Cardinal Dolan’s Request To Deliver Prayer at Dem Convention Spurned by Obama

Because he will be delivering a prime-time benediction at the Republican convention in Tampa next week, Cardinal Timothy Dolan generously offered to do the same at the Democratic National Convention in Sept.

The Obama camp blew him off.

This is especially galling in light of Dolan’s overly congenial invitation for Obama, the Church’s most powerful foe, to attend the  67th Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, October 18 – an invitation he should rescind forthwith.

As George Neumayr writing for RealClearReligion recently noted, that invitation outraged Catholics all across the country, (including me):

Why would you invite our enemy to a night of merriment? Why would you honor him at an event for a charity that his contraceptive mandate will break? And why would you let him use such an occasion to dupe Catholics into voting for his reelection?

They interpret the invitation as a symbol of episcopal waffling and a worldly church’s penchant for prizing prestige over principle, as if guarding the marquee status of the Al Smith dinner were more important than avoiding scandal.

In defense of his controversial decision to invite the most pro-abortion President of all time to the dinner, the  prelate wrote on his blog (yes, even Cardinals have blogs, these days):

“[T]he teaching of the Church, so radiant in the Second Vatican Council, is that the posture of the Church towards culture, society, and government is that of engagement and dialogue,” Dolan wrote. “In other words, it’s better to invite than to ignore, more effective to talk together than to yell from a distance, more productive to open a door than to shut one.”

According to The New York Post, that is a lesson completely lost on the Obama Democrats.

President Obama turned down a chance to have Timothy Cardinal Dolan deliver a prayer at the Democratic National Convention after Dolan told Democrats he would be “grateful” to deliver a blessing in Charlotte.

Dolan — considered the top Catholic official in the nation, as head of the Archdiocese of New York and president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops — tipped off Democrats a few weeks ago that he had agreed to deliver the prime-time benediction at the Republican convention in Tampa next week, Dolan’s spokesman Joseph Zwilling told The Post.

“He wanted to make sure that they knew that this was not a partisan act on his part and that he would be just as happy and grateful to accept an invitation from the Democrats as he would to have received one from the Republicans,” said Zwilling.

“He has not been contacted by them” since, he added.

A senior Obama campaign official said yesterday that the Democrats would have a “high-ranking” Catholic at the convention, but indicated the arrangements weren’t yet final.

“I can’t announce it because the person hasn’t got their plane ticket,” said the official.

Obama campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher would say only, “The Catholic clergy will be an important part of a diverse community of interfaith leaders represented in Charlotte.”

See, Cardinal Dolan, turning the other cheek, and yammering on and on about “dialogue” doesn’t work with cultural Marxists. They see your kindly benevolence as a sign of weakness – something to be exploited and laughed at as they continue on with their assault on everything we hold dear.

As Neumayr noted in his RealClearReligion piece, Cardinal Dolan concluded his defense of his invitation by suggesting that Jesus Christ would approve of his decision: “In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus, who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners; and by the recognition that, if I only sat down with people who agreed with me, and I with them, or with those who were saints, I’d be taking all my meals alone.”

But this ignores the reason Christ ate with sinners: not to pose for a photo op with them but to convert them to his teachings. The moment they rejected him he ceased the dinners, telling his disciples not to “cast pearls before swine” and “shake the dust” from their heels and leave.

How much more rejection does the Cardinal need before he realizes he’s casting pearls before swine?

***

For an idea of the types of  sketchy, pseudo-Catholics Obama will allow at the D ‘n C Abortion Festival, see Catholic World Report: The Catholic Con Continues; Many left-wing Catholic political organizations use Soros funds and misuse social doctrine to promote anti-magisterial, pro-abortion messages:

One of the ways you can tell it is a national election year is left-wing Catholic political organizations re-emerge with new strategies, new funding, and sometimes even new names.  But while the organizational names may change, the players stay the same, as the agenda remains to elect Democrats who will expand the progressive economic agenda, strengthen the power of the unions, and increase women’s access to comprehensive health services—including abortion.

This con game began during the 2004 presidential campaign with the creation of the Catholic Voting Project.  The founders claimed they simply wanted to “promote the US Catholic bishops’ 2003 document Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility” and “encourage a dialogue which would allow Catholics to learn how their political views matched up to those of the bishops.” But the reality was that the Catholic Voting Project was always a front for electing pro-choice Democrats.

Keep reading.

SEE AlSO:

LifeNews: CNN Poll: Majority of Americans Want Abortions Prohibited:

CNN has released the results of a new poll showing a majority of Americans want all or most abortions prohibited — a clear pro-life majority.

The survey asked: “Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” Some 62 percent want abortions illegal in all cases or legal only in certain instances while just 35% want abortions legal for any reason.

Breaking down the question further, CNN asked, “Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only a few circumstances?”

Here, 52 percent took a pro-life view saying abortion should be illegal in all (15%) or most circumstances (37%) while just 44 percent took a pro-abortion view saying abortions should be legal in all (35%) or most (9%) circumstances.

This is why the rabid Obama pro-aborts are reduced to obsessing only about abortions in cases of rape and incest.

Speaking of rape….

This is a must read>>Jack Cashill, The American Thinker:  Dems Better Put Some Ice on That ‘Rape’ Talk

The other day I received an e-mail from the suddenly famous Sandra Fluke under the simple heading “Legitimate rape.”  Presuming that the message was not exactly personal, I deleted it, but I could have guessed its tone and tenor.

Indeed, I had heard more about Rep.  Todd Akin’s unfortunate choice of words on the subject of rape in the last few days than I had heard about the actual commission of rape in the last decade, including rapes and other sexual abuses by members of a certain political party.

Read it all at the link.

Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!

Anderson Cooper Calls Debbie Wasserman Schultz Out on DNC Lies – Doesn’t Back Down When She Obfuscates

In Anderson Cooper’s “Keeping them Honest” segment tonight, he wasn’t having any of DWS’s BS about Romney’s position on abortion.  At issue was a fund-raising email that the DNC sent out shamelessly lying about Romney’s role in writing the abortion plank in the party platform. Citing the LA Times as a source, the DNC email claimed that the abortion plank was written at Romney’s direction.

Via Mediaite:

The email said the GOP “just voted to embrace Akin’s position by including a constitutional ban on all abortions — even in cases of rape or incest — in their 2012 platform.” Then, Cooper noted that Schultz calls out Romney and Paul Ryan for “saying they don’t entirely agree with that plank,” and moved on to the LA Times quote the email cited to back up the point:

“…but guess what? The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the platform was, and I quote, ‘written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.’”

While those quoted words did appear in the Times, Cooper said, they were taken “completely out of context.” For reference, the portion in question from the Times (emphasis mine on the quoted bit):

There is no doubt about who is in charge, of course. Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that was written at the direction of Romney’s campaign. The biggest question is whether the tone remains polite, as it was at the outset of two days of deliberations, or whether dissenters spoil the image of harmony that the Romney campaign is working hard to produce.

Cooper argued that the email uses the quote to make a point that the original statement doesn’t suggest — and that the facts aren’t quite solid: “First, the abortion language in the 2012 platform, it hardly differs from the 2008 language and the 2004 language in the platform. That language obviously wasn’t written by the Romney campaign.” Second, Cooper said CNN’s Peter Hamby was in the room while the platform was being drafted, and Hamby said Romney advisers made a suggestions, but not on the abortion plan.

Props to Anderson Cooper for exposing this.

And shame, shame, shame on that ridiculous liar, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.