…. A recent RealClear/EWTN poll of Catholic voters… administered exclusively to Americans who identify as Catholic and are registered to vote, attempts to get a glimpse of the leanings of Catholic voters going into the 2020 election by asking both about hot topic issues and about particular candidates.
EWTN’s own analysis of the poll boasts that “Catholics—especially engaged or active ones—have been a crucial voting bloc in every election of the last fifty years, and 2016 was no exception.” Yet the very next sentence of the analysis betrays the naïveté of this claim: “Donald Trump split the total Catholic vote with Hillary Clinton, and he will have a very difficult time regaining the White House without comparable Catholic support.”
Contrary to EWTN’s suggestion, Catholic voters have been “crucial” only in that there are a great number of them, but in no point in modern politics have they constituted a voting bloc in any meaningful sense. In nearly every election of the past 50 years and more, Catholics have voted for the Democratic candidate by just a few percentage points. When they have deviated from that trend, moreover, it has generally been for obvious reasons and in accordance with the broader trends of the national vote, as in 1984 when the Catholic vote swung Republican to participate in Reagan’s landslide reelection. The only remarkable vote—and the only time Catholics voted as a genuine bloc—was in 1960, when 78 percent voted for fellow Catholic John F. Kennedy, for the obvious reason. The Kennedy bump had a residual, waning effect in ‘64 (76 percent Democrat against 24 percent Republican) and ‘68 (59 percent against 33 percent), but there has been no national election since 1968 whose outcome would even have changed if every Catholic in the country had simply stayed home in November.
Such data seem to indicate that Catholic opinion is determined far more by party affiliation than by faith. This strength of party loyalty often leads Catholics into complicity with grave evil, as with the 84 percent who support some form of legal abortion. Many Catholics are wont to make apologies for their Democratic coreligionists in particular (especially the older ones) with sympathetic whispers of, “Well, he’s a Kennedy Democrat…,” as if there were no opportunity for such a voter to evolve after 1963….
The above comes from a March 2 story in Crisis magazine.
The one fault I have with this article, which otherwise is good, is that it is heavily slanted towards one side. What the writer misses is that there are also folks in the political right who pick and choose which Catholic teachings they want to support: namely, “cafeteria Catholics” on the right exists, people. If it ain’t in the Republican platform, forget it. They may trumpet the Church’s teaching on abortion, which is all well and good, as it is a matter of grave importance (but note that it is also in the Republican platform); but they’d thumb their noses at the Church’s teachings against the death penalty: an issue which may not be grave matter, but is still a life-issue and an important one (and you guessed it: it is not in the Republican agenda). How correct the writer is when he writes: “Catholic opinion is determined far more by party affiliation than by faith.” Sad. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
To equate these two issues as if they are of equal importance is folly beyond measure, Jon. The Church, until the present occupant in the See of Peter, has always accepted capital punishment. It is no coincidence that he also rejects life-imprisonment, hell and embraces men highly disposed to the advancement of the gay agenda. It has been argued, and quite articulately, that in fact the death penalty upholds the value of human life as it makes clear that human life is of such ultimate worth that to commit murder requires the ultimate sanction. That a pope in 2019 has decided otherwise cannot vitiate almost 2000 years of continuous teaching. It just means he’s a Jesuit who thinks like a Jesuit. On the other hand, the Church’s opposition to abortion has been consistent since its expressed condemnation in the Didache, an important post-apostolic work. There is no such thing as the “living” Magesterium as opposed to a “non-living” Magesterium. There is the advent of heresy, however, which even popes have fallen victim to.
Sorry but Dan is completely wrong. Firstly, no one here has said that abortion and the death penalty are of equal importance. Clearly Dan didn’t even read my comment. Secondly the Church’s teaching against the death penalty commenced withe the great Pope St. John Paul II. The teaching then is continued by Popes Benedict and Francis. The way Dan refers to the Holy Father betrays a palpable hatred for him; as some people hold an irrational hatred for Trump. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
” Secondly the Church’s teaching against the death penalty commenced …” Jon, the Church’s teaching on the death penalty commenced with the apostolic teaching found, for example, in Romans 13:1-7, 2000 years before St. John Paul II. And the apostolic teaching is based on Genesis 9:6, among other passages from scripture. Francis has decisively broken with 2000 years of Church tradition, and that includes the contribution of St. John Paul II . My point, which I thought was clear, is that this rupture by Francis is not his only one: he has rejected hell and the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, thrown China’s faithful Catholics under the bus among other melancholy acts. Along with his weaponized ambiguity, I would say his pontificate represents, so far at least, a disaster for the Church. That said, I do not hate him, but pray for him daily, as I am sure you do. One can even love the man, but nevertheless find great fault with him.
Sorry, but Dan again is wrong. To make this easier for you Dan: the death penalty was indeed permissible during the time of the writing of St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, but not so in our time. This is because of a fundamental principle of moral theology (a principle which predates Romans 13:1-7), namely, that circumstances either mitigate or vitiate the goodness or evil of an action. Dust off your Catechism folks; check 1750-1756 concerning the “three sources of morality.” The particular circumstance that the great John Paul II judged as having rendered the death penalty as “cruel and unnecessary” in our time is the existence in our time of other ways to stop a capital criminal (namely, life in prison without parole) without having to kill/execute him. So Dan, I propose that you do hate Francis, judging from the allegations you write about, which reflects the anti-Francis sentiment from extremist news sources and blogs. Example: that the Pope denied hell? That news has been so spun so as to create animosity, even hatred for the Pope. Beware what you read, people. Beware. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
jon, read all of Dan’s posts here, and surprise surprise, he gave no hate! Disagreeing with a pope, or even you, does NOT constitute hate!
Calm down and stop resorting to your favorite trick of calling hate. Very unseemly of you.
Yes, there is indeed hate, not only in Dan’s comments but also in the comments of many others here in the past, including yours. Folks, it’s Lent: own up to your faults this Lenten season, stop denying your sins (especially that of irreverence to the Holy Father) own up to them, and go to confession. “This is an acceptable time; this is the day of salvation.”
jon, some Lenten advice to you – Try going without having to have the last word, it’s an exercise in humility.
Again. Kristin is wrong. It’s not about “getting the last word.” It’s about rightfully correcting this false notion that dissent from the teachings of the Magisterium concerning a matter of faith and morals, in this case an important life-issue, is just a matter of mere “disagreement” with the Pope: it’s not that serious. Well folks, it is serious. It is dissent. DISSENT! Folks, dissent from the teachings of the Church is a sin. You people might even think that “disagreeing” with the solemn teachings of the Church is just the same as “disagreeing” with one’s political party. Well, it isn’t. “Disagreeing with God” is what it amounts to. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
jon, do you not dissent from any teachings of the Church?
(If so, I commend you.)
If you watch the video of Senator Schumer outside the Supreme Court, you will notice a sign that says “Protecting Abortion Access is a Catholic Value”. I mention this because having a study of people who identify as Catholics and are registered to vote is going to include people who are not fully in conformity with the Catholic Faith.
Saying that party affiliation is what causes their opinion or their complicity with grave evil is a false conclusion. The people I know who are pro-capital punishment will stay that way even if both major parties abandon it. The people I know who are pro-life will stay that way even if no one else in the world agrees with them. There are pro-life Democrats. There are pro-choice Republicans. Surveys have shown that abortion access is not a big issue to voters although for some of us, it is the main issue.
“There are pro-life Democrats. There are pro-choice Republicans. Surveys have shown that abortion access is not a big issue to voters although for some of us, it is the main issue.”
We can probably count pro-life Democrats with one hand, the majority of Democrats in the House are overwhelmingly pro-abortion and the overwhelmingly majority of Republicans are pro-life. Same for the Senate. And to suggest that those who held the sign: ‘Protecting Abortion Access is a Catholic Vote” is typical of Catholics is a falsehood. You can’t be Catholic and be pro-abortion. It’s a contradiction. And without Life every other issue is meaningless. And by the way, the phrase “pro-choice” is a lie. These children in the womb do not choose to die. Whenever someone says to me “I’m pro-choice” I always ask them to please finish the sentence, pro-choice to do what… It’s to kill another human being.
Surveys or polls can’t be trusted in my view considering the 2016 election of Donald Trump.
Ronnie, I think you missed the point. That sign is not typical of Catholics, at least not of those who attend Mass regularly. But when your sample criteria is Catholic identification and registered to vote, you are not getting a sample of the true Faithful. Faithful Catholics do not support sin in any way.
I also do not like the term pro-choice for the reason that 70% of women who abort do so because they feel like they have no choice. And you are correct-the choice is whether to kill someone or not. And also correct that the victim does not have a choice.
Also, the article is about members of the parties, not the elected politicians.
According to a 2017 Pew survey 22 percent of self-identified Democrats believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while 34 percent of Republicans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
This is a recent article on pro-life Democrats. I do not support pro-choice in any way so I will not link to articles about pro-choice Republicans.
https://religionnews.com/2019/05/10/the-national-fall-and-local-rise-of-pro-life-democrats/
I’m not sure I missed your point although I will concede that you were referring to voters not our representatives. If you’re pro-life how could you possible vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion? My sister who lives in California has friends that always vote for the pro-abortion Democrats but claim they are pro-life! How can they be? It’s a contradiction. It’s like saying I’m anti-slavery but vote for people who advance slavery.
I agree that the phrase pro-choice is a lie and that most women “feel” they have no other choice than to abort. As someone who counseled outside the abortion clinics and who offered these women other choices many rejected my help so I’m torn on whether they feel like they don’t have any other choice.
Education is the key I believe and reaching out to women who are post-abortive. Also offering them the help to carry their child to term.
I never vote for any pro-choice candidate. I know Catholics who do and sneer at me and call me a single issue voter. Thank you for counseling women at the clinics. There IS always a choice of course. Abortion is ALWAYS the wrong choice for the baby and for the mother.
The writer’s an undergrad. Better wait a few years till he’s got a real job under his belt, pays taxes, and can drink legally.
Of course, what could a university senior not under the influence possibly tell those of us who pay (more) taxes (likely) and drink?!
He even had the audacity to publicly criticize his “Catholic” university for putting on a drag show! Who does he think he is?
We’ll listen to him once he has a degree and starts drinking.
I was cutting him slack but feel free to ask him for marital advice.
PS: The operative word was ‘legal’. :)
Hymie, have you been drinking, either legally or illegally, while posting? This young man’s article has nothing to do with “marital advice.”
from the analysis, it’s plausible that the
entire country would be better off if
everyone who self-identifies as Catholic
would stop voting altogether, en bloc
Democrats have no respect for the life of unborn child. Facts