Denver Catholic

30 MAY 26-JUNE 8, 2018 | DENVER CATHOLIC Perspectives Justin Trudeau and the dictatorship of relativism Y ou'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 dicta- torship of relativism at work. The farm is a vaca- tion site for poor fam- ilies who can't aš ord a holiday together. It's run by Chris- tians 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 Foun- dation, which supports the farm, has received Canadian government funds, through Canada's summer jobs program, to help staš the farm and assist the low-income people the farm serves. Win-win-win, right? Poor fam- ilies 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 depart- ment 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 "reproduc- tive 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 fi nd private sector money to support summer jobs at the Waupoos Family Farm. And if the Foundation has to cut back on staš 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 consci- entious objection to a• rming abor- tion-on-demand as a human right — poor people will suš er 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-par- ody. One ukase recently instructed Canadian governmental employees to avoid using the honorifi cs "Mr.," Mrs.," and "Ms." an d the words "mother" and "father" in interacting with the public, as these terms could be understood as "gender specifi c." The prime minister himself, during a public meeting, corrected a woman who used the word "mankind," saying that the preferred term was "people- kind." Alas, it's all of a piece with a government which, in defi ance of all logic and linguistic common sense, insists that "reproductive rights" include the "right" to willfully termi- nate reproduction by killing an inno- cent human being. A broad coalition of religious leaders protested the coercion of con- sciences implicit in the "reproductive rights" attestation, including repre- sentatives 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 attesta- tion being reconsidered next year. Meanwhile, though, and for as long as the "reproductive rights" attestation remains in force, the Trudeau govern- ment will continue to embody the dic- tatorship of relativism: the imposition of a relativistic morality on everyone by coercive state power, with poor people often the losers. I hope the attestation disap- pears, 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 con- sciences, there may be an important lesson here for Canadian non-prof- its, 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 lar- gesse grew out of the experience of monarchy, while in America the republican habits of voluntarism and philanthropy (identifi ed 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 paral- lel 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. We should have listened to Pope Paul VI H appy Humanae Vitae 50th Anniversary! I don't know about you, but for me it's been a whirlwind. Par- ties, parades, som e great fi reworks shows. Oh, and did you see the Hollywood All-Star Tribute to Pope Paul VI? OK, maybe not so much. It's a shame, really. If everyone had somehow, miraculously, listened to Pope Paul VI back in 1968, the world could be a very diš erent place today. Heck, we might not even have a need for the #MeToo movement. Allow me to explain. Up until the 1960s, it was pretty universally recognized that sex between people of childbearing age came with the distinct possibility of the aforementioned childbearing. Birth control methods up to that point were somewhat rudimentary and unreliable. Procreation was an inherent part of sexual activity — part of its meaning. So, respecting a woman meant not putting her at risk of a pregnancy she wasn't prepared for. And she in turn had a clear-cut, universally recognized reason to be indignant if a man was pressuring her. But The Pill changed all of that. Young people (and a lot of older people, too) fi gured that, without that pesky fear of pregnancy, they could indulge in sexual activity whenever, and with whomever, they chose. It would be fun, they thought. Sex feels good, they thought. Why not have more of it, with more people, they thought. And then Pope Paul VI said "no." In Humanae Vitae, he essentially said that Pill or no Pill, birth control was still not morally licit. The young people of the Free-Love Generation were not disappointed by this news — only because, I would imagine, they were too busy making love and not war to notice an obscure, 23-page theological document released by a celibate guy who was way older than 30. But, had they been smart, they might have paid attention to the following passage from that obscure theological document: It can also be feared that the man who becomes used to contraceptive practices, may fi nally lose respect for the woman, and no longer caring about her physical and psychological equilibrium, come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfi sh enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion (HV 17). Does that sound at all familiar? The problem came because, as much as the generation of the 1960s wanted Free Love to really be free, it isn't. They fi gured removing the risk of pregnancy would remove the "strings," and everybody could just consensually enjoy everybody else's body with no ramifi cations. But there is a saying: "Nature bats last." Sexual activity was designed by God, not by us. And he, in myriad ways, designed it to be a profoundly, deeply, inherently meaningful act that touches the very core of the human psyche and spirit. Everything about it — physically, chemically, emotionally and spiritually — is built around the fact that it is a profound act of self-giving love that places the couple in the context of entering into and cooperating with him in his most sacred role — as Creator of the The Catholic Di¤ erence George Weigel is a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. GEORGE WEIGEL Guest Column Bonacci is a syndicated columnist based in Denver and the author of We're On a Mission from God and Real Love. MARY BETH BONACCI

• Cover