The American Problem
The rabid reaction of many American Catholics to the election of Obama seems to be a cause of concern in the Vatican, unused to the tempest of American bitter partisanship. Even some bishops seemed to have jumped on the bandwagon. I have noted in the past that this perplexes many Europeans, and that the pro-choice Sarkozy was made an honorary canon at the pope’s own church of St. John Lateran. And that fact that many seem to think that Obama speaking at a Catholic university is a greater moral evil than the government actually torturing somebody speaks to the depravity of this position. In this post, I want to point to two good recent pieces– the America editorial and John Allen’s latest musing from the Vatican.
America’s editorial is powerful:
“In the United States today, self-appointed watchdogs of orthodoxy, like Randall Terry and the Cardinal Newman Society, push mightily for a pure church quite unlike the mixed community of saints and sinners—the Catholic Church—that Augustine championed. Like the Circumcellions of old, they thrive on slash-and-burn tactics; and they refuse to allow the church to be contaminated by contact with certain politicians.
For today’s sectarians, it is not adherence to the church’s doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy, but adherence to a particular political program and fierce opposition to any proposal short of that program. They scorn Augustine’s inclusive, forgiving, big-church Catholics, who will not know which of them belongs to the City of God until God himself separates the tares from the wheat. Their tactics, and their attitudes, threaten the unity of the Catholic Church in the United States, the effectiveness of its mission and the credibility of its pro-life activities.
…The divisive effects of the new American sectarians have not escaped the notice of the Vatican. Their highly partisan political edge has become a matter of concern. That they never demonstrate the same high dudgeon at the compromises, unfulfilled promises and policy disagreements with Republican politicians as with Democratic ones is plain for all to see. It is time to call this one-sided denunciation by its proper name: political partisanship.”
Amen. Here is John Allen:
“When L’Osservatore Romanopublished an essay this week suggesting that U.S. President Barack Obama’s positions on abortion and other life issues “have not confirmed fears of radical changes,” it provided the latest confirmation of a glaring difference in tone between the Vatican and the most ardently pro-life circles in the American Catholic church, including a growing number of American bishops.
In general, several voices in the Vatican have taken a moderate and conciliatory line on the Obama administration, while several U.S. bishops, buoyed by a network of pro-life activists, have been more pugnacious.
…One striking feature of the L’Osservatoreessay was what it did not contain. There was no reference to the controversy among American Catholics over the University of Notre Dame’s plan to award Obama an honorary doctorate on the occasion of his commencement address this month.
The L’Osservatoreessay was the latest in a string of amicable gestures from the Vatican, beginning with an unusual telegram of congratulations sent by Pope Benedict XVI the day after Obama’s election. (Typically, popes do not address new heads of state until they take office.)
Fiorentino’s piece did not sit well with many pro-life activists in the United States. The web site “LifeSiteNews.com,” for example, said the piece “sent shock waves through the pro-life world.” It carried an interview with an official of Human Life International comparing the Vatican’s line on Obama with the policy of “accommodation” towards Soviet Communism associated with the papacies of John XXIII and Paul VI.”
Allen argues that “abortion has never been the overriding focus for conservative Catholic intellectuals and activists in Europe that it is in the United States”. While true, this is nonetheless not a very helpful statement. It’s high time for an emperor-has-no-clothes moment: the American Catholic Church is deviating from the global Catholic church in this area because the American Catholic church is increasing aping the tactics and outlook of the politicized evangelical movement – an alliance forged two decades ago by Neuhaus and others. It is a movement based on a stark “us versus them” mentality, a dualistic mentality based on cultural Calvinism and a whiff of Gnosticism, a mentality directed translated into partisan rigidity, and where theological orthodoxy is confused with political loyalty. We are now reaping the fruit of this trend, and the fruit is rotten.
I would respectfully disagree.
The Catholic Right in a minority movement in Europe and the USA. In Europe, it is associated with the old nobility and the ancien regime and still nurses 18th and 19th century wounds with the modern capitalist class. This is not a ideological analysis, it is a practical observation. Those old countessas and barons don’t have the big bucks they once had.
In the USA, the Catholic Right is a bigger force because they bring in the dough from big money conservatives. Its all about resources, not philosophy.
Or we could just as easily say:
“It is a movement based on a stark ‘good v.s. evil’ mentality, a holistic mentality based on ancient teachings with a whiff of the Holy Spirit, a mentality translated into moral certainty, where theological orthodoxy is not confused with political loyalty. We are now reaping the fruit of this trend, and the fruit is good.”
Insisting that this movement is political, somehow just a right-wing act of senselessness, is actually submitting to the political rigidity you claim to abhor.
The writer of the America editorial is right in that Augustine never claimed to be sure who was part of the earthly or heavenly city. But Augustine also insisted that Christians work to stamp out evil wherever and whenever possible.
As far as I know, no one is getting violent over this. Why are so many insisting these *peaceful* protesters stand down? Are we afraid of (gasp!) shaming our President? He’s an elected official and some people want to be sure that he hears their voice. What is wrong with this? Can someone explain to me how citizens exercising their right to free speech and Christians speaking out against what their tradition believes to be an intrinsic evil is wrong?
He’s an elected official and some people want to be sure that he hears their voice. What is wrong with this? Can someone explain to me how citizens exercising their right to free speech and Christians speaking out against what their tradition believes to be an intrinsic evil is wrong?
Excuse me, but how can he “hear their voice”?–why should he even TRY to “hear their voice” if he isn’t allowed to come to their campuses and hear, in person, their disagreements with him–spoken in terms of polite respect for the awful majesty of his elected office?
Can someone explain to me how citizens exercising their right to free speech and Christians speaking out against what their tradition believes to be an intrinsic evil is wrong?
I don’t belong to any tradition that thinks Barack Obama speaking at Notre Dame is an intrinsic evil.
It isn’t Obama “speaking” at Notre Dame that is the issue; it is that his public life is being honored with a degree, a public life in fundamental ways – not all ways – opposed to central Catholic teaching.
I don’t belong to any tradition that thinks Barack Obama receiving an honorary degree at Notre Dame is an intrinsic evil.
In Rome President Sarkozy met with French priests and seminarists at the Pontifical French Seminary too.
Can you imaginate Obama or Biden speaking at the Pontifical North American College?
It isn’t Obama “speaking” at Notre Dame that is the issue; it is that his public life is being honored with a degree, a public life in fundamental ways – not all ways – opposed to central Catholic teaching.
Yes, this is the problem. The honorary degree is one in law, which means Notre Dame is honoring the President’s legal career (law editor, lawyer, law professor, legislator). Frankly, I care little over Sarkozy’s honor, which is a mere formality given to heads of France since the 15th/16th century (and probably an outdated honor, at that). Sarkozy was not being honored for anything he has done as a politician, but merely for being the representative of the “Eldest Daughter of the Church.”
Minion:
Great post. I like the authority of the vague unnamed Vatican sources who are so confused why American Catholics would have the audacity to listen to the Vatican on abortion. That coupled with a Vatican newspaper article that proclaimed “he’s not as bad as we thought he’s be b/c he hasn’t really done anything” truly shows that the Vatican is really in love with Obama and right-leaning American Catholics are out of touch with the pope.
It’s a shame those crazy American Catholics ignore the unnamed vague Vatican sources are listening to 1/3rd of their own bishops and taking the example of Pope Benedict’s treatment of Nancy Pelosi.
Truly bizarre behavior, so thanks for pointing it out.
Now having Robert Casey Jr. at a commencement is considered an “insult” because he supported Sebelius’ nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3145
Seriously, this is getting quite bad. I say anyone who pays taxes now can’t be invited, because taxes pay for all kinds of intrinsic evils. Since Americans are also required to pay taxes, I say anyone who doesn’t, shouldn’t be allowed to speak, either, because of their sin. In this way we should only allow non-Americans. Since the Vatican has honored President Sarkozy, I guess we can follow their example?
Heh.
I remember some of the bewilderment among conservative Catholics when the Pope sent Obama that congratulation, and over the general atmosphere in the Vatican.
The problem is that a lot of people on the right are talking and acting as if Obama, who won in an electoral landslide, is an unelected dictator.
It’s a lot harder to really, truly understand abortion as an evil that the majority of Americans either don’t care about, or support, than as a policy “imposed” upon America from above by the Supreme Court and the Democratic Party.
Michael
“the example of Pope Benedict’s treatment of Nancy Pelosi” was only a masterpiece of vatican attitude.The pope actually met her, so she was happy, and spoke about abortion to her,so American conservative bishops were happy too, and as we say in Italy tutto è finito in Gloria.
Martino has surrendered any authentic leadership on public policy issues. He needs to be ignored as a font of nothing worthwhile.
In his state of Pennsylvania, not only has Specter and 200,000 others left the Republican Party, but the Republican leadership is now soliciting pro-abortion Catholic Tom Ridge to be their party’s candidate in place of Specter. Martino and his ilk have so damage the “pro-life” brand name in one of the more anti-abortion states, that even the GOP is fleeing from association with the pro-life cause.
As I have said before, this is evidenced by the fact that candidates are now being counseled to call themselves “anti-abortion” rather than “pro-life” because of the negative associations with the later.
For me, the telling line is from John Allen when some supposed pro-lifers accused the Vatican of accomodating Obama, much as John XXIII and Paul VI had “accomodated” communism. Notice that they view the world through US-tinted glasses. Everything is an extension of the US partisan divide. Thus Popes John and Paul can be associated with Jimmy Carter (bad) and Pope John Paul can be associated with Ron Reagan (good). While Americans might look at the world this way (dualism again), the rest of the world does not. These people need to get over it.
And Michael
The pope’s the right hand is Card Bertone. I repost this old story:
“In Genoa a catholic Foundation owns an hospital, the Galliera, and its President is the Archbishop of Genoa. This hospital every year receives 100 millions euro by the Italian State and must practice all public healthcare services, included abortion. Bertone , now Vatican number 2, when was archbishop of Genoa was also Galliera’s President and under his tenure several abortions were made there every year. In this 2005 interview: http://www.webalice.it/ maggioant…one30112005.htm Bertone says “ as Galliera’s President I’d like to save a life, but I must respect the Italian laws” and the medical manager says that there are 200 abortions every year in the hospital.
Money quote: “As regards abortion, the fact that it is practiced in a Catholic hospital like the Galliera puts the Cardinal in serious difficulty. “As president of this hospital,” he said, “I would wish to save a life.” But observing the law imposes on all structures inserted in the public system the practice of terminating pregnancies. And so, since all the personnel are conscientious objectors, once a week a consultant who practices abortion comes into action. “About 200 a year” clarified the head of the section, Felice Ripetti.”
So if you are waiting for a Vatican statement…….Good luck!
The probably with so many American bishops is that they follow more than lead, and take their cues from the noisiest. It’s like the Catholic blogosphere — it would seem that the Republican-aligned are a huge majority, but that’s because they shout the loudest. The American right is very good at shouting loudly. Bishops like Martino are playing to this crowd, trying to outdo each other in praise for the “brave stances” whereas in fact they are doing a great dis-service to the Church.
For Martino is now telling politicians that they can be denied communion not only for supporting legalized abortion, but possibly also for not shunning every single pro-abortion person in the political world? For not agreeing with Martino on every possible issue relating to abortion? He remains silent on torture… And what did Martino have to say about Rick Santorum endording Arlen Specter, I wonder? He might as well just get to the point — vote Republican, or I will excommunicate you.
Seriously, the Vatican needs to step in urgently. We need some adults in the room.
Here go MM and his groupies claiming yet again that pro-life Catholics are a tiny and dwindling minority of sadistic torturers in league with GWB. And you wonder why we suspect Obamania has a Satanic influence over our fellow Catholics!
MM, did you read the latest poll numbers on the President’s visit to ND. It seems that the vast majority of American Catholics (and a majority of Americans overall) think Father Jenkins should have followed the bishops’ guidelines. Oh, well, at least you still have some Vatican insiders–as well as Father McBrien and the entire staff of Commonweal and America–on your team!
Ron, you display a certain amount of American arrogance. Maybe your buddies should tell the Vatican, and Catholics all over the world, how to do things?
Frankly, I care little over Sarkozy’s honor, which is a mere formality given to heads of France since the 15th/16th century (and probably an outdated honor, at that).
This is part of my problem with the American approach — the complete disdain for custom and tradition, and their role in the social order. In this debate, I am playing the role of the conservative.
Lately you seem mighty fond of opinions from across the sea, MM. Here’s one about the Notre Dame debacle from the London Telegraph:
Every spin doctor knows the most dangerous ploy is to attempt to present a hostile community as friendly by suborning a minority element of it. In this instance the Vichy Catholics selling the pass to the anti-life forces have been swamped by genuine Catholics. The university’s defiance of the US Bishops’ Conference resolution on awards to pro-abortionists has forced the American bishops to denounce Obama publicly. The cracks that were disgracefully papered over by “liberal” Catholics during the presidential election have been split wide open.
I particularly like the line about “Vichy Catholics.”
Mary:
Huh?
First off, Pelosi didn’t get what she wanted, which was a photo op. She got a dressing down if the reports are true.
Second of all, I never asked for a Vatican comment on this. I don’t think the Vatican particularly cares about Notre Dame with a trip to the Middle East for the Pope coming up. That doesn’t mean it’s not important, but subsidiary lets the bishops handle the issue. For American Catholics however, this is an important issue for us to address.
Third, Catholic hospitals participating in abortions is a completely different issue. We are talking about honoring politicians who may seek to enforce such rules. It is clear from Bertone that he does not desire this situation and the hospital has done what it can to stay open (though personally I would shut it down, but he’s got the red hat). Now, unless Bertone honors the abortion consultant by naming a hospital wing after the abortionist, it’s not really relevant. Notre Dame does not have to honor an avid pro-abortion politician; it should not be honoring Obama.
I particularly like the line about “Vichy Catholics.”
Of course you do. It fits right into the “with us or against us mentality” where deviation from the party line is a sign of betrayal and treason.
And for the record, Ron, here are the Pew polling numbers (more reputable than Rasmussen):
“Only about half of Catholics have heard about the controversy…Overall, about half of Catholics support the decision to invite Obama…Far fewer (28%) say Notre Dame was wrong to have invited Obama and more than one-in-five Catholics (22%) express no opinion on the matter.”
Minion
This is part of my problem with the American approach — the complete disdain for custom and tradition, and their role in the social order. In this debate, I am playing the role of the conservative.
I don’t think that’s what he meant. I think he’s arguing that such an honor is simply attached to the office, not the man i.e. it goes to the head of France, regardless of who that may be.
Notre Dame does not have that same tradition in either longevity or application (not all presidents have come). Moreover, the tradition of giving an honorary degree in America means to honor the individual, not the office which he or she may currently hold.
These differences in traditions between Notre Dame’s commencement & St. John Lateran’s (how the Europeans must be dying laughing that we must actually compare the two! That we have the audacity to compare Notre Dame university to the cathedral of Rome!) render your analogy too faulty to justify Obama’s honorary degree.
It fits right into the “with us or against us mentality” where deviation from the party line is a sign of betrayal and treason.
MM, the “party line” you and other Obama supporters deviate from is the teaching of the Catholic Church about the responsibility of a just society to protect the rights of the unborn (CCC §2273).
You and your groupies occasionally give lip service to the notion of opposing abortion, but only in posts where your real point is to criticize those who actually try to do anything about it. At Notre Dame in 1984, your political godfather, Mario Cuomo, set the stage for the Obama-Catholics’ approach to the pro-life issue. Cuomo’s prescription for solving the abortion problem: Get the government to pay for it so nobody will miss the opportunity.
Vichy Catholics? I think that’s putting it gently.
pro-life Catholics are a tiny and dwindling minority…
They are.
Dwindling is exactly the word for it. Not because there is any decrease in the number of Americans that are against abortion — there is even some evidence that there is a modest up-tic in that. But more and more Americans previously sympathetic to the pro-life movement are leaving in disgust. They don’t disagree with the core premise of the movement. But of course, from the very voices of the movement, you can go a long time only hearing about every side issue — Obama is evil, Notre Dame is evil, anyone with a modest difference in strategy, tactics or priorities is evil, campaign finance reform is evil, national health care is evil, Democrats are evil, your Aunt Betsy is evil, you are evil for not saying everyone I say is evil, is evil.
This is part of my problem with the American approach — the complete disdain for custom and tradition, and their role in the social order. In this debate, I am playing the role of the conservative.
I don’t think that’s what he meant. I think he’s arguing that such an honor is simply attached to the office, not the man i.e. it goes to the head of France, regardless of who that may be.
Denton read me rightly. My point is to emphasize that the reason behind Sarkozy’s award (tradition and appreciation of France) is quite different and un-analogous to the reason for Obama’s award (recognition of a legal career).
Michael
“First off, Pelosi didn’t get what she wanted, which was a photo op” she already got it.
The pope met all the times politicians pro-choice and very often gives them Communion.You American people are very often more Catholic than the Pope.
They don’t disagree with the core premise of the movement.
You’d never guess it in a million years by listening to them or watching them in action on blogs like this.
Policratus
yes was a tradition, but the pope greeted Sarkozy with great warmly, and Sarkozy, pro choice,and twice divorced, met french seminarists and priests at the Pontifical French Seminary.
And Policratus “appreciation of France”? Sarkozy supported civil partnership for same-sex couples. (Pacs)
Kurt Says:
May 5, 2009 at 3:26 pm
“They don’t disagree with the core premise of the movement. But of course, from the very voices of the movement, you can go a long time only hearing about every side issue — Obama is evil, Notre Dame is evil, anyone with a modest difference in strategy, tactics or priorities is evil, campaign finance reform is evil, national health care is evil, Democrats are evil, your Aunt Betsy is evil, you are evil for not saying everyone I say is evil, is evil”.
Err, have you some specifics for this statement?
Just asking.
I think everyone should get a blue ribbon. I would hate to see someone left out.
Gabriel,
Poke around the internet. How much time and energy spent on the Notre Dame matter? How much time is spent making character accusations against the President or those who voted for him instead of talking about policy? How many references to candidate’s “Pro-Life” Voting Record that includes votes based on opposition to campaign finance reform and heath care for children?
Yet the Vatican Newspaper has not singled out people opposing Obama as to his policies or his visit ti Notre Dame as being out of sync with the Church.
I think that is important. The Church recognizes that local Catholics are purely legitimate to engage in letimate poltical debate in the public square.
I think that point is being missed.
I am very curiois. Can someone tell me if the Pope or someone in the Vatican approves every Op-Ed in the Vatican newspaper. On issues from economics and I can recall a dust up over end of life issues there is some legitiamte debate that occurs there
I think we need to get beyond that the Vatican newspaper is some alternatve Catechism or for that matter the VATICAN is speaking through a OP-Ed. If it does maybe we better get english translation pronot on this new teaching authority In fact on economic issues it has shown a diversity of Opinion
I find this line of argument – Europeans are this… American are that … more than a tad ridiculous and very shortsighted.
And now to top it off all of a sudden the Vatican is portrayed as all soft and oh so accommodating compared to the crazy fundamentalist leaning American Catholics Conservatives? IMHO at best this is just an old fashioned PR move and the Vatican’s way of having it both ways – the Vatican certainly had more than a hand in appointing the various conservative leaning American Bishops – the type of Bishops actually now front and center on this issue- they actively purged the American/European church of Bishops with a more modern outlook – now they act all surprised about the outcome?
Call me unimpressed by the fact that they still like to wine and dine the catholic European Princes – in this case the rather full of himself modern day Napoleon Sarkozy – and this is suppose to serve as a shining example of liberal Vatican attitude? Give me a break -
The group around than Cardinal Ratzinger worked rather diligent the last three decades to tilt the church away from Vatican II towards their preferred form of Euro pomp of the ‘good old days’. In the process they all but choked unique Latin American voices (Liberation Theology) and are well on the way these days to reign in ‘over exuberant African ways to worship.
But there is hope – in my view what we witness right now in Europe at least is the beginning of a serious push back from the actual majority of average Catholics against this rather obvious and stale back to the past approach. We can fully expect the American Catholic Church to catch up and perhaps bypass – Americans always in the end will chose optimism and a positive outlook over doom and gloom.
The majority of Catholic Americans very much support Obama – they are rightly proud that they significantly contributed to the election of a potentially great President.
In the end the numbers loud and clear are in favor of Notre Dames decision – I think the catholic fundamentalists deep down know that they overplayed their hand.
In the end the numbers loud and clear are in favor of Notre Dames decision – I think the catholic fundamentalists deep down know that they overplayed their hand.
Since you don’t have truth or decency on your side, I guess you really need a numerical majority. In this case, however, you don’t have that either.
And what’s a “catholic fundamentalist”? Somebody who is bothered by dead babies wherever they turn up? “Vichy Catholics” is too mild a phrase.
Obama is so fundamentally wrong on the most basic issue of life that an “American Catholic” would be irresponsible not to speak out against him.
“We have been sent as a people. Everyone has an obligation to be at the service of life. This is a properly ‘ecclesial’ responsibility, which requires concerted and generous action by all the members and by all sectors of the Christian community. This community commitment does not however eliminate or lessen the responsibility of each individual, called by the Lord to ‘become the neighbour’ of everyone: ‘Go and do likewise’ (Lk 10:37).
… In the proclamation of this Gospel, we must not fear hostility or unpopularity, and we must refuse any compromise or ambiguity which might conform us to the world’s way of thinking (cf. Rom 12:2). We must be in the world but not of the world (cf. Jn 15:19; 17:16), drawing our strength from Christ, who by his Death and Resurrection has overcome the world (cf. Jn 16:33).” (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae)
And that fact that many seem to think that Obama speaking at a Catholic university is a greater moral evil than the government actually torturing somebody speaks to the depravity of this position.
It’s hard for me to see how anyone takes this website or its authors seriously. Are you capable of distinguishing and arguing each issue seperately or are you just possessed to the point where you cannot speak or think in a way that doesn’t include references to George Bush and his idiocies?
Hey, what happened to your brilliant and racist post the other day calling for the slammer for whitey for killing minorities without any context about the crime, suggesting that soley on account of their race whitey should be in prison?
MM’s post checklist:
-Insult American way of thinking? check
-Call political opponents Calvinists and/or Gnostics? check
-Cite unnamed Vatican sources? check
-Praise “enlightened” European Catholics? check
-Link to at least one left-leaning Catholic source? check
etc.
William,
You and I differ. I see an obligation to speak out against certain acts. You see an obligation to speak out against certain people. That is our fundamental and basic difference.
Kurt,
So, it’s not appropriate to point out that a politician is making a serious error?
The only thing I want to add to this thread is that Grega is absolutely right about European Catholics and their attitudes to the attempts by the Ratzinger clerical clique and their supporters in America to reverse Vatican II. There is a genuine but tacit revolt going on right now here among the most serious practising Catholics–especially youth–against the rightward tilt in the Vatican. I see it almost every week that I’m living here, and it is supported by almost the whole younger generation of priests. Also, I don’t want to tell you what the most active, fervently practising European Catholics think about America and her “culture wars” over abortion and homosexuality: some of the folks here would die of apoplexy.
Ron Chandonia:
I read the Spectator regularly. Any American who reads the Spectator and thinks it is representative of British or European popular opinion is bonkers.
The raving of Melanie Phillips regarding Obama’s hatred of Israel is representative of hard British right-wing opinion, but it certainly is NOT representative of how the British people feel about American Catholics, Notre Dame, Israel or President Obama:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3590646/obama-prepares-to-throw-israel-under-the-bus.thtml
I want to comment on William’s reference to all of us “…to be in the service of life…we must refuse any compromise or ambiguity which might conform us to the world’s way of thinking. We must be in the world but not of the world.”
What does it mean to be in the service of life? It seems that anything that does not support life is opposed to life. Abortion is the end result of influences that do not support life. These influences must be identified before we have a coherent and effective strategy to end abortion. We remove ambiguity through intelligent inquiry into human relationships because it is through the dynamics of human relationships that life is either validated as having value or is objectified as being useful or not. If we view abortion as the identified evil to be eliminated and the law as the solution to this evil then it appears that we have conformed to the ways of the world in this most superficial perception that exhibits no understanding of human relationships.
As a result our faith appears to those outside the faith as lacking depth of understanding and wisdom. Those outside the faith see the anger and hear the hostility in reaction to abortion because that is what gets attention. They do not see nor hear the expression of compassion for those who live in daily existential suffering. What they see is hardness and anger which is more and consequently they will respond with the same.
They see that it is easy for pro-lifers to love an unseen child than it is to love those who are seen. It is easy to love those who do not oppose us. Do they see pro-lifers loving them or do they see something other than love? If they see something other than love then that is a sign that we are conformed to the ways of the world.
Christ healed and fed and then He taught.
William,
First of all, I appreciate your efforts to seek some common ground with me by modifying your statement from referring to an action that is obligatory to one you call appropriate. That helps.
I will try to return to favor as best I can.
Yes, it is appropriate to point out a person in public life is making a serious error. In doing so, the statement should be addressed to the person but directed to the error. I must say, the Catholic Church and her politically conservative lay faithful have certainly done that in regard to the President’s misguided views on abortion policy. I think a good number of the lay faithful who are viewed as liberals (including the editors of Commonweal, as an example) have done so as well.
Notre Dame and every other Catholic institution, I would hope, affirms that the President’s policy views on abortion are not welcome on its campus. That is vastly different than to say the President, a child of God claimed as His own through baptism, an incarnate being with a corporal body and Divinely-created soul, and a representative of the American people, is not welcome on its campus.
Pope Antoninus I’s 35th thundering encyclical against the Republicathocalvinostics.
Insiders report that the 36th is currently in preparation, and will incorporate most of the same themes, though it is expected that the prelate will also inveigh against “dualism.”
Unlike the ‘selfappointed watchdogs of orthodoxy’ in the US the Vatican perhaps at least realizes that Notre Dame is no Canossa.
Times are changing.
When do you cut your losses?
Well it took ‘just’ 500 years to reluctantly accept very basic scientific facts – I guess we should not be surprised if much harder to pin down moral facts will be the source of much huffing and puffing for many centuries to come.
In the end who really thinks that humanity with a rather finite living space can even afford to go on like there is no upper limit to the number of humans that this planet can sustain. I actually find much moral value in how our society right now works. Most of us freely choose the number and spacing of our children – as a society we debate and set responsible limits. Over all I am very comfortable with the status quo.
Lets not kidd ourself – from the beginning of days humanity has been on a course towards ‘controlling’ our lives.
We left “natural” caves and built shelters. We got busy inventing tools and clothing and what not.
We are not the sort of people inclined to let stuff happen to us.
We very much enjoy making progress in Medicine, Technology and yes Ethics and Religion.
In my view folks are kidding themself if they believe all of a sudden we will seriously stop and abstain from something as essential as giving up our ability to choose how we progreate.
I think our societies are not to far off in terms of the big picture. The birth rates we see in the US are sustainable – they are the result of a free society with free choices. I think it all works out just fine.
Digbydolben:
Q. What kind of Catholic rants against the “Ratzinger clerical clique”?
A. A Vichy Catholic.
Kurt,
I think Fr. Jenkins should clearly state when he introduces Obama that Notre Dame does not agree with his policies on the life issues, and that inviting him to speak in no way means that it repudiates its Catholic identity.
It’s not just the rabid right wing Catholics. 52% of all Americans don’t believe he should be honored. 60% of all Catholics. VN always looking and blaming that vast right wing Catholic conspiracy (vrwCc).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/april_2009/52_say_notre_dame_made_a_mistake_honoring_obama
William,
I wish we had more Williams in this discussion.
It makes it a lot more civil when people like you mention what you think rather than as some others who preface their remarks not with “I think…” but with “I demand…”
I’m fairly certain Fr. Jenkins has not waited for May 17th to state what you suggest but has done so already. I, however, would have no objection if he wished to repeat it then. I think he might also mention some policy issues the President’s postion matches up with the Church’s but I’m not offering to write his speech for him.
Kevin
as Morning’s Minion posted above Pew Polling http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=413
(more reputable than Rasmussen) has different statistics.
Ron ,
I am not familiar with the term “Vichy Catholic” – now if you would have written “Fishy Catholic” on the other hand even I would get it :)
Pew asked “Do you think it was right or wrong for Notre Dame to invite Obama and give him an honorary degree?”
By About 2:1, Catholics said it was right, though by a smaller margin among white Catholics and frequent Mass goers.
Rasmussen asked first: “Because of his pro-choice views on abortion, some Catholics say President Obama should not speak at Notre Dame. Should President Obama cancel his appearance at Notre Dame?”
The responses were:
30% Yes
52% No
19% Not sure
Rasmussen then asked: “Guidelines established by U.S. bishops state that Catholic institutions such as Notre Dame should not honor people whose actions conflict with the church’s moral principles. Given these guidelines, should Notre Dame award President Obama an honorary degree?”
On that questions Catholics were split.
I think the methodogy of the two polls is probably equally accurate. Two very different questions are asked.
I am at a loss to understand the appeal of polls to many on this website.
I suppose that if one asked the bishops before the Council of Nicaea “Do you believe that Jesus is divine?”, 65% would have said no.
I also wonder about the value of quoting foreign newspapers and journals [I include the Osservatore] about events in the U.S. They quite simply have not a clue.
I suggest that “automatic terms” like “rabid Catholic conservative”, “wishy-washy liberal Catholic” and the like be banned from the discussions.
Gabriel
L’Osservatore is the official newspaper of the Holy See. So if it hasn’t a clue, this simply means that the Holy See hasn’t a clue.