President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

[aicirt]

Implication. Good point. Subjective.

IMO inviting a person to give a commencement address is because you admire that person and see him/her as a beacon by which the graduates will follow his/her light. It would be assumed that the graduates would applaud the guest speaker. It would be terribly rude to invite someone to speak and then boo him either by words or actions. Unfortunately, this is what is happening.

As a graduate of ND, does the University have a panel which discusses speaker possibilites anticipating arguments against the choice? Or is that selection left to the President?

I do admire your depth of inquiry as well as the other posters. I didn’t read the Popes’ nor the Bishops’ statements although I’ve been well aware, since 8th grade, abortion is against the teachings of the Church. I believe for most Catholics, like me, it was just a matter of connecting the dots: life begins at conception, killing is against the commandments, voting for anyone who advocates abortion would make me a participant so I cannot vote for OB nor support any Catholic who, I believe, is leading others to perdition for example Pelosi and about five other Catholic politicians.

About 20 years ago, I was told ND is too secular. I never realized how far it has gone until this recent debate. I went to Sycamore and was slack jawed upon reading the University has been showing the play “The Vagina Monologues”, a total piece of trash. Apparently, Father Jenkins and the President before him sanctioned it. Unbelievable. But, having googled it, most Christian institutions are showing it. Why? Oral Roberts and some of the other evangelical colleges apparently have a moral compass. They’re not showing it. Good for them! What ever happened to an occasion of sin? Was it sent out the door with St. Christopher?

 

[aicirt]

Diggerdomer, you are underplaying the significance of what Notre Dame has done by conferring **honors **on Obama.

Just two comments from the Roundtable presented here.

You should know, as a Catholic, that what you do and how you do it has real significance in the world; ie. meaning.

How true! My Lutheran neighbor scolded her two Catholic friends asking them how they could possibly be Catholic and vote for OB because of his abortion views. Pretty gutsy.

 

[aball1035]

People and universities as a whole seem to forget Obama’s stances on so many issues and just see him as our president. Therefore, he must be a good man… It doesn’t make sense!

 

[magdelaine]

Ok, I love Francis Beckwith! He has just posted this on First Things. Please read and it and then explain to me why it’s “ok” that ND did this thing.

A quote:

So, this is the man on whom the University of Notre Dame wants to bestow an honorary doctorate of laws? But, as we have clearly seen, Obama, in spite of all his personal talents and accomplishments, explicitly and unapologetically rejects the intrinsic dignity of the human person, the proper subject of the natural and canonical laws on which the university’s jurisprudential patrimony rests. It is a jurisprudential patrimony that the university not only claims to believe, it claims both to believe that it is true and that it knows that it is true.

I have no doubt that Notre Dame would never bestow an honorary doctorate in science to an astronomer who vigorously advances the agenda of geocentricity or a chemist who refuses to teach his students the periodic table, or award an honorary doctorate in divinity to a theologian who is an unrepentant apologist for racial apartheid and white supremacy, regardless of what these three individuals may have accomplished or how well their celebrity may be received by the wider culture and its influential institutions.

Unless the university does not believe that the Church’s understanding of the moral law is true and knowable, it can no more in good conscience award an honorary doctorate of laws to a lawyer who rejects the humanity of the proper subjects of law than it could in good conscience award an honorary doctorate in science to a geocentric astronomer who rejects the deliverances of the discipline he claims to practice.

Go forth and read.

 

[diggerdomer]

Diggerdomer, you are underplaying the significance of what Notre Dame has done by conferring **honors **on Obama.

Just two comments from the Roundtable presented here.

You should know, as a Catholic, that what you do and how you do it has real significance in the world; ie. meaning.

I disagree. I am not underplaying it. That is your interpretation, it’s not a fact. I think this is an incredibly important issue.

FYI, I know Rick Garnett. Personally. Do you?

I admire Bishop D’Arcy (the bishop of the diocese in which Notre Dame is located) for his stance.

Was there any point in your comments other than to personally attack or discredit me or my views?

