“Notre Dame's Obama flap:
Attempts to disinvite the president as commencement speaker
are an unwelcome intrusion of religion into academic life.”
Notre Dame has been called the “flagship” Catholic
University by no less an authority than Cardinal Francis
George, Archbishop of Chicago and president of the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops. If “religion” does
not have a place here, where does it?
Last weekend Cardinal
George addressed the controversy while speaking at a
conference. "So quite apart from the president's own
positions, which are well known, the problem is in that you
have a Catholic university--the flagship Catholic
university--do something that brought extreme embarrassment
to many, many people who are Catholic," the cardinal said.
"So whatever else is
clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it
means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation, and
didn't anticipate the kind of uproar that would be
consequent to the decision, at least not to the extent that
it has happened," George said, according to lifesitenews.com,
which obtained a video of these remarks.
The Chicago
Tribune reported that George said he continues to talk
to the university about the invitation to Obama, which he
said "brought extreme embarrassment to many, many people who
are Catholic, including their own bishop." While concluding
that "you
just don't do that (disinvite the president of the United
States),” George exhorted concerned Catholics "to do what
you are supposed to be doing: to call, to email, to write
letters, to express what's in your heart about this.”
Archbishop
George is only one of a growing number of Catholic Bishops
who have publicly condemned the invitation. At last count
the count was 15. His opinion that it was too late to
rescind the invitation was not shared.
For example,
writing a column for his diocesan newspaper Bishop R. Walker
Nickless, said he hoped that Notre Dame's president, the
Rev. John Jenkins, will "have the courage to rescind this
invitation and not be afraid of the possible embarrassment
by admitting that he has made a bad decision."
Newark Archbishop John J. Myers said this week that in
extending “such honors to people who do not share our
respect and reverence for life in all stages, and give them
a prominent stage in our parishes, schools and other
institutions, we unfortunately create the perception that we
endorse their public positions on these issues.” He added,
“We cannot justify such actions, and the Bishops have stated
so clearly and strongly.”
As of early this afternoon, The Cardinal Newman Society has
collected more than 235,000 signatures protesting the
invitation. Their online petition can be found at
notredamescandal.com.
I was reading some of the Bishops’ remarks when I chanced
upon a column by
Scripps Howard News Service’s
Bonnie Erbe titled, “Abortion is not a
tragedy.” Erbe uses the current economic woes we are
experiencing as a nation as a lever to make her argument.
It is no tragedy, she says, for an unemployed couple with
three children to abort a fourth. Less mouths to feed=less
financial drain+ more attention to existing children+
“reduc[ing] the chance the family will have to rely on
scarce public resources to raise their children.” Simple
cost/benefit analysis.
Not exactly a new sentiment. What was interesting was Erbe’s
contention that in the early days after Roe v. Wade
was handed down abortion was not viewed as “a tragic event.”
That only happened when the plaintiff “Jane Roe”—Norma
McCorvey—“turned against the pro-choice movement some 10
years or so after the decision became law.” [Her chronology
is off, but so is everything else.]
And, for that matter, what does Norma know? Erbe tells us
she never even had an abortion. Following her “change of
heart,” she preached against the “evils of abortion,” which
was used by pro-lifers to make it seem as if all abortions
are a tragedy. In fact, Erbe says, abortion “is not always
tragic and lots of times, it actually makes good sense.”
Erbe’s mentality may be indicative of an extremist
pro-abortion strain. But it may also not be so different,
perhaps, from what underlies the perspective of many who
can’t believe that millions of people are disturbed when
Notre Dame honors a man whose abortion agenda makes Bill
Clinton look like a moderate.
Ok, they say, be upset, but don’t go crazy. Why talk about
abortion as an “intrinsic evil.” Isn’t that, so to speak,
rhetorical overkill? You lop some 11-week-old unborn baby’s
head off and that qualifies as intrinsically evil?
It occurred to me that as good an explanation as any of why
this is so comes, ironically, from a academic who denies it
is useful when addressing abortion: “The term ‘intrinsic
evil’ seems to connote great and contaminating evil—evil
that we take inside ourselves simply by associating with
it.” Yes, exactly, that’s precise what it means!
To the Bonnie Erbes of this world, whether you kill a kid or
allow her to live is a utilitarian calculus. If the numbers
add up in a dollar and cents sense, then it’s thumbs up. If
they don’t, then thumbs down.
We reject that equation with every corpuscle in our bodies.
Whether we defend innocent life cannot follow the outcome of
some mathematical calculation for the simple but fundamental
reason that every human life is infinitely valuable.
That is pie-in-the-sky thinking to the pro-abortionist. But
to pro-lifers it is the down-to-earth truth that makes
civilized life possible.
Please send your comments on either or both of these columns
to
daveandrusko@gmail.com.
