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

[_Abyssinia]

5,000+? Out of the 2.5 million plus Catholics in the diocese? As you said, it’s not something you and four others came up with, but, please - one tenth of one percent?? Not “many, many Catholics” as you claim.

You can not expect 2.5 million plus to hear of a petition

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You can not expect 2.5 million plus to hear of a petition

Exactly! Which is why a claim that many, many Catholics want the invitation rescinded is not quite accurate.

Regardless, I trust the Cardinal to know what the implications of the invitation were BEFORE he extended it. He’s a good man, and I wouldn’t second guess him.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Exactly! Which is why a claim that many, many Catholics want the invitation rescinded is not quite accurate.

Regardless, I trust the Cardinal to know what the implications of the invitation were BEFORE he extended it. He’s a good man, and I wouldn’t second guess him.

That is impossible to know. It is also true that is likely many Catholics have not heard of the invitation as they are not clued in

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Just so. I was really annoyed at the remarks from some who said that the Cardinal was wrong to invite the President to a banquet that was entirely social in nature. Not just wrong, but ignorant of the facts.

The Cardinal is not the dim bulb that some would see him as. Bravo for Abp Lori!

I believe that it is you who are ignorant of the facts – or at best, naive. No event at which the president of the United States is in public, speaks publicly, and is photographed publicly can possibly be considered “entirely social in nature.” It is precisely the public nature of the event and the totally predictable media spin and confusion that the media can be counted on to promote that is concerning. None of which equates to considering Cardinal Dolan a “dim bulb,” despite your hyperbole. And if we are expected to abandon our positions because you are annoyed, think again.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

That is impossible to know.

Yes, we don’t know for sure if the Cardinal thought his action through, but given his experience and his position and the implications of his action, I think it’s safe to say that he did.

It is also true that is likely many Catholics have not heard of the invitation as they are not clued in

Agreed. Who in the Diocese of Little Rock or Amarillo or Brownsville ever heard of it - or cared very much one way or the other?

 

[stevegravy]

I don’t think that guy on Ave Maria radio, Al Kresta, wants Obama to be invited but it ain’t his dinner. As far as the Cardinal rhetoric goes ,when it comes to religious liberty verses raising money the dude knows where the money is.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I believe that it is you who are ignorant of the facts – or at best, naive.

The facts are obvious. The Cardinal Archbishop of New York invited the two major presidential candidates to a traditional Catholic Charities fundraiser of a non-political nature.

No event at which the president of the United States is in public, speaks publicly, and is photographed publicly can possibly be considered “entirely social in nature.”

Well, this is as close to being entirely social as it gets at that level. Neither candidate nor the Cardinal are going to make political speeches - more likely just bad jokes!

And if we are expected to abandon our positions because you are annoyed, think again.

I’m not annoyed. I simply take the Cardinal at his word, and don’t read anything more into it than that a good time will be had by all!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Admittedly, there are a lot of people ‘begging’, some demanding/telling, the Cardinal to rescind the invitation.

Even though the Cardinal has invited both candidates, he continues with a lawsuit against the administration. To me, this has the appearance of true Christianity; he reaches out to correct through the lawsuit, and shows Christian love by inviting to a ‘charity’ fundraiser.

Some have mentioned the importance of a ‘correction’ at the dinner; seemingly setting aside the fundraiser itself for the satisfaction of seeing one told. I wonder if the public ‘humiliation’ would satisfy their demands.

By the invitation alone, the news media is putting out the message that the Cardinal that is suing the administration has invited both candidates to attend, and some even giving some details of the lawsuit. Even though I doubt it’s his intention, I believe the Cardinal understands the full implication of what he’s doing.

Some of those news reports are specifying that the dinner should be void of a political agenda. How would that be possible if the Cardinal makes it political, outside of a possible jab for humor’s sake here and there? It’s a charity fundraiser people. To invite one candidate and not the other makes it political. If it’s political, I believe it could possibly affect the amount of funds raised.

 

[surritter]

Just so. I was really annoyed at the remarks from some who said that the Cardinal was wrong to invite the President to a banquet that was entirely social in nature. Not just wrong, but ignorant of the facts.

It’s unfortunate that you were annoyed by opposing views. Perhaps your comments also annoyed others reading this thread?

Everyone should set emotions aside and discuss the pros and cons of this invitation with logic and rational debate. And yes, the facts.

By the way, it may be a fact that Obama was invited to an event intended to be social, but it’s NOT a fact that such a move will help in the overall cause of defending the Church’s liberty and that of the unborn. So why be annoyed by others who disagree with your view on such non-factual topics?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It’s unfortunate that you were annoyed by opposing views. Perhaps your comments also annoyed others reading this thread?

I was annoyed by those who would presume that the Cardinal didn’t think through his decision.

My comments annoy a lot of people on a number of threads.

Everyone should set emotions aside and discuss the pros and cons of this invitation with logic and rational debate. And yes, the facts.

The facts are clear: “The Cardinal Archbishop of New York invited the two major presidential candidates to a traditional Catholic Charities fundraiser of a non-political nature.” What is there to discuss? The Cardinal made a decision to invite them, he invited them, and it’s a done deal. Water under the bridge now.

By the way, it may be a fact that Obama was invited to a purely social event, but it’s NOT a fact that such a move will help in the overall cause of defending the Church’s liberty and that of the unborn.

Never said that that would be an outcome. I see the event as a traditional social gathering with all the significance of similar events on the rubber chicken/bad jokes circuit

So why be annoyed by others who disagree with your view?

I trust the Cardinal, that’s why.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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

Obama spins Catholic dialogue

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on remarks made yesterday in Denver by President Barack Obama:

Before a crowd at the University of Denver, President Obama addressed the Health and Human Services mandate that orders Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization. “We worked with the Catholic hospitals and universities to find a solution that protects both religious liberty and a woman’s health,” he said. The president also said that Mitt Romney “joined the far right of his party to support a bill that would allow any employer to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees.”

Regarding the first remark, Obama is singularly dishonest. On February 8, Bishop William Lori, who chairs the bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty, said point blank that “no one from this administration has approached the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops for discussions on this matter of a possible ‘compromise.’” Is it the position of President Obama that Bishop Lori [now the Archbishop of Baltimore] was lying?

Furthermore, on February 13, Bishop Lori made it clear that only after the original HHS mandate of January 20 was revised and ready to be announced on February 10 did the White House contact Archbishop Timothy Dolan, head of the bishops’ conference.

Regarding the other remark, Obama was referencing the Blunt Amendment; it secured conscience exemptions for health care providers. Not only was this bill not a product of the “far right,” it lost by only three votes in the U.S. Senate, with three Democrats joining with the Republicans; one of those Democrats was Senator Bob Casey, hardly a “far right” zealot. More important, a New York Times poll of March 13 showed that 57 percent of Americans believe that religiously affiliated employers should be able to opt out of the HHS mandate. Are most Americans part of the “far right,” President Obama?

Demagoguery will not make Obama’s “war on religion” disappear. Only respecting the conscience rights of Catholics will do that.

catholicleague.org/obama-spins-catholic-dialogue

 

[PTL]

Human Life International (HLI) President Father Shenan J. Boquet released the following statement today in response to news that President Obama was extended an invitation to the Al Smith dinner and fundraiser for Catholic charitable institutions taking place in New York on October 18, 2012:
…

“The Catholic Church in the United States is facing greater persecution from our government than at any time in recent history. Political figures who actively seek to undermine the Catholic Church, especially in her work to protect life, promote family values, and to freely live our faith, should not be afforded a public platform by Catholic organizations, foundations, charities, events, etc., even if that’s not the intention. The need to show unwavering commitment to the Church’s teaching is greatly needed and must be safeguarded so as not to cause confusion, a potential scandal, or give any semblance of support or endorsement.”

Extending invitation to Obama by the Cardinal is definitely creating confusion if not scandal. It sends out a very ambiguous message and creates a very unclear picture, especially 80% of Catholics are clueless about the HHS mandate issue. It does not look good.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Extending invitation to Obama by the Cardinal is definitely creating confusion if not scandal. It sends out a very ambiguous message and creates a very unclear picture, especially 80% of Catholics are clueless about the HHS mandate issue. It does not look good.

If that many Catholics are unaware of the HHS mandate that is to be nationwide, how many do you think are aware of or care about an invitation to a dinner?

 

[Ridgerunner]

If that many Catholics are unaware of the HHS mandate that is to be nationwide, how many do you think are aware of or care about an invitation to a dinner?

