Daily Links, Feb. 23: Santorum’s faith, birth control, and those controversial …

There was yet another Republican debate last night, and Rick Santorum continues to be the focus of attention, especially when it comes to his Catholic faith. Andrew Sullivan takes Santorum to task for his stance on torture, which clearly stands in opposition to the church’s teaching on human dignity.

“It seems to me that Santorum can and should be free to defend this evil as he sees fit,” writes Sullivan. “But his defense of torture is far, far more scandalous to the Catholic church than any liberal Catholic politician’s views on, say, same-sex marriage or contraception.”

Meanwhile, a Catholic priest also took issue with Santorum’s faith, namely Santorum’s now infamous Satan speech, in an appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s show, of all places. But what do average Catholics have to say about Santorum? One Catholic offers their take: “You can share my views on abortion but be incompetent in every other way. I’m voting for president, not bishop.”

As for the current president, we’ve all heard about how he’s supposedly an enemy of religion, but Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune looks at the lesser told story of Barack Obama’s support for religious organizations.

On to other controversial topics–A radio personality in Phoenix who has long supported Catholic causes was scheduled to emcee a Catholic fundraiser, but pulled out due to controversy over the fact that she was also involved with a local gay pride parade.

Then there are those trouble making Girl Scouts, who are yet again being attacked over their supposed links to Planned Parenthood, this time by Indiana Congressman Bob Morris. A parish in Virginia reacted by banning Girl Scout troops from meeting on its grounds, but South Bend, Indiana Bishop Kevin Rhoades is less concerned about the Catholic troops in his diocese. Well, those delicious cookies are pretty hard to resist.

Finally, it wouldn’t be a day in Catholic news without talking about birth control, but do you know who I’d like to hear from? The people in the pews, because we’ve heard enough from the church leaders and experts. So here are a couple views from the laity:

James Harrington, an attorney in Austin, Texas, writes about his feelings on the bishops’ letter concerning the contraception mandate being read at Mass, saying it “provides evidence that the bishops have become increasingly political rather than faithful prophets of the Gospel.”

And Maura Casey gives a Catholic woman’s perspective on birth control and issues a welcome plea: “We need to hear from the great, as yet untapped voices of sanity on these issues: the legions of Catholic women who disagree.”

GOP candidates to debate in Arizona Wednesday

with just five hours to go before a debate dry spell of 27 days comes to an end with a
high stakes
showdown in the desert of
arizona
. much has changed since the fearsome four last met in florida. gingrich into the gutter.
romney
on the rocks and
santorum
with a big surge. and tonight could be the shoot-out in the last chance saloon. the last time the candidates will share a stage before primaries in
arizona
and make or break
michigan
. indeed, it’s the last face-off before super tuesday. by the way, it’s also ash wednesday and national margarita day. so there’s a slim chance that front-runner and devout catholic
rick santorum
will show up drunk in the spirit and who could blame the former senator for celebrating with a little tequila? a quinnipiac national poll out this
morning shows

santorum
leading
romney
by 9 points with republican voters. and while our new nbc/mayor rift poll shows
romney
with a commanding lead in
arizona
, it’s a statistical tie up in
michigan
, one of
romney
‘s many home states and one he is desperate to win. but the question is, can
rick santorum
stay on message tonight in the or will he get hot under the sweater vest and start reprising some of his favorite speeches like the one that surfaced recently where he said that
satan
is not just temperaturing individuals but he’s at war with the
united states
.

the father of lies has his sights on what you would think the father of lies
satan
would have his sights on, a good, decent, influential powerful country, the
united states
of in irk.

santorum
defended himself from charges against
donald trump
that he is so out there and that means something come interesting trump. as
santorum
said last night, it just means that he’s authentic.

the reason i think we’re doing well in this campaign is because we are being available to the american public, no teleprompters, no written speeches, the opportunity to see what’s in here. what’s up here. and what’s burning down here.

goodness. we don’t know what’s burning down there. perhaps rick should seek urgent
medical assistance
. as for
mitt romney
, you do get the sense with
arizona
confidently in pocket, he’s just really sad to have to take time-out from his beloved
michigan
. the white powder or the white sugar,
powdered sugar
, that’s the word,
powdered sugar
on top of the punch key reminded me of what’s going on outside, how beautiful it is.
michigan
looks so beautiful when the snow comes with a fresh
powdered sugar
all over everything.

i love this state. it seems right here. the trees are the right height. i like seeing — i like seeing the lakes. i love the lakes.

oh, beautiful for spacious skies, but no burning sensation. that’s good to hear. let’s bring in our panel now. with us from washington, msnbc
political analyst
and former dnc
communications director

karen
finny, columnist for the hill and ken vogel, chief investigative reporter for politico. with us from nashville,
judson
phillips co-founder of the
tea party
nation. .
karen
,
rick santorum
is talking about
satan
,
neonatal care
and the
fire down below
.
mitt romney
is talking about finding his wife in kindergarten and his love of trees. i know i was off for two days but what on earth is going on? have they lost their minds? this this is what happens when you go away. my god, it’s like we’re in the
1950s
when people were criticizing
elvis presley
for those wiggling hips. i mean, it’s crazy. clearly tonight it should be a very interesting conversation where
rick santorum
will as you said in the introtry to talk about the economy although i think he’s going to have a lot to answer for. he seems to think he’s got those answers so it will be interesting to see what he actually says.

it will be an interesting defense of beal za bub. ken, given how well
santorum
is now doing in the polls, does this not prove that a return to
1980s
disco and the culture issues is working well for him?

