Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santorum’s Political Martyrdom
Crisis Magazine ^ | March 5, 2012 | Charlie Spiering

Posted on 03/05/2012 5:51:29 AM PST by NYer

more

Rick Santorum was defending himself when he responded to George Stephonopoulus on ABC’s This Week: “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes (me) throw up.”

Stephonopoulus had given Santorum an opportunity to renounce an old statement about Kennedy; instead Santorum doubled down. It was the culmination of a week of media scrutiny of religious statements made throughout his political career.

On election night, tongue-wagging pundits suggested that Santorum’s attack on Kennedy caused him to lose the Catholic vote to Mitt Romney in Michigan.

“Rick Santorum has to be wondering where he would be tonight if he hadn’t attacked John F. Kennedy,” MSNBC anchor and liberal Catholic Lawrence O’Donnell said, ridiculing Santorum for attacking a popular former president.

Santorum’s line predictably blew up in his face, but on the day of the Michigan primary, a humiliated Santorum repented. “I wish I had that particular line back,” he admitted to fellow Catholic and conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, when asked about the “throw up” line.

Santorum clearly wanted the juvenile “throw up” part of his statement back, but what he didn’t want back was his criticism of Kennedy. Throughout his public life, Santorum gave several speeches on the issue, blaming the philosophy behind Kennedy’s speech for the secularism that dominates political life today.

In December of 2010, Santorum told Thomas More College of Liberal Arts students that, “Kennedy’s attempt to reassure Protestants that the Catholic Church would not control the government and suborn its independence, advanced a philosophy of strict separation that would create a purely secular public square cleansed of all religious wisdom and the voice of religious people of all faiths,” Santorum stated, arguing that Kennedy, “took words written to protect religion from the government and used them to shield the government from religion.”

By confessing “an absolute separation of Church and State,” Santorum reminded the students, Kennedy chose, “not just to dispel fear, but to expel faith,” after doubts were raised about whether or not his administration would be subject to the papacy.

Liberal Catholics were bewildered by Santorum’s attack on Kennedy, but more importantly they were upset that he challenged their philosophy. He did so by attacking their favorite Catholic hero, who Santorum argues, was anything but heroic in matters of faith.

As a prominent United States senator, Santorum heard a different call. In 2003 he gave a speech to the graduating class of Christendom College, cheerfully challenging them to be “radical” and a “rebel” against the prevailing popular culture.

At this point, Santorum was already under fire for his comments about gay marriage and for sponsoring a controversial bill banning partial birth abortion. In spite of the critics, he paraphrased Mother Theresa reminding them that, “God does not call on us to be successful, he calls us to be faithful.”

During the speech, Santorum marveled at Thomas More’s writings about loving one’s enemies, as he sat imprisoned in the London tower, spurned by his colleagues.

“We are all called to love one another, even people who disagree with us and hate us for what we believe,” he said. “This is a gift that comes only from God, so please ask him for it.”

“If you’re like me, you’ll need it,” he joked to the audience. “Frequently.”

Santorum is one of the rare modern political figures that chooses Thomas More as his model, rather than Kennedy.

Liberal Catholics who cling to Kennedy’s Catholic legacy are no longer reassuring wary Protestants about their loyalty to America, as Kennedy did. Today, they use his legacy to champion values directly opposed to their Catholic faith.

More recently, these Catholics have given up on the principle of religious liberty itself, as the heated battle over the contraception mandate continues.

Santorum chooses More, an English saint who defied King Henry VIII for declaring himself head of the Church rather than the pope. When the king insisted on a divorce, interpreting his faith as he saw fit, More rightly recognized it as an unacceptable attack on the institution of marriage.

More’s heroic actions led to rejection by his colleagues, a lengthy imprisonment in the tower of London, and finally execution. This is why the church has canonized Thomas More as a saint, and today English Catholics can be proud of his unwavering principles and courage in a tumultuous era.

Santorum is no saint, but his choice to emulate More by fearlessly defending moral values and virtue is praiseworthy. His choice, however, means he will suffer further persecution and be a political martyr for his beliefs.

Santorum will probably fail to win the Republican nomination, but his legacy of courageous citizenship will only grow at a time when religious liberty is under attack. Perhaps he will inspire a second generation of American Catholic politicians as Kennedy did for his generation.



TOPICS: Catholic; History; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: conservative; liberal; santorum

1 posted on 03/05/2012 5:51:34 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...

Catholic ping!


2 posted on 03/05/2012 5:52:10 AM PST by NYer (He who hides in his heart the remembrance of wrongs is like a man who feeds a snake on his chest. St)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Santorum needs to read Levin’s Ameritopia before he hops in the sack with More.


3 posted on 03/05/2012 5:54:55 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The leftists obviously believe the average citizen still worships JFK, like Chris Matthews. I don’t think so.


4 posted on 03/05/2012 5:56:50 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I love his principles. You know he is not a flip flopper. He is so refreshing. I am more and more excited about his delegate count tomorrow. He will make such a wonderful President. Hopefully most voters feel the same way. I know they feel that way in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Ohio.


5 posted on 03/05/2012 5:57:47 AM PST by napscoordinator (A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Santorum has my vote and my family's vote. He is no hollow reed blowing in the winds of popularity. We desperately need a man of Judeo-Christian principles at the helm, any further down the funnel to hell and we'll be wholly destroyed.
6 posted on 03/05/2012 6:01:32 AM PST by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
I love his principles. You know he is not a flip flopper.

I've got real problems with that. Here in Ohio, Mittens Romnesty is running an ad that has Santorum, in his own words, admitting that he supported Planned Predators, and that he kinda' had ta' go along with the rest of the Stupid Party when they voted.

Voting for Planned Predators (which Santorum did) shows that he is no better than Mittens. How anyone can justify voting for an organization that has the blood of millions of unborn and newly born Americans on its hands is flat out disgusting.

And I don't care what Santorum's reasoning is . . . the ad makes him look like Romney.

So, now, who the hell do I vote for tomorrow??

7 posted on 03/05/2012 6:13:17 AM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

As you pointed out, Santorum is indeed a flip flopper.

Where he gets away with it is that he has been such a back bencher for all of his career that no one knows or remembers what he did years ago. It is just now trickling out.

Both the Newt and Mitt campaigns made huge huge mistakes by not letting some of this trickle out sooner. Many of these Santorum supporters would have seen the light early in their support, but their support has now been firmed and they’ve had too much of the kool aid.


8 posted on 03/05/2012 6:18:22 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

So, now, who the hell do I vote for tomorrow??

Well you are going to have to decide that for yourself. I would say that you will have to look at each candidate, warts and all. They all have them. I still say that Santorum is the best of the four. But you may think Newt is. The only thing I will tell you is that getting rid of Romney would be my end result. For example, if I lived in Georgia, I would vote for Newt. However, in Ohio, I would vote for Santorum. We cannot let Romney get ANY more mojo than he already has. The establishment wants a Romney nominee so badly.


9 posted on 03/05/2012 6:21:17 AM PST by napscoordinator (A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

Get real. Anybody that has served in any legislative role has always voted for things that are diametrically opposed to what they believe. These bills are always stuffed with ten million things that are unrelated to the central issue. It’s like the Blunt amendment was put on as a rider the other day to something completely unrelated. To pretend you don’t know this is beyond the pale.


10 posted on 03/05/2012 6:27:29 AM PST by throwback ( The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
So, now, who the hell do I vote for tomorrow?? Well you are going to have to decide that for yourself.

The Stupid Party has really gotten us into a 1st class mess. Personally, I wouldn't vote for any of these candidates . . . none of them. I would, however, vote for Palin, or Bachmann, or Bolton. But their names are nowhere in sight.

This illegal alien grifter should be the easiest person to throw out of our White House, and yet the Stupid Party has come up with losers. I can't really think of one of the people on the ballot tomorrow that I'd vote for.

Thanks, Really Stupid Party. Maybe I'll write in McLame!

11 posted on 03/05/2012 6:30:42 AM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

He’s a big government liberal. His “holier than thou” persona is a big whopper of an act. True believers don’t believe in robbing one person (through taxes), to pay for another (like Social Security, Medicare, etc., etc.).

Nor do they believe in removing the ability of people to govern themselves. Rick Santorum hates freedom, and think he can channel one one of the biggest statists of them all: Abe Lincoln.

Santorum is the only person running for President who falls below Romney, including Obama. If we’re going to be run through, I’d rather it be done quickly, and without the theocratic babble at the same time. I love Godly people in Government, I hate people trying to replace God WITH Government (especially when they pretend to do it in God’s name). “Never” to Santorum, “NEVER.”


