Time Lectures Catholics on Abortion and Obama
This is the first time I see a major serious political magazine tell Catholics – of people of other faiths for that matter – what to believe:
Among those most eager to drive a wedge between the President and rank-and-file Catholics are Catholic Republicans, who worry about losing more voters to the Democratic Party. Newt Gingrich wasn’t yet a Catholic when the 2004 statement was debated and approved. But the new convert was the first to speak out against Notre Dame’s commencement speaker. On March 24, the Republican former House Speaker weighed in on his Twitter account, which appears to have limits on capital letters: “It is sad to see notre dame invite president obama to give the commencement address since his policies are so anti catholic values.” There’s nothing like the zeal of a convert, but Gingrich may find it’s awkward to try to be more Catholic than the Pope.
Most interesting is Time’s Amy Sullivan’s interpretation of Pope Benedict’s silence on the Notre Dame controversy. She assumes that his silence on the matter means he has no problem with Obama receiving an honorary degree and giving this year’s commencement address.
That does not have to be the case, of course. Benedict is known to be quite conservative, even orthodox. He truly believes abortion is murder, and has said so in the past.
But, the Vatican itself often chooses not to attack particular politicians and especially heads of state. Benedict has to work with these people; others can open the attack when absolutely necessary.
And that is precisely what has happened in recent weeks. Conservative Catholics have criticized Notre Dame and the presidents of the university and the country. They have done so ferociously and passionately – and from their perspective rightfully as well.
Time’s Sullivan is wise to refrain from telling Catholics how to act; they can determine that perfectly themselves. She writes for a political not for a religious magazine.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
So she assumes that conservative Catholics are motivated by political goals (‘driving a wedge between Obama and rank and file Catholics’), rather than presume that they’re simply acting according to their convictions.
And this is considered unacceptable or at least worthy of criticism, to be ‘driving wedges’.
Yet, Obama himself from the beginning of his campaign has sought to drive a wedge between Catholics and their own spiritual leaders, but that’s hunky dorey apparently.
So, politicians are permitted to interfere in religious beliefs but religious believers should not dare have political goals. Thanks for telling us the ground rules, Amy.
“So she assumes that conservative Catholics are motivated by political goals (’driving a wedge between Obama and rank and file Catholics’), rather than presume that they’re simply acting according to their convictions.”
I guess she’s not coming across very clearly or as if she’s writing in good faith. I’m not sure – couldn’t she be implying that the political goals are in fact driven by moral convictions but that she doesn’t to articulate that?
“Yet, Obama himself from the beginning of his campaign has sought to drive a wedge between Catholics and their own spiritual leaders, but that’s hunky dorey apparently.”
Wut? Please refresh my memory.
“So, politicians are permitted to interfere in religious beliefs but religious believers should not dare have political goals.”
I don’t think she has one set of rules for the political sphere and one set for the religious sphere. She’s simply assuming that the spheres can’t touch without bleeding into one another. If the religious have political goals based solely on their religious texts then why wouldn’t people in the political sphere then respond?
“Time’s Sullivan is wise to refrain from telling Catholics how to act; they can determine that perfectly themselves. She writes for a political not for a religious magazine.”
The thing is that religion and politics share the same world. Sullivan is stating that if catholics are going to approve or disapprove of a politicians based on how he comports with their tenets then they’re also going to have political voices approve or disapprove of that etc.
To Christine’s point the blog “GetReligion” (as in “the press doesn’t…) has a nice piece on this here: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=12241
This blog is conservative in nature AND regularly does a good job discussing the MSM’s difficulty understanding and writing about religion.
The above blog post links to an article in “First Things”(http://www.firstthings.com/). This is an even more exhaustive review of the Obama/Notre Dame controversy (much of which is not covered in the MSM. This paragraph particularly caught my eye:
“To force this patient man away, Fr. Jenkins [president of Nortre Dame]had to begin by failing to place even a courtesy call to the bishop while Obama’s honorary degree was being planned. On March 24, Bishop D’Arcy [bishop of South Bend and therefore the Archdiocese "over" ND] released a rather quiet but firm letter that he would not be able to attend the graduation ceremonies, since Notre Dame was violating the 2004 bishops’ statement, “Catholics in Political Life.” “President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred,” D’Arcy wrote. “I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the office of the presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith ‘in season and out of season,’ and he teaches not only by his words but by his actions. My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.””
To CStanley: you don’t think conservative Catholics aren’t motivated by politics? I’m sorry, but read your local Catholic newspaper or listen to Catholic radio, and what you’ll read or hear is a religious version of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. There is no nuance or discussion about the most effective means to address abortion or any other issues. Rather, you see a highly simplistic suggestion that people are either “for” or “against” abortion, to heck with the actual policies.
Go look inside your closet, in your cupboard, or better yet, at the computer you’re typing on. The companies that made those products probably gave money to groups that assisted in abortions. Which means that you, individually, have contributed to abortion. Are you going to stop using those products? I doubt it, because it’s a heck of a lot easier to be an armchair activist and thrash about the President than to change your lifestyle.
Wonderful link, I think. I agree that Sullivan should have considered that catholics – while having political goals – don’t necessarily consider themselves as soldiers in the base left/right struggle. They are having a religious conflict first and foremost, in the sense that they are divided on whether Obama should get the honorary degree awarded. It depends on whether they oppose the giving of the degree on the grounds that it constitutes a step back from a strong political resistance to pro-choicers or whether they consider it only from a religious perspective.
I wonder why an academic institution should consider anything but meritorious work in law when offering such a degree, and not consider subjective interpretations of morality. What if Obama was an atheist who didn’t support abortions? Seems strange that any academic entity should award honorary degrees to people who are congruous with some set of values or criteria that lie outside of academe. If some quite conservative person happens to have done a lot for his field, I think an Ivy League college shouldn’t hesitate to offer him an honorary degree if there is one to offer and he’s the best candidate.
“Yet, Obama himself from the beginning of his campaign has sought to drive a wedge between Catholics and their own spiritual leaders, but that’s hunky dorey apparently.”
Anyone doubting the intentional and stubborn tone-deafness of the Obama admin when dealing with the Catholic Church, should consider: The Obama admin has had ALL of its proposed Ambassadors to the Vatican refused by the Vatican. One of the very few conditions the Vatican places on accepting a US Ambassador is that they be pro-life, and every single proposed candidate to date has been pro-choice.
Pope Benedict’s silence on Notre Dame is a diplomatic silence, not an approval or an acquiescence. The post of US Ambassador to the Vatican remains vacant, and that speaks louder and more eloquently than any in-your-face statement.
“One of the very few conditions the Vatican places on accepting a US Ambassador is that they be pro-life, and every single proposed candidate to date has been pro-choice.”
I find that pretty cool, to be perfectly honest. Do other nations commonly get so picky when considering US ambassadors to their country?
“The post of US Ambassador to the Vatican remains vacant, and that speaks louder and more eloquently than any in-your-face statement.”
Seems to me that the convictions of the vatican has been matched.
David Gibson: Who Is a Real Catholic?
All you need to know to diagnose the state of the Catholic Church in
America today is that Pope Benedict XVI — who has a knack for ticking
off Muslims and Jews — spent the past week wandering the Middle East,
yet Catholics here barely noticed. They were too busy fighting over
Barack Obama’s appearance as commencement speaker at Notre Dame or
arguing about the fate of a popular Miami priest known as “Father
Oprah,” who was caught on camera sharing a seaside embrace with his
girlfriend.
Is this what Catholicism in America has come to? Bickering about
whether Notre Dame is really Catholic, or whether a priest can make
out on the beach with his gal pal? Well, yes. And that should come as
no surprise….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051501390.html
My understanding from the two articles C3 posted above is that this is not so much Obama vs. the Vatican, but Nortre Dame vs. Catholic Culture, of which the Vatican plays a large role in both, but less so in the first, and the Obama administration plays the role of trying to appeal to the first because it’s not going to make much headway with the latter.
The thing is that it’s difficult to consider the catholic stance on abortion to be more a cultural/theological affair than a mainly politicized one when it seems to be the main/only focus of organized catholicism. If it is only about one issue and where a politician/SCOTUS nominee stands regarding it, it is difficult to see it as “the business of catholics” only.
Interested, I find your last paragraph, for you, lacking. I’m having a hard time believing that companies like General Mills, Ford or even the local gas station down the street would make it a policy to give money to abortion groups. First, it’s not even close to their mission statements and second I don’t think that many people would find a company that gives to abortion groups, an enhancement to the community. Thats why companies give, to raise their image in the community. And frankly why would companies give to such groups, eliminating future customers is never a good business plan.
If they do, I would like to know about it and I will make the adjustment in my puchasing.
Actually, many companies and people do fund pro-choice organizations as a matter of principle. I have certainly done so.
What companies are you referring to, Holly?
MM- yes, on the internal divisions of the Catholic Church. Many people who don’t follow Catholic issues are unaware of the near schism that exists between liberal and conservative US Catholics, and that is very much what the Obama/Notre Dame kerfuffle is really about. Notre Dame is not a conservative Catholic university, and its administration believes (as liberal Catholics do) that the teachings of social justice should be given equal weight to issues of right to life, even though that’s not in accordance with the Vatican. And conservative Catholics certainly understand the serious considerations of social justice as well, but we generally see those issues as outside the political sphere (working to fight poverty and assist in other corporal works of mercy through nongovernmental means.)