Skip to comments.The media can ignore it, but Obama is losing big among Catholics which will seal his doom
Posted on 04/20/2012 10:46:37 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
Since such records have been kept no Democrat presidential candidate has ever lost the Catholic vote and won the general election.
Republicans can win a general election despite losing the Catholic vote but a Democrat simply cant. This makes Barack Obamas war on Christians in general and Catholics in particular so dangerous for him and his Party.
The results of a new Pew survey of voters by religious affiliation, holds devastating news for Obamas chances of reelection. The ease with which it can be found proves this news is being purposely ignored by a delusional media that believes Obama is cruising toward an easy reelection.
Pew found Mitt Romney with a commanding lead among Evangelical and Catholic voters that has actually grown by 5 and 8 points respectively in just the past month. Obama now trails Mitt Romney 73/20 among Evangelicals and 57/37 among White Catholics.
The significance of Pews findings among White Catholics grows geometrically when added to that of Evangelicals because it means that Obama is also on track to lose by a very large margin among Whites, who make up 2/3 of the electorate in November.
Over the history of polling by religious affiliation the Catholic vote has served as a 90% accurate predictor of final results.
Moreover the winning Catholic percentage has consistently been very close to the winners victorious percentage in the general election Obamas 54% of the Catholic vote was the same as his overall winning margin in 2008.
Democrats like Hubert Humphrey in 1968 have even won the Catholic vote with landslide numbers (56/37) and still lost their race. Conversely George McGovern was pummeled in 1972 .loser among Catholics by 20 points.
video titled Test of Fire: Election 2012 from a group called Catholics Called to Witness
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
so freaking what? they gave him what he wanted.
All that matters is who counts the votes, according to Stalin.
The other side of this is that faithful Catholics cannot vote forma candidate who espouses abortion, or birth control, or euthanasia, et cetera. Thus, they also can’t vote for Romney.
If there is no other choice, then the lesser of two evils can be voted for.
Romney is not the most pro-abortion candidate by far.
What does all this matter with Soros counting the votes?
There is another choice. Write in. I won’t vote for an abortionary.
I will believe that the “Catholic vote” will go against Obama when I see it.
A good point -- it's axiomatically left: the Kennedy Catholics.
A Catholic who vote conservative is just another "extremist".
The left ignored Reagan’s moral majority vote, that included a lot of conservative Democrats in the South. Most of those crossovers remained Republican. I welcome conservative Catholics. Come and stay.
Lets hope he does lose the Catholic vote. I don’t know how any person of faith could have voted for him in the first place since Obama was so “gung ho” about withholding medical care from babies who survived abortions. Shameful!
This is very good news...
PING A ROO NYER
There are Catholics and there are Catholics. Believing church-going Catholics who regularly receive the sacraments did not vote for Obama the last time because of his extreme abortion position. People who were born Catholic but no longer really believe may vote for Obama again. The Democrat party is riddled with such defacto former Catholics:Sebelius, Pelosi, Biden, Kerry,the Daleys,the Kennedys etc. etc.
Something tells me he hasn’t just lost the Catholics.
He’s lost most of all those who consider themselves God fearing Christians.
Actually, while I can, and often AM wrong, I am not in this one case, which I guess, makes me the proverbial broken clock, right twice in one day.
When a Catholic votes for a pro-abortion politician, they in effect become accomplices to the great moral evil of abortion, as they are actively supporting it.
Perhaps these may help, as they express this much more effectively than I am liable to do tonight.
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html)
Or perhaps this is clearer:
“New Catholic Cardinal: Catholics Cant Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 10/27/10 4:35 PM
The Catholic leader who Pope Benedict named a new cardinal said in a new interview that faithful Catholics cant in good conscience vote for pro-abortion candidates.
Pope Benedict XVI named Raymond Burke, the former Archbishop of St. Louis, as one of two Americans who will become cardinals in the Catholic Church last week.
Burke, who is the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Churchs Supreme Court gave an interview to Thomas McKenna, President of Catholic Action for Faith and Family.
As a bishop its my obligation in fact, to urge the faithful to carry out their civic duty in accord with their Catholic faith, Burke said.
You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion, he added plainly.
He said his words are not meant as a criticism of how people vote, but they are simply announcing the truth, helping people to discriminate right from wrong in terms of their own activities.
In the 25-minute interview, Burke reminded Catholics they are bound in conscience to vote for political candidates who oppose aborting babies, embryonic stem cell experiments, and euthanasia.
McKenna responded to the interview with her own remarks applauding and affirming Burkes.
Millions of Catholics have no idea its a sin to vote for candidates who favor these grave evils, which attack the very foundations of society, he told LifeNews.com. This matter-of-fact, pointed interview granted to me by Archbishop Raymond Burke in Rome last week makes it very clear what the responsibility of every American Catholic will be next Tuesday.
Burke has taught repeatedly that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights may not receive Holy Communion and that Catholics who know of the politicians voting record on these issues cannot vote for them and retain a clear conscience.
Burke said in 2004 that presidential candidate John Kerry would not be allowed to receive communion at any church in St. Louis because of his staunch pro-abortion position.
Then, during the 2008 presidential election, Burke said all Catholics, including politicians, should not receive communion if they are pro-abortion.
Communion should be denied to pro-abortion politicians until they have reformed their lives, he said, in the interview with Radici Christiane magazine.
Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a sacrilege, he warned. If it is done deliberately in mortal sin it is a sacrilege.
At the time, Burke discussed public officials who, with knowledge and consent, uphold actions that are against the Divine and Eternal moral law.
For example, if they support abortion, which entails the taking of innocent and defenseless human lives. A person who commits sin in this way should be publicly admonished in such a way as to not receive Communion until he or she has reformed his life, he told the publication.
Burke also issued a challenge to ministers to make sure they are not providing the sacrament to pro-abortion lawmakers who have not repented from their position, which is at odds with the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church.
In his statement in 2008, Burke said not denying communion makes a bad witness to other Catholics and the public.
If we have a public figure who is openly and deliberately upholding abortion rights and receiving the Eucharist, what will the average person think? he explained. He or she could come to believe that it up to a certain point it is okay to do away with an innocent life in the mothers womb.
The Vatican official said the intent of the communion denial is more about spiritual than political issues.
It is not with the intention of interfering in public life but rather in the spiritual state of the politician or public official who, if Catholic, should follow the divine law in the public sphere as well, he said.
Therefore, it is simply ridiculous and wrong to try to silence a pastor, accusing him of interfering in politics so that he cannot do good to the soul of a member of his flock, he said as a warning to media outlets and abortion advocates who criticize them.
Moreover, Burke added, If a person who has been admonished persists in public mortal sin and attempts to receive Communion, the minister of the Eucharist has the obligation to deny it to him. Why? Above all, for the salvation of that person, preventing him from committing a sacrilege.”
I certainly mean no argument to you on who the most pro-abort politician is. I agree with you, knowing that neither of us even have to say the name to know that we agree. On that you are 100% right. The problem is that with Romney being as he is, according to Church teaching, which I follow and believe, I endanger myself tremendously if I vote for him, or anyone else espousing those positions.
Actually we can, because to NOT vote, would allow an even WORSE person, Obama, to continue in the Oval Office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.