I don't mean to be dishonest but you seem to be able to vote more than once. Surprising. Anyway, he's got more DEFINITELY FOR than AGAINST. Wonderful!While you're at it, you can vote against Cecile Richards, the infamous president of Planned Parenthood.
Alright, by reflex I am all for trying to offset the toxic perspective peddled by TIME. Believe me... but in this case I have to ask:If Fr Z's criteria truly is,"Note well the language: “influential”.NOT ... 'whom you like” or “whom you agree with,'"Just how influential has Dolan been?>New York = gay marriage.>Visit with Obama = flouting of Church by Administration.To me, this is sort of as depressingly amusing as Fr. Dwight L on his blog predicting this is the moment Catholics en masse would rise up. Has anyone but me how a conversation at the parish level about either contraception or tax-supported Church health services? I don't see Dolan and his army of priests engaging in an influential teaching war much at all. The conservatives have rallied to support them, but whom have they actually even tried to influence outside their camp/ What dissenting voices have been disciplined?LIke the ma? Yes. Agree with the man? Yes. Think he is especially influential? No way. When John Paul II got the nod from TIME, he had spearheaded the movement at the UN against birth control. Just what is Dolan or the USCCB doing at the UN now to avert the Obama schmoozefest with gay rights? Given the fiasco with the lesbians in DC, I would be hard pressed to say much.I think this is a case of wishful thinking on the part of conservatives. That said, I'll go vote. Any port in a storm, or some such metaphor.
AND... (lol) I;d say among Catholics Michael Vorris has been more influential. If someone tells me Dolan spoke up for him over the rude WYD fiasco, I'll eat crow.
JFM,You've convinced me. But I don't see a "write-in" tab for Michael Voris! Too bad.This stuff is pretty much all smoke-and-mirrors anyway. Who gives a rip what TIME thinks anymore?
Post a Comment