Santorum--Take a Bayer!

When I reviewed the first Republican debate a few months ago, I discounted Santorum as a possible nominee, mainly because I found him so dislikable and, of course, I assumed everyone else would see what I saw--his overriding self-importance coupled with overriding ignorance.  But then I discounted the overriding ignorance of the majority of Republican voters.  So, we now have a Republican front runner who insists that contraception is harmful to women's health.

Am I the only person left who remembers that when JFK ran for president he had to promise that the Catholic Church would not dictate government policy?  We've now walked so far backward in our view of separation of Church and State that in this election Republicans want the Catholic Church to dictate policy, or to be more specific policy on women's reproductive rights.  For in no other way, does Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, both self-selecting cafeteria Catholics, support any of the major tenets of the Catholic Church, to wit:

On the death penalty, from John Paul II’s “Evangelium Vitae” (1995):

[T]he nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

Gingrich and Santorem support the death penalty, enthusiastically I should add!

On a living wage, from John XXIII’s “Mater et Magistra” (1961):

We therefore consider it Our duty to reaffirm that the remuneration of work is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace; nor should it be a decision left to the will of the more powerful. It must be determined in accordance with justice and equity; which means that workers must be paid a wage which allows them to live a truly human life and to fulfill their family obligations in a worthy manner.

Neither supports this concept!

On unions, from John Paul II’s “Laborem Exercens” (1981):

All these rights, together with the need for the workers themselves to secure them, give rise to yet another right: the right of association [italics original], that is to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital interests of those employed in the various professions. These associations are called labour or trade unions.

Both are anti-union!

On wealth redistribution, from Benedict XVI’s “Caritas in Veritatae”(2009):

Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution. [Italics original]

Both would accuse Benedict of conducting "class warfare"!

And on health care and the “safety net,” from John XXIII’s “Pacem in Terris” (1963):

But first We must speak of man's rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill health; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.  

So obvious, no need to comment!   I should note that the papal quotes are from an article in The Washington Post.


If you're confused that two self-described Catholic men can ignore these very important Catholic tenets and focus instead on contraceptive and abortion, let me explain.  It's nothing more than a desire to put women back in the box. Neither Santorum or Gingrich are Catholic beyond their desire to control women. Any woman who votes for either, and in particular, any Catholic woman, is a fool.

To add to the horror, Foster Friess, the 71 year old Wyoming multi-millionaire, who is now funding Santorum's super-pac, said in response to a question by Andrea Mitchell on Santorum's views on contraception:

“Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives,” Friess said. “The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”

So ladies, keep your legs crossed unless you want to have a child.  And if you're  menopausal and can no longer reproduce, read a book, say the rosary, or watch reruns of the Bishop Sheen show. No more sex for you, my dear.

Are you disgusted by these men?  I am!