Cardinal Dolan finally gets it: The Democratic Party has abandoned Catholicism

It is impossible to be a Democrat and a Catholic at the same time.  You're one or the other.  You can't be both.  The Democratic Party has abandoned Catholicism and has embraced the demonic.

David Carlin is a lifelong Democrat. From 1981 to 1992, he served as a Rhode Island state senator, serving as senate majority leader in 1989 and 1990. In 1992 he was his district's Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. For more than twenty years, Mr. Carlin has been a professor of philosophy and sociology at the Community College of Rhode Island.

In his book entitled "Can a Catholic Be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion," he writes:

"..an excuse that appeals to the 'separation of church and state' seems to be among the silliest rationales for a Catholic's support of the secularized Democratic Party. This separation, so we're told, is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it prohibits the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government. Yet the First Amendment says nothing about keeping religion out of government; it's concerned instead with keeping government out of religion. Its two religion 'clauses' say (1) that there will be no 'establishment of religion' and (2) that there will be no interference with the 'free exercise' of religion. That's it: government must keep its hands off religion; nothing about religion keeping its hands off government.

However, it should be considered that in writing the religion section of the First Amendment, the framers were no doubt remembering the history of England and how the government of that nation, from the time of Henry VIII until what was then the present day (the 1780's), established a national religion and interfered with the free exercise of dissenting religions. This was a case of government controlling religion, but at the same time it was a case of religion controlling government. That is to say, government persecuted, or at least discriminated against, all religions other than the Church of England, but one of the main reasons it did so was because the Church of England, both through its bishops and its lay members, had tremendous influence over government (only members of the Church of England could serve in Parliament or government). In other words, in its competition with other churches, not to mention its competition with outright infidelity, the Church of England used government to put down the church's rivals.

This is the kind of thing people, many of them Catholics, have in mind when they say that advocating laws against abortion or same-sex marriage violates the principle of separation of church and state. They fear that an alliance of conservative churches might someday gain enough governmental power to impose religious values on everybody else, non-believers included. This is what they mean when they speak, as they often do, of the looming danger of 'theocracy.' Behind the moral-conservative political activism of Christian churches they see would-be theocrats, or 'dominionists,' who want to take over America, stamp out abortion, subjugate women, drive homosexuals back into the closet, and enact other items allegedly on the agenda of the Religious Right. Yet this would be clearly un-American, violating the philosophical, religious, and moral pluralism that has long been, and should be, characteristic of the United States.

One obvious and oft-given answer is this: few liberals have made similar objections to the modern civil-rights movement, which was in large measure inspired by religion and based on churches. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Protestant minister - even, it might be said, a Christian martyr. Are the objectors ready to say that the great legislative fruits of this religio-political movement, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, are illegitimate, that they're instances of the imposition of theocratic values? Will they say that the spirit of American 'pluralism' demanded that the pro-segregation values of the KKK and other racists should have been respected? Of course not. And so it appears that what's at stake for these people isn't a matter of principle (separation of church and state) but a matter of policy. Some policies they like )e.g., civil rights legislation), and some they dislike (e.g., laws restricting abortion). A religion-driven politics is okay when it produces laws they like, but it's very naughty when it produces laws they don't like. And so we may conclude (may we not?) that all this talk about the separation of church and state is nothing but dust they throw in people's eyes." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion, pp. 129-131, Sophia Institute Press, 2006).

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken clearly enough. And he has condemned "gay marriage" and abortion as "among the most insidious and dangerous challenges" to society. The Democratic Party advances both.

The Democratic Party has become the enemy of religion

As noted here, Catholics are abandoning a Democratic Party which is increasingly hostile toward religion and religious values.

According to the article, "Steve Krueger, head of the group Catholic Democrats, notes that conservative bishops have been beating the war drums since the George W. Bush administration, even going so far in some cases as to argue that 'good' Catholics can’t vote for Democrats because of their support for abortion rights and, more recently, same-sex marriage — which has resulted in an increased politicization of the church.

Stephen Schneck of Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies has noted that there’s been a certain 'distillation' of the Catholic vote as a record number of presumably more liberal-leaning Catholics — some one-third of those raised Catholic — have left the faith altogether. 'More and more of those who remain are those who actively choose to embrace the church and its teachings,' he wrote.

