The election of 1960 was revolutionary for a number of reasons; the presidential debates were televised for the first time, the civil rights movement was in full swing and waiting for a president on their side, and a Catholic was a serious contender. John F. Kennedy was a proud Irish Catholic (whether or not he was actually a good Catholic is a whole other story for another time) and many Americans felt uncomfortable with this. After all, aren't Catholics subject to the Pope?? If JFK was elected president, wouldn't this mean America would play puppet to John XXIII?!
He stated, at around the 1:30 mark: "But Because I am a Catholic...the real issues in this campaign have been obscured, perhaps deliberately. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again: It is not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in."
This was JFK's take on the division between Church and State. He goes on to say that the issues pressing the nation at the time were not explicitly religious and thus his religion wouldn't be involved. His religion was a personal affair, nothing more, nothing less.
However, a second opinion on the division of Church and State appeared around the same time, in Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes. The Pastoral Constitution states: "Christ gave His Church no proper mission in the political, economic or social order...But out of this religious mission itself come a function...which can serve to structure and consolidate the human community according to the divine law." (Section 42).
So, does it seem like there is a clash between President Kennedy's understanding of church vs. state, and the Church's? Historically, Kennedy's true religious beliefs rarely hit the public light, so his true beliefs on Church vs. State may never be known.
In any case, the question remains: Where is the line between Church and State?
Moreover, can we seriously expect our leaders to separate themselves from their religion, when it is a serious part of their identity?
Take a look at JFK's entire speech, and see if you can answer any of these questions yourself.
PS: What do you think Paul V thought about our good ol' JFK? (What kinda of sassy look IS that, Paul???)
For More information, check out:
Gaudium et Spes, section 42.
I think the title of your article is fitting since it does seem that while JFK may have associated himself with the Catholic Church, he was not necessarily a Catholic first. The issue of American Catholic vs Catholic American has been brought up many times; however, I think that this distinction applies to this topic since JFK considered himself a Catholic American. On the other hand, the Church encourages us to express ourselves as American Catholics since we should be spreading the Gospel of Christ and setting an example for others on how to live as Christ did. Since JFK was a politician, it does make sense that he identified himself as Catholic American in order to maintain an apparent separation between church and state. However, Catholics in politics should fight for legislation that coincides with the Catholic Church. They should try to give reasons that non-Catholics can accept when pursuing this legislation.
ReplyDeleteI think JFK was trying to express to everyone that his choices as a president would be based on moral laws instead of religious. He was really trying to emphasize that you can separate the two. What I find unfair about JFK’s journey to the white house is that other Presidents have identified with a religion, but none have been questioned about their faith as much as him. Because of that I understand why he made such a big deal about being separate, so that he could be considered as a person and not a pawn. Right now, where we are, it is important to stress that your number one thing you are most concerned for is the state of the country.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion of the possible impact of President Kennedy’s Catholic beliefs on the White House is one that still exists today, but within a different type of context. Today, the fears of a president subjecting himself to a religious authority are a moot point. In this past election, there have been questions on the candidates past decisions, statements, and affiliations. The fears that surrounded Kennedy and the ones surrounding Trump and Hillary are couched in uncertainty of their loyalty. Kennedy’s uncertainty was in possible subservience to the Pope, Trump’s uncertainty was with his callous reputation and attitude, and Hillary’s uncertainty was with her relations to powerful businesses and politicians. The fear that all three share is the uncertainty that they’ll be able to execute the oath of office without conflict.
ReplyDelete