Many years ago, the BBC showed “By The People – The Election of Barack Obama,” a documentary film of the campaign which culminated in his becoming the United States’ President.
While watching the film, I was aware of questions, lessons, and/or potentialities arising from the election of a man who, according to commentators, approved of abortion. For as long as I can remember during the period since abortion became a significant subject in U.S. elections, prominent Democratic Party candidates have been pro-killing (dressed up as ‘pro-choice’), whereas their Republican rivals have to varying extents been pro-life. The continuation of this situation is dependent directly on what happens in regard to the factors which I shall review in this article.
Notable revelations of the documentary were the scale of Mr. Obama’s campaign and the enthusiasm of the people who worked in it. Although I believe that an enormous asset for him was the existence of a ready-made (ethnic) ‘constituency’ to whom he could appeal with a high likelihood of winning their support, I noticed that ‘white’ people far outnumbered ‘black’ ones in the audiences at his large meetings and among the campaign workers. Another noted factor was the youth of very many of those workers. ‘Wouldn’t it,’ I thought, ‘be wonderful if the commitment, organisation, and numbers of Barack Obama’s supporters were matched by authentic Catholics in working to implement Catholic principles?’ Is that achievable? Such Catholics should hope so, and try to make it so.
To influence society as a whole it is necessary to lobby the people who hold power, and progress depends on whether they agree with the lobbyists. We need to have enough friends in politics. Political action (which is not necessarily synonymous with allegiance to a particular political Party) is among the most important of the practical mechanisms by which religiously-based objectives can be achieved.
Publicised statistics suggest that the population of the U.S. contains a smaller percentage of Catholics than does that of Ireland, and that in both of those countries the percentage of Catholics far outnumbers that in the U.K. . At first sight, that gives Catholics in Ireland and in the U.S. a greater potential for influencing the laws and culture of the country than is possessed by their counterparts in the U.K. . The practical effect of that is, however, weakened by the fact that now the word ‘Catholic’ does not justify the forming of many expectations about the beliefs and attitudes of someone to whom it is applied. Not much experience is needed for discovery of serious deviations of such beliefs and attitudes from the Church’s theological and/or moral doctrines. Many people are in the Church “in body” but not “in heart.”[1] “[S]ome members can even be called non-believers.”[2] That lamentable fact is symptomatic of what Fordham University’s Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand called “The Devastated Vineyard.” Consequently I have adopted a practice of using the word ‘authentic’ as a prefix for ‘Catholic.’ Reason tells me that an adjective can be used properly to describe someone only if he possesses the characteristics which justify it. (Think about various adjectives which can, in ordinary speech, be used to describe someone. I am sure that you would be very confused if you found that often the person in question did not possess the relevant characteristics, and you might justifiably be rather annoyed. Eventually you might decide to ‘wait and see’ instead of taking anything for granted.) It follows in the present context that the word ‘Catholic’ can be used properly to describe only people who accept as truth the formally-declared doctrinal and moral teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The fundamental difference between a Catholic and a non-Catholic is that a Catholic subordinates his judgment in those matters to the Magisterium. This has implications for the relationship between a candidate for political office and the people whose votes are sought.
An authentic Catholic candidate cannot assume that ‘Catholics’ to whom he (or she, of course) appeals on religion-related subjects for support will be authentic ones, and authentic Catholic potential voters cannot assume that a candidate described as a ‘Catholic’ really is one. This is extremely unsatisfactory, but true. Because it is much easier to ascertain the attitudes of one person than of many, the potential voters are in the stronger position to obtain clarification, and it is essential for accurate assessment of what may lie ahead that they do so.
It is almost a basic principle of electoral activity that a candidate’s chance of being elected is improved if he is attractive to a broad range of potential voters. A Catholic (whether authentic or nominal) candidate is likely to have a better chance of winning the support of Catholic (whether authentic or nominal) potential voters if he presents his religious attitudes in an attractive way. This puts a premium on honesty and on fidelity to the truth. Politicians seem to have a generic reputation for being ‘slippery,’ of ‘running with the hare and barking with the hounds,’ of ‘trimming their sails to the prevailing wind,’ etcetera. Catholic candidates may believe that being too vocal in espousing authentic Catholic attitudes will alienate non-Catholics and jeopardise the chances of winning votes.
This is not a new phenomenon. In her memoirs,[3] John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s mother recalled[4] that in 1924 the West Virginian delegates at the Democratic Party’s Convention voted steadily, through dozens of ballots, for Oscar W. Underwood “in order to prevent the nomination of New York’s Governor Alfred E. Smith, primarily because Smith was a Catholic.” She wrote[5] that anti-Catholicism had been important in 1928 when, although Smith had won the Party’s nomination for President, he was defeated by Herbert Hoover. By 1960, Mrs. Kennedy wrote, religious tolerance had grown, but to an uncertain extent. West Virginia, for example, “was still almost wholly Protestant and still suspicious of ‘Catholic influences’ in U.S. government and thought that a Catholic President might ‘take orders from the Pope’.”[6] According to Mrs. Kennedy, many people (including Catholics) thought that JFK’s Catholicism would prevent his being elected as President, and “the Catholic issue’ had to be faced.”[7] When hearing comments such as ‘I don’t want the Pope running things over here,’ she would answer that the Pope did not run things in Catholic countries such as Italy and France, that Catholics in the U.S. Congress never voted as a bloc, and “therefore the whole ‘Catholic issue’ was nonsense.”[8] In other words, nobody should have any fear that JFK would try to govern in accordance with Catholic principles.
He gave the same impression. What did he say? Read on, and I’ll tell you. Meanwhile, here is my opinion of how it should be faced when raised. Rather than repudiate, or even seem to repudiate, in pursuit of votes or for other reason, the social/political jurisdiction of Christ and His Church,[9] every Catholic who seeks political office in a democracy (whether as President of the world’s most powerful nation or as a member of the smallest town Council) should tell enquirers something like the following:
‘I believe that in public affairs and in private dealings mutual respect should be shown, and that, as President Eisenhower said, although we are entitled to question someone’s judgment we should not allege bad motives. I agree with the opinion of Pope John Paul II that in a society comprising diverse cultures it is desirable to speak “in such a way that the particular values of each people will not be rejected but purified and brought to their fullness.” The right way is through Jesus Christ. Thanks be to God, I belong to the Catholic Church which He established on the rock of St. Peter and all future Popes. To anyone who therefore may hesitate to support me, I say this: You would not be electing a dictator, but someone whose power is limited by the rules of our democracy. Subject to the consequent obstacles, I shall do all in my power to implement the teachings of Jesus Christ and His holy Church.’
That could be given a title such as ‘A Catholic Political Pledge.’ It should, I believe, not only be given by candidates but also be set for them by Catholic electors as a price to be paid in return for votes, because if Catholicism is to be a ‘force to be reckoned- with’ in the governance of society, authentic Catholics must not be satisfied with equivocation from political candidates in regard to subjects on which the Church has unequivocal teachings.
Media-reports have shown that it is common for prominent political people to equivocate about, or even deny, their wish that politics should implement Catholic principle.
For example, in 1927 when the above-mentioned Al Smith was planning to become the Democratic Party’s candidate for President in the 1928 Election, he was asked whether his loyalty to the Catholic Church would hinder his ability to discharge Presidential duties. He replied: “I recognize no power in the institutions of my Church to interfere with the operations of the Constitution of the United States or the enforcement of the law of the land.”[10] He seems to have been correct legally, because the institutions of the Church would have had no such power. However, the lay members of the Church including himself, would have had a right to “interfere.” Possibly mindful of that distinction, and/or because it had been ‘spotted’ and put to him for clarification, after he had become his Party’s candidate in the 1928 Election he “explained that his religion had not and would not affect his policies, and his record confirmed his words.”[11] Nevertheless (and as mentioned above) he lost the Election; “religion proved to be the most important issue in the minds of the voters.”[12] He “hoped to be” (but was not) “nominated once again [in 1932],” but “Ambition had soured [his] best instincts”[13]– which, from a Catholic point of view, could be regarded as having occurred years earlier.
When Catholicism in politics ‘came’ up again, in the 1960 Presidential election campaign, Democratic Party candidate John Fitzgerald Kennedy spoke as follows to a meeting of Protestants in Houston[14] (and, through them, the public): “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish, where no public officials either request or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source.”
Commenting on that, fifty years later,[15] Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. (Cap.), explained how it had “profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. … To his credit, Kennedy said that if his duties as President should “ever require me to violate my conscience or violate the national interest, I would resign the office.” He also warned that he would not “disavow my views or my church in order to win this election.” But in its effect, the Houston speech did exactly that. It began the project of walling religion away from the process of governance in a new and aggressive way. It also divided a person’s private beliefs from his or her public duties. And it set “the national interest” over and against “outside religious pressures or dictates.”
This distinction between (a) religious duty and (b) public words and actions, which falls within Vatican II’s condemnation of “the more serious errors of our age,”[16] has evidently been the policy of several people who became prominent in American politics. Like President Kennedy, all of them were reported to be Catholic, and all Democrat. It seems that to exclude implementation of Church doctrine is a pre-requisite for advancement in that Party. It is true that (as Pope Francis has pointed out[17]) “in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith,”[18] but the crucial factor is that all of them are wholly true. It is not a matter of their truth being proportionate to their position in the ‘hierarchy’. Focusing attention on the basic propositions at the top of the ‘hierarchy’ has the effect of ‘jettisoning’ their consequences at lower levels, and as the range of those consequences becomes broader, so does the scope for people to draw wrong conclusions, and (as the level drops, and questions will be regarded as correspondingly less important) the idea that “It doesn’t matter if they do” will be increasingly commonplace. This is especially the case in politics, because politics is a broad field, and political Parties are broad coalitions, and for the sake of popularity and ‘unity’ people tend to coalesce around generalities and ‘lowest common denominators’. God’s requirements are similarly reduced, and He is made out to be “so understanding as to be undemanding.”[19] Some Catholic readers might be satisfied by an opinion that a political Party is predominantly on our side; if, however, during World War II a Party had condemned all Nazi practices except the extermination-camps, would satisfaction have been justified?
Why have representatives of political Parties (particularly ones who, at least at some time, were Catholics) been elected despite their having proved themselves to be disloyal to what Our Lord teaches through His Church? The answer (or, at the least, a crucial factor) is obvious. They have been elected to public office because loyal Catholics failed to act in numbers which were sufficient to prevent it. Such cases show consistently the inability of Catholics to prevent defiance of fundamental Catholic principle. That inability is worsened by the appalling fact that some of them actually vote for the defiance. Authentic Catholics should want Catholic principles to be advocated and put into practice.[20]
Certainly their implementation depends on there being enough support for them. When they have been neglected or rejected for a long time, advocating them will seem almost like a novelty. Sometimes people take time to become ‘comfortable’ with novelties,[21] but attempts to change the law should not be postponed perpetually on the basis of an opinion that the public (or some of them) will not welcome it. Two reasons for this opinion can be given.
The first is that unless ‘the water is tested’ its ‘temperature’ cannot be known. Whether the present is a good time for testing it will always be a judgment dependent on assessment of current circumstances. President Kennedy was, to some extent, correct in his judgment that “There is no sense in raising hell and then not being successful.”[22] One reason is that failure suggests that in a practical sense (i.e. having regard to the desired outcome) the effort was a waste of time. Other reasons are that defeat is demoralising and that it can deter potential supporters. The latter possibility was why JFK’s attempt to win the Democratic Party’s nomination for Vice-President in 1956 was opposed vigorously by his father. Kennedy senior was sure that the Republicans would win the approaching election (which they did), and feared that his son’s future in politics would be jeopardised if Democrats attributed the defeat to the fact that JFK was a Catholic.[23]
The second is that success is not always achieved in one ‘fell swoop.’ Action taken in public attracts attention. That can be useful in influencing opinions. After JFK failed to win his Party’s nomination in 1956, his father told him “That’s one of the best things that could ever happen to you!”[24] James MacGregor Burns wrote that JFK “appeared as calm in defeat as in the prospect of victory,” and that, when addressing the Democratic Convention, “[d]espite his grin, [he] “looked wilted and disappointed. Yet as things turned out, this was…the moment when he passed through a kind of political sound barrier to register on the nation’s memory” because his gracious, smiling acceptance of defeat endeared him to the public: “In this moment of triumphant defeat, his campaign for the Presidency was born.”[25]
There are well-known examples of causes[26] which, despite prolonged promotion and repeated defeat, succeeded because of the persistence of their advocates, the skill with which the case was presented, and/or the gradual wearing-down or outnumbering of their opponents. Alas, some – perhaps, since the mid-1960s, most – of such successes have been for contra-Catholic campaigns, and to reverse them authentic committed Catholics have ‘a mountain to climb’ – which brings me to conclude by referring to a symbolic event:
Near me is a framed copy of the famous photograph of the raising of the U.S. flag on the top of Mount Suribachi, on the island of Iwo Jima, in late February 1945. Love for the United States, not antipathy to present-day Japan, underlies my opinion that it is a very ‘moving’ and inspiring photograph. What it shows means much to me. Catholicism means more. The battle for Iwo Jima was very different from the one(s) facing Catholics who want to win the world for Christ, but perhaps it is rather appropriate that this essay on Catholic action through politics has been finalised near to an anniversary (eighty years) of that hard-won victory. The entire world and its structures are subject to God’s authority and laws. In working to bring all things into harmony with Him, ponder on the raising of the flag over Iwo Jima. Sursum corda!
[1] “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraph 837.
[2] Preface of the “Instrumentum Laboris” (“agenda”) for the XIII Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on “The New Evangelisation,” 2012.
[3] “Times To Remember,” Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy; Pan Books, Ltd., London, 1975.
[4] Ibid., at p.393.
[5] Ibid., at p.382.
[6] Ibid., at p.393.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., at p.399.
[9] Nothing is beyond God’s dominion, and the Church has His authority to make moral judgments – even in political matters – whenever fundamental rights or the salvation of souls requires it: “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraphs 912 and 2246 respectively.
[10] “The Bicentennial Almanac,” Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1975, p.314.
[11] “The National Experience,” Part Two: A History of the United States since 1865; Harcourt Brace Ivanovich, Inc., 1981, p.650.
[12] “America Past and Present,” Fourth Edition; HarperCollins College Publishers, 1995, p.783.
[13] “The National Experience,” op. cit. p.667.
[14] The Greater Houston Ministerial Association; 12th September 1960.
[15] Speech on “Christianity in American Political Life,” 20th August 2010.
[16] “Gaudium et Spes,” Part 1, Chapter 4, 43.
[17] Interview for various Jesuit magazines, 2013; translation as in “A Big Heart Open to God,” “America” magazine, 30th September 2013.
[18] “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraph 90.
[19] Neville Kyrke-Smith, in “The Path to Rome;” Gracewing, 2010, p.255.
[20] See, for example, “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” paragraph 909: we should remedy inducements to sin, so that virtue is favoured rather than hindered.
[21] ‘Old wineskins’ are not strong enough to contain new ‘wine,’ so if new wine is put into weak old skins there is a bursting, the skins are destroyed and the wine is lost; renew the skins before pouring in new wine: Matthew 9:17; Mark 2:21-22; Luke 5:37-39.
[22] Quoted in “America Past and Present,” by Robert A. Divine, T. H. Breen, George M. Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams; HarperCollins Publishers, 1995, at p.896.
[23] “Times to Remember,” op. cit., at p.351.
[24] Ibid., at p.352.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Such as legal prohibition of slavery and of various forms of discrimination.