 |
|
|
|
||
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
Version |
|
July
29, 2002, 10:25 a.m. |
|
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.