7/2 Timeout Tuesday...the Cardinal Dolan Edition

h/t to AOA of course

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. 

THIS is why i'm not really on the Cardinal Dolan Bandwagon

story here, h/t of course to Dymphna and Steve

my emphasis and comments.

NEW YORK, July 31, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Although controversy dogged his first appearance at the charity’s annual fundraiser in 2008 alongside Sen. John McCain, Catholic Charities has again (read, do the same thing over again and expect different results) extended an invitation to President Obama to speak at this year’s event.

Meghan Myers, the Executive Director of the annual fundraiser, told LifeSiteNews today that U.S. President Barack Obama has accepted the invitation to speak at the charity’s Al Smith Dinner in October. 

Obama and Sen. John McCain at the 2008 Al Smith Dinner, with Cardinal Egan, then archbishop of New York.

The annual fundraiser has traditionally featured the presidential candidates from each party during an election year. No word yet on whether Mitt Romney will attend.

While the event typically takes a lighter tone, with the presidential candidates roasting each other in humorous speeches, this year’s event comes at an especially awkward time, with the U.S. bishops having recently concluded their “Fortnight for Freedom” (which of course everyone knows, I thought the idea was a joke, here's my proof) - a response to the Obama administration’s HHS mandate that will force employers, including many religious employers, to include contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs in their health plans. That mandate, as well as other attacks on religious freedom coming from the Obama administration, have been condemned in the strongest terms by many (actually I think there was a statement from all of the US Bishops' for once) of the country’s bishops and religious leaders.

Another major conflict with Catholics and other Christians developed when the president began toactively oppose the Defense of Marriage Act last year; he has also just recently announced his support for same-sex “marriage.”

The Al Smith dinner also comes a little over three years after 83 U.S. bishops publicly opposed the invitation and award given to President Obama by Notre Dame because of the president’s pro-abortion record.

When asked if consideration was given to the Obama administration’s recent attacks on religious freedom, particularly Catholicism, in inviting the president, Myers replied that she could not comment on the invitation since she did not extend it. Obama was invited, she said, by New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan. (welcome to reason number 1 why I'm not Cardinal Dolan's biggest fan. He continues to negotiate or compromise with evil. It makes me think that much of this is a glorified political ploy to make the Bishops' seem alright, when they're secretly in bed with these guys)

The White House did not return calls for comment by press time. 

Joe Zwilling, Director of the Office of Communications at the archdiocese of New York, told LifeSiteNews that he had not heard that the invitation had gone out, nor that it had been accepted.

The appearance of Obama at the Al Smith Dinner in 2008 caused considerable controversy.  At the time some pro-life leaders questioned the appearance in light of a 2004 policy of the U.S. bishops regarding politicians who “act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.”

In ‘Catholics in Political Life’, the U.S. bishops said: “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 suggest support for their actions.”

The idea of cancelling the traditional appearance of the presidential candidates is not without precedent. On two occasions since 1960 the presidential candidates were not invited by the Archdiocese of New York to the dinner - in 1996 (Cardinal John O’Connor), when strongly pro-abortion Bill Clinton was a candidate, and in 2004 (Cardinal Egan), during the candidacy of also strongly pro-abortion Democrat John Kerry.

Obama is often referred to as “the abortion president” because of his record that is viewed by pro-life leaders to be the most extreme in U.S. history.

Deal Hudson, a well-known Catholic political activist and author of “Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals” in the United States opined after Obama’s 2008 appearance:

What are we doing here? If abortion really is what we say it is—the gruesome murder of unborn children—do our actions reflect that belief? And if those who support abortion are guilty of facilitating such a horror, how should we respond to them?

If this were 1855, would we be inviting pro-slavery politicians to take a break from a hard fought race, and share a laugh and a meal? As one who finds courage and inspiration in the example of the Radical Republican abolitionists, I just can’t imagine it.

But isn’t that what we’re doing today? I know that wasn’t Cardinal Egan’s intention—of course not. (I also recognize that I’m raising these concerns after the fact.) However, in today’s media driven society, images matter. The sight of Obama and the cardinal palling around sends the message—whether intentional or not—that the pro-choice senator is fine in Egan’s eyes.

Obama’s appearance at this year’s fundraiser would be no less contentious.  Michael Hichborn of American Life League told LifeSiteNews, “Regardless of what they’ve done in the past, it is unthinkable for a Catholic charity to invite the man seeking the destruction of religious freedom in America to a fund raising event.“Hichborn added: “This sends the wrong message to pew-sitting Catholics, who are anxiously looking to our bishops to stand up and fight against this clear enemy of the Church who will be joining them for dinner. The Apostle Paul said it best in his second letter to the Corinthians: ‘Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?’”

My comments extra

1. When will he learn? Absolutely ZERO compromise with evil, NONE! I don't care even if it is the president of the US! NO compromise..

2. Cardinal Dolan, if he did issue this invite completely undermined the so called "fortnight for freedom" (Which I of course thought was a joke). It's as if his words mean nothing. As I've said before, his personality undermines his message. 

