New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan has been taking flak for inviting President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to speak at the upcoming Al Smith Dinner. During election years, the gala — an annual fundraiser for the Archdiocese of New York — typically features the rival presidential contenders as speakers. Catholics have often objected to this tradition on the grounds that it (seemingly) signals the Church’s approval of even the most radically pro-choice politicians.
This year, of course, Cardinal Dolan’s invitation to President Obama has revived controversy over the president’s record not just on abortion but also religious freedom, a record that the bishops have rightly protested. Reacting to the invitation, Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, said, “I don’t think it is acceptable for the church to extend an invitation to a President who has made an all-out assault on the Catholic Church . . . Anytime you’re asking someone to speak, you are sending a message that who they are and what they’ve been doing is okay.” Similarly, Human Life International’s president, Fr. Shenan J. Boquet, stated:
As faithful Catholics, we cannot set aside our deeply-held differences and put in any place of honor those who continuously attack the tenets of our faith, and even our very ability to practice that faith. We cannot pretend for one moment that such an honor at any function promoting the work of the Church doesn’t give legitimacy to their position while harming the Catholic Church’s image and the perceptions of those looking for guidance from our bishops and Church leaders.
Writing on the Archdiocese of New York’s website yesterday, Cardinal Dolan issued a patient response to his critics, explaining why an invitation to President Obama is justified:
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 engagement and 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.
August 15th, 2012 | 10:57 am
Cardinal Dolan is so right—not something I say very often.
If the Archdiocese were to invite only candidates they approved of, an invitation would be a tacit endorsement (of sorts).
August 15th, 2012 | 11:28 am
Perhaps it would be helpful if it was widely understood just how outrageous Caesar had to be before it before it would be inappropriate for the Church to invite him to join “people of faith gathered in an evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism.” I assume that, if it had been possible for the Early Church to have safely held such a public gathering, it wouldn’t have been appropriate to invite Nero, who crucified Christians, fed them to lions and used them as human torches to light up his circuses and games. There must be a place where a line can be drawn.
How about the case where Caesar is vehement and outspoken in his advocacy of policies that amount to nothing less than state-sanctioned killing of innocent human beings by the millions in open defiance of God’s clear command, “Thou shalt not kill”? Isn’t it idolatrous to comply with this? Isn’t our compliance rendering unto Caesar authority over innocent human life that belongs only to God? How is our compliance any different from burning incense to Caesar and in doing so rendering unto Caesar worship that belongs only to God? The martyrs preferred to die rather than to render unto Caesar that which belonged only to God. I doubt the Christians who witnessed such martyrdom felt it would have been appropriate to then invite Caesar to an “evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism.” Unlike the Christians of the Early Church, instead of refusing to render unto Caesar that which belongs only to God and accepting the consequences, we invite him to party with us.
How about if Caesar staunchly supports organizations that fight for the right to arrange abortions for minors without their parents’ knowledge or consent, thereby taking the life of their grandchild, and possibly taking the life of their minor daughter as well (sometimes these covert abortions are botched), and in effect trampling upon and then spitting upon the right of the parents to freely exercise their deepest and most sacred religious convictions regarding the sanctity of the lives of their children and grandchildren? Is that over the line? If not, please explain why not.
August 15th, 2012 | 11:47 am
I do not agree an ounce with the Cardinal. Dialogue isn’t going to take place at the Al Smith Dinner. Obama’s understanding of the role of the hierarchy and the nature of Catholicism comes from Bernardin–who we now know quite clearly was a less than stellar Church leader. Dolan has blundered again and one wonder when his tin ear will ever be mended. Secondly, how can he not realize the symbolism of such an invitation to a president who wants to dismantle the public presence of the Church? It’s troubling to say the least.
August 15th, 2012 | 11:47 am
Harry,
Perhaps it is not over the line because Christ’s forgiveness has no line, and though I am almost certain that this will not produce a Road to Damascus event for the President, we cannot rule out, in charity that such a conversion of the heart may and can occur.
Caesar, even when our enemy, must be treated with love by the Church and us Christians alike.
August 15th, 2012 | 11:56 am
Harry, we’ll put you down as a “no” on the rsvp list then, shall we?
As a committed pro-lifer who has worked, volunteered and donated to the cause, I do have to say that I worry about some of the single-mindedness of our cause. Pro-life is extremely important, and at the top of the list of my concerns. But given all that, it is not the ONLY concern in the world.
Pres. Obama, as much as I disagree with him, is not the equivalent of a tyrant focused on persecuting and killing Christians. Making such a claim just further pushes us into the fringe of those whose views can be simply dismissed. This is a democratically elected representative of a large proportion of our citizens who do not agree with us on our pro-life beliefs. We need to keep working to change that, but cancelling the Al Smith dinner is not going to do anything to help us with that goal.
August 15th, 2012 | 12:19 pm
John Kerry, who allegedly is Catholic, was invited in 2004. In some ways inviting Obama is less offensive in that Kerry defied(s) his church on a weekly basis with his advocacy of abortion on demand.
August 15th, 2012 | 12:21 pm
Harry, your comment suggests you did not read the Cardinal’s statement.
I am pro-life, and understand your fervor. However, I think we have to consider the negative consequences of not inviting Obama.
This move by Card. Dolan is a calculated move, not a surrender. He knows that he (and the Church) will be painted as partisans if he only invites Romney.
Not extending an invitation to Obama would be rightfully construed as a partisan act, and the Church should not become known as a partisan entity. Political opinion is strong in this country, and a partisan reputation would make it much harder, almost impossible, for the Church to minister to, preach to, and generally engage, half of the people in this country.
The Church will have no chance of convincing pro choice democrats of the truth in the pro life cause if it gains a reputation for being a republican social club.
August 15th, 2012 | 12:30 pm
Cardinal Dolan is right, something I say quite often.
August 15th, 2012 | 12:36 pm
Hello, slats grobnick,
It is you who mentioned Obama specifically in terms of “the equivalent of a tyrant focused on persecuting and killing Christians.”
Hello, MPB,
Obama claims to be a Christian. Consider Matthew 18:15-17:
Do these words of Christ have any meaning at all? Or are they just pointless verbage? If they have meaning, then there are lines that must be drawn, and if those lines are crossed, we don’t, in obedience to Christ, invite the offender to party with us as though he is in good standing with the Church.
August 15th, 2012 | 12:38 pm
Make no mistake here…President Obama represents a part of the Left that wants to see Christians pushed to the margins of society.
These people, after they have their way, may agree to allow us to continue to hear mass on Sundays…but they want our imprint in the larger society…gone.
Catholic hospitals, Catholic universities, any kind of Catholic societal outreach is to be made suspect…and to be put under the oversight of government.
This is a fundamental rewriting of the Establishment Clause…and it’s being done not through congress or the courts, but through executive decree. This is a basic change in how we have operated as Catholics throughout our nation’s history.
What amazes…is the almost complete disinterest of the national media. Clearly they are frightened…or in the left-liberal tank. Probably a combination of both.
Let Obama speak…we should use this as an opportunity to bring this fundamental change in the relation between church and state into the light. Maybe even the cowed mainstream media will take up the question.
August 15th, 2012 | 1:00 pm
Hello, George,
I did indeed read the Cardinal’s statement.
Yes, there would have been “negative consequences” if Obama had not been invited. Christ repeatedly warns us in the Gospels that following Him would bring upon us not just negative consequences but also the hatred of the world. We have to do the right thing and accept the consequences, be they negative or positive according to the wisdom of the world.
The behavior of those obediently following Christ has often been misunderstood by the world, yet taking up our cross and following Him ultimately brings about the divine results He intends. That is why preaching Christ crucified, which was insanity to the world, eventually converted it.
We must be obedient and render unto God alone that which is His alone, and let Him sort things out from there instead of letting the wisdom of the world thwart God’s plans.
August 15th, 2012 | 2:48 pm
Cardinal Dolan’s policy has good historical precedents.
On the On 16 January, 1892, after protesting against the anti-clerical measures of the government, including the laicization of public education, the dissolution of the religious orders and withholding or delaying the salaries of the clergy, due under the Concordat of 1801, the French cardinals proposed the following response to Catholics: Frank and loyal acceptance of political institutions; respect for the laws of the country whenever they do not clash with conscientious obligations; respect for the representatives of authority, combined with steady resistance to all encroachments on the spiritual domain.
On 10 February, 1892, in his encyclical, “Inter innumeras sollicitudines,” Leo XII endorsed this policy, urging Catholics not to judge the Republic by the irreligious character of its government, and explained that a distinction must be drawn between the form of government, which ought to be accepted, and its laws which ought to be improved.
The French bishops were punctilious in according all the tokens of civil respect to officials of the government and, particularly to the President of the Republic.
August 15th, 2012 | 3:06 pm
Hello Michael_PS,
We would do well to consider the more recent words of JP II:
Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject … Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
– JP II, Evangelium Vitae
August 15th, 2012 | 3:10 pm
I do not agree an ounce with the Cardinal. Dialogue isn’t going to take place at the Al Smith Dinner.
I’d pay to see Obama forced to sit politely through speeches touting the policies he has demonized.
August 15th, 2012 | 3:39 pm
Wow!! One might think this was Mr Obama’s first trip to the Al Smith Dinner. One would be wrong as he was a speaker at the 2008 Dinner along with Senator McCain. So what is different now? That he actually got the health care law passed? Catholics- I am one- tend to be very negative and see only the downside of things. They do not see the MILLIONS of people who will benefit from the ACA, they only see the ended lives of the unborn. Using this logic, no program could ever be instituted and approved of the Catholic Church. Kids cannot Catholic School, I guess we better shut down the schools. Some people can’t use food stamps, well I guess we better discontinue them. Some people are allergic to wheat, we better burn the fields. Innoncent Civilians die in war, we better not have a war. It is completely ignorant and the worst form of ignorance to not see the good that comes from the social programs touted by Mr Obama. More good than evil. I am willing to bet Cardinal Dolan understands this.
August 15th, 2012 | 4:13 pm
Cardinal Dolan did not have to invite either President Obama or Mitt Romney. There is precedent for that, too. Cardinal O’Connor did not invite President Clinton to the Al Smith gala. Cardinal Dolan could have invited someone like Rep. Chris Smith or Rep. Paul Ryan (oh, of course not, as the USCCB does not approve of his budget because of the fear of taking monies from the poor – and the bishops need to have that money from the govt.!), or any number of faithful celebrities. His invitation to Obama will help get this anti-life President re-elected; there are many Catholics “out there” who have no idea what the Church teaches and will see this invitation as an approval by the Church of our current President.
August 15th, 2012 | 5:48 pm
Harry,
Your point is well taken. A bishop’s first role is to be a leader of the flock and teacher, not a politician.
Dolan’s calculated invitation might be arising because he is playing by Obama’s rules, and there lies a problem.
I still support Dolan, as he has done a lot to defend the Church’s interests throughout this year. Yet, perhaps this was a moment for offense and not defense.
August 15th, 2012 | 5:58 pm
It is amusing how right a Cardinal Archbishop, a successor to the Apostles handpicked by the Pope, can be when you agree with him, and how incredibly wrong he can be when you don’t!
August 15th, 2012 | 9:25 pm
Hello, George,
I think Dolan is great. When he candidly stated in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto that Humanae Vitae “brought such a tsunami of dissent, departure, disapproval of the church, that I think most of us—and I’m using the first-person plural intentionally, including myself—kind of subconsciously said, ‘Whoa. We’d better never talk about that, because it’s just too hot to handle’ … we forfeited the chance to be a coherent moral voice when it comes to one of the more burning issues of the day,” that struck me as the words of a humble man with integrity who had made a decision to start dealing with the contemporary threats to Christianity realistically.
Obviously, I think inviting Obama to the Al Smith dinner, especially since Cardinal O’Connor did not invite President Clinton (thanks for that bit of information, jane kosco), was a huge mistake, but there will be plenty of opportunities to make sound decisions in the coming months that give glory to God and lead the flock by setting an example of taking up the cross and following Christ in spite of the unjust condemnation by the world that will bring upon the Church.
August 15th, 2012 | 11:38 pm
Mr Obama’s campaign immediately began touting the invitation as an “honor.” There’s no way around it: Cardinal Dolan has given Mr Obama a place at his side, and Mr Obama will use it to advance his own agenda.
August 16th, 2012 | 4:40 am
Harry
The approach of the French cardinals, endorsed by Pope Leo XIII was three-fold
(1) A distinction between the form of government (the Republic) and particular laws
(2) Respect for the laws of the country whenever they do not clash with conscientious obligations
(3) Respect for the representatives of authority
All three are perfectly compatible with each other. The “king” whom St Peter enjoined Christians to “honour” was Nero.
August 16th, 2012 | 10:40 am
I am amazed at how quickly the erstwhile lovers of all things Dolan turned on him as soon as this decision was announced. While Obama is no friend to the Church, he is not Satan incarnate, and I think many faithful Catholics forget that.
August 16th, 2012 | 11:46 am
Disagreeing with Dolan is not necessarily “turning on him.” I vehemently disagree with his decision to invite Obama to the Al Smith dinner. Yet overall Dolan gives me hope that the Church is finally going to deal with the fact that it is inherently idolatrous to render unto Caesar authority over innocent human life that belongs only to God.
Caesar’s usurpation of God’s authority is a genuine assault on the very heart of Christianity, an assault on its heart figuratively in terms of the nature of the sin of idolatry, and literally if we take Christ at His word when He says that whatever we do to the least of His brothers and sisters we do to Him. It is then His beating heart that is stopped when the life of the child in the womb is taken.
It was Him that was the helpless stranger the world refused to make welcome and disposed of at the abortion clinic.
“As I have loved you.” And how did He love us? He loved us heroically and passionately unto a humiliating death on a cross when we were as yet unborn. The world will know we are His disciples when we love Him as He loved us, loving Him heroically and passionately in His least brothers and sisters who are as yet unborn.
He is definitely not Satan incarnate. If it were true, as you say, that many Catholics are forgetting that, then that would be indicative of some very serious flaws in Obama’s character. It is not a matter of Catholics thinking he is Satan incarnate. It is really a matter of many Catholics becoming aware of the moral bankruptcy of his positions on the social issues and the danger of his ideology, one that calls for the deification of the state.
August 16th, 2012 | 11:48 am
When I first heard of the invitation of President Obama by the Cardinal my first reaction was not to think that the Cardinal had ‘lost it’ [It=either his mind or his will to fight for religious freedom in our country]
Nor did I jump to the conclusion that this was a scandal: although there are two thousand years of many and various scandals in the Church, the worst ever is what happened on the First Holy Thursday Night: Judas betrays Jesus for a paltry amount of money, Peter, the Rock denies Christ three times and the other apostles flee-we have withstood all of this-because Christ and the Spirit are with the Church! Somehow I really think we will survive the Al Smith Dinner!
What I did do, however was to sit back and begin to ponder: what is the Cardinal really doing here [I know he sent an invitation--but what is REALLY going on here!]
The most basic answer I came up with is this: Cardinal Dolan made a <> to invite the President. Whatever else, whatever other reasons, whatever shoulds or shouldn’ts are involved, the Cardinal was faced with a moment in which he had to make a prudential decision-giving it his best shot-just like the rest of us. Needless to say, many ‘feel’ that he made a mistake or even worse. It indeed could be a mistake [although I do not believe in the end it will show itself to have been a mistake].
The Cardinal, the Pope for that matter (just like every other human being) have to make decisions all the time-unless they are directly related to the content of doctrine on matters of faith and morals-the Cardinal or the Pope for that matter do not have the infallible guidance of the Spirit-and neither do the rest of us!
The Cardinal mentioned the Knights of Columbus. Two major things came out of that week long meeting, last week. One was the commission the Pope gave the Knights (KOC)to protect Religious Freedom, the other however was to reintroduce civility into the public sphere. Without civility we do not have culture and civilization.
One final thought, there are many who claim (and I do not dispute them) that we are indeed in a culture war in America. We have gone through several of these in our history [the Revolution pitted the 'Patriots" vs the Loyalists; the Civil War pitting states rights and slavery vs the Union and abolition of slavery. There were simply not that many Catholics in the thirteen colonies at the Revolution, but by the Civil War we were already the largest 'denomination' in the country. There were Catholics on both sides of the Mason Dixon line (with all that that means) yet we remained one Church and did not allow that culture war to divide us.
There are forces at work today that are attempting to divide Catholics [conservative against liberal, those 'pro-life' vs 'social justice' Catholics]. The time has come to ask ourselves not simply where we stand on these issues, but are we working toward ‘communion’ or ‘separation and division’?
I believe Cardinal Dolan has answered this-for himself and has given us more than a hint of a direction to go in
August 16th, 2012 | 12:57 pm
[...] A Certain Kind of Etiquette Thursday, August 16, 2012, 12:57 PM David Mills Yesterday, in Al Smith Scandal?, Anna Williams wrote on the controversial invitation to President Obama to attend the annual Al [...]
August 17th, 2012 | 1:41 pm
What would you think of a shepherd pleading for civility towards the wolf that is ravaging his flock? Scripture tells us what the Lord thinks (Cf. Ezekiel 34). What would you think of a father advocating civility towards a man engaged in harming his own children? The Cardinal’s action stands in contrast ti his fundamental role of shepherd and father. He is also giving grave scandal to my own children who, when they see the pictures of Cardinal Dolan yukking it up with President Obama, will rightly wonder if Daddy is possibly overstating the seriousness of abortion. The Cardinal should reschedule the dinner until after the elections when nobody will care or report on the event. But of course we all know that none of the “dignitaries” would accept the invitation because the event is no longer useful to their political aspirations.
August 17th, 2012 | 3:08 pm
The conversation emphasizes the regrets due to Obama’s invitation. Are we forgetting that Romney is also invited? Let’s use the argument FOR why he is invited and maybe, just maybe, an dialogue will be created for them to debate the virtues of Romney’s position.
August 17th, 2012 | 4:39 pm
I can’t discern whether or not this was the right move. I think Cardinal Dolan is generally shrewd and a good diplomat, so I’m hoping for the best. But I do think it’s a scandal to invite a president who will soon, if he has his way, eviscerate all religion to a Catholic event, even if it turns out to be a politically and diplomatically unavoidable scandal. His abortion stance aside, President Obama is attempting to redefine “freedom of religion” — one of the freedoms basic to our nation. I just can’t get my mind around why more people are not objecting to the determined and wilfull attempt to destroy, first the Catholic Church (because it is the biggest and most able to defend itself) and then everyone else. We’re supposed to be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves — I hope that in this case Cardinal Dolin as as much the first as he’s being the second.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact