Cardinal Dolan Congratulates President Obama On Re-Election

[Prodigal_Son1]

With all respect, Cardinal Dolan should have apologized to his flock. His obligations are first to his flock and not whether or not its important to do good to the alter of Obama. I understand how this all ends, but I can only image, how heartbroken Christ is by Obama’s assault on His Bride. I understand the turn the cheek, pray for your enemy…I get it…but at the same time, WHO IS standing up for US… standing up for the Faith, …standing up for the BRIDE???

Does that apply to Pope Benedict?

Christ’s commands are the Cardinal’s obligations, and his example speaks loudly to his/His flock. He did good to Obama by congratulating him, there was no appealing to an altar of Obama. That’s a terrible thing to say about one of our Cardinals.

Christ is the head of the ‘Bride’. He said, ‘even the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church.’ He said, ‘He would be with us until the consummation of the world.’ WE should have faith in Him, that He can do what He said.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Doing good to Obama would be to strike terror into his heart by showing him the risk that his own soul is in right now. Obama’s soul is in tremendous danger right now and every child that dies under his watch, every gay person’s soul that falls into hell due to his support for sodomy is going to increase the punishments that the devil has waiting for him.

Doing good to Obama would mean to make him tremble with fear to the point that he either renounces his office or diametrically changes his policies. Being luke-warm towards Obama’s actions is not love, it’s actually lacking in charity towards him as a person.

By obeying Christ’s command, the Cardinal has witnessed Christianity to Obama, and the world.

We know sins and to avoid them. We do not know the intent of another person’s heart, and their state as in reference to invincible ignorance. We cannot judge another. The Church teaches us all that.

I don’t believe Cardinal Dolan’s actions are ‘lukewarm’.

Will you please provide the teaching of Christ that we should make another ‘tremble with fear’?

 

[marci]

By obeying Christ’s command, the Cardinal has witnessed Christianity to Obama, and the world.

We know sins and to avoid them. We do not know the intent of another person’s heart, and their state as in reference to invincible ignorance. We cannot judge another. The Church teaches us all that.

I don’t believe Cardinal Dolan’s actions are ‘lukewarm’.

When the church speaks of invincible ignorance it cannot be assumed automatically that culpability is non existent.

From the CCC

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.** It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.**

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

 

[MidnightSun12]

By obeying Christ’s command, the Cardinal has witnessed Christianity to Obama, and the world.

We know sins and to avoid them. We do not know the intent of another person’s heart, and their state as in reference to invincible ignorance. We cannot judge another. The Church teaches us all that.

We judge actions (not intentions) and by judging actions it is enough for us to conclude that a person’s soul is in grave danger of being in mortal sin. Claiming that a person “might” have invincible ignorance is like seeing a drowining person and excusing yourself from helping because the possibility exists that they are just frantically waiving their hand at you to say “hello”.

When we see something that is intrinsically evil (ie. something which is wrong in every possible circumstance), then we have a duty to speak against it even when the consequences for doing so are grave. This is no different then John the Baptist calling out King Herod for being an aldulterer even when the cost for doing so was losing his life.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

When the church speaks of invincible ignorance it cannot be assumed automatically that culpability is non existent.

From the CCC

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.** It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.**

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

I agree and did not say that. I was, however, trying to express that there is no teaching from the Church that anyone can know the disposition of another person’s soul, or conscience, except Christ. He, and ONLY He, is our judge and He will judge us all.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We judge actions (not intentions) and by judging actions it is enough for us to conclude that a person’s soul is in grave danger of being in mortal sin. Claiming that a person “might” have invincible ignorance is like seeing a drowining person and excusing yourself from helping because the possibility exists that they are just frantically waiving their hand at you to say “hello”.

When we see something that is intrinsically evil (ie. something which is wrong in every possible circumstance), then we have a duty to speak against it even when the consequences for doing so are grave. This is no different then John the Baptist calling out King Herod for being an aldulterer even when the cost for doing so was losing his life.

The Church is quite clear, hate the sin, love the sinner. I believe that comes from scriptures.

Christ prayed for those that persecuted Him at the time of His passion. Was not the crucifixion of our Lord an intrinsic evil? This was the one that John the Baptist was not fit to tie the sandal of.

People, I am open to correction. Please show me the Church teaching, or scriptures where Christ taught us, that we are to treat any person with less than love and good.

I thought the passage below speaks clearly and loudly, with NO exceptions.

Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:
Mat 5:45 That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

This instruction does not say so that they, our enemies may be the children, but that you/WE may be the children of our Father.

 

[marci]

I agree and did not say that. I was, however, trying to express that there is no teaching from the Church that anyone can know the disposition of another person’s soul, except Christ. He, and ONLY He, is our judge and He will judge us all.

I agree, however I believe that when speaking about the sinful behavior of others one is not necessarily being judgmental as to the state of a persons soul. Although you are right, only Jesus knows, we can judge the ACTIONS of others as “sinful” in light of church teaching. In fact it is our duty to “instruct the ignorant” lest their souls be jeopardized. Just as we should not assume that a soul is damned we should also not assume that one is saved due to invincible ignorance since we know that their culpability is in question.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree, however I believe that when speaking about the sinful behavior of others one is not necessarily being judgmental as to the state of a persons soul. Although you are right, only Jesus knows, we can judge the ACTIONS of others as “sinful” in light of church teaching. In fact it is our duty to “instruct the ignorant” lest their souls be jeopardized. Just as we should not assume that a soul is damned we should also not assume that one is saved due to invincible ignorance since we know that their culpability is in question.

We are to instruct. Was there a witness to Cardinal Dolan, and Pope Benedict, doing good to the president by congratulating him?

Also, if we instruct by saying, ‘you’re wrong and ignorant and I must correct…’, they stopped listening at ignorant.

What people seem to desire here is humiliation, castigation, and possibly vengeance. There’s no teaching to support any of that. We are to use love and charity in all things, even in trying to correct another person’s obvious faults.

 

[MidnightSun12]

The Church is quite clear, hate the sin, love the sinner. I believe that comes from scriptures.

Christ prayed for those that persecuted Him at the time of His passion. Was not the crucifixion of our Lord an intrinsic evil? This was the one that John the Baptist was not fit to tie the sandal of.

People, I am open to correction. Please show me the Church teaching, or scriptures where Christ taught us, that we are to treat any person with less than love and good.

I thought the passage below speaks clearly and loudly, with NO exceptions.

This instruction does not say so that they, our enemies may be the children, but that you/WE may be the children of our Father.

I absolutely agree that we should be praying for the current president. In fact, we should all be praying divine mercy chaplets that he has a change of heart and embraces the Truth that is Jesus Christ before any further damage is done.

You are also correct that we must also love our neighbour without exception, but confronting and speaking harshly to someone is love when the intention is to save this person’s soul or to save the souls/lives of the people who are under his/her authority.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I absolutely agree that we should be praying for the current president. In fact, we should all be praying divine mercy chaplets that he has a change of heart and embraces the Truth that is Jesus Christ before any further damage is done.

You are also correct that we must also love our neighbour without exception, but confronting and speaking harshly to someone is love when the intention is to save this person’s soul or to save the souls/lives of the people who are under his/her authority.

If a person is approached in what could be a humiliation, as a public correction, it could entrench them in their wrongness. To do that makes one complicit in the wrongs from that point on.

How would you react if your priest called you out on a sin on the steps of your Church, with news reporters ready for the ‘breaking news?’ Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

There is no teaching for men to publicly chastise, or correct another person’s faults. To do so could easily be viewed as lacking in love, and most certainly charity.

We need to let our clergy do their job and have faith in them.

 

[MidnightSun12]

How would you react if your priest called you out on a sin on the steps of your Church, with news reporters ready for the ‘breaking news?’ Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If I was in a position of authority and my sins were endangering the souls of others and my actions were giving scandal to those who look up to me by making them think that such sins are OK and if the Church had previously made Her objections known to me… Now, if I continued in these sins in spite of all this, then yes I would have to view a harsh public statement as not only being Just but being consistent with love for one’s neighbour and a moral duty on behalf of the Church.

There is no teaching for men to publicly chastise, or correct another person’s faults. To do so could easily be viewed as lacking in love, and most certainly charity.

There are most certainly times when one has a duty to call out the evil actions of another. To not do so would be lacking in charity and would show grave disregard for that person’s soul.

We need to let our clergy do their job and have faith in them.

When our Church leaders fall into error it is actually the duty of the laity to make it known to them:
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

It’s a two-way relationship. It’s their duty to get as many souls into heaven as possible, and it’s our duty to them accomplish that goal!

 

[frattura30]

We are to instruct. Was there a witness to Cardinal Dolan, and Pope Benedict, doing good to the president by congratulating him?

