Obama at Notre Dame

Hash it out.

So, what's the post-speech meme going to be?

I'll take a shot at it - because Obama was rapturously welcomed at Notre Dame and delivered a good-sounding speech well, "the bishops lost."

Does that sound about right?

I want to work through this carefully, and not at my usual unnecessary length.

• We are witnessing theater. A speech really is just words, no matter how well delivered. It does, however, lay out a standard for future judgment and evaluation. He says he wants to bridge divides - let's hold him to it.

• Obama's speech made clear that support for means to "reducing unintended pregnancies" is crucial to his program. This usually translates into tax-supported contraceptive availability, morally indifferent sexuality education and lots of dollars for Planned Parenthood and the like.  That's fine with some, but just so you know.

• Obama's speech said, "make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women" - that is a phrase full of code words that can be read any way, and if the Obama administration's actions are any indication so far - remember actions, not words - "sound science" = a dismissal of ethical considerations (as was the case with his justification of the stem cell research decision, criticized even by Catholis sympathetic to him as being particularly morally vacuous.

• Obama referred to conscience protection. Wesley Smith punctures the word bubble.

• Obama - and Jenkins - both emphasized dialogue. Obama said, "But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
  Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words."  I agree. And when those supporting Obama and Obama at Notre Dame stop referring to those standing in opposition as "GOP hacks," "ultraconservative minority" and "Catholic Sharia" - and actually engaging the arguments instead - we know we're getting somewhere.

• I would not be so fast to say "the bishops lost" if you are determined to frame it that way. We will never know if the many words uttered in analysis and protest moved a heart or two - if the little Obama said about the issue in this speech would have even been less had it not been for the words of the bishops and others.
  

The essential divide is this: those who want to think with the Church as see abortion as a human rights and social justice issue, who include the unborn in the company of the  and those who do not.

That's it.  That is not to say that those who don't see this as a justice issue don't see it as a moral issue.They very well may. But as Catholic teaching  been articulated on this over the years in which abortion has transitioned from being generally illegal in most societies to generally legal, the human rights and justice dimension has become more explicitly articulated, because it had to be.  And it's not a matter of opinion, either. If you appeal to Evangelium Vitae to oppose the death penalty (and I agree on that), then it's not right to then just blow off Pope John Paul II's strong words about abortion-permissive governmental policies and laws.

That's the basic question, with all of its many implications. Do you recognize the preborn baby, even in the midst of the complexities of its young life, dwelling within the body of another, living with her own complexities in a complex, pluralistic society -  as "the least among us"  worthy of civic protection or do you not?

And a subissue - if this is not even an issue for you, if you do not see the unborn as a group in need of legal protection, and if you resonate with Obama's call for reduced numbers of abortion...why? If Obama goes too far with this, he will run up against what Hilary Clinton ran up against a couple of years ago when she attempted to allude to a moral dimension to abortion. Boy, she had to backtrack, and fast.  The fundamental issue, you see, is trusting women as moral agents.

• Reality:  As I have said before in different contexts, our conversations about policy, abortion or otherwise, have to get beyond words and catchphrases. This is particularly distressing among Catholics, with our vibrant history of engagement with political philosophy from Augustine on.  And the engagement must be direct - it must be - dialogue. Obama and his supporters say that a goal is to decrease abortions. Well, even that is not core of the Church's teaching on life (which has to do with recognizing the humanity of the unborn and constructing a society that recognizes that), we can talk about that.

So what "reduces" the number of abortions? What's been shown to do that? What efforts, programs and institutions and...dare we say it...laws...work to reduce abortion numbers? Can we talk about that honestly and realistically instead of simply tossing out assumptions?

To put it bluntly - until we are ready to "dialogue" about the possibility that law might play a role in decreasing the number of abortions, as is the work that goes on in Crisis Pregnancy Centers and in front of abortion facilities on Saturday mornings, the dialogue is extremely limited. Until those who are actually working with the stated, explicit goal of discouraging women from having abortions are included in the dialogue, there is really no dialogue.

And count me skeptical that they ever will be, because their inclusion admits the participation of those who would displease the other side by their purported lack of respect for women's autonomy. Obama supporters who self-identify as "moderate" on abortion or even "pro-life" regularly tend exclude, well, most of the actual pro-life movement as suitable dialogue partners.

The political realities are this, and have been forever: Self-described abortion "moderates" accuse pro-lifers of being "all or nothing" in their approach. The reality is that smaller measures to limit and regulate the abortion license are never proposed by abortion proponents, but by pro-lifers, and, further, are always opposed to the death by abortion-proponents. Have you ever heard of an parental notification law or laws requiring abortion facilities to be regulated at the same level as medical clinics being co-sponsored by a state branch of NARAL and the NRLC?

• And one more nod to reality - here's a subject for dialogue based on as much evidence as we can muster, rather than platitudes: how is expanded funding for abortions both in the United States and overseas contributing to the cause of "reducing the number of abortions?" If we're dialoguing, those are the questions that must be asked.

• Speaking of dialogue - an ACLU blog looked at Obama's first 100 days from a reproductive rights perspective, and was very, very happy.
  

• The bigger issue is Notre Dame and Catholic higher education. I was as distressed as anyone by the rock-star reception by Obama, just as I would if Bush or any other politician were greeted in such a way at a Catholic institution. We've had enough problems with sucking up to civic authority over the last few dozen centuries, haven't we? It was creepy in a "Justice Sunday" kind of way. To me at least.

More later, probably.

Bottom line: dialogue is good. Let's do it. Who's ready? I am. Call me.