Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum — locked in a bitter battle with rival Mitt Romney over the states of Michigan and Arizona, which vote on Tuesday — has been beaten up quite after a 2008 speech surfaced in which Santorum claimed Satan was attacking America.
He wasn’t talking about a generalized, disambiguated form of evil, or an actual physical attack, such as Sept. 11, 2001. He was talking more of a cultural and spiritual assault designed to sully the shining city upon a hill. (As the speech has been aired on the Drudge Report and the Rush Limbaugh radio program, Santorum has said he’ll stand by all of his remarks.) Some quick excerpts from the speech, then, given at Catholic Ave Maria University in Florida:
“This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age. He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.
“Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of these strong plants that have so deeply rooted in the American tradition. He was successful. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of “smart” people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were in fact smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different, pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it, “because we’re smart;” and so academia a long time ago fell.
“The next was the church. Now, you say, ‘Well, wait. The Catholic Church?’ No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic. Sure, the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country, and the Protestant ethic. Mainstream, mainline Protestantism. And of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country, and it is a shambles.
Now, the temptation for non-Christian types is to make fun of Santorum for putting human problems up to supernatural causes. “The devil made me do it,” is–literally–the oldest excuse in the book. His view of academia can easily be considered downright anti-intellectual, as well.
But people who understand Christian tradition will not find anything outlandish in Santorum’s remarks. In fact, they echo the words of St. Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians 6:10, warning believers to steel themselves against attacks from the devil:
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
And it must be noted that Santorum is hardly alone in his belief. Pope John Paul II, for example, appointed more exorcists in the Catholic Church than any pope in modern history.
Santorum, a Catholic, is wrong to give Catholicism a pass when it comes to Satanic attacks. If the devil wanted to assault the great institutions of faith, he could hardly have done better than the revelation of the global pederasty scandal with its attendant cover-up that has so marred Catholicism.
It’s not entirely clear from Santorum’s speech excerpts how he’d fashion government to respond to the devil’s attacks. Certainly, Santorum has shown little compunction about mixing church and state, a truly bad idea that would undoubtedly help ruin the church. And that’s the wrong way to go, if for no other reason than it’s the church that’s supposed to fight this particular war, with the weapons St. Paul described in Ephesians: truth, righteousness, scriptures, faith and salvation.
Tags: Church & State, Rick Santorum
Loading ...
Mormon Bishop Romney or zealous Lay Catholic Minister? Goldwater is weeping in heaven.
I thought you were going to attack him for being religious in a religious setting, I am happy you look at it from a this standpoint. Santorum was using words that audience would understand as you seem to.Keep in mind there is nothing wrong with church being involved in state, if there was something unconstitutional with it then Robert Drinan would have never been a Congressman. It was his church that pushed Drinan out of Congress, opening the door to Barney Frank. The constitution clearly was written to prevent state being involved in church.This is totally different from “mixing” church and state. Simply put, state is not allowed in church at all but church is not prevented from being involved in state, indeed church is encouraged to be involved in state.This is where modern liberals miss the point, the framers just got away from a government fully involved in and controlling the religion of the country, they knew religion in government was a positive force for good but government in religion was and always would be, a negative influence on all society.It should be described as separation of state from church.
I disagree with you that “there is nothing wrong with church being involved with state.” We are a pluralistic nation, a people of many faiths and of no faiths at all. We all live together best when the state is neutral on religion, neither embracing it nor prohibiting it.
Individuals of faith are certainly welcome to run for office and get elected to it, making decisions guided by their conscience. The problem comes when they seek to legislate the sectarian doctrines of their faith into law. “Thou shalt do no murder” is a generic rule that can apply equally to all people, and is good for society. But prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors on the Sabbath–which is still illegal in many areas of the country–is a sectarian rule that non-believers should not have to live under, especially if they have not chosen that faith.
Religion can be a positive force for good in society, but not through the mechanisms of government. Faith freely chosen and devoutly lived is a powerful way to change any society. Making people live as if they were believers when they are not accomplishes nothing of spiritual value, and oppresses those who of right should be free.
I would correct a part of your reply, then we would be in agreement.
The problem comes when they seek to legislate the sectarian doctrines of their faith into
federallaw
States have rights the feds do not.
No state may abridge federal constitutional rights, and the prohibition on the establishment of religion is such a right. (SEE, 14th Amendment to the Constitution, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”
California has no more right to establish a church–or enact the sectarian doctrines of any church into law–than does the federal government. This, by the way, is a good thing.
In the mid seventies the state of Massachusetts passed a law requiring all school children to observe a minute of silence to pray and reflect on their personal faiths they called this meditation. Trouble with that was they also required all desktops to be empty and no one was to recite any verbal prayer of any kind. No hail Mary’s no prayer rugs no bibles. Nothing at all was aloud in this minute of silence.
To many including me (agnostic) this was enforcing a state religion. Father Drinan also felt it to be wrong. At that time he was the Congressman for the 4th congressional district that Barney Frank took over with Bob Drinans’ endorsement no less.
During that minute I left the home room and did not participate. My home room teacher was not one to start any trouble and had I been in another home room I know it would have raised the ire of the teacher and district. I could provide you with a PDF of my letter to the Boston Globe from then. If you have any doubts about my sincerity.
This was found to be constitutional and Father Bob was a liberal for those days. This is one reason I am certain you modern day liberals just don’t get it. We lost that one then and the march toward socialism and state control of religion is continuing today. Albeit at a snails pace it does continue.
Enjoyed the article, Steve, but I really think Santorum seems to be more suited for placement in an office somewhat different than that of President of the United States of America.
He seems to be lobbying for a residency in a position of higher calling in Italy.
NOW, BEHOLD! (white smoke from the top of the chimney at the Vatican) POPE RICKOVARIUS SANTORUM THE FOURTH!
(There weren’t three before him, Thank the Lord, but hell, it contributes more legitimacy if you add that at the end of his name. Don’t have to be true in Tea/Republican Party God politics, JUST THROW IT OUT THERE! The voters will all stumble over each other and agree, even if they know it’s crap. Sounds good to them….)
Steve: The moment of silence is practiced here in Nevada, too. Courts have upheld the legality, so long as no one is forced to pray, and may opt-out, as you clearly did. It’s not my favorite thing in public school, to be honest.
Colin: Sadly, since he’s married, Santorum is not qualified to be pope. Just another office he’s not qualified for, I suppose.
Good one, Steve. Ha ha ha ha. You just gave me the first morning chuckle.
Its nice to see you recognize the concern, Steve.
You seem to be concerned that the Catholic church may be ruined by Santorum mixing church and state, but you don’t seem to be in the least bit concerned that it would destroy our country.
You are a sorry excuse for an American.
Regular readers know I am just as concerned about protecting the civil government from religious intrusion as I am about the reverse. Then again, they also realize that I don’t care in the least whether people believe I’m a good citizen or not. Welcome to the blog.