Wednesday, November 25, 2009


The recent brouhaha between Rhode Island representative Patrick Kennedy and the Church is founded in the fundamental difference between representation, and definitive control.

Mr. Kennedy being an elected representative in a representative democracy is supposed to represent the will of those whom he represents, however what we see is that Mr. Kennedy wants to define the parameters and control the outcomes.

As a representative, he is presumed to be holding to the democratic ideal of casting his Congressional votes the way the majority of his constituents have told him to do. Since however he was voted into office based in-part on the promotion of a "package-deal" (ie the DNC platform), he feels that he must now enact that package in it's entirety.

The citizens he represents may or may not agree with everything in that package, and they do have the right to be represented on important issues, in ways that may differ from the way his party hopes. However, Mr. Kennedy is THEIR representative to and in the US Federation, he is NOT the DNC's representative to those constituents.

The Church always asserts that everyone, including those in power, have a duty to uphold truth and protect the lives of our fellow citizens. The US state as here represented by Mr. Kennedy, asserts that the will of the majority is to be enacted in law without necessarily aligning to truth, nor protecting the lives of certain citizens. The majority rules. The strong decide for the weak.

These two positions are irreconcilably opposed.

Since the truth that life is continuous from conception to natural death is asserted theologicaly, and proven scientificaly, any deviation from protecting life throughout that entire continuum must be based in a will that is oppposed to truth. What Mr. Kennedy's actions demonstrate is that he is laboring under the assumption that the will of the majority of his constituents is to use federal funds to pay for abortions.

Recent polls do not support that assumption.

There is an old political saying that "the only poll that counts is the one on election day", and since Mr. Kennedy's basis for power is representation, then this important issue begs for a referendum.

If the people choose another ideal over truth, then Kennedy could be somewhat vindicated in that he would merely be doing the job of casting votes like an uninvolved robotic representative. If the people choose truth and life, then Mr. Kennedy must shelve his personal agenda and vote as instructed.

Being a Catholic means that Mr. Kennedy is aware that a murder is murder, even if it is sanctioned by law and public sentiment. Imagine if a Catholic politician supported the Nazi holocaust of Jews and suggested that his faith need not impact his politics, that he must side with the antisemitic majority.

Kennedy needs a referendum!

I support the use of Federal fund$$ to support,
and expand

Each of us too is called to bring our conscience into public life, to lead by our moral example, by our moral action, and by our demand that our political leadership do the same.

No comments: