[Mb-civic] Public Officials Under God - E. J. Dionne - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Public Officials Under God

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; A15

When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he said some things 
about Catholic bishops that might, in today's climate, be condemned as 
insolence toward church authority.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is 
absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should 
he be Catholic) how to act," Kennedy told the Greater Houston 
Ministerial Association in September 1960. "I do not speak for my church 
on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me."

Kennedy, of course, spoke those words in an effort to fight 
anti-Catholic bigotry. That was long before the 2004 campaign, in which 
John F. Kerry, only the third Roman Catholic in American history to be 
nominated for the presidency by a major party, found himself fending off 
certain prelates who said that his stand on abortion meant he could not 
receive communion -- and also meant that Catholics should not vote for him.

The episode caused anger, anguish and reflection among Democratic 
politicians who are Catholic. "People felt their faith was being 
questioned, and they were angry that ideologues were using the church 
for their own purpose," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut.

Such reflections have produced a remarkable document that will be 
released this week, a "Statement of Principles By Fifty-Five Catholic 
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives." It is, to the best of 
my knowledge, an unprecedented attempt by a large number of elected 
officials to explain the relationship between their religious faith and 
their public commitments.

"As Catholic Democrats in Congress," the statement begins, "we are proud 
to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes 
the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and 
highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those 
individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. 
House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life 
and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has 
moral purpose."

The statement is only six paragraphs, which gives it clarity and focus. 
After a paragraph on Catholic social teaching about the obligations to 
"the poor and disadvantaged," the writers get to the hard issue, 
insisting that "each of us is committed to reducing the number of 
unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that 
encourage pregnancies to be carried to term."

What's significant is that this is not a statement from pro-choice 
Catholics trying to "reframe" the abortion question. The signatories 
include some of the staunchest opponents of abortion in the House, 
including Reps. Bart Stupak, Dale Kildee, Tim Holden, James Oberstar and 
James Langevin.

In other words, Democrats on both sides of the abortion question worry 
that it is crowding out all other concerns. And in very polite language, 
the Catholic Democrats suggest that their bishops allow them some room 
to disagree. "In all these issues, we seek the church's guidance and 
assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience," they write in 
an echo of Kennedy. "In recognizing the church's role in providing moral 
leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes from being 
in disagreement with the church in some areas."

With any luck, this statement will provoke two debates, one outside the 
Catholic Church and one inside.

One of the troubling aspects of 2004 was the extent to which partisan 
politics invaded the churches and seemed to enlist them as part of the 
Republicans' electoral apparatus. But there is a difference between 
defending the legitimate right of churches to speak up on public 
questions and the hyperpoliticization of the church itself.

For Catholics with moderate or liberal leanings, the argument from some 
bishops that they could vote only for staunch foes of abortion posed a 
wretched dilemma. It seemed to demand that such voters cast their 
ballots for conservative or right-wing candidates with whom they might 
disagree on every other question -- social justice, war and peace, or 
the death penalty. All are areas where liberals are often closer to the 
church's view. "Our faith does and should affect how we deal with 
issues," DeLauro said. "But we're rebelling against the idea of a 
one-issue church."

If nothing else, these Catholic Democrats will haul out into the open a 
discussion with their bishops, with their fellow Catholics and with 
their constituents that has been festering underground. "We were silent 
for too long," DeLauro said. "And that meant you were defined by others, 
not by yourselves."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701043.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060228/e4fc87ab/attachment.htm