First, the events leading up to Archbishop Chaput’s Repudiation of Professor Diotallevi’s Reply
A short while ago, March 6, to be exact, I published an article entitled John F. Kennedy’s Crime, which concerned John F. Kennedy’s a campaign speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association some 50 years prior on September 12, 1960, and Archbishop Charles Chaput’s speech before the Houston Baptist University this past March 1, wherein he addressed Kennedy’s crime, its affect on the American political process, and in particular its affect on American Christians of every stripe.
In his speech Kennedy had tried, as politicians are so often want to do, to have it both ways without offending people on either side of an issue. After all, he was trying to get as many votes from those pastors and their flocks as he could, and truth be damned. To do that, he proclaimed that he would not betray his faith as president of the United States, and it if came to it that he would have to act against his faith to remain loyal to his office as president, he would resign the office rather than betray his faith. He was sure it would not come to that however because he believed in adhering strictly to the mandate of the Constitution of the United States of complete separation of Church and state. That was his doctrine and he was going to stick to it no matter what; never mind that the First Amendment contains no such doctrine.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Did you see anything in there about the separation of Church and state? The First Amendment only of “religion,” stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The remainder of that amendment speaks of freedom of speech, of the press, the right of people to peaceably assemble, petition the Government for redress of grievances. There is nothing there about separation of Church and statement no matter how you slice it; it just isn’t there.
In saying he was a believer in the separation of Church and state he was proclaiming that he was a Christian first, except…except when his faith contradicted the needs of the state; in which case he would act as a member in good standing of the godless society.
The primary reason for my publishing that article was to showcase the speech by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, The Vocation of Christians in American Public Life, on March 1, 2010 at the Houston Baptist University wherein he registered his complete disagreement with John F. Kennedy concept of the separation of Church and state.
Sadly, at the time I wrote that article, which included the text of Archbishop Charles Chaput’s speech, I did not know of the existence of a video of that speech on YouTube. I am including that video here. Rather you read the archbishop’s speech earlier or not, I highly recommend you watch this video. I think you will find the presentation of the speech captured in this video will add immensely to your understanding of the proper Orthodox Catholic Christian perspective of the place of God and the Church in the United States in light of the First Amendment of the Bill of Right of the U.S. Constitution. The question and answer session that follows the archbishop’s speech included at the end of this video will add to your general understanding of the man and his positions on the matter at hand.
A reply to the good archbishop’s speech was not long in coming. The reply was from one Professor Diotallevi, a sociologist of religion, student of American society, and adviser to the Italian bishops’ conference. The professor’s reply was delivered on April 12, on www.chielsa.
Separating Church and State Isn’t Just an Option, It’s a Must
by Luca Diotallevi
The remarks by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, who asserts a connection between the famous 1960 speech by John F. Kennedy in front of an audience of Protestant pastors in Houston and the subsequent wave of “secularism” that hit American culture in the late 1960′s and 1970′s, deserve comment.
For the sake of brevity, I will limit myself to presenting two critical observations and two avenues of research. (continue reading)
Here follows the complete text of the archbishop’s reply. Or, you may read it, if you choose on www.chiesa. Should you choose to go to that website to read archbishop’s refutation of Diotallevi’s criticisms, you will also be able to see a rather good further reply to Diotallevi by James Hitchcock.
A Reply to Professor Diotallevi
By Charles J. Chaput
I’m grateful to Professor Diotallevi for his comments on my March 1 talk at Houston Baptist University. He and I clearly differ in our interpretation of John Kennedy’s 1960 Houston speech on the role of religion in American public life. We also differ on the proper understanding of the “separation of Church and state” in light of my nation’s founding documents and history. I offer here a few thoughts in response to his remarks.
First, Professor Diotallevi suggests that Jesuit John Courtney Murray‘s influence on the Kennedy speech is “easy to trace.” Regrettably, Father Murray, by his own account, had little influence on the Kennedy speech. In fact, if Murray had played the role Diotallevi suggests, it would have been a different and far better speech. It’s true that Murray, along with John Cogley and others, was consulted in the development of the Kennedy text. But as Murray himself later noted, most of his counsel was ignored. In Murray’s words, Kennedy “was far more of a separationist than I am.” Anyone steeped in Murray’s writings who reads the Kennedy speech will see why Murray distanced himself from the 1960 text. Kennedy’s view of religion as an essentially private matter, with little bearing on a leader’s public duties, differs sharply from Murray’s beliefs about the relationship of Church and state, and faith and public life.
Second, Diotallevi suggests that Kennedy would never have preached a radical separation of faith and the public square to an audience of Protestant ministers accustomed to “the Christian experience manifesting itself in every aspect of public life.” But again regrettably, the professor has misread my March text. As Jesuit scholar Mark Massa notes in his own essay (which I quote at length in my talk) the 1960 Kennedy speech, in the context of the times, sounded quite congenial to Protestant ears because it neutralized worries about Kennedy’s Catholic roots. But it had a stealth content with far-reaching and drastic implications, alien to the American historical experience. The damage became clear only with the passage of time. Whether Kennedy intended the harshly secularist consequences of his speech or not, is irrelevant. The important thing is that he took the American “faith and public life” discussion in a very new direction, and he set the stage for two generations of Catholic political leaders to separate their religiously-informed moral beliefs from their political witness in a convenient but morally destructive way.
Third, in taking issue with my use of the word “Church” throughout my talk, Diotallevi unfortunately seems to have overlooked key sections of my actual remarks. Perhaps this is an issue of translation, and I have misunderstood his concern. To reprise what I actually said:
“Christianity is not mainly – or even significantly – about politics. It’s about living and sharing the love of God. And Christian political engagement, when it happens, is never mainly the task of the clergy. That work belongs to lay believers who live most intensely in the world.” Several lines later, I note that “Christians individually and the Church as a believing community engage the political order as an obligation of the Word of God.”
Contrary to what the professor seems to be saying, there is nothing “very complicated” in these ideas. They are plain and straightforward, flowing rather obviously from the Gospel. Nowhere do I suggest that the hierarchical structure of the Church is the preferred manner for Catholic interaction with the political order. In fact, I say just the opposite. Diotallevi seems to infer from my comments a kind of crypto-integralism. Given a European frame of reference, this may be understandable. But nothing in the actual text of my remarks supports that curious view, and for good reason: Like nearly every other citizen of the United States, including the late John Courtney Murray, I believe strongly in the separation of Church and state, properly understood and as the American Founders intended it.
And what do I mean by a “proper” understanding of Church-state separation? I mean exactly what the American bishops meant when speaking about our nation’s constitutional legacy in their excellent 1948 pastoral letter, “The Christian in Action.” For very shrewd pragmatic reasons, John Kennedy selectively referenced – and also selectively ignored – the content of that pastoral letter in his 1960 Houston speech. Professor Diotallevi seems unaware of it. But as a scholar, he might find it useful to complete his understanding of the American political tradition – and Kennedy’s departure from it.
Finally, the professor seems to worry that my remarks run the risk of encouraging “some of the ‘evangelical’ or neoconservative positions most widespread in the American Protestant world, but also in some fringes of the Catholic world.” Let me respond simply by noting that the pro-life and pro-family witness of American evangelicals is commendable. I only wish that it were emulated more fully by many of those American Catholics who describe themselves as “liberal” or “progressive.” Evangelicals and Catholics who (along with Eastern Orthodox Christians, Latter-day Saints, many observant Jews, and others) speak out in defense of the sanctity of life and the dignity of marriage, deserve praise, not derision. They labor in the tradition of activists for civil rights – a moral cause led by religious believers — who refused to “privatize” their faith. Their witness may be out of harmony with John Kennedy’s remarks in Houston; but they are fully in the spirit of Martin Luther King’s actions in Selma.
Of course, every political movement has its zealots and opportunists. Political engagement will sometimes be marked by excesses of enthusiasm and a lack of prudence. And some people will inevitably seek to use the Gospel and the Church for their own partisan advantage. But Christians are called to be the best of good citizens. We have a duty to work for justice and the common good. We may not excuse ourselves from that obligation by citing the foolishness, selfishness, or hypocrisy of others, or the human imperfections of the political causes that deserve our energetic support.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Establishment (slacktivist.typepad.com)
- JFK speech on faith was ‘sincere’ but ‘wrong,’ Archbishop Chaput states (catholicnewsagency.com)
- Poll: Most Americans Believe Judges Anti-Religious (dakotavoice.com)
- John F. Kennedy’s Crime (mpidirect.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=53d7fd82-1d6b-4084-b617-eac7af4a78f2)
Related posts: