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

[He_Man]

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?

No, Manson would not either. Which is why the argument that “this is not a time to play politics” makes no sense and does not really apply. Everyone would in fact play politics with who could be invited, it is just to what degree do you find the invitee unworthy of the invitation. If Pol Pot or Manson would not be invited, we can fairly say it is political, and can also say some people are deemed unacceptable. So in the end I don’t disagree with the Bishop per se since it is his call, but I disagree with people on here who say it is apolitical.

That’s really the crux. To claim, as some have done, that this is just harmless fun and should be apolitical is not true, as there is little in life that this belief applies to, except maybe death.

Funny, we listen to the Bishop’s on decisions that do not involve morality but political etiquette, but cast aside other Bishop’s who tell us clearly about how to vote?

Granted, you aren’t voting for either candidate, so this is more for others, Rich.

 

[He_Man]

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.

I have said I don’t have strong feelings one way or another, because I can see both sides, and in fact, defer to Cardinal Dolan. It is his Diocese, and I trust he has weighed the decision and prayed more than I have in fact.

But if you consider the gravity of abortion, the holocaust of more people than any other in history, and what that means, I just don’t see much difference between say, the Nazis, and those who support unfettered abortion.

And you kind of proved my point. It cannot be apolitical, if despots whose politics are despicable, aren’t welcome. So it is political, and if you are “bad” enough, you likely wouldn’t be welcome.

 

[He_Man]

Dead people and foreign people can not run for the presidency. At this time, no such notorious person could conceivably be a candidate.
This is not an opinion I hold, especially since you included such extreme suggestions for the presidency.

That’s fine, and of course, it is speculative. But I for one believe everything is political in today’s world, save for illness and death. We have politicized who can live and who can die in this world. There really isn’t much left if you account for both extremes.

 

[jwinch2]

catholicexchange.com/eating-with-tax-collectors/

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

catholicexchange.com/eating-with-tax-collectors/

As the Cardinal himself said, “If I didn’t eat with sinners, I’d always be eating alone.”

 

[Joe_5859]

catholicexchange.com/eating-with-tax-collectors/

Thanks. I find it sad how many of the comments beneath the article are so critical of the Cardinal.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Thanks. I find it sad how many of the comments beneath the article are so critical of the Cardinal.

I think that there is an arrogance to such comments, saying in effect that the Cardinal’s thought out judgment does not match theirs, who are so much more informed and knowledgeable than His Eminence.

 

[Ender]

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

I had to pause before writing a response to this as so many possibilities presented themselves. By this definition we should approve of Cardinal Law’s choice of transferring pedophiles around the Boston diocese rather than removing them from positions where they could continue to do harm. Heck, if the nature of authority means that any command decision a person makes is valid then we have no basis to condemn the actions of Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot. Are you sure you wouldn’t like to reconsider your definition?

The issues have never been considered in this tradition and never will.

Well, excepting at least 1996 and 2004 when the candidates were not invited, precisely because of “this”.The Catholic Archdiocese of New York - which agonized internally over whether Senator John Kerry, a Catholic who supports abortion rights, should be invited - decided in the end not to invite Mr. Kerry or the man he hopes to unseat, President Bush. (NY Times article)

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’m sure you don’t mean we should suspend our moral standards simply to have a successful fund raiser but it is difficult to know how to apply your advice. For example, we don’t let non-Catholics receive communion which is after all the Lord’s supper. Based on that it would seem that there are times when it is not appropriate to share a meal … or a dais.

Cardinal O’Connor faced a similar problem in 1996 and dealt with it differently:* the only other time in more than four decades that the nation’s presidential candidates were not invited to the dinner was in 1996, when organizers decided not to invite President Bill Clinton after Cardinal John O’Connor criticized him for vetoing a bill that would have outlawed some late-term abortions. His challenger, Bob Dole, was not invited either, to keep the dinner from taking on a one-sided tone.* (NYT)
Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I had to pause before writing a response to this as so many possibilities presented themselves. By this definition we should approve of Cardinal Law’s choice of transferring pedophiles around the Boston diocese rather than removing them from positions where they could continue to do harm. Heck, if the nature of authority means that any command decision a person makes is valid then we have no basis to condemn the actions of Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot. Are you sure you wouldn’t like to reconsider your definition?
Well, excepting at least 1996 and 2004 when the candidates were not invited, precisely because of “this”.The Catholic Archdiocese of New York - which agonized internally over whether Senator John Kerry, a Catholic who supports abortion rights, should be invited - decided in the end not to invite Mr. Kerry or the man he hopes to unseat, President Bush. (NY Times article)
I’m sure you don’t mean we should suspend our moral standards simply to have a successful fund raiser but it is difficult to know how to apply your advice. For example, we don’t let non-Catholics receive communion which is after all the Lord’s supper. Based on that it would seem that there are times when it is not appropriate to share a meal … or a dais.

Cardinal O’Connor faced a similar problem in 1996 and dealt with it differently:* the only other time in more than four decades that the nation’s presidential candidates were not invited to the dinner was in 1996, when organizers decided not to invite President Bill Clinton after Cardinal John O’Connor criticized him for vetoing a bill that would have outlawed some late-term abortions. His challenger, Bob Dole, was not invited either, to keep the dinner from taking on a one-sided tone.* (NYT)
Ender

Who cares now?

But…you may write a letter to the Cardinal, collect a bunch of signatures, and tell him in no uncertain terms how he’s failed the Catholics in the Archdiocese, suggest that he resign after repenting of his grievous error, and let the Pope know what sort of an Archbishop you want to replace Cardinal Dolan.

Then you can plan a banquet of welcome for the new Archbishop.

 

[pnewton]

I had to pause before writing a response to this as so many possibilities presented themselves.

Cardinal Dolan was acting not only within his authority, but within acceptable limits of prudence. Comparing nutty stuff does not sway me.

I’m sure you don’t mean we should suspend our moral standards simply to have a successful fund raiser but it is difficult to know how to apply your advice.

There were no abortions at the fundraiser.

There is nothing materially cooperating with evil by eating withs someone who believes in abortion or speaking with them.

For example, we don’t let non-Catholics receive communion which is after all the Lord’s supper.

Mass is liturgy. Not the same thing by a long shot.

 

[He_Man]

Cardinal Dolan was acting not only within his authority, but within acceptable limits of prudence. Comparing nutty stuff does not sway me.
There were no abortions at the fundraiser.

There is nothing materially cooperating with evil by eating withs someone who believes in abortion or speaking with them.

Mass is liturgy. Not the same thing by a long shot.

The bottom line is the rules are arbitrary (see the made up rules of this dinner versus the theological truths of Mass), and as such, the Cardinal is free to draw a line, and I don’t disagree per se. But that line is a made up, arbitrary line he decided on.

I just disagree with the notion that these things aren’t political. Everything is political, fair or not. Everything. As seen by past events where candidates were not invited (2004), or as seen by the fact there are clearly levels of acceptability that would preclude some people from attending, there are arbitrary lines that are adopted by whomever is in charge. In this case, the Cardinal made the call.

But let’s not act like the decision is infallible, or even driven by unquestionable doctrine. He made the call he felt was best, and he probably knows more about the intricacies than I do, so I defer to him in this case.

 

[pnewton]

But let’s not act like the decision is infallible, or even driven by unquestionable doctrine.

Of course. Infallibility simply can not apply to such decisions. Some of the coolest moves in history that the saints have made would have been totally blasted by Republican Catholics today as compromising “the Faith”. This was one such cool move. I mean, did everyone here is speech on the “un’s”? That was great.

 

[He_Man]

Of course. Infallibility simply can not apply to such decisions. Some of the coolest moves in history that the saints have made would have been totally blasted by Republican Catholics today as compromising “the Faith”. This was one such cool move. I mean, did everyone here is speech on the “un’s”? That was great.

Well, that’s your unprovable assertion, and you are welcome to it. One could make the same statement about modern Democrats. Kind of irrelevant either way.

 

[Elizium23]

Okay, so Obama has done more to promote abortion than any other president in history.

Romney’s pro-abortion voting record is already out there. He has flip-flopped and promised to oppose abortion, with some stupid exceptions.

Who’s really going to stop abortion?

Could Romney stop abortion? Is he going to end the practice once and for all once he gets into office? If he could, I suspect that a few more Catholics would vote for him. I suspect that a few more people in general might choose him if there were a real prospect of ending the new holocaust in our time.

Could Obama end abortion? If he got into office in 2008, and says, “Hey guys, I’m going to write an executive order to ban all abortions nationwide,” the Dem party is going to laugh derisively at him and say “good luck with that” and then Congress and the Supreme Court and 50 (maybe 49 or 48) states will all laugh in unison and tell him to go shove it, we will keep our abortion.

Ending abortion will be a long, horrible slog. Support for abortion is worldwide and shows no sign of flagging. Nations are falling like dominos in their support for this evil, especially “Catholic” nations, and by the time they get it, they are addicted to it. It’s like contraception. You can tell people how horrible and awful it is but once it is in their hands you will have to pry it away when they are cold and dead.

