BOTH SIDES OF THE "CATHOLIC ISSUE"

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 19, 2001
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: September 26, 1960
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
U. S. News g World Report
BOTH SIDES OF THE.
"CATHOLIC ISSUE"
Religion is out in the open as a major issue
in the 1960 presidential campaign.
Senator John F. Kennedy, a Roman Cath-
olic, has answered questions raised by Prot-
estant clergymen and others.
Vice President Richard M. Nixon has de-
cried the issue.
Senator John F. Kennedy, Democratic candidate, on Sep-
tember 12 in Houston, Tex., gave his formal answer to a group
of 150 Protestant ministers and laymen who had issued a
statement on September 7 asserting that a Roman Catholic
President would be influenced by the Church on political
issues.
Senator Kennedy's answer is given in what follows:
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and prop-
erly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from
the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the
1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it
now festers 90 miles off 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 doctor
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 cam-
paign. And they are not religious issues-for war and hunger
and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
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 a 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 Presi-
dent 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 accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the
National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical
A statement by a group of prominent lay-
men and clergymen of several faiths has set
forth a creed for voters.
This whole issue is deep in politics. It may
be a deciding factor in the election.
In what follows you get latest statements
from both sides on a growing argument.
source-where no religious body seeks to impose its will di-
rectly 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 helped lead to Jefferson's Statute of Reli-
gious Freedom. Today I may be the victim-but tomorrow it
may be you-until the whole fabric of our harmonious society
is ripped 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 equal-where every man has the same right to attend or
not attend the church of his choice-where there is no Catho-
lic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind-
and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the
lay and pastoral level, 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 rep-
resents the kind of Presidency in which I believe-a great
office that must be neither humbled by making it the instru-
ment 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 re-
ligion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by
the nation nor imposed by the nation upon him 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 re-
quiring a religious test-even by indirection-for if they dis-
agree 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
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
 Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
With the speed you need, Delco Radio's Computer Development
Group can build light, compact, reliable digital computers for
airborne guidance and control or other special applications.
Delco Radio's experienced computer development team is available
for design, development, and production of complete computer
systems for all types of military and commercial applications. It is
comprised of five sections, each specializing in a particular design
phase: Systenis Logic, Memory, Circuitry and Product.
Achievements include a complete line of unique transistorized digital
building block modules-available "off the shelf"-to minimize
computer design and development time.
Three-dimensional welded wiring techniques are used to assemble
military-type standard components into modules. And for rugged-
ness, they and vacuum encapsulated in an epoxy resin. To assure
extremely relilile computers, the module transistors have been test-
proven by over2,250,000 operational hours. And if your application
calls for it, you can have the same reliable digital circuits packaged
on "plug in" printed circuit cards.
Whatever your computer needs or problems, write our Sales Depart-
ment, Delco Radio, Kokomo, Indiana ... a division of General Motors.
DELCO
RADIO
i
PIONEERING PRECISION
PRODUCTS THROUGH
SOLID STATE PHYSICS
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
 THE GIVE-AND-TAKE at Houston's Ministerial Association. Senator Kennedy listens to a question from the -Gordon
floor. Adkins
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 threat-
ened "the freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our fore-
fathers died-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 Fuetes and McCafferty
and Bailey and Bedilio 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 publica-
tions we have all seen that carefully select quotations
out of context from the statements of Catholic Church lead-
ers, 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 persecute 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 Protes-
tants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than
U. S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Sept. 26, 1960
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, con-
trary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic
candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candi-
date 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 con-
cede any conflict to be remotely possible-when my office
would require me to either violate my conscience or vip-
late the national interest, then I would resign the office.
And I hope any other 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 in-
tend 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 had 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,
to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress.
For, without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
 Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
U. S. News & World Report
... "i would use my influence to encourage freedom all over'"
will faithfully geute the office of President of the United
States, and wil to the best of my ability preserve, protect
and defend the; Constitution ... so help me God."
MINISTERS QUIZ KENNEDY-
Protestant clergymen attending the meeting in Houston
on September 12 questioned Senator Kennedy after his
statement. Questions asked of the Democratic cardidate
and the answers: that he gave follow:
Q: Senator Kennedy, it is the policy, in my city, of
Catholic leadership to forbid [Catholics] to attend a Protestant
service. If we tonight were in the sanctuary of my church, just
as we are, would, you and could you attend as you have here?
Mr. Kennedy: Yes, I could. I can attend any-as I said
in my statement -I could attend any service in the interest
... that had 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 par-
ticipate as a participant, a believer in your faith amt main-
tain my membership in my church. That, it seems to me,
comes within the private beliefs 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.
0: Very closely allied is a question in regard to the Chapel
of the Chaplains which you once accepted an invitation to
attend and then the press has said that, I believe, Cardinal
Dougherty, brought pressure and you did not attend-
Mr. Kennedy: I would be delighted to explain, because
that seems to be a matter of great interest. I was invited in
1947 after my election to the Congress by Dr. [Daniel] Pal-
ing to attend ?tdinner to raise funds for an interfaith chapel
in honor of the, four chaplains who went down on the Dor-
chester, whicl> ,vas 14 years ago.
I was dclig~t d to accept because I thought it was a useful
and wvorthwhte cause. But a few days before I was due to
accept, I learned through my administrative assistant, who
had friends in Philadelphia, two things: First, that I was
listed-and this is in Dr. Poling's book in which he describes
the incident-s s the spokesman for the Catholic faith at the
dinner. Charles Taft, Senator Taft's brother, was to be
spokesman foe- the Protestant faith. Senator Lehma,i was to
be the spokesman for the Jewish faith. The second thing I
learned was that the chapel, instead of being lomtecl 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 it
service of my church because of the physical location. 1,
therefore, infpiincd Dr. Poling that, while I would be glad to
come, as a gitizen-in fact, many Catholics did go to the
dinner-I did not feel that I had very good credentials to
attend as a ipnkesman for the Catholic faith at that dinner
to raise funds when the whole Catholic Church group in
Philadelphia `were not participating because the chapel has
never been blessed or consecrated.
Now 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 for which no Catholic service
has even been held. So until this day, unfortunately, .. ; no
service has been held. But I think if I may separate that, if
this were a public matter, . . . I told Dr. Poling that I would
go as an individual, but I could not go as a spokesman on
that occasion.
Q: I've read this platform and the planks in it, with great
interest, and especially in the realms of freedom. And I note
in the educational section, the right of education for each
person is guaranteed or offered for a guarantee. It also says
that there shall be equal opportunities 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-I read these words: "We will repeal the authoriza-
tion 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.
Now, isn't this sort of double talk? You're guaranteeing
freedom on the one hand and yet you're going to take it
away with the other-
Mr. Kennedy: No, I don't agree with that.
Q: 1 think there is an-
Mr. Kennedy: That provision has been in the platform
since 1948. And I'm sure there's a difference of opinion be-
tween us on that matter and between many Democrats on
that matter. But I think that it's a decision that goes to
economic and political views. I don't think it involves a con-
stitutional guarantee of freedom.
In other words, under 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. Now my own
judgment is that uniformity in interstate commerce is valua-
ble, and, therefore, I hold with the view that it is better to
have uniform laws and not a law which is in interstate com-
merce--and this is not intra but interstate commerce-which
permits.one condition in one State and one in another. This
is not a new provision. It's been in the last three platforms.
"The Rights I Consider Important"
Q: Mr. Kennedy, you very clearly stated your position to-
night in regard to the propagation of the Gospel by all reli-
gious 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 coun-
tries of South America and Spain to stop persecuting Prot-
estant missionaries and to propagate and to give equal rights
to Protestants their faith as the United States gives to the
Roman Catholics or any other group?
Mr. 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 con-
sider 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 ge-
ography, or religion or political conditions.
Q: 1 have received today a copy of it resolution passed by
the Baptist Pastors Conference of St. Louis. This is the reso-
lution:
"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
U. S. NEWS Q. WORLD REPORT, Sept. 26, 1960
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
 Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
U. S: News & World Report
"1 do not accept the right of any to tell me what I shall do"
own hierarchical superior in Boston, to present to the Vatican
Mr. Kennedy's sincere statement relative to the separation of
church and state in the United States and religious freedom
as represented 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."
Mr. 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 right to do exactly what they want.
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.
Q: 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 Cath-
olics who will be appointed if you are elected President, we
would like to know that they, too, are free to make such
statement as you have been so courageous to make.
Mr. Kennedy: Let me say that anyone that I would ap-
point to any 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 judg-
ment, it is the view of American Catholics from one end of
the country to the other. Why-because as long as I can
state it in a way which is, I hope, satisfactory to you-why
do you possibly doubt 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 toward the happy relationship which exists
between church and state.
"I Am Running, Not the Cardinal"
Q: Do you state it with the approval of the Vatican?
Mr. Kennedy: I don't have to have approval in that sense.
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 from
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 bishops. In my judgment, and I am not a
student of theology, I am stating my personal position and
also what I believe to be 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 Presi-
dency and not Cardinal Cushing and not anyone else.
Q: Let me return for a moment to the matter of the
chaplains' chapel, because there will be some questions raised,
I am sure, and we would like to have just a little further
U. S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Sept. 26, 1960
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 pre-
pared 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 that
he will wish to withdraw that section. The original draft
of the program on the interfaith dinner held in the Belleview-
Stratford Hotel on Dec. 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 Protes-
tant, was identified by his faith. When two days before the
dinner occasion Mr. Kennedy canceled his engagement, he
expressed his regret and grief but stated that since his Emi-
nence, 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."
"My Memory Is as Good as Poling's"
Mr. Kennedy: I will state again that the words I used are
a quotation from the Reverend Poling's book, "Spokesman for
the Catholic Faith," a book which was produced about a
year ago which first discussed this incident.
Secondly, my memory of the incident is quite clear-in
fact, as good as Reverend Poling's, because, when the matter
was first discussed, Reverend Poling stated it took place in
1950 and it is only in the last two months that it has come
forward that the incident took place in 1947.
Thirdly, I never discussed the matter with Cardinal
Dougherty in my life. I've never spoken to the Cardinal.
I first learned of it through Mr. Reardon, who is my ad-
ministrative assistant, who knew of Mr. Doyle who worked
with the National Catholic Welfare Conference, who stated
that there was a good deal of concern among the church
people of Philadelphia because of the location of the chapel
and because no service could 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 con-
fronted when I first happily accepted it. Now, there were
three speakers. Kennedy was one of them, Taft was the sec-
ond, Senator Lehman was the third. I don't think I misstated
that one of them was supposed to speak for the Catholic faith
as a spokesman, in Mr. Poling's words; one of them for the
Protestant faith, and one of them for the Jewish faith.
Now all I can say to you, sir, is this chapel-I was glad
to accept the invitation-I did not clear that invitation with
anyone. It was only when I was informed that I was speak-
ing and I was invited obviously as a serviceman and because I
came from a prominent Catholic family, that I was informed
that I was really there in a sense without any credentials.
The chapel, as I have said, has never had a Catholic
service. It is not an interfaith chapel and therefore for me
to participate as a spokesman in that sense for the Catholic
faith would, I think, have given an erroneous impression.
Now, I've been there 14 years. This took place in 1947.
I had been in politics probably two months and was re-
latively 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 shown?
This was a private dinner, not a public dinner, which
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
 Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
U. S. News: & World Report
"It is a vicious practice to set religion against religion"
did not involve my responsibility its it 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 invoke all kinds of public questions, some of which
border on the relationship between church and state, and
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 his son, I have a high regard for Dr.
Poling. I don't like to be in a debate about it. But I must
say in looking back I think it was imprudent of me to have
accepted without more information, but I don't really feel
that it demonstrates unfitness to hold a public office.
0: The reason for our concern is the fact that your church
has stated that it has the privilege and the right and the
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 and 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 circum-
stmnces-
Mr. Kennedy: If my church attempted to influence me in
a way wl'ich was improper or which affected adversely my
responsibilitics 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 hied two Chief justices of the Supremo Court who
were Catl'iolics. We have had two Prime Ministers of Canada
who were Catholics. I have already mentioned De Gaulle
and Adenaiter. I have already mentioned that [inaudible]
sensitive as a Catholic must be who seeks this high office,
as exposed to the pressures which whirl around us, that be
will be extiemely diligent in his protection of the constitu-
tional separation.
SOME "BASIC PRINCIPLES"--
Two days before Senator Kennedy spoke in Houston, a
group of 100 "churchmen and scholars" of varied faiths
issued a statement in New York about religion and politics.
Excerpts from this declaration, of September 10, appear
below:
The following statement on religious liberty has been fornnt-
lated during the past two weeks by an informal group of
churchmen and scholars in an attempt to extract a higher
ethic regarding religion and politics that would be applica-
ble to the practical considerations of the current presidential
campaign.
The sponsors signed solely as individuals, without reference
to any official affiliations. The statement has also been dra+an
without reference to any political party or party philosophy.
Its sole purpose is to attempt to bring basic American prin-
ciples of religious liberty in a democracy into a dispassionate
focus, so that all citizens, irrespective of their religious affilia-
tions, may function reasonably and with foresight in an area
that too often lends itself to emotion.
While each of the signatories has acted as an individual,
they are all drawn together by it principle th.ht is best de-
scribed by a sentence in the statement itself. The sentence
reads: "The judgment of Cod finds us at a particular moment
in history, confronted by its unique challenges and dilemmas,
and it is here that our testing is."
A Statement on Religious Liberty in Relation
To the 1960 National Campaign
We reaffirm our loyalty to the Constitution of the United
States and its provision that "no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under
the United States," and the declaration in the American Bill
of Rights that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."
We affirm that religious liberty is basic, both historically
and philosophically, to all our liberties, and that religious
and civil liberties are interdependent and indivisible.
It is our conviction that man's freedom is an essential at-
tribute of human nature. The sacredness of this truth has
long been recognized as fundamental to Western society. The
founders of this nation, in emancipating themselves from
tyranny, asserted their right to life, to liberty and to the pur-
suit of happiness.
These rights are guaranteed in our Constitution to each of
us as citizens, and also to the associations, societies and reli-
gious faiths to which we belong. Freedom is fundamental to
faith. Freedom is fundamental to the exercise of conscience.
It is necessary, therefore, to the essence of our faith that we
respect the diversity of religious viewpoints and their free-
doms.
We believe that it is the responsibility of the members of
our various religious organizations to oppose vigorously all at-
tempts to make religious affiliation the basis of the voter's
choice of candidates for public office. It is a vicious practice
and repugnant to all honorable Americans to set class against
class, race against race and religion against religion.
The judgment of Cod finds us at a particular moment in
history, confronted by its unique challenges and dilemmas,
and it is there that our testing is. In the circumstances that
now confront us, we must act according to our principles, or
be found wanting. In the election campaign of 1960 we face
a real and inescapable challenge with respect to the relation
between man's religion and the responsibility of the nation's
highest elective office.
To speak in this immediate situation will occasion charges
of partisanship, but we cannot be silent. We are anxious only
that the voters choice be made on true and vital grounds and
issues, on the candidate's whole character and record, and not
solely or primarily upon the matter of religious affiliation.
It is our determination and our duty to clarify this issue in
order that votes shall not be cast for one candidate or the
other because of religious prejudice or misinformation.
More serious by far than all real or fancied risks is the
damage that most certainly will be done to our American
community if 40 million of our fellow citizens should be made
to feel that they are barred from full and free participation
in our national life because of their religious affiliation!
That we may further the fulfillment of our American de-
mocracy under Cod, we suggest that the foregoing affirma-
tions and the following principles be guidelines for action in
the 1960 election:
1. The exclusion of members of any family of faith from
public office on the basis of religious affiliation violates the
fundamental conditions of a free, democratic society, as ex-
pressed in the spirit and letter of our Constitution.
U. S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Sept. 26, 1960
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
 Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
U. S. News & World Report
? . . "No religious group should be given special preference"
There must be no second-class citizenship in the United
States, whether it be based on religion, race, class or national
origin.
2. The religious faith of a public officer is relevant to the
conduct of his office.
The religious faith of a person of integrity will influence
his private and his public conduct. The relevance of faith to
his personal spiritual life is a private matter. His religious
faith can give him an insight, independence and composure
that will enable him to make dispassionate judgments in the
crises of public life, and lead the nation to a more creative
fulfillment of its destiny.
The bearing of the religious views of any candidate of any
party upon his decisions in public office is a public matter.
Inquiry regarding this relevancy is an exercise of respon-
sible citizenship-if conducted in such a way as not to vio-
late the constitutional prohibition against any religious test
for public office.
3. No citizen in public office dare be false either to his
conscience or to his oath of office.
Both his conscience and his oath impose responsibilities
sacred under the law of God. If he cannot reconcile the re-
sponsibilities entailed by his oath with his conscience, then
he must resign, lest he fail his nation and his God.
4. The fact that a major religious group has so far never
furnished the nation with a candidate who won election to a
particular public office does not obligate the voters to elect
a candidate of that faith to that office solely to demonstrate
our devotion to democracy.
This would establish a religious test for public office much
narrower than the one complained of, and contrary to the
obvious intent of the Constitution. It would, furthermore,
focus attention on a marginal qualification, rather than on the
essential qualities of personal integrity, leadership capacity
and policies relating to central issues.
5. No religious organization should seek to influence and
dominate public officials for its own institutional advantage.
The exercise of public office must always be in the public
interest, and serve the welfare of the whole community, local
or national. The rights and liberties of each and every volun-
tary association must be respected and protected as long as
they do not infringe upon the like rights of others.
6. Every person of every faith must be accorded full re-
ligious liberty, and no person should be coerced into accept-
ing any religious belief or practice. No religious group should
be given special preference or advantage by the state, nor al-
lowed to use state agencies for the restriction of other faiths.
7. A candidate's faith, and his affirmations of it, as they
bear upon his responsibilities in public office, should be
viewed in their best light, rather than their worst, and the
response and expectation of the nation should be such as will
encourage him to attain the highest spiritual and moral real-
ization which his own faith can inspire.
8. Just as the choice of candidates for public office should
be based upon integrity, leadership and convictions on basic
issues, so the public officer after his election is obligated to
make his appointments to subordinate positions on a nondis-
criminatory basis, using competence and record, rather than
religious affiliation, as the criteria of selection.
9. The President's participation in important national and
community religious functions can be a fine symbol of the
common concern for the spiritual welfare of the nation. But
if, for reasons of his own, he feels that participation in a
particular religious ceremony is not in order, it would be
contrary to the civic character of the American Presidency
for him to feel obligated to accept the invitation.
Participation in special religious ceremonials is an. aspect
of the Presidency that is secondary in importance to matters
of constitutional responsibility, such as the conduct of foreign
affairs, the governing of the nation and the execution of the
laws, and it must be weighed in proportion to these functions
in any estimate of a candidate's suitability for that office.
10. Every public official who is a member of a religious
group should, of course, take into consideration the spiritual
and moral principles of his faith in confronting the decisions
he must make. But in our pluralistic society he will recognize
that the values in historic faiths other than his own must be
brought to bear upon the problems of the day. He alone,
under the judgment of God, can fully appraise the force and
applicability of all such values and advice for his situation,
and he should seek to apply all in such a way as to enhance
and undergird the best interests of the nation.
"THE REMAINING QUESTION"-
The day after Senator Kennedy's appearance in Houston,
comments and a new suggestion came from the National
Conference of Citizens for Religious Freedom, with which
Dr. Norman Vincent Peale was identified until September
15, when his withdrawal was announced, The Conference
statement of September 13 said:
After careful study of Senator Kennedy's statement in
Houston, Tex., September 12, the leaders of Citizens for
Religious Freedom believe that it is the most complete, un-
equivocal and reassuring statement which could be expected,
of any person in his position. While it covers some points on
which he had already spoken, it gives his views on other ele-
ments of his position which had not been fully clarified.
We believe Senator Kennedy's statement was made sin-
cerely and that it commends itself to the attention of the
American people. The only remaining question is whether
his statement is acceptable to his church, and, of course, he
is in no position to answer on that question. We do hope
that endorsement of his position will be forthcoming from
sources of authority in the Roman Catholic Church. When
such an endorsement is forthcoming, the question will be
settled for all thinking citizens. Specifically, we call upon
the American hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to
join Senator Kennedy in his stand "against an ambassador to
the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools,
and against any boycott of the public schools."
We believe that further genuine understanding between
Protestants and Catholics would be encouraged if the Ameri-
can bishops would take these further steps:
1. Proclaim that all men everywhere should have full
freedom to worship according to conscience, to witness to
their faith, and to be free to win converts as a matter of
right and not of toleration.
2. Proclaim that the Roman Catholic Church will not at-
tempt to force its teaching about medical practices and birth
control on citizens of other beliefs.
3. Acknowledge the full validity of the marriage of a
Roman Catholic who has been married in a Protestant or
Jewish ceremony.
4. Make a statement that Senator John Kennedy, if elected
President, and all other public officials of the Roman Catholic
faith, will have complete freedom to fulfill official responsibili-
ties without interference from their church.
Contrary to many expressed opinions, it was not the in-
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
 Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
U. S. News & World Report
. . . "Kennedy's statement does not eliminate the issue"
tention of the rational Conference of Citizens for Religious
Freedom to stir animosities, but rather to clarify certain of
these problems which had become apparent in the current
national situation.
WHAT DR. POLING SAYS-
Also on September 13, Dr. Daniel A, Poling, editor of the
nondenominational Protestant magazine, "Christian Herald,"
held a press conference in New York City, of which he dis-
cussed some of Senator Kennedy's statements. From a re-
porter's notes on the press conference:
0: Will Senator Kennedy's statements end the religious
controverst
Dr. Poling: Senator Kennedy declared himself in forth-
right and courageous fashion. But, while nothing could be
more clear-cut than what the Senator said, it does not mean
that the basic issue of church and state is settled.
0: Do you agree with the Baptist ministers who asked for-
a statement from the Vatican to clarify basic issues?
Dr. Poling: Such a statement is needed. I would associate
myself with any move that would help clarify. Even truth
must be Clarified. Kennedy's statement clues not eliminate
the issue. There is nothing he can do to meet the situation
head on.
Inevitably, the religion of a man is a matter of concern to
the American people, particularly when his Church claims
absolute authority over the lives of its members, not only
ecclesiastically but also politically and socially as well.
0: Do Protestant churches make the same claims?
Dr. Poling: But never do they have power of life and
death over their members if they do not obey orders.
0: Do you think Kennedy is a man of sufficicut courage to
stand up to. what he said in IIouston?
Dr. Poling: I believe Kennedy would do what he said. But
there is still the issue of the authority of the Catholic Church
over its people in all areas of life. The Catholic Church be-
lieves it is the only true church.
0: Do you believe Kennedy kvould be able to resist Catho-
lie pressute?
Dr. Poling: I believe Kennedy would do his best, being
an honest; man. But I believe he would inevitably be tre-
mendousl}' ,embarrassed. You have had some indication from
the press !of the reaction of some members of hii faith to his
statenmcnt?.
Q; Is it your feeling that most Catholics would be un-
qualified to, be President?
Dr. Poling: It would be terrifically difficult for a loyal,
devout Roman Catholic to remain independent oil those posi-
tions on which the Church has issued its dogma. A loyal Cath-
olic would have tremendous difficulty to go against the will
of his Church.
0: Whit are the issues that would bring Kennedy into
conflict vdth his Church?
Dr. Poling: Senator Kennedy has declared himself on aid
to parochial schools, birth control, diplomatic recognition of
the Vaticn, and rights of the Church and ecclesiastics. These
are all vital questions. That is the reason why they, must be
faced.
RELIGION: "SMOKE SCREEN"?-
Another comment on the religious issue came in an edi-
torial made public September 14 by the "Christian Century"
magazine, a nondenominational Protestant weekly pub-
lished in Chicago. Excerpts from the editorial, which appears
in the September 21 issue of "Christian Century," follow:
The religious affiliation of candidates is legitimately an
issue only in proportion to other issues. It is one factor among
many which should be taken into account in the choice of a
President. But when it is magnified out of all proportion to
its proper dimensions, when it becomes the only issue con-
sidered, it becomes a smoke screen of evasion and must be
blown away if we are to recover our intelligence and walk
humbly with our God.
. . a
A time of sudden deterioration of the international position
of the United States is not a time to magnify out of all
proportion an issue which could fatally divide America. It is
Khrushchev, not the Pope, who is coming to the United
Nations. We must stand up to Khrushchev and, in doing so,
stand tip to the challenge of Africa and Latin America... .
Which candidate, which party can do the most to stem
the rising tide of Communist colonialism? Which can provide
the best leadership in the constructive tasks of economic and
social development in Africa, Latin America and India?
Which offers the surest hope that we can honorably fulfill the
responsibilities of free-world leadership, avert the rising threat
of nuclear war and achieve at least some degree of dis-
armament?
These questions are crucial to survival as well as to reli-
gious freedom. Citizens who are concerned about religious
and civil liberty should judge candidates in the light of their
answers to such questions. When they do, they will see the
religious issue fall into perspective.
A CATHOLIC STATEMENT-
A new, authoritative statement of the Roman Catholic
position on separation of church and state came September
16 in an editorial written for the September 24 issue of
"America," a weekly published by the Jesuits-the Society
of Jesus. The editorial, entitled "On Religious Toleration,"
said in the concluding section:
The theology of toleration, like the canon law of the
Church, is never a finished edifice. It is a practical instrument
of accommodation to the requirements of the temporal order,
grounded indeed on eternal truths, as we said above, but
prudently applied to political circumstances. Its aim cannot
be political domination of the city of man. Its aim must be to
secure those conditions, personal and public, which will
help the Church to establish in the spirit and the heart,
in the thoughts and actions of men, the universal reign of
Christ....
"To work for a fully satisfactory elaboration" of such a
theology of toleration, writes Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro, Arch-
bishop of Bologna, "constitutes one of the greatest tasks of
the modern theologian."
As that theology is developed, it is quite possible that it
will be deeply influenced by the success of the pluralistic
experiment in the United States. As we all know, the con-
stitutional attitude of the United States on the problem of
church-state relations is embodied in the opening words of
the First Amendment.
In the opinion of Father John Courtney Murray, S. J., the
religious clauses of that amendment are a legal formulation
of the very principles of civic toleration that we have already
explained at some length.
The First Amendment does not say that there is no distinc-
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
 Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
U. S. News & World Report
... Jesuit view: "We shall do our best to preserve" U.S. heritage
tion between true and false religion, or good and bad morals.
But it does say that, in this country, the public conscience,
aware of its moral obligation to social peace and speaking as
the voice of God, does not give the Government any man-
date, does not impose on it any duty, and does not even
communicate to it the right to repress religious beliefs or
their free exercise, even though they may he false and
erroneous.
Why the American Way Works
The First Amendment came into being as a practical means
of satisfying a compelling social need in. a religiously plural-
istic society. Nevertheless, if successful experience is a test of
a good law, then it must be granted that our American solu-
tion to the practical problems of religious toleration has
been amazingly successful.
Why the American experiment has proven to be a good law
was developed at some length by Father Murray in "Church,
State and Religious Liberty"-"Catholic Mind," May-June,
1959. The points made are of such importance to our argu-
ment that we will summarize them here:
1. America has shown the world that political unity and
stability are possible without uniformity of religious belief
and practice and without the necessity of invoking any
governmental restrictions on religion.
2. A lasting consensus on the meaning of the common
good, and the working out of that agreement on the level of
political action, have been positively strengthened by the
exclusion of religious differences from the area of interest
that is proper to our Government.
3. Most striking of all, in the United States the mainte-
nance of our traditional distinction between church and state
has been of benefit to religion, and not least to the Catholic
Church itself... .
Certainly this forthright approval of religious toleration in
our land has been one of the undeviating traditions of the
American hierarchy. Moreover, such approval, stemming
from the "ordinary magisterium"-i.e., legitimate teaching
authority-of the Church in America, has never been re-
buked by Rome.
The fundamental reason for this, of course, is that the First
Amendment does not incorporate an. ideology that is offensive
to the nature of Christianity. It is neither an expression of
exaggerated liberalism nor of totalitarian democracy. It is
actually a pragmatic political principle that limits the juris-
diction of the Government by denying it any competence in
the field of religion.
In God's providence, then, the American solution to the
problem of toleration, together with the hearty commendation
that our American bishops have always extended to the First
Amendment, may be instrumental in developing the theology
of toleration of which we spoke... .
Given the emerging pattern of pluralistic societies with
written constitutional governments, a broad religious tolera-
tion may be encouraged as a relatively greater good in the
face of pressing situations that deeply concern the social
peace of all mankind.
In fact, we may go further, paraphrasing the article on
"toleration" in the Catholic Encyclopedia. In these days; re-
ligious toleration is a dire necessity and the starting point of
political wisdom and justice.
Religious liberty is the only possible, and hence the only
reasonable, ideal to pursue. Without it, the rational con-
sensus that is essential to the attainment of the common
good in a pluralistic society becomes inconceivable.
We will bring this long discussion to a close by emphasiz-
ing three conclusions of our own as a counter to those that
were mentioned at the start:
1. Only the most unenlightened opponents of Catholicism
will maintain that the Church is so intent on the acquisition
of power, spiritual or temporal, that it is ready to outrage
human dignity and to sacrifice the common good of everyone
on the altar of religious unity.
2. It is unlikely, even in the most favorable circumstances,
that the Church would seek to restore the type of union be-
tween church and state that characterized certain periods of
history.
Such a marriage of the spiritual and the secular, it may
be argued, is a doubtful benefit to the cause of Christ.
It has been observed, long before this, that when such a
union exists, the Church has thrust upon it the odium of re-
sponsibility for the evils of the civil order.
Moreover, too close a union encourages tepidity among the
ministers of religion and hypocrisy among the laity.
What need is there for zeal, when the political appa-
ratus of the state becomes the main. instrument for secur-
ing all doctrine and morality? What sincerity is there in the
hearts of many of the faithful, when the spirit of religion
is so nationalized as to confound religious and political
loyalties?
Finally, as has happened all too often in history, domi-
nation of the state by the forces of religion tends to evoke a
rivalry between church and state that ends in the bitterest
anticlericalism and the ultimate enslavement of religion
itself.
3. With regard to the reactionary influence of a possible
Catholic majority on the political structure of the United
States, we must observe that the First Amendment, the Con-
stitution and our peculiar form of democracy are safe.
It was these blessed things that gave the Church in
America the splendid opportunity to develop into one of
the most flourishing and promising Catholic communities
that has ever existed. We shall do our best to preserve such a
precious heritage. If, under God, Catholics ever become a
majority in our land, this growth will be one of the fruits of
freedom and toleration.
OTHER POINTS OF VIEW-
Still other viewpoints were expressed.
Dr. Carl McIntire, president of the International Council
of Christian Churches, issued a statement pointing out that
Senator Kennedy had appointed a special assistant for reli-
gious affairs, and that the White House under the Republi-
cans maintains a staff member to handle religious appoint-
ments.
"Under no circumstances," said Dr. McIntire, "should the
White House be used . . . to promote the interests and per-
sonalities of any religious institution large or small. We call
upon both Nixon and Kennedy to clarify their position."
The Amercan Jewish Congress also issued a statement,
which said in part: "If a candidate is opposed by some
voters because of his religion, it is inevitable that he will be
supported by others for the same reason. The result may well
be the birth in the United States of a group of religious po-
litical parties; such a development would threaten the unity
of the American people and the very foundation of American
democracy." [END]
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
 Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
Make a ? stand ? after count-down?
ii~
! erosion-proof solid-fuel rocket blasts Absolutely stable physical characteristics above 5400OF ...
These are just two of the criteria Allison metallurgists had to meet
in devising throat materials for modern missile nozzles.
First they tried oxyacetylene ? coating-but attain-
able temperature was too s for the coating materials required.
Next electroplating was tried-but the coat bond was poor, the
surface rough.
Then they turned to plasma-jet spray techniques. Hoped here-~t
last-was the solution.
Solid-fLiel firing tests proved it was-for the dense, sound "Plasma-
? passed its tests with no erosion, guttering, or nozzle
pressure drop.
And metallurgical research is but one of the areas of inquiry we're
putting our minds to at Allison.
Our efforts are aided by American and European consultants, our
?
solve Whether your problem is concerned with the heavens, the earth
or the oceans, Allison has the will and-if it can be solved-the way
doing others, we could do it for you.
Illustrated is a refractory metal nozzle liner segment formed by a
combination of pla.vina-are spraying and forging.
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
 Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
DATE
TO:
ROOM NO.
BUILDING
REMARKS:
t
FROM:
ROOM NO.
BUILDING
EXTENSION
1 FFEB ORM 55 241 REPLACES FORM 36-8
WHICH MAY BE USED.
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9
 Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91 ? OpO 05-9
2541 A ? n
Approved For Release 2006/10/18: CIA-RDP91-00965R000200040005-9