I think any Catholic boy or girl grows up knowing about and probably has a dream of attending the University of Notre Dame--and, of course, in my case, following the premier college football team. In Laredo, I had Sunday morning newspaper deliveries to make and usually went to the Sunday obligation mass on Saturdays. I babysat my youngest sister Vivian while the rest of the family went to mass. The local television station ran a syndicated one-hour synopsis of the previous day's Notre Dame football game on Sunday mornings. I would make Viv and myself egg sandwiches to eat while watching the highlights. One Sunday morning she got impatient with the rest of my family and told them, "Hurry up and leave so Ronald will make me breakfast." Uh-oh. My mom had strict rules about mealtimes, and I guess I hadn't told Viv that egg sandwiches were supposed to be our little secret. It turned out that my mom thought it was rather sweet I was feeding my little sister.
The ironic thing about that story is that Vivian eventually married another Ronald, a fellow UTSA student and co-worker whom has an Irish surname. He and his late father, on at least one occasion I know about, had gone to occasional Notre Dame home games, even though nobody in their extended family has ever gone there.
As for me, as I worked on my doctorate at the University of Houston, I secretly hoped there would be an opportunity available at Notre Dame by the time I graduated, but that never happened. (It's probably a good thing, because if I had been on faculty, I would probably have resigned over the invitation to and conferment of an honorary degree on Obama. I feel about what Notre Dame did as Socrates felt over the Athenian democracy undermining its integrity with his conviction.) I did go on unfruitful campus visits (academic job interviews) to three Catholic colleges over my academic career, most prominently Providence College (where two of my cousins earned teaching degrees); in a manner of speaking it was a shame because I got my bachelor's degree from a Catholic college, and with all due respect to my former professors at the University of Texas and the University of Houston, the best teachers I had were at OLL. They inspired me to want to be a professor. That's not to say my former professors agree with my political views. For example, I've mentioned in past posts that I was required in one class to attend an on-campus lecture by a then unknown Alex Haley.
Liberal Bias in Commencement Invitations and Faculty Hiring
The fact that the majority of students and faculty at the Notre Dame commencement shouted down the occasional protester didn't surprise me at all, because of the liberal orthodoxy, lack of diversity of viewpoints, and propaganda that take place in academia and have existed for decades. It's self-evident to almost anyone whom has attended and/or taught on the university level over the past 4 decades, but, e.g., academic programs in women's or minority studies or related courses (liberation theology), racial quotas (e.g., University of Michigan) and/or double standards in admissions, and the replacement of Western Civilization courses with surveys of minority literature.
Few conservatives are invited to speak at commencement exercises. David Horowitz published a 2003 study looking at invitations over the prior decade across a large number of elite universities and concluded that the ratio of liberals to conservatives ranged from 10:1 to 15:1, noting this is consistent with a faculty range of 10:1. Fox News pointed out none of last year's GOP Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates got an invitation (while Obama's wife and Chief of Staff did), and among the few GOP or conservatives who were extended invitations, Ben Stein was uninvited over his stance on evolution, former eBay chairwoman Meg Whitman withdrew when personally attacked over her support for traditional marriage (i.e., California proposition 8), and Court of Appeals Judge Wilkinson drew opposition for his appearance at the University of Virginia Law School.
Is Obama the Middle Way on Abortion?
Barack Obama is not a moderating influence between two sides of the abortion; in fact, he is the most radically pro-abortion politician ever elected President. One of Obama's first acts as President was to rollback restrictions by a Bush executive order denying the use of American taxpayer money to international groups that promote or perform abortion. He did so the day after the anniversary of Roe v Wade, which invented a Constitutional right for an expectant mother to abort her child, regardless of reason. (If there's one thing Obama knows, it's symbolism.) But Obama's radicalism on abortion is best seen in the light of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
I touched on this topic during last year's Presidential campaign, and the interested reader is strongly encouraged to read Jill Stanek's original account. (She writes a weekly column, archived on WorldNetDaily.com.) Jill is a registered nurse whom at one point worked at (ironically named) Christ Hospital in Chicago. She discovered that babies born alive through induced labor procedures were routinely refused breathing assistant technology, and the babies (if no one was available to comfort the baby as he or she struggle to breathe until death within 45 minutes) were often left alone to die; Jill speaks of heartbreaking instances of living babies pulled out of trash cans in utility rooms or babies dropped onto floors by careless handling. Jill movingly writes of hearing a little boy's crying as she passed by such a utility room and comforting the boy until he died.
Jill Stanek felt it was unconscionable that doctors and hospitals would knowingly leave babies to die while medical technology was available to save them; this was de facto infanticide. (The response of the Democrats to this fact last year was a state of denial, saying that doctors and hospitals do, in fact, already save such babies as a matter of policy and hence the legislation to compel medical assistance was unnecessary. That claim is directly contradicted by the experience of Stanek and others.) Jill Stanek managed to get a national born alive infant protection law passed unanimously by a voice vote in the US Senate on July 18, 2002; liberal opposition dropped after language was added to the bill reaffirming a mother's right to abort. (Jill Stanek was fired by Christ Hospital in August 2001 over her efforts to overturn born alive policy at the hospital.)
Jill Stanek writes about her efforts to do the same in the state of Illinois, which was almost single-handedly stonewalled by Obama until the year after he was elected to the US Senate, when a Democratic-controlled legislature passed it and a Democratic governor signed it into law. Particularly interesting is her account of what happened in committee over sessions, and here is where you truly see the measure of the man. Christ Hospital after the prior session created an outfitted comfort room (versus the utility room) which allowed parents of their dying aborted babies to comfort them and provided a number of devices to make momentos (e.g., photos, footprints, baptismal supplies, etc.) Jill Stanek recounts when Obama, who had been informed of the comfort room, took political credit for it, initially attacking her for having "reneged" on the "compromise" he claimed to have brokered in good faith to resolve the issue. (The issue was babies dying, not where the babies were dying.) Then in 2003, Obama, now chair of the committee, helped pass an amendment to the bill which recognized Roe v Wade rights--before voting (with the majority of Democrats on the committee) to kill the full bill, essentially the same bill that passed the US Senate unanimously. When you consider that the national act included backing by pro-choice senators, but Obama rejects the same bill, this does not put Obama on the "moderate" side of the debate, but at the extreme. And I don't care about the tone of Obama's rhetoric, true dialog is manifested in conciliatory results; talk is cheap.
We on the pro-life side do understand the views of pro-choice politicians; we simply don't agree with them.
Father Jenkins' Introductory Remarks
Obama's behavior, in short, was motivated more by political expediency than by principle. But let's go back, Father Jenkins, to the very same maternal grandmother that Obama had, in fact, thrown under the bus when the Rev. Wright provocative sermons became an issue. At first, Obama declared Rev. Wright to be a part of his extended family and told voters he could no more disown Rev. Wright than his own grandmother, whom he considered to have been racist (because she had asked her husband to drive her to work, afraid of an aggressive black panhandler whom had been harassing her at the busstop). And, of course, we know what happened to Rev. Wright the day after he suggested that Obama was just like any other politician. (I mean, Obama could put up with "God damn America" but when Rev. Wright said something unflattering about him, Rev. Wright had crossed over the line.)
Going back to Jenkins' original point, Obama had taken back the short lead McCain had take in the immediate aftermath of the GOP convention in early September, but retook the lead to stay when the economy suddenly tanked, which voters seemed to blame on the GOP. After 26 years in Washington, McCain had a tough sell as a change candidate in a change election year.
Few conservatives are invited to speak at commencement exercises. David Horowitz published a 2003 study looking at invitations over the prior decade across a large number of elite universities and concluded that the ratio of liberals to conservatives ranged from 10:1 to 15:1, noting this is consistent with a faculty range of 10:1. Fox News pointed out none of last year's GOP Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates got an invitation (while Obama's wife and Chief of Staff did), and among the few GOP or conservatives who were extended invitations, Ben Stein was uninvited over his stance on evolution, former eBay chairwoman Meg Whitman withdrew when personally attacked over her support for traditional marriage (i.e., California proposition 8), and Court of Appeals Judge Wilkinson drew opposition for his appearance at the University of Virginia Law School.
Is Obama the Middle Way on Abortion?
Barack Obama is not a moderating influence between two sides of the abortion; in fact, he is the most radically pro-abortion politician ever elected President. One of Obama's first acts as President was to rollback restrictions by a Bush executive order denying the use of American taxpayer money to international groups that promote or perform abortion. He did so the day after the anniversary of Roe v Wade, which invented a Constitutional right for an expectant mother to abort her child, regardless of reason. (If there's one thing Obama knows, it's symbolism.) But Obama's radicalism on abortion is best seen in the light of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
I touched on this topic during last year's Presidential campaign, and the interested reader is strongly encouraged to read Jill Stanek's original account. (She writes a weekly column, archived on WorldNetDaily.com.) Jill is a registered nurse whom at one point worked at (ironically named) Christ Hospital in Chicago. She discovered that babies born alive through induced labor procedures were routinely refused breathing assistant technology, and the babies (if no one was available to comfort the baby as he or she struggle to breathe until death within 45 minutes) were often left alone to die; Jill speaks of heartbreaking instances of living babies pulled out of trash cans in utility rooms or babies dropped onto floors by careless handling. Jill movingly writes of hearing a little boy's crying as she passed by such a utility room and comforting the boy until he died.
