I've been Googling and cannot find any direct evidence that Santorum ever said that sex is only for procreation. I realize that that doesn't prove the negative. I could be wrong. What he has said is that his view is the Catholic teaching on sexual relations. Lots of folks (many of whom have it in for the Church, let's be honest) distort the Church's teaching into 'sex only for procreation.' What the Church actually teaches is that sex has two purposes, unitive and procreative, and that it is only for people united in holy matrimony.
That a Christian church would teach that sex is only for married couples should not be a surprise to anyone. Santorum loses the anti-Christian leftists in the media and elsewhere right there. As for the teaching on 'unitive and procreative,' the Church stresses that the sexual union is essential to a marriage because it emotionally binds two people closer to each other by its very nature. That happens whether or not the sex results in a pregnancy.
The part that is tricky for a lot of people is that the sexual union must be open to procreation, meaning that there should be no physical or chemical barriers to prevent that from happening. That is NOT the same as saying that the only reason anyone should have sex is that they want a baby. The Church recognizes legitimate reasons for not wanting to get pregnant (spacing of births, financial difficulty, etc). In fact, as part of the marriage preparatory program, many dioceses now require a Natural Family Planning (NFP) course, teaching scientific methods of avoiding pregnancy while still enjoying a healthy sex life.
So to say that the Church teaches that sex is only for procreation is ridiculous. People who perpetuate that distorted view are either uninformed or disingenuous. I suspect that the above is the view shared by Rick Santorum. If not, then he is out of step with the Catholic Church.
Well thanks for your reasoned response. I will only say that you apparently decided to edit the word “if” out of my comments about Santorum. The word “if” is small, but powerful, in that it normally dramatically changes the statement that follow is. Just sayin....
Now, a couple responses to your points:
A: no, I don’t like him, primarily because I think he guarantees us four more of Obama, meaning the end of America. To me, that’s what Santorum represents. I know how he’s gonna be perceived outside the bubble of FR - and it ain’t good. We know how he was perceived in his last election in PA, and not all of it was the Iraq war either. Exit polls were full of the words “preachy” and “un likeable.” I’ll vote for him against Obama, but I agree with those two descriptions FWIW.
B; google this statement a bit harder. He addressed the issue and sort of took pride in that he was bold enough to talk about what most candidates won’t talk about.
B: I think the entire conversation is off limits for secular government - but Santorum had to niche his way to these tiny wins (and yes, he still trails Newt’s popular vote total BY A TON.) You can niche your way past crowded fields with a religious focus among a tiny caucus population. You cannot win a general election for anything that way.
C: The Catholic teaching on this are things I agree with around the margins. Kind of takes a lot of spontaneity out of the equation which is frankly not defensible and damaging to the “unity” thing - not to mention is going to be incredibly offensive to most Americans - meaning it was a huge mistake for RS to bring this up. Again, the fruit of having to niche your way along.