Before you post a comment, read this

“Whatever we do, and however strongly we feel, we do it charitably, we do it civilly.  We don’t judge the motives of other people. We just try, in a confident, peaceful, inviting way, to make our position felt, to invite other people to respect it.”

– Cardinal Timothy Dolan this morning.

Read the whole story.

Comments

  1. Obama is out to slit the Church’s throat, but Dolan won’t call him out by name. The next day, he calls Rush out by name on a lesson in manners???

  2. And does it from the pulpit in the Cathedral!! Now, perhaps he should try preaching against Obama by name from that same pulpit.

  3. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Actually, Gerard, he didn’t do it from the pulpit. He took questions from reporters after Mass and mentioned it.

    Dcn. G.

  4. friscoeddie says:

    slit thoat?He missed the heading?

  5. Cardinal Dolan, say what you will about him, will not demonize people too easily. As for Rush, he called him out for a vile attack on a woman. I’m thinking woman about to be stoned, but hey – that’s just me. It seems appropriate to me. I am always appreciative of his call to charity. I know that it is something that we can all learn from.

    And Dr. Nadal, with all due respect to you, you remember how vilification and name calling came about not so many months ago, with you being the target. I appreciated how you responded to that at the time. You are ever in my prayers and I wish you peace.

  6. pagansister says:

    IMO, Rush is a waste of air time and I still haven’t figured out how anyone can listen to him and find what he says acceptable! Of course Rush apparently apologized—-as if anyone actually thinks he means it! Cardinal Dolan has some good advise above.

  7. Dr. Nadal, I sincerely appreciate your passion. And, of course, you’re right in suggesting that what a talk radio host says in a satirical moment pales in significance to a US President’s cunning and duplicitous efforts to transform the country against the wishes of its people. So, yes, the Church’s commentary should in theory be directed at the far greater power.

    Still, I’m guessing that the Cardinal is fully aware of what he is up against: A President using division and class warfare, supported by the largest media organs and aided by tons of money from degenerate Hollywood tycoons, crony capitalists (including Warren Buffet), Wall Street speculators (like self-confessed Nazi collaborator George Soros), the abortion industry and union thugs.

    Thus the Cardinal – and the Church – are walking across a political minefield. Cardinal Dolan is being prudential in choosing his moments of opportunity and careful in how to present the Church’s case, knowing full well that a slight misstep will be magnified by an unsympathetic media and the well-organized (and well-financed) “netroots” on the left.

    And, as has been pointed out, the Cardinal was responding to a question when he commented about Limbaugh. You don’t get to decide what the media wants to ask, which put him in this situation at a tactical disadvantage.

  8. Yes, Limbaugh did apologize, to his credit. This should now turn the spotlight on publicly-pledged $1 million Obama campaign contributor Bill Maher to apologize for all the horrendous things he has said over the years.

    Either that, or Mr. Obama should refuse the $1 million from Maher. On top of that, Mr. Obama might also, just as he called Sandra Fluke to “console” her, call the many people that his wealthy $1-million contributing patron has dissed over the years.

    After all, it’s Lent! And isn’t Lent for everyone :-)

  9. Correction: Submitted previous post too soon.
    Gerard:

    I want you to know that I respect your expertise in Science and your commitment to the pro-life cause. (I have an MS in Chemistry and have taught Biochemistry to nursing students and other medically-oriented students.)

    When you use incendiary language like: “Obama is out to slit the Church’s throat,…” and also in a link you provided on previous post that our president is a “thug”, you lose your credibility as a civil discusser of these issues.

    What draws me to this Blog, called “The Deacon’s Bench”, is the fact that Deacon Greg may post controversial issues but also he posts issues that are informative, so that we can discuss and present our varying positions. To the best of my knowledge, he has NEVER, personally, incited vitriol. That is why I do not consider my reading this blog a near occasion of sin, as the Deacon mentioned a few posts back. I consider it a way to affirm my faith in the free discussion that must have take place at the University of Paris at the time of Thomas Aquinas.

  10. In his famous essay, “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell supported the use of clear and vivid language to describe things. He and Churchill and others favored simple “Anglo-Saxon” words over the Latinate words that have flooded the language since the Norman Invasion.

    “Slit” and “thug” are the kind of words that Orwell described and they are words with precise and clear meanings.

    The President has not hesitated to align himself with thugs and his policies have every appearance of slitting the Church’s throat.

    Why not call a spade a rusty shovel?

  11. Why?
    Because you know, Mark, in your heart of hearts, that it is incendiary and brings out the worst in people.

  12. HMS at 9:14 PM: “Because you know, Mark, in your heart of hearts, that it is incendiary and brings out the worst in people.”

    Gee, “HMS,” I believe that the Cardinal instructed us not to “judge the motives of other people.” I’m not trying to “bring out” anything, but defending the use of clear language.

    If I see a fire, do I call 911 and tell them that “rapid oxidation of a material in the chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various other chain reactions is in progress in the vicinity of my abode” ? No, I tell them there’s “a fire across the street from my building.”

  13. We have a president who has decided that he gets to define what is and is not a religious institution, who can and can not qualify for an exemption for his edicts aimed at faithful christians.

    We have a president who will either bury the Church in ghastly financial penalties for noncompliance, force the alienation of our institutions from the bishops’ control, or else cause us to capitulate and pay for abortifacient contraception (As New York State has done with the bishops here).

    Yes, I called the man a thug who is out to slit the Church’s throat, because he is, and he will. It’s already been done here in NY at the state level. It’s being done in dioceses all over the nation.

