The old joke has it that Jews live like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. Now it seems that despite their bishops' pro-life exhortations, Catholics are breaking big for Obama, and starting to vote predictably like Jews. Tim Rutten reports:
What we're seeing in these three swing states is the end of the Catholic vote, as conventional political strategists traditionally have expected it to behave -- in part because it's now so large it pretty much looks like the rest of America; in part because of its own internal changes. National polls have shown for some time that, although Catholics are personally opposed to abortion, they believe it ought to be legal in nearly identical percentages to the rest of America. Moreover, as a survey by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate found earlier this year, only 18% of Catholics "strongly" agree with the statement: "In deciding what is morally acceptable, I look to the church teachings and statements by the pope and bishops to form my conscience."There's also a profound demographic shift occurring in this sector. Nearly one-third of all American Catholics now are Latinos, as are more than 50% of all Catholics under 40. They have broken overwhelmingly for Obama because of his stands on the economy and immigration. (Shades of the 1840s.)
What all this suggests is that, in this and coming election cycles, we may see a new model for the Catholic vote, one whose participation more closely resembles that of Jews, 75% of whom are overwhelmingly pro-Democratic, while a devout minority, the Orthodox, tends more strongly Republican. If you break the Catholic vote down in roughly the same pattern, you get something that looks like the current national spread. According to most reliable data, slightly less than one in four Catholics now assist at weekly Mass and are more open to GOP policies, while the overwhelming majority of their co-religionists have cast their lot with the Democrats' domestic and foreign policies.
In other words, back to the future.
This part stood out:
only 18% of Catholics "strongly" agree with the statement: "In deciding what is morally acceptable, I look to the church teachings and statements by the pope and bishops to form my conscience."
In other words, 82 percent of American Catholics surveyed are functionally Protestant.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Benedictus: a standard issue catholic who makes mistakes.
Exactly. The old "hamartia" (missing the mark) fallback. It's bailed me out of many a compromising embarras, c'est à dire, « situation délicate. » When one is in love, can one be wrong?
Incidentally, I acknowledge that you were asserting the primacy of conscience. The three conditions necessary for a mortal sin, etc. I submit this extends to any dissent from the Magisterium, including, Luther's dissent. (Luther had ample opportunity to avoid schism but he chose it freiwillig, (or mit freiem Willen, if that is not categorically un-Kantian.) It entails as well a rational dissent from the Magisterial view of abortion. Or the rabbis, our "elder brothers in the Faith", are treading the threshold of Sheol.
Let us remember that Ratzinger dines with Küng, who denies Ratzinger's raison d'être.
The problem with the most conservative Catholic voices on here is that there's a logical circularity in the argument about informed conscience, or so it seems to me.
Clearly, to decide that the Catholic church's magisterium is true, that the pope when speaking from the chair of Peter on matters of faith and morals is infallible, and so on, involves making an informed judgment about the CC's claims. This judgment may come from grace; but grace does not supplant nature, it (in a phrase from Thomas Aquinas, IIRC; pls tell me if I'm wrong) perfects nature.
So, even in the most "Conservative-Catholic-Approved" scenario, people do need to make an informed choice at least once, without the benefit of the magisterium. Then, I suppose, in the scenario of the most conservative Catholics on this thread, you could simply offer up your choice to always accept what's the defined teaching of the magisterium.
But this makes no sense: if you made the personal choice once, you don't somehow lose the ability to make it, or have that ability supplanted by an automatic acceptance; you prayerfully and respectfully use your now hopefully graced ability to choose. Again, grace perfects nature; it does not supplant it (though my understanding of grace is different than this; see below).
I'm not trying to logically nitpick: the non-reformed versions of Christianity have to accept that there's something profoundly powerful about the individual's choice, else no-one could ever accept these forms as an adult, rather than as a baptized-as-an-infant lifelong believer. And even for these cradle believers, there comes a time when you have to choose as an adult; that's part of what confirmation is about in Catholicism, I think.
I believe that this kind of logical problem is why I've come to like Eastern Christian (not just Orthodox; Greek Catholics believe in similar ways, and I am one of them) emphasis upon mystery, and upon growing into the fullness of belief, rather than upon dogmatic pronouncements that claim to not only define what is true, but the exact mode in which it is true.
Example: transubstantiation, a Western Catholic idea, as opposed to believing that the eucharist is a mystery that truly involves Christ's presence as body and blood. The latter accepts mystery; the former anchors dogma on the more tangible but less eternal rock of Aristotelian understandings of natural philosophy. I was trained as an Aristotelian; but I found that systematization of belief to be a bad fit, even as I am staunchly Christian in the non-reformed sense, and believe that the church ought to be one, as it is the body of Christ.
