Just another Rutten bit of editorializing

Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times decides to expose the small cadre of narrow-minded, vicious, Republican drones who are seeking to keep President Obama from visiting Notre Dame in May, and begins his deep cover operation with a poetic flourish:

These days, protests over college commencement speakers herald spring's arrival as surely as longer days and greening leaves.

Of course, Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., had opened his column about the same topic, written four days prior to Rutten's piece, in much the same fashion:

Controversy over commencement speakers at Catholic universities pops up every spring along with the tulips.

In which case, check the "flourish" and insert "borrowed cliché." Come to think of it, you can do that for just about every sentence written by Rutten, whose lack of originality is equaled by an obsessive desire to label every Catholic who disagrees with him with large "Republican Hit Man" name tag, complete with a flaming faggot, rope, and a frayed burlap bag. Here are some low lights:

However, a small group of protesters is outraged that a Catholic university would extend such an invitation to a politician who is both pro-choice and willing to countenance embryonic stem cell research -- even if he is, as we used to say, the leader of the free world.

Because, as we must remember, the Los Angeles Times has always found it pathetic and slightly amusing when people would protest various public appearances by the previous leader of the free world.

There are a couple of things about this culture-warfare-as-usual controversy that are fresh and consequential enough to be of interest. The first is the protesters and their connections. Many are part of a vocal, Internet-savvy lobby that has been agitating to coerce the church's prelates into denying Communion to Catholic officeholders who deviate from a rigidly "pro-life" line.

Or, put differently, many of those upset with Notre Dame's decision are Catholics who take seriously the Church's clear teaching that those who are in mortal sin should abstain from receiving Holy Communion: "Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1415). They also happen to agree with the Church's teaching that abortion is a "moral evil" (CCC, 2271), that "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense" (CCC 2272), and that abortion is "gravely contrary to the moral law" (CCC 2322). Please note that these references are not from the Catechism of the Republican Party.

Made up of a number of smaller groups, this lobby has campaigned to keep other pro-choice officeholders (of any religion) from speaking at Catholic schools.

Because, in part, they take seriously the U.S. Bishops' 2004 document, "Catholics In Political Life," which states:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

As for what those fundamental moral principles include, the document states, "It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace."

But Rutten ignores (or is ignorant of) these clear teachings (hey, time to discover Google!) and insists that the furor over Pres. Obama and Notre Dame boils down to one simple fact:

Its supporters also have been vociferously active in the movement to use abortion as a wedge to lever Catholics into the religious right.

That's it! All of this is about getting more slack-jawed, hateful, religious zealots into the Grand Ol' Party. Why, this whole thing is obviously a Republican tactic! [Oh, great, I just spewed Pepsi all over my keyboard!] Never mind that the head of the RNC cannot even articulate basic pro-life principles (ah, I bet that's part of the strategy as well, right?). Anyhow, Rutten spins this fantastical thread for a few paragraphs, then writes:

Some people just won't be happy until the Inquisition has office space again and kindling is being piled up around the local stakes.

You see, simple readers, when groups such "Catholic Democrats" are engaged in the public square, it's because they are faithful, passionate, sincere, and orthodox Catholics intent on "social justice" and saving delicate creatures in the rain forests, but when 200,000 Catholics sign a petition protesting Obama at Notre Dame, it's not because they really give a damn about Church teaching or the unborn—it's because they are bloodthirsty pawns of the Republican Party who are this close to burning hundreds, even thousands, of people in front of the local mall. (By the way, the Catholic Democrats website is currently featuring an article titled, "Notre Dame invites President Obama, and the right-wing hate machine swings into gear." Name-calling: just one more loving service provided by the non-partisan group.)

For the record, I would never want Tim Rutten to be burned at the stake. No, I have a far worse form of torture in mind: reading the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church. (Not to worry, I'll also happily provide a dictionary.)

What's most interesting is the push-back they're getting. The publisher of the influential National Catholic Reporter newspaper has accused the Newman Society of trying to turn the church's universities into "Catholic madrasas."

Wow, that is interesting: the National "Catholic" Reporter siding with the status quo instead of with the Catholic Church?! Stunning. Inconcievable. Otherwordly. Why, who would have thought it possible—that is, besides everyone who has ever read National "Catholic" Reporter? Oh, and why is that newspaper considered influential? Because Rutten say so! Doesn't the fact that someone would suggest the desire for Catholic schools to be Catholic is somehow offensive, and then use the Muslim term for a place of learning, as though that is somehow suspect ("How dare they try to turn Catholic universities into Catholic schools!" Huh?), indicate why it is that National "Catholic" Reporter is not, or shouldn't be, influential?

Well, what next—Rutten again insisting this is all about the Republican Party and not Catholic teaching and practice? Of course!

It seems that GOP activists are going to have to look elsewhere -- and to another generation -- for their single-issue voters.

Yep, it's all about getting out the Republican vote. Right. No wonder the Los Angeles Times is losing readers, subscriptions, and money: its editors are stuck in a shallow but paralyzing Rutten, and have too often let the news and the facts pass them by without showing the least bit of interest.

• Fr. Reese's flawed arguments for Pres. Obama at Notre Dame (March 25, 2009)

Comments

[Brian]

Wasn't "madrassa" used by Fox News in a sensationalistic manner in "reporting" on Obama's upbringing? The irony is thick enough that I really wanted to comment.

[Patrick Whelan]

Sarcasm is unbecoming to Carl Olson in this piece. How would he feel if Notre Dame invited him to be their commencement speaker, and his fellow Catholics began denouncing him as the most pro-whatever (torture, war, environmental despoilment) columnist in the history of Catholicism? I suspect he would feel that such criticism was unreasoned and hateful.

The Right seems to be mostly concerned that President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame might persuade Catholics to like him. But Obama's decisive victory among Catholics last fall (54 to 45%) would seem to have already answered that question in the affirmative.

Patrick Whelan
President
www.CatholicDemocrats.org

[Carl E. Olson]

Sarcasm is unbecoming to Carl Olson in this piece.

Actually, it is entirely becoming considering the vapid, insulting nature of Mr. Rutten's editorial.

How would he feel if Notre Dame invited him to be their commencement speaker, and his fellow Catholics began denouncing him as the most pro-whatever (torture, war, environmental despoilment) columnist in the history of Catholicism? I suspect he would feel that such criticism was unreasoned and hateful.

A straw man, Patrick. Trust me, I've been called a lot of things that I'm not ("neo-con," "neo-Catholic," "ultra-right-wing," "liberal", etc.), and proof is never offered (and, for the record, I'm not pro-torture, war, or environmental despoilment either). Regardless, there's ample proof of Sen./Pres. Obama's pro-abortion support, advocacy, and voting record. So, is it wrong to say so? Is it really "critical" to simply state the truth? Or hateful? It's bizarre to think that rightly describing reality is so irritating to you.

The Right seems to be mostly concerned that President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame might persuade Catholics to like him.

I see that you and Mr. Rutten see matters through the same skewed prism of "Right vs. Left" and "Rep. vs. Dem." This is about Catholic teaching, period. It certainly isn't about "liking" or "hating" someone, but stating the truth about their publicly known positions on essential issues, specifically abortion in this case.

But Obama's decisive victory among Catholics last fall (54 to 45%) would seem to have already answered that question in the affirmative.

I'm far more concerned about the 1.3 million babies murdered each year via abortion. That's a very unlikable, horrific number.

[Ed S]

I've never heard of Patrick Whelan or his organization before. How can anyone be president of an oxymoron? And how can Mr Whelan, using the sophomoric arguments I just read above, be president of anything but the sophomore class? My prayers for your graduation!

[Peter McCabe]

Mr. Olson's sarcasism is awesome, and a welcome breath of fresh air amidst the choking relativistic smog we find ourselves living in. Carl, I pray for you and your family that your clear voice may continue to be heard.