America magazine, as promised, has the official, redacted version of Fr. Cleary's letter to President Obama here. It is much more successful, I think, largely thanks to editing.

Better still, from my point of view, FWIW, is a commentary on the whole Notre Dame-Obama controversy  by the retired archbishop of San Francisco, John R. Quinn. It is titled "A Critical Moment: Barack Obama, Notre Dame and the future of the U.S. church." 

I have always greatly appreciated Archbishop Quinn's intellect and approach, and they are on display here. Quinn says this is "a critical moment" for the church in the United States, and poses several key question as to how this uproar will affect the future of the faith and the pro-life movement.

He concludes:

We must weigh very seriously the consequences if the American bishops are seen as the agents of publicly embarrassing the newly elected president by forcing him to withdraw from an appearance at a distinguished Catholic University.  The bishops and the president serve the same citizens of the same country. It is in the interests of both the church and the nation if both work together in civility, honesty and friendship for the common good even where there are grave divisions, as there are on abortion.

But it does not improve the likelihood of making progress on this and other issues of common concern if we adopt the clenched fist approach. The president has given ample evidence that he is a man of good will, of keen intelligence, desirous of listening and capable of weighing seriously other views. The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, citing Augustine, points out that " Certain situations cannot be resolved with asperity or hardness" and goes on to say "(B)ecause his daily pastoral concerns give the Bishop greater scope for personal decision-making, his scope for error is also greater, however good his intentions: this thought should encourage him to remain open to dialog with others, always ready to learn, to seek and accept the advice of others."

Meanwhile, the president of the USCCB, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, has called the invite to Obama "an extreme embarassment" and adds: "Whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation."

And Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of Saint Paul and Minneapolis released his letter to Jenkins, calling the invitation a "travesty" and adding if Jenkins doesn't withdraw the invitation "please do not expect me to support your University in the future."

So there.

PS: (Always a postscript to this story) Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, FL reflects on the controversy on his blog, with a sane take, I thought:

"Early 'markers' [of Obama's record on the life issues] are not encouraging in this regard but hope needs to spring eternal and while Notre Dame may have acted way too early and too generously, I am more alarmed that the rhetoric being employed is so uncivil and venomous that it weakens the case we place  before our fellow citizens, alienates young college-age students who believe the older generation is behaving like an angry child and they do not wish to be any part of that, and ill-serves the cause of life. Notre Dame has in the past and continues to give this local Church fine, professional and very Catholic women and men who both know and live out their faith. Most of them I know are ardently pro-life and like myself are probably disappointed with their alma mater. They and I will choose to convey our sadness to the Board of Trustees and Administration in a calm and dignified manner."

Hat tip to CWNews.

When I first saw the text of the 13-page letter from U.S. Father Hugh W. Cleary, Holy Cross superior general in Rome, to President Obama, regarding Obama's scheduled commencement address at Notre Dame, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It seemed to circle around on itself so much I thought it was a hoax. But it's real.

It strikes such odd chords, welcoming Obama and complimenting him with one hand--often the left one--then painting him with the broad brush of "intrinsic evil" and saying Catholics can't get a hearing from the government. Even though, of course, Catholics make up nearly a third of Congress, just as an example, and five-ninths of the Supreme Court, and the Vice-Presidency, etc.

And he accuses Obama of using the same tactic of "shunning" that is being used against him, and laments it, but indicates it is the only recourse for Catholics? He says he can't in good conscience vote for any major party candidate--but did he protest Bush's 2001 speech at Notre Dame? And the comparison to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami? Wassup with that? All the stuff about pope-bashing, a persecuted church...

In any case, I don't know Father Cleary, but this whole thing seems odd. Saying he has no control over the invitation, as well, though he also indicates he could make Father John Jenkins, the Holy Cross priest who is Notre Dame's president, do something. 

Whether Clearly's letter is convincing or effective, I guess we'll see. He seems not to oppose Obama's appearance, though it's hard to tell. He wants dialogue--of a fashion. Other, more perceptive reactions/analyses welcome. John Thavis has the write-up from Rome here.  

There have been a growing number of reports that Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann has asked Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington (and Bishop Paul Loverde of nearby Arlington, Va) to bar former Kansas governor and future Health and Human Services chief Kathleen Sebelius from communion once the pro-choice Catholic moves to the capitol, as expected.

The story has migrated from The Washington Times to U.S. News and World Report and now Deal Hudson at InsideCatholic has an analysis. Each time the story has taken on added force, but the reality seems to be a good deal less than is being advertised.

Yes, Naumann has spoken to Wuerl, as Naumann himself told EWTN's Raymond Arroyo on March 6:

RA: A piece in the Washington Times points out that Archbishop Wuerl here in Washington would be responsible, correct?

AJN: I have spoken with Archbishop Wuerl and I have shared with him the history of my history of my experience with Gov Sebelius...

But, Naumann adds:

AJN: ...It's somewhat a question though whose jurisdiction it would be. I don't know if she is confirmed where she will live. She could live in Arlington or she could live in Baltimore. So it, it may not be under his jurisdiction. I know he's very concerned too. He's said publicly he wants to support what the local bishop's policy is with any politician.

It's a murky situation, and church sources in the Washington area make several clarifications in this regard:

One is that Naumann himself has not barred Sebelius from communion. He asked her not to present herself, and she has not. A distinction with a difference in this case, as there is no "order" for Wuerl to uphold.

Two, Nauman has not asked Wuerl or any other bishop to bar her--and as one church official said, "we'll follow the decision of a local bishop, but ultimately, it is up to Wuerl and Loverde to decide what to do and neither of them believes in barring people."

That's pretty much that. As it should be. The Archbishop of Washington has never been, and cannot be, the bad cop for the entire U.S. hierarchy.

In his analysis, Deal Hudson argues that Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has effectively made Wuerl and the Capitol-area bishops to do the dirty work of barring communion to pro-choice Catholic pols--and has put pressure on other local bishops around the country to follow his lead.

As Deal writes:

Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde's collegial response to Bishop Naumann destabilizes the relationship between pro-abortion Catholic politicians and their bishops back home. The question will arise as to why Governor Sebelius should be the only politician in Washington who has been called to account under Canon 915. [Which calls for withholding communion.] What about the dozens of others in Congress who have a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record? What about Vice-President Joe Biden himself?

Will other bishops seize this opportunity to apply Canon 915 to politicians in their dioceses, knowing that Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde will back them up? Given the determination of the Obama administration and the Congress to roll back all restrictions on abortion, I wouldn't be surprised.

Well, I'd be surprised, actually. The Washington-area bishops are not going to send letters out to priests or put such an onus on ministers of communion, either. This is perilous territory for the hierarchy, and much is up in the air, to be sure.

But with 161 Catholic Members of Congress, or more than 30 percent, identifying as Catholic (higher than the general population, which stands at 23 percent), and of course Administration types like Sebelius and jurists like Scalia living in and around the Capitol, an approach like the one outlines by Deal Hudson and others would an inordinate amount of attention and responsibility on a few people to take the heat for others.

Besides, Wuerl and Loverde were just last week the target of a campaign by Randall Terry--backed by Archbishop Burke, until he got wise--to rally Rome to crack down on them as "soft bishops."

That was an unfair characterization, to say the least. But above all it's a skewed way to prosecute the "communion wars"--narrowing the field of combat to the more manageable District of Columbia, where guerilla forces can compensate for inferior numbers with close-in fighting and a few key allies.   

And it's already been said, quite well, by the U.S. bishops, in their 1987 statement "The Many Faces of AIDS." Father Tom Reese points to it in his post at "On Faith," when he writes: "After clearly stating that the best and most morally acceptable way to combat AIDS is confining sexual activity to marriage, they [the bishops] went on to say:"

Because we live in a pluralistic society, we acknowledge that some will not agree with our understanding of human sexuality. We recognize that public educational programs addressed to a wide audience will reflect the fact that some people will not act as they can and should; that they will not refrain from the type of sexual or drug-abuse behavior that can transmit AIDS. In such situations, educational efforts, if grounded in the broader moral vision outlined above, could include accurate information about prophylactic devices or other practices proposed by some medical experts as potential means of preventing AIDS.

Read the rest of Reese here...