Talk:Robert Drinan

Drinan in Congress

Made a brief correction -- John Kerry didn't run against Drinan in the primary in 1970, Drinan ran against one Charles Ohanian and Phil Philbin, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Kerry backed Drinan after it was agreed that the antiwar forces should coalesce around one candidate, and Kerry lost an informal vote to Drinan on who should run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.171.2 (talk • contribs)

Other priests in politics

I didn't realize that there had been a practicing Catholic priest in congress. Are there any other examples of such in U.S. politics? I understand that John McLaughlin was formerly a Jesuit and lost a senate race, but what about folks that won? -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The only other priest in Congress was in 1823, a Catholic priest served as the nonvoting delegate from Michigan. --158.59.25.125 03:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (User:Daysleeper47)

This brings up a great subject of why there is a "Religion" field at all in all politicians' wiki entries. Can we please remove them all. It really has no bearing. Separation of church and state anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.149.18 (talk)

If you read any directory of Members, it lists their religion. Further, as much as we hate to say it, religion has everything to do with politics. We may have seperation of Church and state, but that hasn't stopped people from debating whether Mitt Romney being Morman will affect his possible presidency. Just because there is a seperation of Church and state doesn't mean that people aren't interested in their religious affiliation. Wikipedia isn't a political debate, it's an encyclopedia and religion is worthy of being note in politicians' biographies. --Daysleeper47 12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

John Paul II's decree

This sentence is problematic, not only because of its unattributability, but also its myopic irrelevance: "Though this (John Paul II's decree that clergy and religious not hold governmental offices) was framed as a general order, it seemed to some that Drinan in particular was the target."

It can seem to some that anything is true: e.g., it seems to some that the Earth is flat and that the moon is made of green cheese. Unless you have some citation of there being a target on Drinan, attributing that view to "some" unknown people is irresponsible.

Also, the U.S.A. is not the only place in the world which had clergy and religious in public office. Canada had members of Parliament and senators who were priests and nuns. More specifically to John Paul II, he had made the decree in the same time period --before or after, I'm not sure-- that he visited Central America and famously rebuked pro-Sandanista Jesuits on the airport tarmack. One could more easily conclude that the priests in the Sandanista regime were the more likely target, but, unless there's a citation, that would little more than my own conjecture. Likewise, so is this statement. Believe or not, there are things that happen in other countries that have nothing to do with American politics.Mattsteady 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI. The general norm for the Catholic Church, latin rite is the Code of Canon Law's canon 285-3 (from 1983), which explictly forbids priests for holding public offices--Wllacer (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

POV fix, and misplaced citation

I've reworded the original sentence, under Teaching, writing, and later life,

In 1997, Drinan publicly retracted his support for partial-birth abortion.

to say,

In 1997, Drinan publicly retracted his opposition to a legal ban on late-term abortion.

The original sentence had two things wrong with it, in my judgment. The first is, virtually no one actually supports abortion. Instead, people oppose a ban on late-term abortion for some reason. This is a big difference. Drinan himself wrote an op-ed in 1996, published in The New York Times (and online here), where he listed several reasons he opposed that year's Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, passed by Congress and vetoed by President Clinton, which would have banned intact dilation and extraction. The fact that Drinan opposed the bill does not mean he supported the subject of the bill — just like I, for example, would oppose a complete legal ban on smoking cigarettes, even though I would much prefer that people not use them at all.

The second fault I find is the use of the term "partial-birth abortion". This term invokes the imagery of killing a baby as he or she is delivered by the mother during conventional labor. It's a misnomer and is not used in the medical field, to my knowledge. More importantly, it's a politically charged term that categorically violates Wikipedia's rule of NPOV when used to refer to late-term abortion in general, or the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion in particular. "Late-term abortion" more or less refers to the same thing, but is more accurate and less controversial.

Finally, the following work is cited to support the claim:

Drinan, Robert F. (June 4, 1996). "Posturing on Abortion". The New York Times.

But the source doesn't say anything about what Drinan thought in 1997. My guess is it's a misplaced citation that belongs to the claim, mentioned a few sentences previously, that Drinan wrote this. I've moved it, and I've put the {{fact}} template where it once was.

— Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 06:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

They said e had sex and then had an abortion with a advice newspaper column writer. Shouldnt that be in the article?? It is newsworthy, and he is anti-abortion activist.