Posted on 02/18/2012 3:58:27 AM PST by careyb
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.
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.