In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.
– Thomas Jefferson
First, let me preface by saying that, after Congressman Ron Paul, Rick Santorum is my second choice for President among the candidates in the national spotlight, including Obama. I’d much rather see a President Santorum than I would a President Romney, Gingrich or Obama. Therefore, the object of this article is not to bash Santorum but to explain why he does not reflect the Catholic faith in his candidacy and therefore should not be the go-to candidate for Catholics. Furthermore, while Santorum seems intent on establishing himself as the face of the Catholic church in American politics, proudly wearing his faith on his sleeve, I argue that this would be a gross misrepresentation of Catholicism and what it means to be Catholic.
The primary reason that I don’t like Santorum is that, through his actions, he has made it quite clear that he is a politician first and a Catholic second. As such, he has willingly undermined his own Catholic values and personal ideology for political gain. Contrast this to Ron Paul who, to quote Saturday Night Live, has always “stuck to his weird old guns.” (you can laugh; that’s a joke) Even if you disagree with Ron Paul at least he is uncompromising and consistent in his principles even if such commitment is to his own personal loss. Commitment to one’s fundamental principles even to the detriment of one’s political career should be the gold standard that all politicians must rise to meet. Santorum, however, falls far short:
#1 Santorum has made it abundantly clear that he is against abortion and against contraception – there is no doubting that. However, these constitute his “personal” beliefs which he has undermined on multiple occasions depending on where the political winds have blown. In 2004 Santorum made the decision to endorse the pro-abortion Specter in a Republican primary. Specter won narrowly, defeating his pro-life opponent Pat Toomey, and Santorum’s support of Specter was cited as a key help to the liberal Specter. Specter went on the cast the final, crucial vote necessary to pass Obamacare. News outlets such as the Washington Post speculate that the reason Santorum strayed from his own pro-life values to endorse a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life one were purely for political gain.
Additionally, Santorum voted to pass an unbalanced budget that included millions of dollars in funding for Planned Parenthood, America’s single largest abortion provider. Forcing Americans to subsidize the abortion industry when it remains such a controversial issue that so many categorically oppose as wholly evil not only contradicts Catholic moral teaching but is in direct support of tyranny as, to quote Thomas Jefferson, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” The same can be said for Santorum’s position on federal funding of contraception: here is an audio recording (skip to 9:05) of Santorum stating that, while he is “personally opposed” to contraception he would support, not the legalization of contraception, not the free use of contraception, but the funding with taxpayers’ dollars at the highest level of government of contraception – thus forcing Catholic individuals and Catholic institutions to support an industry they abhor as sinful.
#2 While Santorum claims to support small government based on the principle of Catholic subsidiarity his voting record tells a far different story. Among other things, Santurom voted to double the funding for the Dept. of Education, voted for adding Medicare D to the already highly liable entitlement program, has voted in favor of unbalanced budgets, and voted twice in favor of the PATRIOT Act (I’m not yelling, “patriot” is an acronym). Unfortunately, many Christian voters have chosen to ignore Santorum’s big government policies but what America needs to realize is that our staggering national debt and inflation of federal powers is not merely an economic or constitutional issue – its also a moral one. In addition to its stark violation of Catholic subsidiarity – which dictates that the smallest unit of society possible should deal with a problem – Santorum’s policies are irresponsible and imprudent. According to the U.S. National Debt Clock our nation’s total liability per taxpayer is $1,039,057. That’s right, over one million dollars per individual. Our national debt accrues an annual interest of $11,971 per citizen. That’s how much you’d have to pay every year just to cover our debt’s interest. We’ve accrued this debt and its our responsibility to start paying it off. Today. Otherwise we pass this yoke on to our children, and their children, and on and on. What short-term benefits our out-of-control spending habits may yield to us now is nothing in comparison to the blow to future Americans’ very livelihoods when they must pay off their parents’ reckless use of the “federal credit card”.
#3 Santorum’s most egregious violation of his Catholic principles, however, is his foreign policy. First of all, let me provide a brief overview of Catholic just war doctrine (more information can be found here):
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
However, in regards to Iran Santorum stated the following in an interview:
“SANTORUM: I would say to every foreign scientist that’s going to Iran to help them with their program,’You will be treated as an enemy combatant like an Al Qaeda member,’ and finally I would be working openly with the state of Israel and I would be saying to the Iranians; ‘You need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will bomb those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.’
GREGORY: You would lay out a red line and if they pass it, air strikes?
SANTORUM: Iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.”
Rick Santorum also stated, “On occasion, scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing, candidly.” Santorum went so far as to say that we should treat nuclear scientists working for the Iranians like enemy combatants.
To initiate airstrikes against Iran for no other reason than to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon (note that our best intelligence has no evidence that any such program exists) constitutes preemptive war and therefore is in direct contradiction of just war doctrine which states that military action may be pursued only in response to an attack of aggression that would cause lasting, grave and certain harm. Additionally, all other measures to avoid war must be tried and proven ineffective. Merely possessing a nuclear weapon in no way would make Iran an aggressor against us and therefore not only would a military response be immoral but for it be be our first response and not our last is absurd.
Additionally, for Rick Santorum to condone the murder of Iranian scientists as “wonderful” is also in complete contradiction of Catholic doctrine as well as national and international law. The targeting of civilians with car bombs in broad daylight in a busy street constitutes the most blatant of terrorist attacks. Last I checked we were at “war” with terrorism in order to eliminate it, not laud it as “wonderful”.
#4 Finally, Santorum supports waterboarding going so far as to state that those who’ve have experienced torture firsthand and oppose waterboarding, like John McCain, “doesn’t understand” interrogation. However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” Furthermore, the exact rubric for defining torture is listed below:
The Church defines torture formally (i.e., what makes an action torture):
1. violation of human dignity in the form of
2. intentional mental and/or physical harm in order to
3. use a human person as a means (or instrument) for some producible end
4. against that person’s will.
At low intensity, waterboarding intentionally inflicts mental harm against the prisoner’s will in order to extract information or as punishment, and at even moderate intensities can be lethal. Thus, waterboarding constitutes torture and is an intrinsic evil in violation of Catholic doctrine. Americans who support “advanced interrogation” techniques need to reevaluate their beliefs and ask themselves who are they really loyal to? Do their Christian morals come first or are they merely an accessory to the neoconservative cause? Waterboarding constitute an intrinsic evil to be categorically opposed – regardless of whether the offender is the American CIA or our enemies abroad;
In brief, while I believe Santorum to be viable candidate for Catholics to consider it is only because the alternatives of Romney or Obama are so much worse. For Santorum to flaunt his “personal” Catholic values and then support policies in direct opposition to his faith constitutes an unprecedented duplicitousness that devalues human life and dignity in favor of winning the popularity contest of politics.
The Virtuous House 