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.
Your own personal interpretation of Scripture, however, is just that.
As well, your false characterisation of Catholic belief remains just that: false.
Now: you can, I suppose, keep uttering falsehoods about other people. The rules of this forum seem to permit it. Doing so, however, reflects very badly on you and those who share your beliefs.
Your own personal interpretation of Scripture, however, is just that.
Yes, I can see how there is a definite tendency to read "And Adam lived 930 years" and then think "Hmm; this Adam guy must have lived 930 years." Wow. I wonder what "And Adam lived 930 years" really means???
Good thing Catholics have the magisterium to teach them authoritatively that we don't really know anything about Adam, since the bible must never, ever be interpreted literally (except for "this is my body, this is my blood"). Yep, that magisterium sure does clear things up!
There you go again. You have, once again, made a false statement of Catholic belief. Are you deliberately trying to trash your own credibility?
“I understand the disappointment of seeing your church do so poorly in fighting infanticide...”
Two can play at painting with a broad brush. How ‘bout we discuss our new pro-partial birth abortion PROTESTANT president as an example of how PROTESTANTS do poorly in fighting infanticide? How ‘bout I ping you and bash ALL protestants every time that Protestant president promotes morally reprehensible acts like abortion and homosexuality over the the next four years? Sound fair to you?
I’m not a religious bigot, so I will not stoop to judging a whole group by the actions of a few who, while they may consider themselves part of that group, prove by their actions that they are not. I take the teaching of my Lord in His encounter with the Samaritan woman seriously, when He taught me to judge others on their individual merits, not on their membership in a group.
So I will not judge you by the actions of your fellow co-religionist Barack Obama, since I’m sure you and I both agree that his actions should not reflect poorly on you nor on protestant religious doctrine, if you will agree that the votes of catholics in name only should not reflect poorly on me nor my religious doctrine.
Otherwise, expect a lot of pings over the next four years.
“First off, marriage isn’t a Sacrament for Protties.”
Yes, which is why you will find priests very reluctant to deny it to people who otherwise meet the requirements.
I feel your pain. I’m a Jew. My people are notorious for voting against the interests of Israel.
I’m not a religious bigot, so I will not stoop to judging a whole group by the actions of a few.... So I will not judge you by the actions of your fellow co-religionist Barack Obama
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is this the part where we hear "I’m not a religious bigot, but I play one on the Internet"?
Yeah and I have a lot of friends that are...
FWIW, I have appreciated the postings on the breakdown of the votes. I took it you were just passing along the available information.
since the bible must never, ever be interpreted literally (except for "this is my body, this is my blood").
There you go again. You have, once again, made a false statement of Catholic belief. Are you deliberately trying to trash your own credibility?
How about "nothing in the first eleven chapters of Genesis must ever be interpreted literally?" Is that better?
You know, as much as I disagree with Sister Flaky, I can at least understand her. Catholics who claim to believe in the "Biblical Adam," yet who insist none of the details about him recorded in the Bible can be assumed without "imposing one's private interpretation on the text," on the other hand, would probably strike Sister Flaky as inconsistent (as they do to me).
At least Sister Flaky and I are logical.
No. Even that is false. As I have told you several times in the past, If Joe Catholic reads Genesis 1-11 (or any other part of the Bible) in the strictly literal sense that you prefer, he is perfectly welcome to do so. His reading of Scripture is perfectly in line with the teaching of the Church. If Father Flake or Sister Silly tell him otherwise, so much the worse for FF and SS: they are mired in heresy. Deal with it.
Analyzing the “Catholic” vote would be like analyzing the “protestant” vote. It can’t really be done because both groups are large and encompass widely varying political views.
What we do consistently see election after election is that faithful, committed church-going Catholics and “Bible-believing” Evangelicals vote pro-life. Less than committed Catholics and protestants do not consider their faith when voting and simply vote for what they believe are their self interests.
Personally I have no use for any of those in the latter category.
And yet very, very, very, very few do. Why? They can't all be scientists.
I can only conclude that anti-literalism has become an important part of Catholic identity.
Non-literalism is the only interpretation of Genesis 1-11 which is at all reconciliable with the fundamentals of archaeology and geology.
It’s not that most Catholics are scientists, but most of them did attend at elementary schools with conventional science classes.
we call it “CINO” -Catholic in Name Only...a species in the same phylum as “RINO” ....both of which, are less politely characterized as those that can’t or won’t “walk the talk”...
and in failing to do so, IMHO, dishonor their fellowman at the very least.
Way to purposely misunderstand my post. I clearly said I would NOT judge protestants by Obama’s acts, since that would be unChristian and unfair. Would that some on this thread afford Catholics the same courtesy.
I was clearly making a point by using the SAME standard used by Catholic bashers on this thread. Voters who told exit pollsters they were Catholic, whether they’d been to church in decades or not, have been labeled “Catholic voters” and their actions used to bash the church in general.
By that very same standard, I could use Barack Obama (or Hillary or Bill Clinton, or Al Gore or a whole host of others) to bash all protestants, because they CALL themselves Protestant Christians, even though you and I both know they are anything but.
Using the actions of some nominal members of a religion who have shown by their actions that they are NOT adherants to that religion’s teaching in order to smear that religion is neither Christian nor conservative.
Ahem--that's if you assume uniformitarianism, that from the very first instant of existence all natural laws and all physical realities have operated exactly as they do now (the gestation period has always been nine months, no one has ever lived nine hundred years, etc.). Then in the name of scientific uniformitarianism I demand that you admit that dead people can't come back to life, water doesn't change into wine, and transubstantiation simply cannot take place. You have absolutely no excuse other than the most bald-faced hypocrisy (or else a knee-jerk prejudice against "those Bible-thumpers") in order to maintain this inconsistency.
It’s not that most Catholics are scientists, but most of them did attend at elementary schools with conventional science classes.
So? Fundamentalist Protestants attended the same classes but simply don't assume uniformitarianism. Do you actually not realize this?
You mean like Wednesday bingo nights or Friday fish frys at the K of C?
I think it's odd that you talk about "literalism," but you splatter hyperbole all over the place when talking about Catholic teaching (e.g., "nothing in Genesis 1-11 is ever to be taken literally")
Hyperbole is a literary device, remember? Not to be taken literally. Evidently anti-literalism is an important part of your identity, too.
Nope, I meant it--non-literalism is now part of the Catholic identity. And Catholics know it's true, too.
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.