WASHINGTON — Rick Santorum, the Catholic pro-life GOP presidential candidate, recently provoked a furor when he attacked President John Kennedy, Jr.’s 1960 speech designed to defuse anti-Catholic bigotry by embracing an “absolute” separation between church and state.
It was vintage Santorum, underscoring his unique, sometimes frustrating contribution to the national debate on a host of issues, from abortion to same-sex “marriage” to the appropriate role of religious believers in the public square.
On the afternoon of April 10, Santorum suspended his bid to secure the GOP presidential nomination. But his hard-charging approach to social issues is likely to live on as religiously-minded voters take stock of his GOP rival, MItt Romney, long accused of "flip flopping" on key social issues, and President Barak Obama, still engaged in a public conflict with the U.S. bishops over the free exercise of Catholic institutions.
Further, Santorum's comments about Kennedy have drawn Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York into the long-simmering dispute over JFK's legacy. Decades ago, when self-identified Catholic politicians began supporting abortion rights while describing themselves as “personally opposed,” prolife activists blamed JFK for driving a wedge between Catholic teaching and practical politics.
However, during a televised interview broadcast this Easter Sunday, Cardinal Dolan asserted that both JFK and Santorum were right.
“I would cheer what John Kennedy said; he was right,” said Cardinal Dolan, who did not directly reference the prolife community's problems about JFK's speech. “I would also say that Sen. Santorum had a good point because, unfortunately, what John Kennedy said … has been misinterpreted to mean that a separation of church and state also means a cleavage, a wall, between one’s faith and one’s political decisions.”
The New York cardinal’s latest comments appear to be part of a larger campaign to engage public opinion and thus counter partisan and secular attacks on the free exercise of Catholic institutions.
In his role as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Conference, the cardinal must address a host of religious-freedom concerns, from the federal contraception mandate to legislation and legal challenges dealing with same-sex “marriage,” abortion and conscience rights.
Yet, as Church leaders and their religious and political allies press for legislative and legal remedies, their most visible opponents are often self-identified Catholics — from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Santorum, who secured key pro-life bills during his two terms in the Senate and had firsthand experience with the tortured logic of Catholic politicians who touted their independence from Church teaching, first criticized Kennedy’s views in a 2010 Register interview.
This February, at the height of the contraception-mandate controversy, Santorum offered an impassioned but less precise critique of the late president’s views on the proper relationship between church and state.
“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Santorum asked.
He argued that religious witness in the public square was being penalized, while special interests and secular forces imposed their own agenda on Christian believers, “which, of course, is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.”
Political commentators on both sides of the partisan divide have challenged the substance and the tone of Santorum’s critique, arguing that the presidential hopeful is too much of a culture warrior to be commander in chief.
“When you’re attacking a bit of cherished national lore, like the Houston speech, it’s best to have your facts right. Kennedy did not, in fact, argue that ‘people of faith’ should have no role in the public square,” noted National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru last week.
Kennedy’s “actual argument was that religious people should not allow their religious commitments to influence their public positions. It is not an especially persuasive argument — Martin Luther King Jr. was in the midst of refuting it by personal example — but to make that retort Santorum would have had to describe what he opposes accurately,” stated Pomeru.
Long-Standing Dispute
In truth, ever since former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo cited Kennedy’s position to justify his own “personally opposed” stance on abortion, Catholic leaders and pro-life activists have expressed frustration with JFK’s legacy and have struggled to offer a more integrated view of the Christian vocation in public life, from politics and business to medicine and the law.
Kennedy’s speech “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,’” charged then-Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput in a 2010 speech at Houston Baptist University marking the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s iconic statement.
Whatever his intentions, Kennedy’s “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,” stated Archbishop Chaput, who now heads the Philadelphia archdiocese.
Kennedy “warned that he would not ‘disavow my views or my Church in order to win this election,’” noted Archbishop Chaput, but “in its effect, the Houston speech … began the project of walling religion away from the process of governance in a new and aggressive way.”
“It also divided a person’s private beliefs from his or her public duties. And it set ‘the national interest’ over and against ‘outside religious pressures or dictates,’” Archbishop Chaput charged.
Reinterpretation of Speech?
Cardinal Dolan, for his part, took a generous view of both Kennedy’s and Santorum’s intentions.
“I don’t think John Kennedy meant a cleavage between faith and politics. He did mean a wall between state and church, and I would applaud that one, but I would agree with Senator Santorum that, unfortunately, that has been misrepresented to mean that faith has no place in the public square. That, I would, with Senator Santorum say is a misinterpretation not only of what Senator Kennedy meant, but with what the American genius is all about,” said Cardinal Dolan, during a taped interview for Face the Nation broadcast on Easter Sunday.
During his 1960 speech before an audience of Baptist ministers, Kennedy affirmed his belief in “an America where the separation of church and state is absolute … 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 … where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source,” he continued.
“I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.”
In the wake of Santorum’s remarks about JFK, some scholars and political commentators have taken another look at Kennedy's speech.
Colgate University’s Robert Kraynak, the author of Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, reviewed the late president's statement and determined that Santorum raised legitimate issues.
“Santorum was largely correct about Kennedy’s speech being disturbing and even embarrassing for Catholics — although Santorum hurt his credibility with the juvenile reference to ‘throwing up,’” said Kraynak, a professor of political science and the director of the Center for Freedom & Western Civilization at Colgate.
“Santorum could have said that Kennedy’s speech goes much further than necessary in asserting the ‘absolute’ separation of church and state, in claiming that Kennedy would never ‘accept instructions on public policy’ from Church teaching and that religion is a politician’s ‘own private affair.’”
Kraynak suggested in an email message that “the most disturbing (almost nauseating) feature of Kennedy’s speech is that he asks to be judged by his 14-year career in Congress, in which he made his “declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican” and “against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools.”
“In other words, Kennedy brags about his opposition to creating an official ambassadorship to the Vatican in the 1960s (not established until Ronald Reagan did so in 1984) and his non-support for Catholic schools,” said Kraynak.
A half century after Kennedy’s election, and during a 2012 presidential election year marked by a deadly serious, and, as yet, unresolved church-state conflict over the HHS mandate, Kennedy’s legacy will likely continue to be in dispute.
For some Americans, the 1960 speech has taken on iconic proportions that resist critical analysis. But for others, Santorum’s comments provide an opportunity to reflect on the vast, untapped potential of Catholic public witness.
Dan Burke: Call to Prayer: Seven Resources for your Lenten Journey
Comments
Post a Comment
I am uncertain, that at J.F.K.‘s time: he had much choice other than to be for separation of church, and state. When Americans were more homogenous in their beliefs, as Christians, it made what—I believe—John Adams said, this U.S. Constitution is only for a religious, and moral, people, and wholly unsuitable to any other; this judgement was made to have a great deal of sense, among voters of his day. That we now have many voters, not only of varying beliefs, but also varied views on morality: it seems the U.S. Constitution is no longer relevant to a religious, and moral, people alone. This does not mean people of other faiths, philosophies, are immoral, but it does mean, that as a nation we are much more heterogenous in our moral, and religious, views. Aside from this, The Catechism of The Catholic Church, teaches us, that ” ... Original sin entails ‘captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil.’ Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals. ... “. Separation of Church, and state, may be plausible; although, less so today: when we have a much less homogenous Christian culture voting on issues. I will not say, J.F.K. was wrong, but the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect religious freedom for Christians, or more specifically, moral Christians. It may be, that Christian beliefs gave birth to The U.S. Constitution. As such, American government is a child of Christianity. It was given authority to be independant of its parent, as an adult, with honor given to its Christian parent. As Americans become both more atheistic, and pantheistic, we risk becoming moral according to whatever norms, or licenses, are constructed. The risk of losing an understanding of Original Sin is grave. The threats to politics, education, social action, and morals, might best be exemplified by movements throughought Communist regimes as in China, during the so-called “cultural revolution”, or Pol Pot’s genocide against men: doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc..
That poor carriers love Android is not really a surprise. Go to any carrier, anywhere in the world, and you’ll notice that most of their smartphones are now based on Android. They even have their best promotions and marketing campaigns around Android smartphones. Android phones are a great way for carriers to also hook customers that have never used a smartphone before and never needed data, on their data plans, and get them to sign more expensive contracts. The conclusion: carriers make more money with Android.
But is the same true about the iPhone? Do carriers love the iPhone, too, and are they making money from it? Apparently not, and this is why it’s a nightmare for them. The iPhone can bring them some extra customers, but at what costs? Some carriers are even forced to subsidize the most of iPhone’s price, as we’ve seen with the Sprint deal, where they’re paying $650 to Apple for every iPhone. That would be $450 subsidized by the carrier.
Taking into consideration other manufacturers injunction the carriers from $400 to $500 for their high-end phones, that means the carriers are giving Apple an appurtenance $150-$250 for every take phone. That also means that after every 1 million spare customers, it costs them an excess $200 million. That’s a group of fortune, and it in fact puts a dent in the typhoid mary’s profitability.
This also explains why Apple is masterful to make so much profit compared to all else in the industry with <a >windows phone 7 icons</a>. Apple can take in not too times the profit on their phones compared to other manufacturers because the carriers are hushed passive to pay Apple a fortune of money. If solely they would realize that Apple is at a bring up where losing a oustandingly porter would not be acceptable to them anymore, which means the carriers could have the power to convey Apple down a notch in their negotiations.
I don’t believe anyone should watch broken for the “deficient” carriers. They can select protect of themselves. But these negotiations that are heavily favoring Apple are also hurting all the other manufacturers. If the other manufacturers would be gifted to care the carriers more because Apple is doing it, then it would be fine, but I fantasize the contrary is happening. The carriers are giving in to Apple, and then venture to retrieve their losses by squeezing all the profit from all the other manufacturers, which is unspeakable for the benefit of all of us, because our favorite manufacturers become less boodle to run with for the treatment of approaching devices.
Mr. Santorum is a great person of high morals and an admirable Catholic faith. That being said, he is a lousy candidate for President. I am speaking about hard-boiled realism, not idealism. Santorum comes across just awful on TV. He always seems angry and hectoring. On some basic level, any candidate for any office, whether for dogcatcher or president, has to be likeable. Rick Santorum is no Ronald Reagan in that regard.
I think that Mr. Santorum gave it a good go, but PA voters still dislike him just as much as when they turned him out of office in 2006. He probably saved himself some embarassment in the upcoming PA primary.
I hope his daughter will be OK. She needs our prayers.
I agree that Cardinal Dolan’s assessment of Kennedy’s speech was generous. Too generous, in my opinion. Though, the Cardinal’s attempt to balance the argument by citing Senator Santorum’s views was important in terms of conveying the need for distinction without separation of Church and State. Archbishop Chaput is right to condemn Kennedy’s speech for the effects it created, i.e., the distancing of religion from the public square. Archbishop Chaput, Fr. John Neuhaus, et al, have correctly identified that Kennedy, in a bid to access power, hindered more than helped the free exercise of religion. Whatever Kennedy’s intentions, the effects of his actions are the hard reality with which Catholics must now contend.
With all due respect to Cardinal Dolan, they cannot both be right. Santorum is correct. There is only one way to separate church and state. When government threw out all regard for the natural law, it caused our present conditions today. Dolan still doesn’t get it.
What separation of Church and State? This is America, not the USSR, which, thanks to Pope John Paul II, consecration as Our Lady Of Fatima asked for, USSR is no longer around and this so-called separation started with the ACLU, that was backed by said USSR. The good Cardinal was just trying to be nice to JFK, of which was not a very good president, after all. It is sad to see Sen. Santorum bow out of the race, which means that if we do have an election this year, we will lose, even though Flip-Flop Romney is not evil as Obama, just plain wishy-washy, much like Carter. +JMJ+
“not accepting instruction” and religion as his own private affair are probably the most glaring errors, depending on how that is interpreted. If by instruction JFK meant direct marching orders, I can agree to some extent. But to ignore instruction from ecclesiastic sources simply because of the source, well, JFK was an idiot. Same with respect to keeping religion a private affair. The separation is probably a good thing on an organizational or institutional level - that is, the state should not force US residents and citizens to join a particular church or any church or religion, but there is no basis for preventing a church or religion from informing the decisions of a politician. If you don’t like that politician’s views, regardless of where he gets them, then don’t vote for him. If you do, then do vote for him. Simple as that.
In spite of the media coverage the Kennedys got while JFK was president, there are still alot of things we don’t know about President Kennedy. We were told in school (Catholic School) that President Kennedy used to pray the Rosary on his knees every night before he went to bed. The fact that he did not wear his Catholic faith on his sleeve does not necessarily mean that he was not a good Catholic. I grew up in that era and and it was a very well known fact that President and Mrs. Kennedy went to Mass faithfully every Sunday and received the sacraments, not to mention the fact that his mother Rose was even more devout. Also, Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston was a dear friend of theirs and I’m quite sure that President Kennedy sought guidance from him.
While Santorum profoundly misunderstands the constitutional separation of church and state and Dolan mistakenly thinks the health care law puts religious employers in some sort of moral bind, Dolan rightly notes that the constitutional separation of church and state does not prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The Constitution, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion.
Confusion arises because the constitutional principle is sometimes equated with a political doctrine that generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. Two aims of that doctrine are to facilitate discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and, further, to avoid or minimize putting our various religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena since government cannot base laws directly on those beliefs anyway and so citizens need not directly dispute or criticize each others’ religious beliefs in order to resolve political issues. Unlike the constitutional principle, the political doctrine is not “law.” Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.
Separation of church and state? That’s asking us to separate our morality from our daily life and all the decisions we make. That’s what these people don’t understand. If I believe abortion to be wrong - and my religion happens to teach that - then I cannot separate church and state. We make decisions every minute based on morality because as Catholics we do not wish to sin by offending God. So, does God turn a blind eye to someone because they separated their decisions because of “church and state?” He’s not going to judge whether you were a good “citizen” by following some doctrine that’s not even constitutional. He’s going to judge you on the merits of how you lived your life morally. Every decision before us - political, economic, sexual - has a moral implication. To ask us to separate our morality from the impact of those decisions is to truly turn a blind eye on God!!!
Rafael,
As noted above, the constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not require anyone to separate their morality from daily life and decisions.
You may be thinking of the political doctrine—which sometimes is also labeled “separation of church and state”—that calls for us generally to discuss political issues on grounds other than religion for two main reasons: (1) By basing discussion on grounds accessible to all (and not just those who adhere to this or that religious belief), the doctrine facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs, which is crucial in a republic with a diverse electorate. (2) By not putting citizens’ various religious beliefs directly “in play” or “at issue” in political discussions, the doctrine helps to maintain civility and peace since citizens need not directly dispute or criticize each others’ religious beliefs in order to resolve political issues.
For instance, if someone opposing abortion offers as his reason the religious belief that a soul appears as soon as an egg is fertilized that (1) offers no basis even for discussion except amongst those in that portion of the electorate who share such beliefs in god(s), souls, and such and (2) puts opponents in the position of needing to dispute those religious beliefs in order to address a political issue.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.