For Democrats, U.S. Catholic Vote Was the One That Got Away

[Catholic_Press]

Republican gains in Tuesday’s mid-term elections were helped by the inroads the party made into the biggest “swing faith” in the country — the Catholic faith.

More…

 

[manualman]

This is an important story. I’d sure like to hear some analysis / polls of catholics who voted for Obama and voted R this time and why.

What I’d LIKE to think is that anemically pro-life catholics were fooled during the campaign by traitor catholics like Doug Kmiec into thinking Obama would genuinely do more effective work to reduce abortion than the nice speeches and judicial appointments made by republicans. Such people look mighty foolish in retrospect, given the two ferociously pro-abortion supreme court justices already appointed, the gutting of prior restraints on government funding of abortion and the attempts (in defiance of the law, even) to fund expanded embryonic stem cell research, etc.

But I really doubt it. The sad facts are that few catholics really decide their vote based primarily on THE major human rights issue of our era.

So why the switch? I’m guessing that it’s because catholics are solidly middle class and that demographic generally feels that Obama only cares about the very poor and the very rich that happen to be Dem donors. What’s your theory?

 

[sanantocatholic]

My theory, as one of those who voted for Obama, is that we were hoping for a bit more on the social justice side. Although I believe the administration’s heart is in the right place, I think some of their policies are misguided and not very well thought out.

As far as the abortion issue, I am totally pro-life and anti-abortion. However, I am of the opinion that neither party truly cares about making it illegal. Too many Democrats are pro-choice and I don’t know what the Republican problem is since they had control under Bush and did nothing. I am only left with the conlusion that Washington does not really give a flip about the abortion issue.

As Catholics, we need to continue praying for the unborn and find ways trough ministry to prevent abortion. If that means ministering to members of Congress, then so be it.

 

[RobbyS]

My theory, as one of those who voted for Obama, is that we were hoping for a bit more on the social justice side. Although I believe the administration’s heart is in the right place, I think some of their policies are misguided and not very well thought out.

As far as the abortion issue, I am totally pro-life and anti-abortion. However, I am of the opinion that neither party truly cares about making it illegal. Too many Democrats are pro-choice and I don’t know what the Republican problem is since they had control under Bush and did nothing. I am only left with the conlusion that Washington does not really give a flip about the abortion issue.

As Catholics, we need to continue praying for the unborn and find ways trough ministry to prevent abortion. If that means ministering to members of Congress, then so be it.

Lots of union people are Catholic, and they are less interested in “social justice” policies than in protecting their interest. That aside, many social justice Catholics --liberal Catholics–are in favor of policies that are not consistent with the popes have said on the issues, because they gravitate to the socialist idea that the state is the institution to which we must look for unity. Implicitly they reject the principle of subsidarity, which is not only a Catholic principle but a principle of the American politics system. The health bill, for instance, would if implemented, destroy the Catholic hospital system in the United States.

 

[sanantocatholic]

I have read many Papal Encyclicals and have found that I am not in disagreement with them or are my positions. If you want, I can get the actual texts, but I think the overall theme is that when the economic system fails to provide for the weakest, the state has a responsibility to step in.

 

[RobbyS]

I have read many Papal Encyclicals and have found that I am not in disagreement with them or are my positions. If you want, I can get the actual texts, but I think the overall theme is that when the economic system fails to provide for the weakest, the state has a responsibility to step in.

It is primarily the responsibility of the family to provide, then the Church, then society at large. The state should not intervene unless non-state agencies have failed in this regard. The health bill assumes that none of these private parties is competent.

 

[rlg94086]

I have read many Papal Encyclicals and have found that I am not in disagreement with them or are my positions. If you want, I can get the actual texts, but I think the overall theme is that when the economic system fails to provide for the weakest, the state has a responsibility to step in.

Try this from *Centessimus Annus *(48):
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. **Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.**100

**By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. **In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

The State is supposed to support private enterprise and charity, not replace it. This is what the Church teaches, which is one of the reasons I am a Republican. Life issues are the more important reason, but when one fully understands the Social Doctrine of the Church, they will find the Republicans are closer, albeit not perfect, to Church teaching than the Democrats regarding the proper role of government.

 

[sanantocatholic]

Not everyone is insured or insured adequately; thus the need for some state intervention. And like I said, there was probably a better way for the administration to do this.

 

[DawnInTexas]

Well, it’s about time. Those rogue “Traitor Catholics” are out-of-hand.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[sanantocatholic]

Well, it’s about time. Those rogue “Traitor Catholics” are out-of-hand.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

Am I to assume that such an un-charitable and un-Catholic response is directed at me and others who often vote Democrat? The Catholic Church is neither Republican or Democrat. The Church is neither liberal or conservative.

 

[DawnInTexas]

***Quote:
Originally Posted by ***DawnInTexas
Well, it’s about time. Those rogue “Traitor Catholics” are out-of-hand.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

Am I to assume that such an un-charitable and un-Catholic response is directed at me and others who often vote Democrat? The Catholic Church is neither Republican or Democrat. The Church is neither liberal or conservative.

Oh yeah? Well, the Catholic Church is pro-Life. Always has been-always will be.

When I go to my Judgement, do you believe Christ will show me my life ~through His Eyes~ where I’ve been uncharitable (in my words to others) for standing up for Life? Do you believe He’ll say I hurt peoples’ feelings-and those are what’s important?

Or do you honestly believe Christ will show me, where I stood up for the Truth, defended Life ~calling Rogue Catholics who are in highly-visible positions of power~ <most especially the ones visible today, whom Obama has surrounded himself with>…where I defended the Teachings of Holy Mother Church regarding Life and the Culture of Death-and give me an “Attaboy.”

I tremble at the thought of My Judgement.

Your assumption that I meant the Church is Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative is just that-your assumption. However—the Democratic Party, in general-is the party which the Feminists and pro-Abortion supporters belong. The Republican Party was and has been the Party supporting life—generally speaking—.

In other words, the Parties themselves, take stands on particular Issues, life being one of them.

Barack Obama is the most pro-Death President in the History of our Country. He has surrounded himself with Traitor Catholics, in highly-visible positions of power who blatantly lie about the Teachings of the Catholic Church. (Especially Pelosi and Biden-being the most visible).

…It is so (obviously) bad that even our beloved Pope Benedict XVI recognized it. When Nancy Pelosi had a private audience with him, he would not allow her to photograph with him. <-He saw her propaganda machine in the works~! (Thank You, God!)

I am not Politically Correct, that’s for sure. I believe in Freedom of Speech, and call things as I see them. I, for one, will not lie to you just to keep the peace. I will not pussyfoot around in order to make friends.

You will see once you’ve been here for awhile.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[PatrickSebast]

I hate politics so much, and this topic is an amazing representation of why.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Am I to assume that such an un-charitable and un-Catholic response is directed at me and others who often vote Democrat? The Catholic Church is neither Republican or Democrat. The Church is neither liberal or conservative.

Exactly so. There isn’t a country on earth where the Church identifies itself with a particular political party, some of our Republican friends’ opinions notwithstanding.

My family votes in New York City, and it was with great satisfaction to see that most Catholics rejected the foul-mouthed and gay-bashing Paladino for Governor, even for his claims of being “pro-life.” Being “pro-life” isn’t enough to be considered fit to govern. Catholic voters there also insured the re-election of liberals Gillibrand and Schumer to the Senate.

 

[ProVobis]

However, I am of the opinion that neither party truly cares about making it illegal. Too many Democrats are pro-choice and I don’t know what the Republican problem is since they had control under Bush and did nothing. I am only left with the conlusion that Washington does not really give a flip about the abortion issue.

You’re right. Fact is that 28 Democratic “Blue Dogs” were voted out. Out of 54 Democratic members who voted pro-life in the House healthcare bill, that’s a lot.

As for the Republicans, they had more than a chance when Ron Paul gave them that opportunity.

newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm

But then what do you expect when it was the Republican Supreme Court that made Roe vs Wade the law of the land.

 

[manualman]

As far as the abortion issue, I am totally pro-life and anti-abortion. However, I am of the opinion that neither party truly cares about making it illegal. Too many Democrats are pro-choice and I don’t know what the Republican problem is since they had control under Bush and did nothing. I am only left with the conlusion that Washington does not really give a flip about the abortion issue.

Thanks for responding. I recognize that this can be a hostile environment for folks with your thought processes at times. I really do want to comprehend, so bear with me.

The “republican’s problem” is that in 1972 the Constitution of the USA was hijacked by the very people who are supposed to safeguard it (the Supreme Court). Virtually from thin air, they constructed a specious argument that the Constitution guaranteed a woman the ‘right’ to have an abortion. Regardless of the fact that this was a complete abuse of power, neither Congress nor any president can do anything about it short of passing a Constitutional amendment or replacing enough justices to overturn Roe. Yes, a good number of those justices had been appointed by republicans. No, that doesn’t mean anything since prior to that astounding ruling abortion wasn’t even a blip on the Supreme Court radar.

Since that time the pro-life political wing focus has been on gaining enough Supreme Court votes to overturn Roe. The late Ted Kennedy famously derailed Robert Bork form being confirmed in the mid 1980’s and signaled right then and there that the Democratic party (which is utterly and unashamedly pro-abortion) was willing to completely discard the constitutionally described role of voting on a justice’s QUALIFICATIONS and instead substitute an abortion itmus test. It is debatable if Reagan truly cared about the life issue enough, but at best his administration did a poor job of vetting subsequent candidates and we got saddled with the likes of O’Connor and Kennedy (IIRC). Bush the first appears to have been a phony pro-lifer and nominated Souter, a huge disappointment. Clinton (and later Obama), as usual for the Democrats had NO trouble finding solidly pro-abortion justices at a 100% rate. Nevertheless, Bush II, for all his faults got us within ONE SC vote of overturning Roe. McCain, for all HIS faults had a long and steady pro-life voting record.

At NO time since 1972 have the republicans EVER had enough votes in the House and Senate to pass a Constitutional amendment, so there was no point even wasting resources on that. Instead, republican focus was on preventing the Dems from funding every and all abortions (as they dream of doing), exporting it overseas on the US taxpayer dime (Hyde amendment), prohibiting US military facilities from conducting abortions, passing parental consent laws so that school counselors couldn’t take 16 year old girls for abortions during school hours (I’m NOT making this up!), prohibiting the use of embryos as experimental guinea pigs…

I honestly do not get it. What if the Democratic party kept ALL its other positions that it currently holds, but instead of abortion they held their most fiercely defended plank the ‘right’ of Americans to shoot muslims on sight? What if the republican platform were unchanged, except being opposed (if somewhat lukewarmedly so) to that ‘right?’ What if muslims were being slaughtered at a rate of 1 million per year? Could you STILL vote Democrat on the basis of their allegedly superior position on welfare, social justice (for non-muslims), health care policy, etc?

Forgive me, but if you would see the above differently then I must humbly suggest that maybe you aren’t as pro-life as you think you are. Are born muslims more human, more dignified, more loved by God than the unborn? (Insert any other ethnic, religious or cultural group here if you prefer.)

There simply can be no equivocating on LIFE when the allegedly proportional offsetting reason does not involve life. War might be a good one, but you’d still need to find a “pro-life” candidate advocating for an unjust war that kills more than a million people a year to be worse than abortion. Ponder THAT for a while.

Every era has its horrific unhuman practices. I remember being a kid wondering how the Aztec could EVER be so savage as to practice human sacrifice, how US southerners could ever consider another human being as ‘chattle property,’ how Germans could be convinced that their Jewish neighbors (often that they grew up with) were a subhuman group that needed to be purged), how women were inherently unworthy of voting in elections… The reason is the same in every case. Sometimes all you see is trees and don’t recognize that they are a forest.

 

[livnlern]

You’re right. Fact is that 28 Democratic “Blue Dogs” were voted out. Out of 54 Democratic members who voted pro-life in the House healthcare bill, that’s a lot.

As for the Republicans, they had more than a chance when Ron Paul gave them that opportunity.

newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm

But then what do you expect when it was the Republican Supreme Court that made Roe vs Wade the law of the land.

"Every four years, Republicans trot out a conservative façade during an election season for the purpose of obtaining the votes of susceptible Christians. And every four years, conservative Christians–like starving catfish–take the bait: hook, line, and sinker.

“Save us from the monster,” seems to be the cry of well-meaning–but easily manipulated–conservatives. The “monster” is whoever the Democrats nominate, of course. But, ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has done absolutely nothing to change the course of the country. Nothing! In fact, it has only gotten worse with Republicans in charge."

The above is why the Tea Party movement is so important. It has helped and will continue to help hold the Republicans’ feet to the fire on issues like abortion. The Republican party is far from perfect, but is the lesser of two evils.

 

[exoflare]

Although I believe the administration’s heart is in the right place

hah!