What's the difference between Hillary Clinton and Fr. Thomas Reese?

First, the obvious: He's a Jesuit priest and she's the Secretary of State. But, more to the point here, I'd hazard the guess that Mrs. Clinton just might have more respect for serious, orthodox Catholics than does Fr. Reese, whose latest screed moves him from the latter stages of inane shrillness into the realm of outright irrationality.

They do share a common interest in supporting President Obama, of course, and in spinning the abortion-loving ways of the Obama administration. For example, Fr. Reese writes:

[Obama] has been criticized ...  for being the most pro-abortion president ever, even though he wants to develop programs that will reduce the number of abortions while keeping it legal under most circumstances.

And that is an argument against him being the most pro-abortion president ever? Really? But a most striking similarity is the descent into paranoid (or is it media-savvy? I forget) polemics:

The bishops are being egged on by Republican activists whose presidential candidate lost the election. There is clearly a conservative conspiracy to do whatever is possible (including lying about ambassadorial candidates) to create conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration. They want the Catholic Church to be the Republican Party at prayer. Some bishops are falling for this.

Clinton, you'll recall, famously referred to a "vast right-wing conspiracy" in a January 27, 1998, interview on "The Today Show," in an attempt to address the allegations that her husband had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. (You might also recall the allegations were quite true.) Fr. Reese now takes up the pressing task of defending the President against allegations that his support of abortion has somehow created conflict with Catholics who, adhering to Church teaching (and commonsense), believe that abortion is a grave moral evil, the taking of innocent life.

No, Fr. Reese insists, the real problem is the Republican Party. And, further, any Catholic who urges the bishops to speak out against abortion and for Catholic social justice relating to life issues is a "Republican activist." Spoken like a true Democratic Party hack. Perhaps Fr. Reese is frustrated, mystified why it is that, after some forty years of generally inept and often insipid, leadership (with a few notable exceptions), a rapidly growing number of Catholic bishops are standing up and speaking out. Fr. Reese's response to this turn of events reveals a man enamored with being "in" with the status quo and not so enamored with the truth:

The bishops who oppose the President's presence at Notre Dame are going to be embarrassed by the warm welcome he receives from the commencement audience. Every round of applause will be a repudiation of their condemnations.

The bishops will also be embarrassed when Pope Benedict welcomes President Obama at the Vatican, or are all these people going to tell the Pope that he cannot talk to a pro-choice President?

Why would the 55 or so bishops who have now publicly spoken out against Notre Dame honoring President Obama with an honorary degree be "embarrassed" by the applause that will surely greet the President? I think there is a Freudian term for this...ah, yes: psychological projection. Fr. Reese is embarrassed that some bishops are making a stand, so surely they should be embarrassed.

And surely Fr. Reese knows that the Pope welcoming President Obama or any other pro-abortion politician is not the same as a Catholic university bestowing a significant honor upon the president. Jesus ate with the sinners and spoke to the Pharisees, but the Gospels never depict the Lord praising sinners (unless they were admitting their sins and need for his mercy) or lauding them for breaking the commandments. Why, I bet even Hillary Clinton knows that.

• UPDATE: Fr. Z. has a thorough and blunt dissection of Fr. Reese's absurd column.

Comments

[Stohn]

"Every round of applause will be a repudiation of their condemnations."

Really? So everyone of us who has condemned Hitler must be proven wrong in his condemnation because of the applause he received (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyrc8fnI-6c) -- or any evil leader for that matter. I am by no means comparing President Obama to the Fmr. Führer of Germany, but the point is that you cannot judge the virtue, value, or sincerity of anyone purely by the reception of a select few, or even by the reception of the masses. It's just ridiculous in any legitimate or illegitimate stretch of the imagination.

[LJ]

You are right Stohn. Christians died in the Roman Coliseum to thunderous applause.

As to Der Fuhrer, you are not that far wrong. Despite much recent public misinformation about the actual structure of fascism (it has been mis-identified as right-wing), the cosy relationship between Jeff Immelt's empire, including the media arm and the no-bid contract to violate the 4th Amendment with the health care records of every American, and the Obama administration, is beginning to look a lot like either fascism or good old Chicago pay-to-play.

[JoAnna]

I want to end world hunger. Does that make me the greatest humanitarian that ever lived? Dr. Reese's logic seems to suggest as much...

[Charlie B]

In a previous column, Reese also defended Notre Dame's invitation, and listed 5 reasons. Rather than repeat those, I will let my wife's response to his points, numbered below, speak for themselves (she being way smarter than I):

"Let's change the language a bit and see if this sounds better...

1. In his personal life, Obama has never acted in defiance of the fundamental moral principle that slavery is wrong.
2. Publicly, Obama has never spoken out against the fundamental moral principle that slavery is wrong.
3. He supports legal restrictions on slavery with a health-of-the-owner exemption.
4. Although he does not believe that slavery can be made illegal, he supports programs to reduce the number of slaves.
5. Notre Dame is not honoring Obama because of his views on slave ownership but because he is President of the United States, as has been made clear by the Rev. John Jenkins, Notre Dame's president.

Number 5 is the only one which possibly makes any sense!

Random thought: Interesting that JPII describes slavery as 'intrinsically evil' (Veritas Splendor)."

Great job, honey!