Catholic Politicians

September 26, 1960 was a first-ever Presidential candidate debate broadcast live on television.  It was between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy and Kennedy appeared to win handily and come election time – Kennedy won handily.

Kennedy had some fame from the PT 109 incident in WWII and he had some fame due to the power and influence of his father, Joe Kennedy (Joe’s reputation was similar to a crime boss).  It was also of some concern that JFK was new to national politics and quite young to sit in the Oval Office as Commander-in-Chief of the world’s greatest military in a growing face-down with a rogue state who thought they were the greatest – Russia.  The Cold War was just heating up.

Those were certainly concerns for many Americans but another great concern was that he was a Catholic.  This sounds somewhat strange to us today but in 1960 and before, this was a big step into new territory.  After all, the United States was mostly founded by peoples who took issue with the Catholic church marked especially by the act of Martin Luther on October 31, 1517 and his declarations at Worms in 1521.  His rejection of Catholicism was quickly followed by many others which eventually spilled over to the founding of the United States.  The vast majority of the founders were of many strains of faith, BUT not Catholic!

Prior to 1960, no Catholic had ever been president.  A few Catholics were elected to Congress and to other lesser offices but Catholics were largely rejected in politics.

And why?  In part because a Catholic has a dual citizenship – one in the United States and one in the Vatican, the home of Catholicism.  The Vatican is a sovereign country to which the United States sends an ambassador just as America sends ambassadors to Morocco, Poland or Japan.  Thus, a U.S. citizen who is a Catholic essentially holds a dual citizenship.

To compound the problem with a Catholic president is that the “president” of the Vatican is reported as having a “hot line” to God and can speak for God.  So, a U.S. President who is Catholic makes a pledge to the Constitution of the United States, but also being a citizen of the Vatican has a commitment to its teachings.  As the Vatican speaks for God, there is a very strong duty to follow the Vatican’s mandates.  So, to which entity will a Catholic President submit if the two citizenships/commitments clash?  A concern.

A third issue lies in the rule of law.  For Christians, the Bible is an absolute rule and they carry that idea over to the Constitution.  In Catholicism, the “law” is any number of things – the Bible, the apocryphal books, church traditions, the Pope, councils like Trent, and local cultural beliefs.  In Catholicism, one is never sure they are really saved for there are any number of ways they might miss the mark.  The Bible is clear that when born again, one is surely, soundly, and forever saved (John 3:16 and a host of other passages).

What has happened to a country founded by Puritans, Baptists, Quakers, Anglicans, Congregationalists, and independents?  It has been taken over by Catholics!  And with Catholics, there are some absolutes, but many, many things open to interpretation.  After all, one only needs to consider Joe, Nancy, Chuck or others to know that what the church says is not clear or open to interpretation.  As Catholics need to weekly – even daily – go to mass to try to stay saved (they believe they were saved by Jesus when they were baptized as infants and the task of salvation then falls to them to live pleasing to the church), there are no clear-cut Yeas and Nays and thus the need to regularly receive Jesus in the eucharist.  Such a mindset shows in politics in such things as the southern wall and voter registrations.  The law is not absolute and doing good for people is most critical.