Obama and Notre Dame

UPDATE, March 29, 2009: Archbishop Timothy Dolan, successor to Cardinal Edward Egan and the next leader of the Archdiocese of New York, comments on the Notre Dame controversy.
______________

The controversy over Notre Dame awarding Barack Obama with an honorary degree and having him give an address during commencement exercises isn't cooling off. It's heating up.

Obama Notre Dame invite stirs Catholic debate

In American Catholicism, it doesn't get much bigger than Notre Dame. So when the university known for its golden dome, "Touchdown Jesus" mural and rigorous academics invited President Barack Obama to speak at its commencement and receive an honorary degree in May, it stoked both pride and anger on campus and nationwide.

I object to the wording of that first sentence by AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski.

When I think of "American Catholicism," Notre Dame does not come to mind. No school does.

However, when it comes to Catholic universities, Notre Dame does have a very, very high profile.

By giving a platform to a politician whose record on abortion and stem cell research clashes with core church teachings about human life, the private Catholic school on the plains of northern Indiana renewed an impassioned debate about what it means to be Catholic.

The Notre Dame administration knew it was entering a political minefield. But the intensity of the reaction in the week since Obama accepted demonstrates the depths to which Catholics are divided about how Catholic individuals and institutions should engage politics in a pluralistic society.

Adding to the rancor, the Obama invite comes after an election that frustrated the Catholic right and featured prominent Catholic voices making a case for Obama. Early moves by the Obama White House—such as lifting restrictions on overseas family planning groups that perform abortions and on stem cell research that destroys embryos—have prompted some U.S. bishops to challenge the new administration.

"This has sparked something beyond the usual right-left controversy," said David Gibson, a Catholic author of books on Pope Benedict XVI and the U.S. church. "Whether you're for or against the decision to invite him is morphing into kind of an X-ray of where everybody stands in the Catholic church."

On one hand, Notre Dame's overture to Obama is in keeping with the university's record of seeking newly elected presidents from both political parties as commencement speakers. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have spoken to Notre Dame graduates months after taking office.

Yet with Obama the outcry was swift and fierce. Protests were launched by the Pro-Life Action League and the Cardinal Newman Society, a conservative Catholic group that monitors Catholic universities and colleges for adherence to orthodoxy on abortion, especially. Some Catholics think that view is too narrow.

I think the reason the outcry was "swift and fierce" is because Obama is the most radical anti-life president ever to occupy the Oval Office. His assault on the unborn began within days after beginning his presidency. And it's not just that he's pro-abortion, like Catholic Joe Biden. It's the shocking nature of his extremism when it comes to embracing the Culture of Death.

Obama is vehemently opposed to Pro-Life measures. He is hostile to the Culture of Life agenda.

Some related posts:

Barack Obama, Abortion, and Infanticide

Barack Obama: Of Babies and Punishment

Obama and the Freedom of Choice Act

Obama Assault on Human Life Begins

Obama Orders Tax Dollars to Fund Abortions

Obama and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The Notre Dame president, the Rev. John Jenkins, has said Obama will be honored as an "inspiring leader" facing challenges from the economy, two wars, health care, and immigration and health care reform.

Jenkins also singled out Obama, the first African-American president, as a healer of racial wounds. That is of special significance at Notre Dame because retired university president the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, 91, linked arms with Martin Luther King Jr. and served on the first U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

Is Obama really a healer of racial wounds?

That has yet to be seen.

We do know that he played the race card repeatedly during the primaries and after he was the Democrat nominee. Rather than a healer, Obama has shown a disturbing tendency to keep racial wounds festering when it serves him politically.

That's no healer in my eyes.

The Obama invitation, Jenkins has emphasized, does not condone or endorse Obama's positions on stem cells or abortion but the visit is "a basis for further positive engagement."

..."Commencement is not an occasion for debate," said Catholic theologian George Weigel, a Pope John Paul II biographer. "Commencement is not an opportunity to set the foundations for a dialogue. Commencement and the award of an honorary degree is a statement on the part of the university this is a life worth emulating."

I agree with Weigel. Commencement is not an occasion for debate or to be used as "a basis for further positive engagement."

If that is the case, perhaps Notre Dame should invite someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Jeremiah Wright, or Bill Ayers next year.

Nonetheless, I think Notre Dame has given the American Catholic community a great gift with the Obama invitation.

This controversy has brought Obama's extremist anti-life agenda to the forefront. It has shed some light on the depth of his darkness when it comes to failing to protect the weak, the innocent, and the unborn.

That's a very positive thing.

As a Catholic, I'm troubled that Notre Dame would bestow an honorary degree on Obama, someone who promises to expand and uphold the slaughter of innocent human life by doing everything in his power to prevent any roadblocks to get in the way of the killing.

I don't have a problem with Notre Dame inviting him to speak. It's the honor of awarding him a degree that I find so very offensive.

How can Notre Dame reconcile or ignore Obama's extremism when it comes to the fundamental issue of the right to life, God's most precious gift?

It's impossible.

I don't financially support Notre Dame. It's not my alma mater. It's not as if this really has an impact on me personally from that standpoint. If I were a graduate of the university, I would express my views opposing the honorary degree to Obama and I would probably cut off or dramatically reduce my financial gifts for the year.

I'm not in that position so I can assess the controversy with the comfort of detachment.

Notre Dame will not rescind its invitation to Obama nor do I think it should.

Whatever Obama says during his address will be dwarfed in comparison to the discussion that his invitation to Notre Dame has sparked.

In the long run, I think that discussion will be productive for American Catholics and for those of us working to promote the sanctity of human life.

To Notre Dame's 2009 graduates and its alumni upset by your university's choice to have Obama speak at commencement--

Take your outrage and let that energy propel you to work for justice for the weak, the innocent, and the unborn.
_______________

Here is a news release from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, January 19, 2009:

Bishops Urge New President to Keep Laws on Conscience Rights, Foreign Aid for Abortion, Embryonic Stem Cell Research

WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops urged President-elect Barack Obama not to rescind current policies that protect conscience rights of health care workers, prevent foreign aid to organizations promoting abortion, and ban funding of stem cell research that encourages destruction of human embryos.

They made the request in a January 16 letter from Cardinal Francis George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, shortly before President-elect Obama's inauguration. The letter followed by less than a week a previous letter outlining the bishops' broad policy agenda as the new Administration and Congress begin their work.

Cardinal George said some would expect the new president "to take executive action soon to reverse current policies" that uphold people's rights to follow their consciences and that respect innocent human life. Giving in to these expectations, he said, could be "a terrible mistake -- morally, politically, and in terms of advancing the solidarity and well-being of our nation's people."

Cardinal George hailed the recently issued regulation to protect conscience rights in health care as "a long-overdue measure for implementing three statutes enacted by Congress over the last 35 years." He said this is a "common-sense regulation, which explicitly protects the right of health professionals who favor or oppose abortion to serve the basic health needs of their communities."

Cardinal George also cited the Mexico City Policy, established in 1984, that has ensured that family planning funds are not diverted to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions instead of reducing them. He warned: "A shift toward promoting abortion in developing nations would also increase distrust of the United States in these nations, whose values and culture often reject abortion, at a time when we need their trust and respect."

He said that the current embryonic stem cell policy sought "to ensure that Americans are not forced to use their tax dollars to encourage expanded destruction of embryonic human beings for their stem cells." He noted that "basic research in the capabilities of embryonic stem cells can be and is being pursued using the currently eligible cell lines as well as the hundreds of lines produced with nonfederal funds since 2001." He added that "recent startling advances in reprogramming adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells – hailed by the journal Science as the scientific breakthrough of the year – are said by many scientists to be making embryonic stem cells irrelevant to medical progress." He noted also that "adult and cord blood stem cells are now known to have great versatility, and are increasingly being used to reverse serious illnesses and even help rebuild damaged organs."

"To divert scarce funds away from these promising avenues for research and treatment, toward the avenue that is most morally controversial as well as most medically speculative, would be a sad victory of politics over science," he added.

The complete letter follows:

Dear Mr. President-elect:

I recently wrote to assure you of the prayers of the Catholic bishops of the United States for your service to our nation, and to outline issues of special concern to us as we seek to work with your Administration and the new Congress to serve the common good.

I am writing today on a matter that could introduce significant negative and divisive factors into our national life, at a time when we need to come together to address the serious challenges facing our people. I expect that some want you to take executive action soon to reverse current policies against government-sponsored destruction of unborn human life. I urge you to consider that this could be a terrible mistake -- morally, politically, and in terms of advancing the solidarity and well-being of our nation's people.

During the campaign, you promised as President to represent all the people and respect everyone's moral and religious viewpoints. You also made several statements about abortion. On one occasion, when asked at what point a baby has human rights, you answered in effect that you do not have a definite answer. And you spoke often about a need to reduce abortions.

The Catholic Church teaches that each human being, at every moment of biological development from conception to natural death, has an inherent and fundamental right to life. We are committed not only to reducing abortion, but to making it unthinkable as an answer to unintended pregnancy. At the same time, I think your remarks provide a basis for common ground. Uncertainty as to when human rights begin provides no basis for compelling others to violate their conviction that these rights exist from the beginning. After all, those people may be right. And if the goal is to reduce abortions, that will not be achieved by involving the government in expanding and promoting abortions.

The regulation to protect conscience rights in health care issued last month by the Bush administration is the subject of false and misleading criticisms. It does not reach out to expand the rights of pro-life health professionals, but is a long-overdue measure for implementing three statutes enacted by Congress over the last 35 years. Many criticizing the new rule have done so without being aware of this legal foundation – but widespread ignorance of a longstanding federal law protecting basic civil rights is among the good reasons for more visibly implementing it. An Administration committed to faithfully implementing and enforcing the laws of the United States will want to retain this common-sense regulation, which explicitly protects the right of health professionals who favor or oppose abortion to serve the basic health needs of their communities. Suggestions that government involvement in health care will be aimed at denying conscience, or excluding Catholic and other health care providers from participation in serving the public good, could threaten much-needed health care reform at the outset.

The Mexico City Policy, first established in 1984, has wrongly been attacked as a restriction on foreign aid for family planning. In fact, it has not reduced such aid at all, but has ensured that family planning funds are not diverted to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions instead of reducing them. Once the clear line between family planning and abortion is erased, the idea of using family planning to reduce abortions becomes meaningless, and abortion tends to replace contraception as the means for reducing family size. A shift toward promoting abortion in developing nations would also increase distrust of the United States in these nations, whose values and culture often reject abortion, at a time when we need their trust and respect.

The embryonic stem cell policy initiated by President Bush has at times been criticized from both ends of the pro-life debate, but some criticisms are based on false premises. The policy did not ban embryonic stem cell research, or funding of such research. By restricting federally funded research to cell lines in existence at the time he issued his policy, he was trying to ensure that Americans are not forced to use their tax dollars to encourage expanded destruction of embryonic human beings for their stem cells. Such destruction is especially pointless at the present time, for several reasons. First, basic research in the capabilities of embryonic stem cells can be and is being pursued using the currently eligible cell lines as well as the hundreds of lines produced with nonfederal funds since 2001. Second, recent startling advances in reprogramming adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells – hailed by the journal Science as the scientific breakthrough of the year – are said by many scientists to be making embryonic stem cells irrelevant to medical progress. Third, adult and cord blood stem cells are now known to have great versatility, and are increasingly being used to reverse serious illnesses and even help rebuild damaged organs. To divert scarce funds away from these promising avenues for research and treatment toward the avenue that is most morally controversial as well as most medically speculative would be a sad victory of politics over science.

I hope you will consider these comments in the spirit in which they are intended, as an invitation to set aside political pressures and ideologies and focus on the priorities and challenges that will unite us as a nation. Again I want to express our hopes for your Administration, and our offer to cooperate in advancing the common good and protecting the poor and vulnerable in these challenging times.

As we approach the first days of your new responsibilities as President of the United States, I will offer my prayers for you and for your family. May God bless your efforts in fostering justice and peace for all, Mr. President, as you begin your term.