Rick Santorum reveals Vatican I Catholicism by saying the following:
Why? Because — principally because of children. I mean, it’s — it is the reason for marriage. It’s not to affirm the love of two people. I mean, that’s not what marriage is about. I mean, if that were the case, then lots of different people and lots of different combinations could be, quote, “married.”
Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.
I hope this view of Santorum’s gets a wider hearing. Memo to all you straight married couples out there who view your marriage as fundamentally about love. Today’s Republicans are out to get you too. Santorum then says the following: “I’m not that familiar with civil union laws.” Huh? When Brit Hume presses him on whether he would support any benefits for gay couples, he demurs. This is a U.S. senator who has put himself into the forefront of the gay debate who doesn’t even know what civil unions are. You know what? I believe him. He hasn’t thought for a second about the good of homosexual citizens. And why should he? And in this he’s not alone. I still don’t know, for example, whether National Review would officially approve of any benefits for gay couples at all. I don’t know what Stanley Kurtz would support short of marriage. Or Maggie Gallagher. Or David Frum. Or president Bush. What does he favor for gay couples if not marriage? This is odd. Wouldn’t these people be far more persuasive if they offered an alternative to marriage? It would certainly make them seem far less homophobic. They could take the position that they’d be happy to have civil unions but draw the line at marriage – and they’d get a lot of support. So why don’t they? Could it be that their real agenda is not simply keeping marriage exclusively heterosexual but keeping gays as marginalized and stigmatized as possible? Let’s see if they step up to the plate and tell us what they actually propose for gay citizens, rather than what they oppose.
EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I just completed 30 years working for the Department of Defense, the last 14 years spent in ensuring our missile defense systems are properly tested.-Yet, as I look forward to retirement eligibility in 1047 days, I know that I cannot include my husband on my health insurance policies or as a benficiary for my pension, as can my straight married co-workers.- This grinds on me daily.- We spent several thousand dollars last year redoing wills, forming revocable trusts, establishing various powers of attorney, etc.-That helps, but nothing-short of full marriage will allow the health and pension benefits that I believe we deserve just as much as-my collegues who take them for granted.-Of course, my family doesn’t matter,-as our opponents say; we’re just in it for the sex.- (I think I remember what that is.)-No matter that my husband’s bedridden, Alzheimer’s afflicted mother has lived in our house for the last 2 years; we’re just in it for the sex.-(Try changing the diaper of a 120 pound, uncooperative woman; babies are nothing in comparison.)-If the Constitutional Amendment codifying discrimination into our Constitution for the first time goes forth and is approved, I will be voting with my feet and leaving this once great country for a freer country such as Canada. I cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance any longer, as the words “Liberty and Justice for All” rings so hollow in my ears. These words, along with Equality, have been long forgotten by our society and our leaders, particularly the Republicans.”
CATHOLICISM AND SLAVERY: The best summary I can get is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. From that, it’s clear that, from St Paul onwards, slavery was not condemned as in itself immoral or against the natural law for the vast majority of the existence of the Catholic Church:
From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution from being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Christian Law. The apostle counsels slaves to obey their masters, and to bear with their condition patiently. This estimate of slavery continued to prevail till it became fixed in the systematized ethical teaching of the schools; and so it remained without any conspicuous modification till towards the end of the eighteenth century. We may take as representative de Lugo’s statement of the chief argument offered in proof of the thesis that slavery, apart from all abuses, is not in itself contrary to the natural law.
Aquinas followed Aristotle in defending slavery as “natural.” Remember that Aquinas is also the prime author of the Church’s doctrines on same-sex love. It also appears that the 1866 limited defense of slavery was and is genuine. This is not to say that the Church always condoned slavery. Several popes condemned it outright, some eloquently; and the Church has much to be proud of in its record on this. But the hierarchs simply never declared slavery to be illicit under natural law. So homosexual relationships are and were morally worse than slavery for the Church. Having a gay relationship is still, under Catholic doctrine, more profoundly evil than owning a slave. That helps shed light on how deeply the hierarchy feels about this. If they really consider a gay relationship more evil than owning a slave, no wonder they are so adamant about preventing it from happening.
The Dish 