Are Catholics in the Pews Like Pew’s ‘Catholic Voters’?
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
Everyone agrees that the “Catholic vote” is important: it was 24 percent of votes cast in recent presidential elections and presumably determined the winners of key states. Candidates court it and pundits analyze it. But no one seems to know what (or who) it actually is.
Or even if it exists. MSNBC.com labelled the “Catholic vote” a myth after Gallup found 90 percent of Catholics split evenly between Obama and Romney. But other media, viewing a tilt toward Romney from Pew research, considered the “undecided” 10 percent, and predicted that one way or another Catholics will determine the 2012 presidency.
Then, the U.S. bishops issued a statement opposing Obamacare’s mandate that employers cover birth control. Their statement decrying an infringement upon religious freedom is distributed at Sunday Masses throughout America, and it’s interpreted as implying that Obama must go. So columnists like Michael Novak predict that (his fellow) Catholics will swing the election to Romney.
That forecast overlooks the elephant in the right-to-living room: Catholics use contraception. Many Catholics feel that wrapping religious freedom around birth control is akin to wrapping abolishment of the death penalty around mass murderer James Holmes. Neither “right to life” case is likely to evoke the sympathy of that large “undecided” segment.
Catholics who see this brouhaha as less about religious freedom than about birth control know that ship sailed a half century ago. You don’t need polls to determine how observant Catholics view birth control: the evidence is visible in the pews.
When the pill was introduced in the early 1960s, parishes had large families (like the Romneys, actually); even 10-kid families were common. Catholic women saw their decision about the pill as a moral one. Their choice to take it was made in what the Catechism refers to as “the internal forum” — consulting their own conscience and allowing it supremacy. Parish families evolved to the same size as other American families. Even our priests get it: we haven’t heard a homily advocating the church’s ban on birth control for decades. [more]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 24, 2013 7:00
Historic vote to accept gays as Boy Scouts draws mixed faith response
-
May 24, 2013 6:55
Faith-Healing Churches linked to 2 dozen child deaths
-
May 24, 2013 6:51
Clergy campaign for indigent care
-
May 24, 2013 6:46
Five more come forward alleging abuse by Hawaii Catholic priests
-
May 23, 2013 1:58
Religious freedom reports see little improvement in troubling countries
-
May 23, 2013 1:43
LGBT Catholics find a new supporter: An openly gay priest
-
May 22, 2013 1:37
Tornadoes exact deadly toll; region needs ‘a lot of prayers right now’
-
May 22, 2013 1:32
State Dept. report says countries have repressed religious freedom with laws
-
May 22, 2013 1:23
2 lawsuits filed against Maine Catholic church
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
55 Comments
Did you ever hear of filibuster?
I am going to stick my neck out for you. I believe as of June of this year Obama has issued about 127 Executive orders.
At 127, Obama is 164 Executive Orders behind Bush.
At 127, Obama is 237 Executive Orders behind Clinton.
At 127, Obama is 39 Executive Orders behind Bush Sr.
At 127, Obama is 254 Executive Orders behind Reagan.
At 127, Obama is 193 Executive Orders behind Carter
At 127, Obama is 42 Executive Orders behind Ford.
At 127, Obama is 219 Executive Orders behind Nixon.
At 127, Obama is 87 Executive Orders behind Kennedy.
At 127, Obama is 359 Executive Orders behind Eisenhower.
At 127, Obama is 769 Executive Orders behind Truman.
At 127, Obama is 3,601 Executive Orders behind Roosevelt.
And your point was?
That’s a powerful set of data Dennis. Thanks for sharing it.
Thanks, Editors — not a surprise which side you are on.
Maybe you can tell us why this blog will not accept the word for the founding document of this country.
Or why this blog won’t accept a word that describes sexual purity that begins with the letter “C” — chxstxty.
Not sure why the software is disallowing words like chastity and celibacy and constitution…will check on that. wasn’t aware it was an issue. thx
Not sure how thanking a commenter for shedding light on an issue with real data is somehow a partisan comment, Jim? We all have a right to our own opinions but we don’t have a right to our own facts…
Those, indeed, are offensive, dangerous words — for the leftists.
Please give the accusations and histrionics a rest, Jim. We are checking on the issue of disallowed words right now. Might be helpful if you didn’t always presume such conspiracies against your way of thinking and perhaps gave the benefit of the doubt that there might be an oversight somewhere…
Thank you, editors.
it seems to have allowed the words chastity, celibacy and constitution. The issue might be on your end…the browser might be disallowing some of those words because of the “T-I-T” in the middle? not sure but we don’t believe it’s on our end…thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Thank you for checking it out, dear Editors, and thank you for the information.
Numbers of executive orders are irrelevant — it is what those orders do. So, when Obama just overrode Congress and said those on welfare no longer have to work, that is a grave violation of our constxtxtion. Obama is the most dangerous, tyranical man ever to be USA president.
Your true colors come out – very good.
That statement by Mitt got a “Pants on Fire” rating by PolitiFact. It isn’t even close to the truth.
You can do better than that.
Sorry, Dennis, but I don’t have the time to be an investigator and follow every lead — I believe what I hear from credible sources.
And, I have to work for a living — I can’t do everything, be everywhere at once. In fact, I have spent much much too much time blogging here. Even the editors will be happy to see me slow down — well, probably especially the editors, who obviously line up more with your views than with mine.
“Even the editors will be happy to see me slow down — well, probably especially the editors, who obviously line up more with your views than with mine.” Ha! Not at all Jim…we’ve simply asked you to be slightly more respectful in your comments once or twice. We stand by those actions. Otherwise you’re very welcome to comment as much as possible. It seems like you have a willing, respectful debate partner in DENNIS. We hope you continue to engage these ideas.
editors — I appreciate the encouragement and the welcome.
Hi Jim.
I try to stick to things I am pretty sure about. But even then I am wrong a lot.
No reflection on you but I thought might like this quote and might be able to use it elsewhere.
“People may think you are an idiot but when you open your mouth you prove it.”
Dennis — I must say, you are a very cordial man, very careful not to ruffle feathers. Perhaps I need to learn from that. I will say, though, in my public life, I only say about half of what I say here — as I recognize there are real-world repercussions for saying what one REALLY thinks.
Thank you.
But there is ALSO the journey of human development of that unborn child through all stages of life from birth, through, childhood, through young adult and adult, through senior citizen and then to death. AT ALL THESE STAGES THE FORMER FETUS HAS TO BE TRREATED WITH DIGNITY AND BE ABLE TO FLOURISH AS A HUMAN BEING WHO IS MADE IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD.
It is as Cardinal Bernadin used to say a seamless garment from the first moment of conception to a natural death.
Not mentioned are the Catholics who tak the Social Justice issues of the church seriously and can not vote for Ryan.
Pro-life IS the greatest social justice issue. No one is more helpless in the world than the unborn child. Even the most liberal leaning bishops in the US are all in agreement with the pro-life cause. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney = life. Obama and Biden = death.
Tony you are right. I come from a large extended family of Roman Catholics and contraception is not an issue.
However, I cannot vote for someone that has no feelings for the poor and disabled.
No, I am not poor in fact my extended family is lucky to be rather well off.
Well if you can’t vote for someone that doesn’t care for the poor and disabled you have two choices in November: 1) vote for Romney/Ryan. 2) don’t vote.
The Obama administration has made the poor poorer under his economic policies. His stimulus programs wound up taking jobs from working class Americans and giving jobs to communist china. He has purposely sought to stifle job creation in the gas, oil, coal and nuclear energy sector (I.e. the keystone pipeline). He has illegally done away with the work requirements for welfare in order to keep welfare recipients poor and dependent on a government that is running out of cash.
A vote for Obama is a vote against the poor.
The reala dilemma is I must vote my conscience, I really cannot vote for a candidate who is for the taking of human life by abortion, by capital punishment or by war or mercy killing. I need a candidate who will vote the social teachings of our church, then we will have a truly Catholic candidate. Neither of the two guys we have now fit the bill.
I can’t imagine that anybody wants abortions – it must be hell for the woman that is faced with decision.
The presidential election is not going to change it – so move on to things that matter.
Dennis, you’re not Catholic are you? If you were then you would not say such things as “move on to things that matter” when confronted about the murder of unborn children.
Nice to hear from you Andrew.
Do you ever get anything right?
I said the presidential election is not going to change abortion policy.
Ooops.
Didn’t answer your first question. I am Roman Catholic and have mentioned it in just about every one of my posts.
Wrong again.
Real Catholics defend life no matter how unpopular it may be with the culture we live in.
What the heck does that have to do with this presidential election.
Dennis — what it has to do with this election is this: Obama’s very first act after he was elected had something to do with liberalizing abortions — I can’t remember what it was, but it may have been to allow federal funds to be used overseas to fund abortions. Also, Obama twice when in the IL legislature voted against a bill that would have required babies that survived saline abortions to have their life supported. Admitedly, a president can’t change Roe v. Wade — but they do appoint Supreme Court justices, and we need to get some clear thinking individuals in there who eventually will overturn that 1973 decision.
Hi Jim.
Your response does not have a reply button so I am replying to myself.
If your vote is solely based on the Right to Life issue just say so.
Remember what Sen. Ted Kennedy said about Romney’s position on this issue.
“I’m for pro choice
he is for multiple choice.”
Dennis — I imagine you know that the Democrats will not endorse any candidate who is not pro-choice; it is part of their party platform. I had voted Democrat all my life — heck, I voted for George McGovern in the 1972 presidential elecdtion — and I think only George and I voted for him that year — even his wife voted for Nixon. In 1992, I was all set to vote for
Clinton, but God put it on my heart that I could not vote for him because of his pro-choice position — I was having my conversion about that time — so from then on I have voted pro-life, which effectively makes you a Republican. But now, there are many other reasons to be a Republican. For one, the Democrats recently have been saying that gay marriage will become part of their party’s platform, and such support undermines all of society, and certainly is against Catholic teaching. Also, Obama has spent us into a hole that honestly, I don’t think it is possible to come out of — and the consequences for the USA, and ultimately for the entire world, I am afraid are very grim. Also, I don’t think Obama understands foreign policy — he has caused America to lose respect around the world. Last, his Justice Dept. under Eric Holder has allowed egregious crimes to occur without any legal follow through. For example, the intimidation of white voters by Black Panthers in Philadelpia during the 2010 election, and Holder said he would not prosecute that case; or the Black Panthers who treatened the guy in FL who is on trail for killing the black teenager — those Panters committed a felony by threatening to kill the accused man, yet the Justice Dept. won’t act. We have a huge problem on our hands, and the Democrats not only are doing nothing about it, but they are making it much worse. So, as far as I’m concerned, no informed person could in good conscience vote for Obama in November.
Jim that is a lot of rambling. Stay with you are voting for Romney because of his current position on the Right to Life issue.
Dennis — well, what I was saying is that, even if Romney had nothing else to recommend him other than his pro-life position, I would vote for him on that basis alone. But, he has a lot else to recommend him, as I was detailing in my post.
Well you didn’t get your point across.
Try one point at a time.
But you are going to have a hard time defending Ryans Objectivism philosophy.
Re: Ryans’ relationship with Objectivism: I have found that there always is tons of context and nuance which almost never gets communicated properly, so, I don’t know about this issue. What I do know is that Ryan appears to be a conscientious man who has the necessary courage to say what needs to be said and the disciple to devise a plan to get us out of this mess. When everything eventually hits the fan in America, what you saw happen in Greece will look like a children’s birthday party. There easily could be bedlam here, with only armed citizens able to defend their life and property rights. You saw what happened after Hurricane Katrina and during the Los Angeles riots — there was no law and order. So, in case I’m wandering too much for you — what I’m saying is we need someone to quit lying to the American people, tell us the real fiscal state of affairs, and propose a plan that has a chance of working.
