Catholicvote Endorses Rick Santorum

[kujo]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1332601756' post='2407028']
a constitutional ammendment would be legitimate, if one wished to do it. It's not something I think ought to be done, not something I would actively promote or get excited about. If it passed, I'd probably just say "meh." People still live in sin either way, I have no interest in trying to keep those people from signing a contract defining the terms under which they live together. I certainly have an interest in seeing religious adoption agencies have freedom to offer adoption only to heterosexual couples, that's something I would fight for; but to fight to exclude certain contracts from being possible, when I clearly see them as no threat to marriage as the only thing they would mimic would be the mockery of temporary marriage licenses that the state offers, no I don't think I'm very much interested in bothering with that.

in the same way it'd be legitimate, if one wished to do so, to have a Constitutional ammendment banning divorce. I wouldn't support it, but it'd be just as legitimate, and just as much of a protection of society good, but it's not at all something I could ever get behind.

and as a Catholic, thankfully, I'm not required to get behind either of those things. if i stand here and say that we should not grant power over marriage to the federal government, I'm well within my rights to say so as a Catholic.

the definition of what the Federal government means when it uses the word "marriage" is inconsequential to me. in defining it, the Federal Government is NOT saying "gay marriages are not marriages"; it is very clearly saying "any federal document that talks about 'marriage' is talking about a and not b" the DOMA sole purpose, and the purpose of that very definition, is to clearly delineate that the full fait and credit clause does not require any state to recognize a gay marriage from another state.
[/quote]

Well said.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332600013' post='2407007']
I would not support a constitutional a[color=#000000]mend[/color][color=#000000]ment because I do not believe this issue to be one that ought to be dealt with at the federal level. Of course, that's the answer that I al[/color][color=#000000]most always have--the law of large nu[/color][color=#000000]mbers and the like. While I have no proble[/color][color=#000000]m with the concept of "universal healthcare," I a[/color][color=#000000]m ada[/color][color=#000000]mantly opposed to the creation of an enor[/color][color=#000000]mous [/color][color=#000000]federal bureaucracy tasked with ad[/color][color=#000000]ministering such a progra[/color][color=#000000]m. States ought to be able to draw up their own plans to cover the unique healthcare needs of their inhabitants. Decrease the sa[/color][color=#000000]mple size and you can be [/color][color=#000000]more specific with your plan. On the other hand, the federal govern[/color][color=#000000]ment has NOTHING to do with "straight [/color][color=#000000]marriage" now, and should have si[/color][color=#000000]milarly ZERO involve[/color][color=#000000]ment with "gay [/color][color=#000000]marriage" in the future.[/color]
[/quote]This is where I get into trouble on this board.

You are arguing subsidiarity because you don't really care for the federal government's involvement in anything, even if it's for the common good [u]and[/u] clearly within its rights (i.e. stated in the Constitution). If you think that the states have a place, then your objection is an argument based on subsidiarity, which is a bit different than Al's overall objection that the federal government doesn't [b]presently[/b] have the right to define or defend marriage.

So why doesn't the federal government have anything to do with marriage? I've shown how it's a matter of the common good (and no one has even tried to argue that point yet), it's a matter of natural law (again no one's really argued there), and a bunch of other reasons. Al has clearly demonstrated he thinks that the authority rests with the state by default. While I obviously disagree there, at least we have room for a debate. I'm curious to know why you disagree with federal involvement, even when it is clearly defined by the Constitution.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1332601756' post='2407028']
a constitutional ammendment would be legitimate, if one wished to do it. It's not something I think ought to be done, not something I would actively promote or get excited about. If it passed, I'd probably just say "meh." People still live in sin either way, I have no interest in trying to keep those people from signing a contract defining the terms under which they live together. I certainly have an interest in seeing religious adoption agencies have freedom to offer adoption only to heterosexual couples, that's something I would fight for; but to fight to exclude certain contracts from being possible, when I clearly see them as no threat to marriage as the only thing they would mimic would be the mockery of temporary marriage licenses that the state offers, no I don't think I'm very much interested in bothering with that.[/quote]I was once in your position where I didn't think that the government in general has a place in defending marriage. I hope I have demonstrated recently that I recognize (and the bishops recognize) something at stake theologically in our country redefining marriage.

