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.
CATHOLICS did NOT vote for Obamanation.
CINOs voted for him and consequently excommunicated themselves from the Catholic Church since their vote supported abortion.
Remember, FRiend, CINOs vote for Obamanation.
Agreed, this should be decided by the states, and not with made up SCOTUS decisions!
First off, marriage isn't a Sacrament for Protties. Marriage is a celebration & in cases where the couple had been living in sin, the marriage is an open sign of repentance.
Back in 1976, I asked the minister of the ELCA church that I had gone to as a child to perform my marriage ceremony. He told me that he'd do it only after I had rejoined the congregation & that meant regular attendance for a year.
My husband to be was a lapsed Catholic. He knew better than to ask the pastor at the church he'd been a member of as a child, but we found two other Catholic churches that were quite willing to perform our marriage Mass.
What's the Catholic Church's current teaching on funeral Mass & burial for those who've committed suicide?
“You remind me of a common belief among the tragically naive.”
Stick a sock in it, buddy. I’ve been organizing since the 80’s and worked on state and national campaigns.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum.
No problem.
This is untrue. The Church teaches that Adam did exist and all sin stems from him.
CCC:
374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.
375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice". 250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life". 251
The Church teaches no such thing. Quite the contrary, the view you falsely ascribe to the Catholic Church is expressly condemned. It is blatant heresy, even if you happen to have heard it from Father Flake or Sister Silly.
Humani Generis His Holiness Pope Pius XII Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine August 12, 1950
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[18] >37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[18]
How about being blackmailed.
What would you do?
What would governments (local, state, and federal) do if today all the bishops tell us that they are shutting down all their hospitals, schools, charities so they don’t violate their consciences one more day?
I personally as a practicing Catholic would indeed shut them all down this today.
But I am not a bishop nor do I want to be one.
How about being blackmailed.
What would you do?
What would governments (local, state, and federal) do if today all the bishops tell us that they are shutting down all their hospitals, schools, charities so they don’t violate their consciences one more day?
I personally as a practicing Catholic would indeed shut them all down this today.
But I am not a bishop nor do I want to be one.
http://www.catholicscomehome.org/
I'm afraid you don't understand what I mean by "Adam." I refer not to a theoretical individual who lived at some time in the far distant past about whom we know nothing (and who was probably born to a soulless humanoid and ensouled at a certain time) but to the Biblical Adam: who was created on the Sixth Day; ate the fruit; was expelled from Eden; began Cain, Abel and Seth (and others); lived apart from Eve for 130 years after Cain killed Abel, died at the age of 930, and is buried (along with Eve) in Me`arat HaMakhpelah in Chevron (which I once visited). And the Catholic Church is completely non-committal as to whether this particular individual ever actually existed. The Catholic Church believes in a theoretical extra-Biblical, "scientific" first man, not the Biblical 'Adam HaRi'shon.
No sale.
No sale.
So you're saying that the Catholic Church not only believes in a real "Adam," but in the Biblical Adam who lived for 930 years?
Of course to answer that question you'd have to step out of your ambiguity chamber.
That's completely false and you bear false witness when you repeat it.
While I am not a chr*stian, it is quite maddening that the “unchanging” Catholic Church used to believe the “first Adam” was a real as the “second Adam,” but now the “first Adam” was merely a literary form.
That's completely false and you bear false witness when you repeat it.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of "Billy Bob's Glory Barn?"
As I noted to arrogantbustard above, whatever "Adam" the Catholic Church believes in is a theoretical first human being, not the individual who was created on the Sixth Day and died at the age of 930. That's just a "literary convention."
Besided--don't you know that people can't live that long?
No, Adam is not a theoretical first human, he is the real first human. Not a literary device, a real person.
The same one talked about in the Bible. In allegory.
Nope, he really existed, therefore he's not theoretical.
No amount of quibbling over details can convert a real person into a theoretical person.
No amount of quibbling over details can convert a real person into a theoretical person.
So the Biblical Adam is still a myth.
Thanks for clearing that up!
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.