...only it was 50 years too late.

Hello!!! McFly!!!

Apparently this guy ain't too bright.

http://www.catholicherald.co.u...ned-catholic-voters/

Cardinal Dolan: Democrats have abandoned Catholic voters

The party that once embraced Catholics now slams the door on us,’ the cardinal wrote

The US Democratic Party has abandoned the many Catholic voters who once supported it, the Archbishop of New York has said.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that by embracing radical pro-abortion ideology and blocking legislation to help poorer families attend Catholic schools, the Democrats has alienated voters who were once loyal to the party.

The cardinal highlighted two significant historical figures from the archdiocese’s history: Archbishop John Hughes, the first archbishop, and Dolores Grier an African-American convert who became the archdiocese’s vice-chancellor.

“The two causes so vigorously promoted by Hughes and Grier—the needs of poor and middle-class children in Catholic schools, and the right to life of the baby in the womb—largely have been rejected by the party of our youth,” Cardinal Dolan said.

“An esteemed pro-life Democrat in Illinois, Rep. Dan Lipinski, effectively was blacklisted by his own party. Last year, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez insisted that pro-life candidates have no place in the modern Democratic Party,” he added.

He said that the situation was particularly bad in the State of New York.

“In recent years, some Democrats in the New York state Assembly repeatedly blocked education tax credit legislation, which would have helped middle-class and low-income families make the choice to select Catholic or other nonpublic schools for their children. Opposing the bill reduces the ability of fine Catholic schools across the state to continue their mission of serving the poor, many of them immigrants.

“More sobering, what is already the most radical abortion license in the country may soon be even more morbidly expanded. For instance, under the proposed Reproductive Health Act, doctors would not be required to care for a baby who survives an abortion. The newborn simply would be allowed to die without any legal implications. And abortions would be legal up to the moment of birth.”

Cardinal Dolan said the situation “saddens me, and weakens the democracy millions of Americans cherish” because “the party that once embraced Catholics now slams the door on us.”

You reap what you sew, sucka!

You mean those rabid hypocrites and posers just used you for some votes and then didn't back you up? NO... no.

Of course I feel the same way every time the GOP takes a dump on conservatives and they are shocked! Shocked I tell you! that the GOP isn't really conservative and has no core belief system or backbone whatsoever

Not sure how old this Cardinal is, but I am retired and my father figured this out back in the very early 60s.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquabird:
Not sure how old this Cardinal is, but I am retired and my father figured this out back in the very early 60s.

He's 68 ...

Your Dad is smarter.

quote:

Hello!!! McFly!!!

Apparently this guy ain't too bright.

I knew Timothy Dolan when he became an auxiliary bishop here. He's actually a pretty good guy.
His job as Cardinal is very political though. He has to try to affirm the faith and tell the truth, without trying to piss off too many people. It's not an easy thing.

March 28, 2018

Bigshot Catholic Cardinal May Be Signaling Catholics' Drift from Democrats
By Mark Wauck

Last Thursday Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York penned an essay in the Wall Street Journal. The title of the essay, and its subtitle, tells you pretty much all you need to know if you don't subscribe: "The Democrats Abandon Catholics: If you value religious education or life's sanctity, you're not welcome in the party."

This is a far more political statement, in an overtly partisan way, than we're used to seeing from the U.S. Catholic bishops, so what's going on here?

For starters, it's helpful to ask: who would have been pleased by this essay, and who would have been...well, let's say displeased?

Let's see...displeased? The Democratic Party – that's a no-brainer. They just lost a presidential election because they lost the heavily Catholic Reagan Democrats in the Midwest. This won't help – not in 2018, not in 2020.

How about the Bergoglio Vatican? Displeased? You'd better believe it. It's a given that Bergoglio personally has no use for the USA, and all you have to do to remind yourself just how virulent that dislike is is reprise the article by Antonio Spadaro, the Jesuit editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, a journal reported to be personally vetted by Bergoglio himself. The article is titled "Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism</a>, and you can find an analysis of it by Sam Gregg. The long and the short of it is that Spadaro – and presumably Bergoglio – are disturbed by the ecumenical cooperation between Catholics and Evangelicals. Why? Because they fear the rise of a "theocracy."

Here's how Gregg puts it:

Father Spadaro and Rev. Figueroa correctly observe that many Catholics and Evangelicals have found common cause in recent decades around issues such as "abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values." They then add that "Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.

And that's more or less just for starters. Take it from me: Spadaro doesn't like Trump. The dislike begins with the nefarious Norman Vincent Peale officiating at Trump's first marriage and just goes on.

So, we can take it as given that the Vatican 1) wasn't informed in advance that Dolan was writing this essay and 2) is mightily displeased about it. In a sense, Dolan's essay is a follow-on to an earlier snub that the U.S. bishops delivered to Bergoglio at their annual meeting. Back in November 2017, the US bishops rejected Cardinal Cupich – known as "the pope's bishop" – for the leadership of their important and politically sensitive pro-life committee. If Cupich had been elected, that would have been a signal to the Democrats that they could expect a more accommodating line from the Catholic Church. Instead, Cupich was soundly defeated – a poke in the eye for Bergoglio – and a steadfast pro-life bishop was elected instead.

Who is likely to be pleased by all this? Naturally, the Republicans, in a general way. They've tended to benefit strongly from the pro-life vote, but they've never received this pointed an assist from the Catholic bishops in the past. To the contrary, the bishops have tended to maintain an arm's length relationship with the GOP. I say this despite the fact that the GOP is mentioned only once in the essay, and that to point out that in the past Catholics have distrusted Republicans. Nevertheless, the US has a two party system, and if the Catholic Church pointedly states that one of those two parties has abandoned Catholics, well, the implications aren't hard to figure out.

What about Trump? Yeah, he's gotta be pretty pleased by this. With the help of Kellyanne Conway, Trump has courted Catholics from the start of his campaign, and he has followed through with policy accomplishments and appointments in ways that no other president has – no matter their rhetoric. Even though Trump is not mentioned once in Dolan's essay, it's hard to see this as much less than an endorsement. Nuanced it may be, but this initiative could only have been made with the knowledge that it would help Trump. And perhaps with the hint that continued good behavior could lead to more overt support.

Now, I've been referring to Dolan and the Catholic Church as if Dolan were the head of the Church in America, but he's not. Does that change any of the preceding calculations? Does it render his essay a mere expression of personal opinion? I think not. While Dolan is no longer president of the USCCB, he has regularly assumed the position of a spokesman – a natural role for the Cardinal Archbishop of New York. I think this momentous step – and it was, I believe, momentous – was taken only after thorough consultation with other like0minded bishops.

My take is that the calculations that went into this decision are something like this. The Catholic bishops, having studied the politics of this new Trump era, have come to the conclusion that, as shepherds, they need to be with their flocks. And they now know that thir flock is no longer a Democrat flock, and not likely to return to that fold in any definitive way. As a further calculation, I believe that the bishops have recognized that if they lose the moral high ground – in the eyes of their flocks – on the all important social issues, the consequences could be dire. They've already seen how Trump was able to speak over their heads to the faithful. They can't afford to allow that to become a pattern.

The final calculation is that offending Bergoglio is the least of the worries that the American bishops need be concerned about. From this standpoint, Dolan's essay may be a gauntlet thrown in the direction of the Vatican – a warning that the Church needs to take the populist wave sweeping the Western world seriously.

https://www.americanthinker.co..._from_democrats.html

So, without reading everything, does that mean Catholics have stopped voting Democrat? I could point to many other demographics that have been abandoned by the Democrat leadership, if they aren’t actually despised by them, and yet they still vote a straight D-line ticket.

Why any Christian or Jew would vote dem is a mystery to me.

Maybe he doesn’t realize how few practice what he preaches.

Ever heard of the Kennedys of Massachusetts?

They kept as least one priest on the family payroll full time, went through all the motions but had no regard for the teachings of the church except, of course, forgiveness of sins.

Like the Corleones, kind of.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
So, without reading everything, does that mean Catholics have stopped voting Democrat?

Slowly.... but hopefully, yes.

Even the libs at Salon have noticed:

What does this Tea Party-ization of white Catholics mean for Democrats? On a national level, the Democrats’ weakness among white Catholics is for now largely being compensated for by its strength with Hispanic Catholics, who vote overwhelmingly and increasingly Democratic. While George W. Bush managed to get one-third of the Hispanic vote, McCain got only one-quarter and Romney just one-fifth. This meant that even with the massive defection of white Catholics in 2012, Obama still eked out an overall victory on the Catholic vote by 2 points. But that narrow margin means that Democrats can’t afford to lose any more ground with white Catholics.

Things get more dire at the state level and pose particular challenges to Democratic efforts to win back control of either chamber of Congress. In the 2006 off-year election, the white Catholic vote spilt just about evenly between Democratic and Republican congressional candidates. But by 2010, a yawning 20-point gap opened up that increased to 22 points in 2014.

“The shift in the Catholic vote should really be a wakeup call to the Democrats,” says Krueger. “White Catholics are 18 percent of the electorate and Catholics vote 1 to 2 percentage points above their representation in the overall population. This is a significant voting bloc that now perceives Republicans as being more welcoming to people of faith.”

https://www.salon.com/2015/03/...catholic_apocalypse/

The Atlantic has also noticed:

Why Democrats Must Regain the Trust of Religious Voters

If the party wants to win back votes in the Trump era, it will need to stop ignoring people of faith.

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...gious-voters/546434/