Kerry losing points with Catholics link -Chicago Sun-Times October 21, 2004 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement John Kerry's promise in the last presidential debate that he would impose an abortion litmus test on Supreme Court selections deepened anxiety of pro-life Catholics. For Charles J. Chaput, Roman Catholic archbishop of Denver, and Brian P. Golden, a Democrat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, election of a pro-choice Catholic spells disaster. The archbishop and the state representative, who have never met, are part of a loosely connected national network sending a message to mass-attending Catholics: For all of his new emphasis on his Catholicism, Sen. Kerry violates the church's ''foundational'' belief with blanket opposition to all anti-abortion measures. I talked to Chaput and Golden this week, and both see Kerry endangering the Catholic position on abortion. In a largely unpublished interview with the New York Times, the Denver archbishop said: ''If the church challenges a President Kerry on 'destruction of unborn children through embryonic stem cell research,' it will appear to be interfering. If the church remains silent, it will appear cowardly.'' In a monograph (''Should Catholics Vote for Kerry?''), Golden writes that Kerry rejects protection of life ''through humane public policy'' and that ''his frequent declaration that he 'was an altar boy' is not enough to dispel Catholics' concerns.'' Those concerns are intensified by the campaign of the first Catholic nominee for president since John F. Kennedy. While Kennedy 44 years ago did not want to call attention to his religion, Kerry stresses his Catholicism -- an emphasis not apparent in his Massachusetts campaigns the last three decades. He says he accepts the Catholic doctrine that ''life begins at conception'' but will not impose it on others. ''Catholics with a little catechism and logic know better,'' Golden writes. He asserts that Kerry ''for 20 years, on matters most fundamental to Catholics, has been consistently wrong'' and ''is among the fervent supporters of abortion in the Senate.'' The confirmation came in the Tempe, Ariz., debate when he answered a question about Roe v. Wade: ''I'm not going to appoint a judge to the court who's going to undo a constitutional right.'' Chaput, in the Oct. 12 New York Times, is quoted after an interview with two of the newspaper's reporters: ''If you vote this way 'for a candidate like Kerry,' are you cooperating in evil? And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes.'' That is interpreted in the story as asking Catholics to vote for George W. Bush. But there is much more in the transcript of Chaput's interview with the Times, prepared and given to me by the archbishop's office. Chaput rejects the ''seamless garment'' of Catholic issues woven together ''as an excuse to sideline the abortion issue.'' The archbishop calls on Catholics ''to get over this compromising'' and deliver ''a very clear, collective 'no!' -- a grand refusal to vote for anybody who is pro-choice, so that we have some political influence on this issue.'' While Chaput says President Bush surpasses all predecessors on the life issue, he made clear he has no affection for the Republican Party beyond opposition to abortion. ''If it goes in the wrong way,'' he said, ''we won't be natural allies.'' If pro-choice Republican Rudy Giuliani were nominated for president in 2008, ''you're going to see the Republicans screaming at the church for making such an issue of a pro-life matter.'' Golden, who also supported Bush in 2000, is not much of a Democrat. But he is no Republican. The 35-year-old third-termer representing a Boston inner-city district advocates social justice, opposes capital punishment and votes solidly pro-environmentalist. Like the archbishop, he could not support Giuliani for president. Golden four years ago was the only elected Democrat north of the Mason-Dixon Line to endorse Bush. Chaput is regarded as indiscreet by many colleagues in the hierarchy. But Golden and Chaput represent pro-life Catholics who fear the nightmare of Kerry in the White House and the defeated GOP abandoning their issue. The attack on human life, says the archbishop, is ''not going away. It's getting worse.'' link -Chicago Sun-Times
Chris Matthews had a poll saying Kerry went from 33% to 50% among white Catholics. Leave the polls at the strip joint...
A church, synagogue, mosque or temple should be concerned with teaching moral and spiritual values to their respective flocks so that individual members can face the world with wisdom. However, IMO, that is where they need to stop.
After the Plame fiasco, I would venture to say that Robert Novak is losing points with Americans who are capable of thinking for themselves.
Anybody heard John Stewart go off on him? He brutalizes him, he might be the one thing he hates worse than crossfire.
My wife is Catholic, though she only goes to mass once or twice a year, and if she could vote for Kerry twice, she would. Novak is a tool, masquerading as a clown. Keep D&D Civil!!
No, although she very well could be a genius. How would I know? Obviously, from your post, she supports Bush. I respect that. I respect anyone who's actually engaged in the political process, even if I don't agree with their politics. Novak? I've held my opinion about him for a long time. It has nothing to do with this issue. Keep D&D Civil!!
My point wasn't so much about her preference as to the logic you used leading up to saying he was a tool. If you've said this for a while it is different, but to me it looked like you used that as your backing
No problem. I was merely pointing out that Catholics aren't some monolithic block, who overwhelmingly vote the same way, according to the issue raised. Far from it, in my opinion. As for Novak, I haven't held him in high regard for far longer than I've been posting here. I called him a tool because I think he has been used by people in the Administration, Rove and the Bush campaign to get out what they want the public to hear. See RMT's reference to the Plame Affair as an example. I watch Crossfire on occasion, on CNN, and sometimes find him amusing, thus the clown reference, or at least part of what's behind it. Hey, he's a columnist and writes his opinions. That's what they do. How they get their information, or background, is their business. How credible they are is left up to the reader. Keep D&D Civil!!
Not really. Many Catholic Dioceses (?) have put out pamphlets stating why you should vote for Bush. I personally dont vote based on my religion (although I am voting for Bush) so it kinda bothers me, but some people like to vote based on what the leaders of a group they identify with say is right. You see it in all kinds of groups from religious groups to the NAACP and others. But if you talk to most Catholic leaders, youd know for a fact that the altar boy comment had little impact on them.
They all don't, MR. MEOWGI. That was the point I was making, anyway. At least all of your everyday, run of the mill, go to mass on two or three occasions a year kind of Catholic, which I believe make up a large percentage of American Catholics... don't all feel that way. My experience, from being married to one, has been that there are a huge variety of opinions about that subject, and many others, among American Catholics. The clergy, of course, is an entirely different matter. My wife's uncle, who is a priest, and was a missionary in Japan for thirty years, couldn't feel more strongly against abortion, which is what one would expect. And I wouldn't dream of discussing it with him. I'm not crazy! Kerry will get a lot of the Catholic vote. Keep D&D Civil!!
Does the term quasi-lapsed-Catholic ring familiar? And that is supposed to in any way represent the Catholic viewpoint?