At this point the bishops and I both disagree with your interpretation of marriage in our country. They haven't called out the current practice as a problem, though we are free to do so ourselves perhaps. The bishops don't think that the practice in our country is so flawed it needs to be redone before we take on other issues. That they work with the government on these marriage practices means that either they recognize the government acting legitimately or they've misunderstood Catholic doctrine.

My point here is a doctrinal issue, not a political one. I feel that the question of doctrine is taboo on this site because people would much rather discuss politics than doctrine. However, I think that the current work of the government, albeit far from perfect, is within their rights and should not be thrown out completely simply because it is flawed.

[quote]in the same way it'd be legitimate, if one wished to do so, to have a Constitutional ammendment banning divorce. I wouldn't support it, but it'd be just as legitimate, and just as much of a protection of society good, but it's not at all something I could ever get behind.

and as a Catholic, thankfully, I'm not required to get behind either of those things. if i stand here and say that we should not grant power over marriage to the federal government, I'm well within my rights to say so as a Catholic.[/quote]While it's fine to say that you don't want to grant new authority/powers to the government, and I'm okay with this distinction, unfortunately I don't see your position having a good end. It sounds like you don't want there to be any federal recourse for defending marriage, which in this case will mean that the minority shall win out.

My problem isn't with the belief that leaving it to the states is a good idea. My problem is with the schizophrenia (as the Pope called it) of Catholics between what their religion teaches is good for society and what Catholics say will be harmless for society. You've said that "gay marriages" will make a mockery of the system, but I argue that it is a destructive position for the state to recognize such things. This last part is something which Catholics on here haven't addressed. Is it a problem if gay marriage is introduced? If not, how should we reconcile our position with the Catholic position that gay marriage is detrimental to society as a whole?

[quote]the definition of what the Federal government means when it uses the word "marriage" is inconsequential to me. in defining it, the Federal Government is NOT saying "gay marriages are not marriages"; it is very clearly saying "any federal document that talks about 'marriage' is talking about a and not b" the DOMA sole purpose, and the purpose of that very definition, is to clearly delineate that the full fait and credit clause does not require any state to recognize a gay marriage from another state.
[/quote]The fact that the government does not currently recognize certain states' contracts/licenses implies that states don't have unlimited rights to issue licenses/contracts.

[Aloysius]

no, it means that states do not have the right to have all their licenses and contracts recognized by other states, they're fully enforceable within the confines of their particular state.

I understand that the bishops have a particular political position here; I think you're attept to extend this to a doctrine that absolutely demands that the state not allow such contracts is an overreach. The reason I'm not using doctrine is because doctrinally Catholics are free to hold differing opinions on this political matter. Catholics are allowed to believe prostitution should be legal for crying out loud, Aquinas thought so. so no, there is no doctrinal reason why Catholics must believe federal authority should be involved in marriage this way, or even to believe that states should be involved against gay marriage contracts this way. if we so wish we can grant the state more power over these things, I don't think it would be wise to do so; I actually would rather live in a country that allowed freedom in terms of what type of contract people wanted to engage in, either offering the sham of a temporary "marriage license like the state currently offers, or in enforcing covenant marriage contracts (which would be a good option for those of us who do not believe in divorce, if the state would just enforce them), or some type of civil partnership.

[qfnol31]

Oh no, I do want to make a distinction between the theology of marriage and politics, and then how that political position works out.

My theological position is that the question of gay marriage matters and that it's one of those things that ought to be legislated for the good of society. I don't think this fits into the same level of vices permissible by Thomas Aquinas because it reaches further into society than the actions of the prostitute and person getting the sex. This last aspect is worth debating and has so far been dismissed by most people here as meaningless.

My political position is that the current setup will unfortunately cause problems for us. I'd love to debate this one because as an American I think there is room to debate the question of who has the authority.

I feel that recently people's theological positions have been influenced by their political positions and easily these two slip into each other.

Edited March 24, 2012 by qfnol31

[Aloysius]

I disagree with your theological position, I suppose. Not really because of my politics influencing me per se, I just think it's a relatively pointless battle over a meaningless temporary contract that the bishops want to pretend still has value even though we lost the battle for it a long time ago. And ultimately, I see no reason why people should not be permitted to have contractual partnerships.

[qfnol31]

I've been giving this some more thought and research. Unfortunately I'm going to do much more digging to get some reputable, scholarly articles to present here in defense of my argument.

Even if we accept that the contract offered by the state is meaningless and does not reflect the dignity of marriage (and obviously I'm not certain that this is true), I feel that these current contracts are still based in a proper understanding of natural law, even if this understanding is not fully supported. However, to add in the possibility of "gay marriage" as a contract implies a change in definition of marriage further and more detrimental than even the possibility of divorce. First of all it denies the procreative aspect of marriage, which is not denied by the possibility of divorce (and which even defends marriage from divorce in certain cases). Second, it redefines marriage to be a contract between any two different people who love each other.

The possibility of divorce has always been around, including in Biblical times (look at the possibility of divorce given to Moses under certain circumstances) and in those cases no one understood real marriage as anything other than permanent. Even today most people promise marriage for eternity (look at popular wedding vows), which means that even in divorce their marriage remains valid. Again, we see this reflected in the case of remarried people looking to enter the Church. Thus the possibility of divorce does not change the marriage definition unless the people getting married intend at the moment of their wedding for the marriage to be temporary. At that point, the marriage is invalidated by the intention of the marrying party, and the contract merely represents this possibility of nullity from the very beginning, which it should. Even according to Scripture the possibility of divorce (or even the frequency with which that possibility of divorce is invoked) does not invalidate the contract as an accurate reflection of natural law. The contract, so long as the marriage is valid, reflects a valid reality. Also, as far as I understand, there are legitimate reasons for divorce, provided that the person not remarry:

[quote name='CCC [i](with my own emphasis)[/i]']Divorce

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."

[b]2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.[/b]

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.[/quote]

The Code of Canon Law gives these provisions for divorce:
[quote name='CIC']SEPARATION WITH THE BOND REMAINING

Can. 1151 Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

§2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.

§3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

§2. In all cases, when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored unless ecclesiastical authority has established otherwise.

Can. 1154 After the separation of the spouses has taken place, the adequate support and education of the children must always be suitably provided.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.[/quote]Thus the possibility of divorce present even from the beginning, even understood as always a possibility by society, does not in itself invalidate the marriage and thus does not in itself reflect an incorrect definition of marriage.

In other words, as long as these two individuals are indeed married--their valid marriage in this case rests on their proper intentions--then the contract truthfully reflects the reality of marriage and recognizes where this marriage exists. No amount of temporality in the contract itself can cause the contract to misrepresent the reality present in the marriage. This is a convoluted way of arguing that as long as the contract itself does not directly list the end-date of the marriage, then it in fact gives public witness to the marriage in question.

However, to say that the current contract is further reducible to allowing anyone to get married takes the contract back a step further. When two gay people get together in a union, it is an unnatural union. This union is not based in the procreative aspect or heterosexual aspects of natural marriage. Thus no law can legitimately be crafted to reflect this non-reality. This type of contract, in itself, directly misrepresents what marriage is by definition. While divorce is a mark against the permanence of marriage, it in itself does not invalidate the marriage (even when recourse is made to divorce). In fact, the possibility of getting remarried after divorce does more harm to the understanding of marriage than divorce does in itself. Interestingly enough, this same possibility of getting remarried after divorce is present in the Gospel and had to be addressed by Jesus Himself. He spoke to the sins of the individuals, but that does not mean that the governmental practice in His time was invalid. Talking about "gay marriage," however, is directly against the definition of marriage in itself. It denies not just one, but two (and implicitly a third) aspects of marriage in itself. Thus it is a graver wrong than the possibility of divorce quantitatively (denies more aspects of marriage) and qualitatively (explicitly rather than implicitly rejects an important part of marriage).

When we talk about leaving the question to the states, many people here have implied that whatever the states define is licit. Unfortunately this is not the case. No matter who ends up with the definition of marriage, each state has not only the right, but the responsibility of defending the proper definition of marriage. Until they start offering explicitly temporary contracts (there is a difference of degree between what is explicit and what is implicit, as I mentioned above), then they have not necessarily failed to do so. This new desire to redefine marriage as a "love bond between any two people" is not licit and must be rejected at all levels.

I didn't write a tract to get people to fight for explicitly Catholic definitions of marriage, but the Church has been clear that we have an obligation to safeguard society by defending marriage properly understood.

[qfnol31]

Lemme clarify, in case Hasan should read my upper post, that I wrote that as a theologian defending a governmental right as determined by Catholic theology. I did not mean to defend the manner in which said government defends that right on a purely rational basis without recourse to theology.

[Jesus_lol]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nzyvo8SKa0M#t=2065s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nzyvo8SKa0M#t=2065s[/url]

well, that was embarrassing... take a look at 35m:25s if the link doesnt go right there.

"obama [...] the anti war, government nig-ah uh feh the america was a source for division around the world..."


that sounded like it came straight out of Blazing Saddles. "The Sheriff is a Nig-" "he said the sheriff is near!"

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1333119126' post='2410645']
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nzyvo8SKa0M#t=2065s"]http://www.youtube.c...o8SKa0M#t=2065s[/url]

well, that was embarrassing... take a look at 35m:25s if the link doesnt go right there.

"obama [...] the anti war, government nig-ah uh feh the america was a source for division around the world..."


that sounded like it came straight out of Blazing Saddles. "The Sheriff is a Nig-" "he said the sheriff is near!"
[/quote]

People in the comments are saying that he was going to say "negotiator"...but that's kind of hard to read from that clip.

[Jesus_lol]

lol, yeah "negotiator". that TOTALLY fits the context of what he was saying.

this and his "blah people" line... i wonder what he sounds like talking outside of the public eye.

[Ice_nine]

freudian slip?

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1333123785' post='2410683']
lol, yeah "negotiator". that TOTALLY fits the context of what he was saying.

this and his "blah people" line... i wonder what he sounds like talking outside of the public eye.
[/quote]

I know, right? He might just be one of those people who is a little bit racist but is completely unaware of it. I know a few like that.

I'm fairly certain that he's a pretty decent human being and a genuine Catholic. It's just that he keeps [i]saying [/i]things that either imply terrible things or can be taken to mean terrible things. Or, you know, ARE terrible.

[kujo]

I am not a fan of Santorum--go back through this thread and you'll have ample testimony about that. But I gotta say, his outburst from earlier this week, where he lashed out at a New York Times reporter who was trying to bait him with a question regarding a comment he made about Romney being "the worst Republican in the country" to go against Obama on the issue of healthcare by saying it was "bulls---" made me like the guy a bit more. Not only was he spot on--so THAT'S what that airhead Sarah Palin means by "gotcha journalism"--but it sorta humanized him a bit to me. Aside from the profound political and philosophical differences we have, I have to say that a large part of my distaste for him stems from the dooshy vibe I always sense whenever I see him on TV. He comes off as a pious dullard, an obnoxious GOP fanboy with his head in the hymnal. This vulgar outburst showed he had some fire in his belly, beyond the rhetoric flourishes and the snide little attacks he's made on Romney and Obama out on the trail.

Still wouldn't vote for the guy, but hey, he gets a little bit of respect for knowingly dropping the s-word to a NYT reporter while beyond filmed and watched by a league of other reporters!

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1333254872' post='2411396']
I am not a fan of Santorum--go back through this thread and you'll have ample testimony about that. But I gotta say, his outburst from earlier this week, where he lashed out at a New York Times reporter who was trying to bait him with a question regarding a comment he made about Romney being "the worst Republican in the country" to go against Obama on the issue of healthcare by saying it was "bulls---" made me like the guy a bit more. Not only was he spot on--so THAT'S what that airhead Sarah Palin means by "gotcha journalism"--but it sorta humanized him a bit to me. Aside from the profound political and philosophical differences we have, I have to say that a large part of my distaste for him stems from the dooshy vibe I always sense whenever I see him on TV. He comes off as a pious dullard, an obnoxious GOP fanboy with his head in the hymnal. This vulgar outburst showed he had some fire in his belly, beyond the rhetoric flourishes and the snide little attacks he's made on Romney and Obama out on the trail.

Still wouldn't vote for the guy, but hey, he gets a little bit of respect for knowingly dropping the s-word to a NYT reporter while beyond filmed and watched by a league of other reporters!
[/quote]

I tried to give your post props, but I realized I couldn't. *Sobs*

Either way, for me, it's Romney, or Rick Santorum. I choose Rick Santorum. Nobody has a perfect record, and he has done regrettable decisions that he himself said he wish he hadn't done (Such as No Child Left Behind). I myself am Catholic and believe there is such a thing as Confession and a truly penitent heart. I look for the good in people, and I see a lot of good in Rick Santorum. Everybody complains that he hasn't done everything to their standards. Why do these people not run for president themselves? Why do these people not give an example of who they would like to run? It just seems to me people complain for the sake of complaining without ever doing a thing about it. Complaining accomplishes nothing. Doing something does, for better or for worse. At least Rick Santorum had guts decided to do something.

Edited April 1, 2012 by FuturePriest387