Jill Stanek felt it was unconscionable that doctors and hospitals would knowingly leave babies to die while medical technology was available to save them; this was de facto infanticide. (The response of the Democrats to this fact last year was a state of denial, saying that doctors and hospitals do, in fact, already save such babies as a matter of policy and hence the legislation to compel medical assistance was unnecessary. That claim is directly contradicted by the experience of Stanek and others.) Jill Stanek managed to get a national born alive infant protection law passed unanimously by a voice vote in the US Senate on July 18, 2002; liberal opposition dropped after language was added to the bill reaffirming a mother's right to abort. (Jill Stanek was fired by Christ Hospital in August 2001 over her efforts to overturn born alive policy at the hospital.)
Jill Stanek writes about her efforts to do the same in the state of Illinois, which was almost single-handedly stonewalled by Obama until the year after he was elected to the US Senate, when a Democratic-controlled legislature passed it and a Democratic governor signed it into law. Particularly interesting is her account of what happened in committee over sessions, and here is where you truly see the measure of the man. Christ Hospital after the prior session created an outfitted comfort room (versus the utility room) which allowed parents of their dying aborted babies to comfort them and provided a number of devices to make momentos (e.g., photos, footprints, baptismal supplies, etc.) Jill Stanek recounts when Obama, who had been informed of the comfort room, took political credit for it, initially attacking her for having "reneged" on the "compromise" he claimed to have brokered in good faith to resolve the issue. (The issue was babies dying, not where the babies were dying.) Then in 2003, Obama, now chair of the committee, helped pass an amendment to the bill which recognized Roe v Wade rights--before voting (with the majority of Democrats on the committee) to kill the full bill, essentially the same bill that passed the US Senate unanimously. When you consider that the national act included backing by pro-choice senators, but Obama rejects the same bill, this does not put Obama on the "moderate" side of the debate, but at the extreme. And I don't care about the tone of Obama's rhetoric, true dialog is manifested in conciliatory results; talk is cheap.
We on the pro-life side do understand the views of pro-choice politicians; we simply don't agree with them.
Father Jenkins' Introductory Remarks
The world you enter today is torn by division – and is fixed on its differences...But too often differences lead to pride in self and contempt for others, until two sides – taking opposing views...demonize each other..trust falls,anger rises, and cooperation ends...we can persuade believers by appeals to both faith and reason.
Less attention has been focused on the President’s decision to accept.
Others might have avoided this venue for that reason. But President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him. Mr. President: This is a principle we share.
We welcome President Obama to Notre Dame, and we honor him for the qualities and accomplishments.
He is a leader who has great respect for the role of faith and religious institutions in public life. He has said: “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”First of all, Father Jenkins is engaged in very selective memory of last year's electoral campaign as he makes much of the selflessness of Obama's decision to visit his dying maternal grandmother's bedside during the final weeks of the campaign. Let's review the record of Obama's integrity during the electoral campaign: He had vowed to abide to public financing reform, but when it turned out he was drawing a prodigious amount of money, more than McCain, he expediently declined to particpate and outspent McCain by up to 8-to-1 in battleground states. During the financial tsunami, McCain asked Obama to join him in suspending the campaign to work a government bailout package in Congress; Obama refused, saying he could do whatever he needed by cellphone (coming only when President Bush specifically asked him to come to a White House meeting) using sophomoric rhetoric that McCain was "afraid" to debate him. (In addition, Obama reneged on another promise to appear with McCain in a series of joint townhall meetings.)
Obama's behavior, in short, was motivated more by political expediency than by principle. But let's go back, Father Jenkins, to the very same maternal grandmother that Obama had, in fact, thrown under the bus when the Rev. Wright provocative sermons became an issue. At first, Obama declared Rev. Wright to be a part of his extended family and told voters he could no more disown Rev. Wright than his own grandmother, whom he considered to have been racist (because she had asked her husband to drive her to work, afraid of an aggressive black panhandler whom had been harassing her at the busstop). And, of course, we know what happened to Rev. Wright the day after he suggested that Obama was just like any other politician. (I mean, Obama could put up with "God damn America" but when Rev. Wright said something unflattering about him, Rev. Wright had crossed over the line.)
Going back to Jenkins' original point, Obama had taken back the short lead McCain had take in the immediate aftermath of the GOP convention in early September, but retook the lead to stay when the economy suddenly tanked, which voters seemed to blame on the GOP. After 26 years in Washington, McCain had a tough sell as a change candidate in a change election year.
Second, Father Jenkins implies that Barack Obama is showing great courage in accepting Notre Dame's invitation. Not at all; the fact is that Obama won the majority of Catholic votes last fall, despite his pro-abortion and embryonic stem cell research positions. Catholic voters account for almost a quarter of the electorate. George Neumayr, his post "Ex Corde Ecclesiae and the Notre Dame Affair", points out Obama is engaged in little more than than the age-old political strategy of "divide-and-conquer". The faculty of Georgetown University, a leading Catholic university, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education ranked seventh nationally in contributions to the Obama campaign. Neumayr, in fact, points out the leading role then Notre Dame President Theodore Hesburgh took in 1967 in drafting the "Land O’ Lakes Statement on the Nature of the Contemporary Catholic University”:
Notre Dame, fostering this academic ethos, had honored the modern liberal ideology [Obama] represents by secularizing its curriculum and faculty. It cast aside the magisterium and marginalized the Catholic intellectual tradition as it ceaselessly hired professors who reduced Catholicism to “progressive” politics in the minds of their students
In fact, the liberal mass media deliberately distorted the unprecedented opposition to Jenkins' ill-considered decision, playing up 4 isolated interruptions of the Obama speech, quickly drowned out by vocal partisans in attendance. The fact is that Obama's invitation was opposed by over 80 American Catholic bishops and some 360,000 petitioners (including myself). How shameful and pathetic that a Catholic university would have pro-lifers arrested!
Obama got unprecedented publicity, the lifeblood to any politician, while scant attention was paid to the deep recession and the questionable ethics of Obama's writing an unprecedented and mostly unjustifiable federal deficit on the back of future generations. He also got a high-profile endorsement of his agenda from Fr. Jenkins, whom made it clear he was willing to simply pay lip service to 2000 years of traditional Christian opposition to abortion and infanticide, not on the basis of faith but morals. Jenkins unambiguously subordinated abortion to Obama's secular humanist agenda.
I have made an argument in recent posts, suggesting that the nomological network of Obama's politics must lend itself to validation of predictive hypotheses by relevant, reliable evidence. I find an ambivalent position on abortion to be fundamentally inconsistent with any authentic Christian theory of morality. We don't think parents have a moral right to abuse or neglect born children. We recall what Jesus said: "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me." (Matthew 25:41) The difference between a born and unborn child is simply a difference in individual development. This is why we reject Rev. Jenkins' appeasement of Obama's radical abortion policies as unacceptable.
Third, Father Jenkins used the occasion to congratulate both Obama and himself/Notre Dame for engaging in this sham, phony "dialogue" over abortion. Precisely what is the nature of this dialogue? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, among other Democrats, seem to have discovered adoption as an alternative to abortion and suggested encouraging that. That's really meaningless rhetoric: Pro-lifers have been talking about adoption as an alternative to abortion from the get-go. The proof is in the pudding: What has the pro-choice side done to limit abortions? When have they discouraged irresponsible sexual behavior (beyond discussing the use of contraceptives or condoms)? When have they suggested even minor restrictions to abortions, e.g., against gender selection? The bottom line is, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton would ever agree in principle to any interference to a woman's right to abort her child for any reason (or no reason). Adoption is simply a choice to the woman, and they agree a woman has the right to bear a child to term and give up the child. But the woman has always had the very same right ever since Roe v Wade. If it means anything substantive, it should be reflected in specific policies.
Related to that point, in addition to Obama's liberalization of overseas funding for abortion-related promotion and operations, Obama has already revoked Bush's executive order allowing for professional conscience objections to participation in abortion activities or distribution of abortifacients.
Father Jenkins is also smearing the reputation of pro-lifers (in particular, more than 80 American bishops) by using judgmental rhetoric like "pride in self and contempt for others, demonize each other...trust falls, anger rises, and cooperation ends". "Stop judging, that you may not be judged." (Matthew 7:1) It is unconscionable for Father Jenkins to lecture the pro-life crowd on its protests; tell me, Father Jenkins, were the protesters for civil rights more equal in confronting injustice? Each year more than a million unborn babies are killed--and that has held true ever since Roe v Wade. Perhaps you are gullible enough to be taken in by Obama's "kinder, gentler" window-dressing of unrestricted abortion; to pro-lifers, this is just the same old same old political spin that Notre Dame now has now unduly elevated to the status of "dialog".
Fourth, let's talk about "accomplishments" that Notre Dame used, not only in inviting Obama but to justify conferring an honorary degree. What accomplishments? He won an election in a change election year, where he was the only major candidate without a vote on authorizing the liberation of Iraq, and he came to the attention of the public from John Kerry's 2004 Democratic convention decision to let him deliver the keynote address. We don't award honorary degrees simply because politicians win elections. He was a 12-year state and US senator. He himself downplayed his effectiveness as a community organizer. He didn't have any experience as an administrator in the private or public sector. He didn't have a leadership position in the Senate and had only a handful of minor initiatives pass. He isn't a polarizing black leader, but in fact many black entertainers, athletes, businessmen and politicians are well-liked. True, he is a good speaker, and he speaks in a measured tone, but we don't go around recruiting motivational speakers as Presidential candidates.
The fact that Arizona State, a secular institution, did not confer an honorary degree on Obama, but Notre Dame, arguably the premier Catholic institution in the US, did really casts doubt on the credibility and judgment of Notre Dame's leadership. To honor a man whom has been willing to build a political career on denying the rights of unborn children? "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?" (Mark 8:35-36) Notre Dame's decision to honor Barack Obama? Scandalous! Anathema on the University of Notre Dame!
Finally, the statement regarding how Barack Obama honors the role of faith and religious institutions in public life? Tell me, Father Jenkins, how has Obama improved upon President Bush's faith-based initiative? What about Obama's move to clamp down on deductibility of charitable donations? What about Obama's decision to rule out assistance for private school vouchers, but he pays lip service to secular charter schools? "By their fruits you will know them." (Matthew 7:16)
Obama's Comments
Why should it surprise us that Obama repeats his stump speech arguing polemical class-based economics and scapegoating business for an economic crisis that in part resulted from the willingness of the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to buy riskier mortgage notes, a flood of money from the Federal Reserve and the political pressure on banks to lend to higher-risk homeowners unable to come up with a conventional down payment? (Perhaps Obama should engage in "dialogue" with Republicans rather than taking cheap political shots at former President Bush, made behind Bush's back, and accept some political blame from the fact that he was a leading recipient of campaign contributions from the GSE's and opposed reforming them years before the collapse...) Let's not forget Obama's version of "fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work" is to increase taxes on success and "spread the wealth around" by giving handouts to people whom do not pay income taxes.
This generation, your generation is the one that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before the most recent crisis hit -- an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work.
We have this "insight":
Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved. (Applause.)
Pardon my nausea over applause from a Catholic college audience over "miracle cure" selling of unproven research that depends on an indefinite supply of human embryos killed for their parts. Tell me, Father Jenkins, isn't this nothing more than a modern version of sophistry? All moral values are relative? This is "dialogue"? Obama is directly defending his support of embryonic stem cell research by saying those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are no better from a moral standpoint. But if you strip away the sophistical veneer, Obama is implying, by his support for embryonic stem cell research, that the second position is based on a higher moral ground, and he's really indicting pro-lifers for being inconsistent by not being sensitive to the quality of life concerns of the diabetic's parents.
But fortunately this is one of those occasions where a blogger with a background in philosophy can point out that Obama is engaging in the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. It is not true that any and all proposed therapies or cures for juvenile diabetes necessarily depend on the destruction of human embryos.
Obama wants us to believe that the cultural war over abortion is "words, just words":
A [pro-life] doctor...told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern posted on my website -- an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose."....We [similarly should] agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually.
That's right; a pro-life doctor, who assured Obama that he had no problem with voting for him, knowing Obama is pro-abortion choice, but he just didn't like being called a "right-wing ideologue". So Obama thinks what pro-life people are most worried about is their public image, not their substantive principles...And he thinks pro-lifers don't understand that abortion is a difficult decision (for at least some women).
I think if Obama really believes the abortion debate is mostly a disagreement over uncivility of the other side, he is naive. I agree there's a lot to be said about civility in political discourse, but I think it's largely one-sided and unprovoked, e.g., the Angry Left's personal attacks against Governor Sarah Palin and her family or the Miss USA runner-up Carrie Prejean, whom supports traditional marriage.
