I wonder which Santorum child Senator Brown thinks shouldn’t be with us?

Senator Scott Brown, elected solely because of a national effort to stick a thumb in the eye of the liberal old-guard and not because he is anything resembling conservative, demonstrated a reason why he would not have been elected with so much conservative and Catholic support otherwise.

At the South Boston annual St. Patrick’s Day breakfast Brown quipped that Santorum’s Secret Service detail was “the first time he’s actually ever used protection.”

HA! SO FUNNY! Get it? Because he’s got lots of kids? They multiply like feral cats, or something, which is REALLY FUNNY!!11!!!1!1!!!!!1

*ahem.*

Apparently "protection" is more important than one or more of these beautiful smiling faces.

The Family Santorum

Which leads to the question, which of the Santorums’ children does Scott Brown think ought not to be alive? Which should have been denied conception? Because “protection” does that: it directly and intentionally denies the possibility that this person-creating act could create a new person. It is utter and complete selfishness in the most sacred action God created man and woman to perform. It is a contra-life action. It is an abuse of the gift of sexuality. It is a denial of the meaning of marriage.

And as such, it is a punch line to those who have bought the lie.

My dad is the third of eleven kids and I am the second of six. I cannot tell you what a blessing a large family has been.

I work at Franciscan University of Steubenville. Four kids is “a good start” around here, with a number of families in the double-digits. And the kids of the large families are some of the most well-behaved, capable, happy, and interesting people we’ve got.

I wonder how many of them (us ?) should not live due to such “protection.” Seems all you’re protecting in so doing is your own cowardice.

Life is a bold endeavor; love includes risk. Don’t think so? Don’t think it should? Ask this guy…

Sacred Heart Image - Sic Deus Dilexit Mundum

"For God So Loved the World."

3,553 views

Categories:Uncategorized

66 thoughts on “I wonder which Santorum child Senator Brown thinks shouldn’t be with us?

  1. Andrew says:

    I wonder why Santorum recently boasted about robbing from the taxpayer to pay millions of dollars to Title X funding of contraceptives. Santorum sent millions of dollars of your money to go to organizations like Planned Parenthood to fund contraceptives, and he actually boasts about this. I wonder how many prolifers know about this.

  2. Linda Rector says:

    I believe having counter-cultural convictions and life-choices does tend to provoke curious minds.
    I am a mother of a large family living in a small family culture. I too, have experienced my fair share of curious, often over-the-top reactions.
    “You have how many, seven? Hey Jim, come here, this woman has seven children!” Shaking his head, he replies,
    “Don’t you all know how that works?” He laughs at his own joke, pauses to ponder this absurdity and can only shake his head. He, like many others, just could not fathom why anyone would WANT many children, given that there are CURES FOR THAT.
    “So, you’re all done now, right?”
    “Are you Catholic or something?” Truth is, our children were all born BEFORE we converted.
    “No, but we’re alot LIKE Catholic,” I would reply.
    This would often satisfy their curiousity.
    While the comments of politicians and the media toward the Santorum family have been curious, insensitive and even rude, what if they are trying to describe this counter-culteral family while gazing through the lens of modern American culture?
    Lord, grant us all an ability to know how valuable each life is, give us eyes to see the goodness and image of God in all people, born and unborn and in families of all sizes…HOW many children did you say they have?!

  3. MikeM says:

    Brown made this comment at an annual event for MA politicians where they stand up and make jokes about each other and about national politicians. The joke wasn’t particularly funny, it might be a little offensive, but since I tell uptight liberals to calm down when people make (also tasteless) jokes about race, sex, sexual orientation, etc., I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t apply the same standard here. I’ve learned to see value in keeping my humor respectful (well… most of the time), but I think there’s also some value in letting things like this slide.

    1. Diana says:

      What do you mean by letting certain things slide?? Catholics have a strong belief in not using contraception because it violates the natural cycle of the propagation of life being born. It’s not the act of sex itself that’s wrong it’s the fact that you think it’s ok to prevent procreation from happening…

  4. [...] I Wonder Which Santorum Child Sen. Brown Thinks Shouldn’t be with us? – T. Crowe, CV [...]

  5. Phil says:

    Which leads to the question, which of the Santorums’ children does Scott Brown think ought not to be alive? Which should have been denied conception?

    While I understand the point that you are making, this logic is a little faulty, and, applied to other situations, would be clearly suspect. For example, Catholics believe that a woman who conceives as the result of rape should carry the child to term, and that this child is a beautiful human being who deserves to live from the moment of conception. If the child grows to be the age of any of Santorum’s, a reasonable Catholic could still observe that the rape of the mother was a gravely wrong act. Catholic moral theology allows a person to condemn an act which results in the conception and birth of a human being without condemning the existence of that person. Therefore, it is hypocritical, from a Catholic perspective, to imply that the only possible interpretation of Brown’s statement is that one of Santorum’s children should never have existed.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Except that non-rape sex within a committed loving marriage is a wee-bit different than rape. Your analogy breaks down because the act of rape is already a gross violation; if the rapist wore a condom that wouldn’t make it “extra bad.” If the rape results in the birth of a child then at least *something* good came out of it. The case of contracepted sex-within-marriage directly deals with the direct violation of an act that is originally good and sacred. We can still say “the rape should not have happened” while saying, “at least this beautiful person came out of it.” Likewise we can say, “The sex-with-contraception should not have happened,” while still saying, “but since the condom failed this beautiful person was born.” But I just don’t see a parallel where you are trying to draw one.

      1. Phil says:

        Tom, I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not talking about whether a person uses a contraceptive device during a rape act, and I think the issue of whether contracepted sex is licit is irrelevant to my point. My point is that Catholic theology understands that a person can criticize an act which led to the creation of a new human being without simultaneously being critical of the existence of the human being which resulted. It sounds like you agree with that. You are entirely consistent with Catholic thinking when you point out that Brown ought not have criticized the use of contraception, but that is a separate issue from whether such criticism is tantamount to saying that a child shouldn’t have existed.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Ah… you think I’m saying Brown is intentionally critical of the existence of any of the Santorum children. Alas, I wish Brown, and others who crack such jokes, were clear-headed enough to realize that such is the logical conclusion of their joke. I can readily admit that Brown did not intend that meaning. But that doesn’t change the fact that the non-existence of one of the Santorum children would be the result of the Santorums “using protection” in the manner Brown was “meaning.” My point is not that anyone was being intentionally hostile toward the existence of the Santorum children, but that the assumption that contraception is totally acceptable, and that those who oppose it and have large families are legitimate targets for jokes, is disgusting because of the implication. People ought to be a little more circumspect about their jokes.

          1. Phil says:

            Fair enough. I would expect anyone who criticizes non-
            Catholic behavior that results in the birth of a child to be similarly aware of the implications of their criticism. Statements that imply a couple with an (illegitimate) child should have waited until marriage to have sex follow the same logic even though the criticism is in line with Catholic thinking.

  6. Craig J says:

    It seems to me that in the entire time I’ve been reading Catholic vote, there has never been any single comment with more than oh, 50+ approvals or disapprovals for or against them. Now if I were to view this articles comments in light of this, and perhaps, make an educated guess at possible explanation for the overwhelming numbers in favor of Mr. Crowe, and the overwhelming numbers against anyone offering a counter-point, even one expressed with kindness, measured words, and a desire to communicate fraternal charity…well I’d guess that someone has exploited a glitch in the site to the end of censoring anyone in disagreement with Mr. Crowe. I would suggest that if Mr. Crowe is aware of this, in the spirit of journalistic integrity and faithfulness to Christ’s call to be bearers of the light, that he ought to contact the site’s administrators and request a restoration of the correct numbers (mine had a singel thumbs up, and a minute later, 86 negatives; and oh, I don’t know, he make an attempt to clarify to his readers that it was not his doing (lest they be inclined to believe him a disingenuous moderator) or… reach out those whose comments were unjustly removed from view – and thereby of any relevance to the conversation. Of course, he would do this to preserve his own character as much as restore the conversation to its rightful state.

    1. greg smith says:

      Craig – I’ve seen posts get a whole bunch of likes and a week or so later, someone makes the same of similar point and they get a whole bunch of dislikes. I tend to ignore that part of the site. I do think it’s in everyone’s interest that we all remain civil. “See how they love one another” would seem to apply here. ~ Pax, Greg

    2. Tom Crowe says:

      Craig J— I have no influence whatsoever over the likes/dislikes function. I’m frankly not a fan of it. And I was shocked to see the number of likes/dislikes on these comments also. The administrators are no doubt aware of it. But there’s no question of journalistic integrity here since a) we’re not trying to be journalists, and b) all the comments are still posted, just hidden. And frankly, the Red thing that hides comments frequently has the opposite effect—people want to see what has been deemed so offensive more than they want to see stuff that hasn’t gotten such a reaction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.