Skip to comments.Video: Krauthammer On Santorum And Social Issues
Posted on 02/18/2012 3:58:27 AM PST by careyb
From Special Report
For those of us with babies sleeping in our laps, what did he say?
Seriously, how about a clue?
careyb doesn’t respond to people.
Then why does he post to them! :)
I don’t know, I guess he posts his blog here for hits, and then goes on with his life elsewhere.
I turned fox, radio and most internet journal off weeks ago. I haven’t listened to krauthammer during this. I’ll turn back to them...(turned the blow hard Rush off too) when they’re being fair and respectable to Newt.
Santorum is nice and decent guy. He has a nice smile, nice kids... nice clothes...If people in the industry can’t see that he knows probably nothing more and most likely a lot less than most of these tv journalists they’ll out him to the public.
Bottom line, I’m not reading or listening to anyone unless someone reviews it first, like the person who posts it, and then tells me it’s fair and balanced.
I’m sure krauthammer is kissin sanatorum butt the whole show.
I didn’t click the link either, I don’t care what Krauthammer has to say.
So you stole a video and now deserve blog hits?
Piss off, pimp.
WAIT A MINUTE!!! Was Krauthammer telling the truth. Did Santorum really say that sex is for procreation ONLY - and that “pleasure is ok” if within the confines of procreation?
IF he said that - and I stress IF - then he really is the humorless prig prude I thought him to be.
I am simply amazed at how many freepers don’t watch, listen, or analyze anything any longer. And you wear it like a badge of honor when in reality you are simply an ostrich with your head buried in the sand. Good grief, Kraut made some good points.
There seems to be nobody ‘acceptable’ any longer for some except for their own blatherings.
Your intense HATRED of Rick S borders on
Strange your trolling for someone
Which is getting sadly obvious !
Who do you work for ???????????
I simply ask if he said such things? I did not assume he did or did not.
That is a question. I left open the option that Krauthammer was totally off base or at least taking Rick S out of context.
So do you know, has Santorum made statements indicating that sex, even among married couples, is only for procreation? I am asking a question. Period.
I repeat my question: did Rick S say that sex is for procreation only?
Did he say it recently?
Was it taken in, or out, of context?
If he said it, said it recently, and said it in context, how do you think that is going to sell in the General Election?
All innocent questions.
You Santorum haters are acting like children. It’s okay to be FOR someone, but to tear down another Conservative candidate is ridiculous.
First and foremost, Romney needs to be defeated. And however that scenario works out and whichever man can accomplish that goal has my support...and should have yours as well.
Am I a hater for asking a question? I see there are no answers forthcoming.
First and foremost, Obama must be defeated or the nation is gone, period. I don’t think Santorum has a prayer of doing that.
So I repeat the innocent quesitons:
Did Rick S say that?
Did he say it recently?
Did he say it in context?
How will that work in the general election?
Santorum's beliefs are completely in line with Catholic teaching that sexual intercourse has two primary functions: unitive and procreative. It unites the man and woman in their relationship (which includes having fun during the process) while the couple is open to the possibility of conceiving a child. That doesn't mean that you must intend on conceiving a child, only that you are open to it. That's why Natural Family Planning is promoted (works just fine) as no contraception is used.
As far as how his Catholic beliefs will play during the general election, he needs to have a JFK-like moment that his beliefs are his beliefs, and why the "bleep" is everyone obsessed with them when we have an econony teetering on the edge of destruction. If he doesn't do that, he'll be letting the libertine liberal scumbag media define the election.
“then he really is the humorless prig prude I thought him to be?”
I rest my case.
This is why streaks are so important: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2848190/posts?page=24#24
Rick Santorum will never be president for a whole host of reasons. I am not a hater, and I will vote for the man if I have to. Listen, Rick has yet to explain away his 18 point loss in his last Senate re-election bid. Saying it was a bad year for republicans is not enough. Many incumbents won that year, and no setting senator took a loss like he did. There were valid reasons that he would lose and badly, but no that badly. Could it be that the voters were just tired of him? I am. Like I said I am no hater, I just would really like to win. I am not going to vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. And I will vote for Mr. Santorum if pressed, but the man that can win and articulate our message is Newt Gingrich.
Santorum doesn’t strike me as an independent thinker so I doubt he said it. He’s Catholic and the Catholic take on it is that sex is not solely for procreation; it’s also to keep things friendly between man and wife ;)
I looked around, couldn’t find Kraut. saying this anywhere, and I refuse to go to the blog linked. I don’t like blogs, unless they’re written by people I know personally; sometimes not then either.
