-255x254.jpg "Catholic News Agency")
ROME — As the country approaches election day in two weeks, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia is encouraging Catholic voters to place their faith above their allegiance to political parties.
“I’m always encouraging our people minimally to vote, maximally to run for political office, and make sure that they’re Catholic prior to being Democrat or Republican and that they put that into practice politically,” he told Catholic News Agency in Rome on Oct. 22.
Archbishop Chaput echoed the calls of other American bishops to have their flocks consider their faith in the voting booth.
“We do believe in the separation of church and state, but we don’t believe in the separation of faith from our political life,” he said.
“It’s very important for Catholics to make distinctions when voting, that they never support intrinsic evils like abortion, which is evil in all circumstances. That’s a lot different from different economic policies” that people can reasonably disagree on, the archbishop explained.
His remarks come as an Oct. 22 Gallup poll shows the “economy in general” is the issue rated most important by Americans as the election nears.
“But people who are practicing Catholics cannot have alternate views on abortion,” he stated. “Such foundational issues have a huge impact, and it’s important that Catholics make those distinctions.”
“A person (candidate) might be right on a lot of secondary issues but wrong on the foundational issues. And if that’s the case, it would be very difficult for a Catholic to vote for someone who, for example, favors unlimited access to abortion … undermines the meaning of marriage or supports policies that really undermine the foundation of our culture.”
Archbishop Chaput sees Philadelphia as a great example of both Catholic and civic virtue. He noted that it produced two canonized saints, John Neumann and Katherine Drexel, and was the location of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
“I’m standing on the shoulders, both in terms of the Church and the civic community,” the archbishop pointed out. “We have to produce new saints and be really good citizens.”
He also connected patriotism with love of parents and family, saying that “loving our country is really participating in love of our families.”
And “the meaning of family,” he asserted, is “hugely important for the future health of our country.”
“Having mothers and fathers who love us and love one another provides security for the healthy growth of children. Confused family life leads to confused participation in the broader life of the community.”
The Catholic vote has tended to follow the rest of the electorate in recent years, but with the current campaign for president running neck-and-neck, Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are vying for every segment of voters they can.
The latest polling from Gallup suggests that Romney has 51% of the Catholic vote, while Obama has 49%.
In the 2008 election, 53% of Catholic voters supported Obama, and 47% supported GOP candidate John McCain.
Archbishop Chaput noted that “Catholics who go to church vote quite differently than Catholics as a group." He noted "that Catholics who take their faith seriously, for them, it’s much more than a cultural affiliation — it’s a very personal affiliation with Jesus Christ and his community.”
Comments
Post a Comment
“The latest polling from Gallup suggests that Romney has 51% of the Catholic vote while Obama has 49%.”
.
This is disgusting.
I understand that the media and the schools have been brainwashing americans to support socialism and abortion against the churches teaching, but it is unbelievable to me that the president who has attacked our faith, attacked life and is leading us to another immoral socialist totalitarian state can get this kind of support among Catholics.
.
Even sadder is that this number is probably even worse among american bishops.
Mendacious Mitt
(to be sung to the tune of the hymn Holy God, We Praise Thy Name)
Mendacious Mitt, we praise thy name
with worshipful rapture we hear you proclaim
the heavenly dictum the bishops do tell
“vote for Mitt or you’ll all go to hell”
With adoring devotion we look up to you
we’re your gullible flock, we don’t have a clue.
(posted by a prophet in the Pious Church of Holy Sanctimony)
Chris - Nice try, but that doesn’t fit to the tune of “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name.” You can sort of force it to by adding and subtracting notes.
Sooo, it fits the song as long as you change the song a lot.
I believe the candidate must be an American before all. I will never vote for a Catholic that puts his religion before his country.
Kennedy had it right.
So what I’m getting from this article is this: BE CATHOLIC FIRST (but vote Republican). For a more fair and balanced take on this matter I refer you to this article:
http://lisamyers.org/2012/10/24/voting-biblical-values/
No one political party has a monopoly on Catholic values and it is a lie to suggest otherwise.
@Rob - socialism is much closer to Catholic teaching than is capitalism
Be Catholic Before You Are Democrat or Republican
I hope & pray that the Catholic clergy and those employeed in Catholic ‘social service’ organizations heed that advise ... but if history is any guide, they won’t.
For far too many ‘professional’ Catholics, they were born Democrats and merely baptized Catholic.
James -
“So what I’m getting from this article is this: BE CATHOLIC FIRST (but vote Republican).”
One can vote pro-life and democrat simultaneously. Perhaps I am spoiled here in Pennsylvania, but I regularly vote for pro-life democrats. I would imagine that many other Catholics, including our local bishop and other clergy, do so as well. The presidential election is not our only voting opportunity.
God Bless Archbishop Chaput!
Rob, I agree, truly disheartening!
Chris, I disagree, and I’d even have to say that it is you who do not have a clue.
Rover, You’re a bit confused. No one is saying to vote for a Catholic that puts his religion before his country. They are saying that Catholics place Christ at the center of their lives and of all things. Therefore, it follows that Catholics will not look at the word Democrat nor Republican but will (actually, must) vote for the candidate that does not support an intrinsic evil (which is the elephant in the living room—abortion is an intrinsic evil in all cases; abortion is murder of a baby.) So Catholics must NOT vote for Mr. Obama this election. Truly simple.
Andrew - You’re misinformed. Capitalism is! The only problem with Capitalism is that if one is successful, it may lead him to greed, to build bigger barns to storeup for himself vs. leading him to generosity and even magnanimity!
James—I went there, I read, but you are part of the Bernadine problem, the seamless garment that lumps intrinsic evil with poverty (among other things). Our Lord said there will always be poor. Our God made it very clear ...before you are death or life. CHOOSE LIFE!... Because Catholics know we must first protect life doesn’t mean we aren’t caring in every way possible for the poor, et al.
Great article! Something that may provide additional understanding is ChurchMilitant.TV. God bless you all and God Bless America!
The Archbishop is absolutely right! Thank goodness. There has been a general decline in the moral adherence of Catholics to the unchanging and infallible moral teaching of the Church in the past 40 years since the “quiet revolution” of 1968 in which many Catholic pastors openly threw in the towel to the forces of Planned Parenthood. People like Lisa Myers oppose the recent statements of several prominent members of our American Catholic hierarchy (let alone Rome) on the question of voting for politicians who apparently claim that they are voting for someone who defends “Catholic social teaching” (read “socialism” in a dishonorable selective reading of the wonderful totality of “Catholic social teaching”) in opposition to a candidate who respects and defends the teaching of the Church on the absolute sanctity of human life (and who happens to defend free enterprise and the principle of subsidiarity in matters of social policy making). This is stated to be in the mistaken belief that admonishing fools who bowdlerize Catholic moral principles fundamentally are somehow violating Jesus’ mandate to “love one another”!!!?? There is NO SUCH THING as a Catholic who may honorably dissent from solemn Catholic moral teaching and be anything but a heretic. There is no “Blue” or Pro-Obama Catholic in this day and age, no matter how many ignorant “Catholic” hypocrites there seem to be !! The evidence for that is absolutely obvious for anyone who does not choose to live in a perfumed bubble. Catholics are not wusses! Our faith calls us to live in the REAL WORLD, and have the “guts” to stand up to liars and moral perverts, not to appease them because we think that that is “not loving”!!
James…that’s Great! You’ve got the best of both worlds. In Ohio, it is quite clear that we have the most pro-death Senator who’s lived 40 years or so off taxpayer money. Sooooooooooo, the article is easy for Ohioans to understand. Republican President/Vice President and Republican Senator—CHECK!
The only issue must be survival of the American nation. For the first time in my 85 years the survival of the Republic our founding fathers,the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of rights, the First Amendment, and religious freedom is as stake. Catholic Democrat is an oxymoron. If Obama is reelected, my military career and the lives of all those who fought and died to provide liberty and religious freedom will have been in vain. Socialism has an historical record of abject failure, violence and promotion of tyranny. Only a traitor to our nation could vote for any Democrat. JFK was an apostate Catholic. I suspect he would recant if he had a second chance.
@andrew - Actually, the church opposes both socialism & capitalist individualism as wrong.
Might look into Distributism.
That said, both the god-king and Willard support intrinsic evils, just with differing levels of fervor for different ones.
Liberalism is the religion for many of our Catholic brothers and sisters, not unlike our friends and loved ones who are Jewish, Presbyterian, Muslim, etc. But they are, first, liberals, and then, when convenient Christian.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Vote for a third party candidate.
This election is not about normal politics but about socio-spiritual values. It is not about the two parties whose members sit in the two houses making decisions. This is about two men, and the direction in which they want to take the country. What are their views on marriage and family, the very foundations of society, and the long-cherished freedoms that have existed? Society can overcome financial problems but it cannot survive broken and corrupted marriages and families.
“Catholics” are about 50% Obama and 50% Romney in most polls, which proves that at least 50% of Catholics don’t have any faith in their priests and bishops, after those priests and bishops moved and hid thousands and thousands and thousands of child rapists.
The Catholic child sex scandal has rendered priests and bishops of the Catholic church largely irrelevant, with the exception of an aging population that doesn’t care about child rapists, honestly, dignity, insane accumulations or wealth, and a blinged out pope.
Bernard Law you are dead wrong. You and the 50 percent of apostate Catholics for Obama have lost faith in the Real Presence of Jesus. To blame the Catholic Church and the dedicated priests for all those priests who violated the laws of the Church, is to accuse God of error. Without the bishops and priests, salvation for you is irrelevant as well, and insulting the Pope is anathema.
Thank you Archbishop Chaput for telling it like it is. Truth always upsets people. It’s about time “Catholics”(and people in general) started getting very,very upset. It’s real simple. You can’t be pro choice (or pro culture of death) and a Catholic in good standing. PERIOD! If you vote for or support any politician who does your are complicit in supporting evil. PERIOD! If you are aware of this and you are voting for evil anyway you are putting your soul at risk by committing a mortal sin.(meets the 3 conditions of full knowledge of evil, know it’s wrong, do it anyway) PERIOD! Our friends can rationalize, fall for the seamless garment baloney, excuse themselves of their personal responsibility as “Catholics” because of the priest scandal (or fill in your own personal reason of choice). Bishops are finally starting to wake up and none too soon. Better late than never. Tough times ahead no matter who is elected as President. It’s just a question of degree and turning it around. The tough times applies to the CC as well. Not for nothing but the catechesis and leadership from the US Bishops has been poor over the last 40 years. The fact that Bishops have to even state the obvious and basic doctrine proves the point. Can’t fix any problem without leaders (both civil and religious) that have the humility to face the Truth and the courage state it clearly and often no matter the personal consequences. Be Not Afraid.
So a Catholic politician is obliged to not only believe that contraception in marriage is sinful but to work to make the sale and use of it a crime for married Protestants and non-Christians?
Is a Catholic politician obliged to work to deny civil marriage licenses to divorced heterosexuals who have not obtained an annulment?
Is a Catholic politician obliged to work to remove tax exemptions to other denominations that are viewed by the Roman church as “heretical”?
You guys clearly haven’t thought through the implications of this ...
JamesK.
FYI: prior to the 1930 Lambeth Conference contraception was prohibited in all Christian denominations. How’s that change worked out for them since starting down that slippery slope?
You would have never had Roe without Griswald first. How’s all that worked out for the USA?
Divorce and Tax Exemptions are not intrinsic evils.
Yes we have thought it through. You are misinformed which is evident by your post.
Well, James K.,
Do you really think that bishops will concern themselves with small matters of the kind you mention? Your argument seem to be a reductio ad absurdum.
It is simply profoundly sinful for one who holds public office to claim to be “Catholic” and act in a way that undermines the faith. The Catholic faith is not “open to negotiation” as to what one may observe, especially if one is in a position to cause scandal among the faithful. Our Catholic people are all too weary of their “Catholic” political office holders acting and speaking in scandalous ways. Without the widespread elimination of scandal among public office holders, our democracy is doomed.
