Why I Love Archbishop Michael Sheehan

As previously reported here, Archbishop Michael Sheehan is one of the major voices in the church's hierarchy for forging collaboration with politicians that don't always agree with the church's teaching. Governor Bill Richardson was influenced by Sheehan to oppose the death penalty and that helped abolish the practice in their great state of New Mexico.

In a very measured and thoughtful interview with NCR's Tom Roberts, Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe, New Mexico had this to say about his fellow Bishops regardling relations with pro-choice politicians.

Sheehan said that in June he told his fellow bishops, “I don’t feel so badly about Obama going [to Notre Dame] because he’s our president. I said we’ve gotten more done on the pro-life issue in New Mexico by talking to people that don’t agree with us on everything. We got Governor Richardson to sign off on the abolition of the death penalty for New Mexico, which he was in favor of.”
Gov. Bill Richardson, in explaining why he reversed his long-standing support for the death penalty, said he was persuaded in part by discussions with church activists and with Sheehan.
“We talked to him, and we got him on board and got the support in the legislature,” Sheehan said. “But you know, he’s pro-abortion. So? It doesn’t mean we sit and wait, that we sit on the sides and not talk to him. We’ve done so much more by consultation and by building bridges in those areas. And then to make a big scene about Obama – I think a lot of the enemies of the church are delighted to see all that. And I said that I think we don’t want to isolate ourselves from the rest of America by our strong views on abortion and the other things. We need to be building bridges, not burning them.”
Asked if there were any other bishops who agreed with him, he said, “Of course, the majority.”
He was asked why none of the bishops who disagreed with the protests that dominated the news for weeks had spoken up.
“The bishops don’t want to have a battle in public with each other, but I think the majority of bishops in the country didn’t join in with that, would not be in agreement with that approach. It’s well intentioned, but we don’t lose our dignity by being strong in the belief that we have but also talking to others that don’t have our belief. We don’t lose our dignity by that,” he said.
“We’d be like the Amish, you know, kind of isolated from society, if we kept pulling back because of a single issue.”
He acknowledged the loudest voices were creating what appeared to be the Catholic position for the general public.
“Of course. I mean that’s always been the case,” he said. “That’s news, you know.”
He said that in speaking to the other bishops he wondered aloud what was so bad about inviting Obama and giving him a degree. “Last month,” said Sheehan, “the pope made the president of France an honorary canon of St. John Lateran’s -- and he [President Nicolas Sarkozy] is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, married invalidly to an actress, and the pope did that. It doesn’t seem that [the Vatican] had quite as big a concern about this matter of Obama and Notre Dame as some of us.”
Noting that the Vatican has consistently been more positive about Obama than some of the leading critics among the U.S. bishops, Sheehan said, “The Vatican is a little more diplomatically sensitive. But you’ve got to have the big picture.”
He also said given Obama’s association as a young man with priests and nuns during his time as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side that the “issues of social justice that we teach and preach would resonate in his own work and in his own mind.”
If Sheehan disagreed with the tactics of some of his fellow bishops, he believes at least that Obama may have “a greater awareness now of how passionately and how deeply the church people feel” about abortion. “I think he probably had to come to grips with it in a way that, I suspect, has had a positive effect.”
He said the bishops might revisit a controversial statement on Catholic politicians but he said he opposes withholding communion based partly on the church’s own historic experience. Making reference to Giuseppi Garibaldi, who campaigned to unify Italy in the mid 1800s and who advocated abolition of the papacy, Sheehan said the church then said Catholics would be excommunicated or refused communion if they voted for him. “Well, it didn’t work.”

Excellent points and exactly my own perspective. I wish they had done this interview in April or May though.

Archbishop Sheehan is simply the man. And he had the coolest looking Pectoral Cross that I've ever seen.

Facebook comments on Mary Ann Glendon

We've been burning up the Facebook comments today. So I thought I'd share some thoughts on the reactions that folks had to my posts on Mary Ann Glendon:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Snatchko at 11:29am April 27
You can see the sadness in her letter. It's unfortunate that it came to this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hayes at 11:38am April 27
True. But it's a dumb decision I think
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Huesing at 11:41am April 27
Mary Ann Glendon is many things, but dumb she is not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaurav Shroff at 1:13pm April 27
She rocks. Good for her! And dumb she is not. Nor is this decision dumb. And yes it is profoundly sad as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer D'Amico Frankenbach at 2:27pm April 27
Why is it dumb Mike? She's standing up for her convictions which, as we all know, is not easy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Schweiger at 3:19pm April 27
Did the same folk who oppose Obama speaking at ND oppose Sec. Rice speaking at Boston College? Or is torture a lesser evil than abortion these days? I think this whole boycotting of speakers is deeply unhelpful. Makes the church look like just another political group, no more special or worth listening to than any other special interest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Hayes at 5:23pm April 27
If she really wanted to stand up for her convictions she'd challenge the President on his viewpoints and would tell the story of why she is so convicted. That would change the lives and probably the opinions of lots of people.

BTW--I didn't say that Glendon was dumb--that's putting words in my mouth at best and a lame attempt to paint me with a broad stroke at worst.

But her decision is downright awful. She takes herself out of the game here. Hundreds if not thousands of people have no idea who she is nor what she stands for. She had a captive audience waiting for her and it probably would have received a lot of press coverage. but she stood down because the view from the cheap seats is a lot more comfortable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hayes at 5:25pm April 27
BTW--I am 100% against abortion. But I don't think that anyone is ever going to change their opinion on the matter because we start calling people names, outsiding them from conversations or creating ghettos that silence debate.

Lastly, if we really cared, we wouldn't care who was speaking anywhere. We'd all be too busy trying to help mothers choose an alternative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and for keeping the comments as always, charitable.

Notre Dame responds to Glendon rejection

With a big hat tip to American Papist

Statement by Father John Jenkins on the Laetare Medal

The following statement from Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., president of the University of Notre Dame, is in response to the decision by Mary Ann Glendon to decline acceptance of the University’s Laetare Medal:

“We are, of course, disappointed that Professor Glendon has made this decision. It is our intention to award the Laetare Medal to another deserving recipient, and we will make that announcement as soon as possible.” (University of Notre Dame Office of News & Information)

Pssst...Archbishop Sheehan and Bill Richardson...show the world that Catholics can indeed work with Pro-choice politicians.

As the Papist rightly mentions, I would like to see the Preisdent engage Ms. Glendon in some kind of dialogue.

As shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves...

Some Great Expectations from Fr Brian Cavanaugh, TOR at the Franciscan University of Stubenville regarding Catholic participating in the political process.

This means that Catholic leaders in today's society must properly equip themselves to learn all the necessary skills to be competent in the arena of public affairs, i.e., rhetoric, debate, economics, civility and law, to name just a few. As well, they are to be enlightened through the teachings of Christian doctrine and faith. Simply put, Catholic leaders are to become competent and capable with all the tools necessary to perform their tasks in a qualified manner.

Jesus, likewise, prepares his disciples for the trials of ministry when he tells them, "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" ( Matthew 10:16 [NIV])[10].

You've got to admire that advice. To "be as shrewd as" means you need to recognize all the skills and the wiles involved in the public arena; yet, enlightened with faith and Christian doctrine, you need to remain civil and calm in the discourse of public affairs.

Thank you, Father! Most especially for that last line. That's just a snippet of his long article complete with a lot of references. Check it out when you have the chance here

Obama's Seder

Somehow this escaped me:



While the first seder at the White House is certainly something to behold not everybody was happy about it. From the Jewish Journal:

It turns out that while President Obama becoming the first U.S. president to host and attend a White House Seder was seen as a nice gesture by some of his supporters, others were miffed. Why? Because they weren’t invited and their delicate egos couldn’t bear the slight.

The Times reported:

“Apparently Jewish [residents] here and in neighboring states are now calling wondering why they have not been invited,“ one staffer wrote, asking to take the event off the public schedule. The White House, which kept the dinner on the schedule because it had been announced, would not say who had sought invitations.

First Lady Michelle Obama’s Jewish cousin, Rabbi Capers Funnye of Chicago, thought that though Seders are traditionally held in the spirit of inclusiveness, it might be a bit much to host all those seeking to celebrate at the White House.

“I would hope that there would be a sense of understanding that . . . also, Seder is about family,“ said Funnye, a convert to Judaism, who was not at the White House. “I think you would certainly have to limit it. . . . You want to be inclusive, but you also want to be prudent in being inclusive as well.“

What was he supposed to do? Have the seder at The Kennedy Center or something?

Obama and Notre Dame Insanity Continues

The lack of journalistic integrity in headlines at the Cardinal Newman Society is astounding. Their headline reads:

Notre Dame President refuses dialogue with students on Obama invitation.

But a quick perusal of their own stupid press release shows that this is hardly true.

The leaders of ND Response, a broad coalition of Notre Dame student groups founded to express the “deepest opposition” to the invitation to President Obama to speak at commencement, informed The Cardinal Newman Society that they wrote a letter to Father Jenkins confirming their interest in discussing concerns with him. The students expressed hesitancy at accepting the limited closed-door meeting which was at first suggested by Father Jenkins. They instead proposed to allow all student members of ND Response to attend.

Perhaps the headline should be:

Pro-lifers blow chance to influence University President because of their own arrogance. Although admittedly that's a bit long--albeit more accurate.

It's a simple algorithm. When people have disagreements they argue (in the best sense of that word) together about it. They do so with charity and civility.

The unborn are not being served by the arrogance of people who would rather host a side-show in which they can gang up on a University President, than to have an actual civil discussion of the issues.

Here's the main story: If these people can't even get a meeting with Notre Dame's President because he views them as either extremists, or at minimum uncharitable and unable to have a half-way decent discussion, then what shot do they have in gaining the ear of the President of the United States or for that matter, with anyone who disagrees with them?

My second point on this:
Would they be making similar objections to a pro-choice republican? Patrick Reilly the proported head of the Cardinal Newman Society sheepishly admitted that George W. Bush also shouldn't be invited to Notre Dame not that long ago--and then clammed up when he was invited to a lesser known Catholic institution as Joe Feuerhard pointed out in NCR:

In 2005 I pointed out to Reilly that should Bush be invited to speak at a Catholic campus, the Society would be compelled to outrage. “Bush, you see, supports embryonic stem cell research, though his policies limit it to existing stem cell lines,” I wrote. “That’s a position directly counter to church teaching.

“Similarly, despite his anti-abortion record, the president supports exceptions for abortion in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is threatened. That alone should be enough to draw the wrath of the Virginia-based group ... ’”

Responded Reilly: “Certainly if his position is opposed to the church on those issues (stem cell research and abortion exceptions),” he would be treated “just like anyone else.”

That, I concluded, was “more than a little hard to believe.”

Two years later, Bush was invited by his old friend and former adviser Jim Towey, president of St. Vincent College in Pennsylvania, to give the commencement address at the small Catholic school.

Not a peep from Reilly – a silence that says more about Reilly and company than all the “outrages” and “scandals” he manufactures and exploits.

Bottom line: Mudslinging is not a gospel value. Learn how to come to the table with love and charity and maybe then you have a chance to influence decisions.

Until then...you're just another guy at the end of the bar.

The Anchoress on Obama and Fire Breathing Pro-lifers

A hat tip to Deacon Greg and Pajamas Media

For many pro-life Catholics, myself included, the thought of President Obama addressing the upcoming commencement exercises at Notre Dame just scalds.

It scalds, but as my email fills up with angry press releases from various pro-life groups and with appeals to sign anti-Obama petitions, I find all the fire-breathing just a bit scalding, as well.

I understand and support the duty of Catholic bishops to register strong disapproval of the president’s anti-life positions, and I further believe that teaching the truth is always imperative, but Catholic universities have never been intellectual ghettos, offering only narrow exposure to ideas. On the contrary, Catholic universities have been bastions of rigorous debate with the application of reason triumphant over trends, sentiments, or policies. Because I believe that, and because I believe in the rightness of the Catholic position on life and the ability of the Holy Spirit to use surprising people and circumstances to do God’s will, I keep thinking, “Why are the Catholics approaching all of this with outrage and apparent fear, instead of confidence in battle?”

The current administration has famously quipped “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Well, Catholics might take a page from the president’s book and see this situation as less a “crisis” than an opportunity.

Amen, Anchoress! That's exactly what I've been saying--which you've said much more eloquently.

Read some more comments from her here

President Obama: "No religion hates"

President Obama's main quotable from the National Prayer Breakfast:

"No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. ... There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know."

Now if we could all just agree on what constitutes an "innocent human being" we'd be in business.

Pres. Obama says No Money for Religious Groups that Discriminate in Hiring Practices

This just in from CNN

In an executive order to be announced on Thursday, Obama does not rescind Bush's provision to allow faith-based groups to discriminate in their hiring practices, but does provide a legal process for organizations to go through in order to that ensure hiring is legal and non-discriminatory.

Administration sources say the new legal safeguard is a "key step forward" in addressing the thorny issue of faith-based hiring.

But Dr. Joel Hunter, a senior pastor at Northland Church in Longwood, Florida, who will be part of a 25-member council of religious leaders in the faith-based office, said the issue is a particularly tricky one for religious leaders.

"We're going to have to work that out, because on the one hand, you don't want to use federal funds to discriminate. But on the other hand, we can't have religious organizations taking money on the condition that they will hire people who live a lifestyle contrary to what they teach," he said.

This is going to open a large can of worms I think. What happens now to Catholic hospitals that hope to get a grant but won't hire doctors who perform abortions? Would that be considered "discriminatory"?