it’s certainly working well in the republican base but highlights the diver jens of priorities between the republican base voters and the
general election
voters and you know, americans more broadly who polls
show time
and again care about the economy and jobs. yet, in the republican base in a
republican primary
, there is room for these social issues and that’s what
rick santorum
is strongest on and what
mitt romney
is weakest on. it makes sense
rick santorum
, even as he talks about focusing on the economy continues to be pulled to the right and continues to train his focus on these social issues.

we’re watching
rick santorum
live in
arizona
at this very moment.
judson
, if i can come to you. you’ve been following the
political discourse
over recent days. i have to ask, what does the
tea party
think of invoking
satan
, pushing transvaginal probes in virginia, and
mitt romney
claiming to be severely conservative?

well, is this segment three days? seriously.

do you have as much time as you like,
judson
. go right ahead.

well, the thing about the
tea party
, the
tea party
‘s not monolithic. the transvaginal probes that people are talking about, that’s not registering with anybody. at least nobody i’ve talked to. the stuff that we’ve heard, the clips that
rick santorum
has talked about
satan
and the like, for a lot of folks in the
tea party
, this is pretty consistent with what they hear in church every sunday from their priest or preacher. so it’s not terribly shocking to them.
santorum
is a practicing catholic. what he said i’m not catholic but i understand it’s pretty consistent with mainstream catholic theology. nobody on my side of the table is tearily shocked by what he is saying.

he i think some might take issue with you.
karen
might like to.

i think the issue of transvaginal probes is certainly registering with the women voters shall we say?

who after all, make up the majority of the population in the
united states
.

that’s right.

that’s right. and voters. but a couple of other things that you know, there was a group today of prominent christian leaders from a number of different denomination who’s actually put out a statement obviously as you mentioned, it is the beginning of the season of lent and basically they said cut it out. we should not be using faith as a weapon, a political weapon. and i this i they’re right.
santorum
is largely gotten a major pass on one of the things that he said which was that is obama’s agenda is not based on the bible. it wasn’t just his theology that he went after. but you know, i would think for
tea party
members as well as moderate republicans and independent voters, there is such a thing as the
separation of church and state
. i think he’s gotten a pass on that. there are a lot of folks interested to hear more about what did he really mean by that. at the same time, i think
romney
has really clear little missed an opportunity to try to find his way into a conversation with independent voters because he’s been so damaged, if you will, with the far right and some of those social issues. again, those are voter who are less comfortable with some of this religious talk.

we should report that
bob mcdonald
has now, pardon the pun, reversed his view and withdrawn the idea of mandatorilitory transvaginal probing of women who are pregnant hog are seeking a termination and so on. but
newt gingrich
and his wife callista were asked this morning about the start of lent, of course, today is ash wednesday. take a listen to this,
karen
.

what are you giving up for lent? have you decided?

i am going to give up desserts, all desserts.

all right.

and just quickly.

i challenge you to ask what she’s giving up.

what are you giving up.

i’m giving up my opinion.

i’m assuming
karen
, she’s joking. it does seem a bit like women’s opinions have no place in the current republican environment.

apparently not. apparently women are just supposed to be quiet and sit in the back. we’re not allowed to show up at hearings about issues that affect us. we’re not allowed to have opinions. we’re just.

in can the fa, i suspect
darrell issa
would be disgusted you’re on this panel.

i’m sure he will be. you’ll just have to shut me up.

okay. ken,
mitt romney
‘s comeback strategy. first, don’t repeat anything that you only say at the
yacht club
. but what else? i mean, how does he take on
santorum
‘s burning and passion and wherever that burning is, how does he do it, ken?

i don’t think he takes it on by focusing on those social issues although we have heard him speak a little bit more about his religion recently which is potential will i a useful thing for him. however, he think we’re going to see him and have already seen him and his allies in the super pac that supports him take on
santorum
by highlighting his support for raising the debt ceiling, for ear marks. these are things, maybe they’re not shocked to hear
santorum
talk about religious issues,
satan
, hear talk about transvaginal probes. but that’s not where they want to see the focus. they want to see the focus on fiscal issues. ironically,
mitt romney
is kind of the enemy of the
tea party
. many tea partiers. that’s where he is strongest and that’s where he can come at
santorum
and really make some headway. i think we’ll hear that tonight in this debate as we have for the last several days.

judson
, very, very quickly, your feelings about how newt is going to do tonight. he’s your man.

i think he’s going do really well because he’s in the perfect position.
romney
has got to the take
santorum
out in this debate.
santorum
has got to defend himself. newt can do what he does best which is wait for the right moment, swoop in with his great point that leaves everybody on the stage nodding like bobbleheads and then go onto the next point.

and spread poison everywhere.

judson
,
karen
, ken, thank you very much for joining us.

Evangelist Franklin Graham questions Christianity of Obama and Romney

Franklin Graham, the son of prominent evangelist Billy Graham, questioned the Christianity of both President Obama and presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Tuesday.

Asked in an interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” if he believed Mr. Obama was a Christian, Graham said he would “have to assume” he is because “he has said he’s a Christian,” but then added that he cannot answer the question himself.

“You’ll have to ask President Obama,” Graham said, when asked directly what he believes about Mr. Obama’s faith.

“You can ask me ‘Do I believe you’re a Christian?’ I think the best thing for a person is to ask you directly, so I think people have to ask Barack Obama. He’s come out saying that he’s a Christian, so I think the question is ‘What is a Christian?’” Graham said.

Graham was also asked about the former Massachusetts governor, who is in tight race with Rick Santorum, a conservative Catholic, in next week’s Republican primary in Michigan.

“Most Christians would not recognize Mormonism as part of the Christian faith,” Graham said, declining to say outright that he does not count Romney, a Mormon, as a Christian.

“I’m just saying most Christians would not recognize Mormonism,” Graham said. “Of course, they believe in Jesus Christ, but they have a lot of other things they believe in too that we don’t accept theologically. But he would be a good president if he [won] the nomination.”

Graham suggested Mr. Obama is not as Christian as he could be, or as Christian as other presidential candidates on the trail.

“But the question is: What is a Christian? And a Christian is a person that believes Jesus Christ is God’s son who died on a cross for our sins who God raised to life. And that if we put our faith and trust in him, then God will forgive us of our sins. Now, that’s the definition of a Christian. I was 22 years old when I asked Christ to come into my heart. You cannot be born a Christian; you can only be converted. And that is by putting your faith and trust in Christ,” Graham said.

He said that, in a conversation he’d had with Mr. Obama a number of years ago, the president told him he’d started to go to church while working on the south side of Chicago because leaders in the community told him it was a necessity.

“So therefore, by your definition, he’s not a Christian,” prompted MSNBC’s Willie Geist.

“Again. You’d have to ask him. I cannot answer that question for anybody. All I know is that I’m a sinner and that God has forgiven me of my sins. Because I put my faith and trust in Jesus Christ. That’s all I know,” Graham said.

Graham had a different response when asked if Santorum was a Christian.

“Do you believe that Rick Santorum is a Christian?” asked Geist.

“I think so,” said Graham.

“How do you know? If the standard is only the person knows what’s within him, when you apply it to the president why is it different for Rick Santorum?” asked Geist.

Graham said he believes Santorum is “a man of faith” because of the “stand he takes” on moral issues.

“Well, because his values are so clear on moral issues. No question about it,” Graham said. “And I just appreciate the moral stand that he takes on these things. So I believe that he is. He comes from a Catholic faith; I’m Protestant so there are a lot of differences between what he believes and what I believe. But yet I think he is, no question, I believe he’s a man of faith.”

John Heilemann, a journalist and guest on the show, accused Graham of applying an “incredible double standard” to Mr. Obama and Santorum on the question of religion, given that previously he’d said that one can’t know the depth of another’s religious faith.

“No. I asked President Obama how he came to faith in Christ. And he said ‘I don’t go to church,’” Graham said. He said Santorum had been more persuasive on the question when he had a similar conversation with him about faith.

“You have to look at a person does with his life. Anyone can say that he’s a Christian, but you look at how they live,” Graham said.

Graham also said he thinks Gingrich is a Christian.

“I think Newt is a Christian,” he said. “At least he told me he is.”

Newsflash: Santorum Out of Touch With Catholic Theology

Does it make it better or worse that Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum — who seems to want to impose his own religious view on the rest of us (or at least on women) — is actually is out of touch with some central Catholic doctrines? I am not talking about his seemingly complete inability to honor Jesus’ radical idea that we love our enemies or spend at least as much time thinking about our own sins as condemning others. From where I sit these simple, undoubtedly traditional, and enormously difficult Christian values don’t enter into his thinking very much, if at all.

No, I’m talking about his recent attack on the values of environmentalism. After saying that President Obama was operating with a “phony, non-biblical theology,” he explained what he meant by claiming that the Obama administration followed a “radical” theology in which “man” was meant to serve nature. The true, the biblical view, Santorum tells us, is that “the earth is here to serve man.”

The big, glaring problem with these assertions for a self-proclaimed highly religious person is that for at least three decades countless religious leaders, theologians and ordinary people of faith have been talking, and acting, as serious environmentalists. (For details, and references to what follows, see my book A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and our Planet’s Future.)

To begin with, religious environmentalists reject Santorum’s (culturally male?) assumption that either we have to rule the earth or it has to rule us. Instead of thinking that in any relationship one party or the other has to be in charge, on top, or more important, religious environmentalists have talked of “partnership,” “cooperation,” “recognition,” “reciprocity,” “interdependence” and even “love.” They have stressed that whatever is done to nature will ultimately rebound onto humans; and integrated issues of class and race into a concept of “eco-justice” which seeks, in the words of the World Council of Churches, to join a society of peace and justice with a human respect for and support of the “integrity of creation.”

Let’s be clear: the advent of religious environmentalism is not simply the province of the “usual suspects” of often politically progressive liberal Protestants, Reform Jews or Engaged Buddhists. Generally conservative Evangelical Christians in the U.S. have some vibrant and active environmental groups and environmentalism is now, as the saying goes, as Catholic as the Pope.

Consider how John Paul II virtually began his Papacy by naming St. Francis as the patron saint of those would seek to protect the environment; and soon after challenged the validity of an unquestioned faith in technology as something that increased the “threat of pollution of the natural environment.” In this caution the Pope was not simply recognizing the negative impacts of pollution on people. He was also warning against a human alienation from nature, and asserting that God wanted people to be “guardians” as well as “masters” of the earth. That is why, he argued, our relations with nature are not simply a matter of human convenience, but are subject to moral laws — just as our relations with other people. Morally our current treatment of the earth suffers from a “lack of respect” — not just reckless and imprudent exploitation: “Respect for life and for the dignity of the human person extends also to the rest of creation, which is called to join man in praising God.”

Finally, in a statement which seems to border on a mix of deep ecology or paganism – -remarkable for the leader of a religion which for centuries had violently persecuted indigenous spiritual traditions — John Paul offered the hope that “If nature is not violated and humiliated, it returns to being the sister of humanity.”

Comparable statements, with a variety of emphases and language, can be found in “Renewing the Earth,” a U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops statement from 1991. Not content to simply rest with well-intentioned proclamations, the Council created resource kits for local parishes with names like “God’s creation and our responsibility” and “Renewing the Face of the Earth,” and included of material to enable theology to become part of the daily life of a local church: source material for sermons, precise and accessible summaries of the church’s teachings, suggestions for prayer and worship, opportunities for environmental action, and examples of such action taken by other parishes. The kits, mailed three times to each of the nineteen thousand U.S. parishes, strongly emphasize that, as the Pope had stated clearly, justice for humans and justice for nature are intertwined.

Thus Santorum’s virtual ignoring of environmental issues — check his website for statements of environmental concern and if you find even one, let me know — may be correct or incorrect, depending on your point of view. But it is not orthodox Catholicism — at least not the morally, politically and spiritually serious Catholicism of 2012, one that has been reshaped by the reality of a global environmental crisis. It is as if Santorum might support kings over democracy because the Church did so in 1750 — failing to notice that the Church had changed its thinking about the role of common people in political life.

If the devil, as it is said, can quote scripture to his own purpose, so can political candidates. Is it that hard to see what those purposes are? And which social forces (corporations) and destructive cultural forms (consumerism) are really the Master such candidates serve?

Will presidential candidates wear ashes at Wednesday debate?

Editor’s note: Tune in Wednesday at 8 p.m. ET for the last presidential debate before Super Tuesday, the CNN/Arizona Republican Party Debate hosted by John King. Follow it on Twitter at #CNNDebate and on Facebook at CNN Politics. For real-time coverage of the Arizona and Michigan primaries, go to CNNPolitics.com or to CNN apps or the CNN mobile site.

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Washington (CNN) – “You’ve got something on your forehead.”

Every year on Ash Wednesday it’s how the awkward conversation begins.  A well meaning co-worker points out a black smudge on someone’s forehead, not knowing it’s supposed to be there.

The smudge is the imposition of ashes, often on the forehead in the shape of a cross.  Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Lenten season, when Christians take time to prepare for Easter through a time of fasting and prayer.  The  imposition of ashes nears a holy obligation for many Catholics, although technically it is not.

As two prominent Catholic presidential candidates take to the debate stage for the CNN Republican Presidential Debate in Mesa, Arizona, lots of people are asking will they or won’t they wear ashes?

In the race for the Republican nomination for the White House, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have made no secret of their Catholic faith.

Santorum was born into a Catholic family and served as an altar boy.  A Santorum aide told CNN that Santorum attended Mass Wednesday morning in Mesa, Arizona.  He was spotted by CNN’s Kevin Bohn after Mass at his hotel with ash on his forehead.

Gingrich converted later in life as an adult to Catholicism. The former House Speaker told CNN’s Shawna Shepherd on Wednesday that he would not be going to Mass on Ash Wednesday. Though he said he’s been in the past, Gingrich noted that Ash Wednesday is “not a holy day of obligation,” referring to days on which Catholics are required to attend Mass.

Gingrich did say he was giving up dessert for Lent, while his wife Callista Gingrich joked that she was giving up “her opinion.”

As the presidential hopefuls get ready to take the stage under the lights and pancake makeup on Wednesday night, what’s a Catholic candidate to do?

CNN’s Belief Blog – all the faith angles to the day’s top stories

“There is no regulation or even a suggestion regarding how long the ashes remain,” according to Monsignor Rick Hilgartner, the executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat of Divine Worship.  Hilgartner helps the Catholic church in the United States oversee liturgical matters.

“Sometimes they just don’t ‘stick’ for long, so if someone receives them in the morning they might simply brush off through normal routines later in the day,” he said.

The ashes come from palm fronds, or the stems and leaves, used to celebrate Palm Sunday. Palm Sunday marks the beginning of Holy Week when Christians remember Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey and being greeted like a king, with the crowd waving palm fronds and laying their coats on the ground. During Holy Week Christians remember the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Easter Sunday marks the end of Holy Week and the end of any Lenten fasts.

In the Catholic tradition parishioners keep the palm fronds in their house all year, until the start of the Lenten season. The church then collects the fronds and burns them to create the ash.

Receiving ashes is a symbolic gesture, said Hilgartner.  He notes in different countries the ashes are distributed in different ways.  In Italy, for example, ashes are sprinkled over the top of the head.  Last year on Ash Wednesday, Pope Benedict XVI received his ashes sprinkled on the top of his head.

“Whatever the method, the symbolic gesture is just that…There is no discussion about what might be ‘valid’ or ‘licit,’” he said.

The ashes are a physical reminder of mortality and a call to live a better life. In the Catholic tradition when they are applied a priest can say, “Remember man, from dust you came and from dust you shall return” or “Repent and believe in the Gospel.”

Suppose a Catholic who happened to be running for president needed makeup for a televised debate, Hilgarten says there would be nothing wrong, “if out of necessity the ashes were removed in order to prepare makeup for a public appearance.”

“It’s not like a tattoo. They could get them and by the time they’re doing their debate they could be gone,” Monsignor Crosby Kern said. Kern is the pastor at the Saint Louis Cathedral in New Orleans, Louisiana.

“Catholics are not required to get ashes,” Kern said. Ash Wednesday is not a Holy Day of Obligation in the Catholic liturgical calender, as Christmas, Easter, and several other days are.

While the New Orleans Police department may be busy on Mardi Gras night clearing Bourbon Street of tourists, Kern said come Ash Wednesday morning the faithful show up en mass to get their ashes.

“We’re full at the cathedral. We have three masses and they’ll all be full,” he said.

While it may not be an obligation, it is an important tradition for millions of Catholics.

In Washington, politicians often are seen with ashes. Most notably in recent years, Vice President Joe Biden has been seen on past Ash Wednesdays with the ash on his forehead.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama released a statement on Ash Wednesday.

“Today, Michelle and I honor Ash Wednesday with Christians around the country and across the world,” the statement said. “This is at once a solemn and joyous occasion, an opportunity to remember both the depths of sacrifice and the height of redemption. We join millions in entering the Lenten Season with truly thankful hearts, mindful of our faith and our obligations to one another.”

With Gingrich choosing not to get ashes and Santorum receiving them, the question remains whether Santorum will make an effort to keep them for their time in the national spotlight.

–CNN’s Shawna Shepherd, Dana Bash, and Kevin Bohn contributed to this report.

Santorum: ‘Theology’ comments about Obama’s ‘radical’ energy agenda, not faith

This is a rush transcript from “Hannity,” February 20, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And there was controversy on the campaign trail over the weekend after some on the left accused presidential candidate Rick Santorum of questioning Barack Obama’s Christian values. Now, the senator denies doing so, and very openly admits that he accepts the fact that the President is a Christian. He simply says that the following statement is being taken out of context. Let’s take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANTORUM: It doesn’t fit his pattern of trying to drive down consumption, trying to drive up your cost of transportation, to accomplish his political science goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This is what the president’s agenda is. It’s not about you. It’s not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on Bible. A different theology.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Obama supporters have ignored the fact that the senator was talking about radical environmentalism and not the president’s religion. Instead they are turning this into a political football. Here is our old friend — we’ve missed him — Robert Gibbs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THIS WEEK”/ABC)

ROBERT GIBBS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think, it is time in our politics in which we get rid of this mindset that if we disagree we have to disqualify each other. That if we — not just on political positions but we question character and faith.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Do you think he was questioning his faith?

GIBBS: I can’t help but think that those remarks are well over the line. It is wrong, it’s destructive, it makes it virtually impossible to solve the problems that we all face together as Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: And joining me tonight to respond to our friend Robert Gibbs and to set the record straight once and for all, is the candidate himself, presidential candidate Rick Santorum. By the way, did President Obama say that Republicans want dirty air and water and old people and kids with autism and Down syndrome to fend for themselves –

SANTORUM: Sure.

HANNITY: Now, we got a lecture on civility from Robert Gibbs. I’m sorry, I missed that before.

SANTORUM: Yes. Throwing grandma off the cliff because we want to reform the Medicare system. This is — it’s very clear. You know, what I was talking about is the president’s driving up of gas prices. I was just in Brocket (ph) in North Dakota. And, you know, I was standing at a wellhead. And they told me that they have to sell this light sweet crude which is a premium product. I mean, this is the most highly valued crude out there. And they have to sell it to the $32 discount. Why? Because they don’t have a way to get it to the market. Because this radical environmental agenda of this president, not building the Keystone pipeline, not providing the opportunity as we’re going to lose probably the next five to 10 years, four to five million barrels a day from Alaska, Mexico, Venezuela. And we have an opportunity to build a pipeline, so we can get oil sands, oil from the oil sands in Canada and oil shale in the Backen (ph) and this president holds, you know, holds to this higher power that somehow or another, we have to worry about the global warming. That is what I considered a radical ideology. And I refer to it as a theology. But obviously, it has nothing to do with the president’s faith.

HANNITY: Let me ask you this. Because I remember you saying this. Didn’t you on numerous other occasions when asked about the president and his faith and Christianity, say that you believe he is a Christian, that he stated his Christianity.

SANTORUM: Sure.

HANNITY: How many times do you think you’ve said that on the campaign trail and elsewhere?

SANTORUM: Just about every time. I mean, look, he went to Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years. I mean, now you can question what kind of theology Reverend Wright has but it’s a Christian church. He says, he’s a Christian, he goes to Christian church now. Look, I am not going to question the president and what the president believes in when it comes to his faith. But I am going to question what he is doing in this country to drive up the cost of energy, destroy this economy and do so at the behest of a bunch of radical environmentalists who do, in fact, want to drive up the cost of energy and slow down this economy.

HANNITY: But it is interesting, because the president himself, you know, he used the quote, at the prayer breakfast that you just referenced here, and, you know, for on to whom much is given much should be required. And wasn’t he using that to justify in that particular case him quote, “Raising taxes on the rich,” so he can redistribute wealth? I mean, was he questioning the Christian faith of those that think we are overtaxed? Can we interpret it that way? As I watched you on “Face the Nation” this weekend, I was thinking, you know, why does the media have this double standard when it comes to President Obama?

SANTORUM: Well, it’s perfectly clear. I mean, let’s be honest. This is standard fare. I mean, I’m not saying anything particularly new here. I mean, what we have been talking about, the radical environmental agenda that puts the earth over the needs of man, that, you know, doesn’t understand that the best way to create a sound environment is for people to be doing well and to have prosperity. Because you go to countries where in fact the mankind is not doing well. And let me assure you, the last thing they worry about is the environment. It depends on America’s growth and prosperity, so we can in fact be good — husband to the environment as the way we should. And that is all I was talking about. And for them to continually distort, this is the kind of stuff that I think is actually, I think one of the reasons we’re doing well in the polls, because people see it for what it is. They see a national media trying to destroy conservatives.

HANNITY: Let me ask you this. Because this I think is very, very important. Because obviously your vetting is going on right now. And it seems to more than anything else revolve around social issues and social conservatism. You talk a lot about national security and about the economy. And about Iran as a threat. All these things. But it seems to now be focused more than anything else as you know about these issues. As senator, and you are Catholic, you have your views on birth control that as I understand that are in sync with the Catholic Church, is that correct?

SANTORUM: Right. They are. Yes.

HANNITY: OK. Now in your years as senator, did you ever vote to ban birth control? Would you ever vote to ban birth control? Did you ever vote to deny funding for government programs that provide contraceptive or birth control? It looks like you are laughing, or frustrated. I’m not trying to frustrate you. I’m trying to –

SANTORUM: No, no, no, I’m not frustrated at all. I mean, you know, look, this issue is not about birth control. I mean, there is nothing in my record that shows that I try to block anybody from getting birth control. Look, I’m not a big fan of Title X, that is Planned Parenthood. No, I want to defund Planned Parenthood. I supported, you know, title 20 programs. You know, not providing, you know, Planned Parenthood with all these government dollars for that purpose. But as far as people’s right to get them, absolutely people have the right to get them. It’s a country, this is a freedom that people have. And there is nothing in my record that would impose my values on this. But that is not the question here. The question is religious liberty. What the Obama administration was doing was telling a group of Catholics or people of faith that they had to do, they had to violate their own faith in order to do something –

HANNITY: On the contraception mandate.

SANTORUM: – the government told them they had to do. Yes. That’s right.

HANNITY: Go ahead. I wasn’t questioning your position on that. Because I think that has been very well vetted now. And I think it was a clear violation of our first amendment on a lot of different areas. But it seems that right now, that there are people that are trying to position you as an extreme social conservative that in a general election is going to have a hard time, you know, syncing up with the feelings or sentiment of the nation and getting elected against Obama in a general election matchup. So, that’s why I wanted to get to specifics of it.

SANTORUM: Yes, well, the specifics are, you know, not everything that is immoral — look, I don’t believe people should lie. But I’m not going to pass a law that is going to criminalize lying. I mean, this is the absurdity again of the tenets, that when you stand up and you say well, you know, this is how I believe morally that I should live my life. All of a sudden now, because your moral values don’t comport with what their moral values are, all of a sudden, oh, he must be trying to impose his values. This is the kind of, you know, this makes it, you know, really a war on people of faith. Particularly the Catholic faith. Which again, I mean, it’s very clear what the Obama administration is doing on that front. And it’s very clear that if you hold those type of beliefs, that you’re going to be held up for ridicule for doing so, and accused of doing something which I haven’t done in my political career, which is to try to impose those values on anybody else.

Content and Programming Copyright 2012 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2012 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

Is righteous Rick Santorum too scary to be President?

Rick Santorum speaks with a Catholic stridency rarely seen in British politics (Photo: EPA)

Perhaps it is because I was brought up as a middle-of-the-road English Catholic – show up on Sundays, eat fish on Fridays (more expensive than meat now, of course) and don’t ever sing the hymns too loudly (that’s a vulgar habit Anglicans have) – that I find Rick Santorum so, um, well …scary.

Mr Santorum has been surging to the fore in the Republican nomination contest these last two weeks, riding high in the Rustbelt on a combination of his religious convictions and a blue collar, son-of-an immigrant backstory that resonates with the slump-hit voters of the American Midwest.

But in truth it is the religious part of the Santorum package that has me quailing like a choirboy caught swigging on the altar wine – and yes, Bless me Father, in that regard, I have sinned.

The latest Santorum pronouncement to send shivers along the pews is his remark this weekend that pre-natal testing (amniocentesis) is part of an Obama-backed plan to “cull the ranks of the disabled in our society” through the rising number of abortions that result from the tests.

The language is brutal (and, in point of fact, truthful) but more than that, it is Mr Santorum’s righteousness that risks alienating him from the popular mind.

Unlike the thrice-married Mr Gingrich (his fellow Catholic candidate) Mr Santorum is no hypocrite, which is exactly my point. I rather like hypocrites, I find them comforting since they remind me of myself and almost everyone else I know.

But Mr Santorum is moral tungsten. He has a child, Bella, with the usually-fatal genetic disorder Trisomy 18 and six other living children to prove that he has always practiced what the Catholic church preaches when it comes to contraception.

Were I a practicing Catholic I’m sure I’d admire Mr Santorum’s trueness to the teachings of Rome, but to me, even for Catholics, these must be intensely personal moral choices (particularly for women) and not the stuff of point-scoring on the campaign trail.

Personally, I can’t escape the whiff of the witch-hunt about Mr Santorum, who is of a breed of Catholic unfamiliar to us English: a man of the strictest Catholic theology (he’s a big fan of Opus Dei, for example, and sent his children to an Opus Dei affiliated school in Washington) whose message is transmitted through a distinctly evangelical amplifier.

Perhaps it is just my Benedictine education (even the monks at my school admitted they were scared of the Jesuits and their ‘pressure-cooker’ spirituality) but I’m afraid I can’t find much that’s terribly sympathetic or merciful in Mr Santorum, and I’m not sure that’s a particularly good quality in a man who wants to assume the awesome responsibilities of the US presidency.

Why does Santorum despise the separation of church and state?

Secular-baiting has become something of an art form in high GOP circles ever since Newt Gingrich began his pioneering explorations of the genre back in the 1990s.

A milestone in the evolution of this rhetoric occurred in 2007 when Mitt Romney likened secularism to radical Jihadism in a memorable speech.

Those were impressive accomplishments, for sure. But let me say that no one, but no one, can demonize, Talibanize, or Stalinize secularism like Rick Santorum. On occasion he has done so, I would admit, with a fair degree of intellectual seriousness, as in this 2010 speech. Though for the most part his pronouncements on the subject amount to rank and preposterous name-calling.

View Photo Gallery: Scenes of religious faith meeting politics in the 2012 campaign.

Back in 2003 he lamented: “I want to remind people of the societies that have been secular in nature. Starting with the French Revolution, moving onto the fascists, and the Nazis and the communists and the Baathists, all of those purely secularists hated religion, tried to crush religion.”

Recently he claimed the Obama administration believes that “secular values should be imposed on people of faith.” “Don’t you see,” Santorum sighed, “how they see you? How they look down their noses at the average Americans. These elitist snobs!”

Needless to say, Santorum’s aversion to separation of church and state has led him to repeatedly anathematize John F. Kennedy. For it was the nation’s first Catholic president who famously called in 1961 for separation. Looking back, Santorum was “frankly appalled” by Kennedy’s “radical” stance.

Fresh off his three victories last week, Santorum upped the ante: “the intolerance of the secular ideology. It is a religion unto itself. It is just not a biblical based religion. And it is the most intolerant just like we saw in the days of the atheists in the Soviet Union. . .and they fear dissent why? Because the dissent comes from folks who use reason, common sense, and divine revelation and they want no part of any of those things.”

So let’s review, shall we? Secularism is defined by Santorum variously as a religion, intolerant of religion, atheist, leftist, liberal, intolerant of dissent, Gallic, Nazi, Communist, elitist and, of course, the official ideology of the Obama administration. Oddly, in a recent debate we found candidate Santorum praising “secular” Pakistan over a theocratic Iran, but by now the reader may realize that when it comes to public discussions of secularism logical coherence is expressly discouraged.

The truth is that for decades terms like “secular,” “secular humanist,” “atheist,” and “liberal,” have been used by the right as if all were synonyms of one another and synonyms of every form of depravity known to the species. Santorum is not the first conservative Christian public figure to draw these loose associations, though he is presently the most visible.

This raises the question of why the practice of disparaging secularism has continued for so long. This is a complex prompt, but I want to suggest one quick answer here. The highfalutin’ rhetorical assaults on secularism permit culture warriors to avoid the real problem of how to let religion function in a public square teeming with diverse and often antagonistic religious actors.

It is easy, lucrative, and even pleasurable, to pulverize sinister secularism. It rallies the base, secures contributions, and helps conservative voters focus on demonic (i.e., liberal, Democratic) forces possessing our political system. It is much harder, however, to explain how citizens who base their civic thinking on Santorum’s “divine revelation” could possibly live in peace when those revelations might lead them to completely different policy prescriptions. Anti-secular rhetoric, at its core, is a demagogic evasion.

Yet Santorum and others will keep baiting secularism, and evading difficult issues, until someone stops them. As I think through the future of an admittedly troubled secular movement, I note that Santorum’s co-religionists often have a far better appreciation of the value of the secular than he does.

Writing in the magazine America, the Jesuit Raymond Schroth reflects on the vast discrepancy between Santorum’s views on Kennedy and his own: “I don’t know where Santorum was in 1960, but he was two years old. I was surrounded by Jesuit scholastics in philosophy studies. We knew the speech had been written with the advice of Catholic theologians and that Kennedy knew the proper role of conscience, as well as religion, in making public decisions.”
Father Michael Ssenfuma conducts the Catholic Mass Sunday at St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Montgomery, Ala. (AP)

It may be lost upon candidate Santorum, but religious minorities in America such as Catholics often have pragmatic reasons for being wary of permitting religion to play too large a role in public life. This truism is often lost upon anti-theist movement secularists as well. Which is unfortunate because it is precisely by reaching out to religious individuals that the secular movement can re-energize itself.

You’ve heard of evangelicals, but just who are they?

Evangelicals have been in the news a lot lately, from the Denver Broncos’ Tim Tebow and his take-a-knee prayers to the Texas pastor and his wife who spent 24 hours in bed preaching the virtues of sex in Christian marriages.

Mitt Romney is struggling to gain evangelical support for his presidential bid, and Rick Santorum — a Catholic — won the blessing of more than 100 evangelical pastors gathered at a Texas ranch.

So who are these Christians? What do they have in common and how are they different from other believers? Even famed preacher Billy Graham wasn’t sure of the answer.

“Actually, that’s a question, I’d like to ask somebody, too,” Graham told religion reporter Terry Mattingly in a 1987 interview. “The lines (have) become blurred. … You go all the way from the extreme fundamentalists to the extreme liberals and, somewhere in between, there are the evangelicals.”

So here’s a primer about these religious types, their history, faith and politics:

Who is an evangelical?

Technically, all Christians are, according to the Religion Newswriters Association’s Religion Stylebook. The word comes from the Greek “evangelion,” which means “good news” or “gospel.” And all who claim to follow Jesus Christ feel obligated to share his gospel.

But the term “evangelical” has come to refer mostly to a type of Protestant, explains Pastor Corey Hodges of New Pilgrim Baptist Church in Kearns, Utah: Evangelicals believe in the Trinity; that the Bible alone is the inerrant and infallible word of God; that salvation is by grace alone through faith and not accomplished by human effort or achievement; and that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and his death and resurrection were the payment for human sin.

Notre Dame historian Mark Noll, author of “Protestantism: A Very Short Introduction,” recommends a wider description, one penned by British historian David Bebbington. Bebbington identified an emphasis on the “new birth” as a life-changing experience of God and a concern for sharing the faith. The trouble, Noll notes, is that “these evangelical traits have never by themselves yielded cohesive, institutionally compact, or clearly demarcated groups of Christians, but (rather) … identify a large family of churches and religious enterprises.”

In other words, “evangelical” is not the name of a single church. Indeed, says John Morehead, director of the Western Institute for Intercultural Studies in Salt Lake City, “evangelicalism is a movement that encompasses a variety of denominations and independent traditions.”

Mattingly, director of the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, expands the definition further, saying “evangelicals have always been a cultural niche/commercial product kind of thing. No set doctrines.”

What sets evangelicals apart from fundamentalists?

Noll: The serious answer is the ‘eye of the beholder.’ I believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ, which makes me a fundamentalist in the eyes of some people, but I take an occasional glass of wine and don’t worry about evolution, which means that, for many people, I can’t be a fundamentalist.

Hodges: Fundamentalists generally believe that culture is evil and corrosive. Their views usually result in isolation from the culture and/or bigotry. Evangelicals believe the culture is redeemable and can and should be impacted by Christians.

Who came first, evangelicals or

fundamentalists?

The 1910 Presbyterian General Assembly declared that all ministerial candidates had to subscribe “to five fundamental doctrines,” according to a recent article in Christian History magazine, “the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the historicity of the biblical miracles.”

For the next decades, the magazine said, a battle ensued in nearly every mainline Protestant body between fundamentalists and “those who wanted to remain ‘tolerant’ and ‘open-minded’ in response to modern learning.”

Fundamentalists lost.

Eventually, a new group emerged, calling themselves “the New Evangelicals,” the article said, hoping “to distance themselves from the anti-intellectual, militant, culture-shunning traits that had begun to characterize much of

fundamentalism.”

How are evangelicals different from Pentecostals?

Pentecostals are a particular subgroup of evangelicals, who believe in the same basic doctrines but emphasize “the work of the Holy Spirit,” including healing, speaking in tongues, and prophecy.

Hodges: They tend to focus more on existential and experiential faith. Pentecostal theology generally emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit, while other evangelicals focus more on the work of Christ.

Why don’t some evangelicals think Mormons are Christian?

It stems, mainly, from the Mormon view of God and Jesus and the Mormon belief in extra scriptures, which are essentially the same objections that Catholic, Orthodox and liberal Protestants have.

Evangelicals and traditional Christians believe in the Trinity — that God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one substance. Mormons believe God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate beings. Evangelicals also heed the Bible as the sole word of God, while Latter-day Saints believe in the Bible and other scriptures, including the faith’s signature Book of Mormon.

Noll: I’m not sure all evangelicals would say categorically that all Mormons are not Christians. But the prominence given to revelation through Joseph Smith (and not just the Bible), doctrines like the materiality of God, rites that seem strange and unbiblical (temple rites and early day polygamy), and (sociologically speaking) the separated nature of Mormon religious life are all issues for evangelicals.

Morehead: Mormons and evangelicals approach the definition of Christian very differently. Evangelicals, with their emphasis on correct doctrine as developed within the history of the church and its various creeds, see Mormonism as presenting something quite different, and at odds, with the historic creedal statements of Christendom.

Can Catholics be evangelicals?

Hodges: No. The Protestant and, ultimately, the evangelical movement arose from frustration with the Catholic Church’s theology. Some Catholic theology runs contrary to that of evangelicals. For instance, confession of sins to the priest runs contrary to the evangelical belief of the priesthood of all believers.

Mattingly: Using the word accurately, no. It is a Protestant term. Catholics can, of course, be evangelists.

Morehead: Typically Catholics are not evangelical in that they not only accept the authority of the Bible, but also give a prominent place to the authority of the church, the pope, and church tradition.

Noll: Yes, maybe. Fifty years ago, ‘evangelical Protestant’ and ‘Roman Catholic’ were mutually exclusive, but now there is considerably more overlap. Many traditional evangelicals would continue to insist that a Catholic simply cannot be an evangelical. But there are others, even quite conservative, who would say otherwise.

Rick Santorum’s very Catholic birth control beliefs

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum at a rally Feb. 14 in Boise, Idaho.
(Charlie Litchfield – AP)
When it comes to the morality of birth control, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum is reading straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Post’s Right Turn blogger Jennifer Rubin recently drew attention to the former Pennsylvania senator’s 2006 comments on contraception, which he called “harmful to women.” Santorum has spoken frequently over the years about why he believes private morality is relevant in the public square.

The teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality, which prohibit the use of artificial birth control, are not particularly popular among Catholics, not to mention Americans at large, but that has not stopped Santorum from sharing his convictions on the harms of contraception. (Read what the church teaches about family planning here.)

Here’s Santorum, a father of seven, during a 2011 interview with the CaffeinatedThoughts.com blog (emphasis mine):

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’ It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

[Sexual relationships] are supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal and unitive but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it, and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong, but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Here’s the passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that echoes the sentiments raised by Santorum:

The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

Santorum’s beliefs about contraception have injected Catholic theology into a presidential campaign season that was supposed to be all about the economy. Despite his strong opinions on birth control, the senator has said many times that he does not believe that contraception should be outlawed.

And when it comes to this week’s explosive social issues controversy, Health and Human Service’s new regulations on religious employers covering birth control for employees, Santorum sides with Catholic Church officials, too. Here’s his explanation during the Feb. 12 “Meet the Press” of how he squares his own views on birth control with access to contraception and the current health-care debate:

David Gregory: Do you think this is a public health issue for women? I’ve heard you say before you think contraception is dangerous.

Santorum: Well, I — what I’ve talked about it with respect is my Catholic faith, which, you know, I, I agree with the Catholic Church on the issue of contraception. But as you know, I mean, I — that’s, that’s a different position than I have with respect to public policy. You know, public policy, women should have access to contraception. I have no problem with that at all. The question is whether some religious organization should be forced to pay for something that they believe is a moral wrong, and the issue is — the answer to that is no. And under the Obama administration policy, they are continuing to be forced to do so.