Skip Navigation Links
Home
Donate
Free News via Email
Subscribe for a Friend
Send News Tip
Contact Us
Search
About Us
Is California Catholic Daily important to you?
You can help keep us online!
Advertise with us
Currently more than 150,000 visitors read CalCatholic.com
Churches Worth Driving To

* Submit Your Church *

News from the Trenches
“Something is telling me it isn't right" ...
Notes from a
Cultural Madhouse
The End...
Online Bachelor’s Degree program in business. Accelerated MBA program.
New Video. The Persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico in the 1920's.
Be Aware! Your loved ones need your help in nursing homes.
CLASSIFIED ADS
Announcement - The Importance of Faith in our Lives: Whether it was resentment, anger, divor...(read more)
Announcement - Truth & Triumph: The Alliance Defense Fund introduces a new "online magazine...(read more)
Altar servers are needed for the Latin Tridentine Mass (Extraordinary Form), in Akron, Ohio....(read more)
See All Classified Ads
Submit Classified Ad
CALENDAR
El Cajon/La Mesa - A Mission on the Work of the Holy Angels: Preached by Fr. Titus...(read more)
San Diego/Scripps Ranch Area" Marriage is on trial in the state of California..read more)
San Diego - Mother of Life Conference: Presented by The Knights of Columbus, San Diego Chapt...(read more)
See All Calendar Items
Submit Calendar Item
LATEST FEEDBACK
“Ban on public prayers” I wonder if the ritual of beheading religious or other Chris... [JLS - 7/30/2010 11:17:27 PM]
“Inappropriate subject matter” When I was a kid, we formed up little posse groups for vario... [JLS - 7/30/2010 11:03:48 PM]
“The Holy Father's reflections on the central mysteries of our faith” THE HOLY FATHER has been under such "uninformed" attacks rec... [NUTUNE - 7/30/2010 10:11:02 PM]
Priest pay in San Jose jon, you're simply hooked by the system. Here is what I am ... [JLS - 7/30/2010 8:23:23 PM]
“Getting emails from Catholics” The word, "judge", seems to have a hidden meaning that only ... [JLS - 7/30/2010 6:24:11 PM]

Links to Other Sites
Prior Site Archives
Article Archives

Traditionalists, centrists, and modernists

Poll reveals Catholic voters divided on presidential election, abortion, the environment and war in Iraq


A new survey examining party affiliation and religious observance finds that Catholic support is about evenly split between the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in the upcoming election. Due to this almost even division, non-Hispanic Catholics are considered to be “up for grabs” in the 2008 election.

The survey was commissioned by the Paul B. Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and conducted by Opinion Access Corp. of Long Island, New York, a prominent polling firm. It conducted a phone survey of 3,002 respondents about their political affiliation, their religious affiliation, and the level of their religious observance.

The survey broke down Mainline Protestants, Evangelical Protestants, and non-Hispanic Catholics into the three subgroups of traditionalists, centrists, and modernists. Traditionalists were categorized as those who adhere to the historic beliefs of their faith and have high levels of religious observance and identification with sectarian religious movements. Modernists subscribe to “more heterodox religious beliefs,” are less religiously observant, are more likely to identify with ecumenical religious movements, and are more eager to include modern beliefs and practices. Centrists fall between traditionalists and modernists.

“Traditionalists, regardless of their particular religious tradition, are the most supportive of McCain, while modernists, regardless of religious tradition, are the most supportive of the Democratic candidate,” the survey found.

Significant political divisions within churches were also uncovered by the survey. Summing up the results, Calvin College researchers found that “partisan differences between traditionalist and modernist components within the same religious tradition tend to be greater than the political differences across the three major religious traditions overall.”

Researchers found that a new trend was appearing amongst religious voters. According to their report, “Religious beliefs and practices are beginning to replace religious affiliation as the primary religious basis of political cleavages. One’s religious tradition affiliation continues to shape political tendencies, but such tendencies are even more shaped by the specific kind of person one is religiously within that particular tradition.”

The survey categorized 5.3 percent of the respondents as traditionalist Catholic, a group that favors the Republicans over the Democrats by 56 percent to 23 percent in 2008, compared to 57 percent to 30 percent in 2004.

About 5.4 percent of survey respondents were centrist Catholics, who favored Democrats to Republicans by a 47-34 percent margin in 2004. In 2008, centrist support for Democrats had eroded slightly, with 41 percent favoring Democrats and 37 percent supporting the Republican Party.

About 4.9 percent of respondents are modernist Catholics, 51 percent of whom favored Democrats and 38 percent Republicans in 2004. In 2008, that had changed to 59 percent Democrat and 20 percent Republican.

Non-Hispanic Catholics, the survey says, “continue to remain the largest religious tradition most evenly divided in their partisan inclinations and most likely to be ‘up for grabs’ in the 2008 presidential election.” Overall, 38 percent of non-Hispanic Catholics are Republicans and 41 percent are Democrats.

