The Catholic Archbishop of Kansas City, Kan., has publicly admonished Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic, for her recent veto of an anti-abortion law passed by the Kansas Legislature. The archbishop also stated that she could not receive Communion, a Catholic sacrament, until she publicly repented her veto.
The archbishop's action flies in the face of the values of separation of church and state and religious freedom that are embodied in the American constitutional system.
This action also revives the long discredited notion that Catholics should not be elected to public office because they are subject to the control of a hierarchal church.
In his monumental speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960, John F. Kennedy cogently argued that his being a Catholic would have no effect on his ability to serve as president and refuted the argument -- widely circulated in the 1928 presidential election against the Democratic candidate Al Smith -- that as a Catholic he would be subject to church control.
Kennedy stated: "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."
The real significance of Kennedy's speech is that it set forth the proposition that in a pluralistic society and religiously neutral governmental system, it is possible for a candidate to separate that candidate's religious beliefs from that candidate's views on important questions of public policy.
So, while Gov. Sebelius or Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, as Catholics, may have strong religious objections to abortion, they may also believe that as a matter of public policy the government should not interfere with a woman's private decision to have an abortion.
Kennedy's speech had an enormous impact, and today it is widely assumed that public officials are able to separate their own religious beliefs from their views on matters of public policy.
Religious officials and religious institutions have a constitutionally protected right to try to advance their religious beliefs through political activity.
Just as other citizens should lobby Congress and their state legislatures to advance their agendas, religious officials and religious institutions should urge Congress and the state legislatures to adopt laws that advance their religious beliefs, whether it is prohibiting abortion or allowing abortion, imposing the death penalty or abolishing the death penalty, or supporting what they consider to be a "just war" or opposing all wars.
Likewise they may decide to remind their adherents of the tenets of their faith, and to contend as a matter of religious belief, their adherents should support or oppose public policies and candidates who support or oppose those policies.
But when religious officials demand that their adherents who hold public office conform their actions to the religious beliefs of their faith, they are crossing the line between separation of church and state.
They also cast doubt on the ability of members of their faith to hold public office.
President Kennedy had it right. No public official can request or accept instruction from religious officials on questions of public policy.
Nor should a public official be denied the right to practice her religion to the fullest extent of her beliefs because of her position on matters of public policy.
Some Michigan Catholics have argued that Adam Cardinal Maida should deny Communion to Gov. Granholm because of her support for abortion rights.
Cardinal Maida has wisely rebuffed any suggestion that he try to control the public actions of Gov. Granholm or any Catholic official.
In so doing, the cardinal has acted to maintain the constitutional values of separation of church and state and religious freedom.
The archbishop of Kansas City could learn a valuable lesson from Cardinal Maida.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce