Thoughts on Obama’s Notre Dame Address

by Jim Wallis 05-18-2009

After weeks of controversy surrounding Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama to receive an honorary doctorate as this year’s commencement speaker, we have seen both the American democratic tradition at its best and the worst examples of those who would rather wage culture wars than engage in that democratic tradition. Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins, in his introduction of the president, reiterated the university’s position on life and abortion while also praising the president for coming in spite of the controversy: “Others might have avoided this venue for that reason, but President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him.”

Some students and others exercised their right to publicly and peacefully disagree with the president on an issue of importance to our country. The health of our democracy depends upon the right of students to protest and dissent with the policies of our government and any administration with which they disagree. I hope, however, that there were not any protesters who were yelling so loud that they did not hear the words that the president spoke.

He confronted head-on the controversy surrounding his visit and also articulated a vision for how the people of our country can disagree with each other on fundamental issues while still finding common ground to work with one another on areas of agreement.

On abortion, the issue that fueled the controversy, the president said:

Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually; it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions; let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. 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.

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.

He also underscored another value of democracy: that we seek first to understand and be understood, even if we do not agree.

For too long in our country, generations have yelled past each other at “straw men” and engaged in battle with stereotypes of those with whom they disagree instead of taking the time to listen and understand others. The only way we will be able to progress in any kind of moral dialogue is to actually engage with those with whom we disagree, not just yell louder than them.

The president shared the story of the Civil Rights commission whose work formed the basis for the Civil Rights Act, and whose diverse and divergent members were able to find consensus on such a contentious issue. Former Notre Dame President Fr. Ted Hesburgh was a member of that commission:

… [when] they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal. And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

Perhaps this president’s willingness to confront controversy with an appeal to common values can also change the way we address other divisive and controversial issues. We live in a country in which we know everyone will not agree on everything. In fact, it is quite an accomplishment to even get half of the country to agree on anything. Our differences, and our ability to maintain this union in spite of them, are some of our country’s greatest strengths. It’s been a long time since I have heard a president be able to articulate so well a positive vision for how people of faith, and a nation as a whole, can work together to face the difficult moral issues of our time in both disagreement and unity.

Furthermore, despite all the media focus on the abortion controversy at Notre Dame, I found the presidents’ comments on the larger issues of faith, civil discourse, and public life to be quite significant. Click here to read the entire address.

Jim Wallis is CEO of Sojourners. To read more, see this article on bipartisan efforts toward finding common ground around abortion reduction in Sojourners Magazine.

Categories: Abortion, Faith and Politics, Gender, General, Health

judithod

Definitely agree with your point that "the solution is far bigger than a law can achieve." As stated earlier, the programs that I've seen work are those that involve young women in meaningful activities--creative, environmental, community-oriented--which inspire new interests and skills as well as self-respect. In the "old days" when I was young, Girl Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, Candy-Stripers (hospital volunteers) fulfilled that purpose, but today, with the influx of different ethnic groups and cultural values, no one program or activity fits all.

Did enjoy USNA commencement. Attended in 2001 as a parent, and this one was different but also very special. Have interviewed candidates for 10 years, and was invited to pin on the shoulder boards by one of "my mids"--young Hmong woman who came here as a "boat person" and who has amazing courage, determination, and initiative.

squeaky

Oh yeah--hope you enjoyed the commencement!

squeaky

Thank you for your work with young women.

This is just the kind of work that I think is a great example of something people of all political viewpoints can come together on.

I think both sides have major trust issues, and one way to overcome that is to start working together on common goals. Certainly dealing with means of combatting unwanted teen pregnancy is a goal we can all work towards.

But it just goes to the point that the solution is far bigger than a law can achieve, and also the point that I think there is common ground we can find.

I'll check out your link--looks like an interesting article. When I was in Indiana, I was astounded by the number of my students who were pregnant outside of marriage, and that in a community where a church was on every corner. It's anecdotal, but it just seemed it was on a much higher occurrence than in other parts of the country--even those parts that didn't have a church on every corner.

judithod

Am sorry about the delayed response. Traveled to Annapolis for the U.S. Naval Academy graduation, where, ironically, Obama was the commencement speaker and John McCain's son was a member of the graduating class. No discussion of abortion at that commencement!

I wish I had the magic answer to implementing the solutions, Squeaky. For 6 years, I served on the board of a foundation that had teen pregnancy prevention as its main goal. This was not a white-glove board; we actually went into the community to get to know firsthand the teens and the organizations working with them. The most effective programs we witnessed were those that actively promoted self-respect, encouraging the young women to believe in themselves and their abilities via community projects that typically paired them with strong women as role models. The programs that failed were those that just preached at the young women, whether they advocated abstinence or birth control.

Personally, I believe we've made "discarding" too easy in our society--discarding spouses via divorce, discarding virtue via casual sex. Both commitment and weighing consequences appear to be perceived as old fashioned.

Recommend reading "The Real Pregnancy Crisis" by W. Bradford Wilcox in the 22 May 2009 Wall Street Journal. You should be able to find it online at WSJ.com. Contains some chilling statistics on the number of children born outside of marriage in the U.S.

gouthro

Very good article, Jim. I am more or less along the same wavelength as yourself. In your article, however, I was left on my hunger, as I believe that the great barrier to finding common ground is the perception that there is no common ground. Each side sees itself as absolutely right. While I agree with Obama in calling for at least a modicum of humility in our opinions, there may legitimately come a time when certainty is called demanded. Karl Barth did not negotiate with the Nazis, for instance, he wrote the Barman Declaration. I am sure that a number of people believe that we are in a similar situation regarding the abortion debate. It seems to me that this great divide has to be addressed in any appeal to find common ground.

squeaky

Good. I doubt that many people, regardless of the stance they take on abortion, would disagree with that. So, it seems there is room for discussion. Now how do you get both sides to the table?

If those are the solutions, what is your proposal to implement them?

neuro_nurse

This is from the first result of a Google search of ‘federal funding planned parenthood' - the language is rather subjective:

October 31, 2004

“This adds up to a total of over $100 million of federal taxpayer dollars given annually, during George W. Bush's presidency, through just these two programs, made possible by President Bush's own signature of approval on repeated HHS Appropriations bills, to Planned Parenthood, the largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers in America”

“George W. Bush is NOT Pro-life

“The thought of calling someone who authorizes over $100 million per year of taxpayers' federal funds to be appropriated to Planned Parenthood (Murder, Inc.) "Pro-Life", is outrageous. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD." Proverb 17:15

“By funding Planned Parenthood, President Bush and the Republican-majority Congress are justifying the wicked. Therefore, according to the Word of God, President Bush, and all those in Congress who voted to pass this baby-killing-funding legislation, are abomination to the LORD. So what would that make a Christian who voted "for" someone who is "abomination to the LORD"?”

“BUSH: "... My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion."

“Conclusion # 1: George W. Bush did not speak the truth to Americans on October 8 in the Second Presidential Debate.

“Conclusion # 2: George W. Bush is NOT Pro-LIfe!” (sic)

http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine041031.htm

Isn’t Google great?!

neuro_nurse

“So why is the Catholic Church opposed to saving lives by using these cells which are going to be destroyed no matter what?”

That’s a loaded question, but thanks for asking.

The Church, of course, does not oppose saving lives.

Aside from the fact that that an embryo is considered by Catholics to be a living human being, the Church also opposes in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and contraception based on the doctrine of the purposes of marriage – fecundity:

"This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act." CCC 2366

In other words; marriage, sex, and procreation cannot be separated.

I’m not defending the doctrine, I’m just answering your question.

Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_ac...

Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning: Questions and Answers
http://www.usccb.org/stemcellcampaign/q_and_a.s...

neuro_nurse

Absolutely!

See, we do share some common ground.

WaveTossed

"When he reversed the Bush stem cell policy he said this, implying that this was an issue of 'science' vs. 'government manipulation and coercion' made the statement below. Talk about caricatures and strawmen.

"'This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources - it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.'"

I am not Catholic, I am Episcopalian. The Episcopal Church does not oppose embryonic stem-cell research. So I am unclear about why the Catholic church opposes this.

My understanding is that embryonic stem cells come from embryos that would be destroyed in any case; none of these embryos would ever be born. Using stem cells from these embryos can save lives. It's like the people who are brain dead who end up donating their organs so that others can live. I've signed up for donating my organs once I am gone.

