The American Spectator : The Destruction of Notre Dame

Text Size

The Destruction of Notre Dame

Why the Catholic university’s president should not have invited President Obama to deliver the school’s commencement address this spring.

On Friday, March 20, it was announced that President Obama had accepted an invitation by the president of the University of Notre Dame, Father John Jenkins, to give the commencement address on May 19 and receive an honorary degree. What fire could not do, Father Jenkins and his Academic Council may succeed in doing — destroying a major Catholic institution.

In April 1879, the Main Building of the University was destroyed by fire. It was “the Main Building” because it housed classrooms, student sleeping quarters, kitchen, library, offices. The man who had left France and founded Notre Dame 37 years earlier, in 1842, Father Edward Sorin, was 65 and saw his life’s work destroyed. Nonetheless, with fiery determination, he exclaimed: “If it were all gone, I should not give up. Tomorrow, we will build again, and build it bigger.” That summer, with help from Chicagoans who had suffered their own fire eight years before, 300 laborers, using mud from the campus lake, made bricks and rebuilt it. It was sufficiently complete for the return of students in September. It is this building that TV viewers see during Notre Dame home football games.

How did Father Jenkins calculate the benefits and the burdens of Notre Dame giving Obama a platform on campus at commencement?

As Notre Dame’s own press release indicates, this would not be the first time that a sitting president would have visited Notre Dame. Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Younger all spoke at commencement. And FDR, Kennedy and Ford each came to campus for honors. So, if Obama came and gave one of his first commencement addresses at Notre Dame, it would add to Notre Dame’s secular glory only in an incremental sense.

Maybe Father Jenkins wants to honor Obama as the first African-American to become president. Undoubtedly this fact will be prominent in the biography the school will recite just prior to conferring the honorary doctorate upon him. (Frankly, there is no other achievement in his biography.) But this would be looking at the color of his skin over his policies.

Consider these policies and the burdens of Notre Dame honoring Obama. We must assume that Father Jenkins knows how hostile Obama, as state legislator, as U.S. senator, and now as president, has been to innocent human life and to the Catholic Church which tries to protect it. And Father Jenkins must have thought about the fact that inviting Obama would offend large numbers of students, the graduating seniors, alumni/ae, benefactors, and all pro-lifers through the country and the world. Moreover, it would constitute an attack on the pastoral authority of the local bishop, the American bishops as a group, and the Pope who have prohibited Catholic institutions from granting platforms to pro-abortion speakers — even if their talks would not be about abortion and other human life issues.

Even those in favor of abortion and euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research view these points as core for the Catholic Church and would see honors bestowed by Notre Dame on Obama as Notre Dame’s surrender and suicide.

So, any rational person occupying the position of president of Notre Dame who weighed the benefits and the burdens would not invite Obama. It would be self-destructive.

It was just last month that Speaker Pelosi who, no doubt, sees herself as the Supreme Head of the Catholic Church in America, visited Pope Benedict, but Pope Benedict was politically aware and refused to give her a photo opportunity. Father Jenkins thinks he is smarter than the Pope and will purposefully smile with Obama for the cameras.

Obama’s visit to Notre Dame will be a one-way street — in favor of Obama. Father Jenkins will not be taking Obama to Notre Dame’s woodshed, to speak truth to power. No, Obama will be doing all the talking. Obama will co-opt a major Catholic institution.

Above the Main Building that TV viewers see during Notre Dame home football games is a Golden Dome. Atop it is a statue of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. (Notre Dame is “Our Lady” in French.) At the end of every game, the football players face the students and all of them sing the school’s alma mater whose title and first line is “Notre Dame our Mother.” Another line is “Glory’s mantle cloaks thee; golden is thy fame.” Father Jenkins will allow Obama to take Mary’s mantle and wear it on his shoulders for all the world to see.

The day Father Jenkins’ presidency is over (soon one hopes), the new president, the loyal faculty and alumni/ae, and friends throughout the world will repeat Father Sorin’s words, “Tomorrow, we will build again, and build it [better].”

(The author is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame.)

About the Author

James M. Thunder is a Washington, D.C. attorney.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (185) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 7:31AM

Notre Dame is a Catholic school? When did this happen?

In any case, so what? As Bishop Fulton Sheen said back when I was in diapers, "Parents, if you want your children to lose their faith, send them to a Catholic college or university".

That certainly was my observation from my four years at Georgetown University (1972-76)--though I am always careful to call it a "Jesuit university", there being a very large gulf between "Catholic" and "Jesuit".

During my time at Georgetown I was not Catholic, but if I had been, the odds would have been great that I would not have been Catholic on my way out. The Jebs, in fact, seemed almost embarrassed by the school's affiliation with the Catholic Church, and downplayed it at every opportunity. The desire for intellectual respectability amongst their secular peers trumps any fidelity to the Catholic Tradition.

It was a full twenty years before I was baptized into the Catholic Church, albeit as a Byzantine, not Roman Catholic. Since Byzantine Catholics are always treated as outsiders by the majority Church in the Catholic communion, I have a rather unique perspective on Notre Dame's l'Affaire Obama.

1. The same logic Mr. Thunder uses to oppose the invitation of President Obama is the same logic used by a variety of Catholic universities to oppose the invitation of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and other conservative figures to speak at commencement, though in their particular cases the salient issue was the war in Iraq. Taken to its logical conclusion, this line of thought means no political figure should ever be invited to speak at a Catholic school, because, at some point or another, he will have taken a stand contrary to Catholic doctrine (or whatever the USCCB says Catholic doctrine is this week). Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, for instance, both support the death penalty, and our mitred overlords tell us that this is a sin (despite 19 centuries of Catholic teaching). Other Catholic politicians support enforcing American immigration laws, which we are also told is a sin. We can go on forever.

The ante-Nicene Fathers believed that government service was incompatible with Christian belief, and required Christians in office to abstain for communion for their term of service. Might be a good thing to bring back.

2. Asking someone to speak is not the same as endorsing their opinions. A university exists for the purpose of broadening minds, and one which only exposes its students to views compatible with those of its faculty or founders does them a disservice. As conservatives and Christians frequently denounce the systematic blacklisting of conservative and Christian speakers at colleges and universities, it is ironic that they would seek to impose similar blacklists of their own, rather than considering each speaker on his merits.

