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

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
yukonbrad said:
Again I have to respond to some disturbing comments made by certian individuals.
  1. Catholicism does NOT equal right wing political beliefs (Republican) there are many Catholics who are to the left (Democrats). We have people of faith of many political beliefs not just in America but around the world. We are united in our faith and belief in Christ Jesus NOT any political agenda.
  2. The glib and casual use of phrases and terms from the holocaust (eg Obamas’ Gestapo) is in really bad taste. YOU have NO idea what such oppression is nor have even come close to it! Such usage is childish and not in keeping with our faith. I grew up in Northern Ireland during the Troubles and even that is overshadowed by what the Jewish people endured under Nazi Germany.
Christ taught us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek. You are quick to point out our faith’s opposition to abortion and homosexuality but seem to forget how we, as christians and indeed Catholics, are supposed to behave and treat others - even those who may denounce us.
Click to expand...
Meaning no disrespect to the victims of the Holocaust, but I cannot believe that we have lost the use of certain terms to describe evil when we see it. Were the Obama administration to start rounding-up Catholic clergy and confining them to one of the FEMA camps located around the country, would we not be allowed to call them “concentration camps?” And naming something as evil is not inconsistent with “turning the other cheek.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer submitted to imprisonment and execution by the Nazis, but wasn’t afraid to call them out on their evil crimes.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
Were the Obama administration to start rounding-up Catholic clergy and confining them to one of the FEMA camps located around the country, would we not be allowed to call them "concentration camps?.
Click to expand...
First off, that’s awfully paranoid. It would never happen. Secondly, during WWII, our government used the term “internment camps” for the camps it forced Japanese Americans into, but no one objected to calling them concentration camps.

Such thoughts are akin to the crazy talk over at World Net Daily. It’s inappropriate on CAF.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
First off, that’s awfully paranoid. It would never happen. Secondly, during WWII, our government used the term “internment camps” for the camps it forced Japanese Americans into, but no one objected to calling them concentration camps.

Such thoughts are akin to the crazy talk over at World Net Daily. It’s inappropriate on CAF.
Click to expand...
No, Obama’s policies are more like those of the French, who have reduced the Church to social irrelevance.
 
RobbyS said:
What about not keeping his Notre Dame pledge to honor conscientious objectors ? Fool me once, shame on you ; fool me twice, shame on me?
Click to expand...
Yeah, what about that? But your post has nothing to do with persecution.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
First off, that’s awfully paranoid. It would never happen. Secondly, during WWII, our government used the term “internment camps” for the camps it forced Japanese Americans into, but no one objected to calling them concentration camps.

Such thoughts are akin to the crazy talk over at World Net Daily. It’s inappropriate on CAF.
Click to expand...
It may be crazy talk, and I don’t ever peruse World Net Daily. Still, if the nation pursues the path against religious liberty which Obama has set it on, and if I live long enough, I may yet end my days in a re-education camp for Catholics, learning to love Big Brother!
 
Can someone please lay out a list of reasons why the invite is a good thing and won’t cause scandal? I read through the entire thread and I don’t remember reading anything other than…the Cardinal said so, or…Jesus ate with sinners. As if that has anything to do with this dinner invite. If the “Jesus ate with sinners” quote is valid here, then why can’t we say the same for the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb”? Will Jesus sit and eat with those who die in mortal sin? Catholic doctrine says “NO”. So why should ANYONE do it when the scandal is so great?

Another question is, since apparently directly pushing legislation to kill babies inside the womb or outside, and shredding the Sacrament of Marriage is not enough…what would be a good reason for a Catholic institution to NOT invite a politician to a fund raiser?

God bless.
 
shocktrooper said:
Can someone please lay out a list of reasons why the invite is a good thing and won’t cause scandal? I read through the entire thread and I don’t remember reading anything other than…the Cardinal said so, or…Jesus ate with sinners. As if that has anything to do with this dinner invite. If the “Jesus ate with sinners” quote is valid here, then why can’t we say the same for the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb”? Will Jesus sit and eat with those who die in mortal sin? Catholic doctrine says “NO”. So why should ANYONE do it when the scandal is so great?

Another question is, since apparently directly pushing legislation to kill babies inside the womb or outside, and shredding the Sacrament of Marriage is not enough…what would be a good reason for a Catholic institution to NOT invite a politician to a fund raiser?

God bless.
Click to expand...
This dinner, just as Christ eating and drinking with sinners, was not instituted as a sacrament. The disciples wrote more on the specifics of the sacrament of the Eucharist and did not confuse the issue when they dined and drank with the gentiles.

Who did Christ exclude from coming to Him? His warnings were to those who kept others from coming to Him.

You have no possibility of helping the conversion of one’s heart if you stay away from them.
Mat 5:38 You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
Mat 5:39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other:
Mat 5:40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.
Mat 5:43 You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy.
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.
Mat 5:46 For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this?
Mat 5:47 And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this?
Mat 5:48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.
Click to expand...
 
Trooper – I can’t answer the first question (and don’t see ANY good from such an invite) but I can try to answer the second question.

To not invite Mr. Obama would illustrate to the nation that the Church has huge disagreements with the sitting president (not simple little disagreements!) and might invite him to a serious discussion of the issues, but not a social, back-slapping dinner. The former would be a place to help convert the heart, the latter can only backfire as a PR issue when the photos appear in the news.

What disagreements are there? We’re talking blatant murder of innocents, religious persecution, and a fundamental twisting of the definition of marriage, for starters. (That’s a little different than something like the death penalty, where the Church may disagree with a president, but acknowledges the state’s right to use it if necessary.)
 
surritter said:
Trooper – I can’t answer the first question (and don’t see ANY good from such an invite) but I can try to answer the second question.

To not invite Mr. Obama would illustrate to the nation that the Church has huge disagreements with the sitting president (not simple little disagreements!) and might invite him to a serious discussion of the issues, but not a social, back-slapping dinner. The former would be a place to help convert the heart, the latter can only backfire as a PR issue when the photos appear in the news.

What disagreements are there? We’re talking blatant murder of innocents, religious persecution, and a fundamental twisting of the definition of marriage, for starters. (That’s a little different than something like the death penalty, where the Church may disagree with a president, but acknowledges the state’s right to use it if necessary.)
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
This dinner, just as Christ eating and drinking with sinners, was not instituted as a sacrament.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree but he never “hung out” or “lapped it up” with sinners just for the sake of being nice. He did it to bring them closer to Him, to provoke them to conversion and to follow Him. But why can’t I take your “but Christ ate with Sinners” and expand it even further? You taking it out of context only allows me to do so also. Also, Christ brought the New Covenant and did so in a divine way. Cardinal Dolan is not bringing new divinely revealed revelation with him to this dinner. His job is simply to protect the truth and to bring souls to Christ. Being a good shepherd entails protecting the flock first from wolves in sheep’s clothing. I feel he is personally opening the door for the wolf to enter through.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Who did Christ exclude from coming to Him? His warnings were to those who kept others from coming to Him.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I think this warning should be considered by our American Bishops. Who was it that said the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops?
Prodigal_Son1 said:
You have no possibility of helping the conversion of one’s heart if you stay away from them.
Click to expand...
So you admit the power of prayer has no effect. Must it always boil down to materialism?
 
shocktrooper said:
Being a good shepherd entails protecting the flock first from wolves in sheep’s clothing. I feel he is personally opening the door for the wolf to enter through.
Click to expand...
What did you think Obama was going to do there except dine with the Cardinal? Should the Cardinal hold up a crucifix and hang garlic when the President enters the room?

What hyperbole! Puleeze!! The wolf is going to skulk into the banquet hall, snarling and baring his fangs to all the crying and moaning fearful Catholics in attendance as the Cardinal stands there blissfully unknowingly. Heaven protect us, for we cannot resist being consumed by Obama! One rubber chicken dinner and all Catholicism in New York City is lost. 🤷
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
What did you think Obama was going to do there except dine with the Cardinal? Should the Cardinal hold up a crucifix and hang garlic when the President enters the room?

What hyperbole! Puleeze!! The wolf is going to skulk into the banquet hall, snarling and baring his fangs to all the crying and moaning fearful Catholics in attendance as the Cardinal stands there blissfully unknowingly. Heaven protect us, for we cannot resist being consumed by Obama! One rubber chicken dinner and all Catholicism in New York City is lost. 🤷
Click to expand...
Rich, I think your response proves you really don’t have one worth considering. Thanks anyway.
 
shocktrooper said:
Rich, I think your response proves you really don’t have one worth considering. Thanks anyway.
Click to expand...
I have one point - the Cardinal invited the President to a dinner. The Cardinal is not a fool. Neither the Cardinal nor the President is going to make a political speech. The Cardinal is under no obligation to listen to me or to those who believe that the Cardinal is facilitating Obama’s agenda. Sorry you don’t concede the Cardinal’s decision to his best judgment.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I have one point - the Cardinal invited the President to a dinner. The Cardinal is not a fool. Neither the Cardinal nor the President is going to make a political speech. The Cardinal is under no obligation to listen to me or to those who believe that the Cardinal is facilitating Obama’s agenda. Sorry you don’t concede the Cardinal’s decision to his best judgment.
Click to expand...
Rich, I believe we are all fools, from time to time. The good bishop is not impeccable and his judgment can be questioned. Let us not forget that marriage was redefined in NY under his watch and made law by Catholics under his care. He scarcely even put up a fight. All the smiles and empty rhetoric seemed to do him no good. What makes you think this time will be any different?
 
Veritatis splendor, PJPII
I address myself to you, Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, who share with me the responsibility of safeguarding “sound teaching” (2 Tim 4:3), with the intention of clearly setting forth certain aspects of doctrine which are of crucial importance in facing what is certainly a genuine crisis, since the difficulties which it engenders have most serious implications for the moral life of the faithful and for communion in the Church, as well as for a just and fraternal social life…

I posted this as an example to follow. Clear lines need to be set so that scandal is not allowed. PJPII seeked to do this in the encyclical concerning morality. I think the same principal can be applied here.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I have one point - the Cardinal invited the President to a dinner. The Cardinal is not a fool. Neither the Cardinal nor the President is going to make a political speech. The Cardinal is under no obligation to listen to me or to those who believe that the Cardinal is facilitating Obama’s agenda. Sorry you don’t concede the Cardinal’s decision to his best judgment.
Click to expand...
And we are free to do so. This does not in any means offend his office.
 
shocktrooper said:
Yes, I agree but he never “hung out” or “lapped it up” with sinners just for the sake of being nice. He did it to bring them closer to Him, to provoke them to conversion and to follow Him. But why can’t I take your “but Christ ate with Sinners” and expand it even further? You taking it out of context only allows me to do so also. Also, Christ brought the New Covenant and did so in a divine way. Cardinal Dolan is not bringing new divinely revealed revelation with him to this dinner. His job is simply to protect the truth and to bring souls to Christ. Being a good shepherd entails protecting the flock first from wolves in sheep’s clothing. I feel he is personally opening the door for the wolf to enter through.

Yes, and I think this warning should be considered by our American Bishops. Who was it that said the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops?

So you admit the power of prayer has no effect. Must it always boil down to materialism?
Click to expand...
You still seem to be mixing up dining and drinking with the last supper. They were very different.

You also seem to take a ‘dishonest’ tactic in placing words as mine. I never said the power of prayer has no effect.

People are holding a man of the Church responsible, but the possible leader of the country who claims a higher moral ground can do however he pleases, without question. Is this politics first, Church second?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top