So why is the Catholic Church opposed to saving lives by using these cells which are going to be destroyed no matter what?

I do see a significant difference between opposing abortion and opposing embryonic stem cell research.

WaveTossed

Barry Goldwater was someone who was truly for states' rights. Whereas the Jim Crow believers were using states' rights merely as excuses to keep African-Americans from achieving their civil rights.

Nowadays, the same sorts of people who used to scream "states rights" are the same people who now want the Feds to pass a Federal Constitutional Amendment to prevent states such as New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and others from passing laws allowing Gay marriage.

When states' rights = denying rights, these people would support states' rights. When states' rights = acknowledging rights, these people now oppose states' rights. Barry Goldwater believed in states' rights on principle rather than as convenient excuses to deny people civil rights.

Back then (and still now), I disagree with what Goldwater said then about states' rights. This was because states were violating a Federal Constitutional right to vote. Still, I can respect Goldwater for his views even when I disagree with some of them.

neuro_nurse

“[T]he Catholic Church has never condemned capital punishment in principle”

“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267

“The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

“the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

“all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

“there must be serious prospects of success;

“the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.”
CCC, 2309

“Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

“In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”
CCC, 2297, 2298

neuro_nurse

“The only reason they may promote the practice is that the Bush adminstration required them to in order to get federal funding.”

So, you’re saying that Planned Parenthood would not teach abstinence if gw bush had not made them do so.

Or, perhaps, PP teaches abstinence because it is medically sound and supported by scientific evidence (abstinence-only is not).

Here’s one for you:
“Christian Family Life Education: a guide for teaching about adolescent sexuality and reproductive health” by Shirley Miller, published in *2001* by Planned Parenthood, New York
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nyc/files/NYC/... (6.5 MB – it’s a 493-page book)

‘But,’ you say, ‘gw bush became president in 2001!’

Yes well, you need to check the facts on federal abstinence-only funding – it began in 1996 as Title V of the Social Security Act, and Planned Parenthood urged states to reject title V funding (for medically sound, evidence-based reasons).
ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/mchb/titlevtoday/UnderstandingTitleV.pdf

“In 1996, Gloria Feldt begins her decade-long tenure as president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Under Feldt, Planned Parenthood works to expand congressional support for medically accurate, comprehensive sexuality education programs that include abstinence.”
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-w...

1996… wasn’t Bill Clinton president then?

Just the facts, Ando.

judithod

But have you been a legislator, actively taking a stand and casting a vote? As a legislator, one definitely has an opportunity to make a "yes," "no," or "present" statement. Your argument actually could be used in defense of Bush and capital punishment. He was upholding the law in Texas, which doesn't mean that he's personally pro-capital punishment.

judithod

In a nutshell: Strong families, self-respect for our bodies, abstinence, and birth control

judithod

Interestingly enough, the Catholic Church has never condemned capital punishment in principle, although recent popes and bishops have favored abolition and have appealed for clemency in particular cases. And the "death penalty" is called for in the Hebrew Bible as a punishment for murder, for striking or cursing one's parents, and for kidnapping (Ex. 21:12-17) as well as for bestiality, for sorcery, and for sacrificing to alien gods (Ex. 22:18-20).

neuro_nurse

Thanks - I had in mind the invasion of Iraq, which did not meet that Catholic standards for a just war, and which Pope John Paul II very vocally opposed, as well as bush’s approval of the use of torture.

JaneinWNY

They needed a test case to take to the Supreme Court. If it had not been Norma McGorvey, it would have been someone else. The outcome would have been the same.

mazbeth

quoting opening article:

He also underscored another value of democracy: that we seek first to understand and be understood, even if we do not agree.

For too long in our country, generations have yelled past each other at “straw men” and engaged in battle with stereotypes of those with whom they disagree instead of taking the time to listen and understand others. The only way we will be able to progress in any kind of moral dialogue is to actually engage with those with whom we disagree, not just yell louder than them.

AMEN
Thank God for a President who is wise, and a deep thinker.

mazbeth

is it not possible to stick to discussing the article by Jim and the speech he is commenting on, instead of these detours?
This frequently happens on this Blog. It is very disappointing as I would expect intelligent and self-controlled people, who want to discuss in depth, to frequent this Blog.