Santorum "Appalled" at Catholic Bishops

In an exclusive interview with Creative Minority Report, former Senator Rick Santorum leveled criticism at both Senator Bob Casey and U.S. Catholic bishops for their stands in the current healthcare debate, even going so far as saying he was “appalled” by the statements of the USCCB.

Santorum said he’s “not surprised” that Casey, a self professed pro-life Catholic, has declined to take a stand against abortion in the healthcare debate. Casey recently told CNS that he refused to draw “a line in the sand” over abortion.

Santorum said that kind of response is typical of Casey. “If it is convenient for him to vote pro-life he’ll do it but he’ll put other issues above abortion,” said Santorum. “And I don’t think he hides that. I think he’s been very upfront about it.”

Santorum added that it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many Catholic politicians ignore what the Church is saying. He said that for too long dissent from the teaching of the Church was ignored by bishops. “You have examples from the Kennedy’s on down. The Kennedys and the Cuomos. It was made clear that you can dissent from the Church and still be a Catholic in good standing” he said. “For a long time many bishops in country didn’t say too much about it.”

Santorum said abortion is dissent from core teaching that should never be compromised on. He said the silence from the bishops over the years “confused the faithful as to what the church teachings were because they didn’t condemn it in any practical way.”

Santorum made it clear that Casey puts the goals of the Democratic Party over the goals of the pro-life movement. “There are some real true pro-life Democrats and I applaud them” said Santorum. “They’re in a difficult situation because they are part of a radical pro-abortion party. I say pro-abortion not pro-choice. And resisting the culture in that party is very difficult.”

Casey has voted pro-life on many bills but failed to on others. Maria Vitale, Education Director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation said, “We are thankful for the times Senator Casey has voted pro-life and we’re disappointed when he does not.”

When contacted, Casey staffer John Richter said that Casey “favors” the current healthcare legislation. When asked whether abortion being in the bill gave the Senator pause, Richter answered, “Abortion’s not even mentioned in the bill.”

Santorum called that response “disingenuous.”

“They think pro-lifers are simpletons. That’s what they think of all pro-lifers - clinging to their guns and religion” said Santorum. “They treat you like you’re an idiot.”

Santorum pointed out that cancer treatments are also not explicitly named in the bill but that doesn’t mean that cancer patients won’t be treated.

Santorum’s words for Casey were tough but he had even tougher words for Catholic bishops. “I am appalled at the Catholic bishops,” said Santorum. “I commend them for drawing a line in the sand on abortion. But what they’ve suggested would do more damage than the abortion coverage.”

The USCCB has made strong statements against the healthcare bills because of the inclusion of abortion funding but have stated often that they would be in favor of the bill if that were excluded.

Santorum said socialized medicine would lead to "defacto euthanasia."

“This would be a foundational change in America's history that puts the government in control of people’s lives,” he warned.

Santorum warned that socialized medicine would inevitably lead to a devaluing of human life as it has in the other countries where it has been implemented. "The European healthcare system doesn’t make treatment readily available to people at end of life,” he said.

He pointed out that governments in charge of healthcare tend to look at treatments as “expenditures of public funds and they look for a return on their investment.”

He said preferential treatment will be spent on "useful lives," he said, putting the disabled and the elderly at risk.

Santorum said that socialized medicine would assuredly lead to "the onrush of the culture of death” and should be opposed by anyone who wishes America to foster a culture of life.

Comments

  1. God Bless Senator Santorum!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not to be the pessimist in this case, but I have my doubts about the bishops standing firm.

    http://exultetmeansrejoice.blogspot.com/2009/11/dog-that-didnt-bark-finally-barks.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that the salient involvement of a goodly number of bishops over the Notre Dame-Obama fiasco in March is beginning to show that there is, at last, a stronger emerging moral voice among our prelates. Something must replace the Bernardin-USCCB legacy of capitulating to Evil through slippery concepts like comrpromise and dialogue. And playing footsy with the Devil in order to maintain a decaying popularity.

    The USCCB has played Neville Chamberlain at Munich far too long and with results that have helped turn much of our beloved country in a moral cesspool.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree w/some of his criticisms, but Santorum lost a lot of credibility in my eyes with his support for Arlen Specter a few years back. Much as I don't like Casey (Jr.), it's understandable that Santorum lost his seat given his own compromise w/the culture of death.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey, excuse me, but I'm tired of hearing the bishops being bashed when they are finally showing some backbone. Did anyone here do anything to get the word out regarding the bishops' bulletin insert? Did anyone here do what they said and contact their congressmen/representatives this week?

    There is nothing LESS Catholic than disloyalty to the magesterium. If Santorum is appalled by the bishops, then that's HIS problem and something that he needs to come to terms with as a Catholic, if that's how he identifies himself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey Early Riser,

    Newsflash: American Bishops have little if anything to do with the Magesterium. After conducting an on-going campaign of lies, deceit and manipulation over the past 6 years, with Dolan providing the latest example of self-pitying misdirection, you really should know that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Santorum made it clear that Casey puts the goals of the Democratic Party over the goals of the pro-life movement.

    Kinda like when Santorum put the goals of the Republican Party over the goals of the pro-life movement when he endorsed pro-abortion Arlen Specter over pro-life Pat Toomey (how'd that work out for ya, Senator?). At the time, Senator Santorum said, "Arlen is with us on the votes that matter".

    ReplyDelete
  8. He is right in pointing the cause of the confusion. What is important to know is why? Are the bishops afraid of compromising the tax exemption of the Church? Also see if there is a correlation between the bishops' stance and the demographics of his diocese and consider if he is to muting unpopular truths for the sake of popularity. Then there is the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. where we need Abp. Chaput to be. Currently Abp. Wuerl is even willing to give Holy Communion to pro-abort politicians if their home bishops do the same in defiance of canon 915. I don't know his motives. Biden and Pelosi can be intimidating but if you can face the devil in an exorcism, then you can face these mortals as well.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As much as many people want to disregard two decades of pro-life votes because he endorsed Specter over Tooomey, let's remember that with Specter on the judiciary, we got Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court because Republicans kept the majority for two more years.
    If Toomey had won the primary and lost in the general, we likely wouldn't have two strong pro-life justices.
    There is such a thing as strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Santorem betrayed us all , when he supported Specter. I doubt that I will ever trust him again....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh, NOW he gets it. Two words: ARLEN SPECTER. That betrayal was unforgettable, embarrassing, perplexing, and then deteriorated into a simple case of raw political expediency.

    He has some nerve, that pot, calling the kettle black. Maybe he needs money or something.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Seriously folks, while I too disagreed with the Senator's decision to support Specter, the pro-life movement has no greater friend than Rick Santorum. You can disagree with a prudential decision he made, which anonymous rightly points out may have had benefits, but the level of vitriol for a true defender of life seems inappropriate and counterproductive.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Recovering FeministNovember 6, 2009 at 10:52 AM

    Let's not forget that Santorum had a pro-life choice in Pat Toomey. Santorum chose pro-death Specter. There is nothing "prudential" about that decision. Until Santorum publicly repents of that pro-death support, Santorum should not be given a platform to chastise the bishops or given our vote. Watch out for those Democrats in Republican Sheep's clothing. Just because Santorum has "Republican" behind his name means nothing to me. Walk the talk, Santorum, and you've got my vote. Oremus!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Santorum's statement that the silence from the bishops over the years “confused the faithful as to what the church teachings were because they didn’t condemn it in any practical way.” is absolutley correct. No wonder Confession has practically no import to todays average Catholic. Whats to confess, what sin, what is sin except a vauge concept?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I too am appalled, and have been appalled at the "no action" of Catholic Bishops for thirty years or more....

    So now this is where we are, and it is very, very scarey.

    Many, many prayers are needed for the people, and for the Bishops, especially those who have said NOTHING....

    ReplyDelete
  16. Unbeliebavable. Some of you really do want to make the perfect the enemy of the great. Rick Santorum is one of the best Catholic voices in the political arena, and some of you are still obsessed over one (admittedly bad) endorsement the guy made. Get over it already.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm intrigued by his assessment of socialism itself being a moral issue. It doesn't come up often but I see it as a necessary conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey people - a little history lesson here on the praises of Arlen Specter on the judiciary committee.

    First, he was responsible for "borking" Robert Bork back in 1987.

    Second, sure, he voted for Alito, but he also can count (unlike most Republicans), and he realized that to get a majority of 9 black-robed gods you need 5. And he and his ilk will never, I repeat, never, allow the pro-lifers to get a majority on the Supreme Court.

    Third, we really don't know how Roberts and Alito would vote on an actual overturning of Roe, since the song and dance routine for confirmation of Supreme Court nominees before the Senate Judiciary Committee does not allow anti-Roe nominees to truthfully state their opinions if they want to be confirmed. (All due to the original "borking" by Specter and others back in 1987.) Roberts even stated that Roe was "settled law".

    Fourth, he is now a pro-abortion Democrat in the Senate, thanks to the support of Santorum and the Republican party establishment (who suffer from the counting disease mentioned above).

    ReplyDelete
  19. It's not just that he supported Arlen Specter, but that he supported Arlen Specter and then has the chutzpah to tell the Bishops they haven't stuck to their principles. He placed expediency over principle, and now chastizes the bishops for having done the same. Solid PL cred doesn't stop him from being a hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Santorum is wrong to slam the bishops. His argument of "where were they?" is irrelevant and serves no purpose in trying to stop abortion in this country. I think we are finally seeing the fruits of the great John Paul in the increasing number of Bishops and religious speaking up. It is apparent that the sixties brought about a worldly faith that we still see in many of our priests and Bishops. Take note of how there are almost NEVER any consequences for politicians who support abortion. He is correct in saying that they've been silent for too long. However, I also believe we are starting to see more bishops and priests, whose vocations were inspired by John Paul, speaking up with the intention of returning the American flock to true fidelity of the Magesterium. This was seen with the Notre Dame scandal. You may say it was only 80 bishops, but it's more than I've ever seen previously. It is great seeing the bishops speak out against the current health care bill. Instead of complaining about what they didn't do in the past, we should praise and join them in what they're trying to do now. I am fortunate enough to have Archbishop Chaput as my bishop. He is a true inspiration because if his fidelity to the Church. I'll stand by him before Santorum or any other politician for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  21. CWK
    The Senator criticized the bihsops at large for sending a mixed message for years. They did. This is not arguable.

    He also criticized them for indicating support for abortion free socialized medecine (as if there were such a thing) because everywhere it has been tried it devalues life. It does.

    He supports the Bishops' opposition to abortion in the bill but rightly says that is not enough for those committed to life. He is right on all 3 points.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ah, I see now...

    We should support the Bishops because they are right now and it doesn't matter what they did in the past.

    We should condemn Santorum because even though he is right now, we will never forgive or forget for one thing he did in the past.

    Gotcha

    ReplyDelete
  23. So wait. This is for real? The writing style is indistinguishable from this piece: http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/11/arlen-specter-switches-to-yankees-fan.html !

    Anyway. I don't think it's the Bishop's business to decide what is the best sort of health care policy; their role should be limited to making sure said policy is not immoral (e.g., it shouldn't fund abortions or in-vitro fertilization). So in that sense I disagree with Santorum... if this is really for real.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Right message; wrong messenger.

    Santorum is 100% accurate in his criticism of Casey's priorities and the inaction of the U.S. Bishops.

    But he's 100% the wrong guy to be out there doing the criticizing. Putting the good of his party first, Santorum compromised on pro-life principle and Catholic teaching (clearly, "winning" is not one of the reasons the Bishops have authorized as justifying support for a pro-abort when there is a pro-life alternative). Until we get a public mea culpa for his torpedoing Toomey's campaign, I think Santorum should withhold public comment on such matters.

    ReplyDelete
  25. CWK I agree with you there, absolutely. Santorum is in no way on any moral high ground to say he is appalled at bishops on this issue. Bishops are people; some very good, some very bad and everything in between. To criticise a current bishop for something his predecessor did or did not do 30 years ago is moronic (assuming I even buy that argument, which I don't). This typically Americath mentality is repugnant; when the bishops do good, blame them for not doing enough or for not having done it previously. Just so we get to blame bishops. Some of you don't know how brainwashed by anti-clerical forces you've become.

    DOUG you are either completely ignorant of Catholicism or just dense. The bishops FORM the magesterium; the teaching body of the church. If you are Catholic, then you really embarassed yourself there.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Man, ya'll are well educated. I think one reason the Bishops are getting more vocal about this issue is because we finally can't "co-exist" with abortion any more. This vote passes, we'll all support it in all forms, and as a country we can't get lower than that.

    And Santorum would obviously have a lot more credence with this audience if he admitted his fault. As a Catholic, I all too know what happens when you forgive someone without them asking for forgiveness: Nothing good.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Early Riser, no, the Magesterium is the teaching Authority of the church, not the teaching body as you erroneously claim. To claim the Bishops constitute the Magesterium is rank, ass-kissing clericalism. Unless of course, you are also claiming that continuing to enable the rape of children and adolescents while lying about it, repeatedly, for decades, and then claiming it was the best science of the time is REALLY an act of the Holy Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Patrick et al.,
    Where do the Bishops indicate support for socialized medicine? Do you have a reference? I've heard them say that they support access to medical care for all citizens but I haven't seen them pushing specifically for socialized medicine. It certainly wasn't mentioned in the letters that are to be read at this weekend's Masses.
    Concerning his criticism of the Bishops' mixed messages, again I say it is irrelevant. They are starting to move in the direction of fidelity. The old guard is dying out. It serves no purpose to squawk about these generalizations. He is only being hypocritical in this regard. If he has a specific criticism of a bishop's action or inaction, that's fine, but to lob grenades towards the bishops in general only undermines Catholic unity. I grew up under Archbishop Mahoney so I understand the frustration, but this blurb from Santorum is another example of Bishop bashing. It is starting to change thanks to shepherds such as Abp. Chaput. The evidence for that will be seen this weekend. I don't remember any call to action like this by the bishops.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rick Santorum for President! I'd vote for him. As for the bishops, it's a sad state the Church is in when you cannot even trust your bishops to think clearly and reason an issue to the end. We really need thinking bishops instead of politicians. We have enough politicians in this country. I am very disappointed in bishops I normall like caving in and accepting socialized medicine. Geez! Just the principal of subsidiary kinda throws that idea out the window. Government would be overstepping their role when forcing their own system of healthcare on the people. It becomes a vehicle of tyranny...and the Church always suffers under tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Doug - you have proven my point. You are not Catholic. You don't understand the meaning of the word magesterium, which is comprised of the bishops of the church, with the Pope at the head. As you feel you personally have the power and authority to dictate and pick and choose who is or is not a part of the magesterium, a duty that SOLELY rests on the magesterium itself, you are putting your immortal soul in the greatest of jeopardy, assuming you even believe in an immortal soul. I for one have no need or desire to debate Catholicism with heretics. I gave that endeavor up long ago.

