Private Faith: Palin, Kennedy, and Catholicism

In 1960 John F. Kennedy made a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association where he said that his faith was a very personal and important thing to him, but as a politician it was "private." He went on to explain further that:

"Contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic."

This was Kennedy's way of deflecting and inoculating the onslaught of what some perceived to be anti-Catholic bias in the print media. What it did was change forever the way that Americans viewed the intersection of politics and religion on a personal level.

···•°···

Archbishop Chaput [UPI]

Fast-forward to 2010 - Archbishop Charles Chaput made a speech and mentioned this Kennedy Speech. He described the above statement and the rest of the Kennedy speech, in a talk about Catholicism and its relation to society, culture, and politics, in the following way, saying that it was:

"sincere, compelling, articulate -- and wrong."

This was a rather strong statement, and created quite a stir. But he didn't stop there, he went on to explain the damage that Kennedy's speech did to Catholicism in America:

"Real Christian faith is always personal, but it's never private... [Kennedy's speech] 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."

···°•···

Many Catholics, wishing for a politics of "days gone by" make the statement, "Kennedy would be a Republican nowadays, he was Catholic, and was essentially conservative by today's standards." I dare say that these folks are sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong.

What party Kennedy would be in isn't the point of my post, or the point Patrick O'Hannigan made in his December 15th American Spectator article entitled: Kennedy Catholicism and Palin. The point he did make is that Kennedy did a disservice to the faith and to fellow Catholic Americans when he made his 1960 pronouncement. But Kennedy isn't around to defend himself, especially against folks like Sarah Palin that demand that politicians lay their [religious] "cards on the table." The person rushing to Kennedy's "Let's keep our faith private" defense? His niece, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. She did so in a December 3, 2010 Washington Post piece, where she defended her late uncle against charges by Sarah Palin that Kennedy's faith and philosophy were improper and harmful. O'Hannigan outlines the debate between O'Hannigan and Palin, and breaks it down in rather blunt fashion. It is a telling piece and a good piece. You don't have to love or hate Palin to respect what O'Hannigan says and to agree with the point Palin is making – Kennedy was wrong.

Palin takes Kennedy's philosophy to task in her book, America by Heart. O'Hannigan explains, that she is right about her criticism of Kennedy - regardless of what you think of her, or her politics. For this isn't about politics per se, it is about how one goes about their politics and their faith. It is about philosophy and theology as a very base level. Townsend on the other hand says that Palin is wrong, and that her religious litmus test of sorts strikes against the ideas of American freedom. She of course misconstrues what Palin says, and does so not out of a desire to defend Kennedy, but out of disdain for a person and their philosophy. Townsend also makes her argument on a flawed understanding of Catholicism and exactly the role it plays in American political life; it would serve her well to read Chaput's book on the subject: Render Unto Caesar. As O'Hannigan explains, this is not a battle that Townsend can win.

···•°···

O'Hannigan over the course of his piece describes the battle that is 50 years in the making. The players: Kennedy, his niece Townsend, Palin, Chaput and every American Catholic. The battle is over how politicians should represent themselves, represent their faith, and whether a personal faith has a place in the public life of an elected official. The winner is for you to decide, but I leave you with a quote that O'Hannigan puts in his article. You can use it however you would like; I suggest it be used as the test to determine who has the better philosophy, Kennedy and his "private faith" of Belloc, Palin, Chaput, et al.

The quote is from Hilaire Belloc and his 1906 stump speech for his candidacy in the British Parliment:

"Gentlemen, I am a Roman Catholic. As far as possible, I go to Mass every day. This [taking a rosary out of his pocket] is a rosary. As far as possible, I kneel down and tell these beads every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that he has spared me the indignity of being made your representative."

···°•···

Links:

• Kennedy Catholicism and Palin - by: Patrick O'Hannigan [The American Spectator - 12.15.10]
• Sarah Palin is wrong about John F. Kennedy, religion and politics - by: Kathleen Kennedy Townsend [The Washington Post - 12.3.10]
• The Vocation of Christians in American Public Life - by: Archbishop Charles Chaput [Speech: 3.1.10]
• Address to Greater Houston Ministerial Association - by: John F. Kennedy [Speech: 9.12.60]

†††