Last week I had an epistolary exchange with Thomas Aquinas College. It was instructive. It was not, however, inspiring.

First came a phone call. I chatted with Mary Block, the Executive Assistant to the Dean, John Goyette. I explained that Peter Sonski, the American Solidarity Party’s presidential candidate, would like to visit the campus. Sonski and the College share a deep commitment to Catholic Social Teaching; both recognize the family as the foundation of the social order. So doesn’t it make sense, I asked, for the College to invite the candidate to drop by? After all, Sonski had already spoken at The Catholic University of America and Georgetown.

Mary Block passed my message along. In a letter to the College’s Dean, to Paul O’Reilly, its President, and to Michael McLean, its past president, she wrote:

Dear all,

Jim Hanink, with the Solidarity party, just called to say that Peter Sonski will be in California from October 7-11, and that he would be very interested in speaking at our campus. Mr. Hanink said he thinks the values of the College and of the Solidarity party are very much in sync. Would we be interested in having him? I’m not sure who the right person is to review/respond to his request. Mr. Hanink can be reached at …

God bless,

Mary

But my moderately high hopes were short lived. Another letter, from Chris Weinkopf, Executive Director of College Relations, soon followed.

Dear Mr. Hanink,

Thank you for reaching out to Thomas Aquinas College!

The College has long sought to distance itself (and its students) from the distractions of electoral politics, and as such wouldn’t be a suitable place for a campaign event. That said, when the election comes to an end, we’d certainly be open to welcoming Mr. Sonski so that he can share his thoughts and insights with our students. Please let us know if/when he comes out this way again!

God bless,

Chris

Oh, my. Golly. How could I let this PR chirpiness go unanswered? So, civil if not chirpy, I replied.

Greetings, Christopher,

If at first you do not succeed, try again. At least once!

You write that “The College has long sought to distance itself (and its students) from the distractions of electoral politics.” There are, no doubt, pragmatic reasons for doing so.

Nonetheless, the College also seeks, and successfully, to teach the habitus of hard thinking and the virtue of civic friendship necessary to sustain and develop a political democracy. Electoral politics is an integral part of our democracy. Sadly, today’s politics often limps along without the hard thinking and civic friendship upon which it depends.

Electoral politics can bring distractions. But far more importantly, it brings with it responsibilities that we cannot ignore. Surely the College would not discourage its students or faculty from a better understanding of the presidential election in which they will be voters.

It strikes me, as a longtime friend of the College, that offering Peter Sonski the opportunity for an informal conversation with interested students and tutors is worthy of your reconsideration.

What do you think? Perhaps a phone call would be of help.

To his credit, Chris wrote back. Did he think that a soft answer would turn away my incipient wrath?

Dear James,

I admire your perseverance! I brought your appeal to our president, but, alas, was met with the same response: “We look forward to hosting Peter Sonski after the election. A talk on the importance of civic virtue and the nature of political democracy would be well received at TAC.”

Disappointing, but I assure you the invitation is sincere! It may not help with the election, but a post-November visit could do much good toward planting the long-term seeds that are the good work of the ASP. Please stay in touch.

And thank you for thinking of TAC!

God bless,

Chris

What Chris finds disappointing, I find dismal.

While every analogy limps, I told Chris that this sorry episode called to mind Samuel Johnson’s chastisement of a purported patron of Johnson’s famous Dictionary. The Earl of Chesterfield, seven years after meeting Johnson, wrote a pair of anonymous essays promoting the Dictionary. But coming so late, the gesture was scarcely better than never. Johnson penned the following to Chesterfield. “The notice which you have been pleased to take of my labours, had it been early, had been kind: but it has been delayed till I am indifferent and cannot enjoy it…till I am known and do not want it.”

It is painful to take Thomas Aquinas College to task, and to do so publicly. When I think of the College, I think first of its careful nurturing of vocations to the priesthood and to the religious life. In doing so the College has played a marvelous role in the economy of grace.

There is, however, another vocation of huge importance. The College must do its part to foster it. It is the call to Christian statesmanship. Absent the nurturing of Catholic political leaders, we have suffered from abject counterfeits. We need only consider the rosary rattling President Biden, he who is simultaneously an abortion facilitator and a developer of a nuclear weapons stockpile. And now comes J.D. Vance, the Catholic convert apparently comfortable with mail-order assassination meds.

Thomas Aquinas College is hardly to blame for this grotesque failure of leadership. But it needs to speak up, with the clear confidence of which it is capable, to stoutly challenge it.