Catholics went for Obama.
November 7, 2012, 9:27 am
Posted by Grant Gallicho
According to CNN exit polling, 50 percent of Catholic voters went for Obama, and 48 percent for Romney. This is down from 2008, when Catholics supported Obama over McCain 54-45, but up from ’04, when 52 percent of Catholics voted against their co-religionist John Kerry (47 percent supported him). This year’s Catholic vote looks more like 2000, when 50 percent of Catholic voters supported Gore over Bush, 50-47.
Interesting. But could you break down the Catholic vote in terms of white Catholics versus non-white Catholics and in terms of white men versus all other Catholics?
Should probably hang on tight – might be a bumpy ride.
If the usual margin-of-error prevails, this is a dead-heat. The comparison with Protestants is interesting. Is it to be explained chiefly by the numbers in the Bible Belt states?
Another CNN table indicates that the more frequently people attend religious services the more likely they were to vote for Romney. Of those who never attend such services, 62% voted for Obama; of those who attend such services more than weekly, 63% voted for Romney. These data are not broken down by religious group. I wonder whether they would hold also for Catholics.
I’m waiting for the breakdown that shows the percentage of church going Catholics.
Mostly looks like Catholics vote pretty much the same as the rest of the country, no?
I am not surprised Catholics slightly favored Obama. I think they would have favored him by a point or two more if the bishops had shown a desire to work across the aisle, which is what the independents look for. But, frankly, I have had it beyond up to here with the worse election in my memory (which goes back to 1940), and you can disaggregate the subsets until Paul Ryan announces he’ll be a candidate in ’16, but you won’t get me to care.
Fr Joe K, “this is a dead-heat’ ….no dead heat with Latino Catholics.. maybe as much as 75% favoring Obama. The Latino evengelicals and Cubans , were more likely the 25% favoring Romney. Some bishops, at least, will pick up on that and take a less political but more pastoral appoach to their people. I bet we see that very very soon. As I posted on another blog, in the early 20th century bishops stood with their immigrant Catholics on issues the immigrants needed and wanted and this produced generational results.
Fr,
I think most of the differences are explained by the large Latino faction within the Catholic Church, see http://www.pewforum.org/Race/Latinos-Religion-and-Campaign-2012.aspx
From that you can see that Democratic party affiliation among white Catholics of 47% combined with the 71% of Latino Catholics yields 52% among all Catholics. That is similar to merging the 42% among Protestants with the 75% of Latinos. (I am taking the Protestant vote as sort of equal to the non Latino Catholic vote, to create this very rough approximation of how Latino vote affects the Catholic total.)
You can see that support for Obama falls off a little as church attendance increases among Latinos, so that is probably universal. Explanations range from politically partisan pastors to conservatives being more likely to adhere to tradition of attending Church weekly. Not that I have evidence for either of those.
What has been said about Latinos in this election applies doubly to Latinos in the Catholic Church. They represent a demographic change that will affect us all.
Presumably, “Protestant” lumps together Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants. I’d be curious to see how strongly the latter group went for Obama.
There’s a chicken and an egg problem. I know many Catholics who believe that the bishps’ conference turned itself into a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republic Party since about 2004–and stopped going to Church because they couldn’t bear harangues of the sort that so appeal to Archbishop Chaput and Bishop Jenky. And these are well educated, middle aged people. Campbell and Putnam’s research say young people are leaving churches in numbers precisely because they are seen as outposts of Republican conservatism.
So before the hierarchy comforts itself by saying “we got the regular church goers to vote Republican” it ought to take a look at the bigger picture.
Cathy,
It may be that partisan politics by the bishops has nothing to do with this. Weekly church attendance is usually a conservative practice, so it may naturally attract more conservatives. Deciding not to attend weekly often shows a desire for change, a major feature of progressives. So these numbers may reflect self selection rather than being motivated by preaching.
It could be preaching that changes behavior, but I have my doubts.
I wish there had been questions about whether religious voters were influenced in their votes by their religious leaders. I’d also like to see some correlation between levels of education and voting patterns and religious practice. The CNN exit-poll says that more college grads voted for Romney than non-college grads; the biggest spread for Obama (55%-42%) was among the 18% of those polled with some post-graduate education.
Although this is probably asking for too much, what is the correlation between levels of religious education and voting patterns? Do pollsters regularly sort responses out by this latter criterion? I think it may be as important as religious practice. Anyway, there are still a lot of questions to ask and correlations to make.
The children in my daughters’ parochial school held a mock election and voted for Obama 3-1. They’re all regular churchgoers and future voters!
I left the church the end of 2006 and haven’t been to mass since. Before then, I was a weedly churchgoer. About a year ago, I stopped by my former cathedral parish for the Sunday noon service. Two things struck me: attendance seemed at most perhaps 2/3 of what I remembered, and I recognized virtually none of the faces. This was once a vibrant parish, moderate to liberal in makeup, and drew membership from ~ 40 zip codes in KY and IN. More recently, I learned that AB Kurtz now subsidizes parish operations.
If weekly churchgoers (including Catholics?) were more likely to support Romney, and if my cathedral experience is not atypical, what *kind* of Catholic now represents the Catholic Church in the public eye? To reframe the question, what *kind* of Catholic is a weekly churchgoer?
A “Great Day for the Irish”
Patrick Murphy defeated Allen West
Chris Murphy defeated Linda McMahon (née Edwards)
Joe Donnelly defeated Richard Mourdock
Bob Casey defeated Tom Smith
Tim Kaine defeated George Allen
I wish that the media would please split the “Catholic Vote” so as to be reflective of reality. Faithful Catholics vote one way, meanwhile the majority––those who call themselves Catholic, but really have NO connection with the worshipping community––vote the other way. How about the “Faithful Catholic Vote” and the “Pagan/Secularist Catholic Vote”? Really that would be reflective of reality! Father George
Addendum:
Claire McCaskill (not sure – could be Scottish) defeated Todd Akin
In addition, all but Patrick Murphy list their religion as Catholic.
“How about the “Faithful Catholic Vote” and the “Pagan/Secularist Catholic Vote”?
Or the” Vote-of-Catholics-Who-Consider-Themselves-The-Only-Real-Catholics.”
Helen, don’t forget that other guy who’s also part Irish, Baraic O’Bama …
OF COURSE most Catholics support President Obama! Most Catholics know how to read. Most Catholics know that immigrants are NOT ILLEGALS!
Funny – I go to church each week (holy days too), and I voted for Obama. Perhaps your definition of “faithful” really means “agrees with the bishops”. Because I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues means I’m not faithful?
Father George: You wrote: “I wish that the media would please split the “Catholic Vote” so as to be reflective of reality. Faithful Catholics vote one way, meanwhile the majority––those who call themselves Catholic, but really have NO connection with the worshipping community––vote the other way.”
I know lots of Catholics who are faith-ful, who believe in the Incarnation, the Redemption, Life Eternal, who weekly, even daily, are members of the Catholic worshipping community, some of whom even lead the community’s worship, and who, nevertheless, voted for Obama in 2008 and again this year. You oversimplify to the point of distortion.
“Although this is probably asking for too much, what is the correlation between levels of religious education and voting patterns? Do pollsters regularly sort responses out by this latter criterion? I think it may be as important as religious practice. Anyway, there are still a lot of questions to ask and correlations to make.”
JAK –
Great question. The answers might explain a good bit. Why don’t you ask Nate Silver to check it out? He seems to have mountains of data from other’s polls and loves to find new correlations. I wonder if the Marist poll has ever checked this out.
Fr geo B. about your “Faithful Catholic Vote” and the “Pagan/Secularist Catholic Vote”? ‘
I think you’re in for a tough next four years. maybe eight. you’re in me prayers
Re: What is the correlation between levels of religious education and voting patterns?
This question could buy into the frequent criticism of right wing Catholics, especially clergy that Catholics who vote for the Democratic ticket have received poor post-Vatican II catechesis,
Helen, But wouldn’t it be interesting if the answer turned out to be the opposite? I have more than a few friends who went through Catholic grade school, high school and college who voted for Obama.
I suppose the question could “buy into” that criticism, but I don’t know what “buy into” means here. For myself I don’t have any doubt that much catechesis and other religious education after Vatican II has been very poor.
If one looks closer, most probably the stats would show that Catholics who attend mass regularly tend to vote Republican, while Catholics who do not attand mass regularly tend to vote Democrat.
Ken “Catholics who attend mass regularly tend to vote Republican, while Catholics who do not attend mass regularly tend to vote Democrat.’
You are feeding the inept hierarchal stance .. Keep up this crap and it will give you the smaller/ purer faster than you even hope for. Latinos voted 75% Obama.
Fr. Komonchak:
“For myself I don’t have any doubt that much catechesis and other religious education after Vatican II has been very poor.
I have been involved in religious education since 1968. I have taught on the high school, college and adult levels. I also worked for a noted Catholic publisher and in (arch) diocesan offices and several parishes. I would like to offer some thoughts about your comment that catechesis in recent years has been poor.
1. The content of catechesis expanded enormously since Vatican II. We were touching so many more topics in Scripture, Morality, Sacraments than in previous times.
2. The culture that use to support most of our values changed since the 1960s and we became counter-cultural and in competition with the culture for hearts and minds.
In addition, I challenge you to teach a high school religion class. It was, by far, the hardest work I have ever done.
Helen – I think he is referring to the results; not to the effort.
Ken;
Thanks for your input but I think I am explaining the why of the results.
I went to Catholic grammar and high schools but to a secular college (’51). I’ve always been grateful for my secular college education. If I had been exposed to some of the narrow-mindedness and sheer error of some of the religious teachings of some Catholic college grads I’ve known, I might not be a Catholic today. I should also note that in New Orleans Catholicism seems to have been more tolerant of dissent than in most other areas of the country.
Is Catholic college education any better these days? It probably depends on the college.
Helen: I said “much catechesis and other religious education,” not all of it. At Catholic University, we offered an introductory course, “The Christian Difference” which, among ourselves, we called “Remedial Catholicism,” because there were so many students without elementary knowledge of their faith. “You keep talking about the Old Testament, Father,” a sophomore said to me, “what’s the Old Testament?” Another said how grateful she was for the course: “In high school all we talked about was the atom bomb and our feelings.” And the anecdotes could be multiplied. Which is not to say that there haven’t been success-stories.
I agree entirely that the cultural context changed dramatically, and that the tight little Catholic sub-culture dissolved quickly in many places. I’m not assigning blame, just pointing to what is a serious problem in our Church.
Thank you for your clarification. I think and hope that we are on the same page.
My god-daughter who graduated from a Catholic high school three years ago spent the whole senior religion class on the Holocaust.
Ann Olivier:
Your god-daughter wasn’t in my class.
Whatever their ‘reasons’ for supporting our pro-abort POTUS, B. H. Obama, I say SHAME on those 50% of Catholics who voted for him. They give lie to their so-called Catholic Christian Faith.
My daughters textbook series is “We Believe” By Sadlier. I think its pretty good. http://www.sadlierreligion.com/liveourfaith/docs/about/Vol_I_PE_text_6-7.pdf
I think the church has a lot of work to do to build bridges and strengthen bonds of unity within its own flock. Anglo/Hispanic, rich/poor, educated/uneducated, suburban/urban/small town – it seems to me there are a lot of divisions. But also a lot that unites us: faith, sacraments, service, love. Personally, I think it would be good for the church if its leaders could find a way to put a public face on these things that unite us.
I don’t think I oversimplify. There are some Catholics, I believe, who are “faithful” yet also impertinent to not want to be taught and bristle at the idea that somehow their political philosophy could be flawed. “Ah, so you mean that we Democrats (or we Republicans) get that wrong? How dare you question my faith? How dare the Church!”
Difficult to think otherwise when an educated parishioner chases you into the sacristy and berates you for preaching about Humana Vitea as not being Church teaching, or another tells you that they are now withdrawing from ministries because they feel offended from outlining Church teaching.
As Saint Augustine said, “If one wants his Father in Heaven, he cannot ignore his Mother on earth.” In the end, I don’t care how people voted …. that is between them and the Good Lord …. I am concerned about letting them know they have an obligation to listen to Mother Church with a teachable heart. Some act like spoiled kids when being told this truth.
…impertinent…berates…spoiled kids…
That doesn’t sound good.
But what about those parishioners who do change their views after listening to your homilies “with a teachable heart”? How do you go about opening their heart?
Helen –
So? I don’t get your point.
“it would be good for the church if its leaders could find a way to put a public face on these things that unite us.”
There’s a nice moment in an interview with Justin Welby, the newly announced Archbishop of Canterbury, when the interviewer asks him about a difficult and divisive issue the church is facing (in the Church of England, that’s whether there will be women bishops). How is he going to square the circle?
He said that the trick is to “look at the circle and say it’s a circle with sharp bits on it”.
Part of being Catholic is being in communion with the Pope, the Vatican and their teachings. Many American Catholics have always felt that they were “too good” or “too special” to follow these teachings, embodying an a la carte approach to the requirements of their faith. As a registered Republican I am angered that the Republican party can’t find a platform and a candidate that espouses the sanctity of life and also the plight and struggles of the working class. But I am even more angry at the militant, self-righteousness of people like Barrack and Hilary when it comes to the subject of abortion. Because of this I will always vote for the pro-life candidates, even if it compromises my livelihood.
Father George: “Faithful” to which teachings of the Church? The ones the Democrats reject or the ones the Republicans do?