US Catholics back bishops on religious freedom, but still favor Obama, poll shows [CWN]

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t believe the poll questioned when the last time a so-called “Catholic” darkened the narthex of a church.

I full well believe it if one includes “cultural” Catholics who haven’t been to Mass since they were confirmed 30 years ago…as well as “Eastmas” (Easter-Christmas) Catholics.

 

[Pork_Roll]

Let’s face it, most people including Catholics are sheep. But voting republican for me isn’t much of an better option. As far as I’m concerned, when you vote republican, you vote for interests of prosperity churches and walmart.

 

[JimG]

So, the Democrats promise abortion, gay marriage, contraception, restriction of religious liberty–all moral evils. So why would Catholics vote for them?

Of course, they also intend national bankruptcy. Perhaps running the nation off a debt cliff is a matter of prudential judgment, but promotion of abortion and gay marriage and restrictions on religious liberty are quite enough to disqualify them for me.

 

[seekerz]

The Cuban health care system is the only positive thing they have to relate about that country? My stars! I encourage anyone who actually believes the Cuban health system is good to review this. therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

One has to wonder whether anyone who believes the Cuban health system is good should be credited in any other way.

Nevertheless, let’s talk about the elderly for a moment, which you mentioned. Obama is taking half a trillion dollars out of Medicare. This is good for the elderly? The chief actuary for Medicare says Medicare reimbursement is on track to be less than Medicaid reimbursement in a few years. Now, against the background fact that providers presently limit their Medicaid patients and many won’t take them at all because they lose money on them, this is good for the elderly?

Obamacare has more than doubled the cost of “child only” insurance because of mandates, making it unaffordable for many who could previously afford those formerly inexpensive policies. And this ensures healthy children?

Does anybody really believe American kids have been “unable to learn” because they didn’t have Obamacare, but now they will? A jaw-droppingly preposterous proposition.

Back to Cuba. I never said that healthcare alone impoverished Cuba. I have little doubt that, like all truly communist countries, the main cause of the terrible poverty there is the fact that the elites drain the economy of resources for many things; particularly their own comforts and perks. The elites do have a passingly good system. The remainder of the population has a wretched system. We’re going to have a two-tier system too. Unlike the French, who admit they have a two-tier system, we don’t admit that’s where we’re going with Obamacare. But that’s where we’re going.

But there is no question in anyone’s mind that bloated benefits, taken as a whole, have caused the Greek and Spanish (and soon the Italian) economies to crater. It isn’t just healthcare. Nor is there any serious question that excessive indulgence in transfer payments generally discourages family formation. Why? Because IL + IP = C+T. (Income from labor plus income from property equals consumption plus Transfers) Transfers can be voluntary or involuntary. To the extent transfers to the government are forced, voluntary transfers to those to whom we would choose to transfer our income is reduced. That’s just basic economics. But it’s worse than that. Since recorkeeping began in 1929, that percemtage of national income going to transfer payments comes out of that percentage of national income going to labor. Since the 2/3-1/3 ratio between that percentage of national income going to labor versus to property (capital) never varies more than a few percentage points no matter what happens in the economy,(there are reasons for that) increases in transfer payments affect labor’s rewards far more negatively than capital’s.

Obamacare isn’t going to primarily affect “the rich” (those whose income derives from capital), but those who work for their living.

And, since more people live off their labor than off their capital, it should therefore be no surprise that there is an inverse correllation between government-forced transfers and births. If there’s no money to raise children, people don’t raise children. IL + IP=C + T, and there’s no way around that.

And that’s why we’re watching the sun set on western Europe, both economically and demographically. We’ll see a lot more of it.

And we’ll see it here too.

I see you agree that it’s not health care impoverishing those countries you discuss. It’s a much more complex picture than you describe, particularly since we had our own economic downturn WITHOUT the help of universal health care. Admittedly you were jumping all over the world with your examples but the picture is clear: universal health care doesn’t impoverish countries.

As for Cuba, drugs and equipment may be limited because of trade restrictions, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the concept of providing free health care to the whole population. Sure they might not have gleaming, state of the art medical facilities where you pay $100/min just for the ambiance, but so what? Health care quality is measured by health indices, as in people cured/improved/dying/living - NOT by how great a hospital room looks. Cuban-trained doctors are improving health and saving lives all over the world, and they’re not turned off by a little dust and grime, unlike some of their more pampered contemporaries.

Nothing described on that site is unique to Cuba among other Third World countries - even the pharmacies, though not separate by nationality in other countries, are just as often stratified by the depth of people’s pockets. Come to think of it, every developing country I know has government pharmacies which are less amply stocked than expensive private ones…

That article is too supercilious for words: “every bacteria under the sun” - I have lived and worked in multiple poor countries and it strikes me that hospital infections are, if anything, MORE common in the US where antibiotics are overused like everything else in medicine…

It’s time for Americans to get with reality: the rest of the developed world has managed to afford decent care for its citizens without subjecting them to medical facilities that offend their tender sensibilities. What, save the sense of entitlement of some to supposed ‘best’, prevents the same happening here?

 

[MacBP]

The democratic party does a lot more to help the poor and disenfranchised, something that Jesus seemed to focus on a lot more than gay marriage or birth control in the gospels.

Preaching about marriage and birth control would be kind of superfluous if everyone accepted it to be true. Jesus spent time on helping the poor because that was where his society was lacking the most.

Jesus cares very deeply for the poor, and we have failed to help the poor in every age. He also cares very deeply for the family and for the Father’s law. When He was asked what to do to get into heaven Jesus said to “keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:16-17). What did Jesus say the greatest commandment was? “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). How does Jesus say to love him? “If you love me, obey my commandments” (John 14:15). We don’t get to choose whether or not to care for the poor OR keep God’s commandments. We do both, and we treat both as important.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Preaching about marriage and birth control would be kind of superfluous if everyone accepted it to be true. Jesus spent time on helping the poor because that was where his society was lacking the most.

Jesus cares very deeply for the poor, and we have failed to help the poor in every age. He also cares very deeply for the family and for the Father’s law. When He was asked what to do to get into heaven Jesus said to “keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:16-17). What did Jesus say the greatest commandment was? “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). How does Jesus say to love him? “If you love me, obey my commandments” (John 14:15). We don’t get to choose whether or not to care for the poor OR keep God’s commandments. We do both, and we treat both as important.

The life issues come first. Stated many times by the Holy See. We do both, sure, but they are not equal. Our first responsibility is to support life as, as has been said many times, a dead person can get no private/government help.

 

[Jeffrey]

This Catholic/Christian isn’t like that. I condemn both acts.

Are those Catholics attending MAss every week… or at least a few times a month ? Or are they C and E Catholics ?

Most American Catholics don’t mind gay marriage or birth control.

 

[Jeffrey]

VERY true. :clapping:

Don’t know about you folks, but I have enough reasons to vote against Obama that have nothing to do with religion.

 

[St_Francis]

…It’s time for Americans to get with reality: the rest of the developed world has managed to afford decent care for its citizens without subjecting them to medical facilities that offend their tender sensibilities. What, save the sense of entitlement of some to supposed ‘best’, prevents the same happening here?

I believe that the universal health care systems of other western nations will soon find themselves in financial trouble (which the UK is already publically having trouble with), as they have the same demographic problem we do: and aging population with too many retirees being supported by too few tax-payers.

I don’t know how they arrange things in other nations, but in the US, it’s a pay-as-we-go system.

In fewer than 15 years, it is projected that there will be 2 people paying in for each retiree. Two people to cover the Social Security and Medicare for each retired person.

Do you honestly think that this will not bankrupt us? (If we make it that far…)

 

[eightandsand]

If they are backing Obama, they aren’t real Catholics. They are just Catholics in name only.

To tell you the truth, I don’t see how a practicing Catholic can vote for either of these two milk-toast frauds.

If people are voting for Romney to vote against Obama then, unfortunately, Obama has already won.

 

[richard_wang]

1. The numbers used to gauge the Cuban health care system is highly suspect.

These numbers are provided by the Cuban Government, which is is an authoritarian dictatorship.

Amnesty International in it 2012 Annual Report stated that:

“The [Cuban] authorities continued to severely restrict the freedom of expression, assembly, and association of political dissidents, journalists and human rights activists. They were subjected to arbitrary house arrest and other restrictions on their movements by the authorities and government supporters which prevented them from carrying out legitimate and peaceful activities. All media remained under the control of the Cuban government.”

amnesty.org/en/region/cuba/report-2012

I very much doubt that the Cuban government is going to release any numbers that reflect badly on the regime.

(It is illegal for Cuban doctors to speak to foreigners without permission from the government.)

Reports from dissident doctors state that the real numbers are very different from the propaganda.

The mortality rate of children in Cuba from 1 to 4 years is 34 percent HIGHER than the U.S. (11.8 versus 8.8 per 1000). The maternal mortality rate in Cuba is almost FOUR TIMES that of the U.S. rate (33 versus 8.4 per 1000)

Also, It can be argued that the infant mortality rate in Cuba is so low because of the widespread practice of aborting any child suspected of having a birth defect. Close to 70% of all Cuban pregnancies end in abortions.

pop.org/content/abortion-and-infanticide-in-cuba-1089

**2. There is a huge disparity of the quality of care. **

Medication and equipment is available, but only to those who can pay in American Dollars or Convertible Pesos.

The poor and middle classes of Cuba have no access to these types of currency and thus get none of the benefits.

The ‘pesos pharmacies’ and local state hospitals are drastically under-stocked and thus access for the poor to needed medication is minimal, despite the service being free.

If you are provided services you are expected to give a gratuity to the provider.

walrusmagazine.com/articles/2012.04-travel-on-tipping-in-cuba/4/

3. Medical Diplomacy and the quest for hard currency

Cuban has one of the largest per capita numbers of doctors and nurses of any country in the World.

But upon completion of their training, they must serve 3 to 5 years for the Cuban government. They have no choice in where they are assigned. Vast numbers are sent overseas to generate hard currency for the government. In the mean time, these medical professionals make less than $20 a month.

When they are overseas they are under continuous surveillance by Cuban officials in order to prevent them from defecting.

Cuba does possess one of the best medical schools in the world, The Latin American School of Medicine in Havana. It provides free medical education for students from around the World. However this institution is NOT available to Cubans only international students.

sld.cu/sitios/elam/

Cuba has a World class bio-tech industry. It is the largest exporters of pharmaceuticals in Latin America. Almost none of the drugs ever reach the domestic market. It is instead used to generate hard currency.

Finally, almost all the best hospitals and medical personnel are used for medical tourism. People flock from around the world for low cost cosmetic surgery and other procedures.

Medical tourism is one of the largest sources of income for the Cuban government.

Once again, poor and middle class Cuban have no access to these facilities.

…

Though it is touted as providing free access to everyone, the health care system is highly unreliable and does not cater to even the basic needs of the Cuban people.

It’s primary purpose is as a source of hard currency for the government.

Thus where the need is the greatest, among the poor and the middle class, the assets are the least available.

 

[CMatt25]

So it would seem. Also, those who put Catholic in quotation marks don’t know their Catechism. They need to see what the Church considers as a Catholic, and it ain’t “Catholic.”
Anyone baptized in the Faith is a Catholic, and the deniers are flat wrong.

Exactly. I’m in a swing state and was just polled this wk by phone. I said I was voting for Barack Obama. Next question was am I definitely voting for Barack Obama or probably going to or could I change my mind. Nope I’m definitely voting for Barack Obama. Then there were a series of other questions such as how much I approved of President Obama’s healthcare plan. Strongly, somewhat, or did I somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove? I didn’t go with strongly but went with somewhat approve because I think it should have gone further. Public option or something and I may have been more inclined to go with strongly. Then near the end of the poll for statistical purposes I was asked my religion, race, gender and age range. I couldn’t answer the religion question by saying for instance I was a fundamentalist so I had to think back to where I was baptized and what religion I’m considered a member of by the church I was baptized in. I don’t think liberal Christian was an option. Nor was non practicing for any Catholic being polled. And after the religion question the poll asked how often one attends church. It has been since my Confirmation and even since Easter 2012.

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t believe the poll questioned when the last time a so-called “Catholic” darkened the narthex of a church.

I full well believe it if one includes “cultural” Catholics who haven’t been to Mass since they were confirmed 30 years ago…as well as “Eastmas” (Easter-Christmas) Catholics.

 

[CMatt25]

From the original article:

“The survey found 51% of self-identified Catholics favored Obama in the presidential race, and 42% favored Romney. When the sample was restricted to white non-Hispanic voters, however, the results were quite different, with Romney leading Obama by 47-44%.”

What strikes me most about these results is how much damage the GOP had done to themselves with respect to the Hispanic vote. It seems that perceived racism is a far more powerful predictor of political preference than just about anything else.

I also wonder what the numbers would look like if the poll had included self-identified ex-Catholics, which I have heard is the third largest religious denomination in the United States.

Finally, the poll does not explain why Obama is kicking Romney’s butt in 9 our of the 10 most Catholic states in the Union. If you look at the numbers the Huffington post put together about the Most and Least Catholic States in America and compare it with the poll numbers from Real Clear Politics, here is what you get:

Top 10 Catholic States: % Catholic vs. RCP Average

1. 
   *]Massachusetts :…45% Catholic - Obama +19
   *]Rhode Island:…44% Catholic - Obama +17
   *]New Jersey:…37% Catholic - Obama +14
   *]Connecticut:…35% Catholic - Obama +10
   *]New York:…32% Catholic - Obama +26
   *]Illinois:…28% Catholic - Obama +14
   *]New Mexico:…28% Catholic - Obama +11
   *]Pennsylvania:…28% Catholic - Obama +7
   *]California:…27% Catholic - Obama +17
   *]Louisiana:…26% Catholic - Romney +16
   
   Clearly, a large concentration of Catholic voters does not predict support for the GOP. I suppose some would interpret this to mean that the only “real Catholics” are those who live in southern red states, because according to Church doctrine, the litmus test for being a “real Catholic” is whether you vote Republican or not.

1. 
   

 

[CMatt25]

Agreed. Clearly, if you are a weekly churchgoer, you are more likely to agree with the Bishops and more likely to favor Romney. Other polls vaildate this finding. The problem is, the percentage of Catholics who are regular churchgoers is somewhere south of 20%. They won’t make enough of a difference, IMO.

Good point. IMO as well.

 

[CMatt25]

The democratic party does a lot more to help the poor and disenfranchised, something that Jesus seemed to focus on a lot more than gay marriage or birth control in the gospels.

That’s why I’m a liberal because of the focus.

 

[richard_wang]

That’s why I’m a liberal because of the focus.

Without life, what is there?

What help can you give to someone who is killed in the womb?

 

[CMatt25]

Without life, what is there?

What help can you give to someone who is killed in the womb?

Death. Which is what will happen to lives who need healthcare and don’t have affordable adequate healthcare. Maybe they don’t have employer coverage. Maybe they can’t afford their premiums, co pays, or deductibles. Maybe they don’t qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Maybe they can’t afford coverage or can’t even get it due to pre existing conditions. Jesus taught in Matt 25 to care for the sick. And the homeless, the hungry, those who need clothing, the poor. Jesus had a lot to say about the rich man. But one of them was not that the rich should be given the benefits of tax cuts while asking the poor to sacrifice. A human person already born without shelter, food or clothing will die too.

The help I can give a legally aborted embryo or fetus is prayer. If your chief focus is to overturn a 40 yr old law, that’s fine. That’s what you’re focusing on. As a society and the richest nation on earth, we can do so much more for those lives already born. And that’s where my main focus lies. Along with several other matters such as war and peace, economic fairness and justice for those not rich, the state putting born people to death, concern for immigrant families, etc. Fighting against a woman’s legal right or preventing two homosexuals in a loving, committed relationship from civil union or marriage are nowhere near as high on my radar screen. And yes I know your church gives to the poor, but there’s always room for more. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

But when is someone defined as “devout” as “churchgoing”?

Can they miss Mass at all and retain this title? How about once every 3 months? Once a month?

If they use contraception are they out automatically. If so that would certainly further shrink the %20 floated out there as “practicing”.

I can see what you are saying but polls need to use some measure and a baptized non-practicing Catholic is just as much “Catholic” as a regular churchgoer.

From what I know of Catholic teaching I see your point, Ringil. I’m reading thru this thread and I saw one Catholic speak of people who haven’t attended in 30 yrs since their Confirmation or not since C&E. Another gave a thumbs up to that post. But neither one of them has a clue if people polled haven’t attended in 30 yrs or since Easter. As you suggest maybe some attended in July or June of this yr. Maybe 2 wks ago, a month ago, 3 mos ago.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So it would seem. Also, those who put Catholic in quotation marks don’t know their Catechism. They need to see what the Church considers as a Catholic, and it ain’t “Catholic.”
Anyone baptized in the Faith is a Catholic, and the deniers are flat wrong.

I realize you were not addressing me, but I would like to apologize anyway for my post #81. I was focusing on the phrase ‘cultural Catholics,.’ as opposed to the first park of Mark’s post. That is a phrase that warrants quotation marks because it indicates an informal or technical cultural identity more than the practice of a religion, just as it is similarly valid to speak of ‘cultural Jews.’ (They also speak of themselves this way, when they are.) It is merely a fact, not a condemnation in itself. However, those who are culturally but not commitedly Catholic should name themselves thus, rather than being named by others.

(When I assent to the use of the phrase as a valid descriptor, it is, again, because I know quite a number of people who do favor all of the modern Democratic party platform goals, including all of those which oppose Catholic teachings, and who admit they are not practicing Catholics but have abandoned their faith tradition in the area of core moral issues.) It is because (Rich) even this group generally considers themselves permanently Catholic by baptism that they can indeed be considered part of the category called “The Catholic Vote.” (Notice the whole phrase is in quotes. ) It is not a denial of the fact that they are Catholic by identity. I do not deny that, never have, by the way.

However, with regard to this, you are incorrect:

Only if they follow 100% of church teachings? That leaves me out because I’ve been known to have committed some sins - violations of church teachings - but I and other sinners have the Sacrament of Confession to get us straight with the Church. I’m not a living saint like the Catholics you know.

I don’t think the poster to which you responded meant “follow” Church teachings so much as believe/support Church teachings. Otherwise there would be 0% genuine Catholics, obviously, and undoubtedly he knows that, too. This fallacious argument is often used as an “objection” to the requirement to assent to Church teachings: the so-called impossibility based on man’s propensity to sin. That’s not what fidelity to Church teaching means. It means affirmation of the corpus of belief and a willingness to be consistent about that belief, beyond Sunday.