Skip to comments.Catholic Dinner Shouldn't Have Included Obama Because He's Pro-Abortion
Posted on 10/20/2008 7:10:15 AM PDT by OriginalChristian
Recently, the Archdiocese of New York held its famous Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, with both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama as guests. I watched the coverage today -- the story is all over the news, along with images of Obama and Edward Cardinal Egan sharing a laugh.
Something about that bothered me.
No, it's not what you think. I'm not upset that a Democrat and the cardinal were enjoying a conversation. This is not a partisan issue, and I would have had the same negative reaction if it were Rudy Giuliani or Susan Collins instead of Obama.
The truth is, the first thought that came to my mind was a simple one: What are we doing here? If abortion really is what we say it is -- the gruesome murder of unborn children -- do our actions reflect that belief? And if those who support abortion are guilty of facilitating such a horror, how should we respond to them?
If this were 1855, would we be inviting pro-slavery politicians to take a break from a hard fought race, and share a laugh and a meal? As one who finds courage and inspiration in the example of the Radical Republican abolitionists, I just can't imagine it.
But isn't that what we're doing today? I know that wasn't Cardinal Egan's intention -- of course not. (I also recognize that I'm raising these concerns after the fact.) However, in today's media driven society, images matter. The sight of Obama and the cardinal palling around sends the message -- whether intentional or not -- that the pro-choice senator is fine in Egan's eyes.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
That title is absolutely rich.
Who would want to eat Obama, anyway?
Catholics shouldn’t allow those supporting abortion (obama supporters) at any of their functions including mass. These people are evil and they don’t need to be there.
The precedent was set years ago. Geraldine Ferraro was at the dinner when Cardinal O’Connor was the Archbishop of NY. (I remember of photo of her shooting daggers at Cdl. O’Connor, who made no secret of what he thought of her act, though not at the dinner.)
Since politicking is not supposed to occur at the dinner, it is not the same as outright promoting a candidate who is pro-abort or even providing a platform.
Truth is, the dinner would be pretty sparsely attended with no pro-aborts. Maybe it is time to end the dinner, lest the church be tempted to play towards Caesar.
I think you're right. If you can't have the event without cosying up to supporters of infanticide, then just don't have it.
Given how outspoken Cardinal O’Conner and (to a lesser extent?) Cardinal Egan are on the issue of abortion I doubt very much that the Obama campaign would try to play this up as any form of endorsement or approval. Jesus did after all hang around with thugs and hookers.
...But he does fly Crescent Airlines.
If he truly was a Christian, he would know you don’t make jokes about that. Especially in front of a Cardinal.
John McCain made it obvious remarks who supported life and who didn’t.
I disagree, in this case. This wasn't just a random, formal dinner where Cardinal Egan and Senator Obama both just happened to show up. This was an official Archdiocesan event to which Punished-with-a-Baby was invited and at which he was treated as an honored guest, seated by the Archbishop.
The unmistakable impression conveyed by this event is that, "We're all just good buds," and Obama's beliefs and actions regarding crucial moral issues don't matter in the slightest. I think Cardinal Egan should apologize to the faithful Catholics of the Archdiocese, and announce that no further dinners will be held unless the candidates of both parties renounce abortion and other assaults on human life.
I agree with you:
“I think Cardinal Egan should apologize to the faithful Catholics of the Archdiocese, and announce that no further dinners will be held unless the candidates of both parties renounce abortion and other assaults on human life.”
It’s a tough argument. The Al Smith dinner has traditionally invited all the important politicians of both parties.
Then, along came abortion. Virtually ALL of the politicians in New York State and New York City are pro-abortion. There are very few exceptions. And all of the Democrats on the national level have been pro-abortion since the passage of Roe v. Wade.
So, this is not a first.
I share the concern about sitting down next to a mass murderer and being polite all through dinner. Watching the videos of McCain’s speech, it was evident that Cardinal Egan was carefully remaining expressionless throughout the whole damned dinner, so as to avoid favoring one candidate over the other or taking political sides.
I don’t know what the answer is. Having dinner with the enemies of Christ is different from offering them Communion. But it remains an awkward business. Still, maybe it was best. I think McCain came out way ahead, and may have increased his lead among those who watched his speech. Obama gained nothing that I could see.
Without prejudice to the Cardinal's assumed good intentions, if he feels he has to appear neutral about abortion, then there is something very wrong with the situation in which he's put himself. A Bishop is to teach, exhort, and preach the Word "in season and out of season," not look blank because appearing Catholic would be tacky.
Flipping TV channels, I came across a preacher that said: “I’m not going to tell you who to vote for, but I will tell you this: don’t you ever vote for a politician that supports abortion. Ever.”
Our pastor said next Sunday, for the first time ever, he is going to talk about politics in church. My gut feeling is the bottom line will be like the one above.
Churches need to make a blunt statement. It is never, under any circumstances, acceptable to vote for pro-abortion (pro-choice, or whatever else you want to call it) political candidate.
Part of the reason we are losing the abortion issue at the ballot box is too many pro-lifers see it as one issue amoung many. It’s not. It is the one issue that overrides all others.
I’ve notice the Dems have recently been making a push that they are really more ‘pro-life’ because, while they wouldn’t outlaw abortion, their policies would reduce abortion. A Kennedy girl was on O’Reily trying to spin that line, and even O’Reily wasn’t buying it.
The Catholic church (as well as protestant and baptist churches) need to be blunt.
It is never, under any circumstances, OK to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
This position is both morally and logically absurd AND practically fallacious. Typical of Kennedys, in other words.
It is never, under any circumstances, OK to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
That can be a tough call. In some races, all the candidates are pro-abortion. Wouldn't one then choose the less-bloodthirsty one?
The “less blood thirsty”?
In that circumstance I think it is better to not vote.
Those situations arise because the “pro-life” party feels they can get both pro-life votes (which they need to win) and “moderate” voters (ie, pro-choice) by nominating the “less blood thirsty” candidate. This is a forumla for pro-life issues to be taken for granted and minimized.
After a while of losing, the pro-life party will realize they can’t win by nomnating “less blood thristy” candidates and counting of pro-lifers to vote for the lesser of two evils, so they will start nominating actual pro-lifers.
I should add also that part of the reason the Whig party died is they refused to take a firm anti-slavery stand.
Enough people who refused to vote for a pro-slavery Whig candidate (or even a moderate slavery Whig candidate, your “less blood thirsty” option) that it eventually killed the Whig party and gave rise to the Republican party.
There, that's more accurate.