Taking a Look at the Catholic Vote

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has mined some interesting data from the exit polls concerning the role of religion in last week's election. In every religious category President-elect Obama did significantly better than John Kerry did in 2004. Even among weekly church goers of all religions the Obama vote increased from 35% for Kerry to 43% for Obama. Among Catholics Obama received 54% of the vote as opposed to Kerry's 47%.

It is interesting to note that the Catholic Bishops this year have been more adamant about opposing pro-choice candidates than in any year in the past. There were a small group of vocal bishops opposing Kerry in 2004. That number grew in 2008. Can it be that there is an inverse relationship among Catholics in that the more the heirarchy warns against voting for a candidate, the more likely they are to vote for that candidate? Catholics, as all other Americans, do not expect to be told who they are allowed to vote for, and they will not tolerate it even from their Bishops. In this democracy the right to vote without any kind of coercion is a sacred right. Add to that the dismal record of our Bishops in the sex-abuse scandal and any kind of credibility they may have had is diminished. Do the Bishops really want to take on a President Obama on abortion related issues and reduce their relevance even more?

Catholic Theologian, Richard McBrien, in an October 27 column in the National Catholic Reporter makes some important points. First of all, he emphasizes that the official teaching of the Catholic Church is not in question. He goes on to make clear that the position of the Bishops has not varied. The Church can and will in no way endorse any candidate for President of the United States or any other position. Furthermore, no bishop is to speak in opposition to a candidate, since that is in effect a form of endorsement. These points have been made in writing in a number of documents. A Catholic, as McBrien noted, had every right to vote for either presidential candidate.

Why then do we hear a growing number of clerical voices raised against pro-choice candidates, and so few voices raised to challenge these Bishops? It really is a matter of politics. The pro-life voices are very loud, and no Bishop seems to want to speak against them. There is a strong pro-life lay faction in the Church that is demanding stronger and stronger action against any one considered out of step with the pro-life aganda. This is not about church doctrine. It is about strong arm tactics to promote a point of view and running rough shod over anyone else who might have even a slightly different perspective.

I read with sadness many of the responses to Dr. McBrien's column in NCR. The narrow, single issue point of view is destructive to the Church and our country. The notion that overturning Roe v Wade, which is not Church doctrine by the way, is more important than what happens to our economy and working Americans, the lives of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, is disturbing. The Church needs to come to grips with some of these issues. The Bishops need to demonstrate enough courage to put forth a balanced, nuanced approach to this issue, that remembers that people of goodwill may differ, and deserve to be heard as well.

The Church is better than the rhetoric we are hearing and its high time some leadership develops that leads us away from the brink. Of course the Church should continue to speak out on its legitimate positions in this area. I don't believe demonizing anyone who may disagree even marginally is the right thing to to do. Just because some religious and lay leaders from various faith traditions have decided to demagogue this issue, does not mean that should be the position of the Catholic Bishops of this country. Perhaps the election results will convice Bishops that they may be hurting their cause more than helping it, and becoming more intransigent may just isolate them further from the communinty they seek to influence.