Bp. Callahan on the Al Smith Dinner

I received word last January from some friends in Milwaukee, who also happen to be friends of Cardinal Dolan, the former Archbishop of Milwaukee (and my former boss), concerning the Al Smith Dinner and inviting me to attend as their guest. Time, of course, passed swiftly and before I knew it they needed an answer to their invitation.

The Al Smith Dinner is an annual gathering of “glitterati” who raise an enormous amount of money for children’s charities in the Archdiocese of New York. Hosted by the Cardinal Archbishop, it is an evening of lighthearted, self-deprecating humor, poked at some folks of means who have the resources to raise millions of dollars, and who are of such stature in the community that their self-inflicted humorous anecdotes are found particularly funny.

The dinner was established by His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Spellman, in honor of Al Smith, a former governor of New York State, who was the first Catholic to run for President of the United States. The dinner, therefore, has always had a distinctive social-political curve to it while it brings together some great citizens (mostly from NYC) who have the wherewithal to raise the kind of money needed for these charities.

So, last Thursday, yours truly joined a group of Wisconsinites from all over the State – and beyond – to witness history.

You see, every presidential election, the sitting president and the candidate from the opposing party are invited to share the dais, put aside politics, and embrace the civility and honor that makes this a truly noble and exceptional republic.

This year, however, there was great controversy concerning Cardinal Dolan’s invitation to President Obama. The president is not necessarily favorable to us Catholics and we are currently in litigation against his forced HHS mandate involving Health and Human Services and Catholic institutions – schools, hospitals, and charities. The president is pro-abortion and against the Defense of Marriage Act. So, there was plenty of “push-back” by the Catholic community against the Cardinal’s invitation. In all fairness, I must add, people were not necessarily jumping up and down in joy to invite Governor Romney, either. I think many folks would have just considered passing over the tradition of having the candidates for dinner and go with a less provocative guest(s).

It is sometimes necessary, however, to have your bravest, strongest soldier go forth against a formidable adversary. I believe that the Cardinal is now in a position of leadership for the Church in the United States to meet the challenge. His invitation was meted out according to the practical and spiritual attributes of the Gospel – in a profound spirit of charity. I paraphrase his own words: if he only ate with saints, he’d eat alone an awful lot of times.

I’d like to think we all want to be heralds of hope and instruments of peace in difficult situations, especially in some of the troubling times that are now set before us. I believe our best efforts must be to fight the fight that must be fought – and this we are doing in our lawsuits and with our expectations of justice in favor of the First Amendment. We must always remember, however, that charity still carries the day for us as Christians. Even in persecution it should be said: “See how they love one another.”
Diocese of La Crosse

Photo

12 comments:

LoveGodAndAsHeLoved said...

Let's pray for Romney. He said at the AlSmith Dinner in approval that the Catholic Church defends the innocent child waiting to be born!
Well praise the Lord!
Let's pray for the President. Some time ago he said he would not want his daughters punished with a baby if they made a mistake. Like saying he would not want his children to punish HIM with grandchildren!!!!!!! Lord have mercy!

Cassandra said...


I'd been waiting for the jury to return on Callahan, and it now has finally returned.

We have a place-holder bishop (or a replacement bishop if you prefer), another administrator and company yes-man. Expect no significant improvement in the Diocese during his reign.

On the bright side, though, if he sucks up enough, maybe they'll move him somewhere else instead of him retiring here.

Anonymous said...

Nice try to explain/justify this, but it doesn't work. What many don't seem to get is that confusion WITHIN the flock is rampant and it falls upon the leaders to provide guidance and clarity. Appearing side by side with the most pro-abortion president ever at a very public, glitzy New York event is scandalous. Plain and simple. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

It's not like Catholics in America are united on the most fundamental questions facing society. There's a huge divide, with a majority of Catholics actually supporting gay "marriage" and abortion "rights."

So, we need our leaders to be bold and LEAD. It's a straw man tactic to say that those who argued against Obama's invitation are somehow opposed to demonstrating charity to the president. That is a non sequitur. It attempts to place us on the defensive, as though we are the Pharisees, casting out the "sinner."

Imagine the statement it would have made if Obama's invitation had been withdrawn. Remember what Cardinal Burke did in Saint Louis with the Sheryl Crow scandal? He simply refused to attend the "Catholic" event because of Crow's abortion advocacy. To do so, he correctly stated, would have been a scandal, even though it was a fund-raiser for a children's hospital and had nothing to do with abortion. We need more leaders like that who take a firm stand.

Badger Catholic said...

For the record, I don't think there's a hard and fast rule here. +Dolan in his benediction prayed for "the unborn", but muddied the waters by mentioning them alongside "the unemployed." It makes sense that a pro-abortion Catholic be excluded, but a pro-abort Obamalogist or Mormon, it's not like either candidate is misrepresenting their own religion on the matter. Dining with pagans should be done. Dining with the excommunicated, not to be done. With the gravity of the situation in New York, where the number of aborted children per day is so high, I think +Dolan should have made more of a point on that issue. So I don't take issue with the fact that they were invited, but that the fact that even a brief but poignant remark or prayer was not made in their(the unborn) defense. But then again, how would the public feel about the rendezvous if the evidence of abortion were visible and there were piles of bodies in the streets.

Darla Meyers said...

I doubt anyone from the KKK was invited. And if they were, would the bishops be saying the same with regard to eating with sinners? Just wonderin'...
Deo Gratias!

Anonymous said...

Matt,

Cardinal O'Connor did not invite (non-Catholic) President Clinton to the Al Smith dinner in 1996 because the president vetoed the partial birth abortion ban.

President Obama is the most pro-abortion president in history and he is actively and unapologetically persecuting the Church. There is precedent for the sitting cardinal of the Archdiocese of New York not to invite the presidential candidates to the Al Smith dinner on the grounds that the candidate is an active proponent of abortion and that by doing so further confusion among the already confused faithful could be exacerbated.

No one is suggesting that cardinals (or anyone for that matter) shouldn't eat with sinners or pagans, or that they should only eat with saints. There is more to the opposition than that Cardinal Dolan and Bishop Callahan dined with sinners.

EJD

Badger Catholic said...

Hmm, I didn't realize that EJD...

Anonymous said...

I would remind all herein that our salvation is dependent on our perfection in charity and obedience, not self-righteousness. Our bishops require our prayers and our support, not our judgement. Between Peter and Paul most here probably would have been solidly behind Paul, however, Peter, the plodder, was pope. Think about it.

Darla Meyers said...

We cannot judge souls, but we can and are required to judge actions, including those that may lead to grave scandal. Deo Gratias!

Ezechiel 3:17-20
Son of man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel: and thou shalt hear the word out of my mouth, and shalt tell it them from me. If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand. But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul. Moreover if the just man shall turn away from his justice, and shall commit iniquity: I will lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die, because thou hast not given him warning: he shall die in his sin, and his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: but I will require his blood at thy hand. But if thou warn the just man, that the just may not sin, and he doth not sin: living he shall live, because thou hast warned him, and thou hast delivered thy soul.

II. RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.


2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." 86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing. 87


2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible." 88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, 89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.


2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!" 90

Cassandra said...


@Fr. Michael,

I'd remind you that the mission of the Church is the salvation of souls. Do you know what the real definition of "scandal" is? It is an action by someone (esp. of authority or prominence) that leads others into sin or to lose the Faith.

If the actions/inactions of bishops are leading the Faithful astray, then the greater charity toward souls demands that one speak out against the bishops. Remaining silent so that bishops can retain a false reputation is not charity. True Charity cannot be in opposition to Truth. What you're advocating is "being nice".

Furthermore, Catholic moral theology teaches there are nine ways of participating in someone else's sin which include: By praise or flattery, By concealment, By *silence*, and By defense of the ill done. I refuse to participate in the sins of the bishops by silence, concealment, defense or praise.

I suggest you read what Aquinas had to say about opposing prelates when the Faith is at stake. Stop with the pathetic "do not judge" misinterpretation that is used by so many to justify so much error.

While attacks on bishops can certainly be overdone, attempts by "nice" orthodox Catholic infected with clericalism to suppress legitimate outcry do more harm to the Church than the actions of dissident, heterodox Catholics.

Anonymous said...

Cassandra, you are so correct about Bishop Callahan. He is like his creator, Cardinal Dolan. Neither of them has any internal convictions about the Church. While in Milwaukee, both Dolan and Callahan held in contempt anything and anyone who was not supportive of Archbishop Weakland. We are still waiting for a house cleaning here in Milwaukee, but I am beginning to think it will not occur in my lifetime. Don't hold your breath in La Crosse either.

Anonymous said...

(Brian from Illinois): Just don't forget to pray and fast daily for your local Church leaders. Archbishop Listecki has a lot on his plate right now with this bankruptcy case and his own recent health problems, along with making plans to close and merge up to 100 Parishes in the Milwaukee Archdiocese. Never a dull moment..... I'm praying daily for all of you in the Milwaukee Archdiocese. :)