Evening star., 1960-09-14


in particular are completely
missing the point in report
ing the views of certain min
listers and individuals who
sincerely, for good and suffi-
cient reason. oppose the elec-
ton Of a Roman Catholic to
the presidency.
Intelligent people, Of
course, deplore the radical
crackpots. but I respectfully
list certain points with which
I believe most reasonable
Protestants, and indeed many
Roman Catholics. will agree,
and which Miss Fleeson and
others have overlooked:
The Roman Catholic laity
and hierarchy are ever ready
to protect and defend their
rights and to fight for the
institutional welfare of their
church, and we admire them
for it. Why cannot Protes-
tantS do the same without
being called "bigots" and
smeared with the words
"prejudiced," "intolerant,"
etc.?
The dictionary definition
of bigoted reads in part 6
not tolerating other views"
Professionalism not only toll
crates but encourages many
views. Does Roman Catholic
ism?
This country has a Protes-
tant heritage, insisting al
ways on religious freedom,
and the descendants of our
founding fathers would like
to keep it that way. Is that
wrong?
If we have not closed our
minds, our eyes and our ears
completely over the years to
the spoken and written pro-
nouncements from Rome, we
have no choice but to believe
that the Roman Catholic
hierarchy does claim the au-
thority to instruct it's lay
members, not only in matters
relating to faith but also re-
garding those things it con-
siders indispensable to the
Church'S welfare.
Though Mr.. Kennedy is
probably 100 per cent sincere
now in his stand on these
matters, many of us, with the
long history of his authori-
tartan church in mind, frank
ly do not believe that pres
sures in one form or another
will be withheld indefinitely,
or that Mr.. Kennedy with his
Catholic background would
always recognize the hand
of the hierarchy, accustomed
as ne must be to yielding to
it.
ID. A. Curran.
4 y
Perhaps Norman Vincent
Peale should start reading
his own Positive Thinking"
Never has anything been so
negative as his remarks after
the National Conference of
Citizens for Religious Free
dom. Religious freedom, in
deed! The statements by DR..
Peale. Rev. Harold j. Oc-
kenga and DR.. L. Nelson
Bell reflect anything but re-
ligious freedom. They are
supporting religious intoler-
ance in the strictest sense
of the words.
How dare DR.. Peale ques-
tion the loyalty not only Of
Senator Kennedy but of
every American Catholic! He
is saying that an American
who is a Catholic cannot be
a true American. I resent it!
I am an American and a
Catholic, who loves this
country and who holds dear
all our country stands for
apparently more than DR..
Peale does. DR.. Peale as a
minister certainly should
have heard, Render to Cae-
sar the things that are Cae-
sar's, ETC."
It is a sad and tragic
thought that what these men
are advocating is, in effect,
vote for anyone, Mr.. Khru-
shchev if necessary, as long
as he is not a Catholic. I
do not mean to infer a SINH
larity between Mr.. Nixon and
Mr.. Khrushchev. What I am
saying is a Catholic can be a
good and loyal President as
well as a good and loyal
American.
Senator Kennedy has stated
he wants no votes because
of his religion, which is the
way it should be. Vote for
a man because you believe in
what he represents and on
his past performance. 1 am
n.