But neither of these trends explains why white Catholics have abandoned the Democratic Party so suddenly and so dramatically. After all, in 2008 Barack Obama managed to keep his margin of loss of white Catholic voters to John McCain to just 5 points. But four years later, he lost the white Catholic vote to Mitt Romney by a stunning 19 points.

Krueger points to the Catholic bishop’s demonization in 2011 of the 'contraceptive mandate' in the Affordable Care Act, and their subsequent ginning up of the war on 'religious liberty' — which was joined by elements of the religious right and fused with its war on Obamacare — as another factor helping to drive Catholics toward the GOP. And the numbers bear Krueger out. According to Pew, between 2009 and 2014, the number of white Catholics who said the Obama administration — and by inference the Democratic Party — was 'unfriendly to religion' more than doubled from 17 percent to 36 percent.

'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.'"

David Carlin is a lifelong Democrat. From 1981 to 1992, he served as a Rhode Island state senator, serving as senate majority leader in 1989 and 1990. In 1992 he was his district's Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. For more than twenty years, Mr. Carlin has been a professor of philosophy and sociology at the Community College of Rhode Island.

In his book entitled "Can a Catholic Be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion," he writes:

"..an excuse that appeals to the 'separation of church and state' seems to be among the silliest rationales for a Catholic's support of the secularized Democratic Party. This separation, so we're told, is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it prohibits the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government. Yet the First Amendment says nothing about keeping religion out of government; it's concerned instead with keeping government out of religion. Its two religion 'clauses' say (1) that there will be no 'establishment of religion' and (2) that there will be no interference with the 'free exercise' of religion. That's it: government must keep its hands off religion; nothing about religion keeping its hands off government.

However, it should be considered that in writing the religion section of the First Amendment, the framers were no doubt remembering the history of England and how the government of that nation, from the time of Henry VIII until what was then the present day (the 1780's), established a national religion and interfered with the free exercise of dissenting religions. This was a case of government controlling religion, but at the same time it was a case of religion controlling government. That is to say, government persecuted, or at least discriminated against, all religions other than the Church of England, but one of the main reasons it did so was because the Church of England, both through its bishops and its lay members, had tremendous influence over government (only members of the Church of England could serve in Parliament or government). In other words, in its competition with other churches, not to mention its competition with outright infidelity, the Church of England used government to put down the church's rivals.

This is the kind of thing people, many of them Catholics, have in mind when they say that advocating laws against abortion or same-sex marriage violates the principle of separation of church and state. They fear that an alliance of conservative churches might someday gain enough governmental power to impose religious values on everybody else, non-believers included. This is what they mean when they speak, as they often do, of the looming danger of 'theocracy.' Behind the moral-conservative political activism of Christian churches they see would-be theocrats, or 'dominionists,' who want to take over America, stamp out abortion, subjugate women, drive homosexuals back into the closet, and enact other items allegedly on the agenda of the Religious Right. Yet this would be clearly un-American, violating the philosophical, religious, and moral pluralism that has long been, and should be, characteristic of the United States.

One obvious and oft-given answer is this: few liberals have made similar objections to the modern civil-rights movement, which was in large measure inspired by religion and based on churches. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Protestant minister - even, it might be said, a Christian martyr. Are the objectors ready to say that the great legislative fruits of this religio-political movement, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, are illegitimate, that they're instances of the imposition of theocratic values? Will they say that the spirit of American 'pluralism' demanded that the pro-segregation values of the KKK and other racists should have been respected? Of course not. And so it appears that what's at stake for these people isn't a matter of principle (separation of church and state) but a matter of policy. Some policies they like )e.g., civil rights legislation), and some they dislike (e.g., laws restricting abortion). A religion-driven politics is okay when it produces laws they like, but it's very naughty when it produces laws they don't like. And so we may conclude (may we not?) that all this talk about the separation of church and state is nothing but dust they throw in people's eyes." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion, pp. 129-131, Sophia Institute Press, 2006).

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken clearly enough. And he has condemned "gay marriage" and abortion as "among the most insidious and dangerous challenges" to society. The Democratic Party advances both.

And this is leading to a major crisis for the Party.

