Punditry

Cardinal Timothy Dolan discusses his decision to invite President Obama to the Al Smith fundraising dinner.

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 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.

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.

I can understand the Cardinal’s reasoning and can even agree with to some extent. This though is not simply eating with sinners, it is inviting somebody to a fundraiser for an organization that could be financially ruined by the HHS Mandate and put out of business and has been the most ardently pro-abortion President in history. Mainly what his eminence id not address was the fact that two previous Cardinals did indeed not invite Presidents or Presidential nominees because of their stands. Are these two Cardinals to then be criticized for not “eating with sinners”?

I still don’t agree with the decision (if it matters), but I applaud the Cardinal for addressing his reasons on his blog.

Call to Action Pennsylvania, Catholics for Social Justice, Pittsburgh Area Pax Christi and the Association of Pittsburgh Priests are seeking permission from a judge to file a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of the HHS mandate.

The four organizations criticized the Diocese of Erie, which has filed suit to overturn the mandate, for “join[ing] the attack on an important legislative effort to provide universal health care — a vital human right that Church teaching has supported for decades as a natural right possessed by all people as a matter of social justice.”

Not surprise by Call to Action and ultimately I guess not really by Pax Christi. Pax Christi had already been invested in a piece of social justice while ignoring other pieces such as the assault on life. They have gone from deemphasizing the pro-life effort by trumping it with something else to actively attacking it. Joining with a friend-of-Herod brief to support the assault on conscience eliminates any credibility they ever had.

CWN Via Sancte Pater

Bad Catholic posts a graphic “So you still think homosexuality is sinful” that is making the Facebook rounds.  Marc Barnes says it makes him laugh and I totally agree since it is quite unintentionally funny.

I think I got my recommended daily allowance of condescension  for the next year with the path for “No” and the next decade with the path for “Yes.”  I applaud Bad Catholic  for looking past the total ridiculousness of it and answering it.  Though he missed one point with the basic premise of the question in that it is not same-sex attraction itself that is sinful, but homosexual acts. That the creators of this graphic made no such distinction is no surprise since distinction-making abilities were not exactly demonstrated in the first place.

On another level I have to wonder just exactly what the point of such a graphic as an apologetic effort for same-sex marriage?  This is only the type of graphic where somebody who supports same-sex marriage can pat themselves on the back for being so enlightened and it in no way engages, but just insults opponents.

The picking of Rep. Paul Ryan by Gov. Mitt Romney was one of those “yeah team” moments for tribal Catholicism. You want to like a guy much more that is part of your own faith and even more so when they actually seem to believe the same faith. We’ve had plenty of Catholics rising to the national scene that really didn’t even seem to share the same faith.

For other reasons I am delighted by this pick since I didn’t think Romney had it in him. I figured he would go with a safer bet and didn’t think Ryan was really in contention. There have been very few things that Romney has impressed me with in this campaign. He had previously made a promise that he would pick a pro-life Vice President and I figured there would be some wiggle room in how he fulfilled this. Gov. Romney certainly doesn’t feel like any kind of social conservative warrior – more in the ranks of social conservative tenderfoot needing to do a lot of work on merit badges. I would love my skepticism to be proven wrong, but being from Florida I have recent memories of “pro-life” Charlie Crist who changed convictions like a suit a clothes depending on what he thought could get him elected. I don’t think Romney is as fickle as Crist, but that is not saying much.

When Rep. Ryan had appeared on Raymond Arroyo’s show The World Over on EWTN I was fairly impressed with him in that his Catholic vocabulary was rather intensive  and there was some serious engagement with Catholic thought.  Prudential application of Catholic teaching in the area of politics is fraught with danger and of course there can be many valid criticism as to how well Rep. Ryan has applied them.  In the area of prudential judgments this will always remain the case.

Vice President picks have traditionally been about helping the electability of a candidate and not about policy.  Very few Presidents/Vice Presidents have be real friends and usually the state a VP comes from is of the highest importance.  I don’t know tangibly what the Ryan pick does in helping Romney to get elected.  Sure it excites the base to overlook the clinging moderate aftertaste of Romney 1.0 before the conservative makeover of Romney 2.0. But does it really bring Wisconsin or any other state more in contention?

That he is solidly pro-life is of course a boon and quite important if it is not just another piece of pandering by the GOP towards the pro-life cause.  Much will depend on the relationship of these two men as to how important Ryan’s council will be.  There is also a question as to Ryan’s leadership abilities if they extend upon being a policy and economic wonk. A Congressman on the ticket is certainly a weakness in this regard.   On the bright side it is nice to have a VP who hadn’t already run for President themselves.

Ryan’s involvement with the budget can certainly be a plus since even discussing the topic and the fact that there have been no budgets passed since President Obama has been elected.  Though of course any proposed budget cut is broadcasted as hatred against any group of people affected. Pushing grandma off the cliff will be representative of the thematic attacks in this vein.

The largest meme so far regarding Ryan has been his association and recommendation of the work of Ayn Rand. He has certainly referenced her work in the past and admitted that she got him interested about economics in the first place.  The claim though that he required staffers to read Atlas Shrugged appears to be false as many present and past staffers have denied this claim.  One of the problems is that Ryan seems more to be backing off previous influences regarding Ayn Rand than being fully truthful about them. The question is has Ayn Rand philosophy shaped Ryan as much as Rev. Wright and others shaped President Obama?  When I was losing my atheistic faith I had turned to Ayn Rand and was comforted for awhile from her worldview.  Many go through a Randian phase until they grow up – it was embarrassing that I was in my late thirties when she appealed to me and I read many of her books.  There is something in the Randian worldview that is so appealing.  The rugged individualist and entrepreneur against those that would be happy in their government dependence.  Quite an appealing philosophy especially for Americans until you see that all the beautiful scenery has been grafted on a putrid foundation.  Radical selfishness which is the bedrock of the Randian universe is the unseemly undercurrent that shows in her books and her lived-experience in her life was an example of the rotten effects. Though there are certainly truths that can be discerned from her philosophy and she did have some valid economic insights.  It is just to bad as a Russian emigre she saw all the problems with Communism but none of the problems of the atheistic view that drove them.  She was like a doctor who could cure some of the effects of the disease, but not the underlying condition.  As for Ryan I really don’t see that radical selfishness is what drives his philosophy or is heavily influenced by this.  In one interview Ryan said “Give me Thomas Aquinas…don’t give me Ayn Rand” and I would really like this to be a true Rosetta stone in understanding Ryan.  I certainly like that he seems well familiar with the works of Pope Benedict XVI and has cited from them, but I have also learned to “put no trust in princes” and I trust politicians less than I trust princes.  I really want a solid Catholic who is a good example to be elevated, but wanting is not reality and I am not ready to canonize Paul Ryan either.  It is a sad indictment when we get excited about a Catholic politician just for apparently believing the faith.

It is always hard to sort through your own biases to try to look at a subject more clearly. It is certainly a very strange occurrence that we have a Mormon and a Catholic on a ticket in a year when religious liberty is so under attack. I it also an odd historical irony that having a Catholic on the ticket might ease the qualms of some Protestants in voting for a Mormon for President – who would have predicted that?  Plus it will be rather strange watching the Obama campaign put forth the words of some bishops regarding prudential decisions Ryan’s budget while totally ignoring the steamrolling of religious freedom and the letters of every single American bishop regarding the mandate.

Plus in regards to political theater there is the interesting contrast between two Catholic VP’s Biden and Ryan.  Talk about contrasting views and the differences in fidelity to magisterial teaching.  They seem more representative of the Angel and Devil on peoples shoulders in cartoons.  I can’t imagine Ryan saying anything like Biden’s “The next Republican that tells me I’m not religious I’m going to shove my rosary beads down their throat.” – though I really can’t imagine anybody talking like VP Biden.  I certainly wouldn’t miss the off-color commentary at bill signings such as Biden’s this is a “BFD” comment when Obamacare was signed.  The Vice Presidential debate should be interesting – maybe even for the first time.

“The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them.”

When I read this statement from  Redemptionis Sacramentum I think of people like Alex Baldwin. Well maybe not, but this one parish seems to think that this active abortion and same-sex marriage proponent who constantly proclaims vitriolic hate towards conservatives is fitting as a Lector.

For most, a Sunday church service is a moment for peace, worship and reflection — unless Alec Baldwin is in your congregation.

Sources tell us that some of the parishioners at Most Holy Trinity Parish in East Hampton are so sick of Baldwin’s blustering that a group stood up and turned their backs on the hot-tempered star as he gave a reading from the pulpit.

A source told us of the protesting parishioners on July 29: “Alec loves to be the center of attention and often reads from the pulpit, which really annoys some in the congregation. It is so bad that, one recent Sunday, he went up to read, and part of the congregation stood and rudely turned their backs on him.”

The source said, “Even though he has generously given a lot of money to the town, there are people who just don’t like him. He has a need for attention and shows up at every event. When people go to the church, they don’t want to see the movie star up there.”

Another source suggested that those who turned their backs were staunch Republicans who disagreed with outspoken Baldwin’s liberal views.

Baldwin, who has an eight-acre spread in East Hampton, and new wife, Hilaria Thomas, are regular parishioners at the church, of which he’s a generous benefactor. Last year, he donated a set tour of “30 Rock” to a church fund-raising auction.

Rev. Donald Hanson, the pastor, told Page Six, “Alec Baldwin reads from time to time at the church, and read again on Sunday two weeks ago.” Asked about parishioners who turned their backs, Hanson said, “I was told that happened, but I did not personally witness it, as another priest was saying the Mass.”

And about the reason for the public protest, he added, “I am not going to comment, as I wasn’t there.”

A representative for Baldwin said, “Alec was focused on the prayers, so he has no way of knowing if this happened. But does someone violating the sanctity of a church even deserve a response?”

Glad he is going to Mass, but his Twitter stream is not fitting for a Lector.

[Source]

I am the new pastor,’ Costello added. ‘There is a new archbishop. The archdiocese told me straight out, ‘No drag queens.'”

There’s a new Sheriff in town.

You would think this might be one item of something you didn’t have to be told. Oh by the way No drag queens.’ – who knew?

This of course is in reference to the infamous Most Holy Redeemer Parish in San Francisco where Castro Country Club has had drag queen events and drag queens dressed up as Nuns come up for Communion.

I would hope the new policy also means “No Sex Toy Bingo” something that has also been held in the parish. Though since “No Drag Queens” had to be spelled out maybe they will have to create a long list of things not to be done since common sense has not prevailed in the past.

Costello said that during a telephone conversation with a Castro Country Club representative, when the topic of drag queens came up, he told the person, ‘That is not going to work under the present circumstances.’

I hope that wasn’t an actual quote.  Regardless this is not an easy situation for Father Costello (who missed his calling as an Abbot) and he certainly needs prayer support.

Via Father Malloy, SDB  who has more details.

Two groups supporting a more active role for women in the Catholic Church are sponsoring a prayer vigil at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 8, in support of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. The 45-minute vigil will be held at St. Francis of Assisi Church, 330 S.E. 11th Ave., in Portland.

One Spirit ~ One Call, a Portland area group that has held public prayer events in support of the gifts and talents of women that they say are untapped in the Catholic Church, and Call to Action Northwest Oregon, the regional chapter of a national group seeking reforms in the church, are sponsoring the prayer vigil.

They of course will be praying for the leadership of the LCWR to return to obedience. Well not really, but it’s a nice dream. No they are actually praying for the LCWR to stop inviting new-age non-Christian keynote speakers to their conferences like the one going on now.. Well not really. Maybe it is for the LCWR to help stop child sexual abuse under their aspices. Oh well three not really’s and I’m out.

“People assume that we are about the ordination of women,” says Marie Langenes, an organizer of “One Spirit — One Call” and a member of St. Andrew’s Parish in Northeast Portland. “We are about a broader range of issues.

People assume that they are only about one heterodox opinion, when really they have a broader range of heterodox opinions.

St. Francis of Assisi Portland, Ore

One thing that caught my eyes in this story and brought back a flood of memories is that this parish is the one I sang in for about a year. After my mother’s conversion to Catholicism she brought me to this parish and I endured it as a young atheist out of love for my mother and my love of singing. The pop/rock hymns were not objectionable to me since they had such a low theological content – if any. Plus when I joined the church’s small ensemble choir I loved the irony of being an atheist in the sanctuary. This was rather a hippy parish back then and it looks like things have not changed much.

I do remember the first time I heard the word “Catholicism.” I went to one class on the Catholic faith and this is where I first heard the word. It sounded very ominous to me which is why I still remember it, that and the fact that the priest pretty much explained away the miraculous to me. As an atheist I didn’t believe in miracles and yet it didn’t quite sit right with me that the priest didn’t either. I was not surprised to find out later that both of the parish priests had left the Church to get married.

Looking back it annoys me that my first contact with the Church had the catechetical content of a felt banner, though I probably wasn’t very open to the truth at that point. It just would have been nice to actually hear the truth.

The University of Notre Dame invited President Barack Obama and Catholics were stunned. Georgetown honored HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Catholics everywhere were horrified.

Meghan Myers, the Executive Director of the annual fundraiser for Catholic Charities, told LifeSiteNews that U.S. President Barack Obama was invited to keynote the Al Smith dinner by New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

And for the life of me I can’t see why Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s invitation to President Obama to the Al Smith dinner is any different. I know the Church isn’t honoring Obama but come on. [Creative Minority Report]

There is one difference in that Notre Dame officially honored President Obama with an honorary law degree. Other than that I am also scratching my head rather roughly in discerning why Cardinal Dolan thought this was a good idea. I am a fan of the Cardinal in many ways, but this decision I am certainly not a fan of.

We will of course hear “Jesus ate with sinners”, yes but he did not invite Pontius Pilate for a fundraising event. If this was some public event with both the President and the Cardinal attending this would not be a problem.

The ironies of this invite are rather extreme. According to the Obama Administration Catholic Charities is not a Catholic institution as defined by the mandate. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a Catholic institution to be exempted from the mandate. That a man who voted for infanticide and has been a consistent anti-Catholic bigot is invited to a fundraising event for an institution he would tax/fine out of existence is hard to fathom.

I can understand efforts in the past to make this event a non-partisan affair and to reach out to both aisles as a worthy intention. Considering that Al Smith was a Democratic presidential nominee it is quite understandable that these fund raising dinners have invited Presidents and nominees. But the history of this event does not trump scandal and the non-invite of President Clinton certainly set a precedent. The militantly pro-abortion Obama recently promised not to “give any ground” on the mandate.

Now I am all for praying for our enemies and heaping coals of fire on their head.

Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

Inviting them as a prominent guest at a fundraising event – not so much. Though I pretty much would like to see Catholic institutions stop inviting politicians of any party. Surely we can do better in regards to inviting people actually living their faith. Heck I am not that happy with Gov. Romney’s invite, a man who thinks an attack on religious freedom “are not things that are part of my campaign.”

Al Smith’s presidential bid failed largely to anti-Catholic bigotry and this fact is only highlighted with the invite of an anti-Catholic bigot who is directly attacking the 1st Amendment.

Please you eminence make this problem go away like the shower scene in Dallas.

Back in May I wrote a post titled “Don’t feed the trolls?” regarding principally  Salvage the atheist commenter that haunts my blog.  My commenting policy has always been rather liberal and mostly will continue to be.  Though I have decided to finally ban Salvages comments.  No doubt some will get through at times, but future comments will all be deleted.

In some ways Salvage amused me in that if anything he only confirmed me in my faith.  Though it is a bad idea to let a single representative of a point of view stand for all even if they are somewhat representative of the so-called New Atheists.  The banning is due to the following reasons.

• Almost zero engagement.  Replies are pretty much always an exaggeration on the topic and make no effort to understand the countering-position.  You can understand an opponents positions without embracing it.
• Multiple streams of comments clogging up my comment boxes.  The spam like mentality is not an effort at a conversation, but just distraction.
• I don’t mind opposition to what I have to say or what the Church teaches.  It is very good to learn countering-arguments and to come to a better understanding of the issues involved.  I found instead that I pretty much stopped reading Salvage’s comments.

I see you’re deleting my posts / not letting me post anymore, that’s a win for me, if means that I finally presented a fact you simply could not handle, I guess the whole thing about the woman pro-creating herself to poverty and early death put it over the edge.

That’s the end game you’re trying to create with your so-called “pro-life” nonsense.

But you don’t care about that, you have a Heaven to get into.

You’re an idiot and a coward but hey, that’s theism!

Actually his comment only proved the point of what Archbishop Socrates Villegas said. The problem with poverty is not population. Poverty is nothing new and has been with us long before the present day. The poor have always been with us. But there is a vast difference between helping the poor and helping the poor to never exist in the first place. My wife is Filipino and I have seen first-hand the extreme poverty. But I have never looked on the face of the poor and thought – if only they didn’t exist. Maybe his reply was what broke the camels back in that this is a very serious subject for me and the Culture of Death attitude is not something I take likely and I just saw no positive fruits in future engagement.

So if Salvage considers he won – fine. Just not sure exactly what he won. But I am just another idiot and coward for theism -yeah.

Now I have been praying for Salvage daily and I will not be banning him from my prayer intentions. I hope the best for Salvage and his constant angry comments on my blog were not the best for him.

Dale Price posts:

To show you what the administration’s priorities really are, an employer that does not offer health insurance under Obamacare will pay a $2000 annual penalty for each worker.

But the penalty for failing to offer the pill is $100 per day per employee.

So, it’s $36,500 per year if you don’t cover an employee’s IUDs, but only $2000 if you don’t offer her anything *at all.*

Yeah, tell me how it’s all about taking care of the uninsured.

Cardinal Dolan so eloquently stated that the President had given us a year to figure out how to violate our consciences. Well that year is over as of today.

The problem with dystopian future fiction is it is not as fun as when you are living in a dystopian present.  The government forcing people to violate their consciences by the use of a hefty fine might have made good reading, but it sucks a an actuality.

“A citizen can hardly distinguish between a tax and a fine, except that the fine is generally much lighter.” G. K. Chesterton.

Well President Obama made this a distinction without a difference where a hefty fine is called a tax as per the Supreme Court.

In Cardinal Dolan’s post today he ended by saying:

Over the course of the coming year, the effort to protect religious liberty and the freedom of conscience will continue.  In the end, this is not about bishops, it is not about Catholics, it is not about contraceptives.  It is about the ideals our nation was founded upon: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  You can’t do much better than the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The founding fathers got it right.  The HHS mandate gets it wrong.  We are fighting to correct that wrong, in order to make sure that religious freedom continues for the generations to come after us.