I've been Googling and cannot find any direct evidence that Santorum ever said that sex is only for procreation. I realize that that doesn't prove the negative. I could be wrong. What he has said is that his view is the Catholic teaching on sexual relations. Lots of folks (many of whom have it in for the Church, let's be honest) distort the Church's teaching into 'sex only for procreation.' What the Church actually teaches is that sex has two purposes, unitive and procreative, and that it is only for people united in holy matrimony.
That a Christian church would teach that sex is only for married couples should not be a surprise to anyone. Santorum loses the anti-Christian leftists in the media and elsewhere right there. As for the teaching on 'unitive and procreative,' the Church stresses that the sexual union is essential to a marriage because it emotionally binds two people closer to each other by its very nature. That happens whether or not the sex results in a pregnancy.
The part that is tricky for a lot of people is that the sexual union must be open to procreation, meaning that there should be no physical or chemical barriers to prevent that from happening. That is NOT the same as saying that the only reason anyone should have sex is that they want a baby. The Church recognizes legitimate reasons for not wanting to get pregnant (spacing of births, financial difficulty, etc). In fact, as part of the marriage preparatory program, many dioceses now require a Natural Family Planning (NFP) course, teaching scientific methods of avoiding pregnancy while still enjoying a healthy sex life.
So to say that the Church teaches that sex is only for procreation is ridiculous. People who perpetuate that distorted view are either uninformed or disingenuous. I suspect that the above is the view shared by Rick Santorum. If not, then he is out of step with the Catholic Church.
Like the second coming of Fritz "I'll-raise-your-taxes" Mondale. But don't worry, it will never happen.
Nay, we hate the sin, not the sinner.
Are you mentally retarded, or did you read my IF — IF — If is a word that has a very distinct meaning.
IF he said that, recently, in context, IF IF IF IF IF
IF Mary could read, THEN she would realize.......
We are not electing a Catholic first. We are electing a President capable of fixing this mess. And for Decades, Santorum has proved to the World he has no clue how to do that.
It's simple really........Besides. Newt is all the Catholic we will need, since he does not cram it down our throats, or wear it on his sleeve.
Well thanks for your reasoned response. I will only say that you apparently decided to edit the word “if” out of my comments about Santorum. The word “if” is small, but powerful, in that it normally dramatically changes the statement that follow is. Just sayin....
Now, a couple responses to your points:
A: no, I don’t like him, primarily because I think he guarantees us four more of Obama, meaning the end of America. To me, that’s what Santorum represents. I know how he’s gonna be perceived outside the bubble of FR - and it ain’t good. We know how he was perceived in his last election in PA, and not all of it was the Iraq war either. Exit polls were full of the words “preachy” and “un likeable.” I’ll vote for him against Obama, but I agree with those two descriptions FWIW.
B; google this statement a bit harder. He addressed the issue and sort of took pride in that he was bold enough to talk about what most candidates won’t talk about.
B: I think the entire conversation is off limits for secular government - but Santorum had to niche his way to these tiny wins (and yes, he still trails Newt’s popular vote total BY A TON.) You can niche your way past crowded fields with a religious focus among a tiny caucus population. You cannot win a general election for anything that way.
C: The Catholic teaching on this are things I agree with around the margins. Kind of takes a lot of spontaneity out of the equation which is frankly not defensible and damaging to the “unity” thing - not to mention is going to be incredibly offensive to most Americans - meaning it was a huge mistake for RS to bring this up. Again, the fruit of having to niche your way along.
BINGO. I don’t hate Santorum personally. I don’t know him personally (though I did interview him for 20 minutes and rather liked him personally from that brief encounter).
I hate how he’s negatively campaigned yet claimed he is above the fray.
I hate how he lies about his 2006 campaign focus.
I hate that he does come off as preachy and not likeable.
I hate what will happen to our entire nation as a result of him winning the nomination.
I hate how he gives himself a pass on his liberalism because he’s from Pennsylvania while not giving Mitt (Mass) or Perry (Texas) or Newt (Clinton) the same slack for the realities of governing to certain populations. (and no, that doesn’t mean I like Mitt, I’m just saying this for comparison sakes).
I hate that he is 100% humorless from everything he’s shown.
To me, those are all “sins” within the context of this election. I don’t say these things about Santorum because I “hate him” - I “hate” these things about Santorum which is why I say them. Chicken or the eggs folks.
But those comments are now being raised by a libertine press, when, as I agreed, it has nothing to do with this election. And unless/until Santorum begins to stridently say that, he's letting himself get defined.
Why do you believe Santorum has no clue how to fix the mess?
I don't need to google harder. I know what Santorum has said, and he has not said that sex is only for procreation. What he has said on the issue is unpalatable to a lot of ears, I'll grant you that. But saying that sex is only for procreation? I'm now confident in saying a big NO to that.
I do agree with you that Santorum shouldn't go out of his way to talk about people's private sexual behavior. That's no way to win a national election, and it's a topic that's none of a president's business in America. But he has said enough that now he can't avoid being questioned on it. So he has to be careful how he addresses it from now on. His views are unpopular, but what people seem to fail to understand is that a president is not a dictator, and he cannot foist his personal religious views on the nation the way Obama has with his liberation theology. And he's not interested in doing so. This is a a handicap, but I think he can overcome it if he addresses it correctly. Let's face it, it's not like the other three candidates don't have serious negatives themselves.
I don’t care if you use the word IF fifty times. it’s a demeaning thing to say. And you’re a blowhard.
If you don’t care what words mean and how sentence structure matters to message, perhaps message boards are not a good place for you to hang out.
Newt would make a great Secretary of State as well.
And won't vote if their preferred candidate isn't on the ballot. Don't forget that one.
That is straight Catholic doctrine. They do say that sex is intended for procreation within the confines of marriage between one man and one woman. They also acknowledge the pleasurable nature of sex, but affirm that the bible says that "the two shall be one flesh".
Is this stuff new teaching? Hardly. It's centuries old.
Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic. Newt Gingrich is a Roman Catholic. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and Mormonism still teaches the Catholic Church to be the Church of Satan.
I would say that Newt Gingrich would be forced to agree with Santorum if he were a consistent Catholic.
Romney and Romney supporters would not be under any such constraint.
First, there are a number of Catholics who have said this is NOT exactly the understanding of Catholic doctrine.
But that’s to miss the point. How about we agree that we are electing a President of a government and not a national pastor? How about folks give us a break on Catholic doctrine, since most Catholics don’t really know it or follow it, and since many of their own Clergy pervert it for their liberal social justice doctrine - how about we not try and make it national policy?
How about we admit, as Krauthammer has trouble doing about his support of Romney, that Santorum has said any number of times that his religious views on contraception and marriage are not to be legislated. I personally heard him repeat this again on van Susteran just the other night.
And how about we acknowledge that Santorum is a Catholic, and that these issues are dear to him, and that he has carefully studied them since he does not feign NOT holding them.
As an ordained member of a mainline protestant denomination, and as a retired military chaplain, and as a graduate of a major national seminary, and as a minister with decades of experience in multi-faith settings, let ME assure you that the Catholic faith does reject contraception, does teach natural marriage between one man and one woman, and that it does teach openness to fruitfulness in that marital relationship.
And let me suggest again that Newt Gingrich is a newly converted Roman Catholic.
And that anyone attacking Santorum’s religious views as Krauthammer has done is doing so for political purposes. Krauthammer is a Romney-bot.
I suspect every naysayer against Gingrich or Santorum of being a covert Romney-bot.
Krauthammer a Romney bot? No doubt he is.
Anyone criticizing Santorum a Romney bot? Ridiculous to generalize, though no doubt some are.
That Santorum will not legislate anything to do with marriage or contraception? Probably correct, in which case someone should have sent him a case of STFU years ago on these issues.
That what you say about Catholic doctrine is correct? You are essentially correct but missing an important nuance that I don’t care to litigate in this forum.
That even one in ten Catholics know, let alone believe and practice Catholic doctrine? Probably an optimistic figure.
That Rick Santorum is sellable on the general election market? Don’t think so.
I think the STFU suggestion is the opposite of Santorum’s openness on these things, and that openness has actually in the past endeared him to those Catholics who know he’s being obedient, and they give him a pass, and then they vote him into office 4 times in a very blue, democratic-controlled state. But they are Catholic, and they understand, even admire, and they give a pass.
So far as my missing some nuance, I’ve been a critic of liberal theologians’ nuances for years and years.
The bottom line remains that liberals are a very tiny portion of both modern and historic Christianity. They just think they’re big and important.
There is no nuance that countermands the Catholic teaching of fruitfulness. No need to litigate it. Just concisely state the point of exception as you’ve heard it, and the well-versed Catholics I’ve pinged will explain its origin out of the liberal wing of Catholic theology.
You seem a good sort, Edmund. Attack Romney. Leave Santorum alone. He is a conservative. He’s on our side.
None of that was true, so it shows why you think listening to Krauthammer is some deep stuff.
