C
CDNowak
Guest
A ‘right’ based, in part, on a court decision widely considered controversial in its extension of the law, which the sitting Chief Justice has hinted can be overturned, that ‘right to privacy’?
Archbishop Chaput critiques famous JFK 'Houston speech' [CC]
- Status
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Well then, maybe I did not state what you have me as saying. I didn’t stretch anything.
How could he? Its right there in black and white.
C
CDNowak
Guest
It exist in a precedent, something this court is open to re-examining.How could he? Its right there in black and white.
O
Orogeny
Guest
If two legal minds were being considered, one pro-life, one pro-abortion, would you consider it an imposition of faith if the president, based on his/her own pro-life belief, chose the pro-life legal mind? Everything else is equal and the legal mind’s position on abortion is the deciding factor.
Peace
Tim
S
Sonny1954
Guest
With all due respect to the Bishop, I think he misunderstands both the late President Kennedy’s words and their context. John Kennedy was speaking to a group of hostile southern bigots. They were afraid that a Catholic president would try to write Catholic sectarian doctrine into American civic law. They were not afraid that JFK might bring his “Christian principles” into his Whitehouse. They were afraid he would, if commanded by the Pope or American Bishops, try to make divorce and birth control against the law, for examples. They feared that his presidency would not be his own, but the Pope’s. They also feared that their own religions would face legal harrassment from the U.S. government with a Catholic as president. As far-fetched as those fears might sound to us in 2010, they were genuinely-felt in 1960.
What Kennedy said, in effect, was that his would not be a “Catholic Administration.” That he would not appoint people to office because they were Catholic, nor oppose them because they were not Catholic.
Ironically, the Bishop is so free to express himself before a Protestant group, in part, because of the very speech he now says was “wrong.” Had Kennedy not gained acceptance by the American Protestant mainstream as it existed in that day, our Bishops might be less free to enter into the American political process in this. The Bishop, and all American Catholics, owe a debt to John F. Kennedy’s legacy.
What Kennedy said, in effect, was that his would not be a “Catholic Administration.” That he would not appoint people to office because they were Catholic, nor oppose them because they were not Catholic.
Ironically, the Bishop is so free to express himself before a Protestant group, in part, because of the very speech he now says was “wrong.” Had Kennedy not gained acceptance by the American Protestant mainstream as it existed in that day, our Bishops might be less free to enter into the American political process in this. The Bishop, and all American Catholics, owe a debt to John F. Kennedy’s legacy.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
I would not consider it an imposition of faith but a political decision involving irrelevant aspects. That happens every day.
Whether one is pro-life or not is not a reason to pick a person for a judgeship.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all. When discussing “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness *,” it is important to know if the person bases there ideas of when life begins on sound principles. If it is on the erroneous concept that an embryo or fetus is part of a woman’s body rather than a distinct being with unique human dna, then they shouldn’t be considered for any position requiring rational thought.
*(btw…my kids always giggle at the Schoolhouse Rock version of “pursuit of happiness” where the colonial man chases a colonial woman across the screen
)
O
Orogeny
Guest
Ok, now that we agree that basing the decision on one’s religous beliefs does not impose faith on the populace, let’s look at a different scenario.
Should a politician (congressman or senator) vote against legislation legalizing same-sex marriage if that politician believes, based on his/her faith, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman? If they do, is that an imposition of one’s religious beliefs on the populace?
Peace
Tim
J
joe_clark
Guest
Two items.
First: Sonny, Well said.
2nd, Why for the love of pete and God does abortion come in on ever conversation including this one? Abortion is a very important topic, but being approppriate is also a blessing. To me it appears abortion is used as an all purpose Hammer to strike out and back at an opponent which actually minimizes and weakens it’s importance.
C
CDNowak
Guest
Well, I don’t know about every conversation, but if there is to be a conversation about the role of faith and/or Catholic teaching in relation to the public sphere (ie this one), then you cannot discuss it without dealing with the most obvious issues where the two overlap (at this time: abortion, defense of marriage).Two items.
