Archbishop Chaput critiques famous JFK 'Houston speech' [CC]

[Catholic_Press]

On Monday evening, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver delivered a talk at Houston Baptist University, in which he criticized President John F. Kennedy’s historic campaign speech on his faith impacting his possible presidency as “sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong.”

More…

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Which shows why I disagree so often with the archbishop. I think he does not understand what separation of church and state means in a pluralistic society. Which is why he can be wrong on his political statements.

 

[Ender]

Which shows why I disagree so often with the archbishop. I think he does not understand what separation of church and state means in a pluralistic society. Which is why he can be wrong on his political statements.

I was not aware that the separation of church and state meant one should not apply ones morality to the job of governing. I am aware that there is no concept of the separation of church and state in the Constitution.

Ender

 

[Gem]

Separation of church and state does not mean that there can be absolutely no religious influence in the political process. Should Martin Luther King not have campaigned for the civil rights of blacks because he was a minister? Should churches not advocate for oppressed workers because their beliefs on fair treatment are based on charity towards fellow human beings as images of God?

“Separation” simply means that no one church can rule the US and that the government cannot establish a state religion.

All people make decisions, political or otherwise, based on a moral code that is always based on a set of assumptions. These assumptions are taken from the person’s life philosophy, be it 'might-makes-right", concensus, communism, Chistianity, what have you.

What Kennedy said in his speech is that his personal moral philosophy (Catholicism is this case) would NOT influence his decisions. What that means is that he didn’t actually believe in that set of moral values enough to act on it. He didn’t actually think it was “right”. No one advocates and legislates for what he feels is truly wrong.

As for the old argument of “imposing beliefs on other people”, that is what “majority rule” does. If you don’t like your representation or the laws they write, you have to vote for someone else.

 

[JimG]

JFK was the only presidential candidate at that time who was expected to make a public declaration that the tenets of his faith could not and would not affect his decision making. We haven’t expected that of any other president–Jimmy Carter wasn’t required to separate his faith from his political life. It was something JFK did in order to contend with the general anti-Catholicism of the time. Should he have forgone the civil rights struggle because the Archbishop of New Orleans had excommunicated parishioners who favored segregation? Should he have forgone civil rights because the Church favored de-segregation, and he couldn’t impose his religion on the nation? It’s just nonsense. I thought at the time that Kennedy was setting a bad precedent for future politicians. He was in effect agreeing to the proposition that --you Catholics can be president IF you agree to stifle your religion.

 

[rlg94086]

Which shows why I disagree so often with the archbishop. I think he does not understand what separation of church and state means in a pluralistic society. Which is why he can be wrong on his political statements.

Which shows why I disagree so often with your ability to interpret the Constitution. You’ve just shown that you don’t have an understanding at all about “separation of church and state.” I’m guessing too many liberal law professors…hmm…I wonder where law professor Obama falls on this issue?

I am glad that the Archbishop spoke out. I was wishing that Tobin had said the same when he was on Hardball with Chris Matthews. We should all vote our consciences and our consciences should be formed by our faith. Pluralism does not mean “lowest common denominator,” as most liberals seem to want.

 

[Lujack]

I don’t think that the Archbishop’s criticisms were fair to Kennedy. Kennedy, as the archbishop acknowledges, says that he would resign if his duty forced him to go against Catholicism, or his Catholicism forced him to go against his duty. That critical caveat changes the entire tenor of the speech; Kennedy made the argument that there is no conflict between governing as the American president and governing as a Catholic, while others have made the argument that they can govern separately from their Catholicism. By saying that he would resign in case of a conflict, Kennedy rejected that position.

In essence, the Archbishop is criticizing Kennedy for a position which he did not hold.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t think that the Archbishop’s criticisms were fair to Kennedy. Kennedy, as the archbishop acknowledges, says that he would resign if his duty forced him to go against Catholicism, or his Catholicism forced him to go against his duty. That critical caveat changes the entire tenor of the speech; Kennedy made the argument that there is no conflict between governing as the American president and governing as a Catholic, while others have made the argument that they can govern separately from their Catholicism. By saying that he would resign in case of a conflict, Kennedy rejected that position.

In essence, the Archbishop is criticizing Kennedy for a position which he did not hold.

From Kennedy’s speech:

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
…
But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, **in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. **And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

It appears from his speech that Kennedy believed in the false idea of “supremacy of conscience,” so he wouldn’t be okay with going against his conscience but had no problem going against clear Church teaching. This is cafeteria Catholicism 101 and exactly the problem we have in our Church today.

We all need to vote our conscience, but our consciences should conform to the Magisterium or it’s not well-formed.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Which shows why I disagree so often with your ability to interpret the Constitution. You’ve just shown that you don’t have an understanding at all about “separation of church and state.” I’m guessing too many liberal law professors…

I’m guessing you are wrong. As a matter of fact one of the legion of liberal law professors I had was one who was widely disliked by students; the noted liberal Nino Scalia.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m guessing you are wrong. As a matter of fact one of the legion of liberal law professors I had was one who was widely disliked by students; the noted liberal Nino Scalia.

And, apparently, you didn’t learn from him. How sad.

 

[rep140]

It appears from his speech that Kennedy believed in the false idea of “supremacy of conscience,” so he wouldn’t be okay with going against his conscience but had no problem going against clear Church teaching. This is cafeteria Catholicism 101 and exactly the problem we have in our Church today.

We all need to vote our conscience, but our consciences should conform to the Magisterium or it’s not well-formed.

Do you think that someone could say that he will use his Catholic faith formed conscience in governing could get elected? I’m not stating this to be provocative.

 

[rlg94086]

It appears from his speech that Kennedy believed in the false idea of “supremacy of conscience,” so he wouldn’t be okay with going against his conscience but had no problem going against clear Church teaching. This is cafeteria Catholicism 101 and exactly the problem we have in our Church today.

We all need to vote our conscience, but our consciences should conform to the Magisterium or it’s not well-formed.

Do you think that someone could say that he will use his Catholic faith formed conscience in governing could get elected? I’m not stating this to be provocative.

Sure. Why not? Where do you see an impediment? I think there are enough Catholics in the country that anti-Catholic bigotry is not a deterrent.

 

[rep140]

Sure. Why not? Where do you see an impediment? I think there are enough Catholics in the country that anti-Catholic bigotry is not a deterrent

Interestingly, when running for nomination Mitt Romney was asked about how his religion would influence his governance, yet Joe Liberman wasn’t. As a Catholic I would be apprehensive if a Mormon said that his religion would influence how he governed.

It is even tougher for a Catholic because they are influenced by mostly non Americans, a Pope and Magisterium,

 

[rlg94086]

Sure. Why not? Where do you see an impediment? I think there are enough Catholics in the country that anti-Catholic bigotry is not a deterrent

Interestingly, when running for nomination Mitt Romney was asked about how his religion would influence his governance, yet Joe Liberman wasn’t. As a Catholic I would be apprehensive if a Mormon said that his religion would influence how he governed.

It is even tougher for a Catholic because they are influenced by mostly non Americans, a Pope and Magisterium,

Give me an example of a Mormon or Catholic belief that would be a problem for issues of the day. I supported Mitt Romney (and still do). I don’t agree with his beliefs, but I don’t see where his beliefs will negatively impact his governance.

 

[rep140]

Give me an example of a Mormon or Catholic belief that would be a problem for issues of the day. I supported Mitt Romney (and still do). I don’t agree with his beliefs, but I don’t see where his beliefs will negatively impact his governance.

I also support Mitt, but he gave an answer much like Kennedy when asked about faith.

I won’t even talk about abortion, but will go to birth control. Griswold versus somebody else challenged Connecticut’s law against contraception. Some Catholics believe that using the pill is the same as abortion. If the magisterium is in agreement then a Catholic politician should campaign against contraception.

 

[rlg94086]

Give me an example of a Mormon or Catholic belief that would be a problem for issues of the day. I supported Mitt Romney (and still do). I don’t agree with his beliefs, but I don’t see where his beliefs will negatively impact his governance.

I also support Mitt, but he gave an answer much like Kennedy when asked about faith.

I won’t even talk about abortion, but will go to birth control. Griswold versus somebody else challenged Connecticut’s law against contraception. Some Catholics believe that using the pill is the same as abortion. If the magisterium is in agreement then a Catholic politician should campaign against contraception.

No, that argument is not accurate. However, if a law limiting or banning contraception were to come up, a Catholic politician should probably vote in favor of it. I’m sure many did back in the 1850s when the Comstock Act passed…um…if there were any in Congress at the time.

In the case of contraception with abortifacients and/or abortion pills, I see no problem with a Catholic politician campaigning against them.

Is contraception an example of an “issue of the day?”

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

And, apparently, you didn’t learn from him. How sad.

I learned quite a bit from him and also quite a bit about him and his family. Since I really did not care for him and since I had a conflict, I missed one of his classes each week. The students jocularly awarded him the ‘HR Haldemann prize’ because he was the lowest grader of any professor in the school.

I met up with him once again when I was sworn into the Supreme Court bar a few years back. He was still the same.

 

[rep140]

Is contraception an example of an “issue of the day?”

If you listen to Catholic radio contraception is. They talk about people in the pews aborting via the pill. I’m part of an RCIA team in our parish. People in the program regularly talk about how many kids they will have. This happens during our break. Do you tell these people that they are going to hell because they are getting their tubes tied? I don’t think so.

---

 

[rlg94086]

Is contraception an example of an “issue of the day?”

If you listen to Catholic radio contraception is. They talk about people in the pews aborting via the pill. I’m part of an RCIA team in our parish. People in the program regularly talk about how many kids they will have. This happens during our break. Do you tell these people that they are going to hell because they are getting their tubes tied? I don’t think so.

---

You are mixing topics. Will someone go to hell for getting their tubes tied? Perhaps. What I think doesn’t have any bearing on that. I know it is a grave sin though. If someone has full knowledge and freely chooses to choose grave sin, then they have committed a mortal sin. If they die in the state of mortal sin, then the Church teaches that they will go to hell.

This thread is about Catholics in the public square. While I would support a law banning that particular procedure, I don’t see it as an issue of the day from a political perspective. We are not required to campaign on every Catholic teaching. Abortion, gay marriage, etc. are active issues with public policy changes being considered. Can you please share an active political issue that would give a voter pause from voting for a faithful Catholic or Mormon?

 

[rlg94086]

Is contraception an example of an “issue of the day?”

If you listen to Catholic radio contraception is. They talk about people in the pews aborting via the pill. I’m part of an RCIA team in our parish. People in the program regularly talk about how many kids they will have. This happens during our break. Do you tell these people that they are going to hell because they are getting their tubes tied? I don’t think so.

---

You are mixing topics. Will someone go to hell for getting their tubes tied? Perhaps. What I think doesn’t have any bearing on that. I know it is a grave sin though. If someone has full knowledge and freely chooses to choose grave sin, then they have committed a mortal sin. If they die in the state of mortal sin, then the Church teaches that they will go to hell.

This thread is about Catholics in the public square. While I would support a law banning that particular procedure, I don’t see it as an issue of the day from a political perspective. We are not required to campaign on every Catholic teaching. Abortion, gay marriage, etc. are active issues with public policy changes being considered. Can you please share an active political issue that would give a voter pause from voting for a faithful Catholic or Mormon?