Rick Santorum could say that the sky was blue, and some people would call him a liar and demand his ouster. That said, I think Pennsylvania's junior senator shouldn't talk about the sky for a while -- or much of anything else.

It's one thing for him to keep handing his opponents ammunition, even though they've so clearly declared "open season." It's a more serious thing when the fire he regularly draws hits his colleagues and his conservative supporters. If they get frustrated enough by the collateral damage, his re-election chances, even in an off-year, will continue to decline.

This week's brouhaha surrounds a column Santorum wrote three years ago for the Catholics Online Web site, in which he drew a connection between Boston's "academic, political and cultural liberalism" and its place in the Catholic Church's tragic pedophile scandal.

In his column and elsewhere, Santorum has steadfastly maintained that a climate of sexual permissiveness draws more people into more self-destructive actions. He's right. Anybody who thinks American society hasn't been reaping the consequences of the sexual revolution for the past few decades simply isn't a serious person.

But chances are that pedophilic priests were far less influenced by this lamentable condition than by the church's own standards. Sociologists (and non-Catholic theologians) have observed that the insistence on unmarried priests attracts young men who are emotionally and psychologically immature, along with those genuinely called to celibacy. (Maybe that's why St. Peter was married and St. Paul wrote that singlehood like his was a spiritual gift, not a vocational requirement.)

It was illogical, at best, for Santorum to introduce political terminology into this topic. The terms "liberal" and "conservative," for instance, cannot capture the theological dilemma the Catholic Church faces: Is it more conservative to uphold the old tradition of unmarried priesthood or to reform the church by conforming to even-older Holy Scriptures?

Sen. Ted Kennedy has demanded an apology to the people of Massachusetts for laying at their door even part of the blame that belongs only to corrupt priests and the higher-ups who facilitated their sin. As galling as it is to be rebuked by someone as morally dissolute and intellectually dishonest as Ted Kennedy, Santorum should admit his error. It may not help him politically -- those shouting loudest in this ruckus won't be appeased by anything less than his defeat -- but it's the right thing to do.

Even Sen. John Kerry, who has gallantly defended Santorum to some of his harshest critics, has objected to Santorum's insensitive remarks. Since Kerry has no need to solidify his position in Massachusetts, his public criticism is a measure of how deeply partisan this battle is.

And how manufactured. Democratic researchers dig for any weapon they can use to recapture a Senate seat. Bloggers find a 3-year-old column and flog it until old-media types pick it up. An entire state's political industry weighs in. Santorum takes another beating. Mission accomplished.

That was last week's skirmish. The week before, the words that provoked the strafing were hot off the presses. Santorum's new book, "It Takes A Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," irritated the perennially indignant with truisms, such as how children fare better when raised by a stay-at-home mom. Just as in the Catholic column controversy, anti-Santorum operatives combed through the book for political ammunition.

Those who mostly share Santorum's cultural convictions might still wonder why, with his Senate seat so vulnerable, he seems compelled to stir up controversy with his timing and tone. Some might argue that it's politically calculated. With the lower turnout of a non-presidential election year, "true believers" -- those most likely to interpret harsh criticism of Santorum as an attack on their values and to feel galvanized to vote -- determine election results.

But there are conservatives who wish Santorum expressed himself with more grace. They get tired of explaining what they think he was trying to say. And seeing that his probable opponent, Robert Casey, is a conservative, Catholic, pro-life Democrat as likely, say, to support President Bush's Supreme Court nominees as Santorum is, they may view this election as a win-win, no matter what the outcome.

Santorum seems to speak more from conviction than from political calculation. He'll take some blows simply because of what those convictions are and some blows because of how wisely -- or not -- he states them. If he needlessly makes himself a target, he'll have to understand if some of us don't want to stand too close.