I haven’t seen this picture, but what I keep hearing is just the opposite: “Jesus ate with sinners too!”. Which I think is just as irrelevant as Jesus NOT eating with Herod.

I love Cardinal Dolan, but I still think it was the wrong decision. I’m not going to accuse him of having bad motives though, or of not being Christ-like. I’m sure he made what he believes to be the right decision, I just disagree.

@Suzeliseg:  thank you.  That’s completely fair.  I also think the whole thing is kind of NOT A BIG DEAL.  Catholics are so battered and bruised by all the bad news lately that we can’t even tell the difference between a major problem and a blip on the radar.

Thanks to the internet, whenever I hear “Dolan,” I think of the duck meme… Sorry!

Good point, Simcha. Jesus DID eat with prostitutes and criminals and people were shocked back then, too.

Bravo for this article!  How can we love our enemies and convert others if all we do is shun them?  I am grateful that God made Cardinal Dolan exactly how He did!  And, I am grateful that Cardinal Dolan responds to God’s call each and every day as best he can-he sets a wonderful example for all of us!

Amen, Simcha. Thank you so much for this.

Yes.  “They each have their own personality”.

I agree! I wonder if it doesn’t do the Church good in the end as it makes Dolan into a kind of peacemaker: secular politicians slam each other in the press and TV ads, Catholic bishop gets them to laugh with each other in the same room and act a little human for a change. You are right, let Dolan do his thing as he hasn’t let us down so far.

“I’ll tell you one thing:  it’s not Christlike to spend our days hunting around for the ways that other people fall short of idea of what God wants from them.”

THIS. In the political realm especially, this vice is the source of so many of our present problems.

We have a duty to interpret each others’ words and actions, not like Mr. Gotcha Hack Inquisitor, but charitably. No, not naïvely or stupidly…but charitably. If there’s a reasonable interpretation of what they’re doing and saying that preserves the view that they are basically good people doing the best they can, we have an obligation to seize that and reject demonization.

Yes, some people are dangerous, vicious, and truly beyond the pale. Some causes are—whether thinly or thickly veiled—actually evil. But in either case, we should only be dragged to that conclusion kicking and screaming. We should realize that if we’re shattering the “Break Glass In Case Of Manichean Moral Crusade” panel in order to get at the Battle-Axe of Righteousness with any frequency (more than, say, once a decade), we are being irresponsible loose cannons, and we are part of the problem.

It is such irresponsibility that leads our society to careen from one unhinged Two Minutes Hate to another, wiping out what common ground we may still have left as it goes. One moment, anyone associated with Chick-fi-A is judged so inherently vile that the rules we generally apply when dealing with decent people must be suspended; the next, Cardinal Dolan is being berated for not recognizing that President Obama is too unclean for a man of the cloth to be photographed with.

Enough!

I was horrified when I first heard about Obama’s invitation, but now I’m thinking that Dolan has something up his sleeve. I think he’s well aware that the Obama camp is viewing this as a “Let’s pander to the Catholics!” PR event, and I’m pretty sure Dolan has a plan to turn the tables (just like Jesus did in the temple, amirite?).

There’s the common meme “though shalt not judge”, which often neglects “judge with right judgment”. Lay Catholics also have a right, and sometimes a duty to question “people whose authority is legitimate”. The charism of “thou shalt not question” got us a nice big pedophilia scandal. I think of the Legionary charism of trusting obedience. Remember Fr. Maciel? Looking a little deeper into the issue, we find inscribed in Canon Law the following instruction (emphasis mine):
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, ****they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful,**** without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

To the situation at hand: there’s a world of a difference between dining with someone and offering them a podium. I’m not judging anyone or saying they should or should not do anything. But if we’re going to analyze the situation, let’s at least be honest: it’s a lot more than an invitation to dinner.

Mr. Archbold and Ms. Fisher should have a friendly but serious debate about this.  It would be excellent reading/viewing and, given the myriad and various comments from each article taking a different stance on the Dolan-Obama dinner, would probably get alot of hits, too.  My money would be on Ms. Fisher.  Please, NCR, make it happen.

Wait a second. Herod tried to KILL Jesus. Unless I’ve missed something significant, I don’t think the same holds true for the president and Cardinal Dolan!

We know what Jesus DID do because it’s recorded in scripture.What he “might would” do, as you say, is used as a device to target someone else’s behavior. We’d be better to ask the WWJD question to ourselves.
The other thing I hear much is: “Jesus never condemned….fill in your modern behavior of choice…”. I guess with that rationale things like drug trafficking,gambling addictions, etc are all OK because Christ didn’t specifically mention them.

Finally a sane voice on this! I was beginning to think the EWTN/NCRegister crowd I love so much had caught done kind of viral hysteria. Leave it to Simcha to be the voice of sanity.

We are not Klingons, we do eat with our enemies! 

Also, remember this is Cardinal Dolan…..the guy’s really smart…Remember the homily he gave at his installation Mass….praising social justice and getting liberal politicians to give him a standing ovation…then turns it to pro life, and lo!  the liberals weren’t clapping…but they had to keep standing.  I for one think His Eminence knows what he’s doing.  The best we can do is pray for him…and the president.  Yes I want Obama voted out of office….but an even better outcome would be his conversion, that he might be saved as well.  St. Francis went to convert the Sultan…he was told that if it wouldn’t mean the Sultan’s death as well as St. Francis’, the Sultan would have converted that day.

“And I can’t imagine Mary pumping gas or making out with her husband—but these are all things that I ought to be doing, because it’s what my vocation demands of me.  It’s who, where, and what I am.”

I laughed so hard. So funny and so TRUE! Thanks for the reminder that I should make out with my husband more ;)

And excellent take on this whole Dolan “non-situation”. I agree-people are too upset to see when a “problem” isn’t really a problem.

@Cephas: You illustrate the precise problem I’m talking about. Not every situation is equivalent to the abuse scandal. (Please God, I hope that I *never* see an equivalent situation in my lifetime.)

If there’s a good reason for raising this example—other than as an indication that one intends to use it as an excuse to snipe at and second-guess every future decision of every bishop, forever—I’d be eager to learn what it is.

@John Henry: It’s called election season. As otherwise-sensible people retreat further into manufactured partisan realities, it will get worse, I’m afraid.

Blog Goliard: SF stated “There are lots of ways of being like Christ.  One of them is to trust people whose authority is legitimate, and not to get hung up over trivialities.” This a disturbing way to exercise our trust, as I point out by bringing in an extreme example. The example is extreme, but the danger is real. Sniping and second guessing is not the spirit at all, even if it may be the common response. Remember

“they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” (see my earlier comment for the full quote)

So we can have a duty to discuss matters, bringing up our own opinions. Sniping would seem to be a fault at reverence, but not second guessing is a good way to sink the ship with “yes men”.

@Cephas: The sentence you quoted specifically mentions “trivialities”. Complaining about trivialities seems, to me, to be the very definition of sniping and second-guessing.

In light of this, I’m still not clear on the purpose of bringing in the extreme example. Is it your point that we should perpetually and publicly second-guess our bishops on trivialities, in order to keep them on a short enough leash that the extreme example is prevented from recurring? Or that the distinction between triviality and extreme example is illusory (or that we shouldn’t trust ourselves to make it)?

Thanks, Simcha.  I find the “laptop theologian’s” lectures of Cardinal Dolan on this matter insufferably pompous and paternalistic…

One person’s trivialities is another person’s life. That’s a matter of each person’s perspective. Are you saying that the Canon is deficient for not mentioning trivialities when talking of rights and duties to voice an opinion? Shouldn’t we advocate more dialogue instead of less? No one suggested a leash. But yes, let’s have dialogue with reverence, etc. “Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Ugh, I’m so tired of hearing this Dolan story. I like your twist on it, though, with the one exception that I didn’t care for this sentence: “And I can’t imagine Mary pumping gas or making out with her husband—but these are all things that I ought to be doing, because it’s what my vocation demands of me.”

I understand what you were getting at, and I agree with you, but the juxtaposition makes me uncomfortable. It doesn’t seem a very fitting thing to write, even if you’re only writing it to say that you can’t imagine it. I’m not ‘offended’, exactly, I just think you could have chosen a more suitable example.

@Cephas - Which canon addresses the right of the faithful to be bossy on the Internet? I’m not accusing you of that, but that’s the issue here, not whether the lay faithful have a right to petition Bishops or think critically about Church leadership. If everyone who objected to Dolan not cancelling an event (because that’s what he would need to do since the the Smith dinner is an established “thing” and not a vehicle to invite Obama, per se, to dinner) wrote respectful letters to him and left it at that, there would be no controversy. The controversy revolves around a non-doctrinal, prudential judgement made by Dolan and the canons you cite are completely irrelevant. People tell the Westboro Baptists to shut up not because they aren’t aware of the 1st Amendment or think it doesn’t apply in this case, but because the WBs are being bossy a-holes and should be told to shut up already. (For the record, I make no moral equivalence between WBs and those who get bossy on the Internet or in the media about Dolan. I’m just illustrating a point.)

The worst part of the criticism is the common subtext that Dolan doesn’t fully realize the optics of all this. As if.

Cephas, I don’t understand what you mean by this dinner giving Obama a podium. He already had a podium, and a media that breathlessly hangs on his every word. Will he speak at the dinner? Probably, but I bet Dolan’s arranged things so that he, not the President, gets the last word.

People complained when Jesus hung out with the tax collectors and sinners too. Old story, new era. It could only do Obama some good to hang out with some good Catholic peeps for once instead of Nancy Pelosi, Cecile Richards and whatever celebrity du jour is at the Whitehouse on tax payer dimes.

Wow, I’m pretty appalled at the attitude around here. It’s a crying shame when Catholics deride their Cardinals and Bishops.  I just don’t know what to say.

Simcha,

As it is my personality to be contrary…

So if your “personality” leads you politely discuss in public the wisdom, the positives, and the pitfalls of a prudential decision by another “personality”, you should shut up because you have a “stupid personality”?

@Pat - Aw, come on.  Who’s saying shut up?  Think of it this way:  I’m a cardinal, you’re a cardinal, and Tom Wehner is the Pope.  He let both of us do our thing according to our strengths, because he’s happy (maybe more so on some days than on others) to have some variety.  There’s plenty of room for variety, as long as, at the end of the day, everybody understands that I’m right.  That’s all I’m saying.

I hate the “what would Jesus do” thing.  Most of the time, we should be minding our own business, and asking “what would
Jesus HAVE ME DO,” which is an entirely different, and humbler, question.

Simcha,
My wife has a very similar take on many issues. 

I know you are not saying shut up, just a little hyperbole.  But I do think it is fine to discuss the wisdom of such a prudential decision and even to disagree with with it, accepting that only time will tell who is right. (Assuming it is not your decision which would invariably be right)

Simcha, reading this article was like breathing in a lung-full of really good oxygen! I thought I was gonna suffocate in the blogosphere these past weeks.
Seriously, it is so petty the drama that has whirled around thus whole “invite”. Meanwhile, many Catholics have resorted to insulting, demeaning and belittling a very very good Cardinal. This is the real issue! I wander if that is “what Jesus would do” ?
You know if the accusation that Catholics are going to vote for Obama because of some photo op, would stop being flogged to death, then maybe, just maybe Catholics will see the absurdity of the “end of world” spin that many good bloggers and commentators and commenters have tried rant on about.
Catholics will vote for Obama cause they don’t like Romney, not because Cardinal Dolan had a beer with Obama.
Stop insulting and demeaning the good Cardinal and have faith. And see that the real error is disrespecting a leader of our Holy Church, not Cardinal Dolans party invite list. The Cardinal is a smart cookie. Have trust!
God Bless your abundant voice of reason Simcha.

I am sorry, but I disagree about the dinner.  It is scandalous.  Cardinal Dolan seems to be talking about of both sides of his mouth to a lot of people.  Of course, the situation is more nuanced than much of the conservative media is playing it out to be, but a couple weeks ago he was decrying the administration’s restraints on religious liberty and the culture of death with the KoC and now he is eating dinner and laughing with President Obama.  It looks bad and scandalous.  He had an opportunity to speak volumes and in this particular instance, I think he failed.  WWJD memes aside (which yes, are totally lame)

Internet memes can be (and often are) SO distorted. I’m not happy Obama is the speaker at the Al Smith dinner, but I trust Dolan. It’s as simple as that.
And yes, Jesus ate with those whom the religious folks rejected, and he did it ALL THE TIME. Not sure if the person who came up with the meme actually READ scripture.

PS: Simcha, I think your colleague Pat Archibold has the right disposition on this matter: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/a-warning-for-the-cardinal

Beautiful post, Simcha, thank you!  Cardinal Dolan has certainly earned our trust, and we ought to extend charity to his decisions. We are not the ones Christ appointed to his position, so it’s not our place to judge!

@ACM: “Cardinal Dolan seems to be talking about of both sides of his mouth to a lot of people.”

Do you suppose there just might be a more charitable way to interpret the Cardinal’s actions, other than that he’s being dishonest and sleazy?

Complaining that it’s unwise to have invited the President to the Al Smith dinner is petty…but at least that complaint doesn’t cross the line into unfair accusation and uncharitable judgment. This remark does.

Dear Blog Goliard, I am so sorry you interpreted my comment to mean that Dolan is both “dishonest and sleazy.”  I said ‘seems’ and ‘is’ to say how it appears to me.  And yes: it DOES seem that he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. I read his statement, I respect him, and I AM praying for him and all of our bishops: but this still seems scandalous to me. 

Cardinal Dolan’s speech to the KoC (which I did listen to) seems to be contradicted by this action—or at least inconsistent, which then creates confusion. The faithful cannot be lead by confusion. I still do not see why President Obama had to be invited when there is precedent not to invite pro-abortion politicians to the dinner, especially when doing so seems so completely inconsistent.

Sheesh!  I have to admit to not liking the idea of the invitation, but not to the degree of that image in the posting! Cardinal Dolan is the one who makes this call, not me.  And I trust him and I know that he knows a lot more about the situation (and just about everything else) than I do.  So I’m going to pray and hope and trust the Cardinal despite what my original gut feeling says. I wouldn’t be voting for Obama either way… and anybody that would be swayed into voting for Obama because he attends this dinner is not someone that I want voting, anyway.

One obvious point is that Jesus did indeed eat with sinners, and was criticized for it.

Jesus did eat with sinners, we are all sinners.  But Jesus also chastised the recalcitrant leaders of his too and got quite angry at those who turned into His Father’s house into something it ought not to have been…

Thank you, thank you, thank you! What a breath of fresh air it is to read some common sense on this situation. I believe Cardinal Dolan knows just what he’s doing, and since he’s led America’s Catholics so well until now, we owe it to him to trust his judgement.

And thank you for also pointing out that “What Would Jesus Do?” is just a tool for beating other people with when you feel self-righteous. I have never liked the phrase, especially because it is only ever used to make a person feel shame, whether or not they should actually be feeling it. It’s a stupid question, because unless a person finds himself in an exact replica of a scene in the Gospels, he doesn’t actually know what Jesus would do.

This post might be more convincing if Dolan hadn’t already just played the WWJD? card at the end of his own “you-got-some-splainin’-to-dooo” missive.

@ACM: I’m glad that you weren’t intending to suggest that the Cardinal is being dishonest and shifty. I must admit that I still don’t quite understand what the alternate definition of “talking out of both sides of his mouth” might be here…but that’s not important.

And I still think his critics are straining at gnats here; but maybe, for my part, I’ve already said far too much about that as well. Because straining at people straining at gnats becomes its own brand of pathetic after awhile.

Many folks have dealt with duplicitous bishops and clergy…those who would look you in the eye and lie with impunity. I agree that Cardinal Dolan is the real deal, and I trust his motives.  But you can’t fault those who have been duped by the wolves in sheep’s clothing for so long.  They’re (we’re) weary of the division on all levels of their (our) Church.

@Suzanne: True enough. But sowing more division over trivial affairs is hardly the way to go about healing those divisions and that hurt.

I would like to see one of those giant “number of abortions” counters displayed prominently in the Dinner venue, so that all the back-slapping and oh so serious “dialoguing” and “civility” can be kept in its proper perspective.
-This article encourages us to “not to get hung up over trivialities.”  Simcha, I think I can speak for a whole lot of us when I say that we do not sweat the trivialities, but we also do not define what is happening today in the United States as “trivial.” I worry that you do not fully understand what is at stake.

Blog: disagreement does not mean division. We can vehemently disagree with each other, but not speaking about our disagreements neither creates divisions nor heals them.

Awesome.  Your point about B16’s decision not to have a photo taken with Nancy Pelosi vs. Dolan’s decision to invite Obama to the Al Smith dinner is particularly well taken.  Not only are he and Dolan different men, but Pelosi and Obama are also different politicians.  It’s a 100% guaranteed certainty that Pelosi would use a photo of herself with the Pope to bolster her Catholic bona fides.  Obama, having already shown himself to be an opponent of the Church, is less likely to try that, or to get away with it. 

As for the decision itself, I have mixed feelings because I do have some concerns that liberal Catholic Obama supporters will misuse the fact of his attendance to try to persuade moderate Catholics to vote for him, but I’m just so sick of the tone of the criticism.  As you point out, Cardinal Dolan has shown over and over again that he’s a faithful and orthodox bishop and he’s been unafraid to tell Obama to his face that he’s wrong on abortion and many other issues.  It’s ridiculous to question his motives or his dedication to Christ.  Great post.

I appreciate the WWJD critique, but does the history of the Al Smith dinner matter to anyone?  Having the presidential candidates at this dinner is a long tradition.  It is the candidates who are invited. They just happen to be Obama and Romney.

I was horrified (and a bit angry) when I saw some of the things people said about the Cardinal. Not comments like Pat’s where he disagreed with them, but comment box users who said Cardinal Dolan was a coward, stupid and unorthodox. If they had been paying any attention at all it would be clear that this man is very orthodox, intelligent and certainly not a coward.

There is a huge difference between politely questioning authority as to the prudence of his decision and smearing a good man. I’m just glad such ideas appear to be mostly the trolls in the com-boxes.

WWJD? Should be WDJD! What DID Jesus DO! Sure, he ate and drank with sinners and during those interactions he chastised them and told them that unrepentant they would go to Hell! I doubt that this glad-handing with Obama by Cardinal Dolan will result in some teaching moment. This IS a scandal, you don’t need a bunch of letters after your name to see that. Dolan has dropped the ball repeatedly. Homosexual Marriage in NY, the whole mandate fiasco and framing the argument as one of religious freedom, instead of “Teaching” why contraception is evil! He’s now going to laugh and joke and share a scotch and a cigar with the #1 enemy of babies in the womb. 55+ million abortions, a HOLOCAUST that Obama is promoting harder than anyone EVER! It’s hard not to suspect either ignorance or ulterior motive. The cardinal would DO better protecting the flock from this demon by “Teaching” the faithful how gravely sinful it is to vote for politicians who promote intrinsic evils. Unless Dolan confronts Obama and shames his record and demands he amend his ways, then this backslapping photo-op is a waste and an occasion to lend credibility to those sinful Catholics that will vote for the demon come November.

Jesus always used these oportunities for correction of the sinner to set him on the rite path , not laughter and good time had by all with no correction at all.

@Thomas J. How do you know Jesus didn’t correct with laughter? We know God has a sense of humor (there is a good deal of divine sarcasm at the end of Job). I’ve known priests who were gifted in getting people to laugh at themselves; they saw their faults and how silly their reasoning was, laughed and then were able to correct it.

This is the exact kind of thing Simcha is talking about; you have no clue what Jesus would have done, but you don’t like laughing so you frown upon someone else using their God-given personality to interact with others.

This is the consequence of the genie out of the bottle.  These are the offspring of Oswald Sobrino’s Catholic Kerry Watch and other such matters.  This is the technique of Frank Pavone.  Name the fathers of this system and you will find them still all-too-well-regarded by the Catholic conservative movement.

Quite frankly, had Georgetown had this, and not Dolan, there would be either silence or unanymity on the denuncitation.  Dolan just happens to be “your man.” 

I ask myself “what would Jesus do?” and I tell others to ask themselves the same question. There is nothing wrong with that question. I think you should be fired from NCregister for mocking and ridiculing my personal Christocentric spirituality.

Simcha, Jesus ate with lowly repentant sinners. He called the rich and powerful ones who denied their own sinfulness things like “hypocrite” and “brood of vipers” and “whitened sepulchers.”

Now I ask you: Which category do you think those who shell out $25,000 per-table fall into?

I’m a fan of Cardinal Dolan. However, I think his approach to the current government attacks on the Church over the past two years has been a failure. He hasn’t won anyone over with his jovial nature. Instead, he is viewed as someone who can be played—and is being played—for the political gain of those who hate what the Church teaches and stands for.

I don’t know who is really making the decisions for the Al Smith Dinner, but handing Obama a forum like this (and the tacit approbation that goes with it) is a really bad idea. Then, there’s this that showed up the other day: http://prolifecorner.com/al-smith-dinner-willing-to-accept-pro-abortion-group/

Cardinal Dolan has been handed a difficult task, no doubt. We all need to pray for him—and pray that God gives all of our bishops the courage to speak the truth to power.

Dan C: well said. There’s something fearsome about unquestioning loyalty. We all make mistakes. When a leader only has “yes men”, he’s doomed to make larger and larger mistakes. Dolan right or wrong, either we participate in a respectful discussion or we cede our reason to the (human) leader of the day, and forget that to be human is to err.

It is so fascinating to read how bishops are brave and wonderful when people agree with them, but they are treasonous and less than bright when people disagree with them.  I guess it shows that conservative and liberal catholic share something - selective attention to the bishops and their teaching and selective support of them.  You know sometimes a dinner invitation is just that a dinner invitation.

Ms. Fisher thank you for an enjoyable article, my only problem is that when I read “You don’t sound very much like Our Lady!  Can you imagine Mary saying what you just said?”  No.  And I can’t imagine Mary pumping gas or making out with her husband—” I nearly dumped my coffee on my keyboard, next time a warning so I can put down the coffee cup. 

How unfortunate that Christ’s Church elevated Cardinal Dolan to such a high position of authority, when so many thousands of random Catholics on the Internet know so much better than he how to do his job!

Well… please allow me to point out one theological error… not all priests act in persona Christi. Priests in the Latin Rite do so however; Byzantine Priests act in persona Ecclesia (at least the Ukranian and Ruthenian Rites).
Now onto the article. I am a fan of Cardinal Dolan and I am very, very impressed with him. He has made it abundantly clear that is not a pushover but a defender of the faith.
I have heard several arguments including the Holy Father’s meeting with Mrs. Pelosi and his decision to not allow the media and photo ops and whether we agree or not, this is a “big political” function but is is still a Catholic function and as practical Catholics we are not to separate our politics from our faith nor are we to separate our Catholicism from “having a beer.” Like it or not it is a problem though I don’t believe this rises to the level of “scandal.”
Precedent has demonstrated that speakers have been uninvited based upon their pro-death positions and I have a very difficult time with the fact that the President, an extraordinarily pro-death politician who has launched an all out assault on the church has not been uninvited.
I am confident that Cardinal Dolan has “something up his sleeve” (I am not insinuating that he is scheming) and I believe the Cardinal Dolan’s humility is truly seen in his “response letter” but I still believe it is inappropriate, not scandalous just inappropriate. Political discourse, discussions… can be held apart from this event and the President should not be given this opportunity .
My prayers are with Cardinal Dolan as he continues his ministry and frankly, I pray more that the President declines the invitation.
Slava Isusu Christu!!! (Glory to Jesus Christ)

@Andy: For the record, I have never once accused the bishops of being brave and wonderful, even when I have on the rare occasion agreed with them.

When you’re in hell being ripped apart every day for all eternity ask the devil to knock it off.  Meanwhile stop ignoring the murder of 3,700 children a day in the U.S. while calling yourself “Christian”.  Dinnner?  At the Waldorf Astoria?  W/pro aborts?  That’s conduct befitting a Cardinal?  PUHLEEZZE

Oh! so now he will be interacting with the president , just when is he going to have the time to do that. So now jesus was laughin and how do you know that? The most pro-abort president in our nations history.

SHameful

So a good Christian should make a point of having nothing to do in any context with anyone who supports abortion (unless it takes the form of a lecture or some kind of sandbagging). “Pro aborts” should be denounced and shunned at all times.

Hmm…I wonder what Abby Johnson might think of this attitude and approach…

What of “Unity”?  There is a time for tolerance or even a call to discuss, and there is a time to stand united against evil.

Salome apparently was such a comic that everyone laughed John the Baptist’s head off at that dinner - how much per plate was it?

At some point there can be no communication or acceptance, the person himself is noxious.  The Pope left Rome on vacation when Hitler visited.  Obama has been given every benefit of the doubt.  The heretics describing themselves as Catholic at his side as well.  While I consider all the usual politicians as utterly corrupt, and will likely vote 3rd party, I’m told that Obama “Is so exceptionally bad that any vote for him would be a grave sin”.  Is it?

Is the most pro-abort president and his attempt to violate the consciences of every Catholic someone you would want to be in the same room with (without a protest sign?).  I don’t think the dinner will be catered by Chick-fil-a.

Is this a fuzzy, follow your conscience, gray area?  Or is this black and white?

Cardinal Dolan and the USCCB cannot tell me in one breath that Obama and his policies and actions are intrinsically evil and an abomination, and in the next say he is invited to dinner.

The shepherd cannot call him a wolf and invite him to socialize with the flock.

Just simply be a man, admit to having erred in judgement and retract the invitation.  Over and done with.  It’s just a matter of simply admitting having made a mistake.  No disgrace about it whatsoever.  In fact, we would not even have to refer to WWJD since we know Jesus was perfect in all things.  We are not.

“Just simply be a man, admit to having erred in judgement and retract the invitation.”

Wow. So not only has the Cardinal made the wrong call, but it’s so self-evident that he’s wrong and you’re right that he knows it too, and all that’s left to do is “admit to having erred”.

I’m going to take a break from exhorting people to be non-judgmental to congratulate you, Deacon Ed, for having made the most prideful statement in the entire comment thread.

In a way, the comment box is the LEAST safe place because it is easy to be deluded into thinking that we can get away with something that we can’t get away with—because God knows who we are.  Also, Mrs. Fisher, you yourself are lap-top theologian.  Anyway, as a lap-top theologian myself, I can honestly say that I gave Bishop Dolan the benefit of the doubt.  So, that is at least two lap-top theologians that I know of that aren’t attacking bishop Dolan.  On a somewhat different topic, I think the bishops should reconsider their position of not supporting state initiatives to define unborn babies as persons.

I think Cardinal Dolan is a holy man trying to do the will of God.  He is still a man, and liable to make mistakes, but I think we should all give him the benefit of the doubt and trust that he is doing what he is supposed to do.

It all comes down to Imago Dei.  Either it exists or it doesn’t. If it exists, then it is in unborn children, it’s in teenagers, it’s in Obama, Herod, Zacharius, and even Hitler.  ALL are made in the image of God.

So let me get this straight, we are not allowed to criticize Cardinal Dolan, but you are allowed to criticize people who criticize Cardinal Dolan?

Sorry, what does made in God’s image have to do with anything? Nobody is questioning Card. Dolan’s duty to dine with the President. They’re questioning his prudence to make a public spectacle of it. And as a side issue, there are some who would quash all dissent and questioning of those we trust.
Yes, Ted, we’re all made in God’s image.

Near as I can tell, the only people making a public spectacle out of a tradition of inviting all comers to this dinner are the ones criticizing him for inviting Obama, and to a lesser extent, Romney (yes, he is a blogging archbishop, and he posted on his blog that while the ratio of mail is easily 9:1 against Obama, he’s gotten a few letters criticizing him for inviting Romney as well).

I don’t remember hearing about Clinton’s invitation to the Al Smith Dinner.  Or Dukaksis’s.  This dinner has been inviting politicians from both sides for as long as anybody can remember.

I agree with Dolan that to change now would be uncharitable.  And the reason I brought up the doctrine of Imago Dei is precisely because this entire political environment is causing us to be in danger of forgetting it.  We don’t want to eat with our enemies?  Since when?

Plus, it would eliminate a chance to explain Church teaching to a President who is radically against Church teaching.  What evangelist would want to pass up the chance to talk to such a man regardless of the politics involved.

To the extent that you’re arguing we should not think in cartoonish fashion, fine.  What I’m not buying is the line, “Cardinal Dolan is known for ... his political savvy.”  Prove to me that that reputation, if it indeed exists, is earned; show me an example of how Cardinal Dolan, through the use of such savvy, was able to exert a real and positive effect on government action—not yet another photo op at a funeral or prayer breakfast.  We’ve had 40+ years of bishops with *that* kind of political savvy, and look at the fruit it has borne.

It’s a fund raiser for goodness sake. Obama will probably raise more money for the dinner sponsors Fund than he will raise in a month of begging his friends

Yah and who was it that Jesus was always eating dinners with ... oh, yah, that’s right ... the SINNERS ... just sayin’

An odd question, but I think a valid one; why aren’t the gay rights people also up in arms about Obama having dinner with a religion they see as hopelessly bigoted and hateful?

Could it be that they see it as much less of a big deal?

@Ted: Those are excellent points. I’m really starting to see this as the flip side of the stupid Chick-fil-A kerfuffle. We’re so very quick to decide that certain of our political opponents are not only wrong but demons, to be exorcised from society rather than reasoned with.

When you’re a hardcore Manichean, everyone you don’t like is ERMAGHERD The Most Evil Person Ever. I’m just shocked that it took as long as it did for the name of Hitler to turn up in this comment thread.

@lethargic

And the sinners were changed by the encounter.  Will Obama be changed?

@Ted

Could it be that Obama, who was awarded an honorary doctorate by the nation’s most prominent Catholic university, has a greater reputation for political savvy than Cardinal Dolan?

@Howard- possibly, possibly not.  But how will you know if we don’t try?  Miracles do happen, have been known to happen, and when you have a President like Obama who has basically passed the Dream Act and attacked the Church’s ability to serve the poor by diktat with little or no apparent legislative backing, we need to take every chance we can get.

And yes, I did just basically call Obama a dictator- because he’s been acting like one.

@Howard- who has political savvy doesn’t matter.  Who has the Truth matters.  And miracles have been known to happen in conversion stories.

@Ted—“But how will you know if we don’t try?”  Well, ask yourself: Have we ever tried this before?  Did it work then?  And also: when is the last time a US cardinal has dared to snub a POTUS?  How will we know that taking a hard line with a US president will fail if we don’t try?

@Ted:  Yes, miracles occur, usually as the result of prayer.  Not so often as the result of dinner.  If you told me that the cardinal was wearing a hairshirt until Obama repents, I’d be all for it; it might have a supernatural effect.  He can pray, fast, and undergo penance with or without inviting Obama to the Al Smith dinner; the two have nothing to do with each other.  However, although only God knows what effect Dolan’s prayers might have, the merely natural act of inviting a politician to a themed dinner—one of scores Obama will attend this year—has rather predictable natural consequences that depend much more on savvy than you would like to believe.

Political savvy is not something I would attribute to His Eminence.

This is post is absurd. I will simply make note of the fact that this invitation is evidence that Cardinal Dolan is not politically savvy! You The fact is that Mr. Obama supports the abortion license 100%. Abortion according to Vatican II is “an unspeakable crime” , it is as John Paul II has written “murder” Let me quote “The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life.” So we have one of the keynote speakers at the Al Smith dinner a man who is defending unspeakable crime and murder! In fact the Cardinal has said in referring to Obama’s odious contraception mandate that it was “strangling” the Church’s religious freedom. So We have honored the man responsible for supporting unspeakable crime/ murder and strangling the religious freedom of Catholics by making him a Keynote speaker at the Al Smith Dinner! Would such an honor be given to others engaged in the defense of “unspeakable crime” be so honored? Would the Cardinal so honor someone who defended exploitiation of the poor? Pornography? Racism? I am left to conclude at some point while the Cardinal may think abortion a “sin” He is not taking the claims of either Vatican II or John Paul II seriously. How can I conclude otherwise? The fact that Obama is President does not change this. In fact given the massive power Obama has to protect and extend the abortion license the evil he does is even more grave. One can not make defenders of “unspeakable crime” keynote speakers anymore than one would make Larry Flynt ( publisher of Hustler) a keynote speaker because Flynt is a successful business man or a defender of free speech. Flynt’s business is so immoral and exploitive of women that it disqualifies him. Similarly the evil for which Mr. Obama is using the power of the Presidency should disqualify him. Afterall Obama is using its power to defend killing unborn children and “strangling” the religious freedom of Cardinal Dolan’s flock. ( the latter is the Cardinals own words. How is the world to take the Cardinal seriously now?  The real analagous image is not Christ dining with the tax collectors. It would be the jarring and bizzarre image of Christ laughing and patting Nero on the back while the Christians are being eaten by the lions. This is really the kind of “Christ” we are seeing. It is scandalous.

In defense of the indefensible there are two claims made.
The first is that the invitation is not an “Honor”. This claim is too absurd to take seriously. Obama is a keynote speaker. One who delivers the principal address at a formal dinner. This is routinely seen as an honor! No sane person thinks otherwise. The other equally absurd claim is that this is an attempt at “dialog” analagous to Christ eating with tax collectors and sinners. This argument is so ridiculous as to be almost insulting. It could perhaps be seen this way if this was a private dinner with Obama and the Cardinal aimed at Obama’s conversion. It is not this at all. In fact I challenge Ms. Fisher, any reader of this blog or the Cardinal himself to cite a single instance of a nationally known Pro-abortion Democrat, even one who is a Catholic, who became pro-life from such “dialog” over the last 20 years. You can not, because none exists. In fact this invitation demonstrates the exact opposite. You can promote quite literally what the Church teaches is murder ( Evangelium Vitae again) and strangle the Church’s religous freedom, and in the Diocese of NY there is no political cost. We are to take this as politically savvy. The practical effect of this will be to give cover to liberal Catholics intent on voting for Obama in spite of his support for the evils Cardinal Dolan is supposedly against. I suspect this will help Obama win re-election and I think the evils he will inflict have only just begun. I pray through some miracle I am wrong. If Cardinal Dolan had a molecule of political “savvy” he would be doing everything in his power to make sure he lost at least 10% of the Catholic vote and thereby lost the election.

There are some evils so grave we can not simply put them aside in the interests of camraderie and good humor. If someone hurts someone you truly love you can hardly invite them into your home for dinner before they is repentance. Obama remember is as the Cardinal says “strangling” the freedom of the Catholic Church. He is by the Cardinals own argument hurting the flock he loves. What does the Cardinal do, he honors him. He says well.. for tonight I will forget you are trying to snuff out the conscience rights of my brothers and sisters. I will forget you promote the unlimited right to murder my unborn brothers and sisters.. no I will ignore all this and we will laugh and joke together… You see nothing wrong with this picture. The only remedy would be if the Cardinal takes the opportunity to tell Mr. Obama directly in public at the dinner that what he is doing is gravely evil. For you to defend this action otherwise
is absurd

@Howard, @MRD: The more you demonize the other side, the more you play into Satan’s hands on this one.

As for conversion from anti-life to pro-life- Mitt Romney, at a dinner with pro-life scientists on the subject of stem-cell research in 2004, converted.

How can you possibly claim Romney, Obama, and Dolan in the same room *can’t possibly* result in another conversion experience.

And yes, MRD, I do believe the Cardinal WILL take the opportunity to tell Mr. Obama directly that what he is doing is gravely evil- both on the subject of abortion and on the subject of telling Catholics that they can’t serve the poor unless they sucumb to the evil of contraception.

Is it too late for the Family Research Council gunman to get an invite?  Wouldn’t this be a great way to dialogue with a lunatic?

@Ted:  So, using the reason that God gives us is now playing into Satan’s hand, huh?  Maybe we should fool Satan, then, by having Cardinal Dolan nominate Obama from the floor of the Democratic National Convention!  Surely Ol’ Scratch would be flummoxed by that, and it might soften up Obama so much that he reverses all his immoral policies, converts, and becomes a Third Order Franciscan.  Because, hey, the fact that miracles can occur means that this might happen, too, right!  And it flies in the face of evil human reason, so it must be pious!
2004:  Romney “converts to being pro-life”.  Just by coincidence, what was the date on which he began to aspire to a Republican nomination to the presidency?  Could it be that his “conversion” was just as miraculous as that of George H. W. Bush, who saw the light of Reagan’s position when he was offered the vice presidency?  Nah, it can’t be political savvy; it must be a miracle.

Oh wait, the Family Research Council gunman didn’t actually kill anyone.

For the Democrat side- Randall Terry, who after his conversion founded Operation Rescue, is a Democrat who ran against Obama this year for the party’s nomination.  Rep Mark Critz (D-PA) is also a pro-life convert, as was his opponent Rep Jason Altmire (D-PA) as they went head to head in a rare incumbent-incumbent election (due to reduced congressional seats for Pennsylvania).

Pro-life Democrats are RARE, but they do exist.

THANK YOU!!!!!  Finally someone has said enough is enough of these ridiculous attacks on His Eminence.  It’s funny how our side always attacks our own.  Actually, not funny but sad.  Anyway, Simcha is the only blogger I know who consistently says what needs to be said even when no one else will.

@Howard- it is not reasonable to demonize your political enemies and deny their ability to convert and change points of view.  It is in fact the opposite of reason and a denial of God’s gift of reason.

Do you really think that Cardinal Dolan would not use the opportunity of being invited to the Democratic National Convention to speak about a consistent ethic of life?

Or are you one of those pro-birthers who is only for human life from conception until birth, instead of, as in Evangelium Vitae, from Conception until Natural Death?

Amen Simcha!

The invitation is a precursor to the main event, the dinner, itself. When the dinner is over and done with, then it is time to discuss wisdom and folly. Since I don’t know what is on the good Cardinal’s mind, I, myself, will wait until I see how his strategy evolves.

Dinner and laughs with a man who even favors killing babies that survive abortion, who will fine you and eventually jail you if you do not disregard the teachings of the Church,  who has just “evolved” into accepting so called homosexual marriage, who is bent on getting reelected in order to impose his secular utopia. Trivial matters indeed-for someone who goes along with evil to be precise. Nice reelect-Obama piece!

C’mon Ted.  Obama is so insidious an enemy, he enlists lapsed “Catholics” to do the “strangling”, while he watches from a distance. We can’t just presume a “Road to Damascus” moment will take place. Prudential judgment doesn’t take that side of the bet.

@Chris: ” Obama is so insidious an enemy, “

I completely agree with you on all of that.  All I am saying is- remember what Christ asked us to do to our enemies.

And Catholicism isn’t about “Prudential judgement”- Catholicism is about faith in the impossible.  We have a God who became a man, died on the cross, and comes back to us in the form of bread and wine at Mass.  Prudential judgement would say that is all impossible.

@Ted—Can you back up those examples?  I’m having no luck finding enough details on the people you list to confirm that they indeed meet MRD’s admittedly tough challenge: “cite a single instance of a nationally known Pro-abortion Democrat, even one who is a Catholic, who became pro-life from such “dialog” over the last 20 years.”  Randall Terry pretty clearly does not apply, because he was not a nationally-known pro-abortion Democrat.  In fact, I’m not sure any of these pro-life Democrats converted to their positions, let alone though “dialog”; many of them seem to have always been pro-life.  I think Sen. Manchin of West Virginia is one like that.

@Ted - So I take it you’ll be casting your vote for Obama, since we would be denying him further opportunities to dialogue with Catholic leaders (and thus, convert) if he’s voted out?

Bishops’ 2004 statement                               Catholics in Political Life - “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would support their actions.”

@Chris- absolutely I will not vote for Obama.  This is about eating with him, not about voting for him.  Remember, no creature so accursed can be, that within some good a loving eye can see.

He’s still a political enemy.  But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invite him over to dinner.

And I resent your idea that we only should care about Obama’s soul while he is in office.

It also isn’t an honor to be invited to the Al Smith Dinner- EVERYBODY who is a politician or who has money worth grabbing for Catholic Charities is invited.  The ENTIRE WORLD practically is invited.  You could go if you could afford a plate.

@Ted:  “And Catholicism isn’t about “Prudential judgement””  Agreed.  Prudential judgments are unavoidable, but they are only a small part of Catholicism.  “Catholicism is about faith in the impossible.”  What you mean is the inconceivable. On the other hand, keep in mind what Chesterton wrote in the Curse of the Golden Cross:  “‘It’s what I call common sense, properly understood,’ replied Father Brown. ’It really is more natural to believe a preternatural story, that deals with things we don’t understand, than a natural story that contradicts things we do understand. Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing - room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it’s only incredible. But I’m much more certain it didn’t happen than that Parnell’s ghost didn’t appear; because it violates the laws of the world I do understand.”

@Howard- google “Democrat convert pro-life”; there are significantly >1 example.

@Howard- what makes you expect that you do understand the world?  At all?  I’m pretty agnostic when it comes to my own understanding.

And I’m seriously skeptical when people are bigoted against the people they see as bigots.  That goes both for the extremists on the left and the right.

Ted:
You state “As for conversion from anti-life to pro-life- Mitt Romney, at a dinner with pro-life scientists on the subject of stem-cell research in 2004, converted.” You are clearly not thinking. Romney was a pro-choice Republican. I did not say it was impossible to convert, I said no such pro-choice nationally known Democrats could be indentified. The dynamic in the Republican Party is clearly different as there is a political cost to remaining pro-choice in the Republican party and seeking national office ( something which Rudy Guiliani demonstrated.) If you are paying attention this is likely because our Evangelical brethren take the 5th commandment seriously. As such supporting an unlimited right to abortion, that is supporting and unlimited right to what John Paul II called murder disqualifies you from getting their support. It is impossible to win National office as a Republican and remain completely pro-choice. You prove thus prove my point. If there was a political cost imposed on the Democrats ( say perhaps that you would be in fact treated like a pornographer or a racist) by the Church if you both promoted murder and “strangled” the freedom of the Church, then in fact a real conversion may follow subsequently. As we know Aquinas taught that the evildoer may refrain from evil at first from fear of punishment and later this may be converted into a true conversion from the heart. By giving Obama a pass,.. no let’s rephrase that… by actually giving him an honor… the Cardinal makes Obama even less likely to repent! Again Ted.. the challenge is to find a formerly pro-choice nationally known Democrat who converted from pro-choice to pro-life. All of your examples fail the test:
Romney is a Republican
Randall Terry was a Republican ( losing elections as a Republican candidate in 1998, and 2006) I would not regard the stunt as running for the Democratic nomination for President as a real party preference.
The congressman you site are not nationally known figures. Indeed I am not even sure how “pro-life” Critz voted against a bill that would defund Planned Parenthood, and is against repeal of Obama care, in spite of the fact that Obamacare is what gives Obama the poor to issue the vile contraceptive mandate. 

As far as the comment for consistent ethic of life. Supposedly this means you like the Democrats in spite of their support for abortion (ie murder) because you think the top marginal tax rate should be 35% not 31%, This is like saying you would like Larry Flynt, pornography aside.. because he is for free speech. In fact I would argue that the Democrat policies are pretty lousy for the poor as well but this is a topic for another day..)

Once again there is no nationally known, Democratic political figure who was pro-choice and as a result of “dialog” became pro-life. It is time to stop being delusional on this issue and deal with the reality that the Cardinal of NY choose to honor someone who promotes murder, unspeakable crime, and is strangling the Church’s religious freedom… And there are some who can defend this! Do you hear what you are saying?

I see what you are saying, and I too am a huge fan of Cardinal Dolan. He truly is a wonderful shepherd. I just don’t agree with the comparison of Christ sitting down with sinners, etc. Christ sat among sheep who were broken and lost, in need of their leader. But Herod and Caesar were men of authority, leaders who were leading people away from God. I suppose that’s what the image that is circulating was getting at. It is a bit different to break bread with lost sheep, than with the wolf. Honestly (I know you disagree), I worry about the marginal Catholics who will see pictures in the paper and think that the Church isn’t in as much opposition to this administration as they thought. Unfortunately, I think we all have friends/relatives who will use that lame justification and carry it straight to the voting booth. My prayers for Cardinal Dolan though, as he continues to shepherd our flock here in the Archdiocese.

This is the dumbest article I have ever read. Cardinal Dolan is wrong. There is no way to rationalize what he is doing. And make no mistake he is doing it because he agrees with Obama. Cardinal Dolan is blinded by celebrity and is desperate for the NYT to love him, and for guest spots on Good Morning America, and having cocktails with the likes of Helen Gurley Brown. He doesn’t care about faithful Catholics, that’s why he arrogantly dismisses us.

He is causing scandal by honoring the most pro abortion politcian since Ted Kennedy. President Obama is persecuting the Church and has said he will NOT compromise. He has declared himself an enemy of the Church. You don’t play nice with an enemy you defeat them. My god, this time next year all the good that the Church does could end. Faithful nuns like the Little Sisters of the Poor could be shut down, and what will happen to all the people they serve? The liberal radical “sisters” who promote abortion (all of the LCWR) will be fine and glad to see the faithful nuns silenced.

Cardinal Dolan is like all the other liberal bishops who turn a blind eye to scandal, heresy and disent because he agrees with it. If he didn’t he would try and stop it it. Example: he was completley silent about gay marriage in New York State. And what happened? It’s now the law. He did NOTHING because he agrees with it. Wake up and realize that all these bishops allow choas in the Church because they agree with it.

@Ted - I’m not saying we should stop caring about Obama after he leaves office, but the guy is a cold-blooded promoter of the Culture of Death.  He’s arguably the patron “saint” of abortion.  Rolling the dice that he will have a conversion at the Al Smith dinner, in light of the scandal it will create—scandal—you know, where the flock is led to engage in sinful thoughts/practices at the example of someone who is their superior - i.e. it’s okay to vote with this guy, or the religious liberty thing is subject to suspension due to cocktails and cigars—rolling the dice on that will be outweighed by all those souls who will feel reinforced in their support of Obama—those who many bishops have said clearly would commit grave sin by voting for someone who promotes and facilitates abortion, not just accidentally, but as a key component of the platform and legislation… That’s where most of us (I believe) are coming from.  This isn’t about “screw Obama”—this is about “Holy cow, the wolf is in the sheep pen, who opened the gate?”

And again Ted.. Obama is not merely invited to have dinner! He is a keynote speaker, he is being thus honored at the dinner. This is a disgrace and a scandal and suggests that the Bishops are not taking their own words seriously as some one pointed out”
Bishops’ 2004 statement Catholics in Political Life - “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would support their actions.”
At some point you have to see this is not defensible

@Ted:  OK, let me ask again:  Please give a link to a case in which a Democrat at the national level converted from pro-abortion to pro-life.  Saying, “Just Google it” is a dodge, not an answer; it will lead to a lot of links about pro-life Democratic Protestants who convert to become pro-life Democratic Catholics, or any of several other false leads.

MRD is absolutely right.  It was the NY diocesan defense of the Cardinal which invoked the scriptural defense of this decision, which then Cardinal Dolan acknowledged was “prudential”.  Perhaps what is most alarming are Cardinal Dolans own words claiming that his invitation was to set aside partisan differences with Obama and we should not make it personal.  That justification explains the chasm between my perspective and that of the CArdinals.  The loss of freedom is not partisan, it is personal….and he doesn’t see it that way.  This is the real problem.

We can all throw Bible quotes or other phrases around to suit both sides of this dinner debate.  Sure, everyone trots out “Jesus ate with sinners,” but we should also remind ourselves that he threw the moneychangers out of the Temple!
So alongside charity, we must consider the Catholic virtue of prudence.  In my opinion, the Cardinal chose charity, whereas prudence should have meant not extending the invitation.  I suppose both views can be justified, so let’s just see how it all plays out.

@Thomas McFadden: “...he was completley silent about gay marriage in New York State. And what happened? It’s now the law. He did NOTHING because he agrees with it.”

Mere seconds with Google turned up plenty to disprove that hyperbolic statement. For instance, see: http://blog.archny.org/?p=1247 .

Either you know that your hyperbolic statements aren’t true, or you don’t care enough about whether they’re true to spend a single minute researching the matter.

Either way, shame on you. Shame! And please don’t darken the door of decent websites like this again until you’ve acquired some intelligence, honor, and basic human decency.

Well said.

Archbishop Dolan talks about interpretations of his actions, here:
http://blog.archny.org/index.php/al-smith-dinner/

But I’ve also read a piece this week by Bishop Leonard Blair, on conducting the doctrinal assessment of the LCWR - where people tend to be taking the opposite view - gleefully awaiting the comeuppance of the ‘the nasty nuns’ as a result of his actions.

He says:
“When you are in a position of leadership or authority, it is a great cross sometimes to know firsthand the actual facts of a situation and then have to listen to all the distortions and misrepresentation of the facts that are made in the public domain.”

We always need to keep this in mind…

- Whole piece, here:
http://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/reality-check-the-lcwr-cdf-and-the-doctrinal-assessment/

He also makes the point:
“...Unless the sister in question is espousing and/or promoting positions contrary to Catholic teaching—and there was no reason given to think that she is—then the Holy See’s doctrinal concerns are not directed at her or at the thousands of religious sisters in our country like her to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for all that they do in witness to the Gospel.”

“When you are in a position of leadership or authority, it is a great cross sometimes to know firsthand the actual facts of a situation and then have to listen to all the distortions and misrepresentation of the facts that are made in the public domain.” = the Bush administration argument for invading Iraq to go after WMDs.  If Cardinal Dolan or Bishop Blair want to play this card, then fine; but if it blows up in their faces because they were in denial of the truth everyone else sees, they get no pass, no excuse.

Wow.  I am surprised. I am not surprised by some who are misunderstanding the theology but I am surprised this is coming from Simcha.

Do you comprehend why Jesus did not dine with Pilate?

Do you comprehend why Mary and Joseph fled rather than dine with Herod?

Cardinal Dolan is using a tyrant of evil and murder to raise money to subsidize the coffers of the Archdiocese.  These are neither the actions of a man, much less one ordained to be a martyr should it come to that.

He suffers from the affliction that got the best of Peter.  When times get rough,save thine own buttocks.  This affliction manifests itself by gathering around the camp of enemy warming your hands and body by the fire.

Let’s not forget Dolan also invited a priest of another religion that performs invalid baptisms in Christ’s name.

I’m gonna take a wild guess and say that the Holy Family did not dine with Herod because he was employing the most extreme methods imaginable to try to kill Jesus personally.

Which guest at the Al Smith dinner are we to expect Obama to murder?

At any rate, I’m just glad that Jesus disinvited Judas from the Last Supper. I’d be so scandalized and so disappointed in His lack of principle otherwise.

Thomas McFadden, that’s probably the meanest bs I’ve read so far.  He “agrees” with gay marriage?  You are really full of yourself.

.
I know it won’t matter to most, but I actually know Dolan.  And he’s 100% the real deal and politically savvy, even if some of you just don’t see it.  I trust him but then, he’s earned my trust. 

@NYa—OK, then with all that savvy, what should we expect?  What I *do* expect is for Obama to exploit the photo op to a small extent without changing AT ALL any of his beliefs or any of the actions of his administration.  That’s because I think that the highest-ranking politician in the US is better at politics, though the cardinal is better at prayer.  But if Cardinal Dolan has impressive reserves of savvy, what will happen?  Will Obama back down on the HHS mandate?  Will he “evolve” away from “gay marriage”?  Or will you claim that something very important but invisible happened at the dinner, the same way Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Christ secretly and invisibly returned in 1914?

Simcha, with just one line: “No.  And I can’t imagine Mary pumping gas or making out with her husband…”, you’ve earned yourself a new regular reader. Hilarious.

Goliard - Exactly! Not only did Christ set the shocking precedent of *eating from the same dish* as Judas, He failed to have a single exchange with Judas that was not a renewed offer of friendship and intimacy. Right up to the moment of His betrayal…if you want to know WWJD, that was it. He extended a hand of mercy.

  My opinion on this is very clear. People who on this on any other blog keep defending the Cardinal do it not because of his personality or his so called “orthodoxy” but because he also suffers from a Cult of Personalty so his supporters need to keep defending him even though Teresa Tommeo and Al Kresta are also concerned with this “prudential judgement” It has to do with the SIGNAL IT SENDS to the rest of the world and mostly to Catholics and it takes place just within a few weeks of the Election. Why cannot the Cardinal simply follow the lead of John O’Connor, and Cardinal Egan and NOT invite the President? The Cardinal’s own willingness to keep “dialogue” with sworn enemies of the Country and our Church and this ongoing being “chums” with the world is going to be the Fall of the West.

@Blog - The Judas analogy doesn’t work, because the rest of the Apostles didn’t know he was a betrayer at heart, therefore, no one was scandalized.  Jesus’ inclusion of Judas at the Last Supper was a demonstration that there are tares among the wheat, and the Church will inevitably include betrayers. Moreover, in a mysterious way, God uses these tares to bring forth both his mercy (to the elect) and his divine justice (to the reprobate). 

Obama’s actions leave little doubt as to his disposition toward the Church. Thus, scandal is offered at the invite, and taken by those who will be comforted in the compromise of their faith.  Note, there is scandal in inviting Romney, too.  I am not ignoring that fact.  I don’t relish +Dolan’s position.  I’m not assailing him personally, nor am I assailing his dignified office.

Peggy, Goliard:  If you want to use the WWJD club, showing that you either totally missed or completely disagree with Simcha’s point, remember that Cardinal Dolan does not merely imitate the Last Supper, he participates in it in Persona Christi at each Mass he says.  Based on your insight, then, should Cardinal Dolan offer Holy Communion to Obama?  Based NOT on your insight, but on Catholic theology, should the cardinal offer Communion to Obama?

Obama is beyond the pale. Dolan has no excuse for behaving like a politician. He is selling out, choosing glitz over the Gospel. Sad stuff.

What can you expect?  You can expect Dolan to be Dolan, which I believe is a Good Thing.  Obviously, you do not.  We differ.  Thank God. 

Only Nixon could go to China.

@NYa—So, the evidence of his savvy is ... nothing.  And the good results we can expect it to yield in this case is, based on your response, also nothing.  Unless Cardinal Dolan can actually DO SOMETHING with his alleged savvy, or perhaps perform a miracle (as others have suggested), Obama gets a photo op out of this, and the Church gets nothing.  Which you believe is a Good Thing.  Obviously, I do not.

Great example, John Henry!  Only Nixon could sell out out allies in Taiwan, regularize relations with our good buddy and friend of the Church Mao, and help undermine American manufacturing in the bargain—all before being driven from office in disgrace.

Very few of us get a moment in our lives as Christian witnesses such as Dolan is getting—and fumbling badly—in this case.

We all have to choose, in many little ways, the narrow way over the easy way. But here Dolan had a chance to shine as an example to us all and to choose the narrow way, but he caved in and chose the way of The World instead.

May the Lord preserve us all from such failure.

@Howard: Let there be no mistake. I have no idea how Jesus would handle this one. My post was not an attempt to use the “WWJD club” (I dislike it too, in part because it vividly represents some of the blind spots of the Protestantism I left years ago), but an attempt to illuminate the ridiculousness of the post I was responding to.

I object to the criticism of Dolan for the same reason I couldn’t abide the attack on Dan Cathy*: we’ve got far too many self-righteous Jacobins running about, on both left and right, who are far too eager to cram every issue (real and invented) into their comically dualistic worldview, and who call for us to suspend the rules about how we generally handle strong disagreements with people of goodwill so often that they’ve forgotten what the rules even are.

If President Obama is half as bad as some of y’all seem to be saying, I’m surprised that you haven’t yet concluded that it’s your moral obligation to drive him out of office by use of force.

He’s the duly elected President of the United States. I wish it were someone else (boy do I); but he’s not the worst or most dangerous one we’ve had either. When he walks into the room, you stand and address him as “Mr President” or “Sir”. When you hold a charity dinner to which the President of the United States is usually invited, you invite him. You show him hospitality and respect. You disagree with him but do not loathe him. If you’re a man of the cloth, you are extra mindful to do your best to share the love and truth of Christ alike, both in full force, throughout the evening.

Or you can instead give up on both our democratic manners and the possibility of finding any common ground, and march in the other direction: the path of the Manichean moral crusade which cares nought for niceties or traditions or compromise, but only for destroying the hated enemy. (That tallish structure you can barely make out towards the end of that path? Oh, never mind that. It’s just a guillotine.)

*(Sorry, Joannie, your efforts at divining souls over the Internet failed you here. But keep trying! I’m sure it’s ever so spiritually healthy!)

Simcha…you should read this article by Bill McGurn.  He explains why you are wrong.  http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ursula-and-the-Cardinal#comments

What exactly is it that y’all are so concerned about? What exactly is this “scandal” that’s being given? Is anyone, anywhere, going to look at a picture of Dolan and Obama and somehow get the impression that abortion is now OK? Get a grip, people.

“I’m gonna take a wild guess and say that the Holy Family did not dine with Herod because he was employing the most extreme methods imaginable to try to kill Jesus personally.”

Interesting.  So then you believe if Herod and excluded Christ from the massacres, he would have been a frequent dinner guest.

With respect to Judas, here is the distinction:  Judas was an apostle, not a political tyrant whose policies slaughter the masses. 

Have any theories on why didn’t the Apostles dine with Pilate after the Crucifixion? Or for that matter Christ?

Why aren’t the pedophiles in the man-boy love association invited to dine with Dolan at his swanky event?  Is there something about rape of children that makes it more politically correct to keep them off of the list of entertainment than the tyrants whose policies kill them?

Incidentally, I didn’t hear a peep from any of you handwringers when pro-abortion people like Tony Blair, Colin Powell, and Al Gore were asked to speak at this dinner in previous years.

You know what might make a real bang?

A Cardinal Dolan fundraising event whose entertainers are ethnic cleansers, right before their re-election. 

I’d love to read the defense of that at the National Catholic Register.

That would be a popcorn event.

This is all just so sad.

Is Mother Angelica still able to read?

John,

The country is on the brink of second term where the communists will roll out the full agenda.

You don’t see the context which makes making the leader the entertainment for your fundraising event, three weeks before his election, a situation that might be different than inviting Tony Blair.

Furthermore, three wrongs do not make a right.

Christ often has to take us to the gutter before we will stand up and say “Enough”.

The timing of this event and his purpose - raising money, is a scandal.  The deadline of August 1st came and went without so much as a wimper.  he souls the Cardinal is accountable for are now making choices between putting food on the table for their own children and doing harm to uncatechized women and their unborn children - and surrendering their salvation.  The temptations his silence has put in front of his sheep while he not only silently let it pass, he is using the tyrant as a form of entertainment to fundraise.  This is a new low for episcopal cowardice.

@John Henry: Judging from the Bill McGurn article linked above, it’s all about this magical thing called a “Photo Op”.

Apparently a skillfully arranged Photo Op—depicting just the right individual standing in the immediate proximity of the President, preferably not looking as though he’s being held hostage—can be counted on to yield a non-trivial number of Electoral Votes towards a President’s re-election.

This may sound incredible to those who are not political consultants, or to those who do not have a bottomless contempt for the American electorate (but I repeat myself)...but there is a powerful historical example which all must respect. The following link will take you to the greatest Photo Op in history…one so powerful that it delivered the President a whopping 49 states and 520 electoral votes, even though his re-election took place nearly two full years after this photograph was snapped:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/elvis/photos/020415_1335/pages/5364-19.htm

@CAROL: Stop it.

Now you’re recklessly accusing the Cardinal of being silent in the face of the HHS mandate? Slamming him for “episcopal cowardice”? Really?

Try this. Google “fortnight for freedom dolan”. Then re-read your last post.

Is there any calumny, any slander, any gobsmacking lie you will not stoop to invent in the course of this argument?

Just stop it.

@Carol M: Absolutely right. “Episcopal cowardice” sums this up perfectly. The Archbishop has chosen the “Beautiful People” over the flock of Christ.

Ha! Goliard praises the Archbishop for speech-making, but looks away when Dolan eats his own words and cavorts with Obama. I’m assuming, Monsieur Goliard, that your bread is buttered by the hierarchy.

I thought abortion was murder and late term abortion even for the hard hearted? Why would a Cardinal dine and laugh with such an unrepentant person? This is a no brainer! Deliver us from evil -not crack jokes with it!

Reducing the magnitude of the scandal to the minutia of a photo op makes for good reading but it it is not the substance of the despicable use of a tyrant whose policies kill children, the sick, elderly, the poor - to fundraise -three weeks before the election -  all while let the passing of his own flock be sold into the slavery of sin without so much as a whimper from him.

The disunity and divisive fruit of inviting Barack Hussein Obama have the stink of its author.

Another diviner of souls over the Internet! How blessed we are!

But sorry…your charism has failed here as well. I receive no money, privilege, office, or honors from the Church, and never have.

Thank you for making such a charitable assumption regarding my motives and morals though!

Stop it?

No!! I will not stop it. 

The truth of the matter is, August 1st came and went and the hands of many Catholics who own small businesses are now forced.  What has Cardinal Dolan done?  Invited the tyrant to be entertainment to raise money for him.

All hat, no cattle.

@CAROL: Let’s just be clear. You are lying.

Forget the Fortnight of Freedom if you like. Let’s just take the claim that “The deadline of August 1st came and went without so much as a wimper.” (Let’s also presume that “wimper” is a word.)

Five seconds with Google yields this: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/as-hhs-mandate-takes-effect-pope-benedict-xvi-joined-by-cardinal-dolan-and-president-of-canadian-bishops-in-calling-for-strong-defense-of-religious-liberty-165564256.html

Liar. Calumniator. Shame on you!

Fortnight for freedom?

Are you serious?

The parades didn’t work, so now that his own flock is forced to earn a living or pay for the pills of the village idiots, he has decided to use Obama for entertainment.

This in lieu of girding his loins and being the martyr the red cap on his head is supposed to remind him he is.

One wonders just how far a tyrant could go and still get the defense of the beautiful people in the Catholic press.

Stop taking pot shots at people who have the decency to speak the truth.  That is what to stop.

I’ll take all the pot shots at people who slander good shepherds I like, you vicious troll.

Go away.

@Blog Goliard—Somehow I suspect that you would consider it “Manichean” to even insist that the Manichees were wrong and the Catholics were right.  You’re misusing the word.  No one here has suggested that Obama, Dolan, or anyone else is a confused spark of divinity imprisoned within disgusting flesh.  No one has said it is impossible for him to repent, either—which is not a Manichean idea, it is an idea from Donatism.
“When he walks into the room, you stand and address him as “Mr President” or “Sir”.”  No, I do not.  He is not a prince, he is a public servant.  He is to America what the patriarch Joseph was to Potipher’s household—not what Potipher was to that household.  If what you say is true, we might as well admit that the British were right all along and humbly beg to be readmitted to their empire.

Liar?  Calumniator?

Wow!! When it comes to Catholic charity, you’ve got the market cornered.  Who could compete with that?

What you don’t get is, we are all sick and tired of the dog and pony shows.  Nobody gives a flying fig about the protests. It was never going to get us anywhere because Barack Hussein knew the episcopal conference is full of cowards who will turn their own people over to him for a kiss in the public square.

This whole deal is a set up. Dolan is going to tell the truth at the Al Smith dinner and it will become most uncomfortable for the President, and most awkward for his supporters. Obama will wish he didn’t make up some polite excuse and not go. Just wait and see.

@Howard: I’m using “Manichean” as it is commonly used, as an allusive term. I would certainly not consider it Manichean—in either the rhetorical or theological sense—to take the side of orthodoxy against heresy.

Regarding how one should treat the President of the United States—he’s the head of state, and I put a lot of stock in that. Doesn’t matter whether one’s country has a Queen or a Governor General or a President occupying that office…the head of state is a special thing, and deserves a certain respect. What I described were the republican manners I was taught; your mileage may vary. (I wonder though, do you feel the same unease about saluting a General and calling him “Sir”?)

It appears that Monsieur Goliard is upset, to the point of raving, at the ignominious fall of his “good shepherd.”

I do not question the good Cardinal’s intentions.  I believe they are pure.

With that said, it is quite simply politically stupid.

He will be sitting down with someone who would like no less than to abridge our religious rights, and then….

the picture that will be taken of him and Obama sitting next to eachother will be plastered on every windshield in Ohio Catholic Church parking lots the Sunday before the election.

Will Romney do the same?  He will probably try.  But the picture alone for Obama will provide credibility that he otherwise wouldn’t have. 

Oh, it’s about shepherds you like.

I get it.

The rest of us are here to remind you that the salvation of souls isn’t about shepherds you “like”.  It’s about serving the High King of Heaven.  The days of being a country club where y’all protect the corruption and cowards fell apart about ten years ago.

Well, I’m going to retire from this.  It’s turning ugly and unprofitable.  For the record, I think Cardinal Dolan has the part about being as innocent as a dove down, but he needs to work on the bit about being as wise as a serpent—particularly if he’s going to be scheduling public events with Obama.  I’ll be delighted if he shows I was wrong and turns this into something positive.  If, on the other hand, it looks like it’s going to blow up in his face, people tell him it’s going to blow up in his face, he goes through with it, and it blows up in his face, then don’t tell me he’s a cunning man with a savvy knack for politics.

The head of state?

Whoah.

The Third Reich sure could have used you. 

The inanity is just ridiculous and sad.

I think that HOW IT IS PLAYED OUT, on Dolan’s side, makes a difference.

The difficulty for the faithful is that when the hierarchy bend over backwards to be solicitous to famously unfaithful people, when the latter are neither repentant nor particularly solicitous in return, it comes across as simultaneously:

(a.) A kind of brown-nosing of those who oppose the Church (or at least an undue respect of those folks’ worldly power and influence), and,

(b.) A rebuke to those who sacrifice much to daily follow and defend the Church’s teachings. (Because it says: “I don’t care enough about you little people to be a voice for you against the powerful who defy God; instead, I prefer to paint myself as their friend, defending THEM against YOUR criticisms.”)

I acknowledge that a truly “pastoral” leader must always be merciful to someone who, though a persistent sinner, is showing some signs of desire for rapprochment with God and His Church.

But a TRULY “pastoral” leader must likewise keep in mind the impact of his actions on those whom he leads. When the Catholic faithful see one of their champions, one of their shepherds, cross over from merciful treatment of a repentant sinner to hobnobbing with the very people who spit upon them and their beliefs, what are they to think? To feel?

Do sheep like to see the shepherd chuckling and laughing it up with the wolves? Is that comforting? Does that offer the flock a sense of security?

Is that PASTORAL?

It seems there are many here who are I’ll informed of the scheming ways of Communists. And so history repeats itself.
Oh, and Goliards are traditionally set up against the Church. Well named, Mr. B.G.

@CAROL: I cared enough about the Fortnight to show up for Holy Hour every evening but two (when I had other conflicting obligations at the parish). I suppose I, and the dozens of fellow parishioners who also turned out, are fools.

Well, better a fool than a vicious guttersnipe.

And if you want to wield the “Christ-like” stick, well, go ahead. Jesus wasn’t always all that easy-going when he saw someone spreading sweeping untruths about others. Especially when they weren’t willing to acknowledge that they were wrong.

When people are making at least a minimal effort to speak thoughtfully and responsibly, that’s one thing. But attacking someone—whether public figure or not, whether clergy or not—with wildly irresponsible and slanderous statements is something that calls out to be named and shamed.

I await your retraction of the more glaring untruths in your allegations. Until then, shame on you once again, Carol.

Carol, have you really never heard the term “head of state” before?

I have trouble believing that even you would be so improbably stupid as to gormlessly mistake that for some sort of crypto-Nazi code phrase.

Good grief.

And Cephas, would y’all please make up your minds? Am I a classic sort of Goliard who enjoys tweaking those in power (civil and ecclesiastical), or am I a shameless suckup to those in power? Or does it not matter which, just so long as everyone is clear on the fact that I’m some sort of communist who hates the Church?

Wow. You showed up at adoration.  I’ll bet you pinned your own rose on your lapel.

Just because you can’t see the truth, doesn’t mean it isn’t truth.

Your own conduct is the fruit of Cardinal Dolan’s initiative. 

He has done a grave disservice to the unity of the faithful, to our country and to the souls who are now enslaved by the trappings of his failed parades in DC.

I hope his event is a cash cow for him, least it be a complete bust.

Tell me I just did NOT here that Obama is invited TO SPEAK at the Alfred E Smith dinner??  I previously thought just an invitation to attend was a scandal. I’m completely appalled.

Insanity comes to mind. Certainly there is an absence of prudence and common sense. Gifted leaders don’t make errors of this magnitude in critical times

I don’t know what Cardinal Dolan’s motivations were. But I can’t imagine anything being more damaging and disheartening when the church was coming together to circle the wagons out of necessity. 

Carol (and others), I shouldn’t have gotten so upset and resorted to calling names. I do apologize for that. Obviously I haven’t spend nearly enough time in front of Our Lord recently.

I remain, however, quite insistent that the many demonstrably untrue accusations flung at Cardinal Dolan in this thread do constitute slander and should be retracted.

I also, once again, would urge everyone to charitably interpret Cardinal Dolan’s actions and to respectfully hear his explanation. You may very well think he made the wrong call here. (I was inclined to think so myself, until Simcha’s wise words, coupled with too many spiteful and ill-informed words from the other side in the comments thread, convinced me otherwise.) You may well have good arguments against what he’s said.

Make these arguments cogently and respectfully…and don’t completely undermine yourself by saying things that can be disproven in less than 30 seconds’ research. Then you might just be taken seriously by your interlocutors.

What exactly is it that y’all are so concerned about? What exactly is this “scandal” that’s being given? Is anyone, anywhere, going to look at a picture of Dolan and Obama and somehow get the impression that abortion is now OK?

We will try this one last time.
The Catholic Bishops themselves have said the following in 2004: Bishops’ 2004 statement Catholics in Political Life - “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would support their actions.”

The reason for this is that Abortion has elements that are uniquely evil ( as discussed by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae’. As noted earlier it is an “unspeakable crime” according to Vatican II. Because our society does not understand the gravity and vile nature of abortion, indeed protects it as a right the Bishops made the above determination that politicians who are in a unique position to correct the law should be not honored with platforms when they act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.

It should be pretty clear that Obama via the support of abortion,( again this is not merely not ok, not merely a sin, but an unspeakable crime, something heinous, it is analogous to racism, child abuse ( indeed it is the ultimate abuse as it entails the killing of the child), torture etc.. By honoring Obama the Cardinal is acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the idea that someone who is engaged in defending abortion is really defending something that is an unspeakable crime. As such he is acting inconsistent with rules the Bishops themselves set up in 2004, and in a way that mitigates both the teaching of Vatican II and John Paul II. It is not that people will think abortion is “ok”. A teenager shoplifting a ten dollar tee shirt is not “ok”. A married man flirting with the bar maid is not ok… Abortion is beyond not ok.. it is a vile crime.. it is murder. Thus the invitation will mitigate to some degree the gravity of the issue at stake.

My challenge to those defending this move, is to ask do you believe that abortion is murder? If not do you disagree with John Paul II and Vatican II. If you agree abortion is murder, indeed murder of the innocent on an industrial scale, how can you justify honoring one who defends this evil? how is it different than inviting a racist, or a rapist to a dinner. I would bet that most of those defending this invitation at some level do not see abortion as the grave evil it is. They see rape, and racism etc as really repugnant, abortion is just not ok… but it need not divide us like say something really awful would do. That is the problem with the invitation in a nut shell. No one who has responded thus far has really responded to this core issue. 

We’ll just have to agree to disagree about who is disrespectful in this conversation and who is taken seriously.

“I would bet that most of those defending this invitation at some level do not see abortion as the grave evil it is.”

There is no other possible explanation.  Every other dictator involved in murder or rape would never be used as entertainment for a Cardinal’s fundraiser without the just standing up to speak the truth, should they find the atrocities to be objectionable.

Period!

I’m still not sure what Jesus would have done…but wouldn’t it have been in line with Mother Teresa’s custom to invite all comers to such a dinner and gladly accept their donations?

She wasn’t above spending time with and taking money from the Duvaliers and Mobutu, after all. (And I’m not suggesting she should have been…please don’t mistake me for Christopher Hitchens here.)

What if the guest was not President Obama, but a priest accused of some kind of abuse?  Would Cardinal Dolan welcome the accused priest with the same embrace that he welcomes President Obama?  I doubt it.  He would throw the priest out like yesterday’s garbage.

Oh, but for President Obama, who himself actively defends and promotes the worst kind of child abuse imaginable (abortion), Cardinal Dolan will roll out the red carpet, chill with him, have some fine drinks and laugh. 

Bottom line: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

I think the question was “what would Jesus do?”  Quite clearly, he would perform the will of his Father.  That seems to be the keynote of all his actions.  And this despite the cost to himself, or the apparent irrationality of the required acts.

God, Father, asks us to do quite unpredictable and astounding things, in an attempt to grow our faith and reliance upon him.  But in the end, this faith is always justified.

Those who depend on a “white bishop” like C. Dolan are placing entirely too much faith in him, personally.  He will not stem the tide of blood and outrage.  And your anger demonstrates an unjust and misplaced reliance.

In effect, C. Dolan is completely free to engage Mr. Obama or not.  He himself is not doing any of the heavy lifting.  And neither am I; and neither are you.

“I would bet that most of those defending this invitation at some level do not see abortion as the grave evil it is.”

More divining of souls. Fabulous.

I’m not sure that there’s anything that those of us who have committed the grave error of supporting Cardinal Dolan can possibly do to convince the rest of you that we abhor abortion as much as you, short of going out and shooting an abortionist.

I’m not going to do anything of the sort, of course; so you’ll just have to try harder to understand how well-meaning Catholics might reasonably disagree with you on this issue instead.

shooting an abortionist?

Yeah,sure, because that’s what prolifers do, right?

Your pants are on fire.

I’d suggest replacing the batteries in your hyperbole detector and then giving that post another read.

I know that sentence is a little long, but I wasn’t trying to be obscure (though the attempt at hyperbolic wit may have been unwise).

Yes, “What would Jesus do?” is a useful question when you’re talking about sin. “Would Jesus lie? No, so I won’t lie either.” Etc. It’s not always a useful question for other things if it’s hard to guess what Jesus would do.

“Regarding how one should treat the President of the United States—he’s the head of state, and I put a lot of stock in that. Doesn’t matter whether one’s country has a Queen or a Governor General or a President occupying that office…the head of state is a special thing, and deserves a certain respect. What I described were the republican manners I was taught; your mileage may vary. (I wonder though, do you feel the same unease about saluting a General and calling him “Sir”?)”
If Obama put his hat atop a pole and demanded that everyone bow to it, would you?  I’m just wondering where you fit vs. William Tell.  As for saluting a general, that would be inappropriate, since I am a civilian.  You do understand the difference, right?  Get used to it:  Neither Obama, nor Biden, nor Romney, nor Ryan has ever served in the military.  As for calling someone “Sir”, it has to be a male who has earned that title.  I would be equally uncomfortable either calling Obama “sir” or not, so I would avoid him.
Back to “Manicheism”:  You seem to think that, outside the context of history, someone says, “Obama [or anyone else] is a bad man,” this is an example of “Manicheism”, as though he were being declared the Demiurge.  This is nonsense.  “There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but a great difference between the two ways.”  Any idea where that came from?  Or this:  “I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”  Sometimes the choice really is stark.

I would like to know if the President will be making a cash contribution to Catholic Charities, since he will be attending a fund raiser.

I doubt it, Fr. He has his principles.
//
That being said, I wish Cardinal Dolan the best of luck. It’s not a job that I could do because Obama disgusts me to the point of sin. The fact that the Cardinal can be in the same room with that man indicates a level of holiness that I doubt I will ever achieve. So I pray for Cardinal Dolan with all my might, that he will be able to speak the truth to that man’s heart and show him the love of Christ that I certainly can’t.

It’s so disturbing to read these comments.  All these Catholics, people of the same faith, and so much vitriol and pomposity.  If a group of people with the same faith base cannot have a civilized discussion, what hope is there that people who come from completely divergent places will ever be able to communicate and produce effective change?  As several people have noted, Mr. Obama is not the first pro-choice politician or president to be invited to this function-where was all of the outrage then? Exactly what good would it do for Cardinal Dolan to disinvite Mr. Obama?  The media would love that!  It would make it into a bigger deal and they’ll use it to Catholic bash. The Cardinal can dine with someone and have it mean nothing more than that.  He probably does it often-most of us do.  I wonder how people think conversion or change can happen if people cannot even be in the same room and have a civil conversation.  Do you honestly believe that by shrilly and self righteously informing Mr. Obama that he is wrong and evil you will inspire change in him-or in anyone?  Most people don’t change because someone called them names, they change because of an experience or because met someone who was a “good ambassador” for a cause.  I actually think people can do more harm than good by refusing to consort with those whom with they disagree.  Some months ago our pastor gave a homily about needing to meet people where they are in their faith journey.  How, he asked, are people going to change and turn their hearts and souls over to Christ when we won’t even let them in the door?  He was firm about not having to approve of the things that are wrong or evil but we must be willing to meet with the wayward and the sinners if we are to bring them back or help them have a conversion.  So often we Catholics seem like mean spirited prigs, refusing to listen or engage with the other side.  Yes, you have anti Dolan/Obama dinner people have held firm.  You are moral and upright and you are in the right when it comes to not condoning or supporting Mr. Obama.  But where is this “church-lady” attitude getting you?  It’s not moving Obama or any of his “followers” because none of them are listening.  In the end isn’t that hurting us?  Don’t we want to win people over, to win their hearts for the Lord?  Are you not, in your efforts to prove your point actually throwing out the baby with the bathwater?  There has to be a better way, and maybe God is using Cardinal Dolan as an instrument.  In Matthew 7 ” Jesus declares that the person judging will be judged (v. 1) because judging assumes a divine prerogative; final judgment belongs to God alone, and those who seek to judge others now will answer then for usurping God’s position .”  Perhaps we don’t understand what Cardinal Dolan is doing, perhaps were not supposed to understand.  Disagree, state your opinion, but do it respectfully, please.  Give those of us that see this in a different light some credit and respect. If you cannot have an intelligent respectful discussion about issues like this, you must not be very secure in your beliefs.  Except for the one time when Jesus chased the money changers out of the temple, he was always calm and measured. . .and guess what?  People listened and then wrote a book about it.

How awesome would it be for Ms. Fisher and Mr. Archbold to model for us how towo obviously faithful Catholics can reasonably disagree on this particular issue without resorting to name-calling or “soul-divining” and, at the end of the day, remain faithful Catholics?  And possibly friends, if they are friends.  I find myself wanting to know more about the dialogue between them.

Haven’t followed the WWJD argument but it never sways me.

However, I feel perfectly appropriate in wondering if Cardinal Dolan is up to the task of defending religious liberty in this country.  He himself confessed to being “blindsided” by Obama’s HHS mandate.  He didn’t see it coming—he thought they had a “deal”.  Pretty big mistake in my book.

Now since all liberal catholics for Obama have spoken on your website how about faithful Catholics who were planning to attend the dinner stay home and send their contributions directly to the Smith Foundation.
A less than full dinner banquet hall would send a message to the hierarchy who have a long record of relishing the opportunity to have their photo taking with prominent politicians, especially presidents.
The Catholic hater invitee will welcome pictures taken with the jovial inviter knowing how valuable they’ll be as a tool in his re-election campaign.

The question for the Cardinal is not “what would Jesus do”, but rather it’s what the Cardinal will do when the HHS mandate comes rolling through.
The lure of comfort and money is so tough to oppose, without being open to the grace of God. Will the Cardinal be open to God’s grace?  Most Catholics will vote for Obama, because most Catholics are nominal and innately rebellious, which is the nature of the City of Man; our modern day version is the Culture of Death. Surely the Al Smith dinner will not strengthen the vote against Obama, but the greater point will be how to stand up for human dignity in the future.  Human dignity comes from God, and not being obedient to His Will, as as been received and delivered through the ages by the Church, will be destructive to so many souls. 
The sacrifice will be tremendous and terrific.  Nevertheless, Jesus did oppose the moneychangers, and it got Him into some earthly trouble. Does the good Cardinal dare risk it, for the sake of His sorrowful passion?

Would +Cardinal Dolan ever invite a candidate to this dinner who believed women had a right to racism? If he got criticized for inviting such a candidate who supports racism, would the liberal MS media and some in the Church says no big deal?

For the first five years that there was a March for Life in Washington I was there. One year we had two busses and one had to turn back as it was snowing and the tires were worn. By the fifth year I knew the Church would do nothing about that evil and that abortion was here to stay. You never mention the precedent set in 1996 and 2004 when Dolan’s predecessors cancelled the Dinner. After the Marciel Marcial episode and the sex abuse crisis, no bishop, cardinal or POPE will ever be given a free pass again. Think of all the heat being generated and the Dinner is two months away!

I’ve adopted a little corollary to Godwin’s Law, to wit:

“The first side to drag sexual abuse into a debate automatically loses.”

It’s proven a nearly flawless guide as to which side one should take in both intra-Catholic and interreligious debates. I highly commend it.

Leftover Food from Al Smith Dinner: Could we please gather it for the faithful Catholic social workers, nurses, pharmacists, county clerks, small business owners etc. who have lost their jobs/professions because they refused to comply with directives that would be contrary to their faith? I know a father of five who is unemployed because he refused to counsel about contraception. I read of a county clerk secretary who would not sign a gay marriage license and had to leave her position. I have a relative who misinforms about abortion “Morning after” pill being available when someone calls the store he works at.
No, they can’t find another job instantly and they have children to support.
Perhaps it would be hard for them to understand why the point man for the abortion culture is honored by being chosen to give a speech. Could one of these “little people” be invited to tell what has happened to their families subequent to the loss of their job/profession?

At least give them the leftovers to feed their children.
A few scraps from the tables might feed their families.

I don’t really see anything positive in the invitation. I don’t ascribe bad motives to the Cardinal but this is only what I believe an imprudent course of action taken by His Excellency.

Obama will use this as a photo op no matter how subtle. This is what politicians do. Remember, Our Holy Father Pope Benedict did not let N. Pelosi use her visit to the Vatican as a photo op - no cameras allowed.

Those who want reasons to still vote for Obama that may have been on the fence may see this as a stamp of approval especially after it is filtered through the media.

Perhaps the Cardinal will have a private meeting with Obama to further the dialogue - wishful thinking but would be hard to believe

Jeepers.  If only the people bringing utter and absolutely excommunicating certitude to this prudential judgement could have been this certain that drowning, beating, suffocating and freezing to death prisoners, or launching pre-emptive wars, or incinerating Japanese children in their beds was a grave sin and not a hazy definitional mystery that no Catholic could possibly solve.

Meanwhile, I am great amused to see this flash mob suddenly declaring poor Simcha and the Cardinal to be History’s Greatest Monsters.  Fight the good fight, Simcha.  You are perfectly right.  Party spirit (one of the works of the flesh, according to Paul) is making Catholics in America crazy.

Interesting.  When I read your comment the first thing that comes to my mind is there is a fundamental difference between Pelosi and Obama.  Pelosi professes to be Catholic, but clearly does not follow Catholic teaching. Pelosi bears responsibility for misleading people about Catholic doctrine.  Obama is not Catholic.  While he is fundamentally opposed to some Catholic teaching, he does not represent his beliefs as Catholic doctrine.  I admire Cardinal Dolan tremendously.  I have not followed this story, so I don’t know any details.

Goliard—because someone brings up sexual abuse, we are now instructed to jump to YOUR side of the debate?  Where do you come up with this stuff?
Could it be possible that some folks on your side have also said some off-putting things?

Tu quoque: It makes everything better!

The inevitable Obama/Dolan picture is only a problem because there are Catholics who think that a Marxist view of “social justice” requires them to co-operate with the evil of abortion and the HHS mandate. and they’ll use it to salve their consciences.  Of course, given Obama’s penchant for bowing to dignitaries, it might not end up meaning that. Are there any polls suggesting that Catholics will vote differently this year than they generally do?

Vincent, Goliard is busy giving lawyers a bad name: not really addressing the issues and bringing in quips to lightly dismiss others. Valid points have been made, but he walks around them.

Mr. Shea: Who’s saying they weren’t certain about drowning, beating, etc being grave sin? Again, obfuscation of the issue with other issues does not advance a point, but only serves to weaken the whole discussion.

@Cephas: If there are some important points that you think I skipped past, and that you’d like me to try to address, please do list them and I shall endeavor to answer.

I’d recommend you not judge lawyers too harshly by my example though. The standards of the profession at least proved high enough that no law firm ever hired me; so, like the majority of people who have earned JDs and passed the bar over the last decade or so, I never actually practiced.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion in the matter of the Cardinal’s invitation, Simcha. Notwithstanding, I feel you do an injustice to the many who have submitted reasoned objections to the decision when you presume to tar all with the same brush as those few who may have been uncharitable in expressing their objections to His Eminence.
The inspiration of the Holy Spirit may well be manifesting itself in those outcries from the faithful. Sometimes a matter is of such import that even the stones would cry out.

If Obama is reelected, this could be the last Catholic Charities fund raiser to be held.  That is, unless these charities choose instead to violate Catholic teaching and their own consciences and continue operating in full compliance with an evil mandate.
-The decision to honor Obama at this Dinner unfortunately shifts the burden of responsibility to the Catholic attendees…I now look to all the invited guests to show solidarity in the fight for religious freedom by refusing to attend this dinner. If you wish, donations can be sent in AFTER the election.
-The charities themselves should speak out against the Obama invitation.  It doesn’t matter how much money charities raise for themselves to fund their programs if they will soon be forced out of existence by the evil requirements of the mandate.  How can they wish to participate in an event that will honor their destroyer?  If these charities won’t take a stand for themselves, why should I spin my wheels trying to take a stand for them when they undermine my efforts by participating in their own destruction? 
-Despite what we are told that this is not a religious event because it is being held at a hotel…this IS a Catholic religious event.  We can’t be fooled into buying into Obama’s view that we are only religious when we are inside our churches. 
-It doesn’t matter what Cardinal Dolan may “have up his sleeve,” if anything.  All that the mainstream media will broadcast and publish is the UNDISPUTED FACT that Cardinal Dolan honored Obama at a major fundraiser.  In my opinion, anything Cardinal Dolan attempts to do during the fundraiser to upstage Obama will be too little, too late, for a substantial percentage of the Faithful to stomach.

@Liam Ronan: If the “Holy Spirit” is behind people simply making up stuff so they can better bash Cardinal Dolan, then that “Holy Spirit” can go to Hell.

The flood of “deferential” responses to the Cardinal’s scandalous invitation to Obama are the primary reason why the Church went through the clerical sex scandal in the first place. “We just have to trust whatever the bishop says, whatever Father does”—despite all reason and appearance of scandal. In the meantime, their massive misconduct and permissiveness left thousands with dead souls. This attitude is killing the Church and the faith of millions, and it’s on full display in this blog. Bishops and priests get a pass that no one else gets, and consequently they have abused the trust of millions. Such flaky responses of clergy and laity alike to everything that is evil tell me that the Church is going to get the curse we ask for come Nov. 6.

WOW Liam…I am praying for you.  Please repent your statement and pray for your soul.  I fear you do not fully understand the consequences of what you just posted.  Everyone, please pray for Liam NOW.

Thank you William. Exactly the point I made earlier in this thread. “We should trust them because they have earned it.” is not the proper response. God gave each of us an intelligence and will, and we should have opinions, and voice them charitably, which means to speak the truth gently, but clearly.

Liam:  Ooops, my mistake, I am so sorry.  My comments above should have been addressed to Blog Goliard.  Everyone please pray for the individual behind this posting.
-Liam…my sincere apologies…but I did pray for YOU before I realized my mistake.  Hopefully you will get a whole lot of extra prayers today before people realize I mixed up the names.

Dear CatholicByChoice I did not post the blasphemy you mention. Have a look at the post!

“Posted by Blog Goliard on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 8:54 AM (EST):
@Liam Ronan: If the “Holy Spirit”...etc.

I appreciate the prayers but you got the wrong guy! Please be more careful when you read a post so you ascribe it to the right party.

God bless

Liam, I will definitely be more cautious, and I am terribly, terribly sorry.  I hope you can forgive me.

Apology accepted CatholicByChoice…no harm no foul…thanks for the prayers too. God bless you always, Liam

I appreciate any and all prayers, for any reason. I’m a lousy Catholic who only hopes to get the hang of it someday before I die.

But I would suggest that if you detected blasphemy in that last post, you may have read it wrong (just as you read the byline wrong). Try again.

Thank you for your forgiveness, I am certainly humbled and humbleness is a virtue I have been striving to learn this year.  May God bless you also.

Blog Goliard, I have re-read your posting three times.  I don’t see where I misunderstood what you wrote.  I am afraid for you.  Please pray, reprent and ask forgiveness.  I am praying for you, and I feel real fear over what you wrote.  We may be on opposite sides of this debate, but you are my spiritual brother (or sister?) and I love you and care for you.  May God bless you, and keep you, and make His face to shine upon YOU.

“I am a better Catholic than all y’all and have correct views on everything.”  This is how this comment thread reads. Amazing how a little anonymity affords such opportunities to take any semblance of charity we possess and throw it out with the captcha we can’t read.

I placed “Holy Spirit” in quotes quite deliberately, and on second reference specified “*that ‘Holy Spirit’”. Does that help?

Oh, heck. Let me just try to restate it in less alarming fashion:

Liam attributed the backlash against Cardinal Dolan to “the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”. My reply is that if hurling wild and easily disproven charges at His Eminence is something that’s coming from what Liam calls the “Holy Spirit”, then we should get as far away from that “Holy Spirit” as possible.

(Because that’s not what the Holy Spirit would do…and so it can’t be the working of the real Holy Spirit.)

@Albert: People are managing to read the CAPTCHA just fine. It’s all those other words on the page that seem to be the problem.

To Blog Goliard on his post. Since you apparently have a direct line to the Holy Spirit I’d appreciate it if you would put in a good word for me.

everyone needs prayers. i’ll pray for you. everyone, pray for everyone NOW!

I have two questions for Cardinal Dolan. First one: If Obama promoted stabbing cardinals in the neck and sucking out their brains would you invite him to dinner? Second: Do you believe preborn babies are equal in value to cardinal princes of the Church? I eagerly await the cardinal’s response.

I don’t have a direct line to the Holy Spirit. I have, however, read the Epistles of St. John.

Of all the ways people could get this whole controversy wrong, there seem to be two major camps: those who think Dolan is suddenly a weak, hypocritical turncoat; and those who think that anyone who questions the invitation is attacking the cardinal and needs to shut up.

Mrs. Fischer didn’t say the latter, but she does seem to dismiss the whole controversy with some flippancy. Of course, that’s “her” I guess. But like many here, she doesn’t seem to realize that there is this huge number of Catholics who are only formed by the mainstream media - news, sitcoms, movies, etc. They haven’t read anything Catholic in a long time, and they haven’t heard a challenging homily in years. They don’t comment on NC Reg. They (might) know that there’s something going on with Obamacare that the Church doesn’t like, but whatever, time for another NCIS rerun.

They have not heard that there are an unprecedented deluge of lawsuits against the administration for its assault on religious liberty. They don’t know that this administration has taken EVERY SINGLE opportunity to advance abortion and contraception, even pushing it into corners of policy that no one imagined possible. To this point, and a point which deserves more reflection than I’ve seen from defenders of the Obama invite, is that Catholic Charities who serve those harmed by sex trafficking are no longer eligible (realistically) for federal grants because they will not refer for abortions, and those orgs - even if they have a record of service that pales in comparison to Cath Charities - will receive preference. One could go on for gigabytes on things this administration has done against life and family, and against the Church in the most cynical and aggressive ways.

Now the president is invited to a Catholic Charities event, not for dialogue, but to joke and present himself as a reasonable guy who basically has no serious problem with the Church. You can bet that the mainstream media outlets who couldn’t find space to cover the lawsuits are going to find plenty of room to cover the president’s jokes with a nice big picture of him patting Cardinal Dolan on the back. What problem with the Church? It’s all good!

The NC Reg crowd isn’t swayed, but the doughy middle of the Church sees a happy picture, is glad that there’s really no problem, and goes back to its NCIS reruns. And votes for Obama if it votes at all. Not because it’s evil or even necessarily stupid, but because it is passive and only formed by non-Catholic sources.

Notre Dame 2009 was also supposed to be a time of dialogue, and critics of that episode were demonized as well. Now ND has joined the suit against the administration. We have yet to learn. I’m a Dolan fan, and he is no turncoat. But that is no defense of this decision. I pray that, as some suggest here, he does have something up his sleeve - not trickery but holy courage to make this episode work for the good.

“I’m more and more astonished at how many Catholics have been granted the gift of reading hearts!  Padre Pio could know what was on a person’s conscience if they were in the confessional with him; but [Mark Shea] can tell whether anyone cares about [drowning, beating, suffocating and freezing to death prisoners, or launching pre-emptive wars, or incinerating Japanese children in their bed]just by being in the same combox with them.  Amazing!” Simcha Fisher [with revisions by Matt B]

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/it-gets-me-every-time#ixzz23ogjf1ir

IT’S A FREAKING DINNER! Get a grip people, really.

Shannon, someone might see that Obama is witty and engaging, especially as compared to the cardboard cutouts that have run against him, and feel impelled to disregard “policies” for “personality.” 

Statistics show that no one cares about policy specifics in a presidential candidate, unless there’s rampant starvation.  It’s more about “likeability.”  Even this time around, when they should have learned better, repubs have chosen someone stiff and “unlikeable,” not the kind of person you want to have kicking around the house for the next 4 years. 

Is it impossible to be a genuine human being, compassionate to the poorest of the poor, and effective at the same time?  Do compassionate solutions always have to vary radically from practical ones?  Why does the obviously wrong choice always look like the best choice? 

It’s diabolical.

Folks,

Wonderful installation homily.

ZERO follow-up with the flock.

Many a member of the flock, I know from many first hand conversations, believe in abortion.

This is just the way the good cardinal is showing us he was wrong about HHS mandate. Go with the flow. Can’t fight them join them.

The Cardinal is simply a victim of his status as he obviously believes that wearing the red hat allows him never to make a bad judgement.
Too bad. So Sad.

George Neumayr wrote on REAL CLEAR RELIGION ” Cardinal Dolan’s geniality makes him ill suited to head up an embattled church in America—a problem that the unfolding fiasco of the Al Smith dinner illustrates.”
I totally agree. We don’t need a “good ole boy” representative in this time of battle. This dinner takes place shortly before the election. The photo opts with grinning Cardinal Dolan and Obama—send the message to Catholics—that it is OK to vote for Obama. Sadly Cardinal Dolan is ignoring all the good advice of the pro life Catholics about the message he is sending.

Bishops’ 2004 statement                     Catholics in Political Life - “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would support their actions.”

All I’ll say is when you start with the heresy of Religious Freedom this is where it leads. Error has no rights. The fruit of Vatican II is rotten.

Remember in chemistry the process of valence? “Valence is typically, the number of electrons needed to fill the outermost shell of an atom.” (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/valencedef.htm)

In this case, Cardinal Dolan is the amassing atom…President Obama is the first electron to latch onto his ‘shell’ (read: position) and the remainder of Catholics who witness the happy, happy, joy, joy photo opp are the additional electrons that will be needed to fill in and complete the perception. When it comes us human beings, perception is reality, I’m afraid, and this will be perceived as the Cardinal extending an olive branch, (as his station calls for) but that doesn’t mean photo sessions need to be included.

Posted by tim on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 12:51 PM (EST):All I’ll say is when you start with the heresy of Religious Freedom this is where it leads. Error has no rights. The fruit of Vatican II is rotten.”
**
With respect, this sounds like what the Protestants said about the fruit of Vatican I.

We have every legitimate right to criticize (in a pastoral way, of course) our bishops and other members of the hierarchy. We are the Church too. Many believe that Cardinal Dolan’s decision is wrong; we have a right to be heard. What do you wish us to do? Keep quiet? Keep our opinions to ourselves? Be good little Catholic people and just nod politely at whatever the decisions made by the powers that be? To just accept any decision made in deference to the Holy Spirit? (It seems much has been ‘blamed’ on the Holy Spirit these days.) For better or worse, we still live in a free country, and we have a right to our opinions. Knock it off? Be serious.

I agree with Greg. Bad decision and we should voice our thoughts. Notre Dame was just as much of a disaster as this Al Smith dinner invite. I fear future decisions from this P/C Cardinal. Scary.

Over time, war has never been the answer. My fraternal brothrers know this all too well+ I believe that Cardinal Dolan is the right person placed here at the right time. Good will win+ Christ’s word will be lived! Amen

Simcha…Ordinarily I am with you! But not this time! I do agree that
some disagreeing with the Cardinal have not played by the rules of
respect and plain good rules of civil debate. But to suggest because
the Cardinal has spoken we must zip up and swallow what for many is
not only unwise but also dangerously close to giving scandal to many
who may not understand what is truly going on here. Okay! The invitations are out and the acceptances have been received. Le’s hope the Cardinal and his staff had the good sense to have the event strictly private with
no media and photogs. What most of us are fearing is the inevitable photo op that will surely happen if Obama et al get their way. And why not? It
will appear to most voters when they see the two smiling and joking and possible with even an arm thrown over the shoulder ( Our dear Cardinal is a very physical personality)that hey, all’s cool between the Church and
Obama! Remember how large a role Catholics( well meaning but poorly informed)played in his ‘08 election.
No, Simcha, I think after the Cardinal has made his relationship with
Obama a very public affair ( remember His Excellency standing in front
of the cameras telling us very betrayed he felt?)and has repeatedly called for the laity to get involved in the HHS fracas we can hardly just
keep quiet now that *some* see the Cardinal about ready to step into it
again! This time I am more with Pat Archbold than with you, dear Simcha.
Nothing personal!

I am just an average aging Catholic who goes to church on Sunday and tries to live according to Catholic teachings but I am completely outraged and scandalized by Cardinal Dolan inviting to dinner someone who has declared war on me and the Catholic Church, and who is responsible for me having to drop my health insurance when the HHS mandate goes into effect.  How can he be suing this man and having dinner with him too?  Total hypocracy!

Reading this comment thread this afternoon wasn’t unlike praying the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary.  The similarities in the treatment of His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan, one of Christ’s appointed and ordained representatives on Earth and Jesus’ Passion are striking. Some of the comments found here from self justified ‘faithful Catholics’ that abandon, scourage, crown with thorns, add to his cross, or just plain crucify His Eminence staggers the imagination.

I’ll dedicate the recitation of the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary today to His Eminence, the comments found in this thread certainly redound to His Eminence’s glory!

Is this a page from the gospel that says, “some demons can only be driven out by party and feasting?” 

Fidelium sensus a rat.

Re: formation of Catholics:  I would love to see the Catholic church require every Catholic to undergo a Catholic Formation class every few years or so…maybe every five years.  It would be a mandatory requirement to be considered a Catholic in good standing.  The classes should be weekly for at least eight weeks, or however long it takes to solidly cover the foundations of the Catholic teaching. 
-I agree with Stephen’s post that too many Catholics are receiving their formation via the mass media. I think every Catholic would benefit from a “refresher” course based on the Catechism.  This would go a long way to wake up Catholics who have become confused and mesmerized by the constant anti-Christian onslaught that we are subjected to by the media (TV, radio, print and electronic).  I truly believe this would solve many problems within the Catholic church.

@CatholicByChoice: Nothing stopping you from embarking on a self-study course.

Once Dolan became Archbishop of New York, the whole state rolled over to same-sex “marriage” and just after Dolan had a meeting with Obama. Now Obmama is throtteling the catholic church and Dolan is inviting him over for dinner. Do they work together?

Total dysfunction. The article. The comments. Denial of abuse of power.

This entire mess is the result of 50 years of double standards within the Catholic Church in the western world. The outcast faithful, the weird Catholics who actually work at following their faith even when it comes to sexuality and life issues, are tired of things like this. You cannot blame them. They are made fun of by priests, chanceries, and bishops, until money is needed or students are needed for schools, or the HHS Protests.  They are like the people of Poland when JPII visited and they began to chant “We want Christ!” They are tired of being used and ignored by dioceses across the country. The number of so called Catholic politicians, universities, priests, and religious, who continue to damage the faith and cause the death of children and destruction of the families, and yet are left untouched by the bishops, is an outright scandal. And this is just more of the same, business as usual.

As I recall, the Democrats did not invite Chaput to their last convention in Denver. This was a first. Was it because the Democrats feared the clarity of Chaput’s thoughts, such as his book, “Render Unto Caesar”? The liberal/Communists know how to play this game. We Catholics are just playing into their hands. Our Lady of Fatima said all countries would be communist if we do not reform our lives. We are almost there, and our bishops are asleep as to the game. We need to pray the Rosary and make the First Saturday Act of Reparations. Pray God enlightens the Bishops.

Honestly, I have no real idea what’s going on, but from what I’ve read, isn’t it the job of a Cardinal to represent his flock and the Church as a whole? Therefore, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it’s actually a very good idea for him to dine with Obama, since Dolan can appeal to Obama to stop certain laws Obama’s administration has implemented? I don’t know if this is Dolan’s intention, and, again, I don’t know what is going on, but it seems logical that a representative of Christ would want to dine with the President, precisely because of his (Dolan’s) - as you say - political savvy. But, for a third time, I really don’t know the entire story, nor do I have the patience to read all the comments. :-) God bless.

Dismas—I think it’s a bit over the top to say that the backlash against the Cardinal’s invitation by Catholics is akin to Jesus being flogged at the pillar.  Come on.

Does everyone know that in 1377, St. Catherine of Siena got on the pope’s case (rather firmly!) to move from Avignon back to Rome?  Would we say that she was out of line?  Of course not, since that was not a doctrinal matter, and we presume she didn’t call him names or anything un-Christian.
Well, an invitation to dinner is not a doctrinal matter either.  People who defend the Cardinal’s decision have every right to do so, but they shouldn’t have a knee-jerk reaction to those of us who vehemently but respectfully think he made an imprudent choice.

“Cardinal” Dolan, is part of the reason, why I no longer claim “Catholicism”
He -not unlike the USCCB- time and time again, has shamelessly placated and pandered to political “Powers-that-WON’T-be.                                Unconscionably, betraying the Divinely-anointed and internationally recognized
House of David.
These inexcusable actions, provide confirmation for Dolan and the USCCB:
UNFIT and UNWORTHY for The Kingdom of The True and Living Yahweh.

Dear Cardinal Dolan,
Sometimes, you must make a line in the sand for God. Christ said, “You are either for me, or against me”.  In these serious times of the Catholic church, I think it is TIME for you to draw the line against Obama who is a very outspoken immoral, pro-death President and person.  I pray without ceasing that you do not invite President Obama to the upcoming Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner.  There are many ‘openly’ immoral things that Obama has done and said that are horrifically against the teachings of the Catholic faith.  Therefore, President Obama must be rejected as an invited guest.  It certainly is a ‘slap in the face’ to Mr. Alfred Smith and the rest of the Catholic people who yearn for true leadership.  I feel that if you persist in inviting Obama to this dinner, you would be putting yourself in a situation of serious sin, thus being a very poor example of true love for Jesus Christ and His Church.

While I was in Adoration today, I was reading the book, “Prayer-The Key To Salvation” and I came across this statement from St. Theresa who said that “the souls of the just in this life have to conform themselves by love to what the blessed do in Heaven.  As the saints in Heaven treat only with God, and have no other thought or delight but His glory and love, so must you have no other thought or employment.  In this world let God be your only happiness, the only object of your affections, the only end of your actions and wishes, until you arrive in the eternal Kingdom, where your love will be consummated and made perfect, and your desires completely fulfilled and satisfied”.

Dear Cardinal Dolan, please do not let the kingdom of the world enter your heart.  You have been called to be one of the just on earth.
Sincerely in Jesus and Mary,

@ Royal Highness Michael ....You are confusing the Mystical Body of Christ with the human men who sometimes fail(sin)against Him. Leaving
the Church because of these fellow-sinners is irrational and endangering your immortal soul! The Church is both human and divine.Yes, those who do not act as good and faithful shepherds leave us all very dispirited. But
to walk out is “cutting your nose to spite your face” Only you lose.
When Judas betrayed Jesus ( he was the first among the chosen to do that in our Church) the other 11 did not desert Jesus also. Think this through again and reconsider this more carefully and prayerfully. Ask for God’s mercy thru reconciliation ....and hasten back to the side of the Lord!

Dear friend Blog Goliard: I do try to take advantage of every opportunity to study and deepen my understanding.  I recently converted to the Catholic faith.  For the past five years I have been an Oblate at a Benedictine monastery and I volunteer there regularly.  I attend my parish church every Sunday, and I participate in weekly bible study classes.  I was disappointed in the lack of depth of the RCIA program and think that quite possibly it is time to eliminate it and just accept new converts to the Faith, but I accept the responsibility for educating myself. I am a beginner and I am hungry to learn more. 
-I’d love to know in what ways you are deepening your understanding of the Faith.  Your comment made me think that you would not like what you would hear in a formation class based on the Catechism.  Is that true or am I misreading your intention as I seem prone to do. :)

@CatholicByChoice: You’re right in that the quality of RCIA courses tends to vary widely. We have some excellent teachers in my parish—the gentleman who does a two- to three-part series on the Eucharist is tremendous—and they’re even gracious enough to let me help out. (It’s a way for me to give something back, being a convert myself.) But there’s so much to be done yet in reforming and renewing religious education, for both adults and children. Instead of giving up on it, see if there’s an opportunity for you to help improve RCIA where you are.

We should be joyful though. We have come a long way already. It takes a long long long time to turn around this vast supertanker we call the Barque of Peter, but I can feel things moving in the right direction, every day. The corrected translation was a big step here; I can feel it especially turning our hearts towards orthodoxy each day. And such bishops we’re being sent these days!

I think part of the reason I’m so gobsmacked by the eagerness to find fault with Dolan—even to the point of, quite wickedly, concocting untruths or spreading information without caring whether it’s true—is that I can remember being a young person in Hunthausen territory. And then being a slightly less young person in a deeply troubled Province of Boston. And now I’m in a growing parish and diocese with Abp. Wilton Gregory as my shepherd. Such an amazing difference!

Though the biggest difference is within me. I’ve got a long way to go—as the poor followers of this whole thread will have intuited all to easily—but after a couple of decades as a Catholic under my belt, I’ve started to grasp a few things. One of the most important being that it really is true that if you’re going to save the Church, or your family, or your town, or anything else, you really do have to start with reforming yourself. This advice had always seemed like just part of the solipsistic hippy-dippy ‘70s soup I was force-fed as a youngster, so I discounted it…but I really have found it to be true.

(And I hope I’m done writing the word “really” for the day. Sheesh. I wish we could have an “Edit” button.)

Honored Guest: Facilitator of terminating young Children
Host: Catholic Luminaries including Cardinal
Itinerary: Night of fun and merriement

Can’t we all get along?

Why should we let a few million lives get in the way of some good clean fun? He seems so nice.

Blog Goliard - I appreciate many of your comments found here, you’ve worked hard and done a good job.  As a convert, I have a question for you.  Was your conversion to Catholicism a personal choice or was your conversion more an answer to a call, a submission of personal preference and will to that of the Will of God?

@Dismas: That’s an interesting question; I’ll try not to hijack the thread completely by attempting an answer.

Looking back, I don’t really see it as a choice or as an answer or as a submission, so much as an unmerited gift that I was given enough grace to accept.

The gift part lay in an convoluted set of circumstances which led me to the right place (full of admirable Catholics who would lead me to the faith without ever outwardly trying) at the right time (when I felt I’d reached the end of the road with Protestantism, and needed to turn in another direction).

The acceptance part lay in the fact that I was invited by circumstance and the Spirit to investigate, to taste and see, to read read read (I’ve always been an egghead), and to embark on a revolutionary new kind of prayer life through this peculiar thing called a Rosary. The process always waited for my initiative, my seeking, to move things along. No one ever, not once, came up to me and said, “You know, you should really consider becoming a Catholic.” (Having grown up Evangelical, this blew my mind.) The farther along I got, the more I realized that what I had found was everything I had been searching before…and more.

Being formally received into the Church and receiving the Sacraments for the first time was a truly awesome step, full of incredible graces…yet that was, really, still just part of the beginning of the process of becoming a Catholic. So many curveballs have been thrown my way since (and with poor depth perception, I was always awful at bat), and as long as I’m alive there will be so much farther to go. But perhaps that’s at least a start at answering your question.

@ Vincent W -

I would suggest it would behoove you to investigate more the source of your ‘fear’.  If you go back and review the blatant disrespect shown His Eminence in some of the comments posted in this thread I would hope you will reassess your uncharitable charge of my ‘being over the top.’

His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan, by virtue of the the Third Person of the Holy Spirit, is a duly appointed and ordained Cardinal of our Church, a representative of Christ Himself on Earth.  By virtue of his priestly office, he is my Father and yours.

Furthermore, comparing the commentators in this thread with a false appeal to Saint Catherine of Siena, a Saint who actually experienced the direct revelation of God the Father Himself, is in the greatest of charity, to say the least, deceitful and the epitome of naivete.

Please let’s have no more insulting of the priesthood and Saints of our Church by clericalist laity.

@ Blog Goliard -

Thank you for your candid response which hasn’t hijacked the thread in any way.  My purpose in asking this question was to highlight the great error and deception of anyone attempting to fool themselves or us by posting their own personal opinions and ideas under the misleading moniker of ‘CatholicByChoice’.

@Dismas….Let’s not get carried away with “dissing” one another for
showing disrespect..where none was given. At least certainly not by
Vincent anymore than by Pat Archbold. If respect is not shown as it should be to the good Cardinal that is one thing and it should not be
tolerated here. However on prudential matters one can express, respectfully, a difference of opinion. I see no disrespect on Vincent’s part. To compare Vincent’s remarks to Jesus being scouraged at the pillar, crowned with thorns is closer to “over the top” if not more than slightly tinged with blasphemy.
And who is Third Person of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps the Holy Spirit Who is Third Person in the Blessed Trinity?

@Dismas—I think ThirstforTruth said it well.  To add:  Where in heck to you gather that I have “fear”?
You’ve actually proved my point, in that those of us who have a reasoned, respectful disagreement with the Cardinal’s decision are slammed by others on these comments with weird accusations out of left field—i.e., that we are dissing or insulting the Cardinal directly, and that we must never speak a word of disagreement regarding any priest.  (To BlogGoliard: yes, if things are blatantly fabricated, then that is way out of line.)

Second, my recounting of the story of St. Catherine was not to imply that I have a direct line from God the Father!  Rather, it is meant to remind us all that it is not wicked or insulting to have a disagreement with a prelate of the Church in a matter that is purely of a prudential nature. One need not have a directive from Heaven to respectfully discuss the pros and cons of various non-doctrinal decisions.  Since you fall on the other side of the debate in the case at hand, I suspect that you looked for some way to refute my post immediately upon reading it, but in doing so you missed the real point.

Bottom line: there’s no justification is accusing me of “insulting” a saint or the priesthood.

Thank you for showing the other side of things!  I wasn’t so sure that Cardinal Dolan’s accusers were right on this issue, and I feel more comfortable in believing that now!

@ThirstforTruth -

If my comments accuse your conscience, good.  Not only do I find your judgement of His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan imprudent and a perfect example of clericalist laisicism, I find your interference between Vincent and myself imprudent as well.

“Posted by Vincent W. on Thursday, Aug 16, 2012 5:05 PM (EST):
We can all throw Bible quotes or other phrases around to suit both sides of this dinner debate.  Sure, everyone trots out “Jesus ate with sinners,” but we should also remind ourselves that he threw the moneychangers out of the Temple!  So alongside charity, we must consider the Catholic virtue of prudence.  In my opinion, the Cardinal chose charity, whereas prudence should have meant not extending the invitation.  I suppose both views can be justified, so let’s just see how it all plays out.”

@ Vincent W -

Thank you for your charitable response.  I am unworthy.  You are great expample of faith, hope and charity.

Dear Blog Goliard:  Thank you for your response, you have a very interesting story.  I went through RCIA just last year, although I had been participating and volunteering at the monastery for four years before that.  My story is similar to yours in that nobody ever suggested to me that I should convert.  Instead, the Catholics around me converted me by their example.  As I was exposed to the early works of the Desert Fathers (ever read Cassian’s Conferences?  It answered all my questions!) and the writings of the Saints (Theresa of Avila especially) I slowly realized that I wanted to come home to the Catholic Church. 
-I think if RCIA had been based on the Catechism it would have been a fascinating nine months and would have built a solid Catholic foundation for the initiates.  Instead, it was something to be “gotten through” and I tried to make the best of it.  The problem was that the RCIA program I underwent was designed for people with no spiritual background or history at all, even though all of us had extensive Christian backgrounds.  I was disappointed because I had expected it to be a very thought-provoking and challenging.  Instead it was boring.  I kept asking myself “how can ANYONE make Catholicism boring?”  But they did indeed find a way.
-I truly thank you for your response, you have an interesting life and you are an interesting person.  I wish I could have been in YOUR RCIA class, I am sure I would have been better for the experience.  May God bless you.

Dear Dismas:

Thank you for posting your opinion of me, I am humbled and to learn humility is good for my soul.  May God bless you and keep you and make His face to shine upon YOU!

Liberal Catholics can go on there smug little way, and faithful Catholics can to mental gymnastics or take the kick in the stomach.

@Dismas…( or might that be Dismal?)...My “judgment” of His Emminence? Where?
This is a public website and I have every right to comment, at least as
much as you. What are you? The religious control police? I think you have your theology all twisted out of shape by your self-righteous attitude! You are sounding more and more, with every post,as the British might say, a bit smug! You never answered what you mean by the Third Person of the Holy Spirit and now I must ask you what in tarnation is clericalist laisicism?  I know what clericalism is and I know what laicism is but clericalist laisicism is just not ringing a bell. To judge the Cardinal might be impudent, but probably not imprudent. Unless you intend to send the religious control police to arrest me! In which case I will throw myself at your feet and beg your mercy and forgiveness which I am sure will be forthcoming as you sound like you just oooze Christian charity.
Now I know I am going to spend a bit more time in Purgatory for tweaking
you so but maybe we can keep each other company and discuss further laical clerity or that mysterious Third Person.

I’m sorry, I forgot which Pope invited Mussolini and Hitler to dinner (to break bread)? Is Nancy Pelosi invited too? Or maybe Biden can come and get a review of his catechism. When Pope Leo went to meet Attila the Hun, also called the the scourge of God—-did they have a nice friendly dinner? My memory fails me…

I don’t know what is meant by a ‘liberal catholic’ unless that means clerical laicism, I only know Roman Catholicism.  Please stop passing rash judgement on His Eminence, Timothy Cardinal Dolan and instead place your trust in the Providence of God and His Priestly Office on Earth manifested by the Third Person of the Holy Spirit.

I’m reminded of a particular exchange between Peter and Jesus Himself:

[31] And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the ancients and by the high priests, and the scribes, and be killed: and after three days rise again. [32] And he spoke the word openly. And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him. [33] Who turning about and seeing his disciples, threatened Peter, saying: Go behind me, Satan, because thou savorest not the things that are of God, but that are of men. [34] And calling the multitude together with his disciples, he said to them: If any man will follow me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. [35] For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel, shall save it. [36] For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul? [37] Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? [38] For he that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation: the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. [39]
[Mark 8:31-39]

Dismas has definitely taken over and is now policing this site…. I wonder is Simcha hired him to chase off those who disagree with her..

Simcha, I am another who must respectfully disagree with your position… to a degree.  Of course, when dealing with a Bishop, one must always be respectful and all name-calling and accusation of ill-intent has no place in the conversation.  However, we ALL have a right to disagree with a bishop and make that disagreement or concern known.  You say a priest/ bishop acts in persona Christi.  That is true WHILE HE IS PERFORMING THE SACRAMENTS.  His actions in persona Christi are effective by the very fact that they are done.  But to assume that all bishops are inerrant in their decisions is just folly.  A simple glance through any Catholic history book will prove my statement.  Bishops can and do make mistakes and the faithful have every right, and even a responsibility, to bring their concerns to light.  Is Card. Dolan trying to do the right thing?  Of course he is!  Is it the right thing to do?  Time will tell. Is there a potential that the president will use the Cardinal’s good intention for an evil end?  You bet!!! We’ve already seen him do it time and time again.  The president has already lied to the good Cardinal so, from my point of view, the lack of trust is not in the goodness of the Cardinal but in the deceit of the president.  And we have a right to register that concern.

The reality is that the many faithful HAVE been scandalized.  The reality is that many lukewarm Catholics will be persuaded by the Obama administration that the Church no longer has an issue with him and his policies.  The reality is that many active and dedicated Catholics sacrificed time and effort to show support for the Cardinal in his fight against the HHS Mandate and many of them feel betrayed.  The Cardinal should be made aware of all of this, providing it be done with deference and respect.  I think Pat Archbold’s article did exactly that and his sentiments reflect my concerns quite well. 

My problem with your article is that it seems to condemn anyone who disagrees with the Cardinal.  He is not infallible in matters of politics and therefore, he can make mistakes.  His judgments, while well-intended, CAN come to the wrong conclusions.  I am not so conceited as to say I’m right and the Cardinal is wrong but, as someone who has worked long hours in the heart of the political sphere, I believe I have a right to express my concern and I do NOT believe it is right to villify those who do.

Thanks Simcha!!

Cha-ching - Cha-ching!!  Who could portend the profitability?

Sue -

What is a ‘lukewarm Catholic’?  Is a ‘lukewarm Cahtolic’ the same as a Roman Catholic?  Will His Eminence, Timothy Cardinal Dolans’s actions have a negative on Roman Catholics?

By “lukewarm Catholics” I am referring to those who are not well catechized… who come to Church most Sundays mostly because they were taught they were “supposed to” do so, rather than out of great fervor for the faith.  They are those who do not read Catholic periodicals nor the Catechism becasue there just isn’t that much interest.  If statistics have any validity, this number includes over 50% of the Catholic population and is the very group that Obama is targeting to get the swing vote.  So, no… “lukewarm Catholic” is not synonomous with “Roman Catholic” as many Roman Catholics are very fervent.  However, there are many lukewarm Catholics within the Roman Rite Church as there are lukewarm Christians within ANY Christian denomination.

I’m sorry Sue, let me clarify my question.  What is a ‘lukewarm catholic’?  Is a ‘lukewarm catholic’ the same as a Roman Catholic?  Will His Eminence, Timothy Cardinal Dolans’s actions have a negative effect on Roman Catholics or a possible positive effect on ‘lukewarm catholics’?

I’m sorry Sue, I fail to see your distinction.  There are only Roman Catholics.  The rest are something other than Catholic, wouldn’t you agree?  What does your distinction regarding non Catholics have to do with His Eminence, Timothy Cardinal Dolan and a Dinner?

Oh… sorry!  I forgot to answer your second question, Dismas.  If by “negative effect” you mean, “Could the Cardinal’s actions be used by the Obama administration to confuse Catholics less well formed in the faith,” I believe the answer is “yes”!  Obama already used the support of Sr. Keehan and Fr. Thomas Reese (supported by the MSM) to proclaim to the nation that the Catholic Church had no problem with the HHS Mandate and claimed, to great effect, that the only opposition came from “out-of-touch” bishops.  With this invitation, Obama could easily spin the message that the “out-of-touch” bishops are now in-step with his healthcare policies and are quietly admitting contraception is not that big an issue - something that many Catholics are anxious to hear proclaimed anyway.  Again, I have great respect for Card Dolan but I trust Obama about as much as I would trust a rattlesnake in the grass!

Dismal you may go now. You have hogged this site far too long and have become a real nuisance.  Nobody appointed you the religious police here.

Dismas,

If you’re saying the only real Roman Catholics are the fervent, well-catechized and well-informed kind, then, I would agree that the Cardinals actions will not cause any great harm.  If all Catholics were such, we wouldn’t have half the problems we do today with Catholics contracepting, large percentages not going to Sunday Mass on a regular basis, etc.  The FACT is that is NOT the situation.  What the world calls the “Catholic voting block” or the “Catholic swing vote” is made up of lots of Roman Catholics that are not well formed in the faith.  They are the ones Obama will target and they are the ones who could be mislead by the appearance of approval at such a dinner.

@CatholicByChoice: Thank you for your kind words. Would you care to repeat that bit about how interesting I am to my teenage daughter sometime? It’d be really useful.

Regarding your RCIA experience, I’m sorry that the special charism of making the Faith boring was so often present for you, and I understand your frustration. One of our parish’s candidates who was received into the Church this past Easter would understand it far more though (and I’m quite sure he wouldn’t mind my sketching this briefly).

He was, naturally, new to Catholicism, but is frightfully smart and an enthusiastic self-directed learner…and what is more, he had previously mastered Buddhist spirituality. In some ways, he was an infant Christian and needed so much direction; in others, he was the most spiritually advanced person in the room and I constantly feared we were wasting his time. A tricky case…but such a deep pleasure that I was able to be of some small help.

I feel a little guilty that I, by contrast, got to receive so much of my own instruction either one-on-one, or with just one other catechumen…oh, and two of the priests who taught me were published authors, and one is now a bishop. An embarrassment of riches…one of my guardian angels must have had a heck of a lot of favors to cash in.

Even the part of the experience that is deeply disturbing in retrospect—a retreat with a priest who is now in jail for the infamous and horrifying reason we’ve come to know too well lately—has provided no end of lessons. The most important of which flows from the fact that, at that particular retreat, what he taught me was good and sound Catholic doctrine, offered skillfully and with no ulterior motives, and this did a great deal to help get me started on the road to full recognition and acceptance of the Faith.

Maybe he struggled against the evil in which he was drowning, and occasionally succeeded well enough to make some space where he could do some real good.  Maybe he only intended for the retreat to provide some cover for his depravity, but couldn’t help doing some genuine good anyway because of the sheer power of the Gospel and the indelible mark of the priesthood on his soul.

Either way, it’s provided me plenty of food for thought. And provided me powerful reasons to resist the temptation to see any of my fellow human beings as either demigods or devils.

(Whew…this rambling personal reply wound up having a halfways-relevant kicker at the end after all. A pleasant surprise, to be honest.)

Geeze Sue, what are catholics less well informed?  There are Roman Catholics and non Roman catholics.  Are you afraid that His Eminence will confuse Roman Catholics or are your afraid he will confuse non catholics?

[38] For he that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation: the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. [39][Mark 8:38-39]

P.S. Surely I’m not only one who’s got the dead bishop sketch from Monty Python popping up in my head every time someone in this thread asks someone else who appointed them the church police?

All: O Lord, we beseech thee, tell us ‘oo croaked Leicester!

(thunder)

Voice of the Lord: The one in the braces, he done it!

Klaus: It’s a fair cop, but society’s to blame.

Detective: Agreed. We’ll be charging them too.

Sorry Dismas… Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all - or at least, fails to acknowledge reality.  Are you saying that those who are not well-catechized are not really Catholics?  I know a lot of parish priests - and one Cardinal named Dolan - who would disagree with you!  As for being ashamed of Our Lord or of His message, what’s that got to do with anything!  I am neither ashamed to proclaim our Lord’s message nor am I accusing the Cardinal of ANYTHING!  I cannot make it more clear (and anyone with an ounce of good will should be able to understand!):  I am CONCERNED that the invitation of President Obama will be used by MSM and the left-wing Democrats (and by the Obama Administration) to confuse and divide the flock.  No matter how good the shepherd, I would not invite a wolf into the sheepfold. 

