Michelle Bachmann, The Atlantic and the "Catholic Vote"

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann

For the past couple of days there has been a rather interesting story about Congresswoman Michele Bachmann making the rounds and it has nothing to do with "Gays" or her husband's business. Instead, it has to do with her membership to a church, its pastor, and the Pope. What I have found fascinating is that the most important part of this whole story isn't what any of the articles, statements, key players or anything of the sort actually say, what I find most important is why this story exists. This story is important because Christianity is used by the secular world in a way to turn Christians against one another for the gain of some interest. Let me explain - please bear with me, it is important.

You see, Michele Bachmann used to attend Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minnesota. Salem Evangelical is in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). The problem that some see with this is that WELS churches are not the biggest fans of Catholics, considering well... they formed from that basis, you know the whole "95 Theses", the door, the nail, etc. This whole thing really blew up when The Atlantic posted an article two days ago regarding Bachmann's membership to the church mentioned above. As I stated the key problem with this story is that it is an attempt to turn Christian's, namely Catholics against WELS Lutherans; I will explain shortly why this is the case.

So Mr. Joshua Green writes this article and titles it: "Michele Bachmann's Church Says the Pope Is the Antichrist." Now, right off the get go, the guy is being insincere. Mrs. Bachmann in fact no longer attends Salem Evangelical and hasn't for at least the past year. Now where did I get this information? In Joshua Green's article: 

"I do know that she has requested a release of her membership," he said, adding that she took the unusual step of formally requesting that release in writing. "She has not been an active member of our fellowship during the last year."

So why the misleading title? A mistake? A little flashy/sensational journalism? Ok, I will admit this is merely a slight nod in my direction but not enough to indict him of my accusation that this whole thing was intentional, so I will continue.

Green spends the rest of his article trying to show how strictly interpreting Lutheranism, means accepting the teaching on the status of Anti-Christ for the Pope. He brings Bill Donohue of the Catholic League into the fray with a couple of statements. They really didn't seem congruent in the story, in that they seemed very moderate in their overall tone, and for those that don't know Donohue rarely does Moderate, so I sort of checked this off as: "this was essentially all Green could get." From there he went on to explain in pretty fair terms, albeit tongue-in-cheek, the understanding of WELS doctrine. I was starting to think this article was much ado about nothing until other ones started popping up, in the Catholic "world."

Most notably, Keith Fournier of Catholic.org wrote an article that made Joshua Green look like the hardest working journalist on the block. I read the article and started wondering if I was wrong to doubt Green's motives. Maybe he really was just holding a light to the "wink wink, nod nod" of the whole "Conservative Christian Right." And that is when it hit me... this was about the "Catholic Vote."

So I did a quick "Find" search on the original article. The 3rd or 4th "click" put me onto this sentence:

Hochmuth wouldn't speculate on whether her presidential ambitions factored in this decision -- the nation's 70 million Catholics (who lean Republican) might not respond kindly to the Pope-as-Antichrist stuff --

Wait, did I read that correctly? The Catholics in this country "lean Republican"? Also, did Green just let his "cat out of the bag"? If you translate that statement what it says is:

Green asked the question to Hochmuth: 'Do you think that Catholic voters, who generally vote Republican, would care that she belonged to a Church that professed this belief, and is that why she left the church?'

Now of course I don't know what was actually said, but from his quote you can gather I am probably pretty close. So you have to think this is his big "Gotcha!" in the story, and to prove that let's look at the little slanted fact he spun: Catholics 'lean Republican'

Back in 2008 a big deal was made about the "Catholic Vote." Why? Because 53% of Catholics voted for Obama, as opposed to 43% McCain. This was a reversal of 2004 where 52% of Catholics voted Bush and 45% Kerry, who is Catholic. So the question I asked myself is what does lean Republican mean? Sure I guess if you take into account voting across the country and factor in all sorts of elections this may be the case. But as for Presidential elections? I would say the "Catholic Vote" is a toss-up, especially in recent years.

So this isn't about holding a light up to religious truth - this is about making sure a certain % of Catholics don't vote for Michelle Bachmann. If Catholics make up almost 1/5-1/4 of the population then this is a pretty large "group" to appeal to. The "Catholic Vote" exists even if it isn't always predictable or definable. It exists in the minds of Catholics who take their religion serious enough to have it affect their voting habits. Joshua Green knows that, The Atlantic knows that, and the rest of the secular media knows that. You wont see articles right now about Obama "holding on to his 'Catholic Vote'" but you will see plenty of articles about how the different Republican candidates aren't "Catholic enough."

Don't buy into the hype. Don't let the secular world turn us against Christian brethren. Sure, it is ok to question folks on things, and I agree with Bill Donohue on that, but we also have to be wary of the viper in the weeds. This article was written to implant a seed, and that seed is that Bachmann is Anti-Pope and therefore Anti-Catholic. It serves no other purpose. Obama is losing, he needs percentage points wherever he can get them. For a little continuity a new poll came out today: Obama loses to "Rebublican" by 8%. Coincedence that 8% is Obama's margin in the 'Catholic Vote' of 2008? I think not.

†††