Al Smith Dinner – FEAST OF ST. MAXIMILLIAN KOLBE -by Cardinal Dolan
[with HSH [comments] …]
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 foster civility 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! [I don't think even one person has argued against this. And I'm not sure if the claim of K of C authority is warranted. We just want some respect for the millions of babies that are being killed. Calling abortion wrong both in season and out of season is not negativity or judgmentalism, etc.]
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 ["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. [People can do that on their own. No help needed.] 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. [It has always been the policy of the Archdiocese to support, for instance, houses for unwed mothers, while at the same time giving abortion referrals. This is not a case of double-effect either. Nor is there any "duress".]
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 [But there is quite a difference this year, isn't there?]: 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 [and continue to intrude] upon Freedom of Religion. We bishops, including yours truly, have been unrelenting in our opposition to these issues, and will continue to be. [Let's see...]
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 [But it is an honor, right?]. It is an occasion of conversation ["conversation"]; it is personal, not partisan. [We are always personal, never partisan. Nor is this a matter of Catholic "opinion". This is about the Natural Law.]
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 [That would be nice if the politicians were only politicians, that is, one arguing about the need for more infrastructure, and the other talking about the overriding need for fixing the economy. But this is about millions of innocent lives being killed off and the ongoing oppression of the Catholic Church, right here, right now.]. 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. [Post WWII wasn't about aborting the nation and world, was it? I think there was a baby-boom at the time.]
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 [the constant rhetoric, even in the present note, is precisely that the engagement is lifted for the night] and dialogue [not only is there not dialogue on this night, the Obama administration called in Cardinal Dolan in the past only after all was said and done.]. 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. [Hey! Great! But what's happening on this night? and what's otherwise happening?] Our recent popes have been examples of this principle, receiving dozens of leaders with whom on some points they have serious disagreements [Takes a lot of nerve to say that. Look, Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI receive such horrific people only to tell them what's what. Forget the jocularity and fun evenings and even dialogue. They are just told flat out what the truth is in all charity. Period.]. Thus did our present Holy Father graciously receive our current President of the United States [More to that than that. Really.]. And, in the current climate, we bishops have maintained that we are open to dialogue with the administration to try and resolve our differences. [Great!] What message would I send if I refused to meet with the President? [In other words, what the Cardinal saying, and this is very sad indeed, and I'm only recognizing this as I'm writing this now, is that the President has refused to dialogue about anything on any serious level with Cardinal Dolan, such an evening being as far as Obama will go. The Cardinal gets no dialogue. Nice words from Obama on that evening will just be spitting in the face of the Cardinal, and, through him, on the face of the Church. Meanwhile, Obama can claim to be great friends with the Catholic Church.]
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. [Happy to hear that, but, I mean, it sure does seem to indicate a relativization of all important matters.] In fact, one could make the case that anyone attending the dinner, even the two candidates, would, by the vibrant [vibrant: abortion stops a beating heart. Dead. Cold. Not vibrant.] solidarity [with who? with what?] 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. [There can be the exact opposite effect: "These Catholics really don't give a damn about life. They give a great pre-election photo-op though!"]
Some have told me the invitation is a scandal. [I agree.] 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. [It's not scheduled until 18 October, very near Super Tuesday. You can still back out.] I suppose it’s a case of prudential judgment: would I give more scandal by inviting the two candidates, or by not inviting them? [In view of all the comments above, it would be a scandal to invite 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? [Sure. That's what HSH is all about. Pray for me, too.]
In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus [Uh-oh...], who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners [Can any true Christian think that Obama is a Christian in good standing? Let's just say it. The "sinners" Jesus ate with were no longer sinners. They converted and were His followers, repentant and now saints. They were not obstinately persecuting the Church and were not maniacs about aborting millions of children. Really.]; 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. [Just. Wow. Nobody but nobody is saying any of that. Ask what the evening is about. Ask what dialogue is about. It has been said a thousand times that the evening has nothing to do with serious dialogue or instruction in the truth in all charity for that matter. So, then, what is it about, a very credible photo-op for Obama? 18 October is the date. Plenty of time to rescind the invitation.]