Santorum Needs a Refresher on Catholic Social Teaching
Rick Santorum has written an op-ed in which be calls upon John McCain to become more aligned with the priorities of so-called “social conservatives”. He basically argues that there are three legs on the Republican stool– economic issues, national security, and social conservatism– and that McCain needs to round out his appeal by embracing the third leg with the same fervor as he does the first two. What gets missing in this equation is that the values of the first two pillars are often completely opposed to a proper understanding of applying God’s law in the social domain. One leg consists of a laissez-faire liberalism that is predicated on restricting the role of government to enforcing social contracts between free people, minimizing any role for redistribution or correction of market inequities. The second leg had morphed into a militaristic nationalism that grants the Unites States the right to extend its coercive arm wherever it wills, even in a pre-emptive manner, and even to use torture to degrade human dignity. Now, it is pretty clear that these ideologies will run into major problems with Catholic social teaching.
But there is a broader problem. You might ask: why not give Santorum the benefit of the doubt? Why not accept with great trepidation the first two legs as the price to be paid for the third leg? Because this bargain is bound to fail. The reason is simple: a true recognition of the law of God is based on the intrinsic worth of every human life, and calls for respect for human life and the dignity of the person. If this is taken as a given, then it becomes very difficult to accept some of the implications of the first two legs. What happens is at attempt at narrow compartmentalization. The person will abandon all thought of a consistent ethic of life, the idea that all life issues are connected, the moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors. Instead, “social conservatism” is reduced to a fixed laundry list of issues that do not compromise the integrity of the first two pillars (this is the mentality behind the flawed Catholic Answer’s voter guide, by the way).
And this is exactly what Santorum does. He criticizes McCain for his positions on the following items, in this order: same-sex marriage, global warming, and embryonic stem cell research. The order is important. For a start, surely the Catholic perspective would rank his support of ESCR as the most important issue? And yet it ranks third. Far more important for Santorum is the a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage issue, an issue which does not even make the USCCB’s list of intrinsically evil acts in the current political climate. It so happens that this is the issue that taxes many on the evangelical right, many of the people who embrace the first two legs of the platform. Coincidence?
But it gets worse. Santorum is actually taking McCain’s support for measures to reduce global warming as a immoral issue. His logic? “Social conservatives see all three issues as moral issues. Yes, even global warming. Why? Because too many global-warming zealots appear to worship the creation instead of the Creator and view man and his actions as only suspect disrupters of nature.” This reads like a parody, and is certainly not what the Church teaches on the importance of environmental stewardship and combating global warming. But Santorum’s real objection is clear: legislation to curb global warming would “cost hundreds of billions”. In other words, he deferring to the first leg, the free-market economic leg of the Republican coalition. He ignores the sound analysis of the Stern review, the most authoritative study of the economic costs to date, showing that the cost of climate change could eat up 5 percent of global GDP a year, rising to 20 percent in worst-case scenarios, while the economic cost of measures to reduce emissions amounts to only 1 percent of GDP.
Here’s a flavor of what the Church actually says on global warming, from the Holy See observer to the United Nations, Archbishop Celestino Migliore:
“The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable…The consequences of climate change are being felt not only in the environment, but in the entire socio-economic system and, as seen in the findings of numerous reports already available, they will impact first and foremost the poorest and weakest who, even if they are among the least responsible for global warming, are the most vulnerable because they have limited resources or live in areas at greater risk…. In order to address the double challenge of climate change and the need for ever greater energy resources, we will have to change our present model from one of the heedless pursuit of economic growth in the name of development, towards a model which heeds the consequences of its actions and is more respectful towards the Creation we hold in common, coupled with an integral human development for present and future generations.”
Santorum’s starting point is very different. His position highlights a grave danger of the social contractarian philosophy, one based on the right to individual freedom and happiness at all costs: it ignores the welfare of those not yet born. Rick Santorum, of all people, should understand this, and yet he falls victim to the narrowness of his thought. He needs to understand that Catholic social teaching all stems from the same source, a respect for the human person, and that this requires consistency. It is not just a laundry list of items to pick and choose from. It cannot be compartmentalized. There are no optional issues that can be dismissed. I would recommend Santorum start reading the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
(Hat tip: Jay Anderson).
Trackbacks
- Bill Donohue is Back, Showing His True Colors « Vox Nova
- Bertone Drops Hints on New Encylical « Vox Nova
Comments are closed.
This is why a Pennsylvania, which is roughly 25-30% Catholic resoundingly voted out Rick in 2006 and chose instead an ex-elementary school teacher and son of the late, great PA pro-life governor, Robert Casey.
Rick lost by 20+ points here in 2oo6. He is also the only person besides Dick Cheney who still claims we FOUND stockpiles of WMDs.
He wrote a book called “It Takes A Family,” in obvious responses to it Hillary’s “It Takes A Village.” Funny thing is, his family went to PA charter cyber schools, even though their primary residence was in D.C. But he set up a bogus primary residence in PGH, in order to milk that school district’s paying the $63,000 + school bill. He also bought family food with PAC money. I gues it should have been, “It Takes Two (or More) Villages.”
And then there was his equation of homosexuality with bestiality….Good riddance!
As much as I’d like to think otherwise, something tells me that most Pennsylvanians were not taking Catholic social teaching into consideration when they were voting for their candidate. No, Santorum lost because a decent chunk voted for the D, whoever that was, and a decent chunk for the R, whoever that was, and that there were more D’s than R’s. Toss in the corruption in the GOP and the Iraq war and you get enough for 50%+1; or in Casey’s case, 59%.
Mark,
I actually saw him at the Robinson Towne Centre Cosco (my wife makes us go). I had to walk the other way!
His family actually came to my old church, St. Sebastian’s on McKnight, Nort Hills, right before the election, all dressed up like the von Trapp (?) family in the Sound of Music!
I had to restrain myself, after taking deep breaths in the vestibule
Rick Santorum got a bum wrap in the last elections, thanks in large measure to the liberal media. McCain should tap him for VP. “Real” Catholics still love, respect, and admire the guy and would vote such a ticket in a heartbeat. Aging, hippie, polyester Catholic dinasours will vote Democrat no matter what; but hey, they are rapidly going the way of the dodo bird.
william,
Watch out for that Islamo-fascist under your bed and that other one in your child’s playground sandbox. Fear them hysterically.
Put a rear view mirror even on your grocery store shopping cart. Look out for those illegals too. More and more are out there.
Goood Catholic Rick said so.
“Watch out for that Islamo-fascist under your bed and that other one in your child’s playground sandbox. Fear them hysterically.
Put a rear view mirror even on your grocery store shopping cart. Look out for those illegals too. More and more are out there.”
You should have given your advice to Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho…
MM – you do realize that the earth is cooling…
Aging, hippie, polyester Catholic dinasours will vote Democrat no matter what; but hey, they are rapidly going the way of the dodo bird.
Aging, out-of-it dinosaur Catholics will vote for the hip Obama, while the young hip with-it Catholics will vote for aging out-of-it dinosaur Republicans! Catch the wave! Republicanism! It’s sexxxy!
Very sexxxxy Straight Talk Express, Strangelove Remix:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nqtL-P8kzo
Williams says ““Real” Catholics still love, respect, and admire the guy and would vote such a ticket in a heartbeat.”
I frequently read The “Blog” of “Unnecessary” Quotation Marks, to which readers submit their photographs of misused quotation marks on signs, &c., e.g., a sign reading “”Thank you” for shopping. Please come again.” When used less thoughtlessly (I assume that William put little thought into the legitimate purposes of quotation marks.), such quotation marks generally indicate sarcasm. Perhaps, then, the underlying meaning of William’s post is that he and his Santorum-supporting ilk aren’t all that real when it comes to their Catholicism after all. Considering the positions held by Santorum, of which MM’s post makes note, I have to suspect that this is exactly what William intended to say.
I’m no “real” Catholic, but, sinner as I am, I still am a real Catholic, and I have trouble swallowing the party-line Republicanism of Santorum and so many other conservative Catholics just about as frequently as I have trouble with the typical Catholic Democrat and his “personally opposed, but” stance.
Tim, was that reference to the Archbishop, may he requiescat in pace, really necessary?
“Tim, was that reference to the Archbishop, may he requiescat in pace, really necessary?”
Since it directly applied to the sarcastic remarks, yes. Despite what some believe, these people are a real danger and have no respect for anything we hold as beliefs.
Guilty as charged. I’m one of them fake catholics that doesn’t buy into the theology of “justification by socialism.” I don’t believe your socialist justice tripe, either. Hint: it don’t work in real life.
The soviet agents called people who thought Stalin was the savior of the world, “useful idiots.” People who think Ob is the savior of America are simply . . . (fill in the blank). I don’t feel up to being uncharitable today.
T.Shaw,
Your inability to get your mind around basic Catholic social teaching does not in itself excommunicate you. No need to be so hard on yourself, referring to yourself as a fake.
We are all works of progress, in a Church of fallen humanity, but of the risen Lord. Let the latter fact, however, encourage your further in the pursuit of truth and holiness.
Proof again that Catholic Social Teaching is Catholicism’s BEST KEPT SECRET.