Jack Higgins in the Chicago Sun-Times:
Saturday, March 28, 2009
... and Jesus Wept
Lukacs, "Last Rites"
Check out this very interesting review, over at the very interesting Plumb Lines blog, of John Lukacs' new autobiography.
Michael Perry on "Constitutional Rights, Moral Controversy, and the Supreme Court"
I am in Atlanta this weekend, along with our MOJ-colleague Michael Perry and others, for the annual meeting of the Christian Jurisprudence project of the Emory Center for the Study of Law and Religion. Among the other great things about the meeting is that, waiting for me at the conference table was my own copy of Michael's latest book. Congratulations, Michael!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Austin's Bishop on the Notre Dame situation
The "Aggie Catholics" blog reports that Austin bishop Gregory Aymond issued a statement regarding Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama. Here is Bishop Aymond's statement:
As was announced recently, the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., is presenting President Barack Obama with an honorary degree and have asked him to give the commencement address.
I, along with many other Catholics, express great disappointment and sadness that a Catholic university would honor someone who is pro-choice and who holds many values contrary to our Catholic belief.
In the midst of such a sad situation, as Catholics we must continue to be pro-life and to proclaim with even greater strength the values of Christ and the teachings of the Catholic Church.
In my opinion, it is very clear that in this case the University of Notre Dame does not live up to its Catholic identity in giving this award and their leadership needs our prayerful support.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The President's Council, on the stem-cell decision
Statement here.
An Open Letter to Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C.
At the risk of repeating what others have already said about the ND decision to honor President Obama, I offer the following, which I prepared shortly after hearing the announcement, but which I did not complete until now.
* * * *
Dear Father Jenkins:
I write to you as a graduate of the University in protest of Notre Dame’s decision to honor President Barack Obama as part this year’s commencement exercises.
As Francis Cardinal George said shortly after President Obama’s election in November, the country’s decision to elect an African-American to its highest office is something in which “we must all rejoice.” Like many other Notre Dame graduates, I share in the joy and hope that this historic election symbolizes. However, I take no joy and I see little hope in the University’s decision to honor a man who, throughout his political career, has been so thoroughly opposed to virtually any legal protection for unborn human life.
The motivation that stands behind the University’s decision to honor President Obama at graduation is, I think, readily apparent. There is, course, an enormous amount of prestige attached to the Office of President of the United States, and President Obama’s visit to campus will undoubtedly garner a great deal of attention for the University. Because of this attention (and in some cases because they agree with President Obama’s policy positions) the invitation will be applauded by many people outside the University, and not a few within it. Furthermore, as the University’s press release notes, there is some historical precedent to the invitation in that Notre Dame has been fortunate to host a number of sitting presidents as commencement speakers in the past. Finally, President Obama has proven himself to be a captivating and at times eloquent public speaker.
While the motivation behind for the decision to invite President Obama is apparent, the reasoning that supports the decision to honor him is anything but clear. Unlike any of the other presidents honored by the University – Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, and both Bushs – President Obama is the only one who is dedicated – as a matter of principle and policy – to maintaining and expanding a legal regime the prime objective of which is the destruction of innocent human life. This position is not only opposed to Christian principles of love and justice as authoritatively set forth by the Church, it is also antithetical to any society that hopes to be guided by right reason and governed by the rule of law.
Although he downplayed his extreme views on abortion and other life issues during the campaign, President Obama’s position on these matters is well-known. As member of the Illinois State Senate he opposed legislation that would have mandated medical care for children who happen to survive an abortion as well as legislation that would have banned the gruesome practice known as partial birth abortion. In the U.S. Senate he voted against even modest restrictions on abortions such as a law designed to ensure parental notice of minors seeking abortions as well as a law prohibiting the transportation of minors across state lines in order to obtain abortions. As a presidential candidate he pledged to his support for the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, a measure that would likely strike down every existing federal and state measure opposed to abortion. Since becoming president, he has reversed the Mexico City Policy making U.S.
I am certain that you know all of this, and that you appreciate the serious error of President Obama’s position on abortion and other matters that directly threaten innocent human life. But this only makes the University’s decision – your decision – to honor the President all the more bewildering and troubling.
You have suggested that inviting President Obama to the Notre Dame campus creates the opportunity for engaged dialogue with the nation’s most prominent supporter of abortion rights. While respectful engagement and serious dialogue on abortion and other matters is certainly something that Notre Dame and every university should actively promote, a school’s graduation ceremony is hardly the proper setting in which for such an exchange to take place. The President is not being invited to participate in a public disputation but in a public celebration – a celebration in which he will be honored with the conferral of a degree. Given this context, it would not be appropriate to challenge the President directly concerning his deplorable views concerning legal protection for unborn human life. Indeed, to do so would subject the University to ridicule as a rude and undeserving host.
Ultimately then, the apparent motivation for the decision to honor the President seems to be the only justification, namely, the pursuit of public accolades and notoriety. Bluntly stated, I do not understand why the University deems it necessary to prostitute itself in the pursuit of affirmation from those quarters of the academy and society that are happy to applaud Notre Dame only insofar as it distances itself from its Catholic identity – that is, only insofar as the University no longer has “the courage to speak [those] uncomfortable truths which do not please public opinion, but which are necessary to safeguard the authentic good of society” (Ex Corde Ecclesiae ¶ 32).
The United States currently faces a number of daunting challenges, and we have elected a new president who is charged by his office with the responsibility of addressing these challenges to the best of his ability. The Notre Dame community should show its respect for the man and the office he holds, and we may offer President Obama our full support insofar as he works to advance the common good. The fact is, however, that respect and honor are not the same thing, and President Obama has sought to advance a host of policies that are profoundly dishonorable – policies that will only work to undermine the common good, properly understood.
Simply put, President Obama is on the wrong side of the most salient civil rights issue of our day – the right to life. Indeed, he has championed in a conspicuous fashion – in a way that cannot be ignored – views that are inimical to Notre Dame’s identity as “Catholic” and as a “university.” Accordingly, while the President should be welcomed to campus as our nation’s leader and as a conversation partner, he should not be embraced as someone who embodies the highest and best ideals for which the University stands when this is so plainly not the case. The University should rescind its decision to confer an honorary degree on President Obama.
Sincerely,
John M. Breen
Class of 1985
Protecting Conscience: Coming Back to Rob
I would put the burden on the employer to show that at the time of hiring, the employee had agreed to do what he/she now claims to be an unconscionable act of killing a human being. This admittedly is unfair to the employer where the employee make a wholly unforeseeable claim, e.g. that flowers are disguised children who should not be cut and put into a vase. But this sort of surprise will be rare, and anything else is like forcing the person with a conscience to wear a yellow star when looking for a job.
Is Obama attempting to meddle in internal Church affairs?
Over at The Catholic Thing, Austin Ruse has a column today in which he says, in part:
A reliable source tells me that someone representing the Obama administration is about to put pressure on the papal nuncio to the United States to get Archbishop Raymond Burke to be quiet. The Obama complaint is that Archbishop Burke, who is now head of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, has supported another bishop in his chastisement of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for her support of abortion.
A few days ago Archbishop Burke gave an interview to the San Diego-based organization Catholic Action for Faith and Family, during which he took the gloves off about Sebelius, who has been nominated to head the massive U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He noted her “public association with some of the more notorious agents of the culture of death.” This, of course, was a reference to her hosting a party for the late-term abortionist George Tiller, currently on trial in Kansas for nineteen infractions of abortion restrictions.
* * *
Burke closed the interview by issuing a challenge to his brother bishops, most notably Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C.: “Every bishop is held to the same universal discipline which has been in force since the time of St. Paul the Apostle and is stated in canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.” And then this: “Whether Governor Sebelius is in the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, or in any other diocese [italics Ruse’s], she should not present herself for Holy Communion because, after pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin.”
* * *
And now there is word that someone who is well known among Republicans, and who has served in previous Republican administrations, is reaching out on behalf of the Obama administration to get the Holy See to quiet Burke, or at least to make it clear he speaks not for the Church, but only for himself.
* * *
By trying to stop a bishop from commenting on internal Church matters, the Obama administration wades into dangerous waters. Archbishop Burke is the head of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican office that is charged with interpreting the Code of Canon Law. The proper reception of Communion is proper to the Code of Canon Law, and therefore proper to any bishop, and especially to Archbishop Burke.
The pressure won't work, of course. Burke is just too smart, and tough. But Obama and his representatives are coming dangerously close to interfering in internal Church matters. More than anything else, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution was intended precisely to protect religious bodies from meddling by the state, even covert meddling by the White House like this. Obama and his pet Catholics should back off – and fast.
In the comments section, Ruse tells us that the Obama's emmisary is not Prof. Kmiec.
Obama at Notre Dame, Young Republicans, the Federalist Society, Etc.
Interesting post over at dotCommonweal (here). The first comment, by a Notre Dame law student, is interesting too.
Arizona Supreme Court on vouchers
More bad news on the school choice front. The Supreme Court of Arizona has held two state voucher programs unconstitutional under the state Constitution. Here. The programs involved scholarships for students with disabilities and scholarships for students in foster care. The Court found that both programs violated the Aid Clause of the state Constitution; that provision states that "[n]o tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money made in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school, or any public service corporation."
Richard M.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
