Deacon Gregory WebsterThe interaction between religious institutions, specifically the Catholic Church, and American politics has been intricate, complex, and transformative over the decades. The narrative of this relationship spans from John F. Kennedy’s assurance of a secular, independent presidency to Joseph R. Biden’s navigation of the delicate balance between personal faith and public governance. Kennedy’s 1960 campaign epitomized the need to separate church from state, alleviating fears of ecclesiastical influence, while Biden’s presidency reflects an era where the Church’s role is increasingly marginalized, amidst evolving secular and pluralistic societal contexts. [1],[2]
In 1960, John F. Kennedy faced a critical challenge: convincing the electorate that his Catholic faith would not interfere with his responsibilities as president.[3] At a time when religious identity was scrutinized, Kennedy needed to clarify his position to assuage fears of papal influence on American politics. Kennedy addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, declaring his commitment to the absolute separation of church and state. His message was clear: presidential decisions would be made based on national interest, free from religious intervention.[4] Kennedy’s approach was successful in its aim, easing anxieties and ushering in an era where a Catholic could hold the presidency without bias or undue influence from religious institutions.[5]
As we move forward to the present day, the Church’s role in influencing or impacting U.S. politics has evolved due to (1) Changing Social Context: The societal landscape of the United States has transformed significantly since the 1960s, with increasing secularism and pluralism shaping public and political perspectives. (2) Shift in Church Involvement: Over the years, the Catholic Church’s direct role in shaping political agendas has become less pronounced.[6] The emphasis on pluralistic values has led to a political environment where various voices contribute to discourse, potentially diminishing the singular influence of any one religious group.
Biden’s Presidency and Marginalization of the Church
Joesph R. Biden claimed publicly to be a Catholic in another era of heightened political complexity.[7] Balancing personal faith with public governance has presented new challenges and debates. Despite his Catholic identity, Biden’s policy decisions, notably on issues like “reproductive” rights, often diverged from traditional Church teachings. This divergence reflects a broader alignment with secular principles and national interests, adhering to a separation reminiscent of Kennedy’s approach, but with modern implications. Critics note that the Catholic Church’s moral voice appears more marginalized in contemporary political spheres.[8] This is evident in debates where foundational Church teachings, such as those on abortion, face strong competition from secular and pluralistic ideologies.
Reflecting on this trajectory from Kennedy’s presidency to Biden’s, we observe a fascinating evolution in church-state relations over six decades. While Kennedy sought to distance his presidency from religious oversight, Biden operates in a world where the Church’s influence, once feared, competes with a mosaic of diverse and secular voices. This journey from Kennedy to Biden reveals much about our political evolution and the ongoing negotiation between personal beliefs and public service. It is a testament to the dynamic character of American democracy—a space where history, faith, and governance continue to intersect and evolve.
Kennedy’s Pioneering Stance
In 1960, the United States was at a crossroads of cultural and religious tension. The Cold War was in full swing, and the nation was grappling with issues of civil rights, identity, and governance. Amidst this backdrop, John F. Kennedy emerged as the Democratic presidential candidate, seeking to become the first Catholic president in American history. Anti-Catholic sentiment had a long history in the U.S., stemming from fears that a Catholic president might prioritize papal directives over national interests.[9] This fear was stoked by a lack of precedent and the political landscape of the time, which often viewed Catholicism with suspicion in predominantly Protestant America.
Kennedy’s address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, became a pivotal moment in his campaign – and in American political history.[10] In this speech, Kennedy directly confronted concerns about his Catholic faith. He articulated a vision of America where the separation of church and state is absolute, stating unequivocally that no religious authority would dictate presidential actions. Kennedy emphasized his dedication to serving the United States and protecting its democratic principles, free from any ecclesiastical influence. Kenedy asserted that he believed in an America “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.”
His speech was strategic. By addressing these concerns head-on, he alleviated fears not only among Protestant voters but also among Catholics who worried about prejudice. It showcased Kennedy’s ability to navigate complex social dynamics and affirmed his commitment to American values.
By establishing that religious background should not impede one’s ability to govern, Kennedy paved the way for future leaders of diverse faiths. His presidency marked a significant reduction in religious barriers within American politics. He reinforced the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. It highlighted the importance of making policy decisions based on national interest and universal values rather than religious affiliations. His clear delineation between his faith and his presidential duties served as a model for how public figures could balance personal beliefs with the responsibilities of secular governance.
Kennedy’s pioneering stance was not just about winning an election; it was about affirming the autonomy of the presidency and the secular nature of American democracy. His legacy reminds us of the enduring challenge and importance of maintaining a clear boundary between religious faith and public policy in a diverse and pluralistic society. Through his leadership, Kennedy set a transformative example that continues to influence political discourse today.
Transition Over Decades
From Kennedy’s era in the early 1960s to the present day, the social, cultural, and political landscape of the United States has undergone significant transformations, impacting the role of religion in governance.[11] American society has seen a marked increase in secularism. This shift is evident in the growing diversity of religious and non-religious identities among the populace, leading to a governance approach that increasingly focuses on secular values and inclusiveness. At the same time, the United States has become more religiously diverse, with the growth of various faiths, as well as non-religious groups. This diversity necessitates a political environment that accommodates a wide range of beliefs without privileging any single religious perspective.
As societal values have evolved, so too has the role of religious institutions, including the Catholic Church, in political discourse. The Catholic Church’s direct influence on political decision-making has diminished. Instead, its role has transitioned to one of dialogue and advocacy, engaging with policy issues through ethical and humanitarian lenses. The Church remains active in advocating for social issues aligned with its teachings, such as poverty alleviation, immigrant rights, and healthcare. It participates in public discourse and seeks collaboration with policymakers to address these concerns, albeit often from a position outside mainstream political power.
This had let to the evolving interaction between the presidency and the Church. Political parties have realigned around cultural and value-based issues leading to varied relationships between the Church and political platforms. Parties may collaborate or diverge from Church stances based on electoral strategies and demographic changes. Supreme Court rulings and legislative actions have reinforced the separation of church and state, such as decisions related to school prayer, reproductive rights, and public funding for religious entities.[12] These legal frameworks have set boundaries that influence how religion interfaces with policy.
Social movements advocating for civil rights, gender equality, and LGBTQ+ rights have challenged traditional religious perspectives, prompting dialogues about balancing faith-based positions with evolving societal norms.[13] Today’s presidents navigate complex identities and constituencies, balancing personal beliefs with a commitment to serve a diverse nation. This requires policies that reflect universal human rights and constitutional principles, rather than specific religious doctrines. In such a multiplicity of voices, single religious perspectives, including those of the Catholic Church, may sometimes feel marginalized. This setting demands thoughtful engagement and advocacy strategies to remain relevant in policy discussions.
Biden and Marginalization of the Church
As the second Catholic president in U.S. history after John F. Kennedy, Joseph R. Biden openly embraced his faith as a guiding force in his personal and public life. He frequently referenced his Catholic upbringing and values, often invoking themes of compassion, community, and justice that were rooted in his religious beliefs. His identity as a “faithful Catholic” in his public persona, was meant to illustrate the role of personal faith in shaping moral and ethical perspectives.
Yet, Biden’s policy decisions, particularly on contentious issues such as abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, underscored the complex relationship between personal beliefs and public responsibilities. In supporting “reproductive rights” such as including access to abortion, Biden’s position contrasted with the very Catholic doctrine he promoted being faithful to. His policies supporting LGBTQ+ equality further illustrate the tension between his self-proclaimed religious principles and governance.
As such, the Catholic Church’s direct influence on presidential policies has become less pronounced. Ongoing debate reflects the ongoing tensions about how Catholic politicians balance personal convictions with public office. As societal values continue to evolve, the dominance of any single religious voice in shaping policy has diminished. The influence of the Catholic Church now competes with a broader array of secular and diverse perspectives.
Several factors contributed to the perceived marginalization of religious influence within contemporary political spheres.
- Cultural Pluralism: The increasing diversity of religious and secular worldviews necessitates a governance approach that respects and represents varied beliefs. This pluralism naturally dilutes the weight of any one religious tradition, including Catholicism.
- Emphasis on Secular Governance: There is a stronger emphasis on secular principles in policy-making, ensuring that decisions are made based on constitutional rights and the public good, rather than religious doctrines. This is in line with Kennedy’s pioneering approach to church-state separation.
- Engagement Strategies: The Church and other religious organizations now focus more on advocacy and dialogue rather than exerting direct influence, aligning their approaches with democratic processes that prioritize pluralistic engagement.
