SIVACRACY.NET

Siva's obviously fine handling this on his own, but there's something else about Santorum's ugly charges that I'd like to add. As Andrew Sullivan notes, the disgusting protest by a small group of fundamentalist Christians from Kansas at the military funeral of Massachusetts soldier was motivated not by the soldier's homosexuality (he wasn't gay), but rather because Massachusetts allows same-sex marriages, part of the subtext of Santorum's lunacy. For the record, as Sullivan points out, the leader of the protest is a fundamentalist Democrat, not Republican

Responding to Santorum's diatribe with any sort of logic -- involving the history of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or the highly conservative social climate of Boston when many of the sex scandals took place, or anything of the sort -- seems beside the point. What would be better, however, would be for Catholic Republican senators like Mike DeWine, Lisa Murkowski, and Pete Domenici to condemn Santorum's smear. The Democratic Catholics shouldn't need any prodding.

I think what offends me most -- as a lapsed Catholic whose eyes still get moist at some of the more beautiful teachings of my family's faith -- is Santorum's stunning arrogance and dishonesty about his religion. His own sudden "rethinking" of the death penalty, for example, conveniently follows opinion polls showing public uncertainty about it, not any change in Catholic teaching, and not reflecting anything in Santorum's actual voting record. Similarly, Santorum's defense of Guantanamo flies in the face of virtually every Catholic teaching about "just war" doctrine.

So I'm ranting here. But because Santorum is so quick to point to the crucifix he's evidently carrying up to Golgotha, let me suggest that he read a letter he might like, from St. Ignatius Loyola (founder of the Jesuits), the Letter to Members of the Society in Portugal. It's a letter about "perfect obedience," a topic that Santorum, with his creepy fixation on stamping out any deviance from his own subliterate understanding of moral doctrine, would probably like. But he might want to focus on where St. Ignatius approvingly quotes St. Bernard:

Whoever endeavors either openly or covertly to have his spiritual father enjoin him what he himself desires, deceives himself if he flatters himself as a true follower of obedience. For in that he does not obey his superior, but rather the superior obeys him.

Note: this is a controversial letter, one promoting the much-debated idea of "blind obedience." And before anyone writes to me to point out that I'm misinterpreting the letter, quite possibly; I didn't do all that well in my CCD classes. It might be worth looking at a more informed view of St. Ignatius's recognition of the differences between disobedience and dissent. In his own selective use of Catholic doctrine, Santorum is not offering a challenge to or a rethinking of Catholic doctrine; this isn't dissent. This is the faith's employment to fit his political agenda. And so before the really angry comments start, let me ask, is Santorum really a guy you want to defend? After this letter?

I couldn't care less what Santorum thinks about academia, Boston, or anything else. But when he -- as someone who conveniently ignores Catholic teaching when it differs from conservative American dogma -- invokes it in yet another vile attempt to divide America, I tend to get a little irked. I'm far from a great Catholic. By many standards, I'm not even a good one. But at least I don't spend my time making hideous use of my religious background in my political statements, simultaneously providing moral cover to the perpetrators of terrible crimes against children, erroneously drawing a causal connection where none exists, and peddling metaphysical fears to those more imperiled by his execrable legislative record than by anything the people in Boston might be doing. We're all sinners, and I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that he's a bad Catholic (which would imply that he's a worse one than I am, and that I know the mind of God and can judge him to be so). But I'm certain that he's a terrible servant of the American people.

Update: Sorry -- just edited for a little clarity.