Evening star., 1960-04-21

DO q NAVAL O11lCcE III 1891. Mem-
berS of my faith abound in
public Office at every level ex-
cept the White House. What
is there about the presidency
that justif1es this constant en-
phasiS upon a candidates re-
ligion and that of his sup
porters.
The presidency is not, after
all, the British Crown, serving
a dual capacity in both church
and state. The President is not
elected to be protector of the
faith-or guardian of the pub
| lie morals. His attendance al
church on Sunday should be
his business alone, not a show
case for the Nation.
/ On the other hand, we are
/ in no danger of a one-man
Constitutional upheaval. The
President, however intent he
may be on Subverting our insti-
tutions, cannot ignore the Con-
greSs-or the voters-or the
courts. And our highest court
incidentally. has long history
of Catholic justices, none of
whom, as far as l know. was
ever challenged on the fairness
of his rulings on sensitive
church-state issues.
Some may say we treat the
presidency differently because
we have had only one previous
Catholic candidate for Pres
ident. But I am growing weary
OF that term. I am not the
Catholic candidate for Pres
ident. I do not speak for the
Catholic church on issues OF
public policy-and no one in
that church speaks for me.
! My record on aid to educa-
ton. aid to Tito, the Conant
nomination and other issues
has diSpleaSed some prominent
Catholic clergymen and Or
ganizations; and it has been
approved by others. The fact
Is that the Catholic church is
not monolith-it is committed
in this country to the prin-
cipleS of individual liberty
and it has no claim over my
conduct as a public officer
sworn to do the public interest
So I hope we can see the be-
ginning of the end of references
to me as "the Catholic candi-
date" for President. Do not ex-
pect me to explain or defend
every act or statement of every
Pope or priest, in this country
or some other. in this century
or the laSt-and that includes
the Mayor of Dion.
/ y 4 +
I have tried to examine with
you today the press RESPONSE
bility in meeting this religious
issue. The question remains:
What is my responsibility? am
a candidate. The issue is here
Two alternatives have been
suggested:
/ /. The first suggestion is that
I withdraw to avoid a danger
GUS controversy" and accept
the vice presidential nomina-
ton in order to placate the So
called Catholic vote.
I find that suggestion highly
diStasteful. 1t assumes the
worst about a country which
prides itself on being more tol-
Grant and better educated than
1t was in 1923. 1t assumes that
Catholics are a pawn on the po-
litical chess board, moved hither
and yon. and somehow brought
off" by the party putting
in the second-spot a Cath
olic whom the party barred
from the top. And it forgets,
finally, that such a perform
ance would have an effect on
our image abroad as we'll as our
Self-respect here at home.
Are we going to admit to the
world that a Jew can be elected
Mayor of Dublin, Protestant
can be chosen Foreign Minister
of France, a Moslem can serve
in the Israeli Parliament-but
| a Catholic cannot be President
of the United States'
Are we to tell Chancellor
Adenauer, for example, that we
want him risking his all on our
front-lines; but that-if he
were an American-we would
never entruSt him with our
] presidency-nor would we &C
cept our distinguished guest
Gen. de Gaulle? Are we tc
admit to the world-worse still
are we to admit to ourselves
that one-third of our popula-
ton is forever barred from the
White House?
So I am not impressed by
those pleas that I settle for the
vice presidency in order tc
avert a religious spectacle
Surely those who believe il
dangerous to elect a Catholic
as President will not want him
to serve as Vice President. a
heartbeat away from the office
2. The alternative is tc
proceed with the primaries, the
convention and the election
If there is bigotry in the coun-
try. then so be it-there is
bigotry. If that bigotry is toe
great to permit the fair con-
slderation of a Catholic who
has made clear his complete
independence and his complete
dedication to separa ton of
church and state, then we
ought to know it.
But I do not believe that this
Is the case. I believe the Ameri-
can people are more concerned
with a mans views and abilities
than with the church to which
he belongs. believe that the
founding fathers meant it when
they provided in Article VI of
the Constitution that there
should be no religious test for
public office-a provision that