Rick Santorum has written an op-ed in which be calls upon John McCain to become more aligned with the priorities of so-called “social conservatives”. He basically argues that there are three legs on the Republican stool– economic issues, national security, and social conservatism– and that McCain needs to round out his appeal by embracing the third leg with the same fervor as he does the first two. What gets missing in this equation is that the values of the first two pillars are often completely opposed to a proper understanding of applying God’s law in the social domain. One leg consists of a laissez-faire liberalism that is predicated on restricting the role of government to enforcing social contracts between free people, minimizing any role for redistribution or correction of market inequities. The second leg had morphed into a militaristic nationalism that grants the Unites States the right to extend its coercive arm wherever it wills, even in a pre-emptive manner, and even to use torture to degrade human dignity. Now, it is pretty clear that these ideologies will run into major problems with Catholic social teaching.
But there is a broader problem. You might ask: why not give Santorum the benefit of the doubt? Why not accept with great trepidation the first two legs as the price to be paid for the third leg? Because this bargain is bound to fail. The reason is simple: a true recognition of the law of God is based on the intrinsic worth of every human life, and calls for respect for human life and the dignity of the person. If this is taken as a given, then it becomes very difficult to accept some of the implications of the first two legs. What happens is at attempt at narrow compartmentalization. The person will abandon all thought of a consistent ethic of life, the idea that all life issues are connected, the moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors. Instead, “social conservatism” is reduced to a fixed laundry list of issues that do not compromise the integrity of the first two pillars (this is the mentality behind the flawed Catholic Answer’s voter guide, by the way).
And this is exactly what Santorum does. He criticizes McCain for his positions on the following items, in this order: same-sex marriage, global warming, and embryonic stem cell research. The order is important. For a start, surely the Catholic perspective would rank his support of ESCR as the most important issue? And yet it ranks third. Far more important for Santorum is the a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage issue, an issue which does not even make the USCCB’s list of intrinsically evil acts in the current political climate. It so happens that this is the issue that taxes many on the evangelical right, many of the people who embrace the first two legs of the platform. Coincidence?
But it gets worse. Santorum is actually taking McCain’s support for measures to reduce global warming as a immoral issue. His logic? “Social conservatives see all three issues as moral issues. Yes, even global warming. Why? Because too many global-warming zealots appear to worship the creation instead of the Creator and view man and his actions as only suspect disrupters of nature.” This reads like a parody, and is certainly not what the Church teaches on the importance of environmental stewardship and combating global warming. But Santorum’s real objection is clear: legislation to curb global warming would “cost hundreds of billions”. In other words, he deferring to the first leg, the free-market economic leg of the Republican coalition. He ignores the sound analysis of the Stern review, the most authoritative study of the economic costs to date, showing that the cost of climate change could eat up 5 percent of global GDP a year, rising to 20 percent in worst-case scenarios, while the economic cost of measures to reduce emissions amounts to only 1 percent of GDP.
Here’s a flavor of what the Church actually says on global warming, from the Holy See observer to the United Nations, Archbishop Celestino Migliore:
“The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable…The consequences of climate change are being felt not only in the environment, but in the entire socio-economic system and, as seen in the findings of numerous reports already available, they will impact first and foremost the poorest and weakest who, even if they are among the least responsible for global warming, are the most vulnerable because they have limited resources or live in areas at greater risk…. In order to address the double challenge of climate change and the need for ever greater energy resources, we will have to change our present model from one of the heedless pursuit of economic growth in the name of development, towards a model which heeds the consequences of its actions and is more respectful towards the Creation we hold in common, coupled with an integral human development for present and future generations.”
Santorum’s starting point is very different. His position highlights a grave danger of the social contractarian philosophy, one based on the right to individual freedom and happiness at all costs: it ignores the welfare of those not yet born. Rick Santorum, of all people, should understand this, and yet he falls victim to the narrowness of his thought. He needs to understand that Catholic social teaching all stems from the same source, a respect for the human person, and that this requires consistency. It is not just a laundry list of items to pick and choose from. It cannot be compartmentalized. There are no optional issues that can be dismissed. I would recommend Santorum start reading the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
(Hat tip: Jay Anderson).
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In