I really thought twice about getting involved in this conversation as the feminism debate really took a lot out of me, but I think it's worthy of participation. First of all, as a lapsed Catholic who was almost exclusively educated in Catholic institutions, I understand the philosophical and ethical perspective that the Church holds on these matters, however, I do not agree with them. Santorum is an interesting character in that he adheres far more rigidly to Catholic orthodoxy than most members of the Church. It's also worth noting that while his views are being labeled as extreme, they are virtually identical to the official dogmatic teaching put forward by the Vatican. While the rest of the country and the world have become far more progressive on these issues, Santorum and the Church had remained fixed in their positions. That is important in light of both Santorum's current electoral success and the present dust up over the Obama admin's mandate on contraceptive coverage and the new Prop 8 court decision.
As an individual freely practicing his religion in this country, Santorum is perfectly free to hold all of his beliefs and to express and practice them in private with his wife and children. While I find the story of his miscarried child to be more than a little disturbing, I also understand that families grieve in very different ways that can be foreign to others. As an example, my great-grandfather died in the late 40s. My mother and her parents all lived together with hims and my great-grandmother. As was customary at the time in many places, his body was prepared by the undertaker and then as laid out in his casket in the parlor on the first floor of the house for a couple of days including the day of the wake. My mother was 5 at the time. For my entire life, that story has creeped my out. I could not imagine being so young and having to go to sleep at night knowing there was a dead body of a loved one on the first floor below me. My experience with death had always been more detached and had involved funeral homes and churches. But when I asked my mother or my grandparents about it, they always said it never bothered them. For my grandparents it was what they had known their whole life and did not become uncommon until the 50s or 60s.
Now, in the case of the Santorums, their choice was not a common one or one which was formerly in practice. It was unique. Odd, yes. But in the end, while I would never have done it myself, I don't begrudge them their right to make a different choice from me. If they had been mere private citizens, that would be the end of it. However, given that he is a public figure and was one at the time who has made imposing his religious views on his constituents and the nation at large, the story is relevant in assessing his character, judgment and qualification for office. The same is true of the 'dog on the car roof' story about Romney, Newt's philandering, Hillary's choice to stay with Bill or Obama's choice of church. Should any of those choices be ultimately determinative in casting a ballot? Not for me, but I vote primarily based on policy anyway. For another person, those things may matter a great deal more.
As to his positions on matters of policy, that is where I find greatest fault with Santorum. Anyone seeking elective office should be able to reasonably separate or at least manage their personal religious faith, individual feelings and prejudices and other biases from the facts at hand when discussing, proposing or implementing policy. Harry Reid, for example is a devout Mormon who actually is personally pro-life. Yet he leads a majority caucus of Democrats in the Senate who are pro-choice. he recognizes that his personal views do not mesh with public opinion and more importantly that they conflict with legal precedent. As a result he does not impose them on policy decisions. Unfortunately, that is often not the case with other politicians. Some struggle with this concept, but make an earnest effort at it. Santorum is not one of those people.
On a side note, given all the discussion of Catholicism in public affairs these days, it's worth noting how Catholic political Washington actually is and how that compares demographically to the rest of the country. Catholics are the single largest religious denomination in the US at around 25%. Protestants are larger collectively, but often break up in to smaller sub groups based on denomination with Baptists being the largest at about 17%. The city of Washington and the region itself has a centuries old Catholic heritage. But politically, that was not always the case. historically, Protestants (mostly Methodists, Quakers and Episcopalians) dominated congressional, presidential and Supreme Court slots. But in recent decades, the political terrain has shifted significantly toward Catholicism. The majority of the Supreme Court is Catholic (Sotomayor, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito). There are currently no protestant members. In the Senate, Catholics make up the single largest bloc with 24 seats, virtually mirroring the population. (BTW, they are the only religious group in the body to come close to reflecting their proportion in the population at large.) In the House, Catholics make up 30% of the membership, again the largest single group. Much of the political press who are reporting on these matter are also active or lapsed Catholics (Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Michael Steele, Thomas Roberts, Luke Russert, Norah O'Donnell, Mika Brzenski, Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.). By contrast only nine current Governors are Catholic.
The imprint of the Catholic faith is on all areas of public life. Social justice teaching is strongly rooted in the Catholic Church and has influenced both the left and the right's approaches to poverty, health care, war, and yes sex. Given the very large numbers of Catholics in federal office and frequent inability of many politician to be impartial, I find that it is not surprising that many Catholic perspectives on these matters are currently in the public square.
It's simply a matter of demographic shifts.
As for contraception, particularly the pill, it's worth pointing out that many women, regardless of their faith, use such measures even when they are not sexually active, single or married. Some women use the pill to manage migraines, mentrual pain, severe acne, fibroids and other secondary medical issues. As someone who does not have a uterus, I personally think I have no right to dictate to women what decision they should make about their bodies. I hold a 200 year old institution run exclusively by celibate men to the same standard. However, in the Church's view there is no grey area with regard to the pill. Because it artificially prevents the normal completion of a natural biological act (egg fertilization or implantation) it is an uacceptable for medical use, even if other uses are found. It's a very black and white point of view. As a result, the Church opposes all manner of contraception deemed unnatural. Exceptions deemed natural and taught in pre-marriage counseling include modern takes on the rhythm method. Of course those are less than effective. In any case, such rigidity does not square with the modern challenges single and married women face, particularly in a world where real wages have not gone up relative to inflation in over 30 years and where women increasing must work outside the home in order to make ends meet, whether they want to or not. That same logic extends to their position on abortion, seeing the two issues as principally the same. In fact, the Church's position on homosexuality, and by extension gay marriage, is derived from the same thinking, that it does not fit within the narrow definition of sex for the purpose of procreation and heterosexual married bonding.
In the end, it's perfectly fine for the Church to hold these beliefs, to preach them and to require their adherence by it's members. Fortunately, it's members are equally free to disregard them if they choose. Freedom of religion is about giving individuals free excerise over their own choices to participate or not in a particular faith. It's not intended to prop up particular denominations as collective institutions. IMO it's not acceptable for a church to attempt to impose its rules on non-members, the public at large or to make them matters of public policy. Given that the Church is a major employer in this country, running 1/6 of all hospitals in the US and a great many other private colleges, universities, primary and secondary schools, charities, adoption agencies, etc. there are other factors to consider as regards life in the public square. First, becoming an employer is a choice and with that choice comes resposibilites, among them is providing health insurance coverage. Then, there is the matter of these institutions serving the public at large and not just Catholics. The same principle that prohibits discrimination in employment and public accomodation applies to this contraception fight. If you open yourself up to service the public at large rather than restricting yourself to limited memebership (i.e. a private club) then you must follow federal law. Last, most of these organizations and institutions receive federal or state funds to help to subsidize their work. That necessarily dictates that the state or federal government have a say in making sure policy is consistent with exising law. Accomodations can be made, but the law can't be disregarded. In some communities the hospital may be the single largest employer and the only medical facility in the county. Women working there or seeking it's care should not be told to seek other employment or treatment merely to accomodate the employer, even if the employer is church affiliated.
Finally, for anyone who misunderstands Santorum's position on contraception, he's not just personally opposed to it. He has said if he were elected President, he would seek to outlaw it or at least convince the country of its "wrongness". He's tried to walk that back a bit in light of his current success by saying individual states should have the right to outlaw it and that it should be not a federal issue decided by the courts (a similar argument to the one conservatives use on gay marriage when they want to sound reasonable to moderates and independents). He's also given a nod to the crazypants notion that abortion causes breast cancer. In all honesty, I hope he has a fair bit of success in the primaries (though I seriously doubt he'll be the Republican nominee). I think his extreme approach to his conservative views will expose him and his supporters as unacceptable to the mainstream.
