Gasp! Rick Santorum is opposed to abortion and pornography! The horror! The gall!

Who does he think he is: a reasonable, respectable, pro-family, pro-life, anti-smut Catholic?

I write that in response to the article, "Santorum wants to impose 'Judeo-Christian Sharia'", penned by Dean Obeidallah, who is described as a comedian. That helps to explain why he wrote it for CNN, which many people do consider a joke:

4. No porn! I'm not kidding. Santorum signed "The Marriage Vow" pledge (PDF) authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president.

Oh, the deep belly laughs flow through the hip, college audience. Because we all know that cool people dig the degradation and objectification of women, the crass commercialization of sexual acts, and the continued destruction of virtue and basic morality. Yes, cool stuff, all that. However, considering that "comedian" Obeidallah also thinks marriage is an old-fashioned, stupid, soul-sucking, fun-killing sentence to eternal doom, I suppose it follows.

But back to Obeidallah's piece on Santorum, which is played for cheap laughs, but raises some serious points despite Obeidallah's inability to be either serious or knowledgeable about those points. He writes:

Then there's "Santorum Two." This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I'm not.

Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.

How does Obeidallah arrive at such stunning, if laughable, knowledge?

He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."

On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates' forum, he reiterated: "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."

Yes, that means exactly what you think it does: Santorum believes that each and every one of our government's laws must match God's law, warning that "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." I'm not exactly sure what "agitation" means in this context, but I think it's a code word for something much worse than acid reflux.

Goodness, that is horrifying stuff. What would the founders of this fair nation think of such radical, porn-smothering rhetoric? After all, it's not as though they saw any connection between God, natural law, and civil laws. Right?

Well:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

That, Mr. Obeidallah, is the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Russell Kirk, in his seminal work, The Roots of the American Order (3rd edition, 1991), observed that this paragraph is an obvious reference to natural law, also noting, however, that "Whether the signers of the Declaration understood clearly what was meant by natural law, or could have agreed upon a clear definition of that term, has been inconclusively discussed" (pp 402, 403). Be that as it may, what Rick Santorum articulated is not only in keeping with what Kirk called "the roots of American order", it also reflects a basic Catholic understanding of the relationship between the divine law and natural law:

The "divine and natural" law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. ... This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature. ...

The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature. (CCC, pars 1955, 1959)

Bottom line: Obeidallah's opposition to "Rick Santorum's Sharia law" is really a slightly obscured opposition to (and slanderous misrepresentation of) Catholic beliefs that are rooted in natural reason, not declarations of divinely revealed doctrine. These include the belief in the inherent dignity of all men (thus opposition to abortion, birth control, and pornography) and the unique and important place of marriage and the nuclear family in a society and civilization (thus opposition to "gay marriage").The key here is that this natural law, upon which civil law should rest, is "present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men" (CCC, par 1956).

Thus, the Declaration of Independence does not say, "We declare these truths to be true based on our authority and whim and mood and economic goals, etc.", but: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (emphasis added for Obeidallah fans).

There are plenty of good and proper questions that should be asked of Rick Santorum and the other candidates. After all, every presidential candidate (with the possible exception of Sen. Obama) must undergo the sort of scrutiny, criticism, and relentless analysis that would drive most people insane. Some of that is acceptable and necessary; some of it is partisan and borders on rude and uncharitable. And some of it is simply mud-slinging, fact-smashing vitriol. Obeidallah's piece obviously falls into the latter. I suggest he sticks to comedy—the intended variety.

Comments

[Ed Peters]

"...Dean Obeidallah, who is described as a comedian. That helps to explain why he wrote it for CNN."

You can't make this stuff up. But it's still evil.

[Chad Stolly]

Thanks for giving Mr. Obediallah his due treatment on this, Carl. You hit the nail on the head when you point out how Santorum's reasoning is rooted in Natural Law.

I also found Obediallah's point about Santorum's use of the word 'God' as a theological imposition particularly predictable. Sure Santorum means the God of Christianity; he's a Christian! He professes belief in the one God for the only good reason to do so: because he believes it's true. Not because he wants to impose his believes on everyone else.

[Peter l]

Dean Obeidallah seems to be a guy every father would want his daughter to meet.

Yes,i am being sarcastic.

[Agnieszka]

The comments on that CNN website are as scary, or scarier, than the article itself. Somebody actually made a "good" point saying that Santorum won't get elected because his views are too extreme!

Obediallah's views are mainstream but "natural law" and what it entails are foreign and "extreme" -- how insane and inane, and pathetic it is.

[Joe]

How things change. 15 years ago CNN was considered the most "news" and objective network, something most people thought good. Now it isn't, and no one seems to mind that objectivity is not even sought. We went from denying to bias to the p[resumption that bias was not only inevitable but good. Journalism in the traditional sense seems like a dead profession.

[M]

Although in agreement I don't think that there is a clear idea as to why not contraception (it is an ideal too I think in a sense). Likewise NFP is not generally known about, is poorly promoted and what I think is needed is a proper communication to the woman that would learn the method (necessary for it to be highly effective ie to be taught by a teacher) regarding what she would be learning to check that this is needed (also making it possible to be a joint decision) and therefore desired (as a matter also I think of informed consent) although just knowing of the existence of this "method"( ie/eg Billings Ovulation method) would say for young people make sense of a lot (eg in their "sex ed". Of course for everyone else too that are not aware).

[Greg]

So glad you posted on this, Carl. I saw this on CNN and couldn't believe even they would lower themselves to publishing such hogwash! Oh me of little faith...

[Dan]

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/rick_santorum_channels_st_augustine/

If you think that was bad, check out the piece above by Linda Hirshman in Salon. The article is about Santorum but also includes some sub-juvenile remarks about St. Augustine. At least Obeidallah does not purport to be anything more than a comedian. Hirshman calls herself a professor of philosophy and in fact holds a Ph.D. in philosophy.

[David Elton]

You're wasting you time commenting on a debased comedian. Pornography is like a sacrament to these show biz lefties. Something to do with individual freedom, I think -- freedom to go to hell.

[Carl E. Olson]

David: Darn it. Well, I guess I better delete my post, eh? But, seriously, we both know that I didn't write my post for his benefit; rather, it was meant to bring some attention to the sort of irrational, ridiculous attacks made on Catholics and Catholic beliefs—and facilitate by supposedly reputable news sources. It was also meant to show how absolutely vapid and, well, stupid are the sort of increasingly mainstream attacks made by those who, for whatever perverse reason, think they are the cat's meow, the cool street-wise intellectuals, the hip and "with it" crowd.

[Anthony S. Layne]

Carl: Thanks for picking up on Obeidallah's silliness. I've also written a couple of things about his hit piece; one point that especially struck me is that, by constructing the term "Judeo-Christian Sharia", Obeidallah is deliberately playing on American anti-Islamic prejudice and ignorance — really objectionable, considering Obeidallah's an Arab-American.

[Tolkiencatholic.blogspot.com]

Just want to say, I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion of Natural Law. I think liberal education is the reason for this comedian's lack of basic philosophical knowledge. It is honestly a shame. St. Thomas Aquinas's discussion of Eternal, Natural, Divine and Positive law is not that difficult. Aquinas's argument is not even lengthy: Question 91- On Different Kinds of Law (Summa Theologiae).

[Larissa]

Yesterday, I met with my ptaient who is in Hopsice. She just finished reading your book and was excited to pass it on to her sister in law who is a devout Catholic. She made comments that she has been reading the book ever so slowly has your writing have slowed her down to really think about her own life,(63 yrs old) She is just loving the book and hopes to meet you someday. Perhaps I can make a little side trip to visit you. They too own land up in Showlow and go down your way periodically.