Rick Santorum the Catholic's president?

It sure looks like it from this glowing report on Santorum's sudden rise in the wake of Iowa.  Apparently, he has won the endorsement of Catholicvote.org.   Yet, on the other hand, we find out why such is evil and demonstrative of the horrible corruption and anti-Catholic sin in America, that Catholics would support this lover of Human Cloning, unjust wars, and torture. 

That, kiddies, is why I don't get too involved in politics on this blog.  It's too easy to lose perspective - one way or another. I've known of Santorum for many years.  Personally, he seems a decent fellow.  I agree with him on many issues, disagree with others.  I am troubled by the thought of America 'offically' endorsing what we used to condemn when the Vietcong, the Gestapo, or the KGB did it.  I've also noticed a tendency Santorum has for looking the other way when it comes to helping those diametrically opposed to his foundational morals just because they're from the same area, or he likes them, or whatever.  That's an issue, and suggests a lack of firmness in those convictions, or at least a willingness to compromise them at certain moments.

Doesn't mean I don't like him.  Doesn't mean I think he's some 'torture luvin' scum.  My stomach churns at descriptions like that, especially of a brother in Christ, a Catholic brother no less.  From the MSM's take, his views are 'extreme', 'radical', 'wrong', 'evil', and 'stupid' - all words used on MSNBC and CNN to describe those views he holds in allegiance to the Catholic Church.  As good and righteous as it makes me feel, I'm not going to hand one of my own over to the grinding mill since I don't see him giving the Church a big middle finger, as much as I see him disagreeing with certain interpretations of the Church teaching.  I think he's wrong.  I can't help but wonder if he's just twisting it for political expediency.  But right now, since the Church has refused to make an according to Hoyle definition of Waterboarding being torture, and therefore sin, that's not going to hold the same for me as a Catholic politician proudly dismissing the Church's teaching on abortion, or homosexuality, or care for the poor.

Which brings me to Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is an anomaly in all this.  Like many his age, he adopts the America Sucks approach to history.  To him, the reason there are problems is because America got in and screwed everything up.  He is a staunch libertarian, a staunch non-interventionist (which is just a euphemism for what used to be called isolationist, but since the term carries so much negative baggage, we prefer non-interventionist), and a lover of Ayn Rand.  His whole viewpoint is that as long as the Federal Government is out of the way, everything is fine.  Sure, there may be suffering and dying, but that's a small price to pay for my freedom, Freedom, FREEDOM from the Federal Government. 

Of course, his views are out there.  Really, really out there.  His views are extreme, often based on tortured interpretations of history and reality, and he tends to gather advisers and supporters from as many fringe sides as possible, while appealing to young people's natural post-Boomer tendency to support anyone 'raging against the machine.'

The support of Paul in light of opinions that flow against traditional Christian social teaching, is one of the more disturbing phenomena that has occurred in recent years.  I have no problem with a person that supports Paul.  If you are willing to look away from the evil he would allow, fine.  In a fallen world, we'll all have to hold our noses at some point.  Coming into the Catholic Church during the high point of the priest abuse scandal, I had to do some nose holding myself.  It's what comes from dealing with people.

What I can't abide is those supporters of Paul who dismiss or ignore or even defend those positions which clearly fly in the face of Christian Social Ethics, while then condemning with near hatred those who support any other candidate.  But it's a dangerous temptation, to begin looking at a candidate and reshaping our faith to fit him, even if we're sure we aren't.  To be so obsessed with not being part of a political team, we become part of one despite our best efforts, and end up being twice the zealot in defending its own problems.

For me?  If I vote, it will be for someone who either asks me to vote for a person who advocates grave evil somewhere, or one who asks me to ignore grave evil.  Since the opposite of supporting grave and intrinsic evil is NOT ignoring grave and intrinsic evil so that my hands won't get dirty, it's doubtful I will feel 100% comfortable with the choices.  There are a couple I wouldn't vote for, and if it comes to it, I might take the extraordinary measure of not voting.

But since the Bishops have said that, when faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils, I can choose the one I think will advance the most good and do the least evil, then depending on the final choices, I will go there.  I won't condemn those who disagree with my choice.  And I certainly won't insult and call those candidates I didn't support nothing more than human excrement scraped from Satan's rectum.  Such is unbecoming of a Christian, and nothing more than rank fundamentalist-style self-righteousness in Catholic garb.  Even Paul, who is probably a decent sort with whom I strongly disagree, wouldn't find me insulting him or his supporters.  It would simply find me taking the extraordinary step of being unable to vote for him.