The Catholic Vote

[Trakar]

Always a complicated group, American Catholics have a tradition of contradiction. While the populist liberal perspective is that religion and "religionists" are the domain of the GOP, the Democratic party seems to elect more Catholics than the GOP.

With issues of gay marriage, pro-choice, and the kerfluffle over whether or not catholic health care organizations should be forced to buy employee insurance that covers contraception many on the left seem to have thrown in the towel and not just conceded those votes to the GOP, many have gone even further into actively antagonizing issues and attacking catholics and catholic beliefs on a broad range of issues. For people who advocate diplomacy, discussion and nuanced, in-depth consideration on other issues this seems not only ironic, but terribly unproductive.

Gallup has a march poll which seems to rather douse with ice water the populist considerations regarding American Catholics.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/ca...tem-cells.aspx

Quote:

Despite the Roman Catholic Church's official opposition to abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, a Gallup analysis finds almost no difference between rank-and-file American Catholics and American non-Catholics in terms of finding the two issues morally acceptable...

...The accompanying chart shows the percentage of Catholics and non-Catholics who find each of nine moral issues morally acceptable. Catholics are at least slightly more liberal than non-Catholics on the issues of gambling (an issue to which the Catholic church is not totally opposed), sex between an unmarried man and woman, homosexual relations, and having a baby out of wedlock. Catholics are essentially tied with non-Catholics on the moral acceptability of abortion, divorce, and stem-cell research using human embryos. Only on the death penalty are Catholics slightly less likely than non-Catholics to find the issue morally acceptable...

IMO, it is up to the left to act on this information and find/exploit the common ground they have with the US catholic majority, rather than bashing them and seeking to further push them into partnership with the GOP who they really have little in common with.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Trakar

... rather than bashing them and seeking to further push them into partnership with the GOP who they really have little in common with.

When did this ever happen?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by hgc

When did this ever happen?

Have you actually read the slant and tone of opinion pieces and more importantly the comments and responses of those that flooded left leaning political sites over the last six months or participated in any threads on the general topics here and virtually anywhere else on the internet?

Bashing their Church and church leaders, regardless if it is on subjects that most practicing american catholics tend to agree with you about, will not make it easier for them to politically support you. The bigger the issue becomes the less likely they are going to be to vote reason rather than faith. The GOP is responsible for makeing this a large issue (it is to their advantage to do so), but it takes two to tango, and it doesn't matter who "started it," when someone feels their faith is being attacked the typical response is rarely to abandon their faith and embrace the perceived attacker's perspective on issues.

[MG1962]

Catholics by an large tend to gravitate to centrist positions, with a slight leaning to the left. Social justice is a well identified concept with Catholics and the Democrats in the US tend to offer more of these types of programs than the Republicans.

Rick Santorum being the obvious exception, seemed to be on a mission to re-write the Catholic tenants he was attempting to base his policies on. Many far right Christians openly dislike Catholics so it increases the marginalization Catholics encounter when exploring conservative politics in the US

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Have you actually read the slant and tone of opinion pieces and more importantly the comments and responses of those that flooded left leaning political sites over the last six months or participated in any threads on the general topics here and virtually anywhere else on the internet?

How about some evidence. No doubt there is Catholic bashing and you'll find some. But I'm questioning how much is coming from main stream media and significant political players as opposed to forums like this or fringe sites. I'm also talking about first person "bashing" not a Republican talking point from those that say wanting contraception to be paid is a war on religion.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Have you actually read the slant and tone of opinion pieces and more importantly the comments and responses of those that flooded left leaning political sites over the last six months or participated in any threads on the general topics here and virtually anywhere else on the internet?

Bashing their Church and church leaders, regardless if it is on subjects that most practicing american catholics tend to agree with you about, will not make it easier for them to politically support you. The bigger the issue becomes the less likely they are going to be to vote reason rather than faith. The GOP is responsible for makeing this a large issue (it is to their advantage to do so), but it takes two to tango, and it doesn't matter who "started it," when someone feels their faith is being attacked the typical response is rarely to abandon their faith and embrace the perceived attacker's perspective on issues.

This bashing you describe is probably more an eye-of-the-beholder thing than something easily quantified, despite the lack of evidence from non-fringe sources that I suspect hinders your argument. Yes, I can imagine there are Catholics who disagree with the American bishops' positions who would nonetheless be put off by criticism of their church hierarchy from outside their own ranks, but I don't know how many they would be.

The statistics on American Catholics' use of oral birth control is very telling. They clearly reject their church's official position in near unanimity. I see no political downside in pushing the good policy of including church-owned institutions, such as universities and hospitals, within the laws requiring that employer-based health insurance cover certain classes of medicine, e.g., birth control. Demanding this policy is NOT bashing the church (not that I think you think it is either), and if bishops want to wade into the political arena to make their case, we should all expect that they will come under political fire for it -- they should no more be immune than any influential non-clerical political activist.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Catholics by an large tend to gravitate to centrist positions, with a slight leaning to the left. Social justice is a well identified concept with Catholics and the Democrats in the US tend to offer more of these types of programs than the Republicans.

Rick Santorum being the obvious exception, seemed to be on a mission to re-write the Catholic tenants he was attempting to base his policies on. Many far right Christians openly dislike Catholics so it increases the marginalization Catholics encounter when exploring conservative politics in the US

Look at the hard time some try to give the church for aiding and abetting child rape. They even want the church to report their own priests instead of making the victim understand their role in seducing a priest.

[angrysoba]

Newt Gingrich is Catholic too, right?

Ah, but so is Biden.

Hmmm... I think it might be easier to be Catholic because you don't have to flaunt your religious views, you're a Catholic! Whereas if you're a proddy you have to do some extra work to prove you're really righteous. Or something. That's the impression I get from watching US politics from here.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Newt Gingrich is Catholic too, right?

Yes, but he's willing to convert for the right price.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Look at the hard time some try to give the church for aiding and abetting child rape. They even want the church to report their own priests instead of making the victim understand their role in seducing a priest.

And other than a cheap shot for the sake of a cheap shot, what has this got to do with the OP

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Resume

Yes, but he's willing to convert for the right price.

Or revert as we Muslims say.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by MG1962

And other than a cheap shot for the sake of a cheap shot, what has this got to do with the OP

How are factual statements a cheap shot?

Now I know catholic parents don't care by and large if their kids get raped by the clergy or they wouldn't be catholic. That is a cheap shot.

Would catholic be up in arms about mandatory reporting laws for child abuse for clergy? Even with a confessional exemption?

The catholic church is a horrible organization and catholics need to leave or fix it. They are demonstrably incapable of either though.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

How are factual statements a cheap shot?

Now I know catholic parents don't care by and large if their kids get raped by the clergy or they wouldn't be catholic. That is a cheap shot.

Would catholic be up in arms about mandatory reporting laws for child abuse for clergy? Even with a confessional exemption?

The catholic church is a horrible organization and catholics need to leave or fix it. They are demonstrably incapable of either though.

Because the discussion is about Catholics and how they see themselves and how they position themselves in the current political climate in the US. If you feel you have something important to say about the clergy of the Church or its organisation, then feel free to start a thread to discuss it

[Donal]

From what I've seen, Catholics tend to vote more along along ethnic lines rather than religious. ie Italians vote Republican, Irish (like my parents) swing Democrat, Latinos are all over the map, depending on how they identify themselves, and Germans and French also tend to lean left of center.

What people need to realizer is that the Vatican does not tell us how to vote. They issue statements about morality and such in certain issues, but you'll find that alkso skews the spectrum. Abortion is not the be all end all of what we're suppsoed to consider.

The Vatican has also entered opinions on welfare, war, immigration, gay rights, education, foreign aid, and a host of other subjects. And, like most Americans, Catholics tend to vote with their wallets.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Catholics by an large tend to gravitate to centrist positions, with a slight leaning to the left. Social justice is a well identified concept with Catholics and the Democrats in the US tend to offer more of these types of programs than the Republicans.

