Obama defends abortion view at Notre Dame

Well after all it was Martin Luther King--who was able to phrase his argument generously, with an appeal to the reason and humanity of ordinary people--who found a way to topple the institutions of the segregated South. In a free and peaceful society (as opposed to pre-abolition America or Nazi Germany, for instance), the most reasonable and generous-sounding voice is going to win the most hearts.

Speaking of which, there are some great speakers on the pro-life side, but the press always wants to cover Randall Terry because he's got a big mouth and makes great theater. I didn't see anywhere but here that the Roe V. Wade woman had been arrested.

I have "an open heart" and an "open mind," so here are some "fair-minded" words for President Hope:

"Even though you are the most militant infanticidist ever to be U.S. President, and even though your vision for the country is predicated in large part on industrialized mass-murder of innocent children, I know you want to find common ground in the middle of the road."

"So, how's this for a deal -- how about if the *next* 50 million unwanted children conceived in this country are punished simply by having their arms and legs cut off, instead of being killed?"

"Seems moderate to me, and you, of course, are nothing if not a moderate guy."

As I thought he would hit out of the park in certain ways

Two problems

"This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds."

THis is a theme that Obama has pressed before in a speech. However Obama here left out part 1 of which he previously mentioned. That is the how the secular reacts to the People of faith in the Public Square and THEIR OBLIGATIONS.The fact that only one side of this coin is mentioned is not helpful

Finally
I mean there was nothing exactly new there. In fact this shows the major problem. Obama gets up there and does the pro-choice boilerplate on making abortions rarer (is there really an problem with people not being able to adopt?) and everyone goes amen. The fact is this shows why so many people opposed the honoring of Obama. All his action in just a few months have increased abortion not made it rarer. Yet we are suppose to go on with the side show. I mean when a Republicans get up and talk about helping the poor through their policies people are holding their feet to the fire. But as Democrats and abortion there is no such standard.

Finally the speech was pretty good (content wise) but for the points I have made above. The speech and honoring is still a scandal. However on the whole for a pro-choice Protestant Democrat it was not all that bad as to content. I might add that I don't think a Catholic University could tolerate this speech though from a Catholic

Richard Clark,

Actually, western Europe tends to have stricter laws than the United States. In fact, we have some of the most liberal abortion laws outside People's China. But don't let that get in the way of your ignorant stereotypes.

Generic political rhetoric. While, minute-by-minute innocent
lives are slaughtered, in the most sacred and safest place:
A mother's womb.
As, a "Catholic" institution welcomes a Pharaoh with "...A thunderous standing-ovation..."
THE Battle, has just BEGUN, and GOD, is GREATER!

Hector, if abortion is banned in the United States, which is the hypothetical that Richard Clark is using as the premise of his question, then the US would not have the more liberal abortion laws than Europe. So his question is still valid, and your response is non-responsive, at best. But don't let that get in the way of your desire to preen.

The abortion issue is different from the jim crow laws matter, because there are honest legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue in the former, and pure bigotry and intentional oppression of fellow humans in the latter.

Surely you must struggle with the question of female autonomy somewhat, despite your prolife views otherwise you would be advocting life sentences for women who get abortions in the manner that we condemn women who actually murder their babies.

In the same manner, I am against the death penalty - but there remains a legitimacy to those who advocate it that those suporting Jim crow laws did not have.

Similarly, on the gay marriage issue - the protecting marriage side have no legitimacy given the major blow to marriage is divorce that everyone seems okay with.

So I belive in the Catholic church's role as moral compass. Against divorce, against the death penalty, protecting the story of the ideal family unit; father, mother and child. Fighting for the rights of the unborn. I do not wish that their voice be drowned out anymore than I want then laying down the law of the land.

For this reason, I am proud of Notre Dame. Today they have demostrated why Catholics can be proud of their legacy in the public square in a way few others can claim.

"But assume he was talking not about the life and death of unborn children, but about Jim Crow laws."

Not a good analogy at all. Everyone can see the humanity of the black person, and the consequent injustice of unequal Jim Crow laws. But the fact is, there is no consensus of the status of the unborn. You may wish there were, and in your small circle perhaps there is 100% consensus, but in the wider world, there is not. Obama, the grown-up, sees this and deals with it.

RE: status of the unborn: an acorn is not an oak. An egg, even a fertilized egg, is not a chicken.

"I bet Obama wishes that Ambassador Keyes would just go away. The guy has been doggedly opposing Obama and speaking truth to power ever since their Senate Race in 2004."

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Yes, I'm sure President Obama is just terrified of the rhetorical tornado that is Alan Keyes. Here's a suggestion - if you want your movement to be considered by normal, successful Americans to be something other than a collection of geeks, freaks and losers, you probably want to have people other than Alan Keyes and Randall Terry grabbing the microphone.

Here is some good analysis on this controversy. I suspect most people, including most Roman Catholics in this country, will come down on this issue like Steve Schmidt (John McCain's former campaign manager) did on the Stephanopoulos show this morning - those who vocally oppose Notre Dame inviting Obama for the commencement address end up looking like people narrow partisans or people who are disrespecting the office of the Presidency.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/linker/archive/2009/05/12/on-the-catholic-periphery.aspx

I'll make the Catholic world a deal.

Show the same vehemence against capital punishment and war as you do against abortion, and I'll convert and be a most obedient Catholic. Until then, I suppose mine is to pray for you to overcome the disconnect. I don't think all the noise is about any concern for the unborn. I think it's an easy definition of sinlessness that those who are protesting find possible to meet, allowing them to feel superior to others.

"Show the same vehemence against capital punishment and war as you do against abortion, and I'll convert and be a most obedient Catholic. Until then, I suppose mine is to pray for you to overcome the disconnect. I don't think all the noise is about any concern for the unborn. I think it's an easy definition of sinlessness that those who are protesting find possible to meet, allowing them to feel superior to others."

Catholic of course can have different views on Captial Punisment and the "war". That is allowed. It should be noted that any of a Conservative Catholic have large misgivings about Captial Punishment

But the fact is, there is no consensus of the status of the unborn. You may wish there were, and in your small circle perhaps there is 100% consensus, but in the wider world, there is not. Obama, the grown-up, sees this and deals with it.