    If anyone taking me to task has a polite way of expressing the ugly reality of the existential threat facing the Church in America, and can do so in a manner that conveys the urgency of the moment without sacrificing clarity, and without sounding like a policy wonk, I’d like to hear it. And for the record, the thug comment was made at my blog, not here.

  14. Thanks for the clarification, Deacon Greg.

  15. Barry Obama, when he was running for president, said “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun.” No presidential candidate has ever used thuggish violent imagery like that, ever, and Dr. Nadal is therefore within his rights to call him out on this and similar displays of abuse of power. Let’s stop pretending that Obama is somehow “above the fray” on this issue.

  16. HMS,

    Plain language that accurately depicts the situation brings out the worst in people? Really? So a few words a cherry-picked and then invoked to the exclusion of the piece from which they were drawn. In my article the trajectory was toward voting this wicked administration out of office in November. Pretty radical stuff, huh?

    The former rector of my seminary, Msgr. Montano once gave a homily where he discussed a corrupt politician. He said it was a waste of a perfectly refined word such as “avarice” to describe the appetites of the politician, when “grubby” was more accurate. The right word for the reality under consideration.

  17. …are cherry-picked…

  18. … a few words ARE cherry-picked…

  19. Why this didn’t end up under my comment below is a mystery. The system has a gremlin tonight.

  20. Gosh, I had forgotten about that. And, indeed, anyone interested in Mr. Obama’s “thuggish” past might want to google the names “Alice Palmer” “Blair Hull” and “Jack Ryan.”

    During his rise to power (in Illinois), these three all stood in his way at various points, so he found rather devious ways to eliminate them politically. In the case of Alice Palmer, a mentor and senior politician who trusted him, he used the technicalities of ballot access law to keep her off the ballot in his first run for Illinois state senate. Otherwise, she would have beaten him. In the case of Blair Hull and Jack Ryan — potential opponents in his 2004 US Senate race — he managed to get court records of their respective divorce cases unsealed, and that managed to drive each of them from the race. Hull was a Democrat; Ryan, a Republican with an admirable track record of helping inner-city youth through private educational programs. Both were leading Obama in the polls before he jack-knifed them.

    Yes, he has a a wonderful smile, two photogenic daughters, and he can charm them by singing an Al Green song at the Apollo Theatre. Otherwise, ice water runs through his veins. Just ask his colleagues in the Illinois state senate who remember the effort and passion he devoted to killing an anti-infanticide bill in the state legislature.

  21. Is it incendiary when the president of the USA constantly uses class warfare language which seems to have fired up the Occupy crowd who uses violence as part of their daily life? I think if the president acts as a thug and has a history filled with years hanging around those who preach hatred and who have committed acts of violence, you can certainly use the word thug. In my heart of hearts, I know that the president using that language has far more incendiary potential to bring out the worst in people than any ten people commenting on this blog.

    I am trying to locate it again, but saw a blog the other day that someone had lined up 15 comments used on talk programs on MSNBC where they demonized conservative women with the word “slut” from Laura Ingram to Michelle Malkin to Sarah Palin and more. Has any of these women testified that they want to have sexual relations outside of marriage with anyone they desire, that the government should provide them protection, but even worse, at the expense of the Catholic Church, and even worse to do so because she is at a Catholic university?

    But another topic should be the use of words to make a point and the restrictions of free speech by selective political correctness where some are allowed and others are not, usually based on if they are conservative or liberal.

    What is the definition of the word slut..
    A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
    A woman prostitute.
    A slovenly woman; a slattern.

    Do these apply to Laura Ingram, Michelle Malkin, or Sarah Palin? Isn’t it almost more offensive if the person seems to be living a life without apparent issues of this type and is also fighting against abortion and other intrinsically evil acts than one openly testifying about their sexual promiscuity? And how about the fact that those doing these comments work on a station using the name of Microsoft and General Electric owned NBC, both supporters of Obama?

  22. The Obama — “thug” comparison seems patently ridiculous.

  23. Those who support the thug often delight in his actions and try to deny he is a thug, just a committed nice guy. Those on the recieving end of the thug know it when they see it. A thug does not always have to do violence, a political thug however can have massive long term impact that might make one choose a physical beating such as when your religious liberty are taken away.

    Hitler had a high popularity in Germany while the world saw him as a Thug. I think the bishops finally saw a little bit of this guy and his Chicago way of doing business. The Chicago way has always been seen as thug style politics of divide and destruction. Daley thug poltics was on display during the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago on national TV. Obama’s is on display when he shoved a one party bill onto the american people and its thuggery is on full display in the attack on religious liberty. Obama wants a second term to complete his transformation of America into a socialist state and seems to be open to many of the same style methods with total disregard for the Constitution.

  24. pagansister says:

    Jeeze, Mark—just vote against President Obama, already, in November.

  25. “Those on the recieving end of the thug know it when they see it.”

    Or those who term everyone they disagree with and lose to a “thug”, are just delusional or victims of sour grape syndrome.

  26. I tend to lean towards Dr Nadal’s side of the discussion…call a spade a spade. And for the record, not even Dick Cheney needed to be so destructive in accumulating and preserving power.

    On another note…as an altar boy wishing for Roman-cut surplices with a squared neck, find it amusing that the NY Daily News photo has one boy with a high-collared Anglican-cut surplice, and the other wearing a Roman-cut surplice.

Leave a Comment


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X