There are layers to digging into the political world and the issues and the candidates, and flipping on your TV is the shallow layer, turn off your TV, cancel your cable.
The funds raised in these FReepathons go to pay our current quarter expenses. But we're also going to try to replace some of our older servers and failing equipment this year so we're going to add a little extra to our FReepathon goals. John is estimating ten to fifteen thousand to do this and I'd like to get it all in place and working before the election cycle is fully heated up, so we'll try to bring in a little extra now, if we can, and the rest next quarter.
That is straight Catholic doctrine. They do say that sex is intended for procreation within the confines of marriage between one man and one woman. They also acknowledge the pleasurable nature of sex, but affirm that the bible says that "the two shall be one flesh".
LIFE IN CHRIST
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT
You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.114
"God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . .. God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."115
"God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them";116 He blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply";117 "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."118
Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.
"In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity."119 "Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."120
Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."121 All human generations proceed from this union.122
Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God's plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."123 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.124
The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.
Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.
The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.
2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.125
Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.126 "Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end."127
Whoever wants to remain faithful to his baptismal promises and resist temptations will want to adopt the means for doing so: self-knowledge, practice of an ascesis adapted to the situations that confront him, obedience to God's commandments, exercise of the moral virtues, and fidelity to prayer. "Indeed it is through chastity that we are gathered together and led back to the unity from which we were fragmented into multiplicity."128
Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life.129 The effort required can be more intense in certain periods, such as when the personality is being formed during childhood and adolescence.
Chastity has laws of growth which progress through stages marked by imperfection and too often by sin. "Man . . . day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves, and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth."130
Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also involves a cultural effort, for there is "an interdependence between personal betterment and the improvement of society."131 Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life.
Chastity is a moral virtue. It is also a gift from God, a grace, a fruit of spiritual effort.132 The Holy Spirit enables one whom the water of Baptism has regenerated to imitate the purity of Christ.133
Charity is the form of all the virtues. Under its influence, chastity appears as a school of the gift of the person. Self-mastery is ordered to the gift of self. Chastity leads him who practices it to become a witness to his neighbor of God's fidelity and loving kindness.
The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends,134 who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate. Chastity is a promise of immortality.
Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion.
2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has "put on Christ,"135 the model for all chastity. All Christ's faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.
"People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single."136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:
Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.
Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.
Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.140 Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.
Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
"Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."147 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.148 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."149
Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one's given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ's fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153
Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."157
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159
"Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."161
The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.162 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law.
2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity.163
Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165
Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166
2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170
2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.171 The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.172 The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.173
Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents' stable union.
The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179
The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."180 The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.
Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them.181 St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense: "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you . . . for a man is living with his father's wife. . . . In the name of the Lord Jesus . . . you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. . . . "182 Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.
Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing.
The expression "free union" is fallacious: what can "union" mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or in the future?
The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments.183 All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.
Some today claim a "right to a trial marriage" where there is an intention of getting married later. However firm the purpose of those who engage in premature sexual relations may be, "the fact is that such liaisons can scarcely ensure mutual sincerity and fidelity in a relationship between a man and a woman, nor, especially, can they protect it from inconstancy of desires or whim."184 Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate "trial marriages." It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.185
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
113 Ex 20:14; Deut 5:18.
114 Mt 5:27-28.
115 FC 11.
116 Gen 1:27.
117 Gen 1:28.
118 Gen 5:1-2.
119 FC 22; Cf. GS 49 § 2.
120 MD 6.
121 Gen 2:24.
122 Cf. Gen 4:1-2, 25-26; 5:1.
123 Mt 5:27-28.
124 Cf. Mt 19:6.
125 Cf. Mt 5:37.
126 Cf. Sir 1:22.
127 GS 17.
128 St. Augustine, Conf. 10,29,40:PL 32,796.
129 Cf. Titus 2:1-6.
130 FC 34.
131 GS 25 § 1.
132 Cf. Gal 5:22.
133 Cf. 1 Jn 3:3.
134 Cf. Jn 15:15.
135 Gal 3:27.
136 CDF, Persona humana 11.
137 St. Ambrose, De viduis 4,23:PL 16,255A.
138 CDF, Persona humana 9.
139 CDF, Persona humana 9.
140 Cf. 1 Cor 6:15-20.
141 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
142 CDF, Persona humana 8.
143 FC 11.
144 Tob 8:4-9.
145 GS 49 § 2.
146 Pius XII, Discourse, October 29, 1951.
147 GS 48 § 1.
148 Cf. CIC, can. 1056.
149 Mk 109; cf. Mt 19:1-12; 1 Cor 7:10-11.
150 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Eph. 20,8:PG 62,146-147.
