Lawler is entitled to his opinion and I understand Cardinal Dolan’s reasons but from pro life groups, and 1000s of people that have signed petitions from around the world believe it is wrong to invite Obama and Cardinal Dolan says himself that he has received stacks of mail from people opposed to Obama’s invite, and some opposed to Romney’s invite
Po18guy, I have adopted the same model, and also thanks to Bro JR. There is a great deal of freedom in such.
Indeed, but the Cardinal decided to honor the invitations he made, and that’s what counts.
I’ll bet you are just as important to God as those two men are!
This is very different that Notre Dame 2009:
I absolutely support standing united behind our Cardinal regardless of his decision (as, I’m sure, most who are opposing this dinner also do). That doesn’t mean, however, that we can’t respectfully point out a potential tactical error when we see one.
I would disagree that a bishop has no obligation to acknowledge the people he shepherds. What kind of leadership would that convey to the faithful? Yes, we all may disagree on the topic, but whether or not he acknowledged the rift he created I think certainly was a no-brainer. To think that a bishop could blatantly ignore those under his care I think is an unfortunate development in Church hierarchy, and the laity’s acceptance of it, that has manifested itself in a disconnect from those they serve, and thus…we have issues like this arise.I admire how he wrote this response when he has no obligation to answer to the faithful like this. His respectful acknowledgement of those who disagree with him is an example of how we all can respond to disagreements.
If you haven’t read the whole response, I recommend it.
I would just add, from the Catechism to further express my point:
Some support him, some reject him; and you provide something that says he should listen to his subjects. The faithful should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father. That seems to say we should support the bishop.
Actually…that’s not what I was saying, but I appreciate your continued efforts to put words in my mouth on every thread we are on together.
These discussions cannot go without condescension, or so it seems. Look, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. I’ve reached my limit of people that are holding the Cardinal accountable to their political view because of what seems to be a clear hatred of the president and all democrats.
The only condescension I see is from yourself and those who have attacked me personally and twisting my motivations around for simply voicing an alternate opinion to that of Cardinal Dolan. There is nothing that says we cannot disagree with the hierarchy on matters of prudential judgment, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that I or anyone else is “out for ‘vengeance’” which is, again, a gross misrepresentation of my stance, and to imply that that is the motivation is simply wrong, and yet you refuse to listen and continue to advance this notion to fit your own need to marginalize my position as one that is somehow out of line.
I do not mean any of this personally and am not twisting what you’re saying. I am, however, trying to convey how it’s coming across.
I’m find #3 particularly interesting. Are YOU kidding me. Do you know nothing about Cdl. Dolan? He is the quintessential Irishman I don’t care how many generations separate him from the old sod. He has like many Irishmen raised back slapping to an art form.
We’ve gone from the invitation to how the Cardinal must conduct himself?
If so, and as a former Gothamite myself I don’t doubt that the Cardinal might be effusive, how does that affect the conduct of the banquet? Indeed, one might then say that the Cardinal’s nature would prevent him from being stand-offish from the President.
As I see it, we are in a war. A spiritual/cultural war to be sure but a war none-the-less. Do you happen to know how appeasement went for Neville Chamberlain and Britain? Cardinal Dolan has broken my heart. I had high hopes.If so, and as a former Gothamite myself I don’t doubt that the Cardinal might be effusive, how does that affect the conduct of the banquet? Indeed, one might then say that the Cardinal’s nature would prevent him from being stand-offish from the President.
As an aside, I note that the level of discourse on this Forum on this topic is very much higher than comments on National Catholic Register where the Cardinal has been accused of being a crypto-Obama stooge, a traitor to Catholicism, and worse. Some Catholics, those accusers.
