First an email from a friend and then Rocco's page brought links to the statements of three bishops on the Notre Dame-Obama question.Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC writes in his diocesan paper and lays out some broad outlines for Catholic institutions to rethink the kinds of questions that have led to the controversy at Notre Dame.ObamaND2009
There are pieces in America by retired bishops John Quinn and Sylvester Ryan which I hadn't seen but wish to bring to your attention. These are the remarks of the only two bishops who have given public support to Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama.
Image: Steeple of Sacred Heart Basilica and the Dome of the Administration Building at UND
-ConcordPastor
Remember the sidebar!
ReplyDeleteComments respectful of all who will read them are invited and welcomed. Comments questioning others' good will and sincerity will not be published. I don't agree with everything posted here so I doubt that you will either. I believe that in respectfully discussing different points of view we can learn from each other in seeking the truth.
I love your comment policy and believe you are wise to clearly state one as you have.
ReplyDeleteAs I read this, I was listening to an NPR story about the Notre Dame/Obama issue.
Something struck me at the nexus of your post and that story... this story has engaged Catholics at every level, for good or ill, in ways that many other issues have failed to do. I am reminded again and again that God uses all things for good in some way.
If I think of catechesis and evangelizing as invitation and opportunity, I see so many present here. The problems come when the unkind and exclusionary words start to fly.
If I step back and consider what this issue has done for me, it is to say that God is crying out not about Obama per se, but perhaps in a way that we can see how to re-member His body and as such... then be catechized and transformed.
Of course, this requires that we all lay down our arms. This is not to say that we must let go of our Catholic values, but rather to enter into the invitation and get beyond the anger and acrimony.
Well I am drifting into the ramble so I will close hoping that I have made some sense.
Our gospel imperative is to engagement and transformation, I hope that this happens more profoundly as a result of this event. It is only then that we will really come to know Christ and one another and to respect all life.
Fran
(note to self, watch commenting before coffee is consumed and focus is sharpened!)
Thank you for posting this, it is good to see a Bishop who can clearly state his agreement with the teaching and still embrace the President...if only we could all be that loving.
ReplyDeleteAnne
Thank you for presenting the differing opinions on this issue. I believe protest can be of value, but it comes with a cost---having grown up in the 60's I know those wounds heal slowly. I am of the opinion now that despite the heat protest can place on any issue REAL CHANGE comes only through a willingness to listen and to hear what the other party is saying. I applaud the bishops John Quinn and Sylvester Ryan for their examples.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Catholics need to listen to President Obama from the podium at Notre Dame to know what he thinks. All anyone need do is look over his voting record, particularly his vote to withhold any form of treatment to infants who survived abortion, a vote he cast in the Illinois legislature. Could anything possibly speak louder about the man?
ReplyDeleteDoes anything speak louder about Notre Dame than the fact that its president and his two apologists have not addressed President Obama's words and actions on life issues -- therefore themselves failing to "engage" in any dialogue.
This is a bitter fruit of capitulation to the culture of death described by John Paul II.
It is interesting to read comments by retired bishops. I respect and agree with their opinions. However, I also respect the opinions of others, though I may not agree with them.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is so important for a continuing dialogue to take place on not only this issue of abortion, but on many other issues as well..such as artificial birth control which, I believe, is still condemned by the Church.
Another is, of course, capital punishment which is officially condemned by the Church, but still widely accepted by so many of the folks who are pro life.
Anyone who has read my previous comments would know how staunch of a position I hold against abortion. But, when I think about writing on this issue, I feel that I should address two different audiences: the “outside” audience, those with whom I disagree in the substance; and the “inside” audience, those with whom I agree on the substance and the goals but feel that I disagree on the means.
ReplyDeleteTo the “inside” audience I feel that I have to keep reminding them that the “enemy” is the evil of abortion, and not the people who support it. Not even the people who practice it, and live of it. Christians cannot have enemies. Of course, Christians can be seen as enemies, but we cannot see anybody as enemies.
Reading all the barrage of criticism to Notre Dame’s decision to honor president Obama, it seems clear that for the critics, he is the enemy. But he is not the enemy. The enemy might have won his heart. We just have to win it back. I don’t think that attacking somebody does any good in the battle to win his heart. The more he feels attacked, the taller and stronger will be the walls he’ll raise around his heart.
