How the theocon negotiates glaring contradictions between his faith and politics:
[T]here are moral issues where I have differed from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and even the pope — welfare reform, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some immigration policies. While all of these issues have profound moral underpinnings none of them involve moral absolutes. War is not always unjust; government aid is not always just or loving. The bishops and I may disagree on such prudential matters, but as with all people of good will with whom I disagree, I have an obligation to them and my country to listen to their perspective and perform a healthy reexamination of my own position.
No mention of torture or the death penalty or balancing the budget entirely on the working poor and middle class, while actually cutting taxes on the already successful. David Gibson complicates Santorum's distinctions:
Many of the teachings [Santorum] categorizes as optional are fairly non-negotiable, and the teachings he holds out as absolute (namely opposition to abortion rights, though I imagine he would include gay marriage) are less absolute than he would like: the church doesn’t back the so-called personhood laws, for example, and even overturning Roe wouldn’t end legalized abortion in states … [T]he understandable preference for absolute clarity winds up obscuring with false certainty, and it can certainly wind up overshadowing too many other “hard teachings” that may indeed be more in the realm of prudential policy judgments but which nonetheless can’t be dismissed as easily as Rick Santorum does.
The Dish 