This is nonsense. Nobody who is honest and not utterly depraved can see a foetus in the womb, complete with fingers and a face with human expressions, and not see that the foetus is a human person and that the abortion is, therefore, a murder. Merely because numbers of people find nothing wrong with it does not mean that the truth is any less self-evident. Here, in fact, the comparison with Jim Crow is perfect. You think there is such consensus on the topic? Sure, now that it's all over with. Remember the solid wall of opposition to integration not too long ago? A whole society was convinced that anyone who wanted integration was a lunatic. Funny how people can blind and deafen themselves when their interests are at stake. Everyone of good will (mostly people not living in Jim Crow states, as their interests were not at stake) could see that segregation was a travesty. Their opponents essentially put their fingers in their ears and screamed--much as the defenders of abortion do today. Sometimes it was enough to make one doubt one's own sanity, but one didn't. Racial inequality was wrong, one kept telling oneself, no matter how many people in segregated societies smiled and insisted that it was natural. Abortion is killing. To say "there's no consensus" because a whole lot of people are willfully blind is pointless.

The question about Western Europe is strange. The main goal of the opponent of abortion is that abortions should not happen. Secondarily, one wants murder not to be enshrined in law as a right. When slavery was abolished in this country in 1865, it continued, for a time, in Brazil, and serfdom continued in Russia; something very like slavery persisted long after that in the Belgian Congo and in French Indochina. We ourselves had sharecropping which was almost as bad. How many of the clothes you and I are wearing today came from sweat-shops whose conditions we would not want to examine very closely? Arguments like "there will just be illegal abortions" or "there will still be abortion in other countries strike me as odd. Of course the war for justice never ends, but we fight one battle at a time. And sadly, the most tireless fighters for justice end up being resented for not letting everyone else just get on with having a good time. Remember how vilified the abolitionists were? The slave-owners got romantic songs and stories written about them. Let us never forget whose territory this world is.

Obama is a class act all the way! He actually allows protesters to challenge him, and remains unflappable (unlike our previous President, who never did have an authentic town hall meeting with unscreened citizens).

I've noticed that those who favor legal abortion support the abortion of anyone but themselves. Easy for them since they've already had the privilege of being born.

Obama - "So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies"

When I was younger during the Clinton era and not really that religious I bought 90% into the "safe, legal and rare" propoganda. Now I see this is just Democrat BS -- you cannot make this medical procedure as streamlined and mainstream as any medical operation can be and still expect it to be "rare".

Imagine how ridiculous it would be if local politicians built a huge four lane highway (with convenient on\off ramps, etc.) that ran right through town and then said "don't worry--very few people will travel on it". They be treated as idiots. Yet this is what the Democratic Party does with abortion and never get challenged by the media--they attempt to block any impediments at all to abortion, no matter how minor (taxpayer funding, waiting periods, parental\spousal notification), while at the same time promising they are going to make this ghastly procedure "rare".

John,

"Not a good analogy at all. Everyone can see the humanity of the black person, and the consequent injustice of unequal Jim Crow laws. But the fact is, there is no consensus of the status of the unborn."

did you miss 400 yrs of american history?

Rawlins,

With all due respect, Obama is *not* "educated" in a *moral* nor in any other sense -- though I'll focus on morality for now.

Rather, he is a *cretin* -- a moral or rather an *immoral,* or rather an *evil* cretin -- one who not only sanctions mass-murder of children, but seems hellbent on doing everything that he possibly can to ensure that even more children are murdered in the future than already are being murdered now and have been murdered by the tens of millions in this country for more than a third of a century now.

The "elephant" that you'd rather not talk about is not abortion per se, it's the acquiescence and therefore the complicity of people like you in an ongoing and wholly unnecessary evil.

Hey Rod, why was my post removed? It doesn't seem any more hyperbolic and ridiculous than most of the posts opposing it. What gives? Do I have to call Obama a cretin to get heard here?

Hector: Christian teaching, Catholic or otherwise, does not forbid the death penalty. It is not forbidden by scripture, by natural law, or by church tradition after the fifth century. On the contrary, it is explicitly sanctioned.

Read the current Catechism, which while not forbidding it, stops barely short of doing so and strongly indicates that in a modern, technological society, while not an intrinsic evil, it is indeed an evil to be opposed. Also note the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, both of whom have been consistently and resolutely against the death penalty in no uncertain terms, even asking governors and other politicians to commute death sentences for convicted criminals.

Beaumont George: Rather, [Obama] is a *cretin* -- a moral or rather an *immoral,* or rather an *evil* cretin -- one who not only sanctions mass-murder of children....

By your definition, the majority of the American public are immoral, evil cretins. While not minimizing the objective evil of support for abortion, many of us would attribute much of it to ignorance, confused thinking, and muddle acquiescence to the spirit of the age, rather than to direct evil. Or, maybe you think most Americans are evil.

"Rather, he is a *cretin* -- a moral or rather an *immoral,* or rather an *evil* cretin -- one who not only sanctions mass-murder of children, but seems hellbent on doing everything that he possibly can to ensure that even more children are murdered in the future than already are being murdered now and have been murdered by the tens of millions in this country for more than a third of a century now.

The "elephant" that you'd rather not talk about is not abortion per se, it's the acquiescence and therefore the complicity of people like you in an ongoing and wholly unnecessary evil."

Hmmmmmm...This is exactly why conservatives lost the college educated vote in '08.

More thankful for being a progressive, I could not be.

"Obama is a useful tool for the far-left because he puts a "kindler, gentler" mask on their devious intentions. Very cunning, very dangerous, and very deadly to this land we love".

Conservatives obviously need no help doing themselves and their party in. They do it all themselves as evident of the retarded statement above. It's mind-boggling to even begin to imagine that people think that way. Even more mind-boggling is that conservatives just can't seem to understand why thier party is dying. Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin have become your spokespeople...nuff said.

Very well let's take something that is more disputable.

Let's say a President wanted a return to whaling and funded the whaling expeditions of Japan or Iceland. He'd also said the issue of whale's intelligence was "beyond my expertise." In his commencement speech at Notre Dame he states that "I respect those who oppose whaling and understand it is a difficult issue. That said I believe in the right of fisherman to choose whaling for their family's financial needs and for tradition. I believe whaling should be safe, legal, and restricted to avoid species depopulation."

Do you think liberal/progressive people would be okay with that? That there'd be no protests? (I'm not entirely being rhetorical as maybe I'm wrong here)

Thomas R.: The whaling analogy is interesting. I imagine PETA and others would indeed protest, though with probably less of a media circus (although I could be wrong on that).

I submit that the issues with the ND speech are as follows:

1. Should a Catholic school invite as speaker someone who supports policies that violate Catholic moral teaching?

2. Is abortion unique, or should other policies (capital punishment, etc.) also be considered in such cases?

3. Does the conferral of an honorary degree have any meaning or some implication of approbation?

4. If the answer to 3 is yes, should Catholic schools confer honorary degrees on those who support policies that violate Catholic moral teaching?

5. In light of the conferral of Papal knighthoods on pro-choice politicians (see my first post, above) and the seeming rarity of protests such as this against Republican politicians, is there inconsistency among many in the more conservative wing of American Catholicism?

6. Should a religious institution confer any honors on a politician, anyway?

All these questions are distinct, but have been pretty much blurred and hashed together. I also notice that whenever I post about the concept of "prudential judgment" or the Papal knighthoods and some of the questionable recipients of such, I generally hear resounding silence. Make of that what you will.

It is interesting, is it not, that when it comes to the abortion debate, the liberals who insist that opposing SSM is essentially ethically indistinguishable from opposing mixed race marriages, are very keen to emphasise the *impropriety* of comparing legalised abortion to legalised racial discrimination.

Double standards?

It strikes this particular fence-sitter (reluctantly in favour of some legal abortion) that the comparison between legalised abortion and miscegenation laws is actually rather more apt than the supposed one between opposing SSM and favouring miscegenation laws, as both abortion and racial discrimination require the dehumanisation - that is to say the removal of fundamental natural rights to life and equal justice under the law - of a particular sub-group of our fellow human individuals.

Re: By your definition, the majority of the American public are immoral, evil cretins.

It's worse than that: by this definition nearly all the saints of the Church were immoral, evil cretins going all the way back to apostles, since they spared no time to denounce slavery and sundry other social evils that were rife in their world.

rE: The media elite, including the earnest and faithful gentleman who runs this blog, have allowed themselves to be blindsided by the charm and outward manner of this man

Have I missed Rod's post where he has said "After listening to sage words of President Obama I am now perusaded to adopt a pro-Choice position"?

Re: Obama is a useful tool for the far-left

Obama is not of the far Left-- it takes someone from far Right to think that. He is to the right of LBJ and FDR (with allowance for cultural and technological differences over time); ideologically he about where Nixon and Ford were in the 70s.

Re: Should a Catholic school invite as speaker someone who supports policies that violate Catholic moral teaching?

I think it should be broader than that-- after all, why should moral issues take front and center stage? Should a Catholic institution invite as a speaker anyone who disagrees with the Roman catholic Church on any key matter of dogma? Since we are talking about an avowedly religious institution here, why should matters of secular politics be the only ones that count? Should a Jew speak at Notre Dame? A Baptist? An atheist? Even a Greek Orthodox (who denies papal infallibility)? Once you answer "Yes", that it's OK for Notre Dame to go off the Roman reservation, then it's hard to see why Obama should be blackballed.

I thought James Carville had an interesting observation on This Week today: if it is wrong for Notre Dame to confer an honorary degree on someone who is pro-choice, then should that institution hire, or continue to employ, faculty and staff who do not support the Catholic position on abortion?

"Fortunately, these sort of Catholics fail to reproduce themselves, and in another generation or so they won't produce a single priest, let alone any more bishops; and priests with the sort of smug Americanism so amply displayed today by Fr. Jenkins will be a curiosity of history instead of an ever present irritant of the sort that can only be endured, with patience and prayer, and a pleasant sort of reflection on our common mortality."

Aren't you such a charmer. Actually, I suspect the "sort of Catholics" you are talking about are reproducing themselves quite well, and they tend to be the types who attend (or whose children attend) Catholic universities like Boston College, Georgetown or Notre Dame (I know, I know, those aren't real Catholic universities, in your eyes), as well as the better Catholic elementary and high schools in their local communities, rather than withdraw into home-schooling cults or Catholic niche colleges that no one has ever heard of, particularly the people who hire recent college grads.

Also, if I had to make bets about the demographics of the Catholic Church in the US over the next few decades, I'd also bet on the further natural increase of Latinos filling church pews. This wouldn't help your side, as Latinos as a group tend to prefer Americanism over Ultramontanism, and avoid po-faced scolds even more so than your average Anglo-American.

Ron, thanks. :)

Mark in Houston, you demonstrate more eloquently than I ever could what Obama's end game in going to ND in the first place was--to show America that there are the Right Sort of Catholics, and the Wrong Sort; the Right Sort go to "the better Catholic elementary schools" and to the big-name "We're so Catholic we don't even need to pray anymore, let alone teach anything that even remotely coincides with Catholic teaching!" colleges, while the Wrong Sort homeschool, go to "niche colleges" (with, presumably, actual niches, with actual saint statues in them, right there in the classroom buildings--how gauche), and refuse to take the properly humble and conciliating approach to the world by apologizing in every word and gesture for even pretending to believe in all that God stuff or being ready to lay it aside the moment someone hints that they're being multiculturally insensitive or, even worse--gasp!--sectarian.

I'm pretty happy to be the Wrong Sort of Catholic. You Right Sorts go right ahead, congratulating yourselves on your relevance and your ability to get Jobs that Matter as toadies and bootlickers to the Powers that Be. I'm more concerned about what I'll be held accountable for in the next world than in how many A-list names are in my phone book in this one--but then, we Wrong Sorts have a tendency to take a simplistic view of things like good and evil, and fail to see all that lovely nuance in snuffing out the lives of innocent children to our culture's Moloch, the god of Convenience.

Beaumont George: As of the latest Gallup poll, more Americans describe themselves as pro-life than as pro-abortion.

