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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s an excerpt from John F. Kennedy’s Speech -
Transcript: JFK’s Speech on his Religion
  • I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.*
  • I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials;…*
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.
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

Here’s the Commentary, both by Archbishop Chaput, and by the Jesuits at Espressonline -
The Doctrine of the Catholic Kennedy? Worthless
Fifty years ago this fall, in September 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic candidate for president, spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. He had one purpose. He needed to convince 300 uneasy Protestant ministers, and the country at large, that a Catholic like himself could serve loyally as our nation’s chief executive. Kennedy convinced the country, if not the ministers, and went on to be elected. And his speech left a lasting mark on American politics. It was sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong. Not wrong about the patriotism of Catholics, but wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life. And he wasn’t merely “wrong.” His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.

Now those are strong statements. So I’ll try to explain them by doing three things. First, I want to look at the problems in what Kennedy actually said. Second, I want to reflect on what a proper Christian approach to politics and public service might look like. And last, I want to examine where Kennedy’s speech has led us – in other words, the realities we face today, and what Christians need to do about those realities.
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1342344?eng=y

The question for those who disagreed with Archbishop Chaput - Where was he wrong? Where has the EFFECT of Candidate John F. Kennedy’s speech NOT been what he and the learned people in the Bibliography say they were? The Article by Mark Massa, S.J. is behind subscription -
A Catholic for President - John F. Kennedy & the “Secular” Theology of the Houston Speech, 1960, by Mark S. Massa, S.J.
jcs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/39/2/297
Try this link - 18 pages (reading now)
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3244/is_n2_39/ai_n28687692/?tag=content;col1

Remember, The Office of Bishop is a Prophetic Office - If you’re a Catholic and you believe Religion should be excluded from the public sphere and from political life, and Archbishop Chaput has made the you uncomfortable, maybe he just might have fulfilled his Office…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Looks like Francis Cardinal George of Chicago is saying the same thing…
usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-039.shtml
The concept of religious freedom shared by Catholics and Mormons “cannot be reduced to freedom of worship or even freedom of private conscience,” he said.

“Religious freedom means that religious groups as well as religious individuals have a right to exercise their influence in the public square, and that any attempt to reduce that fuller sense of religious freedom, which has been part of our history in this country for more than two centuries, to a private reality of worship and individual conscience as long as you don’t make anybody else unhappy, is not in our tradition,” he said.

Churches and other religious bodies prosper “in a social order that respects religious freedom and recognizes that civil government should never stand between the consciences and the religious practice of its citizens and Almighty God,” he said.

“The founding Fathers understood when they amended the Constitution that the separation of church and state springs from a concept of limited government and favors a public role for churches and other religious bodies in promoting the civic virtues that are vitally necessary in a well‑functioning democracy,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Yes. God help him remain strong to continue communicating his message according to the Teachings of the Catholic Church that we are to live our faith consistently and with integrity in the public sphere and God keep him away from any harm intended against him in the arena of politics and **protect him against opposition from detractors so that he can continue providing true Catholic guidance when it comes to ** constitutional law.
Click to expand...
St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou,
O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan,
and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
 
It is noteworthy that Archbishop Chaput was speaking at a Houston Baptist University. The full text of the Archbishop’s brief talk, which I recommend, can be found here:
archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3489

Here is a brief excerpt.

Early in his remarks, Kennedy said: “I believe in an America where the separation of Church and state is absolute.” Given the distrust historically shown to Catholics in this country, his words were shrewdly chosen. The trouble is, the Constitution doesn’t say that. The Founders and Framers didn’t believe that. And the history of the United States contradicts that.

Unlike revolutionary leaders in Europe, the American Founders looked quite favorably on religion. Many were believers themselves. In fact, one of the main reasons for writing the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause – the clause that bars any federally-endorsed Church – was that several of the Constitution’s Framers wanted to protect the publicly funded Protestant Churches they already had in their own states. John Adams actually preferred a “mild and equitable establishment of religion” and helped draft that into the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution.3
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would like you to expand on this a bit, if you don’t mind. Does “separation of church and state” mean that a politician cannot use his/her religious beliefs when governing or that a politician should not use his/her religious beliefs when governing?

Peace

Tim
 
JimG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Archbishop Chaput is entitled to his opinion, but I don’t think it was about stifling religion at that time, it was more complex and was more about: Will you as president allow religious tennents in your presidency override and supercede the rules and laws gorverning the United States of America?

The Archbishop is biased and is not wrong from his position in the world in which he resides, but the majority reside here in the world where the rule of law exist. Religion is part, but not all of my life and I am not apologizing for it. It is called balance. America as a country would cease to exist if presidents governed more as religious entities as Archbishop Chaput is hinting to. Imagine a president who depending on his or her relious affiliation could declare a special holiday or a month to celebrate: Christianity, muslim, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism Taoism and Confucianism, Baha’i, Jainism, and Zoroastrians just to name a few of the 1500 religions followed in this country. If you are christian and your president is christian, there’s no problem…but when your president does not profess your faith??? How comfortable do you feel now.

Our forefathers had it right the first time and this is the seperation that they were speaking of, not to exclude but include a part of.

religious holiday?
 
joe_clark said:
Archbishop Chaput is entitled to his opinion, but I don’t think it was about stifling religion at that time, it was more complex and was more about: Will you as president allow religious tennents in your presidency override and supercede the rules and laws gorverning the United States of America?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that a fair reading of history would support that.

Kennedy said that he would resign if his presidential duties required that he violate his conscience formed by his religion. That’s good. Any president, not just a Catholic one, should resign rather than violate the tenets of his conscience.

The point is, the founders did not even envision such a thing. It was certainly not thought that the duties of a president of the United States could ever have involved a gross violation of moral principles. And at the time of the founding, several states already had established religions. They were not required to renounce them with the signing of the Constitution. The application of that principle of no established religion to the states came later.
 
Orogeny said:
I would like you to expand on this a bit, if you don’t mind. Does “separation of church and state” mean that a politician cannot use his/her religious beliefs when governing or that a politician should not use his/her religious beliefs when governing?
Click to expand...
Its not a question of using his or her religious beliefs. It is an understanding that in a pluralistic society the populace deserves to be free from having a religious belief imposed on them, the government should not support or propound religion and that all religious beliefs deserve respect. That is how a Catholic politician could be against, for instance, a posting of the Ten Commandments on a courtroom wall. That is also how children could be taught about Islam in a public high school history course.

Folks like those in the Thomas More Society cannot accept this. However, they happen to be wrong on law and on how Catholics should approach religious controversy.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Its not a question of using his or her religious beliefs. It is an understanding that in a pluralistic society the populace deserves to be free from having a religious belief imposed on them, the government should not support or propound religion and that all religious beliefs deserve respect.
Click to expand...
Are you Pro-Life, brother?
 
Ender said:
Specific complaints would be helpful. Quote something Archbishop Chaput said and explain how you think it is wrong.

Ender
Click to expand...
Orogeny said:
I would like you to expand on this a bit, if you don’t mind. Does “separation of church and state” mean that a politician cannot use his/her religious beliefs when governing or that a politician should not use his/her religious beliefs when governing?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Third.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Its not a question of using his or her religious beliefs. It is an understanding that in a pluralistic society the populace deserves to be free from having a religious belief imposed on them, the government should not support or propound religion and that all religious beliefs deserve respect. That is how a Catholic politician could be against, for instance, a posting of the Ten Commandments on a courtroom wall. That is also how children could be taught about Islam in a public high school history course.

Folks like those in the Thomas More Society cannot accept this. However, they happen to be wrong on law and on how Catholics should approach religious controversy.
Click to expand...
Hmm…it depends on your definition of “imposed.” If you are talking about the government stating that, for example, you must believe that birth control, abortion, etc. is a sin, then you are correct. The government can’t do that. However, if you are talking about a law banning such things, that is not “imposing” a belief, any more than passing a law against polygamy is “imposing” a belief. As an American, you are free to believe in polygamy; however, you are not free to practice it.

This is where the understanding of “separation of church and state” has sent us down the wrong path that Archbishop Chaput and Cardinal George are referring to. I think Kennedy would probably have agreed with their assessment, but his speech was worded in a way to make it sound like he was separating his beliefs from his office.