By all means, vote against Obama. Vote him out for his relentless pursuit of the Culture of Death and the Population Control agenda. But don’t for one minute delude yourself that one person can stop abortion, or that the Republican Party has the cojones to stand up united and end abortion in a concerted effort. Abortion may die a death of a thousand cuts in the end, where we have legislated against it so much that it is rare, but from where I sit, it will be legal for a long, long time to come.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Could Romney stop abortion? Is he going to end the practice once and for all once he gets into office? If he could, I suspect that a few more Catholics would vote for him. I suspect that a few more people in general might choose him if there were a real prospect of ending the new holocaust in our time.

I’d go from a non-voter to a voter if I believed that Romney could stop abortion within his first term, if he gets elected.

Ending abortion will be a long, horrible slog. Support for abortion is worldwide and shows no sign of flagging. Nations are falling like dominos in their support for this evil, especially “Catholic” nations, and by the time they get it, they are addicted to it. It’s like contraception. You can tell people how horrible and awful it is but once it is in their hands you will have to pry it away when they are cold and dead.

Very well put. Anyone who thinks that abortion will be gone from the United States and the world in the next decade or so is deluding him or herself.

But don’t for one minute delude yourself that one person can stop abortion, or that the Republican Party has the cojones to stand up united and end abortion in a concerted effort. Abortion may die a death of a thousand cuts in the end, where we have legislated against it so much that it is rare, but from where I sit, it will be legal for a long, long time to come.

 

[scipio337]

…Ending abortion will be a long, horrible slog. Support for abortion is worldwide and shows no sign of flagging. Nations are falling like dominos in their support for this evil, especially “Catholic” nations, and by the time they get it, they are addicted to it. It’s like contraception. You can tell people how horrible and awful it is but once it is in their hands you will have to pry it away when they are cold and dead.

By all means, vote against Obama. Vote him out for his relentless pursuit of the Culture of Death and the Population Control agenda. But don’t for one minute delude yourself that one person can stop abortion, or that the Republican Party has the cojones to stand up united and end abortion in a concerted effort. Abortion may die a death of a thousand cuts in the end, where we have legislated against it so much that it is rare, but from where I sit, it will be legal for a long, long time to come.

The “death of a thousand cuts” begins with a single cut. While abortion support is increasing worldwide, the pro-life view is growing in the US, thanks to Blessed Pope John Paul II, and the unflagging support of the Church.

There will be at least one SCOTUS appointment in the next Presidential term, and a MAJOR one: The retirement of pro-choice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Overturning Roe may be the very first step in the death of abortion, and certainly would go a very long way in limiting the amount in this country.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The “death of a thousand cuts” begins with a single cut. While abortion support is increasing worldwide, the pro-life view is growing in the US, thanks to Blessed Pope John Paul II, and the unflagging support of the Church.

What about efforts outside the U.S.? JPII isn’t involved and the Church isn’t pro-life once you cross the 12 mile limit?

If, and that’s a very big if, abortion is ever outlawed, I think it won’t happen in our lifetimes.

 

[pnewton]

JPII isn’t involved and the Church isn’t pro-life once you cross the 12 mile limit?.

I suspect he is more involved and more effective than any of us.

 

[Ender]

The bottom line is the rules are arbitrary (see the made up rules of this dinner versus the theological truths of Mass), and as such, the Cardinal is free to draw a line, and I don’t disagree per se. But that line is a made up, arbitrary line he decided on.

This is unquestionably true and we have examples (1996, 2004) where the bishop of New York made the decision to exclude both candidates because of the position of one them on the issue of abortion.

I just disagree with the notion that these things aren’t political.

This is unquestionably true as well and this goes to the reason I opposed the inclusion of the president at this affair. With abortion and the HHS mandate we have issues that are both political and moral and I cannot shake the impression that the decision to include the president was made based on a calculation of the political implications at stake. I wonder how it could be otherwise given that the moral position is quite simple: he should have been excluded from participation.

I have had priests tell me, in support of their brand of political activism, that Jesus was a political radical, and there is no doubt that he did things that had a significant political impact. I think though, that rather than being politically motivated Jesus was completely apolitical and did what was right without regard to the political implications of his actions. I think our bishops have gotten away from that approach.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I suspect he is more involved and more effective than any of us.

The poster said that the pro-life view is getting more acceptance in the U.S. because of JPII and the support of the Church. I would hope that God is not blessing only efforts in the U.S. and that the Church isn’t simply pro-American. I believe that God and JPII are involved in all efforts in the entire world.