I am trying to figure out what this means.
Of course, bringing the word "politics" into a religion discussion is a tactic used to immediately discredit the other side. You know that right? It doesn't matter if the assertion is true or not, if secular political considerations are actually a controlling factor in decisions or discourse. To accuse someone, especially a bishop, of "playing politics" is to render their position suspect.
We have seen this for years in the discussions of abortion-rights-supporting politicians and the Eucharist. (The few) bishops who have stated that their understanding of canon law moves them to declare that abortion-rights supporting Catholic politicians have cut themselves off from the Eucharist are accused of "politicizing the Eucharist." Which never made any sense to me. If a bishop said, "You're a Democrat. You can't receive Communion." That's politicizing the Eucharist. But focusing on a position and support for organizations that provide and promote abortion is not about politics. It's about moral issues that do happen to have a political dimension.
It's the same with Obama and Notre Dame. Is the criticism being leveled because Obama is a Democrat?
No.
First. The accusation is faulty because it presumes American bishops are naturally sympathetic to the GOP. Anyone who is familiar with the American episcopacy knows how laughable an assertion this is, not only historically, but in the present as well.
Secondly, does anyone really think that if Rudolph Giulani or Arnold Schwarzenneger were invited to serve in the same role, that those protesting Obama's role would be either silent or cheering?
The outcry might not be *as great* because neither of those guys are president (thank God) elected in a just-completed, very contentious election in which abortion was a prime issue.
But it would be there.
And then the whole Bush-gave-a-commencement speech thing is brought up. Well, first of all, there *were* protests when Bush spoke in 2002 from the ND community itself. Secondly, I'm going to guess that if George Bush were invited to give the commencement and were to be honored by a Catholic university today, there would be *plenty* of protests - from many of the same people objecting to Obama's honor now. Not all. There are Catholic pundits who are openly and clearly sympathetic to the GOP for reasons beyond abortion. Just as there are Catholic pundits who are clearly sympathetic to the Democratic party. There are Catholic operatives and defenders on both sides. But somehow, only the Republicans are accused of "politicizing" matters of faith.
Sort of related: Pro-life activist Catholics are scolded at times for "being in bed with the GOP." Well, I don't know if Pro-life activist Catholics in California, New York, Massachusetts....etc...would agree with that assessment. There may be some ancient, lingering, instinctive GOP loyalties among some, but most of the pro-life activists I know are very realistic about the limitations of the GOP when it comes to life issues. They know the score.
And really - the only way that final accusation makes sense is if the Democratic party had, officially, welcomed those concerned with the abortion issue - on their own terms - which includes concerns about the legal status of abortion in this country. But that's off the table. That's anti-choice. When pro-life activists explicitly reject a Democratic party that is, at all institutional levels, open to their point of view, then you can accuse them of being mindless party loyalist hacks. But until then...it doesn't stick.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Michael says
“Pro-lifers have a fairly consistent definition of right to life.
"Then why do they support a party that's pro-war? Why do they support a party that's pro death penalty? Why do they support a party that's pro-torture. Why aren't pro-lifers held accountable for their enabling of the ending of life when it involves war and the death penalty.
Saying it's just about abortion or begins with abortion is a political statement, not a theological one. “
Which party supports war?
Civil War, started by the new confederate states (democrats) in support of slavery,
World War I, president democrat Woodrow Wilson, democrat, course in support to victory
World War II, president FDR, democrat,
Korea, Truman, democrat,
Vietnam, JFK and LBJ, democrats – Nixon inherited it and ended it, republican
Gulf war, Bush I, republican with huge majority support of democrats
Afghanistan, Bush II, republican with huge majority support by democrats. Obama since elected is planning to send more troops and talks of possible expansion to Pakistan
Iraq, Bush II with large support of democrats although many flip flopped on this war as it keep going on. Many republicans came to also oppose this war. However, Obama since election seems to continue it in the same way as Bush planned.
So let’s count them up and see which party is pro war… democrats 5, republicans 3 and before we start to argue about lies to start the war, lets talk about the gulf of Tonkin lie to radically upgrade the war in Vietnam. But Bush mismanaged the war in Iraq. How about LBJ management of Vietnam and lets compare the dead of both sides in iraq and vietnam.. LBJ how many kids did you kill today?
It is also widely known that FDR probably broke the law in his support of England before the war and lied to the American people on multiple occasions.
On the death penalty, please show me where Obama or any other democrat candidate for president is for ending the death penalty by law???? Both parties support the death penalty
Support of a party that is pro torture. Now coming out that the democrats were briefed on the torture years ago and asked if the CIA and others needed anything else. Pelosi and Reid have lied about what they knew and when they knew it. Their own party is now starting to call for questioning of these two leaders. But many refuse to give a clear definition of torture that will allow us to question these radical terrorist and save lives. If Bush had not done tough questioning including water boarding and the terrorist had wiped out half of LA, the democrats would have called for impeachment. And guess what, Obama is pursuing the handling of many things in the same Bush model. Will the democrats commit that they will never do anything to gain information from a terrorist who they suspect has information on blowing up a city that is not OK’d by the articles of the Catholic Church or the left wing European community?
Just as Miss California said today, her position on the marriage issue with gays is the exact same one as Obama and H.Clinton. where is the outrage over their position by the nutty gay left.
Greta: I think that few people are concerned about who started the Civil War or WWI. The point of fact is that at the current time, and at least since the Reagan Administration, it is the GOP which is not only associated with wars, but which has, in every election cycle, harped on the meme of Democrats as weak, feckless, and unable to defend our nation.
Thus, to the extent that pro-lifers support the GOP (and they do, disproportionately), it is indeed fair to ask them why they support the party of war. Just as it is fair to ask pro-life Democrats why they support the party of abortion. As Christopher Stansfield said above, you ought to feel like taking a shower after voting for either party. Having voted in Presidential elections for both parties, as well as third-party, at various times, I've never come out with a totally clean conscience, regardless.
Pelosi and Reid have lied about what they knew and when they knew it. Their own party is now starting to call for questioning of these two leaders.
Please note the part where I've added emphasis in boldface. Until near the very end of the Bush Administration, this was the very thing the GOP refused to do, and the few conservatives such as Rod Dreher here at Beliefnet, Daniel Larison, and others, who did vigorously criticize Bush were called traitors, RINO's, and in general raked over the coals by the party faithful. For a taste of the difference, go over to Salon.com and read the archives of Glenn Greenwald's column. Even before the election, he has been highly critical of Obama--something I sure don't remember from any mainstream conservative sources about W. in 2000 or 2004.
And guess what, Obama is pursuing the handling of many things in the same Bush model.
And guess what? The aforementioned Greenwald, the NCLU, and many other groups on the Left are taking Obama to task for it. Just because he's "on our side" does not make him immune from criticism or opposition.
Anyway, it's true that both parties are problematic on life issues generally, albeit with perhaps differences of emphases. The point some of us have been making is that it seems that for an awful lot of Catholics, it seems like abortion is the only issue, and it is to be used only against Democrats.
Lest you think this is a complaint of a "liberal" (I think of myself as moderate, but that's another issue), check out this over at Crunchy Con here at Beliefnet. Money quote (emphasis added): "I hear from Protestant friends from time to time who are conservatives in their theology and cultural politics, but who are fed up with what they say is their church being the Republican Party at prayer." Some of us Catholics feel the same about elements of our church, and we're not all liberal (Just in case you wonder, I'd be fed up with a parish that seemed to be the Democratic Party at prayer, too).
Yes, I think that there would not be a proportional outcry (even taking into account the office held) if the Gov. of CA were the speaker. Nothing of the venom I see expressed routinely about Obama appears to ever be expressed about any Republican. Ever.
However, I also think that for the vast majority of the country abortion was FAR from a prime issue in the last election. In the state I live in ( a hotly contested one) abortion ranked very low in issues people talked about or which were advertised.
So perhaps we are talking about two different countries.
Good post and good questions, Amy.
Abortion is a political issue, unfortunately. As someone mentioned, being for or against abortion is a defining characteristic on partisan lines. See how those judges will be chosen for the Supreme Court for more explanation on that.
If our hierarchy wants to see abortion placed back as a moral issue then to win the political hearts and minds of Catholics and others, I suggest we think of doing the following as a Church.
1. Drop the term “pro-life”. That’s a political designation and will inspire, “I’m pro-life but instead of fighting against abortion, I fight against the racism and poverty that threatens life.” We’re ANTI-ABORTION. Let’s use that sobering term. No way around that.
2. We drop the vitrol against gay marriage and homosexuality. This is also a political issue. If we can’t keep our house in order and can’t define what’s wrong with homosexuality consistently (remember “transitional homosexuality” anyone?), then we need to back off. Shut up about it and not be seen as another “hate group” that threatens women and gays. Let’s focus on abortion and shut up about gays. For a long time.
3. The Pope needs to say something… now. The Pope hasn’t done one thing about politicians who support abortion and yet, claim to be Catholic. The closest thing he’s done is write something. And that’s been a while. The sideshow of Burke and the “bulldog” bishops who pound the pulpit are inert, in my opinion, if Rome hasn’t addressed the issue since the early 2000’s, then there’s nothing official. And what consequences? The “BOOYAH IN YA FACE” tactics of priests not giving communion at Mass to pro-abortion politicians has only made us look stupid and most cases end up with the priest apologizing. See, that whole denying communion thing happens in local churches. It doesn’t happen in Cathedrals or Papal Masses. And the whole “SMACKDOWN” attitude that follows the “tough priests who deny communion” makes us look mean.
That’s all I got.
Lost Document found in basement of Hesburgh Library. Thought to be part of the archive papers of Prof. Heydrich Plunkett left in Medieval Institute ( Paleographic files). Circa: 1954.
Found, by chance, by visiting scholar Herr Doktor Professor L.L. Lothar vom dem Universitat auf Leipzig. ( Leipzig Medieval Institute: located in Saxony, former East Germany).
These fragments of a Medieval Institute Document (Paleographic) were translated with the intent to publish them by ND Press this summer.
Here follows Prof. Lothar’s translation from Ancient Greek to American English. Note: Prof. Lothar stated he is unable, at present, to translate the last line but will consult with Leipzig faculty.
Archimedes: Your Majesty! What a surprise at this late hour! To what do I own the honor of a visit from King Hieron to my modest home?
King Hieron: My dear friend Archimedes, this evening we had a dinner in my palace to celebrate the great triumph of our small city, notraus damius, over the mighty Roman Catholics! I invited you, but your place remained empty. Why didn’t you come, you who to whom above all we owe today’s victory? Your huge, concave brazen mirrors set afire the bundles of messages from the Roman Catholics---at least ten ship loads full. Their messages sped like fiery torches out of your harbor in the southwest---all went down before reaching open sea and vision to all. I could not sleep without thanking you for delivering our city notraus damius from the enemy.
Archimedes: They may come back, and we are still surrounded on the mainland. And pious King, more provinces are mustering forces to breech the walls of notraus damius.
King Hieron: We shall speak about that later. First, let me hand you a present, the best I can give.
Archimedes: A wonderful masterpiece indeed. But pious King I must tell you the battle was won----not by me---but my two lieutenants Paulus Fullerus and Crapius Crepius.
King Hieron: Paulus Fullerus? And Crapius Crepius?
Archimedes: Yes Your Majesty! These two…
King Hieron: Is this the same Paulus Fullerus from the province of Schitterus?
Archimedes: Yes your Majesty. It is he: Fullerus of Schitterus!
King Hieron: And is the Crapius Crepius the Engineer? The one so versed in Pythagorean matters such as the triangle, square & the big screw?
Archimedes: It was Crapius who fastened the brazen mirrors with water cooling mechanisms such that the soldiers could aim the brazen concave mirrors without burning themselves yet permitting the brazen concave mirrors to burn down the messages on ships from the Roman Catholic enemy!!! And it is he who in hydraulics did…what?...yes Your Majesty…it is a Greek word “hydraulikos”---meaning water organ; and yes----he does use his water organ to spray unsuspecting ones as dancing of the muses. He thinks it much like Circe changes companions into pigs as amusement glee.
King Hieron: Then good and faithful servant Archimedes your soldiers have stopped, for now, the vile Roman Catholic messages from viewing by those in province!
Archimedes: Yes your Majesty. Stopped them full by smoke & mirrors!
King Hieron: Where are your two stalwart lieutenants now? Is not Paulus Fullerous from Schitterous a master of Scop? A Scribe of the Realm?
Archimedes: All you say is true brave King! Fullerus of Schitterus is now with the Oracle of Jenkion….yet in Temple. He prays for guidance but I have told him oft that he can not pray a lie! Crapius is tending to the big screw & water organ to make sure all works well should vile Roman Catholics return in force.
King Hieron: The Oracle of Jenkion? Is this the new Oracle the one so taken with Narcissi? And with bow & arrow like Odysseus to shoot at all for gold and treasure?
Archimedes: Yes good King. And this Oracle of Jenkion thinks not of you, his King, nor does he to science bend but sprouts false words of peace while seeking fawning fame with superiors known! He fawns to Zeus while feigned dressed as an old beggar to seek pathos and thereby gold and treasure. He does not consult with revered Oracles at Delphi or Delia.
King Hieron: Tell me straightaway noble Archimedes: is there a secret clod---one of mystical nod---who seeks to keep secrets from me when errors known to be protected? The Truth dear friend!
Archimedes: I think so your Majesty. There is from Euclid & Pythagoras mystical matters fiercely guarded---on penalty of death if revealed---to guard known errors. Such errors secreted of circles to be squared but are folly. The Mystical PI is not to be round as Scop has tried to make & co-opted Crapius to protect.
I think his statue of note he seeks to shine in Jenkion Temple and thus makes fast to protect all errors of rational Numbers. It is the guarded secret of the circle---the blue one your Majesty----that they seek to overwhelm the rational integers to square the circle when this in fact is known since Babylonians & Egyptians to be false. That they still persist is folly….
King Hieron: Let me see Archimedes if I have this fast. The mystical PI is not such that a round man into a square hole fits and all is well! It is not rational. Hmm. Then to worship false numbers is intemperate! Hmm. Then…I have it! These limited lieutenants then---because you have not told them all but only what they need---are irrational on the rational; then intemperate with what should be temperate; and then it boils down to irrational on the intemperate when, in fact, they should be temperate with the irrational when it is known to be transcendental. Is that right?
Archimedes; Perfectly! And they block all inquiry fearing loss of fame, power and monument!
King Hieron: What should I do with your golden present? Should I with temporary fame acclaim the two lieutenants and then dispatch when their secrets ooze, otherwise they will compound further mischief?
Archimedes: Your Majesty: Melt it down and make two new coins of special merit. One for Parrnassian Paulus Fullerus from Schitterus as he still to Apollo & Jenkion obsequious and the other for Hydrologist Crapius Crepius. On one side place a soldier’s likeness with spear & horse and ah…
(Interrupting)
King Hieron: Archimedes! What part of the horse? And….the color of the horse dear friend?
Archimedes: The back part Your Majesty. The horse’s ass. The horse is pinto: like a zebra of white & black with marks and features irregular. Then on the obverse side place a likeness of the Temple of Jenkion. On each side inscribe: Intemperate Irrationality and on the other side: Irrational Intemperance. You can add a small symbol of our city notraus damius in an obscure part of the coins. Also, select a prominent place where the mystical PI can be viewed as symbol for the incorrigible circle squarers. Withhold some gold & fill with lesser metals Your Majesty since lieutenants are not of good metal & will not have access to my measuring ways to find if gold is mixed with silver or metals poor---a way they know to deceive.
King Hieron: So be it noble Archimedes.
Archimedes: Μὴ μου τοὺς κύκλους τάραττε.