Posted on 04/26/2005 4:05:22 PM PDT by Diago
Early results: The Ratzinger papacy is a boon, and potentially a big one, to Republicans.
This is not to say, of course, that Benedict XVI will act as Vatican precinct chair for the GOP. While the new pope is a highly-educated man, there's no reason to believe that he has the least interest in, or understanding of, the nuances of American party politics. And by all accounts, he's not a poll-driven guy.
That said, there's a case to be made that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had more to do with electing George W. Bush to a second term than any number of party activists and operatives who worked full-time on the task.
It started with CDFs November 2002 "doctrinal note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life." That 4,000 word document reaffirmed "the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good." But, in reference to abortion, it declared that Catholic legislators "have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them."
In late 2003, citing the doctrinal note, La Crosse, Wis., Bishop Raymond Burke issued a directive prohibiting any pro-choice legislator from taking Communion in the diocese. That edict would have drawn some attention, no doubt, but it became major news when Burke was transferred to St. Louis, a large archdiocese. As it happens, Burke's installation coincided with the Missouri Democratic primary, where pro-choice Catholic Senator John Kerry, fresh off his victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, was the frontrunner. Burke told reporters that if Kerry presented himself for Communion, he would refuse him the sacrament.
Over the course of the campaign a relatively small (but vocal and media-savvy) number of American bishops declared that they too would deny Kerry Communion because of his pro-choice views, while others urged him (and other Catholic politicians with similar views), to refrain from the Communion line. Colorado Springs, Colo., Bishop Michael Sheridan went so far as to say that anyone who voted for Kerry risked eternal damnation.
It was the perfect ecclesial-political storm.
Which is where Ratzinger entered the picture. The American bishops, prior to their June 2004 closed-door meeting, sought his guidance. The result of which was more confusion, not clarity. The point man for the bishops' communication was Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, chair of the bishops' task force on "Catholics in Political Life." (McCarrick said he would not deny Communion to pro-choice politicians and warned against "politicizing" the Eucharist.)
McCarrick and Ratzinger apparently had a number of conversations prior to the bishops' June meeting. At that meeting, encouraged by McCarrick, the bishops decided to leave the decision over whether to withhold Communion to the local bishop of each diocese. A happy compromise?
Not really. Following the meeting, a memo from Ratzinger to McCarrick, a document that had not been shared with the other bishops, was leaked. The memo said that pastors who have politicians who favor abortion rights or euthanasia within their congregations should meet with them. At which point, said Ratzinger, the pastor should inform the politician that "he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and [warn] him that he will otherwise be denied Communion."
Further, said Ratzinger, when such warnings go unheeded, "and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, 'the minister of Holy Eucharist must refuse to distribute it.' " He referenced previous church statements related to the denial of communion to divorced Catholics who remarry outside the church.
McCarrick stood accused of misleading his brother bishops -- of misrepresenting Ratzinger's views to the body of bishops. He denied the charge and quickly sought and received clarification from Ratzinger. "The statement [of the American bishops released at their June meeting] is very much in harmony with the general principles [of] 'Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,' sent as a fraternal service -- to clarify the doctrine of the church on this specific issue -- in order to assist the American bishops in their related discussion and determinations," wrote Ratzinger.
The Ratzinger intervention and the bishops' statement did little, ultimately, to quell the hierarchical attacks on Kerry, which had a real impact on the race. As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg noted recently in a memo designed in-part as guidance to pro-choice Catholic politicians: "Conflict with the bishops on abortion or on Communion is not particularly helpful."
In the general election, Bush and Kerry essentially split the Catholic vote. But in heavily Catholic Ohio -- the state that decided the contest -- Bush carried 53 percent of the Catholic vote to Kerry's 46 percent.
The Ratzinger effect? Parochially speaking, there's no doubt about it.
The e-mail address for Joe Feuerherd is jfeuerherd@natcath.org
Decentia fragilis est. Curatoribus validis indiget.
You are incorrect, Bush gained five points among Ohio Catholics from 2000 and won the Catholic vote decisively. Most striking is how he did among weekly massgoers there.
Here's some information from the Ohio 2004 exit poll upon which to ground your opinion:
VOTE BY RELIGION BUSH KERRY
Protestant (57%) 56% 44%
Catholic (26%) 55% 44%
Jewish (1%) * n/a *
Other (6%) 26% 72%
None (10%) 29% 69%
VOTE BY RELIGION AND ATTENDANCE BUSH KERRY
Protestant/Weekly (16%) 69% 31%
Prot./Less Often (16%) 48% 52%
Catholic/Weekly (11%) 65% 35%
Catholic/Less Often (13%) 47% 52%
All Others (38%) 43% 56%
Source: CNN.COM
From the Toldeo Blade column I mention above:
Mr. D'Antonio said after he agreed to head Catholics for Kerry, he was frustrated by the Massachusetts senator's reluctance to woo the Catholic vote.He said, for example, that he made arrangements for Bishop Anthony M. Pilla of the Cleveland Catholic Archdiocese and the Rev. Edward Glynn, president of John Carroll University, a Jesuit college in Cleveland, to appear at a rally for Mr. Kerry in the pivotal state of Ohio, but the senator passed.
