Comments on: Professor Garnett on Obama and Notre Dame

By: Ronald King

Ronald King — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:05:38 +0000

Since the Eucharist is the foundation of our faith it would then seem to me that there can be no limits of experience that can prevent the expression of Christ in us. I have not seen written nor heard from anyone that opposes or supports Obama receiving an honorary award mention anything about the possibility that ND’s invitation to him could be associated with the mystery of the Eucharist working through Fr. Jenkins as expression of Christ’s desire that we “…all may be one…” as He and His Father are one.
The Eucharist is a communion that draws us together in love through God’s gift of Love to us.
The world watched and people of color reacted with joy and renewed hope when Obama was elected president. ND is seen as the largest and most influential Catholic educational institution in the US. What do we gain opposing the openness being expressed in Obama’s invitation? What does the world see in this opposition?
Is the mystery of the Eucharist involved in this experience?

By: digbydolben

digbydolben — Thu, 14 May 2009 10:46:06 +0000

It seems to me that this young Notre Dame graduate, living out his commitment to the “sanctity of life” by working as a Maryknoll Volunteer with his wife and children in Bolivia, is a far more effective “teacher” of “Catholic values” than the bishops and the right-wing Catholics caterwauling on this site and in other places about the President’s commencement speeches at Notre Dame.

And, as Rocco Palma points out today, he actually DID something about the monstrous former President’s appearance on a dais at Notre Dame, in order to trick American Catholics into believing into his solidarity with them regarding “life issues”—even after he had amassed a record as the biggest legalized murderer in Texas history and one who had actually MOCKED the Catholic clergy who appealed against his death warrants (and had treated even John Paul II’s appeal peremptorily):

Some Catholics view abortion as the central tenet of their faith, adding now the issue of fetal stem-cell research, Moriarty said. “They are able to disregard the (Iraq) war as debatable, and the death penalty as debatable,” he said.

They simplify the issue by stating abortion is wrong, and the simple solution is to criminalize it, he said.

“I feel really strongly that abortion is a tragedy. It’s horrific to look at the numbers,” he said.

But many people who call themselves pro-life are just anti-abortion, said Moriarty, who said he doesn’t see many such advocates actively working to improve the lives of poor mothers and their children.

“The (Catholic) Church needs to stop looking to the state to enforce church teachings and focus instead on living out those teachings as a community of disciples,” he said. “If the Catholic Church were half the size it is but twice as faithful to its own teaching, it would have a lot bigger impact than trying to lobby the world.”

Moriarty said he’s encouraged that some Democrats have started to move away from the pro-choice camp and focus on ways to reduce the number of abortions…

Moriarty said he believes Obama’s social policies designed to help poor people could do more to reduce the number of abortions than pro-life group efforts.

…In his 2001 Notre Dame speech, Bush unveiled his program of faith-based initiatives. Moriarty saw it as the president courting Catholic support, and the university handing itself over to be used for political goals. Something similar might come of Obama’s speech, Moriarty said.

Moriarty said that when he chose to kneel and pray at the 2001 commencement, he purposely chose a protest that would not interrupt the ceremony for other graduates. He hopes nothing happens on May 17 to mar the event.

“The people who need to be respected the most are the graduates,” he said. “It’s a way to honor them for their achievements.”

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090510/News01/905100345/1130

By: Gerald L. Campbell

Gerald L. Campbell — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:13:49 +0000

“The problem is without the hysterical rhetoric, it becomes even more clear what a weak case there is for opposing the President.”

Bingo!

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:39:17 +0000

I now have a better understanding of the extremists on this matter. The professor is absolutely polite and civil and respectful. The problem is without the hysterical rhetoric, it becomes even more clear what a weak case there is for opposing the President.

He said “nobody would have a problem with a speech” without the degree. We know that is false. The internet is loaded with right wingers dencouncing the President speaking.

The suggestion of a debate was truly strange. It suggests how out of touch Notre Dame’s opponents are. Except to the fanatics, it is clear that the President has no interest in being a leading spokesperson for the pro-choice position. The President’s opponents had to go back to 2007 to find him speaking in detail on the issue (which they then endless re-broadcast). Why would the President raise his involvement in the pro-choice movement to the level of being their representative in a debate? And why would a pro-lifer want him to except to justify hating him even more?

The Professor then notes that Bush’s anti-life positions wre okay because they were not ‘flagship’ issues for him. It is only the Catholic Right that endlessly talks about the President and abortion. Abortion is hardly a flagship issue to President Obama.

The Professor then says the invitiation is not objectively wrong, and that the university could in good conscience invite a pro-choice person in public life, but the issue is one of message, context and timing. So be it, but these are very subjective things and matters of judgment. Without doubt, it is a judgment the University has the right to make. The disrepect shown to Notre Dame cannot be justified based on a matter of judgment that is rightfully theirs.

By: Sam Rocha

Sam Rocha — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:48:48 +0000

Amen. That much I can see and agree with you on wholeheartedly. But it forces my phenomenological sentiment to question the things themselves and that’s where I get totally lost.

By: M.Z.

M.Z. — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:28:43 +0000

You are responding to the incentives put forth. I regret to say this is about the level of depth I can speak on this though. What I do know is that this has been pushed for at least a decade now under the guise of interdisciplinary research.

By: Sam Rocha

Sam Rocha — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:22:39 +0000

I must be completely blind then, seriously. In education it is huge deal—we have entire journals dedicated to putting “theory into practice”—but I can’t for the life of me see the difference. But that just might be my problem…

By: M.Z.

M.Z. — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:02:02 +0000

I suppose political philosophy causes some issues here. lol. The breaking down of lines is kind of engrained now.

I hate to give this answer, but it is like the difference between art and “centerfolds.” As one chap put it, you know it when you see it. Analogously, physics and engineering enjoy a similar split.

By: Sam Rocha

Sam Rocha — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:45:37 +0000

M.Z.: What is the “theoretical” and the “practical”? Where does one end and the other begin or vice-versa?

By: wj

wj — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:35:08 +0000

It would be fun, at any rate, to see MacIntyre deny Obama’s (and much of the audience’s) first premise: that there is the possibility for justice at all within a liberal democratic nation-state such as the U.S.

By: M.Z.

M.Z. — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:25:33 +0000

This is where I say emphatically that we don’t want to live under philospher kings. The theoretical should inform the practical and the practical should inform the theoretical, but there should be a firm seperation between the two. That’s the long way of saying a debate between MacIntyre and Obama would be uninformative and ultimately boring.

By: Michael Denton

Michael Denton — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:57:06 +0000

I would add that saying it would be acceptable to invite Obama to debate a faculty member struck me as odd.

I would pay significant amounts of money to watch Obama debate Alasdair MacIntyre. It would be very entertaining.