Yesterday saw the steady stream of reactions to Notre Dame’s commencement. And as dialogue was clearly the theme of the day, it was also at the center of most Catholic commentary.
Kansas City’s Bishop Robert Finn hits the nail on the head in this interview with the Catholic Key.
On matters such as providing for the needs of pregnant women and offering alternatives to abortion, “these are elements for dialogue,” Bishop Finn agreed. “But the rightness or wrongness of abortion – this is an intrinsic evil. The direct taking of an innocent life can never be negotiated.”
The whole interview is well worth a read. Another astute observation from the bishop:
I think the message of the day was this – that the President of Notre Dame said that they had invited the President of the United States and decided to honor him for the sake of dialogue. And then the President got up and said that the differences that we have on abortion – namely the Catholic Church’s staunch opposition to abortion and his staunch support of abortion were “irreconcilable.” And at that moment, it would seem to me that the dialogue came to a screeching halt. Father Jenkins’ expressed desire for dialogue, whether it was well-founded or justified, at that point got thrown back in his face. The President shut the door on dialogue by saying that there was not going to be any change in his position on abortion and he understood that there was not going to be any change in the Church’s position on abortion. To me, that was the lesson of the day. I am glad that Mr. Obama was so clear.
In the Catholic blogosphere, Amy Welborn echoes similar doubts over the Obama-Jenkins style of dialogue that both men’s addresses seemed to propose. In reality, she argues, those who are actively working toward persuading women to choose life – whether in crisis pregnancy centers or in the legislature – are excluded from any “dialogue” with abortion proponents.
“Smaller measures to limit and regulate the abortion license are never proposed by abortion proponents, but by pro-lifers, and, further, are always opposed to the death by abortion-proponents,” she points out. “Have you ever heard of a parental notification law or laws requiring abortion facilities to be regulated at the same level as medical clinics being co-sponsored by a state branch of NARAL and the NRLC?”
Creative Minority Report points out an inconsistency in Obama’s argument for dialogue on abortion, asking why anyone who fervently believes in unfettered access to abortion would care to discuss methods of reducing unwanted pregnancies:
Why is it so important for abortion to be so rare that it warrants the President of the United States talking about it? If the fetus in the womb is just a blobby little choice and not a child at all, what do we care if abortion happens a thousand times a day and twice that on Sundays. Isn’t it up to the woman to do what she wants to do? If the creature in the womb is deemed not to be a baby by its “mother,” who are we to question her and prefer that she not do it often. … Isn’t the President forcing his morality on women by saying he wants to reduce abortion?
In the secular press, the political editor of the DC Examiner gives a thumbs down to Obama’s analogy between Notre Dame’s Fr. Ted Hesburgh’s negotiations with the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and the modern debate over abortion.
The story of the six original members of the Civil Rights Commission being able to bond over their love of fishing and find common ground on civil rights is “a good story, but not particularly relevant,” Chris Stirewalt writes. He continues:
(They) were looking for a politically palatable way to deal with the irresistible demand for black equality, not debating whether blacks were equal to whites.
On abortion, the issue isn’t whether people want more adoptions or birth control devices to be distributed in schools. The issue is whether abortion ends a human life.
That can’t be worked out on a fishing trip.
Suggesting that by reasoning together Americans can find a compromise on abortion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the matter. Either that, or Obama is just being facile in an effort to dodge the most divisive issue of the past 35 years.
Some of the strongest words on the commencement – specifically, on Notre Dame’s actions as a Catholic university – come from Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput.
Alluding to Fr. Jenkins’ laudatory introduction for Obama, Archbishop Chaput answers that “the debate over President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was never about whether he is a good or bad man. The president is clearly a sincere and able man.”
But while we have the Scripture-mandated duty to pray for and respect our public officials, “we also have the duty to oppose him when he’s wrong on foundational issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and similar matters,” the archbishop continued. “And we also have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral values.”
Comments