Joseph Sobran’s
Washington Watch

Articles of Faith

(Reprinted from the issue of October 21, 2004)

After watching John Kerry in his second debate with George W. Bush, I wondered if a Kerry victory wouldn’t be a triumph for anti-Catholicism.

One of his answers to a questioner in the “town hall” format was his most revealing moment in the entire campaign. It told us exactly the sort of man he is. Yet it has caused very little comment.

Asked what he’d say to a voter who didn’t want his or her tax money spent on abortion, Kerry spent several minutes running away from the question, while misrepresenting himself, the U.S. Constitution, and the Catholic Church. It vividly illustrated why people don’t trust him.

In response, Bush smiled that he was “trying to decipher that.” He then said flatly what Kerry wouldn’t: that he’d spend no tax money for abortions.

Well, let’s try to decipher Kerry’s answer. First, he said, “I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.” Here it comes, I thought: John Kerry, straight from the shoulder.

He went on: “I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins.” Say what? He “respects” — but doesn’t necessarily share? — “the belief” — not the biological fact? — “about life and when it begins” — but not about the humanity of the child? Pretending to be forthright, Kerry immediately obfuscated the issue. He deeply respects the belief.

Kerry seems oddly remote from, and condescending toward, the faith he professes. Or professes to profess, anyway. His “respect” sounds a bit like disdain.

That was only the beginning. Kerry then launched into his I-was-an-altar-boy spiel, fusing it with his I-was-a-combat-veteran spiel. He’s a Catholic, was raised a Catholic, was an altar boy. “Religion” has been “a huge part of my life.” And yes, it “helped lead me through a war,” and “leads me today.”

At this point I expected him to reach into his pocket and pull out a fistful of rosaries. He didn’t, though.

He was asked about abortion. Nobody asked about his religion. But since he brought it up so emphatically, let’s state the obvious: John Kerry is not a practicing Catholic. He’s a Catholic only in the sense that he was involuntarily carried to a baptismal font as an infant. That was a huge part of his life, all right, but he left it behind a long time ago.

How long? Who knows? But by 1995 he was divorced, and though some Catholics who get civil divorces continue to practice their faith, John Kerry evidently didn’t. He married Teresa Heinz in a civil ceremony without having his first marriage annulled, even though annulments were by then readily — even scandalously — easy to secure. (He has told one interviewer that he has applied for an annulment, but he doesn’t seem to be waiting anxiously for it.)

The pair even had a prenuptial agreement, which doesn’t suggest that they viewed their union as sacred or indissoluble. Prenuptial contracts sit uneasily with “till death do you part” and “for better, for worse.” They don’t even suggest romance; I can’t think of a single love song or sonnet about a prenuptial deal. The subject is perhaps better suited to the limerick than to the lyric:

A chivalrous fellow named Kerry
Spoke his heart to the one he would marry:
“I love you, of course,
But in case of divorce,
Should we not sign a pre-nup, ma cherie?”

So the Kerry-Heinz union was preceded by careful financial preparations; but not, it appears, religious ones. Again, this might be overlooked if he weren’t using “religion” for political purposes.

And if he weren’t distorting Catholic teaching. He continued his long-winded non-answer with the assertion that “I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for” — here he listed most of the world’s religions, omitting only Shintoism.

By implication, banning abortion means imposing Catholic dogma on non-Catholics. Apart from being nonsense, Kerry’s words show that he doesn’t even grasp the difference between an article of faith and natural law — that is, between Revelation and reason. This tells us pretty clearly what a huge part of his life religion has been.

For example, Nat Hentoff, the liberal Jewish atheist writer, believes on his secularist principles that abortion is evil and should be outlawed. Someone should have asked Kerry why Hentoff wants to impose Catholic dogma on the rest of us.

Kerry was also soliciting anti-Catholic prejudice in the same way as the pro-abortion movement he has consistently served. At the same time, he was posing as a pious Catholic. And Kerry resents the charge that he tries to have it both ways!

Kerry achieved all this deceit and confusion in just six sentences. Then he maundered on about his wife, alternatives to abortion, constitutional rights, and various other subjects, saying nothing useful about any of them.

Constitutional rights? Yes, he managed to insert that old canard, however briefly. In the pro-abortion circles Kerry swings in, it’s an article of faith, so to speak, that the Constitution mandates abortion on demand. This too shows how loosely the supposedly brainy Kerry thinks.

He finally ended by repeating that “I truly respect” ... whatever. Without answering the question, he’d answered it. No viewer could doubt that he would spend tax dollars for abortions.

Kerry’s performance should have appalled Catholics. But did it? After decades of neglect in Catholic education, I wonder if most Catholics (outside the active pro-life movement) even noticed anything amiss. Some no doubt felt he sounded thoughtful.

During the rest of the debate, when Bush called attention to his “liberal” record, Kerry kept insisting that “labels don’t mean anything.” In his case, the only label that doesn’t mean anything is the only one he claims: “Catholic.”
 
Our First Lapsed Catholic President?

Which raises other questions. If elected, Kerry would be our first lapsed Catholic president. All presidents are expected to appear pious; it’s almost part of the job description. Would President Kerry make a show of piety, attending Mass and receiving Communion? Would he try to regularize his marriage? As president, would he go to the head of the long annulment line? How would the bishops handle this delicate and explosive situation?

The religious issue Kerry has managed to evade during the campaign could come back with a fury after the election. The media have given him a pass on his hypocrisy. That would hardly be possible if he were in the White House with all eyes on him, and many Catholics well aware of the man he has revealed himself to be.

From a Catholic standpoint, the low point of Bill Clinton’s entire presidency wasn’t the scandal leading to his impeachment, but his sacrilegious reception of Communion at a Mass in South Africa. Are we about to see that repeated every Sunday?


I’ll have more to say about the problem of the pseudo-Catholic politician in my monthly newsletter, SOBRAN’S. If you have not seen a copy yet, give my office a call at 800-513-5053 and request a free sample, or better yet, subscribe for two years for just $85. New subscribers get two gifts with their subscription. More details can be found at the Subscription page of my website.

Already a subscriber? Consider a gift subscription for a priest, friend, or relative.

Joseph Sobran