"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. "
Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
Senator John F. Kennedy
Rice Hotel, Houston, Texas September 12, 1960
Although Irish Catholics began to play a major role in local and state politics in the latter nineteenth century, the first Catholic to seek a national office was the popular governor of New York, Alfred E. Smith, who was the Democratic nominee for president in 1928. Anti-Catholic prejudice, the fear that a Catholic president would "take orders" from the Pope, insured Smith's defeat. John F. Kennedy quickly discovered that many Americans were still worried that a young Catholic candidate for president would be under the influence of the Catholic Church and that the nation would ultimately be run by the pope in Rome rather than the president in Washington. Some Americans vowed not to support John F. Kennedy for the presidency for this reason. Fear of a government unduly influenced by religious interests was real and seen as a distinct liability for this Catholic candidate. John F. Kennedy finally decided to try to defeat the issue by meeting it head-on, and on September 12, 1960, he spoke before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in Houston, Texas.
Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to state my views.
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 campaign; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers only 90 miles from the coast of Florida -- the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power -- the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctors bills, the families forced to give up their farms -- an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space. These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been -- and may someday be again -- a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe, a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it -- its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him¹ as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty; nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a divided loyalty, that we did not believe in liberty, or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened -- I quote -- "the freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches -- when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes, and McCafferty, and Bailey, and Badillo, and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition -- to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the Congress, on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools -- which I attended myself. And instead of doing this, do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here. And always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed Church-State separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you?
But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the State being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution, at any time, by anyone, in any country. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland, and the independence of such statesmen as De Gaulle and Adenauer.
But let me stress again that these are my views.
For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.
I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I'd tried my best and was fairly judged.
But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution -- so help me God."
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOLLOWING SPEECH OF SENATOR JOHN F. KENNEDY, MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION OF GREATER HOUSTON, HOUSTON, TEXAS,SEPTEMBER 12, 1960
Mr. MEZA. Due to the press of time we should begin immediately with the question and answer period. You know the ground rules; are there any questions?
QUESTION. Senator Kennedy, I am Glenn Norman, Pastor of Second Baptist Church in Corpus Christi. I think I speak for many that do not in any sense discount or in any sense discount your loyalty and your love to this Nation, or your position, which is in accord with your position, in regard to the separation of church and state. But can I bring it down to where we stand tonight, as two men nearly equal in age, facing each other. If this meeting tonight were held in the sanctuary of my church, it is the policy of my city, that has many fine Catholics in it, it is the policy of the Catholic leadership to forbid them to attend a Protestant service. If we tonight were in the sanctuary of my church, as we are, could you and would you attend, as you have here? Senator KENNEDY. Yes; I could. As I said in my statement, I would attend any service in the interest - that has any connection with my public office, or, in the case of a private ceremony, weddings, funerals and so on, of course I would participate and have participated. I think the only question would be whether I could participate as a participant, a believer in your faith, and maintain my membership in my church. That, it seems to me, comes within the private beliefs that a Catholic might have. But as far as whether I could attend this sort of a function in your church, whether I as Senator or President could attend a function in your service connected with my position of office, then I could attend and would attend.
QUESTION. Closely allied to it was the position with regard to the Chapel of the Chaplains that was dedicated and which I believe you once had accepted the invitation to attend, and then the press said, I believe, that Cardinal Dougherty brought pressure and you refused to attend. Senator KENNEDY. I will be delighted to explain. That seems to be a matter of great interest. I was invited in 1947, after my election to the Congress, by Dr. Poling to attend a dinner to raise funds for an interfaith chapel in honor of the four chaplains that went down on the Dorchester, 14 years ago. I was delighted to accept, because I thought it was a useful and worthwhile cause. A few days before I was due to accept, I learned through my administrative assistant, who had friends in Philadelphia - well, first, two things, first that I was listed, and this is in Dr. Poling's book which he describes the incident, as the spokesman for the Catholic faith at the dinner. Charles Taft, Senator Taft's brother, was to be the spokesman for the Protestant faith, and Senator Lehman for the Jewish faith. The second thing I learned was that the chapel, instead of being located as I thought it was as an interfaith chapel, was located in the basement of another church. It was not in that sense an interfaith chapel, and for the 14 years since that chapel was built there has never been a service of my church because of the physical location. I, therefore, informed Dr. Poling that while I would be glad to come as a citizen, in fact, many Catholics did go to the dinner, I did not feel I had very good credentials to attend as the spokesman for the Catholic faith at that dinner to raise funds when the whole Catholic church group in Philadelphia was not participating and because the chapel has never been blessed or consecrated. I want to make it clear that my grounds for not going were private. I had no credentials to speak for the Catholic faith at a dinner for a chapel in which no Catholic service has ever been held. To this day, unfortunately, no service has been at the present time. But I think if I may separate this, if this were a public matter, I would be glad to go as an individual; but I could not go as a spokesman.
QUESTION. I am Canon Rutenbahr of Christ Church, Houston. I have read the platform and the planks in it with great interest, specially in the realms of freedom, and I note that in the educational section the right of education for each person is guaranteed or offered for a guarantee, and it also says that there shall be equal opportunity for employment, and in another section it says there shall be equal rights to housing and recreation. All of these speak, I think, in a wonderful sense to the freedom that we want to keep here in America. Yet, on the other hand, there is in another place in the platform these words: "We will repeal the authorization for right-to-work laws." Now, it seems to me that in this aspect here, and I feel that these are much more important than any religious issue - here you are abolishing an open shop, you are taking away the freedom of the individual worker, whether he wants to work and wants to belong to this union or not. Isn't this double talk, guaranteeing freedom on one hand and taking away on the other? Senator KENNEDY. No, I don't agree with that.
QUESTION. I think there is an economy-- Senator KENNEDY. That provision has been in the platform since 1948, and I am sure there is a difference of opinion between us on that matter, and between many Democrats on that matter. But I think that it is a decision which goes to the economic and political views. I don't think it involves a constitutional guarantee of freedom. In other words, under the provisions of the Taft-Hartley law, a State was permitted to prohibit a union shop. But it was not permitted to guarantee a closed shop. My own judgment is that uniformity in interstate commerce is valuable, and, therefore, I hold with the view that it is better to have uniform laws and not a law which is in interstate commerce - and this is not intrastate but interstate commerce - which permits one condition in one State and another in another. This is not a new provision. It has been in for the last three platforms.
QUESTION. I am Max Dalcke, president of the Gulf Coast Bible College, and pastor of the First Church of God here in Houston, and I am a member of the Houston Association of Ministers. Mr. Kennedy, you very clearly stated your position tonight in regard to the propagation of the gospel by all religious groups in other countries. I appreciated that much because we Protestants are a missionary people. However, the question I have to ask is this: If you are elected President, will you use your influence to get the Roman Catholic countries of South America and Spain to stop persecuting Protestant missionaries and to propagate their faith as the United States gives to the Roman Catholics or any other group? Senator KENNEDY. I would use my influence as President of the United States to permit, to encourage the development of freedom all over the world. One of the rights which I consider to be important is the right of free speech, the right of assembly, the right of free religious practice, and I would hope that the United States and the President would stand for those rights all around the globe without regard to geography, religion or--- [Applause.]
QUESTION. Senator Kennedy, this is F. H. Westmoreland, president of the South Bay Baptist Church, Houston. I have received today a copy of a resolution passed by the Baptist Pastors Conference of St. Louis, and they are going to confront you with this tomorrow night. I would like you to answer to the Houston crowd before you get to St. Louis. This is the resolution:
With deep sincerity and in Christian grace, we plead with Senator John F. Kennedy as the person presently concerned in this matter to appeal to Cardinal Cushing, Mr. Kennedy's own hierarchical superior in Boston, to present to the Vatican Senator Kennedy's statement relative to the separation of church and state in the United States and religious freedom as separated in the Constitution of the United States, in order that the Vatican may officially authorize such a belief for all Roman Catholics in the United States.
[Applause.] Senator KENNEDY. May I just say that as I do not accept the right of any, as I said, ecclesiastical official, to tell me what I shall do in the sphere of my public responsibility as an elected official, I do not propose also to ask Cardinal Cushing to ask the Vatican to take some action. I do not propose to interfere with their free right to do exactly what they want. There is no doubt in my mind that the viewpoints that I have expressed - [applause] - there is no doubt in my mind that the viewpoint that I have expressed tonight publicly represents the opinion of the overwhelming majority of American Catholics, and I think that my view I have no doubt is known to Catholics around the world. So I am just hopeful that by my stating it quite precisely, and I believe I stated it in the tradition of the American Catholics, away back all the way to Bishop John Carroll, I hope this will clarify it without my having to take the rather circuitous route. This is the position I take with the American Catholic Church in the United States with which I am associated.
QUESTION. We appreciate your forthright statement. May I say we have great admiration for you. But until we know this is the position of your church, because there will be many Catholics who will be appointed if you are elected President, we would like to know that they, too, are free to make such statements as you have been so courageous to make. [Applause.] Senator KENNEDY. Let me say that anyone that I would appoint to my office as a Senator or as a President, would, I hope, hold the same view, of necessity, of their living up to not only the letter of the Constitution but the spirit. If I may say so, I am a Catholic. I have stated my view very clearly. I don't find any difficulty in stating that view. In my judgment, it is the view of American Catholics from one end of the country to the other. Because I can state it in a way which I hope is satisfactory to you, why do you possibly doubt that I think that I represent a viewpoint which is hostile to the Catholic Church in the United States. I believe I am stating the viewpoint that Catholics in this country hold to the happy relationship which exists between church and state.
QUESTION. Do you state it with the approval of the Vatican? Senator KENNEDY. I don't have to have approval in that sense. [Applause.] I have not submitted my statement before I read it to the Vatican. I did not submit it to Cardinal Cushing. But my judgment is that Cardinal Cushing, who is the Cardinal of the diocese of which I am a member, would approve of this statement, in the same way that he approved of the 1948 statement of the Bishop. In my judgment, and I am not a student of theology, I am stating what I believe to be the position of my personal position and also the position of the great majority of Catholics across the United States. I hope that other countries may some day enjoy the same happy relationship of a separation of church and state, whether they are in Catholic countries or non-Catholic countries. It seems to me that I am the one that is running for the office of the Presidency and not Cardinal Cushing and not anyone else. [Applause.]
QUESTION. Senator Kennedy, I am K. O. White, pastor of Houston's Downtown First Baptist Church and former pastor of Metropolitan Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. Let me return for a moment to the matter of the Chaplain's Chapel because there will be some questions raised, I am sure, and we would like to have just a little further statement from you. Today I had a telephone conversation with Dr. Poling and received this telegram from him. I am sure you would like to clear this matter up. Let me read briefly from his telegram: "The Memorandum on Religion as an Election Issue," prepared by Senator Kennedy's associates has a section on the Poling incident. This section contains serious factual errors. I believe the Senator will wish to correct the errors or he will wish to withdraw that section. The original draft of the program on the interfaith dinner held in the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel, on December 15, 1947, identified Mr. Kennedy, then Congressman from Massachusetts, as Hon. John F. Kennedy, Congressman from Massachusetts. Mr. Kennedy was never invited as an official representative of a religious organization nor indeed as the spokesman for the Catholic faith. No speaker on that occasion, Catholic, Jew, or Protestant, was identified by his faith. When 2 days before the dinner occasion Mr. Kennedy canceled his engagement, expressed his regret and stated that since his Eminence, the Cardinal, requested him not to come, he as a loyal son of the church had no other alternative. Therefore, it was necessary to destroy this first program and reprint it. Senator KENNEDY. I will state again that the words I used are a quotation from the Rev. Poling's book, "Spokesman for the Catholic Faith," a book produced about a year ago which first discussed this incident. Secondly, my memory of the incident is quite clear in fact as good as Rev. Poling's. When the matter was first discussed he stated it took place in 1950 and it is only in the last 2 months that it came forward that the incident took place in 1947. I never discussed the matter with the Cardinal in my life. I first learned of this through Mr. Reardon, my administrative assistant, through Mr. Doyle of the Catholic Welfare Council, who stated that there was a good deal of concern among many of the church people in Philadelphia, because of the location of the chapel and because no service would ever be held in it because it was located in the basement of another church. It was an entirely different situation than the one I had confronted when I first happily accepted. There were three speakers. Kennedy was one of them, Taft was the second, and Senator Lehman was the third. I don't think I misstated that one was supposed to speak for the Catholic faith, as a spokesman, Mr. Poling, one for the Protestant faith, and one for the Catholic faith, and one for the Jewish faith, I was glad to accept the invitation. I did not clear the invitation with anyone. It was only when I was informed that I was speaking, and I was invited obviously as a serviceman because I came from a prominent Catholic family, that I was informed that I was there really in a sense without any credentials. The chapel as I said has never had a Catholic service. It is not an interfaith chapel. Therefore, for me to participate as a spokesman in that sense for the Catholic faith I think would have given an erroneous impression. I have been there 14 years. This took place in 1947. I had been in politics probably 2 months and was relatively inexperienced. I should have inquired before getting into the incident. Is this the best that can be done after 14 years? Is this the only incident that can be charged? [Applause.] This was a private dinner, not a public dinner, which did not involve my responsibilities as a public official. My judgment was bad only in accepting it without having all the facts, which I wouldn't have done at a later date. But I do want to say I have been there for 14 years. I have voted on hundreds of matters, probably thousands of matters, which involve all kinds of public questions, some of which border on the relationship between church and state. Quite obviously that record must be reasonably good or we wouldn't keep hearing about the Poling incident. I don't mean to be disrespectful to Reverend Poling. I have a high regard for Dr. Poling. I don't mean to be in a debate about it. But I must say in looking back I think it was imprudent of me in accepting it, but I don't think it shows unfitness for holding public office.
QUESTION. The reason we are concerned is the fact that your church has stated that it has the right, the privilege, and responsibility to direct its members in various areas of life, including the political realm. We believe that history and observation indicate that it has done so. We raise the question because we would like to know if you are elected President and your church elects to use that privilege and obligation, what your response will be under those circumstances. Senator KENNEDY. If my church attempted to influence me in a way which was improper or which affected adversely my responsibilities as a public servant, sworn to uphold the Constitution, then I would reply to them that this was an improper action on their part, that it was one to which I could not subscribe, that I was opposed to it, and that it would be an unfortunate breach, an interference, with the American political system. I am confident that there would be no such interference. We have had two Chief Justices of the Supreme Court who were Catholics. We have had two Prime Ministers of Canada who were Catholics. I mentioned De Gaulle and Adenauer. I have already mentioned that [inaudible] as exposed to the pressures which whirl around us, that he will be extremely diligent in his protection of the constitutional separation.
QUESTION. We would be most happy to have such a statement from the Vatican. Mr. MEZA. Because of the briefness of the time, let's cut out the applause.
QUESTION. B. E. Howard, minister of the Church of Christ. First of all I should like to quote some authoritative quotations from Catholic sources and then propose a question. "So that a false statement knowingly made to one who has not a right to the truth will not be a lie." Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10, page 696. "However, we are also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling duty is to say that is false or tell a lie." Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10, page 195. "When mental reservation is permissible, it is lawful to corroborate one's utterances by an oath if there be an adequate cause." Article on perjury, Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11, page 696. "The truth we proclaim under oath is relative and not absolute." "Explanation of Catholic Morale," page 130. Just recently from the Vatican in Rome this news release was given from the official Vatican newspaper, and I am quoting that of May 19, 1960, Thursday. Stated that the Roman Catholic hierarchy had the right and duty to intervene in the political field to guide its philosophy. The newspaper rejected what is termed the absurd split of conscience between the believer and the citizen. However, Observatore Romano made it clear that its stern pronouncement was valid for Roman Catholic laymen everywhere. It deplored the great confusion of ideas that is spreading especially between Catholic doctrine and social and political activities and between the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the late faithful in the civil field. Pope John recently gave this statement according to the St. Louis Review, dated December 12, 1958: "Catholics may unite their strength toward the common aid of the Catholic"-- FROM THE FLOOR. I object to this. The time is running out.
QUESTION. This is the question: Do you subscribe to the doctrine of mental reservation which I have quoted from the Catholic authorities? Do you submit to the authority of the present Pope which I have quoted from these quotations? Senator KENNEDY. Let me say in the first place I have not read the Catholic Encyclopedia and I don't know all the quotation you are giving me. I don't agree with the statement. I find no difficulty in saying so. But I do think probably I could make a better comment if I had the entire quotation before me. But in any case I have not read it before. If the quotation is meant to imply that when you take an oath you don't mean it or it is proper for you to make oaths and then break them, it is proper for you to lie, if that is what this states, and I don't know whether that is what it states unless I read it all in context, then, of course, I would not agree with it. Secondly, on the question of the Observatore Romano article, once again I don't have that in full. I read the statement of last December which was directed to a situation in Sicily where one of the Catholics were active in the Communist Party. But I am not familiar with the one of May 1960 which you mentioned. In any case the Observatore Romano has no standing, so far as binding me. Thirdly, the quotation of Pope John of 1958, I didn't catch all of that, and if you will read that again I will tell you whether I support that or not.
QUESTION. Pope John XXIII only recently stated according to the St. Louis Review, date of December 12, 1958, "Catholics must unite their strength toward the common aid and the Catholic hierarchy has the right and duty of guiding them." Do you subscribe to that? Senator KENNEDY. I could not describe - guiding them in what area? You are talking about in the area of faith and morals, in the constructions of the church. I would think any Baptist minister or Congregational minister has the right and duty to try and guide his flock. If you mean by that statement that the Pope or anyone else could bind me in the fulfillment, by a statement in the fulfillment, of my public duties, I say no. If that statement is intended to mean, and it is very difficult to comment on a sentence taken out of an article which I have not read, but if that is intended to imply that the hierarchy has some obligation or has an obligation to attempt to guide the members of the Catholic Church, then that may be proper. But it all depends on the previous language of what you mean by "guide." If you mean direct or instruct on matters dealing with the organization of the faith, the details of the faith, then, of course, they have that obligation. If you mean under that he could guide me or anyone could guide or direct me in fulfilling my public duty, then I do not agree.
QUESTION. Thank you, sir. Then you do not agree with the Pope in that statement? Senator KENNEDY. You see, that is why I wanted to be careful, because that statement, it seems to me, is taking out of context what you just made to me. I could not tell you what the Pope meant unless I had the entire article. I would be glad to state to you that no one can direct me in the fulfillment of my duties as a public official under the U.S. Constitution. That I am directed to do to the people of the United States, sworn to do, took an oath to God. That is my flat statement. I would not want to go into details on a sentence which you read to me which I may not understand completely. Mr. MEZA. Gentlemen, we have time for one more question, if it can be handled briefly.
QUESTION. I am Robert McLaren, from the Westminster Presbyterian Church, Houston. You have been quite clear and I think laudably so on the matter of separation of church and state and have answered my questions that have come up around it. There is one question, it seems to me, that is quite relevant. This relates to your statement that if you found by some remote possibility a real conflict between your office as President, that you would resign that office if it were in conflict with your church. Senator KENNEDY. No, I said with my conscience.
QUESTION. In the solace of errors of Pope Leo XIX, which the Catholic Encyclopedia states is still binding, although from a different century, still binding on all Catholics, there are three specific things which are denounced including the separation of state and church, the freedom of religions other than Catholic to propagate themselves, and the freedom of conscience. Do you still feel these being binding on you, that you hold your oath of office above your allegiance to the Pope on these issues. Senator KENNEDY. Well, let us go through the issues because I don't think there is a conflict on these three issues. The first issue as I understand it was on the relationship between the Catholics and the state and other faiths.
QUESTION. No, the separation of church and state, explicitly-- Senator KENNEDY. I support that, and in my judgment the American Bishops statement of 1948 clearly supported it. That in my judgment is the view held by Catholics in this country. They support the constitutional separation of church and state and are not in error in that regard.
QUESTION. The second was the right of religions other than the Roman Catholic to propagate themselves. Senator KENNEDY. I think they should be permitted to propagate themselves, any faith, without any limitation by the power of the state, or encouragement by the power of the state. What is the third one?
QUESTION. The third was the freedom of conscience in matters of religion, and also in point 46, I believe it is, it extends to freedom of mind in the realms of science. Senator KENNEDY. Well, I believe in freedom of conscience. Let me just - I guess our time is coming to an end, but let me say finally that I am delighted to come here today. I don't want anyone to think because they interrogate me on this very important question, that I regard that as unfair questioning or unreasonable or somebody who is concerned about the matter is prejudiced or bigoted. I think this fight for religious freedom is basic in the establishment of the American system, and therefore any candidate for the office, I think, should submit himself to the questions of any reasonable man. [Applause.] My only objection would be - my only limit to that would be if somebody said regardless of Senator Kennedy's position, regardless of how much evidence he has given that what he says he means, I still would not vote for him because he is a member of that church I would consider that unreasonable. What I would consider to be reasonable in an exercise of free will and free choice is to ask the candidate to state his views as broadly as possible, investigate his record to see whether what he states he believes and then to make an independent rational judgment, as to whether he could be entrusted with this highly important position. I want you to know that I am grateful to you for inviting me tonight. I am sure I have made no converts to my church. [Laughter.] But I do hope that at least my view, which I believe to be the view of my fellow Catholics, who hold office, I hope it may be of some value in at least assisting you to make a careful judgment. Thank you. [Applause.]