3. I'm glad I found this, it will find a prominent place on my blog :D

Post number 600....

I really wanted to write this yesterday, but considering it was the Nativity of Our Lady, I couldn't justify ranting, but today; however, different story entirely...The news has given me a lot to say, so here we go...

a. Cardinal Dolan, no people are not condemning him, but yes, those that are calling him out are right.

Over at Restore DC Catholicism, there's a video on the Vortex on wicked Bishops with not much commentary...but I have plenty of them, few of them nice...but all of them charitable...

It would be one thing if this was the first time Cardinal Dolan capitulated to the culture....everyone's allowed to "make mistakes" so to speak, however; from the Al Smith Dinner, call God him, her, whoever you want, Bravo for Michael Sam, Ss Francis of Assisi and Francis Xavier parish, to the cheesehead, denying the Faith in front of Muslims, the list goes on and on, but you get the point, it's not the first time that something like this has happened.

So as such, this not being a first time offense, something has to be done. Now this is where it gets kind of confusing, while the Pope does appoint Bishops (and this one is on Pope Benedict XVI, one of his worst appointments in my opinion), the Bishops are not agents of the Pope, they do have authority in their own diocese...so while the Pope can be blamed for the appointment itself (though there might be more blame to go on the advisors), he can't be blamed for the misuse of said authority by the local ordinary...(One of the reasons Rome is very often slow to get rid of heretical Bishops, or those that misuse their authority)...seems a bit contradictory, I'm sure, but the whole jurisdiction and authority thing is rather complicated.

If the homosexual people marching in the parade had no banner whatsoever, it wouldn't be a problem, why? Because their sin is being kept private, so because it's internal, we can't judge (TM) we don't know of their attitude, how the incident occurred, etc.

But with the banner, there is an announcement that this is the particular sin that they are doing. Through their own words, they are saying that this particular action is occurring, we're not repenting, we're not changing...We want you to know this is what we're doing. As such this is now an external situation, so actions can indeed be judged. So when a Cardinal Archbishop becomes the marshall of the event, indirectly, he's giving confirmation to what's going on (For better or for worse) by his presence.

Let's say two people are standing outside a porn store. One obviously can't say anything in this situation, why? One doesn't know whether they're a. going inside. b. walking past or c. protesting. Any of the three options could be done, and one wouldn't know. Now let's add to the situation..let's say these two people have banners saying I love porn, and watch it daily. What is one to do now? In this situation, two people are publicly proclaiming their sin for everyone to know. Similarly in our situation with the parade if people are walking, we don't know what's going on in their private lives. Insert the banners, now we know, so it means by definition we must take a stand.

And as such, while I may not know the personal state of a particular soul (and I really don't want to), actions can be seen, and since public approval was de facto given, it is right to call Cardinal Dolan (or anyone else) for the actions that are going on, and to ask the question, what's up with this?

Surely, I don't think anyone's happy to say these words, and would much rather have repentance...but as we've seen, this is a continuation of behavior, and so the only just thing to happen here would be for a "Cardinal Abdication" or resignation as is called for in the video. Quite frankly, yes we're not supposed to place our trust in princes indeed, but it is difficult to follow, or to even care when those above us don't care or place themselves in front to protect us from the evil wolves. I can't begin to tell you how many times I get discouraged, when I see the Bishops' repeating the same failed policies from before. It's like why bother fighting, if we're not going to be helped in our battle against the culture?

And then the even worse crime of having the suppression of truth....Although yes Msgr Pope is a priest and does have an obedience to which we do not have as laity, eventually one needs to stand up...Don't kid yourself and think it was voluntarily taken down, in the world where the altar of political correctness rules, everyone knows there was "nudging" from the top. Enough! Let the truth be spoken, and if one doesn't want to be called out....here's a strange but rather intuitive idea...DON'T CAUSE SCANDAL by one's actions.

That said, I want everyone who reads this little excuse of a blog to do a Holy Hour on Sunday Sept 14th (Exaltation of the Holy Cross) for Cardinal Dolan, for priests, in particular for the virtue of fortitude in the Faith.

b. The job application process

Is rather annoying, okay, so annoying is being rather polite...It's even more frustrating when people do not update their websites as to fool people into thinking of something is available. You can't tell me with technology as proficient as it is now, that one can't keep sites updated nearly instantaneously as to let people know what is open, and what isn't. But wait, that'd make sense, no, no, no, that can't be, I forgot things need to be more complicated than they're supposed to be.

c. It's probably better

For Obama to spend his time on holes 1-18 than actually doing his job. The problems that are created already suck, let's not let the worse solutions get even more time than they already do. But then again, we should probably be careful of accusing the puppet of doing everything wrong, when we should e looking at those controlling the strings.

d. On a slightly positive note

My car is fixed, so now I don't have to do to mediocre Liturgies....(bear in mind where I am)...and I can go back to my places of refuge and for growth. This weekend, I'll be out of town on a retreat and a few other things...as well as meeting with my SD...

Anyways, I should stop yapping for now...

Pax Vobis.