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

[Rich_Olszewski]

Sure he could. He could say “if either if you has ever been sued in Federal COurt by the Catholic Church, you are not welcome. Now, have either if you?” You most certainly can discriminate on these things. There are ALWAYS reasons why people can be disqualified from events. Not saying he SHOULD have done it this way, but he could have.

Yes, and the Cardinal could have said in turn,“Being sued in Federal Court by some dioceses in America disqualifies YOU from attendance at the banquet,” and “following a religion that most people consider to be a cult disqualifies YOU from attending.” Not saying that he should have done it this way either, but he could have.

This isn;t a normal presidency in that regard, and the old rules of “let’s put politics aside for one night” don’t apply.

According to you, okay, but I would put the Cardinal’s judgment when it comes to his Archdiocese and whom he invites above anyone else’s except the Pope.

 

[shocktrooper]

Yes, and the Cardinal could have said in turn,“Being sued in Federal Court by some dioceses in America disqualifies YOU from attendance at the banquet,” and “following a religion that most people consider to be a cult disqualifies YOU from attending.” Not saying that he should have done it this way either, but he could have.

According to you, okay, but I would put the Cardinal’s judgment when it comes to his Archdiocese and whom he invites above anyone else’s except the Pope.

I think the quality of Catholics in an Archdiocese should stand alone when reflecting the quality and prudential judgement of an Archbishop. Does anyone know the voting habits in New York when it comes to moral issues such as abortion, contraception and other intrinsic evils?

 

[Ender]

Though I disagree with you, the Cardinal could not disinvite the President without disinviting Romney.

I didn’t suggest that the cardinal rescind his invitation to the president I said he shouldn’t have issued it in the first place and given that this is an annual political dinner there is surely no reason Romney couldn’t have been invited. Romney and Obama have opposite positions on issues about which the Church is deeply concerned; why should Romney be treated the same way as Obama when there is nothing objectionable in his (Romney’s) stances?

I think it went well and was a welcome oasis of peace and conviviality in the midst of an otherwise give-no-quarter campaign by both candidates.

Peace and conviviality are lovely things, but not if they mean compromising Church principles by behaving as if our actions were not guided by them.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Yes, and the Cardinal could have said in turn,“Being sued in Federal Court by some dioceses in America disqualifies YOU from attendance at the banquet,” and “following a religion that most people consider to be a cult disqualifies YOU from attending.” Not saying that he should have done it this way either, but he could have.

Not unless he wanted to descend into bigotry. Besides, he had already said that Romney’s religion was not a problem.
*“There may be reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney as president of the United States,” *Dolan said during an appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation. “That he’s a Mormon cannot be one of them.”
Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think the quality of Catholics in an Archdiocese should stand alone when reflecting the quality and prudential judgement of an Archbishop. Does anyone know the voting habits in New York when it comes to moral issues such as abortion, contraception and other intrinsic evils?

Yeah. New York is a liberal state, and New York City a hotbed of strongly liberal positions including abortion.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Not unless he wanted to descend into bigotry. Besides, he had already said that Romney’s religion was not a problem.
*“There may be reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney as president of the United States,” *Dolan said during an appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation. “That he’s a Mormon cannot be one of them.”
Ender

I know that, but I was speaking hypothetically as was He Man.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I didn’t suggest that the cardinal rescind his invitation to the president I said he shouldn’t have issued it in the first place and given that this is an annual political dinner there is surely no reason Romney couldn’t have been invited. Romney and Obama have opposite positions on issues about which the Church is deeply concerned; why should Romney be treated the same way as Obama when there is nothing objectionable in his (Romney’s) stances?

From a secular point of view there is no difference between the two men as candidates. That’s why. Obama was due an invitation no less than was Romney.

I trust the Cardinal’s good judgment. Period.

 

[Ender]

From a secular point of view there is no difference between the two men as candidates.

This kind of makes my point. The fact that the dinner is a fund raiser for Catholic Charities seems lost on a lot of people. It doesn’t need to be pointed out that the Church should not have a secular perspective … and should not give the perception that she does.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I get the impression some people here are still seeing this as a political event. Not everything in life is about political posturing. The Catholic Church is first and foremost, Catholic, as in universal, not partisan. This dinner is about civility, without which no national discourse can ever take place on abortion or any other topic.

When I see the criticism of Cardinal Dolan my mind resonates with a picture of the Pharisees and hypocrites that accused Jesus for dining with sinners and tax collectors.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

When I see the criticism of Cardinal Dolan my mind resonates with a picture of the Pharisees and hypocrites that accused Jesus for dining with sinners and tax collectors.

Criticism of His Eminence smacks too much of holier-than-thouism.I would suggest to those who are critical of the Cardinal to petition Rome to have him disciplined and even removed if they are so bothered by his administration of his Archdiocese.

 

[jwinch2]

I get the impression some people here are still seeing this as a political event. Not everything in life is about political posturing. The Catholic Church is first and foremost, Catholic, as in universal, not partisan. This dinner is about civility, without which no national discourse can ever take place on abortion or any other topic.

When I see the criticism of Cardinal Dolan my mind resonates with a picture of the Pharisees and hypocrites that accused Jesus for dining with sinners and tax collectors.

Agreed to a point. Many people have the concern, and I am one of them, that the veneer of Catholic legitimacy on the part of President Obama gives the impression that the Church is not as serious on her conflict with the administration as she should be, that there is a sort of tacit endorsement going on, and also frankly, many of us are tired of seeing candidates who embrace the culture of death and secularism being embraced by our bishops. There are many who feel that a good number of faithful Catholics have been led astray by those issues, or at the least, been given scandal.

Many of us stated that the pictures of Obama and Dolan side by side laughing and smiling would be used to promote the idea that everything is fine and that Catholics should consider voting for Obama. And we were right, such pictures have already surfaced doing exactly that.

As I wrote to Cardinal Dolan when this first came up, I understand his position and his reasoning, I believe that he is doing the best he can. I simply hope that he knows what he is doing and what the implications of his actions will be. The Church in America is not very politically savvy and our bishops, in an attempt to be charitable and good men, have been played more than once.

 

[Ender]

When I see the criticism of Cardinal Dolan my mind resonates with a picture of the Pharisees and hypocrites that accused Jesus for dining with sinners and tax collectors.

This is disappointing. Have you no reasoned argument you can make in response to the points that have been raised? Perhaps if your position was stronger you could find a way to defend it, but insults are not arguments. Reasonable explanations can be given both for inviting and not inviting the president and I’m sure they occurred to Cardinal Dolan. I’m also sure it wasn’t an easy choice but let’s not pretend that his choice was correct simply because it was his to make.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

This is disappointing. Have you no reasoned argument you can make in response to the points that have been raised?

I did. I will not do more to satisfy you.

let’s not pretend that his choice was correct simply because it was his to make.

Because it was (his choice), it is correct. This is the nature of authority.

The issues have never been considered in this tradition and never will. It is simply not what this is about. It is a dinner and fund-raiser. For those that can not understand this, I have no answer. If Jesus did not mind eating with the worst sinners, neither should we. The servant is not better than the Master.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

This is disappointing. Have you no reasoned argument you can make in response to the points that have been raised? Perhaps if your position was stronger you could find a way to defend it, but insults are not arguments. Reasonable explanations can be given both for inviting and not inviting the president and I’m sure they occurred to Cardinal Dolan. I’m also sure it wasn’t an easy choice but let’s not pretend that his choice was correct simply because it was his to make.

Cardinal Dolan is “the man” in the New York Archdiocese. There is no correct or incorrect decision unless you are his boss. He made the right choice in my opinion, but that opinion counts for nothing just as the opinions of those opposed to the invitation count for nothing. “The buck stops here” is as appropriate in the Chancery Office as in the White House. He made the decision and that’s that.

 

[He_Man]

I did. I will not do more to satisfy you.

Because it was (his choice), it is correct. This is the nature of authority.

The issues have never been considered in this tradition and never will. It is simply not what this is about. It is a dinner and fund-raiser. For those that can not understand this, I have no answer. If Jesus did not mind eating with the worst sinners, neither should we. The servant is not better than the Master.

I agree about dining with sinners. I question however whether Hitler or Mussolini would have gotten the invite. Or Pol Pot. They too were sinners. As is the leader of Iran.

I don’t think it is a stretch to say that there are people to whom the invitation would not have been extended, which means there are arbitrary standards applied to the process. And if it is arbitrary, then one can easily argue for or against who should be invited, and not be wrong in that argument.

If there are people who would not have gotten the invite, it means it isn’t an apolitical dinner, and a time to put partisanship aside. It simply means it is a time to put politics aside, unless we just can’t put politics aside… And that kind of rings hollow.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I agree about dining with sinners. I question however whether Hitler or Mussolini would have gotten the invite. Or Pol Pot. They too were sinners. As is the leader of Iran.

I don’t think it is a stretch to say that there are people to whom the invitation would not have been extended, which means there are arbitrary standards applied to the process. And if it is arbitrary, then one can easily argue for or against who should be invited, and not be wrong in that argument.

If there are people who would not have gotten the invite, it means it isn’t an apolitical dinner, and a time to put partisanship aside. It simply means it is a time to put politics aside, unless we just can’t put politics aside… And that kind of rings hollow.

Along with Hitler and Pot Pol, Charles Manson wouldn’t have been invited either. Don’t know about anyone else, but I for one trust the Cardinal’s good judgment. Does he run his archdiocese or doesn’t he? Should he put all his hard decisions to a popular vote of the Catholics in New York City and be bound by that vote - either way?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And if it is arbitrary, then one can easily argue for or against who should be invited, and not be wrong in that argument.

Maybe so, but the Catholic Church is NOT a democracy. I’m certain that the Cardinal heard both sides of the argument, and made his decision. “New York has spoken, the case is closed.”

 

[Joe_5859]

Along with Hitler and Pot Pol, Charles Manson wouldn’t have been invited either. Don’t know about anyone else, but I for one trust the Cardinal’s good judgment. Does he run his archdiocese or doesn’t he? **Should he put all his hard decisions to a popular vote of the Catholics in New York City and be bound by that vote - either way? **

Can you imagine that?

I still don’t quite understand why people are so scandalized by this whole thing. Does anyone really imagine that people interpret this as Cardinal Dolan saying that Obama’s policies are just fine? If that’s what he really thought, he’d drop the lawsuit.

It seems to me that the bulk of the negative backlash is because people are scandalized at the possibility that others might be scandalized. I think that’s a precarious road to follow as it necessitates us making some pretty big assumptions about our neighbors whom we assume will be scandalized.

Certainly, a dinner invitation is firmly in the realm of “prudential judgment”, not faith and morals. People can disagree with the decision. But I’m willing to bet Cardinal Dolan thought this through a bit more than any of us, and probably from a better vantage point.

His goal was quite clear: to bring civility to a contentious political landscape. No more, no less. I think that’s a pretty good goal. How are we going to get our critics to give Catholic moral teaching any consideration if we’re constantly going for the jugular?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I agree about dining with sinners. I question however whether Hitler or Mussolini would have gotten the invite. Or Pol Pot. They too were sinners. As is the leader of Iran.

I don’t think it is a stretch to say that there are people to whom the invitation would not have been extended, which means there are arbitrary standards applied to the process. And if it is arbitrary, then one can easily argue for or against who should be invited, and not be wrong in that argument.

If there are people who would not have gotten the invite, it means it isn’t an apolitical dinner, and a time to put partisanship aside. It simply means it is a time to put politics aside, unless we just can’t put politics aside… And that kind of rings hollow.

I think the answer is that the world leaders you mentioned were totalitarian leaders of despotic regimes.

Barrack Obama, is the duly elected President of the US. We still are a democracy, the Constitution still stands, and in a few day we will have an election, where we will vote.

Really, as a person who grew up in NYC I think the first time I heard about the Al Smith dinner was 4 years ago. I was flipping the channels and saw Cardinal Egan and the two candidates.

Was there an outcry back then? I don’t know. I don’t recall.

I think the actually sad part of this ordeal is that Cardinal Dolan is an orthodox teacher and leader. Yet people are believing that the opposite is true

It was a dinner. Probably a rubber chicken not so tasty dinner.(depending on the caterer) I never saw it as an endorsement of either candidate.

 

[pnewton]

I agree about dining with sinners. I question however whether Hitler or Mussolini would have gotten the invite. Or Pol Pot. They too were sinners. As is the leader of Iran.

Dead people and foreign people can not run for the presidency. At this time, no such notorious person could conceivably be a candidate.

If there are people who would not have gotten the invite, it means it isn’t an apolitical dinner, and a time to put partisanship aside…

This is not an opinion I hold, especially since you included such extreme suggestions for the presidency.