Skip to comments."The Damage Done is Profound": Former Senator Santorum Speaks on the Kennedy Funeral
Posted on 09/16/2009 3:54:30 PM PDT by wagglebee
ORALANDO, September 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In addition to his announcement that he is considering a run for President in 2012, former US Senator Rick Santorum gave his assessment of the controversy around the Ted Kennedy funeral during his speech to the Catholic Leadership Conference last week. Santorum's talk focused on rejuvenating the Catholic Church in the United States.
During his speech Santorum lamented "what the Church allowed to happen" with the Kennedy funeral, referring to it as a "deification" of Kennedy. "The damage done" to the Church, he said, "is profound."
"We have Catholic politicians who have led this country astray, have led generations of Catholics astray," said Santorum.
He noted that there was no personal grievance between himself and Kennedy. "I knew Ted Kennedy very, very well, I got along with Teddy. Everybody got along with Teddy. He's was a nice, affable guy," he said.
In answer to those who would protest that "the Church is all about forgiveness," Santorum said: "Yes, God blessed Teddy with a year of knowing he was going to die."
"We all prayed that that year was a productive one for him and his relationship with our Savior," he added. "I prayed for that. I sent him a note. I told him that. I prayed for him every day."
Santorum made particular note of the Vatican letter read by former Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick at the internment. And while he said he understood the motivation for such a presentation, he nevertheless concluded that "there is no excuse" for it. "It will harm us, it will hurt the rejuvenation of our Church," he said.
For the future rejuvenation of the Church, "getting it right with Catholic politicians is going to be huge," he warned. "We keep sending the message that it's okay to dissent, okay to do all the things that almost every Catholic politician in the United States does," he said.
He recalled that during the Senate debates on banning partial birth abortion, "almost a third of the votes against the bill were Catholics."
The key to it all, he said, is having "good shepherds" to lead the Church.
Ping for your lists.
If they make Ted a saint, I’m switchin to Baptist
This guy endorsed Specter over Toomey, right?
Actually, I didn’t even realize until now that Santorum, whom I have always liked, was Catholic. I’m glad he’s taking on the horrible lefty (elderly) bishops, because they are indeed giving scandal with their deification of Kennedy.
I never understood why the Catholic Church didn’t stand up to the Kennedy’s positions on abortion...
Heh. Our prayers were finally answered.
Because like many churches, it was more interested in currying favor with celebrity politicians than preaching the word of God.
Lots of senior citizens in my church who have been Dems their whole life.
One jumped me when I was wearing a McLame and Palin shirt before the election. I said, I'm not voting for the baby killer. You could have heard a pin drop. Never got any more grief when I wore my shirt.
Ditto. A politician FINALLY has it right on.
Won’t do it this time I bet.
Here is a man who says he is anti-abortion and votes anti-abortion. He says he is pro-Israel and he votes pro-Israel. He is a man who says what he believes and votes that way. In Casey, we have a man who stepped forward and said he is pro-life, then stomped for Obama and voted for Sellibus. He voted to continue funding for Acorn. Without a lengthy elaboration on each of these issues, we know what we have in Casey. We gave up Santorum for Casey. We got snookered!
Let us pay them back by pushing Santorum for President. If the Republican party would get some, let’s say backbone and back a man of class, they could easily displace what we have now with a man like Santorum. Isn’t the Republican Party tired of them handing us a candidate like McCain? When the Republicans are gutsy, they win. When they let Spector, Lindsay Graham, etc. guide them, they lose. I say, let’s back somebody with a spine. Let’s back Santorum!
Damage to the Church????? OK what about ALL the damage to the Country we love by this evil America hating Murderer?? he should be flushed down the toilet.
Please read this article--to the end. Santorum voted for Arlen Specter and actively campaigned for him—AGAINST Pro-Life conservative Pat Toomey.
The Pennsylvania Treason (Arlen Specter)
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Posted: May 1, 2004 | By Mark Crutcher
Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:45:55 PM by vannrox
I have often asserted that, for the pro-life movement, the only practical distinction between the Democrat and Republican parties is that one is an enemy who will stab us in the chest and the other is a friend who will stab us in the back.
Tuesday’s Republican primary in Pennsylvania proved my point. Hard-core abortion enthusiast Republican Arlen Specter was being challenged by pro-lifer Pat Toomey for the U.S. Senate. As the incumbent, Specter was predicted to win easily. But as Election Day approached, the polls clearly showed that Toomey was closing in fast and had a legitimate shot to pull off an upset.