First: Sonny, Well said.
2nd, Why for the love of pete and God does abortion come in on ever conversation including this one? Abortion is a very important topic, but being approppriate is also a blessing. To me it appears abortion is used as an all purpose Hammer to strike out and back at an opponent which actually minimizes and weakens it’s importance.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Exactly. Liberal Catholics protest these items being brought up because they would like them to go away, so they can feel better about their political party.
E
Ender
Guest
The answer to this question should be so obvious that it shouldn’t be necessary to ask it. There are apparently some who have no problem with legislators basing their decisions on an article they read last Thursday in the hair salon but get all trembly over the concept of someone acting on his beliefs if those beliefs were formed by his religion. JFK addressed this by implying he could compartmentalize his religious beliefs and not let them guide his actions. This imaginative separation of what you believe from what you …uhhh… believe has now become the model for attacking candidates who actually believe what their religion teaches. Obviously those are people who are unable to separate their faith from their actions and are therefore dangerous to have as lawmakers.
Ender
C
CDNowak
Guest
The question that I think proves or disproves Archbishop Chaput is this: Was Kennedy’s speech the basis of the Kennedy family’s, Kerry’s, Kmiec’s, (etc.) later position of “personally opposed” but publicly for _____?
If in any way the answer is yes, then Archbishop Chaput is right.
If in any way the answer is yes, then Archbishop Chaput is right.
S
Sonny1954
Guest
If I may say so, abortion was not at issue when Kennedy faced down the Houston ministers. So to “force” that into his speech 50 years later distorts the context somewhat, in my opinion.
If the Bishop was implying that sectarian doctrine should play a role in government policy, I believe he was incorrect. As Catholics, most of us would be uneasy with a fundamentalist Protestant, for example, pledging to make his/her domination’s stance on gambling or alcohol civil law covering the rest of us. That was what Protestant ministers feared Kennedy was going to be forced by the hierarchy to do, e.g. make divorce illegal for all Americans because the Catholic Church is opposed to it.
A few prelates in 1960 were privately uneasy with Kennedy’s remarks as well. But they understood the situation and what Kennedy was up against and so did not publically voice any concerns about it.
And don’t forget the central point of Kennedy’s message: No one should be barred from any public office on the basis of where he goes to church. I look at the fact that the GOP has never come close to nominating a Roman Catholic for President, and it frankly makes me wonder why not? Is there a glass ceiling for Catholics in that political party? I don’t know. But I wonder.
How other individuals of any faith have used Kennedy’s words to further their own careers, is hardly the late-President’s resoonsibility.
E
exoflare
Guest
:sad_yes:
R
rlg94086
Guest
Two things…know your history!
- Gambling is illegal in most states…the Indian Reservation exemption is a fairly new phenomenon, and a president can’t do anything about it. Drinking was made illegal by amendment to the Constitution and later overturned. I have no problem with a fundamentalist Christian who wishes to pass laws prohibiting gambling and drinking. They are able to do it on the state level and, if they get the 3/4 support they need, the federal level.
- There would be nothing wrong with a president who favors making divorce illegal. It is irrational to not elect a president based on this fear. The President of the United States does not have the power to do such a thing. All he can do is sign or veto it, if it comes to pass…and his veto can be overridden.
S
Sonny1954
Guest
Two things…know your history!
You advice is very excellent, Robert. My Ph.D. in History is from Ball State University, 1984. Not Ivy League, I grant you.
I would have a REAL problem with a non-Catholic candidate who sought to impose his religious beliefs on me via civic law. It would be an abrigement of my free exercise of religion. If S/he believes that shooting dice and poker are immoral, then by all means I would stronger urge her/him not to shoot dice or gamble. That would be their decision, not mine.
