Bush v. Kerry: How would the Vatican vote?
Oct. 8th, 2004 01:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
raisingirl99Taken from an e-mail I received this morning, which took it from John Allen's weekly e-column, The Word From Rome:
While the Vatican does not endorse political candidates, and regards pastoral guidance on elections as something for local bishops, that doesn't stop lots of Americans from wanting to know what the Vatican thinks about the Bush-Kerry race.
Over the last several months, I've discussed the elections informally with at least two dozen Vatican officials, ranging from cardinals to junior clergy. Based on these conversations, plus comparing notes with colleagues, I believe that if a secret ballot were to be held in the Holy See, Kerry would beat Bush about 60-40.
How would the Vatican vote break out?
Just as in American political parlance we speak of "red states" and "blue states," meaning states that tend to vote Republican or Democrat, one can tongue-in-cheek say that the Vatican has "red dicasteries" and "blue dicasteries," meaning offices that tend to be more sympathetic to Bush or to Kerry.
Red dicasteries, meaning departments more friendly to Bush, include:
Council for the Family
Academy for Life
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vicariate of Rome (not technically a dicastery of the Holy See, but its head, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, is an important Vatican figure)
Blue dicasteries include:
Council for Justice and Peace
Secretariat of State (the second section, dealing with international diplomacy)
Council for Migrants and Itinerant Peoples
Council for Inter-religious Dialogue
I'm obviously describing general tendencies, and individuals within each dicastery may hold different views.
Basically speaking, those dicasteries that deal with international politics tend to be more hostile to Bush. The Vatican opposed the Iraq war, it supports a stronger role for the United Nations, it backs the International Criminal Court, and it worries about inflaming Islamic sentiment in the Middle East -- all positions of contrast with the Bush White House. The red dicasteries, on the other hand, tend to prioritize "culture of life" issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research, where there is a much stronger symphony with Bush.
Moreover, the Vatican's senior personnel often come from the Accademia, the Holy See's school for diplomats, whose students are drawn from the same cultured European backgrounds as the staffers of foreign ministries in secular European states. Hence the same prejudices about Bush one finds in elite circles in France and Germany are also, to some extent, present in the Holy See.
Finally, personalities come into play. The pope's vicar for Rome, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, is more pro-American than many Vatican prelates. In part, this is a result of genuine conviction about the importance of the Atlantic alliance; in part, it's also a desire not to alienate the church from the government of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, a staunch Bush ally. Given that the Italian state collects more than a billion euros in tax revenues for the Italian bishops' conference each year, one can understand Ruini's sensitivity.
Two precisions are in order.
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.
Bottom line: Even if the Vatican wanted to say something about the American election, it would have a hard time speaking in one voice.
Despite the Catholic church's image as rigidly hierarchical and ultra-centralized, reality is quite different. Catholicism has clear and definitive answers to a relatively short list of questions, expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; outside that territory, things are more fluid. The pope and Vatican officials can provide the elements for a moral judgment on political questions, but ultimately, as far as the Vatican is concerned, making that judgment is a do-it-yourself affair.
Just thought that was interesting!
While the Vatican does not endorse political candidates, and regards pastoral guidance on elections as something for local bishops, that doesn't stop lots of Americans from wanting to know what the Vatican thinks about the Bush-Kerry race.
Over the last several months, I've discussed the elections informally with at least two dozen Vatican officials, ranging from cardinals to junior clergy. Based on these conversations, plus comparing notes with colleagues, I believe that if a secret ballot were to be held in the Holy See, Kerry would beat Bush about 60-40.
How would the Vatican vote break out?
Just as in American political parlance we speak of "red states" and "blue states," meaning states that tend to vote Republican or Democrat, one can tongue-in-cheek say that the Vatican has "red dicasteries" and "blue dicasteries," meaning offices that tend to be more sympathetic to Bush or to Kerry.
Red dicasteries, meaning departments more friendly to Bush, include:
Council for the Family
Academy for Life
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vicariate of Rome (not technically a dicastery of the Holy See, but its head, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, is an important Vatican figure)
Blue dicasteries include:
Council for Justice and Peace
Secretariat of State (the second section, dealing with international diplomacy)
Council for Migrants and Itinerant Peoples
Council for Inter-religious Dialogue
I'm obviously describing general tendencies, and individuals within each dicastery may hold different views.
Basically speaking, those dicasteries that deal with international politics tend to be more hostile to Bush. The Vatican opposed the Iraq war, it supports a stronger role for the United Nations, it backs the International Criminal Court, and it worries about inflaming Islamic sentiment in the Middle East -- all positions of contrast with the Bush White House. The red dicasteries, on the other hand, tend to prioritize "culture of life" issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research, where there is a much stronger symphony with Bush.
Moreover, the Vatican's senior personnel often come from the Accademia, the Holy See's school for diplomats, whose students are drawn from the same cultured European backgrounds as the staffers of foreign ministries in secular European states. Hence the same prejudices about Bush one finds in elite circles in France and Germany are also, to some extent, present in the Holy See.
Finally, personalities come into play. The pope's vicar for Rome, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, is more pro-American than many Vatican prelates. In part, this is a result of genuine conviction about the importance of the Atlantic alliance; in part, it's also a desire not to alienate the church from the government of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, a staunch Bush ally. Given that the Italian state collects more than a billion euros in tax revenues for the Italian bishops' conference each year, one can understand Ruini's sensitivity.
Two precisions are in order.
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.
Bottom line: Even if the Vatican wanted to say something about the American election, it would have a hard time speaking in one voice.
Despite the Catholic church's image as rigidly hierarchical and ultra-centralized, reality is quite different. Catholicism has clear and definitive answers to a relatively short list of questions, expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; outside that territory, things are more fluid. The pope and Vatican officials can provide the elements for a moral judgment on political questions, but ultimately, as far as the Vatican is concerned, making that judgment is a do-it-yourself affair.
Just thought that was interesting!
