Guess who’s coming to dinner?
The Al Smith Dinner, that is — President Obama, that’s who, and many pro-lifers are none too happy about Cardinal Dolan extending the invitation:
The Rev. Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life, a leading abortion opponent based in Staten Island, said Monday (Aug. 6) that “the polite putting aside of differences for a while amounts to scandal.”
“There comes a time when enough is enough and we can no longer afford to give people a reason to doubt our position as a Church,” Pavone wrote in an email. “So no, I don’t think the invitation is appropriate at this time.”
“Better to cancel the event than have it become another cause for scandal in the Catholic Church,” Randy Engel, head of the U.S. Coalition for Life, told LifeNews.com, an anti-abortion website.
Given all that has passed between the hierarchy and the president, and between Dolan and Obama personally, I’d say the invitation was a bold move. The Al Smith Dinner used to be a demilitarized zone, politically speaking, but Cardinal O’Connor did not extend invites to the presidential candidates in 1996 because it would have meant inviting Bill Clinton, and Cardinal Egan did not invite either candidate in 2004 because it would have meant inviting John Kerry.
Egan did invite Obama in 2008, to the chagrin of some. Chagrin on steroids this year.
My full story at RNS is here.
This is a good move. Politics should not be taken TOO seriously. It is not a war but just a process where the people decide who will be the help to allow the state to function.
Not to minimize the serious differences but humor can be a way to unite people as long as it is not mocking or mean spirited.
I have seen interviews with Dolan and he is a good natured, genuinely funny guy. I don’t think that either Romney or Obama have that gift but still is a good service and charity.
I think all of the people in the Archdiocese who made that multi-year pledge to the Centennial Campaign should get comped for the Al Smith Dinner.
I don’t see the scandal.We’re all sinners.Jesus ate with sinners -so no problem here. And no one can even say that people who truely believe in abortion or who take stands contrary to the churchs teachings on other issues are sinning for holding such beliefs-misguided or just plain wrong may actually be the case .[People can't help believing what they really believe as objectively sinful as an act may be].Still inviting politicians to dinner who oppose church teachings is just part of remaining engaged with the world.Professed catholic politicians-like professed catholics in general-who take public stands in favor of abortion ,on the other hand,should be reprimanded privately and mandated to cease and desist publically taking stands in favor of abortion or risk excommunication. Not because of their belief-they can’t help following their conscience-but for willingly undermining church teaching by choosing to follow their conscience rather then obey a mandate to not promote a position that is contray to the church- in a matter of grave moral import. But even an excommunicated catholic politician can be invited to dinner .
Which Romney will show for the dinner?
I say good for Abp. Dolan. I bet it wasn’t easy for him to do, after his tantrums. Maybe he’s learning that you have a much better chance of changing people’s minds when you treat them respectfully — especially when your opinions are far apart.
No doubt the pro-lifers who are objecting to the invitation mean well, but they do more harm than good. Dialogue changes minds, not just screaming “You’re wrong and evil!”.
I thought President George W. Bush sort of ended the pretense of a neutral playing field when he committed the truth by telling the 2000 dinner: “This is an impressive crowd – the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.” President Obama going to the dinner is sort of like Mitt Romney showing up for the NAACP convention. You have to respect the appearance, but it doesn’t do him any good.
I thought McCain was a hoot at the 2008 dinner, especially when he said that Obama’s pet name of him (McCain) was “George Bush”.
Tom – I do not think your comparison valid. While Romney might not be tight with the NAACP (especially as is is constituted today, politically), Obama is very much part of the ‘elite’ (the haves or have-mores) that will likely be in attendance.
As for Cardinal Dolan extending the invite, I trust he knows what he is doing and has good reasons.
I’m glad Dolan invited Obama. People are more likely to influence their friends than their enemies. This gives them the opportunity for a friendly relationship.
Am I not correct that when president of the French Republic, by virtue of his office Sarkozy was an honorary canon of St John Lateran, and he supported legalized abortion. And Benedict XVI did nothing about this! An outrage, to be sure. An invitation to one dinner seems trivial compared to this scandal. If only Father Pavone had known about this….
More on French scandals (the best kind, of course): There was a funeral mass for Francois Mitterand in Notre Dame in January 1996, attended both by Mme. Mitterand and M. Mitterand’s mistress. The celebrant was Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger of Paris, who presumably occupied a position in the French church roughly analogous to today’s Cardinal Dolan in the US. I don’t remember any noises of outrage from Rome, but who knows?
I am NOT a fan of The Tim. However, I think that he has done the right thing by inviting both candidates to the Smith dinner.
Whether the tighty-righty theocons like it or not, Barack Obama IS the POTUS and, if current polls are correct, he miay very probably be POTUS beginning 2012.
Man up, boyos, and accept reality.
Anthony:
Indeed. http://incaelo.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/religious-titles-for-a-new-president/
More interestingly, if Segolene Royal had been elected, then there would have been a difficulty, because honorary canons have to be men…
“the Rev. Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life, a leading abortion opponent based in Staten Island, said Monday (Aug. 6) that “the polite putting aside of differences for a while amounts to scandal.”
You mean the Rev Frank Pavone who was suspended from public ministry last Fall because his bishop was alarmed that financial irregularities in his organization have the potential for scandal?
My current bishop Gregory Aymond, obviously of French descent, has been known to say that he believes that it is not his function as bishop to make people do what is right — it is his function to tell them what the Church teaches is right and wrong. That probably accounts for why he doesn’t lash out verbally at wrong-doers, and, I think, people are more likely to listen to him. Hopefully, The Tim is learning this.
This at least separates Dolan from Egan who was inflexible and nasty as when he summarily and instantly fired professors at a meeting in St. Joseph’s Seminary a few years ago. Dolan does not want to be like Egan. Maybe this year has taught him some lessons.