Yes, there is no monolithic Catholic vote for several reasons. It used to be that no politician of either party would ever get on the wrong side of say, Cardinal Spellman or Archbishop Sheen. Now, Catholic politicians openly dissent from their bishops, condescend to them, dismiss Catholic teaching, and the bishops take no action.
Not only that, but many Catholics have effectively gone over to the other side on issues affecting such matters as abortion on demand, gay marriage, funding for Planned Parenthood, and threats to religious liberty. Some Catholics have simply turned away from Catholic doctrine on the most basic issues affecting the survival of family and civilization, and told the Church “I’ll see you at mass on Sunday, and nowhere else.”
Catholics started out the 20th century as Democrats, and largely remained so. When that party became the “party of death,” to quote one bishop, nobody batted an eye or particularly objected to it. Is it any wonder that the politicos take Catholics for granted or ignore them entirely?
I don’t think Obama has ignored the “Catholic vote” at all. What was he doing at Notre Dame? Why did he appoint Sebelius and Sotomayor? There is a dissident segment of Catholics, and Obama could not possibly fail to know that. For those who fundamentally reject the magesterium of the Church, the option, for years and not because of Obama, has been a sort of “Liberation Theology Lite”, a vague notion that somehow pursuing “social justice” in the form of taxing others for presumably altruistic purposes is a superior moral course over following the laws of the Church (including charity) in all respects.
Many commentators have opined that there are 'two Catholic Churches" in the U.S.; the one that follows the magesterium and the one that excuses itself from doing so by falling back on the “Liberation Theology Lite” way of seeing things. Obama knows that, and courts the “LTL” church while oppressing the faithful one.
It isn’t as stark a thing as the division of the Church in China between the government-compliant “Patriotic Church” and the real one, but it’s of the same general nature.
Parenthetically, it may be noted that, while 54% of Catholics voted for Obama, only 46% of white Catholics did. 46% is a lot, but the difference was made up of the Hispanic vote. Now, one might ask what kind of catechesis are they, in particular, getting, not that the catechesis of white Catholics is all that superlative. It may be considered odd that Hispanics, who are believed to be anti-abortion, would nevertheless vote for an abortionist candidate. Did they know? Or, knowing, did they think other objectives could be achieved with Obama and swallowed his pro-abortion stance in order to achieve them?
Here, I think, is Obama’s “Catholic problem”. A percentage of Catholics; perhaps close to 50% simply will not vote for him, no matter what. Some, undoubtedly, because of the policies of death, and some, probably, because of economic or secular philosophical reasons. But regardless, almost 50% are lost to him, no matter what.
What about the others, then? Do Hispanics still not know he’s pro-abortion? Do they know but still think he can somehow deliver economic benefits to them and will support him anyway, in the face of no economic accomplishments? And what about dissident Catholics who accept his abortionism but think he has economic goods to deliver to “the poor” or to themselves, i.e., the “State(ist) Catholic Church”?
In other words, will Obama’s “State Catholic Church” still be there, in full, for him in 2012?
Lacking, as he does, the power enjoyed by Chinese leaders, he cannot compel compliance with his vision of the Church. He can promise favor for complicity, but his performance so far belies his ability to deliver. He has a stick with which to beat the faithful Church and is using it to the extent he can. But I think he just might be out of carrots for the members of the State Church.
)