As you can see here, or if you prefer, here, among other places, the Gallup Poll results are more nuanced than you indicate. A total of 52% of all voters, 50% of all Catholics, and 29% even of "observant" Catholics, think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Only 14%, 17%, and 26%, respectively, believe it should be illegal in all cases.

You say, "Only about one American in four believes -- as President Hope believes -- that abortion is a morally inconsequential act that one should be "free" to commit in any circumstance at all." However, if you look at what people mean when they say "certain circumstances", it tends to come down on detailed questioning to "rape, incest, mother's health (which is very broad, mind you), or my situation." Cynical, but true.

Keep in mind that if we equate abortion with murder, then even rape and incest are legitimate reasons, contra the opinion of the vast majority of the US population.

In any case, I tend to think that most more-evolved human beings (as opposed to moral cretins) would ... show rather more conscience, rather more moral *intelligence* than President Hope. As for most of the American people being evil: well, of course we are -- in part -- just like every other kind of people there has ever been at any time, in any place.

So we're all evil, in part, but most of us aren't moral cretins--even though the majority of people think that abortion in some form should remain legal? And since a life is a life, are those who support abortion for rape, incest, and birth defects (a clear majority, over two-thirds) also moral cretins? I mean, how is aborting the result of rape or incest, or a deformed child different from shooting the handicapped? Right? Or do you admit of nuance? But would that make you a moral cretin, too?

Erin: I think after today it is clear that Catholics who give a damn about the faith (ironic juxtaposition intended) should give up trying to convert our so-called "fellow" Catholics who never met a Democratic radical politician or policy they didn't like

I think this is what we refer to as a "stereotype". As the saint said, I consider myself the greatest of sinners; however, for the sake of destroying the stereotype, let me point out the following about myself: 1. In the 20 years I've been Catholic I've missed Sunday or Holy Day Mass about ten times. Each time I went to confession. 2. I try to confess monthly. 3. I have been involved with the RCIA, adult education, and CCD in most of the years I've been Catholic. 4. I am an extraordinary minister of Eucharist, lector, and sometime altar server. 5. I read theology for a hobby, and have been told by more than one priest that I know more theology than they do. 6. I am pro-life, donate to pro-life causes, and write letters to lawmakers regarding pro-life issues. 7. I voted for Obama as a lesser evil than McCain. 8. I don't like any radical politician, Democratic or Republican--and let me tell you, there are as many GOP ideologues as Democratic. At least Rod and places like The American Conservative recognize that. 9. I don't like most of the policies of either party, though at the current time I think the Democrats are a marginally better bet than the GOP. I have voted third party in the past, but at some point you have to work with what you've got.

None of this is to toot my horn or to say I'm a good person, which claim I do not make. Just to demonstrate that some of us who voted for Obama do "give a damn about our faith", do fight him on the life issues, and are not "toadies and bootlickers to the Powers that Be."

and who've been willing to hand over the corpses of as many unborn children as necessary to curry sycophantic favor with these worldlings and their leaders

Some of us don't feel the need to curry favor with anyone; as opposed to the Cardinals who gave Papal knighthoods to pro-choice politicians, one of whom helped legalize abortion for the first time in his country; see my original post way above for the links, if you don't believe it. If Vatican prelates do that (and mind, I don't think they should), how can anyone possibly take them and the bishops seriously here?!

we'd have a better chance of success reaching out to fundamentalist Protestants who merely hate us than to these squishy emasculata who worship nothing, stand for nothing, and fall for everything provided it has the right sort of liberal pedigree.

I know some of the fundamentalist Protestants you speak of, and several are nice as pie, and would also, under the right circumstances, be mobbed outside burning Catholic churches. It was only a century ago that churches were burned and priests and nuns beaten in a midsize city not far from where I live; and if you think it couldn't happen again, then you aren't paying attention (especially since you live in Texas!).

Fortunately, these sort of Catholics fail to reproduce themselves....

Temper, temper--not a nice attitude to have for our brothers and sisters in Christ, is it?

and priests with the sort of smug Americanism so amply displayed today by Fr. Jenkins will be a curiosity of history instead of an ever present irritant of the sort that can only be endured, with patience and prayer

Maybe you should pray for patience. I do all the time.

and a pleasant sort of reflection on our common mortality.

In other words, we'll feel glad the f****** are dead--wonderful Christian attitude, there!

Let me be clear--I am far from perfect, and as I said, all I can do is ask for God's mercy. I claim no moral high ground at all. Also, having followed Erin's posts over a long time, I think she is personally a good person who takes her faith seriously and fights for what she believes in. Look back, and you'll see I've agreed with her and stood up for her more than once. However, this is the type of nasty attitude that really is completely inappropriate, calls for fraternal correction, and is the type of thing that helps paint those in the pro-life camp as bile-spewing creeps, not to put too fine a point on it. I think that Obama was right in calling for us to quit using ugly rhetoric against each other. Certainly, Erin is directing it at people who aren't even her enemies--unless being a Democrat or voting for Obama with any amount of reservations are the sole criteria for this. Much of what she says smacks of pride, too; I trust I don't have to mention what list of seven this is on.

Anyway, Erin, you may think and feel of me what you wish. Certainly, I am aware of my sinfulness and make no claims on my behalf. However, I do wish to say that I do not wish for my more conservative Catholic brothers and sisters (or anyone, for that matter) to un-reproduce themselves out of existence, nor do I look forward to a "pleasant sort of reflection on our common mortality" when those on the other side die. I try to keep you and everyone else with whom I disagree in my prayers. I will end by slightly altering the words of Thomas More to the executioner before his beheading, and pray that whatever our differences, we may someday merrily meet in that place in which all conflict is resolved, all differences healed, and all horrors of this world (including, yes, abortion) are no more. Pax tecum

I'm glad you will, PC. I'll pray for you too. Of course, I realize that I've committed the unforgivable sin in a progressive's eyes, the sin of Hurting Somebody's Feelings, but perhaps if I wear sackcloth and ashes for a few dozen years God will forgive me. In the meantime, since I guess you're sure He applauded Obama's speech today, and that even He wishes the pro-lifers would just get over themselves already, there's nothing at all for the pro-Obama Catholics to be sorry for, not even the ND grads who outshouted a pro-life protester and applauded Obama's ESCR reference; they're just showing how mature and nuanced Catholics can be. The Right Sort, anyway.

One question for all the vehement pro-lifers. Why won't you support elevating abortion to first degree murder charges against the woman who has one? I hear all the time of the blame towards the doctor and the generalized blame towards all who support the right to choose. But in my mind it's a choice for you -- first degree murder or shut up and move to a higher level of dialogue.

Our President reminds us again that it's the adults in charge. This is a nuanced world that calls for principled response, not knee jerk.

God bless him!

Thank you, Tumarion. You, as you often do, spoke for many of us @ 11.50pm better than we could do for ourselves.

Beth: Ronald Reagan agreed with you. He said "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."

Indeed.

Amazing that one can say that the desire to save creatures from extinction is a liberal only cause. How pathetic if true as it implies that the conservatives care not a whit about the future and believe we should happily deplete the planet of its resources with no concern for stewardship or our children.

Should a Catholic school invite as speaker someone who supports policies that violate Catholic moral teaching?

Yes – Pope JPII said that the University “is a primary and privileged place for fruitful dialogue between the Gospel and culture”. From Vatican II we have “respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily we will be able to enter into dialogue with them”.

It would seem that some people here reject the notion that such dialogue should occur. Clearly though the Catholic Church – and ND is a Catholic University – has stated that such dialogue should happen and happen with respect love and courtesy.

It always amazes me to hear people who thoroughly supported the Iraq War and never once questioned the sincerity or integrity of Bush et al at that time, will never the less, perceive everything Obama does as cynical or phony. Must partisan positions always trump everything else? Obama’s speech today was not a defense of abortion and to characterize it as such is disingenuous. It was a speech about the divisiveness that the abortion issue creates in our nation and it was an attempt to begin to breach that divide. Clearly, some people have no desire to do that.

The following is from Fr Jenkins remarks at the graduation. I found it worth considering.

When we face differences with fellow citizens, we will be tested: do we keep trying, with love and a generous spirit, to appeal to ethical principles that might be persuasive to others – or do we condemn those who differ with us for not seeing the truth that we see?
The first approach can lead to healing, the second to hostility. We know which approach we are called to as disciples of Christ.

As far as I can tell, no one who votes for Republicans is pro-life. No one. The Republican platform has had nice words about it, but it also insists on making the conditions of life more difficult, more conducive to abortion. As long as Republicans show no compassion toward the poor, the downtrodden, the people that Jesus cared most about, I will remain convinced that the Republicans don't care at all about this, that they are only exploiting it for the votes it used to bring them.

I'd also like to thank the bishops who keep finding ways to alienate the rank and file. I'm glad the President showed more class than those bishops did. Rod has already shown us that he would rather change religions than listen to the bishops, I agree with Rod that we should not listen to the bishops.

Christopher complained: Nobody who is honest and not utterly depraved can see a foetus in the womb, complete with fingers and a face with human expressions, and not see that the foetus is a human person and that the abortion is, therefore, a murder.

No, you have just made the logical error of assuming your conclusion. You have ignored all of the other arguments and discussion related to it and decided that this will be your 'trump card' as if no one else has ever thought of it. Everyone has. It hasn't been a successful argument. Maybe you need to learn more about fetal development.

Don't forget that if we decide that abortion is murder, something that has never been the law, the prosecutors would have to have an inquest for every single miscarriage. How many families will want to have to testify at an inquest after a miscarriage? What prosecutor will want to have to decide whether this was an "act of God" or a criminally prosecutable event?

Michele, there are two conflicting interests. Roe v. Wade did a good job of explaining them and trying to make a balance of them. The fact that one supports the right of women to make decisions in private does not mean that one celebrates every decision that is made. You may not approve of the decisions others make, but that is the law today. How much are you willing to roll back the law? Do you want to forbid all contraceptives, too, as the Pope insists?

It is a fact that Obama is pro-choice; however, people should ensure their comments on what Obama has said or done are factual.

Michele May 18, 2009 2:02 AM

"Cecelia, in just a few short months,what I've observed about Obama is that he says what he thinks people want to hear, and then does the opposite--believing he's covered himself and that all people will remember is what he said; not what he did."

Michele the above statement if it were related to abortion would be applicable to Ronald Reagan and George W Bush's promise of a Constitutional Amendment to end abortions while campaigning, but their Republican controlled Congresses never passed a bill. John McCain and Sarah Palin said it was a state issue, which meant no federal legislation.

"Regardless of what he claims to be doing with this speech, if you look at his actions thus far on abortion---it's all been about having more and more abortions. He has not sought--through his governing---to do one tiny thing to reduce abortions. It's all been about more, more and more. He's even begun using our tax dollars to fund child-killing abroad; something President Bush did not allow."

Michele the above paragraph is not factual. Michele what has Obama done "more, more and more" related to abortion? Obama lifted the Mexico Gag Order ban on funding going to clinics that perform abortions; however, it is still against the law for the money to be used for an abortion. The countries receiving the money are in very low income areas and the clinics are spread far apart. For some women living in poverty it is the only available source of health care.

"Look at Obama's actions; not his words. You will notice what I have noticed. He even promised during the campaign to get rid of EVERY law placing limits (no matter how reasonable) on abortion, like parental notification. See what I mean? He says he wants fewer abortions, but he promised in his campaign to effectively create more opportunities to kill children, not less. I have learned not to believe what he says. That's HIS doing, not mine."

Michele could you provide a source for where and when Obama said he would "get rid of EVERY law placing limits (no matter how reasonable) on abortion." He did vote against parental notification.

The "Freedom of Choice Act" bill prohibits abortions after the viability stage, except for the health of the mother.

Saddleback Forum
OBAMA: "I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health."

Obama said, "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that." Source: 2008 Fox News interview: presidential series Apr 27, 2008

The Republicans insisted on removing the funding for education and birth control from the stimulus bill, which could have saved the expense of paying for the birth of child for someone on Medicaid.

Double standard?

