Unlike Christians, Santorum and his fellow Roman Catholics participate in a barbaric ritual dating back two millennia, a "mass" in which a black-robed cleric casts a spell over some bread and wine, transfiguring it into the actual living flesh and blood of their Christ. Followers then line up to eat the Jesus meat and drink his holy blood in a cannibalistic reverie not often seen outside Cinemax.
Roman Catholics like Santorum take their orders from "the Pope," a high priest who, they believe, chats with God. Santorum has made no secret of his plans to implement his leader's dicta on allowed uses of vaginas and anuses, but has said little about what additional dogma he will be compelled to obey. Will child killers and terrorists go unexecuted on the Pope's say-so? Will we be able to conduct our wars as we see fit, or only the "just" ones? If Santorum is a good Catholic, and he appears to be among the very best, our real president will be Benedict XVI (a "former" Nazi, by the way).
Naturally, he got a lot of "pushback" [a favorite word of Washington pundits] and hate mail--and he reveled in it. Just like the hate mail I get from his side, and how I love to get progressives in a lather. So, flying high with the national attention, he tried to double down with a follow-up non-apology apology, headlined: "Dear Catholics: I Am Heartily Sorry, etc.", which we are to understand to be a parody on the opening words of the Catholic contrition.
Hey, he said, it was satire, not meant to be funny or anything else. Said he:
I won't say that Catholics need to lighten up or learn to take a joke, because the piece wasn't intended to be light-hearted or funny. It was satire, meaning... well, you can look that up. (It was probably a mistake to put it in the Comedy section; the editors wanted readers to know it was not to be taken literally.)
He even gave those of us who don't know satire a clue:
I had thought that the gratuitous references to NAMBLA [the men loving boys group] or tying the Church to terrorism based on their behavior during the Inquisitions, would have been a tip-off.
Larry, Larry, Larry, if you have to explain that it is satire, it's not very good satire. It's hitting your target with a blunt-force object. I kind of doubt that Jonathan Swift (I've linked to him so you don't have to look him up.) would recognize it as satire.
But, Larry, I do agree with you about one thing. When you ended your whatchamacallit with this:
It's traditional at this point for me to half-apologize, to say that I'm sorry if anybody was offended, but I really don't mind if anybody was offended.
Exactly. There's much too much apologizing going on. And if you happened to notice, Larry, that most of the demands for apologies are coming from your side of the divide--the oh, so sentivive and compassionate side. We've had an epidemic of demands for apologies, we've become a nation too much afraid of causing offense. Feminist, gay and other activists are oh-so sensitive to every slight, intended or not.
So, when "progressives" issue their next demand for an apology for this or that, I'll welcome you in joining me when I say, "Sorry? I just don't give a shit."