Increasing Emphasis on Secularism
Kennedy’s emphasis on the strict separation religion from dictating political processes was intended to protect religious freedom. Yet, it also initiated a trend of segregating religious viewpoints from state matters. The rise of secularism and pluralism meant that policies increasingly reflected diverse, often non-religious, perspectives, moving away from religious prescriptions. This evolution toward secularism has led to the perception that Church teachings are less relevant or prioritized in public policy debates. While still a respected entity, the Church’s moral authority in guiding public ethics has waned. Its absence in critical policy discussions is seen when secular values dominate debates on social issues. As the Church seeks to influence modern policy, it faces challenges in communicating how its teachings align with shared social values in a way that resonates with diverse and secular audiences.
Original Intent of Church-State Separation
The U.S. Constitution, through the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause, laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state, ensuring religious freedom and preventing governmental endorsement of any religion.[14] This clause was intended to prevent the government from establishing an official religion or unduly favoring one faith over others, thus protecting individual rights to various beliefs and practices. The Free Exercise Clause guaranteed the right to practice one’s religion freely, underscoring the importance of religious expression and pluralism in American society.
Kennedy’s Approach concerning church-state separation was to reaffirm these constitutional principles but was never meant to marginalize or silence religious teachings.[15] He aimed to reassure the electorate that his decisions as president would be made independently of ecclesiastical influence. His stance was more about ensuring freedom from undue influence, not excluding religious discourse from public life. His approach underscored respected a diversity of beliefs and aimed to create an inclusive environment where all faiths could coexist and contribute to society.
Over time, cultural and political shifts inadvertently led to perceptions of marginalization of religious teachings in public policy. The increasing favor toward secular values, often seen as neutral or universal, has framed public discussion in ways where religious perspectives have been marginalized. Focusing on protecting pluralism resulted in caution against overt religious influence while diminishing the public space for religious engagement.
While religious freedom is protected, the perceived absence of Church teaching in policy debates reflects a broader movement toward secular approaches that inadvertently eclipse religious voices. Religious organizations face challenges in affirming their place amid broader secular discourse.
Secularism as a Philosophical Framework
Secularism itself can be seen as a philosophy advocating that governance and societal norms should be underpinned by reason and universal principles rather than religious doctrines.[16],[17] Such a philosophy promotes autonomy of policy-making from religious influence, emphasizing reason, equality, and inclusivity rooted in shared human rights rather than religiously specific values. It values ethical neutrality, striving to create spaces where diverse beliefs coexist without one dominating the governance framework.
The philosophical stance of secularism can sideline church teachings if not nuanced by inclusive approaches. It frames itself as a space “free” from religious influence leading to a reduction in the perceived moral authority of religious institutions in legislative settings. Such emphasis poses challenges to integrating religious perspectives within the policy framework, impacting how religious groups advocate for specific concerns.
Recognizing secularism as a philosophy necessitates embracing religious diversity as part of the dialogue rather than viewing it as an opposing force. True neutrality in government nurtures inclusive dialogues between secular philosophies and religious teachings ensure that diverse viewpoints contribute meaningfully to societal narratives and policy-making. This can reveal convergences between secular and religious philosophies and allow both perspectives to contribute to shaping national values.
Recognizing secularism as a philosophy affects the church-state dynamics by assigning it to an active role alongside religious principles. Just as separating church from state involves ensuring that governance is not dictated by religious doctrines, ensuring independence from secularism as a philosophy would mean that governance should not be strictly bound by secular values alone but should be based on overarching principles that serve the entire populace. Ideally, governance should balance secular and religious perspectives, ensuring that policy decisions are made based on inclusive, democratic principles that reflect society’s diverse landscape. By not privileging any one philosophy—secular or religious—the goal is to create policies that are representative, considering the diversity of values and beliefs present in the population.
Aligning with the Kennedy Approach
Kennedy’s approach to church-state separation aimed to reassure the American public about the independence of the presidency from religious influence, particularly during a time of significant religious bias against Catholics. However, in emphasizing a strict separation of church and state to address concerns over his Catholic faith potentially influencing his presidency, the discourse contributed to the perception that religious perspectives were less relevant or even problematic in public policy, thereby marginalizing religious voices. His need to reassure the electorate reinforced existing biases that religion could interfere with objective governance, positioning secularism as the safer, more neutral option. The led to a dismissal of religion’s role in public discourse, rather than an assurance of impartiality in governance.
Kennedy’s intention was to maintain respect for all religious expressions while ensuring governance decisions were made based on national interest. Public officials today still must navigate their roles by maintaining this separation. A balanced framework respects the diverse religious and philosophical landscape of society. Religious teachings often complement and enrich discussions around universal values like equality, human rights, and the collective welfare.
The Kennedy Approach needs to discern where it succeeded, but also where it failed. It needs to be modernized and updated to reflect Balancing Faith and Governance:
- The Kennedy Approach: Ensure that no single religious perspective has undue influence over public policy, which is crucial in a pluralistic society where individuals hold a variety of religious and non-religious beliefs. This neutrality aims to respect all viewpoints equally.
- Retain Inspiration for Integrity: Personal faith inspires ethical behavior and emphasizes the role of integrity, compassion, and justice in public service. It draws upon the strengths of personal beliefs to inform ethical leadership.
- Secularism: Secularism itself is a philosophy and cannot be the sole arbitrator in a democracy.
- The American Melting Pot: Policies themselves must fostering unity in diversity.
- Protection of Freedom: Respect for our democratic principle of freedom of religion and belief protects both individual rights and governance independence.
- Common Universals: Focus should be maintained on common universals such as equality, human rights, and the collective welfare and not impose specific religious nor secular values on those who do not share them, thus upholding individual freedom and societal harmony for all human life.
These measures facilitate modernizing the Kennedy Approach, aligning faith with governance through a balanced framework nurturing both religious contributions and secular discourse.
Conclusion
Church-state dynamics from Kennedy to Biden underscore transformations influenced by evolving societal, cultural, and political narratives. While Kennedy initially emphasized separation to circumvent religious bias, the decades since have shaped interactions marked by the dominance of secular philosophies, necessitating modern engagement strategies to include diverse voices.
A balanced approach that embraces both religious and secular insights fosters inclusive governance serving diverse citizens. In valuing ethical guidance from personal beliefs while reinforcing democratic ideals, officials can craft policies reflecting society’s ethical and moral landscape, enriching collaborative discourse wherein diverse perspectives contribute meaningfully.
Through acknowledging shared ground between religious teachings and secular principles, governance can pursue a just, equitable, and compassionate public sphere where all perspectives are respected and valued in dynamic American democracy.
[1] Neff, David. “Private Faith and Public Policy: Where Santorum and Obama, Ironically, Agree.” Christianity Today 56, no. 6 (May 2012).
[2] Desmond, Joan Frawley. “Joe Biden and JFK: How Catholicism Played a Role in the Presidential Bids of 1960 and 2020.” National Catholic Register, November 16, 2020.
[3] Reardon, Patrick T. “JFK and the Cafeteria Bishops: 50 Years After Kennedy Asserted Independence from the Pope, Tide Has Turned.” National Catholic Reporter, August 6, 2010.
[5] Reardon, P.T.
[6] Neff, D.
[7] Desmond, Joan Frawley. “Joe Biden and JFK: How Catholicism Played a Role in the Presidential Bids of 1960 and 2020.” National Catholic Register, November 16, 2020.
[8] Reardon, P.T.
[9] Reardon, P.T.
[10] Benoit, William L. “John F. Kennedy’s Image Repair on ‘The Catholic Issue’ in the 1960 West Virginia Presidential Primary.” American Communication Journal 21, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 1-9.
[11] Neff, D.
[12] Halva-Neubauer, Glen A., and Sara L. Zeigler. “Promoting Fetal Personhood: The Rhetorical and Legislative Strategies of the Pro-Life Movement after Planned Parenthood v. Casey.” Feminist Formations 22, no. 2 (Summer 2010): 101-123.
[13] Gibbs, Nancy. “The Catholic Conundrum.” TIME Magazine 169, no. 27 (July 2, 2007): 56-59.
[14] Reardon, P.T.
[15] Neff, D.
[16] Mostofa, Shafi Md. “Secularism: A Religion of the 21st Century.” E-International Relations (April 25, 2023). https://www.e-ir.info/2023/04/25/secularism-a-religion-of-the-21st-century/.
[17] “State Society Religion and Secularism: A Study of the Evolutionary Path of Secularism as a Spirit and as a Terminology.” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science 30, no. 3, series 3 (March 2025): 53-59. DOI: 10.9790/0837-3003035359.
Vincent Ryan Ruggiero