I think what he was trying to say, to put it in an example with a subject of the day, is that if legislation for health care were to come up that didn’t include funding of abortion, euthanasia, but he was still opposed to it for reasons based on prudential judgment (i.e. subsidiarity, details of the bill such as public option vs. private insurance, etc.), then he would vote his conscience, even if the Bishops released a statement in favor of that bill. Ditto on immigration. IOW…it is the politician making the decision, based on his well-formed conscience, not the heirarchy of the Church. This is completely licit and does not violate the Constitution or Church teaching.

As a politician, you are free to vote based on whatever religious belief you hold, as long as you don’t impinge other’s *constitutional *rights. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion on what those rights consist of (i.e. privacy, life, etc.).

BTW…joe clark mentioned a Muslim instituting a national holiday. Isn’t Christmas a national holiday? I’m not seeing anything wrong here. As a buddhist, you aren’t forced to observe Christmas from a religious standpoint, but you won’t be able to work at the bank that day. 🤷
 
On September 12, 1960, John F. Kennedy, the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. He told them:

*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, if I should be elected, 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 in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.*

By promising to respect the separation of church and state and not to allow Catholic officials to dictate public policy to him, John Kennedy articulated the only possible stance for Catholics holding public office in the United States. And it is this stance that today drives many orthodox/traditional/conservative Catholics to demand that anyone who disagrees in any way with them be “disciplined” or “excommunicated” or expatriated to the Episcopalians.

Archbishop Chaput has said that John Kennedy’s statements are “wrong.” With respect, I believe that the archbishop is wrong. Some cynics might characterize his talk as being just another example of Kennedy bashing. On the other hand, I would conjecture that his presentation may reflect the long-lasting effects of Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, an encyclical written by Pope Leo XIII in 1899, which came out against ecumenicalism, liberalism, and freedom of the press, at least as far as Catholics were concerned – remember, we still had the Index of Forbidden Books back then. These ideas all had and have strong roots in the American way of life and Vatican II affirmed their legitimacy. Unfortunately, Archbishop Chaput seems to have faith in the notion fostered by this and earlier encyclicals that Roman Catholicism occupies a “privileged” position no matter what form a particular government takes. That just doesn’t work in the United States, which has a constitution and a form of government that the church fathers never dreamed of. I, for one, reject the assertion that any church authority of any faith has the right to impose a religious penalty on a politician – or a voter – for a vote that person makes.

I have been a Catholic all my life. I am discouraged by many things within my Church, the latest of which is its cover-up of the deviant actions by too many of our clergy. And there are the relatively minor problems, like the semi-literate Latin to English liturgical translations that soon will be foisted upon us. But my dad was a coal miner in southern Illinois in the period following World War I, where he and the other micks were involved in numerous street brawls with the KKK, who resented both their nationality and their religion. People sometimes died, but that’s how things were back then. While I have not faced such trials, I have too much love and too much respect for the Church to even think that those who wish to politicize her will succeed. They will not succeed because they are wrong.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
It is an understanding that in a pluralistic society the populace deserves to be free from having a religious belief imposed on them …
Click to expand...
This has never been a serious issue. From the very first, when states actually had state religions, there was never a concern that the federal government would impose a religious belief on anyone. It wasn’t a concern then and it certainly isn’t a valid one now.
… the government should not support or propound religion and that all religious beliefs deserve respect.
Click to expand...
Ah, I don’t believe there is anything in the Constitution that forbids supporting religion; what is forbidden is selectively supporting a religion. I accept, however, that we have certainly tended to the former interpretation in the last half century.
That is how a Catholic politician could be against, for instance, a posting of the Ten Commandments on a courtroom wall.
Click to expand...
This is another example of a modern interpretation differing from the original intention, otherwise we wouldn’t have Moses holding the ten commandments carved into the facade of the US Supreme Court building and on a frieze directly above the chief justice’s chair … not to mention the other dozen or so examples of the ten commandments carved into doors and walls throughout the building.

Ender
 
rlg94086 said:
From Kennedy’s speech:

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.
Click to expand...
Indeed. What good is having an erroneous conscience?

The archbishop is right. I wish more folks would speak on this issue. JFK was the start of all the problems we have today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top