Also, if we instruct by saying, ‘you’re wrong and ignorant and I must correct…’, they stopped listening at ignorant.

What people seem to desire here is humiliation, castigation, and possibly vengeance. There’s no teaching to support any of that. We are to use love and charity in all things, even in trying to correct another person’s obvious faults.

I dont think anyone here implied a desire for humiliation and vengeance.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If I was in a position of authority and my sins were endangering the souls of others and my actions were giving scandal to those who look up to me by making them think that such sins are OK and if the Church had previously made Her objections known to me… Now, if I continued in these sins in spite of all this, then yes I would have to view a harsh public statement as not only being Just but being consistent with love for one’s neighbour and a moral duty on behalf of the Church.

There are most certainly times when one has a duty to call out the evil actions of another. To not do so would be lacking in charity and would show grave disregard for that person’s soul.

When our Church leaders fall into error it is actually the duty of the laity to make it known to them:

It’s a two-way relationship. It’s their duty to get as many souls into heaven as possible, and it’s our duty to them accomplish that goal!

Please provide me an example of a Pope delivering public admonishment directly to a person. Be sure to find one that has the love and charity you describe.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I dont think anyone here implied a desire for humiliation and vengeance.

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

When our Church leaders fall into error it is actually the duty of the laity to make it known to them

What is the error our Church leaders fell into in this instance? The Pope, and a Cardinal who shared a Catholic fundraising dinner with the president and the Republican nominee, congratulated him on the election.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Please provide me an example of a Pope delivering public admonishment directly to a person. Be sure to find one that has the love and charity you describe.

The Pope’s meeting with Nancy Pelosi is one such example:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_benedict_strongly_rebukes_pelosi_over_abortion/

What is the error our Church leaders fell into in this instance? The Pope, and a Cardinal who shared a Catholic fundraising dinner with the president and the Republican nominee, congratulated him on the election.

The error was Cardinal’s Dolan’s invitation to Barak Obama for the Al Smith Charity dinner which potentially gave scandal to many Catholic voters who were on the edge about voting for a president who supports intrinsic evils (voting for such a candidate would be a grave matter and seeing a prince of the Church siting at a table laughing with this candidate on the front page of a newspaper conveys a powerful image just before an election).

At the very least, there should have beeen a ban on all photography as was the case when Nancy Pelosi met with Pope Benedict.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Pope’s meeting with Nancy Pelosi is one such example:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_benedict_strongly_rebukes_pelosi_over_abortion/

From the article you provided.

No photo of Nancy Pelosi and the Pope will be forthcoming, since the meeting was closed to reporters and photographers. The two met in a small room in the Vatican just after the Pope’s weekly public audience.

The error was Cardinal’s Dolan’s invitation to Barak Obama for the Al Smith Charity dinner which potentially gave scandal to many Catholic voters who were on the edge about voting for a president who supports intrinsic evils (voting for such a candidate would be a grave matter and seeing a prince of the Church siting at a table laughing with this candidate on the front page of a newspaper conveys a powerful image just before an election).

At the very least, there should have beeen a ban on all photography as was the case when Nancy Pelosi met with Pope Benedict.

Was Christ mistaken when he drank and dined with sinners?

Cardinal Dolan wrote a response:

In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus, who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners; and by the recognition that, if I only sat down with people who agreed with me, and I with them, or with those who were saints, I’d be taking all my meals alone.

This was a Catholic charities dinner, that has become tradition, to include inviting the presidential candidates.

I am fairly sure Cardinal Dolan’s supervisor was aware of the dinner, and invitation. Did he fail in any responsibility in the matter?

 

[Lucky7]

People, I am open to correction. Please show me the Church teaching, or scriptures where Christ taught us, that we are to treat any person with less than love and good.

How about his anger in the temple?

John 2:15

And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables

Sometimes Jesus wasn’t all peace and love.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How about his anger in the temple?

John 2:15

And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables

Sometimes Jesus wasn’t all peace and love.

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.

 

[MidnightSun12]

From the article you provided.

No photo of Nancy Pelosi and the Pope will be forthcoming, since the meeting was closed to reporters and photographers. The two met in a small room in the Vatican just after the Pope’s weekly public audience.

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

Was Christ mistaken when he drank and dined with sinners?

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

This was a Catholic charities dinner, that has become tradition, to include inviting the presidential candidates.

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 am fairly sure Cardinal Dolan’s supervisor was aware of the dinner, and invitation. Did he fail in any responsibility in the matter?

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.