Contributors
J.F. Kelly, Jr. - Contributor

J.F. Kelly, Jr. is a retired Navy Captain and bank executive who writes on current events and military subjects. He is a resident of Coronado, California. [go to Kelly index]

Quandary for Catholic Candidates
Growing conflicts between Church and State..
[J. F. Kelly, Jr.] 5/4/04

John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, has been taking flak of late for having supported legislation on such matters as abortion and stem cell research that is at odds with the teachings of his Catholic faith. Critics, Catholic and otherwise, have cited this as another example of his inconsistency on certain issues. Meanwhile, the American Catholic bishops are discussing how to deal with Catholic politicians who support or favor legislation that is contrary to the Church’s teachings.

As a practicing Catholic—one, that is, who receives the sacraments regularly as opposed to nominal Catholics who may attend mass on Christmas and Easter--I am not in the habit of offering advice to my bishops on matters of religion. But when they venture into matters of politics, law and public policy, as they occasionally do, they cannot hold themselves immune to criticism.

My humble advice to the bishops is to not threaten Catholics holding public office or who are candidates with excommunication if, in the exercise of their office, they strive to separate their personal religious beliefs from their duty to all their constituents, not just those who are Catholic. While at it, I have some advice as well for some of my Republican friends who happen to be fellow Catholics. Stop using this issue in an attempt to discredit Kerry. It may backfire against all Catholic candidates.

Should voters get the idea that Catholic candidates feel obligated to vote their church’s teachings as defined by the Catholic bishops or face excommunication, many will use it as an excuse to reject these candidates on the basis of religion alone. Voters rejected the presidential bid of Al Smith in 1928 largely because many apparently felt at that time that a Catholic president would be beholden to the Vatican. Sure, Catholic candidates may insist, as others have, that they will always fairly represent their constituents regardless of their church’s teachings, but take it from a lifelong Catholic, it’s hard to live with the threat of excommunication. The urge to repent will be strong once elected.

Senator Kerry has stated that, while personally accepting his church’s teachings on abortion and stem cell research, he does not believe that his religious beliefs should influence his role as a legislator and policymaker. The bishops, more or less collectively, seem to be on the verge of ruling that the roles cannot be separated. But our constitution, it seems to me, requires that they must. Arab and Muslim nations provide multiple examples of what results when clerics attempt to prescribe how government officials shall govern.

A majority of Americans support women’s reproductive rights. Of those who oppose abortion on principle, many support it at least under certain circumstances such as rape, incest or when the health of the mother is at stake. The Catholic Church, however, teaches that life begins at the moment of conception, i.e., a fertilized ovum is an unborn child and it is murder to destroy it under any circumstances. By this definition of the beginning of life, it is wrong even to dispose of embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures or to risk destroying a fertilized egg even by taking the “morning after” pill. In fact, the Church opposes birth control by any artificial means. Surveys indicate that this prohibition is widely ignored by over a third of American Catholics, but that is beside the point.

The timing of the bishops in considering sanctions against Catholic politicians who support legislation contrary to their church’s teachings is remarkable, coming, as it does, during this presidential election campaign. It certainly creates a dilemma for Catholic candidates. If the bishops determine that excommunication is appropriate, will Mr. Kerry and other Catholic candidates and officeholders change their positions on the issues in question? And what are the implications for Catholic voters? Must we support only candidates whose views coincide with those of the Church?

We are blessed with freedom of religion in this country but religious views must never be imposed upon those who govern or seek to govern. Any attempt to do so would constitute, in my view, a dangerous intrusion by religion into government. Church law is not state law. Not in America, at least. CRO

a note to readers: Kelly served with John Kerry in 1967-1968

copyright 2004 J. F. Kelly, Jr.

§