12 posted on 03/05/2012 6:37:49 AM PST by JDW11235 (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: throwback
Get real. Anybody that has served in any legislative role has always voted for things that are diametrically opposed to what they believe. These bills are always stuffed with ten million things that are unrelated to the central issue. It’s like the Blunt amendment was put on as a rider the other day to something completely unrelated. To pretend you don’t know this is beyond the pale.

So, Santorum holds his nose and votes for funding baby murderers, and, well, that's ok, "I took one for the team." And babies die! And they did it with my tax payer money

What a crock of crap! To say that a politician would have his feet in the fire and forced to vote to fund a group of baby murders is RIDICULOUS. What are these jerks you're talking about? Political Whores?

I just can't believe you said that. Because one lemming jumps off a cliff, so should the rest. I feel sorry for how you look at moral judgments and moral responsibilities of our political representatives. Pathetic!

13 posted on 03/05/2012 6:40:08 AM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: laweeks
Romney used the same attack on Gingrich:

The commercial cites H.R. 1078, the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, as the Gingrich- and Pelosi-backed legislation related to the one-child policy. The bill involves supporting both the United Nations Food and Agriculture Program and the United Nations Development Program, among other initiatives, and had 144 cosponsors.

So Newt supported abortion. You can't be a legislator and not be accused of almost anything. If you can find a single stand-alone bill that was only one issue that involved abortion you can make the charge. Otherwise, it's just a cheap shot.

14 posted on 03/05/2012 7:02:24 AM PST by throwback ( The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: skeeter; NYer; marshmallow; AuH2ORepublican; Impy
>> The leftists obviously believe the average citizen still worships JFK, like Chris Matthews. I don’t think so. <<

Sadly, there are a sizable number of freepers who believe that as well. They heap praise on JFK routinely whenever there's a JFK thread and say ridiculous stuff like "Kennedy was more conservative than today's Republicans". When you call them out and present the facts that JFK's "New Frontier" program was NOT conservative and that JFK was a loyal follower of Wilson, FDR, etc., they'll balk and tell you we have to PRETEND that JFK was conservative because it will show "today's Democrats their party has left them"

The media using the image of saintly JFK to bash Santorum for his criticism is proof this doesn't work. Joining the left in idolizing JFK hurts our side instead of helps. Sleazy JFK was no role model and he got in office through crooked means and accomplished virtually nothing. But thanks to "conservatives" helping the mainstream media and the left pushing the Kennedy Camelot myth, it's now become taboo to bash JFK publicly.

As the Santorum/Kennedy divide proves, Kennedy wasn't even a "social conservative". But again, the revisionists will say otherwise and even claim JFK was "pro-life" in 1960 (abortion was not a federal issue in 1960, thus Kennedy took no stance on abortion) Like today's Democrats (NOT "today's Republicans"), Kennedy very strongly opposed the Catholic Church's policies on birth control, and parochial schools. Kennedy even attacked the American Legion, saying they the "American Legion has not had a constructive thought for the benefit of this country since 1918." when they opposed a House bill to provide federal funds for slum clearance and low income public housing. Yep, some "conservative"

Overall, I'd say the "JFK was a conservative" talking point has converted as many of "today's Dems" to the GOP side as the left converts when they cite Eisenhower's "millitary-industrial complex" line and pretend Ike was one of their own when they despised him at the time. Nobody falls for that, the only people who go with conspiracy theories about the "millitary-industrial complex" were rabid anti-war loons to begin wtih.

Still, you have a number of useful idiots here who will join the left in mocking Rick Santorum as "Saint Rick" for his social values, while actually hailing the empty-suit pretty boy Massachusetts liberal as saintly. That just shows you what bad shape America is when liberals have people on "our side" doing their dirty work for them.

15 posted on 03/05/2012 7:17:31 AM PST by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
When Madison spoke of a “perfect separation” between Church and State - was he also seeking to expel faith from public life?
Does Santorum truly believe Kennedy “advanced a philosophy of strict separation that would create a purely secular public square cleansed of all religious wisdom and the voice of religious people of all faiths”?

Or was Kennedy trying to say that it was OK for our nation to have the religious wisdom and the voice of religious people of the Catholic faith - without the White House taking orders from the Vatican?

What part of the vision that Kennedy put forth made Santorum want “to puke”? The part where the White House wouldn't be taking its orders from the Vatican? The part where Kennedy wouldn't be adopting his public policy positions based upon his religious faith?

16 posted on 03/05/2012 7:18:23 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson