Justin Trudeau and the dictatorship of relativism

George Weigel

You’ve probably never heard of the Waupoos Family Farm. I hadn’t either, until I met some folks involved in it during a recent visit to Ottawa. Their story vividly illustrates the dictatorship of relativism at work.

The farm is a vacation site for poor families who can’t afford a holiday together. It’s run by Christians who apply only one criterion to their potential guests: applicants must have an income below Statistics Canada’s poverty line. That’s it. No religious requirements. No work-for-play requirements. All you have to be is poor.

For years, the Waupoos Foundation, which supports the farm, has received Canadian government funds, through Canada’s summer jobs program, to help staff the farm and assist the low-income people the farm serves. Win-win-win, right? Poor families get vacations; summer interns get real-world experience and a modest income through working with and for low-income families; the taxpayers are assured that their dollars are being put to good use among people who really appreciate the help.

Well, wrong. Or at least wrong according to the Canadian department of Employment and Social Development, which is not going to fund summer jobs at the Waupoos Farm this year because the Waupoos Foundation has declined to accept a new governmental requirement: that recipients of summer jobs funds must “attest” that respecting human rights means respecting “reproductive rights,” which include “the right to access safe and legal abortions.” So, unless something changes soon, the Waupoos Foundation is going to have to scramble to find private sector money to support summer jobs at the Waupoos Family Farm. And if the Foundation has to cut back on staff as a result of the government’s refusal to fund summer jobs at the farm — which will amount to a governmental rejection of the Foundation’s conscientious objection to affirming abortion-on-demand as a human right — poor people will suffer as a result.

Since taking power in November 2015, the government of Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau has been a paragon of political correctness, sometimes to the point of self-parody. One ukase recently instructed Canadian governmental employees to avoid using the honorifics “Mr.,” Mrs.,” and “Ms.” and the words “mother” and “father” in interacting with the public, as these terms could be understood as “gender specific.” The prime minister himself, during a public meeting, corrected a woman who used the word “mankind,” saying that the preferred term was “peoplekind.” Alas, it’s all of a piece with a government which, in defiance of all logic and linguistic common sense, insists that “reproductive rights” include the “right” to willfully terminate reproduction by killing an innocent human being.

A broad coalition of religious leaders protested the coercion of consciences implicit in the “reproductive rights” attestation, including representatives of religious communities that do not share orthodox Christian convictions about abortion. Thus far, their protests have been fruitless, although there is talk of the attestation being reconsidered next year. Meanwhile, though, and for as long as the “reproductive rights” attestation remains in force, the Trudeau government will continue to embody the dictatorship of relativism: the imposition of a relativistic morality on everyone by coercive state power, with poor people often the losers.

I hope the attestation disappears, just as I hope Prime Minister Trudeau begins to use the English language properly; at least one North American head of government should be able to do so. But even if the Trudeau administration reverses itself on this blatant coercion of consciences, there may be an important lesson here for Canadian non-profits, including the Catholic Church: beware of too close an embrace of Caesar and too great a dependence on Caesar’s coin.

Canada does not have the culture of philanthropy that exists in the United States, in part because Canada remained part of the British Empire after Americans bade farewell to King George III. In Canada, a tradition of governmental benevolence and largesse grew out of the experience of monarchy, while in America the republican habits of voluntarism and philanthropy (identified in the 1830s by Alexis de Tocqueville) formed early. The current Canadian summer jobs-funding fracas may thus suggest to our friends north of the 49th parallel that developing a culture of giving, capable of supporting a thick network of non-governmental organizations involved in education, health care, and social work, is good in itself — and essential when Caesar’s coin turns toxic.

COMING UP: The Holy See, China, and evangelization

Sign up for a digital subscription to Denver Catholic!

In a recent interview, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Holy See, suggested that certain critics of a deal between the Vatican and the People’s Republic of China were misconstruing the Holy See’s motivations: “There are those who’ve accused us of only wanting diplomatic relations as a sign of some sort of success. But the Holy See, as the pope has said many times, is not interested in diplomatic successes.”

It’s just possible that, among other things, His Eminence had in mind an online article I published at Foreign Policy.com this past February. There, I argued that the decades-long passion of some Vatican diplomats for securing diplomatic relations with the PRC reflected an outmoded view of the Holy See’s role in world affairs, in which the Vatican is imagined to be a third-tier power trying to punch above its weight (as the cardinal secretary of state of Pius VII, Ercole Consalvi, did at the Congress of Vienna in 1815). That is no longer the case, I suggested, for the only real power the Holy See can deploy in 21st-century world politics is the power of moral witness and argument. That moral authority is compromised, and the life of the Church under totalitarian or authoritarian regimes is weakened, when deals are made by the Vatican that concede far too much authority in Church affairs to communist regimes. Which is what happened under the so-called Ostpolitik of Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Agostino Casaroli: a policy of accommodation that led to grave problems for the Church in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and caused unnecessary headaches for the Church in Poland in the 1960s and 1970s, before the Ostpolitik was effectively jettisoned by the most geopolitically consequential pope in centuries, John Paul II.

So the issue here is not an untoward eagerness for diplomatic success; the issue is one of confusing diplomatic accomplishment with evangelical achievement. And that gets me to the oft-repeated nub of my critique of the putative deal between the Vatican and the People’s Republic of China: any arrangement by which the Chinese communist authorities are conceded a significant role in the appointment of Catholic bishops will weaken the Church’s evangelical possibilities — today, and especially in the China of the future. Kowtowing to communists is bad for achieving a full reconciliation among the currently divided factions in the Catholic Church in China. But first and foremost, it is bad for mission and evangelization, now and in the future.

I am skeptical of the claim, often heard in Vatican circles, that China will inevitably become the lead power in the world. Yes, China has made enormous strides economically since Deng Xiaoping abandoned Maoist economic madness and unleashed the creativity of the Chinese people. Yes, the Chinese model of efficient authoritarianism is now a serious competitor to democracy. And yes, the communist regime’s claim to have restored the Middle Kingdom’s dignity after a century of quasi-colonial degradation has significant appeal among Han Chinese (if not among Tibetans and the Uighurs of Xinjiang). But the one-child policy that China brutally enforced for decades has created serious demographic and social problems; there’s little in the way of a social safety net for an increasingly elderly Chinese population; and it seems unlikely that today’s restraints on free expression in China will be tolerated indefinitely by a rapidly growing middle class.

The communist regime in China is inherently unstable, despite what appears on the surface to be a successful, alternative model of development. Chinese communism will not rule China forever. And when a post-communist China finally opens itself fully to the world, China will become the greatest field of Christian mission since the Europeans came to the western hemisphere in the 16th century.

A Catholicism that has become identified with a discarded communist regime, because the Vatican once conceded the communists a significant role in the Church’s internal life, will be at a grave evangelical disadvantage in the post-communist China of the future, where evangelical Protestants and Mormons will be very, very active. And that evangelical concern, I would respectfully remind Cardinal Parolin, has long been the core of my argument against granting the Chinese communist regime a significant role in the choice of bishops.

Or to quote Pope Francis, any such deal would be an impediment to living out the Holy Father’s vision of “a Church permanently in mission.”

Featured photo by Martha Calderon | CNA