Latino Protestants, Latino Catholics, and Black Protestants were each placed in a separate category, according to the survey, because each ethnic group is politically distinct and because most congregations in the U.S. are ethnically or racially homogeneous.
Catholic Latinos, 6.8 percent of survey respondents, overwhelmingly identify as Democratic, 57 percent to 15 percent. Latino Catholics were far more likely to support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, and are somewhat less favorable to Obama in a matchup with McCain.

“Traditionalist Catholics are more supportive of McCain in 2008 than they were of Bush in 2004, but the reverse is true with regard to centrist and modernist Catholics,” the survey report states. “Latinos, regardless of whether they are Protestant or Catholic, are much more supportive of the Democratic candidate in 2008 than they were of Kerry in 2004.”

The survey also polled Catholics about their stands on several prominent issues in American politics. Perhaps surprisingly, the survey discovered that a majority of self-described Catholic respondents clearly support pro-abortion stands, and on the issue of homosexual marriage they are evenly split. When asked to consider the statement “abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide,” 51 percent of non-Hispanic self-described Catholics agreed. Traditionalist Catholics disagreed with the statement 71 to 21 percent, centrist Catholics agreed 54 to 40 percent, and modernist Catholics agreed 80-16 percent. About 47 percent of Latino Catholics agreed with the statement, while only 35 percent disagreed.

Concerning homosexual marriage, Latino Catholics are split 42 percent in favor to 41 percent against, judging by their response to the survey statement that “gays and lesbians should be permitted to marry legally.” Non-Hispanic Catholics are also closely split, 45 percent disagreeing, while 43 percent agree. About 68 percent of traditionalist Catholics disagree with the statement, while centrist Catholics are evenly split, and 65 percent of modernist Catholics agree.

Catholics tended to disagree with the statement that “free trade is good for the economy even if it means the loss of some U.S. jobs.” A majority of non-Hispanic Catholics agreed that strict environmental regulation is necessary, even if job cuts or higher prices result. Sixty-seven percent of non-Hispanic Catholics and 55 percent of Latino Catholics agreed that local communities should be allowed to post the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols if the majority agrees.

Sixty-six percent of non-Hispanic Catholics disagreed with the statement that clergy should be allowed to endorse candidates during worship services, while 55 percent of Hispanic Catholics disagreed.

By a margin of 52-42 percent, non-Hispanic Catholics did not agree that the U.S. rightly took action against Iraq. Traditionalist Catholics support the action by 56-36 percent, centrist Catholics oppose it by 54-34 percent, and modernist Catholics oppose it 68-29 percent. Latino Catholics oppose the Iraq action by a margin of 69-25.

In a presidential race between presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain and presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama, non-Hispanic Catholics favor McCain by a 43-35 margin. Hispanic Catholics favor Obama, but less fervently than they backed Hillary Clinton (73%). The survey projects Obama to win 49 percent of Catholic Latinos and McCain to win 21 percent, with the rest being undecided.

Dr. Corwin Smidt, director of the Henry Institute at Calvin College, told Catholic News Agency that the very existence of a “Catholic vote” is a debated topic because Catholics are so divided. However, he said he personally thinks there is a Catholic vote to the extent that the Catholic faith seems to undergird particular positions. He said one could argue that there is a Catholic vote, but it moves Catholics in different directions. Traditionalists, he said, are moved by abortion, while centrists and modernists are more concerned with “social justice.” Both reflect different facets of Catholic teaching.

Smidt said he was surprised that non-Hispanic Catholics were so evenly divided between traditionalists, centrists, and modernists. “No one group dominates,” he said. Because Catholics do not fit neatly into one camp or another, he believes the Catholic vote will be “heavily contested” in the 2008 election.

Regarding the Latino vote, Smidt said Hispanic Catholics were likely to be strongly in favor of Obama and would play an important role in Sunbelt states. However, Catholic Hispanics’ levels of voter eligibility and levels of turnout would be a factor in the magnitude of their influence.

(Story courtesy of Catholic News Agency.)


READER COMMENTS

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 7:13 AM By Anita Salsedo
You cannot be Catholic and support a pro-abortion candidate. You can call yourself Catholic but that doesn't make it so.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:18 AM By Glen
Is Jesus on the ballot? Both McCain and Obama voted to support laws providing for abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 1:39 PM By HGP
McCain did not vote for abortion. He did vote for ESCR. McCain does not support Human cloning, Barack Hussein supports human cloning and co-sponsored S-1520 that would allow cloning of human beings to be used in research. Barack supports and is a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act. Obama Supports killing unborn, partially born and born human beings. He voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois State Senate. he even supports killing his own grand children. He said recently that he would not want to" PUNISH" his daughters with a baby. Obama also supports killing the disabled. He told Tim Russert that the one vote he regrets was the vote that was unanimous in the U.S. Senate on Terri Schaivo {a brain injured woman) that gave Terri's family a chance to have her death sentence from "Judge" Greer reviewed in the federal court system. I don't know of anyone whose life would be safe if he was in charge.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 2:44 PM By Papamac
Any Catholic voting for this vile man is every bit as baad as he is. You CANNOT use his lying stance on the war as a reason to trump Abortion, he cannot and will not bring the troops home, look at his record, look at his pathetic morally and spiritually corrupt friends, that alone should convince any CHRISTIAN that this creep cannot be trusted. This person is as dangerous a man that we have ever seen enter American politics. MAY GOD BLESS

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 2:50 PM By Linda
It's true. McCain has expressly supported abortion on demand in cases of rape, incest and to “protect the life of the mother” (whatever that means). When asked how he would determine whether someone had in fact been raped, McCain responded, “I think that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that.” It's also fact that he voted for a law that allowed partial birth abortions when needed to save the life of the mother.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 2:59 PM By John F. Maguire
Anita Salsedo writes: "You cannot be a Catholic and support a pro-abortion candidate." Had she written that it is self-contradictory to be a Catholic and vote for a pro-abortion candidate *because* that candidate is a pro-abortion candidate, she would be perfectly right. As Archbishop Raymond L. Burke has pointed out: "Certainly, it is never right to vote for a candidate in order to promote the immoral practices [that candidate] endorses. In such a case, the voter, who assists the candidate in fulfilling his or her agenda by getting into office, intends the same evil endorsed and promoted by the candidate." Archbishop Burke, however, also points out--and here is where Anita Salsedo's *short formula* falls short: "In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices." To be sure, certain conditions must be met: "(1) there is no viable candidate who supports the moral law in its integrity; (2) the voter opposes the immoral practices espoused by the candidate, and (3) the voter avoids scandal" by explaining, to whomsoever might be scandalized, the motive of the vote. Such an explanation must of course meet the test of proportional reason.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 3:16 PM By Erica
When McCain was asked what he would do if his 15-year-old daughter Meghan became pregnant and wanted an abortion, he said it would be a "family decision." "The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel," McCain said, speaking of himself and his wife Cindy. To that, Alan Keyes retorted, “How on earth can you represent a party that would take away from every other American woman what you would give to your own daughter?” And, “If your daughter said she was contemplating killing her grandmother for the inheritance, you wouldn’t say, ‘Let’s have a family conference.’ You’d look at her and say ‘Just Say No,’ because that is morally wrong.” American Life League spokesman Steve Sanborn said, "That is not a pro-life position because that means that the final decision could be the murder of a pre-born human child who has a right to life."

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 5:06 PM By John L. Sillasen
It is fine to conjure up the rationale that one is voting for an abortion viscious candidate because of some other reason ... but there is no such reason. The reason is to attain raw power. If the reason were sincere, then there is no reason to jump on Obama's bandwagon, none whatsoever. Catholic input does not need to be on the payroll of the enemy. Why try to pull the wool over the eyes of people with such aburdity as "I support Obama, the abortion fanatic, because together we'll do a mighty work for the Lord"?

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 5:13 PM By John L. Sillasen
What is shaping up with the two candidates is the VP spot: McCain may opt for Brownback, a Catholic supported by Priests for Life. Obama has some group of alleged Catholics hovering around him, also. These two men are worldly rulers. The Church is not going to sway either one by getting in their payroll stream. Obviously the stratregy is for a Catholic to bring a contingent of the voting public to bear by securing an advisory position on their staff -- but this is delusional. There is no precedent to suggest that it works. The precedent is most plainly seen in the monastic system which converted pagan Europe. The monks by and large did not work for the rulers ... those who did went down in history along with the culprits categorized in Dante's Inferno. The worst of these might have been Rasputin, who bought his way into the employ of the Tsarina of all the Russias. Then the devil took the entire empire.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 5:45 PM By HGP
I agree that McCain is not my first choice. he is the choice we are left with in order to minimize evil. A conscientious voter’s dilemma In light of the above, it is a correct judgment of conscience that we would commit moral evil if we were to vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on those actions that are intrinsically evil when there is a morally-acceptable alternative. What are we to do, though, when there is no such alternative? Because we have a moral obligation to vote, deciding not to vote at all is not ordinarily an acceptable solution to this dilemma. So, when there is no choice of a candidate that avoids supporting intrinsically evil actions, especially elective abortion, we should vote in such a way as to allow the least harm to innocent human life and dignity. We would not be acting immorally therefore if we were to vote for a candidate who is not totally acceptable in order to defeat one who poses an even greater threat to human life and dignity. Voting is a moral act It involves duties and responsibilities. Our duty is to vote in keeping with a conscience properly formed by fundamental moral principles. As Bishops we are not telling Catholics which candidates they should vote for. Rather, we simply want to teach how we should form our consciences and consider the issues in light of these fundamental moral principles. + Joseph F. Naumann Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas + Ronald M. Gilmore Bishop of Dodge City + Paul S. Coakley Bishop of Salina + Michael O. Jackels Bishop of Wichita

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 6:01 PM By Fr. M.P.
John F. Maguire, please let us know the proportional reasoning for an Obama vote.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 6:19 PM By HGP
My previous post at 5:45 PM came from Moral Principles For Catholic Voters dated August 15, 2006 from the Kansas Bishops. The excerpt starts at ...A conscientious voter's dilemma. "Google" it on the web and it will provide all the guidance you need to vote correctly.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 8:17 PM By Martha
The main problem Catholic voters that are truly Catholic supporting the Magesterium of the Catholic Church have in this election and most elections is that there is not any major candidate of either of the two political parties that they can feel truly comfortable voting for. This idea that there are three categories of Catholics is a figment of someone's imagination. There is only one type of Catholic. You either support the magesterium of the Catholic Church and the authority of the Holy Father or you do not. How can anyone oppose and mock the Body of Christ and continue to call themselves Catholic? You can not pick and choose what you like and continue to call your self a Catholic. In that case you would simply be a Catholic in name only.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 9:30 PM By John L. Sillasen
McCain is going to minimize evil?! That's a good one. Let's bargain with the politicians over how many babies we allow them to kill vs how much they'll keep from allowing them to be killed. Notice how Jesus replied each of three times to the temptations of the devil. Did Jesus enter the employ of Satan? Did he go skydiving with the angels as parachutes? Did He eat the sacrificial bread offered by the devil? So, where does this leave us ... with only one choice? That is not exactly what free will is, is it? Cyclops saw only one choice, but we have two eyes and can see two choices, one of which is voting for the same old abortion racket perpetuated by both big name parties, or we can unite our votes for a moral candidate in preparation for the day when the public is sick of either the dems or the gop.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 9:41 PM By John L. Sillasen
HGP, you are assuming there is an intrinsic difference in potential harm done by the two major candidates, which is not necessarily so. But say McCain would have a damage rating of 50% and Obama of 90%, you are still presuming that McCain would be better. Why? The worse it is, the sooner the public will arise from the depths of its degeneration. The moderates always pave the way for the leftists. This is what the GOP has been doing for quite a while ... but so many people are playing the part of toads in water that began as cold and has been warming up that they don't know they are all but cooked. Better to heat it up faster so at least there will be a few who jump out rather than the whole of 'em to boil. Notice in the Bishops' statement that they do not say the vote needs to be either dem or gop? There is only one way to form a better party, and that is to start. The Constitution party is lined up with Catholic moral teaching. The reason it does not have a big name candidate is that the public does not want to change; the public wants what is happening. Jesus never copped to the public mindset ... He raised them up by teaching them to start. Do you think St Peter knew what to do, or how it would work out? Was it as clear cut then as now? Do you realize how abysmally evil is abortion? Don't you listen or read the Church teaching? To side with abortion in any way puts you in danger of hell. There is the option of voting against evil. Why would you compromise this option by voting for these two leading candidates? Leaders are a dime a dozen; these two are nothing without the voting public ... start telling others to stand against the institutionalized evil.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:41 PM By Maria C
HGP thank you for exposing how Obama votes and such. You are right, I agree with your posts. We can bash McCain all we want but remember who truly is the worst of all evils and I can tell you that the facts show that Obama is the worst candidate and therefore I cannot vote for him. From the facts I have learned on Mr. Obama, he is worst then regular liberals, he is extreme liberal. Plus he has not much experience to even be considered for the job as President. Obama scares me. I am concerned on his moral values system and how loyal he will be to protecting moral values in which this country was founded, unborn children, quality family life and our country.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 6:49 AM By RR
HGP & Maria C. : Why vote for any evil at all? Evil is evil no matter how you slice it. Christ never voted in favor of any form evil so why do we feel we can. John L. : Awesome comments!!!! There is a moral option here for Catholics and people in this dilemma. The media does not focus on these other options because it is not "popular". There are moral options out there. People just don't want to put forth the effort to look into these options because it is not "popular" to do this. I think if Catholics & others would look into this option and the media talked about the Constition Party that this election would have a different turnout.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 8:42 AM By John L. Sillasen
Thankyou, RR. Moreover, the nation is positioned right where it is almost optimal to vote third party ... because the two big parties are not going to do much to improve anything and a lot to make matters worse, each in their own way.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 12:06 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. MP: The purpose of my post above, as well as my posts for CCD June 6, is to state as best I can my understanding of the voting ethics of the Catholic Church, not specify the gist of the proportional reasoning that is required for voting for one candidate or the other. Where, as here, neither candidate recognizes preborn infants as "persons" for the purpose of constitutional law, nor yet the moral order in its integrity, Catholics are affronted from the outset. In this context, as Corwin Smidt has noticed, the fact that the "Catholic vote" is divided between Senator McCain and Senator Obama, has already motivated some commentators to question "the very existence" of the Catholic vote. This inference-to-nullity, I would argue, is based on a confusion between two very different unities: (1) Catholic unity grounded in Faith and reason, which unity is that of the Church herself, and (2) the unity of a voting bloc, which here, to be sure, is a Catholic voting bloc, yet for that very reason, is necessarily involved in all the mixed questions of fact and reason that go into the work of proportional reasoning on the question for whom to vote.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 12:07 PM By Elizabeth
For everyone who wants to vote for Obama.... Guess who Hamas wants to become President????? OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That should tell you how to vote, if nothing else will.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 12:45 PM By John L. Sillasen
Abortion cannot be balanced by any other issue.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 2:05 PM By Grisha
I I made a comment on another thread here indicating that I wouldn't be elected dog-catcher in San Francisco because I'm anti-abortion. Let me throw out an informal poll. Would you vote for a person whom you knew to be pro-choice for a public office which had absolutely nothing to do with abortion?

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 2:22 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to John L. Sillasen: Deliberately procured abortion is an intrinsic evil and therefore cannot be "balanced" against other evils unless the other evil is an equally grave or graver intrinsic evil. As Bishop Joseph A. Galante has pointed out, the phrase *proportionate reasons* "does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights [sic] would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions."

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 3:06 PM By INQUISITOR MAXIMUS
Voting for a "lesser evil" is a modernist mantra, not a Catholic maxim. And for those misguided Catholics who are hell-bent in transforming the Faith into a one, neo-con, and Republican Church, let us not forget their championing of the "pro-life" Georgie Bush who signed into law the infamous abortifacient Plan-B.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 4:01 PM By Richard
There is no such think as a "lesser" evil. Evil is evil, no matter how you look at it. McCain and Barack are BOTH evil because they both have beliefs that go against church teaching. Why won't people look at 3rd party candidates as an option? Everybody asks the question McCain or Obama? Why don't we mention the other three candidates? People should consider the fact that there are five main candidates, not just two.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 4:30 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Inquisitor Maximus: Despite the fact that the personnel of the Inquisition acted in the name of the Church, in all actuality, due in large part to the very structure of the Inquistion, these persons acted against the Church, not for her. (No honor--maximal or minimal--can be found in your moniker, IM.) But to your point: Is there honor in the man who, although he knows that he can persuade a tyrant not to execute an innocent man though he also knows that he cannot persuade the tyrant to release that man, yet withal, remains silent rather than counsel a lesser punishment as the lesser of two evils? The answer, I submit, is that such counsel is a good act, not a wicked one--so yes, the notion of a lesser evil (properly understood) is indeed an ethical maxim, not a "modernist mantra." ~As regards voting ethics, however, Archbishop Burke explains: In a contest between two abortocratic candidates, it is "not a question of choosing the lesser evil, but of limiting all the evil one is able to limit at the time."

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 6:55 PM By John L. Sillasen
Mr. Maguire, I understand that. You appear to be arguing theory, and I am arguing reality. The reality is that there are no such reasonable expectations for manipulating the proportion idea in the reality of today's politics. Neither candidate is going to improve the moral situation, and neither is going to be worse than the other. Not that they are the same, but that Obama's depraved politics would perhaps alert the voters to the fact that they have been asleep at the switch; whereas, McCain would continue to continue the gradual warming up of the water which has just about come to a boil. Theory is fine, but it has to be connected with facts to be applied. We, sir, are disputing the facts, not the theory. But I do appreciate your eloquent explanation of these legal theories. So far, the only facts I can see amount to pure speculation that Prof Kmiec would influence Obama towards appointing a pro-life justice to the high bench. What, pray tell, is there other than this that would factually support Kmiec endorsing Obama? Voter approval for sin is like the old Communist need for signed confessions ... that's what I see here. Explain to me that there is a single plank in Obama's platform that would not further sin.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 8:58 PM By INQUISITOR MAXIMUS
Mr. Maguire, you are mightly mistaken, for with that moniker I champion the cause of St. Vincent Ferrer, Bl. Pope Gregory IX, Tomas Torquemada and St. Robert Bellarmine, among many others. These are all great and holy men you have maligned with your puerile and laughable statement, a stereotypical canard associated with those infected by the Modernist contagion.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 11:07 PM By John L. Sillasen
So I says to the whore on my right, "What is your plan if I give you my gold piece?", and she lays it out. Then I says to the other whore, the one on my left, "Tell me your plan, for my piece of gold". This too sounds exciting. But being a devout Catholic, I have to make a decision on how to spend my goldpiece. My teeth, not being strong like they once were, I cannot bite it in half and pay both whores. What to do? So I says to myself, I really don't want to put a sin on my head ... aha! I will pay the whore whose plan is the least sinful; that way, my actions will be virtuous in that I will have minimized the evil.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 11:46 PM By Pax Christi
McCAIN 194, OBAMA 114. Yep, that's the scorecard based on one evaluation of the candidates based on their stances against the bishops' criteria. See: http://defendlife.blogspot.com/2008/05/roman-catholics-for-obama.html Good luck in finding a proportionate reason to vote for Obama. Be honest now. After all, Pope John Paul II had this to say: "Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - IS FALSE AND ILLUSORY (emphasis mine) if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" (John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, Dec 30, 1988, #38).

Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:43 AM By John L. Sillasen
Inherent in the Bishops' letter on voting is the fact that our freedom of will comes at a price, which is the response to Christ. The captial sin of sloth is the consequence of betraying this response.

Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 4:31 AM By Fr. M.P.
John F. Maguire, I am not surprised that no proportionate reason was offered. Would any Obama supporter like to offer their reason? Or will we find the silence deafening?

Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:58 AM By John L. Sillasen
U.S. Constitution: Article I Section 8, The Congress shall have Power To ... constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court *** Article III. Section 1.The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. *** Section 2. the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. *** So, there we have it: The Court serves at the pleasure of Congress and those who elect Congress. The Republicans held both Houses for 14 years and the White House for 8 years: So it is only make believe to dream that the GOP has the remotest desire to overturn Roe vs. Wade. BTW: The Supreme Court has had as few as 6 members and as many as 15 ... this number is up to Congress to adjust: Thus it is deceit when politicians tell us they are waiting for some justice to die or retire before they can appoint a pro-life justice. It is up to the voters as to how many justices sit on the high bench: It is up to Congress to respond to the voters, and voters to respond to God, which they have failed to do so far.

Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:13 PM By Pax Christi
Fr. M.P.: The proportionate reasoning working in Obama's favor indeed is kaput. Why, even on the minor issues as the spreadsheet mentioned a few comments up show McCain trouncing Obama when it comes to Catholic values. So watch for some shifty sleight of hands and reasonings built on sand.

Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:31 PM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to Inquisitor Maximus: At issue is not the sanctity of Vincent Ferrer, Robert Bellarmine, or Pope Gregory; at issue is the business of expropriating the title Inquisitor when, yes, the universal consensus of theologians is that the structure of the Inquistion, notably in its practice of handing over heretics to the secular arm for execution, pitted the personnel of the Church against the Church herself.

Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:27 PM By John F. Maguire
Fr. M.P.: I appreciate your request for a specification of proportionate reasons for voting for Senator Obama, but in voting ethics the focus is on the ethics of the vote "at the time" of the vote (Archbishop Burke). In the meantime, what I have called "mixed questions" of fact and reason are not unlikely to evolve as the two campaigns evolve. If we look at the two parties rather than at Senator Obama and Senator McCain as persons, there is, I agree, grounds for pessimism. "[R]epentant political parties," writes Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "are about as frequently encountered in history as tiger doves." "Politicians of course can still repent --many of them do no lose their human qualities. But *parties* are obviously utterly inhuman formations, and the very object of their existence precludes repentance." If as Americans we fight shy of Solzhenitsyn's party-pessimism, we also know that Catholic Democrats have failed to convince the Democratic Party to repent its abortocratic sins, even as Catholic Republicans (I recognize the exceptions) have failed to acknowledge, for example, that it was a Republican President--Richard Nixon--who, per an executive order trumping state laws, afforded military couples' resort to abortion, thereby giving the Supreme Court a green-light to trump the abortion laws of all fifty states. ~On the other hand, political parties are a part of the nation, and as Solzhenitsyn points out, "Nations...are very vital formations, susceptible to all moral feelings, including--however painful a step it may be--repentance." ~It can only be in light of discernible repentance--repentance within America as a nation, within its parties, and within its candidates personally--that robustly proportionate reasons for an ideal vote will emerge.

Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:03 PM By INQUISITOR MAXIMUS
Mr. Maguire, sober historical scolarship has effectively demolished the the "Black Legend" of the Inquisition. However, as St. Paul aptly put it (inspired by the Holy Ghost), "THE WAGES OF SIN ARE DEATH" (Romans 6:52). The heretics (Albigensian and otherwise) sought to undermine and destroy the Faith and the natural moral order, and as such, it was the duty and moral obligation of the operational personnel of the Inquisition to mete out capital punishment in certain cases for the common good. Today's theologians (whose opinions for the most part are not worth a flying fig) seem quite content to reject a proper, robust understanding of Church's historical realties in order embrace the limp-wristed "Theology of Apology", as you most assuredly have done. Anymore nonsense on your part will result in a instant disemboweling. The INQUISITOR has spoken.

Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:47 PM By John L. Sillasen
Well, that would send the jury out ... cold. Interesting no one is willing to take on Article I Section 8", or Article III Sections 1 and 2, or the history of how the Supreme Court is regulated. But believing the deceptive go along to get along fantasy pumped out administration after administration is much easier. It is relatively easy to believe what the crowd finds expedient to believe. And to fly in the face of truth brings its consequences sooner or later. Obama would be sooner; McCain later ... the other comparative differences pale.

Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:44 AM By Fr. M.P.
John F Maguire, "in voting ethics the focus is on the ethics of the vote "at the time" of the vote". Now is the time since we know who the candidates are. Or are you saying we don't really know what the candidates stand for until the actual day of the vote November? Lots of words but still deafening silence. Are all the Obama supporters afraid to show us their proportionate reasons?

Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:57 AM By John L. Sillasen
The odd thing about these discussions, the glaring oddity, is the de facto exhaltation of the executive branch in the sense of making it a throne. The voice of the people is meant by our Constitution to reside in Congress, not in the presidency, nor in the Court. But the consistent tone I find pitches the president as the savior ... it's supposed to be the Congress who says how the country is run, and the other two to see that it goes as Congress says -- the Constitution is the primal act of Congress, not the other branches.

Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:05 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P.: No fair reading of my Solzhenitsyn post warrants the suggestion that I think that "we don't really know what the candidates stand for until the actual day of voting." It is the act of voting, however, that is the primary focus of voting ethics. ~In the meantime, if, as Fr. Bernard Lonergan has argued, there are four forms of conversion (psychic, intellectual, moral, and religious); if, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has pointed out, "politicians of course can still repent--many of them do not lose their human qualities," then of course conversion (including partial conversion) on the matter of abortion, even if it is moral and intellectual conversion and not yet religious conversion, cannot be ruled out apriori or prematurely. On the contrary, just such conversion is bound to contribute to our assessment of proportionate reasons for motivating a particular vote. Moreover, to rule out such conversion apriori or prematurely risks reifying candidates and thereby blinking away their human qualities.

Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:05 PM By Richard
John, I couldn't have said it better myself!!

Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:27 PM By John L. Sillasen
Lonergan is wrong. There is only one form of converting. We are made in God's image and He is One God. We do not individually exist in fragments, but as whole individuals ... the Body of Christ exists in parts, namely the members each of which is one whole person. Although in our time it is correct to say that one out of three unborn babies come to exist in parts while in the womb ... but this is man's idea of the fragmented nature of human beings, not God's. "Unchained melody" is the name of the Lonergan crowd, a worldly group, fragmented into more parts than the number of their members. We are not a composite of qualities, but each human is one soul with many qualities ... take away some qualities, and the human soul remains whole notwithstanding. Law as commonly practiced tends to go over the limit of its virtue, and when it does this, it fractures; upon fracturing, many of its parts begin to go backwards searching for the wholeness it lost.

Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:24 PM By John F. Maguire
A differentiation between types of conversion (psychic, intellectual, moral, and religious) does not gainsay the unicity of the *anima intellectiva*; it does not gainsay the fact that the "intellectual soul" is the very form by which the human body is animated; nor does it gainsay John Sillasen's point: namely, that we do not "exist in fragments, but as whole individuals." At the same time, experience attests that there can be (1) an intellectual conversion to a moral truth but, due to ill-formed habits, not yet--still not yet, we recall St. Augustine lamenting--(2) a moral conversion, that is, a consistent practical acknowledgement of the truth that one has already apprehended intellectually. On this point, I venture, Augustine and Lonergan are right.

Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:54 PM By Rick DeLano
Now once in a while a really worthwhile debate takes shape on this site, and my thanks to especially Fr. MP, Mr. Maguire, and Mr. Silasen. Silasen, provides the rhetorical equivalent of Boston's rout of the opposition in Game Six of the NBA Finals. How very well said indeed.

Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:00 PM By John L. Sillasen
A person has only one soul. And a conversion is a conversion; just as a mustard seed sized faith is faith, and can move mountains. St. Augustine is right, "My soul is restless, Lord, until it rests in Thee". He is a Doctor of the Church and obviously would not cut up the patient. When Jesus says, " ... heart, mind, soul and strength", He is not dividing up the person. He is simply saying not to parcel out one's self in any way. He says to worshop God with "all" of oneself. Any fragmentation is artificed; Eve was told she could have her cake and eat it too, the first artificial dismemberment of the soul. Recall that all of her was sent packing from the Garden of Eden, not just part of her.

Posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 7:53 AM By Fr. M.P.
John F. Maguire, delay and/or pleading the 5th comes to mind. Adding to John LS's comment, we are here to serve God, not man. Human qualities are only good insofar as they serve God. Obama's voting has shown he serves death very well, including sucking brains out of babies. If a baby lives through an abortion, ah! let 'em die!!! So what conversion is there? The only conversion that counts is one where one's whole behavior is in line with God's Commandments. One has to LIVE the faith. St. Augustine was not converted until he chose to live the faith. What evidence is there for Obama choosing this? So let's move back to prudence again. It is possible that Obama will repent right before the election? It is possible, and all real Catholics should pray for this on-the-wide-road soul named Obama. Winning the lottery is possible too. Should one depend on lottery winnings for an income? Is Obama's conversion likely? What is the likelihood of the democratic party rejecting its death platform right before the election? Aren't they courting the people who think that way now? Will they abandon the selfish death lovers who support them now? And similarly in the spiritual life, it is possible but not likely that one will have a miraculous conversion on the deathbed. In fact, to think one can procrastinate until death to be reconciled to God is the sin of presumption on God's Mercy. Does prudence factor into your thinking John? Are you currently praying for the miracle of Obama's conversion before the election?

Posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:29 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P. and John Sillasen: The most well-known moral conversion on the matter of abortion in the experience of my generation, I think it is fair to say, was that of Dr. Bernard Nathanson. I do not know, however, how, or even whether, there was for Dr. Nathanson an actual "intussuception" between moral conversion and religious conversion. ~ Each person, we know, has one soul, but this one soul has a range of powers. Whence the possibility of a differentiation between moral conversion and religious conversion (to which however moral conversion is dynamically related). On the question of the difference between the sheer possibility of conversion and various forms of the actualization of this possibility in concrete history, I am indebted to Xavier Zubiri's discussion of "possibility in history" in _Nature, History, God_ (2007). ~ I join in the intention of Fr. M.P.'s Masses, including those offered for the intention of the conversion of those engaged in political work.

Posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:13 PM By John L. Sillasen
One moment Dr. Nathanson was not Catholic, and the next he was ... fully. It is just like a baby ... one moment there is nothing but two unrelated cells, and the next there is a human soul. Marriage is like that, one moment there is no espousal, and the next moment there is a complete marriage bedded in trust, fidelity. These things do not happen in stages, but at once. One does not go through a series of partial Baptisms, but only one. One is confirmed at a certain and specific moment in time, not over some course, but at once. In Confession, it is good the moment the penitant assents (sacramentally) to the grace of God. There is a journey to conversion, but that is not conversion. There is a journey after conversion, but that is not conversion. To attribute a "range of powers" to a soul is one thing, but it is not an issue related to conversion. The will assents to God and the whole person is converted. St Paul talks about "babes in Christ" who feed on the "milk of the Word", and mature members of the Body of Christ, who eat the "meat of the Word". The babes are "in Christ" completely. Their conversion is complete. If they die, they go either to Heaven (including Purgatory), or Hell ... but not to both places. Purgatory does not send part of them to Hell, and part to Heaven. The thing about abortion is the dismembering of bodies ... This has so permeated the society, especially the politicians, that they seem to hold that it is normal for everything to be dismembered. St Paul calls this the "searing of the conscience". Psychology calls it sociopathology. Modern terrorist warfare reveals it with "big red letters" as bombastic billboards written in the sense that "the medium is the message". Fragmentation is so "big" that it has become like "you can't see the forest for the trees".

Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 4:43 AM By ingredior
I wish with all my heart that you will realise that the elections are about more than just abortion and gay rights, my goodness but the commentators on this site seem absolutely obsessed with these two things.Hello, you're about to elect the most powerful man in the world leader of the "free" world , please consider for a moment the rest of the world and the other overwhelming issues like war , the environment , finite resources and world hunger.You could also possibly consider that your economy is about to fall into recession and drag the rest of the world with you.Please don't be selfish America

Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 9:14 AM By Ingreditor
With all due respect, Ingreditor, I think most of us on this website feel that divorce and other immorality is contributing to world pollution. It has recently come out that when people (heterosexual) divorce they use up more electricity, space, etc., because the families separate and quite often selfishly have two places of residence, etc. So pollution and world problems are not just caused by the corruption of big corportions, but by the general decline in morality of the people's of the world, Ingreditor, and gay marriage is just a sign of the final decline. My country, the U.S.A. started to decline with the legalization of abortion. Although, we seem rich, we have many, many problems here, including poor people. Some people come here expecting to just pick gold up off the ground, but most of us have had to work hard for a living and fight for our rights, too in this country. My husband and I have only two children, yet both of us have had to work outside the home most of the time just to make ends meet, and to give to charities for others.

Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 9:43 AM By Anne T.
By the way, Ingredior, my husband came from a family of eleven.

Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 10:26 AM By John L. Sillasen
Marxists rail at the wealthy nations which send them money.

Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 3:17 PM By Fr. M.P.
ingredior, yes, hello. There is a hierarchy of values to consider. Not all things are of equal value. Common sense, isn't it? When you deprive people of the right to life, then no other rights matter, do they? It also shows the true state of a soul when one wants murder of convenience. How many murderers do you trust? Are trees more important to you than people?

Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 7:42 PM By Anne T.
Amen, John Sillasen to your last post. We send billions to other nations, yet our own nation (the U.S.A) is up to its ears in debt. I am tired of all the whining from these other nations who can't solve their own problems and blame it on us when we work our behinds off just trying to survive like the rest of the world. All they see is this Hollywood hype, but they never see what REAL Americans go through.

Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 8:27 PM By Anne T.
And I will add:now that I am retired from being a professional violinist at 13, a counter girl at 17, a long distance telephone operator, a cannery worker-both on the belt and in the lab, a salesgirl, a bindery worker (fourteen hours straight sometimes), and other jobs in between, then finally ending up working for school districts and taking classes while raising my children, they envy me my retirement. Well I say to these other nations, "Just Stuff it."

Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 10:29 PM By John L. Sillasen
Anne T., that's the key to a long and happy life.

Post your Comment
Name:
Email: (Optional: Will not display)
Comment:
 
Comments are limited to 1500 characters, and cannot contain offensive or libelous language. For security, comments cannot contain html tags, including < and > symbols - and NO URLS or LINKS. Comments will appear after they have been approved by the editor. Inclusion of your email address is optional so the editor may contact you.



Calcatholic Mobile
Optimized for your
mobile device











Visitors since January 1st, 2009:
javascript hit counter

website created by Vigil Studios © 2006 -  www.vigilstudios.com