Although this will be considered by some to be "old news," there still seems to be a confusion amongst the general public as to why Notre Dame's decision to give President Obama an honorary doctorate and allowing him to be the commencement speaker is an issue, much less newsworthy. After all, he is the President, right? For this, he could just as well be given an honorary doctorate at any university. So, why is this an issue at the nation's best known Catholic university?
The mission of Catholic schools, first and foremost, is to spread the Gospel through its environment, its curriculum, its decisions (both public and private), etc. This does not mean that everyone who attends must be Catholic, nor that every class (in whatever subject) will be used as an opportunity for captive-audience-proselytization. Rather, it means that through its various classes and other works, it will retain (and be faithful to) its Catholic identity. That is, it should remain a faithful Catholic. This, I think, is to be expected of any institution, that it remain faithful to its identity and roots in order to continue to identify itself with said group. When a living thing dies, it is no longer "alive," but "dead." It no longer belongs to the "institution" of living things.
Unfortunately, as will be readily attested by many faithful Catholics, just because a university (or other institution) was begun as a Catholic institution, does not mean that it remains so. As a matter of fact, the list of "steadily" Catholic institutions of higher education (as compiled by the Cardinal Newman Society) is rather small. (There is the possibility that there should be more - or less - schools on that list, but that is besides the point.) The granting of an honorary doctorate and the opportunity to deliver the commencement speech at a university is, well, an honor. And this honor is bestowed on an individual in order to recognize some accomplishment(s) of the recipient. One would assume that the commencement speaker sought would not be found in contradiction to the school or its principles. For example, I cannot imagine that Auburn University (which has a strong agricultural program) would honor Pamela Anderson (a loyal and outspoken PETA supporter) with a degree, nor an opportunity to deliver the commencement speech. In a similar, but more serious way, the (Catholic) University of Notre Dame has invited a man, regardless of which office he holds, of whom it is well-known that he stands in direct opposition to fundamental teachings and beliefs which it should hold proudly and joyfully as a Catholic institution (and would certainly be justified in being humored by such a proposition). I mean, would a Jewish institution invite Mel Gibson's father, who has denied that the Holocaust ever happened, to receive such an honor (or any honor, for that matter)? Would Islamic jihadists invite George Bush over to congratulate him for a "job well done"? Why would an institution whose name means "Our Lady" invite a man who has consistently promoted agendas which are in direct opposition to many of its most sincere and foundational beliefs to their ceremony to grant this honor to him? They (being Father Jenkins and the supporting staff) have honored a man who, in action, hates what they (should) hold most dearly.
The problem which arises from this is that this is a source of tremendous scandal, especially so amidst the confusion which already exists amongst both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. What message is this sending to the world? It would surely seem as if everyone knew that the Catholic Church is opposed to many of President Obama's actions (an understanding of why this is so is a different issue), yet here is a Catholic institution honoring him with a doctorate. This can be easily interpreted (especially for the estimated 50-plus percent of Catholics who voted for Obama), as a stamp of approval on a man who has continuously fought against beliefs which are (and should be) foundational for all Catholics. For whatever reason they have decided to honor him (more than likely because of some falsely perceived "social justice" platform), those responsible have simultaneously honored a man who has supported abortion at all stages of pregnancy (and, in Illinois, even for the killing of those babies who weren't "successfully" aborted), sent millions of dollars to other countries in order to facilitate abortions in the middle of an economic crisis, intends to allow funding for the destruction of human embryos in order to harvest unstable stem cells which have never cured anything (while shunning adult stem cells which have already cured many), not to mention his apparent inclination to socialism (to which the Church is strongly opposed), and his general attitude of moral relativism ("I personally 'believe' this is wrong, but who am I to force my 'beliefs' on others?", which Pope Benedict has repeatedly called "the major evil facing the church."). This is not a man whom the Church (in any of her institutions) should honor because of his actions, thereby presenting the message that "This man is one whom we should uphold as a model to be followed," because his actions are (intentionally or not) violent to the beliefs and teachings of Catholicism (especially those which are foundational to the teachings on social justice). I am not advocating that Catholics should write him off as intrinsically evil and condemn him outright, nor that the Church should close the possibility of open dialog with him, but I do not believe that providing an environment whereby his actions could be perceived as "acceptable" is in the realm of right judgment.
In closing, I would like to thank the 350,000-plus people who have petitioned Fr. Jenkins of Notre Dame to rescind his invitation to President Obama, as well as all of those who have protested, and the unfortunate few (including Dr. Alan Keyes) who have been arrested thus far because of their protest. Because of their actions, the murkiness of this event has been clarified some and the public was exposed to the dichotomy which has presented itself in light of the university's decision.
Photo: Obama speaking at (also originally Catholic) Georgetown University, where he required that "IHS" (an ancient symbol of Christ's name) be covered for his speech. Source.
Comments
You write that "it is well-known that [Obama] stands in direct opposition to fundamental teachings and beliefs which it should hold proudly and joyfully as a Catholic institution"
Really? Where exactly does it say in the scriptures that the US government (or any government) should make abortion illegal?
Since the US government has the death penalty for murder, if you consider abortion murder, do you want the US government to execute people who perform abortions?
What other sins do you want the US government to make illegal and punish people for? Should we throw people in jail again for fornicating? Should we throw people in jail for any of the deadly sins? What about jail time for gluttony--put anybody who is obese in jail?
Come on, at least try to articulate a logically coherent position about the relationship you wish to see between the US government and the Catholic church.
"and his general attitude of moral relativism ("I personally 'believe' this is wrong, but who am I to force my 'beliefs' on others?","
You're confusing tolerance with moral relativism. Moral relativism is the belief that morality of an act is relative to the person committing the acts. Tolerance means that people agree to disagree about absolute morality and still co-exist peacefully through compromise.
For most of the period between about 300AD and 1869, abortion was always a sin in Catholicism, but it wasn't murder prior to quickening. Why the change in 1869? Why is a compromise that was good enough for Catholics 1500 years not good enough for modern America?
"which Pope Benedict has repeatedly called "the major evil facing the church.")"
Well, he is right, in the sense that the power of the Catholic church is indeed threatened when people of different faiths and convictions tolerate each other and live together in peace. For the rest of humanity, however, tolerance, compromise, and co-existence are a good thing.
"Really? Where exactly does it say"
Is that what I said? Is that even what you quoted me as saying? (And, by the way, where does Scripture say not to throw an innocent person off of the top of the Sears tower? Scipture also says that a man shouldn't cut his hair.) Common sense has (thus far) been realized in the US by recognizing the murder of an innocent as a crime. However, the dots have not yet been connected for those people in their mother's wombs.
"Since the US government"
I am not a judge, it would be up to the judges. But, it naturally follows that if one murders, one should be punished for it. (And, before you come at me with not being "truly" pro-life, I do not believe that the death penalty is just in a society which has the ability to safely protect its citizens from the imprisoned.)
"What other sins..."
I think I shall refrain from responding to these statements, considering both the direction of our "debate" on the Evangelical Examiner's article and because you are simply taking my article out of context. Re-read it and see if you honestly find the correlations you're accusing me of.
"You're confusing tolerance"
I believe it's you that are confusing tolerance with moral relativism. True tolerance does not mean that we do away with objective ("absolute") truth, nor does it require that we compromise our beliefs (which is not the same as imposing) in order to please others. If you want true co-existence, then you need people to exist as Catholics, as Protestants, as Muslims, as Buddhists, as atheists; and not as nominal (literally, in-name-only) Catholics (and so forth) wh
o are willing to deny their most closely held beliefs in order to retain some false sense of peace. That is ingenuine and inhuman. Where is the common ground on which we all meet? Reason. The primary enemy of a relativist (you can't argue with a true relativist - it's all about how /they/ feel or think, regardless of objective truth. You can argue until you're a nice-shade-of-red-purple-or-blue in the face, and it won't matter, because that's "true for you and not for them.")
What you are espousing as "tolerance" is moral relativism. If there is no objective ("absolute") truth (or truth is "relative to the person") then there is no reason for law at all (hellooooo anarchy). For murder (or: insert always-wrong-crime here) may be "right" for some, and "wrong" for others, which does not take into account that /murder itself/ is wrong, regardless of what one thinks (or feels) about it.
"For most of the period between"
First, as long as abortion is the murder of an innocent, it has been and will always be wrong. This is the Church's position and has always been the Church's position. In our previous "debate," I named the Didache - a first century document of the Church - which directly addresses abortion as immoral. Hating to have to repeat this again, find Church teaching that supports abortion.
Second, biological knowledge of the processes of life in its earliest stages is a fairly recent development and was not available to people whose statements you would like to cite. Yet, from the ones which I've read, the only ambiguity was about /when/ it was a life. There was no ambiguity about the evil of abortion (that is, the taking of an innocent child's life).
Were they to have known what we know now, they would equally (or maybe more adamantly) have spoken out. Now that we have that certainty, there is all the more reason to speak out against it - which has never changed. (For more, visit: usccb.org [slash] prolife [slash] constantchurchteaching.shtml or catholic.com [slash] library [slash] Abortion.asp)
"Well, he is right"
(I have already written of tolerance above.)
This is what I like to call group-wide slander. It appears you're still stuck in black and white. "Those evil Catholics"...oops, forgive me: "Catholicism is wrong and immoral" vs "the glory of the rest of humanity (freed from Catholicism)."
"If there is no objective ("absolute") truth (or truth is "relative to the person") then there is no reason for law at all (hellooooo anarchy)"
Of course, there is objective, absolute truth. People just disagree on what it is: Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, atheists.
Now, what do you propose we do about the fact that we disagree what this absolute truth is?
"I think I shall refrain from responding to these statements"
I'm asking a simple question: you are arguing that abortion should be illegal because the Catholic church considers it premeditated murder. I'm asking two simple questions.
First, the US has the death penalty for premeditated murder. Is that what Catholics want to achieve--the death penalty for abortions?
Second, what other sins does the Catholic church want to make punishable by law?
I think those are valid questions g
"First, as long as abortion is the murder of an innocent, it has been and will always be wrong. This is the Church's position and has always been the Church's position. In our previous "debate," I named the Didache - a first century document of the Church - which directly addresses abortion as immoral. Hating to have to repeat this again, find Church teaching that supports abortion."
I agree that abortion is immoral and that it is the taking of a human life. So what? Plenty of things are i
I agree that abortion is immoral and that it is the taking of a human life. So what? Plenty of things are immoral without being illegal, and the taking of a human life is not, by itself, murder.
And that's also been the position of the Catholic church for most of its history: while abortion is immoral and sinful, it is not murder if it is carried out prior to the quickening.
"Now, what do you propose we do about the fact"
What I wrote earlier: "Where is the common ground on which we all meet? Reason" in which we are all capable of reaching objective truth, regardless of religion.
"I'm asking a simple question"
My objection was not to the question, but that you framed it as if it had anything to do with my article, which it does not.
I do not hold that it should be illegal because the Catholic Church says so. I hold that it should be illegal because the taking of an innocent life is wrong (which law already agrees with, as I mentioned earlier; just not for "those people in their mother's wombs").
"First, the US has the death penalty"
I have already answered this: "I am not a judge, it would be up to the judges. But, it naturally follows that if one murders, one should be punished for it. (And, before you come at me with not being "truly" pro-life, I do not believe that the death penalty is just in a society which has the ability to safely protect its citizens from the imprisoned.)"
"Second, what other sins"
You are misrepresenting the Church's position. I have responded at least once (May 17, 10:13pm, last paragraph) to this in our previous debate on the Evangelical Examiner's page. The Church is not forcing its teachings on society. The Church is, first and foremost, doing what the Church does: guiding (/not/ controlling) Catholics. Simultaneously, however, there are certain things that apply to all people, regardless of religion, race, culture, etc., and are open to d
ebate from all sides, /including Catholics/. One of these things is the inalienable right to life, which does not necessitate a religious argument as it is an argument of "common sense" which applies to all people. It is simple: a child in his mother's womb is a person; the murder of a person is wrong; therefore, the murder of a child in its mother's womb is wrong (as it would be outside of its mother's womb).
That people don't address the argument, but attack the Church without considering the argument (and often putting forth what they inaccurately /perceive/ to be the Church's reasoning) is deflective, divisive, and, well, their own fault.
"I agree that abortion is immoral"
Looks like it cut you off. I noticed that I had to limit mine to about 80 words to avoid that. I guess I'm not as privileged as Jake, considering the size of the comments we made there ;).
"I agree that abortion is immoral"
"So what?" Are you serious? What if it was /your/ human life, or your mother's? If someone walked into your house and shot your child in the head, would you say, "so what?" I would hope that you would defend your family and (if he's still alive) press charges and have him imprisoned for his act of murder.
Unless, that is, you don't mind that he made /the choice/ to kill your child, and are happy to have him run free killing others, because you respect his choice to murder. Anarchy, anarchy, anarchy.
Also, the taking of a human life, say, in self-defense is not murder. But, the intentional killing of an innocent person is murder.
"And that's also been the position"
J, once again (and again and again), that is not the Church's teaching, nor has it ever been. You can say it all day long, sing it from the rooftops, talk to the birds about it. I don't care. It doesn't make it true. In three posts, I provided reasoning as to why your statement is incorrect, as well as two links which provide an ample refutation of your assumption that it has ever been OK prior to the quickening.
The posts are May 21: 3:14pm, 3:15pm, and 3:15pm. (BTW, if you're getting your info from some anti-Catholic ["Catholic" or not] group, such as Catholics for a Free Choice or Planned Parenthood, etc., you're looking to the wrong place for Church teaching. With groups like them, you will only find why the Church is wrong and needs to change, which includes articles and quotes which misrepresent and take the Church's teaching out of context in order to support their positions.)
"as well as two links which provide an ample refutation of your assumption that it has ever been OK prior to the quickening. "
I neither made that assumption nor that assertion. I said that the Catholic church did not consider abortion *murder* prior to the quickening; it has always been a sin. But a lot of things are sins without being illegal, so why should abortion be any different?
""So what?" Are you serious? What if it was /your/ human life"
Why would I possibly care? I didn't exist prior to my quickening.
"BTW, if you're getting your info from some anti-Catholic group"
No, I don't. I get my info about Catholic positions from the Pope's writings, Catholic church sources, and various historical sources.
"One of these things is the inalienable right to life, which does not necessitate a religious argument as it is an argument of "common sense" which applies to all people. It is simple: a child in his mother's womb is a person"
The US Supreme Court settled exactly that question: an embryo or a fetus in the first trimester is not a "person" in the legal sense and therefore is not protected under the Constitution. And that view agrees with common sense and many religions.
"What I wrote earlier: "Where is the common ground on which we all meet? Reason" in which we are all capable of reaching objective truth, regardless of religion."
We have reached objective truth: a first trimester embryo is not a person, and hence it is not entitled to the protection of the law. The only problem is that a minority of religious zealots simply will not accept this objective truth because of their dogma and theology.
The fact that current Catholic church policy disagrees wi
The Catholic dotcom and USCCB sites are attempts to rewrite history and are historically inaccurate.
Even the basic language Catholicism uses is scientifically wrong: human life does not "being" at conception, it doesn't "begin" at all.
There is nothing mysterious about conception; it's a natural, well-understood biological process.
Mike, I'm assuming that you're J?
"I neither made that assumption"
+
"the Cathlic dotcom and USCCB sites"
They cite /history/ plainly, including at least one council (which is official Church teaching) from 314AD. You say that they're re-writing history, but what the Church has taught is plain as day (as is only partially-evidenced by these quotes). It is your claim, it is your burden to prove.
"Why would I possibly care?"
+
"Even the basic language Catholicism"
Says you. Science says otherwise. I took a Biology /101/ course sometime in the past few years in which the point was obvious that at conception a unique individual (biologically, by its DNA) is created and will develop in /stages/ of human life - as you and I and all humans have, are, and will. Science has known (as the USCCB page cites, since 1827) with certainty that a distinct human life /begins/ at conception.
"I get my info about Catholic positions from"
Why don't I believe at least the first two? Assuming that you're J, it's because you have repeatedly misstated, misrepresented, and often simply not known the Church's position on many issues. Also, were you to be familiar with the first two, there would be no way you would make an assumption that the Church ever supported abortion at any stage of pregnancy as I have already argued.
"The US Supreme Court settled"
Then why are there abortions performed past the first trimester? And, what exactly does it mean, "not a 'person' in the legal sense"? What does a 'legal sense' have to do with whether one is a human person? Either it's a human person or it's not - what law has to say about it doesn't change the fact that a person is a person. That is dangerously Nazi-esque.
I'm unsure where common sense comes into play with the statement that a person isn't a person until the second trimester. Was it an elephant before? Were you a human zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, child, teenager, before you were an adult? Or did you just poof into the scene at 2nd trimester, ready to take on the world? Regardless of who agrees with it, the important question is what is /true/?
If it were the case that humans aren't humans until 2nd trimester, then an abortion wouldn't be murder. But that is not the case, as science readily demonstrates. (And to hold otherwise in neglect of science appears - in the sense in which you use the term - "dogmatic.")
"We have reached objective truth"
Again - says you? If the law were to say that you are not a human person because you have a "lesion unbecoming of a 'human,'" does that make it true? I don't care what law says if it's wrong - it's not infallible and only deserves my obedience inasmuch as it is true and just.
"The only problem is that a minority"
Yet I have explicitly offered arguments based simply from reason and common sense.
"Then why are there abortions performed past the first trimester?"
For the same reason you may kill a person in self-defense: it's an imperfect world.
"And, what exactly does it mean, "not a 'person' in the legal sense"?"
The Constitution protects persons. Embryos are not persons, hence they are not protected by the Constitution.
"Either it's a human person or it's not"
It is not. The law simply agrees with common sense.
"Mike, I'm assuming that you're J?"
Yes (we share a browser and it fills in the field sometimes).
"Again - says you?"
Says science. The law is derived from them.
"If the law were to say that you are not a human person because you have a "lesion unbecoming of a 'human,'" does that make it true?"
Not by itself. Science determines objective truth.
There are "lesions" that deprive you of personhood, for example, a lesion that has destroyed a large part of your cortex.
"I don't care what law says if it's wrong - it's not infallible and only deserves my obedience inasmuch as it is true and just."
It's your choice whether to obey the law. You will (and in most cases should) get punished if you do.
"Yet I have explicitly offered arguments based simply from reason and common sense."
You haven't even defined your terms, let alone offered a coherent argument. According to you, what is "human life", a "person", or "murder"? If human life "begins" at conce
"For the same reason you may kill a person in self-defense"
Yes, because a helpless and innocent child is quite violent.
"The Constitution protects persons"
Then how do you deal with science which has quite explicitly stated that says that they are unique persons at the moment of conception? I'm no expert in biology, nor am I a scientist, but it's not necessary for me to be one to understand Biology 101, which clearly states the opposite of the position which you hold.
"Says science. The law is derived from them."
Where is the science that supports this claim? Before 2nd trimester, was it an elephant? "Were you a human zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, child, teenager, before you were an adult? Or did you just poof into the scene at 2nd trimester, ready to take on the world?" We were all _human_ zygotes, _human_ embryos, _human_ fetuses, _human_ infants, _human_ children, _human_ teenagers before we were _human_ adults. It is a stage of human development.
"There are 'lesions' that deprive you"
If said lesion causes death, then yes, of course, when one is dead one is no longer human. But, what I obviously intended to illustrate was anything - a lesion, leprosy, race, mental ability, etc. - that could be (and has been) construed as "less than human" and therefore "not worthy of life."
"You haven't even defined your terms"
You haven't asked for a definition, nor have you attempted to address my arguments. If they weren't coherent, you have had ample opportunity to point that out when I wrote them, yet you have not. In the main, you have not addressed most of my arguments (which were often written in response to your assertions).
How is this not coherent? "It is simple: a child in his mother's womb is a person; the murder of a person is wrong; therefore, the murder of a child in its mother's womb is wrong (as it would be outside of its mother's womb)."
I have already defined murder in a previous post. And, most of those things which you ask me to define are not really in need of definition, as they are common sense. Or, so they once were. I mean, either they are or they are not.
Anyhow, you were cut off and they may have been rhetorical, so I will remain silent.
"Science determines objective truth"
Science does not determine/create objective truth. Science reads and talks about (some aspects of) truth. Theology, a science, seeks to understand God; philosophy, a science, seeks to understand "why?"; biology seeks to understand living things; yet none of these determine truth, they "read" it in order to understand and explain it.
"It is simple: a child in his mother's womb is a person"
There are no "children" in the womb; there are embryos and fetuses.
"the murder of a person is wrong"
An embryo or a fetus is not a person. Furthermore, not all killings of persons are murder, and not all killings of persons are wrong.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!