Posted on 11/09/2012 9:46:30 AM PST by NKP_Vet
Catholics are a quarter of the electorate, and they voted for Obama over Romney by the same margin as the total electorate, 50%-48%. Contrary to what many pundits are saying, this suggests that the bishops’ campaign for religious liberty, waged against the Health and Human Services mandate, actually paid off: Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote in 2008 to McCain’s 45%.
Some commentators talk about the Catholic vote as if it were monolithic, and others say it doesn’t exist. It would be more accurate to say there are four Catholic votes: practicing and non-practicing; white and Latino.
Among practicing Catholics, Obama received 42% to Romney’s 57%; among non-practicing Catholics, Obama picked up 56% while Romney got 42%.
White Catholics gave Obama 40% of their votes while Romney earned 59%; Latino Catholics gave Obama 71% of their votes while Romney earned 27%.
From previous survey research published by the Pew Forum, we know that practicing Latino Catholics are less likely to support the Democrats than are non-practicing Latinos.
What this shows is that the more practicing a Catholic is, of any ethnic background, the less likely he is to support the more secular of the candidates.
Finally, there is a serious question whether non-practicing Catholics should be considered Catholic. By way of analogy, if someone tells a pollster that he is a vegetarian, but has long since been a veggie-only eater, would it make empirical sense to count him as a vegetarian? Self-identity is an interesting psychological concept, but it is not necessarily an accurate reflection of a person’s biography.
The democrat party has not always been the party of abortion and sodomite “marriage”.
Thank the Kennedy’s for changing it in America, starting in the late 60s, in a blatant attempt to get the bra-burner’s vote. The “sexual revolution” is what caused the democrat party to lose it’s soul.
50% = bishops were effective?!
I disagree.
With high birth rates and continued immigration, legal and otherwise, would not the trend be for the American Catholic Church to become the Latino American Catholic Church?
And with the majority Latino American Catholics willing, indeed anxious, to support pro abort leaders then in time there is going to be a church membership that largely reflects the secular opinions on one side and the minority that support the official Catholic teaching on the other.
“The dollar means more to most bishops than following the word of God.”
But these bishops don't operate in a vacuum. They aren't elected by the membership, They're appointed and can be removed.
You're in a tough position, my friend, very tough.
The Catholic vote is what it is, what it has always been, and what it will remain to be in the future.
The Catholic Church has very poor at Catechist(perperly teaching the faith). That’s a fact. It’s something the Church knows it needs to improve on. Once again, thank the liberals who have invaded the Church for the last 40 years for allowing this to happen. But with that said, everyone should take it upon himself to learn his faith. Never depend on the clergy to teach you what you need to find out for yourself. You will find most priests steering away from social doctrine issues like abortion. It is hardly ever mentioned in homilies. I have had great priests who were very conservative and would tell you you can’t vote for a pro-abortion politician. I have had them rant and rave over the issue of homosexual marriage. But they are far and few between. Most now do not want to “run off anyone” so they never preach abortion abortion and other controversial subjects. In my opinion they have done and are doing a grave injustice to the Church. Yes it’s up to the laity to know their faith, but the clergy are supposed to be leading their flock, not the other way around.
“A bishop can write a letter or urge his parishioners one way or another but he too is simply offering personal opinion unless he is authorized to speak for the entire Catholic church and this he cannot do”
A bishop is representing the Pope, so what the bishop says should be representative of the entire church. If not, he’s going to get in a lot of trouble and will not be a bishop every long.
But they aren't going to get out of the church, they aren't going to be excommunicated, they aren't going to vote for rich white guys and they aren't going to be a minority soon.
It is that simple.
“CATHOLICS FOR OBAMA (CFO)”
Renegade fringe “catholic” group not in communion with Rome.
You apparently have not read anything that has been discussed.
If you support a pro-abortion politician you have forfeited the right to call yourself a Catholic. That’s fact. Look it up. These “Catholics” you refer to never attend Mass. They are not practicing Catholics. Another fact. You can’t be a “practicing Catholic” and support murdering a baby!!
Why is that so hard for some to understand.
There is already a two (or more) tier Catholic church. One, the traditional, strict and more white than not tier and the direct opposite as a second tier.
The first is or will soon be a minority.
“Renegade fringe “catholic” group not in communion with Rome.”
There’s a lot of well known influential American political names in that “fringe” group.
Perhaps the real “Catholic” church should identify itself and do some housecleaning?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
I’ve read everything written here. The reality is that self identifying Catholics that support pro abort politicians are recognized and counted as Catholics by the Catholic church. And that’s the opinion that counts.
Their names are still on the church registration, their kids will probably be baptized as Catholics, etc.
“Once a Catholic always a Catholic” is a Catholic saying.
I knew many “practicing” latino Catholics in my northern CA parish. Every one of them was pro-abortion and voted Dem. I can safely say, while it’s anecdotal in nature, that I’ve never met a pro-life latino Catholic ‘practicing’ or not.
You can’t be a “practicing Catholic” and support murdering a baby!!
You hit the nail on the head. It doesn’t matter how much they go to Church and receive Communion. If they support the butchering of humans, they have forfeited their faith. That’s theologically sound.
There is plenty, unless you are intent on staying on message. Why don't you begin by addressing Bill Donohue's point below:
"...there is a serious question whether non-practicing Catholics should be considered Catholic. By way of analogy, if someone tells a pollster that he is a vegetarian, but has long since abandoned a veggie-only diet, would it make empirical sense to count him as a vegetarian? Self-identity is an interesting psychological concept, but it is not necessarily an accurate reflection of a person’s biography."
I see. That should certainly be done to get to those with a conscience. Not a Catholic here, so I didn’t know how it worked.
But if they are hypocritical and non-practicing, I wonder if they would admit their having strayed from the Church’s precepts? My guess is not, but that still doesn’t leave them off the hook. There are higher courts to which they are accountable.
“Catholic” doesn’t mean anything anymore. My point is that WHITE, PRACTICING — actually practicing — Catholics are already mostly Republican and that number is growing.
Being “white” doesn’t account for the pre-Hispanic history of pure Catholic devotion to the democrat party, and it is a moot point anyway, as whites have been leaving the Catholic denomination and millions of Hispanic Catholics moving in because of democrat immigration laws passed in the 1960s.
The Catholic vote is the Catholic vote, it is useless to try to hide it by pointing out that the dwindling white Catholics have started seeing the light in recent years, and are voting republican in larger numbers.
That nonsense applies to all denominations.
This is about voter data, not whether voters are rigidly devoted and pure to whatever church they are members of.
The Catholic category is much more rigid and exclusive than the Protestant category, “Catholic” means members of that single denomination, of that single teaching, single culture, of people actually baptized into that church, and who still consider themselves as members of that church, which they are.
To be counted as “Protestant” they merely have to identify as Christian and not Catholic. They don’t have have ever to belonged to any church, or even be baptized, or they can belong to any range of churches or denominations, Black, Episcopalian, homosexual, Obama’s church, Southern Baptist, Lutherans, or whatever.
yes, white catholics in the suburbs and small towns ... who are at SUN/SAT Mass: they vote overwhelmingly GOP. Even in the Northeast.
But the number who do not show up to vote is close to 40%. You did not know there were so many non-voters? Almost 25% are not even registered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.