Card. Dolan to offer prayer at GOP convention

From AP:

Romney: Cardinal Dolan to offer convention prayer

NEW YORK (AP) — Roman Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan will give the benediction at the Republican National Convention on the night Mitt Romney accepts the presidential nomination. The cardinal’s spokesman said the appearance was not an endorsement.

Dolan is the New York archbishop and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Romney announced Dolan’s appearance in an interview with Raymond Arroyo’s “The World Over Live” on EWTN Catholic network.  [Get that?  I have looked over part of a transcript.]

The archdiocese is one of more than 40 Catholic groups suing President Barack Obama over his mandate that employers provide health insurance that includes free birth control as a preventive service. The rule exempts houses of worship but includes faith-affiliated employers such as hospitals, charities and colleges.

Obama promised to change the requirement so that insurance companies and not faith-affiliated employers would pay for the coverage. But details have not been worked out and many religious leaders have said the compromise appears to be unworkable.

Romney has been pressing the issue in an ad and on the campaign trail. He told EWTN that any legislation he proposed would be evaluated according to “its impact on religious freedom.”

Romney, who would be the first Mormon nominee on a major party ticket, said his service as a lay pastor with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Boston area helped him “understand the very real concerns and pains people have, the struggles that they have,” according to interview excerpts EWTN released.

Dolan’s spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, said the cardinal told both the Republican and Democratic parties that he would accept any invitation to offer a prayer at their conventions. [!]

“It’s not an endorsement,” Zwilling said of the RNC benediction.

“It’s as a priest going to pray.”

The EWTN interview with Romney will air at 8 p.m. EDT on Thursday. The four-day GOP convention begins Monday in Tampa, Fla.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Religious Liberty and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Card. Dolan to offer prayer at GOP convention

  1. acardnal says:

    Well, it looks like they may get hit Hurricane Isaac during the convention. Wouldn’t that be apocryphal?

  2. maskaggs says:

    I’ve agreed wh

  3. maskaggs says:

    Yikes, my comment posted before I was done.

    Anyway, I’ve agreed wholeheartedly with HE so far, but this is going to get spun out of control, and badly. What will get reported will be him at the convention, with little to no mention of his offer to both parties. Perhaps the more diplomatic path would be a very public prayer for guidance for both parties; as it stands, the media is going to have a field day with this. Which is not to say, of course, that media approval ought to dictate what Catholic leaders do; however, this is going to make an uphill battle that much more difficult.

  4. lydia says:

    I’m happy to hear Cardinal Dolan will give the opening prayer. I doubt the party of death will ask him to open their convention and I know Cardinal Dolan would not remove his crucifix to do it.

  5. Gretchen says:

    I believe this will be seen as a sop to Catholics after the Al Smith Dinner situation, even though his Eminence has offered to give a benediction at both conventions.

  6. Lori Pieper says:

    Acardnal, I think you mean apocalyptic, no?

    Though for all I know, it may be apocryphal! (That is, it will be apocalyptic if the hurricane hits, and apocryphal if it doesn’t show up).

    Any chance of a hurricane hitting the Democratic convention? That would be . . . . very welcome.

    Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

  7. Elizabeth D says:

    I am surprised at the cynical and skeptical comments. It is perfectly true that no matter what a Catholic leader does, the media will generally have no concern for representing the Faith and the motives and reasoning of Catholic leaders, accurately, rather it will tend to get spun badly. But this ought to ease the fears of those who think the Al Smith Dinner is going to be “used” to portray Cdl Dolan okay-ing Obama. I trust Cardinal Dolan and I think the Holy Spirit is with him.

  8. oakdiocesegirl says:

    OMG, people! This is Great! I’m dancing in the end-zone, almost as hard as when Paul Ryan was named the veep nominee! What an intriguing prelude to Obama’s appearance at the Al Smith thing. Thanks for posting this, Fr.Z-I often miss Raymond’s program out here in the West [5 pm] but I’ll make it a point to watch.

  9. frjim4321 says:

    I heard about Romney appearing on the ETWN fake-news show and assumed they would certainly offer the President equal time, and if so would he take it, which brings up the interesting question of whether or not he would accept. I wonder how many swing voters watch that network and if the President appearing would make much of a difference to his numbers, or for that matter if Romney’s numbers would be changed much. The campaigns are groping for swing votes right now, and I don’t think appearing on a ultra-right talk show would change much of anything in the final analysis.

    With regard to the prayer at the convention, that’s an interesting wrinkle. I don’t know the history on this, and if something like this was ever done before. It seems a bit disingenuous to say that it’s not political; that’s a line similar to “the check is in the mail,” “this isn’t what it looks like,” and “it’s not about the money.”

  10. frjim,4321 I assume that both sides were offered time….I partially agree with you, I can’t believe I’m saying that…

  11. Brian2 says:

    Maybe I am missing something. Some commentators seem to be suggesting that the benediction runs against some kind of non-partisanship. Why should +Dolan worry about that. He is already suing the other guy. Obama picked the fight with HHS, and I would be disappointed if +Dolan et Alia didn’t do whatever they could to win it. If he is serious when he talks about threats to religious freedom, he should be serious about beating him in November. By Modus tollens, if he isn’t serious about the latter, then he isn’t about the former.

    Sorry for the poor style of the comment. I am typing on the go.

  12. AJS says:

    frjim4321, Prayers at the conventions are fairly common. Archbishop Demetrios, the current Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, offered benedictions at both the Democratic and Republican conventions in 2008. I don’t think that Cardinal Dolan has any insidious political machinations in this offer. It is up to the Democrats to accept or reject ++Dolan. They accepted ++Demetrios’ offer in 2008.

  13. lydia says:

    FRJIM4321 Both sides were offered time. EWTN is faithful to Rome so I quess that’s why you label it ultra right wing. I doubt the Obama team will accept the invite could you just imagine old slow Joe explaining his and Nancy Pelosi’s version of the Catholic faith. Both parties in the past have had some sort of prayer to open and not to worry the dems have their goddess of abortion the president of planned parenthood as one of their speakers. They will also be honoring Islam you know that religion of peace and tolerance. I’m sure swing voters will love that.

  14. Ioannes Andreades says:

    My hunch is that the Cardinal’s appearance will have a negative effect on the encouragement of undecided Catholic voters to vote Republican. There are large swaths of Catholics who are pr0-life but still harbor animosity towards the bishops b/c of the abuse situation. This move may bolster the faithful, but I agree with maskaggs that the spin will be extremely hard to combat.

  15. JKnott says:

    Considering the Democratic Platform may be adding homosexual “marriage” to their parties list of deadly ideologies, Cardinal Dolan will find himself standing on a more solid Republican Platform on which to pray at the convention. How could he possibly pray in good faith standing on the filth contained in the Democratic platform?
    FrJim4321, is this too ultra right wing for you?
    (CNSNews.com) – As Republican platforms have since 1984, the Republican National Platform being drafted in Tampa, Fla., this week calls for a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution and for legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment protects unborn children.

    The 14th Amendment requires states to give all persons equal protection of the law. Thus, the Republican pro-life plank means the Republican Party believes states must protect the rights of the unborn just as they protect the rights of the born.

    The draft of the pro-life section of the new GOP platform reads much like it did in the 1984 platform:

    — “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.

    — “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

    — “We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage.

    — “We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

    — “We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.”

    New to the platform since 2008 are planks calling for strong enforcement of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BIPA), sex-selection abortions and embryonic stem-cell research.

    Though Republicans mentioned BIPA in 2008, in 2012 they are calling for civil and criminal penalties against health-care providers “who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death is intended.”

    In addition, the GOP spelled out other pro-life positions more clearly:

    — “We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions, gender discrimination in its most lethal form, and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud the U.S. House of Representatives for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia.

    — “We call for a revision of federal law 42 USC 289.92 to bar the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research.

    — “We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

    — “We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation.”

    The Republican statement of policy principles places the GOP on record as seeking to protect young girls from exploitation through parental consent requirements; by affirming “our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy”; and by saluting those who provide counseling and adoption alternatives.

  16. JKnott says:

    Oh yes, and the Republican Platform will now also include its support for traditional marriage.

  17. I would like to see His Eminence pray at both conventions. I think both parties are in pretty serious need of solid Catholic teaching, though I do not think that either will accept such guidance.

  18. Phil_NL says:

    @Irenaeus:

    I think it speaks volumes that both parties got the offer, and only one accepted it.

  19. Legisperitus says:

    Can’t say I’m familiar with ETWN… do they broadcast out of Oiho?

  20. Cosmos says:

    The effect of everything Dolan is doing is, once again, to confirm that Catholics can vote for either party in good faith. Just because one party supports abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, and forcing Churches to pay for contraception, doesn’t mean a Catholic has to be uncivil and vote against them. After all, Jesus attended fundraisers for tax collectors, was always civil in tone with the Jewish authorities, and generally asked his disciples to put aside their differences with their enemies when it came time to craft benevolent social policies.

  21. Legisperitus says:

    Cosmos: Yes indeed, especially those benevolent child sacrifices to Moloch.

  22. Darren says:

    re: frjim4321 says: I heard about Romney appearing on the ETWN fake-news show…

    As opposed to the fake news shows on CNN, ABC, etc?

    A Catholic VP candidate, a Catholic key-note speaker (like him or not) and the Catholic Cardinal from New York giving benediction… I just might watch some of this convention (would be the first time since Reagan ran – when I was still a teenager… wow, was Reagan that long ago????)

    Of course, the importance of this upcoming election is huge.

  23. Imrahil says:

    I do not comment on whether a real endorsement would be in place.

    But I do say this: A prayer that is meant not to be an endorsement should not be held by a Cardinal (or even Bishop or General Vicar), unless a person of the same rank also appears at the major adversary’s convention.

    With all due respect to His Eminence, I’d advise against doing something as non-endorsement which will seem as endorsement to anyone. But that’s just me.

  24. frjim4321 says:

    As opposed to the fake news shows on CNN, ABC, etc?

    Point taken, but CNN, ABC, etc., aren’t pretending to be religious and packaging a political agenda in a Catholicesque wrapper . . . unless we dredge up the old “secularism as religion” argument.

  25. Scott W. says:

    I see you conveniently scooched past lydia’s point that both candidates were offered time.

  26. Gail F says:

    frjim4321: Ha ha, you are a firecracker! “EWTN fake news show.” So a religious network isn’t allowed to have a news magazine program? What about a general information television or radio show — one that discusses issues (including politics). Is that okay with you? What about a Catholic radio show about business or law or medicine? Is that okay with you?

    As most secularlists and fans of crap non-religious television “news magazines” and general programming like to say, “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.”

  27. acroat says:

    Business as usual guarding the tax exemption. The USCCB Faithful Citizenship can be used to rationalize voting for satan. I am sharing this guide in its stead:
    http://www.catholichispanic.org/pdf/Catholic-Voter's%20Guide-2012.pdf

  28. Charivari Rob says:

    “…both candidates were offered time.”

    Serious question: Why Dolan?

    Why the President of USCCB? President of the Bishop’s Council, key man to have when the Catholic Church is making a statement as a national body, especially (but not exclusively) when it’s about teaching something.

    Are these moments of prayer for our nation and each of its national parties at critically important times – from a leader in our church, as other churches will likely be represented over the several days? Or – is it an “availability” of the president of a national group, offering ‘equal time’ to the political groups?

    I like what I’ve seen and heard of Cardinal Dolan so far, but… I’m not entirely sanguine about the way this matter is developing. Will the Bishops of the convention host cities be involved?

  29. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Could a commination with reference to the abominations against natural justice and Christian teaching whaich Mr. Romney variously imposed or facilitated during his governorship in Massachusetts and never publicly repented of or deplored since, be subsumed in His Eminence’s benediction? If so, it would seem deeply appropriate (though not, of course, ‘worldy-wise’).

    If not eventually invited to the Democratic Convention, might His Eminence not do well to pray on a sidewalk outside?

  30. jasoncpetty says:

    Don’t hate on the guy, frjim4321 just believes strongly in the absolute separation of church TV and state.

  31. maskaggs says:

    Respectually @brian2,

    True, ++Dolan is leading efforts against the HHS mandate, but the way he’s able to do so effectively is that he’s working against the federal government, the HHS, and POTUS in their capacities as federal agencies – not as Democrats or Democratically-controlled entities. In other words, that fight isn’t a USCCB-Democrat fight but a USCCB-federal government one. The appearance at the GOP convention can’t really be explained in a similar manner.

    As I said above, it’s wonderful that ++Dolan offered his prayerful services to both parties. Both of them desperately need prayer. But undecided Catholics, or those little inclined to vote Republican in the first place, are not going to be encouraged to vote against Democrats by this event. The fact that both parties were offered prayer is not going to get much attention here. Perhaps a better way of saying it is that those who are already relying on their faith to come to a voting decision – either way – are not going to be much affected by this. For those who have not yet done so, I can’t imagine this is going to help.

    None of which is intended as a swipe against ++Dolan, a leader to whom I often look as a role model and excellent example of the authentic life in Christ. I just think this may not be the best move right now.

  32. Cantor says:

    Lest anybody think the press will miss the opportunity to enjoy this, the BBC News headline for the story today is:

    Cardinal to bless Romney meeting

    Not wrong, but not exactly right either.

  33. ocalatrad says:

    Bad idea, plain and simple. Were it not such a blatantly political gathering it would probably be OK. The Republicans are almost as culpable in the advance of the culture of death by omission as the Democrats are by commission. I just don’t think a prince of the Church should be at such an event.

  34. Shellynna says:

    Are you guys saying that Raymond Arroyo invited President Barack Obama to appear on “The World Over,” with a promise of equal time to that given Governor Mitt Romney? If so, please offer proof of that assertion (such as relevant links). I’d like to see it. Thanks.

  35. lydia says:

    shellynna Raymond Arroyo announced at the end of his last show that Romney would be his guest and that an invitation had been issued to the Obama campaign. I heard it with my own ears. You find the EWTN link to his show.

  36. Dave N. says:

    Sadly I think Apb. Dolan has been duped by the Republican Party. The last time a Human Life Amendment was offered by the Republicans in Congress was in 1983–and don’t look for another one any time soon, especially after the Akin incident. Perhaps a prayer service concerning the horrid state of US politics at St. Patrick’s would be more appropriate.

    Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil.

  37. lydia says:

    Dave N read the republican platform and compare to democrat. As a faithful Catholic I can vote for the republicans and sleep peacefully. Can’t say the same about a vote for Obama and his party of death.

  38. Sissy says:

    Dave N: Paul Ryan sponsored HR 212 (the Sanctity of Life Bill) this year. Do you really feel there is no difference between one party that has no abortion for any reason in it’s platform and a party that calls for partial-birth abortion to be permitted?

  39. Suburbanbanshee says:

    EWTN has some very _not_ “right wing” shows. Aid for the Church in Need’s show is extremely non-partisan about whacking everybody that persecutes Christians, and The Church and the Poor is pretty pointed about telling everybody to give and serve the poor until it hurts big time. Both shows are extremely contrarian to both parties. That’s two just off the top of my head, but I know there’s a lot of other stuff. Cardinal Arinze’s weekly interview show, for instance — he’s so far away from standard US politics that it’s not even funny.

    There are some hosts which are very pro-conservative/Republican, some which are sort of Catholic Libertarians, and some which are more European “Christian Democrat” than anything else. (Mostly the European hosts.) And then there’s the Chesterton show, which pretty much supports Chesterton’s distributism (of course). Then there’s the historical shows (like Fulton Sheen or Family Rosary Hour) that advocate political positions that few in the US hold anymore. In short, if you watch long enough, you’re likely to see the most mixed bag of political views anywhere outside your local cable access station.

  40. John V says:

    Dave N. said, “Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil.”

    Blessed John Paul II said, “A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Evangelium vitae 73.

    Sorry, Dave. I’ll take my guidance in moral theology from the Pope.

  41. JKnott says:

    With all due respect to a very likeable Cardinal Dolan, I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but it would not be a surprise to hear something in that prayer by the Cardinal which will leave Catholics with a distinctly defined “impression” that it is morally acceptable to vote for either candidate, thus effecting a cloud over the convention and embarrassing the candidates in this unspeakably important election.
    I say this because His Eminence came out with a statement of praise of Ryan shortly after Bishop Morlino did. But His Eminence was careful to insert that he doesn’t agree with Ryan’s view of entitlements. That is pretty much the same as confirming the liberal bishops’ earlier comments. Bishop Morlino did not give his own view.
    And recently, in an interview with National Review, His Eminence compared Ryan and Biden as both seriously living their Catholic faith. The interjections of those two comments were not necessary information to give out. Of course His Eminence is considered orthodox and the life of the party, but I think he is also a died in the wool Democrat at heart. And much of the work that the Fortnight for Freedom tried to accomplish in educating Catholics may produce little fruit with the easy Catholics who want to justify voting for the “First Gay President” after all the Cardinal’s political schmoozing with Obama. As one blogger said, John the Baptist didn’t go to Herod’s birthday party. With all due respect, I earnestly pray for His Eminence and hope he might take some time away from the limelight and cease confusing the Faithful. It would be wonderful if the prayer at the Republican convention were to be given by Cardinal Burke, who, while charitable, would not consider it uncivil to praise the morality of the pro-life and pro-marriage stances clearly stated in black and white in the Republican platform.

  42. Sissy says:

    Suburbanbanshee, I very much doubt Fr. Jim has ever watched EWTN or he wouldn’t make such uninformed comments.

  43. Shellynna says:

    Lydia, while I don’t doubt your word that you heard it, your refusal to provide a link you know is out there (not to mention brusquely telling the person who asked for substantiation to find it herself) certainly undermines your credibility. In any event, thanks. If and when I get a chance to hunt it up, I’ll look for it.

  44. Supertradmum says:

    People, the Dem party platform officially supports Roe v. Wade, and civil unions. The GOP platform supports traditional marriage. All this information is on the party websites. There is a difference in the parties. To pretend or ignore the differences shows bias.

  45. Sissy says:

    Shellynna, I was curious about the time as my husband and I want to watch, so I looked it up. Here’s a link:
    http://www.catholic.org/prwire/headline.php?ID=11034

    If I’m not mistaken, Fr. Z also mentioned it yesterday on this blog.

  46. Sissy says:

    Supertradmum, I suspect some people just don’t want to be confronted with the ugly truth about the Democratic Party. They want to vote for Democrats, and they’d really rather not face what they stand for.

  47. Shellynna says:

    Thanks, Sissy!

  48. wmeyer says:

    “Suburbanbanshee, I very much doubt Fr. Jim has ever watched EWTN or he wouldn’t make such uninformed comments.”

    Oh, you mean like the folks who have never watched FoxNews, but know it is filled with hate speech?

  49. Dad of Six says:

    frjim4321: ” The campaigns are groping for swing votes right now, and I don’t think appearing on a ultra-right talk show would change much of anything in the final analysis.”

    Where does “ultra-right” fall on the right / super-right / extreme-right / taliban-right / scale of American Politics?

  50. Sissy says:

    wmeyer asked: “Oh, you mean like the folks who have never watched FoxNews, but know it is filled with hate speech?”

    Yes, wmeyer, that’s the crew! It’s obvious Fr. Jim has never heard Shepperd Smith slamming the Republican Party for it’s stance on “gay marriage” on his show.

  51. wmeyer says:

    Yes, Sissy, but then he (Shep) will do that, as he’s out of the closet now.

  52. Sissy says:

    wmeyer, If Shep has come out officially, he was the only one who thought it was a secret! Just more evidence that Fox News is far more “tolerant” and even-handed than any of the other cable programs. Can you imagine what Fr. Jim would call an “ultra-right” commentator being hired by MSNBC?

  53. Cardinal Dolan is not in any way a Democrat. The suggestion is laughable. He knows what he is up against in New York City.

    I’m sure his prayer will be orthodox and faithful.

  54. Dave N. says:

    @Lydia. This is exactly the problem–the platform means nothing and is only written to suck in money and political support from pro-lifers; it’s all about power and nothing about principle. You should ask yourself why we have not seen a Life Amendment offered by Republicans in Congress since 1983, if this is truly something they stand for. At least the Democrats don’t conceal their immoral motives.

    @John V. To my mind there is a difference between “voting” (where the lesser of two bad choices is morally permissible) and “supporting,” via one’s active participation, presence, campaigning, money and endorsement; to me Apb. Dolan’s appearance at the convention is headed toward “supporting”. Also your quote from JPII concerns the case of an active legislator voting for legislation limiting but not eliminating abortions.

    @Sissy. The only way the pro-life cause will ultimately succeed in the U.S. is via a Constitutional Amendment. Even overturning Roe v. Wade (which for some reason seems to be the holy grail for so many pro-life groups) would likely only throw the decision back to the states. If Republicans really supported a Life Amendment, they would offer one.

  55. Sissy says:

    Dave N: people of good will can disagree. Pass a an amendment isn’t going to happen. But, I think there are many avenues to restricting and ultimately, eliminating abortion. One method that is apparently successful is showing the pregnant woman a 3-D ultrasound image of her child that she is seeking to murder. Requiring abortion clinics to hire licensed M.D.s with hospital privileges is another. Requiring clinics to meet the same health and safety standards of other medical clinics is yet another prong of attack. A federal law identifying a child as a “person” with full rights of due process under the Constitution from the moment of conception is just as good as a Constitutional Amendment. We’re a long way from getting that passed and signed into law, but we’ll get there, eventually. The point is, many people are sincerely working on many fronts to end abortion. We don’t have to be cynical or dismissive of sincere people who are trying to advance with different methods than those you consider to be optimal. Don’t give in to despair.

  56. PA mom says:

    Have Ewtn on now. Trying not to miss the interview. I do not remember Mass being this way last time I watched. Benedictine arrangement (6candles and crucifix) on the altar. Loads of Latin, is it still the Ordinary form??

  57. Sissy says:

    PA mom, I watch daily Mass on EWTN quite a bit, and it varies. But, there is always a beautiful Mass, reverently celebrated. I think they show what an OF informed by the EF might look like (not that I have any idea what I’m talking about….I just know that I like it!).

  58. PA mom says:

    Sissy, it’s been about three years for me and I was blown away! So beautiful to hear the consecration in chant. Thanks for the info, will have to pay closer attention once school year starts.

  59. Gretchen says:

    What JKnott said.

  60. wmeyer says:

    Sissy, I don’t know whether Shep thought it was a secret — I date my own suspicions to a few years ago. But my understanding is that in the last 12-18 months, he has been much more open about it.

  61. SKAY says:

    Obama has made it quite clear where he will be going in a second term by his actions. History has shown us where a man with Obama and his backer’s idiology will take us. The HHS mandate says it all. They have learned from history also so– of course– his election year words are quite different and give cover for those who want to be deceived.

    There is a pole out this morning showing that many Americans are well aware of the left wing bias of the MSM media and believe they will manipulate the news to favor Obama. Perhaps a little of the fog is lifting.

    frjim reminds me of the priest who, during the 2008 election, appeared on a local TV station supporting Obama. He had just attended a meeting of the Soros backed Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and was quite excited. That prompted me to get in touch with the Catholic producer of the program –and that was quite an enlightening experience for me at the time. She said that she was pro life BUT abortion was just not the important issue for Catholics in “her” view.

  62. Sissy says:

    The spokesman for His Excellency is confirming that he offered to pray at the Democratic National Convention as well, but his offer was not accepted by the Obama campaign. The DNC apparently is seeking to line up their own choice of a Catholic individual to pray but would not identify that person, saying arrangements were still being made. Will we be getting our first glimpse of Fr. Jim????? ; )

  63. SKAY says:

    “The DNC apparently is seeking to line up their own choice of a Catholic individual to pray but would not identify that person, saying arrangements were still being made”

    Perhaps Fr. Pfleter from Chicago.

    Will the nuns on the bus be there also?

  64. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    I am not sure it is quite as bad as Dave N. said (23 Aug., 5:07 p.m.), with respect to the Republican Platform – but the platform is not self-implementing! I well remember (for example) Mr. Dole’s disgusting contempt for what I recall as a good platform. What might a good candidate have done with that good platform?

    What do candidates’ records – their deeds – say about what they are likely to do? Not an infallible indicator, but an indispensible one.

    What, for example, have Mr. Romney’s deeds been? – what do they ‘say’? Nothing hopeful I can see!

    To paraphrase Sissy’s words, “I suspect some people just don’t want to be confronted with ugly truths about many prominent members of the Republican Party and the effects of their influence and power.”

    If Chesterton’s characterization in A Short History of England (1917) – “The Party Systerm does not consist, as some suppose, of two parties, but of one. If there were two real parties, there could be no system” (ch. 17) – is not (yet) entirely applicable to contemporary America, it seems uncomfortably close – probably closer than ever!

  65. Sissy says:

    Venerator Sti Lot, as I have said elsewhere on this blog, I don’t judge the Church by priest who failed in their duty or engaged in bad behavior. I decided to become a Catholic because of what She teaches and the principles She stands for. I won’t vote for any Democrat because of what their party stands for (racism, intolerance, abortion, unnatural marriage, etc). I don’t care who the candidate is; no self-respecting decent person would run on that party platform. All Republicans fall short of my ideals, and fail to completely implement the party platform. All priests fall short of my ideal (except Fr. Z, of course!) and fail to teach what the Church stands for at times. But I will plant my flag with the Church, regardless of the shortcomings of some of Her priests. And I’ll vote for the Republican and then try to hold his feet to the fire to implement the platform.

    Why don’t we try this a different way around: can you explain to me why you plan to vote for Barack Obama?

  66. AnnAsher says:

    “EWTN that any legislation he proposed would be evaluated according to “its impact on religious freedom”
    Is this paraphrasing or a statement you didn’t happen to include in your other post? I’ll have to review the text of the entire interview.
    I’m not sure how I feel about “a priest going to pray”. He offered to go to the DNC Convention also. I believe in guilt by association.

  67. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Dear Sissy (24 Aug., 4:30 p.m.) ,

    A non sequitur (or something like?!): in (implicitly) questioning whether one would be morally justified in voting for an apparently ‘Obamaesque’ Mr. Romney (qua record as to content), I have nowhere suggested anyone would ever be justified in voting for an impenitent Mr. Obama for what office soever: when I became aware of his monstrously anti-life record and position(s) early in the millennium, I was hoping he would be roundly defeated and disappear (though, not being an Illinoisan, I could do nothing voter-directly myself)!

    I have never, so far as I recall, consciously voted for a candidate who was not clearly pro-life (though, when I think of some people for whom I voted, I know I have been successfully bamboozled, insufficiently thorough in my research, etc.).

    One must do one’s best to discover a given candidate’s record and position (and character!), and decide on that basis – something one can (fortunately) do effectually in the U.S. (barring ‘Chicago’-style fraud where, with decisive effect, thanks to the ‘Democratic necromancy’ the dead reputed ‘rose’ to vote for JFK, for example) – for there are countries (‘western democracies’!) where one can only vote for a party, in fact, though one can try the gamble of voting for a candidate in the hope that they (a) get in on preferential votes and (b) actually serve (which merely standing for office does not legally oblige them to do)!
    That one cannot vote for A, does not mean one must vote for B by default, or that a vote for C-Z (or a choice from however many) is ‘really’ a vote for A.

  68. Sissy says:

    Venerator Sti Lot: Thank you for your response to my question; I appreciate and respect your point of view. But I am approaching the issue from a different set of assumptions. My take is that all actions have consequences, even inaction, even actions that appear to have no effect. There are only two men who can possibly win the presidency, and if you don’t want Obama, you have to vote for the other guy and hope for the best. In my opinion, any vote for anyone else is actually a vote for Obama. So, if you don’t want him to be president again, you have to make a choice that effectively bars that.

  69. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Dear Sissy,

    I think among my (real, not rhetorical) questions is whether voting for what seems much the same ideological and active ‘vintage’ in the ‘Romney-shaped bottle’ would be an immoral action, considered simply in its own right.

  70. Sissy says:

    Venerator Sti Lot asked “whether voting for what seems much the same ideological and active ‘vintage’ in the ‘Romney-shaped bottle’ would be an immoral action, considered simply in its own right.”

    I am very sympathetic to that issue. Back when Guiliani was thought to have be a lock for the next Republican nominee, I made up my mind that I would never pull the lever for him because he was openly pro-abortion and pro-unnatural “marriage”. This election doesn’t present that clear a choice for me. Whatever Romney’s shortcomings, he claims to have grown more pro-life over the years. And I know that is possible; people can change in their positions over time. I see 4 possible ways one person can affect the outcome: vote for Obama, stay home, vote 3rd party, or vote for Romney. Of those 4 possibilities, three of those choices are direct or indirect votes for Obama. Obama is the most extreme, far-left, pro-abortion, pro-death culture person to ever be President. It’s vitally important to get him out. I think it’s just as important to have him defeated in a landslide as to get him out; his views need to be soundly repudiated in a crushing defeat. So every single vote against him counts. We can worry about holding Romney’s feet to the fire after he’s elected. You surely don’t think Romney is for infanticide? So, no, I don’t think voting for Romney is just as immoral. I don’t think it’s immoral at all to take him at his word and then demand that he keep it.