Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« "Catechists and Commissars" by Piers Paul Read | Main | Commemoration controversy lighting up... »

Wednesday, April 29, 2009


Robert Miller

I think it is worth noting as a sidebar that Obama's election may exemplify "leadership in moving the nation past the deep wounds of racial prejudice ...", but it has almost nothing to do with redressing the historic wrongs that were done to African-Americans. BO is neither the descendant of slaves, nor the descendant of African Americans who were required to bear "badges of slavery". Born in 1961, he likely has not suffered any overt personal disability on account of his skin color -- and, needless to add, his chosen career hasn't suffered any.

Only people who want to fight racism as an abstraction can find much positive meaning for African Americans in BO's election. In the practical order, his election is more likely to mean more aborted African American babies and more African American youths put in harm's way in neo-colonial wars. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory!

Francis Beckwith

It is just shocking to me that Whelan cannot see the point of principle that Glendon is basing her case. It is, at the end of the day, the honorary doctorate of laws that will be bestowed on the president that is so deeply troubling. The president, as we all know, denies that the unborn are among the proper moral subjects of our laws. This is not an "issue," like who gets to navigate the Panama Canal or whether the minimum wage ought to be increased. It is an issue over the most profound question on which a just regime must take a stand: Who and what are we? It is, in a sense, logically prior to the existence of state itself.

Yes, invite the president to campus. But do not bestow on him on an honorary doctorate in a subject that the Church itself has declared those who think like Obama are mistaken. Yes, invite the president to campus. But do not try to use a distinguished professor like Mary Ann Glendon as a prop in order to quell criticism of Obama's honorary degree. Yes, invite the president to dialogue. But choose an appropriate venue in which to have that dialogue. A graduation ceremony is not appropriate.


Carl, these people are leftist instead of Catholic Democrats. They can't make a reasonable counter argument to whatever challenges them. When I was into left wing politics in the 60's, the leftist groups that I met always impugned the motives of their critics plus they were very angry people. They were even angry at fellow leftist because they disagreed with one another. One would go to these leftwing group meetings to plan a demonstration and they would end up as shouting matches. And these were fellow leftist. Catholics during the 60's were naive and innocent about who their fellow travelers were. But today, certain Catholics have become hardened emotionally like the leftist I knew in the 60's and see their opponents in ideological terms.

Hope in the darkness

I find this reaction both saddening and heartening at the same time Sad that there are Catholics who are putting their political allegiance ahead of their allegiance to Truth. Abortion is an evil act Any person who dilutes this and tries to then claim they stand for liberty are false either consciously or unconsciously.The heartening thing is this response to Ambassador's Glendon's courage in rejecting this honour shows she has aroused people to think more deeply about this is issue.

Dan Deeny

Actually, I think we can make a connection between the abortion business and racism. By refusing to appear with Pres. Obama, Amb. Glendon has taken a stand against racism. The evidence is now overwhelming. And the history of Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, eugenics, etc. is also well known.
Since Dr. Whelan knows the statistics and the history, his persistence is interesting. Why such willful blindness? Does he find this in his Catholic faith?

Raving Papist

"Like many conservative critics, she conveniently sidesteps any acknowledgement of President Obama's pledge to reduce the number of abortions"

Nero didn't become serious about helping Christians because he switched to a high end Stradivarius.


To be frank, I don't see any reason to think that the statement is meant to portray Ambassador Glendon as racist. They seem to be saying simply that Glendon should be paying attention to some of the things that Obama has (arguably) accomplished, including (as they see it) an advancement of discourse about race in America.

Moreover, I do not think that Catholics who take abortion as a serious moral evil (as I certainly do) should distance themselves from some legitimately good faith efforts to reduce the abortion rate. The 'Pregnant Women's Support Act,' which is sponsored by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, is an example. Whether or not a Catholic is supportive of this or that policy of Obama's, they should be willing to work with groups to the extent that such collaboration helps advance good faith legislation to reduce abortion demand.

I agree that there is something disturbing about the Catholic Democrats' statement, though, and that is the mention of a 'Catholic Right'. The kind of political stratification that this reflects among Catholics today is surely not a good indicator for the long term health and success of the pro-life movement, nor is it a good indicator for the Church as a whole.


For some reason talking a good game has always been an acceptable substitute for substance for the left. We saw the same thing with Bill Clinton. His intentions were good whether or not he accomplished anything.

That really sums up the left, a worldview of wishful thinking, totally detached from reality. Sadly, they would blithely flush an entire nation, all the while with good intentions and not accepting even the minutest fragment of responsibility for the misery they cause.


The president correctly said he wanted to reduce the number of pregnancies but his method, of course, is through abortion. Are we to believe his words speak louder than his actions?


Obama is so opposed to abortion he wants each one of us to pay for it and, if medically qualified, to be required to perform it.

Joseph L. Moure

What kind of fool is this Dr. Whelan? How can he ignore Obama's own words regarding abortion and his own daughters. Obama is rabidly pro abortion - end of story. No amount of razzmatazz or spin can camouflage his position . Ambassador Glendon is an intelligent, principled, Catholic woman and I am proud of her.

Robert Miller

"The president correctly said he wanted to reduce the number of pregnancies".

Hmmm? In the midst of this demographic winter of what once was Christendom, why does this seem the correct way to "solve" the abortion problem? There is, in fact, an issue more profoundly disturbing than abortion itself. The issue is the pervasive death-wish of the post-Christian West: the baby boomer generation has decided it wants to take its successor generations down with it.

Anecdotally: Why am I not surprised that Mexico City seems to be the epicentre of a mushrooming global plague for which capital-"S" science seems to have no solution?

Again, anecdotally, why am I not surprised that the US is the epicentre of the global financial implosion that results from the Pepsi generation's unwillingness to reproduce itself?

With BO, what's the real issue? It's the culture of death, stupid. All of it: a seamless garment of gone-amock healthcare and education schemes, prevention of pregnancies and safe-legal-rare abortions in their annual millions, Mengelian experimentation with defenseless human beings, redefinition of the nature and purposes of human sexuality, sowing of division within the US Catholic Church and among Evangelicals, enforcement of usurious contracts, cultivation of new neo-colonial killing fields ... and the list goes on.

Welcome to the plague years.


Along with Dr.Whelan's comments, I've also read other so called liberal Catholics comments on this and other matters. They always seem to see everything through the prisum of politics. When considering an issue I think they first consult the catechism of the democrat party, and then assume that more orthodox Catholics would also first consult a political authority. I think it's called projecting.


I'm no fan of the Republican Party, and am generally pissed off with what has become of American conservatism over the last 8 years, but even so I didn't detect a shred of racism, partisan shilling or anything of that ilk in Mary Ann Glendon's letter. Actually, I thought that it was a respectful, measured response that didn't detract from the Lataere Medal nor from Notre Dame itself. Let us not forget that in lieu of her tokenization by Fr. Jenkins ("Sure, Obama's a virulent opponent of the Catholic teaching on life, but here's Mary Ann Glendon!) she had every right to be as brusque as she pleased.


Distorting the issue! Dr. Whelan? The master of confusion,He is more of a democrat than a Catholic .They give Praises more to man than God.
This liberals,they beg for the endorsement of the Catholic Church then once they get it ,they then turn around and proclaim themselves to belong to legitimate conscientious Catholic Democrat.
These are the people who customize the Catholic
teachings to their likings,hence lifestyle.

"The labor is short, the reward is infinite glory, and the punishment is eternal."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad