I was graciously invited by the good people at Inside Catholic to attend a private screening last night at the Heritage Foundation of a new documentary entitled Article VI, which sets its sights on the intersection of faith and politics in America and asks the question of whether a religious test, either implicit or explicit, is being applied to candidates for public office.
As the lights went down, the face and voice of John F. Kennedy filled the room.
…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…
For the filmmakers - Mormons examining the role of faith in politics just as Mitt Romney faces similar questions to those encountered by the late JFK - the cross-examination of Kennedy on the question of whether his Catholic faith would be compatible with the office of President must have seemed a natural and sensible foundation on which to build their case.
For me, however, Kennedy’s assiduous attempts to distance his political persona from his Catholic beliefs has always been problematic. The religious faith a person professes is, if they are orthodox, something transcendent; it is the highest authority to which all of their other beliefs - political or otherwise - should conform.
It is true that in the United States, the fact that one is a Mormon or Catholic or Evangelical or of any other faith (or lack thereof) should not have any bearing on one’s eligibility to hold public office. Article VI of the Constitution (which of course lends its name to this film) makes this explicitly clear: “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The faith of a candidate for public office is, however, entirely material to whether an individual voter should cast a ballot in their favor. The simple and yet too often overlooked truth is that beliefs matter when creating public policy. This seems so obvious as to almost preclude explanation. Almost.
The example is clearest, I think, when looking at the Catholic Faith. Catholicism has, if nothing else, maintained the greatest consistency of doctrine on life issues - abortion, contraception, euthanasia, embryonic research, cloning, even just war doctrine. Catholic belief admits of no exceptions to moral principles on these issues, a claim that no other faith can make.
Should the Catholic faith of a candidate therefore be of consequence to voters of every creed? I believe that the answer is inescapably “yes”. No good President checks his conscience at the door when executing the duties of his office. If he, like Kennedy, is willing to shrug off even the suggestion of counsel from the leaders of his faith, I can’t help but believe hardly worthy of being allowed to call himself a member of his faith. If, therefore, a voter disagrees with the religious beliefs of a particular candidate, he is quite likely to disagree with the political positions that candidate will derive from those beliefs unless that candidate has no concern for orthodoxy. This is common sense.
Neither the establishment clause in the First Amendment nor the prohibition of religious test for public office in Article VI were ever intended to create split personalities in public officials, forcing them to neatly compartmentalize their positions on affairs religious and secular where never the two should meet. These clauses were rather intended to keep government out of the business of imposing a specific religion on the people. They do no inherently imply that government officials (and subsequently the operation of the government itself) should not be informed by religion.
It was this fatal flaw, a tenet of the common understanding of what pluralism means in our republic, that in my opinion undermined what was an excellent film. Woven throughout the two hour length of Article VI was the consistent impulse to use Kennedy’s “absolute” separation of Church and State as the gold standard of appropriate conduct in faith and politics. This theme was explicit when the filmmakers evaluated what scrutiny a candidate should have to endure, and was implicit when evaluating the way the American people ought to respond to candidates of a different faith. The subtle thread throughout was a strong inclination to ask “Why can’t we all just get along?” I am sympathetic to this sentiment, but it is a gross oversimplifcation of the reality we face in a pluralistic society where theological difference have a real impact on the laws we make.
That said, enormous credit is due to director Bryan Hall, who also provides the film’s narration and acts as front man when the story needs a human face. His is an unexpectedly honest point of view, and at one particular point while he was detailing the extreme persecution his Mormon forebears had faced in the early years of the United States, I found myself hoping that he would not gloss over one particularly important event in that history.
I am pleased to say that he exceeded my expectations, taking a hard look at the Mountain Meadows Massacre and offering the audience his own consternation at how people who claimed to profess his Mormon faith could have committed such an atrocity.
The film is nothing if not honest, and where it works best is when it casts an unflinching light at the many facets to each issue it tackled. This was not heavy-handed propaganda film making in the vein of Michael Moore. The sens that the viewer gets is that it is a sincere quest for truth, even when that truth is uncomfortable to the intended audience.
It doesn’t hurt that Hall himself is a likable fellow. When he decides to humanize some rowdy and unlikable anti-Mormon evangelical protesters in Salt Lake City by sharing a meal with them and making a point to tell the audience their story, rather than dwelling on their faults, I found that I wanted to cheer for him. He makes a compelling case that something is wrong with us as a people if we can’t be truly friendly and loving toward those who disagree with us on matters of faith - a point which throws certain characters in the film into stark contrast with their vigorous profession of Christian belief.
The conclusion the film presents is thankfully not driven home with a hammer, but layered on fairly skillfully with an artist’s touch as a human story. Unfortunately, that conclusion is that JFK was right, and the proof point comes in the revelation of the great syncretist event of the 20th century - World War II - where Protestants and Catholics and Mormons and Jews and Muslims and Sikhs and Unitarians and Atheists fought and died side by side as brothers, and were laid to rest together without distinction.
It is true that in many things, Americans can find common ground despite their religious differences. It does not however follow that because of this, our differences in theology are of little consequence. They are, in fact, of eternal consequence, and this life is the only opportunity we have to decide that outcome for ourselves or to help lead others to it. Our laws, our policies, our lives as a people under God all contribute to our final judgement - not as a nation, but as individuals. Who we vote for matters. It is a part of our life on which we will be judged. We must remember that Christ’s Social Kingship is undeniable, and that nations which fail to pay homage to Him will perish. At times, this is hard to reconcile with a secular republic, but if we believe it we must realize that we are obligated to work to find a way.
Article VI fails to recognize this, but it is a worthy and though-provoking film nonetheless, taking the viewer through this history of this nation’s struggles with religion and politics and offering an unflinching look at where we stand today. The film is not without its flaws, not the least of which is the fact that if it were reduced in length by a good 20-30 minutes I think its impact would be significantly enhanced, but these things don’t detract from its undeniable value at this point in our nation’s history.
If you have the opportunity to see it, I recommend it.
