Does a politician's adherence to Catholic values conflict with the common good?

It seems FindLaw columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton believs it does. She argues in an article titled, "How Senator Rick Santorum, In Acting for His Church, Persistently Fails to Consider the Larger Public Good", that Sen Santorum represents the interests of the Catholic Church at the expense of the greater public good. She sees Sen Santorum's actions, at the order of "religious lobbyists" as harmful. How so? His Catholicism:

...prevented him from being "part of the solution" in the priest abuse crisis. He could have proposed federal legislation to help solve the crisis. Instead because of his Catholicism and position as a US Senator he was able to provide "cover for the Church".

...made him provide a "financial windfall to the Catholic University of America at the expense of veteran's health.

...made him promote "creationism" at the expense of science in schools.

...made him promote abstinence-only education, which is "education in religious values" and "utterly divorced from social reality".

...made him co-sponsor legislation giving "workers the right, in their jobs, to refuse to sell products regarding which they have moral objections".

...made him vote for legislation banning "abortion on all military bases".

Professor Hamilton is wrong. How so?

Besides Sen Santorum, there are 23 other self proclaimed Catholics in the Senate. Though she mentions Sen Kennedy she does not point out if other Catholic senators are harmful. Besides Sen Kennedy there have been other Catholic senators who have acted similarly, but there have been other non-Catholic senators who have also. Does Prof Hamilton see their actions as sacrificing the public good? She does not say. By looking at Sen Santorum's "harmful" actions we will see that though his faith leads him it does not require him to sacrifice the public good.

A federal solution to the crisis?

Prof Hamilton believes Sen Santorum could have been "part of the solution" to the priest abuse crisis, yet she offers no solutions as to what the federal government could have done. (To be fair, she has proposed "federal" solutions in other articles.) I do find it surprising that a Constitutional law professor who believes very much in the "separation of Church and State" would want the federal government involved in the policing of the Catholic Church. The crisis is being handled at the local and state level and the Church for the most part is cooperating through payments to victims and providing information to prosecutors on abusive priests. In addition, the bishops themselves have established a task force to develop policy to better protect children. There were no calls from others in the Congress or the president for action on this matter. No one suggests their religious faith made them do nothing. It is absurd to think so. And though the abuse of children by priests was a horror for not only Catholics, but for many Americans, it is difficult to see that it was necessary for the federal government to act. As for Sen Santorum's 2002 remarks, why is it now with just over a year until Pennsylvania voters decide whether or not to send Sen Santorum back to the Senate for another term, everyone is in an uproar over these remarks? Agree or disagree with them, the timing is very telling of what those critical of the senator really think. Why did they not speak up back in 2002?

"Sweetheart deal"

Sen Santorum offered an amendment requiring the Old Soldiers' and Airmen's Home to sell excess property to build up its trust fund. The amendment restricted the sale of the property solely to the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington for the Catholic University of America (CUA). Prof Hamilton is correct in pointing out the obvious lack of free-market bidding on the property, but she is way of the mark in suggesting that such a sale would be unconstitutional (under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment). I would think that such a sale to a non-religious institute would be looked at the same way because it was unfair, not unconstitutional. And does the professor have a problem with federal grants to the CUA and other religious educational institutions? She is again wrong in suggesting that the senator made such a proposal because he is Catholic and it was for a Catholic institution. The appropriations bill with the provision passed the Senate and the House with support from non-Catholics who saw this initially as a proper action. Prof Hamilton also suggests that Sen Santorum did this at the expense of veterans and that if it came to choosing between helping his Church or helping veterans he would choose his Church. Nonsense. (It should be noted that Sen Santorum has sponsored an amendment increasing funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Increasing spending is not a popular idea among conservatives and the increased spending here has been opposed by the Bush Administration.)

Intelligent Design in Science Class

Sen Santorum proposed an amendment to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 which reads as follows:

It is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.

The professor's problem is that the amendment, which passed the Senate 91-8, would supposedly have required a discussion of "intelligent design" (ID) in the science classroom. Though the amendment was stripped from the Conference Report, similar wording was left in recognizing that science curriculum should include this discussion. (As an aside, Prof Hamilton incorrectly stated Cardinal Schonborn recently said "that evolution is inconsistent with Catholic theology." Actually the cardinal merely reminded us that "an unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist." Thus evolution which accepts divine guidance in even a "casual role" is consistent with Catholic theology.) Prof Hamilton also failed to point out that Sen Santorum has rethought his position on this issue, recently splitting with President Bush who has stated that he would like to see ID taught in the science classroom. One would think that the professor would point out this change to her readers, esp. since she saw it as such a harmful act. But then that would weaken her argument would it not?

Abstinence-only Education: "Education in Religious Values"?

Prof Hamilton next takes issue with Sen Santorum's support for abstinence-only education. She states that this is "nothing but education in religious values, utterly divorced from social reality". Actually many if not most of abstinence-only education is secular based. And the reality is that "sexual activity at an early age has multiple harmful consequences; most sexually active teens say they wish they had waited until they were older before having sex; sexually active teens are more likely to be depressed and to attempt suicide; abstinence education programs are effective in reducing teen sexual activity; abstinence programs dramatically reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing; and parents overwhelmingly support the values and messages of true abstinence education." Where are the religious values here? Given this reality, abstinence-only education is truly looking at benefiting the public good Prof Hamilton is so worried is being neglected.

Faith in the Workplace not in the Public's Interest

The professor next calls out Sen Santorum for co-sponsoring the "Workplace Religious Freedom Act" (S. 667) because it could give "workers the right, in their jobs, to refuse to sell products regarding which they have moral objections". This is the conscientious pharmacist issue. In other articles about this subject Prof Hamilton points out that Sen John Kerry, not known as the same kind of Catholic Sen Santorum is, also is co-sponsoring this legislation. In addition, Sens Clinton, Schumer, and Corzine are also co-sponsors! And on top of that, the legislation has the support of various religious groups including, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, the Sikh Resource Taskforce, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the American Jewish Committee, and Agudath Israel of America. The legislation would require employers to accommodate the religious observances of their employees as long as providing such accommodations will not impose an "undue hardship" upon the employer. Thus, employers would be encouraged to afford employees flexible work shifts so that they may observe religious holy days and permit employees to wear religiously required garb at work. I am not entirely sure the provision Prof Hamilton points out above is the focus of this bill. Given the co-sponsorship of Sens Clinton and Schumer I doubt that it is. But again, that truth would weaken her argument.

Oh, and Abortion

Last, the professor lambastes the senator for not allowing abortion in military medical facilities. This is disturbing to her because our military men and women may not have other "abortion" options. Unfortunately, they usually do, but that is not the issue. Besides the military men and women, the rest of the public must be a consideration here, for they may not want their taxes being spent on the murder of innocents still in the womb. Why is that not mentioned by the professor? Why is it that the "public good" in this situation is only allowing abortions in military medical facilities? By the way, the ban has support in both the Senate and the House.

Hit Piece

This supposedly scholarly article is more of a hit piece on Catholic politicians in general and Sen Santorum in particular. It seems clear Sen Santorum's is not a Catholic agenda. Noting support from various non-Catholic senators and organizations for the actions above how could it be? And though Senator Santorum's Catholic faith may drive how he votes on issues such as abortion, Catholic teachings do not require him to make "sweetheart" deals with or "provide cover" for Catholic institutions. His faith obviously affects how he sees the public best served in regards to how to educate our youth on the subjects of sex and science, but this is true for many if not most of our representatives in Congress. Many Americans use their religious values to determine what is the public or common good. And given that he has changed his views (on where to teach ID) over the last few years, how can it be said that the Catholic Church drives how he acts on these and other issues? Prof Hamilton would be well served if someone passed her a copy of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life. I would hope that if she reads it she will see that a Catholic politicians faith, which is tied to reason, does inform his or her judgement on core issues such as abortion. She wil also see that that there can be disagreement, even among Catholics on other issues, such as the minimum wage. Lastly, I would point her to the senator's own words dealing with the very issue she tackels in her article: He states:

I affirm that your creed and values shape what is best for the state. In fact, I believe politicians have an obligation to the state and its constituents, to do what is in their best interest. In reality, there should never be a conflict between your creed and your legislation because both should be oriented toward the good and what is best for society.

But again, this is a hit piece dressed up for FindLaw, so it is likely Prof Hamilton could care less about reconsidering her point of view.

(Crossposted at Catholics for Santorum)