The year was 1960 and Jack Kennedy was running hard for president. His campaign exhilarated me back in those more illusioned days. We shared much in common−Boston, Harvard, the Church−and my father was a friend of his father. Jack’s charm and urbanity captivated my younger self and made me follow his campaign with high hopes.

It made a difference for me that Kennedy was a Catholic. I identified with his religious tradition, one that I shared and took to be the source of my most cherished values. When he was challenged by those who opposed him for his faith, I rooted for him and cheered when he skillfully defended himself against accusations that he would be a tool of the pope.

Probably I should have regarded the election of 1960 as more crucial than I actually did. Had I foreseen how the Cold War would heat up with the Cuban Missile Crisis, I would have felt the stakes to be higher. Fortunately, in what proved his finest hour, Kennedy made wise decisions when they were most needed.

More than four decades have passed and now another Catholic, John Kerry, is running as the Democratic nominee. My affective identification with the second JFK is not nearly so close as it was with the first, but I want more desperately for this senator to be elected president.

I do so, not so much because of Kerry’s personal qualities, but because the White House incumbent has proven such a menace both to our nation and, in fact, to the world at large. Never before have I felt such fear that a major party presidential candidate might seriously damage civil liberties at home and the prospects for peace among nations.

To me, joking about George W. Bush’s alleged dimness clouds the reality. In fact, this man has been smart enough to bring about changes on an unprecedented scale. He has initiated preemptive warfare that has replaced the doctrine of containment and deterrence that had prevailed at least since the start of the Cold War.

On the domestic front, this Bush has proven adept at getting his agenda adopted  by making the Congress dismayingly compliant. In doing so, he has plunged the country deeply into debt, placing a huge burden on coming generations. His tax cuts have benefited a few, and created a problematic future for the many.

Using blunderbuss tactics, he and his allies in Congress got members to pass Medicare legislation under the rubric of providing prescription drug coverage. This change is slated to cost elders dearly, while benefiting insurance companies and drug manufacturers handsomely.

Thanks to this law, Americans who receive Social Security now and over the next decades will find Medicare taking larger and larger bites out of their monthly payments. And, in an era when private pension plans are increasingly precarious, it is disturbing to hear Bush intent on privatizing Social Security.

My support for Kerry has grown stronger in direct proportion to the opposition that a minority of Catholic bishops is mounting against him. Unlike the first JFK, he faces persistent challenges from religious leaders of his own faith. To a degree unprecedented in previous elections, they have dared to give instructions to voters.

Religious leaders have a right, and many would say a duty, to provide moral and ethical guidance. The nation needs leadership in the difficult questions brought on by modernity.

But those bishops who oppose Kerry do so by selectively choosing one set of issues while ignoring others of great importance. We do not hear from them on war and peace, capital punishment, and the poor and dispossessed. Though their own church leadership in Rome has spoken out forcefully on these issues, the bishops choose to ignore them.

I feel more than empathy with Catholic politicians who sincerely judge abortion a social evil but feel they must at least tolerate legislation that permits it. When I ran for public office in my home city, people dissatisfied with my taking this position distributed flyers against me in various Catholic parishes, an action that did not make me happy.

Unlike some others, I regard Kerry’s religious faith as among his great assets. He takes seriously the dimensions of life that go beyond the material and practical, and this does him credit.

Admittedly, Kerry’s style of being religious differs from that of his opponent and many other people. It tends to be low-key, discreet, and underplayed. That is a style I consider appropriate for public life. By contrast, the religious enthusiasm that lays claim to special messages from the Deity can spell trouble.

In later life, I feel much less illusioned than I did when the first JFK was running. History has sobered me as it has done so many of my age peers. But I see the choice this time around as clear and of crucial importance.

Richard Griffin