04/10/2009 10:30 am
POV
Priests: Abortion-Supporting Obama at Notre Dame Risks School's 'True Soul'
© Getty Images
There’s more hullabaloo this week over President Obama’s planned appearance at the University of Notre Dame.
The college has been getting a lot of flack lately for inviting the president to deliver the commencement address May 17. Since it’s a Catholic school, many object to Obama because of the president’s support of abortion rights. But now, ten priests from the Congregation of the Holy Cross, which founded the university, said the school risks its "true soul" by hosting Obama.
In a letter to the editor in Notre Dame’s student newspaper, The Observer, the priests wrote:
It is our deep conviction that Notre Dame should lead by word and deed in upholding the Church’s fundamental teaching that human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception. In so doing the University must take seriously the 2004 instruction of the U.S. Catholic Bishops that ‘Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions … The University pursues a dangerous course when it allows itself to decide for and by itself what part of being a Catholic institution it will choose to embrace. Although undoubtedly unintended, the University administration’s decision portends a distancing of Notre Dame from the Church which is its lifeblood and the source of its identity and real strength. Such a distancing puts at risk the true soul of Notre Dame.’
On top of that, anti-abortion crusader Randall Terry of Operation Rescue has vowed to make the graduation ceremonies a "circus" if Obama shows. He’s staying in South Bend, IN, until graduation, rallying supporters to launch protests between now and graduation day. And, based on tactics Terry has used in the past — including sending a dead fetus to President Clinton — the demonstrations likely won’t be pretty.
"There’s a whole plethora of things, some of which I’m not at liberty to discuss yet," Terry told The Observer. "We will make this a circus."
Notre Dame isn’t the only school giving Obama a bit of a hard time. Arizona State University won’t be awarding the president with an honorary degree for lifetime achievement when he gives the commencement speech May 13, even though it’s customary to award the degree first, then invite the recipient to speak.
"It’s normally awarded to someone who has been in their field for some time," an ASU spokeswoman told Politico. "Considering that the president is at the beginning of his presidency, his body of work is just beginning."
- Email this Post
- login or register to post comments
300 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
If Notre Dame want Obama to address this University he should be allowed to do it, there will be folks who will oppose it but there are folks who oppose anything he does anyway. The right to life groups will be out there protesting and that is their right to do so..but many Catholics voted for Obama and don’t see anything wrong with him speaking there. As for Arizona not wanting to give him an honorary Doctorate that is ridiculous, but not surprising seeing as it is a red state and McCains’ state. They just can’t over that election loss!!
The President of Notre Dame should have known better than to embarass Notre Dame (and insult the believing Catholics who financially support and built the school over generations) and the pro-choice President of the United States. Its a lose/lose situation.
Notre Dame can’t ‘rescind’ the invitation without insulting the President…but the President, or his staff, can certainly ‘learn of a scheduling conflict’ and make this go away.
Its really not fair to the graduates or the Church. And, the President of Notre Dame should ‘fall on his sword’ for the mea culpa and step down…for the good of all involved. Their should be a ‘scapegoat’ both in the Notre Dame community and the political one. This priest really didn’t use good judgment and should express same; retire gracefully.
And yet Notre Dame had no problem inviting George Bush — who executed more prisoners than any governor in history — speak at the school.
Hypocrites!
The execution of prisoners is a strawman here. Even within the right to life community there is/has been a discussion of that…with the concensus usually falling on the side that the those on death row have been avowed of the their Constitutional rights…which the pro-life community sees as not occurring in abortion. But that is NOT what this thread is about…
Back on topic, if GWBush spoke did he cause such a profound derision as is President Obama in the situation at hand? I am guessing a few anti-death penalty types protested (exercising their First Amendment rights) and that was the end of it all.
The powers at be at Notre Dame had to be aware (FOCA, Mexico City ruling) that Obama promised to be make abortion rights a priority of his administration…so why did they thumb their noses at Catholic theology and seek out Obama? And why didn’t Team Obama ‘think’ that maybe this wouldn’t be politically expedient for the President. It seems like alot of people didn’t think the invitation thru.
As I posted earlier, in another (smaller) same case scenario the policitan involved (Sen. Bob Casey) just decided to step aside (claiming a scheduling conflict) and the situation for the school/graduates/alumni/Church/and politician just ‘went away.’
That’s what is need to occur here for the good of all.
suzie…stop living in the past….own up to obama’s mistakes now!!! wink wink
I agree, Rudi, and here’s proof:
There is no question that President George W. Bush increased the federal deficit to a historic $700 billion through 2008. However, Obama is adding another $1 Trillion plus plus to that already historic level. Whatever increases Bush did during his administration, Obama is matching and raising to almost unimaginable levels.
And we would be remiss not to mention that Bush’s administration had to deal with the budget busting terrorists attacks of 9/11/2001 and the subsequent costly Global War on Terrorism. How can we forget that?
Obama’s budget insanity will increase the public debt by $4.9 Trillion. Staggering. Incomprehensible numbers. Makes George Bush like a novice.
Regardless of the clearly identifiable facts, Obama persists in insisting that he inherited the deficit and continually pleads with the public to be patient while he fixes all these problems that have been laid at his feet. Meanwhile, we are being robbed blind.
Its all about smoke and mirrors and a bit of slight of hand as we fatten the pig.
You have to wonder how far it will go before Americans stand up and demand that it stop and if, by then, it will be too late.
Too late….those penetratingly awful two words. If only….if only….
Inflation on the horizon….poor China.
Re-read the comments posted in these pages by you and other Limbaughites: glee.
The Limbaughites’ strategy is clear. Your party’s registrations are falling like a rock, meaning it’s likely the GOP will only claim a quarter of the electorate by 2012. New numbers suggest even more trouble — now fully 70 percent of Republicans identify themselves as "very conservative," which jives with the new demographics showing the party becoming increasingly old, white, male and Southern — in other words, the party is moving farther and farther away from the political consensus of regular Americans.
Limbaugh knows that the only way to put the corporate elite back in power under Republican rule is for America to fail. He and his followers are praying that the US economy will go into a Depression — which explains why Republicans in Congress have done their best to obstruct any and all attempts to stop the collapse.
With the economic collapse, Limbaugh and his followers are gambling that American society will implode. After which, the right wing will goose step into the capitol, as they did in 2000, and finish the job George Bush, Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Phill Gramm, Jack Abramoff and the others started of turning the whatever wealth is left in the country over to their masters, the corporate elite.
Strong evidence that this is the right’s real, hidden agenda is the talk of fascism coming from hatemongers like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and others, which is dutifully repeated as talking points in these pages. This talk of fascism coming from the right would be funny, in an ironic way, if it weren’t so tragic. It’s what psychologists call "projecting" and, as previously noted, what intelligence professionals call "mirror imaging," which is erroneously assuming your enemies think like you do.
George Bush divided this country and then took it to war on false pretenses. That was a "high crime" if there ever was one — it had never been done before in our history. A few conservatives of conscience — Pat Buchanan, for example — dared to stand up to him publicly. But 99 percent of American conservatives kept silent while this criime against humanity was committed in all our names. The right could have taken responsibility for the actions of the dangerous, strutting popinjay they put into power at that time, but they collectively chose to do nothing — to let him slink back to Texas to work on his abs full time or whatever it is he does all day.
Because of Bush, the country remains divided, but now it’s divided 70/30 against his followers, who, in the vacuum of power he left, are now under the complete control of Rush Limbaugh. The only way for the rapidly shrinking 30 percent to put the corporatists back in power is for the right to overthrow the government, which is the unstated true agenda of the McVeigh tea-bagging parties being promoted nonstop on Fox (but nowhere in the legit media).
The Limbaughite agenda is simple and clear: The easiest way to overthrow the United States government is to destroy it first — and to do it with glee.
Rudi
You have a lot to say, but you might go back over the archives and read and you will see that what you are saying has been said hundreds of times since the beginning of this site. So, for me, one who is interested in reading new and interesting thought, this is just old retreaded stuff. Because you are angry and resentful about it, isn’t going to change anything here and it gets kind of boring. Others will jump on to your posts and agree wholeheartedly which is what usually happens, but there is not any new or creative thought about any of the above. Just another manifesto about your evil empire, with a lot conspiracy tossed in.
When you talk about the republicans wanting an economic collapse so they can take advantage of it, seems as if you are not up with the times. We are already in an economic collapse and the democrats are taking total advantage of it. The republicans have no power and no leader right now. The democrats have a wider majority than when the repubs had the majority before ‘06, so there is not much that the republicans can do about any of it. The dems have a tight and powerful grip on everything and they are taking advantage of it. They are stripping and rebuilding the engine in their own image and likeness. This obviously brings you comfort, but, just as you say Pres Bush polarized our nation, the dems are doing it as well right now. This is what happens when any administration plays to the far wing of their party. The pendulum always swings back the other way with more restrictions imposed.
So to me, the next question would be is it better for our country to have a "centrist" president like Clinton, or presidents that represent the far right or left of a party? Bush was polarizing, but I think it is evident that Obama is just as polarizing.
If I were given to the sort of paranoid ravings conservatives like to wallow in, I might wonder if the Bush and the Republicans did not deliberately collapse the economy in order to create chaos so they could regain power.
I do believe that conservativism is a fake ideology, and I believe we’re seeing this false construct collapse before our eyes.
What the Dems are doing is trying to root out and correct the corrupt policies inserted into the government by Republicans over the past 15 years at the behest of their masters in the coporate elites — the deregulation of inspections of our food supplies, for example.
I’d love to hear from a conservative why they will defend to their dying day deregulating food inspection so that, for example, we end up with dangerous quantities of perchlorate, the main ingredient in solid rocket fuel, in the 15 top brands of baby formula. Please, someone, explain why conservatism has come to mean giving corporations the right to sell poisoned baby formula.
I know, I know… crickets — (because Rush has not handed out any talking points on this issue).
But Rudi, you do sound kind of paranoid as you rave on. We all do it as some point on these threads, but you continue to try to move the conversation away from the fact that the democrats are taking more advantage of the economic situation than the republicans. The democrats are doing anything they want to do, with few repercussions. If 50% of the population complains, MoveOn and the rest send out emails and then the phone banks get busy calling and emailing until all the other voices are shouted down. That doesn’t seem like democracy to me. Reminds me of the 1969 Cultural Revolution in China that destroyed so many lives and mired China in backwardness and human rights violations.
Our government - all of them got us into this mess with Bush at the helm. The dems had power for 2 years and did nothing - nothing about health care, the failing economy or anything else - they were there, they didn’t even try very hard that is why congress had one of the overall lowest ratings - EVER - 12% or something like that, maybe it was 14%. I just think it is disingenuous for either side not to take an objective look and follow the money. The money tells the tale of who is in whose pocket. Months ago I posted who received the most contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - it was Obama and Dodd and the majority of the money went to democrat senators and representatives - makes you go hmmmm. You should see the list of monies from AIG - Obama and Dodd were the two highest takes in the last election cycle - McCain got about half as much in that cycle - but a considerable amount since 1990. Dodd topped them all. I am assuming that you are a democrat, correct me if I am wrong, buy why aren’t the dems making a broader appeal to have Dodd investigated? Is it just that holding on to power is more important than having the truth revealed? That is just wrong and corrupt.
Now, more and more democrats are being called up for ethics violations and tax fraud. Where was was the press while they were breaking the law? Out to lunch with them trying to get the inside scoop on someone else? I have always felt the relationship with some of the press and congress was just too incestuous. It destroys democracy. The principles are more important than the personalities. You say the dems are trying to root out corrupt policies? They need to clean house first before they start throwing stones. The repubs have certainly had a long list of bad actors - Abramhoff comes to mind - who was the senator from florida that lost because of a scandal, then the democrat that takes the seat had the same problem with having an affair - we still haven’t heard whether or not the money for his mistress was taken from his campaign account. Where is the press? Ted Steven’s case just got thrown out. The judge said that the flagrant misconduct on the part of the prosecutors was appalling and reprehensible. It was a direct effort to destroy someone. Where was the press on that one? Now, Ted Stevens, who apparently did take some gifts, is off the hook - although he lost reelection because of the scandal when the prosecutors made it look like he took $250,000. They withheld testimony of one of the workers on his property making it look like Stevens didn’t have to pay the guy. Stevens had paid the guy. That is corrupt. Both sides do it to each other.
As far as deregulation - I have my own feelings about that. Deregulation by the republicans and then blocking of regulation by the democrats of Fannie and Freddie played a huge role in our current economic situation. So then it looks like the dems want regulation unless it has to do with what they control, and the repubs don’t want business regulated. I believe we need regulation since greed seems to trump what is good for our society.
Greed is the biggest problem, you can’t legislate anyone out of being greedy, or legislate them into becoming sober, losing weight, loving their children, stopping smoking, etc - or, to put it another way, you can’t legislate intelligence. I believe that the competition in the financial system is a ruthless game, therefore just like any other competition it needs rules and regulations. There are many regs on the books that could have stopped some of this, but the SEC was asleep - look what happened in the Madoff scandal - just reprehensible on all levels. Why wasn’t the press scandalizing it like they were scandalizing what someone wore to a meeting? Stupid.