Friday, February 24, 2012

RICK SANCTORUM MAY BE A DREADED "FUNDAMENTALISTIC CATHOLIC" BUT THEN WHAT WOULD MAUREEN DOWD OF THE NEW YORK TIMES BE? IS THERE AN EQUIVALENT PROGRESSIVE FUNDAMENTALISM? YES--ITS CALLED INFIDELITY, WHAT RICK MIGHT CALL AN INFIDEL

MY COMMENT FIRST: Maureen Dowd is supposedly a Roman Catholic--but of the "spirit" of Vatican II type, one who disagrees with her bishops on just about everything and one who brings others into schism with her. She's the type of "catholic" that progressives in the Church applaud. They are thrilled that we have a role model that is the alternative to fundamentalist (read: faithful) Catholics. With Catholics like her, who needs anti-Catholics? At any rate read her latest editorial from the New York Times:

Rick Santorum has been called a latter-day Savonarola.

That’s far too grand. He’s more like a small-town mullah.

“Satan has his sights on the United States of America,” the conservative presidential candidate warned in 2008. “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”

When, in heaven’s name, did sensuality become a vice? Next he’ll be banning Barry White.

Santorum is not merely engaged in a culture war, but “a spiritual war,” as he called it four years ago. “The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America,” he told students at Ave Maria University in Florida. He added that mainline Protestantism in this country “is in shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

Satan strikes, a Catholic exorcist told me, when there are “soul wounds.” Santorum, who is considered “too Catholic” even by my ├╝ber-Catholic brothers, clearly believes that America’s soul wounds include men and women having sex for reasons other than procreation, people involved in same-sex relationships, women using contraception or having prenatal testing, environmentalists who elevate “the Earth above man,” women working outside the home, “anachronistic” public schools, Mormonism (which he said is considered “a dangerous cult” by some Christians), and President Obama (whom he obliquely and oddly compared to Hitler and accused of having “some phony theology”).

Santorum didn’t go as far as evangelist Franklin Graham, who heinously doubted the president’s Christianity on “Morning Joe.”

Mullah Rick, who has turned prayer into a career move, told ABC News’s Jake Tapper that he disagreed with the 1965 Supreme Court decision striking down a ban on contraception. And, in October, he insisted that contraception is “not O.K. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Senator Sanitarium, as he was once dubbed on “The Sopranos,” sometimes tries to temper his retrogressive sermons so as not to drive away independent and Republican women who like to work, see their kids taught by professionals and wear Victoria’s Secret.

He told The Washington Post on Friday that, while he doesn’t want to fund contraception through Planned Parenthood, he wouldn’t ban it: “The idea that I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case.”

That doesn’t comfort me much. I’ve spent a career watching candidates deny that they would do things that they went on to do as president, and watching presidents let their personal beliefs, desires and insecurities shape policy decisions.

Mullah Rick is casting doubt on issues of women’s health and safety that were settled a long time ago. We’re supposed to believe that if he got more power he’d drop his crusade?

The Huffington Post reports that Santorum told Philadelphia Magazine in 1995 that he “was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress.” Then, he said, he read the “scientific literature.”

He seems to have decided that electoral gold lies in the ruthless exploitation of social and cultural wedge issues. Unlike the Bushes, he has no middle man to pander to prejudices; he turns the knife himself.

Why is it that Republicans don’t want government involved when it comes to the economy (opposing the auto bailouts) but do want government involved when it comes to telling people how to live their lives?

In a party always misty for bygone times bristling with ugly inequities, Santorum is successful because he’s not ashamed to admit that he wants to take the country backward.

Virginia’s Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, touted as a vice-presidential prospect, also wants to drag women back into a cave.

This week, public outrage forced the Virginia legislature to pause on its way to passing a creepy bill forcing women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, which, for early procedures, would require a wand being inserted into the vagina — an invasion that anti-abortion groups hope would shame some women into changing their minds once they saw or heard about traits of the fetus.

Democratic Delegate Lionell Spruill hotly argued that the bill would force “legal rape.” “I cannot believe that you would disrespect women and mothers in such a way,” he chided colleagues. “This legislation is simply mean-spirited, and it is bullying, bullying women simply because you can.”

While the Democrat-controlled Maryland House of Delegates just passed a bill that would allow same-sex marriage, the Republican-controlled Virginia legislature passed a bill allowing private adoption agencies to discriminate against gays who want to be parents.

The Potomac River dividing those states seems to be getting wider by the day.

24 comments:

Supertradmum said...

Rick Santorum is the only candidate who upholds natural law, and the teachings of the Catholic Church, which have been given to us from God Himself. Why people are upset with this is that he is brave enough to stand up for objective, rather than subjective Truth.

