In All Things
Obama Gets a C minus at Notre Dame
Lucky for President Obama, a picture is worth a thousand words and the picture of cheering students welcoming him to the University of Notre Dame seemed to dispel the weeks of controversy that accompanied his invitation to receive an honorary degree at Catholicism’s flagship university. Unluckily for Mr. Obama, he delivered more than a thousand words, and they did not help his cause.
Those of us Catholics who have supported President Obama and defended his being awarded this honorary degree were hoping he would hit a home run today at Notre Dame’s Commencement. We hoped the speech would set the stage for a rapprochement with the Catholic hierarchy, if not with Catholic Republicans who have no interest in seeing a good relationship between the President and the leaders of the Catholic Church develop. Instead, the speech handed the President’s opponents plenty of ammunition and showed the extent to which the Obama White House is tone deaf to Catholics and our concerns.
During the campaign, when asked about when human life begins, candidate Obama said the question was "above my pay grade." But, he had no difficulty doing a theological riff on Sunday afternoon as he spoke at some length about the relationship between faith and doubt. "But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what he asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that his wisdom is greater than our own," the President intoned. "This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness."
If that was the President’s best impersonation of Augustine, he gets an F. For starters, there is nothing ironic about faith. Secondly, a Catholic university is an odd place to give an essentially Protestant interpretation of what can, and cannot, be "known" by faith. Finally, it is not doubt that invites humility. It is faith itself - faith in a God who has not finished with His creation, faith in a God who counseled us to humility in His scriptures and who gave an example of humility in His own life when He walked the earth - that leads us to humility. And, I would have thought even a rudimentary knowledge of human psychology would suggest that self-righteousness is a temptation as well known to the doubters as to those possessed of true faith.
One wonders why the president’s speechwriters could not find a quote from the Pope appropriate to the occasion. Needless to say, the way to the heart and mind of Pope Benedict is not with a paean to relativism. Yet, the President did precisely that. "The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved." Alas, I am counting the minutes until some smart operative for the GOP makes sure a copy of this passage finds its way to the Vatican.
What disappoints here is that the President was at a university, a place dedicated to the search for truth. He could have moved beyond the debate about "values" that has afflicted our contemporary discourse about the intersection of religion and politics and echoed Pope Benedict’s insistence that faith and reason together seek the truth, a truth that is worthy of the human person.
Instead, President Obama played into the hands of those who reduce religion to ethics, a reduction the Pope has condemned and one which characterizes the politics of the Religious Right. He could have spoken about the relationship of faith and reason and the need to keep them together lest the one turn into fanaticism and the other into a soulless materialism that degrades humankind. He could have delivered a speech that would have caught the Pope’s attention, reinforcing the already apparent desire among many in the Vatican to support his presidency whenever they can. While I am sure the President thought he was doing his best to be respectful and even solicitous of Catholic sensibilities, he failed to find the language and the logic that might have laid the foundation for building a better relationship with the Catholic hierarchy. It was a lost opportunity.




Add Comments (registration required)
Comments
I don't find it at all odd that a Protestant gives "an essentially Protestant interpretation of what can, and cannot, be 'known' by faith" at a Catholic university. Why would it be otherwise? I also do not find it "a paean to relativism" to point out that soldiers and lawyers, gay activists and evangelical pastors (not to mention popes and Catholic bishops), and other who find themselves on opposite sides of searing moral issues need to find ways to discuss their differences in respectful and civil tones, rather that hurling epithets and condemnations at one another and refusing to hear why one holds the position one does. Granted, President Obama, a Protestant did not cite Scripture or Catholic Social Teaching President Jenkins provided the proper text from Gaudium et Spes. Imagine! I guess they DO teach Catholic doctrine at the University of Notre Dame after all...
I found your analysis of President Obama's speech to be much less that I have come to expect of you on other occasions. Sometimes "critics" can become too critical, I guess!
I thought he did a decent job. Are you disagreeing that people honestly differ on issues or that we might get further in discussion if the tone were dialed back a bit?
More to the point, this was just a weak speech. When our President has talked about "burying the hatchet" in the past he has said it something we "must" do. When he has talked about povery he has called it an "evil." Here, when he actually tries to use faith instead of some notion of a moral imperitive, he really fails to deliver with the same force. I don't think that means he lacks faith, but that he simply doesn't have a well developed sense of Christianity. It's sort of how someone who has never spent much time in France will probably not know how to say much in French. I don't doubt he is a man of faith, but it seems to me here that he has really given a lot of ammunition to the people who suggested his faith is skin-deep (and I have trouble here differentiating between this speech Cuomo's 1984 speech).
The man is President and his is not Catholic. Although he was speaking at a religious institution, he cannot endorse a religion, nor should he be speaking in detailed religious terms. I think that would've been very strange, so a broad mention of faith, in my opinion, was fitting and appropriate.
NY Times: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/politics/18obama.html?hp][color=#004276]At Notre Dame, Obama Calls for Dialogue on Abortion[/color][/url]
Wash Post: President calls for "open hearts, open minds" during address at Catholic university
Chicago Trib: [url=/news/chi-obama-notre-dame,0,7571151.storylink]Obama on abortion furor: Seek 'common ground'[/url]
Sounds like the Obama pictures and Obama headlines are going to do great things for decreasing abortions! He used ND for his political agenda and ND hands him a gift!
There is no doubt that president Obama is a skilled politician! And his skill is NOT good for the pro-life movement!
MSW, I read your critique as a defensive one. I think you wanted Obama to make his case in the language and theology of his most conservative Catholic critics. And yet how can one write an aparochial speech with parochial language? Even you fall into this trap when you complain that Obama didn't employ any quotes from the Pope (what, the half dozen cardinals and priests he did quote weren't Catholic enough for you?). And Obama can't convincingly wield the thinking of far-right Catholics because, lest we forget, he is neither. Most Catholics are acutely aware of this. Myself, I saw his extensive appreciation for Catholic institutions and social action as putting his ecumenical intentions into words that most Catholics can relate to.
“While I am sure the President thought he was doing his best to be respectful and even solicitous of Catholic sensibilities, he failed to find the language and the logic that might have laid the foundation for building a better relationship with the Catholic hierarchy. It was a lost opportunity.”
It may come as a shock to you Michael, President Obama, a former law professor, steeped in the Academics at three different Universities (Columbia, Harvard, U. of Chicago Law), knew something you failed to appreciate. His address was the last Academic function for the graduating class, and had to be pitched in such a fashion that it would tie their experience at Notre Dame with the secular world they were ready to enter. The speech did that…
In the above context, “building a better relationship with the Catholic hierarchy” had diddly-squat to do with his commencement address. Mr. Obama is President for all the people in the United States. I, and certainly many others, would have taken offense if he has used this speech to cow-tail to the Bishops.
Peace brother Michael, understand that without doubt, you cannot cultivate charity, and that with certitude of faith, comes only arrogance.
together lest the one turn into fanaticism and the other into a
soulless materialism that degrades humankind,'' and what Obama actually said? The difference is petty. Obama said that each side has to be open to the legitimacy of the views of the other side. He said that when each side focuses on the fanaticism of the other side, it polarizes the two sides to the point where common ground cannot be reached. Obama could easily have made a speech that didn't address abortion, that didn't address controversial issues. Instead, both he, and Fr. Jenkins, addressed the issues head-on.
"Would that the hierarchy were more open to
doubt and less about the upholding of historic doctrine." (Michael Bindner)
"Peace brother Michael, understand that without doubt, you cannot
cultivate charity, and that with certitude of faith, comes only
arrogance." (R. Paul Miller)
Mr. Bindner, are you suggesting that we (or the bishops) should replace "historic doctrine" with doubt about it, e.g. "maybe Jesus wasn't God?" or "maybe abortion isn't an 'unspeakable crime'?" I'm not sure what that gains us or the world. What doubt should we be open to?
And Mr. Miller, how is doubt necessary to charity? And what exactly do you mean by the "certitude of faith"? Is it arrogant to believe that the Catholic faith is the true faith, and that what the Church teaches is correct?
True faith does not come from knowledge imparted doctrinally, but in being tested and finding God at the end. This is why suffering is important to spirituality and why prostitutes, prisoners and alcoholics sometimes have the kingdom of Heaven in a more real way than doctors of theology.
On abortion, the question is not about paying for abortion (that is not legal with federal appropriations - although some state governments do pay for abortions). The question is whether the abortion ban before Roe was effective (it was not - the penalty was a fine) and what can be done now. Abortion restrictions which simply create a black market for abortion without reducing their number cannot be considered an improvement, except that they salve the consciences of people who prefer to be right than to do right. The low hanging fruit is not banning the procedure, but in making sure that families have enough funds to have their children (which would prevent 5 of 6 "non-essential" abortions).
I don't think that dichotomy is necessary, although I would not say Jesus "experienced the abandonment of the sinner" (since God being - or mistakenly feeling - abandoned by God seems opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity). In Christ's acceptance of suffering, he gave suffering a salvific dimension it never had (or rather, revealed that dimension to Israel and the world), showing that there is more to suffering than just a "punishment for our sins." On the other hand, recompense for sin is made quite clear in Scripture.
And: "True faith does not come from knowledge imparted doctrinally, but in being tested and finding God at the end."
I would say it comes from both... how can you "find God" if you don't have knowledge of what or who God is? But this is going off-topic, so I'm willing to let this go.
In regards to the relationship of doubt to charity, one has to examine charity. Central to charity is empathy, a willingness to understand the totality of the other individual. It is an expression our humanity, and may, or may not involve spirituality, and in many settings include compassion. Charity does not involve only “care” to a dependent person, for it may be offered to the powerful.
It goes without saying that charity is independent of religion or faith, and that it must exclude both coercion and custom. Now then, charity performed to assuage the God of your faith, or to gain favor, or for many of the other reasons that come to mind, weakens to gift of our humanity and unencumbered charity. Thus, a bit of doubt about the precepts of your faith may well strengthen the validity of charity…
As to certitude of faith leading to arrogance there are so many examples available that it really does not need much exposition. One could examine other faiths and religions, to avoid pointing a finger at oneself. One could go back in history and examine the Spanish Inquisition. One could examine Bishop John D’Arcy’s arrogant claim that Notre Dame is in his Diocese, and thus he has ultimate say as to faith and morals in the teaching at the University.
This is not the first time the Bishop D’Arcy and his supporters have tried to impose their interpretation of what should be taught at Notre Dame. My advice is to pray for their success, for great Universities have no interests into being turned into a Madrasa for the Bishops.
http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/15441616.html
I completely agree with this article. I'm a practicing Roman
Catholic who voted neither for Obama or McCain. Obama did nothing to address
Catholics in their own terms, and was entrenched in relativist vocabulary which
Benedict has clearly renounced. It was amusing and sad how Obama was noticeably
self-aware that his attempt to compensate with the fickle bravado/twaddling was
awkward & disingenuous. Fr. Jenkins' speech was better- intelligent & more directly defiant to the USCCB and the 77 bishops who have publicly offered reproof to him.
Obama came across at ND as the voice of moderation and reason. However, since assuming the presidency, Obama has been anything but reasoned. He stated at ND that the lofty objective is to engage one another in open dialogue. But a close inspection of the Obama record dating back to his earliest days in his political life has been to forward policy which promotes the killing of human life even to the extent that a baby should be killed if they live through an abortion. It doesn't get more radical than that.
No, friends, this is not about enaging with Obama to find a comfortable middle ground. Does anyone seriously believe that Obama would acquise and become pro-life? Not for a minute. What this and the "making a choice to abort a child rare" gambit is intended to do is a unidirectional attempt to pursaude pliable graduates to adopt his stance on applying the Planned Parenthood agenda.
President Obama mentioned he came to Jesus due to the influence of Cardinal Bernadine. But he spent two decades attending Rev. Wright's damning sermons.
Let's get away from this nonsense of what Catholics want. Poll after poll and an election of the current has spoken loud and clear to what Catholics want, and that is more common ground and not less.
I watched the President at Notre Dame and was deeply impressed by the Commencement Speak given to the students of Notre Dame by a follower of Jesus Christ.
It is time start working together to reduce abortions.
To my mind, this is a very simple issue. An authorative policy, promulgated by the US Catholic bishops, bars Catholic institutions, including universities, from honoring people whose views on certain issues, such as abortion, conflict with Catholic teaching. Notre Dame did an end run around that policy. The university invited President Obama to give the commencement address and offering him an honorary degree-without bothering to inform Bishop D'Arcy. Jenkins and the trustees obviously calculated that once the invitation had been extended and accepted, it would be a done deal. The way they went about it shows me that they knew they were in the wrong.
As for Obama's speech, I agree that he deserves nothing better than a gentleman's C. It was the same old rejection of false choices line that he has used in the past to skip over difficult issues.
One would not expect the dialogue to recognize these nuances, because far too few draw other distinctions such as between one's moral stance versus one's practical approach versus one's political approach. If we fail to draw a distinction between the moral and practical and legal, then we will necessarily and improperly conclude that others necessarly differ with our moral stance when they might merely differ with our jurisprudence.
Many get justifiably confused when, for all practical purposes, one metaphysical position leads to the normative conclusion that to save the greatest number of innocent human persons on a sinking ship, the lifeboats should first be loaded with portable refrigerators filled with frozen embryos. When people reasonably disagree with our deontological conclusions, they don't deserve demonization. We should not bracket our metaphysics, our deeply felt moral sensibilities or our religious beliefs in the public square, but we must translate them. Slogans, sound-bytes, name-calling and bumper-stickers translate nothing. I think a sincerely conveyed concern for all matters regarding incipient human life grounded in a deeply felt moral sensibility and articulated in a fallible but still truth-indicative slippery slope argument is more compelling to other people of large intelligence and profound goodwill. We must not be cavalier and cursorily dismissive of other people, for that strikes at the heart of the very dignity we are striving mightily to defend.
Jeffrey, I stand by me explanation of why darkness and doubt are a gift. While Jesus was entirely God, he did not claim equality with God. This is why a Triune God is necessary. If God were but one person, then the God is dead movement would have been correct in their assessment. While there is scriptural support for the theory of recompense, it is written for a time when God was thought of as angry. We know more now, thanks to the Holy Spirit.
Margaret, the first poster's name is in the byline. It is Michael Sean Winters (or did you mean #10?)
..."when asked about when human life begins..."
Candidate Obama was asked:
"At what point does a baby get human rights"
There is a world of difference between these two questions. One is a question of science, the other is a question of law. I hope that you will consider the difference for future articles.
John 10: 22-33: Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. The Jews gathered around him, saying, ''How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.''
Jesus answered, ''I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one.''
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, ''I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?''
''We are not stoning you for any of these,'' replied the Jews, ''but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.''
You said:
"While Jesus was entirely God, he did not claim equality with God." and
"I was not denying the divinity of Jesus and was quoting, almost verbatim, Paul's letter to the Thessolonians."
You maybe should reference Paul's letter to the Phillippians.
How wrong can you be? Jesus DID claim eqality with God. The scriptures proclaim that equality with God was NOT something He was predisposed to Cling To. So, in other words - He had it, but willing laid it aside. Like our President, you seem to be challenged by some very basic Christian teachings.
Comment readers...kindly read Chuck Colson's commentary at:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11603747/
You all have a good day.
Sincerely.
CORRECTION: Obama wasn't asked "when human life begins" (a biological question), he was asked "at what point does a baby get human rights" (a legal and jurisprudence question). see: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOTfnz11kBk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOTfnz11kBk[/url]
His answer is all the more troubling given his status, at that time, as a U of C constitutional law professor and senator, and even more troubling now that he is president.
No one was asking him to tell us when human life begins (any biology text book can tell you that it begins at conception), he was being asked a question about the nature of the most basic of legal protections.
His paygrade answer was a canned dodge, and his speech at ND was a lot of smoke but no light.
Add Comments (registration required)
* The opinions expressed here are those of our contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of America magazine.