Re: Santorum gets it 98% right

In my mind, Rick Santorum has been one of the greatest champions on life and marriage over the last few decades. I freely admit, however, that he faces a daunting task of convincing enough voters to support his campaign for president. Nonetheless, let me come to his defense in what Thomas wrote about him.

When Santorum told a CNN interviewer that the Church taught that homosexuality is wrong, Thomas replied:

But the Church does not teach that homosexuality as an orientation is a sin. It teaches that homosexual acts are sins. This is a crucial distinction — one that Santorum should understand by now, having debated it so much in the public square.

Yes, in fact, I am 100% confident that Santorum understands this distinction between having same-sex attraction and actually engaging in the acts themselves. I think it’s clear, however, that Santorum and the interviewer both meant “homosexuality” to mean sexual acts between two persons of the same sex, not just a person who has that temptation. The interviewer thinks that there’s nothing immoral at all with homosexual acts and he just had to be sure that –mygosh– Santorum truly believed such acts to be “immoral.” So I don’t think Santorum was wrong on this answer. Sure, he could have given a more thorough and complete answer about the differences between the inclination and the act. But on its own, his answer is not wrong. There was no great sin of omission.

When Santorum allowed for the sole exception of abortion in the case of the mother, Thomas wrote:

Wrong again. There is simply no exception to the precept that one may never intentionally take an innocent life. Period. Catholic moral theology which, yes, has thought this precise question through exhaustively does hold that one can tolerate the death of an innocent unborn child if it is an unintended consequence of saving the life of the mother and if the death of the child is not the direct means by which the mother is saved.

Again, I think it’s entirely possible that there’s no true disagreement with Santorum on this. I do not think that Santorum is actually saying that you should directly abort the baby in order to save the mother’s life. I think there’s a better explanation as to why he said it like that.

Ultimately, when a politician, in a soundbite, says he believes abortion to be immoral with the exception of the life of the mother, he is likely saying that performing a surgery to save a mother’s life is permissible, even if the other effect of the surgery would bring about an end to the child’s life. The example of ectopic pregnancy comes to mind. Santorum might actually believe that performing a direct abortion is moral if the mother would otherwise die. But I would be surprised if that’s what he meant.

I think in both of Santorum’s answers, we have every reason to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what he truly believes. Especially when we consider it was live TV with an interviewer who adamantly opposes the pro-life and pro-family view.

755 views

Categories:Uncategorized

6 thoughts on “Re: Santorum gets it 98% right

  1. Davide says:

    Joshua I think you are correct. He was obviously talking about behavior not orientation. One thing that angers me is homosexual advocacy groups are crucify him…they have been for years. This was a set-up. It was a kick in the nuts. What is appalling the most a month back during the Republican debate on Fox News, Rick S. talked about Iran and ‘gay rights’. Was he meaning same-sex “marriages” and all that? No absolutely not. In Iran persons with SSA are jailed or killed-hung, or buried up to their necks in sand-either stoned-or their heads bashed in with wooden planks. He was referring to the abuse ‘gays’ suffer from the brutality of the Iranian government. But not one single Homosexual Advocacy cover this-why? Did they miss it like most other Americans? Or is it because of their warped social and political ideology? Do me a favor Joshua: Google the name “Santorum” see what homosexual extremists Dan Savage has done to this man-has done to his name. Anyways thanks

    1. Mary says:

      Boy, Davide. you must be hitting a nerve somewhere for those who troll this site. Keep it up, dude!

      1. davide says:

        Mary I think I hit a lot of nerves. Guess what? I do not care. Anyways thanks and have a nice holiday weekend.

  2. tz1 says:

    “Rick Santorum has been one of the greatest champions on life and marriage” , and the notorious pro-abort and turncoat Arlen Spectre. Or as “Meatloaf” sang, “Two out of three ain’t bad”.

    There is a distinction between immoral acts and those which you would send jack-booted thugs to engage in abusive enforcement, or even allow due process.

    Marriage is sacred, as is sex. But to have secular police or bureaucrats bother about it is to profane them.

  3. mary says:

    Nope . . . Santorum’s official policy for years as a politician was to allow for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. If he has changed his position, then it would serve him well to explain that there is never a medically necessary reason to perform a direct abortion.

    Words matter. I don’t care what they “likely” mean. Abortion is not “surgery” nor should pro-lifers ever call it that.

    1. A different Mary says:

      I am with Josh on this one. I think Santorum is an honorable, thoughtful and faithful man whom we need in Washington.

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.