Now, I’m not sure the decision to honor him is the right way to go about winning his heart, or even if it was made with this in mind. It might or it might not. But of one thing I’m pretty sure, the indignant public reaction that this decision has caused does definitely not help.
Mind it that I’m not of those who say we should have a dialogue on abortion, in the sense that we should try to reach a compromise with the other side, since it is not up to us to compromise on the life of others. There is really not viable compromise between life and death.
But this does not mean we can not dialogue with the people who support abortion, keeping always in mind that nobody is free from sin, and nobody is completely devoid of goodness. In my personal opinion, there are many good things about Obama, and there is no reason to repudiate him on count of the two or three (maybe more) issues that he’s really in error. The best way to correct someone’s error is winning his heart. To win his heart there are few things more effective, for starters, than recognizing and praising all the other good things about him.
We need to keep in mind that our struggle is a struggle for love. For the love of the unborn we should not fail to love those who attack them.
A commentator above mentioned Obama’s voting record, in particular the support for a bill that basically denies medical help to babies that survive an abortion. And I agree: his record is appalling and that bill horrendous. It’s obviously right to feel pity for all the babies that died and will die because the most elemental legal protection was thus denied to them. But it’s also right to feel pity for him (and all the politicians who support abortion, for that matter), for the huge responsibility that will weigh in his conscience. When I have to face my final judgment, I much rather be in the “shoes” of an aborted baby than in those of the president of the United States. We need to pray for him.
To sum up, I’m not saying that I agree or disagree with the decision of Notre Dame’s president. But I do disagree with the harsh and exaggerated criticism to which he and Obama have been subjected to on this account.
Xavier, you expressed that beautifully. Hate the behavior not the person. The hatred toward Obama has been so sad to witness, how will he ever feel our Christian beliefs? Thank you for expressing my thoughts and feelings, it is the biggest reason I cannot support the pro-life movement, it's filled with hatred. Transformation can NEVER happen from a place like that.
ReplyDeleteAnne
Anne, I really like what you are trying to say here, but I will ask this... Why "hate" the behavior? Why hate anything?
ReplyDeleteLove one another, that is what we are asked to do. That is what our Gospel is about this weekend. Love one another.
I don't think you meant anything other than rejecting behaviors, your words and your heart seem to be open and filled with that very love.
It was just hard for me to not bring up the word hate. It would seem, to me in any case, an obstacle to further opening our hearts in love.
That said, I could be wrong and hope I have done no harm.
So much concern that anything disturbing, hateful, uncivil might be said. So many appeals to "love"! I feel I am back in the sixties.
ReplyDeleteYes, let us "open our hearts to love." And let us open our hearts widest to those most in need of love, the poorest of the poor -- the babies who don't vote, who cannot speak, who even during the commencement at Notre Dame will be aborted -- in plain language, will be injected with chemicals, or mechanically torn in pieces from the womb.
Let us open our hearts to the women who years later may experience a sword through the heart as they look at a calendar and realize it is an anniversary day, and that that aborted child would have been seven years old... fourteen years old... thirty-two years old.
Obama is doing just fine, thank you. He's delighted to see the confusion in Catholic ranks. He can use it politically, and sees the Catholic vote being split.
And while he signs bills flooding the Third World with money for abortions, while his administration hints at limited or eliminating conscience clauses, as the bishops warn us that Catholic hospitals might have to shut -- as they did recently -- let us mute our voices, lest anyone think that we hold an uncivil thought!
There are comments here that do sound like the Beatles' hit, "All You Need Is Love." It's just possible that such a sentiment is too facile. On the other hand, the demands of love do not give license to be uncivil, no matter what the cause.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm wondering... where was all the "love" and civility for the POTUS when his name was George W. Bush? I was no big fan of the last president but it seems that the respect demanded for Obama was conspicuously absent for Bush.
Check here regarding the story that Catholic hospitals may be closing.
Concord Pastor,
ReplyDeleteI am the anonymous above. I respectfully disagree with one of your statements, "the demands of love..."
Let me cite scripture, Matthew 23:
"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness. 28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just, 30 And say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?"
This is from "the eight woes." Our Lord did not pull his punches. Paul never lowered his voice, even when arguing with Peter. Catherine of Sienna virtually called the pope of her time a "girly man" -- in fact, she urged him to be "a manly man."
We cannot let a false ideal of civility keep us quiet. We are required to speak the truth, "in season and out." The Gospel is full of hard sayings. We are obligated by the fact of our baptism to speak out forcefully against injustice and sin. (And I can get citations for that, for those who might deny that obligation.)
In my own defense and therefore, perhaps defensive,I will say that I am not speaking of some hand-holding-sing-around-the-fire-kumbaya love, but rather of something else.
ReplyDeleteTo which end it is that there is a startling lack of love vis-a-vis civility and discourse around so many things and I regret when I contribute to that fray.
You are right CP to comment about George Bush when it comes to "love." I once wrote an essay, far too lazy to look it up now, for a group blogging forum 2 years ago that was titled, "Loving My Enemies, Starting With the Current Administration." That perhaps was a turning point in my writing in which I began to long for a less strident voice and more wisdom.
That said, I struggle with these things every day.
And if I were not loved - in the full sense of action, commitment and dynamic that is Christ on earth, then I would not be standing (or writing) here today.
And not for nothing because I am pro-life, but where is the outcry against war, poverty, death penalty and torture to go with the unborn? I am sorry, while the matter of respect for life starts with the evil of abortion, let us not kid ourselves that the culture of death has long and terrible arms to enfold us.
Rant over, and I won't be offended if I am not moderated in. I hope to always speak in peace and yet I so often appear otherwise.
P.S. And for what it is worth, I left the church for the post-conciliar years... So I missed that whole ecclesiastical love boat.
I have no argument with you or the scriptures you quote. I will hold, however, that one can speak the truth and say the hard sayings forcefully without being uncivil.
ReplyDeleteAnne, thank you for your words. I just want to clarify that I do not think the pro-life movement is full of hatred. There might be some people with hatred in their hearts, but I'm far from believing they are in the majority, not even in a sizable minority. As a matter of fact, I consider myself part of the pro-life movement, and I would hate to have any hatred in my heart :). But I did hear people in the movement talking of Obama as that "bloodthirsty baby-killer". That does not mean that that person is one of those with hatred in their hearts. I know him well and I know he's just repeating without really thinking. But I perfectly understand that, even knowing that we should not judge, we automatically think that somebody who says such a thing is full of hatred, especially if we don't know him/her.
ReplyDeleteI often compare the case of the pro-life movement with that of the emancipationist movement. There were those who went and killed pro-slavery people, like John Brown, because he was an extremist. That did not make Lincoln an extremist or a killer, even if he was willing to go to war for his cause. I fervently hope that the abortion controversy does not end with such a tragic outcome. But I'm persuaded that the future generations will look back on our time in horror to this barbaric practice, in the same way that today we look back in dismay at the horror of slavery.
Shortly after my husband died, a good friend gave me a 365-day-a- year calendar of saints with a note "Thought you might be able to put this to good use." Many of the saints included are ones I wasn't familiar with. St. Pior is one saint I had never heard of, but I have now read this calendar prayer for 12 years and think it might help in this particular conversation.
ReplyDeleteThe monks of Scetis monastery met to judge a brother monk who had broken the rule. Instead of joining the discussion, Father Pior
got up, filled a large bag with sand, and threw it over his shoulders, then filled a little bag and hung it around his neck. When the other monks asked him what he was doing, Father Pior explained: "The large bag is my sins--I've put them behind me and don't trouble myself about them. The little bag is my brother's sins, and I focus all my attention on those." The fathers understood Pior's point and adjourned without condemning their brother.
Rosemary
Rosemary's story reminds me of a homily I preached, two days ago, in which I said, "There’s a dangerous notion of love abroad today which would have us believe that loving others means accepting them without qualification, without judgment of their ideas or behavior."
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to see the moral of the story on the calendar: judge not lest you be judged... But what if the errant brother's infraction of the rule was stealing from the money used to serve the poor? molesting children who played near the monastery? failing to do his share of the community's work? physically abusing an older brother who annoyed him?
Without condemning their brother, would it not be the others' responsibility to judge his deeds and work towards correction of the brother and the consequences of his infractions?
There certainly is a difference between fraternal correction, i.e., judging someone's deeds in order to help him/her work towards correction vs. name calling, e.g., calling President Obama a "bloodthirsty baby- killer." Whether the person saying it has hatred in his/her heart or not, it's a pretty vicious thing to call someone. In my opinion, name calling, particularly malicious, mean-spirited name calling, is not the best way to help someone towards correction. Often, I think, people prefer to judge others rather than to work on their own imperfections. "He who has no sin cast the first stone" comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteRosemary