Rick Santorum’s Religious Language

I don’t usually comment on partisan political matters in this space, but New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd’s recent anti-Santorum screed, entitled “Rick’s Religious Fanaticism” (Feb. 21), requires a rebuttal.

In this piece, Dowd calls Santorum a “small-town mullah,” and refers to him repeatedly as “Mullah Rick.”

Now, to my knowledge, Santorum has not proposed the introduction of Sharia into the United States. So, Dowd’s use of the the appelation “mullah” in a clearly derogatory sense must refer to Santorum’s deeply held Catholic faith.

In other words, as far as Dowd is concerned, for a politician to be a faithful Catholic and to use the language of his faith in the public arena is tantamount to calling for theocracy.

Dowd makes no attempt to frame a rational argument in her column. All she does is quote some of Santorum’s remarks, mostly from a 2008 speech at Ave Maria University in Florida. She seems to think that his use of religious language is so damning in and of itself that no further comment by her is necessary.

So, what exactly did Santorum say in the speech in question? Should non-Catholic voters quail at his vocabulary and consider his candidacy a threat to their religious liberty?

One thing Santorum does is attribute the spiritual malaise that anyone in his right mind realizes is assailing America to three faults, in particular: pride, vanity, and sensuality. ”These are the things of the Father of Lies,” as he puts it.

Pride, he attributes especially to academics.

He’s got that right, at least—as anyone with a passing acquaintance with academic life in this country will have to concede.

Vanity, he charges especially to the pious.

I don’t know about that one, but whether you agree or not, you’ll have to admit it’s a peculiar thing for a “mullah” to say.

Sensuality, he lays at the door of popular culture.

Here is what he says on this head, in greater detail:

I need not even go into the state of the popular culture today. But whether it’s the sensuality or the vanity of the famous in America, they are peacocks on display. And they have taken their poor behavior and made it fashionable: the corruption of culture, the corruption of manners, the corruption of decency, is now on display, whether it’s the NBA, or whether it’s a rock concert, or whether it’s on a movie set.

What is Dowd’s comment on all of this? Just this:

When, in heaven’s name, did sensuality become a vice?

I realize that’s supposed to be a rhetorical question, but let’s pay Dowd the compliment of supposing she means to be taken seriously.

Here’s the third definition of “sensual” from my old, weather-beaten copy of Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

a: devoted to or preoccupied with the senses or appetites
b: voluptuous
c: deficient in moral, spiritual, or intellectual interests: worldly; esp: irreligious

I guess Ms. Dowd must own a newer, updated edition.

The quotation from the 2008 speech that has garnered the most attention in the media is the following:

This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war. This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on. A good, decent, powerful, influential country: the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? There is no one else to go after other than the United States.

So, there he goes with the “Father of Lies,” again.

As a self-professed atheist, I am shocked, shocked that a devout Catholic should believe in Satan. How dare he take his own faith seriously?

But no doubt Dowd would say the question is not Santorum’s faith, but rather his use of blatantly religious language in the public square.

Why, then, as an atheist, am I not offended?

The reason is very simple. I recognize that my own views on the reality of good and evil are pretty abstract and hardly the sort of reasons that most people would give for why they too believe in an objective moral order.

More importantly, I also recognize that religious language is a natural vehicle for moral discussion.

Do faithful Catholics believe in Satan? Well, of course they do. Do I believe in the existence of Satan? No, not literally.

Does the fact that I disagree with Santorum on this point of theology bother me? Not for a moment.

Why?

Because Santorum’s use of religious language is perfectly natural and appropriate to moral discussion. Indeed, Satan is a terrific metaphor for evil, which I do believe is very real indeed.

I agree with him, and with all faithful Christians, that the human heart is divided. We are inherently responsive to the good, but we are also tempted by the bad, because it flatters us and pleases our sensual appetites (sorry, Maureen).

One could do a lot worse than look upon the human soul as a battleground, with angels arrayed on one side, devils on the other, and God and Satan commanding the opposing armies.

Materialists, reductionists, relativists, and secularists of all stripes do do a lot worse, on  a regular basis.

So, who is my true ally? Dowd, whose views on the existence of supernatural beings I share, but whose views on morality I deplore?

Or Santorum, whose views on supernatural beings I do not share, but whose views on morality I see mostly eye-to-eye with?

More to the point, what is more relevant to a candidate’s character and fitness for public office, his theology or his morality?

The question answers itself.

* * *

I encourage all interested parties to listen to Santorum’s 2008 speech in its entirety and judge for themselves (here’s the link, again).

I don’t agree with every word of it, but overall it’s a fine, noble, and moving speech.