 |
|
July
29, 2002, 10:25 a.m.
Mr.
“Catholic-American” Politician
What
are the Catholic bishops thinking?
|
|
ast
week the Catholic bishops' conference announced
the names of the members of their lay "National Review Board"
dealing with the scandals that have come to the fore in recent months.
Putting aside the
issue of the name — "NATIONAL REVIEW Board" — some
eyebrows were raised when the bishops announced last month after their
Dallas conference that Robert Bennett, Clinton's impeachment lawyer, would
be on it. But it has gotten worse: Why is Leon Panetta on their panel?
We all know he was
a Clintonite, chief of staff to the man himself, earnest defender of the
president who held America hostage to his selfish ways. We also know he's
got a solid record of supporting abortion while in Congress. He co-sponsored
t the Freedom of Choice Act in 1990. While in the White House, he had
the honor of defending the president's opposition to a ban on partial-birth
abortion.
Panetta is not just
a supporter of abortion "rights" (as if that were not enough
to keep him off the Catholic bishops' panel investigating sexual improprieties
and crimes). He actually uses his Church membership to establish his moral
authority. Here's a revealing snippet from a "Leon E. Panetta, Member
of Congress" constituent form letter from 1992:
As a Catholic,
I have accepted certain answers as the right ones for myself and my
family and, because I have, they have influenced me in special ways.
However, as U.S. Congressman, I am involved in defining policies that
determine other people's rights in these same areas of life, death,
and morality. Perhaps Rev. Austin J. Fagothey, a Jesuit Priest, who
taught me at Santa Clara University and renowned for his scholarship
in ethics and morality, stated it most clearly in responding to the
abortion question: "A state, especially the pluralistic state of
today, must operate within the framework of popular consensus. The argument
for the immorality of abortion, the theory of rights on which it rests,
and the philosophy underlying the ethics there outlined is not accepted
by a large part of the population. I can be convinced of it beyond the
shadow of a doubt and steer my own life by it, yet be unable to convince
my fellow citizens of my views. Do I then have the right to impose my
philosophical convictions any more than my religious convictions on
others who disagree with me? I think not, and this is the reason why
I think there should be no laws on abortion. I believe the best way
to cope with abortion is not by punitive legislation but by a persuasive
program of moral education aimed at building up a respect for life.
Panetta espouses
the classic personally-I-may-be-opposed-but-publicly-I-must-represent-the-interest-groups-whom-I-represent
claim advanced by many so-called Catholic politicians. (Mario Cuomo is
only the most famous one; they are legion.)
Considering that
laxity on moral issues was a major cause of the pedophilia scandals in
the Catholic Church, this libertine perspective doesn't seem like something
the bishops really need on their new board. Some of them, however, seem
to think that as long as they have a "well-balanced" panel —
i.e. one Frank Keating, one Robert Bennett — they will be vindicated
in the eyes of the media. Fortunately, ultimately, they have a higher
power to answer to. And He doesn't take a liberal view on crimes against
the innocent: That goes for both sexual abuse and murder.
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
