Obama's Catholic Baptism By Fire

"The Day the Dome Was Tarnished Forever."

So read the backs of T-shirts worn by some number of anti-choice protesters during President's Obama's visit to the Catholic University of Notre Dame over the weekend to deliver a commencement address, one which took a typically civil, sensitive and conciliatory stance in discussing an issue that is deeply polarizing for many; and has become the somehow holy inspiration for others to engage in crass sloganeering and even violent action.

The irony is that, by selecting Obama to speak at its commencement ceremonies, Notre Dame was clearly honoring the school's Catholic tradition, which, at its best, celebrates the power of the intellect and the spirit to overcome obstacles and bring social justice to the community. The overwhelming majority of the school clearly understood this. Meanwhile, the small number of strident pro-lifers clogging the campus with their placards of mangled fetuses and "baby killer" signs were exercising their right to assemble with loads of gruesome imagery and quite a bit of tasteless insult, all of which are generally outside the temperament and the tone of Catholic discourse. Even the members of ND Response, a student group organized to oppose the President's visit, were offended: "That's not Notre Dame," said a group spokesman. "You teach through winning over the mind. We don't feel that those images will do anything constructive."

Damn -- er, "darn" -- straight. So what's taking place here, exactly? Has some chunk of the academic Catholic community, people generally devoted to "winning over the mind," now been corrupted by the intolerance and anti-intellectualism that are the hallmarks of so many factions of the Fundamentalist Christian movement? Will American Catholics soon be terrorizing 10-year-olds with plastic fetus dolls (see film, Jesus Camp)? Consider the conceptual leap required for a 25-year-old Notre Dame student to boycott his own graduation because Obama's policies "are opposed to the culture of life and therefore our Catholic values."

Are all other Catholic values -- helping the poor, developing the mind, caring for the sick, practicing social justice, all that old, unglamorous stuff -- to be demoted to second-tier virtues? As with any political persuasion or religious orientation, being Catholic does not automatically mean that you agree with the official line on every issue: it means that you are engaged -- civilly and soulfully -- in the debate. If you think the Church's stated positions are wrong on abortion, gay rights and stem-cell research, that is your right, as a conscientious member of the community. It does not disqualify you. The Catholic Church, it should be remembered, stands entirely opposed to the death penalty. Why isn't that the dividing line?

Look, Catholics may be religious, but they're generally not stupid. (After all, tens of millions of them voted for Obama.) The idea of even a minority of students and priests at a Jesuit-leaning university -- a tradition that has always encouraged consensus-builders and cultural ambassadors -- protesting the appearance of the brightest and most socially conscious President that we've had in a generation should strike most of us as beyond contradictory. To even further imagine that Obama's policies "are opposed to the culture of life" is an unimaginable sort of self-delusion. Or else, it's the manifestation of eight years of Bush-era incivility and shrinking of the mind, the Fundamentalist-championed "You're with us or against us" brain-freeze in public discourse that Obama has made clear is perhaps his most problematic inheritance from the Bush 43 years.

Consider Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele actually having the nerve to say that Notre Dame should not have given Obama an honorary degree; that it was somehow "inappropriate." Really? That's not an appropriate honorarium for someone who overcame racial and financial barriers to attend -- and excel at -- Columbia and Harvard Law School and become the first black President of the United States, while setting an example of Christian faith in action by his good works, exemplary family and his tireless efforts to raise the level of public conversation in these "In-Your-Face" United States? No? Not appropriate?

But, surely, such a degree would have been perfectly appropriate -- and, in fact, an invitation was once extended -- for a noble anti-choice, pro-death penalty activist like Dubya, a man with an avowed, documented distrust of academics and intellectuals, a man who never once attempted to find common ground on the issues of race, abortion or gay rights -- not that he had the emotional IQ to do so -- who floated through his college years with barely a scintilla of intellectual passion, who executed an illegal war in Iraq against the wishes of the Church, and who, as part and parcel of an inarticulateness that still amazes, repeatedly called the natives of the country where the modern church was built "Eye-talians"! Would that have been more "appropriate," more in keeping with "Catholic values"?

Obama's address, far from tarnishing that dome, burnished it with the high-mindedness and promotion of understanding -- including on the issue of abortion -- that he has made his mission and his mandate. As the majority of Notre Dame graduates recognized, they were lucky to have him. So are we.

Comments

[lushnorooz]

Thanks for identifying this dichotomy. This never would have occurred to me, but now that you point it out, I recognize clearly that Catholicism does have a strong liberal activist identity and an openness to ideas. I wonder how this will resolve itself - will Catholics be dragged into the dumbed down sensationalism of born-agains? With the positive, open minded atmosphere that Obama is creating, I think not. Thank you for your thoughtful pieces, I really enjoyed reading this.

[From the Raft]

It isn't the individual Catholics in the U.S. I worry about its the Pope. He's telling them to ignore our Constitution and enslave their neighbors.

[James Rotondi - Huffpost Blogger]

These are great viewpoints, and not at all monochromatic, which is apt; the real upshot of Obama's speech was that we need to be relentless in looking for ways to reach common ground, even as we stand proud in the footing of our own beliefs. Again, the "you're with us or against us" mentality needs to be dismissed from our national discourse; that's why, despite the Church's many failures and atrocities in the past, there remains a liberal tradition there that attempts to keep that community honest, alive and present. And as Steppenwolfsayshi has pointed out, though the Church's official stance on many social issues may strike us as intolerant, it's worth remembering that their social outreach programs have been touching the lives of AIDS patients, pregnant teens, single moms and many others for years. Does it make up for their fixed and counter-productive views on abortion and gay marriage? No; but it helps draw a picture that isn't quite as bluntly "intolerant" as it might appear, though there's a long way to go. We may get there: while Bush was never much for the nuances of social thought, fortunately Obama is aware that that our culture cannot be reduced to black and white.

[Akat1973]

Plus Bush is a killing machine in so many ways! I do not recall Bush doing anything to stop,or reduce abortions-or other deaths- in his shady 8years so indeed,the hypocrisy is crazy here!!!

[Akat1973]

I think Obama handled this in a very honorable way,hitting it head on was brave,and practical. Adoption does need to become much more affordable.I know allot of people who would be great parents,but dont have tons of money to spend on the adoption process.People also need to quit looking down on women who decide to have a baby,no matter the circumstance.I am pro-choice and wise enough to know that keeping abortion safe and legal is the ONLY option. It never stopped them before Roe vs Wade.Horrid home attempted abortions,and back alley abortions were performed by Dr.s all the time.These often would lead to infections or death.We need to keep it safe and legal-That is brutal truth,and Obama gets it.

[steppenwolfsayshi]

I once read a paper on social movements that suggested that all leaders of movements had some sort of psychosis, actually. It was funny.

Anyway, I wanted to add that I think that if pregnant women weren't discriminated against, this wouldn't be such an issue. Modern feminists looking to give women real choice on this issue need to address workers rights. I don't think its very likely that abortions going to become illegal anytime soon...even if by some amazing chance Roe v. Wade got overturned.

[Samson1]

And don't forget, Boston College gave an honorary degree to Condi. It appears the "these" catholics don't have a problem with all the aforementioned (in the article) and you forgot torture. Seems these arn't catholics so much as right wing republicans. I wonder when they will join the pickets at the funerals of soldiers?

[elmerfude]

Grotesque images don't bother many Catholics--look at the crucifix. I finally got my Catholic wife to put hers in a room where I don't have to look at them. I am actually pro-life (I like all things living) and pro-choice (God gave us free will). If a woman in consultation with her doctor, her partner and her conscience feel that abortion is the only option, it is after all her body. I would think that if religion is all that effective there being a church on every corner that few if any women would chose abortion particularly if there were other options like decent medical support, easy adoption, etc. The sorry fact is some of the zealots and the hierarchy of this and other churches are obsessed with death. All this pro-life stuff is just a weird psychological skin.

[mcantwell]

That's brilliant! Pro-choice (God gave us free will).

[naschkatze]

In spite of the protests, Obama won the day.

[jigisup]

And so did 97 percent of the graduating Catholic students, who were proud and honored to have him speak at their commencment.

[steppenwolfsayshi]

First off, I'd like to say that I am pro-choice, but there is something that is really rubbing me wrong about this entire debate. As a Catholic and a moderate, I have also always respected and understood the opinions of the other side. I don't see how the majority, 54%, of Catholics are likely to be the radical, "self-deluded" ones.
Second, THIS IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA. Clearly, Notre Dame is making a strong political statement that endorsing pro-choice Democrats is ok, because the GOP has failed in more important ways, most importantly in their war mongering. They are colliding with large portions of the Church on that choice, but this is a controversy that has been intensifying since the Kerry campaign.
Third, yes, the protest tactics are taken from Reagan era Fundamentalist Christians, but aren't all protesters annoying? It's kind of the point.
Fourth, being pro-life is really about being pro-life, its not about being anti-women, just like pro-choice advocates aren't pro-death. The Catholic Church runs the largest private charities in the world to help pregnant women and battered women and children by providing adoption services, daycare services, shelter/fo­od/clothin­g and employment services. Catholics are not Evangelicals that believe woman are subservient to men. They just think a life is a life. I know the last one doesn't apply to this post, but I'm sick of hearing it.
I just ask that you speak about it in fair minded word

[jigisup]

Amen!

[generationyes]

The Pope goes to Africa and tells them not to use condoms. The Pope says birth control is impermissible. So, if abortion is a sin and birth control is a sin and we know that humans (and all animals) are hardwired for sex, who or what bears the burden of the consequences of religious reproductive dogma? Women.

It's not enough to say that the Catholic "pro-life" position is not about women when women are the ones who must deal with the burden of unwanted pregnancies or unwanted offspring. Or even wanted ones. Women make up a great majority of the world's poor, and many have more children than they can feed, keep safe, or educate. Eliminating their choices about sex, pregnancy and bearing children is NOT pro-life. It guarantees generations of increasing misery. No religious beliefs should be allowed to take precedence -- either by force or by indoctrination -- over the right to make these personal decisions.

[CJWebber]

Well said.

[James Rotondi - Huffpost Blogger]

This is absolutely right, and it's precisely why the onus is on progressive Catholics to drag their community into the real world by promoting a more enlightened policy toward these issues, while stripping the veneer off of the Church's rather poor record on women's rights over the centuries (ever read the Malleus Maleficarum? Not pretty...). Catholics do not need to follow the Pope's dictums to the letter any more than members of a free society need to bend to their government's every policy. As Elmerfude pointed out, God (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) gave us free will. . .

[bluerthanblue15]

You said it well, generationyes!

The contracept­ion/aborti­on dictums from the vatican absolutely have to do with power and control over women. This is justified, in accordance with how the vatican sees women as we speak and that is through the filter of the adam and eve myth. IOW, women are the cause of each and every evil in the world from eve on down and thus be made to pay by being under the domain of their husbands.

The church does not make that position that obvious but connecting the dots about the theology they spew takes little in gray matter to formulate. It is a presumed understanding that needs no words. In fact the laity can draw its own conclusions based on the wooden blocks available in the play room. When one draws one's own conclusions based on lies, myths and fear mongering, it gets elevated to an article of faith. That's how engraved it is within the church and that's how the church teaches generally.

And that's the presumption the church holds with respect to the laity holding those same teachings, Pavlov's dogs notwithstanding.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ... Lord Acton

[Nfor Barthson]

The most unacceptable thing about all exretremists is their usual self-assurance, often clothed in sanctimonious pseudo-piety, that they are always right; that you must either be for them or you are definitely considered an enemy; that they can do no wrong. That it does not matter if God is on their side, because they alreadly made their own self-righteous determination that they are on God's side (or so they beieve)...

[wak84]

These crazy folks remind of my former Catholic parish's chair of the Respect Life committee. When I, as the parish's paid coordinator of adult education, approached her to develop a program that embraced Cardinal Bernadin's "seamless garment" idea of life issues, she was very excited to have a new outlet for her media stuff and suggested that she could bring her pictures of aborted fetuses to display. Needless to say, I declined, and eventually decided, through years of experience, that the most devout pro-life Catholics are only devout about issues before and after conception. After the fetus is born--not so much because of course, the thinking goes, they have free will and are no longer "innocent." The psychological community should do research with these folks because I'm convinced they have some type of mental illness due to their inability to converse logically and intellectually regarding such issues.