Jesus did, indeed, reach out to the sinners but, ultimately, when they “would not”, “He left there house to them, desolate”  Obama has declared that he WILL NOT modify his position of attack against the Church.  He wants four more years to accomplish the destruction of our religious freedoms.  Card. Dolan has said he believes Pres. Obama doesn’t mean any harm to the Church.  I don’t agree any more than I believe Hitler meant no harm to the Jews.  I believe Obama sees the Church as the primary obstacle to his liberal, immoral designs.  He wants the Church and its bishops made impotent (as has every tyrant throughout history!)  And I believe he will use this dinner to deceive those unwary sheep, “seeking whom he may devour”.  I HOPE I’m wrong.  But again, those who have concern have EVERY right to express that concern without being attacked as though we were anti-Catholic villains.  Not one word i have said has been disrespectful of the Cardinal… nor will you ever hear one coming from me.  I have spent my life serving the Church and proclaiming our Lord to anyone who will hear.  I will not do a thing to tear her down.  But when I see an action by one of Her princes that could be used by someone of evil intent against Her, I WILL speak up.  If by doing so, some of the readers here condemn me, so be it.  My conscience is clear and I am fully supported by canon law.

I think it’s time for Catholics in New York to engage in some civil disobedience. I suggest that they picket the chancery in force and stage a sit-in so nobody goes in or out until Dolan withdraws the invitation. If he doesn’t, then do the exact same thing at the site of the dinner and make sure that nobody—not even Obama and Dolan—gets in or out.

The American bishops have abandoned God, let alone the faithful. Consequently, they no longer deserve their allegiance. Catholics should stop being infatuated with ecclesiology and fight the borderline apostates who run the Church!

@ Blog Goliard -

Is this the clip you’re referring to?  I’d just like to preface this with: 

I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault;
   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO0ZjJm-FPk

As far as Simcha’s article goes, it’s sad to see the Register turn into the American Catholic version of Pravda or Volkischer Beobachter, spouting the party line come what may

@Sue -

Sorry Sue, mine where questions not arguments, possibly that’s your source of disconnect with sense and reality?

Trolling for Jesus - While I disagree with this article’s position, I must also disagree with your statement.  Our bishops have difficult tasks to deal with and, for the most part, they do an excellent job.  It is not easy to shepherd a flock which refuses to acknowledge their authority.  Some of the problem (and several bishop’s have admitted it) is the fault of the shepherd’s themselves - not being bold enough in proclaiming the Gospel.  But much blame is to be found in ourselves, following the path of least resistance when the secular world presses in.  Our bishops DO deserve our allegiance, our respect, and our prayers.  But they ARE human and they CAN make mistakes.  The faithful must, then, raise the alert and make known our concerns.  Ultimately though, having made the concerns known, we submit to their decisions and pray for the best possible outcome.

@Trolling: It’s obvious enough from your username what you’re generally on about…yet I’m still not clear on one point.

Are you trying to incite the people who support Cardinal Dolan’s decision, or to discredit the people who oppose his decision?

(Or maybe both at the same time?)

And, Dismas, I answered your questions to the best of my ability and you seem to completely ignore the response.  If I’‘m off-track, in terms of your meaning, then please clarify with something other than a reiteration of the exact same words

@Dismas: Yes, that’s the sketch.

(As is usual for popular Python sketches, there were many slightly different versions performed over the years…I believe that’s the original there in the video. The script snippet I snarfed from somewhere is the Hollywood Bowl version if I recall correctly.)

Hey, it is their dinner. They can invite anyone they want, even if it is a person that supports abortion, Gay Marriage and wants the Catholic Church to have to go against their own convictions. The Bishops had an issue, at least for a while there. They can have their dinner, but I am rather tired of the baloney. So are many other Catholics by the sounds of it.

Simcha,

IF Hitler would be still alive would you still affirm that there is “No big deal” in cardinal Dolan inviting him for an official dinner and cracking few jokes together, over what ever subject?

President Obama is the most pro-abort, pro-contraception US president ever and the forces pushing him to spread the death ALL OVER THE WORLD are relentless!  Are using him fully!

Ask the Catholics of the Philippines and their bishops!

An irreversible fact in my life is that ALL my brothers and sisters have been aborted. I am pro-life and as a survivor of abortion I am fighting this ongoing genocide and hope that others will be spared this death experience and would have a beautiful existence.

SO, for me as a survivor of abortion and Catholic seeing a Cardinal dinning and there by endorsing a children’s killer it is a BIG DEAL, a traumatic one, a tragic one, an unacceptable one!

Also extremely painful because cardinal Dolan is making in fact a mockery of a Faith and Church with contemporary martyrs, as I am writing in many places of this world. Not mentioning the past ones. A mockery of the Magisterium as well.  My question: is it still acceptable to have him as the head of the Catholic Church in USA?  Specially when Cardinal Dolan is denying the horror of this invitation?

To paraphrase Ron Burgundy, I do think this event is kind of a big deal. I love your writing but this time, I’m more apt to side with this: http://ht.ly/1m1ESO
Pres Obama is pretty hostile to Catholics these days & to some, this will send a mixed message. Not unlike that mixed tape I sent to Cardinal Dolan, urging him to rethink the invite.
Wait, what?

@Ana: If one is to be politically savvy, two important pre-requisites are a sense of proportion, and the habit of choosing one’s battles carefully.

(Sure, some people active in politics manage to limp along for years without either…*cough*BillDonohue*cough*...but they are not taken seriously, but rather endured as pests.)

Comments like yours, pulling out Hitler and ALL CAPS and your personal story (however gripping…and I do thank God you made it into this world alive) and the holy martyrs of our day, and desperately flinging them all at the Cardinal, demonstrate a lack of both these pre-requisites.

I rejoice that I have so many fellow Catholics like you, committed to and passionate about our Church. But looking over this thread as a whole (and many others like it around our vast raucous Internet), I find very little reason to trust in the combox crowd’s savvy over that of Cardinal Dolan’s…and plenty of good reason not to.

That doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to complain all you want. Of course you do! But the promiscuous exercise of that right has corrosive effects on many things…including the sanity and goodwill of our bishops and our own long-term influence as laypeople.

It is because of negative consequences like these that those of us on the other side are motivated to counsel you to think twice before dying on this hill…and think and pray much more than twice before making stuff up, repeating calumny, bringing Hitler and Stalin and the abuse scandal into the discussion to make the bishops look more icky, and so forth.

There are also—as I outlined way upthread, though that argument was of course completely ignored because it was subtle, and perhaps because it used big words—serious civic consequences to this sort of freak-out. I repeat: there’s really not a great deal of difference to my mind between this kerfuffle and the Chick-fil-A one. Both are driven by a Jacobite passion that insists that the usual rules of civility must no longer apply, because this time, the other side is just THAT evil. (And yes, inviting the President of the United States to a Catholic charity dinner to which Presidents of the United States are customarily invited is simple civility…not giving him some “honor”, like an honorary degree *cough*NotreDame*cough.)

Goodbye civility and the search for common ground; hello habitual demonization and the politicization of every thing every where all the time.

(I guarantee you’ll be a lot less charmed when the Left blows a gasket every time a President Ryan or Santorum is invited to something.)

WWJD? 

What Jesus did is professed by us in the Creed on Sunday…“he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried…”.  His Mother looked on in sorrow. Jesus died for sinners at the hand of the political and religious leaders of his day.

Considering that October is Respect Life Month perhaps the event could open with some charitable remarks covering the civil side of abortion, contraception,euthanasia, same-sex marriage and the like.

Lastly, even when we dine alone we dine with a sinner.

Sue, Ana, Sharon and Katie—thank you for your posts. I agree with you—this dinner will send the wrong message. Obama will not change his stance, he will remain hostile to the Faith, and will continue his rabid abortions policies. As I said in a prior post, no pope or cardinal sat down with dictators (Hitler, Mussolini, Castro etc.) on a congenial basis. So many pro life advocates (priests, leaders of pro life groups) oppose this affair. (Recall. that President Clinton was not invited by Cardinal O Connor.)

(A correction, with deep apologies to my Scottish friends: I wrote “Jacobite” above where I should have written “Jacobin”. I blame posting before morning coffee.)

@Patt: Please do carry on. Your inability to write even ninety words without calling the President “rabid” and comparing him to Hitler does more to prove that I’m on the correct and sane side of this debate than anything I could possibly write myself.

There’s no excuse for attacking the Cardinal, or for being patronizing towards him. People need to remember that he is a successor of the Apostles. He is over us in the Church and we cannot disrespect him. Period.

But we can share our concerns in a civil manner.

Personally, it deeply saddens me to think of our prelates dining with people who seek to oppress the Church and who have made it clear they don’t intend to change that plan. I take it personally, because Obama’s policies could affect me personally if my situation changes, and because I love the Church and souls, which Obama is harming. Cardinal O’Connor refused to invite Clinton, and Clinton was not nearly as bad as Obama.

When we faithful Catholics lose our jobs and businesses because of this HHS Mandate, or because of anti-true-marriage legal harassment, will our bishops still engage in niceties with those who are doing this to us? 

Some of us are wondering. Will we left on our own? This is why we’re so upset. We know that it has happened sometimes in other historical periods, and we do not assume it couldn’t happen here.

I believe the Cardinal is 100% sincere.  Even so, looking at the history in similar situations (like the legal harassment which led up to persecutions in the 20th century), I think it is a mistake to take this approach with those who seek to control the Church. There’s a place for tough love.

Also, are we so used to the culture of death that it doesn’t bother us to wine and dine with its promoters like everything is normal? Everything is not normal.

And I do think seeing the Cardinal have dinner with Obama WILL confuse people, most of whom don’t take this seriously enough to begin with.

Personally, I would be so livid in Obama’s presence that I would choke on my dinner. Actually, I wouldn’t even be able to be in the room without crying out like some kind of prophet, and making a total scene. At best, I would have to issue some kind of challenge to him, even if politely. I certainly couldn’t just sit there and have A Nice Meal and Some Laughs. I can’t understand why our bishops don’t seem to feel that way. I’m really not trying to hit them with “a stick.” I just really don’t get it, and I am convinced that ultimately that approach hurts us more than helps us.

Blog Goliard, what planet do you live on?  I hear you talking about civil discourse, but do you hear all the voices of those who have been “iced out?”  You’re speaking a lot of high-minded words, but only two are coming through: “I’m intimidated by the ferocity and ruthlessness of the enemy’s assault on my freedom and rights; and I don’t know what to do about it.” Rouse yourself, man.  Death is upon us.

Wonderful that Cardinal Dolan took the time to write to the faithful on August 16th 2012 regarding the Al Smith Dinner.  Engaging and dialoging is an important part of your difficult duty as head of the USCCB. 

While the Cardinals Godly intentions of wholesome and productive communications with the opposition are to be lauded, this is just not the correct forum for that discourse.

1. While we must Love our Enemy and do good to them, it is not an imperative that we give them a party, public platform and a photo opportunity with the Shepherd.  After all, photographs are usually of people enjoying themselves.  We are in the heat of a Spiritual battle.  Is it Wisdom or Politics that is gained by this exhibit? This itself is the main issue.  Will the main Catholic faithful understand that all is not well with the Church and the stand that the Federal government has taken against It after this pomp?

2. Loving our enemies doesn’t necessarily mean smiling, joking and breaking bread with them.  Judas was asked to leave the table.  Sometimes, Love needs to take the form of harsh rebuke.  Love can sorrowful, sad and angry.  Loving one’s child can be very unappealing when punishing or correcting them.  Some of these terrible politicians deserve a good smack on the butt rather than a smack on the back at some party. 

3. The use of the word civility and the context in which it was used tells me that the Cardinal is trying to be affable and appealing to both sides.  Akin to sitting on a fence or playing a balancing act, this civility can have the appearance of Political partisanship.  The Church’s battle is beyond politics at this juncture.

We are faced with the Loss of Life in more aborted children and loosing our Right to Freedom of Religion.  If this Mandate is found acceptable, future and more severe discrimination of the Holy Church will take place.  This just goes without saying.  You give an inch and satan will take the mile.  We cannot continue to smile and be gracious.  We must now exercise a tough Love.  This is a defining moment in our history.

The time for balance and civility in the public discourse has passed.  Civility in private is necessary to help accomplish the goal of the Church.  The two though, must remain separate.  Hopefully the Cardinal will cancel this Public Political Spectacle or remove all Media and cameras.

@Matt B: I live on a planet where it’s presumptuous to try to divine what’s in a stranger’s soul—and sleazy to accuse that stranger of acting out of fear and confusion, for no reason at all other than that you can’t be bothered either to engage his arguments or to exercise even the slightest bit of charity.

Also its a planet where the following adds up to more than two words: “I’m intimidated by the ferocity and ruthlessness of the enemy’s assault on my freedom and rights; and I don’t know what to do about it.”

Obviously your planet is a fascinatingly different place. Do tell us more about it!

@Brian: If things have gotten so bad that we can’t invite the President of the United States to a charity dinner (not a party-political event, not an official religious event of the Archdiocese…just a charity dinner); if Catholics should not dare smile or show the smallest sign of respect or friendship if they ever do wind up in his presence; and if being photographed with the President is completely out of the question*...

...if it’s gotten that bad, then our Church institutions shouldn’t be taking all the government money that they do, Catholics should refuse to enter the armed forces (or, if already in the military, should refuse to take orders from this most evil Commander in Chief), and we should probably even embark on a campaign of civil disobedience where we refuse to pay Federal taxes.

If it’s not gotten that bad, then I stand by my contention that Cardinal Dolan’s critics have lost their sense of proportion, and wisdom regarding which battles to choose to fight, on this one.

*(People are so insistent, in some cases even hysterical, on this point that I can’t help thinking of those encounters tribes who, in encountering outsiders with cameras, feared that the photograph-taking would steal their souls.)

(Then again, as I noted, maybe there is something to it, since this photograph proved so earth-changingly powerful that it delivered Dick Nixon 49 states: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/elvis/photos/020415_1335/pages/5364-16.htm)

Simcha is right.

@Blog, 
There are some of us who ARE afraid.  Apparently, you think it no big deal if Obama is re-elected, or perhaps you even favor that outcome.  So, you are blasting everyone who sees him as the biggest threat to our nation since the likes of Hitler and Stalin.  For many of us, this is no hyperbole.  Now, you may think that silly.  Such is your right.  But, some of us see what the president has done and what he has said about “fundamentally transforming our nation” and we recognize that is PRECISELY what he has tried to do.  He has already walked all over the Constitution, acting independently from the Congress in creating legislation or ignoring laws that they have created… the same laws that he has sworn to uphold.  He has threatened Chief Justices in the Supreme Court.  He has lied to our bishops while trying to take away the rights of the Church and the personal freedoms of every citizen of this country.  He has told the Card. Dolan that he will not budge on any of it. 

So, while you and others look upon him as “no big deal”, a few of us look at the tyrants of the past who accomplished their ends by much the same means: strip away individual rights, overrule legislative powers, intimidate courts, attack the Church and lessen its ability to function… these are the acts of a tyrant!  Do I think Catholics will be thrown into concentration camps?  No… probably not.  At least at first, they will just be fined into submission.  Then, if they can’t pay the fines and continue to resist, the IRS will throw them in jail.  Those that think history will never repeat itself are fools!  These are not the “things of the past” or of 3rd World countries.  These are things that happen because people like you belittle people who try to point out the parallels.  I know folks that lived through Hitler’s rise to power.  They tell me it seems the same kinds of things were being done then.  People sounded the alarm and they were mocked and marginalized.

The president has said he wants to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE our nation.  Time will tell what he means - because neither you nor I am sure.  But I’ve seen enough of the damage that he has done to not want any part of it!

This dinner is not an opportunity such as the ones that our Lord took, to dine with sinners and change their hearts.  This is a fundraising event which honors those running for office.  Even then, there will be no real dialogue but rather, an exchange of jokes.  It will serve no purpose to change hearts.  If the Card. wanted to meet with the president for that end, I would have no objection, but such is not the case. (In fact, the Cardinal HAS met with the president for that end and he was lied to and ignored!)  He is meeting with a sinner, for sure.  But if not to change his heart, what?  The only function of this dinner will be to give the president a platform in which he can win over an unwary public.  Sorry! I will never think that a wise move!  Now, I will happily acknowledge my error if the Cardinal proves me wrong and, I HOPE he does.  But, I’m concerned!  If that bothers you that I’m concerned, LIVE WITH IT!  Stop villifying everyone who disagrees with you.

Perhaps, Obama and his kind have already won because it seems we can no longer discuss differing points of view without putting down the other side and treating the opinion of others as UNWORTHY OF CONSIDERATION. Instead of putting down every opinion that doesn’t agree with yours, why don’t you try proposing a reasonable, cogent argument to convince us that we shouldn’t have these fears.  But, instead, you belittle others.  So now who’s playing god… judging between who you think is worthy of consideration and who is not!  We are not children here and you should not assume lack of intelligence.  Time will tell who is right and, as i said, I sincerely hope it is NOT me!

@Blog Goliard,
... it has gotten this bad.  We have been given the choice of comprimising the most cherished part of our faith.  We are faced with providing Abortive care against our conscience and the God law.  The Government will fine you if you dont and the penalties are stiff.

The path is obvious, the on going decay and suppression of our individual right of Religious Freedom.  When was the Church at a more serious crossroad in Modern Day?

Remember this from the Book of Ecclesiastes 7:4: The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.

We had better become very serious, if we are not already.

Your -futile- lecture is a perfect-example of generic, mad-made Religious-Doctrine craftily and cunningly equating “obedience” to -worldly-power serving- Religious-hierarchy, with The Kingdom of The True and Living Yahweh.
Nothing, could be further from The Truth, and this shall -soon- be exposed, world-wide.

Less Missal, more Holy Scripture, sister:
Mark 7;7 Vs. John 7;7….ANY questions?

@Blog Goliard

Could you please explain where am I “making stuff up, repeating calumny, bringing Hitler and Stalin and the abuse scandal into the discussion to make the bishops look more icky, and so forth.”

What you are TOTALLY OMITTING is the undeniable fact that president Obama is a children’s killer: from conception after their birth. You might remember how Barack Obama as senator pleaded to refuse any help to children who survived an abortion! ISn’t he using constantly his daughters to promote abortion? And did not his wife raised funds for late term abortions? Is this calumny?
You could inform yourself better over the events in the Universal Church, if you are a member of it. So your spirit could be uplifted by the attitude the Filippine’s bishops have towards the intimidation their government, sustained by the American money, is exercising in their repeated effort to legalize the contraception. The bishops of the Philippines declared to be ready to go in prison if their faithful will be imprisoned during their protest actions. Quite a difference with cardinal Dolan’s invitation to a dinner of the most pro-death American president ever.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/the-wwjd-stick#ixzz23vC57Jk2

@Kahili

How dare you! You’re worse than Hitler!

I’ve been away for a few hours, but look what’s happened again in that short time.  Blog Goliard:  Matt was right on track—you’re all about civil discourse with each other, but then launch an attack on Patt for labeling the president “rabid” and comparing him to Hitler.  I personally wouldn’t have phrased it that way, but can’t you admit that it’s not a too-far-off description of Mr. Obama?  What alienates many of us from your side in the debate is precisely the failure to see Mr. Obama for what he really is and what he stands for.  Please stop whistling past the graveyard; Obama is directly involved in the culture of death—he’s in the driver’s seat now—and he has no qualms about taking this country to the very brink that Germany lived through only 70 years ago (if given enough time and if the citizenry continues to let him).
Also, it doesn’t endear many people to your side when you use statements such as “I’m on the correct and sane side of this debate.”  Let’s all just stick to the topic and sideline the superior adjectives.

@Ana: I didn’t intend to personally accuse you of all those things.

(So many misunderstandings in this thread. I must be a much worse writer and thinker than I ever suspected.)

However, seeing as the third word in your post was “Hitler”, it’s clear that at least part of the statement you’re objecting to applies to you; and you’re therefore part of the problem. It’s also clear that, like all the other irresponsible people taking your side in this thread, you’re determined to never give an inch and never apologize for anything. When backed into a corner, you just turn up the volume, cast aspersions, and try to personalize things more. To wit:

“You could inform yourself better over the events in the Universal Church, if you are a member of it.”

I’m taking Cardinal Dolan’s side in this dispute. Do you think he made his decision out of ignorance regarding current political and ecclesiastical events? Are you not even sure that he’s a member of the Church, just as you’re unsure that I am?

Or perhaps my arguments are so much more flawed than his, and my motives so much more suspect, that I deserve that treatment even if he doesn’t. If so, please detail how you reached such a conclusion.

@Vincent: So my call for civility is invalid because, when I see someone calling people “rabid” and comparing them to Hitler, I…disapprove of that language?

I can’t make any sense out of that at all according to my flawed Earth logic. Perhaps you could elaborate and clarify this point?

Also, nice job there, lifting part of a sentence out of context so you could better spin its meaning.

@Everybody recently: Okay then. So y’all really do think that Obama is roughly equivalent to Hitler. That does clarify the situation.

I disagree with you on that…but no, that doesn’t mean that I must therefore like Obama’s presidency. I don’t, not one little bit. (I’m amazed that I have to clarify that…but in re-reading some of y’all’s recent posts, it’s clear that I do.)

If I did agree with you, then yes, I would be outraged by Cardinal Dolan’s decision.

I would also refuse to fly or salute the American flag, I would refuse to pay my taxes, I would counsel everyone I know who is in the armed forces or working for the Federal government to get out immediately, I would campaign for my current home state to give that secession thing another go…you get the picture.

Heck, if Obama really is Hitler, does that mean you’re actively plotting to overthrow him by force? Wouldn’t that rise to the level of a moral imperative if he should win re-election in November? Or would you have been too superior and good, or too cowardly, to try to knock off Hitler?

@Blog Goliard

A sincere practicing Catholic will never even formulate this hypothesis because this will be equal with a grace sin:

“Heck, if Obama really is Hitler, does that mean you’re actively plotting to overthrow him by force? Wouldn’t that rise to the level of a moral imperative if he should win re-election in November? Or would you have been too superior and good, or too cowardly, to try to knock off Hitler?”

You are formulating them and then attributing them to me, a PRO-LIFER, or other Catholics. This is very leftists, to say at least!

You are ignoring ALL the arguments that really concerned Catholics ar bringing to you.

A heroically practicing Catholic is thinking now about how he/she should close his/her business because of the HHS mandate or renounce to a job because of conscience objection or how many lives will be destroyed.

Hope this clarifies few Catholic perspectives for you.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/the-wwjd-stick#ixzz23vd1Oi9n

Errata: “grace sin”= “grave sin”

There you go again, @Blog!  Now you are SOMEHOW drawing the conclusion that because we distrust Obama and consider him a tyrant that we can’t love our country or believe in the law and our Constitutions to try to remedy the problem.  Maybe the reason you have to clarify whether or not you support Obama is because you’re using the same type of reasoning as the left: “2+2=67 because I don’t like the answer that you are coming up with”!  So now you are belittling the lot of us for being anti-American!  How about giving us a little respect by assuming - I know this will be hard for you! - that people who disagree with you can be thoughtful, intelligent people… and treating us “other human beings” with some degree of human respect!

The fact is we love our country and I’m sure a larger number of us “rabid” folks fly than flag than all of you who look upon this president as pretty-much-like-all-the-others.  Like St. Thomas More, we love our country but we love God first.  And, at this point, we are very concerned about the election before us, knowing that an Obama re-electing will mean a “fundamental change” (Obama’s words, not mine) in the very nature of our nation.  We want him out of office by election.  Do you understand…. election!!!!!!! And that is the very reason we feel so passionately about this dinner… because it is NOT JUST A DINNER!  It is a PLATFORM for the president which will be spun by the MSM to accomplish the president’s ends.

God bless Simcha Fisher

Apparently I no longer have any hope whatsoever of making myself understood in this thread. I’m done here.

Valiant effort @Blog Goliard. Too bad the lynch mob is so hard of hearing.

Thanks be to God!  If the only way you can argue your position is to beliettle others, there is nothing more to be said!

Now, to get back to the article.  Simcha, I just believe you are overstating your point.  I know you want respect for the bishops and you are personally very impressed with Cardinal Dolan… ergo, you trust him.  I, too, have been impressed with the Cardinal and have a great deal of respect for him.  I just believe that professional politicians (esp. those who are well-practiced in deceit) are dangerous and I’m not sure, in THAT field, that he has any sort of edge.  He not only has to outsmart the president - who is no idiot - but, also must get his (the Cardinal’s) message out PAST a clearly hostile press.  Those are very tough odds!

I respect the Cardinal deeply but I believe this to be a very risky move in an election unlike any other in the history of this nation.  We are at a crossroads and the decisions made this November could change the very core, not only of what this nation stands for but also, of our ability to have a say in government and to practice our faith without gov’t threats.  Possible benefits weighed against risk, I believe this to be a VERY unwise move.

The Cardinal may have weighed all this and, in a prudential judgment, he may disagree.  We have to accept that.  We don’t have to like it.  Should anyone care what I think?  I guess I think he should.  If we are really living our faith, even the voice of a small child matters.  When it is the voice of a large section of politically active Catholics, then certainly, that voice should matter.

Do we have a right to let him know of our concerns?  This is the issue you bring up.  Should everyone just assume a Cardinal of the Church is infallible in all matters, even politics, and should never find disagreement from the faithful.  Canon law says otherwise.  A bishop is a man, as you point out.  He is fallible.  Bishops, in the history of the Church have even been heretics.  Some have enabled pedophiles.  Some have been less than nice people.  Of course, our dear Cardinal is none of these.  Yet, he can make mistakes… and speaking as a person who has been in positions of leadership, I WANT people to respectfully bring up concerns about my decisions if they are important enough.  it helps me be a better leader.  Leading, when everyone feels obligated to tell you that all your decisions are wonderful - even when they aren’t - is an awfully poor, and even dangerous, paradigm for leadership!

It is ridiculous to ask what Jesus would do.  That question can only arise from a lack of actual belief in Jesus.
Don’t you know?  Jesus IS DOING. 

Reading this blog, it sounds like we might have some issues with pride. 

I know what I am doing.  I am praying.

@Blog you are living in fantasy land. Yes Obama is a vile man and in the last 4 years every appointee he has made was pro abortion. He has been hateful and full of malice when it comes the the Catholic Church and other Christians. He has pushed and financed Planned Parenthood—so call me all the names you like—I am correct in my accusations against him, Though at present he may not be on Hitler’s level, with 4 more years he could be. Go ahead, defend him and vote for him—I won’t. Funny how those who disagree with your liberal position get belittled and berated—but that is par the course for those of your persuasion (Democrat, liberal, and gay community). Cross them and they fly into a rage of retribution. I only politely request you buzz off.

@Patsy, Yes, we should all be doing that.  Also, I think its important to remember that quote by Dante:
“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”
Dante Alighieri

As Catholic Christians, we all have a duty and responsibility, to the satifaction of our conscience, to bring about a positive Moral change within our sphere of influence.  Bringing God’s light into the darkness will certainly illumine that which shows its imperfection.  Ultimately, the battle is God’s, not ours.  2 Chronicles 20.  But, we need to make the Him known.  We are His eyes, ears, feet and hands.  Within the Body of Christ, we all have our roles to bring about the peace of His Kingdom on earth for all people.

Just want to say that to question the rationale of Cardinal Dolan’s reasoning on this issue is not as a matter of course ‘attacking’ Cardinal Dolan. It is changeling his reasoning process. This is not a Church matter per se that we must be united w/Cardinal Dolan’s action.This is a political dinner for politicians in remembrance of a Catholic politician Alfred E. Smith by way of celebrating leaders w/values that correspond to those of the Constitution and those of the majority of Americans who are Christians. (Ck USA Today map as proof that this is still valid.) If not true to these listed things. then I don’t see any reason for the Church of NYC or anywhere else sponsoring a dinner w/such a guest. President Obama has declared war on the Catholic Church for all w/eyes to see. He has declared war on all ppl of faith as most recognize. It would be better to not hold the dinner this year. This entire invite recalls Notre Dame invite of ‘09 to Pres.Obama as commencement speaker. Millions of Catholics and Christians of all faiths were outraged as well as many USCCB members based on this man’s pro abortion record. Now his record include anti: freedoms of religion;conscience;DOMA (defense of marriage act which is a law he refuses to enforce); as well as being pro abortion. Seems to me that Obama’s record has grown in his offensiveness to all ppl of good faith since Notre Dame. How then can Cardinal Dolan defend his position re this invite when Notre Dame was not able to do so on a more limited charge against this President.

I am reminded of the political correctness of the Cardinal of Austria when Hitler was annexing Austria. (Check out the movie ‘The Cardinal’ which is excellent to understand the fallacious reasoning of which The Vatican didn’t approve.) I lived through this period. Austria’s Cardinal had good intentions but failed to see the danger he was courting for the Church and Austria. He was warned by the Vatican’s rep but believed he could believe in Hitler’s promise that he would not interfere w/the Church. Once he was confronted w/the truth;it was too late. Hitler refuted all his promises;began full scale brutal attacks against Church faithful.

Cardinal Dolan visited President Obama in the WH. He claimed it was a pleasant visit; it seemed he was pleased w/himself and Obama. Yet Archbishop Lori at the same time was battling in Congress w/Obama’s mandating the Church and faithful to submit to treachery not called for under the US Constitution.

In contrast when Cardinal George as President of USCCB visited President Obama in WH in early ‘09, Cardinal George came away w/a decidedly different opinion of Obama. In essence Cardinal George said: “He agreed w/everything I said. Which means that he (Obama) really didn’t agree w/anything at all.” Cardinal George had Obama’s number and was wise enough not to be pulled into the net of untruths. I fear Cardinal Dolan doesn’t have the prudence and discernment needed in these times. Let’s hope I’m wrong.

BlogGoliard—Elaborate on how you think I quoted you out of context.  Did you not claim to be on the “correct and sane side” of this debate?  Please don’t trot out that it was simply a sarcastic remark. (Re-read your entire post from 10:19 this morning; no tongue in cheek to be detected there.) If it wasn’t sarcastic, how can anyone read that and not be perturbed by such a condescending attitude?

@Patt, your comment is truly ugly. You don’t have to like Obama to be turned off by the so-called Catholics who are so hard, cold, and frankly, cruel. Is that what it means to be prolife? God help us.

Also. I submit a challenge to all you who find Simcha/Blog Goliard/this post/the concept of nuance so offensive. Defend your position in under 100 words and do it without invoking Hitler. Go.

Kahili + Goliard = an incredible troll tag-team.

Let me invoke Winston Churchill: Never have so many fed so much to two trolls.

Well done Larry C.! Clever how you snuck Churchill in there (and I think you mean paraphrase not invoke). Telling how WWII is the yardstick for great moral battles, real or perceived. Is WWII really the right model? What war am I reinacting when I invite my atheist friends over for a drink?

Aug. 18…we - Catholics for Obama - want to thank Cardinal Dolan for being civil enough to invite President Obama as the Keynote speaker at a major Catholic fundraiser. This will give President Obama the opportunity and the platform to show Catholics that he is a good man and that he has done his best to work things out with Catholics, especially with Cardinal Dolan.
Catholics will be a key vote in the upcoming election which will be very,
very close and we are hoping that this event, this dinner with the Cardinal and other prominent Catholics will bring President Obama across the finish line to victory. The Newman Society is trying to prevent us from rallying the Catholic troops but they will not succeed because we have very prominent Catholics as leaders including several pro-abortion rights politicians and faculty members at Catholic Colleges including Sister Jamie Phelps, director of the Institute for Black Catholic Studies at Xavier University and Nicholas Cafardi, a canon and civil lawyer, a theologian at Boston College, Stephen Schneck of Catholic University of America and we will try to show that President Obama is more pro-life than Mitt Romney and we will succeed now thanks to Cardinal Dolan’s precious invite. Kathleen Sebelius is on our side as is the widow of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Her husband, Ted, had been uninvited by a Catholic College at the request of the local Bishops so she is very grateful that Cardinal Dolan has seen the light and understands that we are all one, anti-life/pro-death…the important thing is that we put our differences aside and show some civility in the public square. The Newman Society seems to be worried that this invite will put Obama in office for another term and give him the opportunity to carry out more forcefully and aggressively his anti-life agenda. Pres. Obama will do that but he will do good things for the country and if it is at the expense of the Catholic Church and other faith groups, that is as it must be for the good of all. And thank you Simcha for telling Catholics and pro-lifers to stand down - having Pres. Obama as the Keynote speaker will help his re-election team to show that Catholics should indeed stand down and stop protesting the good Cardinal’s invite. What’s done is done and they need to stand down and accept it. There will be time after Obama is reelected to dialogue about the lives of the unborn…now is campaign time so put that off for a while.
Pres. Obama respects the Catholic groups that stand with him and is sending out a call to come to his aid and we will be there for him. Thank you, Cardinal Dolan, for understanding and for being there for President Obama and giving him the honor and the platform he deserves. We will not forget.

@CATHOLICS FOR OBAMA:  baloney, baloney, baloney.  Next.

BGoliard, there’s a little hill on the planet where I live that overlooks my town.  I go there every now and then, to look up, and never down.  I never see what goes below, it’s really just the tide.  But when I look and see the stars I feel a hope inside. 

This latest time I went and saw, a voice from deep declared: the people in the town below are stultified and scared.  And can you blame them, ‘set with wolves, that hunt them high and low?  And where have all the shepherds gone?  Absconded, yes it’s so. 

They’ve run away, I have to ask: these hired men or true?  They’ve gone away, they’ve run and fled.  It’s really down to you.

*****
Yes, Goliard, “fascinating” is a radical understatement, to say the least.

If @“Catholics for Obama” is real—then that post says it all. It is the reason the dinner should be cancelled—and what most here are trying to convey. END OF STORY!

Sorry Simcha, I disagree with you, and I do think there are weak uninformed catholics who will say, “oh, Obama was invited to dinner by a Catholic Bishop, so therefore I can vote for him”...they are looking for excuses for it to be okay to elect such a corrupt pro death man to lead our nation.  Most of the time I appreciate your humor, and i get what you are trying to do in the article, but the way the mainstream media is, they will present the dinner in such a way to make it seem as though Dolan accepts Obama’s positions. I LOVE Dolan, but sure do wish he would have not invited Obama to such a public dinner where the gesture will be misrepresented.

Are you looking for the truth?
Then why do you listen to politicians at all?  They say what they have to say to get elected.

Dante would also have said, “The time to look up is before the bird poops.” 

It doesn’t matter who you vote for.  We are already screwed by the people who actually run this country - and none of them are politicians.  We didn’t even vote for them!  There is no red and no blue.  Only purple.  We didn’t look up soon enough, and now I’m afraid we have some bird poop in our eyes.

You can do something, though.  You can pray.  With all your heart.

Look. Cardinal Dolan has a right as a leader to speak to other leaders at every possible opportunity. He does not have the luxury of being able to meet with world leaders anytime he wants to. He cannot call a session of Congress at his pleasure. He cannot call a cabinet meeting anytime he wants.  He is not asking him to come to a commencement speech at college.This is a good time for one on one, face to face, frank discussions with the movers and shakers of this world. Where else do you recommend he gets this opportunity? If you can think of any other place, let him know.

There was a devastatingly ironic slip-up in @CATHOLICS FOR OBAMA’s post (if that is your real name). Did anyone else catch it?? Regarding Sen. Kenndey’s widow: “...she is very grateful that Cardinal Dolan has seen the light and understands that we are all one, anti-life/pro-death…”

“We are all one, ANTI-LIFE/PRO-DEATH ...” (emphasis mine)

May God have mercy on us.

Will +Dolan get much of a chance to talk to Obama about the HHS mandate, abortion, contraception, religious Freedom etc at this lavish banquet? Could this event not be rescheduled until after the election?

Whilst there may be no moral wrong in the invitation to President Obama, I believe the reaction of many Catholics to this invitation, is symptomatic of a basic mistrust many Cathollics have today, of so many of our Church Leaders.  We have been let down badly!

The Catholics for Obama post is probably meant to be humorous. That’s how I read it, at least.

What would Jesus do?  Simcha says nobody knows what He would do.  If you don’t read the bible then you probably don’t know what Jesus did. 
-My study of scripture shows clearly the example that Jesus left for us, His followers.
-Jesus TARGETED the corrupt Jewish religious leaders of his day which were leading their followers astray.  The do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do Pharisees that strived to appear spiritually “better-than-you” while secretly plotting Jesus’ downfall. 
-What’s left is for us to decide who are the Pharisees of our day, and what is our responsibility.
-Do we blindly follow our spiritual leaders no matter where they lead us, or are we lay people, the Church Militant, not charged with defending our faith, even against our spiritual leaders if necessary? 
-What did Jesus do?

Okay, I’m going to jump in here with one more post, because this gets us back to the headline point of Simcha’s article:
.
“What’s left is for us to decide who are the Pharisees of our day, and what is our responsibility.”
.
This is an excellent example of how the “WWJD” template can fail us.
.
In dealing with the religious leaders of the day, Jesus was able to see into their souls with complete clarity, and had every right to judge them. Because he was and is God.
.
We are not. And so, even when we’re confronted with the exact same situations Jesus was, our mileage may vary. (To put it extremely mildly.)

Hi Blog: is it your argument then that, because none of the Faithful are Jesus, we are forever locked into a situation where we can not speak out against our spiritual leaders because we cannot “see into their souls?  Must we ignore what our own eyes, ears and reasoning tell us? 
-I used to try to practice fasting.  I would get up in the morning and say “today I am going to fast.”  But then temptation would soon get the better of me and I would get strong food cravings.  I would reason it out this way…oh well, I tried and after all God knows what is in my heart.”  God knowing what was in my heart was my “get out of jail free” card.  One day not long ago I tried again to fast, and soon was talking myself out of the fast because “God knew what was in my heart.”  Then, clear as day, a voice spoke to me and said, “if God can’t trust you with the small things, He can’t trust you with the big things.”  I was changed from that time on, I can now fast without falling to temptation.
-In this experience I learned that God is indeed watching us, and I do indeed have a responsibility to be faithful and responsible to God, and I can’t allow myself to continue to make up excuses to fail Him. 
-And…since you are back on this site, I want to thank you for the very thoughtful response you posted earlier in reply to my question.  I enjoyed reading it.  May God bless you.

@Kahili

“What war am I reinacting when I invite my atheist friends over for a drink?”

Well, according to my large-print copy of the Summa, of which I’ve read at least half of the introduction - TWICE!, It’s the Crimean War.

@TheJerk. Haha! That was a trick question. When I invite my atheist friends over for a drink I’m really reinacting the Three Days Darkness from THE CHASTISEMENT which HASN’T HAPPENED YET!!!!!  (but will any day. Have your blessed candles ready).

@Kahili

Do Shepards invite Wolves to dinner?

I never really understood the enter WWJD thing other than I thought it was a slick marketing ploy invented by someone to sell brackets, shirts and coffe mugs. I guess I never thought I was theologically advanced enough to even venture a guess of WWJD. I tried and often failed to approach life and it’s pitfalls more along the lines of WDJD- What Did Jesus Do. And if we think about this Al Smith affair, well first I agree, it’s being Lon way out of proportion, but second I would like to look at it from the WDJD approach. He did eat with sinners (I’m not saying Obama is a sinner- some of his policies are not in line with my position or the Church ‘s position), yet He aso said gve to Ceasar what belongs to him. Ultimately, Jesus came to cure the sick, to shine a light. I must confess that my initial reaction of Cd. Dolans invite was this is crazy. I’m still not entirely convinced, but I respect, no, actually love my bishop so much that I must trust his judgement. I will use my energy not to condemn him, but rather pray for him and also Obama and Romey.

@Kahlili—was I talking to you? Did I invite your comment? NO. Nor will I pay the least bit of heed to your judgement of my post. It was directed to another rude person who attacked me.

@Ana Daniela: hey, wolves are people too.  @Patt: wait, that logic sounds suspiciously like “My body, my choice.”  are you saying you’re pro-choice now? If that’s the case I have to seriously reconsider the invitation to my labor day BBQ. I mean, people might get the idea that I LIKE tinfoil hats.

Whoops, misspelled my name. Too much Novus Ordo!

Don’t forget the opportunity to ‘dialogue’ with the president at ND and how well we all know that went.
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2012/08/16/obama_roasts_cardinal_dolan.html#.UDBIg6JTnGk.facebook

We can love and respect his Excellency but at the same time disagree with him on a matter of prudential judgment.

Sorry for all the typos- have a new IPad and it does this autocorrect thing which is not helping me out much. :)

I kind of wonder if any of you guys read the Bible at all, or if it’s just a flip kind of chat room thing.  You all sound like you’ve been inhaling something.  Have your mommy’s let you into the Vicks Vapo-Rub again?

What would be comic would be to unmask some of these great “defenders of the faith.”  I could tell you one thing: they would not be regulars at Chick-fil-a.

The LED curtain can’t disguise the distinct odor of fairy dust coming from some of these “responders.”  As such I can hardly credit their devotion to our esteemed Prince of the Church.  It’s more like satanic glee at a core group in disarray.

I have just one word for the likes of these pack animals:  Meet Mr. Weyerhauser.

The vast majority of Church expenses are borne by a small cadre of rich donors.  (Did you think all that “good” was footed by your weekly dollar?)  Since these liberal Catholics are largely for Obama, he will have his forum.  “Mr. Weyerhauser” has entree that you and I don’t have.  We’ve all experienced this phenomenon by the frequency of homilies on artificial contraception since 1967.

I use the fictitious name “Weyerhauser” to connote that liberal rich Catholics are dealing with Obama behind our backs to provide the lumber by which ordinary Catholics like you and me will be hung out to dry.

It also represents a challenge for ordinary Catholics to “pick up the cudgel” where the crook has not been used to Christ’s advantage or effectively.

I myself am a deeply orthodox and conservative Catholic.  I’ve come reluctantly to the conclusion that we who are like-minded don’t mean anything in the American Catholic Church.  We are freaks and oddballs.  The comment by Mr. So-and-so above regarding “3 days of darkness” says it all.  My hope, however, is in the Lord, who made heaven and earth.

Liberal rich catholics and their media “todies.” 

That’s short for “factotum,” a latin word which I’m sure will go way over your heads.

Sue, regarding your post from Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 12:47 AM (EST):

The bishops are doing a great job? How? By ignoring serious protests against abortion? By ignoring the cries of the innocent whom priests have raped? By failing to confront the theological deterioration that has marked the past 50 years? By questionable financial practices?

This, somehow, is all the laity’s fault?

I’ve had it with this idea that “we get the bishops we deserve.” That is nothing but typical Catholic guilt designed to deflect criticism from the real issue: the de facto apostasy of Catholic leadership.

Blog Goliard, regarding your question, “Are you trying to incite the people who support Cardinal Dolan’s decision, or to discredit the people who oppose his decision?” Re-read the original post.

As far as criticism of Cdl. Dolan goes, let’s not forget that his decision to invite (or not to invite) Pres. Obama is a prudential decision on his part. The laity have every right to critique it!

Finally, the fact that Ms. Fischer even has to critique the idea of how Jesus would respond in this situation is absurd! Surely, if Catholicism isn’t about Jesus, and if the “successors of the apostles” aren’t supposed to behave as He did, then what’s the point?

Trolling - How many “conservative Catholics” live within 2 miles of Cardinal Dolan’s 5th Ave residence in Manhattan?  His nearest neighbors are Sachs 5th Avenue and Cartier Jewelers.  Judging by sales of Mazzerattis and news from the Hamptons, these people have not suffered under Obama.  In fact, certain job classes, like Health Insurance Executive, and Hospital Chief have thrived (conservative Catholics need not apply).

With the storm flux of “equal rights” litigation, we will see same sex weddings and woman priests mandated under a second Obama administration.  All it will take is a Hubbard or a Clark to cave.  Are you kidding?  They’re already planning the reception.  It will give the Cuomo-Kennedy’s the bridge they need slide on down to 1600.

Soon, “traditional” Catholics like you and me will be relegated to beating our breast in the back row of a consecrated brothel.  (Openly) gay men and women will take formal possession of a carcas they’ve been worming their way through for 40 years.  Mother Angelica will be put on a shelf with Fulton Sheen and Archie Bunker.

Steel and glass, baby.  Steel and glass.

There are already 357 comments as I write this.  There is a lot of heartache out there from Cardinal Dolan’s actions.  The conservative Catholic media is confused as to how to respond, and thus has been a little too silent.  So far Dolan has been everything we expected, so I think that we are all mystified at his mistake.

I’m a native New Yorker, and I have news for prelates coming here from the midwest.  As far as media and manners, this town is rough waters.  All of us still remember the headlines of the New York News “FORD TO CITY:  DROP DEAD”.  Gerald Ford did not say those words, yet the media encapsulation of his speech cost him votes in New York State, with its large electoral votes.  Gerald Ford is on record that this headline cost him the presidental election.

We rightfully fear the media spin.  We rightfully fear the spin of the Obama campaign.  Currently, the polls show 50% of Catholics would vote for Obama.  It’s incomprehensible how so many Catholics can consistently support pro-abortion candidates.  To help these Catholics, we have to be clear in our message, and our teaching in thought, word and deed.  We cannot be subtle. 

As far as manners, I am truly sorry that some people have gone overboard in their criticism of Cardinal Dolan.  Ultimately, we have no choice but to stick with our bishops, and the teaching of our church.  However, I lost confidence in the man.  He could not even give up a party?  So, when he starts talking about civil disobedience and getting arrested, will he join me on the protest line?  Will he risk getting an arrest record?  Has he ever had to fill out a job application and truthfully answer that question?  I was willing to go to participate in civil disobedience, and risk my future employability.  Now, I am rethinking the whole matter.

@ Matt B: Usually, by this time in the combox, I have long since bowed out, as the “carcass of truth has been pretty well picked over. However, your comment(s)above, state so well the truth of politics in the Catholic Church here in the USA, I felt compelled to re-enter the discussion, only to say, right on! For those beating their breasts that we must always be playing the serf in regards to the USCCB? Get informed! Not all that occurs here state-side plays in Rome! We, as members of the
Church, owe allegience to Christ. Period! When we observe others in our midst, be they consecrated or otherwise, doing the opposite, we must in all good conscience, speak up and out. Read St Paul’s letters to the Romans.

“Liberal rich catholics and their media “todies.”
.
“That’s short for “factotum,” a latin word which I’m sure will go way over your heads.”
.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/todies

Or, if you meant “toady”:
.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/toady?region=us&q=toady
.
But please do go on being ever so much smarter than the rest of us.

I keep reading in these boxes the line: Jesus ate with sinners. As if this is a trump card. I have to wonder if these folks ever read the bible?  It is such a facile thing to say it reminds me of the Judge not… always misused.

Cardinal Dolan is a courageous leader.  He has spoken out strongly about the atrocity of the HHS Mandate.

While on it’s face, this dinner seems problematic, I trust Cardinal Dolan to know what he’s doing. After all, he has more at stake in this than any of us here in the comboxes.

Thank you Simcha, for defending our Good Cardinal!

Of course it’s misused.  But what else can they quote when justifying a gala dinner with the leader of the culture of death?  We wouldn’t want the people to think that this is a spiritual war we’re in, now would we?

“Anyone who says he’s being naive or a dupe ... Those things are not within his character or past behavior”.

Sorry Simcha, but this is patently false. He is very well “Dolan being Dolan” but sometimes you have to suppress less important parts of your personal character to fit certain roles in your life. He’s a bishop, a protector of the Catholic flock. Sometimes this means aggressiveness against the wolves, *preemptively*.

Gay marriage vote in NY:
GAY ACTIVIST TERENCE WELDON: “Writing after the vote at the blog “Queering the Church,” he said: “the really interesting thing about the Catholic bishops and NY gay marriage is not how vigorously they fought against it (as the headlines would have it), but how lukewarm this opposition was overall, and how calm they have been in response.””

CARDINAL DOLAN IN RESPONSE:
“We fell for the assurances of people that we thought were political allies that this wasn’t going to go anywhere,” Dolan told Arroyo, pointing out that there was “some credibility” to this claim, since past efforts to legalize gay “marriage” in New York had failed.

“So we had political allies who said, ‘Bishops, keep your ammo dry, you don’t have to pull out all the stops, speak on principle, speak up against this bill, but don’t really worry because it’s not going to go anywhere.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why let it happen again?! They were deceived once by the SAME KIND OF PEOPLE, why let it happen again? Why not learn a lesson? Why not just stand firmly on the side of the obvious allies of the Church? Please? Can’t we just once have the bishops just on our side and not being friendly to the wolves?

Please? Is that what we have to say? Do we have to beg? Do we have to cry in front of them? Gnash our teeth, wail, tear our shirts? Pretty, pretty please, can they please stand with us as a monolith for ONCE?!

Aug. 19th: Cardinal George has had a recurrence of his cancer so please pray for him.  Cardinal George has said he will go to jail and suffer   rather than comply with Obama’s HHS mandate. Cardinal Dolan has said he is ready to go to jail rather than comply so what I don’t understand is if Card. Dolan is willing to go to jail why isn’t he willing to postpone the Al Smith dinner until after the election.  Even if there is but a slight risk that Obama will use the dinner as a photo-op to convince wavering Catholics that they can vote for him in good conscience, it’s just not worth the risk…Cardinal Dolan’s life is not at stake here but millions of unborn babies’ lives ARE at risk so why not play it safe, for their sakes, and postpose the dinner???

Aug. 19th: Card. Dolan should have come out strong against gay marriage no matter what his political alllies told him. He is not a politician he is a Catholic Cardinal and should have fought for traditional marriage but he ‘risked’ following his political allies advice and now he is willing to ‘risk’ that Obama will be honorable and not use the invite to his political advantage.  Fool me once…There’s a Bishop who allowed Catholic Hospitals in his Diocese to give the morning after pill to women who thought they might be pregnant because his allies - a lawyer and a politician told him it was the right thing to do and would not lead to abortions being mandated for Catholic Hospitals. It was pointed out to the Bishop that the morning after pill could cause abortions because it prevented implantation in the womb and he said the politician and the lawyer told him that wasn’t true; he was advised to read the label ... he didn’t and the order went through.  He regretted his decision bitterly later on and rescinded the order but the damage had been done.  He had refused to listen to all the pro life leaders and champions and chose instead to listen to a lawyer and a politician…will we never learn?

The celerity with which this all has devolved into a Slough of Spleen (with apologies to both Bunyan and Pope, here), is a frightening indicator that there are problems in the Catholic Church in America that have nothing to do with either Dolan or Obama. It is time that ALL of us retired quietly to our rooms, examined our consciences, and prayed for unity in our Church and for the Peace of the Lord for ourselves.

@ SouthCoast…We can do both….prayer AND petition Cardinal Dolan.
All he has to do at this point is to ban photogs and the media at the
event. All will at that point be well with most Catholics.

@  florin…This was the excuse when the clergy sex scandal broke and
the Bishops were “accused” of enabling by moving these felons around
from parish to parish. They claimed innocense then by proclaiming they
were only going on what the psychologists told them: that these men
were “rehabilitated”! Even after the same felonious behavior in the
so-called “new parish” they were still listening to the psychologists.
I wonder what the Holy Spirit was telling them or if they were even
seeking His Counsel?

We can pray that Cardinal Dolan is playing “spider and the fly” by inviting his less than honorable guest. It would restore the confidence of the laity in the hierarchy if he duplicated the courage of Mother Theresa when she spoke at an assembly with the leader of the free world Clinton in the audience. When this tiny saint admonished him publicly for his pro abortion stance he cringed and slumped down in his chair like a whipped puppy while everyone else gave her a standing ovation. Maybe somehow from her heavenly home she can relay some of her courage to his excellency to do likewise.
If the above is his strategy we’ll all gladly eat crow and claim him as a heroic defender of the faith.

It’s also important to remember that our Cardinals are not like our politicians - we choose those.  We are given our Cardinals - and the church was set up like that by Christ Himself.  Too often, we get into a mindset of “I’m with Dolan, I’m with Weurl”.  It’s weird, when you think about it. 

Dolan’s decision, while right or wrong, just makes me sad - not for Obama or Dolan’s sake, but because so many people are confused by it.  Either decision he could have made would be just as confusing - not because one is more right than the other, but because there has been a generation of uncatechized Catholics, who have so little to judge these things on.  That’s the real tragedy.

Dan—while I agree with your comment in one sense, we must also realize that the anti-Catholic media in our culture will twist that situation around to bash Dolan for “setting up” the president.  No matter how you slice it, this invitation will not help advance the cause for life or religious liberty.  It’s one thing to dialogue in a serious session (that’s the time to “dine with sinners”), but it’s another thing to yuk it up at a fancy social dinner.

Jesus ate with sinners.

Simcha is spot on.

Anyone who says otherwise needs to check the Gospels again before they spout off.

esus ate with sinners.

Simcha is spot on.

Anyone who says otherwise needs to check the Gospels again before they spout off.
################################################################

Anytime someone says this we need to ask them if they have read the bible? Do you really think just throwing out that line justifies anything? Eating with sinners is not an end unto itself. He called them to conversion.

ConfederatePapist—you apparently just swooped in to leave that comment without following the discussion.
Yes, there are a lot of comments to sift through, but that line about “eating with sinners” has been discussed numerous times.  Shall I toss out the Bible verse where Jesus threw the moneychangers from the Temple?  You see, there are obviously times to dine with sinners and times to act in other ways.  The debate here is not whether it’s good to dine with sinners, but whether this gala black-tie dinner with the civil leader who is leading our country toward destruction is a suitable, parallel situation to that passage of the Gospels you allude to. Ask yourself: Whom did Jesus dine with?  The lowly sinner who would be eager to hear of a better way to happiness?  Or the government rulers of his day? Also consider the Catholic virtue of prudence, which requires us to assess the public ramifications of our actions, particularly in this age of sound bites and front-page photos.  You see, it’s not as simple as you think.

Confederate Papist ,
I love your username.
Agree with your post.
Some comments here are so bitter & uncharitable I feel like I need to throw some Holy Water on the screen.
God bless Cardinal Dolan.

goliard: a minor character from de sade’s “one hundred days of sodom,” who procures for the parisien high clergy, then betrays them to the reign of terror.  (It’s appalling what one has to read to graduate from a public college.)

The term later appears in napoleanic era french army slang to connote the act of “doing someone dirty,” as in “we’ve been goliard by the vile russian winter,” or “we’ve been goliard by that pansy wellington at waterloo,” or “the emperor sure has been goliard.  Every women they sent with him to that god-forsaken island is a sylph.”

But “sylph” is a lesson for another time.

@ Simcha…Is iy not time to shut this combox down? It would seem by now most view points have been well-aired. From here on only the trolls seem
to profit! and much of what is being written here has strayed farrrrrrr
from your original article. Puleeeeeeeeeze shut it down!

Definition of Goliard: “one of a class of wandering scholar-poets in Germany, France, and England, chiefly in the 12th and 13th centuries, noted as the authors of satirical Latin verse written in celebration of conviviality, sensual pleasures, etc.”

dictionary.reference.com/browse/goliard?s=t

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliard

I think this is the meaning of Blog Goliard’s handle: a much more sensible title for a commenter than the name of an obscure character from a piece of eighteenth-century French literature or a slangy verb meaning to do ill to someone.

For the record, Simcha rocks. I still disagree with Cardinal Dolan’s decision, but even though I disagree with him I find it repulsive that devout Catholics would heap such insults on him, especially since he is a Cardinal, and we should be particularly careful how we speak about him. Anyway, I have no insight into the Cardinal’s soul, so he might have excellent motivations of which I know nothing.

Maggie, what insults have been hurled at the Cardinal?  I do recall comments above saying that the decision was a disgrace and a scandal, but we shouldn’t confuse that with “insults.”

And I’m not saying that there haven’t been insults.  I haven’t taken the time here to read every doggone comment again, so you may be right.  I just want to ensure that you’re not confusing strong words about the decision with a genuine “diss” about the Cardinal.

@Matt B: I thought we’d already established that you’re just making stuff up. And I have no idea what you’re trying to accomplish with this latest crude slander. I suppose you could be trying a Dan Savage type stunt.
.
Anyhow, regarding your Sade reference, I’m presuming that you mean “Les Cent Vingt Journées de Sodome” (note that that’s 120 days, not 100). If so, please identify the character to which you’re referring…I’m not spotting him offhand:
.
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Les_Cent_Vingt_Journées_de_Sodome_-_III
.
Also, you’ll want to be sure to add your previously unknown tidbit about Napoleonic slang to the Wikipedia page, which seems to have unaccountably overlooked it:
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Armée_slang#G
.
Or, y’know, you could just be a man and admit when you’re wrong. (And maybe take a lesson or two on how to be a minimally decent person while you’re at it.)

Well, maybe ‘insult’ was the wrong word. Certainly they have spoken disrespectfully and arrogantly of the Cardinal.
.
Posted by Ana Daniela on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 5:46 AM (EST):
[...]
“Also extremely painful because cardinal Dolan is making in fact a mockery of a Faith and Church [...] A mockery of the Magisterium as well.  My question: is it still acceptable to have him as the head of the Catholic Church in USA?”
.

I suppose this could be classified as an insult. However, if you like, it hasn’t been insults so much as it has been excessive disrespect towards Cardinal Dolan. Naturally we can disagree with the bishops on those matters not of faith and morals, but disagreement is one thing and using language like the above is quite another.

Fair enough, Maggie.  That one was a bit much.  Like you, I think it was the wrong choice to invite Obama. But I just get irritated when others (not you) try to stifle any disagreement with Cardinal Dolan.  Onward and upward!

Not going to agree with you on this, and I know you’re not asking me to do so either…I really dislike the meme type things (as you show) and people pontificating online.  Our church is being torn apart by us.  I question your asking us to let this one slide (not your words) - as you will not let go of what Maciel did as head of the Legion/RC - and let there be healing and continuing - if the Vatican says it should be so…  Kettle/pot - black - continues - and please remember where the Catholic Register had its beginnings.

Aug. 23rd> Although there have been a few comments that might seem to be disrespectful, I believe that, for the most part, people are just expressing their anguish and discouragement and their fear that this invite, close to a crucial election, could and probably will be, used by Obama and his people to convince wavering and uninformed Catholics (and others) that he has made things right with the Catholic Church.  I don’t believe the Cardinal should risk this happening and I hope he will postpone the dinner until after the election…that is not too much to ask considering how high the stakes: the lives of millions of unborn human babies.

Oh NOES!!!!! What could this MEAN??? 
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/romney-invites-ny-catholic-cardinal-dolan-to-offer-benediction-after-acceptance-speech/2012/08/22/e79d787e-ec9f-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html.
.
(hint: it’s not to make up for the inner-day with the esident-pray. This is what bishops do).
.
Happy?

@florin: You (and many, many other people here) speak as if it’s Dolan’s job to lead Catholics to vote for Candidate X or away from Candidate Y.
.
If that’s really how you see the role of the episcopacy, perhaps you would find the Orthodox establishment in Russia more congenial than Catholicism in America.

Blog Goliard….what a ridiculous comment!!! The reason we oppose Card. Dolan’s (note ‘Cardinal’ not just ‘Dolan’) iinvite to the man who advances the anti-life agenda aggressively and consistently has NOTHING to do with politics or endorsement - it has to do ONLY with the defense of the lives of millions of unborn human babies!!! Maybe you should go back and tell your guru Obama that his plan to divert the discussion has not worked…and try for a more substantial argument if you insist on coming to a Catholic website.

@florin: Just because the point of my argument eluded your grasp doesn’t mean I didn’t make one.
.
Also, if supporting Obama is a sin, then you’ve just falsely accused me of one.

Goliard—I think the point was that Obama is a proponent of something that is always and everywhere an intrinsic evil, and is a non-negotiable.  Thus, he is automatically disqualified from being considered by Catholics (unless the likely opponent is even worse).
Other issues—such as health care, the economy, war, and the death penalty—do not have intrinsic morality that can always be dictated.  Thus, we may disagree with a candidate on those issues but still justify a vote for him/her.
Having established those two ideas, do you now realize that such a discussion is not really about a candidate, but has to do with moral choices? The Church does NOT get involved in politics, but CAN guide us in the principles necessary to vote as Catholics.

Blog Goliard—you’re as thin skinned as Obama and quite condescending to think others don’t ‘get your point’...the role of the leaders of the Church is to guide their people to the truth - Bishop Lori has explained to Catholics that to vote for someone who promotes something that is an intrinsic evil - as abortion is - is to cooperate in that evil and therefore one cannot vote for Obama or for anyone who aggressively and publicly advances the anti-life agenda.  Obama has stated publicly that he wants abortion to be made legal up until moments before birth…during late term abortions, the abortionist partially delivers the baby…as soon as the baby’s head appears, the abortionist plunges a knife or a scissor into the baby’s head to kill him…barbaric but not that uncommon.  To party with the man who not only supports this barbaric practice but urges that it be made legal throughout the land is beyond comprehension.  Now you may not be able to comprehend this but it needed to be said…

Florin—- YOU make total sense.—and those against Cardinal Dolan’s taking part in it,  AGREE WITH YOU!. The Cardinal does not “get it” and neither does———-Blog Goliard, who does not care, nor listen, but only argue and belittle. Nobody should pay BG any attention, because that is the reason he keeps typing and posting his rubbish. I am certain Catholics will be standing outside the dinner with signs opposing Obama and abortion. They have EVERY right to do so.

Patt…You’re right: no one should pay any attention to Blog Goliard. He is like a bad seed that keeps trying to embed itself onto a healthy plant to contaminate the whole…no more responses to him. Let’s just pray for Cardinal Dolan that the Lord will bring good out of all this. You know that Cardinal Dolan will offer the Benediction at the Republican convention and will therefore have an opportunity to bring Catholic moral values and teachings up before a vast audience…pray that all may be receptive to the truth and will honor and live that truth…

What about giving scandal?  Granted only 25% of Catholics go to Mass, the concern should be what message is perceived by the Cardinal’s action especially to lapsed Catholics.

Could it be that the failure of our bishops to act in a strong and forthright manner is what led to the large amounts of Catholics leaving the Church?  This is just one more instance of “let’s all get along.”

Right on Mark! You and Florin are both on target. We need strong Bishops and Cardinals and priests to stand up and speak out—and not give scandal. We do not need P/C clergy—we need Roman Catholic clergy. Priests that speak out in favor of homosexual marriage, or priests that support women’s rights to an abortion (I read about two this week) SHOULD BE REMOVED!!  They do great harm by misguiding Catholics and putting souls at risk. It makes our battle more difficult to fight when those who know better WORK AGAINST THE FAITH FROM THE INSIDE. I pray the Cardinal realizes his actions speak LOUDER than his words (in his defense of the Al Smith dinner invitation to Obama.)

Bless all of you for your insults.
.
Your nastiness says nothing about me…but speaks volumes about yourselves.

Blog G—you are such a comic. Talk about calling the kettle black. You have insulted everyone.. but now claim sainthood. Your comment made me grin like Cardinal Dolan’s ear to ear grin when interviewed.

OK, Goliard, I only got up to day 100 with de Sade.  Those last 20 days were too repulsive for even a misanthrope like myself to bear. 

As far as being a “minimally decent person,” I’m not sure what you mean by that.  Is minimalism the standard they’re teaching in schools these days? 

Sanctity is greatness, if my understanding is true.  Not at all like the cackling you find on the View.

@Patt: I do not claim to be a saint. I did lose my temper once before in this thread, and apologized for it.
.
And I will confess that, since then, I have not always treated everyone as gingerly as humanly possible…though I have at least tried to keep my criticism aimed at others’ arguments and behavior, not their persons. People seem to have been insulted every time I posted anyway…and to the extent that that is my fault (I’m honestly not sure how much if it is, but I shall continue to think upon it), I apologize.
.
More broadly, I accept that my words must necessarily have had something to do with the descent of this thread into a festering cesspool of viciousness and calumny. Again, I’m not sure how much of the blame is mine—I’m not taking all of it, but I’m not going to start up a rousing game of tu quoque here either—but however much or little of it is my responsibility, I am still a sinner, I am truly sorry, and I shall try to do better in future.
.
(I haven’t changed my mind on the underlying issues though. I still agree with Simcha that “WWJD” isn’t a useful question, and with Cardinal Dolan’s judgment call on the invitation to the Al Smith dinner. If you require me to recant these judgments, or my arguments for them, before you accept any apology, then you will continue to be disappointed.)

@Matt B: You may very well be a person of decency and great sanctity offline. But your viciously fictitious post defining “goliard” was one of several here (see also “Vicks Vapo-Rub” and “distinct odor of fairy dust”) which I believe were completely uncalled for, and completely unworthy of a minimally decent person.
.
I hope that you will find a way to do better in future. (As I just noted, I shall certainly try to take account of my own sins, and do better than this horrible thread, in future myself.)

Peace be with everyone.

And with that let’s all say a silent AMEN! and be done with this thread that has long outlived itself! PULLLLLLLLLLLLLEsze!!!!

I can see Simcha’s point, but I draw the line at joking. Joking!! If Dolan could just keep a frowny face on the entire time that might be acceptable but absolutely no joking.

Maybe if he wore sackcloth and ashes from Fr. Groeschel’s closet.  Or gave a “shout out” to Fr. Pavone. 

Perhaps he should read Mother (St.) Teresa’s address from Oslo.  As a fellow peace prize winner, Obama would appreciate that. 

Maybe Cd. Dolan should invite the exorcist of Rome to eat at their table, or stick a green scapular under the President’s chair.  I know I’m alway’s affected by children in wheelchairs with breathing tubes.  Perhaps some of these could be seated in those 20-grand seats. 

Too often Al Smith is dominated by fat irishmen with cigars.  Maybe Dolan could invite some real people instead: for example illegal aliens like Obama himself.  A great thing would be if a finger could appear above the diners and write on the wall that Obama has been found wanting, and that his time is up. 

Or maybe Dolan could introduce an interreligious panel of leaders who will now share decision making with a federal bureaucrat. 

A good finale would be to have dessert served by Chinese Catholics dressed in red uniforms who would spill crepes all over Obama’s tux because their fingers have been amputated by the PRC for praying the Rosary in contravention to communist rule. 

But what Dolan needs is a really good event planner.  You available, Goliard?

Aug. 25th: The latest from Cardinal Dolan: the Cardinal now publicly praises and celebrates the Catholicity of Joe Biden and Paul Ryan - what?!!! He compares the Catholicity of Joe Biden a rabidly pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage advocate to Paul Ryan, a truly faithful Catholic?  Biden promotes abortion not only in the USA but he went to Kenya to inform the government there that if they would put abortion rights in their new constitution then the ‘money would flow’ - and this is the ‘Catholicity’ that Card. Dolan is celebrating and praising - no wonder Catholics are confused.

He’s obviously been down to Room 101.

I wonder if anyone from the Democratic Party, the Obama administration or liberal controlled media that so desperately seeks to banish the Catholic presence from the ‘public square’, create divisiveness and foster fear within the Catholic Church is reading this thread? 

If they are reading, it occurs to me they must be smugly pleased with themselves.  Certainly some of the thread comments found here indicate their success.

I fail to find scandal in His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan’s invitation of the President to a Catholic sponsored public square dinner.

Maybe not if the president is being served as the main course.

Dismas
There are none so blind as those who will not see

Dismas, you’re right to find the Catholic community scattered and demoralized.  As a political entity, “catholicism” is indistinguishable from the electorate at large - craving bread and circuses.  Real Catholics, many of whom write in these blogs, are more likely found in a Solzhenitsyn novel.

I’m little inclined to look for an answer in men like Dolan or Benedict.  JPII was far greater than these, and was disdained by the ordinariate.  St. Teresa provided a lifelong example of charity and chastity that towers over pc dwarves, but her memory has faded with a mere ripple of conscienceness.

There are a few truly holy men and women who preside over the remnant, dressed in sackcloth and ashes.  But I wonder whether these will constitute a minyan when Abraham comes to make his case before God?  Their numbers steadily eroding.

@Matt B - You misinterpret my remarks.  It’s not the Catholic community I find scattered and demoralized.  Catholicism is not a political entity.  The Roman Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.  The Roman Catholic Church is quite immune to political dialectic whose members know their Master’s voice.
.
His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan by power of his ordination and virtue of his office is free to engage the world as he wishes. 
.
As Bl. JPII said, “Be Not Afraid.”

Dismas, my question is not about the holy, catholic and apostolic church, but about the viability of the american nation.  All the scriptural apostolic letters were written to churches in asia minor, none of which are in existence today.  The entire temple-based worship of the jews was destroyed in 64ad when the temple was destroyed.  And this was not the first time that temple was destroyed!  The US has a presupposition that we are God’s new holy land.  But I see it going in the direction of the cities of the plain.  The fact that even high churchmen are unable to change that direction gives me some suggestion that God is wreaking his inexorable will to chasten and correct - in a way that only he can.

More Obama Derangement Syndrome on display. The same paper/website that’d jump for joy if the Vatican instructed every parishioner to sign loyalty oaths regarding politics, partisan membership, etc. ... especially when abortion conveniently makes it way to the top of the “issues carte” ... doesn’t seem to mind raking Cardinal Dolan for wanting to sit down with the President.
Welcome to the real world of politics. The Cardinal, by the way, is a very, and I mean, very political person. I say that not in a disparaging way. Not in the least.
Please, no urgings for universal single prayer loyalty oaths from all Catholics. That’s one payment I’ll refuse to make. And guess what it’ll do to all the Vatican’s plans regarding the Anglicans and Episcopalians.

@Matt B - I have to apologize, my historical biblical knowledge isn’t adequate enough to respond to most of your question.  I’m not sure about the presupposition you propose but I do believe because of it’s Christian values, rooted in liberty and freedom, America has experienced special grace from God.  I also believe if it stays on it’s present course chastening and correction are inevitable.
.
@Steven Barrett - I saw your screed on ‘The Unwelcome Cardinal Dolan’ article, indicating your pride in being Catholic, a Democrat, an American.  Which democratic value are you most attached to?  It’s unconstutional marxist attack on Religious Liberty, it’s attack on authentic sacramental marriage or it’s worship of Planned Parenthood and attack on human life in general?

Joe McCarthy’s spirit is very much alive.

@Maggie How do you explain that Cardinal Dolan equals the “Catholic” Biden with the Catholic Ryan?  IMHO I think this exposes as a part of a continuum His Eminence’ invitation of President Obama to the Al Smith Dinner. So my question about his position as the chief of the Catholic Church in US stands. To my sadness and disapointment.

Steveo - if Obama’s acts (and Biden’s and Pelosi’s) were fully apprehended, he would swing for crimes against humanity.  There’s just one thing that saves him.  Everybody’s complicit in the crime.

But there is a just judge who will not be suborned by “universal health care,” or “redistributative justice.”  I trust him to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

Dismas, yes: “the people of God” experienced major setbacks which they could not readily reconcile with their supposedly privileged status.  And each time the prophets announced the cause of their destruction: moral depravity.

The deeper we sink into this malaise, the more and more difficult it is to find a way out.  Choices get more and more desparate, and hope gets ever more attenuated.  We’re “reaping the whirlwind.”

Notice for instance how nice and kind Obama seems: he’s a real charmer.  Yet objectively, he’s responsible for more murder than Pol Pot.  Yet nobody, not the repubs, not conservative catholics, can do anything about it.

The line of scrimmage for Conservative Catholics keeps shifting further and further back.  I don’t think a Hail Mary pass is even an option any more.  I really think what we need is a Jesus Christ run up the middle.

“I don’t think a Hail Mary pass is even an option any more.  I really think what we need is a Jesus Christ run up the middle.”

.

What are you referring to, Matt?  Your use of figurative language is admirable, but I wonder exactly what action you are endorsing here.

Sorry Mom.  I’ll remember to mind the sitter next time you’re out.

Matt B@Using an “old oak tree,” or the preferred latest (Iranian) version of our times, building cranes? Oh, how ‘bout lamposts like Singapore uses to punish drug users and pushers? You’re a real fountain of the milk of human kindness. Scratch that: Are you still attending latter day versions of Ayn Rand’s “Collectivist” cult-like meetings? You’d be in “good company” if you were, right DOWN there with Alan Greenspan. BTW, a lot of people STILL want to see him and a whole lot more of those captains of capitalism and other assorted thieves, even calling themselves “job creators” after they systematically looted the treasury four years ago. What did we get for it? Let’s talk about “redistributionist” thinking and policy making. If your wallet’s a little lighter these days, it’s Barack Obama’s fault. Look to the tip of Manhattan and the RNC Convention for your REAL CULPRITS.
Boy, would I love to see what Jesus would do in some hedgefund operator’s office. So would the millions who lost their entire retirements four years ago.

WOW! Has this combox gone off the rails or what????????????? I recall several days ago if not weeks, the topic WAS Cardinal Dolan ..and the Al Snith dinner. Now it has morphed into collectivism starring Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan! Talk about a flight of ideas….wayyyyyyyyy off the radar! Maybe, just maybe, I’m thinking the original topic was exhausted
some time ago, like 50 comments back????

It’s spiritual warfare, not corporeal, and the principals are laughing for glee at our confusion and frustration.  A good thing to do would be to limit your media intake to 5-10 minutes a day.  (That includes “new media.”)  Look someone in the face and say “I love you.”  It’s a wonderful tonic, and who knows where it will lead!

Indeed, Matt B. It might even lead a person to, say, stop gay-baiting.

Say hey!

Say hey indeed! Finally some common ground between us…I love Willie Mays too.

Gol, your assetion, which you make in an indirect way - like a 3 year-old - is utterly false and I reject it. 

That’s not to say I reject you personally.  You are a highly opinionated antagonist, and as such I have attempted to derogate your position with any number of plausible and even fanciful rhetorical attempts. 

My purpose in using these highly contrived rhetorical advances is that, otherwise, I might just as well contrive missives for a hallmark greeting card, or spend an evening reading them. 

If I might conjencture, I would say that you are personally too reliant on agreed-upon factoids, prosaic demonstrations, and trite ways of thinking; although you show a youthful determination to establish things (over and over again) which are regrettably beyond question.

So go back to your backhanded drawing board and see if you can come up with some affirmative declarations that will advance a logical train, and keep me awake as well.

Matt B, it would appear that your guesses about what sort of person I am are even farther off than I had previously imagined.

I appreciate the “youthful determination” remark though. Finally, an inaccurate presumption that I wish were more true!

As far as actual arguments go, however, I’ve surely more than said my piece here; and I have little reason to hope that, if I tried once again to describe and advocate for my perspective, I would be met with any more understanding and any less animosity than I was the first few times ‘round. Much wiser, I think, to just let this thread die out.

I wish you the best!

“I, on behalf of Jesus, am disappointed in you.”

My new tagline.  And it can be used daily in a myriad of circumstances.  Excellent!

That’s great, Jennifer; as long as you’re ready to offer praise on the same basis.  A good 10:1 ratio is about right.  Really superb observation!

Well said, Mrs. Fisher!