Sen. Ted Kennedy and Robert F. Drinan, S.J. a decade or so after the Hyannisport meeting.
Posted on 06/09/2012 4:00:46 PM PDT by NYer
In 2010, I wrote in TCT on The “Catholics for Obama” Syndrome – a phenomenon that prevailed in the 2008 election, in which 54 percent of Catholics voted for Barak Obama – and that still prevails as we ready ourselves for the November 2012 election.
In that column, I discussed long-standing inclinations of Catholics to vote Democratic. Even if a mobster or dictator were the Democratic candidate, some Catholics would still not vote Republican. A major reason for this is that many Catholics view the Democrats as the political party closest to Catholic principles of social justice. Abortion, strangely, is not considered an essential issue of social justice. This belief took hold for Catholics partly as a result of the historic 1964 meeting at Hyannisport, where the Kennedys and the Shrivers talked over the subject for two days with dissident Catholic priests and theologians.
The Hyannisport meeting was meant to salve the doubts of Ted Kennedy and others, who had earlier been pro-life. The “experts” they invited included, ex-Jesuit Albert Jonsen, Frs. Joseph Fuchs and Robert Drinan, Charles Curran, Richard McCormick, and the Rev. Giles Milhaven. After much intensive dialogue, they came to the conclusion that a Catholic could vote in favor of abortion.
The change that followed was gradual. In fact, in 1971 Ted Kennedy wrote a letter to a constituent emphasizing the imperative of our generation to “fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.” But during the 1970s Kennedy “evolved” into a champion of “abortion rights,” followed by John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and many other Catholics, some still active in Congress.
The view that the right to life is not included in the roster of rights to be protected caught on and spread to staunch Catholic Democrats. For them, the fact that Obama was solidly for abortion, for example, even to the extent of supporting the killing of a baby resulting from a botched abortion, was no obstacle to regarding him as a champion of social justice.
In addition, there also has prevailed among Catholic Democrats the perception of the Republican Party as the “party of the rich” – in spite of the fact that “movers and shakers” among the Democrats – the Kennedys, the Kerrys, the Pelosis, et al. – have themselves been incredibly rich; seven out of the ten richest members of Congress are Democrats.
But the strangest misperception by Catholic Democrats has to do with regarding Republicans as opposed to civil rights. Every civil rights act up to 1964 had been sponsored by Republicans – including the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights act of 1866, the Reconstruction act of 1867, anti-lynching bills, and anti-poll-tax bills; it was the Republican Party that implemented desegregation in public schools and the military, established the 1958 Civil Rights Commission, and sponsored the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Those of us who followed the news during the 1950s and 1960s remember how Democratic governors tried to stop desegregation, and that every senator opposed to black civil rights was a Democrat.
Sen. Ted Kennedy and Robert F. Drinan, S.J. a decade or so after the Hyannisport meeting.
The reason for the mistaken view regarding Republicans and civil rights may be traced to the creation of “affirmative action” initiatives by President Nixon. In the aftermath, some Republicans began criticizing the use of “quota” systems, and the development of “reverse discrimination,” after minorities were given preference.
Since 2008, unfortunately, the Democratic Party has effectively become the “abortion party.” Until recently, the party has had a cadre of pro-lifers. But in the 2010 election, much to the chagrin of the Democrats for Life of America (DFLA), fourteen pro-life Democrats were defeated. DFLA is now concentrating on the creation of a “big tent” program, including the removal of language in the platform allowing taxpayer funding of abortion. But this might be too little, too late.
How was it possible for Catholics in good conscience to justify voting for someone who supports abortion at any time, even when a baby is born alive after a failed abortion? And supports funding for abortion around the world? And now wants to involve Catholic institutions in indirectly funding contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization procedures?
Contraception is a key factor. Many liberal Catholics have ignored Humanae vitae, and are just waiting for what they consider to be the inevitable concession of the Church to the sensus fidelium (“sense of the faithful”) – a change that will never happen. But a contraceptive mindset carries with it important logical connections. Once one believes in the right to sex without procreation, and contraception occasionally fails, abortion remains as the ultimate, although regrettable, means of exercising that “right.”
In the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, the Supreme Court clearly made the logical connection:
In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.
The recent defection of a dedicated pro-life Democrat, Jo Ann Nardelli, the Vice President of the Pennsylvania State Women’s Caucus, from the Abortion Party because of her Catholic principles, may be a catalyst for further defections. But for many Catholics, who pride themselves on never voting Republican, and who are still able to connect a commitment to “social justice” with permissiveness about abortion and contraception, no pangs of conscience develop.
They – and it’s likely their family and friends – would never think of abandoning the “progressive” agenda, which somehow is construed as virtually synonymous with the Catholic agenda – while more than 50-million aborted babies may be viewed as “collateral damage.”
Ping!
There is no way that any human being Catholic or not can say they believe in social justice and vote for a party that murders the unborn and wants to pull feeding tubes or shorten the lives of those they do no deem cost effective enough to live.
Not strange at all - if not invented for this purpose, the concept of "social justice" is the convenient excuse for left-leaning Christians to vote for what they otherwise know is patently wrong.
As an aside, I've yet to meet a left wing Christian for whom spiritual values ever trumps political positions.
Not to mention Cardinal Cushing.
Also unmentioned is the overwhelming influence on democrat politics of Irish immigrants who, some would say, cared less for “social justice” (I doubt the term even existed back then) than the repeal of prohibition, labor “rights,” and a new-found freedom for what many thought was far too much Church influence in their lives (see Margaret Higgins Sanger). As another Irish sociologist/novelist (Fr. Andrew Greeley, who wasn’t quite famous enough at the time to attend the Hyannis meeting) rightly argued, democrat politics replaced the Church in Irish fealties—especially in the area of getting back at the Sassenach (whether Tories or Republicans).
Neither the Italian nor German immigrants had the deep-seated hatreds and wounds of the Irish; but as immigrants, the Irish preceded them and pretty much set the agendae for democrat philosophy—essentially us vs. them (the anglo establishment that founded the U. S. and attempted to adhere to its Constitution).
Not to mention Cardinal Cushing.
Also unmentioned is the overwhelming influence on democrat politics of Irish immigrants who, some would say, cared less for “social justice” (I doubt the term even existed back then) than the repeal of prohibition, labor “rights,” and a new-found freedom for what many thought was far too much Church influence in their lives (see Margaret Higgins Sanger). As another Irish sociologist/novelist (Fr. Andrew Greeley, who wasn’t quite famous enough at the time to attend the Hyannis meeting) rightly argued, democrat politics replaced the Church in Irish fealties—especially in the area of getting back at the Sassenach (whether Tories or Republicans).
Neither the Italian nor German immigrants had the deep-seated hatreds and wounds of the Irish; but as immigrants, the Irish preceded them and pretty much set the agendae for democrat philosophy—essentially us vs. them (the anglo establishment that founded the U. S. and attempted to adhere to its Constitution).
Not to mention Cardinal Cushing.
Also unmentioned is the overwhelming influence on democrat politics of Irish immigrants who, some would say, cared less for “social justice” (I doubt the term even existed back then) than the repeal of prohibition, labor “rights,” and a new-found freedom for what many thought was far too much Church influence in their lives (see Margaret Higgins Sanger). As another Irish sociologist/novelist (Fr. Andrew Greeley, who wasn’t quite famous enough at the time to attend the Hyannis meeting) rightly argued, democrat politics replaced the Church in Irish fealties—especially in the area of getting back at the Sassenach (whether Tories or Republicans).
Neither the Italian nor German immigrants had the deep-seated hatreds and wounds of the Irish; but as immigrants, the Irish preceded them and pretty much set the agendae for democrat philosophy—essentially us vs. them (the anglo establishment that founded the U. S. and attempted to adhere to its Constitution).
With regards to the Irish, they didn't try at all. That was a large part of the problem.
The answers given for Catholic support of liberal causes do not compute.
Obama is a servent of Satin...
How can a “Catholic” say they they are for Obama? NO WAY!
And liberals make up the majority of RCs, and they vote for Obama because they are, not some commitment to social justice. And they have their substantial amount of priestly supporters.
In before *This is an anti-Catholic hate site, we need to have the RM ban it*
I have had Catholics I worked with tell me this very thing.
And these are actively practicing Catholics, not the twice a year attenders but rather every Sunday and most holy days and active in other activities in their parishes.
And the problem persists. Heck, I’m Irish and have been fighting the Irish in the Church since 7th grade (thanks to my wonderful and wonderfully Conservative Irish parents). The Sisters of Mercy (Harrisburg, PA) were never more orthodox than in defending democrats; but they saved a special wrath for Catholic (and apostate in their book) REPUBLICAN Sen. Joe McCarthy. Happily, the Irish priests in the parish overruled them.
Exactly. No matter what denomination.
Yes, it cannot be allowed to be read or to be credible if it comes for a source that is critical of Catholicism, which can mean that do not support it, and if it does come from Rome then it cannot be allowed if it is used to support a criticism, and must be false, and due to a unholy motive.
Not that Rome would even engage in such: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidore
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html
It was a matter of getting back at the English. If the English had remained Catholics, the Irish would have become a presbyterian as the Scots. The Episcopal Church was described at the turn of the last century as the Republican Party at prayer. Ironically is it not? The Irish are now among the bitterest foes of the Church. Yet a hundred years ago, it was the Church more than the Democratic Party that gave them the power that the Irish had craved so long, after being deprived of it by the hated English.
Superb! Why haven’t I seen this anywhere? (sarc) Have buys been scheduled and if so where?
Can’t help but wonder how many will see the obvious (to us chickens) connection to gay marriage. And if that number isn’t great, someone ought to be making the connection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.