The Bishop and the Politician

I have heard friends lament that the Church is once again in the news this time denying a politician, Representative Patrick Kennedy, communion. They fear that it is more bad press which the Church doesn't need and that it gives the media another opportunity to lambaste the bishops. I, on the other hand, think any opportunity to put the Church's opposition to abortion on the front page is a good thing. At the very least, it gets people talking about this important issue and gives us an opportunity to dispel some persistent myths.

One of the most frequently heard criticisms of the Church's actions over the past years is that it is the role of legislators to represent their constituents, not their personal beliefs and certainly not the mandates of their Church. According to this view, Representative Kennedy is simply upholding the settled law of the land and the wishes of those who elected him to office. For him to go against the wishes of his constituents because of his personally held views would be a violation of his oath of office.

This line of argument was first proposed by Mario Cuomo when he was the governor of New York and has been echoed by every pro-abortion Catholic politician since. However, it does not hold up to scrutiny because it is not at all the way that politicians behave. Politicians routinely support and promote legislation which flies in the face of the values of their constituency. For instance, though the first Gulf War was largely supported by the people of Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy voted against it and was applauded for his courage. He was not representing the opinion of the people of Massachusetts, but his own personally held views. Most recently, the state legislature in Massachusetts enacted a law legalizing same-sex marriage though a majority of Massachusetts residents opposed it at the time. For that reason, the representatives would not allow the legislation to be placed on the ballot knowing it would go down to certain defeat. Again, their actions were not reflecting the interests of their constituents, but their personally held beliefs or the desires of an especially powerful and vindictive special interest.

In the current debate over health-care reform, Representative Kennedy has made it known that he would not support a bill that lacked a public option even though a majority of his constituents oppose it. Neither would he support a bill which did not include coverage for abortions, though his constituents oppose it. It is his personally held view that the public option and coverage for abortions are essential elements of any health-care reform package, and he is more than willing to impose that view on the people who elected him to office. But protections for the most vulnerable in society, the unborn child, he is not willing to either support or promote.

The fact is that Representative Kennedy has the clout because of his family's legacy to enact legislation to protect the unborn child from destruction and perhaps even convince his constituency that such laws are a good thing. He chooses not to whether because he does not agree that abortion is a heinous act or because he is under pressure from special interest groups within his party. Whatever the case, the values and interests of his constituents have nothing to do with it.

It is time for Representative Kennedy to admit that he does not think abortion is wrong and to accept the consequences his support for it has on his relationship with the Church. Of course, there is always hope that he will experience a conversion and become a champion of the rights of the unborn. With prayer and the continued persistence of our Catholic bishops to articulate clearly and forcefully how abortion harms the common good and undermines the future of our country, it is a possibility.