Cardinal Dolan has a blog...he has written an official response to the Al Smith dinner....
I'm giving the full response here, my comments will make up 7/2 points
Last week I was out in Anaheim for the annual Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus. It was, as usual, a most uplifting and inspirational event.
In his rousing address to the thousands of delegates, representing 1.8 million knights, Dr. Carl Anderson, the Supreme Knight, exhorted us to a renewed sense of faithful citizenship, encouraging us not to be shy about bringing the values of faith to the public square. This duty, he reminded us, came not just from the fact that we are Catholic, but also from the fact that we are loyal Americans.
He then went on to announce a promising initiative of the Knights of Columbus to fostercivility in politics. Quoting a very recent study, he noted that over 80% of Americans are fed up with the negativity, judgmentalism, name-calling, and mudslinging of our election-year process, and eagerly want a campaign of respect, substance, amity —civility!
For seven decades, the Al Smith Dinner here in New York has been an acclaimed example of such civility in political life. As you may know, every four years, during the presidential election campaign, the Al Smith Dinner is the venue of history, as it is the only time outside of the presidential debates that the two presidential candidates come together, at the invitation of the Al Smith Foundation, through the archbishop of New York, for an evening of positive, upbeat, patriotic, enjoyable civil discourse. This year, both President Obama and Governor Romney have accepted our invitation. I am grateful to them.
The evening has always had a special meaning, as it is named after Governor Al Smith, the first Catholic nominated, in 1928, as a candidate for president, who was viciously maligned because of his own Catholic faith. Smith was known as The Happy Warrior,because while he fought fiercely for what he believed was right, he never sought to demonize those who opposed him. And, the dinner named in his honor is truly life-affirming as it raises funds to help support mothers in need and their babies (both born and unborn) of any faith, or none at all.
The Al Smith Dinner has never been without controversy, since, as Carl Anderson reminded us, politics can inspire disdain and negativity as well as patriotism and civility.
This year is surely no exception: I am receiving stacks of mail protesting the invitation to President Obama (and by the way, even some objecting to the invitation to Governor Romney).
The objections are somewhat heightened this year, since the Catholic community in the United States has rightly expressed vigorous criticism of the President’s support of the abortion license, and his approval of mandates which radically intruded upon Freedom of Religion. We bishops, including yours truly, have been unrelenting in our opposition to these issues, and will continue to be.
So, my correspondents ask, how can you justify inviting the President? Let me try to explain.
For one, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner is not an award, or the provision of a platform to expound views at odds with the Church. It is an occasion of conversation; it is personal, not partisan.
Two, the purpose of the Al Smith Dinner is to show both our country and our Church at their best: people of faith gathered in an evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism, to help those in need, not to endorse either candidate. Those who started the dinner sixty-seven years ago believed that you can accomplish a lot more by inviting folks of different political loyalties to an uplifting evening, rather than in closing the door to them.
Three, the teaching of the Church, so radiant in the Second Vatican Council, is that the posture of the Church towards culture, society, and government is that of engagementand dialogue. In other words, it’s better to invite than to ignore, more effective to talk together than to yell from a distance, more productive to open a door than to shut one. Our recent popes have been examples of this principle, receiving dozens of leaders with whom on some points they have serious disagreements. Thus did our present Holy Father graciously receive our current President of the United States. And, in the current climate, we bishops have maintained that we are open to dialogue with the administration to try and resolve our differences. What message would I send if I refused to meet with the President?
Finally, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner in no way indicates a slackening in our vigorous promotion of values we Catholic bishops believe to be at the heart of both gospel and American values, particularly the defense of human dignity, fragile life, and religious freedom. In fact, one could make the case that anyone attending the dinner, even the two candidates, would, by the vibrant solidarity of the evening, be reminded that America is at her finest when people, free to exercise their religion, assemble on behalf of poor women and their babies, born and unborn, in a spirit of civility and respect.
Some have told me the invitation is a scandal. That charge weighs on me, as it would on any person of faith, but especially a pastor, who longs to give good example, never bad. So, I apologize if I have given such scandal. I suppose it’s a case of prudential judgment: would I give more scandal by inviting the two candidates, or by not inviting them?
No matter what you might think of this particular decision, might I ask your prayers for me and my brother bishops and priests who are faced with making these decisions, so that we will be wise and faithful shepherds as God calls us to be?
In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus, who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners; and by the recognition that, if I only sat down with people who agreed with me, and I with them, or with those who were saints, I’d be taking all my meals alone.
Your Eminence: Thank you sincerely for this explanation of your actions....That said, I still disagree with the action at hand, and here's why:
1. Obama has proven time and time again to be an enemy of the Church...
We've tried to converse with him, dialogue so to speak. He has done nothing but insult our intelligence (paraphasing your words) and lie to us about trying to seek common ground. He has no intention on seeking common ground with us at all. I don't really think he has any respect for the Church at all, or what respect he does have is for a warped image of the Church. And while Jesus did eat with sinners, he certainly corrected them, and he certainly was not a pasifist, even questioning why the guards were doing things to him during the via Crucis. The heart of Obama is hardened towards matters of the Church, and the process of engagement has failed. I think it's time to try a new approach.
2. Good intentions have bad consequences...
While I certainly admire the fact you want to be civil with the president, this is a good thing and certainly should be practiced by all of us when engaging the culture, the perception will be that this talk about Religious Freedom, HHS Mandate, etc, was just a political facade and really it was just cover while in reality, you support the president and his goals towards the Church. I know that this is not the intent of the invite of Obama, but this is how we the faithful will see it. The Gospel of Good Intentions has been tried and really hasn't worked too well so far.
3. There are major differences between the Holy Father meeting the President, and this dinner.
The Holy Father as head of Vatican-City state, meets with the heads of state often. The Holy Father also gave a fraternal correction to Obama, giving him Caritas et veritate, and a copy of Humane Vitae as well. That is to say the Holy Father wasn't civil, he taught the Truth of the Faith, while Obama hasn't listened to Him, He presented the Truth in charity and clarity. He also met with Nancy Pelosi and didn't give her an opportunity for a photo. He did not make it appear as if he was supporting her position. Whether you like it or not, the reality wil be that you are by default supporting Obama by him being there.
7/2. Seeing as if the dinner isn't a reward...I agree...
I agree with you that the dinner is not a reward and shouldn't be seen in that light (it wil be anyway). An invitation was not extended to Bill Clinton because of his moral stance on abortion. By an earlier Cardinal Archbishop of New York. Seeing as the dinner has declined invitations to people before, perhaps now is a good time to try again.
I will of course pray for you, Your Eminence as well as for our Bishops in this fight. I know this was not an easy decision to make, and while I do disagree with it, and understand your reasoning...It just seems to be a repetitive cycle of things that we have tried and have failed. There comes a time where all of us (I include myself) need to stand up for what is right, regardless of whether it hurts peoples feelings or doesn't seem "nice." The Gospel of nice and good intentions has been tried before, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over again, and expecting different results.
Our Lady Queen of martyrs: Pray for us.