It really is impossible to stress too often that there isn’t one “Catholic vote” in American politics, right now. When people talk about Catholics being the ultimate “swing vote” factor — especially in tight races in the Midwest — they are actually talking about Catholics in the middle of a spectrum of doctrine and practice.
The other day, responding to one of Mark’s posts on Catholics and the Democrats, I mentioned a typology given to me once upon a time by a wise Catholic priest here inside the DC beltway. He said that there are actually four different major groups of Catholic voters, the:
* Ex-Catholic/estranged Catholic vote.
* Cultural Catholic/several Masses a year Catholic vote.
* Sunday only, I’m OK at the American Catholic doctrinal cafeteria vote.
* Catholics who sweat the details and go to confession vote.
Now, the GOP has really been targeting group No. 4 in the era after Roe v. Wade and, in large part, that is where you find the most Reagan Democrats who are in Catholic pews. Meanwhile, the Democrats pretty much own group No. 1, which tends to be left of the secular public. There’s some great data out there from a study a decade or two ago by Father Andrew Greeley & Co. that fleshes that out, but I cannot find it online. (Feel free to help me hunt!)
So the battles are about the semi-active Catholics in the middle, who swing back and forth. The current theory is that the Iraq war ticked them off in the 2006 elections.
So why is that wild man, the Rev. John Hagee, the subject of this post? As long as the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., is hanging around the neck of Sen. Barack Obama, expect to keep hearing about Hagee and Sen. John McCain — even if there really isn’t anything new to report. I mean, check out this latest Newsweek piece and tell me the hot new information. Here’s the key section:
“When someone endorses me, that does not mean that I endorse everything he stands for and believes in,” McCain said last month. “I don’t have to agree with everyone that endorses my campaign.” But that may seem insensitive to those who have been offended by Hagee’s more controversial positions. The pastor has made some outrageous comments. He called the Catholic Church, among other things, “the great whore” and “a false cult system.” Hagee says his comments were taken out of context; he says he was not referring to modern Catholicism, but to what he says were the anti-Semitic views of the Catholic Church in the past. The Catholic League, which published a list of Hagee’s “slurs” against the church, has called on McCain to renounce the endorsement.
Hagee also has strong views about the Middle East. He believes the United States has a biblical obligation to support Israel, and he has advocated a pre-emptive strike on Iran to protect the Jewish state. He opposes a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, suggesting that if Washington backs such a plan, God might punish Americans by dispatching terrorists.
Click here if you want to flash back and read more about what Hagee said and when he said it (and why his view of World War II and the pope make him sound like an anti-Catholic liberal).
But it’s important to remember that Hagee is a story because of the “Catholic vote” factor. So reporters need to ask, “Which Catholic vote does Hagee threaten?”
Clearly, the left side of the Catholic spectrum will love to hate Hagee for a whole host of reasons. But they are not listening to the GOP anyway, even on abortion and other life issues that matter so much to the Vatican. So the question is what the conservative Catholics think of Hagee — which is why the Catholic League link is politically (and thus journalistically) crucial.
I mean, you already know what Catholics who read Frank Rich are going to think of all of this. But what about, oh, Deal W. Hudson?
As it turns out, a month ago, Deal Hudson did sit down with Hagee to confront him about his statements and his claim that they were ripped out of context. Click here to see the result, at Inside Catholic. This is really interesting stuff, and here is a crucial passage:
… I contacted Hagee. He seemed genuinely hurt that he was being seen by the nation as anti-Catholic. He said, “Deal, how can people think I am anti-Catholic when my wife is an ex-Catholic, and a third of my congregation are former Catholics?” I bit my tongue. We really needed to talk; there were some things about Catholics he truly didn’t understand.
When we met later, I told Hagee about “biting my tongue,” and he looked surprised. I explained that Catholics don’t like being reminded of all those who have left the Church. As he started to nod in agreement, his wife Diana said, “He’s right, John.” She would repeat that sentence several times during our long conversation, and each time her husband would acquiesce in agreement.
For example, she agreed when I told Hagee that his account of anti-Semitism seems aimed entirely at the Catholic Church. He explained that he had written extensively about the anti-Semitism of Martin Luther and other Protestants and had praised the statements of Pope John Paul II that were critical of anti-Semitism. When I asked him why so many of his examples were from the Catholic Church, he said his main source was the book The Anguish of the Jews by Rev. Edward Flannery, which he had bought on his first trip to Israel in 1978. (Father Flannery was first director of Catholic-Jewish relations at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and a pioneer in Jewish-Christian relations.)
Hagee not only recognized why his account could look one-sided, but he also admitted that he knew little about the heroic efforts of many Catholics to defend the Jews, especially during World War II. I gave him a copy of the encyclical read from the pulpit of every Catholic Church in Germany in 1937, Mit Brennender Sorge, of Pius XI. I explained to him that the author was actually Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pius XII, and how Jews welcomed his election because he was already known as their defender.
There’s some interesting information in here, particularly about Hagee’s links to and support for a Roman Catholic order in San Antonio.
Some Catholic voters (and newspaper readers) will find all of this picky information interesting. Many will not. It depends on which Catholic voters we’re talking about.
 | Posted at 7:06 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (19) |
May 9, 2008, at 8:44 am
You may be thinking about Fr. Greeley’s The Catholic Imagination.
As a sweaty Catholic, I don’t worry at all about the Hagee endorsement (or think about Mr. Hagee, really), since I recognize that an endorsement is a very different matter than a 20 year pastoral relationship. And the Catholic League needs to lay off, too.
As a Texan of a certain age, I remember that the Catholic Church was commonly considered the Great Whore of Babylon. In fact, after my conversion 21 years ago, a family friend (a Methodist, as it happens) noted that “well, Catholics are people, too”. In fact, her brother had married one.
May 9, 2008, at 10:37 am
This issue also begs the question for journalists to investigate the Catholic League and commentators like Deal. How is the Catholic League funded? Who do they speak for? Is there a “they” or is it just a single person? How much credibility does the League have?
Journalists need to ask these questions of all interest groups—and agitators—who jump into the fray. Who does Americans United for Separate of Church and State represent? Who does Al Sharpton or the American Family Association or the Institute on Religion and Democracy or the National Council of Churces represent and who is paying the bills.
When Deal Hudson—a former GOP operative—writes a sympathetic piece that helps the GOP nominee for president, what are his motives? Are they pure?
One of the problems with journalism is that we aren’t good at pulling back the curtain on interest groups and commentators and giving them the examination we give to public figures.
May 9, 2008, at 10:39 am
Trying to make Hagee’s endorsement of McCain as somehow equal to Obama’s spiritual advisor of 20 years endorsing Obama is laughable on its face.
But Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow and other Air America types will continue to try, I suppose.
May 9, 2008, at 11:09 am
Shock! Next you’ll say that there isn’t a single “Jewish vote.” (And I note that “the Jewish vote” or “the ___ vote” are never taxed with the sin of “single-issue voting”.)
May 9, 2008, at 1:50 pm
Stephen A.,
What makes the comparison of Hagee with Wright “laughable on its face”? I have spent a number of hours watching the rotund Mr. Hagee pontificate on a whole range of subjects secular and sacred, and I am appalled that Mr. McCain has tied himself to this man. Hudson’s puff piece unfortunately suggests that his political ideology interfered with his capacity for critical thinking and analysis. Mr. Hagee, Mr. Parsley and several other gentlement whom Mr. McCain has embraced as supporters deserve at least the scrutiny given Obama’s pastor. They aren’t getting it - I wonder why. And I’m would earnestly and truly like to know why such scrutiny is “laughable on its face”.
May 9, 2008, at 2:03 pm
Seems to me the difference between public reaction to Wright versus Hagee is that Wright’s sermons were a surprise to almost all white people. Everybody already knows the whacky guys who appear daily on religious TV. It’s like the stock market - their whackiness has already been discounted. The same would be the case about Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Wright on the other hand was shocking because his rants were formerly unknown. And, because Obama’s persona seems/seemed so race neutral, we were surprised at Obama’s long connection with a man like Wright.
I’m Catholic and we’re so used to being called the Whore of Babylon, we just let it roll off our backs. My own mother, who was born in rural Kansas, grew up thinking that nuns chopped off their boobs and wore head gear to hide their horns. She also learned at Sunday school that Catholics were storing up guns in their church basements and were waiting for word from the Pope about when to try to take over the US. The first Catholic she ever meet, when they moved to Wichita in the Depression, was the bootlegger next door. ha ha ha Her family about died when she married a Catholic and always treated us strangely. One of my attorney colleagues told me she believed all the stuff about Catholics in the Da Vinci Code because she learned about all of that in Sunday school!!
This Hagee thing is not going to get any traction with any kind of Catholic. It’s not shocking that a Texas mega church guy has strange views about Catholics. We already know lots of folks with strange views about us. Wright, however, was different.
May 9, 2008, at 4:21 pm
Michael asks:
They certainly represent me. As a religious person I’m perfectly happy with the Framers’ vision of a secular state with guarantees of freedom of religion within it. I need those protections, including from some of those posting to GR. AU is an organization that tries to keep this country and its constituent regions within that frame.
Donors.
May 9, 2008, at 5:07 pm
Dan C: I find the comparison laughable because Hagee is not McCain’s personal pastor and never has been, whereas Wright was a “spiritual advisor,” pastor and officiant at Obama’s wedding.
The comparision is really ridiculous.
That said, I’m no fan of Hagee, and surely, anyone who demonizes Catholics and endorses a candidate has given the candidate at least a headache and yes, legitimate questions arise as to the why the candidate is embracing such a person.
But taking on a new headache during a campaign is not the same as attending a pastor’s church and embracing the anti-White, black militant rantings of Wright (and doing it in writing.)
And yet, I admit that I hadn’t seen Hagee’s video posted here before I last posted. He denies EVER calling the Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon” and in fact notes his involvement with a charity for elderly nuns. I have to say, I have up until now accepted the idea that the man is an anti-Catholic bigot, based on the reporting.
Is the man “spinning” now, or does anyone have evidence that he actually HAS condemned the RC Church in the ways alleged? I guess that ought to be at least PART of the reporting, shouldn’t it? (I note that the other video link simply takes the HISTORIC “Roman Church” to task for past anti-Semitism and persecutions. Even popes have done THAT.)
May 9, 2008, at 5:44 pm
As to what Hagee said, look at http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=June&read=2264
May 9, 2008, at 6:04 pm
Michael:
Here’s statements by the Catholic League about who they are, how they are funded and their purposes.
http://www.catholicleague.org/about.php
And here are the Board of Directors and Board of Advisors:
Board of Directors
Raymond Arroyo
Thomas Brennan
Nunzio Cardone
Ann Corkery
Kathleen Hunt
William Lindner
Robert Lockwood
Marilyn Lundy
Jerome McDougal
Frank Salas
Jodie Thompson, Jr.
Kenneth Whitehead
Rev. Philip Eichner, Chairman
William Donohue, President
Bernadette Brady, Vice President
David Gregory, General Counsel
Board of Advisors
Brent Bozell III
Gerard Bradley
Linda Chavez
Robert Destro
Dinesh D’Souza
Laura Garcia
Robert George
Mary Ann Glendon
Dolores Grier
Alan Keyes
Stephen Krason
Lawrence Kudlow
Thomas Monaghan
Michael Novak
Kate O’Beirne
Thomas Reeves
Patrick Riley
Robert Royal
Ronald Rychlak
Russell Shaw
William Simon, Jr.
Joe Varacalli
Paul Vitz
George Weigel
May 9, 2008, at 6:16 pm
The article states that
“[Hagee] has advocated a pre-emptive strike on Iran to protect the Jewish state.”
But in reality, it should read, “[Hagee] has advocated a pre-emptive strike on Iran because it will bring on Armageddon, and thereby fulfill the prophecies of the Book of Revelation.”
Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy! Folks, these people are downright lunatic and utterly dangerous. Do not let their influence anywhere near the White House, by voting for people they endorse. Your vote has moral implications, so vote your heart, and do the right thing for the future of this earth, which is the only one we will ever have.
May 9, 2008, at 8:43 pm
Hagees “attachment” to Hagee is recent and shallow. This compares with 20 years of support—financial and otherwise-Obama has given to Wright.
What is more relevant than all this pastor “dueling” is the candidates’ stands on important issues (many of which the liberal media fastidiously avoid). For example—even the most liberal Catholics I know would never contort their values to find an excuse for deliberate, outside the womb infanticide. Yet Barack Obama as an Illinois senator was the prime blocker of a bill to protect newborn infants from infanticide at the hands of abortionists who had not succeeded in killing the infant in the womb (A number of such after-birth murders had come to light in Illinois).
Is Hillary in favor of infanticide after a failed abortion?? Noone in the MSM asks. Noone asks if Obama is still in favor of allowing infanticide. Yet for some Catholics who see little difference between these two liberals this issue could be a major vote changer. Is this country ready to have leaders whose values are accepting of the murder of newborn infants. At what point do we become
in the same ballpark as Nazi Germany aborning.
When that day arrives—if it does—then all sincere Christians should join Rev. Wright in saying that America deserves to be damned by God. Unfortunately, that is what many on the very extremist left want.
May 9, 2008, at 9:37 pm
What we have here are two stark, dueling worldviews. And of course by that I mean the posts by Frank Burns (11) and Deacon John (12.)
Both of which have elements of truth. The media have NOT spent any time at all looking into Hagee’s wish-fullfilment Armegeddon fantasies, which would have us adopt an “Israeli foreign policy right-or-wrong” view that makes Neoconservatism look like a peacenik philosophy.
And the Deacon is right that Catholic voters, and the American public at large, have not been exposed to Obama’s votes in the IL Senate, where he blocked the bill banning what some say amounts to infanticide. The media likely won’t raise it, thinking it’s GOT to be an exaggeration, and McCain surely won’t, because it’s “mean.” I bet the Catholic League will, though.
May 9, 2008, at 10:25 pm
To Stephen A. (mostly): I agree with you that the comparison between Wright and Hagee is laughable. Instead the comparison should be made between the actions Obama and McCain took with respect to each respective pastor.
While Obama repeatedly—if gradually—has distanced himself from Wright, ever since uninviting him last year from giving an invocation at the ceremonial announcement of his candidacy for president, McCain repeatedly and actively sought endorsement from Hagee. In fact, Hagee is not the only anti-Catholic in his sights. McCain has been kissing televangelist butt all over the South.
But there is another reason why the comparison is laughable. Obama’s association with Wright—now non-existent—is used largely to break off sectors of Obama’s support, particularly those who had their doubts concerning breaking the race barrier to begin with.
In contrast, McCain sought out Hagee precisely for the opposite reason—any media attack on the pair would only serve to solidify the bigot vote (yes, that includes Catholic-haters) behind McCain.
In the end, hard-core Republicans and Catholics who behave like them are not likely to be dissuaded from voting Republican. Bush carried the “once a week or more” church-attending Catholic vote with the same percentage as he won the church-going Protestant vote—and the hold-outs likely were Hispanic voters. The voting pattern of this group will not change.
But Bush lost the rest of the Catholic vote by nearly the same margin (about 65%-35% split). By going after Hagee, Parsley and the Bob Jones crowd, McCain has made it clear that he does not care to pick up any more Catholic vote than did Bush.
The media is doing him a great favor by going after Obama on Wright. But it’s still early in the campaign. Once HRC is out of the way, McCain will come under the microscope as well. Just this week he has already been nailed for using the weight of his office to support ethically questionable real estate deals. Keating Five will keep coming up because his habits have not changed. What that means is that one-issue Catholics (the obsessively anti-abortion bunch) will remain on his side, while those who have a broader definition of conscience will think twice about supporting him, if they ever support him at all.
In the absence of a radical shift, this make the “Catholic vote” a non-factor. If anything, the main issue will be class warfare, not religion.
May 10, 2008, at 11:17 am
buck: I agree that the reaction to the endorsements was quite different.
At the time I learned of Hagee’s endorsement, I was astounded that McCain accepted it. The (still “alleged”) anti-Catholic views will surely haunt him a bit in the general election, but the Provoking Armegeddon platform is what really scared me, personally.
I’ll also agree to an extent that Obama’s separation from Wright has somewhat neutralized the relationship’s negative effects. But people are still wondering whether he’s “grown out of” that phase in his life when he listened intently to white-hating, America-bashing rhetoric. As far as I know, he’s still a member of the UCC. That denomination is far, far, far, to the left of the political spectrum, and to this day, defends Wright’s words and beliefs about America, Israel and ‘social justice’ which is usually aimed squarely at white (voters.)
In that, Hillary’s recent rant about Obama not winning over white voters was correct, and surely also applies to white conservative Christian voters as well.
May 10, 2008, at 11:37 am
For possible impact of the Hagee endorsement, it might be helpful to study the impact of George W. Bush speaking at Bob Jones University in 2000. It made a splash at the time, with more or less the same rhetoric as we are hearing now.
May 10, 2008, at 4:06 pm
Well, I went looking for some coverage of the impact of GWB at BJU and found this this article from 2000. Since it seems to be “The Catholic Vote” week at GetReligion, perhaps it’s not to far off topic.
May 10, 2008, at 9:30 pm
Stephen gave some cogent reasons why Obama’s support of the murder of already born children might not be raised.But I am puzzled by the phrase “what some call infanticide” in his comment.
What else is the killing of a live infant after birth but infanticide—child murder, butchery of a baby (no matter how you kill it, say, by not feeding it or exposure—as the Romans did before the Empire became Christian).
That infanticide brings a “Ho-Hum” or Orwellian double-speak from everyone shows how sick and perverted the moral life of our country has become. Even more sick and perverted than Rev. Wright claims in his wildest rantings on race issues. In fact one reason for the media not raising this issue is that it would spotlight how fraudulent are these liberal “Catholic” politicians who trash the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Faith that go back 2,000 years. They are no more Catholic than Dr. Mengele, Adolph Eichmann, or Heinrich Himmler. And probably the greatest evil they have perpetrated is —like the pied piper— they have convinced many Catholics that exterminating children is somehow compatible with the Catholic Faith.
May 11, 2008, at 7:04 am
OK, I let things go way out of line.
Back to discussing the actual post and the news coverage of this issue. Take your Obama and McCain bashing and the rest of it elsewhere.