So Which Is It?

In light of yesterday’s post about Morning Minion’s challenges to Rick Santorum’s authentic Catholicity, I found this column at the Huffington Post to be quite interesting.  (Vox Nova and Huffington Post mentioned on the same blog post?  Please, do not panic.  You eyes will not explode.)  If you recall, this is one of the claims that Tony made about Santorum:

Santorum defines his theology as stemming from the bible (Protestant) as opposed to the single sacred deposit of the Word of God comprising sacred scripture and sacred tradition (Catholic).

On the other hand, Professor Howard Schreber observes:

Rick Santorum is a case in point. Santorum’s is a specifically Catholic form of faith. The recent flap over contraception is only an example of a much deeper phenomenon. As observers have noted, he talks frequently about natural law, but rarely quotes the Bible directly — his arguments draw on a theologically informed view of the nature of the world, not a personal relationship with the text.

Indeed, in the past Santorum has been quite forthright about the fact that he does not look to the Bible for guidance, he relies quite properly on the guidance of the Church. There is obviously nothing wrong with that … but it sits very curiously with traditional Evangelical Protestant attitudes.

Now, one of these individuals sounds more intimately familiar with what Rick Santorum has actually written and said in his life.  I’ll leave it to you to guess which one.

I think that Shreber both overstates the connection between conservative Evangelicals and Catholics and understates the broad schism that still lingers at the heart of their respective philosophies (both theological and political).  But his post is worth a read.

Less worthy of your time - this screed by Daniel Nichols, which concludes thusly:

This is a man [Santorum], in the final analysis, despite his piety, is willing to contradict what his Church teaches to serve America.

This, my friends, is idolatry.

To choose Rick Santorum for president is to choose Nation over Church, this world over heaven, and Mammon over God.

When the secular left has a less unhinged view of Catholic candidates than the Catholic left, and is more willing to engage in actual analysis of what Catholic candidates stand for, we’re in for a world of trouble.

 

8 Responses to So Which Is It?

  • Daniel’s gold standard is actually recriminatory pseudo-pacifism, conjoined to a loathing of the State of Israel.

  • For some reason, I failed to recognize myself or other Santorum supporters in Nichols’ hatefest.

    Probably because I’m so tired from constant prostrations before statues of Uncle Sam and Ayn Rand.

  • It’s either lies or nonsense.

    Sacred Catholic tradition only applies when convenient to liberal liars (I repeated myself again).

    I remember before becoming completely hateful, A. Sullivan wrote this of Pope John Paul II’s opposition to the US/UK invasion of Iraq: He called the Pope’s stand, ” . . . traditional Catholic anti-semitism.”

  • One liberal criticizes Santorum one way. Another liberal accuses Santorum of being just the opposite and uses that to criticize him. But liberals of course are never wrong even when one says one thing and the other the diametrically opposite.

    BTW, liberals are never right, either. Why? Because they are left! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    I just can’t bring myself to read either the Huffington Post or Vox Nova or anything liberal. Putting feces back intio my brain after God took out so much feces out simply seems counter-productive (and an insult to Him).

  • “When the secular left has a less unhinged view of Catholic candidates than the Catholic left, and is more willing to engage in actual analysis of what Catholic candidates stand for, we’re in for a world of trouble.”

    Paul Z., you’ll have to excuse the catholic left for its unhinged views in toto. Can you just imagine the cognitive dissonance you would have trying to be catholic and anti-Catholic simultaneously? The secular left has a much easier job by comparison.

  • Oddly, Morning Minion would not have followed Catholic tradition (which he praises really only in its modern socially active forms) from 1253 A.D. when Pope Innocent IV made burning heretics mandatory on secular rulers til about 1816 when Pius VII stopped torture in the papal states. On the internet, all things papal- tradition are mistakenly infallible…like the most fleeting intellectual foray into the death penalty issue by two recent Popes.
    Morning Minion would have been Quaker in the 18th century on slavery rather than tolerating the four exceptions that Catholic theologians of the time permitted to Catholics (hence the Jesuits had 500 slaves in the US in 1836 despite bulls which only seemed to be absolute on slavery).
    Morning Minion would not have been criticizing pick and choose Catholics in 1520 when Pope Leo X supported burning heretics nearly 300 years after Innocent IV made it mandatory on seculars. For those unused to me, I do not support burning heretics. Christ made a point to twice praise the Samaritans for actions despite their rejection of the OT canon. I do support Catholics using their brain when the non infallible papal thoughts are present. Thankfully no Catholics right or left have taken to their heart Benedict’s odd love of a world authority in Caritas in Veritate:
    “for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.”.
    Thanks…but no thanks…what if Obama or the like rises to its apex.

  • While Daniel Nichols has the underlying kneejerk sensibilities of the typical american liberal, but that is where the similarity to him and morning minion ends.

    Daniel Nichols sees the world through traditional Catholic eyes, abeit eyes clouded by his kneejerk liberalism.

    For all practical purposes Santorum and morning minion are cut from the same cloth. In fact morning minion has far more in common with those who write on this blog, American Catholic, than he has with Daniel Nichols.

    Daniel is correct in his depiction of Santorum because he actually recognizes Santorums feet of clay for what they are, and names those errors. Where as morning minion detests Santorum because morning minion is a democratic shill.

  • Daniel Nichols sees the world through traditional Catholic eyes, abeit eyes clouded by his kneejerk liberalism.

    I’ve been arguing with Daniel Nichols for five or six years now. The most salient aspect of his utterances cannot be characterized as ‘traditional Catholic’ or ‘liberal’. Words like ‘spite’ and ‘animosity’ would have to be employed to describe things.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .