— (via thethirdwaybook)
What a beautiful story!
Is that he is a fiscal liberal, and a statist social “conservative”.
In other words, he is the exact opposite of the vast majority of Americans. It’s so easy to prove because his votes are all public record, and he was the poster boy of Big Government spending from 2000-2006.
- Voted to give us the disaster that is No Child Left Behind (teaching to the test, anyone?).
- Voted for Medicare part D, precursor to Obamacare, knowing that we didn’t have money to pay for it.
- Voted to raise the debt limit 5 different times.
- Voted for the illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral Iraq War.
- Endorsed pro-abortion Arlen Specter over Pro-life Pat Toomey. This endorsement actually directly led to the deciding yes vote on Obamacare.
- He was named by Crew in 2006 as one of the Senate’s most corrupt politicians. When Santorum objected that Crew is a liberal group, the facts show that Crew regularly cites both Democrats and Republicans as corrupt… which isn’t a shocker, because most are.
- The people of Pennsylvania were so sick of Rick Santorum, that they voted him out of office by an 18 point margin in 2006. In other words, the people of his own state threw him out of office.
As for his so-called “social conservatism” (I object to the term, he is actually a big government statist who wants government in your bedroom).
- He supports all the wars, including a war with Iran. Which have already added trillions to our national debt, not to mention the 8,500 dead, 45,000+ severely injured (a friend is one), and countless more with PTSD and depression (at least 120 veterans commit suicide every week). For a purported “pro-family” man. Supporting unnecessary war is the most anti-family thing you could do. It’s not rocket science, having your mom or dad half way across the world places huge stresses on military spouses and their children. So the consequences of war go beyond the soldiers themselves, and with nearly 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan right now, the pain inflicted across America is unimaginable.
- He thinks marriage is a “federal” issue. What a scary thought! To think that we need Uncle Sam to tell society how marriage should be. The fact is that government cannot define a word. Government forcing couples to get government marriage licenses in order to be considered married in the eyes of the State is an unnecessary intrusion of the State into family life. Marriage licenses are only about 100 years old in this country, in other words, for most of American history, there was no such thing as a marriage license. Marriage licenses were invented by the radically Anti-Church French Revolution, so for 1800 years of Church history, we have not had government marriage licenses. If you were a Catholic living during the French Revolution, you would have defended the Church against the State’s intrusion into the field of marriage. So Santorum is wrong on his history, he is wrong on his policy, and he has a warped view of the role of the State in regards to the family.
That is all for now, I just can’t stand this guy parading around as a fiscal conservative (when his own votes show he isn’t), and a promoter of the family (when his policies both tear families apart, and support the intrusion of the State into family affairs).
— St. Thomas Aquinas
Marriage played a large role in the latest USCCB General Assembly, with the bishops announcing a new website (marriageuniqueforareason.org) to promote and defend the Church’s view on marriage. Promoting marriage as being between one man and one woman is a laudable goal. We should not make the mistake though, of thinking that the Church’s vision for marriage should be regulated by the secular state. It is said that politics makes for strange bedfellows; today’s bishops are defending a secular definition of marriage that was imposed on society by the radically anti-Church French Revolutionaries.
Throughout history marriage was defined by religion and the people through social norms. The State had nothing to do with marriage; it simply recognized religious marriage as a legitimate contract between parties. For example the State could legitimately determine proper heirs in inheritance issues after a death, the amount of a dowry, etc. The French Revolution was radical in that it insisted that couples wed before a civil magistrate, or the marriage would be invalid before the eyes of the state. This was an unnecessary and improper intrusion of the State into the affairs of the people. Nothing like this had been done in the entire history of civilization. If you would have told Catholics in 1500 that they would have to go to City Hall for a marriage license, they probably would have turned you in to the local Inquisition for having such radical views!
Marriage licenses in America have their origins in preventing interracial marriages. Soon governments realized that they could make money off of granting marriage licenses, and the practice spread throughout the country. By 1929 every state had a marriage license law. When the bishops of America today insist on defending civil definitions of marriage, they are actually defending definitions that are only about 100 years old in our nation. Marriage survived in America without State regulation for generations. Do we Christians really need the State regulating marriages? Would we want the State to regulate the Liturgy and the other Sacraments?
The marriage wars could easily be avoided if we took the power of marriage out of the hands of government and returned it to the people, where historically it rightfully belongs. This will ultimately protect the Church. Government would still have a role with inheritance issues, parental responsibility towards children, and dividing property in the case of the couple separating. This would be the proper role of government in upholding marriage. Let us not make the mistake of the anti-Church French Revolutionaries and insist on marriages being done before the State. Embracing this “third way” would neutralize societal strife over the issue and defend the values of every member of society.
— Jon Foreman (via Relevant Magazine)
Someone asked me to respond to this question that zen-spirit posted last night:
Here’s what I don’t get - Vatican City has a ton of gold and silver and stuff. Why not sell some of it to help people in third world countries and such? I get that there are already quite a number of hospitals and…
— Bishop Leonard Blair (Toledo)
— Archbishop Timothy Dolan (New York)
— G. K. Chesterton (via chisaikame)
“Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee, O Lord” –St. Augustine
Our culture loves the idea of an afterlife. The idea of a “better place” after our lives on earth has captivated the human imagination since the dawn of man. Images of the afterlife are everywhere in popular culture; people laying on clouds, tiny demons with pitch forks, St. Peter and the Pearly Gates, are scenes we all recognize among many others. Unfortunately though the popular culture does not reflect what the Church actually believes about the afterlife. We have many misconceptions which can make the afterlife seem contradictory to what we believe, leading to doubt and cynicism. I have found that the best way to think of “Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory” is to instead think of, “Love, the absence of Love, and learning to love.”
The pope is easily the most well known figure of the Catholic world. His quotations and thoughts are consistently front page news in our newspapers, and millions of people flock to see him when he travels. It is a far cry from beginnings of the Church, when accepting the office of the papacy meant almost certain death in the face of constant Roman persecution (many of the popes were martyred). Where did this office come from? Is it merely a human invention or something Christ desired for His Church? To better understand the papacy we need to go to Caesarea-Philippi, where Jesus spoke his now famous words to St. Peter, who before this was named Simon:
“Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed… . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before?” –St. Ambrose