All hell breaking loose over Notre Dame’s slating of Obama as commencement speaker
March 29th, 2009 at 06:56am Pat Cunningham
President Obama is scheduled to deliver the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame seven weeks from today, but one wonders if the school will still be standing by then.
The nation’s most prominent Catholic institution of higher learning finds itself caught in a FIRESTORM for having invited Obama, whose views on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research don’t accord with those of the Vatican.
The controversy has exposed, perhaps even widened, philosophical fissures within the Catholic community that aren’t always apparent to outsiders. Not all Catholics march in lock-step with the teachings of Rome. Indeed, most Catholic voters went for Obama in last year’s election, no matter the thinly-veiled directives to the contrary from the church hierarchy.
The flap over Obama, which gets more heated with each passing day, seems to have loosed pent-up enmities between the church’s left and right wings. And, from where I sit, as a lapsed Catholic without a dog in this fight but still attentive to the action, the right seems especially eager to do battle — the better to purge the so-called cafeteria Catholics from the ranks.
Catholic prelates in Phoenix (HERE) and Houston (HERE) have taken to publicly scolding Notre Dame President John Jenkins for the apostasy of his invitation to Obama. Others, no doubt, will follow suit, lest they be perceived by the forces of orthodoxy as moral slackers.
Among the gathering storm clouds, perhaps the most ominous is the indication that religious extremists like Randall Terry are planning to descend upon Notre Dame like a plague.
Randall Terry, if you don’t know, makes no bones about his advocacy of a theocratic America. Consider his comments as quoted by the Fort Wayne (Ind.) News-Sentinel:
“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good…. Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.”
Here are Terry’s thoughts on the controversy at Notre Dame:
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
24 Comments Add your own
1. Mike Carroll | March 29th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Patrick- I am a Conservative, a Catholic (Cafeteria perhaps), somewhat Pro-Choice and a proud graduate of Notre Dame. I am pretty sure that gives me more than one dog in this fight and I support the University’s decision to invite Obama to speak at the Commencement ceremony. Based on what I have observed since the announcement, I think the majority of ND grads feel as I do.
I support the decision because Notre Dame is a Catholic University that emphasizes both the Catholic and the University as President Jenkins has stated in the past. A University should promote and encourage debate on the great moral questions of our time where both sides of the issue are fairly presented. A Catholic University does not violate its charter by inviting speakers whose opinions differ from the Catholic Church. Indeed, I believe the debate furthers the mission of the Church by exposing more people to the intellectual and faith-based opposition of the Church to the entire “Life is Sacred” debate.
Obama has been presented with a high profile opportunity to express and defend his extremely liberal positions regarding abortion , stem cell research and other “life” issues and Notre Dame and the Catholic Church can and will respond accordingly.
Actually Pat, I am not at all sure that Obama hasn’t stepped into a bit of a trap with his acceptance. You know how sneaky Catholics can be.
There is more that i can add but, frankly, its Sunday and I’m off to mass.
2. Pat Cunningham | March 29th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Mike: I disagree with your theory that Obama has stepped into a trap by accepting the ND invitation. He couldn’t easily have rejected it without suffering some backlash and incurring the rap that he’s somehow anti-Catholic. By accepting it, he shows courageous willingness to face the inevitable criticisms from conservative Catholics. He might even reap political gains if he’s perceived as the target of intolerant extremists.
I think Notre Dame and its president are caught in a trap. If they withdraw the invitation, they look craven and thereby alienate the sizable liberal segment of American catholicism. The withdrawal also would diminish the school’s academic reputation and would make it appear more like Pat Robertson’s clown college. It also would embolden the church’s orthodox wing to further press its agenda against the apostates at Notre Dame and elsewhere.
On the other hand, if the university doesn’t withdraw the invitation, it runs the risk of Randall Terry and others turning the commencement exercises into a three-ring circus.
