The Cellar - Rick Santorum applies for a new job

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Rick Santorum applies for a new job - Grand Inquisitor (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19647)

Rick Santorum applies for a new job - Grand Inquisitor

It looks like Rick Santorum is job hunting. The Catholic Church has not had a Grand Inquisitor since the 1820's. Judging by Rick's column, he's making a bid for the job.

Quote:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a self-proclaimed "ardent, practicing Catholic," had an opportunity last week to meet a fellow ardent Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI. It appears that the pope used the visit to educate a confused Pelosi about the Roman Catholic Church's long-held position on the life issue.

Quote:

That's why Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino got so much national attention last fall. Martino, formerly the auxiliary bishop of Philadelphia, made the welcome decision to publicly bar then Sen. Joe Biden and other abortion advocates from receiving Communion in the Scranton Diocese. Then, after the November election, he admonished his brother bishops for their reluctance to deal with the issue faithfully.
Last month, Martino took on the most influential family in his diocese, the Caseys. He excoriated Sen. Bob Casey, who claims to be pro-life, for voting to give taxpayer dollars to overseas organizations that perform abortions. He warned that Casey was "formally cooperating with evil."
Martino was not done. Two weeks ago, the Philadelphia native and St. Joseph's Prep graduate issued a strong statement of disapproval to a local, nominally Catholic college, Misericordia University, that had scheduled a speech on campus by someone advocating same-sex marriage. "The faithful of the Diocese of Scranton should be in no doubt," Martino said, "that Misericordia University in this instance is seriously failing in maintaining its Catholic identity."
Then, last week, Martino took on some more of the biggest guns in the diocese: the Irish clubs that organize the largest public Catholic event of the year, the St. Patrick's Day festivities. Through a letter from his Irish auxiliary bishop, Martino warned that if any of these groups went ahead with plans that in any way honor politicians who are not pro-life, he would close the cathedral where Mass is usually held prior to the parade, as well as other diocesan churches. He said he would not countenance anything that created confusion about the teachings of the church.
The reason for the letter: Scranton's St. Patrick's Day parade last year featured Hillary Clinton.
Many of his brother bishops will look at Martino as they do at other uncompromising defenders of the faith, worrying about the world's reaction. As a Philly guy, though, his excellency knows something about being booed. He also knows his job and calling: to be the good shepherd who faithfully leads and protects his flock from those who would lead them astray.

You go Rick. You may have pitifully sucked representing me, but hey, I'm Jewish, so maybe it makes sense now. You may have just found your true calling.

And may the bonfires you light at the feet of liberal heretics everywhere shine as a beacon to your willingness to do and believe whatever it takes to get the job done.

Rick Santorum is a sick man.

I was completely disgusted when he had the news story run about his wife's miscarriage, and how he brought the dead fetus home, and had his children say their goodbyes before it was buried in their backyard.

That was such a private matter; the public does not need to know about those things. But apparently Mr. Santorum craves attention so badly, that he has to take the extreme route via the media. This column is no exception.

I am so relieved that we got that freak out of office. But it's not just him that's the problem, of course. Certain "official" stances of the Catholic church are completely wrong, and I think that has too much to do with the huge political power that it enjoys.

Good old "Dirty Ricky", still a hypocrite, still hilarious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluecuracao (Post 539477)

Some altering perspectives from snopes:

Quote:

On the contrary, if Senator Santorum were part of an obscure Asian or Native American sect, and especially if he were on the left side of the political spectrum, he would probably be celebrated by same people who now label him as a nutbag. Shoot, there might even be some compassion for his family's loss.

I don't really see anything wrong with what the Santorums did, if it brings comfort to them. The kids will be fine.

I've known a couple of people who have suffered a stillbirth or a newborn's death. In one case, years ago, the mother was placed under general anesthetic for a C-section; the baby died; the body was whisked away to be cremated (with the dad's permission) before the mother woke up. The dad thought he was doing the right thing, and sparing her feelings, but it caused her unbearable pain that she never got the see the baby.

It seems that counselors in hospitals these days realize that many families want to see the body and to have a chance to grieve, and that most families recover better if their loss is treated as "real" as they go through the grieving process.

Quote:

I shouldn't have read everything that was said within this topic... kind of painful...

But I can understand why that man wouldn't want his child to be known as a "fetus". I don't much care about scientific definition. I lost my baby when I was only 5 weeks pregnant and I call him my "baby".

It's more about emotional attachment than scientific terms and analogies.

You cannot pass judgment until you have experienced it. Should he have called the media? NO!
Did he really? I cannot find where he did. If so, that is shameful. But no one forced the media to publish their reports either. Shame on them as well, if not more. He was certainly in a bad state of mind after having just lost his child.

As one who has personally gone through this tragedy I fell nothing but sorrow for him and his family. I do not like his politics, but there is no reason to bring this up either.

I'm not going to judge Rick's personal decisions or beliefs, except where it directly impacts his decisions representing me as a public official. Unfortunately, he seems unable to provide me or anyone else the same courtesy when it conflicts with his dogma.

Can you just image Rick on a commission investigating child abuse in the church? If he'd been there at the beginning, would he have exposed the abuse or conspired with Archbishop Law and others to keep it a secret?

How dirty is he willing to get to keep clean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 539533)

Some altering perspectives from snopes:

You cannot pass judgment until you have experienced it. Should he have called the media? NO!
Did he really? I cannot find where he did. If so, that is shameful. But no one forced the media to publish their reports either. Shame on them as well, if not more. He was certainly in a bad state of mind after having just lost his child.

As one who has personally gone through this tragedy I fell nothing but sorrow for him and his family. I do not like his politics, but there is no reason to bring this up either.

Classic, I wasn't criticizing what happened to him, and how he and his family dealt with it. What I am appalled about is that he went very public with it for political purposes, which it looks like you may have to trust me on, as I can't find it on the internets either after a cursory look. The coverage was out almost three years ago, while Casey was running against him for his seat.

Sorry, but I think it should be brought up when discussing Santorum. We need to be reminded of what sort of twisted person he is, so that he never gains the power he once had again. It's quite apparent that he is not content to stay out of the public eye since losing the election.

Fair enough - I'll take your word for it. I really don't remember that at all and given my situation, I think I would have.

Quote:

It's quite apparent that he is not content to stay out of the public eye since losing the election.

He has what I believe is a regular column in the Inquirer. If I get sleepy late in the shift I look for it. Guaranteed to double my blood pressure and wake me right up.:mad2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 539693)

He has what I believe is a regular column in the Inquirer. If I get sleepy late in the shift I look for it. Guaranteed to double my blood pressure and wake me right up.:mad2:

Reading his column is like listening to Kathy Bate's character in Misery. Listening to her calm and rational tone while she reaches for the sledgehammer....:thepain:

Rick Santorum is a tool, a very dangerous tool. A very dangerous, ancient tool. Like one of those horrific devices used during the inquisitions to torture innocent people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 539533)

Some altering perspectives from snopes:

I must agree. It says absolutely nothing about his abilities as a politician. It was a very personal decision and the public should stay out of it. It is no one's business and has no bearing on the abilities of the man in the arena.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 539793)

True, true.

Real reasons Rick Santorum should not be allowed near anything resembling public power:

1. He is a proponent of - and tried to legislate the teaching of - "intelligent design" (google "Santorum language No Child Left Behind) in public schools.

2. He believes homosexuals are by definition pedophiles. He believes legislation should be based on this.

3. He believes that pedophile priests in Boston were caused by liberalism, and driven by it to commit their crimes. Obviously, nobody who lives in a Hannity-esque dreamworld like that needs to be writing legislation.

4. He shoved some hilarious pork onto the Katrina relief bill, involving tax credits for synthetic fuels.

5. He defrauded the school system and the election system, by claiming to live in PA, while he actually rented that house out and lived in VA.

6. His evidence that Saddam was going to kill us all if we didn't invade? "It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.".

7. He believes that the women in poor families work because "radical feminism" makes them, not because they might, you know, starve to death otherwise (Amusingly enough, this is WHY he isn't in government. Republican women dropped him like a hot rock for his characterization of why they work.).

I could go on, but what's the point? Santorum got CREAMED in his last election bid, 56-41, the largest defeat in PA history, and the largest defeat of an incumbent American senator since poor old George McGovern was buried alive in 1980.

He's done.

Good enough reasons for me. Given that list I would tend to agree with you.

Would the Republicans PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE run a Palin/Santorum ticket in 2012? I'd donate $2000 and a lung if they'd just do that.

Of course, maybe it's a good thing that they stay separated. If two people with views that strongly against evolution were ever in the same place, then they might cause a ripple in causality that would instantly revert the human race to primordial slime.

This would not be a bad result for Santorum, he could use the company.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 539793)

Your wording is a little strange, but I see you basically agree with me--the media and public should have been kept out of it. :rolleyes: