Mr. “Catholic-American” Politician

National Review Online ^ | July 29, 2002 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

[nickcarraway]

What are the Catholic bishops thinking?

Last 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.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[yendu bwam]

Basically, they picked a lefto / pro-homo / sex-is-never-bad group to try to figure out what to do about several hundred homosexual teenage boy molester priests and the system that creates and supports them. In a month, they'll be telling us that this is just about sex, and warrants no action.

[madprof98]

I am very glad to see this publicized, if only in one of the more predictable places. I sent a note to the NCCB about the selection of Panetta, but I doubt they care what the occasional critic-in-the-pew thinks: The panel is clearly just the latest stage in a long cover-up. I wish there were a way to donate ONLY to the parish, but I don't know how to do that. As a group, the bishops are clearly beyond hope for this life, if not beyond redemption.

[narses]

Ping.

[Romulus]

The lay "National Review Board" is a spin machine, nothing more. Their mission is not reform but damage control. Till now I've held no opinion of Keating, but it's becoming apparent that he too can be judged by the company he keeps.

[american colleen]

I wish there were a way to donate ONLY to the parish, but I don't know how to do that.

Call your parish priest and ask him exactly where the weekly collection goes. That's what I did. I also told him that many people were confused about the money issue and that he should make it clear whether it stays in the parish or goes on to the Diocese for redistribution.

In my parish, all the money stays within it, except for the occasional second collection for foreign missions, etc. There may be a yearly parish assessment by the Archdiocese of 4 to 6% of the gross - I'm not sure.

[Aunt Polgara]

Shame on Panetta for distorting Father Fagothey's position on abortion!

You see, I also was a student of Jesuit Fr. Austin Fagothey back in the '60's at Santa Clara University. He was a brilliant thinker. In fact, I still have his classic book on ethics, Right and Reason, Ethics in Theory and Practice. c. 1967.

Let me quote from page 232:

A futher question arises on the control of abortion by the civil law. As we shall see later, it is not the business of the state to regulate the whole private life of the citizens. Many immoral practices must be tolerated, especially in a pluralistic society where individual conscience is given as free a rein as is compatible with the public good. Abortion, however, involves another party besides the mother, father and the doctor. Their conspiracy to execute the child may be their private affair, but it is the state's business to come to the defense of the innocent victim. Current moves to liberalize and even abolish the abortion laws overlook completely the right of an existing unborn child to life, whatever the circumstances under which that life was begun, and its right to protection by the state against those who would destroy its life.

On a personal level, it was a forum put on by Fr. Fagothey and others at Santa Clara University back in the 60's on the abortion issue that clarified in my mind both the legal and moral issues surrounding abortion and made me the pro-lifer that I am today.

[Dajjal]

Bump

[Salvation]

"well-balanced" panel

NOT!

[nickcarraway]

Bronco Bump.

How despicable that he would distort Fr. Fagothey's position so.

[nickcarraway]

As regrettable as it is, if your parish doesn't pull in the required amount for the diocesan appeal, your pastor may be the one to pay the price.

[Aunt Polgara]

'Nother Bronco, huh? :-) I met my dear husband at SCU, and all 3 of our kids are alumni.

[ELS]

Thank you for the quote and reference.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

QUOTE FROM PANETTA:
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.

IMO, anyone who is pro-choice is not truly a Christian. Panetta doesn't belong on the panel. It's outrageous.

[ninenot]

Good post!

None of the individuals except Keating impress me as people who have an appropriate viewpoint--and Keating's barely positive.

There will be a whitewash.

[ninenot]

So you think that Panetta has a 'selective memory?'

Perhaps his name should be Pander-etta.

[Aunt Polgara]

Whata know? It's still in print. This is the second edition. I was quoting from the fourth edition, but I doubt that Fr. Fagothey changed much.

You can find it here at Amazon.com

Here is part of a reader review:

Right and Reason is probably the greatest and most successful Ethics book written to date. Widely used in Catholic colleges, it is undoubtedly the clearest and easiest-to-read Ethics text ever published. The author says that no book can take the place of a professor in the classroom, but this one virtually does-and Fr. Fagothey says he wrote it that way. Though issued in 1959, it remains remarkably contemporary and can be read basically by any adult-either in toto or as a handy reference to look up topics in question. Phrased in non-technical language, Right and Reason is a thoroughly competent book in the philosophy of Ethics, which gives the science of morality from the Aristotelian-Thomistic, common-sense school of thought-which is none other than the Perennial Philosophy of the Ages, the philosophy outside of which one's positions quickly become absurd and all reasoning ends up in dead-ends.