Cardinal Timothy Dolan has caught so much right-wing flak for inviting President Obama to the New York archdiocese's annual Al Smith Dinner that he's taken to his blog to defend himself. It's good that he's done so, but he's got only himself to blame for being in this position.
The essence of Dolan's defense is 1) the invitation is not "an award, or the provision of a platform to expound views at odds with the Church"; 2) the dinner is about people of different political persuasions gaithering in "friendship, civility, and patriotism"; 3) the church, especially since Vatican II, is all about "engagement and dialogue," not least with those with whom it disagrees; and 4) the invitation in no way signals a "slackening" in the church's promotion of Catholic values in the public square.
But then, uncharacteristically, the cardinal gets a little diffident:
Some have told me the invitation is a scandal. That charge weighs on me, as it would on any person of faith, but especially a pastor, who longs to give good example, never bad. So, I apologize if I have given such scandal. I suppose it’s a case of prudential judgment: would I give more scandal by inviting the two candidates, or by not inviting them?
Now it's important to understand that by scandal Dolan is referring to a doctrine in Catholic moral theology going back to the Middle Ages, defined in the current edition of the Catechism as "an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil...Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others." (2284-85)
Dolan thus believes he had prudentially to weigh the evildoing his invitation to the president might lead to against the evildoing his failure to invite the president might lead to. Thomas Aquinas, however, would have told him not to bother.
Recognizing that people may be led to do evil by good deeds as well as bad (envy of a righteous act, for example), Thomas insisted that scandal can only be caused by something that itself lacks "rectitude." By its nature, a good deed cannot lead to someone's spiritual downfall. So if, as Dolan argues, inviting the president to the Al Smith Dinner was the right thing to do, it could not, by definition, give scandal.
Perhaps, though, Dolan is suffering from a bit of a guilty conscience. His arguments on behalf of his invitation add up to a pretty good defense of Georgetown University's invitation to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius last May, which Dolan criticized with these words: "When they would invite someone that is so dramatically at odds with one of the central tenets of the faith, that does bother us.” Yet no honorary degree was involved and Sebelius did not expound views at odds with the church. It was, one might say, a fine example of the spirit of Vatican II.
The problem is that Dolan and other conservative bishops have taken the position that Catholic institutions should simply not extend invitations to public figures who support abortion rights, engagement and dialogue be damned. So now he finds himself under fire and having to draw a fine prudential line between what's not OK for them and what's OK for him. Just desserts, I'd say.
Michael | Aug 16, 2012 | 1:47am
The comparison with Notre Dame may not be apt, if your mention of the honorary degree is important to what you’re getting at. The President did, indeed, receive an honorary doctorate (laws, I believe) on that occasion. If we’re talking about the difference between an invitation to participate and an invitation with the intention of explicit awards, these two situations are rather dissimilar.
Mark Silk | Aug 16, 2012 | 6:33am
Thanks for the correction. I was confusing Obama’s 2009 appearance at Notre Dame with Kathleen Sebelius’ talk at Georgetown in May—which did not involve an honorary degree. I believe the larger point stands.
Mark Silk | Aug 16, 2012 | 4:41pm
P.S. I’ve rewritten the paragraph in question.
John King | Aug 16, 2012 | 5:29pm
Prudential judgements should be exactly that, prudent. This term cannot be used to justify any action that is not intrinsically evil. The point is that many Catholics do not think it was prudent, but scandalous. Just as going alone to dinner with another man’s spouse, by itself is not intrinsically evil, it is not prudent, but scandalous. Having an official meeting with her at work on the other hand is appropriate. Cardinal Dolan did not choose the right forum for dialog and it is downright scandalous.
Fraternizing with the enemy at a dinner party is scandalous especially when you were the one who personally invited him. I believe the problem is that many Catholics don’t think President Obama is a enemy of the Church as evidenced by their voting in 2008. So what was the Fortnight of Freedom all about anyway? I believe many Catholics don’t try to practice their faith 100% and when the Bishops do things like this it somehow justifies their own personal lack of the virtue of prudence. Come on, Jesus dining with sinners cannot be compared to Jesus leaving the Disciples to attend a gala with King Herod.
Michael | Aug 16, 2012 | 8:03pm
Thanks very much for the clarfication. A few observations from one perspective:
-The setting of these events may have something to do with Cardinal Dolan’s self defense. As the piece you linked to mentions, he apparently criticized the Georgetown appearance for its place in what he perceives to be an ongoing process of secularization, which is not, I gather, going on at the Al Smith dinner. Whether one believes that to be the case or not, I do think it differentiates these events (at least in Dolan’s defense of the invitation).
-I do think this qualifies under the “dining with those we may not otherwise choose to” scenario. Additionally, remember that regardless of personal position on various issues, Dolan is a shrewd political player. Inviting the President to the Al Smith dinner gives the American bishops, and Dolan specifically, a much stronger leg to stand on when it comes time to butt heads with the administration.
Mark Silk | Aug 16, 2012 | 8:15pm
Pardon my cynicism, but I think Dolan just believes that what’s OK for him is not OK for those below him in the church.
Michael | Aug 16, 2012 | 9:50pm
An interesting idea, and one that, of course, could be entirely correct. If so, he simply didn’t think far enough ahead to see that angle (or perhaps did and said to hell with it). What strikes me among most American bishops, regardless of their position on some arbitrary left-right ecclesial spectrum, is that many seem to be completely convinced that what they’re doing is for the good of the Church (whether they’re successful or not). Chalk it up to stubbornness, ignorance, or poor information, if you like, but I genuinely believe that in most cases they’re doing what they perceive to be the honest thing. I would assume most are well aware that many folks think the bishops measure themselves by a different standard and try to factor that perception into their public expressions. But, as in all things, I could well be wrong.