    Patrick - healthcare for everyone does not equal socialized medicine. It appears you are not in favor of the bishops (or the church) attempting to work with the current administration on any issue. Traditionally, the church only "opts out" of public debate, governance and policy as a matter of last resort. Common sense dictates the church is trying to make the best of a bad situation until the next administration is voted in (hopefully in 3 years time).

    ReplyDelete
  31. Early Riser,

    I was confirmed in the Church on the Easter Vigil in 2008. Since you have declared by your foolishly arrogant and ignorant statement that this sacrament is not valid, you have a duty to make this known to those who carried it out. Are you prepared to speak to my Priest?

    I refer you to this site (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) for an actual examination of what the Magesterium actually is, and not merely what your obviously rich fantasy life leads you to believe.

    Please feel free to lie about me as you did here: "As you feel you personally have the power and authority to dictate and pick and choose who is or is not a part of the magesterium...", Nothing reveals your true character more.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I don't understand why anyone should listen to a politian talk down the authority of the bishops, when we can all agree that we would never accept the bishops usurping government and denying freedom of religion (or if you don't see any problem blending the church and state, you don't understand what human freedom is and what government exists for).

    Why should we listen to a politian, who though right on some matters, tell us that the bishops should not support a health care reform that could help the poor and impoverished? I think the bishops, and all faithful Catholics for that matter, need to see that while we have a responsibility to the unborn (millions of unborn!!!), we can't pretend like we are exempt from caring about those who manage to survive the womb.

    I understand that there is a huge concern for euthanasia, for governments deciding who will receive health care, for the potential to fall into a more and more utilitarian view of the human person, but if we can reach a reform that respects the private sector as an option, let the government help those they will and Catholic hospitals and private doctors can serve others. If an uninsured child would otherwise die from a treatable illness because he can't get the attention he needs, why are we debating about if we will be euthanized when he is in his old age? He won't make it that far if we don't reach a reasonable and moderate reform.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Doug - I have not lied. You said in your own foul, classless words "To claim the Bishops constitute the Magesterium is rank, ass-kissing clericalism." The bishops do indeed constitute the magesterium. To accuse a Catholic of "clericalism" for defending the magesterium is heresy. You are a heretic. Regarrdless of your baptism (if I believe this) you have brought anti-Catholic baggage and filth into the church. I suggest you seek council on this immediately from this priest you claim baptized you.

    There are enough bad Catholics within the church today. We don't need anymore heresy inflitrating it from the outside.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sadly we have bishops who are truly Democrats and try to do no harm to the pro abortion party.
    They hide as a group in the USCCB which is totally useless.
    Somehow our bishops never heard of the CHURCH MILITANT!

    ReplyDelete
  35. GINO - while I would agree 100% that there are some very bad bishops hiding within their dioceses AND the USCCB, to dismiss the USCCB as a whole, which includes some VERY good and orthodox bishops is counterproductive. To expand on that wayward thinking, one could say the same thing about priests or even Catholics in general.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rick is right! Wake up, Reverend Fathers! Our Church is against socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  37. if you've read any of the social teachings of the church, you should also wake up and realize that the Church is against pure capitalism that disregards justice in wages and benefits, that treats the human person as a consumer and not an end. it sounds like you like putting your political preferences in front of what the bishops uphold and try to say that your version is true Catholicism...well I have news for you-Catholics believe in that Tradition is preserved and taught through the Magesterium and thus owe a great deal of respect to the Magesterium.

    ReplyDelete
  38. What fine "forgive and forget" sentiments many of you have. But, the point is, please DON'T TRUST Santorum again. Isn't that the lesson of all this? Please realize that he's out stumping for president right now, banking on a political career. He sold pro-life Pat Toomey right down the river. Fool you twice: shame on you for being such dupes.

    Did Rick say anywhere here that he's sorry? Has he apologized ONCE for his betrayal of the unborn? Has he expressed any growth whatsoever? Nada. He just points the finger of blame at others. Such a lack of self-awareness is astonishing.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment