Santorum’s problem is theocratic, isn’t it? He pledges to “legislate” his religious views as best he can on the American populace as a whole. The attempt to avoid such theocratic tendencies in the US was one of two aims of the Constitution separation since several of the State constitutions had theocratic provisions.

For example, he wants to cut down on the supply of contraceptives because where they are available “people will do things” as he so articulately puts it. Why shouldn’t the American people do things? Most are not Catholic? They don;t think pre-marital sex is in any way sinful or wrong?.

On Jfk, we must not forget that he faced a real prejudice against Catholics being president due to the extremely hierarchical nature of church authority–power of excommunication and the like. His speech was strategic, meant to reassure critics that he wasn’t a papist and understood the responsibilities of his job as president.

Since Catholics are not required to read official teachings by the Church hierarchy, not usually even informed that they exists, it doesn’t seem quite honest to cite official documents as what Catholics hold or what the Catholic position is. There are many Catholic positions as there are many types of clergy and congregants in the Church with different views that they promulgate and live, “official” or not., whether the hierarchy likes it or not..

To me, the separation of church and state is unfair to religion, and anti-democratic. Religion should be allowed anywhere–taught as science, displayed on government property–so long as religious are then willing to have all other religious views and views critical of it so displayed as well–no holds barred, nothing sacrosanct, as in science or politics. Religious views and commitments are not like secular interests. They are cosmically elevated, much more important to people than most other interests, and defining to life paths. They are not like wanting a speed bump put on one’s street, more subsidies for healthcare or less red tape for small businesses. And these two points do not contradict each other.

And, furthermore, while I understand the intellectual method of questioning authority in attempts to seek and understand the authentic truth of the Holy Mother Church and therefore of God, it is quite obvious that in certain corners of the religious, especially in the U.S., even the Holy Father himself, would fail such a task.

As I have also mentioned in the past, my well-respected Friar and Deacon, we are all works in progress. By one’s definition of a “cafeteria catholic”, then anyone who publically or in private counsel (e.g. the confessional) goes against the doctrine of the Church, her teaching, and dogma is guilty of being a “cafeteria catholic” (has distasteful as that may sound.)

What I do find somewhat incredulous is how so many believers, especially learned scholars, would actually prefer to submit and give up their God given rights and authentic freedom of choice, to let the government “solve” their problems, and dictate how they should spend their talents or treasures. How is it possible that the tenets of free enterprise and capitalism have become synonomous with greed and consumerism, etc? How is possible that a liberal democracy, governed “by the people and for the people” has become a dictatorship by either of the ruling parties. How is it possible that with such advances in science and technology of “man”, we still cannot fully recognize the dignity of life from natural conception to natural death (yes, I am including the death penalty in this, although I still have some heartburn over it).

Again, I have taken far too much space. As always PAX et vivat Iesus!

BTW, I thought of some of our discussions in my Confirmation class Sunday, especially with regards to the Death Penalty. Who would have been proud, that I did actually maintain a neutral, merciful tenor. Dare I say, a rather “left of center” presentation. I remembered your post http://datinggod.org/2012/02/04/virginia-nuns-on-forgiveness-and-drunk-driving-case/. Thanks!

And, respectfully Father, I am quite certain that there are many (I being one of them) who weep for “ours [and future] generation[s]!’