A Critical Moment

March 30, 2009

Barack Obama, Notre Dame and the future of the U.S. church

At critical moments in life it is important to take stock. The demand from many Catholic bishops and lay leaders that the University of Notre Dame rescind its invitation to President Obama to deliver the 2009 commencement address is surely a critical moment in the relationship between the Catholic Church in the United States and the wider American society. Before battle lines harden further on this issue, we should take time-out to ask some hard and penetrating questions. These are some of the questions that occur to me.

1. What if the president is forced to back out of his appearance at Notre Dame either because he withdraws or the university withdraws its invitation? If this happens, will that further the pro-life effort in our country? If the president is forced to withdraw, will that increase cooperation between the Catholic Church and the Administration, or will it create mounting tensions and deepening hostility? If the president is forced to withdraw, will that bring about fewer abortions in the United States? Will his withdrawal under such pressure lead more people to support pro-life efforts?

2. If the president is forced to withdraw, how will it impact the image of the church? Will it enhance the mission of the church? Will it create a more positive attitude toward the Catholic Church?

3. If the president is forced to withdraw, how will that fact be used? Will it be used to link the church with racist and other extremist elements in our country? Will the banishment of the first African-American president from Catholic university campuses be seen as grossly insensitive to the heritage of racial hatred which has burdened our country for far too long? Will it be used to paint the bishops as supporters of one political party over another? Will this action be seen as proof that the bishops of the United States do not sincerely seek dialogue on major policy questions, but only acquiescence?

These questions are not negligible. Cardinal James Gibbons, when he received the "Red Hat," in a memorable sermon at the church of Santa Maria in Trastevere, strongly praised the tremendous benefit that came to the church in our country because of the separation of church and state. During our more than two hundred years of history, the American bishops have until very recently steadfastly held to the position of making judgments about policy but never judgments about persons in the political arena. One reason for this position was that the episcopate recognized that the greater good of the mission of the church would be served in this way.

Taking account of what serves the greater good of the mission of the church is not opportunism. It is what Catholic tradition calls prudence. The saints have used various words for this cardinal virtue: discretion, discernment, practical wisdom. The great teacher of discernment, St. Ignatius Loyola, points out in this context the serious evil of the temptation of the good. Not everything that seems good is in fact good. Weighing, discernment and discretion are necessary even in things that seem on the face of it to be good. There is always the twin issue of the objective itself and the means of achieving it. One may be good, the other not.

We American Catholics are grateful for the benefits of the separation of church and state. But that separation is not the separation of church and society--the state is not society. The church has a proper role in society and a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. It is the right and the grave obligation of bishops to speak about the moral dimensions of public issues.

Even so, we must step back and consider the limitations--prudential, moral and political--on the role of bishops in public issues. In doing so we need to consider the longstanding policy of the American episcopate in this matter. We must weigh very seriously the consequences if the American bishops are seen as the agents of the public embarrassment of the newly elected president by forcing him to withdraw from an appearance at a distinguished Catholic university. The bishops and the president serve the same citizens of the same country. It is in the interests of both the church and the nation if both work together in civility, honesty and friendship for the common good, even where there are grave divisions, as there are on abortion.

But it does not improve the likelihood of making progress on this and other issues of common concern if we adopt the clenched fist approach. The president has given ample evidence that he is a man of good will, of keen intelligence, desirous of listening and capable of weighing seriously other views. The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, citing Augustine, points out that “ Certain situations cannot be resolved with asperity or hardness” and goes on to say “(B)ecause his daily pastoral concerns give the Bishop greater scope for personal decision-making, his scope for error is also greater, however good his intentions: this thought should encourage him to remain open to dialog with others, always ready to learn, to seek and accept the advice of others.”

Most Rev. John R. Quinn is archbishop emeritus of San Francisco, Calif.

Comments

I have read with great care and interest both the opinion expressed by the Archbishop and each of those following. As the mother of a Freshman at the University of Notre Dame, I have followed this debate since moments after the invitation and acceptance were announced. While I was thrilled by the honor, I was immediately worried about the response. My fears were not unfounded. As a Pro Life Liberal Democrat--no those descriptions are not oxymoronic--I have struggled over the years to find a balance between my faith and my politics. I considered carefully the directive of my Bishop, the Bishop of Metuchen, in exercising my duty as an American citizen to vote, to consider all of the pertinent issues in the last presidential race and to make a decision based on the totality of the circumstances. I felt completely free to exercise my own good judgment when casting my vote for a man I hope will fulfill his potential to be a healing and transformative leader in a nation and a world that so clearly needs healing and transformation. As a retired lawyer, I respect and defend the seperation of Church and State in this country and thank God for the religious freedoms which we enjoy as well as our right to voice our many and varied opinions. As the parent of a student at Notre Dame, I expect that the University will continue to teach my son as I have tried to teach him, to discuss, by measured and reasoned responses, the many, many challenges to our Catholic morals and teachings while remaining true to his faith. I do not expect one of the finest Catholic Universities in the country to respond with disrespect and hatred. If the President of the United States cannot expect to receive a Christian welcome at the University of Notre Dame, where can he expect one? If these students who are being sent out into the world to lead by example are instead protected and insulated from the difficult issues of our times rather than challenged to confront them and help to change them, what good is a Catholic university at all? I have encouraged the University, through its faculty and administration, to help the students on both sides of this issue to listen, process and try to understand each other's positions. Pitting Catholic against Catholic is not productive, nor is it Christian. Better to find ground for agreement and mutual respect so as to advance the discussion than to practice "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" and go no where. Finally, the unwelcome interjection of such media hounds as Randall Terry into this debate is clearly counterproductive and completely politicizes this discussion. Terrorist tactics such as those employed in the past and promised by Mr. Terry in this case should not be tolerated by the Notre Dame community, irrespective of their views on this issue. Respect for the Presidency and for the graduates and their families leaves no room for the likes of Randall Terry. Protest and prayerful dissent are one thing, but graphic dispays of aborted fetuses thrown in the faces of innocent grandparents, siblings and other family members on what should be the happiest, proudest of days is not what any "good" Catholic should stand for or tolerate. I respectfully urge Mr. Terry to take his hateful tactics elsewhere. The motto of the University is "God, Country, Notre Dame." I hope and pray that the University will find a way to honor each element in its rightful place. May God bless Notre Dame and the United States of America.

As a Notre Dame alumnus, I agree with every word Archbishop Quinn wrote. Moreover, I am proud that Notre Dame's President Emeritus Fr. Ted Hesburgh supports the invitation of President Obama despite his differences with Catholic teaching. Father Ted was president when I was at Notre Dame and I trust in his judgement and common sense more than the Bishops'. On a related point addressed above, one writer suggests that the American Bishops who oppose Obama's visit represent a huge number of Catholics. To the contrary, Obama carried 55% of the Catholic vote depite his position on abortion. Given that, I'd bet that the majority of the Catholics in those diocese support the visit of President Obama.

Thank you very much Archbishop Quinn. Thank you for your sanity and good words.

Thank you Archbishp Quinn. May your tribe increase! We are a church that is much bigger than this one issue. The President is in basic agreement with the church on many issues. His care for post-born humans is to be applauded. He deserves the honor.

The French President Nicolas Sarkozy is pro-choice and a lapsed Catholic who has been married twice. Recently Pope Benedict honored him with the title of "canon" of the Basilica of St. John Lateran. I doubt that Pope Benedict XVI will intervene and force Notre Dame to rescind their invitation to Obama to speak at their commencement. I am very glad that Obama will be speaking there.

Lets have our chuch have a backbone and stand up for the moral teachings of our church. Hopefully the Pope will intervene soon on this issue.

Archbishop Quinn was too kind to so many of his fellow bishops who both before and after the election launched personal attacks against Mr. Obama as though he were the first president to favor legal abortion. Some of these attacks many Christians would classify as uncharitable, thus assuring that the hierarchy will continue its downward spiral to irrelevancy, and the category of ex-catholics will continue to expand. The president won Catholic votes in part because of his MORAL stand on the pre-emptive Iraq war and nuclear proliferation which are also life issues.

Abp. Quinn is to be commended for pointing out the harmful consequences of rescinding the invitation. It is regrettable that he nowhere says it should never have been extended.

I DO NOT THINK THIS PRESIDENT GIVES TWO CENTS FOR ANY RELIGION, ESPICIALLY THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. IT IS TRULY SAD THAT ALL BISHOPS DO NOT STAND TOGETHER ON THIS ISSUE. THEIR IS NO DEBATE. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT OUR CATHOLIC RELIGION IS BASED ON, LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION ,FORGET THE POLITICS, STAND FOR WHAT OUR RELIGION IS BUILT ON.

With all due respect to the Rev., this article highlights two critical problems within the Catholic Church leadership. First and foremost, he lists his top 3 concerns over the Notre Dame issue. His first and only concern should be how Jesus Christ, the founder of the entire religion would view this. Instead, the Rev. is completely focused on what the World will think about the decision faced by Notre Dame. Jesus never compromised his principles and certainly never, never instructed his disciples to compromise their beliefs in order to be more acceptable to world opinion or to maintain the "image" of the Church. Secondly, the Rev. repeats the "Goebbelian" big lie of Separation of Church and State. This phrase appears nowhere in our founding documents and a simple reading of the actual First Amendment makes it clear that the intention of the Founders was not to separate religion from public life, public figures or even the public square. It was actually intended to promote an abundance and plurality of religious expression in all aspects of American life. The amendment actually prohibits the government from limiting the "free exercise therof (religion)". If this Rev. is so easily misled, misinformed and propagandized about the most important freedom concerning his profession, I have to doubt his competance to comment on any issue.

It would be interesting to hear in this forum, as to what drove these bishops (who represent quite a few Catholics - the numbers in parenthesis show what percentage of the population in their dioceses are Catholics) who have so far publicly come out in opposition to the Notre Dame invitation: Archbishop Timothy Michael Dolan Archdiocese of New York, NY - 2,521,087 Catholics (45%) Cardinal Francis Eugene George Archdiocese of Chicago, Illinois President, USCCB - 2,348,000 Catholics (39%) Archbishop John Joseph Myers Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey - 1,319,558 Catholics (46.5%) Cardinal Daniel Nicholas DiNardo Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, Texas - 1,045,030 Catholics (20%) Archbishop John Clayton Nienstedt ST. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota - 730,989Catholics (24.8%) Bishop Thomas James Olmsted Diocese of Phoenix, Arizona - 556,692 Catholics (15.3%) Bishop Gregory Michael Aymond Diocese of Austin, Texas - 422,006 Catholics (17.6%) Bishop Robert Nugent Lynch Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida - 398,702 Catholics (15.0%) Bishop Robert Charles Morlino Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin - 269,556 Catholics (28.4%) Bishop Kevin Carl Rhoades Diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania - 247,492 Catholics (12.2%) Bishop John Michael D'Arcy Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana - 159,888 Catholics (12.8%) Bishop Ralph Walker Nickless Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa - 94,186 Catholics (20.1%) Bishop Edward James Slattery Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma - 56,094 Catholics (3.7%)

John M (#5 above) is mistaken - the NCCB of the 1980s is what tore the Church apart. The USCCB is currently in the project of rebuilding our Church, providing effective leadership, and spearheading authentic renewal. Join the team John!

I commend the Archbishop for his courage to write this article in support of the invitation of a standing American President to in effect address a major Catholic university and the country on an issue that is clearly the most troubling in our Church today especially in the United States. At a minimum, the moral issue in support of life will be brought to the forefront in a major way. The President will likely give an honest testimony to his beliefs and the direction his leadership will take the country over the next four years. I believe, as strongly as those of you who disbelieve, that this is an opportunity to let our light shine through not only on President Obama but on all the rest of the world who will watch his speech. We as Catholics should not condemn others without due process; instead we must evangelize and attempt to spread the light of truth to President Obama and all those millions of others - many of whom are Catholic, about what supporting life really means to us. I think Jesus would do the same. It's time to convince others about the importance of life at every stage and it's time to stop convicting those who see it differently. I urge the Bishops of the USA to support this invitation as an opportunity to teach and to share the love of God in a way that will reach so many. May God Bless our President, the university of Notre Dame, our Bishops, and all others who would join together to support life.

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

So many comments from people who think you either do as the church says 100% of the time or you're out. That kind of pigheadedness is exactly what drove me away from Catholicism. I was a good Catholic but I take issue with just a very few of the church's stances. I didn't put up a fuss but on those issues I lived by my heart. Too many people hollering way too loudly (like some posting here) made me throw up my hands in frustration and find another church. One where love and compassion are more the focus that rules and judgment. So you loud Catholics out there, pat yourself on the back for all your piousness but don't be surprised when the pews get empty.