151 FC 30.
152 HV 11.
153 HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii.
154 Cf. Eph 3:14; Mt 23:9.
155 GS 50 § 2.
156 GS 51 § 3.
157 Cf. HV 12.
158 HV 16.
159 HV 14.
160 FC 32.
161 GS 51 § 4.
162 Cf. HV 23; PP 37.
163 Cf. GS 50 § 2.
164 Gen 15:2.
165 Gen 30:1.
166 CDF, Donum vitae intro.,2.
167 CDF, Donum vitae II,1.
168 CDF, Donum vitae II,5.
169 CDF, Donum vitae II,4.
170 CDF, Donum vitae II,8.
171 Cf. Mt 5:27-28.
172 Cf. Mt 5:32; 19:6; Mk 10:11; 1 Cor 6:9-10.
173 Cf. Hos 2:7; Jer 5:7; 13:27.
174 Cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-ll.
175 Cf. Mt 19:7-9.
176 CIC, can. 1141.
177 Cf. CIC, cann. 1151-1155.
178 St. Basil, Moralia 73,1:PG 31,849-852.
179 Cf. FC 84.
180 FC 19; cf. GS 47 § 2.
181 Cf. Lev 18:7-20.
182 1 Cor 5:1, 4-5.
183 Cf. FC 81.
184 CDF, Persona humana 7.
185 Cf. FC 80.
Well I appreciate the polite tone.
BUT: The procreation with pleasure and open to fruitfulness does not cover certain seasons in a women’s month nor does it include certain seasons in a person’s life and the prohibition against even the physical barriers is an extreme that I just cannot agree with in my faith. Those are the nuances I was referring to, and I totally reject the “procreation” only view on these grounds and others like Catholic family planning and spontaneity etc. Huge problems with a lot of these rules which seem Phariseeical at best. To me, these are litigations worth having. But none of them have any part of a Presidential campaign.
Now, I do not consider Santorum very much a conservative FTR. If I did, I might well be for him. His non social issue record is mediocre at best and his level of effectiveness and accmplishment for conservative causes is way short of Newt’s in that regard. Union support is an absolute deal killer for me as are some of the other ways that Santorum has campaigned.
Also, the issue check box sort of analysis to me is really a foolish way to judge candidates (and BTW, I am NOT saying you do that) - because a checkbox analysis by definition flattens all issues out as equally important, flattens all accomplishment out as irrelevant, and does not take into account any number of other issues.
Read my post again. I said, ‘watch, listen, and analyze’. For most folks, ‘analyze’ may mean ‘read and research’. Sorry if I don’t get into a ‘deeper’ level like these really smart freepers who refuse to read folks who have hurt their little feelings.
I am amazed at all the nameless FR experts who feel entitled to damn people who have made a longlasting impact on conservative thought simply because they don’t like what they have to say. I have heard folks say they go nowhere to get their opinions except FR. Talk about living in a bubble. And...I don’t need you telling me what to do regarding cable TV.
Turn off your TV, and get past the shallow little TV pundits.
Read and research, and don’t think that Krauthammer is an important source for information, or worse as you seem to be going on about, indispensable.
For all your boasting in your ablity to research, you seem to have totally missed my point. I am simply sick of all the ‘I won’t ever listen to him again’ mentality on FR. It covers all areas, print, radio, television. It includes people like Rush Limbaugh, who has done much more for modern conservatism than your (or my) puny nameless posts on FR.
I will proudly say that I listen to and read Krauthammer. Hell, I read a LOT of editorial thought, even God forbid, liberals! I feel like I need to see where their twisted logic takes them.
Any wise military strategist studies the enemy...and conservatives should to. This antisceptic mentality in here rubs me wrong, that is my point.
You are talking to a guy that has the largest feminist library that I have seen in a home, has a sizable black history collection a small but representative homosexual agenda and counter agenda collection, and some militant Latino books, along with all kinds of related areas and variations in a 10,000 book collection.
I used to subscribe to, In These Times, The New Republic, the NYT, The Nation, LA Times, Mother Jones, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, The American Prospect, Harpers, Utne Reader, MS, and many more, I have always been a compulsive reader, and I actually used to concentrate almost entirely on studying the left, since I already knew who I was.
Look at the beginning of this thread, after getting no response from this joker, and seeing his posting history, some of us decided to not click on the link, but seriously, I have better things to do than Krauthammer anyway.
If you find his opinion fresh and enlightening then carry on, it is a start.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.