Articles

THE SOCIAL EDGE INTERVIEW: PRIEST, SCHOLAR, LAWYER AND FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN ROBERT DRINAN

by Gerry McCarthy

Jesuit priest Robert Drinan is currently professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center. He has been a visiting professor at four American universities and dean of the Boston College Law School.

Fr. Drinan was a U.S. Congressman for five terms as a representative from Massachusetts. He has received numerous awards, including the 2003 Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute Freedom of Worship medal. This past August, he received the American Bar Association Medal that recognizes exceptionally distinguished service to the cause of American jurisprudence. The medal has been awarded since 1929 to some of the most important legal figures in American history --including 8 Supreme Court Justices.

Fr. Drinan is also the author of 11 books, including The Mobilization of Shame: A World View of Human Rights. His most recent book Can God and Caesar Coexist? Balancing Religious Freedom and International Law was just published by Yale University Press. I reached Fr. Drinan by telephone.

Gerry McCarthy: Toward the end of Can God and Caesar Coexist you write that: "History may well record that one of the greatest disappointments in the second half of the twentieth century was the neglect and the silence that governments and religious organizations extended to the efforts of the United Nations to preserve and enlarge religious freedom." Can you identify any signs that this might be changing?

Robert Drinan: It's clear that we now recognize that the presence or the absence of religious freedom is very essential in the evaluation of international law. If we look back over the last century, there has been up to a hundred million people who were killed over political turmoil. But involved in many of those was the question of religion. We look back at the Holocaust and the death of 6 million people. That clearly involved religion.

GM: In the book you write that "one of the basic assumptions in international law is that the actions of private parties are not under its jurisdiction." But you add that this "traditional view has given way to the opinion that individuals possess some rights and even some obligations under international law." Could you talk to me a little more about this?

RD: The concept of national sovereignty has been king up to now. It's always difficult to say that an individual nation has to subject itself to some international rule. However, in the Charter of the United Nations each nation has pledged (under Article 55 and 56) to be obedient, understand, and accept the rule of law as put forth by the United Nations. It's a totally new concept and every nation is struggling with this.

      A simple analogy would say that this period is like the period between the Articles of Confederation in the U.S. and the adoption of the U.S constitution. The Articles of Confederation gave rights to every state, but very few rights to the national entity. The constitution changed that and made it very clear that states are subservient to the national government in the U.S. That's precisely what's happening around the world. Sovereign nations of all kinds are resisting it --especially the U.S. But it's going to happen.

GM: Early in the book you write that: "The term 'conscience' is not in the U.S. constitution or in the United Nations charter. Its initial appearance in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights followed by its subsequent use in virtually all the major UN covenants on human rights is surely one of the most significant developments in national and international law. Conscience is an expandable concept, so its recognition in world law should not be underestimated. Its potential is almost incomprehensible." Individual conscience is a major theme in your book isn't it?

RD: Yes. It's an explosive concept. It goes back to the amazing thing that Martin Luther and Cardinal Newman both said: That the conscience of every individual is the voice of God.

GM: Where could individual conscience raise issues with regard to religious freedom?

RD: Let's take the Muslim world for a moment. According to the Koran and the Sharia (the law of Muslim nations) no person may leave the Muslim religion. If a man is brought up as a Muslim --the penalty for leaving the Muslim religion is stiff. We've had the famous case of Salman Rushdie, when an edict came out from Iran that he had to die. That's a clear case of the conscience of the individual --and of the Muslim religion being contrary to world law.

GM: At one point in the book you explain that: "An additional way for the family of nations to protect religious freedom is to foster intensified dialogue between organized religions of all forms." How could that dialogue be promoted? Are there signs more of this kind of dialogue might be occurring in the world?

RD: Obviously some dialogue is occurring at the ecumenical level. But what I was suggesting there is that we need a dialogue among the people of the world who are jurists. There are very difficult questions to be addressed. The religions have to be very candid. We think the Muslim religion poses more problems than others --but that's not clear. There are 48 Islamic nations and at the moment we're concerned about them. But other religions also pose a problem. One of the acute questions is war. There are millions of conscientious objectors in the world to war (or to all wars). They are not entirely protected by U.S. law. But it's hoped that the world will recognize that these people --in conscience-- cannot go to a war in which they are compelled to go by the law of their state. That should be protected.

      In the U.S. we say you have to serve, but you can do that as a conscientious objector. That's one of the major problems facing international law.

GM: Early in the book you write that: "Objections to the use of taxes to pay for war have been rejected by a number of national and international tribunals. The European commission on Human Rights rejected a claim based on conscientious objection to a particular tax on the grounds that the final destination of the funds cannot be identified. Courts in Canada and Australia arrived at similar conclusion." What do you make of this?

RD: There's been very little compromise around the world to the individual who says that I cannot approve of the state taking twenty percent of my taxes and putting it into armaments. The world now spends $900 billion a year on armaments. There are 28 million people in uniform around the world. The voice of conscience says this is wrong, because it's threatening the lives of people. But this voice hasn't yet been heard. But it's a very plausible account. The few people in the United States who have refused to pay the portion of their taxes that goes toward armaments have been disregarded by the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS just garnishes their wages. The tax objection seems like a far-out concept. But it's very real for the people who say that war is a violation of the law of God.

GM: Would you like to see this issue addressed more by the news media?

RD: It should be. But people have been discouraged, because there have been no decisions around the world allowing this. There have been proposals in the U.S. to allow people to withhold that section of their taxes that goes to war --and then put those taxes into some other worthy charity. But that bill has never moved out of committee in the U.S. Congress.

GM: In the book you explain that: "The hope and even the expectation of those involved in the revolution of expectations brought on by the United Nations era of human rights is the establishment of a world court to which persons victimized by religious zealots or by nations hostile to religion can appeal for justice." What would this kind of world court look like?

RD: We have the beginnings of that in the International Criminal Court. But unfortunately the U.S. has opted out. And they're doing everything they can to prevent the implementation of the International Criminal Court.

      What it would mean is that we would have a tribunal of some global dimension. If people felt they were being discriminated against in their religious freedom --they could apply for what the lawyers call "optional protocol." The tribunal would hear their case, and seek to give some relief.

      We have this in optional protocol in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For example: Individuals around the world (or Non Governmental Organizations) can file a complaint and they'll receive some type of response from the United Nations entity. This could be elaborated and developed. We have world decisions about all kinds of things. Why shouldn't we have it among the voice of conscience somewhere in some obscure country?

GM: In the book you explain that: "An emerging and difficult question is whether a set of rights for women clarified and enriched by international law can or should trump the right of religious groups to practice their beliefs." A bit later you turn to the example of the refusal of the Catholic Church and other religious bodies to ordain women as priests. Later you add that: "The struggle of women in the Catholic Church to obtain the right to be ordained to the priesthood is certainly based on the search for a new and revised interpretation of the Scriptures and of tradition. These women and their supporters might also employ an argument based on religious freedom; they could well assert that international law entitles them to equality in their religious allegiance --unless that equality is clearly denied by an indisputable teaching revealed by God." This isn't an argument that would be welcome in the Vatican --but it seems to be perfectly sound. My understanding is the Vatican stops short of saying their ban on women priests is revealed by God.

RD: They don't make it entirely clear. This brings up the basic question of whether world law (a secular body) could tell the Jewish tradition to ordain women. The orthodox Jews are opposed to doing this, because they say it's not ordained by God. That's the ultimate question. In the final analysis, I don't know whether we'll have to say there are some things that a religious group can say and do --and there can be no interference from secular international law.

      The Muslims say the Koran requires and allows a man to have a second and third wife. Many people think that's debasing to women and that it shouldn't be allowed.

      There are other questions on the frontier we have to resolve. But ultimately you'd have to say that the things of Caesar and the things of God have a separate sphere. Christ himself said that. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar."

      All that international law and Non-Governmental Organizations are asking for now is perfect and total religious freedom.

GM: What about the resistance to ordaining women to the ministerial priesthood in the Catholic Church?

RD: There's been severe resistance to the denial of ordination of women from the beginning. In the early Church there were deaconesses. Many people say: can't we revive that particular order? This has been a contention --but it's more so in the Modern Era when almost suddenly we have recognized the equality of women. In fairness to the religious bodies, we have to remember that the U.S. did not allow women to vote until 1920s. Also: the U.S. turned down the Equal Rights Amendment. It was not ratified by the 38 states required. Furthermore the U.S. has not yet ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

      Around the world there are men (and some women) coming to terms with the concept that says: Men and women are equal. From their point of view, there has to be some kind of barrier between them.

GM: You were a U.S. Congressman from Massachusetts for five terms. What do you say to students who express interest in running for public office, but are concerned about the kind of nasty tactics used in political campaigns today? Would you recommend electoral politics to individuals interested in influencing public policy?

RD: I teach the legislative process at Georgetown Law School. I always encourage people to run for office. As a professor at Georgetown, I'm very proud that there are18 graduates of Georgetown University now serving in the U.S. Congress. Just recently I spoke on behalf of a graduate of a Georgetown Law School who is now a Congresswoman from South Dakota and is facing election shortly.

      Obviously politics is a struggle. It's not an easy life all the time. But if people want to influence public morality --being a public official is an ideal forum.

GM: Still political campaigns can become nasty, and some insist it's extremely difficult for new ideas to emerge. But you still encourage people to run?

RD: I urge people to run for office. But I also urge everyone to participate in politics, campaign for their candidate, and to be active and influence public opinion. Indeed I don't know how every Christian cannot do those things. In the statement of the Catholic Bishops of America it says that every citizen and Catholic has a right to participate actively.

Gerry McCarthy is Editor of The Social Edge.