Posted on 05/20/2009 1:02:00 PM PDT by Salvation
May. 18, 2009 (CWNews.com) -
President Obama's appearance at the Notre Dame commencement exercises produced an enormous outpouring of journalistic coverage.
Prior to the event, the atmosphere was so feverish that when Duncan Maxell Anderson concocted a story based on the idea that Obama had donated his speaking fee to defray lost alumni contributions, many readers failed to recognize that it was a satire.
On the GetReligion site, Terry Mattingly continued to insist that reporters should get their facts straight. That was, alas, a losing battle.
USA Today provided live blogging on the event, with a panel of experts (including Joseph Lawler, son of CWN editor Phil Lawler) offering their perspectives.
When he addressed the commencement audience, Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, was in effect making his own observations on the controversy. Father Jenkins let his enthusiasm for President Obama show through clearly; it cannot be a coincidence that he used the word "hope" five times in his first five opening paragraphs.
Father Jenkins clearly implied, in his plea for civil dialogue, that opponents of the President's speech were guilty of intolerance, while "President Obama is not someone who stops taking to those who differ with him." The Jenkins speech did not impress Ralph McInerny, longtime Notre Dame philosophy professor, who commented for The Catholic Thing. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that McInerny was impressed--negatively:
The fallacious defenses on the part of a once stellar philosopher, Father John Jenkins, continued in his introduction of the president, exhibit how corruptive of clear thinking holding high office can be. Not since the local lands were wrested from the Indians has a white father spoken with such forked tongue.
Another Notre Dame faculty member, law professor Gerald Bradley, asked a rhetorical question in his analysis for National Review: "Prestige or Truth?" Bradley's answer to that question can be summed up in one sentence: "Notre Dame chose prestige."
Not everyone saw things that way. Predictably enough, some of the President's political allies felt that his appearance had been a coup. E. J. Dionne, writing for the New Republic, put the emphasis on Obama's willingness to confront criticism:
By facing their arguments head-on and by demonstrating his attentiveness to Catholic concerns, Obama strengthened moderate and liberal forces inside the church itself. He also struck a forceful blow against those who would keep the nation mired in culture-war politics without end.
Father Tom Reese, SJ, gave a Washington Post audience an even rosier view of the occasion, suggesting that Obama's message to the Notre Dame audience-- the same message that he has trumpeted for months-- was a brilliant new strategy that all pro-lifers should adopt. In fact, while others including Father Jenkins said that pro-life activists were wrong to "demonize" the President, Father Reese took the first step to demonize the pro-lifers. First he announced that "pro-life people should join with Obama in doing everything possible to reduce the number of abortions." (Implicit there is the assumption that in fact Obama is doing everything possible.) Then Reese added: "Not to do so is to put politics above the life of the unborn." So there you have it: anyone who fails to support the President is showing contempt for unborn human life: a neat reversal of the reality most people perceive here.
If Father Reese has become a cheerleader for the Obama administration, he is merely continuing down the path that he has followed throughout his journalistic career. But it is truly sad to see Douglas Kmiec, once a thoughtful pro-life analyst, acting the same way. Kmiec told his new friends at the National Catholic Reporter that both presidents, Obama and Jenkins "were there in splendid form" at the Notre Dame commencement, but the bad guys in the drama were the American bishops who questioned the wisdom of honoring an advocate of unrestricted abortion.
Not every liberal voice joined the chorus of praise for President Obama. Michael Sean Winters of America gave the President a grade of C-minus for his effort, saying that his speech "did not help his cause."
These analysts, however, were concentrating on the influence that Obama's speech would have on the political world. In a perceptive National Review critique, George Weigel looked at the event from the opposite perspective, and noticed the influence that the President was having on the internal affairs of the Catholic Church.
Debates are not uncommon within religious groups, Weigel observed. "Yet never in our history has a president of the United States, in the exercise of his public office, intervened in such disputes in order to secure a political advantage.?? Until yesterday, at the University of Notre Dame."
The key point of the presidential address, Weigel argued, is that he--Obama--was setting himself up as judge, to pronounce on which side of the intramural Catholic debate was correct:
Rather like Napoleon taking the diadem out of the hands of Pope Pius VII and crowning himself emperor, President Obama has, wittingly or not, declared himself the Primate of American Catholicism.
“Which Council are you referring to with Antioch?”
There was a council in about 325-330 (not the semi Arian council in the 340s) which among other things passed a number of disciplinary canons one of which forbade bishops to meddle in the affairs of other bishops outside of synods and councils. Its pretty clear this canon (the 9th I think)influenced the Fathers at the 2nd Ecumenical Council and subsequent local and ecumenical ones.
If you would like to go to “committedtoromney.com” you can find today's pod-cast and click on it for free.
Most of the pod-casts are not an endorsement for Romney but, rather, a series of interviews regarding the conservative view.
The Notre Dame podcast has the audio of all the interviews Hubby did on the street with the witnesses and his sense of what was going on. If it means anything, I was very proud of this pod-cast. I found Hubby's comments insightful and he has always been a strong apologist for the faith. I don't usually listen to all of them, but I found everything on this one from the bagpipes to the end excellent work. I think you'll enjoy it.
Let's see where the American bishops went beyond commentary and crossed into demands. I agree that that would violate some canons, as well as common sense. Kolokotronis's accusations were very broad; if he is willing to narrow them to some specific cases, I'll listen.
I realize that what bishop d'Arcy can do is limited, just like you describe. He should, in my opinion, rescind the Catohlic designation from the university, and the USCCB should in due course strengthen and clarify their satement about honoring anti-Catholics, and attach penalties to it.
Regarding so-called anti-abortionism, which canon is it that prohibits concentrating on this particular issue?
“Regarding so-called anti-abortionism, which canon is it that prohibits concentrating on this particular issue?”
Canon? Don’t tell me the Latin Church now has an “anything goes” method of theology unless there’s a specific canon which forbids something!
And Alex, the enemy of God, the heretic Martino doesn’t speak of “concentrating”, he says anti-abortionism is the ultimate consideration, an issue which trumps all others (I suppose like the nature of Christ or the Trinity or whether or not Panagia is the Theotokos or the Pope is infallible, the Real Presence in the sacrament on the altar table, etc.) in the lives of Roman Catholics.
I just want to clarify what is what. So, Martino is not in violation of canons? Good to know.
Now, where did Martino say that anti-abortionism trumps “the nature of Christ or the Trinity or whether or not Panagia is the Theotokos or the Pope is infallible, the Real Presence in the sacrament on the altar table, etc”?
***Regarding so-called anti-abortionism, which canon is it that prohibits concentrating on this particular issue?***
This might help. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2255835/posts?page=93#93
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/11/top_stories/doc4a07a2cc8833b247412288.txt says that: Archbishop Condemns Notre Dame At Prayer Breakfast
By JOHN P. CONNOLLY, The Bulletin
Monday, May 11, 2009
Washington — A high-ranking Vatican official has condemned the University of Notre Dame for hosting President Barack Obama at its May 17 commencement, calling it a “scandal,” becoming the latest Catholic bishop to condemn the invitation.
Archbishop Raymond Burke, prefect of the Catholic Church’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, and former archbishop of St. Louis, made his comments Friday to the approximately 2,000 Catholics who gathered in Washington, D.C. for the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.
“The proposed granting of an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame University to our president, who is so aggressively advancing an anti-life and anti-family agenda, is rightly the source of the greatest scandal,” he said during his keynote address.
And what does the Catechism say about scandal???
Appreciate the ping.
Thanks.
Martino's use of the word "issue" was in reference to issues of politics, not theology or cannon. As a result, Martino did not say what you claim he did. Alex has pointed this out to you before.
I don’t understand the point you are making.
***I don’t understand the point you are making.***
The wording in the Catechism against abortion is very similar to that of scandal. I object to those in post Vatican II in which the bishops reduced the USCCB to a single topic - social justice - and this same body appears to have switched to another single topic - abortion. The mindset is still screwed up; only the topic has changed.
The Faith is the Faith; the substitution of one dish in the cafeteria for another is still all screwed up. Where is the outrage against IVF? This process kill tens or hundreds of children for every one that is born. Where is the outrage against all the sins outlined in the Catechism AHEAD of abortion? To simply ignore them is to be no better than the flower children, Wiccan nuns and liberation priests who were the face of the Church in the 60s and 70s.
Yes, but the five non-negotiables: abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, gay marriage and artificial insemination — are also hot political issues which open up occasion of sin for all voters. Of these, abortion and euthanasia are also objectively crimes as well as sin, and abortion is committed in horrendous numbers. The focus is justifiable, and is, in fact, welcome.
I agree that USCCB is overall a very poorly functioning synod of the American Church, but of all things that is one thing they are doing right, and I would not fault them for that.
At any rate, it is not a matter of heresy, but at worst, poor stewardship. I object to characterizing it as heresy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.