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

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

I see irony in your post. If there’s something to say, plainly speak it. I am not luring, nor have I made complaints to any of the moderators. I do my best to enter into these discussions as honestly as possible and explain my view through what I consider to be a ‘spiritual eye.’ For me this is not a game of words, to try and outdo anyone. I offer my view as food for thought only. I try to avoid the ‘cliches’, for what some seem to use as a ‘one up man ship’ to support a secular view.

There’s no luring. A poster referenced ‘shaking the dust from one’s feet’, in scriptures. The Cardinal invited both candidates and is the decision maker. If someone is not following the Gospel of ‘shaking the dust from their feet’, who can we to understand that be?

I’ve said what I felt about this and will not be a part of the ‘coy word game’. If you reject my view that’s fine. I am comfortable with it.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

What people are pointing out is that Obama is pro-abortion, pro homosexual “marriage” and is persecuting the Church. Those things are simply true.

“Persecuting the Church” is no more than hyperbole. Is the Church just the Church in America? Where is he persecuting it elsewhere? Do you know what full scale religious persecution is?

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.

Is the tradition of inviting the candidates from both major political parties not enough justification? Must the Cardinal bow before those who believe that the Cardinal is facilitating Obama’s political agenda?

I think the posters here do not disrespect the Cardinal as a prince of the Church.

One so hopes.

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 there it is - he doesn’t know what he’s doing and doesn’t think things through. Ought he be replaced?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I see irony in your post. If there’s something to say, plainly speak it. I am not luring, nor have I made complaints to any of the moderators. I do my best to enter into these discussions as honestly as possible and explain my view through what I consider to be a ‘spiritual eye.’ For me this is not a game of words, to try and outdo anyone. I offer my view as food for thought only. I try to avoid the ‘cliches’, for what some seem to use as a ‘one up man ship’ to support a secular view.

There’s no luring. A poster referenced ‘shaking the dust from one’s feet’, in scriptures. The Cardinal invited both candidates and is the decision maker. If someone is not following the Gospel of ‘shaking the dust from their feet’, who can we to understand that be?

I’ve said what I felt about this and will not be a part of the ‘coy word game’. If you reject my view that’s fine. I am comfortable with it.

Just suggesting that people exercise care, old buddy. Some people who are new here might not realize that direct criticism of a churchman as churchman CAN be out of bounds. Talking about their decisions at all can therefore be a minefield. You have been here a good while, and know it. But I don’t think it hurts to mention it again from time to time for the benefit of those who don’t.

The poster who talked about “shaking the dust from their feet” knew what he/she had in mind in saying it, and can further comment on it if he/she wishes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“Persecuting the Church” is no more than hyperbole. Is the Church just the Church in America? Where is he persecuting it elsewhere? Do you know what full scale religious persecution is?

Is the tradition of inviting the candidates from both major political parties not enough justification? Must the Cardinal bow before those who believe that the Cardinal is facilitating Obama’s political agenda?

One so hopes.

So there it is - he doesn’t know what he’s doing and doesn’t think things through. Ought he be replaced? Noooooo. I’m not nibbling at that bait. I don’t think it, and neither should anybody else here. And if any think it, they need to be quiet about it, right?

It ought to be enough that Obama persecutes the Church in the U.S. At least it is for me. I don’t keep up with what all he might be doing in the rest of the world to, say, push abortion or homosexual marriage onto other countries. And I doubt he has the power to mandate that Catholic institutions in, say, Japan, pay for contraceptive and abortifacient insurance. Unless you know something different about that, I will hazard to guess his reach doesn’t extend that far.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, folks it has been enjoyable. I have to go out of town starting in just a few minutes.

I will, however, part with this:

One hopes (and I believe) Cdl Dolan will do or say something (perhaps rebuke Obama openly, but it’s his decision, not mine) to neutralize any impression that he is somehow endorsing Obama or his immoral and anti-Catholic actions.

And to the newer people here, one needs to be careful in these threads about directly criticizing members of the clergy. If anyone has any questions in his/her mind about that, it would be wise to re-read the cautionary notes on the home page before posting in a thread about the clergy or religious. One can disagree with their political or prudential judgments, but directly criticizing them can be high-grade Kryptonite.

Be of good cheer!

 

[PJD1987]

“Persecuting the Church” is no more than hyperbole. Is the Church just the Church in America? Where is he persecuting it elsewhere? Do you know what full scale religious persecution is?

Is the tradition of inviting the candidates from both major political parties not enough justification? Must the Cardinal bow before those who believe that the Cardinal is facilitating Obama’s political agenda?

One so hopes.

So there it is - he doesn’t know what he’s doing and doesn’t think things through. Ought he be replaced?

Rich, I gott say I think you’re awfully naïve here and not paying attention to the counter points that have been made. Persecution is persecution in any form, its not relativistic, the fact that other countries have violent persecutions does not negate the non-violent governmental political persecution we face. Its false to suggest otherwise. As has been stated, there certainly is a precedent for not inviting Presidents and/or candidates before, so this “tradition” you speak of varies from year to year, on criteria being the candidates political stances.

Please don’t cast aspersions on the intent or motivation of those who feel the need to voice their opinion on a matter, which also has been cited in the CCC and Canon Law as not only our right, but our duty. I’d ask you to please stop muddling the issue by ad hominem attacks that do not address the issue but rather belittle the people making the argument, which is an argument out of a deep love for the Church. I’d thank you to take that into consideration.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thinking about the secular aspect of this discussion, particularly a candidate being viewed as a ‘persecutor of the Church’, I have to wonder how either candidate is considered otherwise. While one openly disagrees with doctrinal issues, the others faith teaches that Christ is the spirit brother to Satan, Mary’s conception was less than immaculate, and the Catholic Church is an apostate Church since the original Church suffered a great apostasy. That’s just a few of what the other candidate’s faith teaches, yet this is not considered one to be a form of ‘persecuting’ our Church?

To hold the Cardinal accountable for one invitation over another, with the above thought in mind, seems to indicate a political motivation.

 

[PJD1987]

Thinking about the secular aspect of this discussion, particularly a candidate being viewed as a ‘persecutor of the Church’, I have to wonder how either candidate is considered otherwise. While one openly disagrees with doctrinal issues, the others faith teaches that Christ is the spirit brother to Satan, Mary’s conception was less than immaculate, and the Catholic Church is an apostate Church since the original Church suffered a great apostasy. That’s just a few of what the other candidate’s faith teaches, yet this is not considered one to be a form of ‘persecuting’ our Church?

To hold the Cardinal accountable for one invitation over another, with the above thought in mind, seems to indicate a political motivation.

Please. Mr. Obama and his administration have implemented active policies that deny our 1st amendment right to freedom of religion. Mr. Romney has no such agenda in mind, and there is no indication to think he has. He has a right to his religion, and we have a right to ours. A fundamental respect for the 1st Amendment is what is in order here. One candidate respects that, Mr. Obama most certainly does not. The comparison is not warranted.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Please. Mr. Obama and his administration have implemented active policies that deny our 1st amendment right to freedom of religion.

How has the Administration implemented ACTIVE policies to deny you your 1st Amendment rights?

 

[Bill_Martin]

Thinking about the secular aspect of this discussion, particularly a candidate being viewed as a ‘persecutor of the Church’, I have to wonder how either candidate is considered otherwise. While one openly disagrees with doctrinal issues, the others faith teaches that Christ is the spirit brother to Satan, Mary’s conception was less than immaculate, and the Catholic Church is an apostate Church since the original Church suffered a great apostasy. That’s just a few of what the other candidate’s faith teaches, yet this is not considered one to be a form of ‘persecuting’ our Church?

To hold the Cardinal accountable for one invitation over another, with the above thought in mind, seems to indicate a political motivation.

I don’t care about candidates’ religion. I only care about what they actually do. In that regard, Obama has been disastrous for anyone who is religious or even just thinks the Constitution is more than a nice old piece of paper.

 

[Elizium23]

Obama is not opposed to catholics, he is opposed to faithful Catholics and our hierarchy. Just look at him, surrounded by catholics like Pelosi, Biden, and Sebelius. Obama and his excommunicated cronies are bent on causing schism in the Church by pitting popular disobedience against the less-popular adherence to true doctrines. Nevertheless, I support Cardinal Dolan’s decision to invite Obama and welcome his attempts at ongoing dialogue with our political and spiritual enemies. I hope and pray for a good outcome from this summit.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Obama is not opposed to catholics, he is opposed to faithful Catholics and our hierarchy. Just look at him, surrounded by catholics like Pelosi, Biden, and Sebelius. Obama and his excommunicated cronies are bent on causing schism in the Church by pitting popular disobedience over the less-popular adherence to true doctrines. Nevertheless, I support Cardinal Dolan’s decision to invite Obama and welcome his attempts at ongoing dialogue with our political and spiritual enemies. I hope and pray for a good outcome from this summit.

Precisely. There has never been a war against religion. There is a war against faith.

These people would love nothing better to have Catholicism or any other religion relegated to being simply something carried out by nice elderly folks in church before playing bingo in the basement, then left there until next Sunday.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Persecution is persecution in any form, its not relativistic, the fact that other countries have violent persecutions does not negate the non-violent governmental political persecution we face.

What non-violent governmental persecutions have you experienced?

As has been stated, there certainly is a precedent for not inviting Presidents and/or candidates before, so this “tradition” you speak of varies from year to year, on criteria being the candidates political stances.

No, it does not “vary from year to year.” It happened twice, and I’m certain that the Cardinal is aware of those two incidents. Besides, disinviting the President would call for disinviting Mr. Romney, and I believe that the loss of face that the Cardinal would experience at such an action would far outweigh the benefits of showing that he opposes abortion, which we all know he does.

I’d thank you to take that into consideration.

I do know that some posters are convinced that they know better how the Cardinal should do his job than he does. It’s a social occasion, for crying out loud. Why do those people have to make everything political?

 

[PJD1987]

How has the Administration implemented ACTIVE policies to deny you your 1st Amendment rights?

I really would hope you are aware of the HHS Mandate…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let’s not take my words as support for either candidate. I wouldn’t vote for either one. I just see hypocrisy in placing one over another and claiming it’s because of our Church; while questioning Cardinal Dolan.

Many of us have entered into debates with Mormons here and we know most of their ‘beliefs’ and that those beliefs are required to be a part of their Church. When asked about the beliefs, he distanced himself as ‘not really believing that’. It has an appearance of maintaining a bloc of voters.

We have to be very careful throwing full support with anyone of this world, as the great deceiver would not make his influence known and I’m sure he relishes the questioning of one of the authoritative men of the Church over this secular business.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Obama is not opposed to catholics, he is opposed to faithful Catholics and our hierarchy. Just look at him, surrounded by catholics like Pelosi, Biden, and Sebelius. Obama and his excommunicated cronies are bent on causing schism in the Church by pitting popular disobedience against the less-popular adherence to true doctrines. Nevertheless, I support Cardinal Dolan’s decision to invite Obama and welcome his attempts at ongoing dialogue with our political and spiritual enemies. I hope and pray for a good outcome from this summit.

And the other candidate’s faith teaches that the Catholic Church’s priesthood, and it’s entire hierarchy, is invalid since the great apostasy of around 2000 years ago.

 

[JimG]

Back in Post #82, Wendy1989 mentioned that the Al Smith Dinner is at least an opportunity to raise money for Catholic Charities in NYC, and that’s a good thing.

I hope the dinner does raise a lot of money for Catholic Charities, because the HHS mandate proposes to levy heavy fines on them if the practice their religion rather than comply with the mandate.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I really would hope you are aware of the HHS Mandate…

The HHS mandate argument is overblown, when it comes to persecution of the Church.

Jim

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I really would hope you are aware of the HHS Mandate…

How have you been affected by the Mandate?

 

[JMJSHJ]

Personally speaking I think its a great thing. I was surprised that Obama agreed to come. Unlike the Notre Dame fiasco which presented an honorary degree there is no attempt to endorse Obama in any way. Considering how Cardinal Dolan has been so vocal against the HHS Mandate, I expect him to remind in a very forceful way how wrong that is to the President.

If I could, I would buy tickets to attend it.