An Aid To Memory

Kerry, Bush, Have Trouble Wooing Catholic Voters

It seems that the Catholic vote has mattered quite a lot in past elections, and is going to play a big part in the upcoming election. The whole article is interesting, but I have excerpted a few of the best parts relating to Catholic voting trends.

“Once reliably Democratic, Catholics have become one of the most complicated and coveted swing voting blocs.”

“Catholics kept voting Democratic until 1972, when they gave 61 percent of their support to Richard Nixon. They have been independent-minded ever since…”

“The Catholic vote has shifted as lifelong Democrats — many of them from blue-collar, ethnic suburbs like Parma, Ohio — began to wonder whether their party had become too liberal on social issues, if not economic policy.”

“An AP-Ipsos poll suggests that a majority of Catholics who are likely voters attend mass at least once a week, and Bush gets a majority of the churchgoers’ votes.”

“Catholics who don’t worship regularly tend to back Kerry, according to the AP-Ipsos poll.”

“That leaves swing-voting Catholics like Missy Kocab, 18. A product of Ohio’s Catholic schools, she opposes gay marriage and abortion but is cool toward the president. ‘I just don’t think the president has been honest about Iraq,’ she says.”

“Becky Martin, 35, of Parma, says, ‘I hate the war and I hate Kerry. What do I do?’”

It seems that Catholics are harder to categorize than most religious voters, or perhaps all Christian voters are hard to classify because of the wide spectrum of beliefs among Christians. Another interesting development is that genuine Catholics (that is those that attend Mass weekly, which is required by the Church) are shifting more toward the Republican party because of Democrats’ liberal views on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. It is hard to deny that the Democratic party has become the official party of the sexual revolution. However, these same traditional Catholics, especially the younger ones, seem to see voting for a Republican as choosing the lesser of two evils, as is shown by the opinions on the Iraq war quoted. All of this is actually encouraging. The article shows that the Catholic Church seems to be forming the lives and minds of many of her members, and that the Great Tradition of the Church is being applied to postmodern issues, at least by the regular attenders. As a side note, I think the Democrats need to be very careful, as they have taken the Catholic vote for granted, and recently suppressed Catholic voices within the party.

Note: The image is “Country Election” by Bingham.

As the US election approaches I am still undecided as to whom I will vote for. I doubt I could actually be swayed to love either candidate. I cannot in good conscience vote for a man who refused to outlaw partial birth abortion, which amounts to infanticide. Nor can I vote for a man who led the United States to war preemptively and unjustly, and whose advisors are targeting other countries for more war. Lest you think I oppose this war on more liberal grounds, I want everyone to know that I share many of the objections to the Iraq war as conservative writer Pat Buchanan. I don’t think I am alone in my dislike of the platforms of BOTH candidates. There seems to be a large block of voters that just doesn’t like either candidate’s views and visions, and that is tired of a political process that is largely shaped by special interests. I am really left with three realistic options come November as far as I can tell.

1. Vote for either Bush or Kerry and hold my nose- I could just choose the lesser of two evils, and hold my nose or cross myself while I vote. However, I just could never vote for someone whose stance on abortion is as radical as John Kerry. Nor could I ever vote for Bush, knowing that we might enter new wars under his watch if his advisors have their way, and with oil at over 50 dollars a barrel, his cozy ties with the oil industry upset me everytime I fill up. If I did choose the option, I would vote for Bush. However, I just cannot do this.

2. Don’t vote at all in the presidential race- I could just not get involved. If I did this, I would feel like I was not taking advantage of the privilege of voting in this great democracy. I still want to be involved in the political process, even if the choices are poor. So I have decided I will cast a vote of some kind and avoid this option.

3. Vote for a 3rd-party candidate- This is my likely choice. I can participate in the political process AND choose a candidate that I can vote for in good conscience. I know I am “throwing away” my vote from a pragmatic standpoint. However, I feel like I need to make a good moral choice, even if it is viewed as a throw-away vote.

I do think there should be a fourth option. I would love to see “none of the above” on the ballot. I know this sounds like something out of “Brewster’s Millions,” but nonetheless, I would love for the politicians to see how many people are upset at the choices each party has given us. Just because a candidate gets the full support of the radical abortion lobby or the oil industry does not mean we want him (or her) as a candidate. Perhaps if a large percentage of voters chooses “none of the above,” the parties would get the point. Either way, regardless of who wins, we must pray for our leaders and I will continue to do this. We must also pray for peace and Iraq, and pray for the stable and peaceful future of the Iraqi people.

The image is from the movie “Brewster’s Millions,” where Richard Pryor’s character urges his supporters to choose “none of the above” in the race for NYC mayor

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04072805.html

The above-linked articles suggests that Catholics (at least the ones who hold to Church teachings) have been purposely excluded from Democrat affairs lately. Has the Democratic Party been hijacked by hyper-liberal ideologues? Will there come a time when Catholics no longer vote Democrat because the party refuses to welcome those who share the Church’s views on abortion and gay marriage?

It’s hard to tell. I will issue a word of warning though. Many of us would be Democrat in a second if the issue of abortion (and to a degree, the support of gay marriage) wasn’t made a litmus test of Democratic orthodoxy. The Democratic party needs to be very careful as they move more and more leftward on various social issues, because they will cease being the party that cares about the goals and dreams of the average person. My observation is that if the Republican Party is the party of wealthy businessmen, then the Democratic Party is quickly becoming the party of wealthy Academics. And with these facts about our two-party system, nothing is more appropriate than making the sign of the cross (or perhaps a good kyrie eleison).

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_040623.shtml

There has been a slurry of Bible translations released recently, mostly from conservative Evangelical quarters. Most differ very little, except stylistically. However now the mainline liberals are getting in on the act, and we have a new “relevant” and “earthy” translation released by One For Christian Renewal, a group that employs plenty of buzz-words, and even invites the reader into the land of sap to make “Origami Peace Cranes.” They also have illusions (delusions) that there will be “another Nicaea” called by the World Council of Churches, because “we need a new creed without myth” which has been the battle-cry of the now-60-something mainline liberals for some time. What they fail to realize is that the Nicene Creed will be around long after they will be, and that there is no crisis of belief for most Christians, mostly just upper-class, older, mainliners. Of course, since they have undertaken to replace the creed, why not replace the Bible? This seems to be what the “One” translation does based on the excerpts provided by a sympathetic webpage (linked to above). For instance, Paul’s admonitions against extra-marital sex are removed and readers are told to do the exact opposite. It is kind of like changing Socrates’ popular adage “the life unexamined is a life not worth living” to “an unexamined life is simply way cool dude!”

We’ve heard the story before. We need to “demythologize” the Bible, get rid of all of the hard stuff it contains, that way it will be more accessible. This includes any masculine language or high ethical ideals that conflict with secular culture. This line of reasoning is not new, and was advocated by Thomas Jefferson, Rudolph Bultmann, and “bishops” Robinson (J.A.T., not Gene) and Spong. Jefferson probably took the most honest approach: just simply delete the offending passages. It is only the late-modern person who sees the need to rewrite or mistranslate the text. This may be because the late-modern person is so “enlightened” that he or she has the right…no…the obligation to correct and emend the writings of those “unenlightened” souls who had the misfortune of being born before 1920. How this mistranslating or correcting is any different from medieval scribes “correcting” scripture in the transmission of the texts is beyond me.

The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury supports this new translation and offers praise for it. I wonder if he would support “inclusivizing” other classical works, like the Socrates example above? Maybe we should draw more women on the walls of the Sistine chapel? Davinci’s “Last Supper” doesn’t have enough minorities and is not “earthy” enough, let’s repaint it. Why? Because, like the Bible, according to Archbishop Williams, it is too “specialized” for the average person to appreciate. Plus, we have the right, don’t we? We are modern people after all!

There used to be a time when converts to Christianity were “brought up” to the level of Christian truth, and invited to participate in the timeless mystery that is Christian Truth and Ethics. The Bible (along with Tradition) was the guidebook to this Truth, difficult passages and all. Now it seems every chance is being taken to create a Christianity that is palatable only to the blandest and most secular of Academics. The Anglican Communion has succumbed to this type of thinking at the highest and lowest of levels. The only consolation is that this translation will probably be viewed as just another novelty. Most believers worldwide are too traditional, and most academics are too scholarly to use it as a serious translation. I guess that leaves mainline clergy, who continue to convince themselves of their relevance while the mainlines die right before their eyes. The situation is like the Captain of the Titanic, practically swimming in the approaching waters, continuing to proclaim the unsinkability of his ship. I suppose if the philosophy behind this Bible translation were a commodity it would be “New Coke.” And the Coca-cola company would be faring about as well as the mainlines had it stuck with “New Coke” this long.

 I currently live in a small town of about 1200 people. I personally enjoy many of the facets of small-town life, although I am also frustrated by the lack of young people and how downright boring it can be at times. But for the lack of businesses and social events, we sure do have a lot of churches. I counted the other day, and we have the "Shield of Faith Evagnelistic(sic) Church," a Nazarene Church, a Methodist Church (who believe more like the Baptists), a Christ in Christian Union Church (think John Wesley minus the Holy Spirit and his Catholic tendencies), a Presbyterian Church, and two more "non-denominational" churches. So that is seven churches, for 1200 people. Even if we consider the surrounding areas, the number of people goes only to around 6,000. That is 1 church for every 171.4 people in town, and 1 for every 857 in the surrounding areas. That of course, assumes that everybody in town and the surrounding area goes to church, which is not really true.

Most of the churches have been started from, or grown from, splits in other churches. I suppose it is American individualism at work…The reasoning is, if I don’t like the carpet color, the pastor’s sermon style, etc, then the only option is to start a new church. So rather than one or two churches with over 200 people, living as a vibrant community of Christ, we are left with bunches of small, struggling churches, that often act clannish and suspicious of one another. I have to grant that we are in a culturally religious area, and the county seat has a church on almost every corner. The predominant cultural faiths are Methodist, Baptist, and Pentecostal. Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians do not fare so well, although the Roman Catholics do pretty darn well. All in all, even in a town of 1200 people we have seven competing Christ-proclaiming communities, demonstrating how we have failed Christ’s prayer that we may be one as the Trinity is One.

So what can we do? Well I think we must do the best that we are able to do in our current churches. We shouldn’t smooth over our differences in hopes of one, bland, church. This is why the World Council of Churches has failed. We can however, work together as best as we are able, finding common ground in our Nicene faith, and trying to work out major differences while emphasizing our common beliefs. Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have so much in common, and are essentially saying the same things in different ways (although there are a few doctrines and practices that might fall outside of this assumption). This has happened since the beginning, and was even an issue during the Nicene era. The West thought the Greeks tended toward Arianism, and the West seemed like closet Sabellians to the East. I personally volunteer to work my tail off to reunite Rome and Constantinople as a layperson and theologian, and hope to do that through the web, especially at ancient-future.net. Our schism is a scandal, especially in a post-Christian society. Again, I am not advocating pretending there are not differences, just wondering if there isn’t good we can do despite our differences?

Click Here For Article

I will spare you my commentary on this one. I think the article points to a very interesting and troubling phenomenon in churches: men are dissatisfied with churches (if they are even around to begin with). In the mainlines while people have been bailing left and right over the last 30 years perhaps we forgot to notice that men have been running toward the exits the fastest, and often are being replaced by women (college guys don’t get your hopes up…stats show that it is mostly older women). Of course the same is true in evangelical churches. If I didn’t have 15 minutes before Bible study starts I might have more to say now. Otherwise, the problem is far bigger than 15 minutes, and far more complex than a blog entry!

Mention Earth Day around some Christians and the result could be a tongue lashing! Earth Day is controversial in Christian circles because it celebrates our planet. This makes many think back to a whole host of pagan religions where the earth was worshipped as a god. Many Christians say our planet, being a temporal created thing, does not deserve a day. Others dislike the day because many “liberal” leaders have latched onto the ideas behind earth day, while many “conservatives” have brushed them aside. Some Christians, perhaps after reading the latest Left Behind novel ask, “why should we preserve the earth; God’s just gonna destroy it later anyway?” The reasoning is kind of like “why clean my room, it’s just going to get dirty again anyway,” only on a cosmic scale. I seem to remember Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior James Watt making a similar argument.

Needless to say I disagree with these objections to earth day. God has called His people to be stewards of creation ever since mankind was created. God has given humans dominion over creation, and as lords of creation we must heed God’s standards for kingly behavior by caring for our “subjects.” The Scriptures have harsh words for kings who exploit and oppress their subjects. If we are to be good lords, we must treat the creation fairly.

As catholic Christians we believe that God became human in Jesus Christ within the created order, and thus sanctified all of creation and rendered it a fitting vehicle for his divine activity. Creation is now the vehicle for divine activity (the mysteries and sacraments). We will be hard-pressed to explain to God why we humans have destroyed so many of His sanctified vehicles. A sacramental and incarnational theology demands that we care for creation.

St. John Chrysostom argued that through conscience and nature unbelievers discover God. St. Paul argues the same thing, that nature is a witness to God’s existence. St. Augustine knew that to view the handiwork is to get a glimpse of the architect. Very few people have gotten a glimpse of God after seeing a polluted river. Please bear in mind that Paul, John Chrysostom, and Augustine were hardly liberals, in fact, they were (often overbearingly) the opposite!

Also, the cosmic plan of salvation, according to St. Paul and the early Christians, involves not just humanity, but all of creation. All creation groans for redemption. Thus nature, in addition to being full of divine symbols, is somehow a part of the grand mystery of salvation and redemption.

Being good stewards of the earth also helps the poor, those “blessed” ones that Jesus and the Old Testament prophets urged demanded that we care for. When we conserve energy and resources like water, we free up these for poorer nations to use, to help build their nations and economies. A side benefit is that we also decrease dependence on foreign nations whose ultimate goal is our eradication! There are plans underway to produce oil from pig waste, and currently oil is being made from turkey by-products. This is a win-win scenario: unwanted trash is turned into something we, and the developing world, desperately need. Also, vehicles are being made to run on processed fish oil. This fish oil has been used to make Omega-3 fatty acid supplements, and would have been thrown away. Now it serves a purpose that benefits almost everyone. Perhaps not the oil companies…but a 10 billion dollar profit this year instead of a 28 billion one is still a nice chunk of change.

So without resorting to earth worship, or paganism, we Christians can, and really should, take the preservation and care of the earth seriously. Let’s try to preserve our planet, being the stewards that God calls us to be, caring for the divine sacraments and symbols that God uses for His plan of redemption and salvation.