Impeachment and `Father Bob'

The Rev. Robert Drinan has been outspoken in his opposition to the Impeachment of President Clinton. Twenty-five years ago, however, he was delivering a different sermon.

One of the nation's most strident defenders of President Clinton has been the Rev. Robert Drinan, a Jesuit priest and Democratic former congressman from Massachusetts who now is a professor of law and ethics at Georgetown University Law Center after being directed by Pope John Paul II to retire from electoral politics.

At recent hearings of the House Judiciary Committee, Drinan testified as a principal defense witness for those seeking to prevent impeachment of President Clinton. In his sworn testimony, the 78-year-old priest charged that Republican members of the committee were motivated by "vengeance" rather than a desire for justice. He also testified that at no time during the Watergate years, when he served on the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Peter Rodino, was he ever personally motivated by Democratic partisanship.

Citing public-opinion polls regarding President Clinton's popularity, Drinan further charged that it would be ethically immoral and constitutionally indefensible for the House to approve articles of impeachment unless members were convinced that President Clinton eventually would be convicted by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. In response, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois, himself a devout Catholic, noted quietly: "If Jesus had relied on polls he might not have given the Sermon on the Mount."

Having personally known "Father Bob" since 1973 (when I served as the Rodino committee's chief counsel) I have retained a lasting fondness for him despite, and perhaps because of, his idiosyncrasies. Except when he becomes intemperate, Father Bob is kindly, courteous and charitably disposed. Yet I was dismayed, but not surprised, by his defense of President Clinton. Reflecting back to the Watergate years documented in my diary and 1996 book, my recollections of Drinan in those years now are vivid.

At the time of Watergate there were two politicians who then were Jesuit priests. One was the Rev. John McLaughlin, a conservative Republican who wrote speeches for Nixon. The other was Drinan, whom most Republicans regarded as a left-wing radical. After Watergate, both were given an ultimatum by Pope John Paul II, who ordered that they resign from the priesthood if they wanted to continue on as professional politicians. McLaughlin chose politics and now is married and a prominent TV political commentator; Father Bob chose the church, retired from Congress and was replaced by Rep. Barney Frank -- who unlike Father Bob is rarely courteous or kindly.

In 1970, McLaughlin had challenged John Pastore, the Democratic senator from Rhode Island and lost. He then went to work in the White House as a public-relations expert. As a White House spokesman he defended Nixon for having given the country "outstanding moral leadership." At the time of Watergate, McLaughlin gave his political blessings to such conservative groups as Rabbi Bernard Korff's National Citizens Committee for Fairness to the Presidency and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's National Prayer and Fast Committee.

Father Bob, who had been dean of the Boston College School of Law, had won election to Congress in the Boston area. Often, after crossing himself, he would stand in the well of the House chamber and denounce President Nixon as a "fascist war criminal." The more McLaughlin defended Nixon from his White House pulpit, the more outraged Drinan became. Finally, on July 31, 1973, dressed in a black suit and white clerical collar, Drinan introduced a House resolution with only one sentence of text: "Resolved, that Richard M. Nixon, president of the United States, is impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors."

American Civil Liberties Union lobbyist Charles Morgan was delighted. After seven months of lobbying, he finally had persuaded one member of Congress to move against the president! But then-House majority leader Tip O'Neill was furious. Himself a proponent of impeachment, O'Neill had been hoping that the first formal, resolution would be based on an evidentiary record cosponsored by a bipartisan coalition. In fact, at that very time, Rep. Pete McCloskey of California, an ex-Marine war hero, was working with us behind the scenes to put together the beginnings of such a coalition. In his autobiography, O'Neill recalled the realities of the situation:

"Morally, Drinan had a good case. ... But politically he damn near blew it. For if Drinan's resolution had come up for a vote at the time he introduced it, it would have been overwhelmingly defeated -- by something like 400-20. After that, with most of the members already on record as having voted once against impeachment, it would have been extremely difficult to get them to change later....

"I went to Drinan and tried to talk him out of it. `The timing is wrong,' I said. `It's premature. Let's wait a few months until the evidence is in and we can get the votes we need.'"