Categories: Canada

Catholics flee Liberals in droves

Catholics have always voted Liberal, until recently

by Kate Lunau on Monday, November 24, 2008 9:00am - 95 Comments

Catholics flee Liberals in droves As Canada’s once-mighty Liberals consider their future, they might be advised to visit a local church—and not just to pray for the party. The religious vote, it seems, played a major role in their recent election defeat. According to new data from Angus Reid Strategies provided exclusively to Maclean’s, Catholics—who make up 44 per cent of Canada’s population and have preferred the Liberals for decades—are flocking to the Conservatives.

Catholic voters back parties that are community-minded, says Andrew Grenville, Angus Reid’s chief research officer. And in 2006, for the first time, they shifted their support to the Tories. This year’s results confirm the trend: outside Quebec, 49 per cent of Catholics who attend church weekly voted Conservative, compared to just 38 per cent in 2004. Within Quebec, where upwards of 80 per cent of the population identifies as Catholic, the switch away from the Liberals is even more striking. In 2008, just 22 per cent of Quebec Catholics voted Liberal, compared to 56 per cent in 2004. “Looks like we have a new status quo,” Grenville says.

It’s not just Catholics who’ve had a change of heart. Protestants, who make up 30 per cent of the population, tend to split their vote between the two major parties, but over the last four years, there’s been a big shift toward the Tories. In 2008, 64 per cent of church-going Protestants outside of Quebec chose the Conservatives, compared to 51 per cent in 2004. Voters who attend so-called conservative churches (such as Baptist, Mennonite, and Stephen Harper’s own Christian and Missionary Alliance) prefer the Tories in even greater numbers: a whopping three-quarters of them voted Conservative this year.

What does it mean? “The Liberals have alienated their base, which shows how weak their support really is,” Grenville says, adding that he isn’t very optimistic about the party’s immediate future. “I can’t see Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff appealing to that vote either, which is in part why their prospects aren’t too bright.”

Tags: Andrew Grenville, Bob Rae, liberals, Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper

More by Kate Lunau

skydiver

Truemuse:
‘They’re a bunch of losers, all.’
I see you are still angry. Why?
A grudge is a heavy thing to carry.
Wascally Wabbit

Pray – excuse me being dismissive of the premise of this article – mea culpa!
I was once – many years ago – an altar boy – Pater Noster – qui es in caelis – The lady agglomerates all Catholics as presumably all following this Pope’s preaching!
Nothing could be further from the truth!
When pollsters come up with questions that force you to choose a slot – most respondents choose one that they recognize – even if they don’t currently practice it!
There is NO voting bloc of RCs!
In my day – it was the convent girls who seemed most likely to find themsleves with an unwanted pregnancy – and THEIR families who looked for safe abortions sites!
Abortion and the terminology describing Same Sex Legal Unions are two emotional issues that divide the nation – but still a majority support the availability of both here in Canada.
Ultimately – it’s a fairness thing – and Canadians – at core – will choose the “Fair” political solution.
Bottom line – this has absolutely zippo to do with the Liberals poor election results.
Terry

Wascally Wabbit> Why is that ex-catholics always accept every 19th century protestant smear when they leave the church?
Armand

Adding to the “Rerum Novarum” and a close reading of the GOSPELS I strongly believe that
JESUS was a SOCIALIST. I let my case rest.
boudica

“What does it mean? “The Liberals have alienated their base, which shows how weak their support really is,” Grenville says, adding that he isn’t very optimistic about the party’s immediate future. “I can’t see Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff appealing to that vote either, which is in part why their prospects aren’t too bright.”

Is this guy serious? Suppose one buys into these numbers, what, pray tell is the reason behind the supposed switch?
Jack Mitchell

Terry: “The life of human beings is sacred”

If I may make a general point, this is the kind of statement that reveals how far Christianity has fallen from St. Thomas’ day. It is wholly lacking empirical foundation — it’s simply an assertion, a “belief.” In the Middle Ages, there was no difference, in educated circles, between philosophy and religion. Terms were defined and religious experience was exactly that — experience. God was a fact. The terminology of religion had not yet been separated from real life. Nowadays, God serves as the Great Exception, the existence of which is supposed to justify all other little exceptions; formerly, there was literally nothing more natural than God’s existence and to deny it would be like denying the Law of Gravity today. Christians today think they can get away with simply saying “X is sacred” as though to be sacred means to enjoy a kind of free pass from reason; whereas formerly a term like “sacred” had a real meaning, experienced as you or I would experience, oh, heat or cold. The tortuous “struggle for faith” that any rational “Christian” undergoes today was unknown. In the great parting of the ways between reason and religion, some have picked religion, but it doesn’t give them a right to claim Christianity as their very own. We atheists are just as Christian, historically speaking, as the self-styled Christians; and neither enjoys the harmony of reason and theology that our ancestors enjoyed: atheists because theology no longer defines its terms, self-styled Christians because it would be too much like hard work to define them, or because the very lack of precision and childish festival of the irrational is what attracts them in the first place. For my part I feel I am far more faithful to the real Christianity by rejecting this sentimental modern kind than y’all are by practicing a religion whose main form of argument is assertion and whose main proselytising technique is to shout louder and call names.
T. Thwim

Terry, with regard to your summation?

Screw you.

The left is very concerned if our unmarried children have sex, and extremely concerned if they choose to have an abortion. However, the left does not deny that these things will happen no matter what the rules are, and so seek to address the issue with that understanding.

The religious right is very concerned if a woman spreads her legs, and thinks that by hiding knowledge about the behavior or applying strict punishments (including the punishment of requiring a woman donate the use of her organs to another life) that the issue will just magically disappear, when really all that will happen is that it will be driven into the back alleys and the coat-hangers, thus ending not just the one life, but risking a second.
RyanD

1. I am glad to see (for the most part) some very intelligent and well informed discussion of theological issues here. Thanks to all on both sides!

2. The thing that I haven’t seen mentioned in this article or the ensuing discussion is the fact that (in my opinion at least) there is no party that even comes close to meeting the needs of well informed Catholics who wish to live and vote in accordance with Church teaching. Voting Conservative will support some Church ideals on the sanctity of life (ex. abortion and sexual morality issues) but will be problematic when considering (among other things) the Preferential Option for the Poor or (depending how you look at it) Just War Doctrine. Voting Liberal or NDP may do the opposite.

I really have to say that as a Catholic whose economic views tend very far to the left (a position I feel is in line with Church teaching) but whose social views (on issues such as abortion or sexual morality) tend to the right (again, in line with Church teaching) I am fed up with having to hold my nose no matter who I vote for! Perhaps all of this is yet more evidence of a need to relax party discipline and rigid partisanship.
Neil

The Catholic Church doesn’t speak for this voter. Never did, not now and never will
Kate

RE: Cliff Nov 24, 2008 12:44…why would you attack “James” so forcefully. You make it seem that all the ills of the country are on his shoulders. “James” didn’t even say if he was a liberal supporter or not. But you attacked him for all the slights you perceive the liberals have done to you. Calling the liberals “your party” is pretty harsh considering many people vote liberal. That personal attack is why some conservatives are seen as somewhat radical in their views. Therefore are very hard to take seriously. I also wanted to say that one opinion does not reveal a person’s partisan leanings, and people have opinions without the need (or want) to be labeled supporters of one party or another.
Kate

…on the abortion arguments…the fact is that some women will still want one. For whatever their reason (and the excuse that it is their body is a stupid one, and I am sure not a real reason for an abortion) Women used to shove coat hangers up themselves to halt an unwanted pregnancy. Medically it is a necessary thing. Just look at “cultures” that do not believe in abortion or even adoption. They can be and are a drain on the social system. They don’t always raise productive adults. Maybe not an argument for abortion, but certainly an argument for the ability to make a choice. It is mostly the women who is left to care for the child. So it should be her choice if she wants or can take on that 20 year commitment. Men, on the other hand, make that decision all the time. They leave and don’t pay child support. The only difference is that men don’t have to make the hard choice. And they don’t have to pay any consequences. There is no one waiting outside their door with a poster of a starving and homeless child trying to scare them into paying child support and forcing them to be an accountable father.

The argument to declare when a couple of cells become a person is redundant. A woman or girl who is not ready to carry and raise a child is not concerned with when that child becomes a real person. To her it already is, a person, a future, an unseen face, and she will feel guilty for years to come.
Kate

Jarrid Nov 25, 2008 0:28

“I’m not angry at you Ti-Guy, I just wish Catholics weren’t so ignorant about their own faith. Catholics like you, ignorant about the basics of their faith, and railing against their own faith at the same time, are actually a dime a dozen. One of the reasons for their angry railing against their faith is precisely their own ignornace of it.”

I am Catholic. I was baptized Catholic. I was a baby and didn’t know any better. I am totally ignorant about the basics of my “prescribed” faith. And I don’t care! Why do you wish I wasn’t so ignorant? Why do I have to be aware of all the ins and outs of the Catholic faith? Is there a law? Why do you care? Or do you just need the numbers.
Jarrid

Kate, because it’s good for your soul and Ti-Guy’s soul.
Jack Mitchell

Also, if you show enough interest in other people’s souls, you get to pretend you’re God.
Chas

What gibberish! I’m a practicing Catholic and card-carrying Liberal supporter. Of course, there are some aspects of Liberal policy I disagree with, but much more of Conservative policy that I disagree with, so my choice is clear.
Mytwocents

From what I have been reading here many people have a very limited view of “family” when stamping the Liberals as anti-family. The first two definitions of family listed in the dictionary are as follows.

1.A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
2.Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.

Many of you claiming the Liberals are anti-family would also call the members of your church your family although it falls outside the scope of these definitions. And why? Because as a society we have come to understand that our family are those closest to us, who we care about and who we can come to in times of joy, sickness or grief. We place this label regardless of beliefs, gender, color, income tax bracket or politics. So to say that because Liberal policies give options to women, to people that fit outside your specific definition of family, outside the belief of your god they are anti-family really labels you as anti-family. As the Catholics, the Baptists and everyone else listed as fleeing the Liberal party in droves in this article believes, we are all gods children, it is not our place to judge, that is for him alone to do. Our mission is to show the love of god in everything we say and do. I voted Liberal because I believe their policies give options and support to members of all families, to all Canadians, our countrymen/women, our much broader family. These are options which in no way remove your right to continue to be in a hedro sexual marriage, to not have an abortion. These policies simply show understanding and compasion to those with different beliefs. The only policies as a Christian you should feel you must live by are those in that book in every pew, every hotel nightstand and many of your homes. There is a reason why there is and should be a divide between church and state in a multicultural and beautiful mosaic that is Canada.
Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

Jarrid, Catholicism is wrong. The one true god is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you have not yet been touched by his noodly appendage, fear not. There is still time!
Wayne

You know what I find truly astonishing is why any MAN believes that he has anything to say when it comes to a woman’s right to make such a decision regarding her own body … case closed period .. we should pass a law in Canada saying so. From this point on no man has the right to interfere between a woman, her doctor and or priest, monk ,arch druid (whatever) when it comes to her decision as to what to do with her own body. It would be different if the only reason pregnancy occured was the intent to procreate but since when has any man had intercourse just to procreate – quite the reverse actually – it’s more of a negative consequence of the pursuit of a positive pleasure as far as male perspective is concerned.
Big Guy

I am Catholic Clergy and a former Liberal but their degenerate culture of death policies would get me barred from heaven if I continued to support them so I left the evil ones behind as they revel in their neo-pagan baby killing filth.

The cleansing of the temple is just about complete and it is time to turn our attention to the city square and push back . God willing Canada will soon be a moral country once again.

Repent this Advent, seek holiness and justice for weakest members of society, especially the unborn, the sick , the lonely. Killing the least among us is a satanic crime that cries to heaven for eternal justice.

God Bless
Pingback: Liberals to reach out to evangelicals? « City of God