Barack Obama embodies the very antithesis of Catholic teaching.
When John the Baptist said to King Herod, "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife," the price he paid was his head on a platter. He had spoken Absolute Truth to power in a time when power was absolute. It was the bravest of acts, the kind only undertaken by those very rare men for all seasons.
Lying in stark contrast to this is catholic (note the small "c") Notre Dame University's genuflection before Barack Obama, a man embodying the very antithesis of Catholic teaching. As most are aware, the university extended an invitation to Obama to deliver a commencement address and, to make matters worse, will bestow upon him an honorary doctorate.
This is despite the fact that Obama has distinguished himself as the most militantly anti-life president in American history. In fact, his support of abortion extends to the point of infanticide, and I speak of his, at best, indifference to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In opposing the Illinois version of this legislation – thereby signaling his willingness to allow newborn babies to die in soiled store rooms – he showed his true colors. That is to say, it's not so much that the matter of when a baby gets human rights is above his pay grade; it's that he is morally degraded.
Adding to his impressive pro-death resume, Obama has rescinded the Mexico City Policy, thereby allowing our tax money to be used to promote abortion in foreign lands. He is also using tax dollars to fund the harvesting of stem cells from nascent human life. And he endeavors to establish a policy that would force health-care workers to either be party to abortion or risk losing their jobs ("Freedom of Choice" Act).
But it isn't just on life issues that Obama is found wanting. He also supports special rights for homosexuals (euphemistically called "gay rights"). Additionally, he apparently was a member of Chicago's socialist New Party in the 1990s, an association he has never adequately disowned. This is relevant because socialism seems incongruent with Catholic teaching. As Pope Pius XI said plainly in 1931, "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist." (In fact, the Church has long condemned socialism – here and here, for instance).
Yet the inappropriateness of honoring Obama at Notre Dame doesn't have to be inferred from pronouncements from the past. Contemporary Church leaders have made their voices heard as well, with 13 bishops publicly criticizing the invitation. Among them is Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, who said, "For President Obama to be honored by Notre Dame is more than a disappointment, it is a scandal."
Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark said, "When we extend honors to people who do not share our respect and reverence for life in all stages, and give them a prominent stage in our parishes, schools and other institutions, we unfortunately create the perception that we endorse their public positions on these issues."
Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City wrote, "Catholic institutions of higher learning must always be places where the Catholic values we hold so dearly will always be supported and promoted – not where the culture of death is allowed to be honored or valued."
And, in a letter to Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis called the invitation an "egregious decision" and said, "It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician."
Now, here some will say that Jesus was also criticized for consorting with sinners and responded with that heavenly wisdom, "The healthy are in no need of a physician." Yet this isn't an analogous situation. More appropriate here is, "The unhealthy are in no need of a podium." I would have no problem with anyone offering Obama counsel – he could certainly use it. I myself would be happy to talk with him if he asked; maybe I could muster shades of John the Baptist. But what Notre Dame is doing is quite different: It is honoring Obama by bestowing a doctorate upon him. Additionally, it is not giving him an opportunity to receive counsel but a forum in which to dispense it – and to malleable young minds at that.
Then there are those, such as the writers of this silly Los Angeles Times editorial, who accuse those on my side of hypocrisy, saying we were silent when pro-death penalty George W. Bush spoke at Notre Dame in 2001. Well, let's examine this.
First, I think I speak for many when I say that Obama is objectionable not just because of his profound lack of respect for life. From his apparent socialism (and I believe communism) to his support of "age-appropriate" sex education for kindergarteners to his opposition to California's Proposition 8, he has served notice that he is pushing a hard-left agenda (which I documented here) that certainly violates the letter and spirit of Catholic teaching.
Second, there is no equivalency between abortion and the death penalty or, for that matter, what is supposedly President Bush's mortal sin, launching military campaigns. The Church teaches that while capital punishment is hardly ever necessary in modern societies, it nevertheless is the right of "legitimate temporal authorities" to determine when it is justifiable. The Church also promulgates something called "Just War Doctrine."
There is no Just Abortion Doctrine.
Unlike capital punishment and war, direct abortion is never morally licit under any circumstances.
Having said this, there is a deeper issue to address. We're all sinners, and we could probably pick any president and find ways in which he violated Catholic teaching. And what about academic freedom? As the L.A. Times opined, the issue at Notre Dame is "whether a distinguished university should ban a speaker with whom it disagrees or engage him . . ." and that all universities "sometimes need to be reminded of the importance of uninhibited debate."
But the university isn't "engaging" Obama; it is giving him a forum in which to speak unopposed. There will be no debate. Of course, I realize that when the editorialists speak of "uninhibited debate," they refer to a general climate of academic inquiry and give-and-take fostered over time by exposure to different ideas. But while this sounds good, it's nonsense.
While leftists can pontificate all they like about "academic freedom," they draw lines like anyone else. Would they hire a professor or schedule a speaker who would advocate the extermination of a minority? If not, why? I mean, whomever they chose will be a sinner, and do not judge lest ye be judged, right? And, would they entertain a debate about the reinstitution of slavery or whether or not germs really cause disease? How about trephination (drilling a hole in someone's head) as a solution to mental illness?
The point is that our gratuitous talk about "open-mindedness" is mere sloganeering, because we all consider certain issues to be settled. As G.K. Chesterton once said, "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." A child cannot advance in math if he won't accept simple truths such as two plus two equals four, and science would never have ascended from a childlike state of primitiveness had man not accepted and then built upon simple scientific truths. We might have debated Aristotle's geocentrism versus Copernicus' heliocentrism in 1600, but if we had still been wrangling over it in 1910, we would have been insane. Perpetual open-mindedness in all matters is not a virtue because it isn't "mindedness" at all; it is the trumping of the mind. The mind is there to find answers, not just ask questions.
And moral truths should be treated with at least the respect of scientific ones. Of course, "open-minded" secularists will be quick to point out that morality isn't science, and I'll be even quicker to say they're hypocrites. I reiterate that they draw their lines (slavery, racism, sexism, extermination of minorities, etc.), proving that their relativistic creed is mainly for use on other people's values. They have their dogma, just like everyone else.
But, leftists, here is a newsflash: This isn't about your dogma – it concerns Catholic dogma. You have your values – twisted and distorted though they may be – and you're very self-centered to believe they should prevail in a Catholic setting. Not everyone is as numb to morality as you are, and believing Catholics understand that many matters you're confused about are actually settled issues. We also understand that, as with science, man cannot progress morally unless he accepts known truths and builds upon them.
The bottom line is that Catholic institutions (if they are to be authentic) have a responsibility to apply Catholic dogma, not the secular variety. They have an obligation to draw Catholic lines, not merely replicate those of the Los Angeles Times. They have a duty to instill students with Catholic teaching, not that of Berkeley. Thus, in such an eminently sane setting abortion isn't a debated issue. It's a settled issue. And Barack Obama isn't just another president. He is way over the line.
Really, this whole affair smacks just a bit of evangelist Billy Graham's obsequious behavior with respect to the Clintons. I'm referring to how he once called them a "great couple" and "wonderful friends," implied that Hillary Clinton might make a good president and once quipped that Bill Clinton "should be an evangelist" and "leave his wife to run the country." Ah, Rev. Graham, "if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way . . .."
We should remember that since every age has its Herods, we have to ask ourselves a couple of questions. Would we recognize one if we saw him? And, then, would we have the faith and strength to be a John the Baptist?
I’m not trying to be picky, ruminator, but it was you who brought up the subject. Of course the church thinks it’s right, why wouldn’t it? And you can accept or reject what it teaches.
So when you responded that if you wanted the Catholic Church to to you what is correct you would be Catholic strikes me as a “why did you bother to ask” moment.
I’m not a Catholic myself, and I disagree with them on this teaching (among others), but if I were to ask what the church’s teaching is on a particular issue, I wouldn’t be surprised if the church believed its own teaching!
I too oppose abortion, but I don’t tie it to the church’s position on contraception like you do. The church doesn’t view children as a negative like some in society seem to do. Therefore, not believing in contraception, and the corresponding risk of pregnancy, are not mutually exclusive.
What the Church believes is great for the people in it, but it seems to me that the Church is interested in having an influence on people who are not in it, and that’s well and good! Why shouldn’t we hear from them; they’re thoughtful folks. But the question of contraception presents itself, since contraception is used by non-Catholics. So the author raises the issue, not me. If they explain that contraception is either wrong, or unnecessary, I appreciate their thought process and moral rigor, but it doesn’t help me, because there is a fundamental difference of opinion from which their solution is derived.
If this site were called “Catholic Discussion Group” I certainly would never have logged on. Whereas I am intellectual, compared with a few people, and conservative, compared with a few, you can’t be a little bit Catholic.
If I choose not to marry and procreate, does that mean I view children as a negative? How am I then different from a person who uses contraception as a method of family planning?
Of course if everyone believed and followed Catholic doctrine, then no one would would suffer because contraception is not available. But this is strictly hypothetical.
Thanks for your answer.
Actually, the article is not specifically about Catholic doctrine, so certainly we are not in a “Catholic Discussion Group.” The issue is Notre Dame abandoning its principles, which is more generic than specifically Catholic. And the political angle is also part of it.
You did click to read the article, so you went in knowing that something regarding Catholic faith/Notre Dame vs. Obama would be the subject. I don’t think you were blind-sided, were you?
As far as you and your procreation, I don’t want to know and I don’t care. I didn’t say you didn’t value children, I said that some in society don’t.
How are you different from a married person using contraception? This is just my (non-Catholic) opinion: A non-married person ought not engage in activities that could lead to procreation. A married couple legimately engages in those activities as a part of their marriage. I happen to believe that contraception is fine, so if the couple wants to limit the size of their family, ok with me.
All this is within the concept of morality as I interpret it.
I did not presume that anyone cares about my procreation. The question is this: what exactly is meant by “viewing children as a negative?”
You have the same attitude towards contraception that I do, you’re just more reticent about revealing it.
I am not saying this site resembles, at this time, a “Catholic Discussion Group.”
We are not communicating!….
What I’m saying is that I don’t feel that it is inappropriate to suggest that, since this is not as I understand it, a forum limited to one religion, that the subject of contraception (which the church has strong views about), related to the practice of abortion, which this author and you and I abhor, and which Catholicism has strong views about, be raised. In fact Mr. Paladin seemed to accept the exchange in good humor, and was altogether helpful.
I am going to read the stuff that he directed me to and keep quiet for awhile.
ruminator,
Regarding viewing children as a negative: “Here’s my simple solution: stop having children for the next five years. All of us. I mean a grassroots movement of responsible adults voluntarily behaving like responsible adults. I mean a populist moratorium on childbirth.
If everyone living on the planet today were really serious about there being a planet left to live on we would all be using birth control. Here’s my answer: A grassroots movement means people having children feel shame and embarrassment at their unbelievable selfishness.
If you are having children right now you are being selfish. You’re stealing from the future, from the rest of humanity, from every living thing on the earth right now.” from http://www.overpopulation.org/
The funny thing, Mountain Man, is that most of these folks don’t even understand that the world faces a population implosion. This is even true of the Third World, although they are some decades behind the West. As for the Westerners, they will become extinct. Most developed nations have a negative birthrate. This means that China is poised to become the next great power. The West will end up like Sparta during Roman times.
People should watch the documentary ‘Demographic Winter.’
My theory is that there is a growing number of people (mostly on the Left) who simply hate human life. Why else would they so favor euthanasia, abortion, population control, assisted suicide, etc?
Ironically, they do favor life in one way: deathrow criminals. They will protest all day long in front of a prison to prevent the execution of murderers.
You are right, of course. Western civilization is dying out, and falling birth rates is one reason. Another is the palapable hatred of all things American amongst the “progressives.”
I don’t doubt that we live in an era that has a lot of dissipation and chaos. But I don’t have too much trouble understanding assisted suicide because I had a mother-in-law and father-in-law who both died slowly, and agonizingly, from lymphoma cancer. (Neither opted for suicide.)
We have the idea that it is our duty to live as long as possible. Why? It doesn’t always make the most sense.
I thought that the way Jacqueline Onassis ended her life was perfectly sensible: no calamatous, futile treatment; just let nature take its course.
ruminator:
Regarding your post 100. Just to be clear, I deliberately didn’t name anyone when I made my “motives and scholarship” comment, so please don’t assume I was speaking about you or anyone in particular. I’m pretty forthright — and very direct — when I’ve formed a judgment. But until then, I keep my opinions to myself and allow for the benefit of the doubt.
Disagreement in whole or part about some issue is not sufficient for me to question motives or scholarship. In fact, I like disagreement that’s intelligent and respectful. It sharpens the debate. This in fact is what I also alluded to regarding “scholarship.” It’s not a reference to education. Some of the stupidist people I’ve ever met have Ph.D.’s. It’s a reference to how well a position is supported with facts, not just opinions. And how well that position is defended in view of counter arguments.
My apologies to you or anyone else if you thought I was being dismissive or snarky with the comment. It wasn’t intended to convey anything other than what I said. I have my opinions about why I think some people have said what they’ve said, and whether they’re fully addressing issues or dodging them. But at this point it may simply be that I’m not fully understanding what they say, or we’re just philosophically on different planets, and that’s not enough for me to condemn anyone’s motives or reasoning/scholarship to support their reasoning.
Phil
No need to apologize. No offense taken. I noticed, before I learned for example, that you are a Ph.D. that my training is less than that of some others here, irrespective of political inclinations. It was already on my mind, and no, you didn’t name names.
Mountain Man’s comment raised the legitimate question, why do I ask whether a Catholic believes Catholic doctrine is correct? But I had asked a specific question about Catholic Doctrine to anyone reading, not to quarrel with that doctrine, but to learn about it. Whereupon I realized, why don’t I read first, then discuss.
Of course ultimately I might want to debate parts of the doctrine, if it is relevant, but not whether someone ought to be expected to believe their own doctrine.
In spite of my wish that I had had more education,
intelligence may also be demonstrated by refraining to comment on that which one doesn’t know about. And as you reiterate, any intelligent effort to converse begins with the right attitude, regardless of one’s background.
The Intellectual Conservative is an ideal, not a person?
“Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark said, “When we extend honors to people who do not share our respect and reverence for life in all stages, and give them a prominent stage in our parishes, schools and other institutions, we unfortunately create the perception that we endorse their public positions on these issues.”
Quoted be the author, and apparently, pretty close to his stance.
However, President John Jenkins explains:
“[This invitation] should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his [Obama's] positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research …”
We are not ignoring the critical issue of the protection of life. On the contrary, we invited him because we care so much about those issues, and we hope … for this to be the basis of an engagement with him. You cannot change the world if you shun the people you want to persuade, and if you cannot persuade them … show respect for them and listen to them.’
Also, I find it interesting that this is similar to the approach taken, and defended, by President Obama, in making attempts to communicate with Ahmeninijad, Cuba, and whomever that hostile head-of-state from South America is.
These overtures will seem unnacceptable and shocking to many. Still…
It may be a futile approach, but it does make you stop and think, doesn’t it?
About the honorary doctorate: I guess, when you’ve given out enough of them, it has become a habit, and people expect it.
That’s inflation.
I been away for a while and don’t know if this point has been made already, but I’ll go ahead anyway.
Some people believe that absolute truth doesn’t exist, but it does. How do I know? The same people have maintained, in so many words, that it’s an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn’t exist.
Sendonaman: If the people who maintain, in so many words, that absolute truth does not exist, thereby proving that it does, then they are misinformed, aren’t they? So what business would you have listening to them, in that case?
“Notre Dame Alumni Withhold $8.2 Million Over Pro-Abortion Obama Invitation”
For what it’s worth, here it is http://www.lifenews.com/state4083.html
ruminator: Doesn’t the propagation of misinformation concern you? If it doesn’t, why do you bother to post what you think is correct?
Re #113: I should have said not that people who “maintain, in so many words, that it’s an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn’t exist” are not necessarily wrong, but should instead say ” I haven’t found absolute truth, therefore, how can I assume it exists?”
They are not much misinformed as they are presumptuous.
Furthermore, you attribute the belief to people without quoting a direct statement, providing my being able to agree that it was implied, which makes everything harder.
Is that because, without the direct statement, you can’t prevail?
So that the statement “there is no such thing as absolute truth” is not a falsehood (something you know, or could know is the opposite of the truth) but rather a claim that is not substantiated. In other words, a falsehood is the opposite of an entity (a truth) whereas an unsubstantiated claim is not the opposite of an entity, it’s only a theory, therefore it’s a non-entity.
So how can you use a non-entity to prove, or disprove something?
In fact I don’t want to argue with you about whether or not there is absolute truth, for two reasons: one, I don’t know, and two, you’re too smart for me (of course that’s only a theory.)
Now as to why do I bother to post what I think is correct? Because what I think is correct seems more correct that what the other side argues.
I’m not taking Obama’s side, I’m just saying that the both presidents (U.S. and Notre Dame) are taking the approach that you can’t persuade someone of something if you don’t have a relationship with them.
They’re probably wrong, but that’s not to say they’re dishonest.
Thanks for the link on post #114. I foung this also while rummaging around:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032901352.html
Obviously, a chasm exists.
Peace.