And by the way, Senator Kennedy WAS asked about gambling during the 1960 campaign (perhaps because some bigots believed that Catholics were incorrigible gamblers (all that Bingo, you know), so he had to answer that specific point.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t see the big issue here. The Archbishop said that President Kennedy’s statement FED the erroneous idea that one could govern independent of one’s moral faith. It’s irrelevant whether JFK’s speech fed this belief or not. It is true that many people in public life believe that they can call themselves people of faith and support laws that are contrary to their faith, simply because they are law, as if we had never had immoral laws.
What is relevant is the fact that lawyers, judges, legislators, governors, presidents and other people in public office believe that a person can vote contrary to his moral conscience and remain a credible person.
The question is, does a credible person violate his moral conscience for the sake of his constitutency or for the sake of a law that he knows is immoral?
One’s moral conscience is the highest expression of one’s humanity, because no other creature except man has a moral conscience. To act contrary to that conscience is to act contrary to the quality that makes man an image and likeness of his Creator.
This is not about imposing that all people must go to mass on Sunday or Temple on Saturday. This is about people being honest. If they are truly Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, etc, then we would expect them to act and vote according to their moral convictions. A man who votes contrary to his moral conscience is either lying about his conscience or lying to his constituency, just to keep a job and the power that goes with it.
If a man can betray his conscience, what is to keep him from betraying his constituency? On the other hand, if a man has no conscience, does he have any business in public life?
If you’re a person of faith, but lay it aside for the sake of plurality, do you have any business calling yourself Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, etc? Why do some Catholics believe that they can be on both sides of a moral issue? No other faith group tolerates such behavior. Why shoudl we Catholics tolerate it?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
What is relevant is the fact that lawyers, judges, legislators, governors, presidents and other people in public office believe that a person can vote contrary to his moral conscience and remain a credible person.
The question is, does a credible person violate his moral conscience for the sake of his constitutency or for the sake of a law that he knows is immoral?
One’s moral conscience is the highest expression of one’s humanity, because no other creature except man has a moral conscience. To act contrary to that conscience is to act contrary to the quality that makes man an image and likeness of his Creator.
This is not about imposing that all people must go to mass on Sunday or Temple on Saturday. This is about people being honest. If they are truly Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, etc, then we would expect them to act and vote according to their moral convictions. A man who votes contrary to his moral conscience is either lying about his conscience or lying to his constituency, just to keep a job and the power that goes with it.
If a man can betray his conscience, what is to keep him from betraying his constituency? On the other hand, if a man has no conscience, does he have any business in public life?
If you’re a person of faith, but lay it aside for the sake of plurality, do you have any business calling yourself Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, etc? Why do some Catholics believe that they can be on both sides of a moral issue? No other faith group tolerates such behavior. Why shoudl we Catholics tolerate it?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JimG
Guest
First, I doubt that any pro-choice person now disputes that the fetus is alive, or even that it is a new and distinct individual of the human species. That’s just biology.
Second, states regulate medical procedures all the time.
I know its a living human being, you know its a living human being, but the writers of the constitution didn’t know that. Consequently it’s not in there, one way or the other.
In the 18th century, abortion was frowned on after “quickening,” because that’s when it was thought that the fetus became alive. Now, we know that’s not the case. The unborn child has been alive and growing since conception.
But since the constitution doesn’t mention it, pro or con, Scalia’s position is that the Court has no right to put it in there. That’s why he says, just make law the old fashioned way. If you want abortion banned, pass a law–that’s what legislatures are for. And if you want abortion allowed, pass a law–that’s what legislatures are for.
His view is that the Court ought not to try to read into the text something that is not there; that’s just arbitrary. Instead, pass a law. Or a constitutional amendment. It’s not the Court’s job to make law.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, those pro-choice Catholics took the position that they must divorce their faith from public life.
Because of the public’s irrational fear of the possibility of a Catholic president, JFK went too far in divorcing personal religious principles from public life.
Why would any principled president wish to divorce his moral conscience from his public life?
Should a president use atomic weapons while making the statement that he is “personally opposed, but cannot impose his religion on the nation?”
Should a president advocate killing the old while saying he is personally opposed to euthanasia but cannot impose his religion?
- Status