Rick Santorum being the obvious exception, seemed to be on a mission to re-write the Catholic tenants he was attempting to base his policies on. Many far right Christians openly dislike Catholics so it increases the marginalization Catholics encounter when exploring conservative politics in the US

Much of these generalizations depend upon which region of the country you focus on. For extreme NE catholics and Californian catholics, your assessment is probably accurate, but in the heartland and the south, Catholics are generally considered much more issue specific in focus (and garnering their support depends upon focussing on the right issues). Considering that catholics in the US number about the same as evangelical christians and far and away outnumber "far right christians," have a strong voting heritage, and especially with the growing hispanic population of our nation could easily shift to the right if they are alienated by anti-religionists who seem to be demanding a larger voice on the left, care needs to be taken not to force catholics into making a choice between party and religion. I'm not saying that left leaning catholics would suddenly show up at the polls supporting far right tickets, but it is easy to see how they might not support candidates and a party in general that they feel is antagonistic to their faith and beliefs.

[BenBurch]

I lost all sympathy for the RC church when I found out what they had covered up about the priest who was pastor of the church I grew up in.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

How about some evidence. No doubt there is Catholic bashing and you'll find some. But I'm questioning how much is coming from main stream media and significant political players as opposed to forums like this or fringe sites. I'm also talking about first person "bashing" not a Republican talking point from those that say wanting contraception to be paid is a war on religion.

Well, I don't consider JREF a "fringe" site, nor do I consider Huffington Post, Daily KOS, Talking Points Memo, or Think Progress to be so. Likewise, I do not consider op-ed pieces in major newspapers and magazines like the NYT, Atlantic, Mother Jones, etc., to be without significance in shaping both the internal Democratic political discussion and more general public policy debate.

It isn't so much the articles in every instance, many of which raise valid points of consideration (amongst often rampant and incendiary assertions of irrelevent issues), but when the articles seemingly seek to inflame and rouse the rebels, then it is no surprise when the prejudices and intolerances of those who publically comment upon and command the subsequent discussion fill the forae in which that discussion takes place with their own biases and prejudices.

Like them or not, these are places where a lot of left consideration and discussion occur, and once the perception of bias against one's beliefs begins it is difficult to overcome and recover from,...especially in the build up to what may be a critical national election period.

A relatively small and random sampling from among the dumpings generated in any competent search for the types of pieces I am referring to:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-...b_1296358.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...lic-Plutocrats

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...-the-universe/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/op...es-nobody.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...he-right/3958/

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...alots-right-me

Again, it isn't that there should be no division or criticism, just that when there is criticism of the church or religion in general, it needs to be very carefully and specifically aimed, with care not to alienate or attack people who otherwise would generally support your candidate and policies over your opponents candidates and policies.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by hgc

This bashing you describe is probably more an eye-of-the-beholder thing than something easily quantified, despite the lack of evidence from non-fringe sources that I suspect hinders your argument.

I'm sure there is some of this, especially as a well-educated, socially and politically progressive, Republican, Catholic. There is an unfortunate embarassment of non-fringe sources, but I suspect that much of our difference lies in the application and definition of such terms as "fringe" and perhaps even "bashing."

Quote:

Yes, I can imagine there are Catholics who disagree with the American bishops' positions who would nonetheless be put off by criticism of their church hierarchy from outside their own ranks, but I don't know how many they would be.

Hard numbers are probably going to be difficult to find.

When we look at how many nominal Catholics there are in the US (~69M), and acknowledging that this population has a high percentage of turnout voters, even a shift of 10% or so could easily mean a shift of 5 million votes. I don't think most of these would go for the Republican candidate, but they wouldn't be for Obama. Combined and overlapped with other cultural and ethnic group issues and you start getting a negative feedback at the street level which can be dangerous, but much more easily addressed if gotten ahead of in the proper way!

Quote:

The statistics on American Catholics' use of oral birth control is very telling.

I wonder what the statistics on American Catholics' thinking impure thoughts or speaking badly of others would tell us? This really wasn't intended to argue which sins are more or less objectionable in modern society. Rather, I simply wanted to suggest that though issues of religiosity should rightfully be considered ancilliary to most public policy political considerations, you really don't want to start actively giving large blocks of people yet another reason not to turn out in support of this administration.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Newt Gingrich is Catholic too, right?

Ah, but so is Biden.

Hmmm... I think it might be easier to be Catholic because you don't have to flaunt your religious views, you're a Catholic! Whereas if you're a proddy you have to do some extra work to prove you're really righteous. Or something. That's the impression I get from watching US politics from here.

But a brief insight, but insightful none-the-less!

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Because the discussion is about Catholics and how they see themselves and how they position themselves in the current political climate in the US. If you feel you have something important to say about the clergy of the Church or its organisation, then feel free to start a thread to discuss it

The problem isn't so much that there are always inflammatory episodes, but that all too often they consume the whole of the discussion. I just feel that the moderates (on both sides) need to exert their influences more to make sure that the discussion and the appearance from the outside becomes more thoughtful and measured. To a great extent, that was the main message and discussion I wished to initiate, the hows and details of how to involve and bring together groups, rather than just further chase people away from important public policy discussions.

[Brainster]

Seems like a good place to post this:

Quote:

Some of the most influential Catholic institutions in the country filed suit against the Obama administration Monday over the so-called contraception mandate, in one of the biggest coordinated legal challenges to the rule to date.

Claiming their "fundamental rights hang in the balance," a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the requirement. Among the organizations filing were the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and The Catholic University of America.

[DavidJames]

Thanks for your reply. Almost as soon as I posted my original response I knew where this was headed. It would come down to a debate regarding mainstream vs fringe and what is the evel of the tone.

Originally Posted by Trakar

Well, I don't consider JREF a "fringe" site, nor do I consider Huffington Post, Daily KOS, Talking Points Memo, or Think Progress to be so. Likewise, I do not consider op-ed pieces in major newspapers and magazines like the NYT, Atlantic, Mother Jones, etc., to be without significance in shaping both the internal Democratic political discussion and more general public policy debate.

I think JFREF is very much a fringe site, or at least has an abnormally high percentage of far right and left along with completely whacked out opinions. I would say the center of the bell curve is greatly under represented on this site. Certain HuffPost has their fringe commentators as does many opinion sites.

I guess I'm still old school and don't consider any of your examples, with the exception of NYT, to be mainstream and Dowd's article was critical but that's about it.

As I also said in my original comment you will find extremes and of course you did. Of what you posted, I thought possibly the first three could be considered inflammatory while the last three reasonable.

The good/bad part of the media today is you will find and be able to support whatever opinion you choose. A little Googling and you can validate those opinions. This forum is a perfect example and you end up with endless debates over semantics.

I don't read many online sites. I get my news from the local TV channels I watch, some national news channels, and the local newspaper. FWIW, most of the people I know are about the same. There are exceptions and they almost exclusively are Rush, Beck, Fox type examples.

From what I see and hear from local media and national media, there is no widespread liberal "bashing" of Catholics, not even close. In fact, religion gets an almost free pass. Is there Criticism? Sure, and it almost exclusively swells after a molestation case. I also know where that comment will lead. But I don't see how anyone can deny those cases deserve national publicity. Sexual abuse, around here, is front page news. When it's done by "men of God", it goes national.

I've typed way to much

Bottom line is I don't see the level of discourse against Catholics you do. I recognize it exists, but I find it's way under the radar.

[Darth Rotor]

The USCCB wishes it could form a voting bloc of American Catholics.

It can't. It can only make appeals to "vote your conscience" and such, or "look at the issues" in order to remain in the Constitutionally appropriate role.

So, while there are 70 million or so Catholics in America (not sure how many are voting age) and they thus represent a potential swing vote, the ability of the church to harness this political power is chimerical.

Consider this: about half of the Catholics in America don't hold with the fundamental doctrine/dogma of "the real presence" in the Eucharist/wafer-wine.

If the Church cannot achieve consensus on such a basic principle, and if the large majority of married Catholics produce 2, 3, or 4 kids rather than the five to ten that was not uncommon a generation and two ago, how can the RCC and the USCCB expect to lead a voting bloc?

They can't.

It's that simple.

More or less, what the OP refers to is a pipe dream, for the reasons stated in its opening sentence: American Catholics are a complex mix.

The joke's on you, Benny.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

The USCCB wishes it could form a voting bloc of American Catholics.

It can't. It can only make appeals to "vote your conscience" and such, or "look at the issues" in order to remain in the Constitutionally appropriate role.

So, while there are 70 million or so Catholics in America (not sure how many are voting age) and they thus represent a potential swing vote, the ability of the church to harness this political power is chimerical.

Consider this: about half of the Catholics in America don't hold with the fundamental doctrine/dogma of "the real presence" in the Eucharist/wafer-wine.

If the Church cannot achieve consensus on such a basic principle, and if the large majority of married Catholics produce 2, 3, or 4 kids rather than the five to ten that was not uncommon a generation and two ago, how can the RCC and the USCCB expect to lead a voting bloc?

They can't.

It's that simple.

More or less, what the OP refers to is a pipe dream, for the reasons stated in its opening sentence: American Catholics are a complex mix.

The joke's on you, Benny.

And Michael Gerson weighs in on the issue:

http://townhall.com/columnists/micha...5/21/something

Quote:

Catholic voters could matter greatly in some tight state contests. And Obama has done his best to alienate them.

The main offense has been the Department of Health and Human Service's mandate for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs under Obamacare -- a regulation that turns Catholic hospitals, universities and charities into instruments of a federal policy they find offensive. Between early March and mid-April -- soon after the HHS mandate battle was joined -- the Pew Research Center found that Obama's support among all Catholics fell from 53 percent to 45 percent. Among white Catholics, it dropped from 45 percent to 37 percent. These numbers have remained depressed. Obama won 54 percent of Catholic voters in 2008. A recent Gallup survey found Obama's Catholic support at 46 percent.

Correlation is not causation. But, in this case, it doesn't seem mere coincidence. Professor John White, a political scientist at The Catholic University of America, finds Obama's decline among Catholics "in large part due to the recent debate over health care and contraception." Many Catholics have issues with their own institutions. It does not mean they want those institutions targeted by government. They are happy to criticize their own bishops -- but not to hear the views of their bishops insulted by politicians.

And HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is a continuing insult to the beliefs of traditional Catholics. Testifying at a recent House hearing, Sebelius admitted that she had consulted no constitutional precedents and asked for no legal advice from the Justice Department while making her decision on the contraceptive mandate. "Congressman," she explained, "I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to understand the nuances of the constitutional balancing tests." The only thing worse than indifference to religious liberty is casual, ignorant indifference to religious liberty.

Way to go, Obama!

[Minoosh]

I associate Catholics as more liberal than conservative - forgiving of illegal immigrants, anti-death penalty, pro science. That could tip the balance. This may be regional as I live in a high immigration area and the diocese has a significant outreach aimed at, among other things, helping people regularize their immigration status. Plus aid to the poor etc.

Be interesting if there were obtainable polls....

[Trakar]

I feel that there are a lot of good issues being raised and to an extent, discussed, on all sides of this subject. I wish there were some more specific polling numbers to look at, and perhaps the lawsuits mentioned by Brainster will result in some more focussed and informative surveys being completed.

It may be more an issue of misperceptions and misunderstandings that are relatively simple to address rather than ideological perspective issues which demand a restructuring of internal belief systems in order to make much headway, and are thus extremely difficult and effort intensive to adjust. I often run into this when addressing other issues (such as climate change). It comes down to figuring out what core descriptives a person self-identifies with, and then tailoring one's arguments to address that perspective. With Catholics, the diverse mix, helps rather than hinders out-reach, but it does not eliminate the need for the out-reach. Minoosh actually seems to hit at the core of this (as well as a mention by Puppycow in the "populism" thread of the Romney/Ryan budget cuts proposal to anti-poverty programs that has the Church and many of the same Catholic organizations upset), in that the Church and most Catholics are not "single-issue" Catholics. By focussing on these other issues individual Catholics can decide which issues are more important to them individually and in that perspective, progressives generally have much more in common with organizations that focus on relieving human suffering and poverty and providing social safety nets for those who need the community of their fellow men than those who do not share these progressive goals.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

The USCCB wishes it could form a voting bloc of American Catholics.

It can't. It can only make appeals to "vote your conscience" and such, or "look at the issues" in order to remain in the Constitutionally appropriate role.

So, while there are 70 million or so Catholics in America (not sure how many are voting age) and they thus represent a potential swing vote, the ability of the church to harness this political power is chimerical.

Consider this: about half of the Catholics in America don't hold with the fundamental doctrine/dogma of "the real presence" in the Eucharist/wafer-wine.

If the Church cannot achieve consensus on such a basic principle, and if the large majority of married Catholics produce 2, 3, or 4 kids rather than the five to ten that was not uncommon a generation and two ago, how can the RCC and the USCCB expect to lead a voting bloc?

They can't.

It's that simple.

More or less, what the OP refers to is a pipe dream, for the reasons stated in its opening sentence: American Catholics are a complex mix.

And American Catholics don't like bishops and things wading into politics and telling them how to vote. It's annoying. The few who still bother with church go on Sundays, and expect the rest of the week to be free of talkative clergy telling them what to do. American Catholics just want the sacraments, the ceremonies, the timeless rituals that have zero impact on their actual everyday lives. That (was) the main strength of Catholicism--continuity with the past. But that got messed up, starting with the idiocies of Vatican II and attempts to "modernize" the church. People didn't want a modern church. It's like when you want to buy a classic car and the salesguy keeps pushing you toward brand new updated ultramodern ones with all these fancy new features. Not what's wanted.

As long as the church doesn't agree with the faithful on what its role actually should be, it's going to continue sinking into irrelevance.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And American Catholics don't like bishops and things wading into politics and telling them how to vote. It's annoying. The few who still bother with church go on Sundays, and expect the rest of the week to be free of talkative clergy telling them what to do. American Catholics just want the sacraments, the ceremonies, the timeless rituals that have zero impact on their actual everyday lives. That (was) the main strength of Catholicism--continuity with the past. But that got messed up, starting with the idiocies of Vatican II and attempts to "modernize" the church. People didn't want a modern church. It's like when you want to buy a classic car and the salesguy keeps pushing you toward brand new updated ultramodern ones with all these fancy new features. Not what's wanted.

As long as the church doesn't agree with the faithful on what its role actually should be, it's going to continue sinking into irrelevance.

You seem a bit disconnected from the vast majority of American Catholics, of my experience. It may be that the Catholics of my experience in the various regions of nation that I have lived, are different that the Catholics of your acquaintance, but, from my experience, it is more of a culture for most, rather than simply a weekly or semi-annual pray-union. This isn't to say that they are unified in their dogma and personal expressions of faith and belief, but there is a community in most dioceses that share and rather actively participate within among each other.

There are certainly a significant number of nominal Catholics, but as others have intimated, these probably are not a major concern for issues like this, as their political persuasions are most likely going to more strongly influenced by non-religious concerns and problems. I am more concerned with praticing Catholics who take their religious perspective with them whereever they happen to go.

I'm not talking about those who brandish their faith like a badge, but rather those who keep its tenets and council in their heart when they make any important decision. For those Catholics it is important that they be provided with reasons that they can support a progressive administration that supports the majority of their goals and beliefs even while it acts against a few of their interests in one or two areas.

[hgc]

http://www.newser.com/story/146489/c...-lawsuits.html

Here now the RCC in America has declared all-out war, with lawsuits en masse, on the very sensible government policy of including large employers such universities, hospitals and other eleemosynary institutions, that happen to be owned by the tax-exempted Catholic church, within the rules requiring birth-control coverage in employer-based insurance plans. Why? Because almost all working people in this country have no other recourse to affordable health insurance than through their employer.

Are American Catholics, when the vast majority of Catholic women do use or have used hormonal birth control, many of them affording through employer-based health insurance coverage, going to side with the bishops who refuse to afford the same right (in some cases) to employees of Catholic hospitals and universities, be they Catholic or not?

Listen to Timothy Dolan's (big church boss in NY) threats: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-ba...4412/#47524412

Quote:

>> if these mandates click in, we're going to find ourselves faced with a terribly difficult decision as to whether or not we can continue to operate. as part of our religion, it's part of our faith that we feed the hungry, that we educate the kids, that we take care of the sick. we'd have to give it up because we're unable to fit the description and the definition of a church given by, guess who? the federal government .

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by hgc

http://www.newser.com/story/146489/c...-lawsuits.html

Here now the RCC in America has declared all-out war, with lawsuits en masse, on the very sensible government policy of including large employers such universities, hospitals and other eleemosynary institutions, that happen to be owned by the tax-exempted Catholic church, within the rules requiring birth-control coverage in employer-based insurance plans. Why? Because almost all working people in this country have no other recourse to affordable health insurance than through their employer.

Are American Catholics, when the vast majority of Catholic women do use or have used hormonal birth control, many of them affording through employer-based health insurance coverage, going to side with the bishops who refuse to afford the same right (in some cases) to employees of Catholic hospitals and universities, be they Catholic or not?

Listen to Timothy Dolan's (big church boss in NY) threats: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-ba...4412/#47524412

And you think this post and the rhetoric within it and the linked references work towards a mutually beneficial resolution, or are they examples more likely to divide rather than unite?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And American Catholics don't like bishops and things wading into politics and telling them how to vote. It's annoying. The few who still bother with church go on Sundays, and expect the rest of the week to be free of talkative clergy telling them what to do. American Catholics just want the sacraments, the ceremonies, the timeless rituals that have zero impact on their actual everyday lives. That (was) the main strength of Catholicism--continuity with the past. But that got messed up, starting with the idiocies of Vatican II and attempts to "modernize" the church. People didn't want a modern church. It's like when you want to buy a classic car and the salesguy keeps pushing you toward brand new updated ultramodern ones with all these fancy new features. Not what's wanted.

As long as the church doesn't agree with the faithful on what its role actually should be, it's going to continue sinking into irrelevance.

TM, I agree in part and disagree in other parts. As to meddling bishops, yes, but the rest isn't quite in keeping with what I've seen and experienced.

Vatican II cost the RCC some members, but that act of liberalization and partial reconciliation with Greek and Protestant churches (example, anathema against the Greeks was rescinded, how nice!) got the RCC to finally spell out its teachings in a more coherent form than came out of the Council of Trent. The result was the 1994 Catechism, which while a comprehensive document, does have its problems. Yes, it was different from the Baltimore Catechism, but over the last generation it seems to have settled in.

Vatican II also forced the RCC to address a whole bunch of Church Father Era (pre Nicea) practices, which it tried to do. This forced the doctrine and dogma team to find more linkage in scripture to things that had been held onto only as tradition. Mixed success.

As to Catholic attitudes, it varies by parish, and within a given parish. The habits of charismatic Protestant denominations have had some effects across sectarian boundaries.

Mixed bag.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Trakar

And you think this post and the rhetoric within it and the linked references work towards a mutually beneficial resolution, or are they examples more likely to divide rather than unite?

You are right -- I spoke injudiciously, and would dial back the rhetoric if I were trying to convince someone of something. But I do stand by the substance of what I say there.

As for the MSNBC link, I only intended it for what Dolan is saying. Martin Bashir and his guests are doing more of MSNBC's Bazarro-FNC schtick, which I cannot recommend to anyone for edification.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

How about some evidence. No doubt there is Catholic bashing and you'll find some. But I'm questioning how much is coming from main stream media and significant political players as opposed to forums like this or fringe sites. I'm also talking about first person "bashing" not a Republican talking point from those that say wanting contraception to be paid is a war on religion.

And there is a big difference between bashing the Catholic Church versus bashing Catholics. Some of the biggest bashers of the Catholic Church that I know are themselves Catholic. Hell, one is even a priest!

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

The USCCB wishes it could form a voting bloc of American Catholics.

It can't. It can only make appeals to "vote your conscience" and such, or "look at the issues" in order to remain in the Constitutionally appropriate role.

So, while there are 70 million or so Catholics in America (not sure how many are voting age) and they thus represent a potential swing vote, the ability of the church to harness this political power is chimerical.

Consider this: about half of the Catholics in America don't hold with the fundamental doctrine/dogma of "the real presence" in the Eucharist/wafer-wine.

If the Church cannot achieve consensus on such a basic principle, and if the large majority of married Catholics produce 2, 3, or 4 kids rather than the five to ten that was not uncommon a generation and two ago, how can the RCC and the USCCB expect to lead a voting bloc?

They can't.

It's that simple.

More or less, what the OP refers to is a pipe dream, for the reasons stated in its opening sentence: American Catholics are a complex mix.

The joke's on you, Benny.

Actually, I think the joke's on the USCCB because they somehow think they have some kind of magical power to make all U.S. Catholics act (and vote) the way they want them to. Of course, they are neglecting annoying little facts like how the Catholic hierarchy has lost an immense amount of moral high ground with lay Catholics for their twisted and perverse behavior concerning child sexual abuse; so, based upon that ugly little truth, why the hell should your everyday Catholic give the Bishops much credence?

But if this sort of behavior (ranting about birth control) is what the USCCB thinks will "bring Catholics together" (code for "do what we say"), I think they are not only seriously disconnected from the U.S. mainstream, but they are also seriously disconnected from their own laity.

[mhaze]

What might bring Catholics together?

Duhh....

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by mhaze

What might bring Catholics together?

Duhh....

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd

It didn't tell me who to vote for! Goddammit!

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

And there is a big difference between bashing the Catholic Church versus bashing Catholics. Some of the biggest bashers of the Catholic Church that I know are themselves Catholic. Hell, one is even a priest!

Thats pretty common actually. After Vatican 2 Catholics were given a lot more power and higher expectations of how the Church should be run. Some things such as theological issues still tend to be out of bounds, but at an administrative and parish level some of the fights that go on would probably surprise outsiders

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Actually, I think the joke's on the USCCB because they somehow think they have some kind of magical power to make all U.S. Catholics act (and vote) the way they want them to. Of course, they are neglecting annoying little facts like how the Catholic hierarchy has lost an immense amount of moral high ground with lay Catholics for their twisted and perverse behavior concerning child sexual abuse; so, based upon that ugly little truth, why the hell should your everyday Catholic give the Bishops much credence?

But if this sort of behavior (ranting about birth control) is what the USCCB thinks will "bring Catholics together" (code for "do what we say"), I think they are not only seriously disconnected from the U.S. mainstream, but they are also seriously disconnected from their own laity.

And it gets even funnier when you realize that this group of bishops isn't always in agreement with the Vatican. Outsiders see the hierarchy and imagine the church is run solidly, like a military. It's so not. Every level fights not only with itself but with the levels above and below it. It's much more like a university than a military. A giant, huge, ancient university where everybody has tenure and believes God is on their side in every argument, and everybody's supposed to be celibate. You can imagine how smoothly that makes an institution run. I'm only surprised there aren't as many murders as there used to be.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

It didn't tell me who to vote for! Goddammit!

Nope. I have to admit, although there are things I disagree with completely on the Catholic perspective, I flat like the add.

It's sort of cool retro - ala Templer Knights, maybe hinted at. Yet heavy on individual values.

For those with some level of historical knowledge on politics, it's a direct afront and rebuttal to the Fabian Socialist stained glass window by George Bernard Shaw.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And it gets even funnier when you realize that this group of bishops isn't always in agreement with the Vatican. Outsiders see the hierarchy and imagine the church is run solidly, like a military. It's so not. Every level fights not only with itself but with the levels above and below it. It's much more like a university than a military. A giant, huge, ancient university where everybody has tenure and believes God is on their side in every argument, and everybody's supposed to be celibate. You can imagine how smoothly that makes an institution run. I'm only surprised there aren't as many murders as there used to be.

While this exaggerates the conditions somewhat, many aspects, particularly the comparison to universities (though technically universities copied their administration structure from the Church, not the obverse) seems very accurate to my understandings. As an aside, having spent the greater part of my life in the military, even it is filled with way more politics, fifedoms and pullings in different directions than most outsiders seem to see or understand.