If a politicians are not willing to support the non-negotiable moral teaching of the Church , then they can imply avoid claiming oneself as “Catholic”. That is only fair.
Enough outrage. Enough abuse of the rightful name of “Catholic”! Let’s start building faith in our government and in our Church’s pastoral leadership. Abp. Chaput is one of those who we can count on. May there be many more of his kind!!
We, in Indonesia, are trying to be 100% Catholic, and 100% Indonesian. Easy to say, hard to do. GBU all…
@ James K
First, a note on the meanings of “vote for” and then to the imagined problems you have with Catholic politicians Americans soon will “vote for”:
.
Given certain major moral issues highly elevated in the public mind only in modern times, the traditional meaning of “vote for” no longer tends to suggest liking or agreeing with a given candidate. In fact one can be very displeased with policies of a candidate and yet technically be described as voting “for” him or her. For example, when there are different degrees of support for intrinsic evils by both candidates, Catholics are obliged to consider “limiting the harm” which is not the same as choosing a lesser evil which humanity is not to do per Romans 3:8. Hence, today, the phrase “vote for” can legitimately range from its simpler traditional meaning to the modern meaning of *morally correct strategic-voting*. Catholic writers, including the Holy Father occasionally need to be careful with phrases like “vote for”.
.
“So a Catholic politician is obliged to not only believe that contraception in marriage is sinful but to work to make the sale and use of it a crime for married Protestants and non-Christians?” Where did that come from? The problem is President Obama’s *trampling* on Catholics’ and certain others’ consciences via his HHS mandate imposed on the Catholic Church which is following Christ’s command to help people in various needs. That is the battle, not contraception per se. James K, don’t you agree that President Obama treats Catholics like INSECTS without consciences? Conscience is God’s sacred creation which plays the KEY role at our personal judgment after death!
.
“Is a Catholic politician obliged to work to deny civil marriage licenses to divorced heterosexuals who have not obtained an annulment?” You describe a scenario of people having been divorced by state law. The state simply does not care about their personal sin—assuming they are culpable before God. So a Catholic politician is not obliged by the state to so work. As a private citizen the same politician could give fraternal advice to such Catholic divorcees to first seek an annulment; but the politician is not obliged to hinder their state-level applications.
.
“Is a Catholic politician obliged to work to remove tax exemptions to other denominations that are viewed by the Roman church as “heretical”?” No, but why would you ask this if you believe in the Constitution
Jaco writes: “Divorce and Tax Exemptions are not intrinsic evils.”
Let me rephrase: should the multitude of *civil* remarriages entered into by heterosexual couples every year be deemed null and void if they would be deemed invalid by the Catholic church for any reason, whether it’s because the prior divorce was done for unbiblical reasons or because an annulment was not obtained or some other “get out of jail free” card was not granted by the Church?
Of course ... I realize that this same “pro-family” Church (that lectures us continually of the “evils” of gay marriage) CHOSE to bless the third marriage of Newt Gingrich to his second mistress, so perhaps the question is irrelevant.
No amount of showering will wash the stench of the abortion mill off anyone, Catholic or otherwise, who votes Democratic. Fact.
Posted by James K on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 5:18 PM (EST):
Jaco writes: “Divorce and Tax Exemptions are not intrinsic evils.”
Let me rephrase: should the multitude of *civil* remarriages entered into by heterosexual couples every year be deemed null and void if they would be deemed invalid by the Catholic church for any reason, whether it’s because the prior divorce was done for unbiblical reasons or because an annulment was not obtained or some other “get out of jail free” card was not granted by the Church?
Again, JamesK
Your above comment displays your misinformation but that does not stop your anger rant. Sounds like you might be a “former Catholic who is misinformed or has been hurt or has other unresolved issues that can’t be addressed in a forum like this. If you have been hurt within the CC then that is unfortunate, regrettable and I apologize for that.
As to your comment? Specifically, the annulment process in the CC has nothing to do with civil marriage process. Matrimony (man and woman) is considered one of the 7 sacraments of the Church. As such it is considered Holy. The priest is a witness and blesses the vows of the couple who marry themselves. In order to make the marriage a valid sacrament in the eyes of the Church certain pre-conditions have to be met by both individuals to make the sacrament “valid” in the CC. Couples are required to attend pre-marriage counseling over several months covering various subjects. You just can’t show up a Catholic Church and get married.
Not to go into it now, but what happens is that couples decide to breakup and enter into a civil divorce. Civil divorce is not prohibited by the CC. As long as the individuals do not remarry they can still partake in the sacraments of the CC. The problem arises when one or both want to get married again…civilly. If they do so without obtaining a “sacramental annulment” from the CC of their previous marriage(s)..they cannot receive the sacraments of the Church. Although now easier to obtain than years past an annulment is still not easy to obtain within the CC.
As to Newt? Obviously there are personal issues that would/could invalidate previous marriages “sacramentally” within the eyes of the CC. Thus the annulment process. Lot of issues that take time. Not a quick or easy process.
Of course ... I realize that this same “pro-family” Church (that lectures us continually of the “evils” of gay marriage) CHOSE to bless the third marriage of Newt Gingrich to his second mistress, so perhaps the question is irrelevant.
As to your second comment?
JamesK are you gay? You are mixing apples and oranges. There is no such thing as Gay Marriage. It’s an oxymoron. There can be no “life” transmitted therefore it is not a marriage…ever in the eyes of the Church. The homosexual act (not the person) is considered an intrinsic evil for that reason. Newt’s marriages/annulments have nothing to do with “gay marriage”. You are setting up the a straw man to try and prove an invalid premise and point.
Ciao
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-chaput-be-catholic-before-you-are-democrat-or-republican/#ixzz2AuahCD3W
Jaco writes: “There is no such thing as Gay Marriage.”
Civil marriage - as a legal construct - has evolved over the centuries. It used to be denied to interracial couples (often because of “moral” objections by religious believers). It used to mean that there was “no such thing” as rape if the rapist happened to be your spouse. It used to mean that women lost any ability to sign a legal contract or own property in her own name. Polygamy, arranged marriages and marriage between minors is still common in many cultures, by the way. You act is if there’s been some constant to legal marriage, but there’s not other than it has involved a man and one or more women. Given that most people are heterosexuals, I’m not sure what this proves. It’s a circular argument (i.e., “Marriage is for heterosexuals because only heterosexuals have gotten married.”)
I understand the religious objections to gay marriage, but if you’re going to insist we apply a religious standard to civil marriage, then it should be applied across the board and include heterosexual couples as well.
For the record, I’m perfectly fine with granting exemptions to gay marriage laws to small businesses not providing a basic public service or product.
As to whether I’m gay ... sure. I have no problem admitting it. I’ve also been partnered for almost two years to one person. I don’t even put their picture in my office lest some Christian get nosy, ask questions and complain about being “offended” and “persecuted”. I would like to be able to extend my medical benefits to them, but unfortunately, the efforts of you good people are preventing that from ever happening. I guess it would “harm marriage” or something to that effect. How is anyone’s guess. I’ve been waiting for years for a coherent answer but have yet to get one.
I absolutely would vote for a candidate who puts his Catholicisn, which I believe has the fullness of truth, over his American patriotism (which defines squishiness and lukewarmness).
Kennedy was dead wrong.
It would be great if those who have traditionally voted Democrat due to family tradition would take a look at how the party has changed and, instead, if all Catholic would vote as Catholics.
The 2012 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM specifically states its SUPPORT FOR ABORTION AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. This is not the same Democratic Party as from 40 years ago.
We once had a very pastoral bishop in Australia called Bishop Morris who had a diocese in Southern Queensland. This Archbishop acted as a Vatican hatchetman in his removal. Any idea of due process or natural justice was wholly absent from this process but the Archbishop saw a kangaroo. Any American citizen who has to suffer his political pontifications has my sincere sympathy. He is typical of church leaders who meddle in politics and cannot differentiate between surface and substance.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.