“My only question is whether the Cardinal can truly raise 78 million faithful in the Catholic faith.”
It would be nice if he could, but he can't. However, he doesn't need to.
A modest majority of self-identified Catholics voted for the anti-Christ in 2008. The typical number stated is 54%. If the hierarchy of the Church is able to highlight the anti-Christ’s campaign against the Catholic Church to motivate a 10% shift, a rather more modest result, the anti-Christ would only get 44% of the self-identified Catholic vote. Folks don't generally win the presidency without a majority, or at least a rough tie, in the Catholic vote.
Since 1956, Catholics have given a majority to the popular election loser of the presidential race twice, in 1968 and in 1988. In 1988, the margin was 52%-48% for Dukakis. Al Gore took 50% to 47% in 2000, but he was considered to have won the popular vote.
The cardinal's task is relatively modest - influence half the swing vote of the Catholic electorate to vote Republican in 2012.
sitetest
At least he’s trying to get an oar in the water. Too bad too many other churches are sitting on their collective thumbs.
Very good analysis and of course you are right about this. Here's a link to a thread of one recent religious liberty homily that specifically intended to influence this 'swing vote of the Catholic electorate'. I pray for more. Sebelius and 0bama have awoken a sleeping giant.
Very good analysis and of course you are right about this. Here's a link to a thread of one recent religious liberty homily that specifically intended to influence this 'swing vote of the Catholic electorate'. I pray for more. Sebelius and 0bama have awoken a sleeping giant.
Don’t you imagine the DNC will drum up the illegal immigration issue toward election time to cause great conflict with the Catholics? It seems that was the #1 issue with the Catholics in 2008.