Teresa Ghilarducci: The Difference Between Eunice and Teddy on Abortion Is Irrelevant
[Teresa Ghilarducci is the Irene and Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research.]
My economist’s eye caught a familiar (false) debate over Catholic social teaching while reading New York Times columunist Ross Douthat, who compared Eunice Shriver favorably to Teddy Kennedy because she was a pro-life Catholic and Teddy was a Catholic for Choice. Unfortunately, Douthat advances a distorted version of Catholic social teaching: making us believe abortion is front and center.
Dignity for the human person includes opposition to the death penalty and promoting the right of workers to organize. On advancing the Church’s agenda on social issues both Kennedys deserve recognition. To be sure, Ted Kennedy had the platform and the power to effectively advance social justice, which is very much an economic agenda: See the Catholic Bishops' letter on the economy.
Did Ted Kennedy advance a policy giving the preferential option for the poor —the marginalized must have privileged claims if society is to provide justice for all? The answer is yes, he supported minimum wage so that work could provide at least a subsistence living.
Did Ted Kennedy support policies that allowed decisions to be made at the smallest, most personal level possible, which is called "subsidarity" in Catholic social teaching? Here is where abortion comes in. Many Catholics – in fact in the same proportions as the rest of the American population – don't want to criminalize abortion, because, as my former dean at the University of Notre Dame, Mark Roche, observed when John Kerry was running for president, nations that criminalize abortions have more abortions per capita.
Did Ted Kennedy support policies that advanced "solidarity," which means policies that do not rely on charity and inequality, but recognize that all of us are all connected and face the same risks? Yes, he supported social insurance, civil rights, Social Security, and medical care for all.
The difference between Eunice and Teddy is accurately irrelevant when poverty in the United States is still the highest of all developed nations (about one in five Americans are poor)...
Read entire article at The Chronicle of Higher Education
My economist’s eye caught a familiar (false) debate over Catholic social teaching while reading New York Times columunist Ross Douthat, who compared Eunice Shriver favorably to Teddy Kennedy because she was a pro-life Catholic and Teddy was a Catholic for Choice. Unfortunately, Douthat advances a distorted version of Catholic social teaching: making us believe abortion is front and center.
Dignity for the human person includes opposition to the death penalty and promoting the right of workers to organize. On advancing the Church’s agenda on social issues both Kennedys deserve recognition. To be sure, Ted Kennedy had the platform and the power to effectively advance social justice, which is very much an economic agenda: See the Catholic Bishops' letter on the economy.
Did Ted Kennedy advance a policy giving the preferential option for the poor —the marginalized must have privileged claims if society is to provide justice for all? The answer is yes, he supported minimum wage so that work could provide at least a subsistence living.
Did Ted Kennedy support policies that allowed decisions to be made at the smallest, most personal level possible, which is called "subsidarity" in Catholic social teaching? Here is where abortion comes in. Many Catholics – in fact in the same proportions as the rest of the American population – don't want to criminalize abortion, because, as my former dean at the University of Notre Dame, Mark Roche, observed when John Kerry was running for president, nations that criminalize abortions have more abortions per capita.
Did Ted Kennedy support policies that advanced "solidarity," which means policies that do not rely on charity and inequality, but recognize that all of us are all connected and face the same risks? Yes, he supported social insurance, civil rights, Social Security, and medical care for all.
The difference between Eunice and Teddy is accurately irrelevant when poverty in the United States is still the highest of all developed nations (about one in five Americans are poor)...