Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

"The sayings of the wise are like goads..."

Despite Pope Benedict's adherence to Catholic doctrine and being trapped in the 13th century (yes, I'm being sarcastic), the pontiff's popularity continues to grow, writes Sandro Magister for Chiesa:

That Benedict XVI is a popular pope might seem to be contradicted by the storm of hostile criticism rained down on him daily by the media all over the world. Over the past month, these criticisms have reached an unprecedented crescendo. Even official government representatives no longer hesitate to accuse the pope.

But the impression gathered from looking at the big numbers is different. On his voyages, Benedict XVI has always demonstrated levels of popularity beyond expectations. Not only in Africa, but also in difficult venues like the United States or France. In Rome, at the Angelus on Sunday at noon, St. Peter's Square is more packed, every time, than during the years of John Paul II.

This does not mean that these same crowds consistently accept and practice the teachings of the pope and of the Church. Countless surveys show that on marriage, sexuality, abortion, euthanasia, contraception, the views of a large number of people are more or less distant from the Catholic magisterium.

At the same time, however, many of these same people demonstrate a deeply rooted respect for the figure of the pope and the authority of the Church.

Italy is a case in point. On March 25, in "la Repubblica" – the leading progressive newspaper, and very caustic in criticizing Benedict XVI – the sociologist Ilvo Diamanti provided yet another confirmation of the high levels of confidence that Italians continue to show toward the Church and the pope, in spite of widespread disagreement on various points of their teaching.

For example, when asked to say whether they are for or against the pope's statement that condoms "do not resolve the problem of AIDS, but aggravate it," three out of four say they are against.

But the same respondents, when asked whether they trust the Church, respond "greatly" or "very much," to the tune of 58.1 percent. And confidence in Benedict XVI is also very high, at 54.9 percent.

At the risk of sounding glib or revealing what I sometimes watch on television, I think this reflects what I'll call the "The Corollary of Cowell." This is, simply put, that despite being the most disliked and supposedly unfair of the "American Idol" judges, Simon Cowell is clearly the judge whose opinion matters the most to contestants. This corollary follows from the more basic and well-established theorem that can be titled "Truth Attracts." In a piece I wrote back in 2002, I stated:

The Honeymoon is Over?

"My personal 'honeymoon' with President Barack Obama is over," writes George Wesolek, director of Public Policy and Social Concerns for the Archdiocese of San Francisco. "Honeymoon" may not be exactly the right term, because Wesolek makes clear that he did not vote for Mr. Obama. Even so, Wesolek seems to have had the audacity to hope that Mr. Obama would be better than his campaign rhetoric on the abortion and embryonic experimentation issues.  That hope has been dashed and Wesolek wonders where the Catholic supporters of Mr. Obama are--the folks who told us that Mr. Obama would reduce the number of abortions.

Mr. Wesolek does a fine job summarizing Mr. Obama's already abysmal record on abortion and experimentation of embryonic human beings.  Mr. Wesolek's article is here: http://www.sfarchdiocese.org/about-us/news/?i=1642.

Burke Sets the Record Straight

When I first read about Archbishop Burke's interview with Randall Terry, I thought, "This will not go as the Archbishop thinks it will."  And it didn't. 

Archbishop Burke is a smart man.  What's more, he is a good man. Upon learning that his interview was not being used as he expected it would be, that he was being made to appear to be doing something he in fact was not doing, he set the record straight.  Here is his statement:

“Recently, Mr. Randall Terry and some of his associates visited me in Rome and asked to videotape an interview with me to share with pro-life workers for the purpose of their encouragement. The interview was conducted on March 2, 2009.

“Sadly, Mr. Terry has used the videotape for another purpose which I find most objectionable.

“First, Mr. Terry issued a media advisory which gave the impression that I would be physically present at the press conference during which he played the videotape, when, in fact, I was in Rome.

“Second, I was never informed that the videotape would become part of a press conference.

“Third, I gave the interview as a Bishop from the United States to encourage those engaged in the respect life apostolate, not as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

“Fourth, I was never informed that the videotape would be used as part of a campaign of severe criticism of certain fellow bishops regarding the application of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.

“If I had known what the true purpose of the interview was, I would never have agreed to participate in it.

“I am deeply sorry for the confusion and hurt which the wrong use of the videotape has caused to anyone, particularly, to my brother bishops.”

(Most Rev.) Raymond L. Burke

March 26, 2009

I hope this incident does not confuse people about the force of Archbishop Burke's argument regarding Canon 915.  He has not withdrawn the argument and his case for the meaning and the application of the canon remains as cogent as ever.  The attempt to hijack that argument in favor of another argument and someone else's agenda should not be seen as having any effect on Burke's case.  Whether it will or not remains to be seen.  That is one of the many problems the abuse of the Archbishop in this recent incident has brought with it.

Bishop Olmsted: Fr. Jenkins has committed "a public act of disobedience to..."

"... the Bishops of the United States" by inviting Obama to the May 17 commencement at Notre Dame.

Catholic News Agency has the entire story.

Benedict's itinerary in the Holy Land, May 8-15, 2009

From the Vatican Information Service:

PROGRAMME OF HOLY FATHER'S TRIP TO THE HOLY LAND

VATICAN CITY, 26 MAR 2009 (VIS) - The programme of Benedict XVI's apostolic trip to the Holy Land, due to take place from 8 to 15 May, was made public today.

Monsignor Owen F. Campion: Notre Dame has "Catholic heritage," but...

  ... that isn't the same thing as being a “Catholic school”. His comments were posted today on Our Sunday Visitor's blog, "Daily Take":

Actually, the bishops have spoken. Several years ago, as a group, they formally resolved that Catholic colleges and universities should not invite politicians with pro-abortion records to speak on their campuses, nor should these schools give awards or honorary degrees to such political figures.

Nevertheless, the President will not be the first such political figure to be lauded by an American university with a Catholic heritage. Not that long ago, the University of San Francisco, founded by the Jesuits in 1855, honored Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, whose pro-abortion views also dismay many Catholics.

How can these schools get by with ignoring the bishops’ resolution, clearly and firmly stated as it was?

To understand the situation, it first is better to characterize these schools as having a “Catholic heritage” rather than as being “Catholic schools”. There is no comparison between them and the local parochial school.

This does not ignore certain Catholic symbols, or practices, on their campuses. Rather, it recognizes important facts.

Read the entire post.

Speaking of what bishops can and cannot do, according to canon law, in such situations, read this post by Dr. Ed Peters.

Strange language...

... from the Notre Dame spokesman, ably deconstructed by Dr. Francis Beckwith.

Dr. Beckwith, who is Senior Visiting Fellow at Notre Dame's Center for Ethics and Culture, is giving a talk this coming Saturday at the Notre Dame Right to Life Conference; it is titled, "What the Abortion Debate Is Really About."

In December 2007, I interviewed Dr. Beckwith about his book, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Here is one my questions and his answer:

Ignatius Insight: Of the three popular arguments for abortion—pity, tolerance, and ad hominem—which is used most often and most effectively?

Dr. Beckwith: It's difficult to say, though I think "tolerance" arguments are the most effective. The reason for this is that nobody wants to be thought of as "intolerant," especially if it interferes with the rights of others. It is also apparently consistent with some people's understanding of liberal democracy as requiring neutrality on moral issues. In the case of abortion, it is claimed that the pro-lifer is trying to force the pro-life view on others who may disagree with that view. And since the state ought to be neutral on these matters, the pro-life view cannot become law. There are, I believe, several problems with such reasoning. First, it assumes that the unborn is not a moral subject, for if the unborn is a moral subject, then to forbid the unjust killing of it cannot violate anyone's "rights." Thus, the tolerance argument begs the question. Second, the current regime—the Roe v. Wade framework—tells us that the unborn is not a member of the human community and that it is wrong for citizens to try to protect the unborn. This is hardly a neutral position, for it commits the state to an understanding of the human person and requires that all of us act in her public relations with the unborn as if that understanding is true.

Read the entire interview...

"The Notre Dame Commencement", by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

The Notre Dame Commencement  | James V. Schall, S.J. | Web Exclusive for Catholic World Report

Several folks have already asked me my opinion on President Barack Obama’s being invited to give the Commencement Address at Notre Dame. I have been a fan of the Fighting Irish since boyhood. I have good friends there. I expect the place to lead, without my having to worry whether they are going in the right direction, though I do worry.

My first reaction to the news was, however, that I could only laugh. “How perfectly perfect,” I thought. It could not have been a better forum for the president to pursue what are, to me, his infamous “projects.” In the present climate, no act could make the South Bend school more visible than it already is, except perhaps, dare I say, a winning season on the turf?

But was Schall surprised by the invitation? Was it just a question of what Catholic school got there first? Was Schall disappointed? Not surprised, really. This is the logic of political proportionalism carried out in public. It is all done in the noble name of the greater good. What might have surprised me, I think, would have been if the president was seeking an invitation, but Notre Dame refused. I would be disappointed if the initiative came from Notre Dame. I prefer to remain in ignorance.

Read the entire essay...

Just because it is "safe" doesn't mean it is morally right

Michael Czerny, S.J., the Director of the African Jesuit AIDS Network (AJAN), has written an excellent piece for ThinkingFaith.org, the online journal of the British Jesuits, about the furor over Pope Benedict's recent remarks about AIDS and condoms. Here's a snippet:

Regarding individual acts: according to prevention experts, a condom, when it is correctly used, can reduce the risk of HIV-infection during an act of intercourse, and individuals who use condoms consistently are less likely to give or get HIV. When a man and woman have sex before, within or outside marriage, public health is unconcerned with the morality of what they do in the privacy of the bedroom. Culturally and legally, in Europe and North America, there is considerable acceptance for sexual behaviour as long as it is consensual, that is, provided the two individuals both agree. In this context, the condom seems common sense. Western opinion makers and media really want the Church to approve of extramarital sex, which is against the religious faith and traditional cultural values shared by millions throughout the world.

The Church understands sexual intercourse as part of a moral vision, permitting intercourse only within a married couple and excluding artificial means of contraception. Doing something wrong might be safer with a condom but safety doesn’t make the act right. The Church cannot encourage ‘safer’ without suggesting that it is somehow right. To say, ‘Do not commit adultery but, if you do, use a condom’ is tantamount to saying: ‘The Church has no confidence in you to live the good life.’

A man and woman, not married to each other, who have consensual intercourse are disregarding the Church’s teaching. They hardly need the Pope to tell them to use a condom. What they badly do need is for the Church to help them live a respectful and responsible sexuality. ‘Abstinence and fidelity are not only the best way to avoid becoming infected by HIV or infecting others, but even more are they the best way of ensuring progress towards lifelong happiness and true fulfilment.’

Read the entire essay.

"Tell me what you honor and I will tell you what you are."

Food for thought from an essay, "Catholic Commencements and Pro-Abortion Politicians," originally published on Ignatius Insight by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., in early June 2005:

Honorary degrees should be given for what is honorable. They should testify to what is honorable. They should be in a context of knowing what is honorable and what is not. By giving an honorary degree a university, whether it knows it or not, teaches us what it stands for. By accepting a degree, the recipient tells us what he stands for. Honor is a subtle thing, much more subtle than monetary rewards, as Aristotle also saw. It intends to emphasize the good, true, and beautiful in a particular way, in the way that such institutions can point to the importance of these realities and their understanding of them.

The universities in the Catholic tradition are not designed to confuse us about what the truth as that truth is enlightened by reasoning and revelation. The world is full of folks who do not hold these positions. This is why the Church, as the new Pope has said, the Church is by its nature missionary. What cannot be honored are views that clearly undermine what the Church holds to be valid. Why a school would choose someone who takes a position contrary to the Church’s views, or why someone would want to be called Catholic or be honored who takes a contrary view, are rather curious issues. One possibility is that the school or the honoree thinks that the Church is wrong. The other possibility is that there is a deep-seated reluctance to cut one’s ties with the Church on the suspicion that such an act would be a final break with a tradition that claims to be true.

In either case, the question of "who is honored at commencements?" is no neutral consideration. It does reveal, in a rather obvious way, just what a school thinks it is about and just what the one honored stands for in the light of the attention focused on him by the honor. One might phrase the issue this way: "Tell me what you honor and I will tell you what you are." What we see worked out at university graduations, more than we might at first suspect, is a particular answer to this question. If in this context, the Church has its own response to such particular questions, it is in fact doing little more than proclaiming what it is, a source of truth that it too must uphold because it is true.

Read the entire essay.

Fr. Robert Barron: Opposing Obama's visit to ND is "taking a stand..."

"... against a fundamental ethical indifferentism." Fr. Barron (who for my money is one of the brightest and most dynamic communicators in the Catholic Church in the U.S. today) made the remark in an interview with The Chicago Tribune:

A college freshman at the University of Notre Dame before entering college seminary in the late 1970s, Barron has paid close attention to the controversy swirling around the university’s invitation to Barack Obama to deliver the commencement speech in South Bend and receive an honorary law degree.

"President Obama is, obviously, a man of many virtues and accomplishments, and a decent human being. But he holds to a public position—legal protection for practically unlimited access to abortion—that is directly repugnant to Catholic moral teaching and anthropology," Barron said. "To make matters worse, President Obama’s advocacy of the Freedom of Choice Act makes him the most radically pro-abortion president in our history."

"The critics mistake this for ‘one issue’ politics. It is, in fact, taking a stand against a fundamental ethical indifferentism," Barron said. "And this is why I join a swelling chorus of those who say someone who holds to the pro-choice position as fully and enthusiastically as the president does should not be given a platform at a university that claims a Catholic heritage and identity."

Read the entire piece. Manya Brachear, the author of the piece, rather accurately describes the reaction of Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., to Obama at Notre Dame as "ho-hum." And there, in a nutshell, are the two basic positions found among Catholics: deep concern for the identity of the country's most famous (and conflicted) Catholic school, and arrogant indifference, with deference paid to power and prestige, not to truth and life.

Here is a 2007 interview with Fr. Barron:



And here are a couple of Fr. Barron's DVDs, available from Ignatius Press:

• Seven Deadly Sins, Seven Lively Virtues (DVD), by Fr. Barron
• Untold Blessings: Three Paths to Holiness (DVD), by Fr. Barron

Ron Howard and Tom Hanks on faith, Christianity

From columnist and Get Religion blogger Terry Mattingly's new column:

Howard stressed that his new film includes good Catholic believers as well as bad and that Langdon's character is forced to develop a "more complex view of the church."

"I feel that the good and bad believers have to do with the good and bad in their deeds," said Howard. "Belief is personal and to be respected. But behavior and actions taken on behalf of those beliefs, well that's something that society has to react to when it's bad and applaud when it's good."

For example, Hanks quoted key lines in which the Swiss Guard commander aims this shot at the hero: "My church feeds the hungry and takes care of the needs of the poor. What has your church done? Oh, that's right, Mr. Langdon, you don't have one."

"This is true," noted Hanks, whose complex family history included doses of Catholicism, Mormonism, the Church of the Nazarene and several years as a Bible-toting evangelical teenager. "The church does feed the poor. It does take care of the hungry. It heals the sick. I think that the grace of God seems to be not only in the eye of the believer, but also in the hands of the believer."

These days, he said, he still ponders the big questions, while raising a family with his Greek Orthodox wife, actress Rita Wilson.

Miracles are everywhere in daily life, he said, and it's the "mystery of it all" that continues to haunt him.

"I must say that when I go to church -- and I do go to church -- I ponder the mystery," he said. "I meditate on the, 'why?' of 'Why people are as they are,' and 'Why bad things happen to good people,' and 'Why good things happen to bad people.' ... The mystery is what I think is, almost, the grand unifying theory of all mankind."

Of course, in Angels & Demons, it is the most fervently orthodox Catholic character, Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca, the papal chamberlain, who turns out to be the villian, while the agnostic/atheistic/hubristic "hero", Robert Langdon, is the cool voice of reason and science. And the recently deceased pope in the novel (which takes place in a short window of time during a papal conclave) is revealed to have had a son (Ventresca, of course!) by artificial insemination. So, the greatest enemy of the Catholic Church, the novel suggests, is not a mysterious group such as the Illuminati, but devout and loyal Catholic leaders. Hmmmmm. Perhaps some reporters and political columnists have been reading the novel?

Fr. Reese's flawed arguments for Pres. Obama at Notre Dame

In a post on the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog, Fr. Thomas J. Reese states that it is "absurd" for anyone to object to "President Obama speaking at Notre Dame University" (quick side note: as I've learned, it is actually "University of Notre Dame") based on a reading of the 2004 USCCB statement, "Catholics In Public Life."

Is it really so absurd? After all, as most readers surely know by now, the document 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.

Fr. Reese gives five reasons why he believes "having Obama as a commencement speaker and giving him an honorary degree does not violate" that statement. But, first, it might be helpful to read what the 2004 document states by way of detailing what the Church's "fundamental moral principles" are when it comes to abortion. "Catholics In Public Life" states:

Joseph Ratzinger: "The Mystery of the Annunciation is the Mystery of Grace"

The Mystery of the Annunciation is the Mystery of Grace | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) | Ignatius Insight

The mystery of the annunciation to Mary is not just a mystery of silence.It is above and beyond all that a mystery of grace.

We feel compelled to ask ourselves: Why did Christ really want to be born of a virgin? It was certainly possible for him to have been born of a normal marriage. That would not have affected his divine Sonship, which was not dependent on his virgin birth and could equally well have been combined with another kind of birth. There is no question here of a downgrading of marriage or of the marriage relationship; nor is it a question of better safeguarding the divine Sonship. Why then?

Continue reading...

Is the Pope more than just another pretty (smart) theologian?

Danish theologian Peder Norgaard-Hojen, speaking of Pope Benedict XVI, admits, "Theologically he is well-founded - he knows it all."

But, of course, there is a "but": But I don't think he is the right man for the job. He forgets life." And:

"He ignores reality as it is. From a limited, theological point of view he is correct that the use of condoms goes contrary to the Catholic requirement of protecting life where it is found. But when he puts forward this sort of message on a continent where sexual practices mean that thousands of people die, it is clear to me that Pope Benedict has completely forgotten what kind of world it is that he exists in," says Norgaard-Hojen.

"I know the pope. He has visited us and he knows what we are working with," says Norgaard-Hojen, who sees a major risk that Pope Benedict will lead the Vatican astray.

"The mistake he made during the Africa visit shows that the pope scorns reality. He must learn that the world has become extremely complex. If he doesn't reach this understanding, things can go terribly wrong," he adds.

But the National Bioethics Center thinks that Benedict, not Norgaard-Hojen, has the better grasp of reality:

First, every instance in which HIV rates have fallen in Africa is most attributable to fundamental changes in sexual behavior, most importantly an increase in faithfulness. In contrast, HIV transmission rates have remained high and even grown in other African countries where widespread behavior change has not occurred, despite considerable increases in condom use. An influential article in Science last year lamented that international HIV prevention priorities had not yet shifted to reflect this epidemiological profile.  
 
In recent years, researchers have paid greater attention to the specific issue Benedict raised: the possibility that condom promotion even risks “worsening the problem.” The theory that people may take greater risks in exposing themselves to harm because they feel a new technology grants them a measure of protection in doing so, goes by the names of “risk compensation” or “behavioral disinhibition” in public health circles. A series of recently published articles (including in the Lancet) have concluded that this phenomenon – that condom promotion can lead to greater risk taking - is quite real indeed. 
 
Finally, the track record for condoms – by far the most emphasized approach over the years – has been rather poor in Africa. An exhaustive review of the impact of condom promotion on actual HIV transmission in the developing world concluded that condoms have not been responsible for turning around any of the severe African epidemics. This rigorous study was originally commissioned by UNAIDS, and conducted by researchers at the University of California at San Francisco. Instead of welcoming the findings, and adapting HIV prevention strategies accordingly, UNAIDS first tried to alter the findings, and ultimately refused to publish them. The findings were so threatening to UNAIDS that the researchers were finally forced to publish them on their own in another, peer-reviewed journal. 

And then there is the testimony of Dr. Edward Green, who is Director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard School of Public Health and Center for Population and Development Studies. A medical anthropologist with three decades spent fighting AIDS in developing countries, Dr. Green has been clear about his belief that Benedict has the facts right:

The Pope’s statement about AIDS and condoms is at the centre of a sharp debate and many – from Mr. Kouchner to Mr. Zapatero, including the EU Commission – have claimed his position to be abstract and eventually dangerous. What is your opinion ?

I am a liberal on social issues and it’s difficult to admit, but the Pope is indeed right. The best evidence we have shows that condoms do not work as an intervention intended to reduce HIV infection rates, in Africa. (They have worked in e.g. Thailand and Cambodia, which have very different epidemics)

In a recent interview to NRO you said that there is no consistent association between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates. Could you deepen this point?

What we see in fact is an association between greater condom use and higher infection rates. We don’t know all the reasons for this but part of it is due to what we call risk compensation.

Read more here. And here. Could it be that Norgaard-Hojen is the one with a tentative grasp of reality? Well, he did say, "We probably have to admit that the Vatican newspaper (Ed: l'Osservatore Romano) is just about as truthful as Pravda was during Soviet communism." 'Nuf said.

Bishop John M. D'Arcy makes statement; won't attend ND graduation

From the website of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend:

Concerning President Barack Obama speaking at Notre Dame
graduation, receiving honorary law degree

March 24, 2009

On Friday, March 21, Father John Jenkins, CSC, phoned to inform me that President Obama had accepted his invitation to speak to the graduating class at Notre Dame and receive an honorary degree. We spoke shortly before the announcement was made public at the White House press briefing. It was the first time that I had been informed that Notre Dame had issued this invitation.

President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred. While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “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.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.

I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.

Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.

Tomorrow, we celebrate as Catholics the moment when our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became a child in the womb of his most holy mother. Let us ask Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.

Wha.....?

Fr. John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, in the pages of The Observer:

"The invitation of President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research," Jenkins said.

These "crucial differences" in positions on the protection of life are not being ignored in extending the invitation to the president, Jenkins said, but rather can be used as a catalyst for dialogue.

"We are not ignoring the critical issue of the protection of life. On the contrary, we invited him because we care so much about those issues, and we hope … for this to be the basis of an engagement with him," Jenkins said.

"You cannot change the world if you shun the people you want to persuade, and if you cannot persuade them … show respect for them and listen to them," he said.

I'm a little bit bewildered as to how exactly President Obama will be persuaded to think differently about his strong and consistent pro-abortion record by giving a commencement address at Notre Dame. How does that work? Does he think to himself, "Goodness, these folks were so kind to have me come speak here, I should change my approach to reproductive justice"? Or, as he is showered with adulation, called a "healer" ("Racial prejudice is a deep wound in America and President Obama has been a healer, so we honor him for those reasons," said Fr. Jenkins), and given an honorary degree, will he stop for a moment and say, "Obviously they think I am a super wonderful man, and so I owe it to them to rethink my avid support of late-term adoptions abortions"?

Nope, I'm not tracking well with this "Persuasion By Praise" approach. And comments like these aren't helping matters:

The debate surrounding the president's visit to campus provides "a positive engagement on the issues we care about," Jenkins said.

"We want to recognize his very real and significant accomplishments and his leadership. At the same time, we want to engage him in the future, and I think this occasion will be a wonderful time to do that," he said. "I think if he is going to reconsider his views, I think Notre Dame is the best possible place to begin that process."

You've got to be kidding. This is sad. Worse, it is scandalous. A friend of mine who is a student at the Notre Dame law school wrote to me the other day: "Though the school is by no means perfect, I have been proud of ND until now. [My wife] and I are both disgusted." Obviously he isn't persuaded by Fr. Jenkins' methods. Nor am I. And I'll bet money that President Obama won't be either.

A few years ago Fr. James Schall, S.J., wrote an excellent little essay on this topic, an essay worth reading again in light of the situation at Notre Dame:



NRO has a symposium, "A Moral Exemplar?", about the invitation, which includes comments by a number of Ignatius Press authors.

Dr. Paul Kengor writes, "This invitation is, of course, an outrage. Notre Dame is not asking Obama to compromise his convictions. Notre Dame is asking the Church to compromise its convictions."

And Fr. George Rutler states, "This is a highly cynical act, contemptuous of the Church’s prophetic voice in civil society and wagering that there will be no retribution. If a midwestern school seeks attention by granting Mr. Obama an honorary doctorate in law, the next logical step would be to grant Judas Iscariot posthumously an honorary doctorate in business administration."

Read the entire symposium.

Bishop John M. D'Arcy to address the Prez and ND issue...

.... in a statement tomorrow, reports John Norton of Our Sunday Visitor. That should be well worth reading...

Fib #3 and "After the Truth"

This from a March 21st column by George Weigel:

On March 9, President Barack Obama gave my pro-life mother a nasty 95th birthday present: an executive order rescinding the restrictions that President Bush had placed on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. As policy, the executive order was even more an irresponsible blank check than many had feared it would be, according to Yuval Levin, who once worked on these questions at the President’s Council on Bioethics. Nor did the executive order deign to even nod to the moral debate that has raged around this issue for years. The President tried to do that in a speech announcing the executive order. Yet the speech, containing four fibs and a waffle, was even worse.

<snip>

Fib Three: The President claimed that his executive order was the first step in “letting scientists…do their job, free from manipulation or coercion…” This is a favorite Obama rhetorical device: set up straw men, then huff and puff eloquently until the straw man is no more. The truth of the matter, as Ryan Anderson pointed out, is that “critics of embryo-destructive research have never been hostile to science. The dispute is not about whether stem-cell research should proceed; it is about how it should proceed.”

No one who opposes the Obama policy is against listening to scientists; but since when is science absolved from moral scrutiny? Obama seems to think of scientists as secular high priests whose work cannot be questioned or subjected to the legal boundaries erected around every human activity that touches on the integrity of life. Perhaps the insightful German film, After the Truth , in which a fictional trial explores the “humanitarian” rationale for medical “experiments” under German National Socialism, should be screened in the White House theater; I’m sure the good folks at Ignatius Press will donate a DVD.

I'm not in a position to say what Ignatius Press will or will not give the President, but I'm reasonably confident that any such DVD will play in White House DVD players.

Here is some information about After the Truth, which is distributed in North America by Ignatius Press:

This powerful, award-winning film tells the story of one of the greatest challenges the legal system has ever faced. Dr. Josef Mengele, the infamous “Angel of Death” in Auschwitz, and one of the most wanted Nazi war criminals, turns himself in after 30 years in hiding to tell his “truth” to the world. Thus ensues a battle between conscience and evil...

After The Truth presents us with Mengele’s hypothetical trial, which forces us to review that judgment, especially in the context of the wider negative attitudes towards the dignity of human life in the German society. The responsibility of our sense of right and wrong is mirrored in the film by attorney Peter Rohm, whom Mengele requests to be his lawyer, and whose idealistic belief in the legal system conflicts heavily with his emotional resistance to defending such a monster. The viewer is presented with Josef Mengele the man, flesh and blood, and must hear him out as he emotionally yet rationally states the reasons for his work, and his supposed “mercy” that he imposed on his countless “patients” - even as some of his former “patients” who survived Auschwitz confront him in court with the horrible things he did to them. As the intense trial proceeds to its dramatic finish, we discover that the dark attitudes about the dignity of human life in Mengele’s day and attitudes in our world today are much more similar than many would think.

Find out more about this excellent film.

And the new bishop of Oakland is...

... Monsignor Salvatore Joseph Cordileone, formerly auxiliary bishop of San Diego. Here he is with Mark Brumley, Chief Executive Officer for Ignatius Press, and Eva Muntean, Marketing Manager for Ignatius Press, in a photograph taken this morning at the press conference introducing him as the new bishop of Oakland.

Some information from InsideBayArea.com:

Bishop Salvatore Joseph Cordileone, auxiliary bishop of San Diego, has been named as the new bishop of the Diocese of Oakland by Pope Benedict XVI.

Cordileone was introduced at a news conference Monday morning at the Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland.

When officially installed at noon May 5 at the cathedral, Cordileone, 52, will become the fourth bishop of Oakland, replacing Bishop Allen Vigneron, who was appointed archbishop of Detroit in January, church officials said.

"I am grateful to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, as well as humbled and honored for the trust he has placed in me in naming me the fourth bishop of Oakland," Cordileone said in a statement. "I ask for your prayers especially at this time, that I prove myself to be worthy of this trust.

<snip>

Cordileone was born in San Diego. He entered the seminary there in 1975, received his bachelor's degree in philosophy from the University of San Diego in 1978, and went on to study theology in Rome at the Pontifical North American College. He received a bachelor's degree in sacred theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in 1981.

He was ordained as a priest in 1982 and received a doctoral degree in canon law from Gregorian University in 1989. After returning to San Diego, he held various diocesan positions and from 1991 to 1995 served as pastor at a parish in Calexico.

He then returned to Rome, serving the next seven years as an assistant at the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's highest judicial court. In 2002, Pope John Paul II appointed him as auxiliary bishop in San Diego.

Cordileone is a member of the Catholic Bishops Conference task force in the United States on cultural diversity in the church.