This is utter nonsense, from a liberal Catholic rag.
When requested for an opinion, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter laying out Catholic doctrine as it has always been taught. He sent it to the Archbishop of Washington, DC, who headed the committee. But the Archbishop kept Ratzinger's letter secret from the committee and LIED ABOUT IT to them. As a result, the committee recommended a watered down policy that did little or no damage to Kerry.
Only a few informed Catholics knew about Ratzinger's letter and even fewer what it actually said. It had no real effect on the election. The media brushed the whole thing under the rug.
What did hurt kerry was that he kept insisting that he was a loyal Catholic but also kept insisting that he was pro-abortion. He also ran a photo campaign of himself receiving Holy Communion from dissident priests. Rather than helping him, I think the whole business hurt him. He just wouldn't shut up about it.
Thanks for the numbers. It is also interesting that the Democrats seem to openly admit that it was midwestern white Catholics that made the difference. Somewhere around here there is a Carville memo with lots of interesting stuff.
What are your thoughts on post #10. The post-election memo from the Diocese in Cleveland, including in pertinent part:
1. Divisions exist within our Church that are deep and that jeopardize our ability to build community at the parish level and to be communities of salt and light to the larger society. (There is a great deal of alienation that needs to be addressed).
2. A creeping fundamentalism within the church provides space for some to demonize others (i.e. the notion that you can’t be a good Catholic and vote for John Kerry).
3. Outside organizations with significant resources are extremely well organized and energized. They are well situated to serve partisan purposes. They can and will exploit the divisions within the Church.
4. The independent statements of a few bishops has had a negative impact on the unity and teaching authority of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
It is rather depressing to think that the person who wrote that Cleveland drivel draws a salary from the church.
And when the diocese closes ten or so schools every year due to lack of funds, it makes me want to vomit.
I am not sure where your five point swing came from, but in any event that would not be quite enough to swing Ohio. But it is very close to effecting the swing. Without the swing you posit, we would have had a Florida redux.
Just out of curiosity, was Senator Kerry married in the Catholic Church for either of his two marriages? Was his first marriage annulled by the Catholic Church?
I think the first marriage was. Annulments are a dime a dozen or so it seems.
Take a look at the source, it says what the swing was for each category from 2000.
Unfortunately, they didn't ask the question about weekly mass Catholics in 2000, so we don't know what that swing was.
They had all those children and it wasn't a valid marriage?
Can your average Catholic get away with that or is this an example of political pull?
How appalling.
C. Injecting the Church into politics makes it harder for it to minister to all people and therefore does damage it.
Not standing for anything makes it harder for the church to minister to all people. Following the example of the Episcopalians, where many of their priests don't believe in the Godhood of Jesus Christ. would be church suicide.
There have been plenty of instances where the American Catholic Church (National Council of Bishops) has intruded itself into politics, remember the declaration against Nuclear Weapons? I read my Bible over and over and didn't find anything about that issue. The liberals liked it then, those courageous bishops standing up to Reagan (and for murderous communism!).
The Church has plenty to worry about regarding minstering to all people but will be more successful when it doesn't let Catholics in-name-only act as if they can be stand-in Popes.
To the rest, check out the survey that The Old Hoosier linked and keep the website among those which you access regularly. If Stanley Greenberg says that the white Catholic vote went to Dubya by 14% in 2004, then you may take to the bank that Dubya took the white Catholic vote by 14%. Since the advantages driving the result were on abortion, national security and military, we know where to go with this. There was also an observable and intolerable softness on "tolerating" lavenderism. Two areas for improvement: demonize lavenderism and press for the Hispanic vote on military and social issues generally which requires talking to Hispanics and working for their votes like America's future depends upon our success with them (as it does).
There have been scandals over the Church annulments of the rich and sleazy but those scandals have nothing whatsoever to do with legitimacy of offspring. The bigger scandal is that 2/3 of all of the Roman Catholic Church's marriage annulments in the entire world occur in the United States each year. The US Catholics constitute a mere 6% of the world's Catholics but obtain 66 2/3% of the annulments. That is the real scandal, available to rich and poor alike. The US Catholic Church has richly deserved the disraceful title of AmChurch.
May Benedict XVI punish AmChurch accordingly and crack down on all of the AmChurch abuses.
"Conflict with the bishops on abortion or on Communion is not particularly helpful."
Alleleiua!!
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.