3. That said, better or worse, Barack Obama is President of the United States, and as such, a noteworthy speaker who ought to be heard, in person, by the graduating class of Notre Dame. If the school has done its job correctly, then the graduating students should have nothing to fear from what he has to say. A strong faith rooted in the Tradition of the Church can withstand contrary opinions. As Basil the Great (a graduate of the Athenian academy and classmate of Julian the Apostate) wrote to some young men, it is important for well educated Christians to be exposed to the pagan writings and pagan thought. Not only does this provide them with the armamentarium needed to counter their opinions and uphold Christian belief, but the pagans themselves have much to offer in the way of insights and teachings, for the Holy Spirit passes where He wills, and uses such instruments as come to hand--even pagans.

So let Obama come. And let the students of Notre Dame listen--critically. They should be none the worse for the experience, and if they are, then the problems of Notre Dame are far deeper than its choice of commencement speaker.

Dick Bishirjian | 3.23.09 @ 7:45AM

As a Notre Dame graduate, I was aware 44 years ago that things were not 'right' at Notre Dame. It has taken that long for the public to become aware of the decline of Catholic higher education. "The fish putrefies from the head" and that putrefaction begain in the post WW II era when novices became priests, brothers and nuns who should never have chosen a religious vocation. Social workers, sociologists, psychologists dominated and those with true philosophic and theological knowledge took second place. The end result is the departure of Catholic universities from Church doctrine and the secularization of Catholic higher education.
There is little that distinguishes Notre Dame from the University of Indiana; Georgetown from American University; Holy Cross, Boston College and all the Loyolas have capitulated to secularism.

drudge ette obama| 3.23.09 @ 8:11AM

So, who was asked first to speak? Obama or Father Phleger?

I agree with Stuart, above. Obama is the big fish.
So let him speak. I was raised Catholic, but the passivity, socialism and immigration policies disturb me.

But also let those students, their parents speak out about their disagreements with a man who supports abortion without limits.

I know that the Church condemns the death penalty and abortion, making the point that you can't ethically support one (death penalty) but not the other (abortion). I am surprised the Catholic Church doesn't condemn national armies, because they are sent to kill people. Better watch out, though, because there is probably a front there that does condemn the military. Personally, I have always viewed the death penalty as similar to the right to self defense, it keeps the bad boys off the streets permanently. And armies protect us in an efficient manner which could not be met by the individual effort. Abortion doesn't capture either of those societal benefits.

Anyway, I bet Obama stresses the merciful aspects of socialism, uhhh, I mean taxing to pay your fair share. The difference is this: taxing is taking and it is not voluntary nor charity.

Charity is done by free men, on their own volition, without the state having a knife in their backs.

TennesseeVolunteer| 3.23.09 @ 8:16AM

I am heartbroken.

I was an administrator at a Catholic college for 10 years. The college administration never understood the disconnect that they encouraged secularism and weren't embraced by the Catholic community. I look forward to the day when Notre Dame rebuilds, this is a grievous error.

Jeanette O'Toole | 3.23.09 @ 9:10AM

Thank you, Mr. Thunder, for your article. My husband, Tom O'Toole ('81) wrote a piece you or your readers might find interesting regarding this mess:

http://www.fightingirishthomas.net/2009/03/barack-at-notre-dame-our-lady-strikes.html

Jeremiah| 3.23.09 @ 9:16AM

Do you guys ever question your use of hyperbole. In the hands of a competent stylist, this figure can be quite useful.

However, if it forms the tenor -- the very basis -- of your style, it can become a problem.

The "destruction" of Notre Dame?

Come on. Toughen up a bit. Get a grip.

CarlPio| 3.23.09 @ 9:17AM

As a ND alumnus (66'), I am saddened by what Fr. Jenkins has done to my school. ND is THE premier Catholic University, not only in the US but in the world – or at least it use to be. The good Father has made it more of a secular university than a faith based institution of higher learning during his tenure as President. Poor Fr. Sorin must be turning over in his grave. Fr. Jenkins has quite a track record of allowing secular events to occur at ND which fly in the face of Catholic Doctrine - from the Vagina Monologues, the Gay Film festival to now allowing an extremely pro-abortion President to give the commencement address. I hope Fr. Jenkins realizes he is “leading” this great institution, dedicated to the Mother of God, down the shallow path of becoming just another “if it feels good do it” bastion of secular liberalism. My president, Father Hesburgh, was a God fearing priest first, and then a brilliant educator who lead ND in the way of the church while increasing university’s stature as a primer institution of higher learning. I fear Fr. Jenkins has lost his moral compass. I will pray for his soul.

Chris Manion ND '68| 3.23.09 @ 9:50AM

In 1967, Notre Dame took the lead in authoring the "Land'O Lakes" statement that called for federal aid to Catholic higher education -- made possible by LBJ's Omnibus Education Act.

Of course, there was a price to pay. Each institution had to adopt a lay board of trustees (instead of being run by the religious orders that had built them) and otherwise placate the myriad of secular demands. So they did. Money talks.

During the next forty years, Notre Dame has rolled over and played dead to get hundreds of millions in federal funds. It has also played Catholic to get more millions from nostalgic Catholic alumni.

Notre Dame will jump at the chance to please the federal government, but it takes really unique pleasure in giving the Pope the back of its hand, ignoring every possible moral teaching that might encumber its love affair with the feds and the Ivy Leaguers who sit on all those "peer review" committees that hand out those federal grants.

Canon Law (which governs the Catholic Church) requires any institution calling itself "Catholic" to have ecclesiastical permission to do so. Perhaps this latest travesty (hardly hyperbole) will finally signal the Vatican that the corruption is so deep that it is irreversible. Bishop John D’Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend, has already severed many connections between the university and the diocese – perhaps offering a telling preamble to the ultimate sanction.

Join thousands petitioning Notre Dame to reverse its decision, or at least to give Obama the treatment B16 gave Pelosi in Rome, by signing up here:

http://notredamescandal.com/

And here is the Canon Law cite:

Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

The Bishop| 3.23.09 @ 9:58AM

I am neither Catholic nor an alum of Notre Dame - and neither was Ara Parseghian - (although, as a resident of South Bend for the past 38 years I am not unaware of the importance of the university to the local economy and lore), but I do have a profound admiration and respect for the Catholic stance on abortion/life issues. I profoundly regret ND's compromise with agents of the abortion industry (no matter their job title) who will use the university's grandeur to to enhance their standing and "dialogue" with the gullible. As a local taxpayer, I'm also not too happy about the increased burden to the local economy for protection services that such a "presidential" visit will force upon us. Academia, it seems, is as often at odds with Mother Church as it is with good public policy. Shame!

Tony| 3.23.09 @ 10:11AM

I recently finished "God, Country, Notre Dame, " Father Hesburgh's autobiography, albeit 19 years after publication. It would be interesting to hear his views on this invitation. I suspect he might approve, since he approved the choice of Mario Cuomo in 1984 during his tenure as ND's President. Cuomo did more to legitimize the pro-choice position than anyone I know. Interestingly, we hear very little from Mario these days. Oh, if only the same result would ensue for Barack.

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 10:33AM

"There is little that distinguishes Notre Dame from the University of Indiana; Georgetown from American University; Holy Cross, Boston College and all the Loyolas have capitulated to secularism."

And is there a problem in this? Why not just get the Church out of the higher education business in the first place? Then, at least, there would be truth in advertising. Moreover, a "Catholic education" really entails a liberal arts orientation, with an emphasis on Great Books. There are a number of independent Catholic liberal arts colleges that provide this very well. On the other hand, there is nothing particularly "Catholic" about polytechnical institutions, of which Notre Dame is one. The number of people who want or need a liberal arts education is severely limited, and such an education is in fact wasted on the majority of students who get liberal arts degrees. On the other hand, there is a tremendous demand for technical and vocational degrees, neither of which lend themselves particularly well to the model of Catholic liberal education.

Universities were started in the West to teach and train clerics; this was continued through the Reformation as Protestant institutions focused on training preachers. I don't think this is what universities do, anymore, so may be the whole idea of religious affiliation needs to be rethought.

As I noted in my first post, in the Patristic Era, the place to go was the Athenian Academy (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nanzianzen, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and a host of others), which was in outlook and curriculum an overtly pagan institution. The Fathers who attended knew this. They did not care--they merely wanted the best education they could get, knowing precisely who was teaching them and what they believed.

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 10:36AM

"The "destruction" of Notre Dame?

Come on. Toughen up a bit. Get a grip."

Have you seen their football team in recent years? Destruction is hardly hyperbole. And I am sure most alumni consider it a greater crisis than Obama speaking at commencement. Do you remember your commencement address? On the other hand, football is really, really, REALLY important.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.23.09 @ 10:37AM

The article wasn't clear. Was his teleprompter invited also?

MangroveSwampEd| 3.23.09 @ 10:37AM

I see a "senior skip day" coming. And just what honorary degree is being bestowed? Doctor of Trickenology?

KC| 3.23.09 @ 10:44AM

I am a Notre Dame alumnus, and am proud of my University and Father Jenkins for not caving in to the demands of a faction of our country that, in growing increasingly more powerless, is becoming more and more brash in tone.

TennesseeVolunteer| 3.23.09 @ 11:22AM

KC Is the "increasingly more powerless" faction you speak about the innocent aborted children or the growing consensus of people who believe that abortion cannot be good or right?

Francis Beckwith | 3.23.09 @ 11:39AM

KC:

The unborn have always been powerless. So, perhaps those of us who stand for them are becoming more like them. But it's not clear why you would think that an item about which to brag.

One does not measure authentic faith by one's "tone" or "power," since neither carries with it the property of truth. Hence, today we name our children "Paul" and our dogs "Caesar."

Something does not become true because it is spoken by power; rather, one ought to speak truth to power.

CarlPio| 3.23.09 @ 11:41AM

Is there a problem with ND being indistinguishable from other Universities? Of course there is. Whether you are majoring in liberal arts, science, engineering or other disciplines the most important part of “you” is your core beliefs or how you will live your life. You should want a Catholic education because you want your faith nourished in addition to learning a skill. ND’s charter supports that. If you look at the statutes of the University (as amended March 28, 1967), Para V.F.1 states, “The intellectual life of the University should at all times be enlivened and sustained by a devotion to the twin disciplines of theology and philosophy. They are viewed as being central to the University's existence and function. Here the role of the priest-professor can and should be a vital one.” When I went to school, as a Catholic I was required to take 4 semesters of theology and 4 semesters of philosophy. What a novel idea – a Catholic University espousing Catholic beliefs. If you don’t want to get a Catholic education then go to another University. If you want to educate and strengthen your soul and mind then choose a Catholic school like ND – oh wait – I wonder how that’s possible when Fr. Jenkins is giving a forum to a man who is pro-death, which is anathema to what the Catholic Church teaches.

C.S.| 3.23.09 @ 11:49AM

I think that even more disturbing to me is that Obama chose Notre Dame - I would guess that many schools were vying for this "honor". As he managed to deceive some Catholic conservatives and some evangelicals that he was the choice that would reduce abortions, when he is the most pro= abortion absolutist president we have ever had, he is a master of deception. The same is true of Michelle's " outreach to military families" even as her husband tries to take away their medical coverage. He is an extremely cynical and manipulative man, even by politicians' standards.

MangroveSwampEd| 3.23.09 @ 12:03PM

While his "tone" was not brash, Obama's statement that well, ya know, "it was the mother's intention to have an abortion" so the BORN-ALIVE baby should be left to die (and by extension killed if necessary to complete the wish/choice), suggests malevolence.

Tim| 3.23.09 @ 12:32PM

The secularization of Notre Dame can be traced back to Fr. Ted Hesburgh's own hubris. In 1967, Fr. Ted convened all the leading Catholic university bigwigs in the U.S. at what was called the "Land O'Lakes Conference" on property owned by ND in Wisconsin. A key objective: to declare U.S. Catholic universities independent of any Church authority in the name of "academic freedom." Which they did. Thus, over the years, Hesburgh's vision and those of the participants (including the future Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, last year's ND commencement speaker) has produced the bitter fruit forced upon us today. A theology professor, Cathleen Kaveny, served on Obama's National Catholic Advisory Committee. Much of that advice centered around how Obama could sell his abortion policies to Catholic voters. That Notre Dame and its faculty promotes the culture of death in this country is the ultimate unintended consequence of Father Hesburgh's vision of an independent Catholic university. "Catholic" is now simply a brand at Notre Dame, which it uses for fundraising and othe public relations purposes.

DM in MI, ND'93| 3.23.09 @ 12:36PM

As a conservative, non-Catholic attending Notre Dame I was comforted that the school I was proud to attend took great pains to honor human life despite its liberal leanings as most centers for higher leaning. Sounds like Fr Jenkins is more interested in what other’s think then his church and its doctrines.

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 1:35PM

"You should want a Catholic education because you want your faith nourished in addition to learning a skill. "

Define "Catholic Education". Also explain how nourishing one's faith became a responsibility of the university, and not of one's parents, one's parish, and one's self.

“The intellectual life of the University should at all times be enlivened and sustained by a devotion to the twin disciplines of theology and philosophy."

My own experience of this at Georgetown was of unwilling freshmen and sophomores dragged by their pre-requisites into introductory theology and philosophy courses (six credit hours of each, mandatory) taught by bored and resentful professors. In any case, these classes were wasted on 90% of the students, who were either indifferent to the material or lacked both the emotional and intellectual maturity to grapple with it (not for nothing did the Fathers believe no one should study theology before the age of forty!). It was in these classes that I, non-observant Jew that I was, saw young and impressionable Catholic kids become suddenly disillusioned with the pieties of their youth, and by junior year, ready to join the ranks of the skeptical multitude. Had I been one of them, I might have followed suit. God led me in another direction.

labrialumn| 3.23.09 @ 2:22PM

Insofar as changing infallible Roman Catholic doctrine can be determined, abortion is an intrisic evil, where as capital punishment is not, is not a sin, but is considered to be a bad idea with the low levels of evidence required in contemporary jurisprudence.

Whether the American Catholic Church is part of the Roman Catholic Church in practice, is a debatable matter.

There is an authoritative document, ex corde ecclesia which requires what a Roman Catholic university is to be. Places like Notre Dame, Georgetown and Catholic University appear to fail the test. But the Vatican leaves things to local bishops in preference to acting. Local bishops are a very mixed bag with regards to oecumenical Christian orthodoxy, let alone fidelity to the Roman magisterium.

Andrew K. Cuddy| 3.23.09 @ 2:44PM

As a product of a Catholic College (Holy Cross), I am disappointed in N.D. giving Obama this platform, but N.D. abandoned many of its Catholic traditions long ago.

Stuart Koehl apparently did not have a positive experience at Georgetown with the Jesuits. I had the complete opposite experience at Holy Cross where the Jesuits were an integrated part of the college community and helped foster Catholic values not only in me but in those around me. Holy Cross introduced me to the Knights of Columbus, which through my travels has been a constant source of social connection with like-minded souls.

My three brothers also attended Catholic colleges (Siena, LeMoyne, and Niagara), and I have seen the positive impact of Catholic higher education on each of them.

Perhaps Georgetown is just located a bit too close to the securlar influences of D.C. politics.

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 2:52PM

"But the Vatican leaves things to local bishops in preference to acting. Local bishops are a very mixed bag with regards to oecumenical Christian orthodoxy, let alone fidelity to the Roman magisterium."

Which is why I would just as soon drop the pretense of these schools being "Catholic".

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 2:59PM

"Stuart Koehl apparently did not have a positive experience at Georgetown with the Jesuits. I had the complete opposite experience at Holy Cross where the Jesuits were an integrated part of the college community and helped foster Catholic values not only in me but in those around me. "

It would depend, I suppose, on the year and the school.

"My three brothers also attended Catholic colleges (Siena, LeMoyne, and Niagara), and I have seen the positive impact of Catholic higher education on each of them."

As I said, there are quite a few good, small Catholic liberal arts colleges. In my mind, Catholic higher education is inextricably linked with the liberal arts, and in particular, with a Great Books curriculum. To expect a university to offer the broad range of scientific, technical and vocational subjects far removed from Trivium and Quadrivium, while retaining any semblance of a "Catholic outlook" in my mind is expecting oil and water to mix.

I would also add, though, that as a Byzantine Catholic, I do not think I would find these Catholic liberal arts schools conducive to the further development of my faith. Most are exclusively Latin in their outlook, and at best ambivalent about Eastern Catholic approaches to theology, spirituality and doctrine. I'm very happy that my daughter is presently at a secular university that offers the best possible curriculum in her chosen field of academic endeavor. Her spiritual nourishment comes from the Orthodox Christian Fellowship there, something she would be unlikely to find in the Newman Society.

John II| 3.23.09 @ 3:07PM

Stuart K: My own experience with a Catholic college education was different from yours, almost certainly because I did my undergraduate work almost exactly ten years before you say you did yours. So I'm a little older--and, although not Jewish, I grew up in a secularist home untouched by the routines of a cradle-Catholic upbringing. I feel certain that what you say about the philosophy and theology requirements of Georgetown back in the seventies is largely true. And I am most definitely certain that I myself had no pieties to be "disillusioned with" when I went through the regimen of philosophy and theology requirements at my college in the early sixties.

But my experience was different. Those classes, although of varying quality, alerted me to ways of thinking that I would otherwise never have encountered, so that the loose skepticism you allude to simply became impossible for me (e.g., Aristotle makes hash out of that pose in his treatise On the Soul). The courses left me with an openness and eagerness to learn more about Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic thing in particular. So now my own kids and grandkids are indeed "cradle Catholics," gifted with an energetic piety that I had no opportunity to experience in my own youth.

This God that you and I believe in is really in charge, and in a way that we both hope we'll be able to spend eternity being amazed by. So, in a sense, it doesn't matter that a man like Obama is coming to Notre Dame, because Providence will fit the consequences into His divine plan--always subverting our rotten decisions to His own purposes.

But it does matter that the decision to invite Mr. Obama is a rotten one. It would be fine with me if he were invited to discuss and debate his sociopolitical views. But that's not what the invitation is about.

Mr. Obama is a power-wielding advocate of at least two modernist heresies of particularly heinous consequence to the human good. His advocacy of abortion and infanticide and his superannuated statism are both in direct and violent contradiction to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the matter of human dignity. His shallow glibness and his mendacity should of themselves be reason to give a morally serious college administration pause. But his transparent contempt for human dignity, although not reason enough to decline to invite him to campus for discussion and debate, is more than sufficient reason to decline to extend to him ceremonious honors.

The term "destruction of Notre Dame" is not hyperbole, contrary to the asseveration of the poster called "Jeremiah"; it is rather an instance of the figure called "metonymy," in which "Notre Dame" is taken to mean "Catholic education." By honoring Mr. Obama, the administration of Notre Dame perpetrates a direct assault on Catholic education. As "Tim" points out, it started in the late sixties, and we seem now to have reached the foot of the slippery slope as the "dying light" flickers out among the majority of historically Catholic colleges and universities.

KC| 3.23.09 @ 3:15PM

Francis Beckwith:
Thank you for the non sequiturs. Of course having power is not a sufficient condition for being right.
The point is that the increasing shrillness on the right is a product of their increasing loss of power. They would do us all a favor by presenting public reasons for policy rather than blind ideology about abortion and homosexuality. "Barack Obama murders little babies" is not a reason. It's mere emoting.

Carl Pio| 3.23.09 @ 3:25PM

I sorry that some need definitions of what a "Catholic Education" is, in addition to what nourishing the soul means. If you don’t know then I certainly can’t convince you. What’s the old adage – When it comes to faith, for those who believe no explanation is necessary - for those who don't, no explanation will suffice. Chalk me up on the side of "no explanation necessary", while others – sadly – will fall on the side of “no explanation will suffice.” As for why some get something out of courses like theology and philosophy and some don't. If you go to a class and are bored then it shows a lack of maturity. Wasting the opportunity to grow in mind and spirit is sad indeed – the opportunity is there – take it if you wish. The responsibility of the faith based University, as ND professes to be, is to teach – in addition to secular studies - faith. It builds on what the student already knows which he or she, hopefully learned from their parents, parishes, etc. – isn’t that why one gets an education – to increase ones knowledge? If you don’t want a faith based education then go somewhere else. You know what you are getting into or should – all you have to do is look at the curriculum. But don’t waste the cost of tuition or take the spot of someone who is willing to work, learn, grow, and not be bored.

Helen Donnelly| 3.23.09 @ 3:32PM

Reply to KC:
You are the shrill and brass one. We as American's have every right to voice our opinion and stand up for what we believe in. If that doesn't fall in line with what you believe, than so be it. This is America. We can disagree. And we do....
Helen

Pete | 3.23.09 @ 3:34PM

KC, we'll sugar-coat it for you: Instead of " Barack Obama murders little babies", how about "Barack Obama supports the murder of little babies". Better, or still too "shrill"? We can still water it down some more. Maybe the "little babies" part. How about "viable human fetuses"? Still to shrill?

Pete | 3.23.09 @ 3:43PM

...It's the "murder" part, right?

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 4:15PM

"The point is that the increasing shrillness on the right is a product of their increasing loss of power."

I haven't noticed much by way of shrillness on the right. On the other hand, KC's post appears to be the only example of shrillness here. Projection has always been a prominent coping mechanism among liberals.

Red Phillips | 3.23.09 @ 4:16PM

""Barack Obama murders little babies" is not a reason. It's mere emoting."

KC, you are right. That is not an accurate statement. Barack Obama thinks it should be legal for other people to murder their babies. There. That's better.

A University can not be Catholic or Protestant for that matter and "command respect" from its liberal academic peers. You have to choose. Either you are explicitly Christian or you are not. You can't have it both ways. I am more aware of the situation with certain Baptist colleges, many of which have gone the way of the Catholic colleges before them. Baylor, Wake Forest, Mercer, Furman, etc. (FB knows about Baylor.)

Notice I did not say that explicitly Christian colleges can not provide excellent, broad, liberal (in the original sense) educations. Just that they can not be committed to the teaching, defense and propagation of the Faith and command the respect of the modern secularistic academy. If they think they can they are fooling themselves. It is foolish to try.

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 4:22PM

"I sorry that some need definitions of what a "Catholic Education" is".

I beg pardon. As an historian, I know the history of the university and its deep roots in the medieval Catholic Church. However, the meaning of Catholic education has changed substantially over the centuries, and continues to evolve, so it would be good to have a precise definition of what people mean by "Catholic education" right now.

Certainly, as a Byzantine Catholic, my perception of what such an education ought to involve is a bit different than that of, say, a Latin Catholic with deep Thomistic roots. What ought to be read, what ought to be taught, would differ between us because, though we are both Catholic, we belong to different particular Churches, with different spiritual patrimonies, and differing Traditions.

It is our frustration with the limitations of "Catholic education" to the Tradition of the Western Church that has caused a number of Eastern Catholics to begin work towards the creation of a uniquely Eastern Catholic great books college. As might be expected, our greatest hurdle is funding, followed closely by affordable facilities. Our plight is made worse by the fragmentation of the Eastern Catholic Churches into a number of different autonomous Churches following several different rites. If we could overcome our own internal differences, we would be farther along on this endeavor.

That said, I think the number of people who could really benefit from an Eastern Catholic liberal arts education is extremely limited, just as is the number of people who could benefit from a classical Catholic education. Like Charles Murray, I think far too many people go to college, in any case.

MangroveSwampEd| 3.23.09 @ 4:41PM

No, KC, a man who proclaims compassion and empathy for every hard luck story (orchestrated by his people), and in the same breath says it is OK to kill a LIVE baby, is a man with no conscience. A man with no conscience is capable of great harm.
There must have been a lot of logic and no "emoting" as the Germans methodically kept track of all the goodies and gold teeth they extracted from their victims. Oh, and the Germans had a program of FORCED abortions for those women carrying "handicapped" babies. Obama's Special Olympics "joke" is from the same mindset.

Anthony Sarro| 3.23.09 @ 4:49PM

If the Pope shows strength by not giving Pelosi a photo shot and sending a message to the world on Catholic beliefs then then Father Jenk9ins needs to follow the Pope and refuse Obama to speak. The Catholic Church must not let Obama's policies and liberal ways over shadow the Catholic beliefs.

Pingback| 3.23.09 @ 4:51PM

Once Catholic Notre Dame Invites Obama to Give Commencement Address | Conservative He links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Heritage Times Home About Conservative Resources Discussion Forum March 23rd 2009 Once Catholic Notre Dame Invites Obama to Give Commencement Address RedPhillips Posted under Uncategorized It is a real shame what has happened to Christian higher education in this country. So many once Christian schools have sold their soul for the sake of respectability within secularist academia. (See my comment in…

Sherene| 3.23.09 @ 5:10PM

This article, and its opinions, are utterly ridiculous, overblown, and, for lack of a better description, ignorant beyond belief. I didn't need to go any further than the belittling of Obama's major achievement -- overcoming closemindedness and bigotry to reach the highest office in the land -- to realize that clearly, there remains quite a different type of bigotry and narrowmindedness that we still must fight to overcome. Citing to a fictional god does not make your religiously motivated hatred of others acceptable.

Thomas| 3.23.09 @ 5:29PM

Sherene you miss the point. It would be no less tragic if Notre Dame were to invite Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Polosi, or any other politician pandering to those that want the right to terminate life, much less provide federal funding to do so. Obama's skin color and historic accomplishment doesn't give him a pass. It is racially bigotted to expect less from Obama's morals because of his hue.

Carter| 3.23.09 @ 5:33PM

What a fine University that would be: one that only allows the podium to those that agree with its positions!

Sherene| 3.23.09 @ 5:40PM

I do not expect less. I think President Obama has his opinions, which he is perfectly entitled to hold, that he was duly elected by the people of this country to enact the principles upon which he based his campaign, and that his achievement in so doing is something worthy of deep acknowledgement and respect in light of this country's racially divided history. That you disagree with him on some, or even all, of those opinions is no excuse for a nationally recognized university, heralded as a place of intellectual pursuit and growth, to demand in the shrill tones of the author and others commenting on this list, that he be shunned rather than acknowledged as a man whose accomplishments and thoughts are worthy of hearing, if only so that his opponents will be able to mount a coherent and rational argument against his positions. It is not Father Jenkins' job to "protect" the thoughtful and intelligent adults who attend Notre Dame from hearing the words of individuals who have accomplished great things and who, for better or for worse, will affect the political and social environment of this country and the world for years to come. If Father Jenkins thought that was his job, he would be betraying the highest goal of education and the very definition of a university as a place to promote honest and intellectual discourse on every topic. So, no, I am not a racial bigot. I would, however, suggest that some of the comments on this list are nothing short of religious bigotry.

Red Phillips | 3.23.09 @ 5:48PM

Sherene, it is Father Jenkins' job to protect his institution from being used for the furtherance of evil.

Carter, I answered your objection in the pingback above.

"I don’t think Notre Dame necessarily needs to ensure that their commencement speaker agrees with ever facet of Catholic doctrine, but the symbolism of this is just so obvious and bad. It is one more instance of the further co-opting of nominal Christianity by the “religious left.” This is the same reason I opposed Obama’s invitation to speak at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church. There is nothing wrong with dialogue per se, but it was another photo and press release opportunity that sent a horrible message.

And don’t think Obama doesn’t understand this. I am sure he got many commencement invites. By picking Notre Dame he is consciously sticking a thumb in the eye of an institution (the Catholic Church) that ought to be providing resistance to his transformative program."

John II| 3.23.09 @ 5:49PM

The mindset on display in the "Sherene" and "Carter" postings sums up the degraded intellectual condition of Notre Dame's administration: missing the point and ignoring dissenting arguments and specific distinctions. The technical term for such illogic is "ignoratio elenchi"--a term doubtless unknown to contemporary college administrators, who are merely practiced in the mental dodges to which the term refers.

Robert S. Rosencrans| 3.23.09 @ 5:52PM

When you pay for someone's murder, it's usually referred to as a Mob hit.

Sherene| 3.23.09 @ 5:56PM

John II, what is the issue in question, dissenting argument, specific distinction, whatever Greek term you choose to use, that I have missed?

Sherene| 3.23.09 @ 6:04PM

Red Phillips --
Allowing Obama to speak is NOT the furtherance of evil. This is what I meant by overblown -- bringing a President, one who holds MANY views and represents MANY positions to speak at a graduation to ADULTS, who are, for the most part, not impressionable idiots who believe everything that they are told, is decidedly not the "furtherance of evil." Father Jenkins has already said, to anyone who cares to listen, that the University does not endorse Obama's positions on abortion and stem cell research. I objected to President Bush's positions on torture, the death penalty, foreign policy... more items than I care to list here. I had, and still have, ZERO objections to his presence and speech at a University commencement a few years ago. Giving a president of this country the podium is not the furtherance of anything but discourse and discussion. Unfortunately, those things seem to you to be the very deathknell of all things religious. If one's religious beliefs cannot withstand hearing them talked about by someone of another opinion, they are probably not worth too much, are they?

gregorbo| 3.23.09 @ 6:08PM

I interviewed an ND grad for a job once. I asked him--"What made you choose Notre Dame?" He said, "Well, I was in high school and I wanted to continue in my Catholic formation and so wanted to go to a Catholic school."

"Well, why didn't you then?" I asked. . . .

John II| 3.23.09 @ 6:12PM

Hi Sherene. Actually, it's a Latin term, although the Romans from whom we get it swiped it from Aristotle. And I didn't "choose to use" it. I applied it correctly to the situation. If a barn is painted red, I don't choose to call it red.

Several postings following the article (excluding some, such as your own) present real arguments directed to the issue. If your own choice is to ignore or skim them (and the shrillness of your own tone suggests that that's all you've done), I can't be of service. But if your question isn't merely rhetorical, try reading the article and the responses (ALL the responses, Sherene) for answers to your question. Then, if you don't agree with the answers, say so and explain why, with or without the ad hominem ranting to which you so far have exhibited a fondness, if not a preference.

Sherene| 3.23.09 @ 6:21PM

Or, John II, you could just tell me what YOUR issue is that you think I'm ignoring, and I can respond to that. There are a great number of comments on here touching on numerous topics, not all of which I am concerned with (such as the benefits of Eastern Catholic approaches to theology) and so chose not to address. So, just let me know when you can articulate the position you claim I am ignoring, and I'll get right to it. And you did "choose to use" the term, and chose to use it inaccurately. Claiming that my response to one, or two positions that I found most egregious was a failure to address the one you have apparently designated as the "real" one, is a snide waste of a comment. But at least you got to display your Latin skills.

gregorbo| 3.23.09 @ 6:59PM

Hi Sherene--

For serious Catholics, the issue hear is not really President Obama's speech--heck, I don't think it's really his policy positions on abortion or embryonic stem cell research. (Then again, I'm not speaking for Catholics for whom the issue is his positions and policies). It's not Obama at all. It is, for Catholics, about the Catholic Church (Roman, Western).

For many, the Catholic Church, especially in the U.S., has failed in its pastoral duty not only to defend the teachings of the Magestarium, but to even pass them along to the next generation. Thankfully, the appearance during JPII's pontificate of the Catechism of the Catholic Church has acted quickly as an antidote for lay catholics over and against the theological, doctrinal, and liturgical rot that has been substituted for geniune orthodoxy for 40 plus years.

So, Notre Dame is a different kind of contradiction here: It is a "Catholic" university only up to the boundary between the religious and the secular. At that threshhold, it sets its Catholicism aside in deference to those who believe things contrary to Church teaching--thereby signalling its unwillingness to offer a vigorous defense of the faith.

I would agree with you regarding academic freedom and the liberal virtue of making our universities places were open debate is allowed and encouraged. In that case, I would applaud Notre Dame's invitation to the President to come to the University in order to debate members of the faculty on the questions of the dignity of human life, abortion, and stem-cell research.

But Notre Dame is not doing that. It is offering Mr. Obama a prominent, public platform from which he will espouse whatever views he wishes to espouse--and this gives the appearance of support of those views (not just the idea of his right to express them). Furthermore, the conferring of an honorary degree seems to confirm that Notre Dame's lip-service to "not honoring" all of Mr. Obama's views is just that--lip-service.

Whyn't split the baby--invite him to speak but refuse to grant him an honorary degree?

John II| 3.23.09 @ 7:06PM

Hi again Sherene. But your response wasn't to "one or two" positions. Your energetic broadside was explicitly addressed to the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

Okay, let's see . . . try reading Thunder's piece more carefully . . . then read the 12:32 posting of "Tim" and then read the 3:07 posting of some dude who calls himself "John II" (whatever that means--probably to distinguish himself from John the Evangelist or something: geez, what an ego).

Anyhow, I hope you're as young as you sound, Sherene, and will eventually grow out of the habit of projecting snideness and the kind of certitude that inspires expressions like "fictional god." I also hope you're not a college administrator. I really, really, REALLY hope you're not THAT! As Napoleon Dynamite would say, Gosh!

Sherene| 3.23.09 @ 7:47PM

Hahaha :) I think you are pretty funny, John II. I think it's pretty amusing that you say I am "projecting" snideness when you mock my apparent age and cite to none other than Napoleon Dynamite to express your disdain for my youthful opinions. I actually have not seen the movie, so apologies if I misconstrue your reference. In return, I hope you are not as old and contemptuous of people with younger and, I guess, more radical opinions than you hold.

Point 1: I am certain that there is no god, that the god mentioned in this article and comments over and over again is fictional. Since I am certain, I see no reason to beat about the bush.

Point 2: I read Thunder's piece. In fact, I directly quoted it in my first posting. I disagree with his position that Father Jenkins miscalculated the benefits of inviting the President to speak on campus, for the reasons I have already discussed (the fostering of debate and discussion, Obama's position and role in shaping the world in which we live, etc). In fact, in deference to your posting, I took the time to read it AGAIN. Lo and behold, my opinions have not changed.

Point 3: I also read Tim's post. I did not respond to it because I see absolutely no problem with the "secularization" of Notre Dame. I think it is a good thing. I think, as another poster alluded to, that the institution must choose between being a place of intellectual pursuit or a place of Catholic indoctrination. The two ARE incompatible. Wherever religious doctrine and dogma has honestly and solidly come up against intellectual discovery, it has failed. An unrelated point -- how Tim can describe Professor Kaveny of the law school as one who "promotes the culture of death" is kind of beyond me. I know Professor Kaveny, and as a result I also know that Tim 12:32 has no idea what he is talking about.

Point 4: Finally, to the opinionating of the oh-so-modest John II. I actually have no problem with your position, and the one articulated by Gregorbo, that Obama not be granted an honorary degree. I disagree with you, but I have no problem with your argument. And if that precise issue made up the bulk of the mass protests I have read about online today, then I would not be posting. In fact, you may have noticed that I chose to primarily address the article, which mentions the issue of the degree only tangentially and instead rages on about platforms and Obama's perniciousness, rather than your worthy posting. Again, I disagree. I do not think an honorary degree from Notre Dame to a man who has accomplished much and inspired many need indicate a wholehearted approval and sanction for everything the man thinks and does. Father Jenkins has already said that, and I agree.

Looking forward to more quotes from the inane movies you apparently watch...

Regards,
the "Young (GASP!" one.

Jack Hughes ND '59| 3.23.09 @ 7:48PM

In 1924, Notre Dame students, faculty and alumni threw the KKK out of South Bend - it's time for Jenkins and his ilk to go!

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 8:16PM

"I am certain that there is no god, that the god mentioned in this article and comments over and over again is fictional. "

How can you be so sure? It always struck me that atheism required a much greater leap of faith than any sort of theism, particularly in light of the catastrophic consequences of being wrong.

"I think it is a good thing. I think, as another poster alluded to, that the institution must choose between being a place of intellectual pursuit or a place of Catholic indoctrination. The two ARE incompatible."

Appreciate not having you put words in my mouth, thanks. Or perhaps my thought is too subtle for the sledgehammer that passes for your intellect? What I actually said was, it is not possible for a school to be both a center of traditional Catholic liberal arts education and also a polytechnical/vocational university. I said nothing at all about Catholic indoctrination, and at its best, traditional Catholic teaching approaches are as far from indoctrination as one can get. In fact, all of Western science, all institutions of higher education, trace their roots to the medieval Catholic university. To be crude, one should not crap in one's own nest, which is what you are doing.

"I do not think an honorary degree from Notre Dame to a man who has accomplished much and inspired many need indicate a wholehearted approval and sanction for everything the man thinks and does. "

This is quite funny. I underestimated your wit and sense of humor. Please enlighten us all--what has the Big O actually done in his life, other than show up, look cool, talk suave and walk off?

John II| 3.23.09 @ 8:18PM

Hi even yet again, Sherene. Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But if you haven't seen "Napoleon Dynamite," how do you know it's inane? Gosh!

Professor Obama got elected President of the United States by spending $600,000,000 dollars and running against a tired old war hero. What else has he "accomplished"? Or it that all you mean by "much"?

"Oh, sometimes I think I will just go mad!" (Groucho Marx quoting Greta Garbo, 1929: bet you haven't seen that one either.)

And now back to my regular fix of Abbott and Costello.

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 8:35PM

"But if you haven't seen "Napoleon Dynamite," how do you know it's inane? Gosh!"

It's enough to make ya use a flippin' 12-gauge, whaddya think!

Gino| 3.23.09 @ 8:41PM

No matter how you say it; Obama is for abortion during all nine months, letting aborted babies die if the abortion does not work, is for destroying embryonic stem cells, is for gay marriage so yes it makes sense that Fr. Jenkins would invite him to ND. ND is NOT a "CATHOLIC" College any longer and should just stop the travesty and no longer call itself "OUR LADY".

John II| 3.23.09 @ 8:43PM

Hey, Stu. I think, I think . . . I think I'd rather be in Philadelphia. I hate arguing with kids! They just treat me like I'm some kinda old idiot or something. And then I get all snide and they call me on it because they expect more out of old idiots, or something.

As Lou Costello would say, "I'm a baaaaaad boy!"

Sherene| 3.23.09 @ 8:59PM

The "sledgehammer that passes for my intellect," eh? I appear to have struck a nerve :).

No, atheism does not require quite the leap of faith that religion does. I think it takes a far greater leap of faith to pick one story out of the thousands produced by human history and believe it as slavishly as truly religious people do, unwavering despite the mountains of scientific evidence emerging every day that proves it is just plain nonsense. And it is particularly offensive to hear that I should believe it just in case the impossible turns out to be true. If one's religious faith is based purely on the terror that comes from bedtime stories, then it is a pretty pathetic faith indeed. I choose not to base my life or my choices on a "just in case" philosophy based on fear. Religion is an artifact of times when we had nothing to explain our universe or our presence on this planet. I have considered the question thoughtfully, and I do not see the existence of a god, particularly the versions of him adopted by the world's most prominent religions, as a necessary element of the world that I experience (or, for that matter, even a desirable element).

Second, I was not quoting you, or putting words in your mouth. Hence my use of the word "allude."

Finally, I do agree with you that technical and vocational degrees (or, as I like to call them, scientific degrees) do not lend themselves to the model of Catholic education. This is because science, and facts, have succeeded far better than religion has at explaining our universe and finding useful applications for it. Religion cannot compete with science, because science is not dogma and is forever open to new information and newly discovered truths, while religion is based on the absence of those things. Religion depends on things being unexplainable. That is why it does not "lend itself" to that type of learning. You're quite right; a Catholic liberal arts education is one
that belongs in a curriculum of Great Books, surrounded by the fiction that so religion well represents.

Best,
Sherene (a liberal arts major)

Sherene| 3.23.09 @ 9:08PM

One thing I forgot -- if you don't think that the son of a Kenyan father and a white mother has accomplished anything of real significance by uniting people of diverse backgrounds and ethnicity and culture on the path to the presidency of the most powerful country on earth, where I believe he is exerting a real and sincere effort to make the United States a better place to live.... your kids are going to have some serious problems pleasing Daddy. It takes money to run for president, yes. It also takes something more than that when you are the most unlikely candidate in a nation with a history of slavery, Jim Crow and economic class warfare. Otherwise, we might have a President Romney.

vatvince37 | 3.23.09 @ 9:34PM

Three years ago on this webzine, in response to an article about Father Jenkins allowing The Vagina Monologues to be shown at ND, I questioned that university designation as a "Catholic" school. I still do. It is thoroughly tiresome to read many of the tracts submitted, for they lack any idea of what it means to be "Catholic." Clearly, Sherene's responses fall into that category. Please allow this clarification: the fact that abortion has been condemned since the Church's origins - despite what Pelosi, Biden, et al. say - and then to conflate it with capital punishment is an exercise that must have the Church's Doctors spinning in their respective graves. None other than Justice Scalia has commented that if the death penatly were forbidden by the Magisterium, he would have no recourse but to resign. Finally, I find it of interest that, despite the hand wringing, few cite the real, proximate cause for the Church's decline. No, the Land-of-Lakes Conference was symptomatic of a Church in decline, but the damage done by Vatican II lives on, more than forty years after it ended. Truly, the smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary!
Factum est.

gregorbo| 3.23.09 @ 9:45PM

Sherene--

Thanks for engaging in this debate. It's what we need. And thanks to John II and others as well.

Sherene--you wrote, categorically, "Wherever religious doctrine and dogma has honestly and solidly come up against intellectual discovery, it has failed."

This is plainly not true. Take the case of Galileo and Copernicus. Briefly, Copernicus posited a theory that flew in the face of Catholic theological doctrine rooted in Biblical tradition about the make-up of the physical universe. He wrote his treatise, and fearing repercussions, it was only published after he died (with a disclaimer that it was only theory and made no pretense to theology or doctrine).

Galileo, experimenting independently, was aware of Copernican theory and, after inventing the telescope, proved Capernicus to be right.

Popular historical revisionism holds that Galileo was put under house arrest for his proof of Copernican theory. But this is factually not true.

Galileo was actually related to the Pope (one of the Urbans, if memory serves) who warned him not to pick theological fights based upon scientific theory--which properly seeks to answer the question "how?" not "why?", which is the province of philosophy, not science.

But Galileo persisted and persuaded a publisher to imprint a treatise in Italian with the Papal Imprimator--it was for this he was charged and placed under house arrest and it was for this he recanted at the end of his life. He did not recant his theories, he recanted (if that's the right canonical term) his defiance and lie (in violating the law in convincing a printer that he had Papal approval when he did not).

Be that as it may--I realize that since you are an atheist, this all seems a bit silly, and I respect that--the Catholic Church, after much reflection, realized the error of her ways in terms of Galileo's ideas about the makeup of the physical universe and removed his works from the list of books that were "anathema" to the faith.

Okay. But--intellectual disagreements regarding certain topics that are illucidated by science are a fair cry from an argument about abortion or stem-cell research. Why? Because scientists are in complete agreement about when human life begins--it begins at the moment of conception, at which point it is scientifically verifiable that the bundle of fetal material is genetically unique and can do no other, without being molested, become anything other than a fully developed human being.

Catholic moral teaching has remained consistent on this moral issue throughout the entire history of its teaching. And it is science that has only recently verified that the Catholic Church's stance, morally, actually rests upon firm scientific grounds. When a person decides to abort a developing embryo from the worm--or creates one in order to subject it to death for the benefit of scientific progress--the material that is sacrificed is genetically individual and unique. A person, in that case, is not making a "choice" about her own body, but about someone else's body (according to the entirely consistent Catholic and scientific view).

Modern scientific progress does not contradict the Catholic intellectual tradition vis-a-vis truth--it actually confirms it.

So your categorizing all "religious" thought as "losing" in the arena of dogma versus science is wrong as a matter of fact (not faith).

And, finally, the major logical "leap" that is made as a result of scientific experimentation, a process of theory tested against consistently repeated results, is called induction (not deduction, which is abstract knowledge, as in math, and is demonstrable). Induction requires, *surprise* a leap of faith--just like in religion. That is, I know the sun will rise in the East tomorrow because the cumulative experience of mankind throughout its history has observed that that's what it always does.

Except, as you know from your Copernicus and Galileao, the sun does not rise.

And, besides, it might not--as Al Gore has been preaching for some time now . . .

gregorbo| 3.23.09 @ 9:46PM