I don’t want to turn my blog into all “Notre Dame scandal all the time”, it is just stories keep coming out that I want to write about.
When I first saw Fr. Thomas Reese’s defense of Notre Dame’s decision, I figured it was just about par for the course. So far it has only been Catholics and Catholic groups who in the past have been fuzzy or outright hostile to defending the life of the unborn who have defended the decision. That says a lot about the decision.
Creative Minority Report did a handsome fisk of Fr. Reese’s defence as did Carl Olson at Ignatius Insight Scoop.
1. “In his personal life, Obama has never acted in defiance of the fundamental moral principle that abortion is wrong.”
Hard to know where to begin when the argument is hardly serious. Since when can you sin in your professional life as long as it isn’t part of your personnel life? This is a Clintonian divide, besides as Carl pointed out how does Fr. Reese even know this for sure? But this idea that you can vote and support an intrinsic evil in you’re professional life just as long as you don’t act on that evil in you’re private life is just not a morally sane argument. By that logic you could vote for any evil you wanted as long as you didn’t do them yourself.
3. He supports legal restrictions on third trimester abortions with a health-of-the-mother exemption.
So that explains why he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection act and would allow infants to be killed after they were born after a botched abortion. But actually what the President had said about third trimester abortions is “I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother.” Notice he is only talking in terms of the state and not that he would personally want this. But the reality is that he has already appointed one pro-abortion judge and will continue to do the same. His cabinet picks and other nominees are also radically pro-abortion. So if he actually meant this he has a funny way of encouraging legislation that would actually support this.
Also contrast the reaction by so-called progressive Catholics to the Pope’s lifting the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops and the outcry over Bishop Williamson’s holocaust denial and there defense of Notre Dame. As evil and uninformed as holocaust denying is, it does not measure up to supporting murder of the innocent.
10 comments
“3. He supports legal restrictions on third trimester abortions with a health-of-the-mother exemption.”
Read Doe v. Bolton, Roe’s overlooked companion case. This statement actually means “He supports laws that present absolutely no obstacle to any abortion.” It’s entirely vacuous.
I don’t know why you call him “Father” Reese. He doesnt use “Father” in his by lines any more, why should you ?
Hi “Curt”
You make an interesting point with your remark, “Since when can you sin in your professional life as long as it isn’t part of your personal life?”
Luke 3:14
And soldiers also asked him, saying, And we, what must we do? And he said unto them, Extort from no man by violence, neither accuse any one wrongfully; and be content with your wages.
Soldiers kill human beings for a living, and so do executioners. Both do so presumably for the public benefit, but neither goes home and kills his neighbors and associates.
Do not get me wrong, I am no supporter of Obama’s death march, and I agree that ND should not honor him nor give him a platform, but there is merit in the basic argument that one can behave one way at work and the other way at home.
The difference is that the deliberate killing an (empirically demonstrated) unique, defenceless, innocent human being is obviously against natural selection (survival of the species), is callously selfish, and gravely immoral all the time for anyone.
The argument he used is a valid one, but it is a logical fallacy to apply it to “always-evil” acts such as abortion.
Dear Members of the Notre Dame Community, and Esteemed Friends,
We are proud to announce that Notre Dame has invited President Barack Obama to give this year’s commencement address. Although President Obama differs with members of our community on some issues, the University’s commitment to diversity and dialogue means that we welcome speakers who can share different perspectives with our students. Given the importance that the University places on honoring diverse points of view, we are also proud to announce that we have taken the unprecedented step of lining up the following commencement speakers for the next five years:
1. 2010 — Bernie Madoff and Jeff Skilling, who will give a joint address on “Business Ethics as an Embodiment of Catholic Social Teaching,” a theme which is more important than ever in these challenging economic times. Mr. Madoff and Mr. Skilling will share their extensive business experience which they gained, respectively, as a personal investment advisor and as an executive at Enron Corporation. Due to unavoidable circumstances, Mr. Madoff and Mr. Skilling will be unable to travel to South Bend for the address, but will appear by videoconference by special arrangement with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Some members of the Notre Dame community have expressed misgivings about this invitation, but we stress the importance of keeping an open mind to other, enriching points of view.
2. 2011 — The Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, who will speak on “The Place of Catholics in American Society.” Unfortunately, there has always been a great deal of misunderstanding between this University and the KKK. At times, Notre Dame has failed to be as receptive as it could have been to the Klan’s diverse point of view, given unfortunate incidents in which members of our football team have disrupted Klan rallies in South Bend and beaten up its members. Other members of our community have sometimes reacted emotionally to the Klan’s advocacy of expelling the Catholic faith from these shores, without taking the time to understand their unique and diverse point of view. We look forward to the Grand Wizard’s visit, and hope it will be an occasion of understanding and mutual forgiveness.
3. 2012 – Hu Jintao, Paramount Leader of the People’s Republic of China, who give an address on “The Meaning of Family Life,” and how China’s innovative family policies hold many lessons for us. As the place of family holds an important place in our Catholic faith, we eagerly anticipate learning from and dialoguing with Premier Jintao.
4. 2013 – Christopher Hitchens, renowned English author, who will give an address on “The Proper Place of Religious Faith in Society,” and will make the case that we are better off without it. Mr. Hitchens will also encourage Catholics to engage in the sort of beneficial self-examination that we all too often avoid, and will use our sometimes uncritical admiration for Blessed Mother Teresa as a case in point, explaining why he “wishes there really was a Hell for the b**ch to go to.” We look forward to learning from Mr. Hitchens about the virtues of the New Atheism.
5. 2014 – Kim Jong-Il, who will give an address on “Religious Liberty in the 21st Century.” Mr. Jong-Il, the Dear Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic Korea, will share his unique perspective on religious liberty with our graduates. Religious liberty has always been an important theme in American Catholic life, and we look forward to the opportunity to dialogue with the Dear Leader. Some of the more excitable members of our community have expressed a distressingly close-minded attitude towards the Dear Leader’s visit to Our Lady’s University, merely because any North Koreans who are found to be practicing the Catholic faith are subject to summary execution. We urge all members of our community to reflect on the need for greater tolerance of all points of view (except, of course, for our own).
Yours in Christ,
The University of Notre Dame
Jack,
The examples you give do not hold up. It has never been considered in Catholic teaching that a soldier killing another is in itself sinful since it is part of a corporate act of defense. It is not sinful for a soldier to do his job in normal circumstances of war.
As for executioners while Catholic thought is leading in the direction of having a death penalty severely limited, it can not be said that the death penalty is intrinsically evil and can be prudently used without committing a sing.
So your two examples fail in that they are not committing sins in their public life in the first place.
I concur, but my point is that they do not kill others outside of their “jobs” howewver while at work they do.
My point is that his foundational argument that one can behave in 2 fashions under 2 sets of circumstances and not be in conflict is valid.
We agree that it does not apply here as abortion is ALWAYS wrong.
ie: the argument is a valid one, but the application in this instance is a logical fallacy
“In his personal life, Obama has never acted in defiance of the fundamental moral principle that abortion is wrong.”
Who knows whether he has cooperated in an abortion either as a single person or as a married man. What do we know for sure about his past history?
Furthermore, he’s said clearly that he’d advocate abortion for his own daughters.
Sometimes when I reflect on stories such as this, its hard to know whether this is just a few misdirected people acting in poor judgement, or if this is a well orchestrated plan by the Dark Lord using these people as his pawns. It is frightening to think that both Jenkins and President Obortion are likely unwitting stooges of the evil one.
I’m not so sure Obama is unwitting. I’ll give Father Jenkis the benefit of the doubt and ascribe it to the theological seminary where he studied (a real looney bin).