Thanks. I’m sure there was more than one factor.
First of all, thank you, John, for deciding to serve the Church - praise God!
Yes, it’s true that Catholics have long supported the Democratic Party, more so than the Republicans. This is because the Democratic Party, especially in its attitude towards labor and social welfare, as well as the fact that the Democratic Party twice championed a Catholic as its nominee for the presidency when it was a political challenge to do so. I also believe that the Democratic support for the civil rights movement in the 60’s, which was much more vocal than the Republican support, had a lot to do with modern Catholic support of the Party. You are correct that Catholic support for the present Democratic Party, and by extension that Party’s support for abortion rights, is problematic and needs to be addressed. As a lifelong Democrat I have been very disappointed with the Democratic Party and I have long had difficulty supporting candidates from the Party I have claimed as my own in the past. I’m not sure what Catholics should do given the present state of the Party, but I do not think becoming a Republican is a viable alternative for me. I do not vote my Party’s ticket but have trouble supporting a different party at this point. Perhaps a new party will form in time, much as the Republican Party emerged from the Whig Party, to allow me, and those like me, a stronger voice in American politics.
The spin doctors won a great victory with that line in 2008.
Except that during Obama’s speech there was only one view expressed and there was no debate.
So, let me get this straight:
Well, it’s one thing to own slaves. It’s quite another to invite a pro-slavery president to speak. Just because you own slaves, doesn’t mean you’re pro-slavery.
beautifully put
I don’t know why speaking at St. Edward’s was considered important. However, apparently he made a similar request in 2007 and was turned down on the grounds that the university had a policy against giving political candidates a platform.
There was no debate because the President was asked to give an address.
You raise an interesting quandary faced by many people prior to the American Cival War. Many people who opposed slavery actually owned slaves they had inherited or had received as a result of marriage. Nevertheless, they felt unable to emancipate their slaves due to the economic hardships the slaves would face when cast off on their own. Elderly slaves were a special concern for such slave owners. Some slave owners, as well as abolitionsists, actually felt that without a system of welfare or security in place for emancipated slaves, emancipation would merely add to the suffering of slaves. I understand your point when you roll your eyes, but historically speaking, it was quite true that some slave owners did indeed oppose slavery.Well, it’s one thing to own slaves. It’s quite another to invite a pro-slavery president to speak. Just because you own slaves, doesn’t mean you’re pro-slavery.
Sadly, many Catholics still vote for pro-abortion candidates even though the Church’s views against abortion are well known.
I think it’s true that some Catholics vote for candidates who support a right to abortion even when they know the Church opposes the very idea of such a right, but I don’t think most Catholics vote for those candidates precisely because of their pro abortion views. They vote for those candidates for other reasons. Of course, this is little comfort for those who wish to abolish abortion altogether and believe that a candidate’s positions on other issues do not matter. This seems to be the disagreement between Catholics who voted for President Obama and those who did not, not the fact that abortion is morally wrong. This is why I hope a new political position is opened in the future. I see no future for honest Catholics in a Democratic Party which supports abortion rights or in a Republican Party which believes the government has no role to play in securing the social and economic welfare of its citizens. I would like to see a new political party emerge.
I agree with what the Holy Father has said about the role of Catholic Institutions. I also agree with your final analysis of the issue facing a Catholic University when it invites a speaker onto its campus. My question, however, is what do you mean by a politician who stands for the culture of death? Many folks would say that President Obama, because of his position on abortion, is one such politician, but others would say that Governor Perry of Texas, because of his stand on the death penalty, is another such politician. Some would say that President Bush, by leading us into war in Iraq, also stands for the culture of death, as does Vice President Cheney due to his outspoken support for torture in Guantanamo Bay. Are Catholic Universities only to allow Mother Theresa and other saints like her to speak on campus? Perhaps this is a good idea, but perhaps it also limits the degree of influence a Catholic University can have on society. A Catholic University or institution cannot remain faithful to the vision of Catholic identity you mentioned above by hiding itself under a rock and pretending the difficult issues of the day don’t exist. Neither can sanctity pervade society by remaining in an ivory tower on an inaccessible hill. Catholic Insititutions must interract with the world if they are to influence the world, and this means being willing to listen to, dialog with and oppose those who have a different view than that which we champion. President Obama came to Xavier University to present a particular view. The University does not support that view because it offered the venue for dialog. Neither is its Catholic identity ignored by doing so. We have listened to the President. If his view is different from the one we proclaim, then we now have the right and duty to explain our own view to him and society in rebuttal. Our Catholic identity should not fear the honest expression of differing views. Our own vision has held firm for over two thousand years. I have no doubt it will outlast our present time and these present issues.
Bush gave us Roberts and Alito, which brought the composition of the SCOTUS to near where it would need to be to overturn Roe v. Wade. Then Obama gave us Sotomayor and Kagan, ensuring that such a reversal is another 20+ years off at best.