They vote how the archbishop tells them, and who tells the archbishop? Their king in his pointy hat what sits on his throne in Rome.

|

Surprising news, if it's accurate: John L. Allen, the highly regarded Vatican correspondent for National Catholic Reporter, projects that employees of the Holy See are split 60-40 in favor of Kerry. That's quite a bit better than Kerry is said to be doing among Catholic voters in the USA, and Allen notes that the vote would probably change if you only counted red hats:

First, the estimate of 60-40 support for Kerry is based on the assumption that all personnel of the Holy See would vote. If the focus is just on the cardinals and other senior officials, the balance would probably shift in favor of Bush. Second, that 60-40 split in favor of Kerry represents a change from the 2000 election, when I suspect a similar straw poll in the Vatican would have found at least a 60-40 vote in favor of Bush over Al Gore. In that sense, it's not an endorsement of John Kerry, who frankly is even less known in Rome than to many Americans, so much as opposition to Bush, above all his foreign policy.

The methodology boils down to: Anybody who works in an international-affairs section is going for Kerry. But Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Council for Justice and Peace (which Allen fingered as pro-Kerry), has objected, in true hierarchical style, that Allen "did grave damage to the understanding of [his] readers" by not being more mealymouthed. Anyway, neutrality is being preserved, much to the consternation of this person.

Meanwhile, check out this godawful instructional film for Catholic voters and you'll wish Martin Scorcese had realized his ambition to become a priest.

NEXT: Step Back From That Toy, Ma'am

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Also, Kerry is a Catholic. Good Catholic, bad Catholic, it’d still get him votes in the Vatican. He could always repent, and the Vatican likes power.

  2. The test at the end is even better than the little mpeg. Of course, it’s slanted (like they all are). For example, there isn’t any option under ‘immigration’ for libertarian types to pick. It’s give them bennies, give them bennies and citizenship, or ahh, I forgot already, but there ain’t no choice for let ’em come but keep them entirely off the public teat.

  3. Between the Gangs of New York and the Dylan references on this blog, I am one happy dork

  4. Cool header, Tim. Maybe we need to deny Catholics the vote because of this divided loyalty… or maybe that’s something you *know nothing* about.

    The nice thing about that canard is that you could throw in a little bitching about neo-cons, and it would be just like being at a Klan meeting, without the nasty racism.

  5. Tom Harkin informs us that God is now involved. God told the senator, regarding Kerry’s rise (?) in the polls, That’s how God wants it to be

  6. As a semi-devout Catholic, I’m not so surprised. Around the 1980s I noticed that, aside from the issue of abortion, the church’s leaders tend to be pretty pink.

  7. At least Wyoming is still safe for Bush among the Catholics, having been warned that they’re going straight to hell if they vote for Kerry.

  8. I’m really sick of these polls of non-US citizens on the presidential election. They don’t pay taxes, they aren’t dependent on the US economy, they don’t have to live here.

    The only effect this election will have on them is in the area of foreign policy — and many of them no doubt would prefer a weakened US in that regard. So if anything, we should vote opposite the way foreigners want us to.

  9. Stevo TK,

    Actually, in addition to abortion, on ‘sex/pleasure-related’ issues the episcopate is (publicly) quite conservative: gay marriage and pornography, as well as drug use.

  10. omg. I think I’m a closet… BISHOP!

    (Exception: “promoting family life”.)

    I’m really sick of these polls of non-US citizens on the presidential election. They don’t pay taxes, they aren’t dependent on the US economy, they don’t have to live here.

    We are grateful for small blessings.

    The only effect this election will have on them is in the area of foreign policy — and many of them no doubt would prefer a weakened US in that regard. So if anything, we should vote opposite the way foreigners want us to.

    Ah. There you’re wrong.

    Your economic policies affect the world. Your sugar and cotton subsidies impoverish South American, Asian, and African farmers, for example.

    Your environmental policies affect the world. Ask Canadians about their acid-laden lakes, for example.

    Your energy policies affect the world. Ask the OPEC countries, who must be eternally grateful to George W Bush for the untold wealth he has created for them.

    Your electoral system affects the world. Ask the billion or so Muslims who must be viewing the “champion of liberty and democracy” with disdain right about now.

    So here’s another poll – this one from the most civilized country on the planet. Small, perhaps, but perfectly formed.

    For whom would you vote?

    What’s your opinion on the US and Americans?

    legend:

    ne sait pas – sans opinion = don’t know – no opinion
    Tr?s bonne = very positive
    Plut?t bonne = rather positive
    Plut?t mauvaise = rather negative
    Tr?s mauvaise = very negative

    Here’s the whole article.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.