Non-Catholics: Would you vote for a Catholic candidate if he had very conservative Catholic religious views?

[Sepharad]

I was wondering this while reading another thread about the extreme nature of some of the Catholics on this forum.

Around the turn of the 20th century and even before, in the USA, there were WASP politicians who exploited the nativist, anti-Catholic fears of the ruling Protestant majority. The Al Smith presidential campaign was affected to a degree by this as well.

I’m wondering: since, as some said here, the RCC is getting rid its liberalism from the past 40 or so years, and is headed back toward traditionalism in doctrine and practice, does this mean the old anti-Catholicism will arise again? I realize it still exists now, but it is largely impotent politically.

Do you think that, as Catholics become more dogmatic and orthodox in their faith, non-Catholic reactions will rise as well?

 

[teancum79]

yes. Anytime someone dislikes your position and feels threatened they attack.

If the CC took a stance that everything is just fine pick the commandments you like and ignore the rest they would have few people attacking them.

In general I prefer a religious person to a non religious person, but I don’t much care where that persons goes to church I care about what they are planing on doing in office.

 

[Annie_B]

Though I am Catholic, I would like to answer. I do not vote for anyone because of their church association and/or religion. I do vote for people who I think have good morals and the courage to do the right thing - even if it is unpoular.

Annie

 

[here_i_stand]

I was wondering this while reading another thread about the extreme nature of some of the Catholics on this forum.

Around the turn of the 20th century and even before, in the USA, there were WASP politicians who exploited the nativist, anti-Catholic fears of the ruling Protestant majority. The Al Smith presidential campaign was affected to a degree by this as well.

I’m wondering: since, as some said here, the RCC is getting rid its liberalism from the past 40 or so years, and is headed back toward traditionalism in doctrine and practice, does this mean the old anti-Catholicism will arise again? I realize it still exists now, but it is largely impotent politically.

Do you think that, as Catholics become more dogmatic and orthodox in their faith, non-Catholic reactions will rise as well?

I, as a non-Catholic, would vote for a truly conservative Catholic because that person would be fighting for issues I believe in, such as the right to life.

 

[rpp]

I was wondering this while reading another thread about the extreme nature of some of the Catholics on this forum.

Around the turn of the 20th century and even before, in the USA, there were WASP politicians who exploited the nativist, anti-Catholic fears of the ruling Protestant majority. The Al Smith presidential campaign was affected to a degree by this as well.

I’m wondering: since, as some said here, the RCC is getting rid its liberalism from the past 40 or so years, and is headed back toward traditionalism in doctrine and practice, does this mean the old anti-Catholicism will arise again? I realize it still exists now, but it is largely impotent politically.

Do you think that, as Catholics become more dogmatic and orthodox in their faith, non-Catholic reactions will rise as well?

Okay, I see two larger topics here. The ovious one is the thread title - a legitimate question.

The other one is the opinion as to whether old anti-Catholic attitudes will be revived.

As to the first question, presuming this politician supported the moral teachings of the Church in the very grave areas of protecting all life (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research) and not promoting public immorality (gay marriage, porn), then I would certainly consider him and politics very closely. There can be a great deal of legitimate variation in the world of politics and still remain a faithful Catholic.

As for the return of popular attitudes of anti-Catholicism. I do not think it will be so much a revival, but a rediscovery from a different route. Also, the new perpetrators will not be Protestants, cut secularists and humanists.

We are already seeing this today, most particularly in Canada. It is now illegal in Canada for the Catholic Church, or any Christian minister, to publicly, and in some cases privately, proclaim certain moral teachings of the Church and Christianity in general. Such teachings are now considered hate speech.

Faithful Catholics will become more and more marginalized and, in fact, actively discriminated against by laws whose intent is to silence Christian teachings. Catholics will not be alone in this social isolation and persecution, many faithful protestant denominations, such as Baptists and Pentecostals to name a few, who agree with Church teaching on certain hot-button moral issues, will also experience this.

Hedonists have never been able to tolerate people telling them they are doing something wrong. Especially as they try to recruit more willing participants.

 

[Cinette]

I am Catholic and I also think that one should look at values irrespective of religion - also one must consider experience and leadership qualities.

I sit here as an observer in South Africa where politics is never boring but frustrating and maddening at times (more often than not). I realise that US politics affects the world so I pay attention to what is happening.

There are three things about Obama that puts me off:

1. He attended the Church of Rev Wright for 20 years and during his campaign for the candidacy he said very clearly that Wright was his mentor, a wonderful guy etc. Now we all know the rantings of this pastor… When people objected Obama left the church and censured Wright!!! Hmmm
2. Obama is not Pro Life. In fact he voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Act. He doesn’t think a baby is a person so if a child is aborted before full term it is OK to kill him/her. THAT doesn’t speak well for Obama. Who knows what he will do if and when he becomes President?
3. He was endorsed by none other but Oprah!!! Birds of a feather…??

I am afraid that the masses are hypnotised by the Media and rock stars and sportsmen and crazy music and goofy hair and nakedness etc. etc. etc…

That is why I am so comfortable being Catholic. It is not easy but it is right.

 

[1stChristian]

Okay, I see two larger topics here. The ovious one is the thread title - a legitimate question.

The other one is the opinion as to whether old anti-Catholic attitudes will be revived.

As to the first question, presuming this politician supported the moral teachings of the Church in the very grave areas of protecting all life (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research) and not promoting public immorality (gay marriage, porn), then I would certainly consider him and politics very closely. There can be a great deal of legitimate variation in the world of politics and still remain a faithful Catholic.

As for the return of popular attitudes of anti-Catholicism. I do not think it will be so much a revival, but a rediscovery from a different route. Also, the new perpetrators will not be Protestants, cut secularists and humanists.

We are already seeing this today, most particularly in Canada. It is now illegal in Canada for the Catholic Church, or any Christian minister, to publicly, and in some cases privately, proclaim certain moral teachings of the Church and Christianity in general. Such teachings are now considered hate speech.

Faithful Catholics will become more and more marginalized and, in fact, actively discriminated against by laws whose intent is to silence Christian teachings. Catholics will not be alone in this social isolation and persecution, many faithful protestant denominations, such as Baptists and Pentecostals to name a few, who agree with Church teaching on certain hot-button moral issues, will also experience this.

Hedonists have never been able to tolerate people telling them they are doing something wrong. Especially as they try to recruit more willing participants.

The persecution of the Roman Catholic faith has just begun in Canada. The government ruling applies to most Evangelicals also. As of today, it is illegal for Canadian Catholics to express in any way the teaching of the Catholic church on homosexuality only.
Homosexuals are now a “protected species” with rights and protections far exceeding those of any minority groups.
If anybody found quoting Bible Scripture that condemns homosexuality, will be fined $5000.00 and be forced to apologize to any homosexuals who heard that passage and might be offended.
Canada is now a fascist state.

 

[mothom]

I voted for Alan Keyes in the GOP primary, that answers the first question. As for the second question, I think the day is coming when both Protestant and Catholic will share the same prison cell for claiming the name of Christ. That day is already here in some places. Our persecutors won’t care about our doctrinal differences. All that will matter to them is are we Christians.

 

[JonNC]

I was wondering this while reading another thread about the extreme nature of some of the Catholics on this forum.

Around the turn of the 20th century and even before, in the USA, there were WASP politicians who exploited the nativist, anti-Catholic fears of the ruling Protestant majority. The Al Smith presidential campaign was affected to a degree by this as well.

I’m wondering: since, as some said here, the RCC is getting rid its liberalism from the past 40 or so years, and is headed back toward traditionalism in doctrine and practice, does this mean the old anti-Catholicism will arise again? I realize it still exists now, but it is largely impotent politically.

Do you think that, as Catholics become more dogmatic and orthodox in their faith, non-Catholic reactions will rise as well?

The religious affiliation of a candidate is, generally, of no concern to me. That said, the moral teachings of the CC are similar to what I believe, so assuming that this Catholic candidate also shares a similar policy viewpoint - original intent, limited central government, property rights, etc. - I of course would happily vote for him/her. OTOH, a shared moral belief cannot override differences in policy beliefs. IOW, a good moral Catholic that is a socialist will never get my vote. And neither would a socialist who is Lutheran, Methodist, or…um…Church of Christ.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

I was wondering this while reading another thread about the extreme nature of some of the Catholics on this forum.

Around the turn of the 20th century and even before, in the USA, there were WASP politicians who exploited the nativist, anti-Catholic fears of the ruling Protestant majority. The Al Smith presidential campaign was affected to a degree by this as well.

I’m wondering: since, as some said here, the RCC is getting rid its liberalism from the past 40 or so years, and is headed back toward traditionalism in doctrine and practice

I think the premise is flawed. I don’t think the Church is going to repudiate Vatican II and the genuine new developments that have arisen in the past half-century.

What I do see is a trend for “conservative” (actually neo-con) American politicians to convert to Catholicism, and for similarly “conservative” Catholics to trumpet this as a wonderful thing. This even though the general tenor of Catholic social teaching is strongly opposed to neo-conservatism, and generally to what Americans consider “conservatism.” I don’t think that the Vatican is going to go along with this particular trend. But it may not do enough to warn against it because the neoconservatives are orthodox on some key moral issues–just as the Vatican did not do enough in the 19th century to warn against American Catholicism’s tolerance of slavery because of its fear of radical democratic ideologies, and did not do enough in the 20th to warn against local Catholic accommodations with various forms of fascism because of its fear of Communism.
Still, I hope for better things from the 21st century Catholic Church. Hope springs eternal, and the Church seems pretty strongly committed to such things as opposition to the death penalty and advocacy for the poor and oppressed.

Edwin

 

[Cinette]

The religious affiliation of a candidate is, generally, of no concern to me. That said, the moral teachings of the CC are similar to what I believe, so assuming that this Catholic candidate also shares a similar policy viewpoint - original intent, limited central government, property rights, etc. - I of course would happily vote for him/her. OTOH, a shared moral belief cannot override differences in policy beliefs. IOW, a good moral Catholic that is a socialist will never get my vote. And neither would a socialist who is Lutheran, Methodist, or…um…Church of Christ.

Jon

There was a time when I had left the Church and lived in a Fascist country - other than South Africa - and I must say I was a communist sympathiser. One day an Englishman said to me (I hope I am reproducing this correctly) “A conservative at 18 is has no heart and a socialist at 40 has no head.” We I am well over 40 now and I have returned to the Church and I am leaning more and more towards conservatism. Actually it is hard to say, no, perhaps I should say that socially I lean left but religiously I lean right. Yes, that’s it.

:whacky:

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I was wondering this while reading another thread about the extreme nature of some of the Catholics on this forum.

Around the turn of the 20th century and even before, in the USA, there were WASP politicians who exploited the nativist, anti-Catholic fears of the ruling Protestant majority. The Al Smith presidential campaign was affected to a degree by this as well.

I’m wondering: since, as some said here, the RCC is getting rid its liberalism from the past 40 or so years, and is headed back toward traditionalism in doctrine and practice, does this mean the old anti-Catholicism will arise again? I realize it still exists now, but it is largely impotent politically.

Do you think that, as Catholics become more dogmatic and orthodox in their faith, non-Catholic reactions will rise as well?

This is a very good question.

I see no reason why we can’t have a young, handsome, thoroughly orthodox Catholic as a candidates running for major offices. I know they are out there, and they will get a lot of support.

Of course, I’m sure an anti-Catholic fear will arise again. And this fear will only get worse as more and more serious Catholics come on the scene. Right now if you say you are Catholic and are in office, that usually means you are guaranteed to push your Catholicism aside and this includes voting for un-Christian principles.

 

[Frank_J]

Hi Sepharad,

You asked the question concerning would a non-RC ever vote for a candidate who had very conservative Catholic religious views?

Yes, but! He or she would have to a law abiding person. We had some bad candidate’s say they are Catholic and they are a very bad joke.

Alan Keyes in the GOP primary was a very good candidate it is to bad he didn’t win. I would be the first to sign on the dotted line for Alan Keyes to run again.

It would make no difference to me as an Orthodox Christian. But we all need to admit that we do vote for our own first then we look at other candidate’s

We see it in some of the so called polling of likely voters. We have 90% of black will vote for the Democrat candidate only because or race. Lets first admit that too and we can be in the open about our so call open views here.

Looking forward to see what everyone will say, on this topic.

 

[Kaninchen]

Well, of course, most European Conservatives would be regarded as Liberal Marxist Relativists by American Conservatives . . . . so the question, as posed, has not the same meaning to me.

Anyway, if I were an American, would I vote for an American Conservative Catholic? - No. Mind you, I wouldn’t vote for an American Conservative anything.

 

[mozart-250]

I was wondering this while reading another thread about the extreme nature of some of the Catholics on this forum.

Around the turn of the 20th century and even before, in the USA, there were WASP politicians who exploited the nativist, anti-Catholic fears of the ruling Protestant majority. The Al Smith presidential campaign was affected to a degree by this as well.

I’m wondering: since, as some said here, the RCC is getting rid its liberalism from the past 40 or so years, and is headed back toward traditionalism in doctrine and practice, does this mean the old anti-Catholicism will arise again? I realize it still exists now, but it is largely impotent politically.

Do you think that, as Catholics become more dogmatic and orthodox in their faith, non-Catholic reactions will rise as well?

I have made voting a very simple process for me.
I just will not vote for a candidate that supports killing babies.

Usually that leaves at best one candidate (although in this years Presidential I am now undecided between one major party candidate and one minor party candidate that I like more).

Since I would assume an orthodox Catholic would share my abhorence to killing babies, sign me up.

 

[Mirdath]

Whether John McNominee attends a sedevacantist church, a legitimate Tridentine rite, a happy-clappy hippie Catholic church, a synagogue, a mosque, a temple, a coven, a Black Mass, a Unitarian Universalist potluck, or nothing at all – doesn’t matter.

What matters is: does he have, first, the sense to say ‘this is what I believe, but national policy is not a matter of my personal beliefs or morals’, and second, the fortitude to mean it and follow through? If so, I would have no qualms about voting for him if I happened to like his platform well enough (in other words, ‘more than the other guy’s’).

In practice, I doubt we’ll see a politician like that.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I would have no problems whatsoever voting for a Catholic candidate - if he or she was qualified. But, unfortunately, their religious views would have little or no bearing on their presidency.

The way that American trends are continuing, there will be fewer and fewer Christians - Christians won’t be able to afford to be prejudiced about differences such as Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc. They will have to cling to each other.

Jimmy Carter is a devout Christian (Baptist) - but his presidency was an utter failure. Reagan was a nominal Presbyterian - and served 8 years. George HW Bush is an active Episcopalian - 4 years. Clinton is a “selective” Southern Baptist, served 8 years. George W Bush is an active United Methodist - served 8 years.

Did their religion play much part in their presidencies? Not really. I don’t think people really care anymore about a president’s faith; they care more about their stances on issues, which may or may not fall in line with their beliefs.

As far as “liberal” and “conservative” - those words are nothing but political rhetoric anymore. They mean nothing.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I would have no problems whatsoever voting for a Catholic candidate - if he or she was qualified. But, unfortunately, their religious views would have little or no bearing on their presidency.

The way that American trends are continuing, there will be fewer and fewer Christians - Christians won’t be able to afford to be prejudiced about differences such as Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc. They will have to cling to each other.

Jimmy Carter is a devout Christian (Baptist) - but his presidency was an utter failure. Reagan was a nominal Presbyterian - and served 8 years. George HW Bush is an active Episcopalian - 4 years. Clinton is a “selective” Southern Baptist, served 8 years. George W Bush is an active United Methodist - served 8 years.

Did their religion play much part in their presidencies? Not really. I don’t think people really care anymore about a president’s faith; they care more about their stances on issues, which may or may not fall in line with their beliefs.

As far as “liberal” and “conservative” - those words are nothing but political rhetoric anymore. They mean nothing.

But what you are describing is the “check your religion at the door” politics that got us into this mess in the first place. Saying someone’s religious views have no bearing on their presidency doesn’t make sense, it would be like saying a doctor’s religious views have no bearing on his practice. Religion cannot be divorced from public life without serious ramifications.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I qualified all of what I said with “unfortunately.” In an increasingly secularized world, people WANT religious views divorced from public life.

The reality is that Americans have never really wanted anyone very religious in the presidency. Our first leaders were, at best, Deists. That set a precedent (no pun intended) that has been hard to break.

I certainly don’t like it, Dude. I’m just stating the reality.

O+

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I qualified all of what I said with “unfortunately.” In an increasingly secularized world, people WANT religious views divorced from public life.

The reality is that Americans have never really wanted anyone very religious in the presidency. Our first leaders were, at best, Deists. That set a precedent (no pun intended) that has been hard to break.

I certainly don’t like it, Dude. I’m just stating the reality.

O+

Ok, I would agree with that.