February 28, 2006
Public Officials Under God
By E.
J. Dionne Jr.
WASHINGTON -- When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he
said some things about Catholic bishops that might, in today's climate,
be condemned for 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 later
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 long, 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 only vote 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,'' says DeLauro. ``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,'' says DeLauro. ``And that meant you were defined
by others, not by yourselves.''
©
2006, Washington Post Writers Group