 

[diggerdomer]

I went to Sycamore and was slack jawed upon reading the University has been showing the play “The Vagina Monologues”, a total piece of trash. Apparently, Father Jenkins and the President before him sanctioned it. Unbelievable. But, having googled it, most Christian institutions are showing it. W

A point of clarification. “The University” is not showing the Monologues. The University does allow the performance, but it’s not at all sponsored by the University. As with any number of things that happen on campus, one simply cannot say “The University is doing such and such.” I personally regret the decision, but there is a significant difference here, in my opinion.Thanks for noting that other Christian institutions are allowing it to be performed.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, subjective.
For those (especially the young) who have no time or inclincation to wade through the garbage ND is using as a smokescreen (academic freedom, blah blah blah), the solid implication is that ND applauds the life and work of BO.

Nauseating, horrifying, evil.

Personally, I hope everyone has time to “wade through” Church teaching and the opinions of people they personally disagree with to better inform themselves of these (and other) important issues.

But, if one does not have time to “wade through” things like lengthy and complex Church teaching, and to listen to other human beings created in God’s image, then of course it’s understandable that each of us would pick the one phrase or out of context statement that supports what we already believe.

 

[diggerdomer]

How true! My Lutheran neighbor scolded her two Catholic friends asking them how they could possibly be Catholic and vote for OB because of his abortion views. Pretty gutsy.

Gutsy, maybe.

In accord with Catholic teaching? No.

 

[diggerdomer]

People and universities as a whole seem to forget Obama’s stances on so many issues and just see him as our president. Therefore, he must be a good man… It doesn’t make sense!

If that were true, I would agree. Just like those who honored G. Bush.

 

[magdelaine]

Personally, I agree with the thought that a Catholic institution should not allow performance of the V**** monologues…albeit I have some reservations. I have not seen it myself (and have no desire to) so it’s hard for me to give 100% an assertion here. 99 maybe, but not 100. More importantly is the issue of academic freedom that I believe strongly in, and that I think Catholic universities and colleges in America have a right and responsibility to. This will inevitably result in conflicting view between the institutions and the Church. Personally, I tend to trust the local Bishop and the University administrators to navigate these difficult waters.

I understood the above comment to be underplaying the significance of Notre Dame inviting Obama and conferring honors upon him. If I was incorrect, I apologize.

But while we’re on the subject, if the local Bishop had been brought in on the decision instead of simply being “informed” after the fact, Obama would never have been invited. By doing an end run around the hierarchy, as it were, the administration that you trust has shown a shocking lack of respect for Catholic principles and authority.

 

[magdelaine]

Gutsy, maybe.

In accord with Catholic teaching? No.

Ummm. What?

No…nevermind. I don’t need to hear your equivocations again. If you can’t take the “you cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate” statement by the Church at face value, then

You live in some fuzzy grey world I don’t recognize. But I know Someone who does.

 

[diggerdomer]

If you can’t take the “you cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate” statement by the Church at face value, then

.

I’m not aware of anywhere the Church has taught this. Please, help. Where did the Church say this as you claim? Believe me I’ve looked for it and have yet to find it.

Thank you for your consideration and charity.

I’m not sure about your “Someone” reference; if it’s germane to the topic at hand please clarify.

Thanks again.

 

[diggerdomer]

, if the local Bishop had been brought in on the decision instead of simply being “informed” after the fact, Obama would never have been invited. By doing an end run around the hierarchy, as it were, the administration that you trust has shown a shocking lack of respect for Catholic principles and authority.

You seem to misunderstand the relationship between a Catholic University and the diocesan Bishop.

Personally, if Notre Dame did not in fact consult Bishop D’Arcy beforehand, or communicate their intention, I think it would have been preferable that they did.

Regardless, I don’t see how that would have changed the outcome.

 

[aicirt]

Gutsy, maybe.

In accord with Catholic teaching? No.

Let’s see if this will float: the Church is against abortion, people are excommunicated for having abortions, priests and laity have for 40 years been protesting abortions some of whom have gone to jail. Obama supports abortion and embryonic stem cell research. He got elected. That win gave him access to the coffers to promote abortion internationally which he did and open up embryonic stem cell reasearch which was halted by Bush and some other previous Presidents.

Bishops have privately asked Catholic politicians not to receive Communion because of their pro-abortion stands. Some have not heeded the warning and it became necessary for the Bishop to ask them publically.

The Pope has had a private talk with Nancy Pelosi re. her pro-abortion stand.

As a Catholic you can’t vote for a pro-abotion politician because you are voting for murder. My Lutheran neighbor got it on her own.

Maybe you voted for Obama which is your business and I’m sure you are against abortion. There just seems to be more going on with you because you are determined to cut hairs on this and there is nothing to cut.

 

[diggerdomer]

Let’s see if this will float: the Church is against abortion, people are excommunicated for having abortions, priests and laity have for 40 years been protesting abortions some of whom have gone to jail. Obama supports abortion and embryonic stem cell research. He got elected. That win gave him access to the coffers to promote abortion internationally which he did and open up embryonic stem cell reasearch which was halted by Bush and some other previous Presidents.

Bishops have privately asked Catholic politicians not to receive Communion because of their pro-abortion stands. Some have not heeded the warning and it became necessary for the Bishop to ask them publically.

The Pope has had a private talk with Nancy Pelosi re. her pro-abortion stand.

As a Catholic you can’t vote for a pro-abotion politician because you are voting for murder. My Lutheran neighbor got it on her own.

Maybe you voted for Obama which is your business and I’m sure you are against abortion. There just seems to be more going on with you because you are determined to cut hairs on this and there is nothing to cut.

I’m only “cutting hairs” (whatever that means? never heard the phrase) because my understanding is that there are those who say, for instance (1) Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for Obama or (2) Catholics cannot in good conscience support ND’s decision to have the President speak at commencement and receive an honorary degree.

I disagree, as a Catholic, with anyone who claims either of the above. It’s simply not what the Church teaches, universally, though there seem to be any number of people who claim otherwise based, in the end, on their own opinion. That’s all.

 

[aicirt]

A point of clarification. “The University” is not showing the Monologues. The University does allow the performance, but it’s not at all sponsored by the University. As with any number of things that happen on campus, one simply cannot say “The University is doing such and such.” I personally regret the decision, but there is a significant difference here, in my opinion.Thanks for noting that other Christian institutions are allowing it to be performed.

Cutting hairs again? If the University didn’t “allow” the performance then it would not be showing it would it? It is played on the campus isn’t it? You would need permission to produce any show on the campus wouldn’t you? So the University is allowing it to be shown.

What’s your opinion on the reason “The Vagina Monologues” is being allowed to be show on the ND campus as well as on the campuses of other Christians institutions? What value does it have? What were you to learn from it?

 

[aicirt]

I’m only “cutting hairs” (whatever that means? never heard the phrase) because my understanding is that there are those who say, for instance (1) Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for Obama or (2) Catholics cannot in good conscience support ND’s decision to have the President speak at commencement and receive an honorary degree.

I disagree, as a Catholic, with anyone who claims either of the above. It’s simply not what the Church teaches, universally, though there seem to be any number of people who claim otherwise based, in the end, on their own opinion. That’s all.

I think it would help if you asked a priest about this. You cannot, in good conscience, vote for a pro abortion politician. Therefore, you cannot allow a Catholic institution to honor a pro abortion politician even if he is the President. Such is the cross of the University. Secular college, no problem.

 

[elts1956]

ND is not saying to anyone: ND supports the President’s views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Thank God.

Do you really think NDU’s Jenkins would come out and say he subscribes to bo’s anti life mission? Don’t you get the IMPLICATION he does not support pro life, or at least thinks it can be ignored?

 

[Luis_Santiago]

I think it would help if you asked a priest about this. You cannot, in good conscience, vote for a pro abortion politician. Therefore, you cannot allow a Catholic institution to honor a pro abortion politician even if he is the President. Such is the cross of the University. Secular college, no problem.

Not true. The USCCB themselves have said that the important thing is intent; Catholics cannot vote for politicians because they support intrinsic evils, but may vote for them in spite of their stance on these issues, because of other positions that are more in line with Catholic beliefs. You should really read this document yourself:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Here’s an artice by Nicholas P. Cafardi on this subject:

I believe that abortion is an unspeakable evil, yet I support Sen. Barack Obama, who is pro-choice. I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed Catholic?

As one of the inaugural members of the U.S. bishops’ National Review Board on clergy sexual abuse, and as a canon lawyer, I answer with a resounding yes.

Despite what some Republicans would like Catholics to believe, the list of what the church calls “intrinsically evil acts” does not begin and end with abortion. In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote.

Last November, the U.S. bishops released “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war.

Nicholas CafardiNicholas CafardiObama’s support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That’s a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle – permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close.

Let’s suppose Roe v. Wade were overturned. What would happen? The matter would simply be kicked back to the states – where it was before 1973. Overturning Roe would not abolish abortion. It would just mean that abortion would be legal in some states and illegal in others. The number of abortions would remain unchanged as long as people could travel.

McCain has promised to appoint “strict constructionist” judges who would presumably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But is that sufficient reason for a Catholic to vote Republican? To answer that question, let’s look at the rest of the church’s list of intrinsically evil acts.

Both McCain and Obama get failing marks on embryonic stem-cell research, which Catholic teaching opposes. The last time the issue was up for a vote in the Senate, both men voted to ease existing restrictions.

But what about an unjust war? In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said flatly that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist.” McCain voted for it; Obama opposed it.

What about torture? “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” according to Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated abuses in Iraq. Obama opposes the use of torture in all cases; McCain, himself a victim of torture, voted to allow the CIA to use so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” – a euphemism for torture.

How, some may ask, can I compare these evils with abortion? The right to abortion is guaranteed by the federal judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution. And while the president appoints federal judges, the connection between a president’s appointments and the decisions rendered by his appointees is tenuous at best. After all, in 1992, five Republican-appointed justices voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yet on other intrinsic evils – an unjust war, torture, ignoring the poor – I can address those evils directly by changing the president.

There’s another distinction that is often lost in the culture-war rhetoric on abortion: There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions, and has consistently said that “we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.” He favors a “comprehensive approach where … we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.” And he wants to ensure that adoption is an option for women who might otherwise choose abortion.

Obama worked all of that into his party’s platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform.

What’s more, as recent data show, abortion rates drop when the social safety net is strengthened. If Obama’s economic program will do more to reduce poverty than McCain’s, then is it wrong to conclude that an Obama presidency will also reduce abortions? Not at all.

Every faithful Catholic agrees that abortion is an unspeakable evil that must be minimized, if not eliminated. I can help to achieve that without endorsing Republicans’ immoral baggage. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not the only way to end abortion, and a vote for Obama is not somehow un-Catholic.

The U.S. bishops have urged a “different kind of political engagement,” one that is “shaped by the moral convictions of well-formed consciences.”

I have informed my conscience. I have weighed the facts. I have used my prudential judgment. And I conclude that it is a proper moral choice for this Catholic to support Barack Obama’s candidacy.

Cafardi is a civil and canon lawyer, and a professor and former dean at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. His most recent book, Before Dallas, examines the bishops’ failures in handling the clergy sex abuse crisis.

 

[elts1956]

ND is not saying to anyone: ND supports the President’s views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Thank God.

I’m only “cutting hairs” (whatever that means? never heard the phrase) because my understanding is that there are those who say, for instance (1) Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for Obama or (2) Catholics cannot in good conscience support ND’s decision to have the President speak at commencement and receive an honorary degree.

I disagree, as a Catholic, with anyone who claims either of the above. It’s simply not what the Church teaches, universally, though there seem to be any number of people who claim otherwise based, in the end, on their own opinion. That’s all.

You cannot disagree with the above and remain in perfect communion with the Catholic Church regarding this issue.

I am curious and stymied. How many encyclicals, letters from Bishops, postings from Catholics who disagree with your interpretation of the Universal teachings of the Catholic Church, would it take for you to slow down, think and re-interpret what the Church is saying? What you believe cannot be a universal teaching of the Church. You are saying that priests such as Fathers Pavone, Corapi, Eutenauer and Bishops/Archbishops such as Chaput, Finn, Herman, Burke, Naumaur, Martino and others are all wrong in what they have said regarding an appropriate Catholic conscience when voting??? Please explain yourself.