The Pope made pro-choice French President Nicoloas Sarkozy a canon of St. John Lateran, as is a tradition for French leaders.

How is that different from Notre Dame following their tradition of inviting and awarding US Presidents?

Four months in and it's still quite entertaining listening to the Beaumonts of the Republican party stroking out over Obama.

So where were you courageous GOP leaders? John Lewis regularly gets arrested in protest, while your guys were otherwise engaged.

Fruitcakes like Randall Terry and Alan Keyes are safely ignored by anyone who is a nut. The economy is going to turn around in eight or nine months at which point your party will consist of Rush Limbaugh, and Dick "ten deferments" Cheney.

I haven't had such a good time since the PTL scandal days and the immolation of the TV preachers.

To finish my point on Dreher's Jim Crow analogy, one question becomes, what are the rules of civility for making Jim Crow analogies?

If politically conservative religious people might want to think carefully before making Jim Crow or Nazi analogies. After all, as Dreher has pointed out, same sex marriage support (and support for gay rights generally) is rapidly growing, while anti-abortion views have stayed relatively stable (general opposition to late-term abortion, general support for early-term abortion rights, mixed views in the middle). Thirty years ago, people were trying to fire public school teachers just because they were gay. Now, the debate many places is how much should we tolerate openly anti-gay people in the workplace. By contrast, there is little chance that anti-abortion people will ever get national majority support for the view that a fertilized eggs should be treated as a legal person.

My take is that we can't avoid Jim Crow references if we want a vigorous debate about serious moral issues. The response should be to rebut the analogies, not to take offense that someone dared make them.

But Dreher and others sometimes seem to think that anti-gay people should be immune from the kind of criticism that comes from taking a moral position in public debate. When someone compares an anti-gay-position to a racist position, Dreher and others cite that as somehow inherently improper. (Personally, I think the better analogy is to antisemitism, because that makes it clearer how to respond to the "gays [Jews] can change if they choose" argument, but that's another thread.)

On the other hand, people should take note of how they react when someone compares them to Jim Crow racists. What works logically may be an utter persuasive failure. If your reader stops paying attention, you've achieved nothing.

Basically, neither liberal or conservative positions should be immune from Jim Crow analogies, but both sides should realize that the analogies risk alienating otherwise persuadable people.

Rawlins,

As a quick perusal of recent threads will show, I am not now nor have I ever been Catholic.

So I am not bound by, nor do I support, the Catholic view of contraception.

And I also am not not nor have I ever been a Republican.

But, of course, granted, no one but "the wrong sort" of Catholic or a Republican could possibly fail to share your dewy-eyed, lumpy-throated admiration for President Hope and his "eloquent, intelligent, well-educated" (yadda, yadda, yadda) support for the infanticide-industrial complex.

Basically, neither liberal nor conservative positions should be immune from Jim Crow analogies, but both sides should realize that the analogies risk alienating otherwise persuadable people.

[Oops]

Ech, that first sentence was supposed to read:
"Actually, Erin, my post wasn't an attempt to divide Catholics into the Right Sort and the Wrong Sort (which, incidentally, is what you do all the time), but rather to show that your little fantasy about how the Catholics you consider to be the Wrong Sort will disappear because they aren't reproducing themselves is unlikely to come to pass"

Turmarion,

I often agree with you but must disagree here.

1) First off, I'm not a Catholic, therefore not bound by what the catechism or the last two popes said about the death penalty. I listen to it, and reflect on it, as I would the sayings of any other high-ranking Christian bishop, but ultimately I cannot agree, in light of my own reading of scripture, tradition, philosophy and my own reason, intuition, and experience. Not every pro-lifer is Catholic, and the words of the Pope are not binding on them.
2) To be honest, I'm not sure if they're binding even on Catholics. Was John Paul II's condemnation of the death penalty set forth as infallible and unchallengeble doctrine, or as pastoral guidance? Because if it was merely pastoral guidance, the reflections of a wise and holy man, then there's no particular reason Catholics are required to agree with it, it would seem to me. From about 1800 to 1945 various Popes wrote voluminously about political issues, many of which pronouncements would probably not be accepted by liberal Catholics like (I assume) yourself. That doesn't (I think) make you less of a Catholic because no one seriously argues that the Syllabus of Errors was inerrant (pardon the pun) nor infallible. It was Pius IX's opinion, and while it should be read carefully and thoughfully I'm not sure anyone today says it is binding on Catholics. And so it goes (I think) with the death penalty. The Pope has expressed his prudential judgment (NOT necessarily his authority as heir of Peter) and now it's up to us to exercise ours. COrrect me if I'm wrong, please.

A better analogy for abortion would, I think, be the deliberate killing of large numbers of civilians in wartime. That is something that is condemned by scripture, by tradition, and by natural reason as well as by every Pope I can think of. And I can certainly see why a Catholic college would choose not to honor the architects of Hiroshima, Abu Ghraib or the carpet bombing of North Viet Nam.

Even if you think capital punishment is a sin, it's quite clearly LESS of a sin than abortion or deliberate massacres of civilians in war.

Hectora: First off, I'm not a Catholic, therefore not bound by what the catechism or the last two popes said about the death penalty.

Fair enough; I wouldn't expect otherwise. That prong of the argument was aimed specifically at Catholics. I would point out, that if you study Christian history, the Church was uniformly pacifist before the fourth century AD. One could argue that it learned nuance for the realities of the world, or that it lost its way and betrayed its teachings at that point, depending on your viewpoint; but one cannot argue that it wasn't strictly pacifist before then. For much more detail, you might read this article.

Was John Paul II's condemnation of the death penalty set forth as infallible and unchallengeable doctrine, or as pastoral guidance?

It was not infallible, no, but the weight he gave it was such that the Catechism was actually re-issued to reflect his teachings. The rumor is that his advisers had to urge him to tone it down, because he originally did use the language of infallibility, which was seen as contradicting earlier Church teaching on the licitness of the death penalty. In any case, while it wasn't infallible, I think the Pope's teaching on capital punishment was intended as more than just "pastoral guidance". For a more detailed treatment of this, see my original post way, way up on this thread.

