When I heard the news that Mario Cuomo died I had to sit down and write and consider the legacy of this extraordinary leader.
I always wished that Mario Cuomo had run for president. He is one of the pols I most admired over the years. He was a great liberal. A great thinker. And a great orator. May we be blessed as a nation that more will rise to the occasion to try to fill his shoes.
As someone who writes about politics and religion, one of the things that stands out to me in Cuomo's long and distinguished career is the way he balanced his personal faith with his public career. One of his lasting contributions to our public life was his speech at Notre Dame in 1984. It was the height of the Reagan administration, Operation Rescue and similar groups were engaged in mob violence (as well as peaceful protests) at abortion clinics, and leading Catholic prelates were pressing Catholic politicians hard to conform to Church doctrine.
And into the fray stepped Mario Cuomo. He gave a speech detailing his dissent -- as a Catholic and as a political leader in a religiously plural society -- from the authoritarian vision of the Bishops. The New York Daily News in reporting Cuomo's death wrote that along with his "barnburner" of a speech at the 1984 Democratic Convention (which I watched live on TV) his speech at Notre Dame ranks "among the top speeches of the 20th century."
Here are some excerpts from his Notre Dame speech (which can be read in its entirety here).
I hope these excerpts will remind us why this speech got that kind of mention, and help us as we contend with the endlessly tricky issues of religious freedom in our time.
He had been asked to address the tough questions of the often complicated relationship between religion and public life. He rose to the occasion life few others ever have.
Specifically, must politics and religion in America divide our loyalties? Does the "separation between church and state" imply separation between religion and politics? Between morality and government? Are these different propositions? Even more specifically, what is the relationship of my Catholicism to my politics? Where does the one end and other begin? Or are the two divided at all? And if they're not, should they be?
Hard questions.
No wonder most of us in public life -- at least until recently -- preferred to stay away from them, heeding the biblical advice that if "hounded and pursued in one city," we should flee to another.
Now, however, I think that it is too late to flee. The questions are all around us, and answers are coming from every quarter. Some of them have been simplistic, most of them fragmentary, and a few, spoken with a purely political intent, demagogic.
There has been confusion and compounding of confusion, a blurring of the issue, entangling it in personalities and election strategies, instead of clarifying it for Catholics, as well as others.
Today I would like to try to help correct that.
In addition to all the weaknesses, dilemmas and temptations that impede every pilgrim's progress, the Catholic who holds political office in a pluralistic democracy -- who is elected to serve Jews and Muslims, atheists and Protestants, as well as Catholics -- bears special responsibility. He or she undertakes to help create conditions under which all can live with a maximum of dignity and with a reasonable degree of freedom; where everyone who chooses may hold beliefs different from specifically Catholic ones -- sometimes contradictory to them; where the laws protect people's right to divorce, to use birth control and even to choose abortion.
In fact, Catholic public officials take an oath to preserve the Constitution that guarantees this freedom. And they do so gladly. Not because they love what others do with their freedom, but because they realize that in guaranteeing freedom for all, they guarantee our right to be Catholics: our right to pray, to use the sacraments, to refuse birth control devices, to reject abortion, not to divorce and remarry if we believe it to be wrong.
The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.
I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant or non-believer, or as anything else you choose.
We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us.
Ultimately, therefore, the question "whether or not we admit religious values into our public affairs" is too broad to yield a single answer. "Yes," we create our public morality through consensus and in this country that consensus reflects to some extent religious values of a great majority of Americans. But "no," all religiously based values don't have an a priori place in our public morality.. The community must decide if what is being proposed would be better left to private discretion than public policy; whether it restricts freedoms, and if so to what end, to whose benefit; whether it will produce a good or bad result; whether overall it will help the community or merely divide it.
The right answers to these questions can be elusive. Some of the wrong answers, on the other hand, are quite clear. For example, there are those who say there is a simple answer to all these questions; they say that by history and practice of our people we were intended to be -- and should be -- a Christian country in law.
But where would that leave the non-believers? And whose Christianity would be law, yours or mine?
This "Christian nation" argument should concern -- even frighten -- two groups: non-Christians and thinking Christians.
I believe it does.
Way down deep the American people are afraid of an entangling relationship between formal religions -- or whole bodies of religious belief -- and government. Apart from constitutional law and religious doctrine, there is a sense that tells us it's wrong to presume to speak for God or to claim God's sanction of our particular legislation and His rejection of all other positions. Most of us are offended when we see religion being trivialized by its appearance in political throw-away pamphlets.
The American people need no course in philosophy or political science or church history to know that God should not be made into a celestial party chairman.
Well, that's enough for now. Cuomo's speech is long and deep and nuanced, and worth spending some time with. I know I will be doing that in the coming days, and when I do I may have more to say.
Here is the link to the video of “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective.”