The Archdiocese of Boston is way too cozy with the Party of Death

There can be little doubt that the Archdiocese of Boston has a cozy relationship with the Democratic Party. Many would argue that the relationship is too cozy. In an editorial for LifeSiteNews.com entitled "The Kennedy Funeral - A Golden Opportunity or Capitulation for the Catholic Church," John-Henry Westen wrote: "Saturday's grandiose Catholic funeral for Senator Ted Kennedy has the potential to be a scandal that will make Notre Dame's Obama Day a walk in the park. With all four living former Presidents in attendance and an address from President Barack Obama, the funeral is set to be a royal crowning, right inside a Catholic Church, of a man who betrayed the most fundamental moral teachings of the faith.

What example will this give to Catholics and the rest of the world looking in? It will surely belie the Catholic teachings on the sanctity of life and sexuality. 'Surely,' they will say, 'if one of the most vociferous proponents of abortion and homosexuality in politics is so feted in the Church, the Church cannot possibly regard abortion as murder.' Would anyone so honor one who so advocated what the church officially considers an 'unspeakable crime'?"

We all know what happened. Senator Kennedy was feted by archdiocesan officials as "our brother and friend." Responding to this horrendous scandal, I wrote that, "I have nothing but love and respect for His Eminence, but it would appear that he does not deplore error and falsehood as much as he deplores disunity." See here. And because he does not deplore error as he should, because he has not offered the strong leadership which the Catholic faithful deserve, many Catholics have never considered that there is an incompatibility between their political affiliation and their religious identity. As Dr. David Carlin has said, "..when clerical leadership is weak or foolish, we can't be surprised when the quality of lay Catholicism sinks." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion," p. 106).

Joe Sacerdo has reported on the close relationship which Fr. J. Bryan Hehir of the Boston Archdiocese has with the DNC. He writes, "Fr. Hehir's comment on a panel that he respects the Democratic National Committee (which vehemently opposes the Catholic Church on key issues like abortion and gay marriage) validates the questions about Fr. Hehir we have been raising for some time." (See here).

How does one reconcile one's Roman Catholic faith with membership in [or identification with] the Democratic Party? Again, Dr. Carlin explains, "Another method Catholics use to validate their membership in the Democratic Party, despite the party's anti-Christian moral agenda, goes like this: they concede that abortion, for example, is morally wrong and that it's tragically wrong for the Democratic Party to support it; but then they talk about the need for 'balance' and the importance of not taking a single-issue approach to politics. 'The Democrats,' they say, 'might be wrong on a few issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage - but they're right about so many other important issues: race, poverty, peace, education, health care, the environment, and so on. In politics we have to weigh in the balance the evil and the good...This superficially persuasive line of reasoning could have been used to support the Nazis in the 1930s. A pro-Nazi Catholic could say, 'Oh yes, it's too bad - this policy of the Fuehrer toward the Jews. We deplore the firing of Jewish professors, we deplore the Nuremberg laws, we deplore Kristellnacht. But anti-Semitism, while a great evil, isn't the only evil. Far from it. We have to balance the evil done by the National Socialists against the good they've accomplished. Hitler has revived the economy, has restored law and order, has built autobahns and Volkswagens, has won the respect and salutary fear of the international community, has once again made it possible for Germans, who had been so humiliated for so long a time, to lift up their heads and be proud of their nation. Hitler isn't perfect - no politician ever will be. The question is, 'Are the Nazis on the whole producing more good than evil? Are they better than the available alternatives - namely, socialists and communists? The answer to this question is, without doubt, yes.'

Somebody might object that my analogy exaggerates the evil of abortion, which surely isn't comparable to anti-Semitism even in its pre-genocidal stage. Yes 'somebody' might say this, but Catholics who understand the moral teaching of their own religion can't very well say it. To them, the forty million and more abortion-homicides that have taken place in the United States since the 1973 Roe decision are clearly a greater moral evil than Hitler's pre-genocide anti-Semitism of the 1930s and even, it can be argued, no less evil than the six million homicides that made up the Holocaust. Some people will scoff at this comparison, but that's simply an indication that they reject the Catholic teaching that abortion is homicide.." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat?, pp. 119, 123-124).

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken clearly enough. And he has condemned "gay marriage" and abortion as "among the most insidious and dangerous challenges" to society. The Democratic Party advances both. It's difficult then for any faithful Catholic to understand how one of Cardinal O'Malley's top aides can have "respect" for the Democratic National Committee.

Related reading here and here.