Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Conservatives in Full Retreat on Notre Dame


Catholic Faithful Appalled by Hateful Attacks on President.

Conservatives realize what a blunder their criticism was

Conservatives are in full retreat from their politically, socially and theologically disastrous attempt to defame President Obama following the invitation of the University of Notre Dame to award him an honorary degree.

Early and intemperate remarks used the strongest language against the President and the University. Typical of the Right-wing, they went so overboard, their own fanaticism became the issue. They learned little from their misguided attempt to proclaim Rush Limbaugh their leader, and action that also resulted in a full scale retreat by conservative and Republican leaders.

Sensible conservative Catholics like Archbishop Timothy Dolan, are now expressing the conservative viewpoint in more moderate and temperate terms. The Archbishop, soon to be enthroned in New York City, offers his personal opinion ("I think it was a mistake.") but affirms his respect for Barack Obama and simply re-states what we all know -- that the Church stands with the President on many issues but not on the abortion issue. Sending a subtle message, in one of his first acts as Archbishop of New York, Dolan will be guest of honor at an event organized by a pro-choice organization (Central Synagogue) and has invited teh President to attend his installation in St. Patrick's Cathedral.

Former Ambassador Thomas Patrick Melady, a conservative Catholic leader, has now penned an article saying that conservatives need to reign things in on this issue and other conservatives are echoing Dolan, voicing their objection as a personal judgement and going to great lengths to distance themselves from the Obama-haters. Even ultraconservative Archbishop Raymond Burke has had to apologize for his actions in recent days.

Christian conservative Michael Gerson sent clear signals on the need to change the rhetoric today saying that the Obama-haters "are going too far" on the Notre Dame issue and is trying to direct criticism of the President back to issues, not the Notre Dame speech. Church bishops previously silent are speaking up that the tone and rhetoric have got out of hand.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dolan is a lukewarm jerk. Always has been, always will.

phlojd said...

How can these folks claim to be Catholic when they are so disrespectful of our bishops?

My guess is that their number approximates less than 5% of Catholics.

Anonymous said...

Faithful Catholics are not in full retreat. Some who identify themselves as conservate might be viewed that way. Who frankly cares? 227,742 signers to date represent faithful Catholics that have signed the petition of the Catholic Newman Society... No retreating here

A better question is how can the priest, the president of Notre Dame, claim to be Catholic when he is in public disobedience to the USCCB Conference of Catholic Bishops?

Anonymous said...

Do you notice how more and more bishops are speaking out against this? Now we have the Archbishop of KC and also Tulsa.

Each day a new Archbishop or Bishop speaks out against this infamy.

No matter how you spin it, it is looking worse and worse for you.

I look forward to you publishing my comment...if you are as open as you say you are.

Anonymous said...

It is amazing how you keep trying to deflect the issue. You are calling upon Rush. Man, Carville and Begalia failed on that approach. Give it up. You have lost this battle.

Katherine said...

I look forward to you publishing my comment...if you are as open as you say you are.

I do reserve the right not to allow anonymous posts. You would be best posted with a google ID.

Kurt said...

Catholics Untied now has a huge number of Catholics that have signed their petition supporting Notre Dame. The student body (the next generation of Catholics) is 90% in support of the University.

It certainly helps Obama politically to have these extremist pushing their hatred. The vast majority of faithful Catholics recognize the Obama-haters for what they are.

Anonymous said...

Why is is hateful to support the position of the USCCB and the bishops who are speaking out against the invitation?

I can say that you are hateful of the Church for not aligning yourself with her.

You folks here really need to get past your political agenda.

Katherine said...

Anonymous,

The hate towards Obama is clear. The rhetoric is over the top. Typical of the Right-wing, they proclaim themselves the sole interpreter of all.

And the bishops have never voted to say that the President cannot be allowed to speak at a commencement ceremony. They have said that "those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles...should not be given awards, honors or platforms ch would suggest support for their actions.

Only in the twisted mind of the Obama-haters does anyone think that ND is suggesting support for his abortion policy. There simply IS NO SUGGESTION the Unviersity supports him on that issue. There is much suiggestion that some people are so blinded by an irrational and probably bigoted hate, they cannot control themselves.

Betty said...

I love the picture of Napoleon in retreat in the snow. Conservatives are their own worst enemy.

Sean said...

Notre Dame is not backing down. Obama will go, he will give a great speech and those attacking him will look like the fools that they are.

It is all over for the Republicans. Bye-bye!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Are you calling the bishops who have spoken out against the invitation as Obama haters? Obviously, you don't seem to understand the issue.

So you think it would be ok for Guiliani to speak at a Catholic college? I don't.

