« Playing Politics with the sick | Main | A new catechism »
October 08, 2004
Word from Rome
Over the last several months, I've discussed the elections informally with at least two dozen Vatican officials, ranging from cardinals to junior clergy. Based on these conversations, plus comparing notes with colleagues, I believe that if a secret ballot were to be held in the Holy See, Kerry would beat Bush about 60-40.How would the Vatican vote break out?
Just as in American political parlance we speak of "red states" and "blue states," meaning states that tend to vote Republican or Democrat, one can tongue-in-cheek say that the Vatican has "red dicasteries" and "blue dicasteries," meaning offices that tend to be more sympathetic to Bush or to Kerry.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83456dbbe69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Word from Rome:
» More Chordal Changes on Iraq from Dust in the Light
Mark Shea points to a comment discussion on Amy Welborn's blog wherein a formerly staunch supporter of the war, Rod Dreher, admits the following: I am deeply concerned over the conduct of the war, and the prospect that family members... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 11, 2004 10:52:08 PM
» ALLEN -- VATICAN POLL WOULD FAVOR KERRY 60-40 from Man Bites Blog
This should be fun [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 2, 2004 11:52:04 AM
Comments
See www.crisismagazine.com/ for "Reconciling Judas: Evangelizing the Theologians" by Edward T. Oakes, S.J., and James V. Schall, S.J.'s Sense and Nonsense column. And both Jesuits, too!
Posted by: Kathy at Oct 8, 2004 1:00:27 PM
Would Allen have reported this if his survey was 60-40 in favor of Bush?
I wonder...
Posted by: brigid at Oct 8, 2004 1:48:52 PM
Actually, if you read the article, you will find out that he reports that the vote would have been 60-40 for Bush in 2000, and probably would be that or better today among Cardinals and other high level prelates.
Chill -- Allen is just the messenger in this case, and probably the best and fairest American reporter on this beat.
Posted by: Claude Muncxey at Oct 8, 2004 1:56:53 PM
If this is correct, then it is clearly the consensus of the successors of the apostles, that it is neither immoral to vote for Kerry nor morally obligatory to vote for Bush. Obviously, they have their priorities and proportionate reasons all screwed up. Until they repent, they must all henceforth be denied communion.
Posted by: Celine at Oct 8, 2004 2:02:38 PM
That is depressing. I have no doubt that most (over 60%, at any rate)of those in the Vatican are probably solid on the moral issues.
I wonder if some of this misunderstanding of American politics comes from the simple fact that so many in the Vatican are not American. I understand that we Catholics can go either way on the war in Iraq, but to misunderstand what is at stake when it comes to abortion, stem cell research, etc. in our elections is a pretty ignorant misjudgement.
But, of course, the Church has never really been that wise when it comes to politics, nor is that its area of authority. The real problem here is that many in the Vatican are judging U.S. politics on political grounds (from what I would call a false and outdated European perspective on foreign policy) instead of on the basis of the moral grounds that the Church itself is supposed to guard and treasure.
I can't help but wonder what the numbers would be like if terrorists had attacked the Vatican? I doubt the first call the Vatican would have made would have been to the UN headquarters...or the French or Germans or even the Italian governments. Hmmmmm...
Posted by: kodiak at Oct 8, 2004 2:03:23 PM
Well, does one vote for a practicing Catholic who rarely, if ever, misses Sunday Mass, or for an evangelical Protestant who appears one or twice (maybe) a month at an Episcopal or Methodist church that he has never joined? If I wasn't a "Catholic Answers" voter, I would choose the Catholic. Especially, if I were a priest or worked for the Church. Otherwise, I would vote for the evangelical, war or no war.
Posted by: George at Oct 8, 2004 2:09:11 PM
Some people vote for Kerry because they support abortion. Others vote for Kerry because the oppose the stream of mendacity currently coming out of the White House. The reasons differ, but the vote is the same, and even some solid pro-lifers are going to pull the lever for Kerry this year. Like, for instance, me.
Posted by: Joel at Oct 8, 2004 2:10:12 PM
Firstly, it should be taken into account that the Vatican probably doesn't quite grasp Kerry's position on military intervention anyway, since he's been less than candid about it.
Anyone who's listened to Kerry Advisor Richard Holbrooke speak at all, or takes seriously Kerry's (and especially Edwards) previous defenses of the Iraq adventure should know that Kerry has no intention of reducing the amount of violent intervention abroad.
Second, that seems an unscientific survey if ever there was one. In fact, it seems much like the reporting of voter opinions in this country, more telling them what they ought to think rather than reporting what they do.
For example, as we know some significant level of dissent exists in the Church today on a variety of issues central to the Catholic Faith, how does the 60/40 break across those lines, even in the Dicasteries mentioned? How is it possible to assess, then, the character of Kerry support without being honest about that? And why bother?
Posted by: al at Oct 8, 2004 2:14:26 PM
These Church leaders have quickly forgotten what the likes of another Clinton will mean for the culture of life. Does anyone remember Cairo in 1994?
Posted by: Mary Russell at Oct 8, 2004 2:15:22 PM
Only 60-40? Because of the war, and the general resentment of American power and wealth, I'm surprised you'd get many Bush "votes" at all. Also, Kerry is a Catholic, and his style of Catholicism is downright devout by European standards and much more comforting to the Europeans than Bush's protestant fervor, I would venture.
Abortion and the other issues they probably see as not particularly open to solution, no matter who wins. Kerry, however, represents a much "friendlier" approach to Europe and an end to the kind of war Bush favors. So they prefer him.
Having said that, Allen admits to a lot of guesswork, divination, and note-comparing.
I would think that, if the Cardinals in Rome really thought about it, they'd have to admit that they're far more concerned with working with and influencing as far as they can whomever wins, rather than "rooting" for anybody. Or maybe they figure they can help Bush by seeming to favor Kerry.
Or, an Opus Dei assassin had Allen at gunpoint when he wrote the article, and they want Kerry because he's secretly with Opus Dei, along with Theresa, and they'll inaugurate a Franco-like Catholic regime, much to everyone's shock and awe, if only they can get elected...can't you see?...it's all so clear...
Posted by: John Heavrin at Oct 8, 2004 2:19:12 PM
These Church leaders have quickly forgotten what the likes of another Clinton will mean for the culture of life.
"Church leaders" are the cardinals and others at the top of the Vatican hierarchy who favor Bush in this straw poll.
From what I read it's the bureaucrats (surprise!) who prefer Kerry.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Oct 8, 2004 2:26:22 PM
Wonderful.
After all, look where their embrace of pacifism got them in Spain:
Homosexual marriage, defunding of the Church, divorce-at-will, and funding of Islam.
Brilliant strategy.
Posted by: B Knotts at Oct 8, 2004 2:38:35 PM
Bush? Protestant "fervor"?
*Sigh*
Posted by: JohnMcG at Oct 8, 2004 2:39:16 PM
solid pro-lifers are going to pull the lever for Kerry this year
By definition, a solid pro-lifer could never do so.
Posted by: B Knotts at Oct 8, 2004 2:40:56 PM
If I wasn't a "Catholic Answers" voter, I would choose the Catholic. Especially, if I were a priest or worked for the Church. Otherwise, I would vote for the evangelical, war or no war.--George (October 8, 2004 02:09 PM)
Huh? I guess I don't get the tribalism, if that is what is implied.
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at Oct 8, 2004 2:42:41 PM
Does George vote for Catholic third-partyers when neither the Dems nor Repubs nominate a "Catholic."
Posted by: S.F. at Oct 8, 2004 2:46:18 PM
solid pro-lifers are going to pull the lever for Kerry this year
By definition, a solid pro-lifer could never do so.
I don't think that's true, and I'm almost certainly going to vote for Bush (or not vote for president). I am deeply concerned over the conduct of the war, and the prospect that family members of mine might die for the illusion that Iraq can be democratic. This is not an abstract threat. I'm looking at the possibility that my brother in law, a National Guard officer who never, ever imagined he'd be ordered to go fight in the Middle East (because who on earth could have invented such a prospect?), might have to leave his wife and three kids ... and never come home. If I still believed that this was a cause worth shedding American blood for, that'd be one thing. But now I'm thinking that our men are dying for an unwinnable war. You cannot force liberal democracy on people who don't want it.
I am not at all convinced that Kerry would do anything much different from Bush on Iraq (his stated plans certainly aren't significantly different from Bush's), but if I were so convinced, I'd likely vote for Kerry. The Bushies have so badly screwed the pooch on this war.
(And don't even get me started on the Bush administration's spending!)
Bottom line: to me, Bush doesn't deserve re-election. Yet I will probably vote for him, with great reluctance, because Kerry is so much worse in my view. I can see, though, how a "solid pro-lifer" would feel that the war is such a big issue that it merits voting for Kerry in spite of his anti-life agenda.
Besides, I spoke a couple of weeks ago to a prominent pro-life Catholic who is a nationally recognized legal authority. He confided to me that he expects Bush to be "marginally better" than Kerry on cultural issues, but that he expected a re-elected Bush to nominate "a squish" for the first SCOTUS opening. He's still going to vote for Bush, but he has very low expectations.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Oct 8, 2004 3:46:16 PM
Heck Rod,
You've already told us that you'd support Rudy and he's 100% pro-abortion (late term even). So why would the pro-life position mean much to you anyway.
Posted by: SiliconValleySteve at Oct 8, 2004 3:57:43 PM
It seems to me that there either is or isn't a theologically correct or Catholic position on whether or not one can vote for a candidate who supports abortion on demand and embryonic stem cell research when a viable candidate who supports abortion in limited situations (rape, incest and life of mother)is also running for the same office. In the St. Louis Arcdiocese this has been settled by Archbishop Burke's logically reasoned pastoral letter of a week ago. Why is this still unsettled in so much of the country, and indeed the Church? Why aren't the shepherds guiding the flock. How depressing.
Posted by: tom at Oct 8, 2004 4:01:05 PM
Rod,
Do the folks over at National Review know you're writing this stuff? ;)
I have to say I disagree with you on whether the President deserves to be re-elected. We can disagree on whether Iraq is worth fighting for, but I just think Bush has done an overall good job as President. Compared to the last President who was re-elected (which isn't saying much), I just don't see that Bush has done anything so horribly as to disqualify himself.
In fact, I think the President has done a whole lot to keep us safer than, say, Al Gore or John Kerry would.
Jay
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Oct 8, 2004 4:01:13 PM
I'd have more respect for "Vatican officials" (as a group) if I didn't know that many of them are functional agnostics, at least according to Randall Sullivan in his book "Miracle Detective". He quotes many who express surprise that the Pope actually believes what he does - i.e. basic Catholic doctrine. I think that believing that ensoulment actually begins at birth would forfeit most of those Kerry votes.
Posted by: TSO at Oct 8, 2004 4:14:20 PM
"family members of mine might die for the illusion that Iraq can be democratic."--Rod
Rod, I couldn't disagree more with your line of reasoning. Our administration isn't putting your brother-in-law's life at risk so that Iraq can be democratic, but rather so that we, and the rest of the free world may remain democratic. If you ask President Bush or members or our current administration, I am certain that you would be told that a stable Iraqi government (democratic or otherwise) that does not harbor, aid, and abet terrorists is the necessary outcome of the war. Rod, all of our lives, including those of our kids going off to school (think Beslan in America), are at greater risk if we do not win this war.
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at Oct 8, 2004 4:21:17 PM
I usually votes for Dems, unless they are crazy or pro-abortion (instead of "merely" pro-choice). There are Dems, as we know, who work for or are otherwise affiliated with NARAL and other pro-abortion grops. I don't vote for them, either in the primary or the general.
I don't really care about any politician's religious practice. All I am saying is that Kerry is a more observent Christian (according to Catholic practice and tradition). I don't draw anything earthshaking from that conclusion, but thought I would mention among Catholic company here, and among folks who compare him to the Nazis.
Posted by: George at Oct 8, 2004 4:22:17 PM
Look.
Let's take the worst case scenario on the war--let's say it is a horrible idea to try and force democracy on people, that the strategy was ill-conceived, and that the death toll for U.S. forces will dramatically rise over the next few months to the low thousands per year (a figure that is ludicrous, but let that be).
This is a wild assumption, because it should be clear that rational, decent people can disagree either way on the war in Iraq. Thus it is an arguable prudential debate. But, again, let us assume its wholly and obviously evil.
The numbers still pale in comparison to the annual death toll from abortion, right?
So the question then becomes, will Bush do significantly more vs. Kerry towards reducing the tens of thousands of infants killed every year?
I think its obvious that the probability of Bush nominating a series of Scalia's and Thomas's to the Court is pretty slim. But do we think that Bush won't be significantly better than Kerry? That just seems ridiculous. We all know the hundreds of significant changes in policy that will change for the worse if Kerry is elected. The Clinton years all over again, plus the damage done culturally by having such a "Catholic" in the White House. He will be the most powerful and prominent politician on earth, and he will authorize and execute policies that go directly against the churches teaching.
The war is a matter of prudential judgement on which you can go either way. The slaughter of unborn children is not. What part of that don't we understand?
Posted by: kodiak at Oct 8, 2004 4:23:19 PM
"We’re already moving toward Baghdad in our war against Iraq, one I believe with all my heart is just and necessary. We don’t know how long it will last, or what the fallout will be."
--Rod Dreher, NRO, March 21, 2003
Wait, make that, the Iraq war rocks unless the fallout is an unwinnable war and my brother in law is called up. No blood for oil!!!
Sweet. Of course, take this with a grain of salt. After all, I'm lost in a fever swamp of emotionalism.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool at Oct 8, 2004 4:25:29 PM