That’s when the GOPs power brokers pulled out the heavy guns. President George W. Bush personally rushed to Pennsylvania and implored Republicans to get behind the candidacy of ... Arlen Specter. Equally amazing, Pennsylvania’s other senator, Rick Santorum, also chose to walk away from his long-espoused pro-life principles. He joined Bush on the campaign trail and urged voters to defeat the pro-life challenger.
The fact that Specter’s eventual margin of victory was so razor-thin made one thing absolutely undeniable. Without the influence and treachery of Bush and Santorum, we would have seen a raging pro-abort who has always been viciously hostile toward anything that the pro-life movement does replaced with a pro-lifer. It is laughable to suggest that the combined efforts of a Republican president and a Republican senator can’t influence even 2 percent of the votes in a Republican primary. Given that, it is simply a fact that Bush and Santorum cost the pro-life movement this election.
One of the things that made this particular election so crucial for the pro-life movement is that, if re-elected, Specter’s seniority will give him the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Pro-lifers often say that we must support the Republicans and George Bush because of Supreme Court appointments. However, that is now a dead issue given that no pro-life nominee to the Supreme Court is going to get past Specter.
If George Bush didn’t know this when he used his influence to get Specter re-elected, then he really is as stupid as the Democrats say he is.
But of course, Bush is not stupid. He knew that by insuring Specter’s victory he was ending any chance of putting a pro-lifer on the Supreme Court. That may not have been his goal; it was simply the price he was willing to pay to support an incumbent Republican.
Moreover, Specter’s term is six years, which means that even if Bush wins in November, Specter will be in place for Bush’s entire second term and beyond. With that reality in place, the practical difference between who John Kerry might get confirmed to the Supreme Court and who Bush might get confirmed becomes zero.
Bush and Santorum defenders will claim that if Toomey had won he might turn around and lose in the general election and, thereby, turn control of the Senate over to the Democrats.
That’s garbage. First, upon what do these people base the assumption that Toomey could somehow beat the senior incumbent United States senator in his state, but then not be able to beat a non-incumbent Democrat? If their claim is that Toomeys advocacy for the right-to-life makes him unelectable in a Pennsylvania general election, how do they explain Santorums election?
Second, from a pro-life perspective, who cares if the Democrats win if the alternative is a pro-abortion Republican? Are we supposed to believe that the unborn are better off with their fate is in the hands of pro-abortion Republicans than pro-abortion Democrats?
Third, what happened to principle? Regardless of political considerations, if Bush and Santorum were more than just rhetorically committed to the pro-life cause they would have never come to the aid of a pro-abortion candidate who was about to lose to a pro-life one. In fact, when they saw that Toomey actually had a chance, their response should have been to do what they could to secure the victory not work against it.
While we’re on the subject of principle, there are going to be those who try to dismiss what these two did by regurgitating that old chin drivel about abortion being just one issue, and the GOP has to look at other issues as well. It’s the same old worn-out no litmus test nonsense that we hear ad nauseam.
I’m always curious about this particular argument. I wonder whether the people who make it are willing to apply it across the board, or if it’s just a convenient way to dodge the abortion issue. For example, if it were discovered that Specter was secretly a member of the Ku Klux Klan, would that be a litmus test? Would Bush and Santorum still campaign for him saying that they disagreed with him on this one issue but that they have to look at all these other issues as well?
I think not, and that points out the abysmal dishonesty of what they did in Pennsylvania. If a Republican candidate was a Klansman who openly espoused racism, neither of these guys would be caught in the same county with him. You can also bet that this Klansman’s position on other issues would never even come up.
So despite all their beautiful rhetoric about the humanity of the unborn child, the fact that they will also work to elect politicians who say unborn children should be legally butchered by the millions speaks much louder. Their message is that when the subject is racism nothing else matters, but when the subject is baby killing there are other issues to consider. If you believe those are the actions of people who are truly committed to the pro-life cause, then you are in desperate need of a reality check.
In the final analysis, the Bush/Santorum betrayal was obviously the result of party politics. These guys sold the unborn down the river for political reasons, and they felt comfortable doing so primarily because the pro-life movement has always let them get away with it. For 30 years we have shown the Republican Party that whatever they do we’ll stick with them, and as long as we keep sending that message we are fools to think they will ever change.
That is the bottom line, and while the American pro-life establishment is so enamored with having a seat at the Republican table that they will never say this, I will:
Through their participation in The Pennsylvania Treason, the Republican Party, George Bush and Rick Santorum have lost the right to ever again ask for the support of pro-lifers.
By the way, in a speech he gave to a Catholic prayer breakfast less than a week after the election, Rick Santorum told the audience that they should ... get closer to God to hear what He wants done ... God speaks in whispers and you will not know His will unless you are close (to Him). He is calling, let me assure you, He is calling.
