Confirmed: Obama, Romney to attend Al Smith dinner [CWN]

[Christmastwin]

The thread I started about this yesterday was deleted. I thought I had done something wrong. Hmmmmm.

 

[Wendy1989]

Cardinal Dolan is making a HUGE mistake.
–We are not to give a platform for abortion-pushers
–The photos of Dolan and Obama yukking it up will look terrible for Catholics
–The president is out to squash the Church’s rights, and we say, “Ha ha, we’ll talk about business later; let’s have a drink together!”

What a disgrace to the cause that so many of us have fought hard for.

Too many posters say that the Cardinal knows what he is doing. In light of such a HORRIBLE decision, with such high stakes at play, I believe he doesn’t really know the repercussions of such a travesty. I’m not saying that the two men should have no communicaiton – they should be thoughtfully engaged in resolving the government’s unjuust harrassment – but they should not do so in a public forum that gives any impression of social compatability.

I was listening to the Catholic Channel on Sirius this morning and Cardinal Dolan was speaking on this very issue. The good Cardinal is at the Knights of Columbus gathering in Aneheim. He did mention that the Knights on a national level are encouraging a more civil tone in politics. This is also an opportunity to raise money for Catholic Charities in NYC and has been a long-standing tradition since 1946. Should the dinner be canceled so that your sensibilities are upheld? Or, should Cardinal Dolan show true Christian charity and eat with sinners and share a laugh? Two things come to mind: 1) Rise above it and 2) Keep your friends close and your enemies closer! :twocents:

 

[surritter]

I was listening to the Catholic Channel on Sirius this morning and Cardinal Dolan was speaking on this very issue. The good Cardinal is at the Knights of Columbus gathering in Aneheim. He did mention that the Knights on a national level are encouraging a more civil tone in politics. This is also an opportunity to raise money for Catholic Charities in NYC and has been a long-standing tradition since 1946. Should the dinner be canceled so that your sensibilities are upheld? Or, should Cardinal Dolan show true Christian charity and eat with sinners and share a laugh? Two things come to mind: 1) Rise above it and 2) Keep your friends close and your enemies closer! :twocents:

Thank you for a thoughtful reply.
I think the dinner should go on, but without Obama. You all do realize that this has been done before, right? In 2004 (Kerry) and in 1996 (Clinton). I can only assume that those who applaud this invitation were upset in those years past when a particular candidate was not invited because of his effrontery toward the Catholic Church and her teachings.

And no, I’m not speaking out in the hope that my “sensibilities are upheld.” But is it really true that your alternative (to “eat with sinners and share a laugh”) is a wise move?

It seems that everyone who brings forth the idea of eating with sinners conveniently forgets the actions of Our Lord in driving the moneychangers out of the Temple. I maintain that both actions are appropriate, at appropriate times. To state that Cardinal Dolan chose the wrong action at this time certainly brought the boom down on me by the posters here, didn’t it?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Obama reaffirms support for HHS mandate, downplays controversy

President Barack Obama reaffirmed his support for mandatory contraception coverage in a Wednesday campaign stop in Denver, drawing criticism from a lawyer representing a Colorado company fighting the mandate on religious freedom grounds.
Matt Bowman, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, objected to the president’s contention that offering exemptions to the mandatory coverage allows employers to control women.

“The only ‘controlling’ actions in this case involve the president’s command that families abandon their faith just because they want to earn a living or serve their community,” Bowman told EWTN News Aug. 8. “The government is picking and choosing what faith is and who can live it out, and then targeting religious people with massive penalties while bureaucrats exempt millions of other people for political reasons.”

President Obama addressed a rally on the Auraria Campus in Denver. He criticized his opponent, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, for favoring legislation the president said would “allow any employer to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees.”

“It would be up to the employer to decide. Your boss, telling you what’s best for your health, your safety,” the president said.

“I don’t think your boss should get to control the health care that you get. I don’t think that insurance companies should control the care that you get. I don’t think politicians should control the care that you get.”

…

President Obama contended in his Denver speech that the demand for exemptions comes from the “far right” of the Republican Party. However, three Democratic senators voted against killing the Blunt Amendment.

…

President Obama’s Wednesday speech portrayed the religious freedom issue as settled.
“We recognize that many people have strongly held religious views on contraception, which is why we made sure churches and other houses of worship, they don’t have to provide it, they don’t have to pay for it,” he said.

“We worked with the Catholic hospitals and universities to find a solution that protects both religious liberty and a woman’s health.”

However, Catholic leaders insist more action is needed.

ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=5947

Many Republicans have pushed as part of health reform that insurance should be separate from employment, but not that religious liberty should be compromised

Obama is not going to make a compromise, no accommodation, he is going after the female vote and thinks contraception and abortion is all women care about. Cardinal Dolon should rescind the invitation

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Obama reaffirms support for HHS mandate, downplays controversy

ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=5947

Many Republicans have pushed as part of health reform that insurance should be separate from employment, but not that religious liberty should be compromised

Obama is not going to make a compromise, no accommodation, he is going after the female vote and thinks contraception and abortion is all women care about. Cardinal Dolon should rescind the invitation

You are correct. Obama has used and abused Catholic forums before ( think Notre Dame, think Georgetown with the forced covering of religious images), and he will abuse the Al Smith opportunity also. As my Grandmother used to say: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I don’t know what goes with “fool me three times . . . .”

 

[_Abyssinia]

You are correct. Obama has used and abused Catholic forums before ( think Notre Dame, think Georgetown with the forced covering of religious images), and he will abuse the Al Smith opportunity also. As my Grandmother used to say: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I don’t know what goes with “fool me three times . . . .”

Obama said at Notre Dame

‘Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women’

That was either lie or he changed his mind and broke his pledge, either way, he should not be given a platform by the Al Smith dinner

 

[_Abyssinia]

You are correct. Obama has used and abused Catholic forums before ( think Notre Dame, think Georgetown with the forced covering of religious images), and he will abuse the Al Smith opportunity also. As my Grandmother used to say: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I don’t know what goes with “fool me three times . . . .”

Obama said at Notre Dame

‘Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women’

That was either lie or he changed his mind and broke his pledge, either way he should not be given a platform at Al Smith dinner

 

[Trader]

Obama said at Notre Dame

That was either lie or he changed his mind and broke his pledge, either way he should not be given a platform at Al Smith dinner

Based on his behavior both before and after that speech, changing is mind does not make sense. The President of the United States is clearly a ____. (Since I can’t say anything nice about him, I won’t say anything.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Are you saying that you are pleased that the invitation was extended?

If not, then why is it wrong to suggest that the Cardinal is errant in this matter? We’re not disagreeing with Catholic doctrine, you know.

Never said I was pleased by it. Wish he hadn’t. I just hope he has an effective plan in mind to make it clear that he does not condone Obama’s persecution of the Church. I’m trusting that he has.

I didn’t say he’s errant. One poster seemed to suggest that we can’t question cardinals in their prudential judgments. I see no reason to consider them inerrant in such things.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think the dinner should go on, but without Obama.

And without Romney, too, I presume.

But is it really true that your alternative (to “eat with sinners and share a laugh”) is a wise move?

Go condemn Jesus for eating with sinners and sharing laughs with them.

It seems that everyone who brings forth the idea of eating with sinners conveniently forgets the actions of Our Lord in driving the moneychangers out of the Temple.

Maybe so. Please quote the passage where Jesus parties with the moneychangers before driving them out of the Temple.

To state that Cardinal Dolan chose the wrong action at this time certainly brought the boom down on me by the posters here, didn’t it?

And, rightly so!

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

And without Romney, too, I presume.

Go condemn Jesus for eating with sinners and sharing laughs with them.

Maybe so. Please quote the passage where Jesus parties with the moneychangers before driving them out of the Temple.

And, rightly so!

And in Luke, Jesus says to “shake the dust from your feet” and move on when a town doesn’t welcome you. After how many insults to our beliefs does it come time to shake the “Obama dust” from OUR feet? Obama is on a course he and his handlers set for him decades ago, and no PR schmooze / photo op with the good cardinal is going to change that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Never said I was pleased by it. Wish he hadn’t. I just hope he has an effective plan in mind to make it clear that he does not condone Obama’s persecution of the Church. I’m trusting that he has.

I didn’t say he’s errant. One poster seemed to suggest that we can’t question cardinals in their prudential judgments. I see no reason to consider them inerrant in such things.

I’ve questioned who considered Cardinals inerrant once, yet you continue to insinuate something that hasn’t happened, as far as I can see.

We can question Cardinals, in their prudential judgments, as long as we concede the fact that they are the authoritative men of the Church, currently in good standing with the Church; more specifically those with authority over them. Those, over the laity, in authority in the Church are not without knowledge of what’s going on. Where’s their outcries of a wrongdoing by the Cardinal?

What’s happening here, on this thread, is people are questioning with assumptions. No one has posted any communication with the Cardinal to know exactly why he is inviting each major candidate, as has been the tradition of this dinner over the years. Some have outright condemned the Cardinals actions based on their own personal, seeming bias, view based on political reasoning.

We also see people conceding to the authority of the Cardinal and his decision, as long as he performs an expected requirement, when and where, they want to see take place. This is not concession. This is not giving the Cardinal, who had dedicated his life to Christ and the Church, the benefit of the doubt as to having good and righteous reasons for doing what he doing.

As I mention the Cardinal’s dedication to Christ and His Church, I think of how he spends a large majority his time with his mind occupied on the good of His Church, while his decisions are being questioned by what appears to be people who spend an amount time based on the good of the political view they agree with personally. Assuming, a people who also has families, work and other distractions that are not shared by the Cardinal. This is not giving way to thoughts of inerrancy, but giving way to what I believe to be more experience on the good of the Church and what it teaches.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And in Luke, Jesus says to “shake the dust from your feet” and move on when a town doesn’t welcome you. After how many insults to our beliefs does it come time to shake the “Obama dust” from OUR feet? Obama is on a course he and his handlers set for him decades ago, and no PR schmooze / photo op with the good cardinal is going to change that.

It’s not a photo op. It’s a traditional dinner where politics aren’t going to be discussed. The self-righteous want to condemn the Cardinal for not doing what THEY want him to do, but he didn’t get to be Cardinal and Archbishop of New York by being a dim bulb idiot. He knows what he is doing at lot better than any poster on this Forum.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I’ve questioned who considered Cardinals inerrant once, yet you continue to insinuate something that hasn’t happened, as far as I can see.

We can question Cardinals, in their prudential judgments, as long as we concede the fact that they are the authoritative men of the Church, currently in good standing with the Church; more specifically those with authority over them. Those, over the laity, in authority in the Church are not without knowledge of what’s going on. Where’s their outcries of a wrongdoing by the Cardinal?

What’s happening here, on this thread, is people are questioning with assumptions. No one has posted any communication with the Cardinal to know exactly why he is inviting each major candidate, as has been the tradition of this dinner over the years. Some have outright condemned the Cardinals actions based on their own personal, seeming bias, view based on political reasoning.

We also see people conceding to the authority of the Cardinal and his decision, as long as he performs an expected requirement, when and where, they want to see take place. This is not concession. This is not giving the Cardinal, who had dedicated his life to Christ and the Church, the benefit of the doubt as to having good and righteous reasons for doing what he doing.

As I mention the Cardinal’s dedication to Christ and His Church, I think of how he spends a large majority his time with his mind occupied on the good of His Church, while his decisions are being questioned by what appears to be people who spend an amount time based on the good of the political view they agree with personally. Assuming, a people who also has families, work and other distractions that are not shared by the Cardinal. This is not giving way to thoughts of inerrancy, but giving way to what I believe to be more experience on the good of the Church and what it teaches.

 

[exoflare]

And in Luke, Jesus says to “shake the dust from your feet” and move on when a town doesn’t welcome you. After how many insults to our beliefs does it come time to shake the “Obama dust” from OUR feet? Obama is on a course he and his handlers set for him decades ago, and no PR schmooze / photo op with the good cardinal is going to change that.

What’s for sure is it’s long past time for us to “shake the dust” from the people who claim to be Catholic but go out of their way to defend Obama at all costs. If someone doesn’t get it by now, with everything that’s happened, there’s nothing you can do to convince them.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

What’s for sure is it’s long past time for us to “shake the dust” from the people who claim to be Catholic but go out of their way to defend Obama at all costs. If someone doesn’t get it by now, with everything that’s happened, there’s nothing you can do to convince them.

Perhaps, but this thread goes to the need to defend Cardinal Dolan from those who would claim to know better than he how to run his diocese and whom he is to invite to social event.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What’s for sure is it’s long past time for us to “shake the dust” from the people who claim to be Catholic but go out of their way to defend Obama at all costs. If someone doesn’t get it by now, with everything that’s happened, there’s nothing you can do to convince them.

So, are we assuming the Cardinal is mistaken in his understanding of the Gospels and what the Church teaches?

This thread is not about defending Obama. It’s about a Cardinal’s decision to invite the two major candidates to a dinner, that has become an election tradition.

Turning the discussion into someone defending a specific candidate is a tactic to continue the tirade against the Cardinal, or so it seems.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve questioned who considered Cardinals inerrant once, yet you continue to insinuate something that hasn’t happened, as far as I can see.

We can question Cardinals, in their prudential judgments, as long as we concede the fact that they are the authoritative men of the Church, currently in good standing with the Church; more specifically those with authority over them. Those, over the laity, in authority in the Church are not without knowledge of what’s going on. Where’s their outcries of a wrongdoing by the Cardinal?

What’s happening here, on this thread, is people are questioning with assumptions. No one has posted any communication with the Cardinal to know exactly why he is inviting each major candidate, as has been the tradition of this dinner over the years. Some have outright condemned the Cardinals actions based on their own personal, seeming bias, view based on political reasoning.

We also see people conceding to the authority of the Cardinal and his decision, as long as he performs an expected requirement, when and where, they want to see take place. This is not concession. This is not giving the Cardinal, who had dedicated his life to Christ and the Church, the benefit of the doubt as to having good and righteous reasons for doing what he doing.

As I mention the Cardinal’s dedication to Christ and His Church, I think of how he spends a large majority his time with his mind occupied on the good of His Church, while his decisions are being questioned by what appears to be people who spend an amount time based on the good of the political view they agree with personally. Assuming, a people who also has families, work and other distractions that are not shared by the Cardinal. This is not giving way to thoughts of inerrancy, but giving way to what I believe to be more experience on the good of the Church and what it teaches.

Nobody here, to my knowledge, is saying the Cardinal is a bad man or that he personally endorses, or as a Cardinal endorses, the president.

What people are pointing out is that Obama is pro-abortion, pro homosexual “marriage” and is persecuting the Church. Those things are simply true. People, then, are questioning why the Cardinal would invite such a man as an honorary guest to a dinner that is held in honor of a Catholic former presidential candidate.

That really does seem puzzling, and rightly so, as it seems it might send a wrong message to Catholics and others. As I repeatedly pointed out, I have faith that the Cardinal has something in mind to point out that, despite Obama’s office which, itself, is worthy of respect, Obama’s actions are not. Such an action would negate any potential scandal caused by what would otherwise seem like honoring the man.

After the Notre Dame scandal and the mess some Churchmen created by backing Obamacare without realizing what a weapon against morality, indeed, against Catholicisms in this country, it really is, no one should be blamed for having those concerns.

I think the posters here do not disrespect the Cardinal as a prince of the Church. However, since such an action does involve prudential judgment, they have a right to inquire whether he realizes the potential for scandal and, as in my case, to wonder whether and, in fact, to believe, he has considered how he might negate that potential.

So why don’t we leave off the suggestions that people are being disrespectful. The disrespect any might be showing is not for the Cardinal, but for the anti-Catholic president who will be there. There is a hazard here that by erroneously shifting the expressed odium from the rightful and intended object to the Cardinal, one might slip into the appearance of making false assertions of wrongdoing against those who are simply expressing their dismay at the circumstance.

People have a right to express that dismay.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, are we assuming the Cardinal is mistaken in his understanding of the Gospels and what the Church teaches?

This thread is not about defending Obama. It’s about a Cardinal’s decision to invite the two major candidates to a dinner, that has become an election tradition.

Turning the discussion into someone defending a specific candidate is a tactic to continue the tirade against the Cardinal, or so it seems.

He didn’t say that. One should be careful not to lure people into reactive assertions that could get them points on here if someone makes a complaint to the moderators. Some do that.

There is nothing wrong with people questioning the political or even moral consequences of a judgment by a churchman, even a Cardinal. That’s a long way from saying the CArdinal does not understand the gospels or Church teaching.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nobody here, to my knowledge, is saying the Cardinal is a bad man or that he personally endorses, or as a Cardinal endorses, the president.

What people are pointing out is that Obama is pro-abortion, pro homosexual “marriage” and is persecuting the Church. Those things are simply true. People, then, are questioning why the Cardinal would invite such a man as an honorary guest to a dinner that is held in honor of a Catholic former presidential candidate.

That really does seem puzzling, and rightly so, as it seems it might send a wrong message to Catholics and others. As I repeatedly pointed out, I have faith that the Cardinal has something in mind to point out that, despite Obama’s office which, itself, is worthy of respect, Obama’s actions are not. Such an action would negate any potential scandal caused by what would otherwise seem like honoring the man.

After the Notre Dame scandal and the mess some Churchmen created by backing Obamacare without realizing what a weapon against morality, indeed, against Catholicisms in this country, it really is, no one should be blamed for having those concerns.

I think the posters here do not disrespect the Cardinal as a prince of the Church. However, since such an action does involve prudential judgment, they have a right to inquire whether he realizes the potential for scandal and, as in my case, to wonder whether and, in fact, to believe, he has considered how he might negate that potential.

So why don’t we leave off the suggestions that people are being disrespectful. The disrespect any might be showing is not for the Cardinal, but for the anti-Catholic president who will be there. There is a hazard here that by erroneously shifting the expressed odium from the rightful and intended object to the Cardinal, one might slip into the appearance of making false assertions of wrongdoing against those who are simply expressing their dismay at the circumstance.

People have a right to express that dismay.

Emphasis above is mine.

I understand all the players in this scenario and the emphasis above is the one being questioned. That’s not shifting what’s going on in this thread. The shifting is coming from those who cloud the issue with ‘…claim inerrancy of the Cardinal’, or ‘…defending Obama.’ I call those clouds, because they simply are not true. I have explained giving way to the experience of a Cardinal, and any defense is for the Cardinal.