Grace in the Eastern churches is the divine energies (as opposed to essence) at work in human beings. These are by necessity part of mystery, beyond pinning down through philosophical formulations.
Apologies for the length; I'd like an answer from one of the Con-Cath posters out there. Though I consider myself conservative, and Catholic as well, as well as catholic.
PDGM
I believe that this kind of logical problem is why I've come to like Eastern Christian (not just Orthodox; Greek Catholics believe in similar ways, and I am one of them) emphasis upon mystery, and upon growing into the fullness of belief, rather than upon dogmatic pronouncements that claim to not only define what is true, but the exact mode in which it is true. Example: transubstantiation, a Western Catholic idea, as opposed to believing that the eucharist is a mystery that truly involves Christ's presence as body and blood. The latter accepts mystery; the former anchors dogma on the more tangible but less eternal rock of Aristotelian understandings of natural philosophy.
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:
Priest (in a low voice): Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented. And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.
(He blesses the holy Bread.)
Deacon (in a low voice): Amen.
Priest (in a low voice): And [make] that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.
(He blesses the holy Cup.)
Deacon (in a low voice): Amen.
Priest (in a low voice): Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.
- - -
The difference between Roman Catholic "transubstantiation" and the East's "make this bread the precious Body of your Christ...And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ" is more semantic than actual or theological. The bread and wine just as much and just as really become Christ's body and blood in the Orthodox service and mind as they do in the Catholic Mass. The fact that the Catholic Church has maybe in comparison gone overboard in its detailed explanations of how bread and wine become body and blood, and what does or doesn't remain of bread and wine after they have become body and blood, etc., does not change the fact that the Befores and Afters (i.e., Before = bread and wine, and After = body and blood) are the same for both Churches.
Let me begin by saying I thank God every day I belong to His Church--the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Yes, I am one of those brainless idiots who look to the successors of the apostles-bishops--when making moral decisions, including voting. Oddly, their reasoning is right in line with the word of God.
Yep, dissent began with the instruction on birth control in 1968 when Paul VI wrote HUMANAE VITAE. What exactly were we told in this teaching? In presenting his encyclical, Paul VI cautioned against four main problems that would arise if Church teaching on the regulation of births was ignored.
First, he warned that the widespread use of contraception would lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Second, he also warned that man would lose respect for woman and no longer [care] for her physical and psychological equilibrium, to the point that he would consider her "as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion. Third, the Holy Father also warned that widespread use of contraception would place a dangerous weapon . . . in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Fourth, Pope Paul warned that contraception would mislead human beings into thinking they had unlimited dominion over their own bodies, relentlessly turning the human person into the object of his or her own intrusive power.
Wow, was this guy clairvoyant, make some lucky guesses; or could he have been inspired by the Holy Spirit? Gen. 38:8-10 - Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.
Just for the record. Natural Family Planning (self control) has a success rate of 99%. Also, people who adhere to the Church’s teaching on the regulation of birth have a divorce rate of less than 5% in a society where divorce is now 50%.
I love those who use clergy abuse as an excuse not to listen to our priests. Yes, Christ’s Church has men who were not faithful--just like those "Catholics" writing here. The number of victims of childhood sexual abuse and molestation grows each year. This horrific crime is directly tied to the growth of pornography on the Internet. Everyone hates a child molester. Statistics tell us that 9 out of 10 children were molested by a parent, other relative or family friend
Here are sites showing clergy other than priests who abuse children. http://reformation.com/CSA/variousabuse.html http://reformation.com/CSA/bibleabuse.html http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-Pittard/hein-abuse1.htm http://www.chnetwork.org/forums/forum47/2571.html
The Church says the right to life is FOUNDATIONAL. Personally I do not believe any of those who claim to be good Catholics could vote for the most radical pro abortion candidate in history and think they will not be held accountable (yesterday's gospel--Luke 13:22-30--is good reading for those who disagree) Conscience what a joke. No one with a conscience could justify voting for a candidate who will not provide medical aid to a child of a botched abortion, or will do nothing to stop the MURDER of 1,500,000 babies a year.
In conclusion, if you do not wish to follow Church teachings please do us all a favor and join one of the 33,000 denominations who when they “protested” were honest enough to abandon the mantle of Catholic.
I am going to just be "that guy" and blurt it right out:
Far more folks self-identify as Catholics than attend Mass on Sundays.
Far more folks attend Mass and march up to recieve on Sunday, than are marching up to the confessional on Saturday evenings the night before.
Do the math.
Dreher should note that the ethnic Orthodox are functionally Catholics these days too... Olympia Snowe, Mike Dukakis, Paul Tsongas & Georgie Stephanopoulos anyone?
So it goes.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.