Why was Kennedy the only Catholic president?

[gamewell45]

Never a Jewish president either. I find this very odd!

I think there just hasn’t been an viable Catholic candidate since Kennedy; he was more middle of the road in his politics then most candidates in recent memory. Most people didn’t feel intimidated with JFK; they trusted him at his word.

 

[acarlson]

I’m far too young to have first-hand experience, but I’ve heard a lot about “the Pope controlling the White House.” What a ridiculous load of anti-Catholic hogwash, IMO.

NOWadays, as others have said, a FAITHFUL Catholic wouldn’t get elected because they would please neither the Democrats nor the Republicans enough to get the votes.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Like it or not, there is still a lot of anti-Catholic prejudice in the United States. Add to that, a true practicing Catholic politician would be pro life and anti gay marriage which would kill any chance of national election. Today’s arch liberal press and TV would crucify such a candidate. Just look at Sarah Palin…regardless of her politics, she was a threat to the abortionists because she put her money where her mouth was with her disabled child. Because of this alone she was ridiculed at every opportunity in the press to the extent she could never have a chance of being appointed the candidate of a major party.
I clearly remember the Kennedy campaign. I was in college in North Florida…There actually was a billboard outside one of the principal protestant churches in Tallahassee that advertised a series of sermons: “The truth about the Catholic Church, or, The Whore of Rome”…and that was just the tip of the ice berg.
Unfortunately, it has come to light in recent years that the Kennedy election was fraught with corruption and payoffs; and, his term in office was glorified by hype. The fact is, is that he not only accomplished nothing, he was responsible for several disasters, least of all the bay of pigs incident which firmly pushed Fidel Castro into the arms of the Russians.
Almost all of the things credited to John F. Kennedy were actually accomplished by Lyndon Johnson during his term in office.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I’m very tired, and I don’t generally like “political” threads so I didn’t read this whole thread, as a result I don’t know if my question has been answered. If it has just direct me to the post, the number or who posted it and I’ll look, so here’s my question, how many Catholics have run for president since Kennedy?

 

[Cat]

We are unlikely to get another one in the near future.
When JFK ran there was a bit of anti-Catholic sentiment still around, but he won more than he lost. A serious Catholic can not support either abortion or gay marriage ruining his chance of running as a Democrat and he wouldn’t be anti-government enough for a Republican.

Rick Santorum. He’s a serious Catholic and a serious Republican.

And serious Republicans are NOT anti-government. They are Constitutionalists, in favor of limiting the federal government to what is clearly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, and allowing the States and local governments to handle all the rest.

Santorum has been endorsed by one of the most-trusted and respected evangelical Protestants, Dr. James Dobson, in his book, Bringing Up Girls. It’s a great book that I heartily recommend for those who are parenting girls.

I for one am hoping that the other Republican candidates will not make it through all the pre-convention campaigning, and that Rick Santorum will emerge as the best possible choice for Republican nominee for the Presidency. I personally believe that he is the only candidate in the current flock of Republican contenders who has a chance of actually defeating President Obama in the election. I think all the rest will lose to President Obama, even with the President’s dismal poll showings and the frightening state of the economy. JMO, and I hope I’m wrong, but frankly, I’m not excited about voting for ANY of the current Republican candidates other than Rick Santorum.

There are plenty of Catholic Republicans where I live (Northern Illinois), and quite a few of them involved with politics and either in office or running for office. Perhaps where you live, things are different. But here, Republicans are made up primarily of evangelical Protestants and conservative/orthodox Catholics.

 

[Cat]

This is true to an extent. What happens is that the media is going to blast any Catholic on these issues, in particular, abortion. The media fears Catholics, because Catholics have a firm and unchanging position on this and other matters.

There is also another matter that is particular to Catholics, that being the perception that the candidate is not really the one in charge, but rather the Pope. A lot of non-Catholic Christians are very anti-Papist, and would not vote for a Catholic unless the the alternative was simply unpalatable.

Yes.

I am old enough to remember the Kennedy Presidency, and I can testify that THIS was the main reason that people would not elect a Catholic President.

It’s not that non-Catholic Christians are anti-Papist, although back then, quite a few probably were. My parents were certainly not anti-Papist, and the Baptist church that I grew up in was by no means anti-Catholic or anti-Papist.

But the fact is, the President of the United States should not be beholden or answerable to ANYONE but the American people.

Back then, loyalty to Rome vs. loyalty to the U.S. was still an issue, and U.S. citizens were rightfully concerned that a Catholic President would have divided loyalties. There was a lot of debate about this issue.

Think about it–who are YOU, as a Catholic, more loyal to–the Church (headed by the Pope) or the U.S. government?

Think about all the priests who are currently disobeying the U.S. government to provide shelter and protection for illegal immigrants. They will answer, ultimately, to God for their actions, and I’m not sure what God thinks of this course of action by these priests.

You have to look at history to know why Americans were concerned about a President with more loyalty to the Pope than to the American people. Back then, the Cold War was a daily reality, and all of us were afraid that Russia and the Communists would take over. There was a very real sense of nationalism in this country that isn’t really here now, IMO. It was a different time than now–social issues weren’t issues back then. Abortion was a crime, not legal. And homosexuality was still considered a perversion and a mental illness by the American Psychological Association and by most Americans.

You can’t take today’s circumstances and apply them to the past. You have to consider the circumstances at that time.

MY personal feeling is that there are enough Catholics in the U.S., who, if they voted according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, would have the power to elect a Catholic President who is pro-life and anti-same-sex marriage. Many evangelical Protestants would stand side by side with Catholics and happily, joyously, enthusiastically elect a Catholic Christian to the Presidency IF he or she stood firm on the abortion and homosexual marriage issues along with the other issues that Christians can not compromise on. (John Kerry did not qualify.)

The problem is, Catholics do not vote according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. They vote for the candidates that their parents would have voted for.

In the last election, Catholics ignored the abortion issue and instead, voted against the war, and elected President Obama, who promised over and over again to stop the war and bring everyone home. Well, he didn’t keep that promise, did he?

I do hope that Catholics learned their lesson. We need to be faithful to obey the Lord and our Church and vote for Pro-Life, Pro-man-woman marriage candidates. God will honor that. I personally believe that one of the reasons why President Obama has struggled is that he is being thwarted by the Lord God because of the evil pro-choice policies that he has enacted.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think its become apparent anyone can be President regardless of racial, ethnic or gender. Physical limitation isn’t an issue either. All this has been overcome in some way at least once. So its possible.

While there is a need to have a seperation of church and state, I believe the one who cannot get in today, is the one with a lack of faith. For while there may be a seperation of church and state, there is NO seperation of God from America. So the subjective and objective come into play in a very real way today.

Of course a Catholic can get in, however where is this candidate? Can he motivate a country to build a better tommorrow? Is his plan in perspective and logical, thus obtainable? These are the unknowns.

 

[rinnie]

I think its become apparent anyone can be President regardless of racial, ethnic or gender. Physical limitation isn’t an issue either. All this has been overcome in some way at least once. So its possible.

While there is a need to have a seperation of church and state, I believe the one who cannot get in today, is the one with a lack of faith. For while there may be a seperation of church and state, there is NO seperation of God from America. So the subjective and objective come into play in a very real way today.

Of course a Catholic can get in, however where is this candidate? Can he motivate a country to build a better tommorrow? Is his plan in perspective and logical, thus obtainable? These are the unknowns.

Also it appears you do not even have to have a plan

 

[CMatt25]

Rick Santorum. He’s a serious Catholic and a serious Republican.

And serious Republicans are NOT anti-government. They are Constitutionalists, in favor of limiting the federal government to what is clearly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, and allowing the States and local governments to handle all the rest.

Santorum has been endorsed by one of the most-trusted and respected evangelical Protestants, Dr. James Dobson, in his book, Bringing Up Girls. It’s a great book that I heartily recommend for those who are parenting girls.

I for one am hoping that the other Republican candidates will not make it through all the pre-convention campaigning, and that Rick Santorum will emerge as the best possible choice for Republican nominee for the Presidency. I personally believe that he is the only candidate in the current flock of Republican contenders who has a chance of actually defeating President Obama in the election. I think all the rest will lose to President Obama, even with the President’s dismal poll showings and the frightening state of the economy. JMO, and I hope I’m wrong, but frankly, I’m not excited about voting for ANY of the current Republican candidates other than Rick Santorum.

There are plenty of Catholic Republicans where I live (Northern Illinois), and quite a few of them involved with politics and either in office or running for office. Perhaps where you live, things are different. But here, Republicans are made up primarily of evangelical Protestants and conservative/orthodox Catholics.

Rick Santorum, while I liked that he as a Catholic, actually used the word poor in the debate the other night, has absolutely no chance of being POTUS. I have as much chance, and Barack Obama has more of a chance of remaining so than either Rick or I.

 

[CMatt25]

Yes.

I am old enough to remember the Kennedy Presidency, and I can testify that THIS was the main reason that people would not elect a Catholic President.

It’s not that non-Catholic Christians are anti-Papist, although back then, quite a few probably were. My parents were certainly not anti-Papist, and the Baptist church that I grew up in was by no means anti-Catholic or anti-Papist.

But the fact is, the President of the United States should not be beholden or answerable to ANYONE but the American people.

Back then, loyalty to Rome vs. loyalty to the U.S. was still an issue, and U.S. citizens were rightfully concerned that a Catholic President would have divided loyalties. There was a lot of debate about this issue.

Think about it–who are YOU, as a Catholic, more loyal to–the Church (headed by the Pope) or the U.S. government?

Think about all the priests who are currently disobeying the U.S. government to provide shelter and protection for illegal immigrants. They will answer, ultimately, to God for their actions, and I’m not sure what God thinks of this course of action by these priests.

You have to look at history to know why Americans were concerned about a President with more loyalty to the Pope than to the American people. Back then, the Cold War was a daily reality, and all of us were afraid that Russia and the Communists would take over. There was a very real sense of nationalism in this country that isn’t really here now, IMO. It was a different time than now–social issues weren’t issues back then. Abortion was a crime, not legal. And homosexuality was still considered a perversion and a mental illness by the American Psychological Association and by most Americans.

You can’t take today’s circumstances and apply them to the past. You have to consider the circumstances at that time.

MY personal feeling is that there are enough Catholics in the U.S., who, if they voted according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, would have the power to elect a Catholic President who is pro-life and anti-same-sex marriage. Many evangelical Protestants would stand side by side with Catholics and happily, joyously, enthusiastically elect a Catholic Christian to the Presidency IF he or she stood firm on the abortion and homosexual marriage issues along with the other issues that Christians can not compromise on. (John Kerry did not qualify.)

The problem is, Catholics do not vote according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. They vote for the candidates that their parents would have voted for.

In the last election, Catholics ignored the abortion issue and instead, voted against the war, and elected President Obama, who promised over and over again to stop the war and bring everyone home. Well, he didn’t keep that promise, did he?

I do hope that Catholics learned their lesson. We need to be faithful to obey the Lord and our Church and vote for Pro-Life, Pro-man-woman marriage candidates. God will honor that. I personally believe that one of the reasons why President Obama has struggled is that he is being thwarted by the Lord God because of the evil pro-choice policies that he has enacted.

I was a child at the time. But I know JFK made a speech to assure folks he would not, as a public servant and POTUS of all the American people, a nation of various faiths and beliefs, Christian and otherwise, and some of non belief, that he would not allow Rome to dictate American public policy. And he got elected.

And we are still a nation of plural beliefs.

I give folks more credit than to say they vote a certain way because their parents did. Many I believe vote according to their best interests. When you don’t have affordable adequate healthcare or you are poor. Or you care about those folks. Or you see tremendous money being wasted on 2 wars when it could be spent for social programs to aid individuals and faith based groups when they fall short, in their mission to live up to what Christ taught in Matt 25… Whether 2 homosexuals who love each other get united is really pretty far down the list of concerns for many. Even the single issue of abortion can be when all the many issues are looked at in their totality.

And btw we have troops stationed in countries all over the globe. But Obama, while always saying Afghanistan was the war we should have been fighting from the beginning instead of using resources in Iraq, who was an opponent of the Iraq war from the get go, has said the combat troop mission in Iraq is over.

Peace.

 

[JonNC]

Never a Jewish president either. I find this very odd!

There’s never been a Lutheran president, either. I’m not sure there is anything to read into that.

That said, there’s a Catholic governor in Louisiana and a Catholic former Pennsylvania senator I’d vote for in a second.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

There’s never been a Lutheran president, either. I’m not sure there is anything to read into that.

That said, there’s a Catholic governor in Louisiana and a Catholic former Pennsylvania senator I’d vote for in a second.

Jon

I agree. Here would be a better question. What President ever truly lived his faith. That would be a good one.

But then it would come back to what kind of example are we, and I think we all agree we ALL come up pretty short also.