[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 149 (Thursday, December 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: December 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       IN RECOGNITION OF BISHOP EDWARD M. EGAN OF BRIDGEPORT, CT

 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President. a short while ago, the Most 
Reverend Edward M. Egan, bishop of Bridgeport, was asked to deliver the 
homily at the Red Mass at St. Matthew's Cathedral here in Washington. 
The Red Mass is held every October on the Sunday before the Supreme 
Court convenes to ask for God's blessing for the judiciary and Congress 
as well.
  Bishop Egan has provided wonderful leadership in his time in 
Connecticut in so many different ways. I am proud to consider him a 
friend. His homily to the leaders of our legal system, including the 
Attorney General and the members of the Supreme Court, was on the 
timely problem of political correctness. Whether my colleagues agree or 
disagree with all of Bishop Egan's words and examples, I know they will 
find his homily to be eloquent and thought-provoking. It is in that 
spirit that I ask that it be printed in the Record.
  The homily follows:

      Homily of the Most Reverend Edward M. Egan, October 2, 1994

       Your Excellency, Archbishop Cacciavillan, Reverend Clergy, 
     Members of the John Carroll Society, Distinguished 
     Representatives of the Bench and Bar, and Friends All:
       This past summer, in Canton in the South of China, I sat in 
     a hotel restaurant with a Chinese tour-guide who spoke 
     English quite well. He had brought a busload of tourists to a 
     store that sold porcelain and silk; and once they were safely 
     inside, he invited me to join him for a cup of tea.
       He was forty-five years of age, he told me. In his youth he 
     had dreamed of mastering the English language and French as 
     well. However, in the second year of his university studies, 
     the so-called Cultural Revolution had intervened.
       His eyes flashed as he described that decade of madness in 
     China. He and dozens of his fellow students had been forced 
     to watch two of their professors killed in a public square by 
     a government-inspired mob. He had stood at attention for 
     hours on several occasions as thousands of books from the 
     university library were destroyed in bonfires. And in due 
     course, he had been taken to the West of China to labor for 
     three years on collective farms, his whereabouts unknown 
     to family and friends.
       ``What,'' I asked him, ``were the leaders of the Cultural 
     Revolution hoping to achieve with all of this?''
       ``They wanted the people to stop having unapproved 
     thoughts,'' he replied. ``They felt that the nation could 
     prosper only if all were thinking in the same way--their way, 
     the approved way.''
       He winced a bit as he offered this explanation but was 
     clearly convinced that his analysis was correct. For he 
     repeated it word for word as he stared into his empty teacup: 
     ``They felt that the nation could prosper only if all were 
     thinking in the same way--their way, the approved way.''
       You and I, my dear friends, are privileged to live in a 
     land in which the imposition of thought by government is 
     rejected out of hand. And in no small measure we have the 
     legal profession to thank for this blessing.
       It was lawyers like Montesquieu and Montaigne who were 
     crucial in developing the basic political ideas of our free 
     society. Twenty-five of the fifty-six who signed the 
     Declaration of Independence, with its cry for justice and 
     equality, were practicing attorneys. Even more, the 
     fundamental charters of our nation, such as the Constitution 
     and the Bill of Rights, with their uncompromising commitments 
     to freedom of thought, were largely the work of legal experts 
     with names like Jefferson, Adams, Wilson, Jay, Wythe, and 
     Marshall.
       Still, there are in our country today rumblings in many 
     quarters about thoughts that are approved and thoughts that 
     are not. Thus, the expression, ``politically correct,'' has 
     become a staple in our vocabularies. Indeed, over the past 
     year or two it has graduated to the level of a familiar 
     abbreviation. Few there are who do not know the meaning of 
     ``p.c.''
       One is politically correct, we understand, when one agrees 
     with the ``important'' newspapers, the ``quoted'' professors, 
     the ``best'' commentators, the ``most influential'' 
     personalities. Nor can there be any doubt that this 
     understanding is operating with remarkable efficiency. From 
     Atlantic to Pacific, the vast majority of adult Americans are 
     able to identify with extraordinary case and accuracy those 
     ideas, positions, and thoughts which are today in our land 
     ``correct'' or, if you prefer, ``approved.''
       The Readings from Sacred Scripture in our Mass this morning 
     remind us of two cases in point. The first of these 
     Readings, from the Book of Genesis, is among the most 
     familiar in all of Holy Writ. It speaks of the mind of the 
     Divinity as regards the basics of the human condition. The 
     male, we read, was from the time of creation not to be 
     left alone. Rather, he was to be joined by a companion, a 
     partner, a wife, so that together they might live out 
     their years, two in fact but one in heart and love. And 
     from that love was to result a miracle within the wife, a 
     miracle before which every generation since creation has 
     stood in awe.
       In our time, however, the miracle has become as well a 
     source of controversy. Simply put, the matter under 
     discussion is this: May society stand idly by while a private 
     party puts a violent end to the miracle?
       Those who have embraced the ``approved'' thinking, the 
     ``correct'' thinking, answer with a resounding ``yes.'' The 
     miracle, they allege, may be killed with impunity.
       Others, however, dare to sing outside the chorus. Their 
     reasoning should not be difficult to understand. The being 
     within the mother, they note, gives strong indications of 
     being a human being, a person with an inalienable right to 
     live. Certainly, no one has ever been able to prove the 
     contrary. Hence, they conclude, society has no choice but to 
     fulfill its most fundamental duty as regards the being in 
     question. It must protect it against attack.
       There is no hint of religion in any of this unapproved 
     thinking, through many religious people, for a multitude of 
     religious reasons, support it. There is no mention of 
     doctrine, dogma, sacred writings, or anything of the sort. At 
     issue are only matters which are properly and strictly 
     matters of the law: the meaning of personhood, the basic 
     rights of individuals, the power of legal presumptions, and 
     the most elementary and essential duties of society. These 
     and nothing more.
       Still, there is a tactic abroad in our land to characterize 
     the unapproved thinking as exclusively religious and to 
     refuse to allow it a fair hearing on this score. The tactic 
     is clever, widespread, and effective. It should also be 
     frightening to all who cherish the free and honorable 
     exchange of ideas, positions, and thoughts--lawyers first and 
     foremost.
       The Gospel Reading, too, calls to mind a controversy of our 
     time in which only certain thoughts appear to be approved.
       The Lord, in the lovely account of Saint Luke, instructs 
     His closest followers not to keep children from Him. ``Let 
     them come to Me, do not hinder them,'' He says, ``for it is 
     to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.''
       Parents there are, to be sure, who would not be comfortable 
     with having their children, the miracles of their love, 
     accept such an invitation. And in this free land of ours 
     their point of view is properly and vigorously protected. But 
     other parents there are who firmly believe that the 
     invitation of the Lord is most worthy, parents who wish their 
     offspring to be educated according to the mind and will of 
     the One Whom they call their God.
       The thought of this second group is, of course, unapproved; 
     and the tactic for dismissing it is well-known. All monies 
     that governments collect to support schools, it is announced, 
     must go only to those institutions in which every mention of 
     the Divinity is outlawed. For otherwise, the state would be 
     sustaining religion.
       But when such a rule is implemented, the unapproved 
     thinkers protest, it is not irreligion being sustained? Why 
     erect a wall only between religion and the state? Why not 
     erect another no less high, between the state and irreligion? 
     Or more to the point: why not simply concede to all parents 
     equally the right to choose the schools of their children and 
     to share in the funds gathered by society to support them.
       The plea is somehow ruled out of order. The ``important'' 
     newspapers, the ``quoted'' professors, the ``best'' 
     commentators, the ``most influential'' personalities have 
     spoken. It remains, it would seem, for lawyers to insist that 
     the unapproved point of view be heard and explored. For they 
     are uniquely positioned to do this as counselors, judges, 
     writers, thinkers, and legislators; and what is more: they 
     have a long and noble tradition in this land of respecting 
     and defending thought, even when it is ``unapproved.''
       But the second Reading of our Mass this morning, from the 
     Epistle to the Hebrews, provides yet another reason for 
     lawyers to address the aforementioned issues of unapproved 
     thinking and any others that come to mind. That reason is, I 
     confess, plainly and exquisitely religious. It is simply 
     this: We are all children of the one Father in heaven; hence, 
     we have no choice but to listen to one another with 
     attention, concern, and love.
       Many years ago I pastored a parish on the Southside of 
     Chicago. The community was African-American. In fact, one of 
     my parishioners often reminded me that I was very likely the 
     only white voter in the precinct.
       My closest adviser was a retired army major who spent many 
     an evening chatting with me about life in the distressed 
     neighborhoods of the Windy City.
       ``Father,'' he used to tell me, ``we are never going to be 
     the nation we should be as long as any of us are kept out of 
     the national conversation. We've got to find some powerful 
     folks to let us all in.''
       This morning, thanks to the very kind invitation of the 
     Archbishop of Washington, James Cardinal Mickey, I have the 
     honor to speak to just such ``powerful folks.'' Over the past 
     thirty years, we as a nation have learned that the Black 
     community must be a respected participant in the ``national 
     conversation.'' We are every day becoming more aware that the 
     same is true of the Hispanic community. I pray that now is 
     the time for the religious community as well. And I pray too 
     that lawyers will lead the way in this regard, not only 
     because of their historic position as protectors of thought 
     and its free expression but also, and especially, because 
     they realize, indeed, embrace in faith, that we are all 
     children of one God, sisters and brothers who need--and have 
     a right--to be heard.

                          ____________________