Rick Santorum Defends Truth and Stands up To Piers Morgan on CNN

I haven’t been following the Republic Nomination very closely (two main reason: I’m Canadian and I suspect Obama will beat anyone of the candidates fielded against him) but it seems to me that Santorum’s opponents would be best served by trying to paint the picture of a fanatical zealot bent on imposing a theocracy upon the US. What better way to do that then claim that his campaign revolves around gay marriage which I would suspect is one of the least controversial issues to attack him. I’m not saying this is what happened, but I suspect it has.

Santorum’s kind of interesting. What would happen if you brought what appears to be a faithful Catholic and tried to get him to run for president? I suspect that the results won’t be too spectacular, but I can always hope.

It was Piers Morgan that brought up homosexuality, not Rick Santorum, he only answered Pier’s questions.

Piers Morgan was the one that started questioning him on his faith/religion and homosexuality. He was clear that in his faith informs his views on homosexuality.

No, he changed his tone on the matter because he’s a typical politician who is scared of receiving criticism

That may be because SSA - the term SSA or/and the term “same sex attraction” - doesn’t appear anywhere in the Catechism. “Homosexuality” does, but there’s no paragraph in the CCC that references quote, “SSA,” unquote. It’s a bit disingenuous to fault Santorum for not subscribing to a notion that really doesn’t exist outside CAF forums. Does the Magisterium even acknowledge the notion of quote, “SSA,” unquote? I have yet to see it in any encyclical.

The differentiation according to the Catechism is between homosexuality (gravely disordered condition) and homosexual acts, not between SSA (whatever that is) and homosexual acts. I don’t know why it’s so difficult to get that point across - the abbreviation quote, “SSA,” unquote, does not originate from the Magisterium.

Huh?

**2357 **Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

There is a distinction between the attraction and the act.

“Huh?” is right. Please quote for me - boldface it, italicize it - where the term “same sex attraction” or “SSA” appears in paragraph # 2357. The correct term in paragraph #2357 is “exclusive or predominant sexual attraction,” not SSA.

I never said there wasn’t a distinction between the attraction and the act. That’s precisely what I did say, but that the distinction is between homosexuality (the first word of paragraph #2357) and homosexual acts, not between SSA (whatever that is) and homosexual acts. Anytime people introduce new words - like “SSA” - into the dialogue, things can get confusing.

**2357 **Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

I always thought Rick Santorum’s main thing was being Pro-Life. He’s definitely a good guy. Find clips of the first presidential debate that was for the South Carolina straw poll, I don’t even know if SSA was even mentioned. And of course, Santorum won the straw poll back in May or June.

I would say the one thing that might have hampered Santorum’s campaign is that often it does appear like he is speaking about morality and family values and not so much other issues like employment though I think it just seems that way because the media does I believe question him on ‘moral’ issues.

It’s rather well remembered too he addressed English as what should be our National Language and how he talked about this with his grandfather I believe who was also for English being our first language by law.

The one issue where I might question Rick Santorum was, I realize Arlene Spector must be a long time buddy to Santorum and Spector served as a Senator of PA. for a long time but it seems even after Spector switched political parties, Santorum supported Spector from what I understand. This is no great fault but if so, I do wonder why.

Santorum is a good guy definitely and as mentioned on the video, apparently has 7 children. Good for him.

Some of us have watched and listened to Rick Santorum for years because he is such a well known pro-lifer, hence, it goes against the grain of us who have when someone says “seems like his main issue is being against SSM”.

I quoted an article in the other thread that not too long ago, he brought out the Slavery/Abortion connection and spoke about President Obama and how the President should consider this. voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/rick-santorum-invokes-obamas-r.html

To me, Santorum’s positions on issues are a bit like Reagan’s were.

That’s “attraction towards persons of the same sex,” or ATPOTSS. What happened to the “towards persons of the” part of it? You don’t replace words with their definition to invent new words, which is what you’re trying to do. For example, you are free to not call a chair a “chair” anymore but instead call it “wooden board with four legs” and try to enlist all the people you can to start calling a chair a “wooden board with four legs,” but the fact of the matter is, it’s still called a “chair”. Similarly, ATPOTSS is the definition given for what’s called homosexuality. Not SSA. Homosexuality. Is there a reason why you didn’t boldface the word “homosexuality”? What’s so problematic about the word “homosexuality”? Like I said, it’s a bit difficult to fault Santorum for not utilizing “SSA” verbiage when that phrase doesn’t even appear in the Catechism. Why not use ATPOTSS? That’s there. SSA isn’t.

Same Sex attraction is not a sin. However, supporting homosexual acts in any way, and putting oneself in the near occasion of sin is sinful.
Those with same sex attraction must remain celebate/chaste, as do all unmarried persons.

The Church is very clear that ALL sexual acts outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) is a MORTAL sin.

You can find all of this in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.

But what you can’t find are the three words (“same sex attraction”, in that order - or the specific abbreviation “SSA”) because it’s not there. The word is “homosexuality.” It’s the first word of paragraph # 2357. All I’m trying to say is that when people try to invent new words and expect other people to jump on a bandwagon of new word invention when there’s already a word for what they’re describing - in this case, the word is “homosexuality” - there’s bound to be an awful lot of confusion. Call a spade a spade. Call homosexuality homosexuality. That’s all I’m saying.

:rolleyes:

This is a great list of non-negotiable items regarding VOTING, and should not be ignored.

I would like to support this by providing - " Worthiness to Recieve Holy Communion - General Principles " by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) 2004.
We must remember that approximately 1 MILLION children are murdered each year in the USA through abortion, and there is nothing proportionate in the USA today.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

If any politcian is immoral with the non-negotiable items listed above, he will be immoral in many other things.

I think you are scared of criticism because obviously you haven’t been following the Republican candidates speak out that much. Its not surprising because I remember you were a supporter of the NDP in Canada and with a far left liberal positions that they have (we can research on your political parties) it explains a lot of your beliefs.

Santorum has taken Ron Paul on with regard to Iran and others here have mentioned about his jobs plan as well.

Perhaps you should do some more research rather than typical left NDP talking points?

I get what you are saying.

Perhaps I should have posted that Santorum should have differentiated the homosexual inclination and the homosexual act.

That doesn’t make Santorum any less boring to America. THAT is his problem.

Since when do you speak for the whole of Ameeica?

I’m fairly thick-skinned and I welcome constructive criticism.

Its not surprising because I remember you were a supporter of the NDP in Canada and with a far left liberal positions that they have (we can research on your political parties) it explains a lot of your beliefs.

Actually, I am not a supporter of any political party. I pick the leader I think will do the best job, and vote for that person’s party. I did vote NDP in the most recent election, but I am not a supporter

typical left NDP talking points?

:rolleyes:

Piers Morgan from what I understand replaced Larry King but I was always previously aware that he was mainly a columnist who discussed soccer/football in the UK.

dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1301176/Piers-Morgan-Manchester-United-wont-make-Wayne-Rooneys-aura-shattered.html This is an example. I suppose he is okay but I don’t think he’s cut out to do this kind of work. Maybe he’s a jack of all trades.

Never said I did…

How about this???

In my opinion, I think that America finds Rick Santorum BORING.

:yawn:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.