Pope Presses Obama on Pro-Life Issues

From John Allen at NCR and in my opinion the right way to engage the debate with the President. Thanks to the Pope for taking the lead here.

When President Barack Obama came calling on Pope Benedict XVI today, the two men enjoyed a “truly cordial” encounter, according to a Vatican spokesperson, but at the same time there was no diplomatic silence from the pontiff about their differences over abortion and other “life issues.”

Not only did Benedict press his pro-life case with his words to the president, but he even found a way to make the point with his gift, offering the president a copy of a recent Vatican document on bioethics. According to a Vatican spokesperson, the pope drew a repetition from Obama of his vow to bring down the actual abortion rate.

Beyond the life issues, the Vatican’s statement indicated that Benedict and Obama also found “general agreement” on the Middle East peace process and other regional situations. The two leaders also touched food security, development aid especially for Africa and Latin America, immigration and drug trafficking, according to the statement.
Coming away from the meeting, however, it was hard to escape the impression that Benedict wanted to use it to deliver a clear pro-life message.

Read the rest and then think about the Pope's actions today. Did he embarrass the President? No. Did he yell at the President and call him a baby killer? No. Did he not show up for the meeting? No.

What did he do? HE ENGAGED THE DEBATE IN A HEALTHY AND CORDIAL MANNER.

My guess is that President Obama will read the book he gave him and start noting it in his plans to reduce abortions bringing us closer together on this issue.

Pope to Obama: You're too conservative

From today's Washington Post and E.J. Dionne

When President Obama meets with Pope Benedict XVI tomorrow, there will be no right-wing Catholic demonstrators upbraiding the pontiff, as they did Notre Dame earlier this year, for conferring the church's legitimacy upon this liberal politician.

In fact, whether he is the beneficiary of providence or merely good luck, Obama will have his audience with Benedict just three days after the release of a papal encyclical on social justice that places the pope well to Obama's left on economics. What a delightful surprise it would be for a pope to tell our president that on some matters, he's just too conservative.

It seems that this Pope is indeed going to be critical of the Obama administration but just not in the manner that most people would expect.

To read the Pope's new encyclical on social justice click here

Sotomayor: Pro lifers have something to like about her

President Obama nominated Federal Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court pending congressional approval. Judge Sotomayor would be the first person of hispanic ancestry to rise to the Court. The question of her pro-life record is sketchy as she's never really decided a case which directly involved abortion rights. But here's an interesting case:

From Christianity Today

Shortly after President George W. Bush reinstituted the Mexico City Policy (which bars government funds to groups that support or perform abortion), the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy sued.

The pro-choice group's argument was that the Mexico City Policy unconstitutionally violated rights of speech (since it couldn't "actively promote" abortion) and association (it couldn't work with abortion rights advocacy groups overseas) as well as the constitution's Equal Protection Clause (it wasn't on "equal footing" with prolife groups in competing for funds).

When the case came before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whom President Obama this morning nominated to the Supreme Court) ruled against the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy.

"The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds," Sotomayor wrote.

Sotomayor also has strong bi-partisan support. She was first appointed by President George H.W. Bush (the older, not the moron) to the federal bench and then later was nominated by President Clinton to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. She was involved directly and most famously in upholding the players grievances during the 1994 players strike that led to the cancellation of the World Series.

She's got an interesting background. From NPR:

Sotomayor grew up in a Bronx housing project after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She suffered from juvenile diabetes that forced her to start insulin injections at age 8. Her father, a tool-and-die worker, died when she was 9, and Sotomayor was raised by her mother, a nurse.

As a girl, she was inspired by the Perry Mason television show and knew she wanted to be a judge. "I realized that the judge was the most important player in that room," she said in a 1998 interview.

Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and went to Yale Law School, where she served on the law journal.

I love rooting for people who had to work hard to get where they are. So I hope for an easy confirmation.

Cardinal George Praises Obama on Conscience Rights of Health Care Providers

The USCCB released this statement from their President about President Obama.

I am grateful for President Obama’s statement on May 17 that we should all “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion,” and his support for conscience clauses advancing this goal.

Since 1973, federal laws protecting the conscience rights of health care providers have been an important part of our American civil rights tradition. These laws should be fully implemented and enforced. Caring health professionals and institutions should know that their deeply held religious or moral convictions will be respected as they exercise their right to serve patients in need.

Catholic providers, in particular, make a large and essential contribution to health care in our society. Essential steps to protect these conscience rights will strengthen our health care system and enhance many patients’ access to necessary life-affirming care.

A government that wants to reduce the tragic number of abortions in our society will also work to ensure that no one is forced to support or participate in abortion, whether through directly providing or referring for abortions or being forced to subsidize them with their tax dollars. As this discussion continues we look forward to working with the Administration and other policy makers to advance this goal.

g

Awesome. Seems quite a change of pace from his remarks that inviting the President to speak at Notre Dame is "a complete embarrassment:"

The good news is that it looks like both sides are working more amiably together for the first time in awhile. Perhaps we can begin to be more than merely cautiously optimistic?

"Cautiously Optimistic"

After seeing what the fallout has been regarding President Obama's speech I've seen several people who would never think about being supportive of the President speaking at a Catholic school now saying that they are "cautiously optimistic" about the possibility of Catholics working alongside him to limit abortions. I find this to be sound discernment and even mature. Let's face facts, we really don't have much history of any President really helping us change the minds of women--even though some have worked on the legislative element of this issue. President Obama's overture seems to be breaking new ground--and that, as Catholics, should give us hope.

Thoughts?

Vatican Paper: Obama invites us to work in common effort

David Gibson quotes L'Osservatore Romano today:

The newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said the president also confirmed that pushing for a more liberal abortion law would not be a priority of his administration. The comments came in a L'Osservatore report May 18, the day after Obama spoke at the university in Indiana.

"The search for a common ground: This seems to be the path chosen by the president of the United States, Barack Obama, in facing the delicate question of abortion," the newspaper said.

It said Obama had set aside the "strident tone" of the 2008 political campaign on the abortion issue.

"Yesterday Obama confirmed what he expressed at his 100-day press conference at the White House, when he said that enacting a new law on abortion was not a priority of his administration," it said.

The newspaper, which was reporting on the Notre Dame commencement for the first time, acknowledged the controversy caused by the president's appearance at what it called "the most prestigious Catholic university in the United States."

"Yesterday, too, as could have been predicted, there were protests. But from the podium set up in the basketball arena, the president invited Americans of every faith and ideological conviction to 'work in common effort' to reduce the number of abortions," it said.

I guess the Pope's paper is run by a bunch of heretics too? Would anyone dare to say that they are a bunch of people who are "killing our children?"

More moderate voices are arising. Thank God for that. After all, if President Obama is suggesting that we stop women from aborting by offering them viable alternatives than I think it's time we took him up on the help he's offered--as opposed to stating that he's trying to hoodwink us.

More on President Obama and Abortion

So I've heard tons of comments online and in person with the new buzzword: President Obama is the biggest pro-abortion President in the history of our country.

Well, that wouldn't be hard since there's only 8 to choose from... let's also remember that in 1973 the President was a Republican.

But let's also think about something else. President Obama may indeed uphold the right of women to seek abortions, but what he also said yesterday is that nobody makes those decisions lightly. And that's where we as Catholics come in.

At some point, a woman makes a choice to abort, it's that window where we have an opportunity to present other options despite the fact that the law tells her that she can just kill her baby growing in the womb. Are those options presented to her in ways that don't place undo pressure on her? Do they seem overly coercive or do they seem like sincere care and love? I fear that most often alternatives are presented as the former and not the latter.

President Obama, however short-sighted his view on the law may be, did have one very valuable point that we need to listen to:

"Let's work together to reduce the number of abortions."

Think about what that statement says:

Women have other choices than abortion, better choices. They just think that they can't choose them for whatever reason. The main one is that they feel they have no support. The issue here is that Republicans most often think that these women should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, from their family or from the church rather than get help from the government. They think women will abuse the system and get pregnant to get more welfare money.

Fair enough. Some will most certainly abuse the system, but does that mean we make overarching rules for the exceptions?
Are we really motivated by love when we think that way?

But no matter, welfare is not and can not be the only solution--perhaps not even the main one. What are we doing as Catholics to lobby for the care of women seeking abortion? If President Obama is serious about helping us reduce the number of abortions, then at least we're on the same page in SOME way. It also means that if we present a plan to put bigger and better pregnancy crisis centers in cities all over the country, we should be able to gain some support from the Obama administration.

The sisters of life are one group I know who does lots. Malta House in Connecticut is another good model. But there aren't enough of these models out there. Why is every parish in the United States not saying, we'll go an live in a tent so that these women can bring their children to term? Why is the outreach so minimal when it comes to offering to help these women?

President Obama seems to be saying some magic words to us and instead we are spitting venom back at him with our mantra of "most pro-abortion president". The magic words are "Let's work together to help these women not choose abortion to begin with." If we help them not make the choice to abort at least we'll save somebody, perhaps more than a majority begin to choose life--then we will be very successful at reducing abortions.

Women who abort despite these efforts are probably going to do it anyway. And if the law was not present they'd still find a way to do it illegally. I think that's the big fear from the majority of the pro-choice camp. They think that women who can't be convinced of the moral conviction that we hold dearly, are going to be placed in harm's way. While we value life in the womb, we also value life outside of the womb and sometimes we will lose one of those battles here. It's sad but even if the law were repealed, we'd still lose babies and we'd lose a few women along the way as well. Some people remain lost.

But the pro-life camp, of which I consider myself part of, also has its shortsightedness. They have an all or nothing approach. Now obviously our work isn't done until we eliminate abortion entirely, but shouldn't we also at least take small victories where we can get them. We seemed to do this with President Bush when he outlawed partial-birth abortion. We didn't have an all or nothing approach there did we?

So the larger question is: Are President Obama's efforts not welcome, even though he is much more vocal than previous Presidents about limiting abortion--where other Presidents would merely state that they would not limit a woman's right to choose. While we may not agree with him that these issues are complex (for us murder is murder in our view), we need to at least acknowledge that he sees some room in working alongside us.

Or we can just parrot back mantras.

President Obama's Big Speech

One word: WOW! Even some very staunch pro-lifers who disagreed with President Obama's speaking at Notre Dame had to admit that he made a great speech today. Even engaging the abortion issue directly in it and Catholicism's influence on his own life. You can see that portion of the speech below as describing it or even quoting it does not capture its power.



Some thoughts: I agree totally with President Obama's words here about working for common ground with those who disagree with us. I would also say we have but no other choice but to do this as there is a diversity of opinion out there on many issues, not merely abortion. A colleague and I were speaking after mass today and I thought he made a good point about reducing these arguments to mere opinion. That somewhere there is a need for us to identify where we are being led by what we believe is truth. Some will say that all truth is subjective --that things differ in essence based on their context. I would say that we can cite several examples where that is most certain--but also we can cite at least a few where it is far from the truth as well. Therein lies the difficulty in working on issues of life with people who hold differing ideas about truth's objectivity.

So where does that leave us? I think President Obama's words about doubt and about certitude ring somewhat true here. While I know that I truly believe in many of my convictions, I also know that I have been humbled by thoughts and ideas where I was clearly mistaken. In the moments where I believe my more rooted convictions have held and led by the teachings of my church where I have found the fullness of truth residing, I've also found another principle at work. That principle is humbleness.

Truth doesn't need ME. Truth will be revealed despite whether I defend it or not. Truth comes to all people, albeit more slowly to some, and often slower to me and God's mysterious revelations remind us that we are not God. That we do not know everything. As Merton famously said: "The fact that I believe I am doing your will does not mean I actually am doing it."

However, people of good will can take some comfort in the mystery, in the knowing of our own imperfect knowledge, in the knowing that we are not God by following more of Merton's famous words.

"I believe that the desire to please you (God), does in fact, please you."

Today I pray that we all, despite the courage we all have in following our convictions in the desire to please our God, may be able to more graciously listen to one another in humbleness, express ourselves in charity and forgive one another with love.

As the graduates of Notre Dame head into the big bad world, may they know of my prayers for their lives as young adults and beyond. And as the President heads home after inspiring all of us with his words may he find peace and continue to have the desire to please God--and may that lead him to see all human life as sacred. Amen.

All eyes on South Bend

Today's the day. Notre Dame's commencement ceremony in which President Obama will give the address and receive an honorary doctorate of Laws. Devout Catholics of all different persuasions are split on this item. Some, like myself, believe that President Obama should be allowed to speak at Notre Dame despite his pro choice viewpoints. Others think he should be shown the door. Still others have no problem with him speaking but detest that he's getting an honorary degree.

The sideshow is sure to be in full effect as the nutty end of the pro-life faction is sure to be out in full force. They unfortunately always steal the show from those who do the real work of the pro-life cause and who do it quietly and still effectively.

Regardless some thoughts:

I always respected the fact that Catholics--and most especially, the Bishops, would target issues they abhor over individuals. We always seemed to welcome conversation even with those who disagree with us. Bill McGarvey did a good job of pointing that out in his column on BustedHalo recently.

The controversy surrounding Obama at Notre Dame that rages on among Catholics has made that point painfully clear. Admittedly, as a Georgetown graduate, my first thought was, “If Notre Dame is no longer sufficiently Catholic to do this, what institution is?” Initially, those who made the distinction between inviting the pro-choice President to speak and giving him an honorary degree seemed like a good compromise, until I discovered that in 2007 Pope Benedict himself honored the twice-divorced, pro-choice French President Nicholas Sarkozy by bestowing the title of honorary canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran. Even pro-choice Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico was honored by the Pope in Rome this past April on the occasion of his state abolishing the death penalty.

Are we now more Catholic than the pope? Are we incapable of sharing a stage with those we are in disagreement with? Have we grown — as the former New York State Capital Defender Kevin Doyle has said — too comfortable in our bunkers?

Indeed, my esteemed colleague makes a valid point here. If President Obama shouldn't be invited to speak at Notre Dame, and Catholics should not hear a message given by him then what else should we ignore? Should Catholics also stop reading newspapers that print President Obama's words in them? Should they also pass on listening to the state of the union address? How about even turning a blind eye to Supreme Court decisions since they have upheld Roe v Wade for the past 35 or so years?

This sounds a whole lot like book burning to me--and that my friends is a very dangerous precedent.

What may have been a good option for Notre Dame is something that nobody has even come close to suggesting yet...prayer.
Sure, some of the protesters have gathered for prayer services for the unborn but they have served more as protests than as anything that would move people into transcendence. Has anyone even thought of asking President Obama to come and pray with them? It would do him good to hear their prayers and to ask for him to offer some of his own. It would place us together in a place where we all admit that we struggle to hear God's voice but try our best anyway.

Let me be clear: Abortion is an abomination and I have always detested it. I remember having a long-winded argument with a news director in radio about the issue and grew increasing more frustrated at her lack of charity for my view and for her seemingly inane argument that "Women should have the right to abortion because if they don't it's the children in the end that end up getting hurt by a life in the system."

So her argument was essentially "Let's kill the babies so they don't get hurt."

Sigh. Arguments from the opposing side are just as tedious. Calling people baby-killers is a sure-fire way to get them to ignore you. It's a threat essentially that says "If you kill your baby, bad things are going to happen to you." While psychologically and spiritually that may be true, it still doesn't mention anything about the baby nor the mother being valuable to our community. I don't ever hear people screaming "I love you and your baby" from an abortion protest line. I almost never see mothers with their babies in their arms on those lines either. Perhaps they might have a lot of silent persuasion by their simple presence. Moreover, people who support women in unwanted or unexpected pregnancies often do this anonymously and even worse--the media almost never covers these stories--focusing on the less lucid protests that often end or even start with violence.

Tomorrow I plan to watch the Notre Dame commencement to listen to what the President has to say and to what Judge Noonan also says--but I also plan to pray. I pray for the safety of our President, for the students who are graduating, for Fr Jenkins and for cooler heads to prevail. Of course I also pray for those who die in abortion and for the women who feel they have only abortion as a recourse. Know that the church offers you refuge and that we will always support you and help you serve your child and keep you safe.

Perhaps if President Obama could see those kinds of prayers in action more often, we wouldn't be spending our time arguing whether he should be on the podium tomorrow.

Glendon's Failed "Hail Mary"

Amen, amen I say to Daniele Crittenden

Many conservatives -- especially those at National Review Online's "The Corner" -- are praising Glendon for her "leadership." This isn't leadership but the opposite: it's burying one's head in the sand. Here we have yet another example of religious conservatives opting out of engagement with the larger political culture, even that within their own church.

Even if you view President Obama's stance on abortion -- which this is about -- as wrong, or even appalling, wouldn't you want to take this opportunity to address the president directly -- or as the old saying goes, "Speak truth to power?"

Notre Dame has not, after all, invited the head of Planned Parenthood, or a doctor who performs abortions, or even a pro-abortion activist, which the language of Glendon's letter suggests.

Rather it has invited the president. Of the United States. For whom many Catholics and non-Catholics alike voted. Glendon's words suggest that Obama may be president but he is not HER President, or the Catholics' president -- a highly divisive and anti-democratic sentiment.

Glendon should have accepted the award graciously, and seized this rare chance to articulate her principles directly to Obama. As the university rightly points out: it is a "good thing" to advance your causes with political leaders.

And it's exactly the point I've made all along. I have the greatest respect for Ms. Glendon and for her principles, I wish she'd just take the time to share them with a President and inspire graduates as they leave the biggest Catholic University in the country.

I get Glendon's point that she believe the University's invitation is a slap to the Bishops (I would argue that allowing him to speak is not, but perhaps the honorary degree may be), but it's happening anyway. There are so many people who have dismissed the Catholic voice in our country and I fear that she's just made it easier for them to do so.

Podcast: Hayes Delivers ND Commencement Speech and More

On this week's Busted Halo Cast...

We answer a question about the Eucharist and Episcopalians.

And then I decided that if Mary Ann Glendon wasn't going to speak, perhaps I'd take a crack at it, going one step beyond Fr Jim Martin's article earlier this week.

The popup box will launch when you click the link here

Breaking: Pinch-hitting for Glendon...

Short story is that no award will be given, a former winner to give the speech.

From ND's PR plant

Judge John T. Noonan Jr., the 1984 recipient of the Laetare Medal, has accepted an invitation to deliver an address in the spirit of the award at Notre Dame’s 164th University Commencement Ceremony on May 17. His speech will be in lieu of awarding the medal this year.

“In thinking about who could bring a compelling voice, a passion for dialogue, great intellectual stature, and a deep commitment to Catholic values to the speaking role of the Laetare Medalist – especially in these unusual circumstances – it quickly became clear that an ideal choice is Judge Noonan,” said Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., president of Notre Dame. “This commencement ceremony, more than anything else, is a celebration of our students and their families. Judge Noonan will join with President Obama and other speakers in that celebration, sending them from our campus and into the world with sound advice and affirmation.

“Since Judge Noonan is a previous winner of the Laetare Medal, we have decided, upon reflection, to not award the medal this year.”

Read more on Noonan here

100 Days of Obama - And the Church still stands

From CNS - the Church claims President Obama's first 100 days have not been as bad as they may have feared.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican newspaper said President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office have not confirmed the Catholic Church's worst fears about radical policy changes in ethical areas.

The comments came in a front-page article April 29 in L'Osservatore Romano, under the headline, "The 100 days that did not shake the world." It said the new president has operated with more caution than predicted in most areas, including economics and international relations.

"On ethical questions, too -- which from the time of the electoral campaign have been the subject of strong worries by the Catholic bishops -- Obama does not seem to have confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed," it said.

It said the new draft guidelines for stem-cell research, for example, did not constitute the major change in policy that was foreseen a few months ago.

"(The guidelines) do not allow the creation of new embryos for research or therapeutic purposes, for cloning or for reproductive ends, and federal funds may be used only for experimentation with excess embryos," it said.

Read the rest here

A hat tip to Deacon Greg and Rocco who also adds a bit more including this snippet that we all should read:

A certain surprise has otherwise come about in these days through a bill designed by the Democratic party: the Pregnant Women Support Act would move to limit the number of abortions in the United States through initiatives of aid for distressed women. It's not a negation of the doctrine until now expressed by Obama on matters of the interruption of pregnancy, but the legislative project could represent a rebalancing in support of motherhood.

If it's good enough for the Vatican paper...

Fr James Martin, S.J. as Possible Replacement for Mary Ann Glendon?

Well, not really...but...

Fr James Martin, S.J. has created a masterpiece here with his open letter to Notre Dame's President. He has his tongue planted firmly in his cheek..well..sorta.

Now that Mary Ann Glendon has announced that she would not accept Notre Dame’s prestigious Laetare Medal, because she was “dismayed” by the university’s awarding of an honorary degree to President Obama, the search is undoubtedly on for another recipient. Let me suggest one candidate you may have otherwise overlooked: me.

Now, I know many more notable and famous and accomplished and, well, deserving names may spring to mind. Names that would probably draw more of a crowd, names of people with a lifetime of service behind them, or names that would probably pose fewer problems in terms of Catholic orthodoxy. Say, Pope Benedict XVI. (Though draping a medal on top of his papal pectoral cross seems a little like overkill.) Or, say, Susan Boyle, that awesome YouTube singer, who is not only super-Catholic but would be a huge hit when she belted out the Notre Dame fight song. Or Mother Teresa, who everybody likes, though being dead might be a strike against her if a speech is expected.

Anyway, I think there are plenty of good reasons to offer me the now in-play Laetare Award. Let me list just a few.

1.) I don’t have one.
As it turns out, I've only received a few real “awards,” like one from Plymouth-Whitemarsh Senior High School, and a Christopher Award, which is really nice, and just last week an award with the longest name yet: “The Loyola Institute of Spirituality’s Hearts on Fire Writer’s Award in Spirituality,” and, let me tell you, that’s a lot of words to fit on a chunk of crystal: it must weigh five pounds. I could kill someone with that award. (But I won't of course: I'm pro-life.) But the last time I checked I didn’t have a Laetare Award. I’ll bet it’s nice, too. Is it a real medal? With a ribbon? Cool. I could wear it over my vestments at Mass. In fact, I would be so happy to have that sitting on my shelf that…

Read the rest for more--hysterical.

Upcoming--my own Laetare Medal speech...putting the finishing touches on this one and will you tube it.

Clarifying to Be Clear on Glendon

I also added this on Facebook. I wanted to make sure I was clear on what my opinion of Glendon's decision is and am not accusing her of being a bad Catholic, an idiot, or someone who has no principles.

Glendon is of course standing up for Catholic principles with her silence but I think it would be a BETTER option to actually speak as opposed to not speak and that her decison not to speak is based more on what she's comfortable doing politically than it has to do with making a statement of pro-life. Now that last part may indeed be conjecture on my part but I think that most people would really like to hear what she has to say--and to not say anything is a lot easier than to stand up there and disagree publicly with the leader of the free world in front of a whole lot of people.

I also wasn't suggesting that HER stand had anything to do with "calling people names" but in the argument to restrict President Obama from speaking there has indeed been a lot of name calling. Fortunately Glendon has taken the high road here and that is something many of us can learn from.

Additionally, I'd like to say that we need to do both--talk loudly and work for a change in grassroots ways like working with young mothers, which I do on occasion. But for many it's all about changing the law--which I'd like to do too...but even if we do, it merely changes the law from a federal to a state issue. An important step undoubtedly, but one that still needs us to counter what remains and to be used to doing that.

As I've repeatedly said on the blog--and Bishop Chaput says similar things--if we all really cared this wouldn't be an issue because we'd spend every last moment working to end it. But most people don't--some only yell at politicians to the point that they stop listening (which does us no good) and some only work in the grassroots.
Most, I might add--do nothing at all.

Gaurev, I think where we agree strongly is that we both think something needs to be done to end this terrible murder. How we go about that might look a bit different.

Members of Communion and Liberation weigh in on Notre Dame and President Obama

Gaurav Shroff a seminarian from the Atlanta Archdiocese and I have been having a great conversation on Facebook and he smartly pointed me to this outstanding article from Communion and Liberation:

Two snippets I'll highlight but it is a very moving article and you should read the whole thing here

The University of Notre Dame has been reprimanded by many for what seems to be a myopic decision to invite president Barack Obama—44th president and often staunchly opposed to the Church’s political positions—to give the commencement address at graduation and receive an honorary degree. The invitation has sparked outrage from many students and alumni, the former writing a petition protesting the president’s visit, and the latter withholding donations from the school. None of this, however, seems to me to be the fundamental problem, and I doubt whether these ancillary issues can be viewed correctly until the essential problem is addressed. This essential problem is that Christianity, to many people—including Christians—is nothing more than a moralistic, political ideology.

I haven’t mentioned much about Obama, because I think the issue his visit to Notre Dame has raised is ultimately: “What is Christianity? What about it is so worth defending?” This question remains unanswered unless we arrive to a true recognition of Christ, on the cross, giving us everything. In a sense, this is all that is asked of us. What upset me so much about the whole issue is how devoid of a recognition Christ’s presence the whole of popular reaction has been. If the essence of Christianity is power, as it is being portrayed both by the media and by those utterly outraged at the invitation, then I am not interested in being a Christian. I am interested in what made Zaccheus a protagonist; I am interested in the man who is able to call me down from the tree.

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.

Mary Ann Glendon declines Latare Medal from Notre Dame

The circus continues at Notre Dame--hat tips to Deacon Greg, Rocco, Amy Welborn and First Things who all got the early word on this.

Former Vatican Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon has declined receiving the Laetare Medal from Notre Dame in light of the hoopla surrounding President Obama's commencement speech. A snippet alongside some commentary from yours truly.

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

OK two things here:

If you think it's not the right venue than let's get the right one and have her come and let her voice the church's cause so that the President and everyone else for that matter will hear it.

Secondly, I disagree that it's not the right venue. After 4 years, graduation is not merely about celebrating an achievement of making it through the tough grind but it's also about inspiring students to stand up for justice, for their moral principles, for engaging the world's problems. They are heading into a world where many of them will be doing exactly that. Commencement speeches should have in their tone a sense of "as you leave here...keep this in mind. Don't forget about the unborn, the poor, the world beyond not just this school but this country."

I think that it a shame that Ms. Glendon will not be gracing the students at Notre Dame with her remarks. I do wonder if there is some way to salvage this. The groundswell has started and it seems to me that at this point Notre Dame is facing a public relations disaster. I would offer the following solution:

Give the Laetare medal to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Archbishop of Santa Fe Michael Sheehan who just ended the death penalty in their state. The topic we can ask them to address is: How can we dialogue together, despite our disagreements in order to influence each other to create change.

Because that's what everyone is missing here.

Fr. Jenkins trip to DC to visit Obama?

Yesterday some reports spun around the net regarding Notre Dame's President Fr. Jenkins taking a trip to Washington, DC on the Notre Dame Charter.

OK, as an aside I find it hysterical that Notre Dame has their own plane.

Many sources assumed that Fr. Jenkins was there to meet with President Obama.

American Papist reports that this is not the case, or at least not the initial purpose of his visit to our nation's capitol.

Now an informed source tells me that Fr. Jenkins is in town for a multi-day seminar/symposium for high level Notre Dame donors, which has been planned for some time now and involves several speakers and events. Because the activities are private, they were not "advertised" to the wider public.

Of course, just because Fr. Jenkins has good reason to be in DC besides meeting with Obama, doesn't mean he might not have attempted to meet with him while he was in town. I'm trying to track down that possibility next.

Indeed a good journalistic point. Even if he does meet with him, so what? What does that mean? Is he recinding the offer? Giving him dos and don'ts for the speech? Providing him with the secret recipe for making the perfect Notre Dame shamrock waffle? Hoping to make Bo the new Notre Dame mascot? (Fighting Portugese Water Dogs doesn't really roll off the tongue though!) Or is the first step in Notre Dame's attempt to take over the world?

Maybe he's also got ideas on who that Vatican Ambassador should be?