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

[Ender]

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.

You have either a short or a selective memory. Had Robert Bork been confirmed back in the 80’s when Reagan nominated him Roe would already have been overturned. The Casey decision was 5-4 and Anthony Kennedy, who was seated after Bork’s nomination failed, voted with the majority. Bork unquestionably would have voted the other way. How many more times will the opportunity be lost because of thinking like yours? This too goes to the question of why Obama should not have been invited: Catholics are about evenly split between the president and Romney which is not all that surprising inasmuch as the bishops have done little or nothing to oppose pro-abortion politicians.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

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.

**From the Catechism #2478 **To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.
In light of this being a bishop, I would think this would apply fiftyfold for the laity.

I wonder how it could be otherwise given that the moral position is quite simple: he should have been excluded from participation.

No, it is not simple, nor is it the moral position, per Cardinal Dolan who has the authority to make that decision.

 

[pnewton]

From Cardinal Dolan:

In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus, who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners; and by the recognition that, if I only sat down with people who agreed with me, and I with them, or with those who were saints, I’d be taking all my meals alone.

blog.archny.org/index.php/al-smith-dinner/

The reasons for the invitation are:

For one, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner is not an award, or the provision of a platform to expound views at odds with the Church. It is an occasion of conversation; it is personal, not partisan.**

Two, the purpose of the* Al Smith Dinner* is to show both our country and our Church at their best: people of faith gathered in an evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism, to help those in need, not to endorse either candidate

So, can we stop assuming the Cardinal is wrong, ignorant or a liar. He said it is personal, not partisan. That should be the end of discussion, at least for faithful Catholics.

 

[Ender]

**From the Catechism #2478 **To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.
In light of this being a bishop, I would think this would apply fiftyfold for the laity.

You misapply this teaching. If I had judged Cardinal Dolan’s intent then your comment would be applicable since I cannot know the reasons behind his decision. Since I am commenting on the action itself, however, the warning is not appropriate. Rash judgment pertains to things that cannot be known, like intentions; it does not pertain to things that are known such as actions.*Thou shalt not judge. (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other **uncertain **things, as Augustine states. *(Aquinas)
Ender

 

[Ender]

So, can we stop assuming the Cardinal is wrong, ignorant or a liar. He said it is personal, not partisan. That should be the end of discussion, at least for faithful Catholics.

Your point might be compelling if we did not have examples of other bishops making the opposite decision. What should be obvious is that the bishop of New York, whoever he is, faces this choice every four years and different bishops have chosen differently. Given that different choices have been made in the past it is valid to discuss whether the choice made by this bishop at this time was the correct one. No one has suggested that Cardinal Dolan is ignorant or a liar … only that his choice was a mistake. His choice is not automatically correct simply because it was his to make or because he made it with the best of intentions.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

… since I cannot know the reasons behind his decision.

I linked the reasons in Cardinal Dolan’s own words.

 

[Elizium23]

You have either a short or a selective memory. Had Robert Bork been confirmed back in the 80’s

Sorry, I do have a short memory for political things. I am 40 years old and a newbie Republican, having been raised by Democrats and registered Dem for the better part of my life. Before my reversion to Catholicism, I was a goth who gave little regard for politics beyond what jerk was in the White House at the present time.

Also, I said Romney has a pro-abortion record, but I believe the opposite is true. Sorry to spread false information.

 

[RobbyS]

I linked the reasons in Cardinal Dolan’s own words.

Whatever his reasons, he gave cover for Obama. Did not decide the election surely, but he made it seem he was trying to be neutral. How can they say that abortion etc are horrible, and then treat as respectable a man whose views on abortion are so open and so radical?