Apparently, Santorum believes that God called him to work for baby killers.
Mark Crutcher is president of Life Dynamics Incorporated of Denton, Texas.
“When they let Specter, Lindsay Graham, etc. guide them, they lose. I say, lets back somebody with a spine. Lets back Santorum!”
Are you kidding? Santorum backed that very same Arlen Specter over Toomey. No way would I back Santorum. He too is not trustworthy, when he backed a RINO, now Dem, over a conservative like Toomey.
Rick Santorum campaigned FOR NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman, an ardent pro-abortion pol. http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BzKv
Rick Santorum betrayed his outstanding pro-life work and his Catholic Faith at least twice. And not privately in the voting booth, but publicly where he taught with his actions.
He is talking a great game right now. But we better not forget that with politicians words are cheap, especially when their actions are 180 degrees opposite.
Rick Santorum has permanently compromised himself on what he himself says is the preeminent issue of life.
We MUST demand better than Rick Santorum.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government"
The "Kennedy position" on abortion was developed by Roman Catholic clergy (Fr. Robert Drinan, Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Joseph Fuchs, Fr. Richard McCormick, and Fr. Giles Milhaven).
These priests met with Robert and Edward Kennedy, as well as Sargent Shriver, at Hyannisport in 1964 to explain to them why it was OK for them to support abortion. Many accounts of this meeting exist.
The bottom line is that the Catholic Church tolerated its clergy FORMULATING the "Kennedy position".
"Standing up" to that position would have required some sort of rebuke or correction to the priests who designed it - and that never happened.
Draw your own conclusions.
I don't like him or his attitude and remember the phony ban on partial birth abortion law that he co-wrote where partial birth abortion still exists providing the navel is inside the birth-canal.
Santorum as well as Chris Smith (R-NJ)voted for HR 3010 which funds Title X and family-planning programs. It is this bill that funds planned parenthood the enemy of the unborn and pro-life movement. Santorum loses my vote.
Provided further, That of the funds made available under this heading, $285,963,000 shall be for the program under title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary family planning projects:
oh, and these so-called "republicans" increased Title X funding every year during the Bush/Hastert/Frist Administrations. They're all a bunch of losers in my book who spent MORE money than the democrats and INCREASED Title X appropriations. I'll pray for a real republican who didn't fund planned parenthood, not santorum.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
LOL. It's the END of the "Kennedy Dynasty" (actually, it ended with Bobby) and no Saints in sight (from my perspective). Teddy boy's funeral Mass should have NEVER been TV telecast with Obama and all the liberal minions there. But we already know that.
No real Christian could have voted for Obama.
........and no sense to switch away from the Catholic Church. Ever. Jesus (God)founded it.........jus' saying......
BOBBY JINDAL/ SARAH PALIN
Sarah Palin/Joe Wilson 2012
I had a gift card that someone gave to me last year from Borders and laughed out loud and remarked to the clerk on the Kennedy books they had there.
40 percent off.
“Why would anyone want to buy this book?” about Kennedy’s book.
BTW, I got 30 percent off on my book. Borders must be having a hard time right now! LOL!
If I remember, they supported Planned Parenthood. Hmmmm.
Every true Christian knows they will die...someday. Hence the Bible’s warning to “stay awake”, i.e. be prepared, for it might be tomorrow. Death-bed conversions are playing roulette with one’s soul.
According to the First Vatican Council The Catholic Church established that:
If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.
That was what they always told my dad in DC back in business days when dad would bitch about Teddy's driving.
Unless he publicly acknowledges his past sins and renounces his past behavior. If he truly repents publicly I think he can be given the opportunity to show that he truly means it.
Your dad was right.
Everybody got along with Teddy? I think Mary Jo would have something to say about that. Nice guys don't leave women drowning in ponds.
I like Santorum also. He does stand by his principles and he is young and “sellable”. I can look past his mistake of supporting Spector. Spector had been entrenched in that Senate seat for years and was senior over him. I can understand it. I think if he were to run again he would run on the conservative principles he always stood by when he was in office.
Nonetheless, I respectfully respond to your #18 by saying that whatever the argument that Mark Crutcher may be making on this is a losing argument. I cannot condone any more than you do Rick Santorum's support for Arlen Specter over Toomey for the GOP Senate nomination but that is hardly the whole story. What follows is some of the rest of the story:
1. The perfect is the enemy of the good. We should eagerly hope for perfection without expecting it. The last Guy Who was perfect was crucified for his efforts and that was a looooong time ago. We don't expect to see His like again until the end when He returns in triumph. Rick Santorum never pretended to be perfect. Neither do I and I'll bet you don't either.
2. Toomey claimed to be pro-life when he ran in 2004 but he was elected to Congress as a pro-abort. He then claimed to have changed his mind on abortion after the birth of his first child. I'll take that but he conveniently announced this for the first time during the GOP Senate primary.
3. While Arlen Specter is no pro-lifer (and never clamed to be) and is not even vaguely acceptable as a candidate as a Republican or as a Demonrat (his original party and and the one far more congenial to his voting record), Santorum's support (as a fellow Pennsylvania Senator and a ranking GOP Senate caucus leader) for Specter was not justified but it was the only mistake on his generally and powerfully pro-life record.
4. Crutcher cannot accurately say that Specter "has always been viciously hostile toward anything the pro-life movement does..." Does the name Clarence Thomas ring a bell for Mr. Crutcher??? Arlen Specter was given the job of utterly demolishing Anita Hill and her lies about Thomas. Few here are aware of Specter's capabilities as a trial lawyer and cross-examiner. He left her bullet-ridden corpse in the gutter that she have emerged from. Maybe a probable 35-40 year tenure of Clarence Thomas holding the old Thurgood Marshall seat doesn't mean much to Mark Crutcher but I dissent from his view and note that the conversion of that seat on the life issues (and many others) was one of our most crucial victories in my lifetime.
5. Orrin Hatch came to Connecticut in 1988 to scold those of us who were busily removing Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., from the US Senate. Goldwater (a reprehensible excuse for a human being but admired by "fiscal conservatives") showed up to do likewise and so did other conservative senators. Personally, I despise Lowell Weicker as much or more than I despise Comrade Obonzo. Crutcher probably would not urge anyone to vote for a Goldwater (whose first wife was on Planned Barrenhood's National Board of Directors for 35 years until her death). GHWB's mother (W's grandmother) served about as long on the PP Board and was furious with her son and grandson for abandoning her baby-killing principles. I happen to think that Dubya was sincere and GHWB turned because in the old formula: Paris is worth a Mass. None of these guys is perfect any more than we are (OK, OK, Weicker is perfectly evil but that is not the perfection we are talking about). I have little doubt that Crutcher would not treat Hatch, however, as he treated Santorum.
6. Did Specter vote for Chief Justice Roberts and/or Justice Alito? To tell the truth, I have forgotten but I would be really surprised if he opposed both.
7. Apparently, former Congressman Toomey has been consistently, although somewhat quietly, pro-life since his 2004 campaign. That is good and we should make room for the converted but let's not pretend he was always pro-life. He was not.
8. Crutcher was writing on primary day, 2004, at what was presumably the high point in his frustrated anger over yet another pro-abort vs. pro-abort senatorial contest. People who want to be taken seriously in matters political need to reign in their emotions and go on to fight another day.
9. Well, the Crutchers and other perfectionists got their way and Santorum was defeated by that two-faced liar Casey. We sure taught US a lesson. Was that some sort of pro-life progress??? BTW, Casey was one of only seven Demonrat Senators (along with Leahy, Sanders, Durbin, Burris, Whitehouse and one other). DeWine was defeated in Ohio by Sharrod Brown, more real pro-life progress, huh? Again, we sure taught US a lesson.
10. Rick Santorum, as a US Senator, said he was pro-life and, as a Senator, he voted pro-life. He should not have campaigned for or voted for Specter in the primary. That deviation does not erase many years of Santorum's consistent pro-life voting record of decades in the House and Senate and in private life.
11. It may not mean much to Crutcher (who I believe is not Catholic but Santorum's public smackdown of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops at a Catholic Church Mid-Atlantic conference of Catholic laity for pleading for Congressional funding for a witch's brew of pro-abort "progressive" groups, kicking the leftist hierarchs as their numbers were seriously eroding and as Rome was systematically replacing those dying and retiring with substantially more conservative bishops, was a more important effort with more important results than most anything else that public officials do.
12. Mark Crutcher would do well to return to his area of competence which is instigating and assisting malpractice suits against the medical babykillers and leave matters political to those far more competent in that area than he.
Back in the 70s and 80s my dad had a sizable contracting business worldwide (we subbed from Brown and Root and Floor and MK and Bechtel..folks like that) which had a fair number of government funded jobs from pipelines (we specialized in river crossings) to feasibility studies to water and sewer plants and had to go meet with folks there and Lott, Cochran, Stennis, Whitten, and Sonny Montgomery were some of his contacts. We were from Mississippi where everybody knows everybody.