No pro-lifer suggests having and bringing up a child is trivial or inexpensive. When I asked Sharon, one of my little sisters, what it was like being a real mom versus playing dolls as a girl, she replied that when she was tired of playing with dolls, she could put them away. Pro-lifers have put up with far worse than being called a "right-wing ideologue" . A "pro-life" doctor worried more about his public image than electing a public official whom is committed to protecting the lives of innocent babies, both in words and in actions, has no credibility with me.
Obama's reference to Cardinal Bernardin is no accident. George Weigel, in a recent National Review Online post named "Obama and the 'Real' Catholics") fleshes out Obama's insidious, earlier-cited "divide-and-conquer" strategy. A non-Catholic, Obama is subtly interfering in the internal affairs of American Catholics by praising Cardinal Bernardin, Cardinal Bernardin is a key cleric cited by progressive versus orthodox Catholics; he advocated a "consistent ethic of life", which attempted to link various issues, e.g., abortion, nuclear arms, and capital punishment (as, in fact, Obama recites in his speech), more popularly known in public policy and referenced by Mario Cuomo and others as the "seamless garment". Former NY Governor Cuomo in 1984 gave a famous address at Notre Dame and is the architect of what Weigel and others refer to as the Cuomo Compromise (“I’m personally opposed [to abortion], but I can’t impose my views on a pluralistic society"), which has become the predictable rationalization for pro-choice Catholic politicians. Cuomo and others would argue that their political positions must be viewed in the context of their consistent orientation towards life, that their permissive position on abortion is not material relevant to the preponderence of their "pro-life" votes across a continuum of relevant issues. In fact, Obama adds nothing new to the discussion, rehashing many of the same points as the Cuomo address (e.g., arguing for health care of expectant mothers).
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago,... a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man...He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads -- unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty and AIDS and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together, always trying to find common ground....Cardinal Bernardin...said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched hearts and minds."
Obama's reference to Cardinal Bernardin is no accident. George Weigel, in a recent National Review Online post named "Obama and the 'Real' Catholics") fleshes out Obama's insidious, earlier-cited "divide-and-conquer" strategy. A non-Catholic, Obama is subtly interfering in the internal affairs of American Catholics by praising Cardinal Bernardin, Cardinal Bernardin is a key cleric cited by progressive versus orthodox Catholics; he advocated a "consistent ethic of life", which attempted to link various issues, e.g., abortion, nuclear arms, and capital punishment (as, in fact, Obama recites in his speech), more popularly known in public policy and referenced by Mario Cuomo and others as the "seamless garment". Former NY Governor Cuomo in 1984 gave a famous address at Notre Dame and is the architect of what Weigel and others refer to as the Cuomo Compromise (“I’m personally opposed [to abortion], but I can’t impose my views on a pluralistic society"), which has become the predictable rationalization for pro-choice Catholic politicians. Cuomo and others would argue that their political positions must be viewed in the context of their consistent orientation towards life, that their permissive position on abortion is not material relevant to the preponderence of their "pro-life" votes across a continuum of relevant issues. In fact, Obama adds nothing new to the discussion, rehashing many of the same points as the Cuomo address (e.g., arguing for health care of expectant mothers).
Closing Comments
I think the review of Deal Hudson (InsideCatholic.com) is spot on:
If you watched it, the commencement itself was a spectacle of non-stop self-congratulation, supercilious flattery, and scripted self-justification. Eloquence was not to be found, though every inane claim to the moral highground received thunderous applause, until even the robed dignitaries placed carefully behind Obama began to look bewildered...
Notre Dame, like many Catholic institutions, has become Catholic in name only, whereby the Magisterium is ignored (e.g., over 80 bishops protesting Obama's appearance). Academic freedom has been used to justify material departures from distinctive orthodox faith and morals. (This is true not only with Notre Dame but other well-known elite Catholic institutions, such as Georgetown.)
I think Notre Dame needs to rediscover its Catholic roots and to stop trying to implement a second-rate imitation of a secular humanist agenda and identifying with secular progressive politics. There is an overwhelming need of authentic Catholic leadership in higher education that challenges versus accommodates the popular culture. I do not think Father Jenkins' "slobbering love affair" with Barack Obama is conducive to this end. We need new leadership at the University of Notre Dame to overcome the scandal of the Obama invitation.
