Church of Nice Invites Obama to Dinner: The Vortex

Here is Part II of the Special Report Vortex episodes on the current scandal of Obama being invited to the Al Smith Dinner…as keynote speaker, no less!

(Go here for Part I.)

 This Vortex is longer than usual – about 10 minutes – but Michael Voris dissects the Archdiocese of New York’s “official unofficial” statement about the issue in a way that is well-worth watching. I’ve also included the script below the video, for those who prefer seeing the words.

First, though, I want to highlight something Voris says at the end of the episode. He notes that the AoNY blog post justifies inviting Obama in this way:

We can still show respect for his office, and for him as a person, and treat him with civility.  It gives us an opportunity to act as Christians, and show some love to our adversaries…

Voris responds (my emphases):

Again, a very telling comment.  Do you see the implication there? That to oppose him is to somehow not show respect for his office.  That to call him out on his murderous death-dealing policies is to somehow not treat him with civility. And the coup de grace: that this is showing love to our adversaries.

AND THAT, my Dear Friends in Christ, in one short phrase sums up EVERYTHING that has gone wrong in the Church the past 50 years: that to speak the truth plainly and boldly is somehow NOT love. Love has been absolutely confused with the concept of being nice and politically correct. 

And this distortion has allowed the leaders of the Church to totally and completely abdicate their roles as fathers who love and die for their children.  Fathers say the tough things. It is bound up in masculinity to confront and defeat evil and wrong-doing.

To not do so is to lay aside your masculinity and adopt a self-centered desire to be liked by all and therefore surrender your claim to manhood and, by extension, fatherhood.

Why has the Church fallen into such horrible straits? Because the masculine has been abandoned in favor of the effete!  And this scandal is a glaring high profile center-stage example of it.

He is so right. Where have all the real men gone in our Church? It seems there are a few bishops here and there beginning to stand up to the challenge, but the jury is still out: will they really stand up under pressure? And I think a lot of the problem is tied up with the issue of homosexuality in the Church…but that’s a topic for another day.

Here’s the Vortex:

Here's the script; the quotes from the AoNY blog are indented, italicized, and bolded.

Continuing on from yesterday’s Vortex where we discussed the poorly reasoned and argued officially UNOFFICIAL response of the New York Archdiocese regarding the invitation to Barack Obama to the annual Al Smith dinner…

Let’s look at some of the points put forth by Ed Mechmann, the high-ranking New York Archdiocese official who wrote on the New York Archdiocese blog in response to the scandalous controversy.

First he says:

People need to take a deep breath, relax a second, and think carefully about this.

The condescension in that remark alone should be enough for you.  The implication of course being that anyone who disagrees hasn’t thought carefully enough.  Call it hubris on the part of the archdiocese.

A couple of paragraphs down, he says:

The dinner is not a religious event in any way.

Uh, wrong.  Or at best, extremely misleading.  It is organized by a foundation the board of which is headed by the Cardinal himself and the Vicar General of the archdiocese.  It has their approval.  The money raised goes to the archdiocese for charitable work.  It is promoted by the Archdiocese and attended by the Cardinal. 

While its technically true that it isn’t RELIGIOUS, like the MASS for example, it most certainly is a CATHOLIC event and no one even attempts to make the distinction between RELIGIOUS and CATHOLIC.  It IS a Catholic event. 

Catholicism is celebrated at the dinner, right down to the very reason for the dinner: that Al Smith was the first CATHOLIC to run for president on his party’s ticket back in 1928.  It’s disingenuous to try and paint this as nothing else than

a civic event, much like a Veteran’s Day parade (but with a fancier menu and white tie).

Next he says:

It is strictly non-partisan.

A total red herring.  No one cares about what party a politician belongs to.  It’s his positions and policies, not his party, that is at issue.  Stop trying to muddy the waters.

…politicians who speak at the dinner are not being given any honor or award by the Church…

How could anyone say this with a straight face?  Seriously.  No, Obama isn’t getting an award. The issue of an award per se is another red herring.  But he is being given an honor.  Of course, it’s an honor.  Exactly what situation is there that arises where someone is invited to speak at a fund-raising event – to be one of the headliners – and it NOT be considered to be an honor?

To posit anything else would be to say that the organizers of the dinner DON’T consider it an honor when they extend an invitation to someone to speak.  Does anyone think that Obama himself won’t consider it an honor, or not make remarks to that effect in his comments?

Any comparison between the Al Smith Dinner and the honorary degree given to the President at Notre Dame’s graduation ceremony is thus completely off-the-mark.

Uh, no they are not completely off the mark.  That VIEW is what’s off the mark.  Of course it smacks of the Notre Dame controversy all over again.  Again, while no award is being given, the mere fact of an invitation IS an honor.  What is it to honor someone after all?  It’s to call them out and set them above others and recognize them as being worthy to listen to, or follow, or emulate.

Can anyone reasonably assume that this is not EXACTLY what the world will construe by this invitation?

Mechmann is trying to paint the picture that this is just some civil event, that being invited to speak at is no big deal .. no honor involved and as is decidedly NOT Catholic and therefore bears nothing in resemblance to the Notre Dame fiasco of 2009.

And here, I’m afraid, Mr. Mechmann’s argument is totally warped. The comparisons between the dinner and Notre Dame are too glaring to ignore.

First with his claim that it isn’t an official religious event: Well, Notre Dame isn’t an OFFICIAL Catholic university; it’s controlled by a lay board of trustees and has been since 1968.  The Church has no OFFICIAL capacity at Notre Dame whatsoever.  It doesn’t own the campus.  It doesn’t reap the rewards of the football program. Nothing. Yet is there anyone who doesn’t associate Catholicism with Notre Dame?

Even Notre Dame associates itself with the Church by leaving up statues and crucifixes and a basilica on campus.  No one walks around Notre Dame and walks away with the idea that it is some kind of Muslim stronghold, after all.

And that’s the way Notre Dame likes it.  Be Catholic when it suits them and deny it when it doesn’t suit them.

That’s the same principle that Mechmann is laying out here.  The Al Smith Dinner isn’t a religious event – read Catholic – so it’s no big deal if Public Enemy Number One of the faith receives the honor of a speaking role.

Can’t have it both ways, Archdiocese of New York. Either it’s a Catholic event by virtue of the money you receive from it as well as the prestige of years gone by…or it isn’t.

Given the consistency and strength with which our bishops — particularly Cardinal Dolan — have been proclaiming the Catholic view of public policy, it is hard to see how this one Dinner could possibly lead anyone to believe that the Church is softening her defense of life, the family, and religious liberty. 

It isn’t a question of softening the defense of the Church.  Again: a misdirect, a red herring.  It’s a question of the appropriateness of doing this at all.  If it’s SOOO HARD to see how anyone could conclude that, then why did Archdiocesan spokesman Joe Zwilling get hammered by the New York media on THAT VERY POINT?

It seems everyone in the world – even the secular media – sees the obvious contradiction here, and only paid employees of the archdiocese hunkered down in Fort Chancery cannot.

And if they want to continue to insist that NO ONE could conclude that, they ought to take some time to read the comments on their own blog.

When everyone wakes up the morning after, the struggle will resume.

This comment is perhaps the most grating of all, as well as the most telling.  It states quite plainly that this is a break from the struggle – which of course implies that the struggle can be broken from, if even for a night of jokes and cocktails.

Show me anywhere where Our Blessed Lord or the saints or the doctors of the Church or the Fathers of the Church EVER, for one single moment suggested that.  That comment is disgusting and very revealing.

WHY …WHY are we taking a break in the struggle to hob nob with a man who wants to strangle the Church? Do we really suppose that his administration back at the White House is taking a break from enforcing the wicked HHS mandate on the Church?

Do we suppose that the diabolical is taking a break from its all-out assault on the Bride of Christ? In fact, with this man’s presence at the dinner, the diabolical is the one enjoying a night of laughter.

We can still show respect for his office, and for him as a person, and treat him with civility.  It gives us an opportunity to act as Christians, and show some love to our adversaries…

Again, a very telling comment.  Do you see the implication there? That to oppose him is to somehow not show respect for his office.  That to call him out on his murderous death-dealing policies is to somehow not treat him with civility. And the coup de grace: that this is showing love to our adversaries.

AND THAT, my Dear Friends in Christ, in one short phrase sums up EVERYTHING that has gone wrong in the Church the past 50 years: that to speak the truth plainly and boldly is somehow NOT love. Love has been absolutely confused with the concept of being nice and politically correct. 

And this distortion has allowed the leaders of the Church to totally and completely abdicate their roles as fathers who love and die for their children.  Fathers say the tough things. It is bound up in masculinity to confront and defeat evil and wrong-doing.

To not do so is to lay aside your masculinity and adopt a self-centered desire to be liked by all and therefore surrender your claim to manhood and, by extension, fatherhood.

Why has the Church fallen into such horrible straits? Because the masculine has been abandoned in favor of the effete!  And this scandal is a glaring high profile center-stage example of it.

You wanna talk about love? About TRUE charity?

The most perfect way of demonstrating TRUE charity would be to set an example for not only Barack Obama, who is trapped in his own evil and needs rescuing as well, but to lift up the spirits of tens of thousands of Catholics dismayed and shocked over this – and un-invite Obama.

Now that would be a true statement of AUTHENTIC charity!

As a close, consider how telling it is that in the emasculated, highly feminized Church of Nice what to see other than this weak-kneed lily-livered statement.

The message is also that we can set aside our deeply-held differences and leave the partisan politics at the door for an evening, speak nicely and politely to each other

And there it is! At the end of the day, it all boils down to just being NICE.

‘Nuf said.

Please sign thepetition to have the invitation rescinded. In the name of Charity – for the sake of TRUE Charity, Cardinal Dolan – rescind this invitation.

Please make a prayer and offer a sacrifice that the Cardinal do the right thing.

AoNY Blog response: http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=2525

Petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/cdl_dolan_disinvite_obama/