Santorum is beholden to these same people. He is an out of control war monger, like Anne Coulter, like Gingrich, like Romney, and… like Obama. Santorum believes that the deaths of Arab babies and Arab school children are collateral damage, while abortion is murder. In reality they are part and parcel of the same problem, and if he supports the former, he supports the principles of the latter while he opposes its effect viz. abortion.
This is why I believe we can’t support someone like Santorum. He is more of the problem. Being Catholic first in my view, means opposing absolutely the war on terror.
6 January 2012 at 6:58 pm
No, I’m afraid Mr Santorum is a Republican first and foremost and the Republicans, the party of War and Usury, wanted Specter in because he was backed by AIPAC and thus reliably pro-Israel. As are, of course, most of the Democrats, the party of Sodomy and Abortion.
Meant to give credit to schmenz
http://tinyurl.com/usuryandwar
http://tinyurl.com/usuryandabortion
She didn’t say “no aid for the poor.” Why must the choice we’re presented with always be either a (federal) government mandate or a (federal) government ban? How about allowing for human freedom to make a morally good choice?
The federal government’s increasingly bloated “help” for the poor has only made the lives of the poor miserable. It is a violation of the common good for the Feds to take over the performance of charity. After 50 years, it has become obvious that it creates a cycle of dependency and irresponsibility.
The families, friends, and neighbors of the poor have the obligation to help them in the way that they judge best in the particular circumstance. Our Lord told us to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. He did not tell us to lobby the Congress to take the fruit of another man’s labor and give it to someone else.
Lisa P,
Thank you for your excellent post. I’ve been lucky so far during this depression, but 3 of my 6 siblings have been out of (steady) work for a LONG time! This is a long term, large scale depression. It’s 5 years long already with no light at the end of the tunnel. The official unemployment is 9% or so, but everyone knows the real rate is above 15% when including people who have given up looking or who are severely underemployed.
I know that people who mix in more ‘traditionalist Catholic’ circles tend to be of a more upper class background, so I fear that Father may not be aware that this is a very grim economic environment for most people. (My company is going through another round of layoffs next week.)
From my purely political perspective, and offering my two cents in the for what its worth department. This election is the most serious election I can ever recall as regards the liberty and freedom of this country. Obama has publicly stated that the constitution of the United States gets in his way and has demonstrated his ability as a former constitutional professor to find his way around it despite the will of the people. I am not looking for the perfect canidate at this point, I would just like to see him defeated. My personal opinion for a good combination, again, from a purely political point of view, would be a Romney ticket to straighten out the economy and to draw the moderates and independants as well as the Reagan Democrates, with Santorum VP to draw the conservatives who don`t like Mitt. Winning combination, in my view. This will be one of the dirtiest, toughest, Chicago sewer style political battle you`ve ever seen. Count on it. Pax
Just curious, how is Romney going to straighten out the economy when he has no real business experience? He worked in Finance Capital, (i.e. the people who created the mess and then demanded to be bailed out) how is it that he knows anything about fixing it? How do we know he won’t be beholden to the same people who he used to work with, like former treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson? or for that matter the current treasurey secretary Tim Geitner?
Athanasius, You may be right. We don`t know and never do until they take office. Remember ;
“change you can believe in,” and “I`ll get everyone in Washington working together”, and “I`ll bring the unemployment rate down to six percent?” I am not a politician nor am I a political junkie
but I do believe Romney has a better grasp of the debt problems of our failed budget having had a couple companies that wen`t bankrupt. Another four years of this and I think we will be in a European socialistic, Greece type situation in fact I believe by the end of the year, the Euro will, have failed, Greece will withdraw from the Union and Italy, Hungary and Spain will go, down with them. It`s not post degree economics. You simply can`t spend more than you take in and these countries unlike the U.S. can`t print their own currencies which of course has it`s own consequences. Obama had after all two years of Democratic House and Senate and all he accomplished was to pay back the Kennedys for endorsing him with a national health care plan that most people did not want and may even be unconstitutional. How many Presidants in your lifetime do know who ran an administration suing his own country`s people in four states with 29 states suing the Federal Gov. all over a power grab to violate the tenth amendment. Of course on the health care issue, the Supreme Court will decide that and also the immigration issue. Not good for an incumbant to have two highly controversial decisions before the Supreme Court the year he is running for re-election. I don`t really like to get into politics on Fr. Z`s blog but, that is my view and I believe he is a threat to religious freedom. Pax
Tom Ryan, what kind of racist nonsense did you link me to that was somehow supposed to counter what I said about Buckley? If you listen to that stuff regularly as your other posts imply, I will keep you in my prayers. How sad.
That was a very ANTI-Racist commentary if you took the time to listen. Buckley only realized at the end of his life that he had been a tool of racists.
I’ll let Belloc speak to the question:
From his first entrance into the public arena, Belloc made it clear where his allegiance lay. Standing for election to Parliament in 1906, he opened his campaign by announcing to the mainly Protestant voters: “Gentlemen, I am a Catholic. As far as possible I go to Mass every day. This is a rosary. As far as possible I kneel down and tell these beads every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of being your representative.”
Well said, Hilaire.
Did any one see Santorum’s exchance with Hannity last night on birth control? I wish it had been as confrontational as the one with Fr. Eutenauer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=891Yx40wv-M
Oops! Wrong segment. Try 6:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpbE5Hn-Nhk
Hey! I work three jobs and can barely pay my electric bill! Being in traditional circles and all…
One of the biggest impediments to the traditionalist mov’t is the lack of money. Too much spent raising kids. For now, the money is with the blue haired spinsters and widows at the banjo masses.
As others have mentioned here, Miss Coulter’s father was Catholic, though she was raised Episcopalian like her mother. In one of her early books she described her father’s anger at seeing Senators Kennedy and Kerry described as “Catholic”, and that was a recurring theme until the article announcing her father’s death.
I believe she had a great deal of respect for her father and for his religion and most certainly believes that one can be a good Catholic and a good conservative, based on his example if nothing else. Unfortunately, since her specialty is over-the-top rhetoric, it is hard to see what she’s really saying at times.
He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God should be seen as referring to “others, such as big government social programs” rather than literally. Santorum cites his father’s admonition to put any extra money in the poor box at church to explain his wanting to use the federal government to help the poor. This seems to be a complaint about Santorum “rendering unto Caesar what is God’s”. Should charity be in the province of the Church or of the government? I think Coulter’s position is the same as Santorum’s father’s in this case. Was he also an anti-Catholic bigot?
At one time Ann Coulter’s conversion was in my daily prayers, but unfortunately I haven’t thought about her for a couple of years. I need to get her back on my list. Like my granddaughter, she could use a spanking once in a while, but administered with love rather than contempt.
Many pundits and members of the media try to make the key issue of the upcoming presidential election about the economy and jobs. They have relentlessly attacked Rick Santorum for his opposition to contraception and tried to paint him as an extremist. Here then is an excerpt from the 6th Annual Message to the Senate and the House from President Theodore Roosevelt,
Read more at the American Presidency Project: Theodore Roosevelt: Sixth Annual Message http://?www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?index.php?pid=29547#ixzz1iyrXJv?VS
This is bit touchy, but I think that largely Coulter is correct. Much of Catholic Social Justice has led to ruin for entire nations. Africa is a hell hole largely due to charity and the nations that are the most fiscally irresponsible in Europe are the traditionally Catholic ones. There is a false dilemma that helping the poor means maintaining a poor class dependent on charity rather than teaching or leading to self reliance. Likewise, there is a tendency to speak of sharing with these poor countries when they have squandered their own wealth and are borrowing and squandering that of others. The taking of wealth created by a productive person by ANY MEANS for redistribution to another is not charity, but just stealing. Unless there is a choice to give, unless the giving is done with good judgement, it is a waste and an exercise in vanity as surely as if the person giving it sent it on ostentatious gifts for himself.
reg
I agree. A great deal of that influence can be attributed to the left who have cherry picked
Caritas In Veritate to further their own agenda, aided with the help of liberal bishops who put their hopes in Democrates some of whom were pro-choice, in an effort to promote socialist agendas all the while leaving the issue of abortion in the dust. Some of all this has come back to haunt them with Catholic Institutions such as Belmont Abbey College suing HHS for trying to force them to include abortion pills and contraceptives in their health ins. plans, for only one example. Pax
Actually, the problems of Africa and Latin America have nothing to do with Catholic social justice, but the failure to implement it.
Secondly, it is American State department policy to make these countries hell-holes so we can exploit those resources. Henry Kissinger’s NSM 200 is still the guiding philosophy of the State department, the UN, the IMF and other groups we fund into existence which make mandatory that x governments take loans tied to contraception, which often require destroying their natural local economies in favor of building power plants or mining operations that benefit no one in that country, so we can expropriate their resources to keep products cheap at wal-mart. Then the dictators we put into existence take all that aid and put it in swiss bank accounts, leaving their countries with the bill. The people there are never given the chance to touch their resources.
Kissinger? Perhaps he had a Rasputin like grip on the DOS such as the ADL did on Buckley? Perhaps the Elders of Zion have infiltrated China and are now running the development of Africa. How easily the Jews become scape goats. There is no conspiracy to take the resources anymore than there is a conspiracy by the Church to keep people poor. But there is a result that comes from misguided ideals. The Church’s social doctrine is not so much wrong as it has been usurped by the Left much as science was by people with power goals in the past. Just as the educated Catholics have come to grips with the reality of God’s glorious physical universe, we will need to come to understand economics as more than either a dog fight or a unnatural distribution of wealth. The last 100 years has seen much effort spent to convolute Church teachings to agree with social reformers. Perhaps this was to try and compete for the affections of the poor. Many of the Church leaders in this era have been barely distinguishable from the Communists and Socialists, and in many cases were freely interchangeable. Many orders devolved into secular humanists to pursue material relief for the poor. Some joined in with ‘reproductive rights’ and supported the UN programs. Compassion for the poor was paired with envy and resentment of people who produce that which would be taken away. If there is a virtue in knowing how little one needs to live there is a twin virtue in knowing how little work it takes to earn it.
I get a major kick out of Ann Coulter, always have. Her writing style is just incredibly smart and funny, and I think her insights are usually right on the money. Just in the last year I found for the first time I was puzzled by her, she joined the board of a homosexual group, I didn’t understand that, but other than that, I find her intelligent and entertaining, even while I realize she’s a bit of a “verbal bombthrower”. But you know what? We can use that today, in our absurdly legalistic and PC world, everyone seems to operate in fear, fear of saying the “wrong” thing and offending somebody, as if that were one of the deadly sins! I believe I observe that even in the pulpit, where I often yearn to hear some words that might “offend” someone, but are nonetheless part of the Gospel. So to me, Ann Coulter represents a sense of regained verbal freedom, which rarely turns into license, at least, to me. How many times she has lambasted and insulted that liberal bastion, the hated NYT (New York Times). Honestly, she despises them for their hypocrisy and bias, and I enjoy her every barb. Ted Kennedy certainly got no free pass, and she must miss him. He was a favored topic for her, and wow, did she get him, many times. I also admired her courage, because it does take courage to stand up to sometimes hateful groups like brainwashed college students, who can be quite harsh, and still defend conservatism with a cool air, and not allow yourself to fold like a house of cards, which I would do, under such intense scrutiny venom. No no, she’s cool as whipped cream. So as a woman, I admire her. Alot.
The column you are speaking about, Father Z, yes I read it, and it raised my eyebrow, just a bit, but I did not take offense to it, and I’m much, much more Conservative Catholic than I am even an Ann Coulter fan. I didn’t think too much of it, her comment about the Bishops I thought I understood, because I have to agree, most of the UCCCB (is that right?) seems to care much more about illegal immigrants (making sure they get amnesty), tolerating/supporting Obamacare, and of course, the war, (who wants war? But no war, no freedom, sometimes, and there is such a thing as a just war!) By the way, one of the commenters here bugged me a bit with the accusation of our country “going to other countries, massacring innocent people”….you know what, young seminarian? Our great country is, as one British commentator put it “a benevolent Giant”, and our soldiers are far more humane and kind than any you’ll find in the world, so your comment about our soldiers IS insulting. But I disgress….
Anyway, back to point, I’ve often wished our Bishops and priests could develop a bit more spinal matter, so that they don’t get completely squishy and fall over like so many sea jellies…..
Talk about abortion! Talk about the traditional family and why it matters! Talk about defending life from conception until natural death! Talk about the male’s critical role in the family! Talk about the female’s critical role in the family! Talk about the traditional family and why we must defend it! Talk about sexuality, and how God has designed male and female in beautiful, incomparable, complementarity! Talk about children, and how children are THE point of union and marriage! Talk about how to defend it all in today’s rotten and violent world, and how to do it faithfully, steadfastly remaining faithful to our Lord and our faith.
So no, given all there is to say, and few are saying it, I was not offended by Ann Coulter’s comments. She does the heavy lifting most of the time, and she deserves a pass on this one.
Maybe the fact that Santorum attends Latin Mass has something to do with her “attacks”?
http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/10831-candidates-collide.html
Please, don’t play the race or conspiracy card. I’m of jewish extraction myself. Kissinger was an evil man, Jewish anything has absolutely nothing to do with it. Nice strawman though to play the race card. Besides that it is not one iota of conspiracy, it is fact. Learn some history:
NSSM 200
He talks about using “food as a weapon”, putting sterilants in the vaccines (just like Obama’s science czar John Holdren).
Our country is the world’s biggest terrorist. That’s why I’m voting for Ron Paul, he’s the only one who even wants to put a stop to it. Whether he can or not is another question, but its a vote I can go to sleep at night with, unlike a war monger like Romney and Santorum who want to continue the so-called “war on terror”, which is a farce to pursue the same policies.