The American Spectator

Norman DeArmond| 5.17.09 @ 12:58PM

Just in case he follows Michelle's lead and takes a page from Hillary Clinton's social gospel life, bone up on Marian Wright Edelman, Coalition for Life has a nice webpage to help protect us from her. Hard to understand these sophisticates without help.

Dan| 5.17.09 @ 1:06PM

Not just is the occasion cause for grave scandal on the part of the Catholic Church and Notre Dame, but it also the cause of additional sin, for in its desperate attempts to defend itself against legitimate and called for criticism, Notre Dame has taken to outright deception in defending itself, by offering the lame line that the occasion will be a moment for "dialogue."

Scandal, insubordination, disobedience, pride, overweening ego and now outright dishonesty.

It's almost as if Notre Dame were trying to hit for the cycle.

melvin polatnick| 5.17.09 @ 3:16PM

The written words of God once supported the protesters against abortion at Notre Dame. But the written words of constitutional law comes from the same God. He writes that abortion is legal. God is allowed to change his mind every five thousand years.

Mr. Justice| 5.17.09 @ 3:22PM

This is a sad day for Christianity. Try as secularists might to say they work to "reduce the number of abortions each year," it is a binary decision. Either you are for the killing of unborn babies or you are not.

Imagine that the next George Washington, Jonas Salk, or Alexander Graham Bell (to name a few), may have been killed in the womb due to inconvenience.

Mr. Justice| 5.17.09 @ 3:22PM

This is a sad day for Christianity. Try as secularists might to say they work to "reduce the number of abortions each year," it is a binary decision. Either you are for the killing of unborn babies or you are not.

Imagine that the next George Washington, Jonas Salk, or Alexander Graham Bell (to name a few), may have been killed in the womb due to inconvenience.

sm| 5.17.09 @ 3:58PM

i support freedom of choice and freedom of speech .
“The hungry world cannot be fed until and unless the growth of its resources and the growth of its population come into balance. Each man and woman-and each nation --must make decisions of conscience and policy in the face of this great problem.”

Mary| 5.17.09 @ 4:34PM

Where is the grass roots outcry of 'born again' Christians to Obama's repealing the multiple gains that Bush had instituted for the unborn. Will no one speak up for the most vulerable innocents of our society; the ones still in the womb? Do we really believe that women who conceive should continue to have the 'right' to murder their unborn children? What kind of a sick society are we?

Miss Justice| 5.17.09 @ 7:31PM

Let's realize that the specific debate is whether or not Obama should be honored with the degree from Notre Dame, so named after the mother of Jesus Christ.

As a an "independent, national Catholic university" per its description, it must abide by the beliefs of the church. There should be no argument about this.

The Catholic Church does not equivocate about what it deems right or wrong. The church does not debate the Ten Commandments but abides by them.

Jenkins and Obama espouse the need for open dialogue about moral standards. But should their be any debate about a main tenet of the Catholic Church? I don't believe the Pope would think the matter is open for debate: it is murder.

Obviously, Obama no longer thinks the subject is "above his pay graded,' but what prompted him to accept an invitation other than political expediency? His view on abortion and embryonic stem cells make it clear which side of the fence he is on. Does anyone seriously believe he would or could change his view after the supposed open dialogue?

Daisy| 5.17.09 @ 7:34PM

If you feel so strongly about overpopulation, sm--stand up for your cause and off yourself first. How easy it is to bleat about world hunger when you sacrifice nothing and then demand that others make the ultimate sacrifice. You must be so proud of yourself.

ds80| 5.17.09 @ 7:45PM

sm: "I support freedom of choice"

"Freedom of choice" is the "nuanced", "sophisticated" code word for "kill the baby for my convenience"

Angel| 5.17.09 @ 8:38PM

Obama has a stone cold heart. He won't change; why should he? Look how far his barbaric beliefs have gotten him. God bless the tiny innocents, God help us.

Obama Notre Dame Speech| 5.17.09 @ 11:07PM

President Barack Obama making his critics look petty by addressing the controversy surrounding his commencement address at Notre Dame.

Charlene| 5.18.09 @ 7:50AM

SM,
As your mother carried you in her womb, hunger existed in the world. Yet, she made the choice to give you life. You are here today, having been given the gift of life, to "support free choice and freedom of speech". How lucky for you that you are alive. Millions of innocent children never got THEIR chance to support free choice and freedom of speech. President Obama is also lucky to be alive, lucky that his mother chose to give him life to eventually become the first african american to become POTUS. Life, imagine the possibilities. I don't know if you are male or female. If you are male, you couldn't possibly ever comprehend the agony and profound loss that is abortion. If you are female, God forbid you should ever find yourself in a situation where you may exercise your "free choice". Your "free choice" will haunt you every day of your life, that very same life that your mother gave you. As mere human beings, we do not have any right to choose who will live and who will die; that is above all of our pay scales. I suffer the life-long pain and regret, that NEVER goes away, that is abortion. I, and many others like me, know from what we speak; that abortion is NEVER right. Angel is correct when saying "God help us".

genecar| 5.18.09 @ 8:02AM

It is not so much, or only, that President Obama is "pro-choice", which can at least be an understandable position for some circumstances. Rather, it is the fact that he is right at the most extreme end of the "pro-choice" spectrum. He supports the removal of all restrictions, icluding partial birth abortion (through the Freedom of Choice Act) and even alledgely opposed the Born Alive Infants act in the Illinois senate. It is he, not his opponents who is the real extremist on this issue. It is unconsionable that a Catholic university should grant him an honorary dergree.

JP| 5.18.09 @ 8:26AM

This controversy is more about an internal problem between Notre Dame on one side and the Catholic Magesterium on the other. Believe it or not, not everything has to do with the President.

In the aftermath of the 2004 election, the Vatican instructed the USCCB to formulate an official position/policy concerning pro-abortion public officials and Catholic institutions that confer them honors.

After 2 years of behind the doors debate, the bishops came up with a compromise that pretty much satisfied both the more liberal minded as well as conservative minded bishops. In 2006 they published this policy for all to hear and read. The policy was simple, and ultimately it placed the local diocesen bishop as the carrying the final word. That is, an institution or school had to seek the permission of the local bishop in order to invite any pro-abortion politician to receive an award or honor.

Fr Jenkins, president of Notre Dame not only didn't seek permission, but he lied about it in public. To make matters worse, Fr Jenkins made a couple of public appearances, n which he called those who opposed him "right wing extremists".

For once, the bishops have acted on a united front. Bishop D'Arcy, who is the ordinary for South Bend-Fort Wayne, has gone out of his way to keep the debate focused. He has castigated Randall Terry and like minded activists, but he also has let Fr Jenkins know that in no uncertan terms that he is in direct disobedience to ecclesiastical authorities (namely the bishops with whom he is canonically obligated to obey). Even Bishop Troutman, normally a politiker par excellence, has gone on record that Notre Dame is committing grave error.

This episode will continue longer than people imagine. I think two things will eventually occur:

1)Fr Jenkins will be "reassigned". The bishops will formally issue an complaint to the appropriate Vatican Office. In turn the Vatican will contact Fr Jenkins' boss, Fr Clearly . Probably within the year, Fr Jenkins will find himself either assigned to a lower profile institution (perhaps a seminary), or a foreign mission (The Brothers of the Holy Cross have many).

2)Steps will be taken to insure that this doesn't happen again. Perhaps the Holy Father will schedule another visit to the US much like the 1987 visit Pope John Paul II made. That visit was not a "friendly" one, but more of a pastoral visit which solidified the eternal teachings of the Church. Perhaps, Pope Benedict could use Notre Dame as the place where he can re-emphasize the mission and holy obligations of our Catholic institutions of higher learning.

In decades past, many Catholic schools have lost thier Catholic designation. Schools like Manhatten College for whatever reasons stopped being Catholic and broke off thier religious affiliation. I can't see this happening at Notre Dame, but Fr Jenkins has taken the first big step in doing so. Probably there needs to be a change and a reform of the schools' board of trustees. The current board has made several poor judgements, and a few of them are not even Catholic. Perhaps for a start, they could make Bishop Jenke (a Holy Cross priest) the leader of the board. The good bishop has rightly kept a low profile during this mess, but he is known for his orthodoxy, loyalty to Catholic teaching, and he is a fantastic administrator who spent most of his career at Notre Dame. Too bad he is a bishop, as he would make a great Notre Dame President.

jim rice| 5.18.09 @ 8:26AM

He gave a good speech, regardless of whether you agree with his stance or whether or not ND *should* have given him the degree.

I think it's great. Civil discourse is always the way to go.

(and life isn't a gift. It's thrust upon you w/o you even asking for it. And, if you don't live it "correctly," you're thrown into a fiery pit for eternity? Nice gift. If it was a gift, you'd be able to graciously decline.)

John| 5.18.09 @ 8:44AM

Jim Rice, sure, it was a good speech. One could argue that's how he got elected - based on his performances on the road.

However, one must read between the lines here. Obama wants focus on common ground. By this, he wants us to focus on things we have in common. A worthy goal, to be sure.

Though the reality is this; Obama wants to focus on issues other than abortion because it is currently legal and he wants it to stay that way. Hence, it isn't in his interest to have anything to do with the abortion debate - he has no problem with the status quo.

Thus, by telling people to focus on other things, Obama is trying to weaken the resolve of the pro-life movement. If people are talking about other issues, they're not talking about abortion, which is perfect for Obama.

Talking about common ground is great, but it must not distract from the main event - the first and most basic human right; the right to life.

Charlene| 5.18.09 @ 8:51AM

(and life isn't a gift. It's thrust upon you w/o you even asking for it. And, if you don't live it "correctly," you're thrown into a fiery pit for eternity? Nice gift. If it was a gift, you'd be able to graciously decline.)

Easy for you to say Mr. Rice; you're alive. How willing are you to graciously decline the gift today, and give it back? God does not expect you to live "correctly". Hence, Jesus Christ. There's your out from the firery pit of eternity.

JP| 5.18.09 @ 8:53AM

John,
Great point(s). There has been enough misdirection. Contrary to popular belief, most Catholics anger has been focused on Notre Dame and Fr Jenkins. The ball is now in the court of our Bishops. I hope Fr Jenkins enjoyed himself, as it is unlikely he will be able to save his job.

jim rice| 5.18.09 @ 9:49AM

Isn't it strange how, in this case, Democrats are arguing for smaller government and Republicans are arguing for bigger government? That's my problem with most current Republicans... they seem to want to stick their nose in exactly the places I don't want it while saying they're for smaller government. *shrugs*

But yeah, John, your point is well taken in that perhaps it is simply misdirection... but, on the other hand, he's got to be smart enough to realize that misdirection isn't going to work. I like to think that's he facing it head-on. What with the whole Supreme Court thing coming up, surely no one believes that the issue is just going to go away.

@Charlene: if I was 100% certain that dying was really the end, I'd be dead before tomorrow. But, specifically with Catholics, it does not seem that Jesus is enough. It is still much of a "works" based idealology, is it not? There's no Sola Fide in Catholicism... right?

Do the majority of people who thing abortion should be illegal also believe that the death penalty should be illegal?

JP| 5.18.09 @ 10:36AM

Jim Rice,
You can check Canon Law and the Cathechism and the Death Penalty is not considered an intrinsic evil. By intrincsic, the Church means "never can be justified"; that is, evil in every and all circumstances. It wasn't until Pope John Paul II did, the Church revisit the Death Penalty. And even then, the Church teaches that the Death Penalty can be justified in certain situations. Pope John Paul II's main arguement was spiritual/mystical, and concerned salvation. By executing an unrepentant criminal, the state takes away the one last chance to for said criminal to accept Christ's gift of salvation. But even taking the criminal's salvation into account, if society is breaking into anarchy, the state is fully justified in using Capital Punishment if only to protect the weak.

Abortion, on the other hand, has always been taught to be pure evil. One kind easily find this recorded in the Didache (circa 100AD).

Again, it seems that most people have chalked this episode up as politics. If Fr Jenkins asked Bishop D'Arcy to if he could invite the President to give only the commencement address, Bishop D'Arcy would have grungingly said yes. After-all, Notre Dame's history in the civil rights movement go back to Fr Hessburgh in the 50s/60s. It was the honorary degree which created the problem.

This episode has everything to do with abortion from a moral as well as mystical point of view. Afterall, Our Lady willingly accepted God's offer for her to carry to term and give birth to Our Savior. It was offensive in the extreme, that Fr Jenkins, a priest, chose to honor a man whose actions give the ultimate scandal to Our Lady and Her Son. Satan must be laughing at the irony of it all.

jim rice| 5.18.09 @ 10:47AM

Wow, JP! Thank you for the clarification on the death penalty thing. :)

ame| 5.18.09 @ 11:21AM

I understand that abortion has to be available - and that choice for most women must be hell - no one wants back alley coat hanger deaths and mutilation.
The agonizing consequences of choosing abortion can be seen by the actions of the woman who began the Roe vs Wade - Norma L. McCorvey (the Jane Roe) - who campaigns against abortion today.

Abortions MUST BE very limited - under strict circumstances- and tax payers should not pay for them and medical personnel who have
a moral argument to abortion should not be made to participate in them - unlike what Obama demands...

Unlike years past when woman had no choice, today women have many choices to avoid pregnancy -
and the morning after pill is the most convenient - TAKE IT - how hard can that be - if women want to be sexually active, carry the pill and TAKE IT!

Little excuse for unplanned pregnancies exists today (rape the exception) - 60,000,000 abortions is simply using abortion as birth control and that cannot be allowed
in this day because of all the available birth control - people have to accept some responsibility - and the immoral nature of that kind of unethical disregard for life...
People are protesting the use of lab rats, for GEEZE LOUISEEEZZ sake, but not a word about 60,000,000 abortions?????

Obama does not just want unlimited abortion, he wants unlimited access, taxpayers to pay for them and for abortions around the world!
He also voted for legislation that allows the killing of babies born of botched abortions to be starved to death - that's NOT abortion - THAT'S MURDER and nurses
have written about that experience - that "law" exists.
No moral and just society can allow that - and no Catholic institution can honor that.
Women who want abortions must make up their minds in the first nine weeks of the pregnancy - PERIOD.

AND if it's not torture to crush the skulls of babies and then suck them out of their mothers' wombs or to leave babies born of botched abortions to starve to death or to release pedophiles to prey on and rape innocents then it isn't torture to water board terrorists - people who will kill Americans and destroy America.

America cannot have it both ways -
Obama specious argument about regaining the "moral high ground" on the torture issue is - as is so much of Obama - hypocritical preposterousness - when he condones the muder f infants -
the man is an ethically challenged styrofoam Greek column - if knowing when life starts is "above your pay grade" then any ethical person would err on the side of life, not on the side of those who paid to get you elected.

The protection of human life is the preeminent obligation of a truly just society.
Are we so distant from the holocausts of the 20th Century that we do not remember the horrors of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, the Killing fields of Cambodia, ad nauseam.
Obama's willingness to allow infants to be killed when they are born after botched abortions is barbarian.

Obama has no moral and no ethical core - he is solipsistic and so falsely egotistical as to be a clear danger to any freedom-loving nation. Killing babies is anathema to any civilized nation and any person who condones killing babies is the lowest of cowards. Obama can't get any lower.

YET, Catholics and Catholic institutions by their very actions condone, support, and approve of Obama and his murdering of infants??? And people wonder why Catholics leave the Church...

Killing innocence is the greatest evil because the innocent have no defense, no voice, no power.
Obama, Catholic leaders, and Catholic Obama voters are all guilty of exactly that.

Infanticide is wrong, horribly, terribly wrong - one of the most disgusting and heartless acts whose support by Obama lays bare the total lack of his character: Mr. "I don't want my daughters PUNISHED with A BABY."
No one who calls himself a member of the human race, much less a Christian as Obama has ordained himself, can condone the murder of infants. Even hardened criminals, murderers themselves, have a moral code concerning those who molest and kill innocents, as criminals who are sent to prison for child molestation and child murder face full well.
I condemn the hypocritical and purely political for personal gain Catholic Church, which sets its moral and ethical standards according to what benefits it at any particular time, but the issue of murder of those born alive rises above and beyond that pathetic institution and moves to the heart of what it means to be human: the protection of the helpless.
The worst crime is the destruction of innocence. It has no defense. Only cowards torment and kill those who have no chance to fight back. Obama's voting for and support of exactly that makes him a coward in every sense of the word and also makes Obama unfit - morally and ethically - on his extreme abortion policies to "lead" anyone.

All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights - those rights extent to the most helpless Americans - especially those tiny human beings who by their survival of the most brutal and inhuman of practices demand, deserve, and must receive their inalienable right to life. The president of the United States takes an oath of office to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of this great nation - Obama's willingness to murder infants nullifies him as one who can take that vow. We can list Obama's self-interested judgment choices one after another. They all fail, but his total abjuration of the most basic of human decency: protection of the helpless - and Obama's acceptance and promotion of infanticide reject him totally as fit for the presidency.
People seem to have forgotten the absolute horror that men have inflicted on one another - Russia's behavior in Georgia is a reminder of what happens when men reject the basic tenets of what it means to be human. Obama's support of infanticide marks him as such a person and while he may be elected to the senate, others there also sadly fit Obama's cowardly self - the office of the presidency of the United States is not worthy to be diminished by that.
Those who will not protect the defenseless, or who will not defend the rights of the innocent are babarians.
If ever a person were unqualified for the White House or to speak at any Catholic institution, Obama is supremely unqualified- there is no there there when a man turns his back and his soul on innocents.
Solipsism and narcissism - the attributes of cowards - make Obama and Jenkins from Notre Dame and DeGioia from Georgetown - all cowards - Thomas Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

Charlene| 5.18.09 @ 12:38PM

Jim Rice,
You and I are in agreement that Catholicism is a "works" based idealology. My intent was to cry out that every life is precious, planned and full of potential, beginning at conception (if it is allowed to be so). It is no different for your life Jim Rice.

jim rice| 5.18.09 @ 1:40PM

And if every life has a plan and every life has an end, are all endings not also planned? If you believe that, then why is impossible to believe that, perhaps, these unborn are planned to remain unborn. Perhaps to teach something to the potential parents. Perhaps to teach something to our country. Perhaps as a supply for the whole stem cell thing. If there is a plan, what makes any one of us more qualified than the other to say we know anything about that plan at all? Are we humans really so important that we can thwart the will of God?

JP| 5.18.09 @ 2:09PM

"And if every life has a plan and every life has an end, are all endings not also planned? If you believe that, then why is impossible to believe that, perhaps, these unborn are planned to remain unborn."

I think Socrates would label that sophistry; or at the very least it just speculation. Look Jim, the Church believe it or not has wrestled with these and an entire host of questions for over 2000 years. Its deposit of faith sits on a foundation of theologoical and philosophical debate that goes all the back to St Paul. The fruit of this debate, The Cathechism holds that deposit, and almost every paragraph and phrase is footnoted with reference to the Bible and Holy Tradition, which preceedes it. The Church's intellectual heritage goes back through every epoch after Christ. And despite having litterally thousands of theologians and philosophers and thinker writing for it, the Church has only 33 Doctors -even a few like The Little Flower- had no formal schooling. Yet, even amongst secularists, these thinkers have had a profound impact. The Church, for all of its history, has less than 3 dozen Dogmas; the last one coming 50 years ago. And going back 2000 years, abortion was always considered an evil act. In the times of Chirst, the Pagans had to be taught this fact. Today, there are new Pagans who favor abortion, and the Church still teaches.

jim rice| 5.18.09 @ 2:23PM

I know they've thought about it... it just seems like using the idea that "there's a plan" for every life seems like a pretty weak way to back it up. That's all.

Heck, I'm not even arguing that abortion isn't evil. I think it's absolutely the wrong choice to make in every situation except for attempting to save the mother's life. And then, not always.

But, thus far, the only arguments for telling everyone else that they also must not do it are steeped in religious dogma, and forcing another person to act (or not act) certain ways just b/c your religion (anyone's religion) decries it is simply wrong. Don't have an abortion b/c there's a plan? That's just religious philosophy, and you can't force other people to behave a certain way just b/c you hold those beliefs.

(I say "you" generically... I'm not attacking anyone personally)

Angel| 5.18.09 @ 6:31PM

Jim, I don't understand why you continue to suck oxygen into your lungs. If life is so worthless, so banal, as you've repeatedly posted--why keep breathing? Too bad your mom let you live and so many other moms aborted their babies. At least some of those innocent angels would have loved their lives, and would have been grateful for the chance to experience this wonderful world. You are so ungrateful and I truly pity you.

biniki| 9.1.09 @ 9:57PM

bikini
bikini swimwear

jany| 1.11.10 @ 1:48AM

According to this 2001 grad, by the time the undergradnike outlets exited the venue, they could see Air Force One already winging its way back to D.Cadidas outlet. overhead.