Blog Archive » 2007 » January

Father Drinan's last column in the National Catholic Reporter was a plea for the United States to resolve a longstanding national shame. Of 192 members of the United Nations, 185 have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women — but not the United States. Yes, that's right. Adopted by the U.N. in 1979, the Convention has been ratified by 185 nations — but not the U.S. Shame on US. It would be a fitting tribute to Father Drinan's tireless quest for equal justice if this nation took the steps necessary to ratify the Convention in time for the 2007 Women's History Month observances in March.

Click here for Information on Services for Father Drinan and Condolence Messages

He was just here. Now he's gone. We didn't even have a minute to say goodbye.

Reverend Robert Drinan, S.J., passed away tonight at after a brief illness. The obits say he was 86, but for me, he was timeless.

He just was here, in Notre Dame Chapel, celebrating Mass for Nancy Pelosi and delivering a powerful homily about the need to work for justice for children in Darfur and around the world. He was his usual passionate, eloquent, direct self. He sent me his homily with his usual lovely note; I didn't have time to write back to thank him. Somehow, I think he knew this was his last great public statement about the need to work tirelessly for justice in this world, to relieve the misery of children in places most of us have never imagined.

To me, Bob Drinan was more than a famous priest, a former member of Congress who stepped down because Pope John Paul II insisted that priests could also not be politicians. He joined the faculty at Georgetown Law Center where we became friends. He was a folk hero to many, an icon of the human rights movement, a true Liberal not afraid of the "L" word. He was unafraid to speak the truth — about human rights, civil rights, equal rights for women, the utter waste and injustice of war. He never considered whether his position was politically correct — he was morally driven, selfless in speaking out against injustice.

But to me, that great man was a friend, albeit distant, a colleague, but not close, a mentor who may not have even known his impact. I came to know him when I was a young assistant dean working in development and alumni relations at Georgetown University Law Center; he was a well-respected and sought-after member of the faculty. We traveled together to alumni events, compared notes about various issues at the school, and I listened to him debate large matters and mundane in the faculty lounge. He was always flying off to witness the first elections in a new democracy, or to testify about the evil of nuclear weapons, or to give a speech about the need to demand human rights. He leaned into his words, never minced the language, remained utterly clear. I could listen to him speak for hours. His tiny office at the law school was a vortex of passion, intellect and spiritual questing. He was huge in his public stature, but he was so humble that to be in his company was to be immediately accepted, included, considered on equal terms. Those great eyes would bore into his companion, peering into the souls around him, seeking to establish the listener's points on the moral compass, a compelling magnetism of moral authority.

Later, when I moved on to Trinity, he would send me notes of encouragement, lovely Christmas letters of support. He came over once and spoke to our students; later, when we saw each other he always inquired about Trinity as if he had just been here.

He was just here, celebrating Mass for Speaker Pelosi. I had spoken with him several days before the Mass, going over the details; he was mostly eager to be sure that Nancy received appropriate recognition for her achievement. On January 3, typical of Father Drinan, we had reserved a space on the front circle for him, but he parked in the parking lot with everybody else and carried his vestments flying in the breeze across the front lawn. When we greeted each other he immediately said how pleased he was with all the good reports he was hearing about Trinity. He didn't need to be the center of attention, but people gravitated toward him anyway. After Mass, he took off before I could say goodbye. But he sent his homily with very kind words in the cover note.

I suspect that Father Drinan will not rest in peace. I suspect he will disturb the peace in eternity in the same way that he reminded the living to remain uncomfortable, dissatisfied, unwilling to accept trite, rote, duplicitous solutions to humanity's great needs.

So many will miss him; but in the ways his tireless and passionate advocacy for justice and peace inspired our work, he will still live among us.

Tributes to Father Drinan: Georgetown Law Faculty Blog, Massachusetts Delegation Plans Memorial, Speaker Pelosi's Tribute, dailykosblog, sobermomblog

Somewhere in the middle of President Bush's State of the Union address last evening, I found myself looking around the room and marveling at the elasticity of our democracy through power shifts between the major parties and among major political figures. The "room" I beheld was the actual House Chamber itself. Yes, there I was — realizing a long-ago student fantasy to be an eyewitness to a "live" State of the Union address. Even more amazing, I was sitting just a few seats away from First Lady Laura Bush and her special guests. Not to brag, but simply to recall this small piece of Trinity history for the record, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Trinity '62) honored me and Trinity with an invitation to attend the address as her guest. (Prove it, you say? See this photo link to the New York Times illustration of the First Lady's box — I'm in the coral jacket near the top — only the White House guests are identified, not the Speaker's, but heck, just being there was amazing!)

Speaker Pelosi herself embodied the ambitious dreams of generations of Trinity Poli-Sci majors as she wielded the gavel with grace and firmness. What a proud moment for Trinity to see our sister alumna sitting next to Vice President Cheney, receiving the gracious congratulations of President Bush. His opening words were direct and elegant:

"…tonight, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of my own, as the first president to begin the State of the Union message with these words: 'Madam Speaker.' In his day, the late congressman, Thomas d'Alessandro, Jr., from Baltimore, Maryland, saw Presidents Roosevelt and Truman at this rostrum. But nothing could compare with the sight of his only daughter, Nancy, presiding tonight as speaker of the House of Representatives. Congratulations, Madam Speaker."

Many news reports and commentaries offer videos, text and insights into the President's address and the Democratic response, and I will not repeat those observations here. Rather, for me the evening provided numerous examples of the power of ritual to bridge profound differences of opinion, as well as the genius of the 220 year-old document we call the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution requires the President of the United States to "give to the Congress information on the state of the union" (Article II Section 3) but the form of this delivery of information is not specified. Until the mid-20th Century, the form of the address was usually in writing, but since President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the address has usually been delivered in-person by the President to a joint session of Congress.

Elaborate rituals of greeting and affirmation during the State of the Union address help to cushion the stark political differences always alive in the House Chamber, now more acute since the election that shifted control of Congress from Republicans to Democrats. Standing ovations greeted the Speaker (hooray! many cheers!), First Lady, Cabinet and President, and during the speech there were moments when the entire room stood again to applause in unison — support for the troops, cheers for the "heroes" mentioned at the end. Of course, moments of difference were also clear — Democrats lept up to cheer for reducing reliance on oil, Republicans cheered for a pledge of no new taxes. Sitting next to me in the "Executive Gallery" the spouses of the Supreme Court Justices sat quietly for the most part, telegraphing no opinions on issues that might be justiciable. The mob of journalists in the press gallery above the Speaker's rostrum also betrayed no biases, quietly observing save for the cameras clicking and pages turning as they followed the President's text.

Was it different, being there "in-person" instead of home watching on TV? Of course! I confess my attention was less on the speech itself, which I had already skimmed, and more on the dynamics of the Chamber's dramatic figures — what were Vice President Cheney and Speaker Pelosi chatting about while they awaited the President's arrival? Who is that man who looks so familiar in the next box — my goodness, it's Michael J. Fox! In front of me, some members of the White House guest group sat on the gallery steps on small pillows emblazoned with the seal of the President of the United States. Two little girls in pink, young daughters of honoree Wesley Autrey (the New Yorker who saved a man from a subway train) chased up and down the aisle, then fell asleep before they could see the president honor their father. What other evening brings together Senators Kennedy and Lieberman and Lott and Clinton with Condi Rice, the Supreme Court Justices and the military Chiefs of Staff?

For a few brief hours every January, these chamber galleries gather witnesses to vast power, plain citizens like me along with the occasional celebrity. We come to see the Constitutional Balance of Powers in action. Senators and Congressional Representatives, President and Justices, military leaders and Cabinet leaders with strong political differences and equally strong commitments to the peaceful negotiation of those differences to shape the law and policy of the nation. The President's speech is, in many ways, the foil for a much more remarkable statement to the world: democracy is only possible where freedom of thought, belief and expression prevails. When democracy really works, peace prevails and liberties are secure.

Our job as citizens is to be sure that all these powerful people remember that simple point: we grant them the power through our votes in order to ensure our freedom. When power becomes imbalanced, freedom is in danger. It's not a bad thing for power to shift among the parties, for the President and Congress to have sharp differences about the major policy issues of this moment. In the passionate debates and strong statements of principles that will ensue over many issues in the months to come, the United States will regain some of the balance and perspective necessary to restore peace and achieve justice both abroad and at home.

Full coverage in the Washington Post

Full coverage in the New York Times

No…. this is not about Hillary. But on the same day that Senator Clinton made her "I'm in to Win" presidential campaign announcement, two individuals made history by being "In to Win" in a professional field not wholly unlike the rough and tumble of politics: professional football.

Chicago Bears Coach Lovie Smith and Indianapolis Colts Coach Tony Dungy are both In to Win the Super Bowl as a result of their victories last Sunday. And in the Arena of American Life, both have already scored a huge victory as the first African American coaches ever to reach the Super Bowl. In a professional world notoriously difficult for Blacks to achieve top management positions on the field and in the front office, Coach Dungy and his protege Coach Smith shattered barriers with hard work, persistence, grace under pressure, and excellence in pursuit of their goals.

When the Colts and Bears meet on February 4 in Miami for the Super Bowl, sentiment will give way to cold competitive instincts. Smith and Dungy will be In to Win the biggest professional sports prize of all. Only one team can prevail to take home the coveted Vince Lombardi Trophy, but both coaches will be victorious in the proud light of history.

See Super Bowl,

For the longest time she was known only as Jane Roe, a legal pseudonym for a plaintiff whose identity was hidden because of the nature of her case — a young pregnant woman in Texas seeking to overturn the state's ban on abortion. Given the long years that elapse in appellate litigation, Plaintiff Roe had her baby, and later had a change of heart. But the Supreme Court proceeded to hear the case and to rule that state laws against abortion were an unconstitutional infringement on a woman's right to privacy. Later, Norma McCorvey, the real Jane Roe, emerged from the shadows, now a born-again Christian renouncing the Supreme Court decision that bears her fictitious name, Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Last year the Supreme Court denied her petition to reopen the case. But the underlying issues of Roe v. Wade are far from settled. Justice Blackmun's opinion, a discursive expedition through history, philosophy, sociology, medicine and religion, law and public policy, may well be one of the most frequently-read and contentious rulings ever issued by the Supreme Court.

January 22 is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and each year thousands people who believe that abortion should be illegal come to Washington for the March for Life. The purpose of this large public demonstration is to demand that Congress and the Supreme Court reverse Roe and enact laws that will protect human life from conception. Because, like many major religions, the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is a grave moral evil, many Catholic organizations will participate in the March for Life. To find out more information about the march and related events see Archdiocese of Washington Rally for Life

To learn more about Catholic doctrine, read Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life") which summarizes the Catholic Church's teachings on the dignity of human life.

While many Americans from many religious backgrounds, not only Catholics, agree that abortion is morally wrong, there is far less agreement on whether the law should incorporate this moral and religious belief. This is not a new problem in spite of the tendency of modern Americans to think that all social issues start with our own experience. The Blackmun opinion in Roe v. Wade traces the ancient roots of our contemporary abortion controversies, and outlines the philosophical, medical and scientific debates about when human life begins. Pro-life proponents argue that Blackmun's parsing of trimesters is just wrong, that human life begins at conception and public policy should always protect human life. Pro-choice advocates defend the woman's right to privacy in matters affecting her own body, and also argue that recriminalizing abortion will be harmful to women, particularly poor women, who will revert to dangerous practices to end their pregnancies.

A review of all of the legislation, litigation and legal opinions issued since Roe illustrates the hash that emerges when lawyers and politicians try to make rules for moral and ethical conduct. Some human conditions may be simply too important for legislatures or judicial chambers to be the ultimate arbiters of conduct. Law is generally a poor substitute for sound moral reasoning or effective and comprehensive social services for people who need support to make the right decision.

Advocates on behalf of the dignity and sacredness of human life might be more effective if they took care to avoid harsh rhetoric and broad condemnations. Calling people names because they have different opinions about the best tactical approach is unlikely to garner support for any cause. To say that the a more effective solution to the social and moral problem of abortion lies in better education and social service, not legislation and governmental fiat, does not deny the moral wrong but acknowledges the human condition in all of its complexity and need.

Advocates on behalf of women's rights might also be more effective if they stopped glossing over the real moral problem at the heart of the abortion decision. To equate an abortion to some other elective surgery is irresponsible. To say that women should have better health care to deliver healthy babies, better economic opportunities to care for their children properly, or to have more effective adoption solutions does not betray women's rights.

The late Cardinal Joseph Bernadin of Chicago spoke on the need to adopt a "Consistent Ethic of Life" also known as the "Seamless Garment" philosophy. Consistent with Pope John Paul II's "Gospel of Life," this approach reminds Catholics that the defense of human life encompasses all life, and specifically includes our approaches to abortion, capital punishment, war, nuclear arms, discrimination, exploitation, care for the poor, and related social justice issues affecting the quality of human life and human dignity.

Death marches across our screens (TV, computer, now telephones and PDAs) relentlessly. When it's not the news (war, executions, violence just up the street) it's "entertainment." Let's use our reflections about the right to life on January 22 to renew our collective will to work for peace and justice for all human beings on all of the other days.

See Archdiocese of Washington Pregnancy Care Centers and Catholic Community Services (Catholic Charities)