We have the Scriptures and Tradition, not merely private interpretation, and 57 million dead babies in the States alone crying out to heaven for vengeance. God bless Rick Santorum and protect him.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think Rick Sanctorum is doing exactly what Vatican II asked the laity to do in the world and I applaud him. In fact I believe he knows what he is doing--being a witness to the Catholic faith, which for him comes first, and then running for public office. I think he knows well that his Catholicism may well lose him the election but that doesn't matter to him, being a faithful Catholic is more important and bringing faithfulness as a Catholic to the public square as he does. But wouldn't it be poetic justice if that won him the election!

pinanv525 said...

So, you're standing on the river bank with a life preserver and hundred feet of rope. Maureen Dowd comes floating by screaming for help and thrashing in the current. Do you: a) go to a movie b) have a beer in the bar across the street

Templar said...

Templar: I've deleted your post because you never know who may be reading these things.

Father MacDonald

Just saving you some work Father :)

Anonymous said...

or C), pinvan, go to a priest and confess your tiresome hatefulness.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and d), maybe you could pray for her?

Bill Meyer said...

I am pleased to see Santorum doing so well. As the months have passed, I was disturbed to see that the media and the Dems were successfully herding us to a race between Obama and Romney, two men whose greatest difference appears to be pigmentation.

Santorum, though no more prefect than any other man, appears to live his faith, and to stand firm on his principles. That makes him a standout in a field where principles are easily and too cheaply bought and sold.

Jenny said...

Just had read and been meditating on a Proverbs passage, then read Ms. Dowd's comments, and yours here. Scripture wins the day again (isn't it trying at times that Wisdom always wins?!):
"...Wisdom is more valuable than precious stones, and nothing evil will withstand Her." (Prov 3:15)
Then this:
"Righteousness proceeds from Her mouth, and she carries law and mercy upon Her tongue. Her ways are good ways, and all Her paths are in peace" (18-19)

So, my friends, fear not. Lady Wisdom will prevail and, no one, certainly not Maureen Dowd cooperating with evil, can prevent it.

TCR said...

I read the editorial yesterday and had a huge lump in my throat. Maureen Dowd and those who wear her stripes deserve our prayers. "Father, forgive them. They know not what they do."

And yes, overt sensuality is a sin. Ask a world of fatherless and aborted children, teenagers afflicted with STDs, and women who have been reduced to objects.

Oh, Maureen, wake up before it is too late.

pinanv525 said...

Anonymous, It is not hatefulness; it is outrage...and, no, it doesn't tire me out at all. I went to Confession last week and, funniest thing, Maureen Dowd's name never came up.

I have no problem praying for her...she fits in with the "..especially those most in need of thy mercy..." part of the Fatima prayer just fine.

Oh, and if it makes you so upset, whenever you see my name on a post don't read it. See? Now, wasn't that simple? Then, you can use all that energy for trying to be nice and sweet and conciliatory.

Carol H. said...

e) Throw her the life preserver and pull her to safety with the rope.

We follow Christ. We love our enemies. We do unto others what we would have them do for us. We forgive 70 times 7 times.

It is what separates us from other religions. It is about putting God's will before our own. It is how God will separate the sheep from the goats.

Makes for a good lenten meditation.

Robert Kumpel said...

Maureen Dowd's commentaries have as much authority as a homily in the 1960's.

Anonymous said...

So...inserting a vaginal wand for an ultrasound is 'legal rape', but going farther and ripping out her placenta with a child inside is NOT 'legal rape???
Maureen's logic rapidly falls apart.
A woman who is laying flat on her back and only seconds away from the abortion isn't going to view a vaginal ultrasound as legal rape. A requisite vaginal ultrasound is but a minor blip in comparison to what is about to happen, and she will regard it as such.
It's just not a big deal to her.
Showing a woman the reality of what's growing inside her so that she can make a fully informed decision is bullying???
I thought it was what the medical profession terms and also requires: "Informed Consent".
In case you didn't know, actually the physician often already does the ultrasound anyway routinely...but simply has the screen turned AWAY from the patient's view and has no sound connected so that she doesn't hear the heartbeat. (It's only AFTER the procedure is done and she is leaving does she get a piece of paper that states the stage of development that the ultrasound revealed,e.g. 7-8 weeks, 9-10 weeks, etc.)

I'll pray a Hail Mary for Maureen and all those like her...they have been so duped...Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

-Frustrated

Templar said...

They're right Pin, pray for Ms. Dowd, pure confused cherub that she is. May I suggest this prayer:

'Almighty everlasting God, in whose hand are the power and the government of every nation; look to the help of the Christian people, that the heathen nations, who trust in their own fierceness, may be crushed by the power of Thy right arm.'

Jesus wasn't politically correct folks, neither are real Catholics.


O, my God, make them like a wheel and as stubble before the face of the wind.

Templar said...

Robert Kumpel: I tried to call you yesterday at the number I reached you at previously and was treated to a most unusual voicemail message. Was that truly yours? I have that info you asked for and would like to pass it to you.

pinanv525 said...

Well, it was humor...but with a point. Of course, I'd throw her the life preserver while saying something like, "Well, just damn..." Now...the point:
Maureen Dowd, Bill Maher, Obama, and all their ilk are enemies of the Church. I find that indisputable. Now, we can pray for them and we can be conciliatory, but at what point do we draw a line?
I have a radical protestant theologian friend who believes the Church is called, if necessary, to allow itself to be completely martyred by her enemies...to just disappear rather than fight the enemy with their methods or even take up arms in the extreme. I do not agree with that.
The Church has a long history of fighting aggressively, both polemically and militarily,against those who would destroy her through physical action or false teaching. I believe that spirit needs to be recovered or, in response to Carol, what will separate us from other religions will be the fact that we do not exist.
Nor, do I accept the fall back position that "God will defend His Church, etc., etc." What if we are the defense? What if that is our calling and we are avoiding it through dissimulation? Perhaps God is judging the Church, even now, for her past failures to take an aggressive stance against her enemies. Perhaps God will judge our passiveness and collaboration with the secular powers and raise up another Church from these stones...ya' reckon?
So, I cannot take comfort in some silly idea that prayer for our enemies is the only, or even best, response (although we should pray for them even as we seek their destruction). Neither can I presumptuously sit on my hands and wait for God to defend His Church. He doesn't have to, you know.
So, I guess we must do what we must do, and be what we must be, and God will be the judsge of us all.

Anonymous said...

There is a willow grows aslant a brook,
That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream.
There with fantastic garlands did she come
Of crow-flowers, nettles, daisies, and long purples
That liberal shepherds give a grosser name...



Carol, I hope you pray for me when I am in Purgatory. I understand the need to pray, even for the most evil of people. But this is the question: would you throw that life line to a person who has Ebola and drag her to the bank with your family? Ms. Dowd is diseased and whether or not she deserves help, she does not deserve to spread it. This is exactly the issue we will face, perhaps this year, with millions of Catholics in this country. they are going to break away, revolt, and behave however they decide to. We can offer them prayers, but they have already wasted a great deal of our prayers and resources while corrupting our friends and families.

rcg

pinanv525 said...

RCG: "...but long it could not be 'til that her garments...heavy with their drink, pulled her to muddy death." "Her," in my exegesis of that particular line from Hamlet, is Mother Church. Oh, and we know Hamlet's tragic flaw, correct?

Anonymous said...

You have found me out. We tarry, too long at the banks. Anon.

rcg

Carol H. said...

I understand that the river scenario was in humor, but you never know who might be reading this blog.

I don't want to give a false impression, either. I think the Church needs to call everyone to account. Every Catholic who stands publicly against Church Teaching should be publicly excommunicated. It is time for the Church to unashamedly proclaim the unwatered down, unsugarcoated Truth. It is time to stop being politically correct- let people's feelings be hurt, it's better than letting them think they're okay when they're not.

But we must also be merciful. I don't like this false dichotomy between Justice and Mercy. It is not an either/or but a both/and.

I have been the recipient of Christ's Mercy. I was once the lost sheep, and He left the 99 to come rescue me. I did not deserve it, but He gave me a Mercy Miracle that I will never forget. As long as a person lives, it is not too late for them to repent and say yes to God. Every repentant soul is a victory for God's side. Every soul lost to the evil one makes my heart weep- it very well could have been me.

I am willing to stand up and fight and die a martyr's death if need be for the sake of the Church. If my stance on Mercy makes me appear soft- then so be it.

pinanv525 said...

Yes, Carol. Justice should be tempered with mercy, however it should not be diluted by it. Mercy is for the repentant, the contrite of heart, those who wish to turn from their sins, repent, and believe the gospel. As for the active and willing enemies of Christ and the Church...whatever mercy they receive I'll leave to God. We owe them none.

Anonymous said...

The confusion about Justice and Mercy muddies a lot of waters.
That's a tool of Satan. If he can't turn a soul around, he'll instill confusion. By doing so, he has caused most to go astray like innocent children being swayed by the Pied Piper. It's the doubt and fear tactic..the "O.J. defense strategy". If you can't convice them, confuse them. So the average person is confused and just goes along with whatever message they happen to hear the most often. They simply don't know better anymore.
(Perhaps Christianity needs a Marketing Director ;-D )

Pin is correct..Mercy is for the repentent.
Justice is for both the unrepentent and the repentent.

Many, many faithful Catholics around the country believe the Bishops should perform some Justice by publicly naming names and publicly announcing that these folks aren't allowed to receive Holy Communion.
Quietly allowing them to spread error is alowing them to lead souls astray.

It's been said that all the devil needs is good people willing to do nothing.

I wonder what Jesus thinks of His Bishops' silence in this department.

If ever anyone of these public figures repents and returns, their Father and the whole Church will be waiting to welcome them home
with open arms, finest robes, and Holy Communion.

Plus they could get rich off the book sales of their turnaround stories. :-) (Then hopefully tithe some!)

~SqueekerLamb

pinanv525 said...

Squeeker, indeed, you are so on the money. These apostate Catholics need to be called out. And, hey, if the Church can make some money from a few turnaround stories, so much the better. LOL!

JB said...

I will proudly vote for Rick Santorum this tuesday!