I think it’s reasonable to expect they will because the media will be all over it, ensuring that everybody knows Obama was invited by a Cardinal to a dinner held in honor of a Catholic presidential candidate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Admittedly, there are a lot of people ‘begging’, some demanding/telling, the Cardinal to rescind the invitation.

Even though the Cardinal has invited both candidates, he continues with a lawsuit against the administration. To me, this has the appearance of true Christianity; he reaches out to correct through the lawsuit, and shows Christian love by inviting to a ‘charity’ fundraiser.

Some have mentioned the importance of a ‘correction’ at the dinner; seemingly setting aside the fundraiser itself for the satisfaction of seeing one told. I wonder if the public ‘humiliation’ would satisfy their demands.

By the invitation alone, the news media is putting out the message that the Cardinal that is suing the administration has invited both candidates to attend, and some even giving some details of the lawsuit. Even though I doubt it’s his intention, I believe the Cardinal understands the full implication of what he’s doing.

Some of those news reports are specifying that the dinner should be void of a political agenda. How would that be possible if the Cardinal makes it political, outside of a possible jab for humor’s sake here and there? It’s a charity fundraiser people. To invite one candidate and not the other makes it political. If it’s political, I believe it could possibly affect the amount of funds raised.

I think we can agree there are limits to what one ought to do for money, right? So that really isn’t a justification for the invitation in and of itself, and no matter what. Can we agree on that? You wouldn’t think it okay if Cdl Dolan invited Assad because he thought it would raise a lot of money due to the novelty of it, would you?

I wouldn’t think so, and if not, then let’s not put too much importance on the money-raising aspect of it.

The question being raised in here is whether it was wise of the Cardinal for entirely different reasons to invite Obama. Correct?

And do you seriously think Obama’s attendance is devoid of political meaning for Obama? Obama’s attendance at things is always political. Remember when he walked away from Netanyahu at the dinner table? That was political entirely. Do you think his failing to ever visit Israel as president is without political motivation? And the very existence of this thread tells you that it has political, as well as moral, meaning for many.

The question raised by many here is whether it sends a wrong, or even scandalous message to others by seeming to condone Obama’s anti-Catholic actions. That’s a legitimate inquiry, and just saying “he’s a Cardinal, so shut up” doesn’t make it less so.

I am willing to have faith the Cardinal has thought it out and has devised a method of neutralizing potential harmful effects and effectively reasserting his message of disapproval of Obama’s persecution of the Church and promotion of immorality. But just because I think that, it doesn’t mean everybody else is somehow compelled to think it.

After all, Obama has evidenced that he’s capable of taking what churchmen have to offer and then stabbing them in the back with it. Many churchmen supported him in his Obamacare effort, apparently never realizing he would hit them with things like the HHS mandate now and probably compulsory surgical abortion support later; perhaps worse. The leaders at Notre Dame honored him against better advice, then somehow seemed dismayed when he told them they had to pay for abortifacients, sterilizations, in vitro fertilization and contraception.

There is no blame on people for being concerned that perhaps Cardinal Dolan might be presenting Obama with yet another way to bite the Church’s hand offered to him.

 

[PTL]

If that many Catholics are unaware of the HHS mandate that is to be nationwide, how many do you think are aware of or care about an invitation to a dinner?

According to pew poll, 64% Catholics nation wide heard little about bishops’ concern about HHS mandate. But, like the other poster said, all major media will make it a big deal to let people know about Dolan’s invitation to create a mis-guided message. When the Catholics do not know about the bishops’ concern but see the Cardinal’s invitation, it is very bad. They will be further deceived and thought the Church supports Obama.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think we can agree there are limits to what one ought to do for money, right? So that really isn’t a justification for the invitation in and of itself, and no matter what. Can we agree on that? You wouldn’t think it okay if Cdl Dolan invited Assad because he thought it would raise a lot of money due to the novelty of it, would you?

I wouldn’t think so, and if not, then let’s not put too much importance on the money-raising aspect of it.

The question being raised in here is whether it was wise of the Cardinal for entirely different reasons to invite Obama. Correct?

And do you seriously think Obama’s attendance is devoid of political meaning for Obama? Obama’s attendance at things is always political. Remember when he walked away from Netanyahu at the dinner table? That was political entirely. Do you think his failing to ever visit Israel as president is without political motivation? And the very existence of this thread tells you that it has political, as well as moral, meaning for many.

The question raised by many here is whether it sends a wrong, or even scandalous message to others by seeming to condone Obama’s anti-Catholic actions. That’s a legitimate inquiry, and just saying “he’s a Cardinal, so shut up” doesn’t make it less so.

I am willing to have faith the Cardinal has thought it out and has devised a method of neutralizing potential harmful effects and effectively reasserting his message of disapproval of Obama’s persecution of the Church and promotion of immorality. But just because I think that, it doesn’t mean everybody else is somehow compelled to think it.

After all, Obama has evidenced that he’s capable of taking what churchmen have to offer and then stabbing them in the back with it. Many churchmen supported him in his Obamacare effort, apparently never realizing he would hit them with things like the HHS mandate now and probably compulsory surgical abortion support later; perhaps worse. The leaders at Notre Dame honored him against better advice, then somehow seemed dismayed when he told them they had to pay for abortifacients, sterilizations, in vitro fertilization and contraception.

There is no blame on people for being concerned that perhaps Cardinal Dolan might be presenting Obama with yet another way to bite the Church’s hand offered to him.

Would Romney’s attendance be devoid of political meaning for Romney? Of course it’s not. Why isn’t anyone holding Romney accountable similar to the way they view the Cardinal’s actions and hold him accountable? Romney wants to be leader of this country and claims ‘a higher ground’ than his opponent. Why isn’t everyone questioning him attending a non political public event with someone he claims to be totally at odds with? Isn’t this administration’s actions just as much an attack on Romney’s faith and religious liberty as it is ours? Is Romney’s agreeing to sit down with his opponent a better decision than the Cardinal’s decision to invite them both in the name of charity?

Because of those questions above, I think it’s more for political reasons that people are questioning the Cardinal’s actions and it seems hypocritical to single him out in this situation.

Take him to the assembly…7 x 70…love one another as he loved us…forgive them for they know not what they do…I can’t help but see Christian values in how the Cardinal is handling himself; but if people can see him as mistaken, I’m sure they will see my view as mistaken.

If there is a fault with the Cardinal’s decision, it’s certainly through a mistake and not intentional, yet people are taking him to task publicly, some very harshly. He doesn’t deserve that.

 

[JimG]

Would Romney’s attendance be devoid of political meaning for Romney? Of course it’s not. Why isn’t anyone holding Romney accountable similar to the way they view the Cardinal’s actions and hold him accountable? Romney wants to be leader of this country and claims ‘a higher ground’ than his opponent. Why isn’t everyone questioning him attending a non political public event with someone he claims to be totally at odds with? Isn’t this administration’s actions just as much an attack on Romney’s faith and religious liberty as it is ours? Is Romney’s agreeing to sit down with his opponent a better decision than the Cardinal’s decision to invite them both in the name of charity?

Because of those questions above, I think it’s more for political reasons that people are questioning the Cardinal’s actions and it seems hypocritical to single him out in this situation.

Take him to the assembly…7 x 70…love one another as he loved us…forgive them for they know not what they do…I can’t help but see Christian values in how the Cardinal is handling himself; but if people can see him as mistaken, I’m sure they will see my view as mistaken.

If there is a fault with the Cardinal’s decision, it’s certainly through a mistake and not intentional, yet people are taking him to task publicly, some very harshly. He doesn’t deserve that.

If by “political reasons,” you mean people are concerned about the political consequences of having the most pro-abortion president ever attending the Al Smith dinner, then yes, it is for political reasons that people are concerned.

But I’m not too concerned, even though I consider this president to be a clear danger to religious liberty. I trust that the Cardinal knows what he’s doing.

 

[RobbyS]

He can do whatever he wants; he’s the Archbishop of New York, a Cardinal, and is his own man. If he invited both candidates to the dinner, then they’re invited; they said they’d come, and they will.

You people want the Cardinal to lose face by telling Obama and Romney to forget it?

AS you say the Cardinal has put himself into this position, and a strange one it is. “It’s war to the knives,” but then again, not so fast?” Is he hedging his bets, and trying not to anger the President in case he wins re-election?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

When the Catholics do not know about the bishops’ concern but see the Cardinal’s invitation, it is very bad. They will be further deceived and thought the Church supports Obama.

I would hope that they are more than Lumpenkatoliken, and not take things shallowly. Is it too much to ask that they check beyond what they might think?