WASHINGTON — There was a rare personal attack on the floor of the Senate.
Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy accused Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum of being self-righteous and insensitive for a column he’d written three years ago.
In that column, Santorum linked Boston’s liberalism with the sex abuse scandal in its Catholic diocese. Santorum had written that promoting alternative lifestyles feeds such aberrant behavior as priests molesting children.
"Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture," Santorum wrote. "When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."
Kennedy is calling for Santorum to retract his remarks and apologize to the people of Boston and Massachusetts — and the nation.
A spokesman for Santorum said his boss recognizes that the church abuse scandal was not just in Boston, but all over the country. The spokesman said Santorum "was speaking to a broader cultural argument." [Source]
Complaining about a three year old column? Wouldn’t that be water under the bridge? (Sorry couldn’t avoid Chappaquiddick reference) Well the scandal certainly was all over the country, but it certainly appears to be more heavily concentrated in less than orthodox diocese and it should be no surprise that people willing to abandon the faith in one area will be less constrained to abandon it in others. This is not to say that there haven’t been fairly orthodox priest who have fallen in this direction, but they do seem to be the minority in these cases. Temptation to sin is an equal opportunity employer and it is only through the grace of the faith, prayer, and the sacraments that these temptations can be destroyed. Once you weaken the ability to resist temptation obviously there will be problems.
Update: WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., yesterday accused Democrats of dredging up 3-year-old remarks on the Catholic Church’s clergy sex-abuse scandal for purely partisan reasons.
Santorum refused to apologize for statements that blamed the church’s scandal on Boston’s liberalism.
Santorum, a devout Catholic, shot back at U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who upbraided Santorum Wednesday in an unusually personal attack on the Senate floor.
"I don’t think Ted Kennedy lecturing me on the teachings of the church and how the church should handle these problems is something I’m going to take particularly seriously," Santorum said during a conference call with Catholic media.
Santorum also questioned Kennedy’s following of church doctrine and said he is unaware of Kennedy or Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., getting involved to address the church’s problem. [Source]
23 comments
The Bostonians sound more like the orangemen of Northern Ireland every day. They take over our churches, and schools; they protest outside of cathedrals and they want to embarass the hierarchy of the Church. Hell, the city council wants a referendum on the Church. They would make Ian Paisley proud! It is just a matter of time before they march the streets in Boston wearing Orange.
What is Kennedy thinking?!?? Santorum wrote this three years ago. There has to be something more to it than just injured Bostonian pride. It’s probably the opening shot of a broad, summer-long effort to portray pro-lifers as “self-righteous and insensitive” because of the looming SCOTUS nominee battles.
Why does anyone listen to Ted Kennedy anyway? He doesn’t deserve to make personal judgments about anyone else’s character.
I suspect Senator Kennedy just woke up from a three year binge. What other reason could there be for this delayed outrage?
Well, I can at least testify from personal experience that the man did show up reeking of booze at a National Press Club breakfast debate against James McGregor Burns in the winter of 1994, held for the consumption of high schoolers from across the nation.
I’m no Burns fan by a longshot, but pairing him up against Kennedy was rather like the recent exchange between Hugh Hewitt and the half-wit sports columnist who thought Mark Steyn should go get himself killed.
If you missed that one, imagine a Jesuit arguing with the village idiot.
Actually, I think Senator Santorum made a pretty good assessment of the situation. At the same time, things have been rotten in the Archdiocese of Boston for a while. I recently finished Sheila Rauch Kennedy’s book “Shattered Faith” which chronicled the way the Boston Archidiocese rammed an annulment down her throat so that he ex-husband, Congressman Joseph Kennedy (Ted’s nephew, I think), could keep receiving Communion after remarrying.
So Jeff … what is it exactly that you’re implying? That a person who makes a conscious choice of obedience to a tradi ideal is naturally more free from sin? If Santorum wanted to retire straight out, then I’d agree with you the attack was out of place. But the man’s up for re-election, don’t you know. All’s fair in politics … isn’t that Rove-ism at its finest?
I should like to know precisely what Jeff wrote which would lead Todd to make his inference.
That would at least help shed light on Todd’s thought process, or his values.
Plus I bet it’d be a hoot!
Traditionally, it was held, that you’re not supposed to consider your body a trampoline for other folks to bounce off of when you have a hankering. Traditionally, it was held, you were not “free to be me” without consequence to family and community.
Traditionally, mankind didn’t have time to explore alternative lifestyles because he was too busy scrabbling out a living so his family and community would survive.
Perhaps, Ted and his ilk of liberals will repent, accept grace and spend their eternity in heaven after due retribution in purgatory. Should they remain stubbornly and stupidly proud of their manifest sins (think more of the genocidal force of abortion and their celebrations of degeneracy than simply Mary Jo), their mentors will need to create that special circle in the vast inferno meant for moral idiots, half-baked hypocrites, and bulbous-nosed, alcoholic, apostate Senators.
A posting site like this makes me sorry that the Internet exists. This kind of self-congratulatory, self-righteous incestuous posting feeds the rotten political atmosphere in this country, and i see it on the left as well. go find a nonalcoholic, unbloated, nonsenatorial liberal out there (and don’t be snotty — there are plenty to be found) and have a real discussion. stop this destructive rot.
Gee Todd where did you read that in my post?
I believe that obedience to faith makes you better able to respond to grace. As the Old Testatment says a just man falls seven times a day and it is only through grace that we can stand up again. Once we reject the Church and it’s teaching in some capacity we are rejecting the grace of truth. When you can justify homosexual activity you you can also justify fornication. Those that deny their sinful activity are unable to repent and to receive the grace to overcome it.
“He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much.” (Luke 16:10 RSV)
Teddy has some gall even opening his mouth. Who is he trying to make points with here? Not me.
Most subjects lend themselves to civil and charitable discourse. And proponents on either side are entitled to respect.
Not so with subjects whose very nature is totally damnable such as: genocide, abortion, infanticide, euthanasis, the abuse of children, the deliberate attempts to create social degeneracy through legal fiats, treason against a free society, premeditated murder and violence, and terrorism by any name against a civilian population.
Those who propose through any means including laws, policies and actions the promulgation and imposition of these execrable subjects lose all entitlement to any form of respect. That certain politicians in this society favor geneocide through abortion and varieties of some of the subjects listed above puts them outside of consideration of respect. Mr. Kennedy’s actions along with many in both parties, but mainly his own, who subscribe to his support for abortion are entitled to nothing more in the way of respect than we would give to John Wayne Gacy.
Obedience is a human choice, and sometimes obedience is misplaced. Grace operates on God’s initiative.
The cardinal virtues are faith, hope, and love: a theological fact the good senator seems unable to articulate.
The notion that conservative Catholics are any more virtuous than other Catholics is just silly.
“The notion that conservative Catholics are any more virtuous than other Catholics is just silly.”
Luckily, that’s neither Santorum’s, nor Jeff’s, thesis. But then, subtlety and nuance aren’t the strong suit of a certain group.
Franklin, actually that was exactly what Santorum implied, wasn’t it? That it was no coincidence that Law and Kennedy came from the same liberal state.
The St Blog’s Echo Chamber thinks mighty highly of itself if it considers that a dose of liturgical and contraceptive faithfulness saves them from serious sexual sins. You people can be such a stitch!
Well, Todd, as we conservatives like to yodel in our Echo Mountains, “A stitch in time saves nine!”
John, I think it’s more than yodeling; at least that’s my impression from Mark Shea, who coined the term. If people repeat something often enough to themselves, it can take on an air of inevitabililty, at least in their thoughts, regardless of the truth of the situation.
“Good” Catholics spent the first several posts insulting another person. My recollection of Jesus’ message and the Ten Commandments is that you don’t get a pass on sin just because you think the object of scorn is a worse sinner. Shea says echo; I say plank and speck. It’s a conviction all the same.
Actually, Todd, as I understood Santorum, his argument was that a conservative society tends to encourage and support virtue, while a leftist society does not. You are free to disagree with that all you want.
But to misrepresent such an argument as “conservatives are more virtuous” merely betrays an inability to recognise subtle distinctions.
As for this idea that I or any of us here believe that “a dose of liturgical and contraceptive faithfulness saves them from serious sexual sins” that is just bloviation on your part.
I’d say I am as liturgically and contraceptively faithful as my limited understanding allows. And yet, my life is still plagued by sin, sexual and otherwise. Just because I keep my sins between me and God (in the person of His priest) doesn’t mean they aren’t there. This is the same ignorant tripe that leads people to criticise your average conservative for not caring about the poor because he finds welfare less desirable than charity, and doesn’t brag about his own charitable works.
I see it all the time.
So yeah, this one time, without great detail, I’m gonna lay it out there. My life is still not spotless when it comes to sex. Engrave it in your fricking mind so you don’t run around damaging the reputations of your brothers in Christ with your oft repeated garbage.
And a society which refuses to stigmatise most bad behaviour shouldn’t be suprised to find that even those few things which are still stigmatised are occurring in greater numbers.
You’d think that’d be simple enough for even a liturgist to understand, even when a few polysyllabic words are thrown in.
Franklin, than you for your reply.
” …as I understood Santorum, his argument was that a conservative society tends to encourage and support virtue, while a leftist society does not. You are free to disagree with that all you want.”
Not only can I disagree with it, I can disprove it. Many examples. Nixon, Republicans, Watergate, more expletive deleteds than you can shake a stick at. Southern US, lynchings, KKK. The notion that conservative societies support and encourage virtue is laughable. Virtuous people and societies encourage virtue. Conservatives encourage conservativism. It’s that simple.
“But to misrepresent such an argument as “conservatives are more virtuous” merely betrays an inability to recognise subtle distinctions.”
Not really. The argument, even if phrased as “conservatives tend to be more virtuous,” remains specious. I think one might argue that conservatives and liberals might tend to have different emphases in virtue. And maybe one can argue that extra-marital sex is more serious than being a vigilante going after some strange fruit. I think the pharisee in the back of the synagogue has not left Santorum’s building, if you get my drift.
“This is the same ignorant tripe that leads people to criticise your average conservative for not caring about the poor because he finds welfare less desirable than charity, and doesn’t brag about his own charitable works.”
A definite straw man, in my opinion. I know very many conservatives who are quite compassionate and charitable. Some very much do it their own way, and I’ve never argued against that. But we’re talking “societies,” or subsets thereof, not individuals we have known.
“Engrave it in your fricking mind so you don’t run around damaging the reputations of your brothers in Christ with your oft repeated garbage.”
Um, no thanks, my friend.
“You’d think that’d be simple enough for even a liturgist to understand, even when a few polysyllabic words are thrown in…”
You would think, wouldn’t you, that a bit of charitable discourse would forward the conversation a little more appropriately among good Catholics.
Amazing, Todd, how you lump a liberal or at least a moderate like Nixon (Mr. Welfare), KKK lynchers, all Republicans, and Southeners into one big “conservative” camp. And then you pine for “charitable discourse” from your opponent in this argument. Of course, by doing so, you have squarely joined your mentor, Senator Kennedy, in exactly the hypocrisy that Senator Santorum suggested might be at the root of Kennedy’s whining. If one were less charitable than I am, one might think that liberals all take courses in Hypocrisy 101 before they go big time.
Todd,
“You would think, wouldn’t you, that a bit of charitable discourse would forward the conversation a little more appropriately among good Catholics.”
Invite one over here to take up your argument, and s/he and I will talk.