This episode seems to have the potential to become something of a watershed event, a showdown between the left and right of the American Catholic church with neither side emerging as a winner and the rift becoming ever deeper. Mind you, I’m not predicting anything so dire as outright schism, but neither would I rule it out in the long run. Stuff like this can lead to stuff like that.
The church, like the Republican and Democratic parties, cannot easily endure the strains of its proverbial tent having become too big.
3. Michael Jessen | March 29th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Maybe the Rev Wright can introduce the “O”.
4. Mike Carroll | March 29th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Pat-Notre Dame won’t withdraw the invitation, of that I am sure. Neither will they allow some clown like Terry to disrupt the ceremony. Remember, the campus is private property and they can bar anyone from having access.
We disagree on which party is trapped, if any, but what I know for certain is that “life issues”, of paramount importance to the Church, will have a much higher visibility and level of debate in the weeks leading up to commencement. I don’t see how that hurts Conservatives or, frankly, helps the “government funded abortion on demand” liberals.
5. Pat Cunningham | March 29th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Michael Jessen: Keep on riding that Rev. Wright hobby-horse and maybe someday somebody outside the circle of wingnuts will pay attention to it. It didn’t work last year, and it won’t work this year. Maybe you should try the Bill Ayers stuff again. Or the birth certificate stuff.
6. Pat Cunningham | March 29th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Mike Carroll: Speaking of “life issues” as the church sees them, I’d like to see wider discussion of the Vatican’s view that artificial birth control is “intrinsically evil.” That’s always a popular theme among rank-and-file Catholics and the populace at large.
7. Mike Carroll | March 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Pat-you and I came from the era when some Catholics tried the rhythm method of Birth Control. Those were the ones that had really big families. Dumb then and dumb now.
8. shawnnews | March 29th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“Every Sperm Is Scared” from Monty Python’s Meaning of Life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
9. Pat Cunningham | March 29th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
shawn: I’ve always loved that particular Python bit. Very funny.
10. Mr. Funfsinn | March 29th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
This pales in comparison with what is happening in the mainline protestant denominations. The difference between stories about this and stories, or lack of stories, about the disappearing of mainline protestantism is striking. I can only infer that it is theological, with the “mainstream” of journalism supporting the mainline “authorities” while opposing the Vatican. That should be the real story.
11. Mike Carroll | March 30th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Pat-Did I miss something?
12. Pat Cunningham | March 30th, 2009 at 8:26 am
What you missed, Mike, was my reconsideration of an issue you raised concerning religious bigotry. The offending comment and all references to it were deleted. The moral of the story is that blogging about religion inevitably has it pitfalls.
13. Mike Carroll | March 30th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Pat-OK. Thanks
14. equalityrkfd= | March 30th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Maybe they can invite the newly converted and absolved Newt!
15. RedRover | March 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Hey Pat,
You are not just a lowdown lazy lush, you are a corporate prostitute who does for all the rich bastards what Monica did for your buddy, Bill Clinton.
You are a perfect example of why honest folk despise and distrust journalists.
To hell with you and your yellow rag!
RedRover
16. Pat Cunningham | March 30th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Gee, just because I’m Irish, RedRover calls me a “lush.” Truth is, I hardly drink at all.
The reason Red is miffed with me is that I deleted a comment he posted here yesterday. Red is a lapsed Catholic, which is fine with me. I am, too. But the anti-Catholic rhetoric in his comment struck me as a bit over the top, so I deleted the whole thing.
Actually, it was a close call. I left the comment up for a while, but upon reflection, I finally decided it was too much. If Red wants to try again, with a tad less vitriol, I’ll be glad to publish it.
The thing is, I’m the one who decides which comments are acceptable here and which are not. Somebody has to do it, and that somebody is me. As even a casual glance at some of the invective that passes muster here will attest, I’m pretty tolerant of nasty sentiments. But there are limits to my tolerance.
As for Red’s contention that I’m a “corporate prostitute,” I plead innocent. I’m actually an independent free-lance prostitute. I’m not an employee of the Register Star, which means it’s wrong to blame this “yellow rag” for my offenses against the sensibilities of what Red calls “honest folk.”
