JFK's Houston Speech versus The Doctrinal Note

With reference to Susan and Rob's posts, personally I think the "JFK at Houston" position staked out by Judge Roberts is a cop-out that's inconsistent with Church teaching. According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life:

The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent. …

… legislative proposals are put forward which, heedless of the consequences for the existence and future of human beings with regard to the formation of culture and social behaviour, attack the very inviolability of human life. Catholics, in this difficult situation, have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a “grave and clear obligation to oppose” any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them. As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.”

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.

Of course, as those who followed my extended debate with David Giacalone know, as do those who have followed the many fine discussions here at MOJ of the obligations of Catholic judges, there are important distinctions between the duties of Catholic judges and politicians. Yet, I must confess to being disappointed in SCOTUS CJ nominee John Roberts's casual endorsement of JFK's Houston position. I find it difficult (to say the least) to reconcile what JFK said with what the Church taught in the Doctrinal Note, especially with the following excerpt from the Note:

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. …

The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. “There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture. The branch, engrafted to the vine which is Christ, bears its fruit in every sphere of existence and activity. …”

JFK's position in the famous Houston speech can only be understood as an assertion that there are "two parallel lives." The same can be said for the position most Democrat/Catholic politicians carve out on abortion, of course: "I'm personally against it, but ..." As I understand Church teaching, there is no justification for the JFK position.