Obama’s Catholic Moment

by John Gehring 05-23-2009

Against the backdrop of protest and spectacle that threatened to overshadow graduation at the University of Notre Dame last week, President Obama delivered a graceful commencement address that stands as a dignified rebuke to divisive, single-issue ideologues.

While protesters flew a plane over campus with graphic images of an aborted fetus and attempted to demonize the president at every turn, Obama’s call for “open hearts, open minds, and fair-minded words” served as a healthy model for the day’s young graduates. Grown-up liberals and conservatives who caricature opponents with crass denunciations that undermine hope for reasoned debate could also learn a few things from this speech.

Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins praised the president as a leader with deep respect for the role of faith and whose commitment to universal health care, compassionate immigration reform, nuclear disarmament, and racial reconciliation reflect traditional Catholic values. Fr. Jenkins strongly reiterated Catholic opposition to abortion, but also commended Obama for coming to Notre Dame in a spirit of respectful dialogue. In doing so, Fr. Jenkins honored a Catholic intellectual tradition that rejects the slash-and-burn rhetorical extremism so prevalent in a culture where cable news shouting matches reduce complex issues to simplistic sound bites.

President Obama rose to the occasion and used the most important Catholic moment of his presidency so far to acknowledge the moral dimension of abortion. He emphasized the need to support pregnant women and reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, called for greater access to adoption, and supported sensible medical conscience clauses grounded in clear ethics and sound science. This appeal to common ground is a cause for hope that could help unite pro-life and pro-choice leaders behind a comprehensive approach that supports families and helps prevent the tragedy of abortion. Unlike some Catholic bishops who decried Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama as an embarrassment and a scandal, an editorial in the Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, commended the president’s speech for inviting “Americans of every faith and ideological conviction to ‘work in common effort’ to reduce the number of abortions.” Last month, the Vatican newspaper noted that the president’s first 100 days in office have not confirmed the Catholic Church’s worst fears about policy changes on ethical issues such as embryonic stem-cell research. These temperate words from the Vatican offer a welcome anecdote from the defensive, “man-the-torpedoes” posture adopted by a vociferous minority of U.S. bishops.

The Catholic Church is not a single-issue faith or the arm of any political party. Notre Dame and other Catholic universities graduate young men and women ready to confront the great issues of our time with moral clarity and intellectual vigor. An engaged Catholicism does not fear the diverse ideas of a pluralistic democracy or slam the doors on those we disagree with on polarizing issues. It brings faith and reason to the always imperfect task of touching minds and hearts through principled dialogue guided by love and mutual respect. On a spring day in May, this proud tradition shined as bright as the Golden Dome at Notre Dame.

John Gehring is the Deputy Communications Director and Senior Writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

Categories: Abortion, Faith and Politics

Nathan Bedford

"I don't remember the justice who
wrote for the court majority, but he too did not envision how far-reaching
it would be taken by the likes of NARA and PP, groups which thrive on
abortion being legal, and which make their home in the Dem party."

Harry Blackmun wrote the opinion for the majority (7-2 with Byron White and William Rehnquist dissenting). I know of know evidence to support your statement that he "did not envision how far reaching" it would be. (Perhaps you could educate me.) Indeed, as late as 1992, Blackmun wrote:

Yet I remain steadfast in my belief that the right to reproductive choice is entitled to ... full protection…. And I fear for the darkness as four Justices anxiously await the single vote necessary to extinguish the light. I am 83 years old. I cannot remain on the Court forever, and when I do step down, the confirmation process for my successor well may focus on the issue before us today. That, I regret, may be exactly where the choice between the two worlds will be made.
- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992),
505 U.S., 922, 923, 943, opinion

"They also held the majority in state legislatures and
governorships for much of the time."

During the 2006 election, the Democrats reversed the 28-22 control of the governorships; a majority held by Republicans since 1992. I don't know what you mean by your tail and dog comment, but I suggest you remove your head from the tail and check out your facts.

ando

The Democrats were the majority in Congress for much of that time. Think
post-Watergate. They also held the majority in state legislatures and
governorships for much of the time. Also, nobody, at least at the
beginning, believed that Roe v. Wade would be as far-reaching as it has
been. Just ask Norma McCorvey (Roe). I don't remember the justice who
wrote for the court majority, but he too did not envision how far-reaching
it would be taken by the likes of NARA and PP, groups which thrive on
abortion being legal, and which make their home in the Dem party. Which one
is the tail, and which is the dog, I don't know.

Your Repug line is a class act. But one must consider the source. BTW:
I'm not a Repug, or a Dem. Just like Sojo is purported to be.

Nathan Bedford

"The so-called "pro-choice" side has gotten the upper hand over the past 35 years. "

2009-35=1974. FOR ALL BUT 12 OF THOSE 35 YEARS, THE REPUBS HAVE OCCUPIED THE PRESIDENCY. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ABORTIONS? HOW MAY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES CURRENTLY ON THE COURT WERE APPOINTED BY DEMS? PLEASE IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT INTRODUCED BY REPUGS THAT WOULD MAKE ALL ABORTIONS ILLEGAL. YOU APPARENTLY THINK THAT THIS ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED BY POLITICIANS, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE REPUGS WILL DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN POLITICIZE IT.

(PLEASE EXCUSE ALL CAPS - COMPUTER WON'T LET ME SELECT LOWER CASE.)

modern_ancient

jesse3,
Why can't you see that they were not honoring him because he supports a woman's right to choose (very different from supporting abortion) but because of the many other accomplishments that are completely in line with RCC teaching: racial equality, compassionate immigration solutions, justice for the poor, etc.

Being pro-choice does NOT mean someone is pro-abortion, just like being pro-life does not make someone anti-choice. A person can support a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body AND seek to end all abortions. They simply would seek that avenue through loving means (i.e. finding ways of caring for scared and confused teens who are pregnant, providing support for poor pregnant women during and after the pregnancy, etc.) rather than compulsory means (something the church has been historically guilty of... trying to use the power of the empire to further its own agenda rather than using its prophetic gift to inspire people). Notre Dame took a bold step and showed that a portion of the church is willing to separate out the positives from the negatives and to no longer resort to condemnation and threats to get their way.

helovesall

Thank you for this article. As a Catholic, I am so incredibly impressed to see someone holding to the integrity of the Church. As soon as the Church makes itself a single-issue body, it loses the foundation of Christ. Further, it is unrealistic, condescending, and self-righteous for ANY party or religion to refuse to work together to solve the bigger problem. Abortion is horrible, I agree. But until we are willing band together in addressing the issues behind abortion (i.e. do we act with love towards unmarried pregnant women?) we can never expect an end to abortion.

jesse3

You can keep pretending as if this was about radical "single issue ideologues" shutting down dialogue, but you know it wasn't. It was about a Catholic college giving an honorary degree to someone who supports a grave evil. Those who opposed Notre Dame's decision had nothing against dialogue with Obama. They were just opposed to honoring him. Why has no columnist on this site mentioned this fact? It's disingenuous.

scat

modern_ancient:
That is as well-said and succinct as I've ever heard it. And I agree that Obama's speech was right on and long over-due. Unless people find some areas where they can agree and work together, they will continue lobbing stones at each other indefinitly. As we have seen, no progress is made that way.

ando

The so-called "pro-choice" side has gotten the upper hand over the past 35
years. Most don't want parental notification and no limits on late-term
abortion. Do you think Planned Parenthood or NARAL is willing to listen to
compromise when the Democrats are fully in power? They have no reason to.
Just read their propaganda.

modern_ancient

Chooselife asked:
"When does life begin? Anyone know?"

Actually, everyone acknowledges that life begins at conception. They even acknowledge that human life begins at conception. However, the question is when is "personhood" established? When does someone have the right to life, liberty, equality, the pursuit of happiness, etc.? If that occurs at conception and the murder of a zygote is equivalent to the murder of a 30 year old, then an argument could be made that every miscarriage is an abortion performed by God.

Even Thomas Aquinas distinguished between life and personhood. He permitted (though he still strongly discouraged) the aborting of a fetus up until the "stirring" which is when he taught ensoulment took place. Point being, there has never been true consensus on this issue and to suggest that there was 2,000 years ago is a bit disingenuous.

For the record, I am pro-life and would love to see all abortions cease. However, I understand the idea that we are dealing with theology and not discernible fact. Those who see abortion as pure murder do so based on a theological position, and theology should not be the deciding factor for policy in a secular government. Also, it is inconsistent to oppose abortions yet accept the death penalty or war... why do we not see the same outcry (we do see some which is good)?

Point being, Obama's speech, whether he adheres to the ideals he espoused or not, was right on spot. We must realize that the other side has valid points and concerns and cease resorting to demonizing our opponents and begin working towards common interests.

modern_ancient

ando said:
"The first thing he said was that what
was true 2,000 years ago should be true today, and went to lament how
abortion has become so codified in our culture. We ended up agreeing more
than disagreeing on cultural issues."

So, women should still be subservient to men, capital punishment should still be used in minor crimes (or simply personal choice issues like adultery), epileptics should be considered demon possessed, and religious persecution should be tolerated? It is a bit of a ridiculous statement to say that what was true 2,000 years ago should be true today. However, I agree that we cannot simply dismiss the truths of the past for they may still have things to offer us today.

Chooselife

When does life begin? Anyone know? Truth is natural conception. It is not a thing. Answer the question, do not be blocked by sin as we all are. Listen to your answer. I pray for President Obama and Notre Dame to hear Grace, do his will, not our will.

squeaky

You just gave a good example of what can happen when you listen to someone who you assume you will disagree with. I wonder what might happen if both sides of the abortion debate actually listened to each other.

hammerud

I agree with you. Also the idea that someone holding President Obama's position on abortion is open to "reasoned debate" is a joke -- what he means is for others to respect his position on the matter, a position that warrants zero respect. The President hypocritically calls for "open hearts, open minds," and I'm supposed to believe that a person who would allow even the legalization of the hideous and horrendous practice of partial birth abortions has an open heart? No wonder we are such a divided people.

JamesM

Thank you for a well written and well reasoned article.

ando

Yes, that is interesting. I think it's one way that culture sneaks into
faith. I had a discussion with a Muslim friend about 20 years ago. I
thought it would be confrontational. The first thing he said was that what
was true 2,000 years ago should be true today, and went to lament how
abortion has become so codified in our culture. We ended up agreeing more
than disagreeing on cultural issues.

1Grace

You would think it would be in the better interest of Sojo to get more
diversity of writers . Ideologues rebuked only on the pro life side appears even what the president was speaking against . Would it hurt to take the president
at on his word and work with to promote life instead of writing political spin as John did here ?

ando

The Catholic Church is not a single-issue faith or the arm of any political party.

No, but both you and Sojo are in the arm of the Democratic party.

And you mean to say that Obama's decision to universally fund abortions was not contrary to Catholic church teaching? Please.