I disagree with all those who assume that the original invitation was a "stupid mistake." How do we know that Fr. Jenkins purpose was not to reach out to our president in the hopes of changing his views on these issues that we hold so dear? This situation reminds me of Jesus being criticized for spending time with prostitutes and tax collectors. How else can we spread the Word if we don't talk to people who see things differently than we do?

While others have made the same point, I keep thinking that most are obsessed with abortion and stem cell issues. What about the fact that many pro death penalty polticians speak at Catholic institutions? What about the fact that 90% or more of American Catholics support the use of birth control? What about all the politicians that have committed adultery, etc., etc.? Why do we allow them access to our church and institutions? George W. Bush invaded Iraq, against the arguments of Pope John Paul II and many bishops, but that seemed ok to many Catholics. Some mention slavery as an analogy, but the Catholic church condoned slavery for centuries, so I would argue the Church may be infallible, but the men who run it are not. I am a regularly practicing, faithful Catholic, but I will not give up my rights an American or a human being and have others tell me what to do or think. I have met many priests, nuns and even bishops in my life, and they are manifestly human too, and the current group are succeeding where generations of persecution have failed--they will split the Church in two, and it makes me so sad.

President Obama could not care less whether any of the mediocre Catholic Colleges had invited him or not. Few of the "clenched fist" crowd spouting "venom" in these columns have given any thought to the fact that the University of Notre Dame is academically of a lower ranking than the TWO institutions that President Obama has degrees from - Harvard and Columbia. Until our Catholic colleges can stop giving excuses and match or excel Harvard and Columbia in academic excellence (NOT Football only) it is time to stop the bickering among all our bishops too.

I requested a post of correction. I erroneously referred to Joe Murray when I should have said Teresa Collett. I ask you to please post this.

His excellency avoided the real issue, which the other Bishops addressed. That is, he never should have been invited to begin with, and that the invitation itself violated the Bishop's directive.

I agree with WFM above regarding when does life become less precious?? When it is safely out of the womb and living in poverty and destitution? When mother and child are forced to live on welfare? We don't see too many pro-lifers rallying around when the babies saved from abortion are hungry, homeless, beaten, forgotten. Until the Cardinals and Bishops, and yes, the Holy Father empty their bank accounts and sell their priceless artwork, and begin living like Mother Theresa in the midst of the poorest of the poor, their "pro-life" rantings ring hollow. And why is there not the same outrage about the death penalty and politicians who support it? I can think of a few; George W. Bush comes to mind.

The Archbishop is a cowardly relic who continues to fold at the slightest breeze. It is the Church's fidelity to the Word of God he should be concerned with not the "relationship" wth the current administration or its leader. Alas, the Archbishop long ago made his accommadation with the world. Pathetic.

In my recent post, I referenced Joe Murray in error when obviously it was the commentary of Teresa Collett I was referring to.

As it was Joe Murray's commentary that I first read, there is no need to elaborate on what he and others have so clearly expressed in a very measured and objective manner. Bishop Quinn's writing is very disturbing and only contributes to the demoralizing of a loyal Catholic base already under attack in our society. He seems to suffer from the same mindset that befalls Fr. Jenkins, Bernard Law and many other Catholic officials: the importance of image and acceptance by the world as opposed to a courageous defense of moral principle in the face of insult and rejection. Matthew 16, 21-23 speaks accurately to this. We cannot disinvite, but we can protest with vigor and civility, and begin a house cleaning within UND and other "Catholic" institutions.

This entire episode highlights the perils of inviting politicians to accept honors or in accepting funding from political entities. It is impossible to separate the man from his principles or from his actions. In honoring the man the principles and actions are also honored. In accepting funding from political entities there will also be strings attached. The only way for the pastoral brockers to be affective is if they keep a respectable distance from the politicians and the political entities they inhabit.

Respectfully: I believe the church's mission and that of believers in Christ is to seek God's will and not the popular or politically expediency of the moment. The question is not whether we further the pro-life, or church's political agenda but that the church and bishops as God's representatives be true to the one and only authority they haved vowed to obey and to lay down our lives for... St. Thomas Becket did so....and it cost him is life.... Laura A.

With all due respect Reverend, this visit is not about dialogue again and again it is not about dialogue but award! You seem to be more concerned with the churches image not the churches foundation. You are wrong on this issue! Lorraine

Yes, "All life if precious. Life begins at conception" My question to so many pro-life people is; between life begining at conception and ending at death, where and when does life stop being precious? There is a lot more to be done to protect the dignity and preciousness of life than just being pro-choice. I just don't see the pro-life community making much noise, let alone a willingness to sacrafice about these other pro-life issues.

So much of the commentary on the Archbishop's opinion seems to forget the fundamental mission of any university, Catholic or otherwise; provision of a forum for open discussion and recognitiion of achievement within a discipline. If our position regarding abortion and related "pro-life" issues is going to be heard by thinking persons, can we survive excluding the other side from the dialogue? If we are rationally correct, will we not prevail in these arguments? Do we want to offer our hospitality to persons who differ with us, recognize them for their achievements, try to bring them around by inclusion and reasonable behavior? Christ did His convincing by example and parable, almost never confrontation or exclusion. His death was, at last, an invitation to sinners everywhere to change their point of view. He initiated that dialogue and it goes on to this day: everyone is invited.

A Critical Moment You forget the most critical question. Before we get to that though. We have to ask ourselves if the Church is willing to comprise it stance on abortion. It is my understanding that it is not. If that is true the real question would be. Does having the most radical pro abortion politician in the history of this country speak at the most well known Catholic university in this country leave the impression that the church is open to discussion about abortion issues? Just asking him to speak smells of tolerance for his point of view. This impression could easily be left with those who don't really have an understanding of how rigid the Church's stance is on abortion. Do you really want to leave this impression in order to be seen a politically correct. I won't be reading any responses to this because I don't care what anyone else thinks about this. If one believes life begins at conception then there is no tolerance for abortion and words against it don't mean anything unless actions follow. The action of having the president speak at any catholic university could indicate tolerance. No good can come of it. On the other hand if you don't think life begins at conception I can't help you and can't say anything that will make you believe it does. If you truly believe that a fetus is a lump of nothing that can be discarded I can accept that and leave you alone. No since in arguing about it. I agree that this is a critical moment. Does the Church really stand for what it believes in or not?

If Fr. Jenkins had listened to Pope Benedict last April (during the address to the catholic college presidents) we wouldn't have this mess now. In Jn ch 8 Christ is called a bastard, he responds by calling his accusers sons of the devil. If Christ hadn't stood firm against the authorities there wouldn't of been a crucifixion. I respectfully echo the words originally spoken to St.Peter taken from Mt.16:23 "get behind me satan". Clenched fists its about time!

The bishops seem not to understand that to seek to identify the purpose of the State with the purpose of the Church is to invite the State to bed down with the Church. History amply demonstrates this always results either in a miscarriage of justice or the birth of a monster.

To Michael Rangitsch - Christ did eat with the sinners & prostitutes. However, he did not hold them up as examples and confer honors upon them for their sinful actions. Rather, he told them to "go and sin no more". Demonstrating that the Church has a distrinct moral position and is willing to stand on it will likely draw more people than it offends.

Elizabeth - I must disagree with your interpretation of Pres. Obama's answer to Rick Warren. Specifically, when Warren asked Obama when basic human rights begin and Obama brushed off the answer with "That's above my pay grade." As for the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" there is none. Life begins at conception and abortion is the deliberate, premeditating taking of that life. To be "pro-choice" is to be "pro-abortion". The very "choice" at issue here is a gravely immoral, evil act. To say that someone should have a "right" to take the life of another human being is a ligitimate choice for anyone is asinine. Pres. Obama is the most radically pro-abortion president this country has ever seen. He's gone so far as to fight against the Born Alive Act that sought to protect babies that survived their abortions. Notre Dame should be ashamed of itself, but then again it has only been Catholic in name only for decades. We only need to look at mainline Protestant denominations and their ever dwindling numbers to see what good comes about from vacilating on moral issues. Removing the invitation to confer an honorary title for Obama would send a strong signal to the world that we abide by a higher moral calling.

The bishop’s point that rescinding the invitation would be a public relations nightmare for the church is well made, however I believe it misses a larger point. The question is should President Obama have been given the high honor of speaking the graduating class? I agree that there should be diverse opinions on campus. I do not believe that Mr. Obama should be barred from speaking at Notre Dame, but why commencement? Was no other forum available? What do we Catholics stand for if not the value of human life? Do we mean what we say or is it just talk?

I agree, in part, with the archbishop's comments above in that disinviting President Obama would probably not serve the overall good in this situation. I do not agree with the archbishop's arguements, however. We believe in the Catholic church's teachings or we don't - and we stand up for those beliefs. I would accept Obama speaking at ND, since he has already been invited and that basically ND is inviting the "president" to speak - as is done all over the country at many different universities. We are inviting and/or honoring the "office" or "position". The presentation of an honorary doctor of laws degree, however, honors the man, not the office. This is absolutely wrong and this should not take place. If ND is going to rescind anything (at this time), this is what needs to be rescinded.

The bishop rationalizes this into doing nothing so as to save face for both parties. He also gets lost in pondering what great thinkers have penned. I don't suppose he would care to muse on what God thinks. Here's an idea: Proverbs 6:1-5 "My son, if you have put up security for your neighbor, have given your pledge for a stranger, if you are snared in the words of your mouth, caught in the words of your mouth, then do this, my son, and save yourself, for you have come into the hand of your neighbor: go, hasten, and plead urgently with your neighbor. Give your eyes no sleep and your eyelids no slumber; save yourself like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter, like a bird from the hand of the fowler." The position the "thinkers" at Notre Dame have put the church in has much bigger implications than saving face.

Father Jenkins says his Prayers “Hail Mary…Full of Grace” I HAD to lighten up this place. We need to be a more like… Duke No sin , no dogma, no rebuke… The occasional… sex workers show… We call it…“dialogue, you know. “The Lord is with thee”…heh!, congratulations But OBAMA accepted MY invitation. The Messiah is coming..oops, no, not your Son! The Newly Elected Perfect One. We’re swooning that he’ll come to see us! “Blah..Blah..Fruit of thy Womb Jesus.” “Holy Mary..Mother of God!” Silence each stupid whining clod. Can’t they see the stupendous HONOR? Why all this Pro-life noise and bother? That baby retard..born alive… Did You really mean him to survive? “Pray for us Sinners”..but cut some slack… We want the pews and coffers packed. Don’t burden them with moral choices Or upset them with those preachy voices. That tiny being in the sonogram If…. inconvenient..suck, crush, and slam. “Hail Mary…Mother of God…” Please don’t complicate my job. I’m making Notre Dame so cool. The hippest Catholic “inclusive” school. Obama! Obama! He deigns to receive us! And, frankly, his speeches are more moving than Jesus’… Hmmm-m…Maybe Obama could be… sculpted in brass And kept on the altar…for when we say Mass.

I have read the article and it can be countered with a simple argument. People who call themselves Christians should always do what is right in the eyes of God. Not caring what the secular world thinks, but caring what God thinks.

You have got to kidding me. Of course the church should reject Obama's abortion views publicly. What else is salt and light all about. Is Quinn "ashamed of the gospel?", seems like it. People flow principle when it is clearly defined and backed with sound apologetics. Where is today's Aquinas?

Perhaps Fr Jenkins should have considered the down side expressed by Bishop Quinn before making the invitation.

Perhaps the reason the author is the ex archbishop of San Francisco is due to the fact that he is willing to call evil by another name. An unborn child is a human being. The President of the United States advocates killing unborn human beings by virtue of the policies that he has instituted for our country within the last 60 days. A Catholic University has decided to honor him thus trying to give him the cover of the church to cloak this evil. Now Archbishop Quinn tries to add what's left of his dignity to the President and this shameful act of Notre Dame. All the obfuscation in the world will not make this outrageous act other than what it is.

The question of the offering of this invitation is completely seperate and null at this point, as it has already been offered. What do you now, do you let your outrage take over and refuse to let him speak or do you allow this perceived injustice to pass? Already all of this discussion is reactionary, which illustrates that most of those taking part in it have neglected to take any initiative on this matter, remember hindsight is 20/20? As yourself this, since I see it commercialized everywhere, WWJD? For those of you who support this concept of what would Jesus would do while pushing to keep Obama from speaking are a bunch of hypocrites that drive people from organize religion, please keep to yourselves, let him speak and be over with it without causing a huge uproar and subsequent media backlash, it's not helping your cause.

With due respect, Archbishop Quinn is responsible of misleading the poor informed members of the Church in San Francisco, no wonder Nancy Pelosi claims to be Catholic. Remember that Jesus warned us about the false prophets. "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.” Matt. 23:13

In all due respect,would it not be more of an act of sacrificial love offered to the unborn child ripped from its mothers womb into the garbage if we stood firm. As Pope John Paul did against the evil, yes communism is evil. Why is it when a Catholic says no we are the ones that are clenched fist. Fr,. You cannot be both Catholic and Pro choice. Leviticus 18 "Thou shall not stand by when thy neighbors life is in danger. We the lay are tired of the lukewarm, we are tired of others forcing us into what we should believe ,you take away conscience laws for a fare state takeover . Is this what you mean by separation of state and church.

Well I would say that this is why we have pro-choice is because the church is not taking a hard stand in teaching to the people what it stands for. The churchs in America are wimps going with the politically correct way of thinking. It has to walk on eggshells so that it can keep the people and money coming in. As you can see I am no writer but I do believe in the Catholic church like it used to be. It needs to stand up and teach what it means. It is becoming too politically correct in trying not to offend anyone. By inviting Obama you are telling the Catholic people that it is okay to support Obama and his way of thinking, which of course is that abortion is okay. No Catholic should have ever vote in support of Obama because of his history in voting for abortion. And the church should have been standing on that fact, and telling the people not to support him because of it. The church needs to get involed in poltics much more and tell the people about the ones that make choices against God's teachings. The church needs to watch the choices that Catholics in politics make, and if is against the teaching of God, they should be excomunicated. There are two or three in Congress now that need to have it done to them.

Archbishop Quinn makes a good politician, but a lousy shepherd. He fails to understand that Obama has a one tract pro-baby killing mind. Sure Obama has picked "Catholics" for his team. But only if they are pro-baby killing ones. Like the Black Biretta said"We should offer hospitality to Obama if he visits, but we should not give him an hononary degree, for this implies that we agree with his moral code,which we do not."

"If the president is forced... If... If... Why not ask the simpler question: What is the right thing to do? Clearly, the leaders of the American Church spoke on behalf of the church when they unanimously issued guidelines that no Catholic University should honor someone who gravely opposes Catholic teaching, which President Obama clearly does. Therefore, Notre Dame clearly is in opposition with the bishops themselves, yet now we are to make an argument on how dissidence and disobedience will aid the church in America? The church in America will be strong and united when it stands strong in defense of Jesus Christ and His teaching, evangelizing through love and witness as the early Christians did. They shed their blood rather than give in to the political forces of their time. I wonder where the church would be now had they asked all the questions in this article and decided that for the good of the church, they should try to walk hand in hand with Nero.

Ever since 'Rowe v Wade' I believe American society's respect for life, in general, has been greatly diminished. The American Catholic Bishop's mollycoddling of so called 'Catholic' politicians like Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. has greatly diminished the unequivocal teaching of the Church concerning life. This lack of leadership confuses Catholics and fellow Christians. I attended a Notre Dame prep school in Illinois and received an excellent education from the Holy Cross Fathers of Notre Dame. I then attended Marquette University and learned the true strength of Catholic teaching from the Jesuits. Shame on Notre Dame Univ. I totally agree with Father Joseph SJ, and Jim the Lutheran.

The same rationalizations were used by Lutheran and Catholic clerics in Germany after 1932. As Hitler increased pressure on the churches to be "patriotic" and support the Fuhrer, particularly the persecution and murder of the Jews, most of the clerics succumbed to the pressure and gave either explicit or tacit support for the Nazi party. Not wanting to create a furor, you know. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life was lived after 1932 in opposition to the Reich and to the waffling churchmen. He was part of the "confessing" church, whose male members, when discovered, were drafted and sent to the front lines to serve until they were killed. Bonhoeffer was spared because of his connections, and this enabled him to participate in plotting against Hitler's life, activities which cost him his own. There is only one direction that the Church, if it follows Bishop Quinn's effortful formulation, is headed, and that is in a downward sickening spiral, acquiescing in blatant evil for the sake of civic comity.

Comments

Pages

Recent Articles