The Pope, the President, and the Changing Catholic Voter

George W. Bush was the first sitting president to attend a papal funeral. Such symbolism speaks volumes about the evolution in Catholic America's voting habits during the past quarter-century and about Pope John Paul II's role in that conversion.

Catholic voters were historically one of the most reliable Democratic voting blocs. However, Pope John Paul II played a significant role in converting many conservative Catholics into reliable Republican voters. This sea change demonstrated that the contemporary Catholic vote is now the most important swing vote in American politics. Catholics are the bellwether voters: as go Catholics, so goes the nation.

Throughout the 2004 campaign, Bush strategist Karl Rove maintained that, if Bush won the Catholic vote, he would be reelected. Rove was right. Last year, Catholic turnout was up six percent, disproportionately distributed in states such as Ohio and Florida. Bush, a Methodist, impressively won most of the Catholic vote against John Kerry, only the third Catholic to win a major party's presidential nomination.

However, the American population is trending toward less religious observance, not more, and liberals attend church far less frequently than conservatives. Given this reality, how did the Republican campaign successfully bring the pope into electoral play?

As president, Bush adroitly employed networking, symbolism, and substance to maximum effect. Bush regularly networks with a conservative Catholic advisory group and well-funded conservative Catholic PACs supported his campaign. Symbolically, Bush gave the 2001 commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame. As president, Bush never ceased to court the pope, meeting with him several times, liberally quoting his words, and awarding him the Medal of Freedom.

Substantively, Bush emphasized the socially conservative positions on which Pope John Paul II and he agreed, going so far as to borrow the pope's "culture of life" sound bite to refer broadly to positions on abortion, euthanasia, and marriage. Bush astutely chose to ignore serious cleavages over economics, foreign policy, and the death penalty.

In June 2004, Bush dashed off to the Vatican to meet John Paul II to exhort the pope to encourage American bishops to criticize Kerry's stance on various Catholic-sensitive social issues. At that meeting, the pope told Bush, "I follow with great appreciation your commitment to the promotion of moral values in American society, particularly with regard to respect for life and family."

The Bush campaign subsequently placed the pope's picture on its campaign website under the headline "Catholics for Bush." The RNC website contained entire sections tailored to conservative Catholic voters. Conservative Catholic leaders were emboldened by the pope's lead on social issues and, in turn, they encouraged traditionalist Catholics to support Bush and fellow socially conservative Republicans.

Yet, the pivotal Catholic voter is not becoming a more socially conservative voter. Traditional Catholics are not gaining in numbers, but they are the most receptive to papal (and presidential) influence. Bush's lead among religiously active Catholics grew from nine points in 2000 to 13 points in 2004. The secret to conservative Catholics' electoral influence is that, in addition to being disproportionately located in the electorally critical areas, they have become far more politically active on their high-priority issues.

The president and the pope's mutual emphasis upon social issues emboldened these Catholics to abandon voting habits based upon traditional bread-and-butter issues and, instead, to base voting more upon social concerns. Consequently, traditionalists increasingly perceive moral conservatism to be the political instrument of their faith.

In addition to responding to both papal and presidential political marketing campaigns, Catholics are drifting Republican for sociological reasons. Catholics become more Republican as they become better educated, wealthier, and more suburban. Interestingly, the Republicans have experienced the steadiest Catholic vote gains among younger Americans, particularly males, who are most attracted to the Republican rhetoric espousing fiscal conservatism.

John Paul II's political influence extended beyond Catholic America. Therefore, the forthcoming selection of a new pope will reverberate throughout American politics on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, gay rights, the faith-based initiative, judicial nominations, and stem cell research.

Ominously, perhaps, for the Republicans, the electoral deal between Catholic America and the Republican Party is only partially sealed. A new pope could potentially unravel this socially conservative coalition. Some conservative Republicans await the white smoke above the Vatican, signifying the successful conclusion of the papal conclave, with equal trepidation to many liberal Catholics.

A more theologically liberal pontiff -- or one as conservative but less politically interventionist, or simply less charismatic than John Paul II -- may provide an opportunity for the Democrats to regain some lost ground. Conversely, White House Republicans pray nightly for a conservative Latin American pope, to encourage further Hispanic conversions, or at least a reliably conservative choice.

One is struck by the contrast between Pope John Paul II's influences in different parts of the world. He clearly helped to advance the cause of political and economic liberty in Eastern Europe. However, his political contribution within the American context advanced those who advocate a greater role for the state in shepherding individuals all the way through their private lives.

Catholic America's enormous political impact demonstrates both the strength of modern American pluralism and traditionalism's continuing resonance among an important segment of the electorate, a traditionalism that Pope John Paul II both visibly embodied and assiduously nurtured.

I knew there was some reason why I thought that McCarrick was squishy. Now I remember why:

Washington’s Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who heads a committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) charged with studying the problem, has said that he doesn’t think the Eucharist should be used as a sanction against prochoice politicians.

McCarrick tempered letter on pro-choice politicians
By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 7, 2004

Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick downplayed a letter to the U.S. Catholic bishops from the Vatican's chief doctrinal watchdog on whether priests should refuse Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent his letter in early June to Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in the context of dealing with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic whose positions on several issues, including abortion, contradict church teachings.
But its full text, which was published Saturday in the Italian newspaper L'Expresso, contains much stronger language than Cardinal McCarrick used last month at a meeting of the country's Catholic bishops near Denver.
Cardinal McCarrick's nuanced speech during the meeting from June 14 to 19 paraphrased the Ratzinger letter to say that the Vatican had left the issue of Communion in the hands of the U.S. bishops.
As the chairman of a task force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, it was his job to convey what Vatican officials had told him during meetings in Rome.
"I would emphasize that Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders WHETHER to pursue this path" of denying Communion, Cardinal McCarrick told the bishops in his speech, the text of which is posted at the U.S. bishops' Web site, on www.usccb.org.
"The question for us is not simply whether denial of Communion is possible, but whether it is pastorally wise and prudent," the cardinal said.
As a result, bishops voted 183-6 on a compromise statement allowing each bishop to decide whether to give Communion to pro-choice politicians.
Before the meeting, 15 bishops had released statements suggesting that pro-choice politicians refrain from taking the Eucharist, and four bishops forbade such politicians from doing so.
However, the Ratzinger letter says that denial of Communion is obligatory "regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia."
Cardinal Ratzinger also says a priest should warn "the person in question" of the consequences, including the denial of Communion.
If "the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it," Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.
The letter's last paragraph also takes on Catholics who vote for candidates because of their pro-choice stance.
"If he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," that Catholic too "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion," it reads.
That statement supports Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan, who on May 1 sent out a letter to his diocese saying Catholics who vote for candidates who support abortion, stem-cell research or euthanasia also should not take Communion.
But Catholics who vote for that politician on other grounds should not be penalized, the Ratzinger letter adds.
"Ratzinger's letter was stronger and firmer than we were led to believe," said Michael Novak, a Catholic theologian and author of many books on the church, who is in Italy this week. "It's pretty dynamite stuff."
Before leaving for Italy, he had heard of "dissatisfaction" in Rome over how Cardinal McCarrick was representing the church's teachings.
"I had heard Rome was much tougher than Cardinal McCarrick was letting on," he said. "Some people in the Vatican were upset that McCarrick was putting on too kind a face on it."
Cardinal McCarrick was out of town yesterday, but a spokeswoman released a statement saying he had not read L'Expresso reporter Sandro Magister's report on the letter.
"From what I have heard, it may represent an incomplete and partial leak of a private communication from Cardinal Ratzinger, and it may not accurately reflect the full message I received," the cardinal said.
"Our task force's dialogue with the Holy See on these matters has been extensive, in person, by phone and in writing. I should note I was specifically requested by the cardinal not to publish his written materials, and I will honor that request."
Raymond Flynn, the ambassador to the Vatican from 1993 to 1997, said American prelates often downplay the Vatican's instructions.
"The American church has been reluctant to speak out forcefully on a lot of these issues, whereas Pope John Paul II has instructed the Catholic Church to be more assertive," said Mr. Flynn, a conservative Democrat and former mayor of Boston.
"A lot of these American bishops aren't willing to get involved because of the backlash, because it's not politically correct, and the criticism they will receive from the liberal media," he said.

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.