A better analogy for abortion would, I think, be the deliberate killing of large numbers of civilians in wartime.

Speaking of analogies, everyone here ought to read this article and also this one, both from First Things. It's fascinating that several of the authors of the first second piece don't quite come out and say that abortion doctors shouldn't be killed. A letter writer responding to the symposium, in fact, in speaking of Paul Hill, who did kill an abortion doctor, says: " Paul Hill, then, is not someone beyond the pale. On the contrary, he is someone who has remained heroically faithful to reason and to the truth of human equality-at the probable cost of his own life. Regardless of our moral disagreements with him and of our shared dismay at the political consequences of his act, shouldn’t we be truthful enough to stand with him against a fundamentally unjust legal regime? A brave and good man [??!!] is about to be martyred in Florida. We ought all to be there with him, at least in spirit." What does it say about the pro-life side and the supposed concern for life when people are calling someone who shoots abortion doctors a martyr?!

In the first article, Fitzpatrick, in my view, wimps out of the implications of his own article, by essentially saying that the only reason we shouldn't shoot abortionists is that we give those who are pro-choice the "benefit of the doubt". "Benefit of the doubt" is something many of late haven't been willing to cede to the pro-choice camp at all of late--so why not kill abortion doctors? I'm not saying people should do so, of course! Just pointing out the interesting inconsistency (contra Fitzpatrick) of the claimed views of many in this debate. At least people like the letter writer mentioned above (who, to be fair, in the full letter did not approve of Hill's actions, although turning around and calling him a martyr) was more consistent.

"2) To be honest, I'm not sure if they're binding even on Catholics. Was John Paul II's condemnation of the death penalty set forth as infallible and unchallengeble doctrine, or as pastoral guidance? "

I would say no to that question, and wrote on that subject for Crisis Magazine. Any interested can read that article here:

http://nordog.com/incruenta.html

Mark in Houston,

Actually, I suspect you really come here for the same reason most of the trolls do -- you are either a closeted Christian or a closeted conservative or both, and you think that if you come here and say nasty and hateful things to Christians and/or to Conservatives that you won't ever have to come out, maybe that you aren't really Christian or conservative at all, even though, of course, you are, as you well know.

PS: Rod and Erin agree on things often enough and Rod respects Erin enough that she has substituted for Rod on the blog when he's been gone. How can it be then that Rod is "intelligent" and "interesting," while Erin is an "[ab]normal, [un]successful freak, geek, [or] loser," an "ultramontane" harpy or hag, and a "po-faced scold" -- since there's not a dime's worth of difference between Erin and Rod in terms of the issues that elicit your own "charming" interventions here? Could it be that you're a misogynist, in addition to being a closet-case and a snob?

Re: (Although for the record I think some kind-of universal Supermaxing of the irredeemables could perhaps work. However I think it is likely to be less acceptable Constitutionally as it seems much closer to "cruel and unusual punishment.")

Actually this is one of the (multiple) reasons I'm for the death penalty. I would much, much, much rather face a quick death by shooting than face languishing in solitary confinement for the rest of my life. Solitary confinement, to me, would be like a living death, except that instead of being over in an instant it would drag on for years. In what sense is this not cruel? How is a lifetime in prison, particularly solitary/Supermax conditions, any more humane than a relatively quick execution?

Foucault was a nasty, nihilist creep but even bad men can say true things on occasion. When he said that modern society, in its means of dealing with criminals, had merely replaced one form of inhumanity with another, he was speaking the truth.

Erin: I don't support the death penalty or torture.

I never said you did--in fact, as a long-time reader here, I was aware that you didn't support these things. I read back through my posts and don't see where I even implied that, but if I did so, it was not my intention and I apologize.

Now, if I were a citizen of one of the other countries you reference and saw pro-aborts getting lauded etc. I'd be just as outraged. But I'm an American....

My point was that they weren't just being lauded, but lauded with Papal knighthoods by direct representatives of the Vatican. To use an analogy, if the corporate headquarters is violating its own policies on X, how can it expect the local franchises to follow said policies?

What's really interesting to me, Turmarion, is that you end up doing what you accuse me of doing--assuming that my vocal pro-life Catholicism makes me a certain type of Catholic, the sort who is a knee-jerk Republican, liturgically rigid, uninvolved in my parish, and full of hatred for those who don't measure up to my standards.

No, that's not what I'm doing, although I apologize for any misconstrual there, as well. Once again, as a long-time reader I was aware of what you say already--I knew you weren't a Latin Mass type, etc. My condolences to you for having to sing Haugen songs, in fact--liturgically, at any rate, I would (oddly) be more sympathetic to the Latin Mass people!

My point, which I led up to with the phrase "lots of Catholics on both sides don't give a damn about their faith as long it doesn't interfere with their embrace of whatever they support," was that it's easy to portray "liberal" Catholics as CINO's (Catholics in Name Only) who are out for what they want, but that the syndrome exists on the other side as well, as you implicitly acknowledge in your response. Maybe that might enlighten you as to my irritation a few posts back though--being lumped in as a stereotype isn't fun, is it?

As for hatred--no, I don't hate my fellow Catholics, and don't want any of them to go to Hell.

I take you at your word on this, and I did not say you wanted anyone to go to Hell--I said it sounded an awful lot like you wouldn't be too busted up over certain people dying, though. Not a laudable attitude; but if I am also wrong on that, then my apologies there, as well. In any case, the tone sounded hateful, and I'm not the only one here to construe it that way.

Anyway, whether you believe it or not, as fellow Catholic Christians, we are ultimately both on the same side, although we obviously have very different ideas about how to live our faith in the world and how we negotiate keeping our faith in a world that stands for many, many values directly opposed to it. Ultimately we are all sinners who must do the best we can, and someday God will explain it all to us. Meanwhile we fight the good fight as best as we can, each in his or her own way.

Our family attended the Notre Dame comencement and weekend ceremonies, at which our son graduated.

