Anonymous, who seems to be everywhere these days, sent me this response to my posting about former Pa. senator and soon to be former presidential candidate Rick "Anal Lube" Santorum:
Rick Santorum may be an idiot, but there are
plenty of non-Catholics that share his views. It
sounds like you're rationalizing not returning to
Some clarification is in order here. I don't need to rationalize not returning to the church. I stopped being Catholic when I stopped believing in whatever it is people think they mean when they say "God." (I say it this way because I have no direct experience of any deity. All I or anyone knows about "God" is what they're told, and what I've been told doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.)
When I say Santorum and his ilk are keeping me out of the church, what I mean to say is that, if I ever felt like joining a church again, it would not be one that so easily accommodates hatemongers like Santorum, Bill O'Reilly and Pat Buchanan. I don't want to belong to a church, or any organization, for that matter, that has a "right wing." True, there are liberal Catholics, but it seems to me they are constantly fighting for a place at the table, and they have to do more intellectual back flips than conservatives do in order to feel at home. I can understand why they put up with it - they love their church and they don't want to be forced out of it by men they don't respect - but it seems to me like a futile effort.
And while it's true plenty of non-Catholics share Santorum's views, I don't generally associate with them, either.
For someone who presents himself as a champion of wholesomeness and family values, Santorum is really a dirty-minded little creep. Listen to him sometime. He's obsessed with sex. He just can't get the image of anal intercourse out of his mind.
Just yesterday I read about a bishop in my arch
diocese (Los Angeles) who resigned because it
turns out he has two teenage children living in
another state. No evidence of any other
wrong-doing yet. By the way, he keeps his title.
I just shake my head and get on with life.
On the basis of this paragraph, I don't see any "wrongdoing" here. It's not as though the bishop molested anyone. He fathered a couple of children, something men do all the time. He didn't break any laws. He's not even gay. The "wrongdoing" in this case consists solely in breaking his vow of celibacy, which is an unreasonable requirement to begin with. (How many of us have virginity in our job descriptions?) As far as I can see, the bishop is guilty of nothing more than trying to eat his cake and have it, too. If he wanted a family, he should have quit the priesthood, or become an Episcopalian. There's a certain hypocrisy here, but if hypocrisy were actionable, we'd all be in prison.