There is no need to vote on such an issue. The position of the USCCB is clear to those who have their hearts open to the truth. BTW, the Church is not a democracy.

Just for sake of argument, if Barry Goldwater was our president today, would you be ok with him speaking at Notre Dame?

Please quit putting yourself in opposition to the Church and come on home...

martin m said...

They appear to have become so attached to their outrage that they are even more outraged that they won't be able to be outraged any more

Katherine said...

Are you calling the bishops who have spoken out against the invitation as Obama haters?

Typical of the right-wing. Archbishop Dolan has every right to offer his opinion. Those, like the Archbishop, who preface their comments with "I think..." are ok in my book. They are offering an opinion; their personal judgement. We can disagree without being disagreable.

Those who think they can say all sorts of vile things against the President, disrespecting him and our nation and our flag, are haters. Sin is real and hate is a sin.

You can twist the USSCB statement to fit your secular political agenda, but even those who are not happy about the speech are admitting the Bishop's statement does not read they way you think. Do you see a statement coming out of the USCCB against Obama? NO.

Just for sake of argument, if Barry Goldwater was our president today, would you be ok with him speaking at Notre Dame?

A dead man cannot be President. Certainly if he had won in 1964, he likely would have been invited (along with his Catholic Vice-President). And I am betting dollars to donuts you would not have said a word against it.

phlojd said...

I call the bishops who have spoken out against Obama's invite to ND less than 5% of all American bishops. About the same percentage of American Catholics overall who are up in arms, I'd guess. So maybe it's time for this small fringe embittered element who need to get past their political agenda to come home and unite in Communion and Community with the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Katherine, you seem to have a hard time dealing with what I am saying. Yes, sin is real and the road to hell is wide and open and many find it quite easily so at least we agree on something.

Some of the bishops do have more tempered responses but the majority of the bishops who have spoken out, spoke more forcibly on the issue and not on the person as you seem to be suggesting in your response above.

It appears on the surface you are judging what is in another person's heart. You are ascribing hate to those who speak out forcefully against Obama speaking at Notre Dame. How do you know what is in my heart or anyone else's heart?

I don't say you hate those who are against Obama speaking there but I do believe you are truly misguided.

Like I said before, I don't care what color you are, what party you belong to, what ethnic background you have, if you support an intrinsic evil either in your promises, legislative acts or appointments, you should not be given a platform at a Catholic university unless it was going to be a debate on that particular issue.

If after doing my research, I concluded that Barry Goldwater supported intrinsic evils of any kind by either his promises to do them like Obama does with abortion, ESCR or through actual legislative acts or appointments, like Obama has supported abortion in both his legislative acts and appointments, then Mr. Goldwater should not speak at ND in our hypothetical just like Obama should not speak there. Where is my doughnut or dollar if you prefer??

Katherine said...

Katherine ...least we agree on something.

Yes, I am glad too.

Some of the bishops do have more tempered responses...

To their great credit

... but the majority of the bishops who have spoken out, spoke more forcibly

Clever phrasing. 95% of the bishops have not been moved at all to criticize a prudential decision of an independent Catholic university.

It appears on the surface you are judging what is in another person's heart.

Like I said before, I don't care what color you are, what party you belong to, what ethnic background you have...

I am glad you feel that way. But is is very obvious that the standard being applied by some to this President was never applied to Presidents of a different race than he.

...if you support an intrinsic evil either in your promises, legislative acts or appointments, you should not be given a platform at a Catholic university unless it was going to be a debate on that particular issue.

You have the right to that opinion. Again it is a standard that has not been applied to white politicans. Supporters of divorce, adultery, masturbation, birth control, defrauding workers of just wages, and other intrinsic evils have been given similar honors.

If after doing my research, I concluded that Barry Goldwater supported intrinsic evils...

I'm glad your research has led you to that conclusion about a long dead man. Too bad no one at the time he was alive ever had your same wisdom.

Is the rule that we will ban dead white Republicans and living Black Democrats from speaking? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to buy that anymore than I'm going buy the Brooklyn Bridge.

Anonymous said...

More bishops have spoken out in the last 24 hours -- Doran of Rockford, IL and Hughes of NOLA.

Each day another bishop (or two) adds their voices to the shame that ND brings.

There is no retreat. There is resistance!

Betty said...

At that rate, they would still not come close to a majority of the episcopate by time of the commencement. Face it, you lost big time. Notre Dame has made it clear they are not backing down in the face of pressure from the Obama-haters.

Sean said...

Is the rule that we will ban dead white Republicans and living Black Democrats from speaking?

So true. What hypocracy.

Anonymous said...

The Bishop of Scranton and his Auxilary have now issued a statement condemning the visit to ND.

There is no retreat. The resistance is growing.

Betty said...

Resistance? Notice none of them have had the guts to say Catholics should not attend the commencement. If it such a scandal, why should Catholics attend? D'Arcy even went out of his way to give others "permission" to attend.

The reason is simply, the Obama-haters know no one would follow.

It is going to be a great event.

Brian said...

I just wish the Obama supporters around here would be a little more upfront about condemning his 100% pro abortion record.

I really think you guys would have more credibility if you acknowledged that Obama needs to change his heart on this issue.

Instead, this site seems to be Democrats=Good, Republicans=Bad and anyone who dares points out that Obama's stance on abortion would not be pleasing to God is somehow a hater.

I think in many ways President Obama is a fine man, but his record and rhetoric on abortion is appalling to me.

Sometimes the defense offered by some of his supporters including the owners of this site seems to come down to "you lost, we won, most Catholics support Obama, so shut up and ha ha ha."

There is no question where the Catholic Church stands on abortion. I wish we could agree on that point and pray for President Obama.

Anonymous said...

"You have the right to that opinion. Again it is a standard that has not been applied to white politicans."

The same standard should apply to all politicians no matter what color. I am not hung up on his color. I am not making that an issue.

Look, I am for banning any color (white, black, brown, or any colar in between) person who supports legislation promoting the destruction of innocent human life, euthanasia, or racist policies. The issue is paramount, not the color of one's skin.

If Barack Obama supported pro-life efforts with his promises, legislative acts and appointments,I would welcome him with open arms to speak at any Catholic university but he doesn't. What is it that is hard to understand here?

"95% of the bishops have not been moved at all to criticize a prudential decision of an independent Catholic university."

Just because the majority of bishops have not spoken out on the issue does not mean that those who did speak out were not speaking the truth. BTW, more are speaking out each day. Jesus was in the minority in His day. How many stood with Jesus when he was dying on the cross?

"Supporters of divorce, adultery, masturbation, birth control, defrauding workers of just wages, and other intrinsic evils have been given similar honors."

Your list of so-called "intrinsic evils" are not all intrinsic evils according to the Catholic Church.

For instance, it is not necessarily an intrinsic evil to
get a divorce. There are just reasons for a divorce. Whereas, abortion is always an intrinsic evil. There is never a just reason for an abortion. Masturbation, racism, ESCR, and same sex marriage are all intrinsically evil.

Intrinsic evils are evils against the protection and dignity of the human person:

** protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural dath;

** recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage and its defense from attempt to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of unions which in reality harm it and contribute to it destabilization, obscuring it a particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

*** The protection of the rights of parents to educate their children

above 3 points taken from Catholics in the Public Square by Bishop Olmstead

Issues that go against the first example are abortion, human cloning, ESCR and euthanasia. The second issue deals with polygamy, homosexual marriage, etc

"You have the right to that opinion."

This is not an opinion but this is indeed a statement from the USCCB that leaves little room for interpretative gymnastics like you seem to be doing here.

Other intrinsic evils include contraception, genocide, and solidarity with the poor. With respect to the poor however, there is legitimate debate on how best to offer specific applications to assist the poor. This is where prudential judgement comes into play and where there may be legitimate disagreement. I don't know if any candidates today run on a platform to exclude the poor. They mention the poor but offer different solutions to help the poor.


"I'm glad your research has led you to that conclusion about a long dead man."

Since you did not like my example of Barry Goldwater, let's take someone living today. Here are some living examples. I would not support any of the following to speak at a Catholic university: Rudy Guiliani, Arnold Schwartsenegger, John McCain if he still supports ESCR and Olympia Snow.

Do you object to anyone speaking at at Catholic university? If so, could you name those who you would object to? Please name a few in the Democratic party that you would not support speaking or giving a public platform at a Catholic university.

Anonymous said...

Betty:

I don't think that the bishops need to come out and say it. Their words, if listened to and taken to heart, convey the shame this brings on the Catholic community.

Katherine said...

Brian,

Maybe we should all start from a clean slate. But I and almost every other supporter of the President has re-affirmed time and time again we are pro-life and that we disagree with him on the question of the legal status of abortion. In response, we have been called some of the most vile things possible and rarely (though I will recognize you as an exception) even found someone with a contrary viewpoint willing to have a civil discussion.

After re-affirming our pro-life views time and time again, I will admit, a certain weariness set in, at one often feels it is just best to celebrate our victory since there are so few out their to have a civil conversation with.

I would encourge you to review some of the comments here posted by your like-minded friends. For th emost part, they are horrid.

Susan said...

Horrid?? Which comment here is actually horrid? It seems to me your supporters are the ones saying the horrid things. Anonymous says Archbishop Dolan is a lukewarm jerk? A "small fringe embittered element?" Accusations of being"Obama haters." These are all comments by your folk. Where are the horrid comments by the other side on this post?? Sorry I can't find them.

Katherine said...

"You have the right to that opinion. Again it is a standard that has not been applied to white politicans."

The same standard should apply to all politicians no matter what color. I am not hung up on his color. I am not making that an issue.

You have the right to your opinion. You have a standard which you now claim you want to apply to people of all races. However, it is a standard that has never ben applied to a white President. I'm just inclined to think 9 years from now if we have a white president then, this will all be forgotten.

"95% of the bishops have not been moved at all to criticize a prudential decision of an independent Catholic university."

Just because the majority of bishops have not spoken out on the issue does not mean that those who did speak out were not speaking the truth.

Make up your mind. If numbers do not equal truth, then let's stop with the bean counting of bishops. You can't have it both ways.

Your list of so-called "intrinsic evils" are not all intrinsic evils according to the Catholic Church.

For instance, it is not necessarily an intrinsic evil to
get a divorce. There are just reasons for a divorce. Whereas, abortion is always an intrinsic evil. There is never a just reason for an abortion. Masturbation, racism, ESCR, and same sex marriage are all intrinsically evil.

Intrinsic evils are evils against the protection and dignity of the human person


No, intrinsic evils are things that are evil by their nature. The Catholic Church does not permit divorce.


Other intrinsic evils include contraception, genocide, and solidarity with the poor. With respect to the poor however, there is legitimate debate on how best to offer specific applications to assist the poor. This is where prudential judgement comes into play and where there may be legitimate disagreement. I don't know if any candidates today run on a platform to exclude the poor. They mention the poor but offer different solutions to help the poor.

I know of candidates who exclude the poor. For the most part they are Republicans. And every last Republican in Congress has voted for contraception, an instrinsic evil.

If you want to lead a camapign to exclude all federal elected officials, fine. But from I have seen, the result of the exclusions falls on a particular party and a particular race.
Since you did not like my example of Barry Goldwater, let's take someone living today. Here are some living examples. I would not support any of the following to speak at a Catholic university: Rudy Guiliani, Arnold Schwartsenegger, John McCain if he still supports ESCR and Olympia Snow.

Why not EVERY federal official, all of whom have voted for instrinsic evils?

Do you object to anyone speaking at at Catholic university? If so, could you name those who you would object to? Please name a few in the Democratic party that you would not support speaking or giving a public platform at a Catholic university.

I think Catholic universities are capable of making that judgement. I know of no instance that has compelled me to object to a Catholic university commencement speaker. If you want to refresh my memory by naming some people who were actual speakers, I will provide my commentary. I'm not wasting my time with dead people or theoreticals.

Anonymous said...

Katherine, you said: "No, intrinsic evils are things that are evil by their nature. The Catholic Church does not permit divorce."

Wrong: The Catholic Church does not permit divorce AND remarriage.

If, however, the parties are genuinely and sacramentally married, then, while in some cases there may be good reasons for them to live apart and even to obtain a legal separation, in God’s eyes they are not free to remarry (CCC 1649). If they did remarry then this would be adultery if an annulment was never obtained.

"I know of candidates who exclude the poor. For the most part they are Republicans."

Are you saying that certain Republicans have said that they support the right of a person to choose to suppress the poor? That does not sound right. If you are talking about disagreement on how to help the poor, that is legitimate debate.

Katherine said...

If they did remarry then this would be adultery if an annulment was never obtained.

The state can claim the power to end a marriage. That does not mean a marriage in fact is ended. The reason it is adultery is because they are not divorced but still married according to the Church.

Are you saying that certain Republicans have said that they support the right of a person to choose to suppress the poor?

Certain Republicans have supported the supression of the rights of the poor.

Susan said...

Name them.

Anonymous said...

Wow, now I see that the Bishops of Bridgeport (CT), Sioux City (Iowa), and Newark (NJ) have also spoken out against this infamy.

Lenny in Tallahassee, Fla said...

If one is pro-life, (i.e., you believe life begins at conception, that the use of abortion as birth-control is the sensless killing of an unborn child, that a minor having the government allow an abortion without consent of the parent is illegal, and that the teaching of abortion as a reasonable option to a full-term pregnancy is assisting in the sensless killing of an unborn child) OR if one is "Catholic" (i.e., you believe that God new us in our mother's womb, I cannot imagine supporting Barack Obama for president, senator, or mayor. I don't get it?

Anonymous said...

Katherine, is obama's support of abortion a mortal sin?