Dolan’s New Doctrine on Scandal – Three Reasons to Justify

The Cardinal prefaced his justification and apology by making reference to some statistics he heard at a recent Knights of Columbus annual convention. In quote 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! This notion of civility (mentioned four times in his letter) would then be the groundswell that the Cardinal would then use to justify the impetus of his scandal.

In regards to the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Fund Dinner, according to Timothy Cardinal Dolan’s letter, there are three reasons to justify creating a scandal in the Church – to which you can apologize for doing so:

1. Because the Al Smith Dinner is not an award or the provision of a platform to expound views at odds with the Church.
2. Because 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, and
3. Because 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.

This picture really doesn’t have much to do with the article – I just like the idea of having beer with doughnuts and french fires.

I think it is fine that some Catholics simply trust the judgement of Cardinal Dolan and are ready to be silent and just let his decision run it’s course. Those people have much more faith in men than I do. On the contrary, being that the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Fund Dinner will go forward on these three delineated grounds, what remains for us to do is continue to pray for the Cardinal and to discuss the reasons for his justification so that we might determine whether we should continue to be scandalized now and in the future when another Cardinal or Catholic Organization follows his example.

In regards to the first defense – the Al Smith Dinner is not an award or the provision of a platform to expound views at odds with the Church.

In this first defense the Cardinal attempts to juxtapose or differentiate this year’s Al Smith Dinner with the Notre Dame Scandal of 2009 when President Obama was invited and was given an honorary degree and a microphone to expound on views at odds with the Catholic Church.

The error I find in this defense is that the the Bishop’s document ‘Catholics in Political Life’ clearly states that “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.” Again, there are three things that must not be given to those who act in defiance of the faith; that is 1. Awards, 2. Honors, and 3. Platforms.

We all agree that President Obama will not be given an award at the Al Smith Dinner, but that fact that it is an honor to be a keynote speaker there is absolute. Now, unless the Cardinal is positing that all three conditions (award, honor, and platform) must be present to meet the standard, then it is enough to prove that it is an honor to speak there for this statute to be adhered to.

Notwithstanding, let us continue to the last condition – platform, which the Cardinal adds “provision … to expound views at odds with the Church.” It is an absolute fact that Obama will be given a platform. It is an absolute fact that he will be given provision to say whatever he wants. Now, unless the Cardinal can see into the future, I just don’t see how he can assure us that the President will not use that platform and provision to expound on views at odds with the Church. Being that the Cardinal cannot know for certain what any of his honored guest will say, it then therefore follows that there is no reason to give those who have proven to be at odds with our fundamental morals principles to be given a platform to say anything.

Caveat Question: If being the keynote speaker at the Al Smith Dinner is not an honor and platform then why didn’t Cardinal John O’Conner invite pro-abort Bill Clinton in 1996, and why didn’t Cardinal Egan invite pro-abort John Kerry in 2004?

In regards to the second defense – 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.

There’s that word ‘civility’ again. I admit this whole notion sounds noble and pious, but the fact of the matter is that appearances is all that matters, and too much is at stake here for people to assume agreement. The world does not know that the dinner is for what the Cardinal says it’s for. The world does not know that it is not an endorsement. The world won’t know the Catholic Church is attempting a failed effort, just days before the dirtiest campaign ever, to be civil. This isn’t Ramadan – there will be no cease fire – there are going to be a litany of uncivil ads with lies and name calling on the air before, during, and after the dinner.

The Catholic Church is horrible at controlling its message in mainstream media. All the world is going to see is maybe twenty seconds on a major new network of President Obama at the platform of the Al Smith Dinner telling some jokes and Cardinal Dolan laughing hysterically in response. Next they will see in the print of a major newspaper photographs of warm of embrace with the President and the Cardinal. You know what I thought when I saw all those same things in 2008? I thought that the Catholic Church didn’t have a problem with Obama – that Catholics could vote for him in good conscience. The Church had given him their stamp of acceptability.

Therefore, if it something that you have no means, experience, or reasonable belief of controlling, then it is a prudent decision to avoid the likely occassion of your action being received as something that it is not, especially when what is going to be received is scandal.

In regards to the third defense – Because the teaching of the Church, so radiant in the Second Vatican Council . . . 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.

I don’t think anyone would have any problem with open dialogue, but not for the sake of giving honor and platform. I was critical when Cardinal Dolan met with Obama back on November 8, 2011 to discuss “pertinent moral concerns arising in foreign and domestic policy, issues of both agreement and disagreement.” I said then that he was Paving the Way for Obama to be Reelected, but at least he met with him privately then, and didn’t give him honor and platform.

CONCLUSION
A part of me is actually thankful to Cardinal Dolan giving honor and platform to President Obama, because all he has done was anger us even more and has given us extra fire (if we needed any more) to get out an vote for a regime change. We are tired of all of this! All of this!