Has Obama Lost the Catholic Left?

The Cardinal Newman Society | 01/22/12 | CNS Staff

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Has Obama Lost the Catholic Left?

Lyndon B. Johnson, after watching Walter Cronkite conclude a special broadcast which was heavily critical of the Tet offensive, said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”

Well, this story isn’t exactly on the same level as that, but President Barack Obama may be losing the Catholic Left, with obvious implications for entrenched faculty on many Catholic college campuses. Michael Sean Winters, a lead writer for the National Catholic Reporter and vocal defender of the University of Notre Dame’s 2009 commencement honors for President Obama, wrote yesterday that he can’t see how he could ever support President Obama again after the administration’s ruling on religious exemptions for the contraceptive mandate.

Winters wrote:

President Barack Obama lost my vote yesterday when he declined to expand the exceedingly narrow conscience exemptions proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The issue of conscience protections is so foundational, I do not see how I ever could, in good conscience, vote for this man again.

One must wonder if President Obama might just be saying that if he’s lost the National Catholic Reporter, he’s lost the liberal Catholic vote. As you might remember, Obama won over the majority of Catholics in 2008, albeit mostly wayward Catholics.

Winters makes it clear he does not come at this issue as “an anti-contraception zealot.” In fact, he says plainly he comes at his decision “as a liberal and a Democrat” who defended the University of Notre Dame’s decision to honor the President.

That’s what makes this criticism sting a little more.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of dishonoring your own vision by this shameful decision.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to live out the respect for diversity that you so properly and beautifully proclaimed as a cardinal virtue at Notre Dame. Or, are we to believe that diversity is only to be lauded when it advances the interests of those with whom we agree? That’s not diversity. That’s misuse of a noble principle for ignoble ends.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of betraying philosophic liberalism, which began, lest we forget, as a defense of the rights of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be honest and admit that, three hundred years ago, the defense of conscience was not high on the agenda of Holy Mother Church. But, we Catholics learned to embrace the idea that the coercion of conscience is a violation of human dignity. This is a lesson, Mr. President, that you and too many of your fellow liberals have apparently unlearned.

I accuse you, Mr. President, who argued that your experience as a constitutional scholar commended you for the high office you hold, of ignoring the Constitution.

Besides thinking Obama is constitutionally and morally wrong on this issue, Winters also complains that this action by Obama is just plain ol’ politically stupid and could imperil his presidency and destroy the progressive movement.

Winters seems to think Obama took this action to appease Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Winters wonders if Obama could have actually thought that these folks were going to vote Republican unless he did this? In short, Winters seems to believe that Obama took this action to gain the votes of those who were already voting for him.

Winters seems to feel spurned by Obama as well, saying:

I accuse you, Mr. President, of treating shamefully those Catholics who went out on a limb to support you. Do tell, Mr. President, how many bullets have the people at Planned Parenthood taken for you? Sr. Carol Keehan, Father Larry Snyder, Father John Jenkins, these people have scars to show for their willingness to work with you, to support you on your tough political fights. Is this the way you treat people who went to the mat for you?

Winters makes it clear he won’t be joining the GOP anytime soon but says he won’t be supporting President Obama either.

…as soon as I learned of this decision, I knew instantly that I also could not, in good conscience, ever vote for Mr. Obama again. I once had great faith in Mr. Obama’s judgment and leadership. I do not retract a single word I have written supporting him on issues like health care reform, or bringing the troops home from Iraq, or taking aggressive steps to halt the recession and turn the economy around. I will continue to advocate for those policies. But, I can never convince myself that a person capable of making such a dreadful decision is worthy of my respect or my vote.

We wonder, what does Notre Dame’s Father Jenkins think of all of this?

[Mad Dawg]

I'm wondering if there isn't possibly a legitimate distinction between what you might call "cultural Catholics" and "committed Catholics." Pelosi would be an extreme example of a cultural Catholic.

...and the fact that we are importing Catholics by the tens of millions ...

If this refers to Hispanics, and I don't mean this contentiously, do we have numbers on how many of them are Catholic these days? I'm thinking that one reads of rises among Hispanics of the Jehovah's Witnesses and of some Pentecostal churches.

...the Catholic vote,...

And therefore I also wonder if this phrase is much more meaningful than, say, "the blond vote." That is, I suspect a lot of "cultural Catholics" are also "cultural Democrats." They've never really examined either their faith or their party affiliation.

[no dems]

Michael Sean Winters, a lead writer for the National Catholic Reporter.....wrote yesterday that he can’t see how he could ever support President Obama again
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Again???? Support President Obama “again”???? How the hell could you ever support him in the first place, Bucko? Damn!!! Stupid people get on my friggin’ nerves.

[no dems]

....having a Catholic running against him increases the odds of the Republicans winning the Catholic vote.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Been thinking the same thing. Newt is a Catholic convert and is not ashamed of his faith. That might help us in the General Election, with the Catholic vote. I’m thinking that Marco Rubio is Catholic also. Does anyone know?

[no dems]

How could a good catholic vote for that immoral creep?
____________________________________________________________

How can Black Baptists go to church on Sunday and sing, clap, shout and dance and then go to the polls on Tuesday and vote for a man and a Party that espouses same-sex marriage and killing little babies?

[afraidfortherepublic]

We don’t care if the leftist Catholics join the GOP, they can just stay home on election day. That’s good enough.

[kearnyirish2]

“He never had them. The “Catholic Left” are Hillary’s people - especially the women.”

Once he was the candidate, he had their votes; these are the same “Catholics” that want MLK canonized, despite the basic requirement that he wasn’t Catholic.

[darrellmaurina]

64 posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 5:33:45 AM by no dems: “How can Black Baptists go to church on Sunday and sing, clap, shout and dance and then go to the polls on Tuesday and vote for a man and a Party that espouses same-sex marriage and killing little babies?”

I see two main underlying reasons based on history, coupled with a third issue of lack of current leadership:

1) White evangelicals, to our sad disgrace, in the main failed to support the civil rights movement. There were important exceptions — Billy Graham was blasted early on by too many conservative Christians for taking positions for which he was much later praised — but we're reaping the seeds today of our fathers sitting on the sidelines. Yes, there were left-wing and even Communist elements in the civil rights movement, but the silence of white evangelicals caused too many black Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s to desert the party that freed the slaves because they decided the Democrats were actually doing something to help them while Republicans sat on our hands and mostly did nothing.

2) Not only did many white evangelicals of two generations ago remain silent and do nothing, Nixon's “Southern Strategy” brought some of the worst and most bigoted segments of the old Democratic Party into the Republican Party. I'm not necessarily attacking Nixon on his goals, but his plans had some dangerous consequences that I'm not sure were unintended, and at the very least were predictable “collateral damage” that he showed little interest in stopping or even mitigating. This is less of a problem in conservative Christian circles where most Bible-believing Christians knew in their hearts even in the 1950s and 1960s that black skin is not the mark of God's curse, despite some extreme rhetoric, but it can be a real problem in secular conservative circles where bigoted anti-black attitudes have not yet died.

3) We simply do not have many examples of black Republican leaders, and it's hard for the average black person to join a party when he's virtually the only non-white face at most events he attends. Yes, we have Condoleeza Rice, Allen West, Herman Cain and a few others, but they're too often the exceptions which prove the rule. Apparently, this year was not the year for the rise of someone like Herman Cain, but perhaps he'll have an important role in a Republican cabinet beginning in 2013, and perhaps West will continue to rise in importance as a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

There are three significant segments of black voters — members of biblically faithfulful black churches, black military NCOs and officers, and the black middle class — which should be Republicans but are not. As white evangelical churches develop better ties with black evangelicals, as bad memories of past racism die out, and as black Republican leaders emerge, I hope we'll see more blacks vote for their logical self-interest and not vote Democrat against their own interests.

[no dems]

Well, you make some very valid points, and I thank you for your input. HOWEVER....

I grew up in the Segregated South. I never went to school with a Black person until I was in College. And, down here in Texas, ALL THE POLITICIANS in the 50’s ad 60’s were DEMOCRAT SEGREGATIONISTS. It was a Republican President (Eisenhower) who sent troops to Little Rock, AR. DEMOCRAT SEGREATIONISTS ruled the South until the Conservative Revolution, led by Ronald Reagan, in 1980. And, Blacks were voting Democrat all along; especially after JFK and LBJ. Why? ENTITLEMENTS / GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS!!! The same way that the DemocRAT Party keeps them in the fold today.

[no dems]

One more point to add to my post #68: In the ‘50s and ‘60s, not many Blacks voted at all because the Democrat Segregationists, who ruled the South, imposed a Poll Tax; specifically to keep the Blacks from voting. After the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1964, more Blacks began voting and we smitten by LBJ’s Great Society and they’ve voted straight Democrat ever since.

You could have a video of Obama in bed with a dead girl or a live boy and 95 percent of the Blacks would still vote for him.

[stevie_d_64]

I can’t see how he could have had thm in the first place, then to “lose” them???

I see this issue, to be one of many, that is masking the overall problem with this guy...

[FormerLib]

It would be a good thing for the Roman Catholic Church to lose the “Catholic Left.”

[bmwcyle]

The Catholic left is as valid and gay marriage. Both of them do not exist.

[Cronos]

By all means they align with Republican values. The only things keeping them away was the supposed “care” offered by the Dims and the supposed “anti-” image of the GOP. The latter has been smashed and the former has been shown for a farce. Just like in Canada, their vote is now on the GOP’s side and will be that way for a while. Thanks to Obambi!

[Cronos]

we’d love to, but how do you suggest we do it? excommunicate them? If they commit an abortion they are automatically excommunicated, but if they support it politically, do you say we should excommunicate them? how about if they support contraception?

[paterfamilias]

The Roman Catholic Church would be better off if she lost the “Catholic Left.”

[darrellmaurina]

I think we agree, NoDems, that the South was once divided between two different wings of the Democratic Party, one which was inclined toward Northern progressive liberalism and one which, while socially and politically conservative, was often populist and quite willing to listen to appeals for social programs to benefit poor people along with tax-the-rich agendas.

Republicans were basically irrelevant in most of the South until Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and others like them switched parties, and LBJ's populism was successful in getting lots of blacks to switch parties to become Democrats just at the time they were gaining the right to vote. Remember that Condoleeza Rice's father was a Republican in part because the Democrats refused to accept his voter registration. I don't know whether Rev. Rice was required to pass a literacy test or pay a poll tax, but as a pastor, others like him would have been some of the few highly educated people in the black community able to pay a poll tax and pass a literacy test.

Of course, much has changed since those days, and much of it for the better. When even Bob Jones University is changing its rules on interracial dating, we can have some hope for an end to unbiblical discrimination in conservative circles. I just wish we Republicans had been more successful in winning the votes of Southern conservative whites without losing the black vote — but maybe, given the environment of the 1960s, that simply wasn’t possible.

[FormerLib]

I believe it would be a good thing if Church spokesman always responded to questions about these folks or their statements by pointing out that their own declarations indicate that they are no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church and that calling them by titles such as “Catholics for Choice” is factually incorrect.

It would steal their thunder.

[Cronos]

I agree. they’d then have the lib Media crucifying them

[ansel12]

I don’t know what an indulgence is, but I doubt it, unless it is something that Catholics sometimes post, and I read one on a thread somewhere.

[ansel12]

I don’t think the Pope is going to kick out the majority of Catholics, the Catholic vote is actually better than it was historically, 1972 may be the first time the Catholic vote ever went Republican, although it may have done so in 1956 (it is disputed).