And, here’s point two, Dennis: I’m going to bed, so I can go to Mass early tomorrow A.M. I’m sure we’ll be chatting again.
Explain to me how Paul Ryan can follow Ayn Rand’s teachings (Objectivism) and the Bible. The are antiethical. What is good in the Bible is evil in Objectivism and what is evil in the Bible is good in Objectivism.
The only thing they agree on is they are both against war.
Ryan is a chicken hawk (that is not name calling) it is a phrase to describe someone that is willing to send others to war but not from their family. Mitt has five sons with no military service.
Can’t wait to hear your response.
Hi Andrew.
Finally someone that knows economics.
First of all there has only been monetary stimulus but no fiscal stimulus since the Republican Congress blocked most bills to rebuild our infrastructure with the unemployed. And even the monetary stimulus was challenged by Republicans
that sent a letter to the chairman or the Federal Reserve threatening to launch an investigation of the Fed. Unheard of.
Remember when Obama was elected their only goal was to make him a one term president. Therefore, they did everything possible to keep the economy from recovering.
All your statements are incorrect and I would be happy to point them out to you one by one.
Yes, I would love to hear how a Republican minority in both the House and Senate during Obamas first 2 years hurt his agenda. And, how they’re still hurting him now that he’s ruling by illegal executive orders and ignoring the law. Make sure to include specific examples of how his policies have benefitted the poor.
For some reason my response to you is at the top of this page.
Any more questions?
Nope. Your response justs lists the number of executive orders our pro abortion president has issued with no references. You gave no examples how a GOP minority in Congress has stopped his agenda and you gave no examples as to how Obama has done anything to help the poor. Cheers!
You didn’t last long.
No I didn’t. Today is the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin – a holy day of obligation. I went to Mass this evening so no, I didn’t last long and you didn’t rebuke anything I posted earlier like you said you would.
Are you serious?
Give me a simple to the point question that doesn’t require a thesis for a response.
Dennis — well, you’ve just told us what channels you watch: some combination of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. You might read the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. My recommendation: watch only a balanced news channel for at least one month — and there is only one balanced channel: Fox News. Read only the WSJ; don’t not read the leftist garbage in those other rags. Then, you might come a little to your senses. To call the Republicans obstructionists comes straight from those media outlets I have referenced. When Republicans “obstruct”, it is only because Obama and the fascist Democrats want to do something stupid — which is most of the time.
I don’t watch much TV or read newspapers and magazines. All the TV news comes up with the same dozen news stories – why is that. I get all my information from the Internet.
But I just started watching Fixed News – very funny.
To ensure I’m interpreting you correctly, Dennnis, I’m guessing “Fixed News” is your view of Fox News. It’s interesting, though; recently (according to Fox News), they had three guests on their channel that favored gay marriage, and two that opposed it — a pretty even split. During the same period, MSNBC had 16 guests that commented about gay marriage — and they ALL were in favor of it. This, I think, illustrates the gross bias of MSNBC, but really of 95% of the media. Fox looks like it has spin because anything in the context of the grossly liberal media looks biased in the conservative direction.
Watching it right now.
You are aware that these people are entertainers and not journalists, reporters, or something like that.
I’m getting to like Bill O The Clown. He is very intelligent and has a hard time being totally off the wall like Hannity.
He also treats his guests with more respect than any of the other talking heads.
I’m glad you’re watching Fox and like O’Reilly. I agree O’Reilly is very bright. Hannity makes no secret of his position — I wouldn’t mind MSNBC and the other networks anywhere near as much as I do if they would quit posing as ubiased reporters and just admit their political leanings. You should Google John Sininu (spelling) and Soledad O’Brien (spelling) and watch their recent interview (yesteday? today?) where he really lays her out for her essentially being an opinionated Democrat who masquerades as objective and unbiased. If you Google it, it will be in the first three results or so — I did and it was very easy to find.
Yeah he will do that intelligently and politely but he always puts a spin on it. He does lose his arguement on occasion when he tries to defend indefensible positions and his opponent is more knowledgeable on the subject.
He also seems fair with the emails at the end of the show.