Kennedy, the Pope, and Bill Frist

by Cliopatria

Interesting, and disturbing, Andrew Sullivan posting this last Friday. As one of his quotes for the day, he excerpts John Kennedy’s statement on the role of the Pope and other religious leaders.

An excerpt from the excerpt:

”I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials."

As Sullivan himself then asks if, based on this statement, “Wouldn't Bill Frist see president Kennedy as an enemy of"people of faith"?”

And of course Frist would (or at least say he would).

And this is a serious problem. It seems that an ever greater number of religious leaders, and followers, are now arguing the opposite of what Kennedy stated back then. They are arguing that a “faith-based” message should have a privileged space in our public discourse. That inevitably brings the religious leaders into the heart of our politics. In the long run this may burn itself out. There are possible faint signs of it now. But in the short run it is, if not tyrannous, then exceedingly wearisome.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Tom Bruscino - 4/28/2005

When Franklin Roosevelt sent Myron Taylor as a personal envoy to the Vatican in the late 1930s, a variety of Protestant (and some Jewish) groups were outraged. Truman tried to make General Mark Clark an ambassador to the Vatican and many of the same groups raised such objections that Clark pulled his name from consideration.

I think we have a tendency these days to forget how strong was the animosity between white ethnic and religious groups in this country, especially before and during World War II. Now Kennedy was not particularly religious anyway, but the statement Sullivan quotes was done for the political reason of assuring Protestants that an American Catholic could be president in 1960, and probably should not be used to describe the political scene now. And by the way, when Kennedy made such statements in 1960, a lot of Catholics did think he was being an enemy of people of faith.

Jonathan Dresner - 4/28/2005

Well, not this one. It'd be like refusing to enter into diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia because it's so Muslim, or England, because the monarch is also head of the national church. It's not principled separation, it's bigotry.

Ralph E. Luker - 4/28/2005

It is interesting how sides have flipped on this one. I recall very well how Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and States bitterly opposed sending an envoy to the Vatican after World War II. They were then viewed as fairly conservative defenders of Protestant hegemony in the United States. Now, my friends on the secular Left would seem to think their position an enlightened one.

Greg James Robinson - 4/28/2005

If only Nixon could go to China, only the presidents associated with conservative Protestants can go to Rome. Ronald Reagan was the first President to establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican. George W. Bush felt able to stop in Rome and lobby the Pope for electoral support (the current pontiff, then Cardinal Ratzinger, responded with a supportive letter). When Harry Truman pondered establishing official relations with the Holy See, he was quickly discouraged by his advisors. One can only gasp in imagining the reaction if John F. Kennedy had lobbied the Vatican for electoral support.

John H. Lederer - 4/26/2005

Yes, you are correct, it is a tough issue because the questions are so fundamental and consquently so tough to compromise.

I am afraid that things will likely get tougher over the next half century because our technology is moving so fast -- cloning, near immortality, genetic manipulation, artificial intelligence, all start to raise fundamental questions about what is a human and what is the relationship between humanity and human rights.

There are scary parallels to slavery as an issue on many levels beyond the fundamental one of who (or what) possesses rights -- e.g. the attempt of the courts to decide an issue and the non-acceptance of the decision by large numbers, division of churches, etc.

The missing ingredient heretofore has been the political fuel provided by the admission of territories to statehood in the 1800's.

I say "heretofore" because of the recently commented on supposition that abortion has had a political effect by altering the electorate. Add into that mix the fact that political bent seems at least partially genetic and Gilbert and Sullivan's comedic song in Iolanthe becomes ominous -- perhaps if one's party is not doing well all that is needed is a little additional gene manipulation as one adjusts the fetus's genes to protect against cancer.

Of course there is something even more bothersome about the fact that one seems to go to Science Fiction and Gilbert and Sullivan for guidance about the future...

When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum, too,
They've got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.'s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.

Then let's rejoice with loud Fal la...
That Nature always does contrive--Fal, lal...

That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la! Fal, lal, la!
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!

Fal, lal, la!

Oscar Chamberlain - 4/26/2005

You're right John, it's a tough issue. Abortion raises such fundamental questions that it is hard not to have an argument that does not descend to a "clash of civilizations" level. That's exactly the sort of clash that makes people strive to have their view privileged and not simply acknowledged.

Yet I think most American's don't want that level of conflict on this issue. In the end, I think Clinton had it right: a majority wants abortion legal but rare. Some pro-life people I know can accept, albeit grudgingly, legalized abortion because they agree that's the majority's opinion. But that takes work and something that I would call grace, though others might differ.

Jonathan Dresner - 4/25/2005

here:

Sen. Schumer declared that a willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade was "extremist" and that no one would be allowed to serve on the federal bench who had such views.

In doing so he declared all who adhere to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church unqualified for office.

That also seems contrary to the uneasy compromise we have between religion and politics.

Perhaps this is a pot best left unstirred regardless of the direction of the spoon.