Obama at Notre Dame

I am not now nor have I ever been a part of the Roman Church. I was raised a Methodist. I am not qualified to say whether inviting President Barack Obama to give ND's commencement speech and receive an honorary degree was a violation of Catholic protocol. But I gather that the Catholic Church has more rules than the Methodist Church, which is an easy call since the former has at least some rules and the latter, so far as I can tell, has none. I like having a lot of different kinds of religious communities in the neighborhood. That's diversity. But that means that each community has to insist on being what it is. If Obama's invitation was a violation of the rules, as some allege, that represents a threat to diversity. How's that for a politically correct defense of staunch Catholics?

I listened to President Obama's speech this morning, and commented on it on South Dakota Public Radio. I thought it was a fine commencement speech, as such things go. The issue of abortion was obviously the center of gravity around which the whole affair revolved. I thought President Obama's handling of that issue was very interesting.

He said one thing that needs saying, and said it well.

One of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, bringing together men and women of principle and purpose -- even accomplishing that can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved. (Applause.)

Yes. There are people of intelligence and good will on both sides of these issues. I wish he had made that the central theme of his speech. I liked this part as well:

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

So how do we deal with such irreconcilable differences on abortion? The President had some suggestions:

Let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now I liked one thing there: the "sensible conscience clause" part. I don't think that doctors or pharmacists who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons or reasons of moral conscience should be forced to choose between conscience and livelihood.

But it is also important to recognize that the President's position regarding people who disagree with him on abortion is one of tolerance. Tolerance was the mechanism by which the great politico-theological controversies of the Protestant Reformation were ultimately, if very gradually, resolved. The mechanism works like this: we, the people in power, will stop burning you guys at the stake; heck, we might even let you into the colleges. But in turn, you guys will accept that we are in power. It worked for Queen Elizabeth. Maybe it works for Obama.

The United States has a much more liberal abortion policy than most developed countries. A woman five days from natural birth can get an abortion if she has a doctor and a lawyer behind her. A healthy baby who survives an attempted abortion, well we know that Obama does not think that such a biological entity deserves protection. President Obama's bottom line is that this regime is no more negotiable than the Protestant Succession was for the Elizabethan regime. Accept that, and he will negotiate on other details. This is appalling. But for a political scientist, it is very interesting.

Comments

[Troy Jones]

Ken,

You must be a staunch member of the Oxford Church or not enamored with any religion which has strict standards which was an obstacle for you to give much of a defense of Catholics or our church on this internal matter for it was worse than weak. Frankly, it is a distraction from the greater point you are trying to make: the morality of abortion is an issue that is likely to be irreconcilable but there are related issues surrounding unwanted pregnancies where both sides can work together and there is room for greater tolerance in light of differences.

There is great truth in this point in that we need a new attitude of dialogue on this issue on both sides. This said, ultimately, for the long-term good of the body politic we need to find political solutions that have broader general support by the people. This can only be done by giving greater involvement of elected respresentatives and even direct democracy and removing this issue as the exclusive perogative of the appointed (courts).

[KB]

Troy:

Thanks for the comment. Your first sentence rather defeats my powers of interpretation, for which I pride myself. My first paragraph was partly tongue-in-cheek, and partly serious. I do think that having genuinely diverse voices in the public argument is a good thing (within reason), and that that requires each faction to have some courage with regard to its principles. If it really was a violation of church rules to invite President Obama to speak and award him an honor, then they should not have done that.

I certainly agree with your comment that democracy is a better way to deal with the abortion controversy than the Courts. But that was the point of my reflections on the history of tolerance. Obama's position seems to be that pro-lifers so long as they accept that the pro-choice position is in charge and non-negotiable.

[Facundo]

Dear Admin,do you think Obama could be converted?I have heard from other rsmealthat he is highly spiritual.Forgive me, but I consider him to bea wicked spirit in a high place.how should I deal with these conflicting feelingsI have towards my Nation's president?my honorific mentality toward the Christ -Childmakes me hateful toward Obama.I honor the Christ-Child dailyby having once and for allset up my little christmas treewith little white lightsand the image of the Infant Jesusin a manger below itout on my apartment balcony.I visit this scene everydayif only to be pacifiedwhere anger wishes to exercisethe power of Time and Deathover Obamaby virtue of ardent prayer.I will avoid it for now,the ardent prayer to see Obama's own end.I turn to Romeand see the Holy Spirit nowin the Flesh of Pope Benedict XVI.It is true.He is the Lord,the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.Do not doubt, Thomas, but believe.God has visited His people.He has come to His people and set them free.He has remembered His promiseto the House of Israel,the New Israel,to save Us from Our Enemies,freeing Us to worship Him without fear,holy and righteous in His Sightall the days of Our Lives.We must seek the forgiveness of Our Sinsand then We will know the way of salvation.Be ready for changes.- RebeccaTexas, USA