To talk or shout an issue for Catholics

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | May 24, 2009 | Steven P. Millies

[Alex Murphy]

President Barack Obama’s commencement address at the University of Notre Dame last Sunday presented a visible and urgent choice for Catholics. There was, to one side, the Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame, who had invited Obama and who quoted the Catholic Church’s pastoral constitution on the church in the modern world to say how much Catholics who hold to their faith must reach out to understand those who disagree with them.

Father Jenkins also spoke clearly to say that Notre Dame disagrees with the Obama administration on abortion and stem cell research, even as it welcomed the president’s willingness to join in a dialogue. To the other side were the shouters disrupting the speech with cries of “Stop killing our babies!” and almost 40 protesters arrested outside while carrying placards of dismembered fetuses.

Many of the Catholic bishops of the United States have registered their own displeasure with Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame, expressing concern over what it will say about Catholics. It is easy to see that it did say something. Yet, in the wake of the speech, the overall effect was less to cause scandal or raise questions about fundamental moral teachings, as the bishops feared. Instead, the event suggested a theme evoked by the president: as much as the nation finds itself at a crossroads of history, so do Catholics.

The entire Notre Dame episode has been a potent opportunity for Catholic soul-searching at a time when it has been particularly necessary. The matter of Catholic citizenship has been as highly fraught over the last five years as any time since the election of John F. Kennedy.

The questions largely are the same as they always have been —- how to live the Catholic faith in this pluralist democracy. But regrettably, this perennial question of faith recently has taken the shape of a political argument. Matters have grown so strange that Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.), a notable anti-abortion rights Democrat, may face sanctions from his bishop for one vote in the Senate (to confirm pro-abortion rights advocate Kathleen Sebelius to the Cabinet). The debates over whether Notre Dame should “honor” a pro-abortion rights politician or whether a Catholic who voted for Obama could receive the Eucharist seem, more than anything else, like attempts to draw boundaries and establish a kind of political litmus test to live on the church’s side of a cultural line.

While the faith that informs our morals never should be removed from our political decision making, certainly it remains true that political and social life are complex, and that religious faith is beneficial in political life when it is a source of healing, rather than division. In good conscience, people can reach different decisions about difficult issues. It takes nothing away from any faith conviction to acknowledge this, or to see disagreement as an opportunity to persuade people, rather than an imperative to silence them.

These thoughts are especially timely because of two recent events. Fifty-four percent of Catholics voted for Obama in 2008, and two recent polls reveal that a majority of Americans now identify themselves as anti-abortion rights. If the number of anti-abortion rights voters is growing, yet comfortable majorities will elect a pro-abortion rights Democrat, we can say that voters appear to be increasingly willing and able to welcome the complexity of our political problems.

This is potentially disastrous news for the Republican Party, which has rested comfortably on anti-abortion rights voters —- especially, Catholics —- since 1980. It is no better news for Catholic bishops who have wedded their political influence so closely to opposing abortion above all other issues for just as long. Probably, these implications can explain the shrill tenor of the last two months.

American Catholics must choose whether they are with the shouters or those who will engage in dialogue. The irony is, as Father Jenkins made clear last Sunday, neither side appears to be any more pro-life than the other. Indeed, the whole Notre Dame affair demonstrates that there are many ways to express a pro-life point of view in our political system. The next electoral cycle will tell us whether the trend away from the shouters will continue. We should all hope that it will.

[Alex Murphy]

These thoughts are especially timely because of two recent events. Fifty-four percent of Catholics voted for Obama in 2008, and two recent polls reveal that a majority of Americans now identify themselves as anti-abortion rights. If the number of anti-abortion rights voters is growing, yet comfortable majorities will elect a pro-abortion rights Democrat, we can say that voters appear to be increasingly willing and able to welcome the complexity of our political problems.

This is potentially disastrous news for the Republican Party, which has rested comfortably on anti-abortion rights voters —- especially, Catholics —- since 1980. It is no better news for Catholic bishops who have wedded their political influence so closely to opposing abortion above all other issues for just as long. Probably, these implications can explain the shrill tenor of the last two months.

[Notwithstanding]

The author understands naught about virtue, vice and sin.

[markomalley]

First of all, Alex, where's the "barf alert" tag? With a conclusion like this…

The irony is, as Father Jenkins made clear last Sunday, neither side appears to be any more pro-life than the other. Indeed, the whole Notre Dame affair demonstrates that there are many ways to express a pro-life point of view in our political system. The next electoral cycle will tell us whether the trend away from the shouters will continue. We should all hope that it will.

…it certainly warrants one!

Second, the trouble is not, as the author supposes, that the bishops are too pro-life; the trouble is that they are not as pro-life as they should be (they talk and don't act) -- in addition, for some strange, undecipherable reason, they have embraced a socialist ethos rather than what the Magesterium clearly teaches. That part is totally beyond human ken

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[steve86]

Yeah, dialogue with Satan. That’s the ticket.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"The questions largely are the same as they always have been —- how to live the Catholic faith in this pluralist democracy."

It may be more of a question whether faith or conventional morality of ANY kind are going to survive in this pluralist democracy drifting into socialist tyranny.

"American Catholics must choose whether they are with the shouters or those who will engage in dialogue."

This is the fallacy of the false dichotomy. These are not the only two choices. First of all, it is questionable to suggest that "Father" Jenkins' invocation of Gaudium et Spes, as mediated by Erich Fromm, Stuart Smalley, and Jonathan Livingtson Seagull, represents ANY proper statement of the Catholic position in a "dialogue" with the culture of death and modern democratic pluralism and secular humanism. You don't have a dialogue if the Catholic position is not presented or misrepresented. There were other non-shouting voices offering dissent, criticism and even dialogue of sorts in intelligent Catholic discussion while not surrendering to Obama. Maybe the author missed these.

A House Divided (Two Graduations at Notre Dame, one Catholic, the other pro-abortion by Ralph McInerny

Professor Charles E. Rice on the Notre Dame Controversy

A False Theology: Obama's Appeal to Faith Runs Contrary to Christian Faith

Notre Dame's Kabuki Dance with Obama and the Culture of Death

[dsc]

“dialogue”

Dialogue with Evil?

No thanks.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Hence, the irony and sarcasm.

Jenkins presumed to claim a phony modernist "dialogue" which was in fact a campaign stump speech for Obama and his agenda.

[dsc]

Yes, I got a chuckle from the Jonathan Livingston Seagull reference. I hated that crap 40 years ago, and still do.

I just like to take every opportunity to assert that “they” do not have a point that can in good faith be argued by a decent person.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

The “debate” that Ralph McInerny, Charles Rice, Michael Novak, and others, have taken up from this controversy is a good one. And a LONG time coming. The Obama speech (and the deplorable Jenkins speech)at ND’s commencement were just the most recent symbols of a problem festering for decades in the leading Catholic universities. The Catholic position and Catholic mission in education needs to be restated. What Jenkins did at Notre Dame contradicts this mission. As does the liberal spin that came out of the 1967 Land O’lakes conference to secularize Catholic universities and suppress their Catholic cultural and intellectual identity. We need to move away from these trends. Being competitive and prestigious does not have to mean being heretical, secular, and liberal - bending over to the culture of death, liberalism, and worldliness.

[SuziQ]

Father Jenkins also spoke clearly to say that Notre Dame disagrees with the Obama administration on abortion and stem cell research, even as it welcomed the president’s willingness to join in a dialogue.

Actually, it's not clear at all that Notre Dame disagrees with That One about abortion OR stem cell research, and Father Jenkins knows full well that That One has no intention of entering into a 'dialogue' about abortion. The only 'common ground' That One wants on abortion is for everyone else to agree with him.

Father Jenkins is leading quite a number of Catholics astray with his public pronouncements. Now what was that the Scriptures said about millstones?

[SuziQ]

In good conscience, people can reach different decisions about difficult issues. It takes nothing away from any faith conviction to acknowledge this, or to see disagreement as an opportunity to persuade people, rather than an imperative to silence them.

So, I guess all those Christians who worked to send slavery, because they believed that it was a moral evil, shouldn't have tried to impose their morality on America?

[dsc]

“Being competitive and prestigious does not have to mean being heretical, secular, and liberal - bending over to the culture of death, liberalism, and worldliness.”

This is quite true. Actually, I suspect that being unashamedly Catholic would attract a large number of very fine applicants.

[dsc]

“in addition, for some strange, undecipherable reason, they have embraced a socialist ethos rather than what the Magesterium clearly teaches. That part is totally beyond human ken”

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anybody post that quotation about the smoke of Satan entering the sacristy.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Bishops talk but don't act" -- boy, that's too true.

Even worse, Notre Dame (and pundits like this one) accompnay President Obama as partners, not in dialog but in falsehood: saying one thing and doing another.

At Notre Dame, Obama endorsed "sensible conscience clauses"--- yet he's ordered the HHS to stop enforcement of the conscience clauses already passed by Congress (the Church Amendments, Coats Amendment, and the Hyde/Weldon Amendment) over the past 35 years. Some conscience!

At Notre Dame, Obama said we must respect others' convictions: yet he will compel pro-life citizens to become accomplices to abortion, by requiring us to finance, through taxes, the very thing we find morally intolerable. Some respect!

Obama cooed that opponents of embryonic stem cell research may be upholding the sacredness of life, "but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved." He didn't mention that it is adult stem cells which have produced insulin-producing islet cells in humans, while embryonic stem cells have had no such success. Some fact-based discussion!

So Obama endorses dialogue in the world's most visible Catholic venues, broadcasting his amiable beams and nods without reference to his actual aggressively abortion-expanding executive actions, without rebuttal, and without exposure to countervailing information. Some dialogue!

[Dominick]

At the top of my list of failures on the Notre Dame debacle was the framing of the debate.

It was not about Obama speaking at Notre Dame. He spoke at ASU right before, and they did not award him a degree.

The Bishops make it clear, a Catholic University must not honor a speaker who works against the Church.

The second part is that Catholics support Obama. There are a lot of people who are “unchurched” who list as Catholic but do not attend, are not registered with a Parish, have not been baptized, or not been confirmed. Even among those soft headed enough to vote for Obama, many find great cynicism in his policies.

[Soothesayer]

There is no such thing as “abortion rights”. I wish they would stop with that nonsense...that and the baby killing.