Yes,
I am a Catholic and I did not Vote for John F. Kennedy
After nearly 47 years of political
observation, I am delighted that I "boycotted" JFK—even though I
came from a tightly knit Catholic "ghetto." In 1960 there was an
almost cosmic adoration of "Jack" which was sprawling
across the Nation. He was an idol who drew a huge Catholic vote. However, these
voters had no real way of knowing or assessing what his election would mean,
not only to Catholicism in this country but also to the
spiritual nerve of the Nation. By some kind of unconscious
peasant instinct of mine, I voted against my whole family's political tradition. I, a Catholic,
voted Republican.
I knew that Jack was a very bright,
self assured, handsome, extremely rich young fellow who went to exclusive
educational establishments. He played rough and tumble touch football at his
family's "upper crustt"
My own little world in the tenement
area of
Still,
I smelled some kind of "rat."
We had all heard of the Protestant
fear that a Catholic President would trash the First Amendment, establish
some kind of Romish state Church and probably have some kind of Vatican
ammunition dump in the basement of the White House. There were lOmillion homes
receiving anti-Catholic tracts in 1960. The
nine-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, among others, launched big anti-Kennedy
campaigns. Protestants were asked to stand up and be counted on Reformation Sunday,
October 30,1960. It recalled for me the bitter, vitriolic anti-Catholic
election year when Al Smith, an open and vigorous Catholic, was the Democratic
candidate for President. In his case, his Catholicism played a significant but
not exclusive part in his defeat to Herbert Hoover. Although I was
seven years old, I learned very early about religious discrimination—which was
not only anti-Semitic but viruulently anti-Catholic. Consequently,
in spite of my discomfort with Jack, I did identify with him to
some degree.
However, Colleen Carroll Campbell, a
Fellow of the Ethics and Public Forum writes in the Catholic World
Report (Feb. '07) that Kennedy was anything but a devout and vigorous Catholic
like Smith. He had poor catechesis, gave "not a whit for
theology", never mentioned any view of man's relationship with God.
Cardinal Gushing openly acknowledged that Jack was never very religious. His
own wife, Jackie Kennedy, claimed to be mystified by the religious controversy
about her
husband because she said
".............. Jack is such a poor Catholic."..
Episcopalian Bishop Jim Pike saw
Jack's position aas that of a " thorough going
secularist who really believes that a man's religion and his decision -making
can be kept in two watertight compartments..." Robert McAfee Brown saw JFK as ".. a
rather irregular Christian." Martin Marty, Lutheran theologian, saw him
..."as "spirituallly rootless and, politically, almost
disturbingly secular."
Although
I did not know all this in 1960,1 did read his talk at Houston about
Church-State Separation on Seeptember 12th of that
year. Before an audience of several hundred Protestant clergy, he
made his case for disavowing the influence of his Catholic Faith on his
political choices.
Basically, he said.".......... I will make my decisions in accordance with what
my conscience"1 tells
me....and
without regard to outside religious pressures....no power or threat of
punishment could cause me to decidde otherwise..." Campbell writes
that many Catholic Bishops feared JFK as President because of his
hard line positions against Church policies.
JFK's
speeehwriter, Ted Sorensen, claimed that the Jesuit priest, Fr. J.C. Murray was
a consultant for the composition of the speech. But, Campbell claims that
Murray disapproved of Jack's strident separationism since the Constitution does
not call for a Public Square" stripped of all religious rhetoric..
This stripping is what Fr. R.J. Neuhaus. has called "the Naked public
square.." The Constitution doees allow politicians and voters to
engage in faith-based social activism and to defend their
religiously derived principles...in that very Public Square. Yet, JFK made a
pledge to "expunge" all traces of religious influence from
his governing decisions.2 It was interesting to me that at a recent
luncheon, a priest-friend, a respected and older Jesuit informed me with great
confidence that Murray dictated that speech to JFK over the phone".
In
any event, it was that speech that alarmed me and formed my resolve not to back
Handsome Jack, but holding my nose, to vote for tricky Dick. It is only with
hindsight that my visceral instinct or psychologist's nose
makes sense. Kennedy was, de facto, more of a Deist than Catholic. Though he
attended Mass regularly, his Catholicism was more cultural and familial than
anything else. His thinking didn't rreflect any involvement of God with
His creatures. Jack's God kept His distance from them. They were on
their own. Once He created them, they were "...masters of their fates and
captains of their souls." Jack said: "Our problems are
man-made—therefore they can be solved by man...."
Where
does one see in his thinking any reference to the fallen world through Original
sin3 or reliance on and ttrust in the power and grace so
emphasized in Christian life views?
Those
who have followed him, politically, have absorbed his separationism and hence
have departed from the notion of public religion. When one
studies the American beginnings, it is obvious
that the Founding Fathers believed in the separation of any established (or
particular) Church and the State. They did not believe in the separation of
religion and state. This is a substantive and essential
distinction. Yet, in modern thinking (read: JFK) religion, as such, should be
kept out of sight. Perhaps, in the home. Or in the Church. Or in one's own
soul. But not in Public discourse or decision making. Does not
this ultimately lead to moral relativism? Such a possibility leads someone like
me, a Jew, to become afraid.
We dread that reelativism finally means Dachau! This
terrorizes me and others like me because then it is consensus that matters, not
eternal fixed truth.4 Yet, this practical relativism (or Kennedy logic)
finds a congenial home in the modern American political world (and probably elsewhere). This is appalling
to me. But it is even more appalling when it is mouthed by some alleged
Catholic politicians. This is particularly appalling because the
public debate often touches on core meanings of life, such as
embryonic stem cell research, physician assisted suicide, abortion/partial
birth abortion, same sex marriages—on the very value of life itself. At, least,
the Catholic notion of life! To exclude religion from such debate
is not only un-American but dumb.
Mario Cuomo, a bbrilliant speaker and thinker, in a
series of tortured intellectual maneuvers set out (using
the Kennedy relativistic thinking) to make a case for the Pro-choice9
Catholic politicians. New York's Cardinal, JJ O'Connor, himself extremely
bright and political science literate, had bluntly stated that he did
not believe a Catholic in good conscience could support legal abortion. His
statement created a huge turbulence in the world of politics. Geraldine
Ferraro, the defeated candidate for the Vice Presidency (a declared Catholic as
well as a Pro Choice or Pro abortion supporter) was, in my
opinion, furious with the then Archbishop who was doing nothing more than
his basic job in pointing out the evil of complicity.
Cuomo stipulatedd in a startling speech at Notre Dame
University, 24 years after Kennedy's Houston speech, that there are "no
final truths". I, personally, became very disappointed in Cuomo— particularly
with this statement. He had written in his Diaries how much he valued his
soul—more than anything else. He wrote how much he admired St. Thomas More who
stood against the government when it was against his Faith. More who was
prepared to be decapitated rather than compromise
his Catholic conscience. This was the More who said: "I love my King but I
love my God even more..."
In my disappointtment, I felt that Cuomo, instead of
loyalty to God, used the Kennedy bifurcation to trumpet what to me was one of
the more intellectually insulting stances of modern times. He argued that
not only are Catholics not betraying their consciences by supporting abortion
but they are, in accord with goodd American tradition, not imposing
their view on anyone else6. This has a kind of "patriotic"
tinge to it.7 This can be done, he said, in effect, by interiorly
holding that abortion is intrinsically evil but exteriorly supporting those who
wish legally to abort babies. This could apply similarly to the
barbarism of partial birth abortion. In effect, there is ultimately no moral
principle which can determine or effect what our political conduct
should be.
Cuomo incorrectlly used the Bernadin schema of "
seamless garment" as background insisting that abortion is just a single
issue among many and has "no preemptive significance". This would surprise
our Pope who, in 2004, as Cardinal Ratzinger, clearly points out that abortion
has greater moral weight than war and capital punishment in which there is much
room for dialogue. With a abortion there is none. Further,
Cuomo argues that Government should simply carry out the will of the
people Therefore, if the will of the people is for abortion, it should be done.
On consensus. The interior belief of the government leader is, in a sense,
irrelevant.
However,
I was deeply disappointed with my fallen hero when Mario, in effect, says that
it is legitimate to try to influence or even impose in other issues except
abortion. Some concept of "consensus." It becomes most
confusing when I recall that Governor Cuomo used his power of Veto against
a strong popular desire to re-instate the Death Penalty. His Veto was a
function of his personal disagreement with the essence of capital punishment.
It
seems to me that contradiction is woven into these positions. In 2004 John
Kerry had a 100% voting score from the National Abortion Rights Action League
which he defended based on his Catholic "conscience" defined, he
says, by Pius XXIII (who never existed) and Paul VI in his Vatican
Council. Paul did not convene the Council. John did. Following his poorly
formed conscience is no way to be a "good" Catholic. There
are American Bishops who bravely point out, regardless of political pressures,
that social leaders who knowingly depart from Church teaching pay a price. By
scandalizing the Church-going Faithful in such a public way, they forfeit their
right to receive the Eucharist. Archbishop Raymond Burke of St.
Louis, for example, incurred the wrath of liberal personalities,
including some Catholic religious for such brazen statements. He has been called
"ineffectual" in his position implying, apparently, that silence in
the face of evil is a better course to follow. Yet the "tolerant"
stance seems demographically to do nothing but reinforce the slide away from
the practice of the Catholic faith. Can some of contemporary "lukewarm
ness" of certain Catholics be linked to this style?
Yet
as inexplicable as is the bifurcation stance in laity, the twist in the minds
of clergy is even more astounding. One of the worst appears to be the Jesuit
ex-Congressman (D. Mass.) Robert Drinan. His fellow congressman, Robert Dornan,
himself a spiritual/religious/political storm center, wrote "I
fear for his immortal soul." Fr. Drinan was a strong advocate of abortion
campaigns who approved of President
Clinton's veto on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. We learn that Drinan appeared
as a character witness for Clinton during the impeachment hearings,
advised Pro-abortion John Keerry during the 2004 election year
and turned a Mass in January, 2007 into anti American politics.
He called the Amendment to ban Federal funds for abortion "uncharitable." Fortunately, he was
forced to leave politics by the Pope himself. But, more sadly, how could this happen
to a priest of God? Sexual molestations by priests are bad enough, even if done
from weakness or psychological distortion. But Drinan was an intellectual and
his plans were calculated and thought out. And much more evil in the long run.
Again, is there some kind of linkage with the thought of John F. Kennedy?
The
present Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is the ultimate (hyperbolically
predictable) outcome. She is ccalled by Dornan "....maybe the
most dangerous leader in the long campaign by anti-Catholics within the Church
who mislead Americans, get elected and advance the culture of death..."8
In a personal conversation with her in which Dornan urged her to follow the
Church's teaching, she replied (with a laugh): " oh, come on,
Bob. What would you do if one of your daughters was raped by a
black man?" Does Racism justify slaughter of little human fetuses? Nothing
will deter her from being an accessory to every type of abortion according to
public record. This year she promised: "..I will continue to
work to ensure a woman's right to choose..." This
means her energy will be directed to death goals—as her leading the charge to
kill the defenseless embryonic persons in ESCR. She makes the
unscientific statement that "..This research has the biblical
power to cure..." For fuller discussion on the falsity of this statement,
the reader is referred to my lengthy article on "The Catholic Church
Supports Stem Cell Research." Cf. Website WWW.geocities.com./frjimlloyd .
It is encouraging to read
that her own Pastor in
St. Michael,
Archangel, lead us in the
1 in the Catholic
system, conscience must
be informed by God's revelation and the teachings of Christ's
church. Deciding for one's self means moral relativism—each man for himself.
One might consult the
writings of Pope John Paul II on conscience formation and the 1998 statement of
US bishops on gospel of life.
2 Jack opposed federal aid
to parochial schools and the appointment of an ambassador to the
positions he h ad previously held. Why did he reverse his
positions?
3 Peggy Noonan reports that
an agnostic friend of hers explains the existence of war ( and presumably other
man made
evils) by saying ".. .because there is something wrong within us.." jfk didn't seem to understand this.
4 "INALIENABLE" IN THE DECLARATION OF
AWAY BY A MAJORITY VOTE.
5 MANY
COMMENTATORS CONSIDER THAT THE TERM PRO
CHOICE IS A KIND OF "COP OUT" OR EUPHAMISM TO AVOID THE BLUNT
AND MORE TRUTHFUL TERM PRO ABORTION .
6 DO NOT ALL POLITICIANS AND LOBBYISTS TRY TO INFLUENCE
OTHERS TO THEIR POINTS OF VIEW?
IS THIS IMPOSING? catholics use moral suasion, to try to alert
others the revealed will of the lord. this is not
imposition.
7 supreme court
judge john noonan (calif.) has, in the past, seriously questionned the validity
of such janus-like, two headed, cogn itive behavior
as have many other
serious thinkers.
8 Celebrate Life March-April 2007 (p. 2)