E.J. Dionne, Jr.'s
column in today's Washington Post on Pres. Obama's
upcoming appearance at Notre Dame is filled with deceptive and
misleading statements and presentations of facts.
He leads into his article by suggesting that an article in
L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's newspaper,
characterizing the president as less than extreme in his abortion
politics proves that "[w]e now know that the reaction of
right-wing Catholics to Notre Dame's invitation to President
Obama falls into the category of 'more Catholic than the pope.'"
The implication is that the folks affiliated with Notre Dame
protesting the school's decision to honor Obama aren't doing so
because of a principled stand on the Church's doctrine regarding
life issues, but because they are wingnuts. Without the authority
of Church teaching, the conservatives' case falls apart. Hence
Dionne's subtitle: "Words From Rome Change The Debate on Inviting
Obama."
Except for one problem: the L'Osservatore Romano article
that paints Obama as a moderate in no way reflects Church
teaching or the voice of any Church official. It was written by
Giuseppe Fiorentino, a foreign correspondent. L'Osservatore
Romano bills itself merely as the "semi-official" newspaper
of the Vatican, and doesn't pretend to express the pope's
teaching.
It is especially disingenuous for Dionne to pass this article off
as a statement "from Rome" since the Church hierarchy has, when
it has spoken on the issue, clearly and unambiguously condemned
Notre Dame's decision to honor Obama. At last count
70 American bishops, including 4 cardinals, had responded
publicly to the Notre Dame situation. All were at least skeptical
of Notre Dame's choice, and many denounced the university
officials in strong language. Such a reaction from the American
bishops is very unusual, and for Dionne to present a random
article by a layman in Rome as representative of the hierarchy in
light of the bishops' response is dishonest.
Among other obfuscations, Dionne also argues that the people
objecting to the school honoring Obama are crazed conservatives
out of lockstep with the mainstream. He cites Pew Research Center
polls that gauge the public's attitude toward the situation,
which show mixed results. He neglects, however, a
Rasmussen poll that directly asked the pertinent question,
namely whether the university should award an honorary degree to
the president. The poll showed that 60% of U.S. Catholics thought
that it should not (compared to 25% who thought it shoud), and
52% of Americans overall thought the same thing.
Dionne's article fell well short of a basic level of journalistic
sincerity, and I expect that he will hear from some of the
bishops who, unlike a random columnist in Rome, actually speak
for the Church. This column is an embarassment for him and the
Washington Post.
