Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 03/05/2012 6:31:33 AM PST by marshmallow
There is much to discuss in the feature story on Rick Santorum’s faith that has been served up by The New York Times. There is lots of interesting information, some questionable information and then a pretty large chunk of missing information.
However, I think many traditional Catholic believers will start reading this piece — after all, it’s the story of how one normal American Catholic turned into a traditional Roman Catholic — and then find themselves stuck right about here.
As members of St. Catherine of Siena, a parish here in the wealthy Northern Virginia suburb of Great Falls, the Santorums are immersed in a community where large families are not uncommon and many mothers leave behind careers to dedicate themselves to child-rearing, as Mrs. Santorum has. Mr. Santorum has been on the church roster as a lector, reading Scripture from the pulpit.
The parish is known for its Washington luminaries — Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court is a member — as well as its spiritual ardor. Mass is offered in Latin every Sunday at noon — most parishes have Mass only in English — and each Wednesday parishioners take turns praying nonstop for 24 hours before a consecrated communion wafer, a demanding practice known as Eucharistic adoration.
First of all, I think it would be more accurate to say that parishioners take part in a 24-hour cycle of unbroken prayers, with most participating for an hour — a short period of devotion that, for a traditional believer in a number of different traditions, would not be all that “demanding.” The wording in the story is a bit unclear. What does it mean to “take turns praying nonstop”?
However, the fingernails-on-chalkboard moment in this passage for many readers will be the return of the W-word — “wafer.”
(Excerpt) Read more at getreligion.org ...
In the end, it's really just about the "money", isn't it?
I was right. Santorum's real faith scares people.
or not
Good points ... but I seriously doubt that's what the writer of this article was thinking.
“The Left is absolutely going out of their way to get Santorum nominated. There is a strong push for them to crossover on Super Tuesday to stop Romney and Gingrich. (And they certainly won’t vote for Santo in the General.)”
Absolutely, in some states, Santorum is calling even the lefties himself. While our last hope may wind up being a brokered convention, Gingrich (while behind Romney) is winning against Santorum and Paul both in delegates, AND in popular vote.
Although the numbers in the beauty contest states may ultimately turn out to equal delegates, we also have to think about what’s going to happen once we get into the general. Santorum won’t cut it, and people can argue till their blue in the face, but the reality is, that’s he’s unlikely to make it very much further. If he doesn’t shore up real delegate in several states tomorrow (He’s not on the ballot in Virginia, and has real issues in Ohio), then this funding is going to drop out from under him. The fact is, that the excuse for not properly working out the ballot issues in BOTH Virginia AND Ohio, looks (and is) really, really bad. The excuse (”I was polling at 2% and didn’t have much of a chance back then”) is going to have the opposite effect. It doesn’t sound like an excuse, but even more of a reason to not vote for someone who couldn’t get their act together. I watched the Wallace interview, and couldn’t help thinking (when he gave that lame excuse), “He just handed a commercial to Romney, great.” I really hope he’s not working for Romney, but I really also think he must be (or have been), it’s the only thing that makes sense to do so much, so wrong, so often.
I thought you’d run the Leftists out of the Souf’
Crazy town up there.
“’Twould be better to take the alcohol out.”
Why? Then it wouldn’t be wine as Christ insisted we remember him by. First miracle: made wine. Final sacrament: drank wine. “grape juice” was almost unheard of then, as grapes not treated with modern anti fungal chemicals start fermenting when they ripen.
I’d done grape-juice communion all my life. First time taking wine instead was profoundly superior.
Property rights are endowed by our creator, just like rights to life and liberty.
You see,t he purpose of our existence is to have life, and use our administrative capacity to give glory to God, through free agency/choice, and our faith-inspired good works.
“Santorum’s real ‘faith’ scares people.”
Yes, his faith in himself to steal and do as he pleases (even for ‘my own benefit”) with something that’s not his. That form of idolatry and covetousness is really, really, disturbing.
If Romney’s Mormonism means nothing to the lamestream media, then why should Santorum’s Catholicism mean anything to them?
Besides, it’s not a wafer, it’s the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Guess the author of this piece never heard of Eucharistic miracles!
Gee, our little church does Eucharistic Adoration 24/7 (with some holes in the early morning hours still.)
I’m a conservative catholic and I don’t think this article was that bad, actually pretty balanced which is rare for the NYT. The “demanding” nature of Eucharistic adoration is funny. I mean, you sit there, and really HAVE to do nothing. It’s perfectly valid to just sit and watch the Lord in the Blessed Eucharist.
Careful ... don't hurt yourself. ;-)
Considering that 1 Thessalonians 5 tells us to ‘pray without ceasing’, what is the big deal?
"The Left is absolutely going out of their way to get Santorum nominated."
I agree with that. When Romney couldn't take SC the Left decided that the ever cooperative Santorium was a better bet than sticking with the Vichy Republican pick of Romney. The way the Left sees it, backing Santorium is a win for them any way it goes. Either it leads to Santorium as the Republican nominee which they like because they know he can't lead Conservative Republicans and can't stand up to the Fascist democrat party thugs, or to the Vichy Republican Romney as the nominee with Santorium as VP.
That way they know they even have control of the tie breaking vote in the Senate if things get more precarious for them in the Senate. Most importantly, it splits the Conservative vote and keeps Newt from clearly beating Romney and the Left is deathly afraid of having to run against Newt or worse yet, Newt being President.
You're probably right, just wanted to provide balance. [; ^ )
Mattingly’s article, which is commentary on the NYT article, wasn’t bad, or the NYT article itself wasn’t bad?
"I expect the NYT to get back to burning Jews in the public square ~ "
I think you're right. I bet they had a whole series of stuff ready to roll about how horrible Israel is and how great Barry is for trying to work with them but were caught flat-footed when the HHS stuff caused a stir. They probably didn't give the sort of regulation they want to shove down the throats of pro-life folks a second thought.
You're right, though, they'll be back to smacking on Jews any time. Who knows, maybe they'll do one of their, "in depth series" of articles about how conservative Catholic and non-Catholic Christians are just as bad as the evil Jooooz. It's the sort of thing their pals would give them awards for.
Regards
Both, IMHO. I understand Mattingly’s points, but having seen blistering hatred from many an NYT I was pleasantly surprised that it at least attempted to be balanced.
I believe Santorum would be happy to sign off on all of that.
There is, however, a hierarchy of rights which doesn't come through in your post but which Santorum certainly does understand.
Without the right to life, there are no property rights nor true liberty, nor any other rights.
Take away this fundamantal "right" and all the others crumble.........eventually.
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.