Friday, May 25, 2012

A Thoughtful Article on our Catholic Outreach

Reaching Catholics



By JIM ARKEDIS

In 2012, once again, Catholics should be the swing voters of a presidential race. They’re one of the country’s most divided and complex voting blocs, too. One third of Catholics are staunch social conservatives who view abortion as a litmus test when choosing a candidate, but Gallup polling finds the rest of Catholics slightly to the left of the country on most “values” issues.

Recent events have highlighted these divisions. After Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Catholic, said he was “entirely comfortable” with same-sex marriage in early May, President Obama reportedly accelerated his announcement endorsing it. Church leaders condemned Obama, while 68 percent of Catholics — five points higher than the country as a whole — support legal gay and lesbian relationships, and 51 percent support same-sex marriage.

In February, the Obama administration thought it had come to an understanding with the United States Council of Catholic Bishops over a federal mandate compelling Catholic institutions to pay for health care plans that cover birth control. But in the end the bishops rejected an “unjust and unlawful” deal, which Mitt Romney called an “attack on religious tolerance.” Fifty-eight percent of Catholics — including 62 percent of Catholic women — sided with the Obama administration, three points more than the rest of country.

Then there is the Hispanic vote. At 50 million, Hispanics are the fastest growing bloc in the country, solidly Catholic, and focused on the politics of immigration. In 2001, Karl Rove said that increasing the Republican share of the Hispanic vote was his mission, but the 2012 Republican Party doesn’t seem to be paying attention to that line of thinking. Mitt Romney promised to veto the Dream Act, a proposed law that would provide a pathway to legal status for children of illegal immigrants, provided they serve in the military or attend college.

Catholics are up for grabs this year. A Gallup poll from April has President Obama and Mitt Romney tied among Catholics, 46 percent each. At nearly 20 percent of the population, Catholics have roughly mirrored the popular vote in the last eight elections. They voted for Ronald Reagan and George Bush, but switched to Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. In 2000, Catholics, like the country, went under 50 percent for George W. Bush; but against John Kerry, Bush took 52 percent; by 2008, they’d flipped to Barack Obama, 54-45.

......

Recent events suggest that these vast groups of Catholic voters (again: women, moderates, Latinos) are now more open to a progressive faith-based message than they have been perhaps since Kennedy-Nixon.

.....

The Obama campaign’s message should unequivocally stand with the church and Jesus Christ’s humble message of social justice, equality and inclusion. These are distinctly Catholic themes that draw sharp contrasts for Catholics who have tired of a Republican Party with less room for those who are not straight, male, white and self-sufficient.

....

Newly available data show the Obama campaign exactly where to target persuadable Catholics. On May 1, the United States Religious Census published a survey detailing where Catholics live on a county-by-county basis across the country. It was not terribly surprising. They heavily populate the Northeast, the upper Midwest, south Florida, southern Colorado and northern New Mexico, and California. In other words, there are a lot of Catholics in crucial swing states.

.....

As a moderate Democrat and a Catholic, I disagree with my party when I say that I believe life begins at conception or that abortions should be performed only in cases of rape, incest or when a pregnancy threatens a mother’s life. In another era, those beliefs might have made me a Republican target. But I’m a Democrat, in part, because of the party’s deep belief in social justice: We’re the ones who make equality and inclusion central to our very being; we stick up for the little guy; we don’t believe everyone should fend for themselves all the time. That’s what Jesus said, and that’s the society President Obama wants to build.

Jim Arkedis is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/reaching-catholics/

17 comments:

Thunderdome said...

Whether or not we believe life begins at conception, we should all agree that it's a good idea to limit the number of abortions. Given the law of the land, can't we agree to at least try to reduce the economic inequities that lead too many poor and working women to opt for abortion? Why can't Catholics who take a moral stance against abortion also take a moral stance by agreeing with the bishops in terms of opposing the Ryan austerity budget?

Max said...

Jim Arkedis cheery picks polls, so do I.

Majorities of both men and women in the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll voiced support for religious and moral exemptions to the mandate.

Those polled believe by a 57% to 36% margin that religiously affiliated employers should be able to “opt out” of covering the full cost of birth control and related drugs if they have objections to doing so.

The latest Pew Research center poll showed Obama's support dropped 14% among Catholic since the HHS mandates were approved. A wopping 37% of white Catholics support Obama.

As for the popularity of homosexual marriage, everytime its been voted on its passed, oops I mean defeated.

Kurt said...

Majorities of both men and women in the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll voiced support for religious and moral exemptions to the mandate.

I'm part of that majority. And I feel the exemptions in the HHS proposal are fine.

Those polled believe by a 57% to 36% margin that religiously affiliated employers should be able to “opt out” of covering the full cost of birth control and related drugs if they have objections to doing so.

Throw out at once any poll which deliberately misphrases the question even in a minor way (as we know, polls vary widely with even a small, nunaced change).

The issue is not coverage of the "full cost" of birth control. A co-pay would do nothing to satisfy those leading the campaign against contraception.

Max said...

Kurt if you have to throw out polls that deliberately mis phrase the question, you should have thrown out the polls cited by Jim Arkedis.

Actually the issue is full cost of birth control because that is the HHS mandate.

Kurt said...

Max,

Really? Does it matter to you if all or only part of the costs are covered? Is that what is bothering you in the HHS mandate on insurance companies?

Thunderdome said...

I thought the issue was to reduce the number of abortions. Max, though is worried about putting a few cents of his insurance coverage into a very big pot that may or may not be used for quarter-sized pieces of plastic that a few people may use (most who do use them, however, no doubt get them for free elsewhere or just get what they need at the drug store over-the counter). It's really ridiculous to reduce religion to rubbers. The vast majority of Americans realize that. A few extremist zealots who are trying to hijack religion do not.

Max said...

No Kurt, it doesnt matter to me, I woould oppose the mandate on the Church either way. However, you have a problem with a poll question that accurately describes the HHS mandate.

Kurt said...

Max,

My point it that the phrasing is done to draw in those who might have some economic objection but not a moral objection. Although in fact, there is no cost to contraceptive coverage.

Max said...

Kurt, my point was that the poll question was legitimate and accurate.

There is no cost to contraceptive coverage? Of course not, free contraception, free health care, its all free.

Max said...

The issue is freedom of religion. The Obama administration forcing the Church to pay for contraceptives and abortive pills, against Church teaching. By the way, rubbers aren't included in the HHS mandate.

The Church can't compel any person to follow its teaching.Individuals working for a Catholic institution are free to buy all the rubbers they want. The true zealots are the anti Catholic bigots inside and outsided the Obama administration who by law would compel the Chuch to pay for something it deems immoral.

The only people I know who are trying to hijack a religion are Catholics for Obama.

Kurt said...

Max,

Trust the private market. In Hawaii, there is a mandate like the HHS proposal (to which the Church complies without lawsuits -- that is why it was used as a model). Policies were 10% more expensive WITHOUT contraception.

The Church is not being made to include contraception in worker health care policies. The Church is totally exempt. Non-church (check your theological manuals as to our teachings on what is a church) faith based groups also can exclude contraception from their worker health care policies. However, there is a mandate on private insurance companies to provide contraception.

Max said...

Kurt,

There is no true private market in Health Care. That is another debate.

Catholic institutuions such as Universities, Charities, and Hospitals are an outward sign of the historic mission of the Chuch. Faith without works is dead. The administration is arguing if you serve people outside of your religion, its not a function of the Church. As Cardinal Dolan has said, the Church, by its very nature, must serve all people regardless of their faith.

Ave Maria College dropped health care coverage for students beginning with the 2012-13 school year. One of the reasons noted was that due to regulations in Obamacare, the insurer was doubling premiums beginning in 2012-13, with future increases pending.

Kurt said...

Catholic institutuions such as Universities, Charities, and Hospitals are an outward sign of the historic mission of the Chuch.

True.

Faith without works is dead.

True.

The administration is arguing if you serve people outside of your religion, its not a function of the Church.

No.

The Church chooses to create a civil corporation separate from the Church for Catholic hospitals and colleges. These organizations are legally and theologically distinct from the Church.

The Administration has invented no new definition of Church. It is using the same defintion as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ended segregation in Church affiliated hospitals and colleges.

That does not mean that accomodations should not be given to church affilated organizations. Limiting the mandate to insurance companies is a way of doing that.

I'm sure you still see faults with this arragement. I would suggest my bolded point above is really not one that can be disputed without attacking the Civil Rights Act.

Thunderdome said...

Max wrote: "A wopping 37% of white Catholics support Obama."

Wow, talk about "cheery" (sic?) picking! Somebody should let him know that white just ain't the be all and end all of Catholicism.


Looking up numbers/percentages of the ethnic/racial breakdown of Catholics, I came across this recent examination of the Catholic vote or what might be more aptly considered "the myth of the Catholic vote":

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/21/11797240-decision-2012-and-the-myth-of-the-catholic-vote?lite

Given the large and growing number of Hispanics in the US, Max seems to want to ignore that Pres. Obama leads heavily, among Hispanic Catholics, at a much greater percentage than do white Catholics oppose him.

I would be interested in reading the numbers/percentages of different ethic/racial groups in the Catholic Church. I wonder, too, how many GLBTG consider themselves Catholic.

Anonymous said...

what bishops specifcally opposed the Ryan budget? Name them. Which ones specifically named the Ryan budget and said they were opposed to it....by name, as in, "I am opposed to the Ryan budget." Give us links.

Wally Sobchak said...

Max -> Could you please explain specifically what items of coverage to which you are opposed?

Kurt said...

Anonymous,

The Bishops have sent up FIVE letters (at last count) stating their firm objections. Go to:

www.usccb.org