Cardinal Dolan Congratulates President Obama On Re-Election

[grannymh]

Oh, good. I was worried about this. Now that I know there’s an iron fist, I’ll sleep better at night. So…

…when does the iron fist come out?

When all the ducks are in a row.

 

[Lucky7]

Are any of us as Jesus was? Who among us is perfect? I’m sure Christ would invite that person to cast the first stone.

Wait, so Christ isn’t teaching us by his actions in the temple? Or are the only things that we can reference are Bible verses that support your view on this matter?

Generally speaking, I wish our Church would stop *****-footing around, get angry, and start knocking some tables over.

 

[frattura30]

Some have turned it around and directed it towards the authoritative men of the Church, going so far as to think the Cardinal need apologize to the flock, and expressing deep disappointment towards him. The Cardinal did the same thing as the Pope.

A public admonishment is not going to happen, and I wouldn’t desire it on another. There must be a reason the Cardinal didn’t go on every air wave, and I trust his decision.

Congratulating someone on an accomplishment does not lend support to a view. It does give example to the Gospels.

While I do respect the Pope and Cardinal, its not what the Pope or Cardinal do, but what you really have to ask yourself…would Christ congratulate Obama? I believe Christ would want the will of His Father and would not be distracted by a need for congratulations.

 

[Seeker1961]

Are any of us as Jesus was? Who among us is perfect? I’m sure Christ would invite that person to cast the first stone.

Jesus said “neither do I condemn you” BEFORE He told the woman to “go and sin no more”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There was a press release from the vatican office after the meeting divulging the details of the conversation.

Christ did not eat with sinners. He tried to save their souls while He happened to be sharing a meal…

Bill Clinton had been dis-invited in 1996 specifically because of the abortion issue. A precedent had already existed for this year’s dinner.

I believe he failed by giving scandal to sin in this particular case. What’s done is done, however, and I hope that Church leader’s acknowledge that this was a mistake and work scrupulously to avoid similar situations in the future.

From your article:

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Now that was Catholic to Catholic, and short of a berating message on the edge of love and charity.

Words of Christ…

Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by her children.

1996 was either presidential candidate invited? Even in that instance, the Church did not place itself in a position of showing support for a candidate.

The Pope is the Cardinal’s supervisor. Did he fail us? Before answering, consider the hierarchy and the laity’s place. We have no authority. Yes, we can bring our concerns to them, but we do not sit on the seat of Peter.

I know people are disappointed by the outcome of the election, but we cannot overlook, or try to fit to a personal view, Christ’s, and the Church’s, teachings, because of the secular business of politics. Politics is not a license to drop love and charity in all things, as is required of all believers.

 

[grannymh]

An iron fist in a velvet glove.

Oh, good. I was worried about this. Now that I know there’s an iron fist, I’ll sleep better at night. So…

…when does the iron fist come out?

When all the ducks are in a row.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

While I do respect the Pope and Cardinal, its not what the Pope or Cardinal do, but what you really have to ask yourself…would Christ congratulate Obama? I believe Christ would want the will of His Father and would not be distracted by a need for congratulations.

Jesus prayed for forgiveness for His persecutors. He went to the Father on their behalf. A much greater showing of love than a mere congratulations.

Where do you get your authority to say what a Pope and Cardinal do, or do not do?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus said “neither do I condemn you” BEFORE He told the woman to “go and sin no more”

 

[Lucky7]

I keep hearing that the Pope congratulated Obama. I went back to that thread and the article actually says “the Vatican” congratulated Obama, but then the artcile also says that the message from the Pope to Obama was private. SO…we actually do not know that the Pope “congratulated” Obama. I wonder how much of that article is even true.

So let’s stop saying that cardinal Dolan did exactly what the Pope did.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Wait, so Christ isn’t teaching us by his actions in the temple? Or are the only things that we can reference are Bible verses that support your view on this matter?

Generally speaking, I wish our Church would stop *****-footing around, get angry, and start knocking some tables over.

Christ is King.

Where did the King give instructions for us to be angered at another?

Mat 5:22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

[Lucky7]

Jesus prayed for forgiveness for His persecutors. He went to the Father on their behalf. A much greater showing of love than a mere congratulations.

Where do you get your authority to say what a Pope and Cardinal do, or do not do?

You missed this part I guess:

Canon Law 212 Section 3
According to their knowledge, competence and prestige which they possess, [the Christian faithful] have the right and even at the times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful

None of us are arguing about Church teaching here.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I keep hearing that the Pope congratulated Obama. I went back to that thread and the article actually says “the Vatican” congratulated Obama, but then the artcile also says that the message from the Pope to Obama was private. SO…we actually do not know that the Pope “congratulated” Obama. I wonder how much of that article is even true.

So let’s stop saying that cardinal Dolan did exactly what the Pope did.

Are we to assume the ‘Vatican’ would say something false against the Pope?

Pope sends Obama telegram with prayers that freedom, justice flourish

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Pope Benedict XVI congratulated U.S. President Barack Obama on his re-election, saying that he prayed the ideals of freedom and justice that guided America’s founders might continue to flourish.

The Vatican did not make public the full text of the pope’s telegram to Obama, which was sent via Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the apostolic nuncio to the United States, Nov. 7.

“In the message, the Holy Father sent his best wishes to the president for his new term and assured him of his prayers that God might assist him in his very great responsibility before the country and the international community,” the Vatican said in a statement.

 

[Lucky7]

Christ is King.

Where did the King give instructions for us to be angered at another?

THe Church speaks for Christ correct?

From the Catechism:

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"94 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” **but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.”**95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You missed this part I guess:

Canon Law 212 Section 3
According to their knowledge, competence and prestige which they possess, [the Christian faithful] have the right and even at the times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful

None of us are arguing about Church teaching here.

I didn’t miss anything, including a hint of condescension.

According to their knowledge, competence and prestige which they possess the Christian faithful have the right and even at the times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinions on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and make their opinion known to the rest of the faithful.

Where’s the part about assuming an authority, or correctness, over those authoritative men of the Church?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

THe Church speaks for Christ correct?

From the Catechism:

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"94 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” **but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.”**95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96

Sorry, does not apply to this situation and if taken as you present it, conflicts with scriptures, specifically teachings from Christ Himself.

 

[Lucky7]

I didn’t miss anything, including a hint of condescension.

According to their knowledge, competence and prestige which they possess the Christian faithful have the right and even at the times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinions on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and make their opinion known to the rest of the faithful.

Where’s the part about assuming an authority, or correctness, over those authoritative men of the Church?

Again, we’re not talking about authoritative matters (ie. Catholic teaching). The Pope and the Cardinals (and all clergy) are not infallible in every thing they say and do. As a result, Canon Law expresses that it is the Faithful’s duty at times to make their opinions known to them (I’m assuming that those opinions are those that are in opposition; otherwise, this doesn’t even make sense). No one is stating that the Faithful has an authority over these men; we are stating that it is not wrong for the Faithful to opine that they are wrong in certain matters. You, on the other hand, have at least implied that we are somehow uncharitable and disrepsectful for voicing our opinion.

 

[frattura30]

Jesus prayed for forgiveness for His persecutors. He went to the Father on their behalf. A much greater showing of love than a mere congratulations.

Where do you get your authority to say what a Pope and Cardinal do, or do not do?

Look, Christ does not congratulate sinners. He tells them to repent.

Something tells me you voted for Obama.

 

[Lucky7]

Sorry, does not apply to this situation and if taken as you present it, conflicts with scriptures, specifically teachings from Christ Himself.

Really? How does it not apply?
And are you suggesting that Catholic teaching conflicts with Christ’s teachings?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Again, we’re not talking about authoritative matters (ie. Catholic teaching). The Pope and the Cardinals (and all clergy) are not infallible in every thing they say and do. As a result, Canon Law expresses that it is the Faithful’s duty at times to make their opinions known to them (I’m assuming that those opinions are those that are in opposition; otherwise, this doesn’t even make sense). No one is stating that the Faithful has an authority over these men; we are stating that it is not wrong for the Faithful to opine that they are wrong in certain matters. You, on the other hand, have at least implied that we are somehow uncharitable and disrepsectful for voicing our opinion.

Making your opinion known is short of making your opinion superior over theirs.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Really? How does it not apply?
And are you suggesting that Catholic teaching conflicts with Christ’s teachings?

Are you about to declare a just war on the government? That is specifically what the Catechism is addressing.