Saturday’s baccalaureate Mass could not have been more unlike the Sunday commencement. On Saturday, Bishop D’Arcy was present like a burning red ember, sitting silently and stoically in his red cape and biretta, not concelebrating with others. Jenkins was subdued, palpably unsure of himself, and nearly frightened. His homily, of which perhaps a fourth was inaudible, was a pleading for respect, for civility, for everything but pardon. Bishop D’Arcy lightened the mood at the end, with his remarks which contained the only graceful and adult comments of the Mass: that humility has to characterize the intellectual. Ouch. The crowd was subdued and applauded sparingly; I saw no show of hostility toward the bishop or his position.

By Sunday, it was all changed. When Jenkins strode into the JACC beside Obama, he was a partisan. The faculty was present, which is solidly pro-Obama. The audience and the students took their cue from the beaming smiles of both men, the back slapping, and the aggression against their outnumbered opponents. You all saw the speech, those of you interested, and you have your own reactions. The crowd was palpably hostile to the protesters, and I have to say, palpably hostile to the Right to Life. Damn those right-to-lifers anyway; to hell with them. It was a crowd that knew it was about to do something it shouldn’t do and, be-damned, it was not going to be stopped by anyone. Jenkins was about to spend the night with Obama, and no pleading family was going to dissuade him; his 12,000 friends would provide the motel room.

Sunday was divorce in the Notre Dame family. Jenkins turned his back on the Church and embraced Obama with both arms and both legs.

The lesson I take from this is that Jenkins and the laity are genuinely rocked by the chastisement they’ve received from Bishop D’Arcy and the 60 or 70 other bishops. But the absence of any bishops, of Ralph McInerny, of Mary Ann Glendon, of Randall Terry, of Norma McCovey all left the partisan crowd to celebrate their daring.

Jenkins has the solid support of the faculy and students and parents of Notre Dame. He could have used Saturday or Sunday to offer a moment of silence for those whose lives have been harmed by abortion, or for those outside who could not join them for reasons of conscience, or for those going to jail as a mark of dissent. He could have cautioned the crowd against raucous and celebratory behavior. But he did not. He chose not to.

Which brings up a point about a photograph that was never taken. ND gave Obama a copy of the famous photo of Fr Hesburgh, arms cross-linked with Martin Luther King at a civil rights rally in Chicago in the 60’s. Famous photo. There’s a huge copy of it as you enter the west door of the ND student center. But as I told my family, there is no photo of Ted the Head, or his successor Fr Malloy, or of Fr Jenkins at a Pro-life rally, arms linked, in solidarity with Norma McCorvey, or Randall Terry, or Joe Scheidler. Because no Notre Dame president has ever gone out of their way to participate in or encourage the Right to Life Movement in the US. And that is the lesson. Beginning with Hesburgh, ND has played footsie with abortion politicians and handed them any number of degrees and awards. Defiance of the Church’s position on abortion is no impediment to the highest honors at Notre Dame. Not so, defiance of the Church’s position on taxes, or poverty, or immigration, or stewardship of the land, or education, or sexism. Any of these errors will ensure you receive no awards at Notre Dame.

I have come to conclude that the most harmful cleric in our history is the suave Fr Ted Hesburgh, whose refusal to embrace the Right to Life movement while Civil Rights Commission chairman has doomed it to minority status. Ted Hesburgh began the habit of Notre Dame giving intellectual cover and respectability to abortionist politicians, and the policy continues to this day.

So, divorce at Notre Dame, which probably has been a long time coming. Notre Dame is betting that the Catholic Church needs it more than ND needs the Catholic Church. I’m betting they’re wrong. We’ve not seen the last of this drama.

Thomas R.,

Certainly, not everyone feels that way. The many prisoners throughout history who have attempted suicide in solitary confinement (sometimes successfully) would tend to suggest that.

I still don't think it's more humane to imprison a man for life in solitary, then to simply execute him.

I also have no problem with pointing out that Obama's words do not match his actions in far too many cases, and that it's clear he's trying to confuse people in the process of doing what he wants to do, regardless of public sentiment.

Here's what God has to say in his word about hating evil:

"Ye that love the Lord, hate evil;..." Ps 97:10
"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.." Prov. 8:13
"Hate the evil, and love the good..." Amos 5:25

Now here's the $64,000 question: Why does God want us to hate evil?
BECAUSE HE HATES IT. With every fiber of his being. Because it messes over our lives. Because it is NOT of his kingdom. It is of another kingdom. A terrible one. One that he wants us to have nothing to do with. He does not ask us to "Understand it" or "dialogue with it." In fact, he asks us to "abhor that which is evil" Rom. 12:9

Dave Ramsey likes to talk about the advice in Proverbs that warns us not to cosign loans for others, because it's stupid behavior. I don't find that advice in the New Testament, but no one would say it should be ignored because it only appeared in the Old Testament. There are a whole lot of amazing things to learn from the Old Testament, and sadly a lot of people gloss over most of it. That's a huge mistake, as is also implying that wisdom/knowledge from the OT doesn't count if it didn't appear in the NT.

Once again, those who criticize people who believe in abortion rights should look at their rhetoric. As a matter of civility, do you object when people who believe in same sex marriage write similar things about you?

Same-sex marriage gives legal and social protections to the kids of gay parents. Is it civil for me to say that anti-gay people want to hurt kids? Is it civil for me that anti-gay people want kids to die because they can't get health insurance from their non-biological parent? Maybe I could say that I "hate the evil that [anti-gay people] stand[] for, such as leaving boys and girls who [can't get health coverage] to die in a dirty utility room." This comment thread is full of comments like that.

As I pointed out above, Dreher uses Jim Crow analogies (and at least one Nazi analogy) when talking about abortion, but is offended when pro-same-sex marriage supporters use similar language to describe anti-gay people. That's just not right.

We need tough moral language to discuss tough moral issues. But too many people on left and right want to use tough language to describe their opponents, but then object when the same language is used to describe them.

For those of you who oppose abortion, please be aware that when you use harsh rhetoric to describe people with whom you disagree on abortion, you forfeit the right to be offended when similar language is used to describe your anti-gay positions.

Julie
May 19, 2009 2:52 AM
Michele,

Christians have a duty to ensure what they say is factual.

****

Julie, don't we all have that duty, Christian or not?

You obviously cannot distinguish between hating people and hating the evil that people do. That may say much about you.

Michelle is talking about hating evil, not people.