AmericanPapist Comments
Forty-seven years ago John F. Kennedy faced down anti-Catholic bias as the nominee of the Democrat Party.
How shameful that the modern heirs of his legacy have smeared Rep. Jindal for his faith.
This is just more evidence of the decay that has destroyed a once-great political party (see Zel Miller's book "A National Party No More.").
Thinking that Protestants are "scandalous" is completely different from thinking that the divisions among Christians are "scandalous." He is just getting attacked because he's Catholic. How are these ads accurate? Gimme a break.
brassband, a century ago HBelloc faced down anti-Catholic prejudice in a political race (surely you know the Rosary story), but Kennedy? when did he face it down? seems to me, he caved into it. thoughts?
Well, there was the book by James Pike, former Roman Catholic, and Episcopal Bishop of California, entitled "Roman Catholic in the White House; Questions you should ask before voting," or something like that. Pike opposed Kennedy's election.
There was also Kennedy's campaign trip to Texas, where he addressed an assembly of protestant clergy to confront the religion issue head on, a speech which is sometimes credited with advancing Kennedy's cause considerably.
I'm not sure what you mean in saying that he "caved in." I don't think he ever ran from his Catholic identity.
I went to seminary in Louisiana for three years. I have never heard anything negative about Bobby Jindal. He is a firmly entrenched Republican in a heavily democratic state. He is also not a new canidate (except for the Governer's office). Sadly, I see this as a desperate attempt by Louisiana democrates to stop Jindal from gaining more power in the state and doing some good things for the people of Louisiana.
Brassband: I believe Ed Peters is referring to Kennedy's assuring the Baptist Convention in Dallas that his Catholic beliefs were private and that in no way would they affect his public decisions. This started the trainwreck that resulted in so many Catholic Democrats (and some Republicans) claiming that their personal religious beliefs would not interfere with their legislation.
Ya'll might want to check out Toby Danna's blog at tobiasdanna.blogspot.com since he's been covering this in depth.
Two funny statements about Kennedy and his Catholic faith sum things up on a humorous level. The first is attributed to Jackie, that folks shouldn't be so upset about Jack being the first Catholic in the White House because he isn't a very good Catholic. Bobby on the other hand...
I heard the other on one of those PBS specials--I think it was "The Irish in America"--that when the immigrant Catholic community in America got the first Catholic president, he was an Episcopalian from Harvard.
I don't think we can look to Kennedy's struggles with the religious question a half century ago in an anachronistic way. What were the issues, after all, that the Protestant leaders feared he would bring a Catholic perspective on? It wasn't abortion--most Christian denominations were against that and would welcome a stance against liberalizing America's abortion laws. It wasn't even birth control or divorce since they opposed those as well. (It's funny how Catholics in both parties have abandoned the Church's opposition to divorce, much to the detriment of family life in America). They were concerned about silly things, like mandatory fish on Friday or federal support for the Catholic school system, or hordes of cassocked cardinals coming in and out of the White House planning the downfall of the Protestant establishment. In those areas, Kennedy was right to say that sectarian allegiances were not part of the office of the presidency.
At the same time, I think we can see some initiatives in Kennedy's administration as coming from his Catholic upbringing. His principled opposition to Communism certainly came from both his Catholic and his liberal democratic background. His efforts to nudge American foreign policy in ways that were more in line with Catholic Social teaching--things like the Peace Corps (founded by his brother in law, Shriver), or his efforts to mend relations with Latin America after the terrible manipulations of the 1950s soured relations in the hemisphere. His eventual (though initially half-hearted) support for the Civil Rights movement is another example, where he seemed to learn in part from Catholics who were marching in the South. I think Peters' quip is unfair to the actual history of Kennedy's administration and his own Catholic identity.
But today the issues are very different and politicians on both sides fail to bring their Catholic values into the free exchange of the political process. The Democrats who support abortion rights are certainly not coming from the same separation of sectarian allegiances that Kennedy charted. Nor are the Democrats and Republicans who continue to support the death penalty, when the Magisterium has declared that the conditions for the use of lethal punishment are rare, if not practically nonexistent. Would that some of our Catholic politicians had listened to the Church's cautions about going to war in Iraq rather than look the other way and claim that such moral understandin
Peadar9 --
Excellent points.
Commenting by HaloScan