And they would all say how everybody like Teddy and thought he was trying to live up to his brother's ideals and that Kopechne was likely pregnant.
that sorta thing
Amen! He and his recent predecessors have seen, and have done nothing but blather on. Just like our “representatives” in congress. This is not acceptable. When they start excommunicating Catholic politicians for supporting pro-death candidates and policies, I will listen and follow. Until then, they're no better than the rest.
Because Teddy's older brother had been their opening wedge that cut into the Protestant establishment that had prevailed throughout the entire prior history of the U.S. Once the bishops hitched their star to the Kennedy wagon, objectivity went out the window. It's the same reaction blacks have had to their first (sorta) black president -- it really hasn't mattered to them what he has done, hasn't done, or what he stands for.
Superficial loyalty based on ethnicity is both politically naive and unChristian, and it makes me sad for how far the standards of education have fallen in both the public school civics classes and in religious understanding.
bumpus ad summum
I began reading this thread wondering "why isn't Rick Santorum POTUS, seeing how he represents The Right issues properly?"
Then I read your post, and it became clear. It reminded me of something my Mum always said to me:
"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."
-- David Rex, Psalm 146:3 --
So there it is, spelled out. A Mother's wisdom, right as always: if we are trusting politicians to provide our answers we seek in vain.
Mum's advice has not yet been helpful in telling me whom I should vote for or whom I should believe and support. But it has been helpful in guiding me to take what a politician says with a healthy pinch of salt.
(or perhaps more appropriately, a healthy dose of salts.)
On the comforting side, the Left has lavished their trust in their prince, Pharaoh Obama, and every day Pharaoh is proving that their trust is ill-placed. Mum was right...
Thank you for your post 37. Ive been to your posting page over the years to see your position on various matters, and admire your thinking and writing, so I appreciate your post.
I agree with much in your post, especially on the reality that in politics the perfect can be the enemy of the good, however I dont think anyone on FR is naive enough to expect anything close to perfection with pols.
I too believe Santorum is a good man. Sadly our culture is so atrocious that I dont believe we can turn it around with a good man, we need a truly great man for POTUS. I dont know if there is one for 2012, but when taking everything I know about Santorum into account, I believe he falls short.
The very facts of his pro-life record is what made his support of Specter AND Christine Whitman (any other pro-aborts?) all the more upsetting.
He compromised big time on one of if not the biggest issue he championed.
Principle above Party. The reverse gets us nowhere.
BlackElk you have good points but I dont see any that offer reason to trust Santorum wouldnt make the same type mistakes and compromises as POTUS, which presents even more opportunities for mistakes and compromises than for a senator.
Still, I would have voted for him over Casey, so I suspect that you and I are not too far apart on all this.
Again, Santorum is a good man, but under the current circumstances, not good enough. That is why I said We MUST demand better than Rick Santorum.
And from the purely political level: Santorum seems an unrealistic candidate as he lost his last election, six years out of elected office from 2012, moved out of his home state and mostly off the national radar.
A RELATED POINT
If Santorum were to win the nomination I would in a heartbeat support him over obozo. The RNC knows that this would be the case with most R voters for almost anyone they might nominate against obozo. After 4 loooong hellish years of obozo, many would haul a$$ to the voting booth in complete desperation even if the ticket were John McCain and Lindsey Graham. And therein lies a big part of the bigger problem.
Were freaking stuck and its getting way past unbearable.
The RNC is broken. The nomination process problem is a disaster waiting to happen AGAIN. LimbaughGod bless and protect him, is correctly warning against a third party at this time. But the RNC leadership is infested w RINOs and I have yet to hear concrete solutions on how conservatives can take back the GOP and prevent another stinking rotten RINO from getting nominated.
Also campaigned for Lincoln Chafee and couple other pro-choicers. Received a C- rating from GOA and state lobby group on guns. Voted for evry spending bill along with republicans.
When he ran for Senate he criticized his opponent for moving his family to Virginia after elected and then he moved his family to Virginia after he was elected. Hasn’t live in PA since 2002.
Not in favor of the Fair Tax.
I voted for him in 2006 because he was the lesser of two evils but evil is still evil. Wouldn’t work his campaign tho.
Michael Savage says “It’s women who will save this country.” You betcha.
He will mean it as long as it is politically expedient. I’m from PA and would never vote for him.
I’m from PA he doesn’t stand by his principles. He is only out for Rick. sorry but it’s the truth.
Read my post at #45
the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Santorum has had no executive experience. No Commander in chief experience. He is almost as much an empty suit as obooozo.
Senators always screw us.
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.