Posted on 11/06/2008 6:36:40 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Yesterday, according to the exit polls, between 53 and 54% of American Catholic voters cast their ballots for Barack Obama, despite the Democratic candidate's enthusiastic support for unrestricted legal abortion.
Nationwide, Protestant voters supported John McCain, by a solid 54- 45% margin. But the Catholic vote broke for Obama. Why?
Earlier this week the US Conference of Catholic Bishops released a helpful listing of the 50 American states, with the proportion of population in each state. In 7 states, Catholics make up more than 30% of the population. Obama captured all 7 of those states on Election Day. In 8 states, Catholics account for less than 5% of the population. Seven of those states swung for McCain, and the 8th, North Carolina, is still listed as "too close to call" as I write this analysis.
To be sure, America's Catholic population is heavily concentrated in states that have a liberal political tilt. But is that a coincidence? Are those states hotbeds of liberalism despite the heavy Catholic presence, or because of it?
Yes, Catholics have traditionally leaned toward the Democratic Party for historical reasons. But why have Catholic voters remained doggedly loyal to a party that has come, in the early 21st century, to be wholly allied with the "culture of death" on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem-cell research?
The support that Obama won among Catholic voters is noteworthy because in the last presidential contest, in 2004, President Bush won 52% of the Catholic vote while his opponent John Kerry-- himself a Catholic!-- managed only 46%. Catholic support for the Democratic candidate rose markedly in this campaign, even though the Democratic contender was the most militantly pro-abortion candidate ever to win a major party's presidential nomination.
This trend is all the more remarkable because over the course of the past several weeks, dozens of American bishops issued strong public statements reminding their people of their moral obligation to vote in defense of human life. Those statements varied in candor and in quality, but their overall impact was remarkable. The 2008 campaign produced a seismic change in the attitude of the American hierarchy; the bishops as a group were far more outspoken, far more explicit, than in any previous election.
And still most Catholics voted for Obama. Again: why?
Before answering that question, let me cite one more vitally important piece of polling information: Among Catholic voters who attend Mass weekly, McCain won majority support: 54- 45%. Among those who do not attend weekly Mass, the margin for Obama was an overwhelming 61- 37%. Thus Obama drew his support from inactive Catholics. And unfortunately, most American Catholics are inactive.
In an interview recorded just before Election Day, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver explained that he had decided to take a prominent public stand on the obligations of Catholic voters because the "quieter approach to these things has not been effective." How right he was! He and many other prelates deserve the gratitude of loyal Catholics for their willingness to take a more energetic approach. This year, at last, the American bishops were clear and forthright in their teaching. Yet on Election Day it became evident that millions of American Catholics weren't listening.
Should we be surprised if Catholics ignore directives from the hierarchy? Should we be surprised that Catholics who do not attend Mass regularly-- thereby violating a precept of the Church-- ignore Church teachings on other issues as well? No, this result was predictable.
An entire generation of American Catholics has grown accustomed to dissent from Church teaching, and grown accustomed to seeing their bishops tolerate that dissent. In the 35 years since Roe v. Wade, Catholics have watched their Church leaders handle pro-abortion Catholic politicians with kid gloves, treating their moral treason as a minor annoyance rather than a public scandal. Yes, the bishops routinely denounced abortion; but at the same time they treated the public supporters of taxpayer-funded abortion with jovial deference. Puzzled lay Catholics concluded that the bishops didn't really take the issue too seriously, and the laity in turn stopped taking their bishops seriously. A few dozen statements from brave orthodox bishops in the autumn of 2008-- however clear, however compelling-- were not enough to undo a generation of damage.
Abortion is not an isolated issue. Lackadaisical American Catholics are not ignoring Church leadering on this issue alone, but on the entire range of Catholic teaching. Most Catholics skip Sunday Mass regularly. Most Catholics rarely if ever go to Confession. Most Catholics use contraceptives. Most Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence. Most Catholics no longer accept Church authority on any issue. Why should we be surprised, then, if on Election Day most Catholics ignore Church teachings on their moral obligation to vote in defense of human life?
For most of my life I have lived in Massachusetts, a state whose political culture was once thoroughly dominated by active Catholics. In my book The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture I explain how that Catholic culture deteriorated, as the faithful drifted away from the Church, until today the political scene in Massachusetts is dominated not by Catholics but by ex-Catholics, thoroughly hostile to the teachings of the Church.
Are Catholics in other states following the same trend? Will the next presidential election see even strong support for the "culture of death" among voters who identify themselves-- inaccurately-- as believing Catholics? Regrettably, I see the same forces that corrupted Catholicism in my native state now active all across the nation.
To repair the damage, we must recognize that the problem is not restricted to abortion, nor to defense-of-life issues. Indeed it is not, strictly speaking, a political problem. To restore the integrity of the Catholic vote, we must first restore the integrity of the Catholic faith, and rebuild the foundations of a Catholic culture.
That will be my goal-- my crusade-- in coming years. I hope and pray you'll join me.
Assuming that God did not manufacture the universe to only LOOK 14 billion years old is not the same as excluding the miraculous in all areas covered by the Bible.
Let me get this straight. If we believe that the laws of nature and physics have remained the same since the time of creation, we are being "inconsistent"?
Miracles are miracles exactly because they are incidents where the Divine suspends normal physical laws.
I see no Biblical reason to assume that time and space behaved differently thousands of years ago. That would seem to make scientific revelation a game of "gotcha."
God made the world and saw that it was good. I don't think he hid fossils of dinosaurs and changed the way carbon behaves just so He could damn people who looked to His Creation for clues about Him.
You evidently didn't read my last post.
The universe only "looks" fourteen billion years old if you choose to assume uniformitarianism. I suppose you're one of those people who insists that G-d could not have created Adam as an adult without "lying" (because such an Adam would have had "the appearance of age")?
As I said, since you assume uniformitarianism with regard to physical processes, you have no excuse to abandon it when it comes to the new testament.
Miracles are miracles exactly because they are incidents where the Divine suspends normal physical laws.
I see no Biblical reason to assume that time and space behaved differently thousands of years ago. That would seem to make scientific revelation a game of "gotcha."
Of course you don't, because you regard the Torah as primitive mythology adapted from the Babylonians. You therefore don't seem capable of understanding a very simple principal--that the universe didn't start to operate until it was completed. Thus plants before sun and moon, a human gestation period of only a few minutes, etc. And even then there were three periods of deterioration (the sin, the Flood, and the Dispersion). But you are one of those people who says that consistency means that the only alternative to absolute uniformitarianism would be a gigantic Paul Klee painting, aren't you? "If what you say is true, then how do I know my cat won't breathe fire on me?" Is that how it goes?
God made the world and saw that it was good. I don't think he hid fossils of dinosaurs and changed the way carbon behaves just so He could damn people who looked to His Creation for clues about Him.
Let's get this straight . . . "damnation" is part of your religion, not mine. I guess that makes you the "redneck" on that issue.
It’s very simple really. Either you believe God reveals Himself through study of his Creation or you don’t.
I don’t ascribe to the notion that God created the universe in order to deceive us when we study it.
Since you seem to believe direct Divine revelation is intended to contradict what our senses tell us, could you be kind enough to tell us exactly where in Scripture you find this?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
I am Catholic, I vote PROLIFE. I can’t for the life of me figure out how the person sitting in front, behind or beside me can vote democrat. It saddens me beyond belief.
“They belatedly realized that their sinful complicity with liberal politicians will probably lead to enactment of the so-called Freedom of Choice Act and thence to the complete destruction of Catholic Charities and Catholic hospitals as well. But they woke up too late to affect the election, and FAR too late to make up for their neglect of their duties over the last 30 years or so.”
Yes, but will they be able to admit to themselves that this is the reason, or will they blame the parishioners for ignoring their 11th hour call to orthodoxy?
I was so proud of them for speaking out so strongly. I hope they will not cease. The flock needs teaching and guidance and leadership, not platitudes. We need real homilies full of the real truth, not feel good calls to kumbaya.
Thank you for posting this! I have been desolate over the Catholic vote for Obama. My Catholic friends and family have shocked me to the core by voting for him. At least I now know that roughly half of those sitting in Mass with me did not vote for him.
At least that’s something.
It is interesting that their self-interests also including fooling themselves into thinking they are doing a favor for the poor by electing Democrats. None of the Democrats' programs for the poor have worked so far: New Deal, Great Society, public housing, etc. They have only succeeded in destroying the family. My observation is that some well-off "Christians" are so self-identified with imagining that they care about "the little guy", that they feel justified in blatantly ignoring the littlest guys (the pre-born). This election cycle has inspired us to leave our old "peace & justice" parish and drive an extra 1/2 hour to go to a strongly pro-life parish. After visiting and hearing a homily where the priest stated in no uncertain terms that you were complicit in evil if you vote for a pro-abortion candidate and seeing that every Mass was concluded with a pro-life prayer, I knew that we had to migrate to where the priests and people were not afraid to stand up for God's truth.
This was nor a criticism of you—read again—sorry it was unclear. It was a criticism of people who assume, without thinking, that a Dem is for the poor, etc.
I'll leave that for them to discuss. My intent all along was to address these two points:
1) That Adam and Eve were real people, really created by God as people, living at a real time, committed a real act of disobedience to God, and we are ALL descended from him. This is a matter of defined doctrine in the Catholic Faith. Denial of it is heresy.
2) The Church allows some 'flexibility' in understanding Genesis. This flexibility most definitely includes absolute literalism.
If I have successfully communicated these two related points, then I have accomplished what I set out to do.
Thank you for your words.
I am surprised, and very disappointed, that amongst 'active' Catholics only 54% voted for McCain. A slight of, and lack of faith in, the senator? For Gov Palin embodies Catholic tenets much more so then many actual members of this Church.
See my above post for the solution.
Hi,
It was poor wording on my part—not a personal attack. I had agreed with the poster and wanted to extend the comments. Sorry for the confusion but the last thing I would have done is make a personal attack on the message poster.
Doesn’t surprise me. Lots of folks call themselves Christian, Protestant and Catholic alike. few actually know Christ. Its like being in a club anymore.
As the mob cornered him, they demanded to know, "Are you Protestant or Catholic?"
Relieved, the trapped man laughed and said, "I'm an athiest".
"OK, fine", said the mob leader. "But are you a Protestant athiest or a Catholic athiest?"
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.