This episode is evidence that blogging about religion runs the risk of sparking a firestorm of intolerance. It doesn’t take much to provoke wild charges of heresy and blasphemy along with fevered expressions of damnation all over the place. And sometimes anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic sentiments will arise.
Personally, such stuff doesn’t necessarily offend me. But an implicit condition of my deal with the Register Star is that I not allow this blog to become overwhelmed with religious bigotry (or bigotry of any other kind, for that matter).
Anyway, I’m sorry that RedRover is so offended, and I hope he’ll visit here again with comments that are just a tiny bit less hateful.
17. RedRover | March 30th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Tell you what, Pat.
Repost what I wrote and just [invective deleted] out the words or phrases you find offensive.
That is acceptable to me.
But what is unacceptable is to delete an entire posting that I worked hard on just because I compared a certain religious institution and its beloved leader to a certain politcal institution and its adored dictator.
My metaphorical constructions may displease you but that is no reason to deprive your readers of the facts they need to form a well-founded opinion on this matter.
You must know that I am mad as hell about what our country has come to in our lifetimes.
I cannot believe that in my old age, I live in a country that has borrowed over $1 trillion from a despotic and despicable communist regime, and would like to borrow more, and that none of my former co-religionists nor my former comrades in arms have anything to say against it.
I cannot believe that a priest who is now Pope and who forthrightly condemned the criminal Bush invasion of Iraq has turned around and visited with all of those criminals and shook their hands and blessed their souls, without once mentioning their sins and lack of remorse therefor, thereby legitimizing their crimes in the eyes of the world.
As over the top as I was, nothing I wrote is as obscene as what the Church has done to the concept and practice of moral integrity.
I apologize for what I said about you.
You are right about your rights as blogger.
I hope that in the future you will exercise your rights in a less absolutist manner, recognizing that a passionate response to something other than American Idol is not to be discouraged and deleted, but rather to be directed along lines that preserve its basic message and demonstrate its ardor, if only by the obvious deletions of what you regard as metaphorical excesses.
RedRover
18. Mike Carroll | March 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
‘I’m actually an independent free-lance prostitute”
Well said.
19. Dave Barrett | March 30th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
You are more tolerant than I am, Pat. I found myself hoping that RedRover’s comment was his farewell to this blog.
20. Mike Carroll | March 30th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Red
A little friendly advice, don’t confuse the Catholic faith with the Catholic Church. They are not one and the same. I have had many disagreements over the years with the Church and its leadership and have been as passionate about its screw ups (predator priests for example) as you were in your earlier post but there are some lines you shouldn’t cross.
BTW, the Church never declared the Iraq war to be an unjust war(Jus ad Bellum). They certainly disagreed with the need to go to war but I can’t think of a conflict since Korea that they did endorse.
21. Pat Cunningham | March 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Red: I can’t repost your original comment. The deletion process sent it to neverland. Sorry.
22. Craig Knauss | March 30th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Pat,
I am always amazed that the characters, of all persuasions, that state they are fed up with any particular newspaper, its news, its management, its politics (or lack of), and its blog sites, are always the first to write some longwinded, mindless diatribe about that paper. And they always say they “are fed up” or similar language, and will never come back. And as sure as darkness at night, in a week or two they are polluting the internet with their ranting again. If anything, idiots like that should be thanking you for giving them any time or space whatsoever. You are way more understanding and/or tolerant of them than most of the rest of us would be. And way more understanding and/or tolerant than they ever deserve.
23. Pat Cunningham | March 30th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
You’re right, Craig. If I were still a Catholic, they’d probably canonize me.
24. The Exaggerator | April 10th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Quoth Randall Terry:
And yet Mr. Terry considers himself a “Christian” by calling for, in effect, theocracy dominated, methinks, by Very Dangerous Elements using “Christian Love” to conceal their Wicked, Wicked Ways?!
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed