Last week, CUA allowed one of the most reactionary members of Congress to come speak on campus. The College Republicans hosted Jason Chaffetz, a freshman Congressman who challenged and defeated one of the most conservative members of the House of Representatives by running to his right.
One is hard pressed to find a voting record that is more inconsistent with Catholic social teaching than Chaffetz’s. A speaker policy that allows a politician like Chaffetz to speak on campus, while blocking a variety of Democrats from speaking when they clearly support Catholic social teaching in far more areas, is indefensible.
If the goal is to create a Republican or Conservative identity for the university, then the speaker policy is excellent. If the goal is to treat abortion as the only political issue that matters, then it’s extremely effective. If, however, the goal is to encourage students to support the full range of Catholic social teaching, as articulated in the Catechism, papal encyclicals (such as Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Pacem In Terris, and Caritas in Veritate), and US Bishops’ statements, then it is deeply flawed.
A quick glance at Chaffetz’s answers to the 2008 Political courage test on Project Vote Smart reveals his radical right-wing agenda. He supports slashing federal spending on education and foreign aid. He wants to eliminate corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. He wants to “abolish all federal welfare programs.” He is nothing but a pro-rich, pro-big business class warrior who has no regard for the poor, middle class, or the common good.
While the Vatican condemns the North-South economic divide, a tremendously important issue for Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, Chaffetz’s preferred policies would exacerbate it. While the US bishops support programs to ensure that children have access to food, healthcare, and other basic human needs, he would dismantle the federal welfare system that has helped millions of American children.
Chaffetz supports the very economic policies that created the Great Depression and led to the recent economic crisis. And like some of his depression-creating predecessors, he does not favor assistance to those who have lost their jobs because the government failed to adequately regulate the market. Chaffetz voted against a bill to extend unemployment insurance for those who have been unable to find work. Only 83 members of Congress opposed this sensible, humane measure.
Chaffetz also opposed the reauthorization of the Children’s Healthcare Insurance Program, a program which has broad bipartisan support. Overall, Chaffetz either opposes universal healthcare or has an irrational, utopian faith in the free market. Catholic social teaching strongly condemns both positions. Bishop William Murphy has said that “genuine health care reform that protects the life and dignity of all is a moral imperative and a vital national obligation,” and the Catechism declares access to healthcare a “right.”
One of Chaffetz’s more creative and disturbing proposals is to put illegal immigrants into concentration/internment camps (before deporting them). In his defense, he does not propose death camps for anyone (though he does support the death penalty, of course).
The only reason that Chaffetz was allowed to speak on campus is his position on abortion- he is pro-life all the way up until the moment that the child is born (except that he would do nothing to ensure that pregnant women have access to quality healthcare, no small matter for the unborn). However, he is allowed to speak because he believes that abortion should be banned.
Defenders of this litmus test argue that it makes sense because abortion is intrinsically evil. However, M. Cathleen Kaveny has pointed out that masturbation and the use of contraceptives are also intrinsic evils according to Catholic teaching. Should we ban any speaker who does not publically call for criminal penalties for each of these intrinsic evils? I fear we would be left with a notable shortage of speakers.
Perhaps, we should instead focus on the full range of Catholic social teaching, instead of using particular categories of sin for partisan or ideological purposes. Abortion is a very grave, important issue, but it is not the only one that matters. Two billion people living on fewer than two dollars a day might also fall into that category of “grave and important.” Economic policies that lead to global recessions and depressions, putting millions of people out of work and threatening their very survival, should also fall into that category.
One solution to the speaker dilemma might be denying access to anyone who does not agree with all of the positions taken by the US Bishops and/or Vatican. In terms of politicians, it is unclear that any would qualify, though a few pro-life Democrats and Republican (economic) moderates might just pass the test.
An alternative solution is to allow mainstream politicians to speak and express their views. Faith is not built and defended in insulated bubbles, but gains its power and precision by engaging in the competition of ideas. Catholic social teaching need not fear any idea, ideology, or philosophy. It is the path to peace and justice, to a civilization built upon human dignity, equality, and worth. It serves as the foundation for the common good and gives meaning to freedom.
But what about CUA’s Catholic identity? People without any religious beliefs are allowed to speak and even teach on campus. Protestants that reject core Catholic dogma are likewise permitted to do both. Is opposition to abortion more closely linked to a ‘Catholic identity’ than belief in the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, or the legitimacy of the papacy? No. Our Catholic identity is shaped by our commitment to the core tenets of our faith, our dedication to the common good, and our relentless pursuit of truth. The speaker policy should reflect these Catholic values.
No comments:
Post a Comment